Towards an Ontology of the Theatrical Character: Insights from Niccolò Machiavelli’s Comedies

Abstract

This contribution aims to explore the composite nature of the theatrical character, with a focus on the comedy genre. The objective is to outline a theoretical framework for the development of a formal ontology that encompasses the editorial, performative, and receptive dimensions involved in the creation of dramatic characters. This article incorporates three perspectives: those of the author, the actor, and the spectator/reader. Drawing on the research of Manfred Pfister and Anne Ubersfeld, this contribution highlights how the study of theatrical characters requires specific methodologic attention, especially when compared with those of the narrative character, given the medial duality of the dramatic context. Since the theatrical character is the product of complex interplay between intentions and perceptions, the role of both the audience and the reader merit particular attention. The comedy genre lends itself to a categorical approach due to the historic configuration of stock types in classical comedy and masks in commedia dell’arte. Theoretical reflections will be supported by an analysis of Machiavelli’s comedies as a case study. The Machiavellian example most effectively illustrates the critical stratification underlying the perception of a character and the classes and properties that are essential to formalize its digital ontology.

1. Introduction

The way we conceive literary characters shapes the hermeneutic process through which we investigate texts and literary traditions. Over time, different theoretical frameworks have led to distinct approaches to character analysis, affecting both methodology and interpretation. For instance, characters can be seen as functions of the plot, as in the theories of Vladimir Propp and Algirdas Julien Greimas, or as a textual construct, following the structuralist approach of Roland Barthes. While a comprehensive overview of character theory is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to highlight that theatrical characters present an additional layer of complexity. As Anne Ubersfeld (Ubersfeld 1999, p. 3) states: “Theatre is a paradoxical art. To go even further, we might see in theatre the very art of paradox; it is literary production and concrete performance at the same time. Theatre is both eternal (indefinitely reproducible and renewable) and of the instant (never reproduced identically).” Unlike characters in narrative fiction, theatrical characters exist both in text and performance, meaning they are shaped not only by the plot but also by the actor’s embodiment, staging practices, and audience reception.

This complexity is explored by Manfred Pfister in Das Drama. Theorie und Analyse (1977), where he emphasizes that theatrical characters emerge from an intricate interplay of textual and performative elements. A theatrical character is not merely a linguistic construct or a narrative function but a dynamic entity shaped by stage direction and acting choices. Therefore, any attempt to classify theatrical characters must consider performance-related elements. Pfister proposes a schema of characterization techniques, distinguishing between figural and authorial characterization (Pfister 1988, p. 185). Figural characterization occurs explicitly when a character describes themselves or is described by others through dialogue or soliloquy. It is also implicitly revealed through non-verbal elements such as gestures, costumes, and behavior, along with verbal traits such as voice quality, dialect, and stylistic texture. Authorial characterization, on the other hand, is embedded in the text—either explicitly, through descriptions in stage directions or the use of significant names, or implicitly, through contrast and correspondences between characters. Although this schema is not exhaustive, it provides useful insights into the layered approach required to analyze theatrical characters, considering both their textual construction and performative dimensions.

Among theatrical genres, comedy is particularly suited to systematic character analysis because it has historically relied on fixed character types. This is evident in both ancient comedy, which developed a repertoire of recognizable roles, and in commedia dell’arte, where performers embodied established masks that persisted across different performances. In Italy, this typological structure became the object of theatrical reform in the eighteenth century, when the renowned Venetian playwright Carlo Goldoni sought to move beyond the constraints of fixed character types. However, many questions arise when examining the period preceding this reform. How are these fixed characters constructed? What defining elements shape them? How do they evolve across different works? Do the dramatis personae of individual comedies fit into established general categories, or do they introduce significant variations? If so, in what ways do they diverge?

This article proposes a digital approach to character analysis, aiming to develop a formal ontology of theatrical characters to address these questions. The objective is to create a structured model that captures the editorial, performative, and receptive dimension of character construction. This study is based on early modern Italian comedies, which serve as the primary corpus for developing the ontology. The complexity of such an endeavor requires a concrete example, and Niccolò Machiavelli’s comedies provide an ideal case study. By analyzing his works, we can better identify the methodological difficulties involved in formalizing characters traits, relationships, and transformations. The following discussion is divided into two main sections. The first one examines Machiavelli’s characters, relating them to sources and performative aspects. The second one shifts toward a digital perspective, reflecting on the potential of formal ontologies to systematize character analysis.

2. Machiavelli’s Comedies as a Case Study

In a famous passage from Mémoires, first published in Paris in 1787, Carlo Goldoni describes his experience as a reader of Niccolò Machiavelli’s comedies. It is worth focusing on this passage, taken from chapter ten of the first volume, in which a very young Goldoni receives a copy of La Mandragola (The Mandrake) during the summer of 1723, right after his admission to college. The gift comes from Don Niccolò Gennari, assistant and later canon of the cathedral of Chioggia. Gennari’s choice is an odd one given the immoral and anti-religious content of the play. Goldoni devours it on the first reading and returns to it repeatedly, taking notes. His mother, reassured by the book’s ecclesiastical provenance, pays little attention to it, while his father, aware of the nature of the play, expresses concern about it, perceiving it as potentially problematic for his son. Despite the paternal opposition, Goldoni reflects on La Mandragola, ultimately developing a positive opinion of the work as follows:

It was neither the free style nor the scandalous intrigue of the piece which fascinated me; its lubricity even disgusted me; and I could perceive that the abuse of confession was a heinous crime both in the eye of God and man; but it was the first comedy of character which had ever fallen into my hands; and I was quite enchanted with it. How desirable it would have been, had the Italian authors continued, after this comedy, to give decent and respectful pieces, and to draw their characters from nature instead of the romantic intrigues in which they indulged.

(Goldoni 1926, pp. 37–38)

Goldoni defines La Mandragola as “the first comedy of character” (“la première pièce de caractère” in the original French) (Goldoni 1992, p. 44). The Venetian playwright acknowledges Machiavelli’s innovative impulse in the creation of theatrical characters that cross the boundaries marked by the classical roles of ancient comedy. During that time, stereotypical dramatic functions were meant to drive the plot, in La Mandragola Machiavelli draws his characters with more realistic nuances that better mirror the complexities of human nature. However, Machiavelli’s prominence remains conditional, shaped by the reader’s perspective and by Goldoni’s own interpretation of his work. By the time of his literary encounter with Machiavelli’s comedy, for instance, Goldoni had not yet read Moliere’s works due to his poor knowledge of French. This underscores the importance of critical perspective, especially when evaluating claims of innovation or precedence. Nevertheless, La Mandragola is considered a masterpiece by modern critics who still wonder at the chiaroscuro and emotional depth of its protagonists. In his introduction to the play (Machiavelli 2017, p. 134), Pasquale Stoppelli notes the following: “la commedia latina è sostanzialmente una commedia di tipi, nella Mandragola la forza rappresentativa dei personaggi, la loro individualizzazione linguistica ne fanno dei caratteri” (Latin comedy is essentially a comedy of types, while, in La Mandragola, the representative force of the characters, and their linguistic individualization, makes them all-round characters).

A case in point is the character of “Fra Timoteo” from La Mandragola, the “prototype” of the corruptible religious man, who finds space in Lorenzino De’ Medici’s Aridosia (1536) or Donato Giannotti’s Vecchio Amoroso (1536), although more evident debts are to be found in Lasca’s Frate (a comedy long attributed to Machiavelli himself, 1541) and in Giovan Battista Gelli’s Sporta (1543). As Maria Cristina Figorilli (Figorilli 2005, p. 502) points out: “l’invenzione machiavelliana che ha lasciato maggiore traccia nel teatro successivo, non solo fiorentino, e che ha dato vita a una serie di riscritture sempre alludenti al prototipo, è quella del personaggio di fra Timoteo” (the Machiavellian invention that has left the greatest mark in subsequent theatre, not only Florentine, and that has given rise to a series of rewritings always alluding to the prototype, is that of the character of Fra Timoteo)1. The impact of this character is so profound that it is considered one of the most unsettling and well-defined figures in Italian theatre history (Anselmi 2005, p. 260) and is often placed at the heart of authoritative critical contributions2. Given the breadth of Machiavellian characters and their impact on European comedy, this research also aims to consider the literary and dramatic sources foregrounding Machiavelli’s plays, with special focus on those characters who have not experienced the same degree of critical attention as Timoteo.

It should be noted that research on Machiavelli’s theatrical production has historically focused on philological aspects (Cutinelli-Rendina 2005) and on the strong connection between his comedies and classical (Martelli 1968; Fumagalli 1997; Figorilli 2016) or medieval sources, particularly Boccaccio (Bardin 2001; Perocco 2009). Studies focusing on Machiavelli’s dramaturgy as a model for later work are less common, but particularly relevant in this context, given the interest in the diachronic evolution of character typologies.3 The catalog edited by Piero Innocenti and Maria Elisa Rossi (Innocenti and Rossi 2015) is extremely useful as it succeeded in overcoming the scholarly difficulties created by the constraints imposed by Counter-Reformation censorship and allows the exploration of the editorial spread and the areas of influence of Machiavelli’s work. A more focused analysis of the bibliography on Machiavelli’s characters reveals that existing studies primarily address individual figures, such as Anna Maria Cabrini’s paper on Timoteo and Giuseppe Coluccia’s essay on Ligurio (Coluccia 2005; Cabrini 2005). However, a comprehensive and systematic analysis of Machiavelli’s dramatis personae is still lacking. Significant exceptions include Paolo Baldan’s contribution (Baldan [1978] 1990), which examines the ensemble of characters rather than a single figure, and an article written by Pasquale Stoppelli (Stoppelli 2003), which adopts a broader perspective by focusing on onomastics. Nevertheless, both studies remain limited to La Mandragola. This underscores the absence of a structured research that accounts, from an integrated and intertextual perspective, not only for Machiavelli’s most renowned comedy but also for his other theatrical works—Andria (or The Woman from Andros), Clizia, and Commedia in versi (a verse comedy long attributed to Filippo Strozzi, but now tentatively considered Machiavelli’s work)4. One of the main purposes of this research is to determine which features of Machiavelli’s characters represent his innovations; on the one hand, which differences from classical types were introduced by the author and, on the other hand, which aspects were tied to tradition.

In Machiavelli’s writing, antiquity plays a fundamental role. Andria is an exercise in translation from Terence, while Clizia shows punctual repetitions and re-elaborations of Plautus’ Casina. Right from the prologue of La Mandragola, the strong influence of the classical tradition is highlighted by the replacement of proper names by the specification of archetypal roles, such as the “servant”, the “young man”, the “doctor”, and the “matron”. Right from the prologue (Machiavelli 2017, p. 148), characters are introduced through labels specifying their principal attributes, such as “un amante meschino, | un dottor poco astuto, | un frate mal vissuto, | un parassito, di malizia il cucco, | fie questo giorno el vostro badalucco” (vv. 40–44). David Sices’ English translation (Machiavelli 2007, p. 159) faithfully renders both the original meaning and the rhythmic and stylistic nuances of the above quoted passage: “A wretched swain will weep and whine, |A doltish man of law will bumble, |A venal monk will help him stumble,| A most ingenious parasite |Will guide them all, for your delight”. In this context, however, a literal translation is more appropriate. Words hold a particular significance in that they serve as concise expressions of the characters and precise portrayals of stereotypical figures, e.g., Callimaco is described as “a wretched lover”, Nicia as “a dim-witted doctor”, Timoteo as “a corrupt friar”, and Ligurio as “a parasite born of malice”. The recurring pattern of pairing a noun with an adjective or an attribute highlight how each character falls into a specific (possibly stereotypical) category, often derived from Plautine or Terentian models. However, close reading of the text reveals how classical sources are sensibly re-elaborated by Machiavelli in his peculiar character development. Timoteo, for instance, often described as the most innovative character in Machiavelli’s canon, gains Terence-like nuances that assimilate him to the merchant’s slave/ruffian of ancient comedy (Black 2013, p. 283). Additionally, although labeled as “doctor”, Nicia undoubtedly represents the category of the “ridiculus senex”, as defined by Giovio (D’Onghia 2009, p. 17). Similarly, Ligurio, initially presented as a parasite (parasitus), takes on specific functions that in classical comedy belong to the servant (servus). Ligurio, described in the first act as a “pappatore” (a glutton), never actually exhibits any behavior associated with gluttony throughout the play (Guastella 2019). In La Mandragola, the parasite is stripped of any comic association with gluttony, a typical trait of this character type, not only in literary tradition but also in Machiavelli’s Clizia (Stoppelli 2003). In the prologue of Clizia, a panorama of character types is outlined, each defined by the negative qualities that distinguish them, as follows:

Comedies were invented to be of use and of delight to their audiences. It is indeed quite useful for any man, and particularly for young ones, to learn about the avarice of an old man, the frenzy of a lover, the deceit of a servant, the greed of a parasite, the indigence of the poor, the ambition of the rich, the wiles of a whore, and the bad faith of all men.

(Machiavelli 2007, p. 283)

Notably, the reference in the original Italian to “gola d’un parassito” (Machiavelli 2017, p. 258) explicitly focuses on the parasite’s defining trait—gluttony—whereas the English translation renders it as “greed”, a term that may encompass a broader sense of avarice than a specific inclination toward excessive consumption.

The similarity between Machiavelli’s characters and the roles of ancient comedy can also be examined through typographic analysis. In printed editions, the list of dramatis personae serves as the first peritextual element providing the reader with an entryway into the play. In the 1537 edition of La Mandragola (V375), published in Venice by Bindoni and Pasini (Machiavelli 1537b), the character list includes only names, with attributes limited to those strictly necessary, such as “friar” for Timoteo (

Table 1. List of characters in three different printed editions of La Mandragola.

V37	V54		F56
Callimaco	Callimaco	innamorato	Callimaco	Giovine
Siro	Siro	suo servo	Siro	Servo
Messer Nicia	Messer Nicia	Dottore	Messer Nicia	Dottore
Ligurio	Ligurio	Sensale	Ligurio
Sostrata	Sostrata	madre di Lucretia	Sostrata	Matrona
Frate Timotheo	Frate Timoteo		Timotheo	Frate
Una donna	Una donna		Una donna
Lucretia	Lucretia	moglie di M. Nicia	Lucretia	moglie del dottore

). However, the list of interlocutors often does more than merely enumerate names, it also provides additional descriptions that help clarify the characters’ roles within the comedy. In the 1554 edition of La Mandragola (V54), revised by Girolamo Ruscelli and published in Venice by Pietrasanta (Machiavelli 1554), the character list is divided into two columns. The first contains proper names, while the second specifies the character’s role, closely resembling the structure of ancient comedy. Callimaco is identified as the lover, Siro as his servant, Nicia as a doctor, Ligurio as a matchmaker, Sostrata as Lucrezia’s mother, and Lucrezia as Nicia’s wife.

In 1556, La Mandragola (F56) was printed in Florence by Giunti (Machiavelli 1556), and the character list closely resembles that of V54. The 1556 Florentine edition also features two columns, one for names and the other for roles, though some attributions differ. For instance, Callimaco is described as a “young man” rather than a “lover”. However, it is important to note that these two stock characters traditionally overlap and share common traits. Another significant difference is the lack of attributes for Ligurio, who, in V54, is explicitly identified as a “sensale”, i.e., a matchmaker. One possible explanation for this omission is the difficulty of inscribing such a complex character into a well-defined typological category. As scholars have observed, Ligurio exhibits the same traits as the parasite, yet he deviates from many of its conventional features. His composite nature, already recognized in the sixteenth century, is also reflected in the typographical choices of the editions. This underscores the difficulty of encapsulating Ligurio’s complexity within a straightforward editorial classification.

Clizia’s printed editions display patterns similar to those found in La Mandragola. Indeed,

Table 2. List of characters in three different printed editions of Clizia.

F	F48	F56
Cleandro	Cleandro	Cleandro	Innamorato
Nicomaco	Nicomacho	Nicomacho	Vecchio
Eustachio fattore	Eustachio fattore	Eustachio	Fattore
Doria Ancilla	Doria ancilla	Doria	Ancilla
Sostrata	Sostrata	Sostrata	Moglie di Damone
Palamede	Palamede	Palamede	Giovine
Pirro servo	Pirro servo	Pirro	Servo
Sofronia	Sofronia	Sofronia	Moglie di Nicomacho
Damone	Damone	Damone	Vecchio
Ramondo Napolitano	Ramondo Napoletano	Ramondo	Napolitano

presents a comparative overview of three different editions of this comedy published in Florence: the first (F) in 1537 by Mazzocchi, Gucci, and Ricci (Machiavelli 1537a); the second (F48) in 1548 by Bernardo Giunta (Machiavelli 1548); and the third (F56) printed in 1556 by the heir of Giunta. One notable change is the transition from a simple list of character names in F and F48 to the two-column arrangement in F56. The 1556 editions of Clizia and La Mandragola exhibit a formal consistency, suggesting the development of standardized editorial conventions associated with the genre.

However, even without the two-column format, some characters are defined by their role, social status, or geographical origin, e.g., Eustachio is the steward, Doria the serving maid, Pirro the servant, and Raimondo is identified as Neapolitan. When attributes are assigned to all characters, these initial designations remain unchanged, while new labels appear, aligning them with established theatrical masks, e.g., Cleandro is the lover, Nicomaco and Damone are the old men, Palamede is the young man, Sostrata and Sofronia are the wives. In these cases, the assigned role serves as an indicator of age, relational dynamics, and connections to traditional theatrical archetypes.

Overall, these findings on printed editions emphasize the solid connection between ancient and modern comedy in the shaping of characters. The dramatis personae lists reflect a deliberate engagement with classical models during the printing process and stand as a fundamental aspect of the formalization of the book as a material object. This peculiar attention to classicism, however, must be finely balanced with a careful study of vernacular sources, particularly Boccaccio’s Decameron. The musician Moschino, one of the interlocutors in Anton Francesco Doni’s dialogue I Marmi, in praising La Mandragola, significantly highlights “quei passi tratti dal Boccaccio sì destramente; perché, alla fine, il comporre è un filo che esce d’una Matassa filata di diversi fili in più gugliate” (those passages so skillfully drawn from Boccaccio; since, after all, composing is a thread that emerges from a skein spun from various lines in multiple strands) (Doni 1928, p. 51). The novelistic tradition shapes not only the development of the plot in comedies but also significantly impacts the character-building system. In this process, classical masks acquire new traits through intermedial contamination, while the evolving cultural, social, and literary context contributes to the creation of new character types (such as the previously mentioned “friar”).

Innovations on Machiavelli’s part must, then, be checked against a wide corpus of contemporary comedies that include both texts chronologically close to Machiavelli’s, such as Bibbiena’s Calandria and Ariosto’s Cassaria and I Suppositi, and those that follow his footprints, as is the case with Andrea Calmo’s Potione, the only explicit rewriting of La Mandragola, and the comedies by Aretino, Giannotti, and Lasca.

Similar considerations regarding sources and models are essential for understanding the representation of comedic figures. Comparing different ways of conceiving characters enables an analysis of various authorial approaches and their impact on tradition. Both ancient comedy and commedia dell’arte rely on stock figures, making it essential to examine the defining elements of each character type to identify variations. This opens the following key questions: What attributes distinguish the “servant”, the “lover”, the “old man”, etc.? What new attributes emerge? How do characters evolve in relation to earlier archetypes?

Thus far, we have examined how the relationship with tradition influences both the author’s and the editor’s choices. Machiavelli’s characters are either assigned labels that already carry inherent meaning (e.g., social status, geographical provenance, job title), given newly devised definitions, or categorized using existing stoke types, even when their underlying significance evolves. However, these conventional theatrical labels do not always fit. They may fail to fully capture significant variations of the character’s main traits or not align completely with their role. This is particularly evident in the case of Ligurio.

Reflecting on the duality between text and performance, it must be stressed how theatrical characters are neither solely made of the printed pages of books nor are they born entirely from the intentions of authors and editors. On stage, they are embodied by actors, real people whose interpretation can change with each performance, introducing additional variables such as tone of voice, gesture, physical appearance, and costumes. As previously discussed in the introduction, Pfister has emphasized that these variables must be considered in the process of character construction. Moreover, Ubersfeld points out that “as for the particular point of theatrical roles, some of their determinations do not come only from dialogue, or even didascalia; rather, they are product of an unwritten (but traditional) code, a product of, for example, a fully encoded gestural system” (Ubersfeld 1999, p. 69). In comedy, the existence of codified roles is not only relevant to the unfolding of the plot but also to actors themselves, who may specialize in specific roles and thus develop their repertoire. This bond between the actor and a precise role is a defining feature of commedia dell’arte, as widely recognized by scholars. The term “Maschera”, mask, refers both to the papier-mâche disguise worn on the actor’s face and to “the entire figure created by the actor” (Allegri 2017, p. 137). In this way, stock characters reappear across performances with the same costumes, gestures, and personality. As a result, comici—the actors of commedia dell’arte—spend their entire careers embodying the same role, to the point of becoming indistinguishable from the character they interpret on stage. However, a similar process can already be observed in early sixteenth-century comedy.

In this light, let us spend a few words on the link between Machiavelli and Domenico Barlacchia, a town crier in early sixteenth-century Florence, who is believed to have been one of Machiavelli’s most frequent guests (Zapperi 1964). As a member of the “Accademia della Cazzuola”, Barlacchia performed in numerous comedies, including Bibbiena’s Calandria, Ariosto’s I Suppositi and La Cassaria, Jacopo da Bientina’s La Fortuna, Giovanni Battista dell’Ottonaio’s L’Ingratitudine, and, most notably, La Mandragola and Clizia. His preferred role was that of “Vecchio” (old man). After Barlacchia’s death, a collection of his Motti e facezie was published in 1565 by Giunti; in there, he is described as “piacevole e faceto, eccellente dicitore a comedie, e massime facendo le parti di un Vecchio” (amusing and witty, an excellent performer of comedies, particularly in playing the role of an old man) (Arlotto 1565, pp. 131–32). As Degl’Innocenti (Degl’Innocenti 2015, p. 33) points out, it is highly probable that Barlacchia was particularly well suited for the roles of Nicia and Nicomaco, the two “Vecchi” in La Mandragola and Clizia. Some scholars have even suggested that Barlacchia’s skill in performing this role, along with his established repertoire, may have shaped the characterization of these two figures (Ventrone 1993, p. 164). However, according to Degl’Innocenti, this remains a hypothesis that cannot be proven.

Thus far, we have examined the role of the author and editor in shaping characters, along with the actor’s contribution to their representation on stage. However, theatrical meaning is not solely raised by those who produce or perform the play, it is also actively shaped by its reception. Spectators and readers have a crucial role in reconstructing dramatic events, piecing together information, and interpreting what unfolds on stage. As Ubersfeld observes, “it would be false to say the role of the spectator in the process of communication is passive” (Ubersfeld 1999, pp. 23–24). The receiver–audience, far from being mere observers, actively create the performance they are watching through their engagement in the process of interpretation that, in turn, contributes to the definition of comic characters. Audience feedback, whether immediate or retrospective, adds further layers to characters’ meaning. This dynamic is evident in Sumberg’s interpretation of La Mandragola, as he attributes political significance to the comedy’s characters. In attempting to reconstruct Machiavelli’s authorial intent, Sumberg reveals his own perspective, just as Goldoni’s reading of La Mandragola was influenced by his personal horizon of expectations and historical context. As Sumberg argues:

Machiavelli puts a mask on himself as well as his cast. The masked dramatist covers the face of the arch-conspirator. Against whom does he conspire? Against his audience, of course. While the audience laughs at the play, Machiavelli laughs at the audience. He puts horns on the audience laughing at the cuckoldry of Nicia. By making them laugh he disarms them, and amidst their laughter, he and his associates go about busily uprooting the established order. He has the last laugh. His mask is that of the heavily painted clown who plays the fool, the favorite role of the wise man.

(Sumberg 1961, p. 337)

Sumberg’s study highlights how interpretation is inevitably shaped by the receiver’s own viewpoint. This further reinforces the idea that the reception of a work is never neutral but is always influenced by the cultural, ideological, and historical lenses through which it is perceived.

Eventually, the analysis of Machiavelli’s characters shows the dynamic interplay between textual tradition, editorial choices, theatrical performance, and audience reception. While the author and editor frame the character’s identity, the actors reshape it through performance, and spectators or readers further redefine its significance through their interpretation. This multiplicity of perspectives reveals the layered nature of theatrical characterization, showing how meaning is not fixed, but rather constantly negotiated. In this light, a structured formalized approach to character analysis could be a valuable solution.

3. Towards a Digital Ontology

Building on the preceding analysis, the Machiavellian example best illustrates the critical stratification underlying the perception of a character, highlighting the need to define specific categories and properties for a structured characterization model. To address this challenge, digital ontology provides a formalized approach that allows for the systematic representation of character traits. This digital approach, which is yet to be fully exploited in Machiavellian studies, will prove to be beneficial in shedding new light on Machiavelli’s characters and in investigating the persistence of a Machiavellian paradigm in the comic tradition up until the beginning of the eighteenth century.

The term “ontology” traditionally refers to the branch of philosophy concerned with the study of being and existence. In the context of computing, however, and within the framework of the Semantic Web and Linked Open Data in particular, ontology acquires a more technical meaning. It refers to a structured set of data designed to represent knowledge within a specific domain according to digital standards. It defines key concepts, their characteristics and properties, and the relationships between them, enabling both human users and automated systems to search, organize, and interpret data efficiently. Applied to theatrical characters, digital ontology aims to define them computationally, by analyzing their key traits, their relationships with other characters, and their relations with the broader cultural and literary context. The objective is to establish a coherent framework that facilitates the analysis of texts within the same literary genre and the study of their typologies and diachronic evolution, along with the specificities of certain authors and geographical contexts. By formalizing the representation of characters, this ontology enhances our understanding of comic figures, their roles, and their functions in early modern comedy, while also providing a method for the computational analysis of character development across a wide range of works. This will benefit comparative studies and facilitate deeper theoretical reflections on characters’ natures. As previously discussed, the comedy genre is particularly well suited to define an ontology of characters. Since, in comedies, characters adhere more closely to specific categories, such as the “type” of ancient comedies or the “mask” of commedia dell’arte, it is easier to group them into the classes of an ontology.

The creation of such a complex framework requires the development of a formal ontology that contemplates the editorial, performative, and receptive dimensions underlying the creation of dramatic characters. In this context, three perspectives need particular attention: those of the author, the actor, and the spectator/reader. Drawing primarily on the theories of Pfister (1977) and Ubersfeld (1999), the medial duality of the dramatic reality of the theatrical character calls for a more detailed discussion, which has long focused on the development of the narrative character instead. Since the theatrical character is the results of the interaction between intentions and perceptions, then, most attention will be devoted to the role of the audience or of the reader.

Although the comedy genre lends itself to a categorizing approach, interest in a literary character ontology extends far beyond this specific domain. For an updated state of the art, reference can be made to a recent report by the MITE research group (Make it Explicit: Documenting Interpretations of Literary Fictions with Conceptual Formal Models), which aims to develop an ontology of literary characters that accounts for critical interpretations, including potential divergences in scholarly perspectives (Sanfilippo and Ferrario 2024)6. The ontological approach seems particularly promising for literary studies, as it aims to “catch the intrinsic intentional and semantic nature of many literary phenomena” (Ciotti 2016, p. 30). Developing an ontology in this field is not just a digital challenge, it also requires deep multidisciplinary reflection. For instance, a key issue in the ongoing philosophical debate on the existence of literary characters is that they are fictional constructs; however, they have attributes, properties, and relationships that could equally belong to real individuals made of flesh and bones (Hastings and Schulz 2019). This assumption blurs the boundary between fiction and reality, reinforcing the idea that literary characters exist within the narrative dimension while simultaneously maintaining a connection to external interpretative frameworks.

In the modeling of dramatic works, another conceptual distinction emerges. In a contribution that details the development of a model for the representation of dramas, Damiano, Lombardo, and Pizzo analyze theatrical texts with a focus on action. They prefer the term “agent” over “character” to emphasize dramatic function rather than descriptive, psychological, or social attributes (Damiano et al. 2019). This approach captures the responsibility of characters in shaping the progression of events and structuring dramatic action. In this study, however, the focus extends beyond action to consider the broader ontological dimensions of theatrical characters in a specific literary genre. While agency is essential in defining a character’s role within the plot, it is not the only aspect involved in characterization. Theatrical figures, especially in comedies, emerge through typological classification, textual attributes, and interpretative layers introduced by editors, actors, and audiences. As observed in the case of Machiavelli’s production, comic characters operate on a level that transcends the single plot, maintaining a network of inherent attributes and intertextual associations that persist even when they are not actively shaping the narrative.

As initially stated, this article presents the preliminary findings of ongoing research. Up to this point, the reflections outlined in this study have been mostly theoretical. Within the broader challenge of conceptualizing comic theater, the nature of its characters presents fundamental ambiguities and open questions. I have used Protégé, a free open-source ontology editor developed at Stanford University, to create a preliminary OWL ontology. This tool allows for the definition of core classes, properties, and relationships in a structured way. The model is still in an early phase and requires further refinement. Expanding the corpus beyond Machiavelli’s characters will be essential to evaluate the ontology’s adaptability and validate its conceptual framework.

The main class, Character, comprises a structured set of subclasses that correspond to typified roles of early modern comedy, as identified across various works. Drawing from Machiavelli’s plays, for example, the ontology defines specific subclasses, such as Servant, Parasite, OldMan, YoungMan, Lover, Matchmaker, Wife, Mother, Doctor, Friar, ServingMaid, Steward, and Neapolitan. Individuals within these subclasses represent specific characters in different works. For example, Pirro, the servant in Machiavelli’s Cliza, may be described as an individual belonging to the class Servant. To strengthen the compatibility of this hermeneutic approach with digital ontology is to consider Ubersfeld’s reflection on the nature of the theatrical role:

An actor is defined, then, according to a certain number of characteristic features: if two characters possess both the same action, they are the same actor. For example, an actor is one who plays a fixed role in a religious ceremony: whoever plays the same role is the same actor if he has the same characteristics (a priest for example).

(Ubersfeld 1999, p. 67)

Even when considering only Machiavelli’s plays, it is possible that multiple individuals share the same name while belonging to different comedies (e.g., Sostrata). With the expansion of the corpus, these occurrences will become more frequent, highlighting the need for an effective disambiguation strategy. To achieve precise character disambiguation across different works, a prosopographic system will be implemented. Every individual will be assigned a unique identifier composed of a three-letter abbreviation for the author’s surname and a three-letter code for the work (e.g., MAC-MAN-Sostrata for Sostrata in La Mandragola and MAC-CLI-Sostrata for Sostrata in Clizia). This system will provide internal consistency and will facilitate structured queries within the ontology. Where available, individuals will also be linked to Wikidata identifiers using the owl:sameAs property, ensuring interoperability with external datasets (e.g., MAC-MAN-Sostrata corresponds to Wikidata entry Q60728206).

In OWL/RDF, rdfs:Property defines relationships between classes or between individuals (Object Properties). Certain relationships, however, are not only related to a single character, but rather represent the intrinsic properties of a class. For instance, the property Serves has Servant as its rdfs:domain and Character as its rdfs:range. This means that Serves is a property associated with the Servant class (i.e., servants can perform this action), while its effect or target applies to any instance of the Character class, indicating whom the servant serves. This general definition can be further refined by specifying subclasses that frequently appear in the range, such as OldMan, YoungMan, or Lover, since servants typically serve characters belonging to these categories. Moreover, among the restrictions and existential conditions associated with Servant, it is crucial to specify that each instance of this class must serve at least one other character (minimum cardinality = 1). This requirement is a necessary condition for defining the Servant class, as the act of serving is fundamental to its identity. Similarly, the ServingMaid class inherits the Serves property, though its rdfs:range is more restricted, typically applying only to Mother or Wife.

Class relationships define familial, emotional, professional, and dependency ties. At the individual level, they specify connections within a play’s narrative. This allows systematic character analysis, revealing a formalized view of relationships in single works and across an entire corpus. By encoding narrative function (e.g., matchmaker/lover, where the matchmaker devises a strategy to assist the lover), the ontology makes it possible to detect trends in character interactions across multiple works.

While Object Properties establish relationships between classes or individuals, Data Properties define relationships between instances of classes and literal values, including RDF literals and XML Schema datatypes. Among these, Boolean values allow to explicitly indicate whether a character possesses or lacks specific attributes. This becomes essential when a character belongs to multiple classes. Boolean properties allow for more precise characterization by indicating the presence or absence of specific attributes beyond categorical classification. For instance, MAC-MAN-Callimaco belongs to both the YoungMan and Lover classes, while MAC-MAN-Ligurio is classified as both a Parasite and a Matchmaker. However, typological classification alone does not always account for key distinctions. As previously discussed, parasites in early modern comedy are often defined by their excessive appetite, which becomes a kind of comic expedient. Yet, Ligurio deviates from this norm. While he shares the manipulative and opportunistic tendencies of the parasite, he lacks the defining trait of gluttony. This distinction can be encoded within the ontology using Boolean data properties. The subclass Parasite will generally include both hasGluttony = true and Manipulates = true, as these traits are commonly associated with this type. However, at the individual level, Ligurio presents notable differences. For him, hasGluttony is set to false, reflecting his deviation from the traditional parasite archetype, while Manipulates remains true, emphasizing his active role in scheming and influencing other characters. In this way, the model allows for a more granular analysis of character attributes, distinguishing between shared typological features and individual variations.

In Machiavelli’s comedies, Nicia and Nicomaco represent two variants of the OldMan character type. Nicia, in La Mandragola, is characterized as a doltish man of law, a dim-witted doctor, and the other characters openly mock him. Nicomaco, by contrast, is not foolish; he is deceived only because he underestimates his wife’s intelligence. This distinction is addressed in the prologue of Clizia:

And so, since this author wished to delight the audience, and to make it laugh at least in some places; and since he does not introduce foolish characters into this comedy of his, and he refrains from speaking ill, he has had to resort to amorous characters, and to those incidents to which love gives rise.

(Machiavelli 2007, p. 285)

In this passage, the author states the absence of “foolish characters” in this comedy. While the passage carries an ironic undertone, this claim is supported by the plot. Given the distinction between these two representations of the OldMan, it is essential to encode this difference within the ontology. A Boolean data property such as isFoolish can be assigned to individuals belonging to the OldMan class. By setting isFoolish = true for MAC-MAN-Nicia and isFoolish = false for MAC-CLI-Nicomaco, the ontology allows a systematic comparison.

This example is particularly relevant considering the previous discussion on Barlacchia, an actor often cast in the role of the old man. It underscores the importance of declaring, whenever possible, the connection between characters and the actors who portrayed them. When historical sources provide evidence linking a specific character to an actor in each performance, this relationship should be documented within the ontology. As seen in the second section of this article, certain actors were strongly associated with specific roles, and their repeated assignment to a particular character type allow us to trace recurring performance patterns. Capturing this information can provide valuable insights into the dynamics of role distribution, the interpretative choices of actors, and the evolution of character representation over time.

4. Conclusions

The development of this ontology is still in its preliminary phase, and several key steps remain to be undertaken. Up to this point, the model has been built around the characters of Machiavelli’s comedies. The next stage of research will focus on expanding the corpus to include a broader range of early modern Italian comedies. This will allow a more comprehensive analysis of character typologies and their evolution across different authors and contexts. Additionally, while the current formalization has primarily focused on textual elements, the inclusion of a larger corpus will enable the integration of secondary sources, such as stage directions, letters, treatises, and audience reports.

This project highlights the strong connection between reflections on digital methodologies and theorical inquiries into the nature of characters. However, the significance of this research stretches beyond the study of individual characters. It opens the door to a deeper reflection on the nature of comedy as a genre. By tracing the persistence and transformation of character types, this study seeks to understand what resonated with authors and audiences across time, which elements were preserved, which conventions were challenged, and where true innovations emerged.

A typological approach could help address key questions; for instance, it would allow for analysis of the differences and similarities between the “Neapolitan” (Croce 1899; Alfano 2024) and the “Spanish” character type, shedding light on the prejudicial conceptions associated with certain figures. Stereotypes have long been a defining feature of comic traditions, making it essential to reflect on recurring characters and attributes not only from a literary point of view but also from a broader cultural perspective. To further support the connection between comedy and stereotype, it is useful to refer to Bert O. States’ observations on the nature of comic characters. He argues that “comedy, in general, requires the stereotype as the basic material out of which it builds a world that, above all else, is instantly recognizable” (States 1985, p. 97). The success or decline of specific types can reveal underlying cultural trends, aesthetic preferences, and shifts in audience expectations. Ultimately, this ontology will serve not only as a tool for cataloging characters, but as a strategy to interrogate the fundamental convention of the comic genre, offering a methodology to explore its patterns, transformations, and enduring impact.