This thesis aims to investigate the existence of echoes of paradoxical writing and the querelle des femmes in the linguistic characterisation of the Elizabethan and, in particular, Shakespearean figure of the ‘shrew’ in fifteenth-, sixteenth-, and seventeenth-century Italy and England. This study moves from a reconstruction of the origins and main developments of the paradoxical literary tradition and of the querelle des femmes. This cross-analysis highlights a character in particular that seems to combine these traditions and embody their complex interplay: the talkative woman. A comparative analysis of the main figures portraying the talkative woman in both Italy and England has led to the identification of a sub-category which presents some distinctive traits, that of the ‘Shakespearian shrew’. Her contrast sharpens the paradoxicality of the figure of the ‘Shakespearian shrew’ and leads to wonder whether such reverberations of the paradoxical tradition and querelle are also present in her linguistic characterisation. To do so, a linguistic analysis has been carried out on the speeches of four Shakespearean shrews: Kate in The Taming of the Shrew, Beatrice in Much Ado about Nothing, and Desdemona and Emilia in Othello. The first step has been to trace references to the querelle and to the paradoxical tradition in each play. The results suggest a progressive fragmentation of the topical relevance of the querelle des femmes. Indeed, from being a pivotal theme in The Taming of the Shrew it gradually reduces into an echo in Othello, where it surfaces only in a few passages without attracting much attention. The same cannot be said for the paradoxical tradition. While in the first play it appears mainly as a figure of speech that conveys the male protagonist’s dominating will, it gradually turns into a figure of thought that better expresses the contradictions of the human soul. In Much Ado and more so in Othello, oxymora and logical paradoxes are the main means of expression of a divided mind and heart. This study also shows how the process of literary appropriation of paradoxes changes according to the gender of the speaker. In the plays, the male protagonists borrow paradoxical elements by sticking to conventional patterns, while their female counterparts introduce formal variations in this centuries-old tradition. However, this strategy of appropriation is adopted only when the message to convey is not considered of fundamental importance. In fact, when the message they convey is deemed important, the female protagonists, the female protagonists do not rely on the paradox, preferring rather the Aristotelian argumentative process defined as dia endoxa, which consists in the examination of ‘common opinions’, the neutral analysis of the pros and cons of a given situation. This choice may derive from the dangers in the use of the paradox itself. Its logically complex form could have attracted further criticism to texts already exposed to severe censorship because of their female authorship. The strategy of advancing these claims by detaching them from their potential paradoxicality is also used by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century women writers. Both in Italy and England, paradoxes are often used by misogynist authors to highlight female flaws, while they are seldom found in women writers’ defences of their sex, which rather rely on the Aristotelian dia endoxon reasoning. This similarity between Italian and English proto-feminist literary practices, which draw from a debate that flourished in Italy and reached Shakespeare’s pages, aims to arise new questions in the readers about the modality whereby Shakespeare used to appropriate such national and foreign literary traditions, and whether other, although little-known, cultural contacts between the two nations can be found.
La presente tesi si prefigge l’obiettivo di indagare l’eventuale presenza di echi della scrittura paradossale e della querelle des femmes nella caratterizzazione linguistica della bisbetica elisabettiana e, in particolare, shakespeariana. Tale analisi si muove tra Italia e Inghilterra, alla quale poi verrà riservato un ruolo privilegiato, nei secoli quindicesimo, sedicesimo e diciassettesimo. L’analisi incrociata della scrittura paradossale e della querelle des femmes ha portato all’attenzione una figura che sembra coniugare tali tradizioni e il nesso che a volte si evince tra loro: la donna che parla. Un’analisi comparata delle principali figure che la ritraggono sia in Italia che in Inghilterra ha portato ad identificare una sotto-categoria che presenta delle caratteristiche a sé stanti, quella della bisbetica Shakespeariana. A questa sotto-categoria afferiscono Kate in The Taming of the Shrew, Beatrice in Much Ado about Nothing, Desdemona ed Emilia in Othello. Mentre Kate e Beatrice mostrano tutti i segni della classica bisbetica shakespeariana, Desdemona ed Emilia offrono uno sviluppo opposto e complementare di alcune delle sue caratteristiche e ne segnano la rappresentazione più complessa da parte del drammaturgo inglese. Il contrasto tra inesperienza e prontezza verbale acuisce la paradossalità della figura della bisbetica Shakespeariana, che diventa caso studio della presente discussione. Per ogni opera shakespeariana, il personaggio bisbetico viene indagato nel suo rapporto conflittuale con la controparte maschile, nell’utilizzo di tematiche legate alla querelle e nelle sue espressioni paradossali. I risultati che ne sono emersi suggeriscono una progressiva frammentazione della querelle. Da tema cardine de The Taming of the Shrew, diventa satellite in Othello, dove emerge solo in qualche rapido passaggio senza rapire eccessivamente l’attenzione. Lo stesso non si può dire per il paradosso. Mentre nella prima opera appare principalmente come figura retorica che veicola la volontà dominatrice del protagonista maschile, man mano questo si svincola dalla sua posizione prettamente retorica per mostrarsi come figura-pensiero, utile per esprimere al meglio le contraddizioni dell’animo umano. Già in Much Ado, ma più chiaramente in Othello, ossimori e paradossi logici sono i primi mezzi espressivi di una mente e di un cuore divisi. Da questo studio emerge anche come la trattazione dei paradossi cambi a seconda del genere del parlante. Nelle opere, sono le protagoniste femminili ad introdurre delle variazioni formali in una tradizione secolare solo quando il messaggio da esprimere non è ritenuto di fondamentale importanza. Nel caso in cui il contenuto abbia un peso considerevole, le protagoniste non si affidano al mezzo espressivo del paradosso, ma preferiscono l’aristotelico dia endoxon. Tale scelta può derivare dalla pericolosità del paradosso stesso. La sua forma logicamente complessa avrebbe potuto attirare ulteriori critiche a dei testi già esposti a severe censure per via della loro autorialità femminile. In ultimo, i messaggi veicolati tramite l’aristotelico dia endoxon risultano spesso legati alla querelle dal momento che vanno a comunicare, e così dimostrare, l’acutezza, il valore, alle volte anche l’eccellenza del sesso femminile. La strategia di portare avanti queste istanze slegandole dalla loro potenziale portata paradossale affiora anche nelle opere delle scrittrici del sedicesimo e diciassettesimo secolo sia in Italia che in Inghilterra. Questa somiglianza, assieme alla forza letteraria di un dibattito fiorito in Italia e approdato in Inghilterra e nelle pagine shakespeariane, offre vari spunti ai lettori per riflettere sulle modalità di appropriazione del drammaturgo inglese di tradizioni anche straniere e sull’esistenza di altri, ancora poco noti contatti culturali tra le due nazioni.
Questa lingua biforcuta: paradossi e la querelle des Femmes nelle bisbetiche shakespeariane
RIGHETTI, BEATRICE
2022
Abstract
This thesis aims to investigate the existence of echoes of paradoxical writing and the querelle des femmes in the linguistic characterisation of the Elizabethan and, in particular, Shakespearean figure of the ‘shrew’ in fifteenth-, sixteenth-, and seventeenth-century Italy and England. This study moves from a reconstruction of the origins and main developments of the paradoxical literary tradition and of the querelle des femmes. This cross-analysis highlights a character in particular that seems to combine these traditions and embody their complex interplay: the talkative woman. A comparative analysis of the main figures portraying the talkative woman in both Italy and England has led to the identification of a sub-category which presents some distinctive traits, that of the ‘Shakespearian shrew’. Her contrast sharpens the paradoxicality of the figure of the ‘Shakespearian shrew’ and leads to wonder whether such reverberations of the paradoxical tradition and querelle are also present in her linguistic characterisation. To do so, a linguistic analysis has been carried out on the speeches of four Shakespearean shrews: Kate in The Taming of the Shrew, Beatrice in Much Ado about Nothing, and Desdemona and Emilia in Othello. The first step has been to trace references to the querelle and to the paradoxical tradition in each play. The results suggest a progressive fragmentation of the topical relevance of the querelle des femmes. Indeed, from being a pivotal theme in The Taming of the Shrew it gradually reduces into an echo in Othello, where it surfaces only in a few passages without attracting much attention. The same cannot be said for the paradoxical tradition. While in the first play it appears mainly as a figure of speech that conveys the male protagonist’s dominating will, it gradually turns into a figure of thought that better expresses the contradictions of the human soul. In Much Ado and more so in Othello, oxymora and logical paradoxes are the main means of expression of a divided mind and heart. This study also shows how the process of literary appropriation of paradoxes changes according to the gender of the speaker. In the plays, the male protagonists borrow paradoxical elements by sticking to conventional patterns, while their female counterparts introduce formal variations in this centuries-old tradition. However, this strategy of appropriation is adopted only when the message to convey is not considered of fundamental importance. In fact, when the message they convey is deemed important, the female protagonists, the female protagonists do not rely on the paradox, preferring rather the Aristotelian argumentative process defined as dia endoxa, which consists in the examination of ‘common opinions’, the neutral analysis of the pros and cons of a given situation. This choice may derive from the dangers in the use of the paradox itself. Its logically complex form could have attracted further criticism to texts already exposed to severe censorship because of their female authorship. The strategy of advancing these claims by detaching them from their potential paradoxicality is also used by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century women writers. Both in Italy and England, paradoxes are often used by misogynist authors to highlight female flaws, while they are seldom found in women writers’ defences of their sex, which rather rely on the Aristotelian dia endoxon reasoning. This similarity between Italian and English proto-feminist literary practices, which draw from a debate that flourished in Italy and reached Shakespeare’s pages, aims to arise new questions in the readers about the modality whereby Shakespeare used to appropriate such national and foreign literary traditions, and whether other, although little-known, cultural contacts between the two nations can be found.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
tesidottorale_Righetti_Beatrice_This Double Tongue_10032022_finale.pdf
accesso aperto
Dimensione
2.53 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.53 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in UNITESI sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14242/178459
URN:NBN:IT:UNIPD-178459