Punch and the Carnivalesque

The character of Mr. Punch is the result of a mixture of influences. (Speaigh 1970, Byrom 1983, Shershow 1995)

The general belief is that the character is a 'descendant' of the puppet Pulcinella, originally a Commedia dell' Arte character, brought to England from Italy with the itinerant troupes towards the middle of the seventeenth century.

On the other hand, Punch also shares many traits with the medieval jester, a comic representation of the village fool who had licence to mock and ridicule the authority of the king whom he served. He represents the voice of the common people in the official court. Tradition amongst Punchmen has it to decorate their booths with the royal coat of arms above the show. (Speaight, 1970, p. 117)

In the seventeenth century, with the disappearance of the court jester, his role was taken over by the figure of the stage clown, needed by society in order to 'point a finger of scorn at current abuses' (Speaight, 1970, pp.22-23. Christen, 1998) Robert Cheesmond defines this jester/clown figure as 'a more or less grotesque personage adopting a therapeutic/antagonistic position toward dominant beliefs and practices, and using humour, however, nearly approaching threat, as a strategy'. (2007, p. 9)

This need of society for the redeemer figure of the clown, leads to Bakhtin's concept of the carnivalesque. In his analysis of folk humour, Bakhtin (1984, p. 8) sees clowns and fools as 'the constant, accredited representatives of the carnival spirit in everyday life out of carnival season.'

Ben Taylor (1995) distinguishes three key aspects in Bakhtin's carnivalesque, the grotesque, laughter and the marketplace. The grotesque imagery is seen as a response to the strict and repressive ideology of the official order. More importantly, Bakhtin claims about medieval laughter:

It is the social consciousness of all the people. Man experiences this flow of time in the festive marketplace, in the carnival crowd, as he comes into contact with other bodies of varying age and social caste. he is aware of being a member of a continually growing and renewed people. This is why festive folk laughter presents an element of victory not only over supernatural awe, over the sacred, over death; it also means the defeat of power, of earthly kings, of earthly upper classes, of all that oppresses and restricts (1984, p. 92)

Finally, only in the marketplace, in the street, can laughter and the grotesque be expressed fully in order to be critical to the ruling ideology. Only in the street people can gain a sense of their own collectivity (Taylor, 1995, p. 24)

Taylor also contrasts different theories that oppose the potential of the carnival as an instrument of rebellion, because carnival is seen as a mere safety-valve on one hand and as a way of reinforcing the status-quo on the other. Taylor concludes that “while carnival might operate at times as a safety-valve, and while its imagery might at times reinforce dominant norms, it nevertheless maintains the potential to serve as the site of both symbolic and real forms of struggle” (p. 56)

Drawing from Bakhtin's carnivalesque, Jack Santino (2011) introduces the term “ritualesque”, in which rituals are described as instrumental actions, through the use of symbols in performance, for social change. He interprets the festivity of the carnivalesque as a “tool” for the ritualesque, as the way “norms are questioned and alternatives suggested” (p. 67) It is possible to say, in this light, that Punch is a potential example of the ritualesque.

Peter Brook (1990) also talks in parallel terms when he talks about the “Rough Theatre”:

The Holy Theatre has one energy, the Rough Theatre has others. Lightheartedness and gaiety feed it, but so does the same energy that produces rebellion and opposition. This is a militant energy: it is the energy of anger, sometimes the energy of hate. […] The wish to change society, to get to confront its eternal hypocrisies, is a great powerhouse. (p. 79)

As I mentioned before, the puppet Punch is able to personify this spirit in a pure state because the Puppet becomes an archetype that represents the free anarchic spirit in Man. The Puppet, like the mask, can embody universal truths in a way that the 'disciplined' body of the actor can't. In Foucault's theories on the relationships of power (1991), the body is objectified by the institutions, the body becomes a puppet in the hands of disciplinary power. The wooden puppet, however, is a symbol, it cannot be disciplined in human fashion. The puppet can be destroyed but also be brought back to life. In other words, after being destroyed, the puppet is able to “survive this destruction to allow us to take responsibility for emotions, ideas and actions in society” (Cohen, 2007, p. 130)