Advertisement

Act the Fool: Antonio’s Revenge and the Conventions of the Counterfeit-Disability Tradition

  • Lindsey Row-Heyveld
Chapter
Part of the Literary Disability Studies book series (LIDIST)

Abstract

This chapter establishes the conventions of the counterfeit-disability trope and explores how those conventions both upheld and complicated the concurrent conventions of revenge tragedy. The counterfeit-disability tradition defines itself through its narrative, thematic, and generic flexibility, but specific conventions still unify it, namely, its focus on audience response. Grounded in a reading of John Marston’s Antonio’s Revenge (c. 1600–01), the chapter demonstrates how the dissembling of disability supports the play’s narrative structure, providing a plot device to facilitate Antonio’s delay of revenge and to inoculate him (and the audience) against the dangerous ethics of that vengeance. Further, Row-Heyveld argues that consistent attention to audience interpretation—where skillful spectators suspect counterfeit disability and faulty spectators believe and pity dissemblers—fosters suspicion about disability off-stage as well.

References

  1. Baines, Barbara J. “Antonio’s Revenge: Marston’s Play on Revenge Plays.” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 23, no. 2 (Spring 1983): 277–94.Google Scholar
  2. Berry, Edward. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. Cavendish, Margaret. Grounds of Natural Philosophy. Vol. 2. West Cornwall: Locust Hill, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, George. The Blind Beggar of Alexandria. Edited by W. W. Greg. Oxford: Malone Society Reprints, 1929.Google Scholar
  5. Chettle, Henry, and John Day. The Blind Beggar of Bednall Green. Edited by Willy Bang. Leuven: Uystpruyst, 1902.Google Scholar
  6. Corrigan, Brian Jay. “The Stagecraft of John Marston in Antonio’s Revenge.” Discoveries 19, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 5–8.Google Scholar
  7. Foakes, R. A. “John Marston’s Fantastical Plays: Antonio and Mellida and Antonio’s Revenge.” Philological Quarterly 41 (1962): 229–39.Google Scholar
  8. “fool, v.”. OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press. Accessed 20 February 2017. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/72644?rskey=66K7H1&result=3.
  9. Geckle, George L. “Antonio’s Revenge: ‘Never more woe in lesser plot was found.’” Comparative Drama 6, no. 4 (Winter 1972–73): 323–35.Google Scholar
  10. Goodey, C. F. “‘Foolishness’ in Early Modern Medicine and the Concept of Intellectual Disability.” Medical History 48, no. 3 (July 2004): 289–310.Google Scholar
  11. Hunter, G. K. “Introduction.” In Antonio’s Revenge: The Second Part of Antonio and Mellida, by John Marston, edited by G. K. Hunter, ix–xxi. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  12. Hyland, Peter. Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage. Farnham: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
  13. Jonson, Ben. Every Man in His Humour. 2nd ed. Edited by Robert N. Watson. London: A & C Black, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. ———. “Volpone.” In The Norton Anthology of English Renaissance Drama, edited by David Bevington, 679–771. New York: Norton, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. Lopez, Jeremy. Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. Machiavelli, Niccolò. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. “marotte, n.”. OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press. Accessed 20 February 2017. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/114290?redirected​From=marotte.
  18. Marston, John. Antonio’s Revenge. Edited by W. Reavley Gair. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  19. Massinger, Philip. “The Picture.” In The Plays of Philip Massinger, vol. 3, Edited by William Gifford, 113–213. London: Bulmer, 1805.Google Scholar
  20. Metzler, Irina. Fools and Idiots?: Intellectual Disability in the Middle Ages. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  21. de Montaigne, Michel. “On Not Pretending to be Ill.” In The Complete Essays, edited and translated by M. A. Screech, 781–3. New York: Penguin, 2003.Google Scholar
  22. Neely, Carol Thomas. “Reading the Language of Distraction: Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear.” In Distracted Subjects: Madness and Gender in Shakespeare and Early Modern Culture, 46–68. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie Contriued into Three Bookes: The First of Poets and Poesie, the Second of Proportion, the Third of Ornament. London: Richard Field, 1589.Google Scholar
  24. Row-Heyveld, Lindsey. “Antic Dispositions: Mental and Intellectual Disabilities in Early Modern Revenge Tragedy.” In Recovering Disability in Early Modern England, edited by Allison P. Hobgood and David Houston Wood, 73–87. Columbus: The Ohio University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  25. Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus. Edited by Jonathan Bate. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Thomson, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. Southworth, John. Fools and Jesters at the English Court. Stroud: Sutton, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. Sprunger, David A. “Depicting the Insane: A Thirteenth-Century Case Study.” In Marvels, Monsters, and Miracles: Studies in the Medieval and Early Modern Imaginations, edited by Timothy S. Jones and David A. Sprunger, 223–41. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  28. Tourneur, Cyril. “The Atheist’s Tragedy.” In Four Revenge Tragedies, edited by Katharine Eisaman Maus, 249–330. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. Yearling, Elizabeth M. “‘Mount Tufty Tamburlaine’: Marston and Linguistic Excess.” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 20, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 257–69.Google Scholar
  30. Yearling, Rebecca Kate. Ben Jonson, John Marston, and Early Modern Drama: Satire and Audience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey Row-Heyveld
    • 1
  1. 1.Luther CollegeDecorahUSA

Personalised recommendations