The Fools and the Fool
By Daphne Maeglin
In King Lear, every character is a fool. In fact, aside from the Fool, the play contains very low doses of insight from any of the characters. Lear and Cordelia especially seem to be hopelessly clueless and idealistic in their actions concerning the inheritance of the kingdom. The Fool, on the other hand, contributes a consistently intelligent and truthful point of view. His poetic hints, all told to Lear, are laughed at or ignored. His character instead serves as a sort of narrator to help the reader understand meanings beyond the plot line. The Fool is a voice of reason surrounded by characters who seem to understand little, a Fool surrounded by fools.
The Fool is the only major character in King Lear who does not experience a personal struggle. Lear is cast away by his daughters and Cordelia is cast away by her dad, Edmund struggles with his illegitimacy and Edgar is framed for plotting against his dad, Gloucester, who is tricked. The Fool’s purpose, when surrounded by such adversity, seems convoluted. But his paradoxically wise insight into the actions of the other characters is meant to help the audience understand, rather than help his fellow characters. The Fool warns Lear multiple times about the mistake of giving all his money away to daughters who claim such extravagant affection for him. Says the Fool, “That sir which serves and seeks for gain, and follows but for form, will pack when it begins to rain” (2.4.84-87). This is a clear warning about how Lear’s daughters will leave him and not care about him as soon as Lear has no more money to offer them. Another warning to Lear is in lines 56-57, when the Fool says, “fathers that wear bags shall see their children kind.” In this case, the Fool tells Lear almost directly what is happening, and warns him of what a mistake he has made. His insight is clear, as often only the Fool is. His character, therefor, serves to help the reader understand the events of the play and to deliver the intended lesson to be learned. Instead of expecting the audience to learn lessons individually, Shakespeare delivers them through the Fool. In this way, the Fool is a necessary character to the play, despite being unnecessary to the plot.
The irony of the play is the portrayal of every major character as a fool, and having the Fool be the one character free to call them out on their foolish behavior without consequence. As said by Northrop Frye, “The word ‘fool’ is in course of time applied to practically every decent character in the play” (110). Those who act justly and correctly are “moral fools,”(4.2.62) those who speak their mind are “foolish,” (1.2.186) and even if one just experiences bad luck he is “the natural fool of fortune” (4.6.209). Why, then, is the Fool a character? With so many other ‘fools,’ it seems to be that the play lacks the character of ‘wise man’ much more. Frye’s explanation is that ‘fool’ could be another way of saying victim. He says, “everyone on the wrong side of the wheel of fortune is a fool in this sense” (111). With this definition of fool, it makes more sense to call most characters fools. With such characters as Goneril, Regan, and Edmund plotting against their family members, the majority of the cast has someone out to get them. Edgar, who’s crime was just being born legitimately and being in line to inherit the family estate, is a fool of fortune. Cordelia is a moral fool, who acts the way she thinks she should. And Lear is just plain foolish, by giving in to the superficial praise from his daughters and not Cordelia, the daughter who was actually being truthful to him. So the Fool, who has been established as a wise insightful voice in the play, is surrounded by true fools, who do not heed his advice and ignore his foretelling.
The Fool’s insight into the plot of the other characters is contrasted especially with Lear’s lack of self awareness and foolish actions. As the other characters are proven to be true fools, the Fool continuously acts as a wise yet ignored counselor to King Lear. The Fool’s role, which at first read seems unnecessary, actually is to show the reader the lessons of the plot and to add a wise perspective into the cast which is otherwise not shown. In a play filled with fools, the Fool adds an ironically wise perspective.
Works Cited
Frye, Northrop, and Robert Sandler. Northrop Frye on Shakespeare. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Print.
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The tragedy of King Lear. Washington Square Press New Folger’s ed. New York: Washington Square Press, 1993. Print.
Who is the Fool?
By Orion Doscher
“The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” ― William Shakespeare, As You Like It
A fool is defined as a person who is deranged or one who lacks in common understanding, a silly person whom few take seriously. Court jesters, like the fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear, were referred to as such given their purpose was to serve as casual entertainment for royalty. Ironically, the Fool in Lear proves to be the wisest of all the characters in the play. His remarks are truthful and insightful beyond the sense of his main companion the King, yet no one heeds his words due to his status. The juxtaposition of the Fool’s dignified qualities and his low status to the weak characteristics of King Lear is an ironic comparison in the play. The Fool plays a key role in the Tragedy of King Lear serving as Lear’s conscious and guide, while being a much-needed source comic relief (a tactic still used by modern tragic playwrights), yet evoking pity in the audience qualifying the play as a tragedy in the eyes of Aristotle.
The fool is introduced just as King Lear is realizing that he is losing the respect of all the palace attendants. The King calls for his fool, who proves to be his most loyal friend. Before the fool’s arrival the tone of the scene is stiff and desperate, but the fool quickly adds satirical momentum. He arrives teasing the disguised Kent offering him the coxcomb he wears, calling Kent a fool for following a King who just lost his daughters and kingdom. The familiarity of the language exchanged as the fool calls Lear “nuncle” and in return is called “lad” or “my boy”, relieves the audience of the former tension. While all of Lear’s other relationships are essentially ruined, the fool appears to be a true friend to him. His teasing is in air kind, yet truthful and the advice he offers Lear surprisingly wise. While it is clear that the fool’s intentions are to benefit the king, Lear disregards the advice he is offered, taking offense to the criticisms. Amusingly, the fool points out that Lear is acting foolish stating that other than fool, “All thy other titles thou hast given away. That thou wast born with.” (1.4.153-154) Later the fool also offers the king eggshell crowns, noting the worth of his power due to his foolish actions.
The fool also serves the tragedy by inducing pity in the audience, one of Aristotle’s essential tragic elements. In the Poetics Aristotle states that, “it must imitate actions arousing pity and fear, since that is the distinctive function of this kind of imitation. It follows, therefore, that there are three forms of Plot to be avoided. (1) A good man must not be seen passing from happiness to misery…”(Ch. 13) The Fool is one of the most loyal and caring characters in the play, so we are spared the visual of his execution. Shakespeare being a master of tragedy often aligns his work with the guidelines of the definer of tragedy Aristotle. As suggested Shakespeare often includes protagonists who are high in social status, who have tragic flaws like hubris, and ultimately meet a terrible fate due to their defined fault. These elements along with revelations, discoveries, and death are essential to effective tragedy. In Act 5, Lear says to Cordelia, “my poor fool is hanged” (5.3.304). Until this line the fool had vanished from the play after helping Lear escape to Dover, this implies the death of the fool. Hearing this line saddens the audience, effectively evoking pity; however, the plot of the play does not show the downfall of this character in accordance to advices of Aristotle.
While a small character in comparison to others in the work, the fool’s presence is for the enjoyment and comprehension of the audience. Throughout many tragedies there have been these slight characters that provide comic relief, and inform the audience explicitly of what is going on. Even in modern works like Bertolt Brecht’s The Good Person of Szechwan, there are small roles that contribute greatly to the experience of the audience. In the work of Brecht, the water seller serves as the parallel role to Shakespeare’s Fool. While in a drastically different style in which Wong, the water seller speaks directly to the audience informing them of the current situation in the town of Szechwan, he explicitly tells the audience about the troubles of the characters in the play serving as a semi-side plot, yet proving enjoyable to the audience. In Shakespeare’s Lear, the fool defines all of the king’s problems explicitly, while joking and serving as comic relief. This role is very important, because the audience is the most important part of the play; without an audience, did the tree make a sound when it fell in the forest? Shakespeare’s many plays have lasted through centuries of audiences not only for its literary value in structure or moral suggestions, but because they are enjoyable to the audience.
“And yet I would rather be any kind o’ thing than a Fool. And yet I would not be thee nuncle. Thou hast pared thy wit o’ both sides and left nothing i’ th’ middle.” (1.4.190) Humble and wise the fool proves to play an essential role to Shakespeare’s tragedy. He stands to what he believes staying loyal to his falling king making him one of the few reliable and amiable characters in the play.
Works Cited:
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print.
Aristotle, and James Hutton. Aristotle’s Poetics. New York: Norton, 1982. Print.
The Fool’s Purpose
By Dara Feldman
King Lear is a tragedy from beginning to end. There is no hope of Lear, no sympathy from his daughters, and no happiness for the rest of the characters. Except for, perhaps, one. The fool was intriguing because of how different he was from the rest of the company. He was not afraid to stand up to Lear or to point out anyones’ flaws. In terms of the setting of the play, he offers a break in the sadness, as it were, where the audience can take a step back and relax into a moment that might not be as heartbreaking as the last. Therefore, the fool is proved to be a character who could have been used as a device for Shakespeare to not only lighten his play, but to share ideas he thought relevant to the time.
There are many instances where you can see Shakespeare’s ideas shine through in this character. In particular, in Act I, Scene IV, the fool says, “Truth’s a dog that must to kennel. He must be whipped out when Lady Brach may stand by th’ fire and stink” (1.4.98-99). He is saying that he gets whipped for telling the truth but Lear’s daughters get to lie to him without being punished. This kind of comment is not the sort of thing one would expect out of the servant of the king, and certainly not something one would expect out of a servant of Lear. The fool isn’t Lear’s son, he’s hired help, paid only to entertain the king, not make comments about the nobility’s slow decline in society. Lear was not known for his leniency, so there has to be something else hidden in the fool’s character.
Sadly, the fool is not just there as a device for social change, he is also inserted as a literary device. King Lear without the fool would be heartbreaking from start to finish with no respite for the audience from the terrible happenings on stage. The fool provides moments of lightheartedness that would be impossible otherwise. William Hazlitt proves this point as well in his extensive analytic paper, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays. When talking of the sheer amount of sadness in the play, Hazlitt says, “…too painful, the shock too great, but for the intervention of the Fool, whose well-timed levity comes in to break the continuity of feeling when it can no longer be borne, and to bring into play again the fires of the heart just as they are growing rigid from over-strained excitement” (Hazlitt). After reading this commentary, what also strikes me about the fool is that he does precisely what he is supposed to do for King Lear, for the audience. He brings funny interjections and jokes into sad times that never seem to help Lear, but it alleviates the burden of tragedy on the audience just a little bit. Shakespeare seemed to be bring all the comforts of court to the common folk, for whom his plays were performed regularly.
Besides the fact that the fool is never punished for his rudeness, he also seems to be much more intelligent that all the other players. For example, the fool says, “Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise” (1.5.38). While Lear rages on about his daughters, the fool exposes the true man the king is. This line almost feels like a cautionary tale to the audience: the nobility is never as smart as society makes them out to be. Although he catered to a higher class of people, Shakespeare was not a rich man. He never fully joined the wealthy tier of society, yet he continues to be one of the greatest writers of all time, smarter than all those he catered to on a daily basis. The opinions expressed by the fool feel like they could be extrapolated from Shakespeare’s own experiences.
One of the main reasons Shakespeare’s work has survived for so long is the subtle ways he almost shows the audience what to think. He is utterly subversive about it, but he always manages to work his own opinion in somewhere. Portia, in Julius Caesar, to show the plight of women. Mercutio, in Romeo and Juliet, to show the pain inflicted by grudges, and the fool in King Lear shows how little familial ties meant in royal societies. Shakespeare, to this day, fights for a better place to live peacefully with others, and that’s what makes him so lasting.
Work Cited
Hazlitt, William. “Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays.” Project Gutenberg. N.p., 1 Feb. 2004. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
The Importance of the Fool
Kelly Casey
In Shakespeare’s play, King Lear, many characters differ in their purpose. The Fool in King Lear is used to emphasize the “foolishness” of all the characters, but especially King Lear. The Fool is ironically the most intelligent character and provides insight into the irrational behavior of King Lear.
In the beginning of the play, King Lear gives his fortune to his dishonest daughters Goneril and Reagan, while disowning Cordelia. This fatal error is marked by the Fool’s jokes when he says, “Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gav’st thy golden one away.” (1.4, 166-167) The Fool is explaining that Lear is not very smart for giving his kingdom to his daughters. The knave states how Lear lost his power (his “bald crown”) when he gave his “golden crown” to his daughters. The Fool is afraid to speak these harsh but truthful words for fear Lear might punish the Fool, but Lear responds that if the he does not speak with honesty he shall get whipped. Lear, however, characteristically ignores the Fool’s wisdom. Another instance where the Fool tells Lear the truth is when he states, “She [Reagan] will taste like this as a crab does to a crab. Thou canst tell why one’s nose stands i’ th’ middle on’s face?” (1.5, 18-20) Here the Fool is warning Lear that Reagan is no better than Goneril. He even questions Lear as to why he cannot tell that his eldest daughters are the same in their disrespectful manners. Unfortunately, Lear again refuses to listen to the Fool and thus travels to Reagan’s.
The Fool also has the common role in Shakespeare plays as the comic relief; however, in King Lear the Fool also emphasizes the pathos of Lear’s diminishing mental stability. The Fool “shows the pitiable weakness of the old king’s conduct and its irretrievable consequences in the most familiar point of view.” (Hazlitt, William) Throughout the play Lear is seen as losing his senses and becoming senile while the Fool constantly “labors to out-jest his [King Lear’s] heart-struck injuries” (3.1, 19-20) When Lear starts tearing off his clothes the Fool implores, “Prithee, nuncle, be contented. ‘Tis a naughty night to swim in.” (3.4 117-118) The Fool desperately attempts to help the King but at the same time jokes about swimming serves as comic relief. The Fool’s jokes about Lear’s clearly declining mental state make the play only more tragic especially when it is perceptible of the Fool’s loyalty and kindness to Lear. When the King’s mental status gets worse and looks as if there is no help for him the Fool leaves the play with, “And I’ll go to bed at noon” (3.6, 90) implying that he would commit suicide out of grief.
Lear’s inability to hear the insight of the Fool’s words shows how unwise he is. Lear is constantly told throughout the play how his actions would play out from the Fool, but still refuses to acknowledge the knave’s advice. Lear’s folly is mocked by the Fool, yet the King does not banish the knave but stands beside him in the play only adding pathos to the great downfall of Lear because of his insanity.
WORK CITED
Hazlitt, William. “Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays.” Project Gutenberg. N.p., 1 Feb. 2004. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Lear. Washington Square Press ed. New York: Pocket, 1957. Print. Folger Library.
Why Did Kent Attack Oswald?
By Lucy Gatanis
Yes, it is commendable for Kent to go well out of his way to please King Lear, but how far is too far? What good is loyalty when it is at the expense of others? In Act II scene ii, Kent attacks Oswald unprovoked and is put in the stocks for his harsh words and actions. His actions were in defense of King Lear, but where did these violent tendencies come from? Kent attacks Oswald because he wants to show Lear how loyal he is, and is angry that Lear’s daughters have turned on their father, taking it out on Goneril’s steward who he ironically accuses of being too loyal.
Everything that Kent does is to benefit Lear, and this is the main reason for the attack. “(Kent) see(s) (him)self as defined in large part by (his) significant relationship … with Lear himself” (Johnston), and his true character is never shown not in relation to the King. Although Lear was not present when Kent assaulted Oswald, he had his master’s admiration in mind. The initial quarrel begins at I.iv.77-87 when Oswald addresses Lear as “My Lady’s father” and he takes offense. To defend Lear, Kent (in disguise) trips Oswald and Lear praises him by saying, “I thank thee, fellow. Thou servest me, and I’ll love thee” validating that Kent’s loyalty is shown, which motivates him to attack Oswald again. In II.ii Lear does not witness Kent’s actions, showing he is “motivated principally by a traditional sense of love, respect, and allegiance” (Johnston). These honest morals are ones that keep Kent so good throughout the tragedy, which makes his attack so out of character. Perhaps Kent’s desire to please Lear was so strong that it caused him to lose sight of his own character, temporarily going somewhat mad.
Ironically, Kent criticizes Oswald for being too loyal to Goneril when, as we know, Kent is the embodiment of loyalty. Kent sees fault in Oswald being loyal to his master because Goneril has betrayed the king and is guilty by association in upsetting his own master. Kent accuses Oswald of being “superserviceable” (II.ii.16) which the Folger Library defines as “willing to serve his master beyond honourable limits”. Kent sees his attack on Oswald as “honourable” because he is good triumphing over what Lear sees as evil. He truly sees himself as just “a man” (I.iv.10) being selfless. However, Kent views Oswald as “superserviceable” because he is going to great lengths (just as Kent is) for a woman who is not good. Though Kent may be hypocritical, his attack was fueled by his commitment to doing good.
Kent is also upset that Goneril betrays Lear, and his master’s sadness upsets him. Lear cries, “I’ll tell thee, life and death! I am ashamed that thou has power to shake my manhood thus; that these hot tears, which break from me perforce, should make thee worth them” (I.iv.299-303). Kent sees how insane Lear is becoming by not having his daughter’s faith and feels that Oswald has a large part in Goneril’s plotting because he does not attempt to stop her. Kent sees Oswald as a weak and dishonourable servant because he blindly follows Goneril’s orders though they are not morally correct. Kent does his best to look out for Lear’s interests even if his opinions are not wanted, as seen in I.i when Kent tries to dissuade Lear from banishing Cordelia. It is possible that Kent attacks Oswald because of his shortcomings as a steward and is a guilty player in tearing the family apart and devastating Lear.
We must take into account that perhaps in 1608 when Shakespeare wrote this tragedy, assaulting Oswald was just another way of proving Kent’s loyalty to Lear, even though he knew he would be severely punished. Today such actions would not be considered “good” because it was at Oswald’s expense. It is important that we focus more on his true intentions and not his moments of weakness. Kent is a character who seeks honesty and goodness in the world even though he may be punished for speaking his mind.
WORKS CITED
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Lear. Washington Square Press ed. New York: Pocket, 1957. Print. Folger Library.
Johnston, Iam. “Speak What We Feel: An Introduction to King Lear.” Jonstonia: Studies in Shakespeare. Vancouver Island University, Jan. 2001. Web.