HENKE, Robert. Orality and Literacy in the Commedia dellArte and the Shakespearean Clown. In Oral Tradition, !!

"# $!%%&' ###(#)*. +ispon,-el e. http ""/o0rnal.oraltradition.or1"2iles"articles"!!ii"34henke.pd2. 5cesso e. !& +e6 !7. I.pro-isation in the Italian commedia dellarte and in the Shakespearean clown o22ers an especially interestin1 and contro-ersial loc0s o2 oral(literate interaction 89:.; $p. ###' 5 rich co.bination o2 oral and literate .odalities .ay be seen in both the medium o2 theater and in the period o2 the Renaissance.; $p. ###' +ra.atic speech, it will readily be seen, is concrete, relati-ely e<plicit abo0t its .eanin1, and conte<t(2ree, as writin1 tends to be, b0t is 0ttered in an oral conte<t that 20lly e<ploits paralin10istic and non(-erbal .eanin1. +ra.atic speakers are 0s0ally s0b/ect to the 1i-e(and(take o2 oral per2or.ance, both in relation to those sharin1 the sta1e and to those in the a0dience. Lan10a1e in dra.a o2ten constit0tes an action, a dyna.ic speech per2or.ance. 5nd beca0se o2 the co.pressed, rapid nat0re o2 dra.atic dialo10e, dra.a o2ten pri-ile1es not narrati-e or epic 2or.s, b0t short con-ersational speech 1enres s0ch as pro-erbs, e<e.plary tales, riddles, ta0nts, c0rses, and prophecies = 1enres that .ay be easily inte1rated into writin1, b0t that tend to be shaped by orality.; $p. ##7' 5s a period, the Renaissance was li.inal in re1ard to orality and literacy. I2 the alphabetic re-ol0tion and the spread o2 literacy did not i..ediately eradicate orality in classical >reece, neither did the printin1 re-ol0tion nor the h0.anist literary pro1ra. alto1ether e22ace orality in the Renaissance. ?he classical and .edie-al practice o2 readin1 alo0d persisted into the Renaissance, so that works like 5riosto@s Orlando Furioso and Rabelais@ Gargantua contin0ally re2er to a 2ictional b0t speci2ic and collecti-e a0dience si.ilar to those o2 oral per2or.ances $Nelson !%3&'. +espite its te<t0al center, Renaissance h0.anis. act0ally displayed .any oral 2eat0res. It cha.pioned 1enres that are .odeled on speech sit0ations like the ada1e, the dialo10e, and the oration. It ad-ocated the con-ersational style or sermo humilis o-er the 1rand style. ?he c0lti-ation o2 copio0sness;=-ariation and a.pli2ication in written co.position = was .eant to eA0ip its practitioners with the kind o2 rich and ab0ndant -erbal 2low reA0ired in oral per2or.anceB in a 2a.o0s e<a.ple, Eras.0s t0rns .yriad -ariations on the sentence tuae litterae me magnopere delectarunt $Co0r letter pleased .e -ery .0ch;'.D H0.anists s0ch as Eras.0s and Eontai1ne ele-ated the peda1o1ical role o2 Ro.an co.edy to what now see.s an inordinate de1ree beca0se o2 the desire to render Latin a spoken lan10a1e, at least within acade.ic con2ines. Fritten co.position did not appeal to anythin1 like ro.antic inspiration, b0t e.ployed techniA0es analo1o0s to those o2 oral(2or.0laic co.position a kind o2 rhapsody,; or collectin1 and stitchin1 to1ether o2 literary co..onplaces, c0lled .ostly 2ro. >reek and Ro.an literat0re, which was concei-ed as an encyclopedic storeho0se o2 wisdo. $On1 !%&D !)%'. Either drawin1 2ro. written co..onplace books or 2ro. the -erbal storeho0se o2 the .ind 20rnished by h0.anist ed0cation, Renaissance writers o2ten proceeded by piecin1 to1ether ready(.ade the.es, sit0ations, and e<pressions=a process hi1hly rele-ant, I shall ar10e, to i.pro-isatory per2or.ance in pop0lar Renaissance theater. ##7,)

Fe sho0ld e<pect to 2ind the theater o2 the Renaissance, then, characteri6ed by a rich interplay between orality and literacy. Oral .odalities are especially pre-alent in the pop0lar and pro2essional theaters o2 Italy and En1land, which at abo0t the sa.e ti.e achie-ed their .ost de-eloped 2or.s in the commedia dellarte and in the theater o2 Shakespeare.& Goth theaters drew on a0diences o2 a wide socioecono.ic ran1e, incl0din1 those who co0ld read and those who co0ld not. E-en 2or literate theater1oers, the oral ele.ent 2i10red i.portantly on the pop0lar sta1e, a relati-ely bare space co.pared with the -is0ally ornate sta1e o2 co0rtly theater. ?he predo.inance o2 orality in pop0lar Renaissance theater is also s011ested by the lan10a1e people 0sed to talk abo0t theater actors were o2ten considered orators,; and one went to hear; rather than to see; a play. 5nd as I hope to show here, the commedia dellarte and the En1lish clown pro-ide especially i.portant $altho01h 2ar 2ro. e<ha0sti-e' loci o2 orality in Renaissance dra.a. ##),D ?he commedia dellarte sho0ld be intrinsically interestin1 to st0dents o2 oral c0lt0re, beca0se it was not per2or.ed 2ro. set scripts b0t instead 0sed as a basis 2or i.pro-isational per2or.ance a syste. o2 established character types and a ro01h plot o0tline $the scenario or canovaccio' that keyed the actors to set scenes and sit0ations. H0rther.ore, actors $at least the literate ones, who .ade 0p the .a/ority' typically prepared 2or per2or.ance by st0dyin1 both canoni6ed and pop0lar works o2 literat0re as well as .an0script and printed generici, or collections o2 speeches appropriate 2or certain characters. So.e generici or1ani6ed a character@s speeches accordin1 to rhetorical action, loc0tionary sit0ation, and e.otional co.port.ent, cate1ori6in1 -ario0s speech 1enres s0ch as co0ncil;, pers0asion,; c0rse,; 2arewell,; hope,; prayer,; reproo2,; tirade,; sal0tation,; desperation,; and /est;. Hor each o2 these speech 1enres, it is not hard to i.a1ine codi2ied 1est0res, .otions, and paralin10istic indications 8...:.?he hetero1eneity o2 the comici@s library=the dialo10e collection o2 the ridic0lo0s Capitano stacked on top o2 Ilato=bespeaks a certain indi22erence to c0lt0ral hierarchy $i2 one e-ent0ally belied by the actors@ c0lt0ral a.bitions', the commedia@s willin1ness to pil2er 2ro. hi1h; and low; c0lt0re alike. ##D,& Commedia i.pro-isation act0ally 2ell so.ewhere between the positi-ists@ theory o2 rote .e.ori6ation and the ro.antics@ notion o2 creation ex nihilo, -aryin1 accordin1 to the skill o2 the actors. It was rather a kind o2 composition, a stitchin1 to1ether o2 .o-eable parts or 2or.0lae c0lled 2ro. classical literary works, co..onplace books, and e-eryday speech $?essari !%&% ##)'. ##3 5l.ost all commedia speech is characteri6ed by stock epithets co..only relied 0pon in oral co.position 89:.Iarono.asia is practiced by all o2 the characters, 2ro. the .ore ele1ant word play o2 the lo-ers $N0.e solo di no.e, per c0i piJ non spero, .a spiro;B Oh power 8o2 lo-e: only in na.e, 2or which I no lon1er hope, b0t breathe; 8!%):' to the p0ns typical o2 pop0lar disco0rse, to the so0nd(eA0i-ocation 89:.Copia allowed the commedia actor to co.pose speeches o2 1reat -erbal -irt0osity while .aintainin1 the ill0sion o2 i..ediate oral deli-ery. ##3,* 8...: i.pro-isational and oral .odalities seep into the scripted En1lish theater, especially thro01h the clown. ?he three .ost 2a.o0s En1lish actor(clowns were Richard ?arlton $K(!D**', a 2o0ndin1 .e.ber o2 the L0een@s Een in !D*7B Fill Ke.p $K(!&M*', a .e.ber o2 Leicester@s Een in the !D*Ms and o2 Shakespeare@s the Lord Cha.berlain@s Een 2ro. !D%)(%%B and Robert 5r.in $!D3M(!&!D', who took o-er 2or Ke.p in

Shakespeare@s co.pany and appears to ha-e acted with the. 0ntil at least !&!M. ?he i.pro-isin1 o2 these clowns .0st ha-e been widespread, /0d1in1 by the 2reA0ent repri.ands it pro-oked, the .ost 2a.o0s o2 which is deli-ered by Ha.let in his speech to the players $Hamlet III.ii.!()D'. ##* 5.ple e-idence s011ests that these repri.ands were based on 2act. Hrancis Eeres@ praise o2 ?arlton@s e<te.porall wit; in the !D%* Palladis Tamia, Wits Treasury re2ers to the clown@s practice, at the end o2 plays d0rin1 which he had per2or.ed scripted roles, o2 e<te.poraneo0sly co.posin1 rhy.es in response to pro-ocati-e the.es iss0ed to hi. by o2ten hostile a0dience .e.bers. Tarltons ests, a collection o2 anecdotes p0blished in !&MM and desi1ned to preser-e the .e.ory o2 the 2a.o0s clown a2ter his death, records an instance when ?arlton i.pro-ised a rhy.e in the .iddle o2 a play a2ter bein1 pelted with an apple by a boistero0s a0dience .e.ber $Halliwell !*)) !7( !)'. ?he /est(book also records an e<te.poraneo0s rhy.in1 e<chan1e between ?arlton and Robert 5r.in as a yo0n1 boy $con-eyed, interestin1ly, thro01h writin1', which s011ests 5r.in@s ass0.in1 the .antle o2 the older clown $##(#7'. In 2act, 5r.in@s !uips "pon !uestions, p0blished in !&MM, depicts 5r.in i.pro-isin1 a2ter the .anner o2 ?arlton. 5 riddlin1 A0estion is read to the clown, or perhaps o22ered 0p 2ro. the a0dience, which pro-okes a series o2 chan1es;= possibly e<chan1es between 5r.in and the a0dience b0t .ore probably between di22erent -oices o2 5r.in hi.sel2. Hinally, the clown deli-ers the concl0din1 A0ip,; or .orali6in1 .eta.orphosis,; o2ten a hostile riposte directed back at the riddler or at the s0b/ect o2 the A0estion. ##*,% ?he clowns@ e<te.porall wit; was not li.ited to rhy.in1, altho01h rhy.e was their chie2 practice, and we know less abo0t how non(rhy.in1 i.pro-isation act0ally worked with the En1lish clown than we know abo0t commedia prose i.pro-isation. ##% ?he i.pro-isational practices o2 the commedia dellarte and the En1lish clown, then, preser-ed a stron1 trace o2 orality in Renaissance dra.a. G0t it is also tr0e that the h0.anist .o-e.ent@s atte.pt to reconcile dra.atic practice with the literary principles o2 neoclassical theory 20nda.entally shaped pop0lar as well as co0rtly Renaissance dra.a. ?his was tr0e not only in Italy and Hrance, where the neoclassical in2l0ence was stron1est, b0t also in En1land and Spain, where neoclassicis. contended with a stron1er inheritance o2 nati-e .edie-al theater. Chie2 a.on1 these neo(5ristotelian, literate principles was that o2 the well constr0cted, lo1ical, and co.ple< plot. Leone +e@ So..i, a Newish theatrical i.pressario who straddled the pro2essional and a.ate0r arenas o2 .id(si<teenth(cent0ry Eant0an theater, co1ently analy6es the linear plot ?he 2irst act o2 a wellwo-en co.edy sho0ld contain the ar10.ent and e<position, in the second one sho0ld see -ario0s dist0rbances and obstacles, in the third so.e ad/0st.ent sho0ld be .ade, in the 2o0rth r0in and disaster .0st threaten, while in the 2i2th one .0st co.pletely resol-e thin1s, brin1in1 to all a /oyo0s and happy endin1; $Earotti !%&* 7#'. S0ch an intricate str0ct0re reA0ires the backward scannin1 .ade possible by writin1. 5nd in ar10in1 that the Ro.an 2i-e(act str0ct0re is based on the di-isions o2 the h0.an body into 2i-e e<tre.ities and the world into 2i-e 6ones, +e@ So..i concei-es o2 plot in spatiali6ed, or writerly ter.s $7M(7!'. #7M In Renaissance dra.a, literate and neoclassical ideals contin0ally con2ronted the realities o2 oral per2or.ance, and lines o2 2orce .o-ed both ways. ?he scripted En1lish theater was si1ni2icantly a22ected by i.pro-isatory per2or.ers like the clown. 5t the sa.e ti.e, the non(scripted Italian theater was si1ni2icantly shaped by the a.ate0r

commedia erudita o2 5riosto, Gibbiena, and Eachia-elli, a .ainly literate pheno.enon. Gy the late si<teenth cent0ry, commedia actor(writers in2l0enced by the clai.s o2 neoclassicis. and the persec0tion o2 post(?ridentine antitheatricalists be1an to e<ercise control o-er the i.pro-isational e<cesses o2 the .ore b022oonish characters. ?he scripted En1lish theater, then, acco..odated orality and i.pro-isation, and the non( scripted Italian theater was si1ni2icantly in2l0enced by writin1 and its attendant 2or.s o2 conscio0sness. #7! In the commedia dellarte and in the En1lish clown, the relationship between orality and literacy co0ld ran1e 2ro. con2lict to co.petition to acco..odation to, .ost i.portantly, a prod0cti-e interaction. #7! Hor e<a.ple, in a well known speech, Shakespeare@s Ha.let h0ddles with the tra-elin1 players /0st be2ore they are abo0t to per2or. a scripted play ostensi-ely desi1ned to 20nction as a -erisi.ilar .irror o2 Cla0di0s@ 2ratricide. Fhereas the speech, as critics ha-e o2ten ar10ed, does not neatly represent Shakespeare@s own -iews on theatrical practice, it is too co.pellin1 to be .erely dis.issed as the con-entional or nai-e opinions o2 the scholar(prince. It sho0ld rather be seen as a dra.ati6ation o2 internationally disse.inated theatrical concepts=concepts o2 which Shakespeare was .ore aware than is co..only ass0.ed. ?he speech opposes the principles o2 scripted, neoclassical dra.a to the theatrics o2 the pop0lar, lar1ely oral per2or.er 8...:. #7!,# ?he players are not to i.pro-ise b0t to speak the speech; = and pres0.ably the -ery lines o2 a play ori1inally written in -ery choice Italian;=e<actly as Ha.let prono0nced it to the.. Hi1h standards o2 rhetoric and diction $trippin1ly on the ton10e;' di22erentiate the acco.plished player@s speech 2ro. the .o0thin1; o2 the town crier = an i.pro-isatory, oral per2or.er=and 10arantee that d0e attention will be paid to the literary .erits o2 the script. 5 kind o2 te.perance; .aintains a ri1ht relation between speech and 1est0re, word and action -iolated by the 1rotesA0e 1estic0lations $saw the air . . . tear a passion to tatters;' o2ten reA0ired in oral per2or.ance, as 1est0ral and paralin10istic s0pple.ents to the -erbal te<t $c2. ?annen !%*#'. Ford, action, and passion .0st be 10ided by the neoclassical principle o2 decor0.. I2, as I will ar10e, the presentational theatrics o2 En1lish clowns like Richard ?arlton and Robert 5r.in contin0ally -iolated the .i.etic and -erisi.ilar representation o2 a sel2(contained ill0sion, the .irror 0p to nat0re; ta1 .0st also be considered an i.plicit reb0ke to the clown. ?he 0ni2yin1 concern o2 the writer $so.e necessary A0estion;', 10aranteed by the inte1rity o2 the script, .0st ne-er be obsc0red by the piti20l a.bition; o2 i.pro-isational clowns like Fill Ke.p, 0sed to solitary per2or.ance as well as repertory actin1. ?he player .0st stri-e to please the skilled, /0dicio0s; a0dience rather than the plebeian 1ro0ndlin1s,; who pre2er spectacle and so0nd. #7#,7 O2 co0rse, se-eral ironies s011est that orality and literacy were .0ch .ore connected 2or Shakespeare than 2or Ha.let in this speech. ?he antic disposition; donned by Ha.let in the co0rse o2 the play renders hi., in relation to the co0rt, the d isr0pti-e, chaotic clown who swer-es 2ro. the necessary A0estion o2 the re-en1e tra1edy dictated hi. by his 2ather. He declares hi.sel2 to Ophelia the only /i1(.aker,; 2reA0ently interr0pts the play within the play as he has en/oined the clown not to do, and is repri.anded by sober characters like Rosencrant6 to obser-e the spatial dictates o2 literate conscio0sness = to p0t 8his: disco0rse into so.e 2ra.e and start not so wildly

2ro. 8.y: a22air; $III.ii.7MM(!'. 5nd in the so(called bad A0arto; Ha.let ends the speech to the players by citin1 a lon1 series o2 clown /ests, ironically perpet0atin1 the -ery thin1 he critiA0es 5nd then yo0 ha-e so.e a1ain that keeps one s0it o2 /ests, as a .an is known by one s0it o2 apparel, and 1entle.en A0otes his /ests down in their tables be2ore they co.e to the play, as th0s Cannot yo0 stay till I eat .y porrid1eK; and Co0 owe .e a A0arter@s wa1es,; and Ey coat wants a c0llison; and Co0r beer is so0r,; and blabberin1 with his lips, and th0s keepin1 in his cinA0epace o2 /ests when, >od knows, the war. clown cannot .ake a /est 0nless by chance, as the blind .an catcheth a hare. Fithin the 2iction o2 the play, Ha.let here o0t(clowns the clown by rapidly and rather i.pressi-ely recallin1 stock e<pressions 2ro. a rich -erbal repertory. His skill is .atched only by the deli1ht he takes in reelin1 o22 2o0r clownish 2or.0lae, s0rely .ore than is necessary to .ake the point. Gy ne1ati-es, he s011ests that the acco.plished clown worked with copio0s and 2le<ible storeho0ses, or s0its; o2 /ests, d0ly .e.oriali6ed in writin1 by 1entle.en ad.irers o2 the clown. One .i1ht concl0de that the con#lictual relationship between orality and literacy pro2essed by Ha.let the neoclassicist is re-ealed by Ha.let the actor as a relationship o2 contamination. #77,) Orality, then, was contro-ersial, besie1ed both by apolo1ists 2or a literary(based theater and by antitheatricalists. Eost ob-io0sly, oral i.pro-isation was considered dan1ero0s in both Italy and En1land beca0se o2 its i.per-io0sness to censorship. 5 !D3) 5ct o2 the Co..on Co0ncil o2 London 2orbade the prod0ction o2 anie playe, enterl0de, Co..odye, ?ra1idie, .atter, or shewe, which shall not be 2irste per0sed and 5llowed in s0che order and 2o0r.e and by s0che persons as by the Lorde Eaior and Co0rte o2 5lder.en 2or the ty.e bein1e shalbe appoynted; $Cha.bers !%#7 IO, #3)'. In the !D%Ms, the per0sal o2 dra.atic scripts prior to per2or.ance beca.e the o22ice o2 the Easter o2 the Re-els. Italian a0thorities -oiced the sa.e concern abo0t the license o2 i.pro-isatory actors. >. +. Ottonelli, a se-enteenth(cent0ry Nes0it who was a .oderate critic o2 the pro2essional theater, tolerated scripted o-er i.pro-ised theater beca0se the latter co0ld not be scr0tini6ed in ad-ance 2or sc0rrilo0sness and i.propriety. Ottonelli la.ents the 2act that when char1ed with an obscene re.ark, the i.pro-isatory per2or.er co0ld always say, $i % scappata $It /0st escaped 2ro. .e; 8?a-iani !%&% D#!:'. #7D Neoclassical co..entators opposed the ways that the b022oonish &anni and the clown -iolated the spatial and writerly principle o2 decor0.. #7D Neoclassical co..entators opposed the ways that the b022oonish &anni and the clown -iolated the spatial and writerly principle o2 decor0.. Sir Ihilip Sidney co.plains that the clown is thr0st in by head and sho0lder, to play a part in .a/estical .atters, with neither decency nor discretion; $Eann !%%! D)'. Inheritin1 the tradition o2 the nat0ral; 2ool $as opposed to the sel2(conscio0s arti2icial; 2ool', Robert 5r.in brandished his 1rotesA0e physical presence, said to be s022icient ca0se 2or la01hter. In twentieth( cent0ry theater ter.s, the presentational; theatrical pleas0res ser-ed 0p by the clown con2licted with the representational; bias o2 neoclassical theorists. In his !&MM Foole upon Foole, an anecdotal acco0nt o2 si< nat0ral 2ools, 5r.in be1ins by e.phasi6in1 their l0dicro0s bodies, one indecoro0sly described both 2ro. the head down and 2ro. the r0.p 0p. In the case o2 the commedia dellarte, decor0. s0pplied 2or Ierr0cci the principle 2or hierarchically str0ct0rin1 the actin1 co.pany. He accords the b022oonish parts a certain a.o0nt o2 nonsensical so0nd(play and presentational theatrics b0t contin0ally e<presses concern lest they breech decor0.. #7D,&

In partic0lar, the En1lish clown and the Italian b022oon@s -iolation o2 .i.esis ca.e 0nder attack.#7 Richard ?arlton and Robert 5r.in were 2a.o0s 2or .o-in1 in and o0t o2 2ictional roles. ?arlton donned the persona o2 the r0stic clown and broke the dra.atic ill0sion in order to answer a0dience hecklersB the short and ill(shapen 5r.in sta1ed the persona o2 the nat0ral 2ool and 0sed his tr0ncheon, or slap(stick, as a speaker in his .0lti-oiced i.personations. Hor Robert Fei.ann, ?arlton@s /011lin1 o2 roles in The Famous 'ictories o# Henry ' a.o0nts to a si1ni2icant destabli6ation o2 the .i.esis principle $Fei.ann !%3* !*3(%!'. NicolP Garbieri, an actor(writer who wrote a neoclassical de2ense o2 the sta1e in !&7), considered the sa.e proble. in ne1ati-e ter.s. 5ccordin1 to Garbieri, whereas the polished actor is capable o2 .o-in1 in and o0t o2 .any sel2(enclosed 2ictional worlds, a b022oon is so.eone who is not capable o2 the re2ined art o2 .i.etic representation the b022oon is always the sa.e both in na.e and appearance and in action, and not /0st 2or two ho0rs o2 the day, b0t 2or his entire li2e, and not only in the theater, b0t in his ho.e and in the pia66a; $?a-iani !%3! #)'. Garbieri 1oes on to repro-e the b022oon 2or eA0i-ocatory speech that obsc0res its own re2erential ob/ects .etaphorical propositions, stin1in1 eA0i-ocations, and scoldin1 /okes; $#D'. ?he b022oon@s speech is not e<plicit, as writin1 ideally is, b0t depends 2or its .eanin1 on the paralin10istic, 1est0ral, and kinetic si1ns co..on to oral per2or.ance. ?he clown destroys the si.ple relationship post0lated by neoclassical theorists like Castel-etro between si1ni2ier and si1ni2ied, la cosa rappresentante and la cosa rappresentata, and th0s threatens the doctrine o2 -erisi.ilit0de. ?he rich repertory o2 speech 1enres deployed by Robert 5r.in as the Hool in (ing )ear = incl0din1 riddles, pro-erbs, e<e.plary tales, prophecies, ta0nts, and /okes = constit0te an eA0i-ocatory and destabili6in1 disco0rse worthy o2 Garbieri@s reproo2, i2 parado<ically .ore tr0stworthy than the .ost ob-io0s incarnation o2 literacy in the play the o-erdeter.ined, .isinterpreted, or deceit20l letters 2renetically passed 2ro. hand to hand. #7& Gy si1nalin1 the haplessness o2 script(bo0nd actors, whose lin10istic(1est0ral repertoire is li.ited to 1rotesA0e noises and obscene 20.blin1s, S0..ers i.plicitly indicates that the i.pro-isational practice o2 the clown operated so.ethin1 like that o2 the commedia actors deploy.ent o2 a rich and -aried -erbal and 1est0ral storeho0se. #73 S0ch power as S0..ers boasts was 0n0s0al 2or the En1lish clown #73 G0t accordin1 to Files, in the !D%Ms the tension between the script and the clown was 2inally resol-ed in the 2or. o2 the /i1 per2or.ed at the end o2 the play. ?he /i1 pro-ided a 2or.al le1iti.i6ation o2 the post(play rhy.in1 e<chan1es practiced in the !D*Ms by ?arlton=e<chan1es that co0ld easily break o0t in the .iddle o2 dra.atic per2or.ance, as we ha-e seen. 5s de-eloped by Fill Ke.p, the /i1 2eat0red the clown and co.bined i.pro-isation, rhy.in1, and dancin1, constit0tin1 an entire dra.atic action o2 its own. Gy placin1 the /i1 a2ter the end o2 the play and a22ordin1 the clown a co.pletely a0tono.o0s entertain.ent, the Eli6abethan sta1e achie-ed a s0ccess20l accommodation o2 the increasin1ly rationali6ed script and potentially wayward orality. ?he con2lict0al relationship between orality and literacy was resol-ed by instit0tionali6in1 a pop0lar 1enre. #7* ?he pop0lar entertainers o2 the Italian cities, as well as the En1lish clown, were seen both by the.sel-es and their nostal1ic p0blic as e.bodyin1 oral traditions trans.itted

2ro. 1eneration to 1eneration -ia both orality and writin1. Tarltons ests, as we ha-e seen, represents the yo0n1 Robert 5r.in inheritin1 the clown@s s0it; o2 the older, le1endary per2or.er. 5nd as ?ho.as Nashe saw it, Ke.p was /est(.on1er and Oice1erent to the 1host o2 +ick ?arlton.;#% Fhether or not Ha.let@s Corick e<plicitly represents Richard ?arlton, the in2inite /ests,; 1ibes,; 1a.bols,; son1s,; and 2lashes o2 .erri.ent; $Hamlet O.i.!*7(*)B see Nenkins !%*#' power20lly in-oked in their 1hostly absence s011est a repertorial per2or.ati-e tradition potentially a-ailable to new 1enerations o2 clowns, i2 tra1ically 0na-ailable in the dark world o2 Hamlet. #)M,! 5s a 2inal e<a.ple o2 oral(literate ne1otiation, let 0s consider the .e.oriali6ation o2 the oral per2or.er in print, a c0lt0ral pheno.enon strikin1ly ho.olo1o0s in Italy and En1land. I2 the Italian .o0ntebank and b022oon lon1in1ly pointed back to the .edie-al guillari $and perpet0ated so.e o2 their techniA0es', the En1lish clown nostal1ically e-oked late .edie-al per2or.ers who were beco.in1 al.ost co.pletely e<tinct the pro2essional .instrel, the Lord o2 Eisr0le, and the Oice o2 .edie-al dra.a. ?he nostal1ic appeal o2 these ephe.eral per2or.ers to Renaissance a0diences 1a-e rise to the sa.e 2or. in both Italy and En1land the 2acetie; or /est(book;=a collection o2 the witty sayin1s and deeds o2 the b022oon or clown. In addition to the anony.o0s /est( book that .e.oriali6es ?arlton, Ke.p pro-ides his own .e.orial reconstr0ction o2 his -irt0osic oral and athletic .orris dance 2ro. London to Norwich. His *ine +aies Wonder records rhy.es i.pro-ised by Ke.p@s associates in the co0rse o2 the /o0rney $0s0ally to record color20l 2olk 2i10res enco0ntered by Ke.p in his dance' and witty retorts o2 Ke.p hi.sel2. Ke.p writes the pa.phlet, he declares in the prolo10e, to correct 2alse oral .e.orials o2 his 2eat prod0ced by lyin1 Gallad(.on1ers.; Robert 5r.in@s literate renderin1, in !uips "pon !uestions, o2 the .0lti-oiced rhy.in1 i.pro-isation that le1end had hi. inheritin1 2ro. Richard ?arlton delicately ne1otiates orality and writin1 in its 2reA0ent a0dience addresses, its indi22erent p0nct0ation, and its oral cadences. Fhile to0rin1 En1land between !D%D(%3 with the Lord Chandos co.pany, 5r.in st0died -illa1e idiots and nat0ral; 2ools retained in noble ho0seholds, and then s0..ari6ed so.e o2 his 2indin1s in Foole "pon Foole. O2 co0rse, 5r.in@s p0rpose in p0blishin1 literary acco0nts o2 nat0ral, illiterate 2ools was not 2olkloric and archi-al b0t intended to help ne1otiate an 0pward social transition 2ro. 1olds.ith@s apprentice to a 1entle.an o2 letters. 5s s0ch, 5r.in@s p0blishin1 is co.parable in ai. and 20nction to that o2 2a.o0s commedia actors like Hrancesco 5ndreini, 2o0ndin1 .e.ber o2 the presti1io0s >elosi tro0pe, who .e.oriali6ed his i.pro-isations as Capitano Spa-ento in the !&M3 co..onplace book )e ,ravure del Capitano -pavento . 5nd yet the oral(literate ne1otiation does not .o-e si.ply and in one direction 2ro. the i.pro-isational sta1e to the pre.editated pa1e, beca0se the !&#! Gr0ni passa1e cited abo-e shows that 5ndreini@s co..onplace book was 2reA0ently 0sed by s0bseA0ent actors as a basis 2or i.pro-isational co.position, the kind o2 2or.0laic and resid0ally oral rhapsody practiced by the commedia and the clown. Orality and literacy are ne1otiated in the ne-er(endin1 oscillation o2 -erbal 2or.0lae between pa1e and sta1e. #)!,# ?he Italian &anni and the En1lish clown are 0rban representations o2 r0ral 2i10res, and descend 2ro. oral rather than literate traditions. ?heir principally oral nat0res 2it 0neasily into a dra.a lar1ely 1o-erned, e-en in En1land, by literate .odalities. ?he relationship between these oral 2i10res and the literate dra.a co0ld .ani2est itsel2, alternati-ely, in o0tri1ht con2lict $e<pressed by Ha.let in his speech to the players', co.petition $the ag.n between Fill S0..ers and the script(based actors in -ummers

)ast Will and Testament', acco..odation $the instit0tion o2 the /i1 o0tside o2 the .ain plot', or, .ost o2ten, a precario0s b0t prod0cti-e ne1otiation. #)#,7