As a disabled person, I found your discussion of "natural fools" very interesting. Disabled history is so often overlooked. I would be interested in a whole episode on this subject
I think Armin reflects a maturing in Shakespeare’s writing. The later comedic roles become more sophisticated, and perhaps Shakespeare was ready for a new player that allowed him to be more sophisticated.
I agree. I wrote this but never posted it but were are of similar opinion. When I came across the video again today your comment immediately came to mind. Shakespeare masterfully used comic relief from comic relief. It keep the humor sharp and the wit sharper. If the message is lost in translation there is no message. Specifically if there is no wit there is no humor. Their roles required them to be entertaining while subtlety being thought provoking. The differences between the two men is in shift in how they approached the humor and adjusted as their audiences became more sophisticated in their expectation while trying to remain timeless. For all involved (the writer, the actor and the audience) maturity aged with age: the class clown’ student was now the professor. A man who walks with a cane taking his next step approaches the role of a baby taking his first step from a different perspective of balance. I imagine how each chose to ‘recharge their batteries to keep the light from dimming’ were vastly different. Robert Arminia was not a cookie cutter performer.
I adore the new and unique perspectives you take to discuss history. Not only do you cover the usual historical characters but more interestingly the uncommon commoners that were an important part of the tapestry of the story.😊❤😊
I'm looking forward to hearing about the Guilds, I'm chuckling just a little thinking about the Terry Pratchett's books the Disc World about the Guilds. Regardless love your research and attention to detail. Love anything Elizabethan and Jacobean especially the Shakespearian mystery.🙏❤️
Motley was a name given for a type of clothing a professional fool wore. The checkered or parti-colored material that made their jester outfits. It eventually became synonymous with the Fool, themselves and they began to call them motleys. Naturals typically didn’t wear the motley’s clothing. It was adopted to get attention and to be noticeable, in a garish way, but it also had an important social purpose. During the reign of Elizabeth I, motley (cloth) served the important purpose of keeping the fool outside the social hierarchy and therefore not subject to class distinction. Since the fool was outside the dress laws, the fool was able to speak more freely. The “natural” didn’t refer only to court fools, it was a general term used for anyone who was noticeably mentally atypical, from birth and sometimes others. They weren’t termed naturals after they were made to be fools at court. Not all naturals were ever at court, or in noble households, which had that type of entertainment. Very few were. Anyone who wasn’t mentally typical was called a natural, but because they were vulnerable, they were often kept as fools and objectified as “curiousities”, for entertainment.
Back in the day when I still watched some TV soaps (Coronation St and Emmerdale) I noticed how a new character if they caught on with the audience gradually over time took on more and more of the attributes of the male or female actor playing the part. A heartless and cold villain could turn into a witty,warm hearted charmer after a year or so! Another really interesting talk,a sort of detective work,interpreting the text. The late John Mortimer wrote a very funny short story in which Malvolio gets his revenge! I've only seen As You Like It 3 times but the best ever ever ever performance of this play ever was a Peter Hall production at Bath Theatre Royal in 2006 or 2007.
I think really gifted writers (which I know is a total understatement in regard to Shakespeare) welcome the opportunity to write different plot lines and words for new actors and characters. I read somewhere that when the actor playing Grandad in Only Fools and Horses died, John Sullivan really wanted a bossy aunt to replace him, presumably because he wanted to go down a different path, and that it was David Jason who vetoed the idea, saying that he couldn't perform physical comedy with a woman, or say rude things. I suspect it was exactly the same with Shakespeare's company, the actors knew what they each could or couldn't do well, and Shakespeare tailored his plays accordingly. This is what makes a great writer. That said, Shakespeare was clearly a 'force of nature,' and pretty much achieved what he wanted to write I am sure. Thank you Kat for these videos. I am permanently hungry to learn more about Shakespeare's stage and the (first) Elizabethan era, a fascinating time.
As a high school teacher, I taught King Lear for many years. Many commentators feel that when Lear laments, "My poor fool is hanged," he is referring to the death of Cordelia. I find it fascinating that Cordelia and the fool may both have been played by Armin. In a sense, then, Lear may be referring to the loss of both of the truth-tellers in his life.
I've always thought John Lowin was more likely for Cordelia/The Fool, as he was younger than Armin and always appears clean-shaven, while Armin is bearded in his one known woodcut.
These programs related to Shakespeare are my absolute favorites!!! I dare say that most Americans feel that way, because at least of a few decades ago, *every one* of the 10 most common books being taught in high school are his. The only one that isn’t is “To Kill a Mockingbird “. Please do more!!!!!!
Dear Dr Kat, you do delve deep; exposing the facets. This show is so perceptive and fascinating. And appreciated. Definitely look forward to more of your insights on guilds and especially apprenticeship. Thank you.
This series is absolutely fascinating, I can't believe I've never seen anyone else discuss Shakespeare in this way. It gives so much context, and makes the plays feel more, I don't know, 'real' I guess. Thank you so much for this series.
I’m thinking, having now learned about Robert Armin, that I have new opportunities. Having never been suitable as a rustic fool, or a leading role, in any Shakespeare play, I could play a court fool in the manner of Robert.
This topic lends toward a wonderful, illuminating and enriched understanding on so many fronts, William Shakespeare included. Love this series and look forward to the ones you mention will be forthcoming. Also, think that Pretty Pic's suggestion could open many topics within your reading and expertise. Thank you for helping to take us to moments and people that seem just beyond reach in our own era.
Shakespeare's fools always interest me greatly...especially Feste from "Twelfth Night", saddest and wisest of Shakespeare's fools, capable of making everyone but himself laugh...a man who noticed everything. I was fortunate to see several excellent actors play this role live...one of the best performers had a simple costume. He let Feste's words and gestures speak for his profession...not the wearing of over the top motley. I think of Shakespeare's fools as much more than supporting characters...sometimes they are a clear window into the author's mind: they tell you what Will Shakespeare REALLY thought...sometimes the fools add levity or pathos where most needed...but chiefly, I see them as agents of balance. I would have liked to have known Will Somer(or Sommers)...anyone who could survive mentioning Catherine of Aragon to Henry VIII after he'd already replaced her with Anne...and topping that off with a further insult aimed at Anne...is a man worth speaking with. Personally I think he KNEW Henry was going to take his remarks very badly...he just had something to say that he thought surely needed to be said.
As always, so very interesting. Wonder if the changes in the characters of the fools might also have been due to changes in the popular whims, of what was considered amusing or entertaining, at the time. Change is not always due to the characters or people, but sometimes due to what’s popular. Just another thought :)
I think Shakespeare was inspired by/ shaped roles to fit the players in his company. That being the case, the shift in Fool’s roles doesn’t tell us anything about why the change in company members occurred.
I hope you do make a series of videos on guilds, apprentices and their roles in civic life. I think that would be very interesting. I'd also like to see videos on Knights Hospitalier and their role in the Crusade in Britain.
I'm wondering if you could discuss the possible actors who may have inspired and possibly played the roles of the mechanicals in "A Midsummer Night's Dream" according to the trades the actor practiced before (or even during) their careers with the company? For example James Burbage was a joiner by trade; could he have guided and played the role of Peter Quince?
Thanks for that! I had never known that James Burbage was a joiner. Among the Rude Mechanicals, Snug was the joiner, while Quince was a carpenter. In Shakespeare's day, the two trades were distinct. While Quince is often portrayed as bookish and older, I can't imagine James, who was elderly by the time Dream came along, was still up for treading the boards as either Quince or Snug. Flute was a bellows mender, which is at least a leather trade. He's young, though, and Shakespeare was rumored to play old men's parts.
Being a professional musician, I had to decide if it was more important to me to pursue my passion or a more potentially profitable career. Would acting or goldsmithing have been the more lucrative career?
I fear the choice was in line with today’s philosophy of “following the heart’s dictates”. Or maybe it was a choice of using the skills you know you have to good effect. What was an exceptional actor’s pay versus a mediocre goldsmith!!! Great question. At least he made enough to leave something for his wife in his will. That was responsible act.
A Goldsmith and a prankster, perhaps the long apprenticeship reflects Robert Armin's character, his need to "grow up" as his elders would have maybe seen it. When your father sets you up in a flash apprenticeship and you go off and be an actor, that seems odd.
Hamlet, in his “instructions” to the leader of the Players, may be speaking for Shakespeare when he advises keeping a tight rein on actors playing the fools. Make them speak what’s written, Hamlet says, don’t let them extemporize and ad-lib off-script. Perhaps these lines reflect a recent conflict with Will Kemp over his improvisational style, and Shakespeare slyly telling the audiences that this new kind of fool is better. I’ve also thought that Falstaff’s off-stage death in Henry V was written as a way of telling Kemp “Don’t bother trying to come back,” a symbolic cutting of ties to Kemp for good. After all, at the end of 2 Henry IV, the audience is told that Falstaff would be back, so the split with Kemp came to a head between the two plays. Killing off a character that one’s audiences love is a hard thing to do, but you still see it today when there are problems in the company. Two recent TV examples: Two and a Half Men (Charlie Sheen’s character) and The Chi (Jason Mitchell’s character).
I don't see Hamlet as an avatar for Shakespeare. As an actor, himself, he probably had his share of toffs who hired him for special performances telling him how to do his job. Yes, I know I'm in the minority opinion here. I also think that killing off Falstaff was a political expedient, after the Oldcastle scandal refused to be quieted down by a simple name change. The new name for the character followed Baron Cobbham around, and I'm sure he wasn't best pleased.
While you said there's little to no evidence to support it, I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that Will Kemp and Robert Armin's time in Shakespeare's company overlapped. I particularly remember a minor character in As You Like It being a lot like what you described Will Kemp's comedic characters being like - somewhat slow minded and from the country. I don't have the play to hand and can't remember the character's name, but I do remember a very funny scene in the play where this character and Touchstone play off each other to great comedic effect. Since it's likely that As You Like It was Armin's first play in Shakespeare's company it's possible that it was used as a trial run to see if Armin's darker, more sophisticated comedy appealed to audiences both before Kemp's leaving the company and Armin's joining it were set in stone.
I wonder if injury might have had something to do with Kemp being replaced?! You mentioned that they were there at the same time. Maybe Armin was a fill in to start and ended up being a better draw so was kept on.
Unlikely. After leaving, he did a marathon Morris Dance from London to Norwich in just nine days. Just walking about 12 miles a day would be hard with an injury, but dancing?
Great video, and I'd love to see one on Elizabethan guilds! Also, just to let you know, the subtitles between the 3 minute and 3:45 minute marks are incomplete.
Big time. Before James, Shakespeare referred to England. After James became king, it was nearly always Britain, reflecting the fact that his new patron was now King of the whole island. A law was also passed in 1604 to curb blasphemy in plays, so Shakespeare's characters stopped saying things like "bloody" (by our lady) and "zounds" (God's wounds). Shakespeare also went out of his way to flatter James. A scene in Macbeth has a series of portraits of Scottish kings being paraded across the stage, with the last one being a mirror held up to James. The scene is usually cut from modern performances. Othello also has a Spaniard, Iago, defeating a Moor. The play was probably first performed for a delegation from Spain in London in 1604 to sign a peace treaty with James. The Spaniards would not have missed the significance of Iago being named after their patron saint.
If he did indeed push Kemp out, I have this idea of a person who schemes out in the world and then comes home and laughs about it with his wife, their feet propped up by the fire. Maybe not the nicest person, but someone with a soft spot in their heart for the right people.
since it has only been a mere 400 hundred or so years, and we humans have not evolved in that time (it could be argued we have devolved) it is safe to say that the same petty jealousies we see around us today, would have been operational then, too.
If I were a “natural “ back in the day, I’d rather be mocked in the court where I was fed and housed rather than on the street at the mercy of the common man.
I bet the change was a hit with the audience. Instead of mocking yokels, which you can do on any street corner for free, you have a wise fellow ... someone allegedly lesser in class or intelligence, different in the ways you listed, not elite, like the audience was mostly not elite. But like the wise and nimble fool, they like to think of themselves smarting-off so perfectly to their betters, so-called ... The audience wants to be that guy, they think if they could, they themselves could passive/aggressively give perfect advice or suggestions to the Sovereign himself, humorously or profoundly.
I'm really quite absorbed by these court jester types in history. It seems to me the direct ancestor of stand-up comedy as we know it today. With the same value. Our favorite comedians not only 'kill' the audience, instead of getting killed, but encourage free thinking, which some authorities want to ' behead' sometimes. 😆
Oxford's Fool: Robert Armin - Fixed your title. Since "Shakespear", the son of a glover, from Stratford could have NEVER written the complete literary expression of the western human existence. The man who could hardly even sign his own name on the six extant documents we have. The evidence and research that the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, wrote the plays and poems is exceedingly too readily available now to ignore. Nothing is truer than truth.
A few years ago, I saw a documentary about the actress and founder of German theatre 🎭 of the early 18th century.🏦 Her name was Caroline Neuber. ✍ She also wrote plays, and in one of her plays, she chased out the fool (Hans Wurst), even chased him right off the stage. I remember the comentator explaining that this development (to ban the fool from the stage) was happening at the time in both in German, French (Molliere) and English (Shakespeare) theatre. The Italian Commedia della Arte also became unpopular. All because the European audience demanded more sophisticated plays. I don´t know if this is true, I just remember the maker of he documenary saying so. Here you find an article about her on wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friederike_Caroline_Neuber
