While the pervasive association of women and folly in Shakespeare's plays and early modern culture has been analysed by a number of scholars, the relationship of folly to masculinity has so far gone largely unaddressed in the critical literature. Drawing on historical scholarship by Christopher Goodey, this essay argues through a reading of Paroles' folly inAll's Well That Ends Wellthat the complex relationship of folly and gender cannot be adequately understood without taking contemporary models of masculine honour into account. Rather than referring to an actual lack of intelligence, the use of "fool" for women and the lower ranks was often motivated by the need aristocratic men felt to define themselves against their supposed inferiors and to deny dishonourable tendencies within themselves. This background enables a revaluation of the character of Paroles. While he has been widely regarded as little more than an amusing example of the traditional braggart soldier, I argue here that Paroles embodies early modern men's fear of folly. In his depiction of Paroles' foolish passion, Shakespeare shows how debilitating manly honour could be for the men who felt obliged to live up to its standards, and that embracing "effeminate" folly could bring about their liberation.
