Take My Coxcomb

Introduction Enter Dromo, drawing a clowne in with a rope Clowne. What now, thrust a man into the common wealth, whether hee will or noe? What the deuill should I doe here? Dromo. Why, what an ass art thou? Dost thou not knowe a playe cannot be without a clowne? Clowns have bene thrust into plays by the head euer since Kempe could make a scuruey face, and therefore reason thou shouldst be drawne in with a cart rope. Clowne. But what must I doe nowe? [ . . . ] This is fine y faith: nowe, when they haue noe bodie to leaue on stage, the[y] bring mee vp, & which is worse, tell mee not what I should saye. The dramatic ideals expressed by Parnassus’ Dromo are fairly representative of those of the Elizabethan playgoer’s view in general concerning the clown character. The popularity of the clown was one of the most striking features of the English early modern stage. From tolerated intruder to scripted comic, the clown matured into the sphere of plays. There are numerous stage histories of Elizabethan comedies that demonstrate the development of clowns within the plays and from one production to another.1 Yet, if we the audience grasp Dromo’s rope to help tow in the clown, just who and what are we towing onto the stage and into the play? The early role of clowns as servants makes them an ideal mouthpiece for changes in master-servant bonds so important to this transitional period between late feudalism and proto-capitalism. Clowns establish their dramatic identity through the economics of service roles and master/servant bonds, 2 and these dual roles as clown-servants tie them to the witty complexities of household economics. In this study, economy is the domestic system that pertains not only to the management of a home and its goods and services, but also to the socioeconomic relationships among its members.3 By clowning on the subject of service, Shakespeare’s clown-servants use their stage identity to address through humor the complex, often unpleasant, socioeconomic changes within the Elizabethan servant-class. As clowns’ bonds of service change to accommodate economic shifts toward capitalism, master and clown-servant bonds becomes a source of humor, as do the comical treatments of themes that complicate these bonds. The economic relationships between master and servant reflect the greater economic tensions expressed within the plays and representative of the real world of the time. This book will present Shakespeare’s clowns as major characters, whose wit addresses monetary concerns of the period.4 Just as barometers measure pressures in weather systems, Shakespeare’s clowns gauge the tensions within the economies of their plays with regard to Elizabethan economics. This book analyzes the ways in which clowns of Shakespeare’s comedies reflect the rapidly changing conditions not only of their plays, but also of the early modern period, in its transition from a late feudal to a proto-capitalist society. The clown-servant characters represent this economic shift: All of Shakespeare’s clowns exhibit dutiful service within the late feudal household as well as display characteristics of the proto-capitalist endeavor to prosper. Shakespeare’s clown-servants evolve from characters with strong late feudal ties of domestic service to progressive characters of proto-capitalist exchange. This growth of Shakespeare’s clown-servant characters occurs against a backdrop of similar clown-development in early modern England. As clown-servant actors adapt the legendary clowning style of William Somer, the fool of Henry VIII, they move progressively away from portrayals of his real life clown service and toward a dramatic characterization of clowning that reflects overall influence of proto-capitalist development of the theater. Rather than cling to portrayals of late feudal order, early modern dramatic clown servants illustrate proto-capitalist modes of exchange, both as characters in their plays and as actors in the theater. Both pre-Shakespearean drama and Shakespeare’s plays illustrate an economic shift. To study this shift feudalism to proto-capitalism in early modern drama, this study’s chronological focus covers roughly from the late 1580s to 1603, a period that witnesses the theatrical waning of the clown’s improvised medieval jig and the emergence of the early modern scripted clown. Central to this book is the notion that Shakespeare’s clowns refine past trends of dramatic foolery to emerge as comic entities unique to the Elizabethan economic experience. I will refer to clowns listed in dramatis personas of Shakespeare’s comedies and discuss how they reflect English economic sensibilities for the Elizabethan stage. My historical and literary inquiries into Shakespeare’s clown-servants introduce into current Shakespeare studies a fresh perspective on service and comedy in early modern England. A proto-capitalist reading of Shakespeare’s clown-servants and the theaters they inhabit uncovers economic elements in the plays often omitted in previous considerations of the clown. Taking as its primary object the economic shifts evident in Shakespeare’s clowns and in the plays The Comedy of Errors, Two Gentlemen of Verona, Merchant of Venice, and Twelfth Night, this book also evaluates these plays against the backdrop of Elizabethan theater. As these plays progress, the change in master/servant bonds reflects the move of entrepreneurial clowns from impromptu solo artists to scripted players.