Version classiqueVersion mobile

A sad tale’s best for winter

 | 
Yan Brailowsky
, 
Anny A. Crunelle
, 
Jean-Michel Déprats

Le visuel et la statue

Visual vs. Narrative Truth in The Winter’s Tale

Jana Pridalova

Résumé

Cette étude se penche sur les rapports entre le regard et la notion de preuve dansLe Conte d’hiver, en s’intéressant aux images associées à la vue et aux liens avec la représentation de la vérité visible dans la pièce. Il s’agit notamment d’examiner les manières de voir de Leontes, et sa perception ironique des preuves oculaires. La thématique de la resemblance familiale et de la réalité du visible est développée en comparant le vrai et le faux, l’original et sa copie. La statue d’Hermione, révélée dans le dernier acte de la pièce, symbolise alors une réalité secondaire et une imitation de la nature, contribuant à informer l’interprétation par Leontes du monde visible. Le roi croit que ce qu’il voit est une ouvre d’art transformée en un être vivant. Ainsi, les manières de voir sont sans cesse remises en question dans la pièce, suggérant le caractère central des qualités illusioninstes des arts visuels, poétiques ou dramatiques.

Texte intégral

1The Winter’s Tale exploits the position of seeing and eyesight and puts it in close relation to belief in the visual. Ranging from Leontes’jealous images that he creates through his mind’s eye, to the necessity of ascribing the right progeny according to visual resemblance, the motif of the visual culminates in a final exploration between true and false, original and copy, when Hermione’s statue is revealed to the audience. Seeing thus functions on various levels, one of which understands vision as a reality that is transformed in the mind of the character specifically to create a “double image” of one’s form. Leontes converts Hermione’s fidelity to visual images of adultery and speaks in terms of visual proof which he constructs when Hermione is proclaimed a culprit. The theme of doubling reappears in the last act when Hermione’s image is preserved in a statue. Yet another form of see- ing that is explored in the play relies on the facts visually perceived by the eye and relying on resemblance.

  • 1 . Meek Richard, “’Here’s a sight for thee’: the Claims of Narrative in The Winter’s Tale”, in Narra (...)

2The visual and verbal forms of expression find their full form in ekphrastic. These moments constitute the core of Richard Meek’s recent analysis of the play. Meek concentrates on the evidence of things not seen on stage but narrated in the play and adds that “within this scene, then, Shakespeare seems to be exploring both the power and limitations of narrative : [...] he shows that verbal descriptions can create a powerful illusion of presence, and that seeing itself can be ambiguous or deceptive.”1 Meek calls these moments “scenes of absence” and this paper proposes to take a different path : to analyse scenes which, on the contrary, engage in exploring things “seen”.

  • 2 . This lexical choice is based on Othello’s remark to Iago, desiring an “ocular proof” in order to (...)

3These instances, however, further complicate the simple idea of visual/ocular proof and test eyesight and its validity.2 Thus Leontes’visual truth, although established at the beginning of the play and associated with Mamillius’s similarity in form to his father, is ironically converted into disbelief when he refuses baby Perdita in the early phase of the play, although the terms Paulina uses to describe the child clearly echo his own portrayal of visual veracity when he looks at Mamillius. In the end, he “believes” in a copy, a work of visual art (Hermione’s statue), to represent life, and therefore refutes his earlier understanding of vision. The present paper aims to analyse Leontes’ways of seeing, as well as the role of Hermione’s statue in the play. Subsequently, the main focus will be the verbal and visual echoes that contribute to the ironical depiction of eyesight and challenge visual truth.

4Leontes reverses from the very beginning his own terms for visual proof and the reality he thinks he sees is approached with a distinct irony. The first moment which spurs Leontes to sense jealousy comes when he comments on the encounter of Hermione and Polixenes :

But to be paddling palms and pinching fingers,
As now they are, and making practised smiles
As in a looking-glass, and then to sigh [...] (1. 2. 114-116).

5Interestingly, Leontes starts to build up his belief based on visual mimicry between Polixenes and Hermione. He associates it with the falsity of one’s looks reflected in the mirror. A moment later, he triggers trains of thought that allude to his conviction about the reliance on ocular proof :

Ha’not you seen, Camillo-
But that’s past doubt ; you have, or your eye-glass
Is thicker than a cuckold’s horn-or heard-
For to a vision so apparent Rumour
Cannot be mute-(1. 2. 264-268).

  • 3 . For a discussion of a jealousy plot in relation to eyesight and specifically to the idea of rheto (...)

6This is a passage in which Leontes relies on physical eyesight when proving his wife’s adultery, appealing to the mirror of the eye, which should reflect reality as it appears to the beholder without distorting it. Leontes places hearing and sight in a equal position by claiming that hearing has to confirm what he sees in his mind. Camillo is being accused by Leontes as well as others as he assumes that an illness must have mutilated the only source of belief : “And all eyes/blind with the pin and web but theirs” (1. 2. 287-288). Leontes perseveres : “Canst with thine eyes at once see good and evil” (300), preparing the ground for the assumption that one judges with vision. Leontes then exposes the creation of his mind’s eye to the audience, treating Hermione as an object of gaze : “You, my lords,/Look on her, mark her well” (2. 1. 64-65). The guilt of his wife must be seen by others, although the scene is “staged” only through narration and verbal allusions to eyesight being the only proofs of adultery. Leontes believes in images that his mind has created, in the reflection of reality which rests in the sphere of verbal accusations and reveals his obsession with visual truth. In contrast to Othello, whose ocular proof is desired and constantly demanded from Iago, Leontes is much more configudent in his ability to see.3

7Leontes’s understanding of parental resemblance hinges on ocular veracity, too. He repeats about his son that “They say it [his face] is a copy out of mine” (1. 2. 122) and that “they say we are/Almost as like as eggs” (1. 2. 129-130). This is exactly what he considers ocular proof. More interestingly, the source of such an assumption is a visual conviction and a verbal account of yet another beholder who “says” that it is so. However, when Paulina brings in his newly-born child, Leontes immediately loses this sense of sight. Paulina ironically reiterates his words when she insists upon Hermione’s innocence :

It is yours ;
And, might we lay th’old proverb to your charge,
So like you,’tis the worse. Behold, my lords,
Although the print be little, the whole matter
And copy of the father : eye, nose, lip,
The trick of’s frown ; his forehead ; nay, the valley,
The pretty dimples of his chin and cheek ; his smiles,
The very mould and frame of hand, nail, finger.
And thou, good goddess Nature, which hast made it
So like to him that got it, if thou hast
The ordering of the mind too,’mongst all colours,
No yellow in’t, lest she suspect, as he does,
Her children not her husband’s ! (2. 3. 95-107).

8This miniature picture of the father is presented as a mirror in which he should behold his progeny, eyesight serving as the one and only truthful witness in the claim. It is also a theme that Shakespeare treats in many of his dramatic works and in the Sonnets, urging the poet to preserve his outward form in his progeny. Procreation then means duplication. The word “posterity” implies an unending procreation, multiplying images of the original beauty of the young man. Perdita is presented by Paulina in the same terms Leontes uses, not only when addressing Mamillius but also when he encounters the statue of Hermione in the final act. The question of visual truth is again raised here. Leontes at this moment refuses the child, and his way of seeing is ironically reversed in the final act, as he accepts the ability of Hermione’s statue to breathe life in its artificial form. Most importantly, he again falls into his own visual tricks when he later addresses Florizel with words that he himself hears from Paulina :

Your mother was most true to wedlock, prince :
For she did print your royal father off,
Conceiving you. Were I but twenty-one,
Your father’s image is so hit in you,
His very air, that I should call you brother,
As I did him [...] (5. 1. 123-128).

  • 4 . de Grazia Margareta, “Imprints : Shakespeare, Gutenberg, and Descartes”, in Printing and Parentin (...)

9Several critics read the passage in terms of print metaphor where children double their father as print does : “The trope is from both coining and printing, for a royal is both a coin and a size of printing paper [...]. The prince is like both a numismatic and bibliographic print of his royal father.”4 These critics understand doubling as a metaphor of print and image. Therefore, we are constantly moving between that which is perceived as truth, and that which is understood as a copy or imitation of life. The face of the offspring stands for a reflective mirror that has preserved the likeness of a father. Another vital moment of ocular proof concerns Leontes’s description of his youth whilst looking at the face of Mamillius, which stands for a metaphorical mirror showing his father’s past :

Looking on the lines
Of my boy’s face, methoughts I did recoil
Twenty-three years, and saw myself unbreeched,
In my green velvet coat [...] (1. 2. 152-155).

10Leontes here discerns the reflection of his own likeness in the face of his son, attaching importance to the parental resemblance which might later stand for a proof of adultery or inheritance as it does for example in King John, another play that treats eyesight and ways of seeing as the central source of imagery. What The Winter’s Tale demonstrates is, moreover, that such reliance on ocular proof and visual veracity often leads to trickery and deception, as when Leontes finally faces the statue of his wife and believes that the work of art, a secondary form, a reflection, a copy (as is perceived of Mamillius and Florizel), although true to its original, can be transformed into life.

11Why, then, does Shakespeare approach the theme of visual truth with such irresistible irony ? As we have seen, the fact that Paulina describes the newly-born child Perdita to Leontes in order to persuade him of his wife’s fidelity, is mockingly transformed and echoed when Leontes looks at Mamillius or Florizel and speaks in the same terms about their father’s semblance reflected in their own form. Similarly, it is again Paulina who prepares us for her presentation of Hermione as a work of art in the last act of the play when she reports on the death of Hermione as early as in act 3. The conception of visual truth is complicated by these verbal echoes or repetitions that constitute a vital part of the play’s narrative frame. In act 3, scene 2, Paulina insists :

I say she’s dead-I’ll swear’t. If word nor oath
Prevail not, go and see ; if you can bring
Tincture and luster in her lip, her eye,
Heat outwardly or breath within, I’ll serve you
As I would do the gods.

[...]
Ten thousand years together, naked, fasting,
Upon a barren mountain, and still winter
In storm perpetual could not move the gods
To look that way thou wert (3. 2. 201-212).

  • 5 . Marguerite Tassi also understands Leontes’s looks as destructive and compares them to the gaze of (...)

12Paulina echoes Leontes’s preoccupation with eyesight as the only valid sense in determining the truth. She dismisses verbal account and turns to visual proof of Hermione’s dead body. Paulina’s conclusion echoes a dialogue between Camillo and Polixenes in which Polixenes defends himself with the statement “Make me not sighted like a basilisk” (1. 2. 383) after having been accused of carrying a disease that caused Leontes’s jealous outrage. In fact, Paulina subsequently describes the process of enlivening a dead image (a work of art turned to life) in terms that will become central to the art and nature discussion in the last scene. The statue of Hermione will be distinctive precisely “for the luster and tincture of her lips, and the seeming breathing of the work of art [...] will strike” Leontes himself : “Would you not deem it breathed” (5. 3. 63) he asks in amazement, gazing on the product of his own jealous looks, with Polixenes adding that “the very life seems warm upon her lip” (66).5 This play on visual proof and exposure, underlined by narrative belief, supports the complexity of what is presented as real and what is considered a secondary truth.

13The climactic moment comes, then, in act 5. Paulina makes Leontes swear that he will never marry again without Paulina’s consent, “unless another/As like Hermione as is her picture/Affront his eye” (5. 1. 71-73). The first of several verbal echoes that describe the visual scene that will take place on stage is introduced here : Paulina alludes to Hermione’s reflection in the form of an art work and states that only a secondary image, a copy, or portrait, can ever aspire to be compared to its original. The scene ends and it is only in the words of the Third Gentleman that we are first “told” about the statue of Hermione which is supposed to be :

newly performed by that rare Italian master Giulio Romano, who, had he himself eternity and could put breath into his work, would beguile nature of her custom, so perfectly he is her ape. He so near to Hermione hath done Hermione that they say one would speak in hope of answer (5. 2. 94-100).

  • 6 . Meek Richard, “’Here’s a sight for thee’...”, op. cit., p. 49.

14Importantly, until now the reader/audience was reminded of the impossibility to make Hermione live again, exactly because there is no art or human action that could make her breathe anew (see Paulina’s insistence on Hermione’s death earlier in the play). However, there is a contradiction in the verbal account of the Gentleman, who relies on another narrator (“they say”), as the conditional he uses is suddenly exchanged for a direct statement that the sculptor “is” able to “ape” nature in this way. He has made another Hermione, her double image, the imitation or reflection, which is nicely expressed in the verbal and visual reverberation of her name (“Hermione hath done Hermione”). Again, the audience is caught in a verbal play. We do not see the scene realized at this stage, but we are made to believe that two witnesses are enough in accepting the truth. Leontes laid a ground for this approach in the first two acts of the play, too. Recently, Marguerite Tassi and Richard Meek have been concerned with the scenes narrated, but not seen on stage. Tassi claims that these verbal narrations prepare the audience for the later visual spectacle and create a sense of anticipation. Meek is particularly interested in the impact of the different kinds of representation on the audience and the readers, and reads The Winter’s Tale as a trick itself, emphasizing its ability to point out the limitations of seeing as “even if we were present at the absent scenes, we would not hear all the answers.”6 I would suggest that the limitations of both the visual and the verbal are here put to test and played with, and concurrently reused as a self-reflexive means to bring attention to the play’s mimetic abilities. In the end, the statue, depicted here as an ideal imitation of nature, is not a statue at all, and it is only through narration and ekphrasis, that Paulina is able to “create” an imaginary piece of art work. She makes us believe that we will behold the imitation ourselves and that we will follow Leontes’s gaze.

  • 7 . Fusch Daniel, “Wonder and Ceremonies of Waking in Shakespeare’s Late Plays”, in Med- iterraiterra (...)
  • 8 . Hasler Jörg, “Romance in the Theater : The Stagecraft of the’Statue Scene’in The Winter’s Tale”, (...)
  • 9 . Tassi Marguerite, Scandal of Images, op. cit., p. 215.
  • 10 . Hagstrum Jean H., The Sister Arts : The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry fro (...)
  • 11 . Barkan Leonard, “’Living Sculptures’: Ovid, Michelangelo, and The Winter’s Tale”, in English Lite (...)
  • 12 . Kiernan Pauline, Shakespeare’s Theory of Drama, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 6 (...)

15The audience is finally “visually” satisfied in act 5, scene 3, which exposes the elaborate stage set-the statue of Hermione (5. 3. 8-32). Clearly, Paulina is presenting a set piece which becomes the centre of the stage movement. In fact, all movement is absorbed by the still moment of Hermione’s statue being revealed in silence : a necessary means for Paulina’s art to work. Several critics have devoted studies to this moment : Daniel Fusch and Jörg Hasler read the scene in terms of theatrical spectacle and ceremony which, according to Fusch, offers a healing conclusion to the play by the use of ekplexis (amazement and shock).7 In Hasler’s words the miraculous performance is evident from the use of the statue as “statues are designed to be looked at : Paulina begins by exhibiting a work of art and then presents the miracle of a resurrection : the miracle is literally a performance.”8 Marguerite Tassi adds that the scene is here concerned with a “communal ritual” and the reconciliation between painting and drama means a fusion of the arts in a theatrical marvel.9 Evi- dently, the focus is directed towards the coexistence of the sister arts in a single scene, which was preceded by unusually long narrative descriptions of the final spectacle. Moreover, this encounter notably uncovers preoccupations about reality and artificiality. Here we are encountering a “living emblem” performed in a theatrical domain encompassing both word and image. The major concern here is a tension between what the visual arts can create by imitation and what is presented as a product of nature. Paulina’s presentation of Hermione as a work of art has received much critical attention. Jean H. Hagstrum has claimed in his fundamental study on the sister arts that, in The Winter’s Tale, art strives to resemble reality by imitating the living Hermione and he concludes that “nature and reality finally satisfy”- nature then defeats art.10 Leonard Barkan follows this interpretation in his study on statues that are transformed into life and completes Hagstrum’s idea by stating that “this metamorphosis is more than a general compliment to the arts”, elevating theatre over the visual art, to which Leo Salingar responds by claiming that the play is a “supreme demonstration of the superiority of drama over the pictorial arts.”11 All these voices, including Marguerite Tassi’s thesis about a fusion of painting and drama in a theatrical marvel offer a positivist reading of the last act which stands in contrast to the recent discussion offered by Pauline Kiernan. Kiernan has provided a more critical reading of the relationship between the visual arts and their ability to imitate nature when she advocates that art in the play is presented as doubly false, which contributes to the Shakespearean irony about perfect imitation. That is, by exposing the statue of Hermione and at the same time claiming that it is “mocking” life, Shakespeare explores “the ways in which art twice removes the subject from itself”: Hermione had to die in order for the work of visual arts to arise, and it is now time for its final transformation back into life.12 Kiernan’s claim exactly captures what this paper has been trying to explore : the absurdity and uniqueness of one’s way of looking and one’s perception of the visual. Leontes prevails upon the blindness of the people who are not able to behold what is perfectly clear in his eyes : his wife’s adultery. Ironically, Paulina presents to him a product of nature, Hermione herself, which Leontes believes is a statue that comes to life. The means by which this “reality” is drawn in front of his eyes is wrapped in narrative images, in ekphrastic description which harks back to several moments about visual truth in the play (moments which were taken for granted by Leontes). The unveiling of a living per- son (an actor) who pretends to be a statue perfectly fits in the language with which the play claims to talk to the audience. It echoes its irony and confuses the beholder once again. The language of the theatre is indeed a complex idiom : theatre talks to us with a visual means which mocks its mimetic abilities.

16The debate about perfect imitation has much deeper roots in the previous discussion on art and nature set up in a dialogue between Perdita and Polixenes in act 4, scene 4. In a very similar fashion, Sonnets 16 and 17 argue that artificial arts are not able to create a lively image of the young man’s beauty, and the struggle between art and nature, very common in the sonnet sequence, is treated here. It returns to the idea of urging the Friend to duplicate his beauty in the form of progeniture, its “natural” duplication. Sonnet 16, drawing on a parallel between procreation and gardening, brings in the visual arts when the poet argues for natural reproduction and the creation of living images of the young man which stand in opposition to the artificial form of painting :

And many maiden gardens, yet unset,
With virtuous wish would bear your living flowers,
Much liker than your painted counterfeit :
So should the lines of life that life repair,
Which this, time’s pencil or my pupil pen,
Neither in inward worth nor outward fair,
Can make you live yourself in eyes of men (16. 6-12).

17Verbal description as well as visual representation in the form of a portrait, “a painted counterfeit”, are not able to outdo the natural process of procreation. In the subsequent sonnet, the poet’s verse is thought of not being able to reproduce and encompass the full beauty of the young man.

  • 13 . Nuttall A. D., “The Winter’s Tale : Ovid Transformed”, in Shakespeare’s Ovid : The Metamorphoses (...)
  • 14 . Newcomb Lori Humphrey, “’If that which is lost be not found’: Monumental Bodies, Spectacular Bodi (...)

18Therefore, we need to draw our attention to the literary and mythical source of the extraordinary statue stored in Paulina’s gallery. A. D. Nuttall finds a direct parallel between Pygmalion and Leontes : “The perverse erotic attachment to the image is far less strong in Shakespeare than it is in Ovid or Euripides but there may be a trace of it at 5. 3. 46, where Leontes wishes to kiss what he still believes is a statue of his dead wife.”13 More specifically in a recent analysis of the representation of bodies in the play, Lori Newcomb, interprets the analogy with Ovid’s Pygmalion in the light of the loss of a masterpiece where art, a copy, is substituted with its original, nature itself.14

  • 15 . The episode is quoted by Morales Helen, “The torturer’s apprentice : Parrhasius and the limits of (...)

19As a result, it is through this loss of artwork that the rivalry between the artistic/representational and the living/natural is most clearly evidenced. In fact, Paulina tries to retain Leontes’s and the audience’s credulity that the statue created by Giulio Romano “is” indeed a secondary imitation of life, which is supported by the wrinkles art is able to produce. She also points out the fresh layer of paint which the sculptor used : “O, patience -/The statue is but newly fixed ; the colour’s/Not dry” (5. 3. 46-48). When Leontes is later seduced into believing that the statue is a human being and tries to touch it, she adds “Good my lord, forbear. /The ruddiness upon her lip is wet ;/You’ll mar it if you kiss it, stain your own/With oily painting. Shall I draw the curtain ?” (5. 3. 80-83). Paulina’s speech is analogous with Parrhasios from Pliny’s Historia Naturalis, who painted a veil in the famous dispute between two painters, a veil so real that his opponent Zeuxis tried to draw it back.15 Both Leontes and audience metaphorically fall into the same trap when caught in a play of illusions, facing a mock statue.

20All these assumptions about the artificiality and presentation of art in the final scene of the play are, I would claim, linked to the general idea of visual semblance and indirectly to the myth of Narcissus. The statue is the centre of the play’s resolution and it is thus treated as a highly aesthetic object like the reflection of Narcissus on the water surface was in Ovid’s story. To a certain extent, most of the early modern adaptations of the myth of Narcissus have dealt with the description of the reflection as a metaphor for a marble statue that pauses the action and allows the beholder to forget the boundaries between reality and artificiality. The statue stands, in all these cases including Hermione’s lifelike representation, for a secondary reality, an imitation of nature. Hermione’s statue is also in this way interpreted to the audience by Paulina. Moreover, there is a strong underlying theme that interconnects the texts : resemblance, which plays a crucial role in depicting the complexity of reflection. The real and metaphorical reflections resemble reality and are nature’s imitation. The Winter’s Tale, therefore, contributes to the discussion about copy and truth through questioning the ways of seeing. In the end, we are ironically asked to believe that what we behold-the turning of a statue to life-is a theatrical miracle. The play attempts to point out the illusionistic abilities of the arts (visual, verbal, theatrical).

21The use of the visual work of art, an allusion to a statue in the final act, allows us to support the claim that imitation strives to outdo nature in vain and that the way we perceive this dispute is dependant on the fallacies of sight. Deception is omnipresent in The Winter’s Tale through ironical presentation of Leontes’ways of look- ing at the reality. It results in the final trick of Paulina who uncovers a statue which is a product of imagination and ekphrastic description. Even the name of Giulio Romano, an architect and painter of illusionistic frescoes in Mantua, is being mocked. These references form a part of testing the eyesight and the mind’s eyes of the characters and the audience, questioning vision and its operation when confronted with a complex layer of deceit. Shakespeare’s late play is rich in visual spectacle and verbal description that makes paragone central and the primacy of eyesight vital. Semblance is, however, based on secondary representation and as such it returns in verbal and visual echoes embodied in the example of Mamillius who is nature’s creation, but a copy of his father. In contrast, Hermione unveiled in the play’s coup de théâtre is supposed to be an imitation, but to the amazement of the beholders “it’appears’she lives” (5. 3. 117).

Notes

1 . Meek Richard, “’Here’s a sight for thee’: the Claims of Narrative in The Winter’s Tale”, in Narrating the Visual in Shakespeare, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2009, p. 147-179.

2 . This lexical choice is based on Othello’s remark to Iago, desiring an “ocular proof” in order to accept the accusations of his wife’s adultery. Shakespeare William, Othello, Honigmann E. A. J. (ed.), London, Arden Shakespeare, 2006, 3. 3. 363.

3 . For a discussion of a jealousy plot in relation to eyesight and specifically to the idea of rhetorical dilation in Othello see Parker Patricia, “Shakespeare and Rhetoric :’dilation’and’delation’in Othello, in Shakespeare and the Question of Theory, Parker Patricia and Hartman Geoffrey (eds.), London, Methuen, 1985, p. 54-74.

4 . de Grazia Margareta, “Imprints : Shakespeare, Gutenberg, and Descartes”, in Printing and Parenting in Early Modern England, Brooks Douglas E. (ed.), Aldershot, Ashgate, 2005, p. 42. See also Thompson Ann and John, “Meaning, Seeing, Printing”, in Printing and Parenting in Early Modern England, op. cit., p. 59-86. Early modern theories of parental resemblance drew heavily on the model set up by Aristotle in his Generation of Animals in which he emphasizes the dominance of the father in resemblance. In contrast to and in support of some of Leontes’s speeches in The Winter’s Tale, other aspects of parental theories were based on the assumption that the mother’s imagination presents a significant contribution in the shape of the child’s outer appearance. See Davdison Jenny, “Why Girls Look Like their Moth- ers : David Garrick Rewrites The Winter’s Tale”, in Shakespeare and the Eighteenth Century, Sabor Peter and Yachnin Paul (eds.), Aldershot, Ashgate, 2008, p. 165-181.

5 . Marguerite Tassi also understands Leontes’s looks as destructive and compares them to the gaze of Medusa. Leontes’s “jealous gaze is figured metaphorically in the petrification of his wife”. Tassi Marguerite A., The Scandal of Images, Selinsgrove, Susquehanna University Press, 2005, p. 208.

6 . Meek Richard, “’Here’s a sight for thee’...”, op. cit., p. 49.

7 . Fusch Daniel, “Wonder and Ceremonies of Waking in Shakespeare’s Late Plays”, in Med- iterraiterraneaneaiterranean Studies, n o 14, 2005, p. 125-147.

8 . Hasler Jörg, “Romance in the Theater : The Stagecraft of the’Statue Scene’in The Winter’s Tale”, in Shakespeare, Man of the Theater : Proceedings of the Second Congress of the International Shakespeare Association, Muir Kenneth, Halio Jay L. and Palmer D. J. (eds.), Newark, University of Delaware Press, 1983, p. 209.

9 . Tassi Marguerite, Scandal of Images, op. cit., p. 215.

10 . Hagstrum Jean H., The Sister Arts : The Tradition of Literary Pictorialism and English Poetry from Dryden to Gray, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1958, p. 88.

11 . Barkan Leonard, “’Living Sculptures’: Ovid, Michelangelo, and The Winter’s Tale”, in English Literary History, n o 48, 1981, p. 661. Salingar Leo, Dramatic Form in Shakespeare and the Jacobeans : essays, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986, p. 15.

12 . Kiernan Pauline, Shakespeare’s Theory of Drama, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 68-69.

13 . Nuttall A. D., “The Winter’s Tale : Ovid Transformed”, in Shakespeare’s Ovid : The Metamorphoses in the Plays and Poems, Taylor A. B. (ed.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 139.

14 . Newcomb Lori Humphrey, “’If that which is lost be not found’: Monumental Bodies, Spectacular Bodies in The Winter’s Tale”, in Ovid and the Renaissance Body, Stanivukovic Goran V. (ed.), Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2001, p. 239-259.

15 . The episode is quoted by Morales Helen, “The torturer’s apprentice : Parrhasius and the limits of art”, in Art and Text in Roman Culture, Elsner Jas (ed.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 184.

Auteur

University of Leeds

© Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre, 2011

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search