Jan Steen’s Self Portrait in “The Continence of Scipio” as a Social Commentary
There is a tremendous difference between a fool and a jester. Fools are regarded as light-hearted, dim-witted, and absent-minded people whose outrageous stupidity amused the rest of the population. These jovial folk represented the lowest in society: too carefree to get ahead in society and too stupid to care. Many people believed that Jan Steen, a prominent and well-educated artist of the Dutch Golden Age, was a fool. It is not a far-fetched assumption to make since he donned the appearance of a fool in his own paintings. However Steen was no fool. Much like the history of jesters, Jan Steen’s unsavory appearances in his own work is often misunderstood and taken at face value. To look into Steen’s own depictions of his life in his paintings one might completely agree that he is a foolish drunkard who happened to be blessed with the ability to paint. It is interesting, then, to realize that Steen is more jester than fool, especially in his self portraits. In medieval times the only person who could get away with insulting the king and royal family was the court jester. Jesters would use their quick wit, silver tongues, and superior intellect to insult or comment on the presiding royalty and would often be received with thunderous laughter and applause. Steen, much like the jester, used a foolish appearance to give social commentary on the world around him. One of the best examples of this is in Steen’s “The Continence of Scipio” (see Figure 1). A goofy cast of characters replace the traditionally serious and dignified roles of the figures in the classic story but none so ridiculous as the narcissistic husband, Aluccius (who looks suspiciously like Stee...
... middle of paper ...
...ry.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#1
Steen, Jan (Artist). (1660) The Doctor’s Visit [Image of painting]. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Philadelphia Museum of Art. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#1.
Van Dyck, Anthony (Artist). (1620) Continence of Scipio [Image of painting]. University of
Oxford. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#1.
Van Rijn, Rembrandt (Artist). (1635) Prodigal Son in the Tavern (Self Portrait with
Saskia)[Image of painting]. Dreseden, Germany; Gemaldegalerie Alte Meister. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#1.
van Rijn, Rembrandt (Artist). (1667) Self Portrait, Laughing [Image of painting]. Netherlands;
Wallraf-Richartz Museum. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#1.
It will be discussed whether Coriolanus’ difficult personality is due to his upbringing, and/or due to his own nature, men of his manner are not uncommon in the socio-political landscape, even in today’s day and age, and we may well be moved to wonder what formative childhood experiences shaped the personality of these difficult, although at times necessary leaders. Above all, Shakespeare's words seem to provide us with a simple, direct answer. But I intend to argue that the text also contains some signs that the history she provides is incomplete.
mere jester in the eyes of the King, because he was also a cripple and
The outward itself is not exempt from this chaotic dynamic: it is subjected to manipulation by the inward. In the sixteenth century “there appears to be an increased self-consciousness about the fashioning of human identity as a manipulable, artful process” (Greenblatt 2). Shakespeare himself appeared to be aware of this and consciously dramatized the manipulation of the outward by the inward. In Hamlet, the outward is portrayed as a mask that conceals the undesirable inward: “smile and smile and be a villain” (Ham. 1.5.114); “with devotion’s visage and pious action we do sugar o’er the devil himself” (Ham. 3.1.52-4). Similarly, in I Henry IV the same precept is dramatized with the example of Henry IV tactfully “dressed” himself “in such humility” in order to win public support (3.2.51), as well as the incident where Hotspur accuses Henry IV of tricking his way up to the throne with his “seeming brow of justice” (4.3.89) that conceals underneath a traitor and usurper. However, a concept neglected in Hamlet, I Henry IV stresses how the outward can be misinterpreted—one of the reasons Worcester ignores the peace offer of Henry IV is that while his nephew will be excused on the ground of being young and hot-headed, he himself will forever be suspected, “interpretation will misquote [his] looks” (I Henry IV 5.2.14) as treacherous. To sum up, while both of the plays dramatize that
This section finds great ironic humor in the folly of all types of conceit, pointing out that the most condescending of people have little reason for such egotism. Folly laughs at the conceit of “the general run of gentry and scholars” with their “distorted sense of modesty” (11) including “those who lay special claim to be called the personification of wisdom, even though they strut about ‘like apes in purple’ and ‘asses in lion-skins’” (13). Folly, of course, is guilty of this most of all in dedicating a whole book to praising herself, and she admits the great folly behind this when she asks, “What could be more fitting than for Folly to trumpet her own merits abroad and ‘sing her own praises’” (11). Erasmus jokes about this type of conceit because it is innocent and commonplace. His point is to en...
Folly constantly demonstrates knowledge of this idea when she speaks about the stoics. She states that “the double-dyed stoic Seneca strongly rejects this idea, denying that the wise man is entitled to any emotion whatsoever” (Erasmus 29). Stoics reject the idea that emotions can lead to wisdom, according to Folly, and feel that reason should be what administers their lives. Furthermore, Folly continues this line of thought stating, “but in so doing he doesn’t leave a shred of humanity, converting him instead into some sort of new god or demiurgos, such as never existed or will exist anywhere on earth. … what he produces is a marble statue of a man, insensitive and without a trace of feeling” (Erasmus 29). Erasmus is critical of stoics and in a way, scholars as well. Speaking through Folly Erasmus radiates a clear view on his disapproval of the stoics during this period and the fact that they will not accept emotion as an integral part on gaining greater wisdom. By comparing them to marble statues and displaying their lack of humanity Folly is exhibiting Erasmus’s views on how unhuman he sees the stoics. This is only the beginning of Erasmus’ critical views on scholars and ultimately the
Bell, Robert. “The Anatomy of Folly in Shakespeare’s Henriad.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 14. 2 (2001): 181-201. Print.
Feste, the fool character in Twelfth Night, in many ways represents a playwright figure, and embodies the reach and tools of the theater. He criticizes, manipulates and entertains the other characters while causing them to reflect on their life situations, which is similar to the way a playwright such as Shakespeare interacts with his audience. Furthermore, more so than the other characters in the play he accomplishes this in a highly performative way, involving song and clever wordplay that must be decoded, and is thus particularly reflective of the mechanisms at the command of the playwright. Feste is a representation of the medieval fool figure, who is empowered by his low status and able to speak the truth of the kingdom. A playwright speaks the truth by using actors and fictional characters, who are in a parallel low status in comparison to the audience, as they lack the dimensionality of real people. Thus, the role Feste plays in the lives of the characters in the play resembles the role the play itself plays in the lives of the audience watching the performance. This essay will explore this comparison first by analyzing similarities between the way in which Feste interacts with other characters and the way the playwright interact with the audience, and then focus on the similarities between the aims and content of these interactions.
In poetic terms, “wit” means the development of a metaphysical conceit. It is an insightful use of analogy, metaphor or inventive joining of dissimilar images to make a point in a poem. In these regards, this play has been appropriately titled. John Donne, whose Holy Sonnets make numerous appearances in the play, uses his metaphysical poetry to spark unrest, debate, and controversy. He himself wrestles with questions about faith, God’s mercy and judgment, human mortality, sin, damnation, absolution, and salvation. The Holy Sonnets are the product of doubter, one who has not yet found inner peace. This realization i...
In his published lecture concerning Aristophanes' plays, Cedric H. Whitman discusses what he considers as the general template of all of Aristophanes' main characters: the comic hero. Whitman defines a comic hero as possessing great individualism, a good deal of poneros, meaning wickedness, and striking a balance of eiron and alazon, which translates into being a mixture of an ironical buffoon, who makes fun of himself for his own amusement, and an imposter, who disguises his true identity or feelings. He sees the comic hero as one who is extremely self-motivated and self-centered: "whatever is heroic is individualistic, and tends toward excess, or at least extremes. It asserts its self primarily . . ." Whitman also declares that poneros is necessary in the character of the comic hero, that this person is villainous, manipulative, and very convincing. The comic hero is shameless in expressing his desires, and he has no shame in pursuing them by any means necessary, whether such acts would be considered right or wrong. Whitman also recognizes the mixture of eiron--ironical buffoonery--and alazon--being an imposter--in the comic hero of Aristophanes' plays. "The mere buffoon, says Aristotle, makes fun for the sake of getting a laugh for others; the ironical man makes fun for his own amusement, which is more worthy of a free man.
However, the typical Shakespearian’ fool is quick witted, a master of comedy, and able cause laughter without the accumulation of grudges, and effectively evading the build-up of ‘debt’. Despite being briefly present in “Hamlet”, Sterne’s jesterous Yorick succeeds in being an adequate conduct or vessel through the story itself. He encapsulates and exhumes the quintessential qualities of a typical jester, in that Yorick is able to slip the conversation onto a tangent whenever the topic of his ‘debts’ is brought in to a conversation; he manages to evade these conversations as if it were a “hop, skip and jump” to him (27). However, the reality of his economic social status inevitably awaits Yorick “until, he is trapped in a social chimney corner.” When in due time Yorick will be trapped and utterly incapable to slip the topic in to a tangendental digression. Nevertheless Yorick shows his capability or fulfilment in the role of a jester by ignoring all modes of reality through his comedy, however it results in his violent death. Although demonstrating that the fool can submerge themselves in laughter, rather chapter 12 proves that reality will down the fool in
one of Polonius’ most ironic lines: "Madam, I swear I use no art at all," (II. ii 104). Readers
Hamlet fool his family when acting insane, but the genius of his work has fooled
Dramatic irony in Oedipus the King is evident throughout, which is similar to the latter play, but in a different form. In here, the irony is evident. Oedipus the King revolves around characters' attempts to change their destiny (which fails) - Jocasta and Laius's killing of Oedipus and Oedipus's flight from Corinth. Each time somebody tries to avert the future, the audience knows their attempt is futile, creating irony. When Jocasta and Oedipus mock the oracles, they continue to suspect that they were right. Oedipus discounts the oracles' power, but believes in his ability to uncover the truth, yet they lead to the same outcome. His intelligence is what makes him great, but it is also what causes the tragedy. When he ridded Thebes of the Sphinx, Oedipus is the city's saviour, but by killing Laius and marrying Jocasta, he is its affliction, causing the blight that strikes the city during the opening. Meanwhile, the characters, especially Teiresias, mention sight, light, darkness, &c as metaphors, while referring to `seeing the truth'. However, while Teiresias knows the truth and is blind, Oedipus can see all but the truth. When he discovers the truth, he becomes blind. Also, he does not just solve the Sphinx's riddle - he is its answer. His birth is mentioned throughout the play (crawling on `4 legs'), and he never relies on anybody but himself (`standing on his own `2 legs'),...
Throughout William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, Hamlet’s behavior and actions cause readers to question his sanity. Hamlet’s character can be interpreted in many different ways. It could be said that he is indeed insane, or it can be disputed that he, as he made known, is simply putting on a good act. The complexity of knowing Hamlet’s true character derives from the fact that we, as readers, are unable to read Shakespeare’s or Hamlet’s minds. Therefore, judgments could be made solely by reading and interpreting his behavior and coming up with a satisfactory conclusion. Taking into consideration incidents such as Polonius’ murder and Hamlet’s contemplating suicide, it is natural for individuals who perform such acts to be categorized as crazy. Ignoring Hamlet’s actual actions, and paying keen attention to what altered his character, one can debate that Hamlet is not at all insane. It is important to consider the situations which triggered Hamlet’s different actions. By giving discreet thought to Hamlet’s position and what he endures, one will realize that he is not demented, but he is actually an angry, betrayed and emotionally devastated fatherless son.
...disguise to add comic effect by encouraging humour of an audience via the ‘theories of laughter’. Comic effect is accurately demonstrated by Shakespeare’s incorporation of confusion, disorder and farce. However, it can be concluded that Shakespeare’s use of mistaken identity and disguise was for the purpose of more than just for comic effect, but to highlight the audience more serious topics and challenge social norms and values of the period. Ironically, it can be inferred that Shakespeare has masked his underlying purpose of mistaken identity and disguise with comedy.