Introduction
The Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose Poetics constitutes the
first comprehensive analysis of literary aesthetics in Western culture,
had a very simple definition of comedy. For him, anything could be
defined as comic as long as it was not clearly tragic. In practice, this
meant that a ‘comedy’ could be any kind of text or performance that did
not end with death, destruction or suffering. It is interesting to note in
Aristotle’s definition that humour or joking does not have to be a quality
of the text in order for it to be comic.
In the English literary tradition, it is the early-modern period that
introduces the idea of humour and joking to comedy as an essential part
of the form. Comedies were extremely popular on the Renaissance
stage, outnumbering both tragedies and history plays combined by
about three to one. However, it would be fair to say that comedy has
received much less critical attention, certainly in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, than either history or tragedy, and we may be
forgiven for believing comedy was a minor form. This is certainly not the
case, and the introduction of joking may go some way to explaining the
relative lack of scholarly interest in comedy, as it does not conform to
the standards of high moral seriousness that have interested and
informed English literary criticism for much of the past century.
Activity
What is it about the nature of comedy that means it is often considered
the poor relation of other dramatic forms? Consider the reasons why
humour does not seem to translate itself across the centuries as well as
something like tragedy.
Comedy has traditionally been seen to stand in opposition to tragedy,
sharing many of its themes and dealing with similar issues but finding
different solutions to the conflicts it narrates. For example, in tragedy,
human weaknesses are seen as dangers, which have the potential to
subvert the order of the state, whereas in comedy, human weaknesses
are seen as foibles that can be changed and all conflicts can be
reconciled. A tragedy often ends with multiple deaths, whereas a
comedy will end with multiple marriages. In these examples, the
opposition between tragedy and comedy appears to work, but it is
useful to think of comedy as an independent form that has a very
different agenda to that of its tragic counterpart.
One of the problems with constructing a definite model of early-modern
comedy is that the form itself was not entirely settled. Comedies often
came into being through a combination of a number of different
dramatic forms. This is especially true of Shakespeare. English
Renaissance comedy, then, is a kind of assemblage of folk performances
like the ‘wooing’ play, or the ‘combat’ play, combined with the
improvised clowning of the fools and mummers and the verbal punning
of the public-school dramatists who took their inspiration from ancient
Roman writers like Terence and Plautus.
Activity
Consider the structure of the plays on this syllabus. Can you see
examples of any other types or styles of performance operating within
them?
To begin to formulate a definition of early-modern comedy, we might
begin by trying to establish how it understands the world. Comedy
seems to feature a very distinctive idea of humanity, one that can be
fearsomely cruel and savagely indignant, but also able to forgive and to
allow the possibility of change. Comedy dramatises interpersonal
relationships that are generally more forgiving than those of tragedy.
The population of comedy is more evenly distributed among men and
women. Locations tend to be humbler, and the stakes much lower than
in tragedy.
Also, it could be said that comedy is writing about the body. Bodily
excess or deficit can both be sites for humour, whether it be Ursula the
pig woman of Bartholomew Fair, the hypocritical abstinence of Malvolio,
or Cesario, the boy who lacks a penis in Twelfth Night, the body itself
seems to make us laugh. This is clearly seen in the continual popularity
of types of slapstick humour that produce laughter by virtue of the
uncontrollability of the bodies they depict. Clowns create physical chaos
in the name of humour, simply because they are showing us ways of
using our bodies that we have long since been told not to copy. This
excess or deficit of the body is often clearest at the level of
performance, but many comic themes also seem to focus on our bodily
needs, bodily desires or even bodily wastes. The themes of comedy are
essentially about what we want, whether it be gold for our pockets or a
partner to love, and this is the primary fuel for its humour, as it is in the
pursuit of those things we want most that we reveal ourselves to be
most foolish.
