The Grotesque Body: Falstaff and Ursula

One of the themes that my seminar tutor for my first 2nd-year undergraduate English module, Shakespeare and Renaissance Comedy, was very concerned with was that of The Grotesque Body, a concept first put forward by Mikhail Bakhtin. The concept of the Grotesque Body is closely related to Carnival, and the world of excess associated with it. Bakhtin wrote that:

The grotesque body is not separated from the rest of the world. It is not a closed, complete unit; it is unfinished, outgrows itself, transgresses its own limits. The stress is laid on thoe parts of the body that are open to the outside world, that is, the parts through which the world enters the body or emerges from it [...] This means that the emphasis is on the apertures or convexities [...] the open mouth, the genital organs, the breasts, the phallus, the potbelly, the nose...

I know, lovely, right? Bakhtin refers to the grotesque body as "the ever unfinished, ever creating body". In short, it's pretty nasty. But there is no shortage of grotesque bodies in Renaissance drama, particularly comedies, two of the best, in my opinion, being those of Falstaff, from The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Ursula, from Jonson's Bartholomew Fair.

Sir John Falstaff of Merry Wives is the very same Falstaff as appeared in Henry IV, after Queen Elizabeth I herself allegedly saw the history play and asked for a play about "the fat knight", as he was known. There are various pictures and paintings of Falstaff around, but I think that this one, by Eduard von Grutzner, portrays the character at his most "grotesque":

Eduard Grützner - 'Falstaff'

You see here an example of the kind of thing Bakhtin was talking about. Excessive, seemingly continuous, fat, and generally disgusting, yet still also sexually available and fertile. Think lecherous old man down the local pub who's had a bit too much to drink, and you've pretty much got Falstaff, except not quite as bad.

The name 'Falstaff' could be a 'punny' (forgive me) reference to the character's fertility and supposed sexual prowess, indeed, he frequently makes claims about his 'full staff', claiming that the Mistress Page "examined [his] parts with most judicious oeillades..." (1.3), and talking about "the attraction of [his] good parts" (2.2). Indeed it seems like our dear Mr Falstaff is  little obsessed with just how "good" his "parts" are (oo-er). Frequently in the text as well do we see reference to the fat knight's size. Not only did Mistress Page examine his parts, but also his "portly belly", he says of himself that "I am in the waist two yards about" (1.3), and after his rather embarrassing dip in the river he says that "water swells a man, and what a thing should I have been when I had been swelled?" (3.5).

So it is clear that dear old Sir John Falstaff is an example of the physical traits of the grotesque body, but it is also much more than the simple physical descriptions. His predatory sexual nature adds to the grossness of it all, as does his purpose as a 'laughing stock' in the play. In Merry Wives we do not so much laugh with Falstaff, i.e. he does not play the role of a clown or a fool, such as Feste in Twelfth Night, but, rather, we laugh at him. This concept in itself is very much linked to the world of the Carnival and the grotesque. When Falstaff is humiliated, it is not amusing in the traditional sense of comedy, but in the more carnivalesque sense. Take for example this scene from The Hunchback of Notre Dame:

Now, I know that I'm studying a literature degree and all, and that this is from a Disney movie, but this is a perfect representation of the type of humour we see with the grotesque. Slightly different, evidently, in the fact that we feel sympathy for Quasimodo (due to the Disney nature of the film), whereas Falstaff doesn't have the redeeming quality of being loveable and wonderfully nice. But at the end of the play, I think it is fairly easy to feel some sort of compassion for Falstaff, and this is evident in the other characters welcoming him back into the community, and not just casting him away. This is where the comedy changes. We are no longer laughing at Falstaff, and so his grotesque qualities actually start to diminish. But that's another story.

The other most grotesque character I studied on this module has to be the character of Ursula from Bartholomew Fair. Different from Falstaff, in the evident fact that she is a woman. However, it has been suggested that Jonson took his initial inspiration for the character from a description of Falstaff in Henry IV, where he is referred to as a "roasted Manningtree Ox with the pudding in his belly" and a "Bartholomew boar-pig". Now, if there is any character to encapsulate these two descriptions better than the "fatness of the fair" herself, I don't know how they would do it. She is, for me, the epitome of what the grotesque body represents.

Neil Rhodes, in his essay 'The Fatness of the Fair', writes that "Bartholomew Fair is the apotheosis of Elizabethan Grotesque", and also goes on to compare her with, who would have guessed it, Falstaff himself: "[Ursula's] body, like Falstaff's, is composed of volatile organic matter...[and] has fertile properties". I know, sounds like a delightful character, no? Just wait until you see the descriptions given of her in the play itself. In the first act she is described by Busy as "a great face, a foul face...it may be eaten, and in the fair, I take it, in a booth, the tents of the wicked" (1.6). She describes herself as "all fire and fat" (2.2) and as a "plain plump wench...juicy and wholesome" (2.5).

Katharine Eisaman Maus, in her introduction to the play, states that "Ursula...embodies appetite", and describes her as "gargantuan, sweaty, lowborn, foulmouthed, domineering, promiscuous, and uninhibited by anything resembling principle". She is never fulfilled, and is the perfect example of the Bakhtinian 'neverending' body:

I am afraid I do water the ground in knots, as I go, like a great garden-pot; you may follow me by the S's I make (2.2)

Urinating uncontrollably as she walks along, Ursula feeds the ground, whilst taking in all the pleasures and excesses of the Fair; there is a neverending cycle associated with her body and the Fair. And yet despite all her flaws, she is still portrayed as a symbol of fertility, just like Falstaff. She is openly promiscuous, and Overdo describes her booth as "the very womb and bed of enormity, gross as herself." She is, as Maus writes "everything Early Modern Englishmen ordinarily thought they despised". "Thought" being the operative word here. Disgusting, greedy, greasy, insatiable and, let's be honest, just a bit grim, Ursula is everything perceived to be wrong about the Fair and the world of Carnival. And yet people can't get enough. Whilst grotesque, she is also compelling and desired.

Both these characters portray the Bakhtinian grotesque body to incredible effect in their respective plays. Used for comic effect, and also to portray the excessive and temptation-filled world of Carnival, these two characters are, to be honest, disgustingly awesome. It's no wonder that the Queen herself wanted to see more of the grotesque :-P