The picture above, taken from the title page of a pamphlet entitled Robin Good-fellow, His Mad Prankes and Merry Jests (1639), is one of the only early modern woodcuts that I have found pertaining to fairies, and it is everywhere. Where Puck is mentioned, at least in earlier contexts, it is bound to show up. However, it is not only for its popularity, but for its portrayal of early modern fairies' characteristics, that I find this piece worthy of closer inspection.
I do not think I have to belabor the proof that what we have here is a very pre-Victorian rendition of the fairy. Robin is not small, he is not winged, and he is certainly not childlike. He is large and imposing, towering over the tiny figures that dance around him. His goat-like horns, ears, and hindquarters suggest a number of other references. One is Pan, the Greek god of fields and groves, connected with fertility and the season of spring. Another is the Greek satyr. Satyrs have fierce physical appetites and are traditionally associated with male sexuality. As the figure shown here, the satyr is often portrayed in Greek vase art with an erect penis. Lastly, the cloven-hoofed motif is reminiscent of one common view of Satan. These combined associations give Robin an image of earthy power. He is intimately connected with the natural world without being restrained by it. His expression is appropriately merry, but he is a force to be reckoned with; he is not a tame creature.
Even so, a second look shows signs of his amiability. In his left hand he holds a broom, symbolic of his role as household helper to those who please him. Some sources actually list "Robin Goodfellow" as the domestic name of Puck, used by those who encountered him in this guise. In the figure's right hand is a candle. This may simply relate to the idea that he does his work at night, when none can see him. On the other hand, it may refer to one of his less friendly roles, that of will o' the wisp, the phantom light that misleads travelers lost in woods and bogs.
The image is, like Puck himself, highly ambiguous. It does not even relate to anything in the accompanying text, where Robin is described as the son of Oberon by a human girl. One source suggests that it may be an adapted illustration of a witches' sabbath, again pulling in pagan associations. However, I am not sure the comparison is so obscure as this would make it out to be. Could Robin's faun-like appearance relate to his reputation as a half-breed, for instance? Also included in the text is the typical brownie legend, that giving him a waistcoat instead of a bowl of fresh milk will cause him to leave one's house forever. It is as though, despite Puck's willing domesticity, he shuns any attempts to further civilize him, preferring instead a more natural, even animal, mode of life. His satyr's appearance is in perfect line with this notion. The tiny black figures may be witches or they may be only dancers. The animals could be familiars or only the woodland creatures over which Puck rules. All is open to interpretation.
A curious variance between this and other ambiguous works we have studied is that its ambiguity was probably not planned. This illustration does not open a great work of literature, but a penny pamphlet for commoners. Its artist's primary aim was likely to catch the attention of potential buyers through a tantalizing combination of the familiar and the controversial. Four hundred years later, the result is a telling example of what fairies meant to the lower class people of early modern England. They were powerful. They were sexual. They were not a far cry from demonic. But they could also be helpful and, perhaps more importantly, titillating, stimulating that thrill in the sensational and slightly dangerous.
(Picture courtesy of http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/folklore.html.)
No comments:
Post a Comment