Recurrent
Patterns in Shakespearian Comedies (I)
In 1964, Robert Graves noted that “the
remarkable thing about Shakespeare is that he is really very good - in spite of
all the people who say he is very good.”1 This remark gives but a
glimpse of the great influence that Shakespeare exerted over a large proportion
of the world’s population. Never
before, nor after did a secular imaginative writer have such success and wake
such admiration among his contemporaries and later generations. William
Shakespeare is looked upon as a universal genius that outshone all his
contemporaries and managed to outshine every writer ever since. His genius is
to be found in the freshness of his verse, in his capacity of pleasing theatre
goers today, as he has done for the past four hundred years, in his ability and
his luck (for want of a better word) of writing about subjects that were and
are universal subjects, that are interesting today as they were at the time he
wrote about them. Shakespeare is new. Every representation of his work brings
forth new themes, new ideas, new ways of looking at things, but always from a
Shakesperian point of view. Shakespeare draws his power from each and every one
of the representations of his works, from each and every one interpretation of
his works, from the light in which each and every one of us sees these works,
because each time we think about the genius behind the wonders we are beholding
we reinvent Shakespeare. And we always get to the same conclusion. That he is
really very good, in spite of all those who say he is very good.
What do we really know about
Shakespeare? One unfounded myth claims that what we know about his life could
be written on the back of a postage stamp2. In fact we know a lot
about some of the less exciting aspects of Shakespeare life, such as business
deals and tax debts, but this is not the object of the present work. What we
are interested in is Shakespeare literary production, which, although not
extremely extensive, stands, as we have said before, as the best and the most
important one in the whole history of literature.
Shakespeare wrote thirty-eight
plays, a sequence of 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems and various short
poems. But nothing is as simple as it seems with any of the things concerning
Shakespeare. Even this simple enumeration becomes complicated, when we take
into consideration that at least two of the plays were co-authored with fellow
playwright John Fletcher, that another couple of plays attributed to
Shakespeare never really reached us, that Shakespeare wrote passages for an
another play and that we do not have an accurate catalogue of the shorter
poetry.3 But verifying the autenthicity of Shakespeare’s plays is
not our purpose. The purpose of this work goes further than a simple
enumeration of comedies, tragedies, histories (the subgenres which
Shakespearian plays have been divided into), sonnets, long poems,
collaborations, etc.
Our main interest and the theme of
this work is the comedy and those elements that make a Shakespearian play a
comedy. We will try to identify those elements and analyze them, as well as
trying to observe whether there is a recurring pattern, whether those elements
appear in more than one play, or whether they are peculiar if given a certain
comedy. But before we get to that, let us look at what we understand by the
term comedy.
“Comedy” has a classical meaning (comical theatre) and a popular one (the use of humor with an intent to provoke laughter in general). In
the theatre, its Western origins are in ancient
Greece, like tragedy, a genre characterized by a grave
fall from grace by a protagonist having high social standing. Comedy, in
contrast, portrays a conflict or agon (Classical Greek ἀγών) between a young hero and an older authority, a confrontation described by
Northrop Frye
as a struggle between a “society of youth” and a “society of the old”.
Humor being subjective, one may or may not find something humorous because
it is either too offensive or not offensive enough. Comedy is judged according
to a person’s taste. Some enjoy cerebral fare such as irony or black comedy,
others may prefer scatological
humor (e.g. the "fart
joke") or slapstick.”4
In Shakespeare’s time,
comedy was considered a lower genre than tragedy, just as tragedy was
considered a lower genre as epic. This consideration was due to the fact that
many writers followed Aristotle’s Poetics,
a work focused on tragedy, so there existed no theory of comedy. A common
definition of comedy at that time was given by George Whetstone in the prologue
to Promos and Cassandra (1578) and it
reads: “grave old men should instruct: young men should show the imperfections
of youth: strumpets should be lascivious: boys unhappy: and clowns should speak
disorderly: intermingling all these actions, in such sort, as the grave matter
may instruct: and the pleasant delight.”5 Nevertheless, many
playwrights, and Shakespeare foremost, ignored the boundaries between the
playful and the serious, blurring the supposed lines between the two main
genres of the age, tragedy and comedy, and introducing comic elements into the
tragedies and also (increasingly after 1600) tragic elements into comedies.
So, if we know that
comedies have tragic elements and tragedies comic elements, then the natural
question rises: is there any difference between the comedy and the tragedy? The
answer is, of course, affirmative. A simplyfied contrast of tragedy and comedy
will say that comedy begins with disorder and ends in order, while with tragedy
is the other way round. All plots involve threats and dangers, in tragedies
these threats are fulfilled, but in comedies they are evaded. All of
Shakespeare’s characters face alienation, abandonment, death, but in comedies
there is some kind of “evitability” that breaks the chain of misfortune and
leads the situation towards a happy ending, towards life, because comedy
celebrates life, the promise of life, whereas tragedy ends with death, with
dead bodies that litter the stage.
To give another definition
of comedy, we could say that comedy refers to a literary structure, be it
drama, novel or film, that moves toward a happy ending and implies a positive
understanding of human experience. Comedy is usually funny, but this is not a
prerequisite. A comedy must always end happily, a happy ending involves
marriage, or at least some kind of union or reunion that resolves the conflict
and brings the characters together, in a state of harmony. In other words, a
comedy moves “from confusion to order, from ignorance to understanding, from
law to liberty, from unhappiness to satisfaction, from separation to union,
from barreness to fertility, from singleness to marriage.”6
So far, from the
definitions we have given, we can easily encounter a few of the elements that
are essential to a comedy, that make a given play a comedy (namely, happy
ending, marriage or the promise of marriage, obstacles that we shall later
describe, etc). Next, we shall deal with these elements, trying to explain
them, trying to see why they are important in whole of the text and how they
have helped to create the atmosphere of a comedy, why the audience expects to
encounter these elements in a comedy and so on. The plays we shall refer to
are: A Midsummer
Night's Dream; All's Well
That Ends Well; As You Like It; Cymbeline; Love's
Labour's Lost; Measure for
Measure;
The Merchant
of Venice; The Merry
Wives of Windsor; Much Ado
About Nothing; Pericles,
Prince of Tyre; Taming of the
Shrew;
The Comedy of
Errors;
The Tempest; Twelfth
Night, or What You Will; Troilus and Cressida; The Two Noble
Kinsmen;
The Winter's Tale. They are what we
know as comedies, although many critics would argue that Troilus and Cressida;
Measure for Measure and All’s Well That Ends Well are what they call
“problem plays”, while Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale and The
Tempest are “romances”. We shall make no such distinction and we may refer
to any of these plays.
As we have seen, humor and
laughter are not prerequisite in Shakespearian comedies, but its main
attraction is laughter that comes from wordplay, intricate plotting and
ocassional “pies in the face”. But the “happiness” we associate with comedy
comes from the fact that we are aware and familiar with the conventions of
drama, with the natural ending of a comedy. We know that nothing bad will
happen to a character because we know that he/she is protected under the
comfortable blanket of comedy. We also know that everything will end up ordered
and safe, and for that reason we laugh. We laugh at the world because we know
it will end up ordering the chaos. And although that order comes only in the
last five or ten minutes of the play, the expectation of it and what occurs
before it, the misunderstanding, the confusion, the foolishness, the evil, are
what really make us laugh. In the end we laugh at life (which in a way becomes
the evil character who tries to put down the main character and to stop him/her
from being happy), because although the human being is shown as small and
silly, he still manages to be happy.
A happy ending is thus the
main feature of Shakespearian comedy, a prerequisite to it, whereas, as we have
said before, humor and laughter are not. In The
Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare dedicates his energy in amplifying the
confusion generated by the two sets of twins. The play is hilarious, but
several years after, in an another twin comedy, Twelfth Night, although the confusion still provokes laughter, the
play fails to be a hilarious, due mainly to the fact that the author
complicates the tone of it by exploring the pleasures of romantic love and
offering large doses of melancholy and music. Does that mean that some comedies
are more comic than others? Definitely yes, but it does not mean that some
comedies are “more of a comedy” than others.
As we have said before a
happy ending is a prerequisite to a comedy, but Shakespeare chose to create
some endings “happier” than others, they are the so-called “problematic endings”,
in which the promised marriage is delayed or in some way compromised. It is the
case of Love’s Labour Lost, where a
messenger enters amid the jolity of the final scene and announces the death of
the Princess’ father. The wedding is thus postponed for a year, and the main
male character is sent to “exercise his wit among the sick”7. In All’s Well That Ends Well, the usual
marriage is a forced one between a persistent young woman and a personally
unappealing young man who repeatedly declared he does not want her. And the
examples could continue, but we must remark that chronologically, the endings
of Shakespeare’s comedies reveal an increasing emphasis on satirical or
melancholic elements which complicate and disturb the serenity of the happy
ending. But that happy ending does exist, all of Shakespeare’s comedies have
it.
It must seem strange that
we have begun our analysis of the basic elements of a Shakespearian comedy with
the ending, but we have not done so randomly. The happy ending is a sine qua
non condition of a Shakespearian comedy, and of comedies in general. For this
reason we have chosen this order of analysis.
For Shakespeare, a happy
ending meant marriage or the promise of a marriage of the restoration of a
marriage, although this last situation is not very frequent (we have it in The Comedy of Errors, where Egeon and
Emilia are reunted after thirty-three years of separation). To arrive at this
scenario where a wedding takes place, or the promise of a wedding is made, we
have another element that is continually present in Shakespeare’s comedies,
namely the wooing (which means “to sue for the affection of and usually marriage with”8).
The primary forces
behind the comic plots of Shakespeare’s comedies are the romantic sentiment and
the erotic desire and the primary action is the overcoming of obstacles (if two
characters really love each other they must overcome obstacles) that stand in
the way of the romantic and sexual fulfilment. The romantic sentiment is always
bound up with wooing. Romanticism is about the elaboration of feelings which
lead members of opposite sexes to idealise and also to fantasise about each
other. Wooing is about the approaches which they make to each other in order to
transmit their feelings and to awaken reciprocal feelings in the other. Wooing
is thus the preliminary of marriage, and marriage is but the crowning point of
the lives of the characters that appear in Shakespeare plays.
If marriage is the
denouement of the comedy, wooing is undoubtely the climax of it, the centre of
the plot and its dialogue is concerned with the testing of emotional responses,
which constitute the well-understood ritual of courtship.9 Wooing
scenes are tests of the maturity and the humanity of the characters involved in
them, and also points where the personal affairs intersect with public ones.
They are also scenes apt for mockery and satire (usually the scenes that carry
most comical value are these), due to their excessive sentimentality. The lover
is an ambiguous figure, who may excite pity for his painful emotional
condition, but also seem ridiculous because of his excessive virtuousness.
Romance is almost always accompanied by features that are anti-romantic. The
lover becomes a figure of awe and fun. His raptures may be a source of richly
flowering, delicate poetry, but they may also lapse into an absurd recital of
merely conventional clichés.10 Orlando, in As You Like It writes poems to Rosalind on trees, poems Touchstone
mocks for their poor style and which embarrass Rosalind.
Wooing is not a
matter of only two. There is a broader social context in which it necessarily
functions, and personal choice determines a range of comlexities in that
society (in A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Egeus complains to the Duke Theseus that his daughter Hermia does not want to
marry the man he has chosen for her). Wooing is also a process of maturation,
throught it Orlando is emotionally educated by Rosalind/Ganymede. Other plays,
such as Much Ado About Nothing or Twelfth Night, focus on a more
practical form of wooing, a familiar procedure for the Elizabethans, which take
into consideration issues such as dowry, social status, strategy and control
over one’s own feelings and actions. In The
Taming of the Shrew however, there is no such thing as wooing, at least not
between Kate and Petrucchio, the latter whom, on the other hand clearly states
that what he is really interested in is marrying a rich woman.
Wooing is thus one of
the main elements of Shakespearian comedy and it is very important in the lives
of the characters that are involved in it, but we must bear in mind that even
though the wooing and the comedy ends in marriage, there is still life after
that marriage.
The conventions of
comedies, as those of all literature are consistent with the customs of the
society in which those pieces of literature were produced. Thus, Shakespearian
comedies will reflect the society of early modern English, patriarchal and
authoritarian, inhospitable to disorder or disruption. They represent the
unshakable power of husbands, aristocrats and other dominant cultural voices.
It is strange then, when we observe the author’s “alliance” with a woman in her
refusal to marry the man her father has chosen for her (Hermia in A Midsummer Night’s Dream rejects her
father’s claim to marry the man he has chosen for her, and claims to marry the
one she loves). This situation is but a reflection of the cultural anxiety
pervading this period, when notions of romantic love began to challenge the
norms of patriarchal authority in the matter of marriage11. We see
thus another recurrent element in Shakespeare’s comedies, the parental
disapproval of the one the lover has chosen. (in The Merchant of Venice this disapproval is more of an imposing
will, and Portia has to marry the one her dead father has chosen for her) or
the forcing of an off-spring to marry the one the parent has chosen for her (as
it happens in the case of Kate in The
Taming of the Shrew).
Many critics have
claimed that Shakespeare sides with his young women, but in the end he marries
them to husbands whose superior power is assumed. Nonetheless, to arrive to
this desired moment, these women will have to disguise themselves as men in
order to acquire recognition for their intellect (which is rather ironic, for
they never really acquire recognition as women). It is a remarkable feature of
Shakespeare’s comedies his prominence given to women. It may almost be said
that whereas men dominate the tragedies, it is women who dominate the comedies.
They take control of the events, they seem to possess not only greater
intuitive awareness than the men, but also more common sense and emotional
maturity. Given the fact that in Elizabethan theatre the female parts were
played by young boys, there is no surprise at the frequency with which these
actors played the part of a woman disguised as a young man. It has been often
said that Shakespeare employed this technique to confuse his audience even more
(audience who saw a young man who played the part of a woman who disguised
herself as a man). But the employment of young men that played women’s part
also served Shakespeare, for he was able to put words into a “woman’s mouth”
without them sounding outrageous as they would have if truly uttered by a
woman.
Women disguising themselves
as men and deceiving men is thus a recurring element in Shakespeare’s comedies.
They manipulate other characters through their superior knowledge and their
stratagems are indispensable for the dramatic structure, generating both
complications and resolutions. Portia in The
Merchant of Venice disguises herself as a lawyer and manages to find a flaw
in the Venetian law to save Antonio. Rosalind in As You Like It is also the young Ganymede who “helps” Orlando “grow
up”. Not all the comedies act this way, and not all of Shakespeare’s heroines
are “women on top”, but he creates comic mode by temporarily placing servants
over masters, women over men, this way dislocating the hierarchies sanctioned
by society. It is but another form of chaos which is reestablished to order at
the end. The comic heroine, whether disguised as a man or not, acts on her
behalf and also as the agent of authority which was frequently gendered as
masculine.
This might seem a
trick of the comedy, but it was not really such, given the fact that at that
time it was a woman, Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled a man’s world. Shakespeare’s
comic heroines become social androgynous, just like the Queen. This androgyny
comes not only from their embodiment as boy-actors on the stage, but also from
their speech, from their language. All dramatic characters are made of words,
but the comic heroines assume masculinity to control language.
Language is extremely
important in comedies, and fun to play with. Shakespeare knew this very well
and puns are one of his favourite methods of entertaining. Samuel Johnson
identified the pun as “Shakespeare’s fatal Cleopatra”, noting that he was
“content to lose the world for the sake of a good, or even a bad, play on
words.”12 Puns used in comedies complicate and split language, make
it fertile. A pun pushes more meanings into a word, meanings that the word
cannot hold, and it always, always find sex.
Playing with words
means sometimes Shakespeare gives a double meaning to his words, he does this
using irony: the word “irony” is
used in expressions or actions in which there are at least two levels of
meaning: the evident superficial meaning and a second entailed signification
which may be different to the first. The second meaning, in other words, blunts
the first meaning or modifies it; in some cases the second meaning may entirely
contradict the first (when that happens and both speaker and listener are aware
of the second meaning contradicting the first, we call the irony, which is very
strong and obvious, “sarcasm”).
In a more general sense, irony can also mean ambiguity.
An ironical
expression is one in which we cannot be sure precisely what is meant because
there is a range of possible meanings.
The most common is
called “dramatic irony”, which
takes place through an “uneven distribution of knowledge”. Often, the audience
or readers know more about what is going on than any of the characters.
Therefore, when a character says something, his or her discourse will often
have two levels of meaning: what the character thinks it means or intends to
say and what the audience, with a fuller understanding of the entire situation,
understands it to mean. This causes a situation of confusion which intends to
be funny for the audience because the audience knows everything, the characters
of the story only know a part of the truth (and what any one particular
character may know may change in the course of the play), and much of the comic
confusion will embroil a series of misunderstandings, mistaken identities, and
so on, which arise from the incomplete distribution of information. During The Comedy of Errors, the couple of
twins are very often mistaken, and they are not even recognizable to
themselves. For example, Antipholus of Syracuse sends his Dromio away, and when
Dromio of Ephesus cames back he is addressed by Antipholus as if he was his
Dromio:
- Antipholus of Syracuse: Here comes
the almanac of my true date.
What now? how chance thou art
return'd so soon?
-Dromio of Ephesus: Return'd so soon! rather approach'd too late.
The
confussion in this scene goes on without any of tha characters knowing they are
addressing to the wrong person. In this scene we can find a clear example of
play with words: Antipholus asks for a certain amount of money, whereas Dromio
who does not know what he is been asked about, understands “mark” as “scar”:
-Antipholus of Syracuse: Where is
the thousand marks thou hadst of me?
-Dromio of Ephesus: I have some
marks of yours upon my pate,
Some of my mistress' marks upon my
shoulders,
But not a thousand marks between you
both.
If I should pay your worship those
again,
Perchance you will not bear them
patiently14
In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, ambiguity and mistaken identity are the
source of the main conflict; that is, Robin Godfellow casts the spell on the
wrong person (Lysander instead of Demetrius) based on the description he is
given ( “Thou shalt know the man / By the Athenian garments he hath on “). Once
again, plays with words are a very important part of the play, when Bottom
changes into a donkey, all of his friends run away, and he not knowing what he
has became claims : “ I see their knavery: this is to make an ass of me ”.
Afterwards he starts to sing, and Titania awakes falling in love with him and
say :“Thou art as wise as thou art beautiful.” Only the audience here knows
that he is actually an ass, and that she is in love for no reason, and that
donkeys are not wise, nor beautiful.
During
the final part of the play, we finally get to see Piramo and Tisbe’s tragedy
(or is it a comedy?), which not only does it represent part of the peculiar
events taking place in the woods, but also contains some of the funniest
moments of the play. There are slips of the tongue, like the one where Piramo
declares that the Lion “deflowered” Tisbe, instead of devoured. There are also
funny remarks by the audience (the main characters) about the doubtful quality
of the play:
Moonshine: This lanthorn doth the horned
moon present
Demetrius: He should have worn the horns on
his head.
Theseus: He is no crescent, and his horns
are invisible within the circumference. 15
Another
pattern that we can find in Shakespeare’s comedies is the fools and clowns.
These are characters that have contributed to the greatness of Shakespearean
comedy. Usually, they are considered as humorous characters that make people
laugh, create a comic relief and even they have been as silly persons. But
there is more than that in these characters, they are more complex that it
apparently seems. They are observant, intelligent, they have more inside than
just jokes. But, in order to see that we, as spectators, have to do an effort.
In relation to these characters it is also important their use of language,
since depending on it they can cause an effect or another.
These characters, especially fools,
are very useful since they guide us through the play; moreover they also act as
commentators on the behaviour of the main characters, and always tell the truth
but they are hardly ever believed. They are essential in Shakespearean plays since
they are necessary for the audience thanks to their humanity.
The first false impression these characters
give us is that they have any function, or that they only act to entertain the
audience. They have a very high contribution in the action of the play, above
all, in forming the humour and confusion. We have to notice that in Twelfth Night fools are who control the
comedy and humour in the play, and they can guide us trough the play.
But their more important role in
Shakespeare’s comedies is acting as a mask for the author to criticize the
points relevant for him. The author is hiding behind these characters to
criticize English society. Because fools are the only one who have license to
tell the real truth, the rude truth; they are traditionally licensed to speak
out where others have to be silent. And some fools have more influence than
others.
And they are also used to provide a
contrast between them, with their ridiculous attitude, and other characters in the
play. Shakespeare is implicitly comparing each of us to the other characters of
the play. All of us run through our lives, blustering, feeling that we are in
full control of our circumstances. And when life confuses us, we become upset
and angry.
Shakespeare’s use of the foolish
characters is much more complex than in a first view. They are used to contrast
other characters of his plays to make important points that Shakespeare wishes
his audience to understand.
We can distinguish between those
fools who are intelligent, like Feste in Twelfth Night, requiring some mental
effort on our part to appreciate their intelligence and humour; or those who
only make us laugh but not with clever wit, because they are deliberately
acting simple, in order to entertain.
Intelligent fools are also capable
of possessing and developing deeper human traits. These foolish fools often
serve to contrast the dark moments of a play with a lighter feel (Dogberry
brings humour to Much Ado About Nothing
to contrast the darkness Don John adds to the play). They also love language,
but they are comic because of how ridiculous their words and actions are.
The appearance of the fool’s scene
usually occurs just as the shock or trauma level of the play has reached a
point when the minds of the audience members begin to become desensitized. These scenes give spectators a chance to
catch their breath and mentally prepare themselves for what follows.
In conclusion, the elements that
make a comedy from a Shakespearian play are many and varied. Firstly, a comedy
cannot be called comedy without a happy ending. Although humour and humorous
language may miss from a comedy, the happy ending is a prerequisite of it. This
happy ending may mean a marriage or the promise of a marriage, marriage to which
the characters arrive after overcoming obstacles, such as parental disapproval.
Wooing is also an important element of Shakespearian comedies, it is the
prerequisite of marriage and helps develop comic characters.
Man like women are
also something very common in Shakespearian comedies. Women disguise themselves
as men and this leads to complications and resolutions in the play, as well as
helping create a comical atmosphere.
Moreover, we have
also seen other important characters that appear in Shakespeare’s plays, which
are fools and clowns. But we don’t have to confuse fools with clowns, above all
the clothes, clowns are characterised with coloured cloths.
As we have observed they help to the
development of the play and they serve
as entertainers.
As we have seen all
throughout the essay, there are various elements that are peculiar to
Shakespearian comedies that make them unique and a very important part of the
history of literature
Endnotes
1 Graves, Robert. “Sayings of the Week”. The Observer 6 Dec. 1964
2 For further reading about Shakespeare’s life
see Wells, Stanley & Gary Taylor. The
Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. xv-xx
3 Wells, Stanley & Lena Cowen Orlin. Shakespeare. An Oxford Guide. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 167
4 “Comedy.” Wikipedia
: The Free Enciclopedia. 27 Oct 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy
5 Carroll, William. “Romantic Comedies” in Shakespeare. An Oxford Guide. ed Stanley
Wells & Lena Cowen Orlin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 176
6 McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare. (Boston & New York:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001), p. 81
7 McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare. (Boston & New York:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001), p. 83
8 “Woo.” Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary. 27 Oct. 2006.
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=woo>
9 Draper, R.P. Shakespeare. The Comedies. (London: Macmillan, 2000), p.71
10 Draper, R.P. Shakespeare. The Comedies. (London: Macmillan, 2000), p. 56
11 McDonald, Russ. The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare. (Boston & New York:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2001), p. 84
12 Danson, Lawrence. Shakespeare’s Dramatic Genres. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), p.77
13 Shakespeare, William. The Comedy of Errors in The
Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. ed. Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.288
14 Shakespeare, William. The Comedy of Errors in The
Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. ed. Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.288-289
15 Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream in The
Oxford Shakespeare. The Complete Works. ed. Stanley Wells & Gary Taylor
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p.421
Bibliography
7.
Wells,
Stanley & Lena Cowen Orlin. Shakespeare.
An Oxford Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003
8.
Wells,
Stanley & Gary Taylor. The Oxford
Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005
9.
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/shaksper/files/ROLE%20CLOWN.txt
10.
http://ise.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/society/fools.html
11.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5599/literature/shakespeares-fools.html