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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
John Marston, Antonio’s Revenge, ed. W. Reavley Gair (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978), ll. 9–12. All subsequent quotations from this text will appear parenthetically by act, scene, and line number.
- 2.
In keeping with the counterfeit-disability tradition’s emphasis on audience complicity, Rebecca Kate Yearling notes the induction of Antonio’s Revenge “suggests that if the play is disliked, it is (at least in part) because the spectators are not sympathetic enough: it is in some way their fault, rather than the play’s or the author’s.” Ben Jonson, John Marston, and Early Modern Drama: Satire and Audience (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 35.
- 3.
In 1962, R. A. Foakes famously argued that the plot ofAntonio’s Revenge was so exaggerated and absurd that Marston must have intended the work to be a parody of other revenge tragedies. See R. A. Foakes, “John Marston’s Fantastical Plays: Antonio and Mellida and Antonio’s Revenge,” Philological Quarterly 41 (1962): 229–39. Since then, however, a number of other critics have challenged Foakes’s assertion and presented viable explanations for the extremity of language and action in the play. See, for example, George L. Geckle, “Antonio’s Revenge: ‘Never more woe in lesser plot was found,’” Comparative Drama 6, no. 4 (Winter 1972–73): 323–35; Elizabeth M. Yearling, “‘Mount Tufty Tamburlaine’: Marston and Linguistic Excess,” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 20, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 257–69.
- 4.
George Chapman, The Blind Beggar of Alexandria, ed. W. W. Greg (Oxford: Malone Society Reprints, 1929).
- 5.
William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, ed. Jonathan Bate (Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series, London: Thomson, 1995).
- 6.
Philip Massinger, “The Picture,” in The Plays of Philip Massinger, vol. 3, ed. William Gifford (London: Bulmer, 1805), 113–213.
- 7.
Ben Jonson, “Volpone,” in The Norton Anthology of English Renaissance Drama, ed. David Bevington (New York: Norton, 2002), 679–771.
- 8.
Henry Chettle and John Day, The Blind Beggar of Bednall Green, ed. Willy Bang (Leuven: Uystpruyst, 1902).
- 9.
Ben Jonson, Every Man in His Humour, 2nd ed., ed. Robert N. Watson (London: A & C Black, 1998), 2.3.96–7. All subsequent quotations from this text will appear parenthetically by act, scene, and line number.
- 10.
Cyril Tourneur, “The Atheist’s Tragedy,” in Four Revenge Tragedies, ed. Katherine Eisaman Maus (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 249–330. All quotations from this text will appear parenthetically by act, scene, and line number.
- 11.
Barbara J. Baines, “Antonio’s Revenge: Marston’s Play on Revenge Plays,” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 23, no. 2 (Spring 1983): 279.
- 12.
Although the dating ofAntonio’s Revenge and Hamletis still not decisive, most scholars tend to accept G. K. Hunter’s assertion that Marston’s play was written a few months before Shakespeare’s play and that the striking similarities between the tragedies are a result of their common source-text. G. K. Hunter, introduction to Antonio’s Revenge: The Second Part of Antonio and Mellida, by John Marston, ed. G. K. Hunter (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965), ix–xxi.
- 13.
In spite of their distinction, given the imprecision of early modern medical terminology, they were often used interchangeably. I attempt to differentiate between them where appropriate.
- 14.
Margaret Cavendish defines a natural fool as “a Defect; which Defect was some Error in his Production, that is, in the form and frame either of the Mind, or Sense, or both” in 1668’s Grounds of Natural Philosophy. Margaret Cavendish, Grounds of Natural Philosophy, vol. 2 (West Cornwall: Locust Hill, 1996), 85–6.
- 15.
Edward Berry, Shakespeare’s Comic Rites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 109–12.
- 16.
George Puttenham, 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), 297.
- 17.
Within the category of natural foolishness existed people we would today identify as mentally or intellectually disabled. However, C. F. Goodey has persuasively demonstrated that cognitive disability was encompassed by “foolishness” but did not comprise its entirety. Because early modern medicine did not impose a Cartesian mind/body dualism in its diagnosis and therapeutics, people were sometimes categorized as natural fools because of physical difference, rather than mental or intellectual difference. In addition, the early modern period did not recognize our largely postmodern distinction between cognitive and moral states; “wisdom” was an intellectual and moral attribute. The medieval/early modern Psalter tradition cemented the link between mental impairments and atheism by frequently accompanying Psalm 53—which begins, “The fool hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’”—with images of motley-wearing fools. In this way, the term “natural fool,” could also include people with religious or moral differences, as well as intellectual ones. See, “‘Foolishness’ in Early Modern Medicine and the Concept of Intellectual Disability,” Medical History 48, no. 3 (July 2004): 289–310; 304–5. Nevertheless, recent scholarship, particularly the work of Irina Metzler, identifies “madness,” “foolishness,” “idiocy,” and so on as disabilities, while also accounting for period-specific and transhistorical fluidity of terms, as I believe is appropriate here. See Irina Metzler, Fools and Idiots?: Intellectual Disability in the Middle Ages (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016).
- 18.
David A. Sprunger, “Depicting the Insane: A Thirteenth-Century Case Study,” in Marvels, Monsters, and Miracles: Studies in the Medieval and Early Modern Imaginations, ed. Timothy S. Jones and David A. Sprunger (Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Press, 2002), 231–3.
- 19.
John Southworth, Fools and Jesters at the English Court (Stroud: Sutton, 1998), 163–74. A marotte or “fool’s head” was “a baton carried by a fool or jester as a mock emblem of office,” which often featured a replica of a fool’s face at one end. “marotte, n.” OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press, accessed February 20, 2017, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/114290?redirectedFrom=marotte.
- 20.
For a further, fuller discussion of madness and foolishness in revenge tragedy, see Lindsey Row-Heyveld, “Antic Dispositions: Mental and Intellectual Disabilities in Early Modern Revenge Tragedy,” in Recovering Disability in Early Modern England, ed. Allison P. Hobgood and David Houston Wood (Columbus: The Ohio University Press, 2013), 73–87.
- 21.
Antonio’s insistence that his disguise as a fool will protect him from suspicion implies that his performance is that of a “natural fool,” since an artificial fool could not be trusted in the same way. Antonio’s performance further bears this out, as does the presence of a genuine natural fool, Balurdo, who provides both a template for and a parallel to Antonio’s performance.
- 22.
Southworth, Fools and Jesters, 61–3.
- 23.
“Fool” as a verb meaning “to impose upon, dupe, trifle with” and “to cheat of or delude out of (something); to entice, lure into or to; to put or fob off by trickery” becomes current during this time period. The Oxford English Dictionary dates examples of the earliest uses of this meaning of “fool” to the turn of the seventeenth century. “fool, v.” OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press, accessed February 20, 2017, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/72644?rskey=66K7H1&result=3.
- 24.
Given the play’s Reformed leanings in its treatment of charity, it is telling that Antonio counters their arguments in particularly Protestant terms: Wisdom and art are “Apocrypha” but “Baubled fools are sole canonical” (4.1.19).
- 25.
Machiavelli dedicates an entire section of hisDiscourses on Livy to the idea “That It Is a Very Wise Thing to Simulate Craziness at the Right Time.” Machiavelli praises Junius Brutus, who feigned madness in order to escape observation and buy himself time to overthrow the ruling authorities and free Rome, concluding, “Thus one must play crazy, and make oneself very much mad, praising, speaking, seeing, doing things against your intent so as to please the prince.” Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 213–14.
- 26.
Michel de Montaigne, “On Not Pretending to be Ill,” in The Complete Essays, ed. and trans. M. A. Screech (New York: Penguin, 2003), 782.
- 27.
I discuss the counterfeit-disability tradition and audience response at length in Chap. 6 of this volume, detailing the ways that its metatheatrics erased barriers between player, playmaker, and playgoer. Antonio’s transformation from actor to audience to agent of revenge is another instance of this phenomenon.
- 28.
Peter Hyland, Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage (Farnham: Routledge, 2011), 73.
- 29.
Jeremy Lopez, Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 128.
- 30.
This joke would be intensified by its improbability if, as Brian Jay Corrigan suggests, the dungeon was represented by a grate in the skirt of the stage. Brian Jay Corrigan, “The Stagecraft of John Marston inAntonio’s Revenge,” Discoveries 19, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 5–8.
- 31.
Balurdo’s ravings here conform to Carol Thomas Neely’s characterization of fragmented and quotational mad language in early modern drama. See Carol Thomas Neely, “Reading the Language of Distraction: Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear,” in Distracted Subjects: Madness and Gender in Shakespeare and Early Modern Culture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004), 46–68.
References
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.
Berry, Edward. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Cavendish, Margaret. Grounds of Natural Philosophy. Vol. 2. West Cornwall: Locust Hill, 1996.
Chapman, George. The Blind Beggar of Alexandria. Edited by W. W. Greg. Oxford: Malone Society Reprints, 1929.
Chettle, Henry, and John Day. The Blind Beggar of Bednall Green. Edited by Willy Bang. Leuven: Uystpruyst, 1902.
Corrigan, Brian Jay. “The Stagecraft of John Marston in Antonio’s Revenge.” Discoveries 19, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 5–8.
Foakes, R. A. “John Marston’s Fantastical Plays: Antonio and Mellida and Antonio’s Revenge.” Philological Quarterly 41 (1962): 229–39.
“fool, v.”. OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press. Accessed 20 February 2017. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/72644?rskey=66K7H1&result=3.
Geckle, George L. “Antonio’s Revenge: ‘Never more woe in lesser plot was found.’” Comparative Drama 6, no. 4 (Winter 1972–73): 323–35.
Goodey, C. F. “‘Foolishness’ in Early Modern Medicine and the Concept of Intellectual Disability.” Medical History 48, no. 3 (July 2004): 289–310.
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.
Hyland, Peter. Disguise on the Early Modern English Stage. Farnham: Routledge, 2011.
Jonson, Ben. Every Man in His Humour. 2nd ed. Edited by Robert N. Watson. London: A & C Black, 1998.
———. “Volpone.” In The Norton Anthology of English Renaissance Drama, edited by David Bevington, 679–771. New York: Norton, 2002.
Lopez, Jeremy. Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. Discourses on Livy. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Nathan Tarcov. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
“marotte, n.”. OED Online. December 2016. Oxford University Press. Accessed 20 February 2017. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/114290?redirectedFrom=marotte.
Marston, John. Antonio’s Revenge. Edited by W. Reavley Gair. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1978.
Massinger, Philip. “The Picture.” In The Plays of Philip Massinger, vol. 3, Edited by William Gifford, 113–213. London: Bulmer, 1805.
Metzler, Irina. Fools and Idiots?: Intellectual Disability in the Middle Ages. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shakespeare, William. Titus Andronicus. Edited by Jonathan Bate. Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series. London: Thomson, 1995.
Southworth, John. Fools and Jesters at the English Court. Stroud: Sutton, 1998.
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.
Tourneur, Cyril. “The Atheist’s Tragedy.” In Four Revenge Tragedies, edited by Katharine Eisaman Maus, 249–330. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Yearling, Elizabeth M. “‘Mount Tufty Tamburlaine’: Marston and Linguistic Excess.” Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 20, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 257–69.
Yearling, Rebecca Kate. Ben Jonson, John Marston, and Early Modern Drama: Satire and Audience. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Row-Heyveld, L. (2018). Act the Fool: Antonio’s Revenge and the Conventions of the Counterfeit-Disability Tradition. In: Dissembling Disability in Early Modern English Drama. Literary Disability Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92135-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92135-8_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92134-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92135-8
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)