Category Archives: Character types

Cordelia the Fool

Doubling, King Lear, The Fool

Scholars have long debated over whether or not the same male actor was meant to play both the roles of Cordelia and the Fool in King Lear. Regardless of Shakespeare’s intention, there are similarities between the two characters.

Like the “all-licensed” Fool, Cordelia insisted on being true to herself by maintaining a high level of honesty. She can be considered a brave female character who dared to deviate from the norms of society, one of which was to tell her father the king what he wanted to hear. Despite knowing that “nothing can come of nothing,” Cordelia refused to affectedly flatter her father like her two elder sisters did. She and the Fool both possessed a nimble mind that other characters lacked. Influenced by the teaching “The heart of fooles is in the mouth: but the mouth of the wise is in their heart” from The Book Ecclesiasticus, Shakespeare had Cordelia say nothing to indicate that she is the wise one, just like the Fool who opened Lear’s eyes to the truths that he was too blinded to see.

However, Cordelia is also a fool in the literal sense of the term. She was uncompromisingly honest to the point of being stubborn. Rather than saying nothing, she could have expressed her genuine love for her father while still upholding her dignity. At the tragic ending of the play, Lear said “And my fool is hanged” to refer to Cordelia’s unjustified death. Lear calling his daughter a fool in this context is an expression of endearment towards the only daughter who really loved him but was too “foolish” to say anything beyond nothing.

Group Five Reflection: Getting to know the Fool

Character types, King Lear, Rhyme and pattern, The Fool, Tragic hero, Verbal texture

We ended the day of taping with the yearning to have had actual costumes to perform instead of what a student usually undergoes when completing a project: relief. As a group, we had been hooked by the performance that had just occurred at the Baruch Honors lounge. The details became apparent of what it took to stage a scene: the positions of the characters, furniture and even lighting all became factors that resulted in a different performance every time.

Having the lines read out loud showed the possibilities for the portrayal of the Fool, Kent and King Lear. The stage directions that seem meager at first became eye opening. For example, with the beginning of the Fool’s dialogue on stage directed at Kent, the questions of how much does this figure of comedy and honesty know? Getting the physicals of the performance right became as significant as the dialogue.

In each of our respective roles, we as group members got to find a new sense of recognition. Dariya, as the Fool, got particularly hung on the word coxcomb, but also saw how the Fool could be played exceedingly crazy, passionate or simply jovial. Trying to perfect just one is impossible; a range of emotion is necessary. Christopher, the King of all Lears, showed great power and the dedication necessary to fill the shoes of Lear. Chiffon, as Kent, served as a bridge of finesse who physically and spiritually occupied the ground between the two.

Christopher provided the best run-down of all the factors and quirks that came together in the formulation of the group five project:

“As a critique, I believe that with more time and practice we could have increased our level of dialogue and remembering of our lines, which is without a doubt the most challenging task of acting in general. Overall the time spent with the group was a wonderful experience and it would be nice to do another filming project with them in the near future.”

Included below are links to some familiar faces taking on the roles of King Lear and the Fool.

The first has Sam Waterson take on the role of the maddening monarch.

The second video grants the Fool a monologue to the scene performed by this humble group. Joe Powers, alone with Shakespeare’s lines, was able to capture the mastery and emotive powers necessary to do the role justice.

KING LEAR PLAYBILL

THE FOOL MONOLOGE

Layers of Lear

King Lear, The Fool

It is fascinating to follow the changes that  Lear undergoes in just the first three acts of King Lear. It is evident from on the start of the play that he is a man suffering from insecurities, and is reliant on the reassurance of others. We first see this in Act I, when Lear demands that his daughters express their love for him in order to obtain a portion of his property. It is as though he is begging them to verbally fight over him when he says, “Which of you shall we say doth love us most? That we our largest bounty may extend Where nature doth with merit challenge.”

We see again King Lear’s reliance on others, and his need to surround himself by those who will serve him, when he insists that his 100 knights remain with him even after his “retirement”. He is even willing to go out of his way by alternating between the homes Goneril and Regan in order that he should keep his knights by his side. “Ourself, by monthly course, With reservation of an hundred knights, By you to be sustain’d, shall our abode Make with you by due turns.”

The Fool is yet another character that seems to remain by Lear’s side throughout several scenes in the beginning of the play. However, it is in Act 3 Scene 4 that we see a change in King Lear, specifically when he orders the Fool to leave his side and find shelter from the violent storm, “Prithee, go in thyself: seek thine own ease:” As the fool goes to find cover, King Lear seems to have an epiphany.

“Poor naked wretches, whereso’er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loop’d and window’d raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these? O, I have ta’en
Too little care of this! Take physic, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,
That thou mayst shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.”

In this speech, Lear seems to recognize the mistakes he made as king by not properly caring for the poor in his country. Lear is stripped away of not only the physical layers, a roof above his head that would protect his body, but the emotional layers as well, the people that would protect his ego. It seems that this is the first time in the play that we see King Lear thinking of others before himself.

“One ought to hold on to one’s heart; for if one lets it go, one soon loses control of the head too.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Character types, King Lear, Psychological states, Tragedy, Tragic hero

imageKing Lear is a tragic hero, doomed by the misfortune of his own error. A reigning example of how a noble man can be defeated by his flaws, he drives himself to the brink of insanity. King Lear’s flaws are that he is arrogant, prideful, and biased. It’s the reason for his insanity that brings out strong emotions in the reader. King Lear’s daughters Goneril and Regan are insincere about their love for him; they give a fantastical view of how daughters should love their father. Cordelia, however, gives her father a realistic view of a daughter’s love, which he isn’t equipped to handle. King Lear appears to be a good man, if not a bit egotistical and foolish.  It is very easy to like him. Yet, consider that Goneril and Reagan may have turned out the way they did because their father has a clear biases, a favorite child in Cordelia. The idea that a parent has a favorite child is conceivable, yet to express that emotion so clearly can be damaging to a child’s psyche.
King Lear has always approached his daughters as the king, with an extreme expression of authority. He never visited his daughters as simply a father. It’s a shock to him when reality hits, and the love he thought he had was simply an illusion, and his only saving grace was Cordelia. At the end of the day, King Lear learns what it’s like to feel other people’s pain, but sadly with no rewards, he must find company in insanity.

“The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.” ― Oscar Wilde

Character types, Measure for Measure, Psychological states

Temptation is a key theme in Measure for Measure:  it’s a factor in discovering one’s true self. Angelo can’t resist temptation.  In many ways his proposition to Isabella makes the reader view him as an immoral or evil person. He has no issue with giving into temptation and using someone’s life as bargaining tool. Angelo proves himself to be extremely human, flawed and vulnerable. Isabella, however has many traits in common with Angelo, and yet refuses temptation wholeheartedly. Isabella’s refusal of temptation actually reflects the negatives she tries to hide in her personality. She is proud, pious, and selfish even when Claudio’s life hangs in the balance. Isabella is naturally viewed as a good person: what could be immoral about a future nun?

Isabella in many respects needs to yield to temptation to truly become whole. Here is a woman who is completely uncomfortable with her sexuality, and in her turn her feminine power. How can she reach that next level of becoming holy and righteous if she has never given into the rapture of sin to understand sacrifice?

The question remains are those who give into temptation weaker in character than those who will not?

Hotspur…The son that the King always wanted?

1 Henry IV, Character types, Uncategorized

Probably one of the most aggressive characters to play within Shakespeare’s King Henry IV Part 1, Hotspur’s “hot headed” demeanor is one of the most intriguing and entertaining factors of the entire play. It is almost like a New  Year’s Eve countdown reading a scene with him in it, as the audience just waits for the inevitable moment when the soldier would lose his temper and lash out at who is within a 5-mile radius of him. Maybe that is the characteristic the drew King Henry towards him in the first place. While his son Hal had more of a laid back and intellectual savant type of personality, Hotspur’s aggressive nature was an attractive character trait for the King who knew that in order to rule you must have the will to act at all times.

Yet, what if King Henry did have Hotspur as a son? I believe that Hotspur would not have had the lazy and relaxed type nature of Hal, but would have been a very hyper and willing soldier who’d jump into action at the very first sign of disturbance or an altercation. At first I believe that King Henry would have appreciated Hotspur’s dedication to be the best, and probably would have promoted him to the highest rank of military order. But there is a down side to this alternative scenario; as I believe that while the King would have been proud of his soldier-like son; his life span would have also been shortened. Hotspur’s lust for power would have eventually boiled over to the point in which he would take action towards King Henry and take over the throne. It is a situation in which a character’s position does not change his personality, but only reveals it to a hire degree. Though King Henry did kill his uncle Richard in order to take over the throne himself; so therefore I guess he and Hotspur would’ve have still obtained that “like father, like son” quality.

Similarities between Hamlet and Claudius

Character types, Hamlet, Psychological states

In act 3.2 when Claudius delivers his monologue on the nature of his deeds, I was struck by how increasingly similar he and Hamlet grow throughout the play. Claudius’ language reeks of indecision, of a man who is trapped by the oaths he made to himself:

”     Pray can I not, /Though inclination be as sharp as will./My  stronger guilt defeats my strong intent, /  And like a man to double business bound/ I stand in pause where I shall first begin, / And both neglect” (3.3.40-3).

On the one hand there is a part of him that wants to absolve himself of his sins, perhaps by taking the punishment fit for his heinous crime. But on the other hand, he doesn’t want to give up all the things he acquired through this act. His guilt is stronger than his will to repent.

Similarly Hamlet has the “strong intent” of avenging his father’s death, but this intent is ever defeated by internal debates as to a mode of action. He too is to double business bound. By always weighing two courses of action against each other, Hamlet always ends up neglecting both courses.

There is only Honor amongst thieves…

1 Henry IV, Character types

Honor is a topic that is quite frequently mentioned throughout Henry IV Part One. It was the glory which men sought, whether they be on the battlefield or for a doing a noble deed. When you try to picture an honorable person, a King or a Lord or may come to mind. At the very least it will be someone who truly lives by a code of moral justice. It is interesting then, that Shakespeare chooses to never have honor mentioned by someone whom we may consider honorable. Instead, only those people who we would normally consider to be dishonorable, mainly Falstaff and Prince Hal, speak of what honor truly is. These characters partake in robberies; loiter around the tavern drinking in excess and lie in order to avoid punishment. They seem to be dregs of society, yet almost exclusively have the privilege of speaking about honor.

The first mention of honor is spoken by Sir John Falstaff, ironically just before they are taking their positions to rob a passing train of people. He exclaims “A plague upon it when thieves cannot be true to one another…” (2.2.27-28) after he can’t find where Poins hid his horse. In this context, honor is a trust amongst those in the same line of work. Next, Prince Hal, equates honor with how much sack (wine) he can drink, the honor being the recognition he receives for it. This comes as he is celebrating with Poins about their joke of robbing their own crew, who just robbed the caravan. The next mention of honor is also from Prince Hal, this time speaking of honor in a more true to the definition manner. His father has essentially called him a shame for whom he keeps company with, and Hal responds that in order to regain his honor he will kill the honorable Knight Hotspur. By doing this, he hopes to win favor back from his father. To back up the claim that Hotspur is an honorable man, Douglass reaffirms this thought by saying to Hotspur “Thou art the King of honor. No man so potent breathes upon the ground But I will [oppose] him” (4.1.10-12).

Finally, the last mention of honor belongs to Falstaff. He gives us yet another perspective of what honor is:
“…a word. What is in that word honor? What
is that honor? Air-. A trim reckoning! Who hath it?
He that died a Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No.
Doth he hear it? No. ‘Tis insensible, then? Yea,
to the dead…”
(5.2.132-138)
Essentially, Falstaff is saying that honor means nothing. It is simply a word that men use to gain fame. In their search for this glory, they often die, thus their legacy lives on with the title “the Honorable Sir so-and-so”. However, if you want to live then you must rely on yourself, and do what you must to scrape by. This may lead you down a path of wrongdoing, but in his view, it’s better to be and old man who enjoys his drink than to be a young man slain and called honorable.

Falstaff and Bottom: Shakespeare was no fool to create these fools

1 Henry IV, Character types, The Fool

Falstaff is a particularly interesting and colorful character in Henry IV.  He couldn’t help but remind me of Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream with his use of bombastic language and silly antics, but above all, the significance behind his reputation as the “fool” of the play.  I was doing a bit of research and found a very interesting article by Arthur F. Kinney that discusses Shakespeare’s use of Falstaff as a prime example of parody.  He is an extremely vibrant and witty character, and because of this, he seems to rival Hal and other characters who are higher in status. As we discussed in class, he is also present throughout much of the play in different realms (such as the tavern, the court, and the battlefield); although he isn’t necessarily taking part in the action, he always has a great understanding of what’s happening around him and makes note of this in a witty and appealing way.  We also see this with Bottom, who is present in all realms of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, though he seems a bit less clued in than Falstaff in regard to what’s happening around him, especially in the woods.

Kinney’s article also reveals that Shakespeare parodied English history with his creation of Falstaff, for many believe that his character is based on Sir John Oldcastle, a true historical figure who served as a knight for the real King Henry IV  (sec. II).  Oldcastle was well-liked by the king, but he was also involved in a religious group that went against the ways of the king’s Catholic church. He was condemned as a heretic and thrown in jail, where he eventually escaped as was said to have conspired with a group to use force against the king.  This reminds readers of Falstaff, who constantly rises back up after what seems like defeat (think: Act 5, Scene 4 when he feigns his own death to protect himself).

In terms of Falstaff’s rhetoric skill, Kinney writes, “His quick repartee is heavily grounded in alliteration, repetition, and classical allusion that characterized euphuism, the sophisticated language of an earlier Elizabethan court; from the start, he is parodie” (sec I).  We must remember that Bottom, too was a character surrounded by allusion in Shakespeare’s work, and though he could be deemed the fool of the play, his use of language brought attention to many of the greater issues lying beneath the surface of the work, such as living a life governed by reason rather than the fickle heart and wandering imagination.  Falstaff might be considered to be the fat, cowardly jester of the play, but as Kinney points out, “style…can override substance”. He goes on to say, “serious ideas may be diminished or even erased if their examination is funny enough…seen this way, parody is not a means of translating ideas but a means of overturning them” (section V).  If looked at this way, Falstaff’s purpose is actually quite different from Bottom’s.  His linguistic style arguably draws attention away from what readers would see as “substantial” ideas in the play; instead, it rests on the idea of parody itself and Shakespeare’s awareness of its underlying significance in Henry IV.

Source:

Kinney, Arthur F. “Shakespeare’s Falstaff as parody.” Connotations 12.2-3 (2002): 105+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.