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.
As we discussed in class, it seems almost cruel that Shakespeare should show us one moment of harmonious justice only to tear it apart one moment afterwards. The entirety of the play seemed to be leading up to that triumphant moment when the true daughter would be reunited with her repentant father.
In the fairy tale version of this story that I grew up with, father and daughter are reunited in the end–after the father experiences a revelation as to the meaning of filial devotion and the dangers of excessive pride. (Here is a link to the various fairytale versions of the “how much do you love me” story http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/salt.html) In the link you can see how parallel King Lear is with the German “love like salt” tale. Except for the tragic ending, where father and daughter die.
Now to get back to my original question, why? I think Shakespeare wanted to write a play that was more in the fun traditional Greek tragic style–where, you know, everyone dies and eyes are gouged out (think Oedipus, Antigone or The Trojan Women). What makes this play so especially tragic is that for all the constant grinding forward from bad to worse, we keep being tricked into thinking the horrible events have plateaued, or at least that there is room for optimism.
Edgar is one of the main vehicles for this unwarranted optimism. For example, in act 4 scene 1 right before he finds his disfigured father he says: “…The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune, /Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear: /The worst returns to laughter…/The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst/ Owes nothing to they blasts.” This is incredibly painful to read a second time around because we know just low, dejected and wretched a thing fortune can make of man. It’s like something a vaudeville act; “well, at least it isn’t raining.”
Sweet optimism makes the bite of bitter fortune that much sharper. I cried when Lear carries Cordelia’s body out, maybe because I identified with the father daughter relationship. Maybe because nothing is more painful to me than the idea of a father suffering the loss of his child, of a father’s heart breaking. Perhaps Lear’s death was actually an act of mercy on Shakespeare’s part. To let him live after witnessing his daughter’s death would have been the cruelest punishment.
I suppose Cordelia had to die to show the audience how serious a crime it is to take unadorned love for granted. A father who takes his children for granted commits the greatest sin of all, throws away the most precious treasure. If Lear alone had died after his redemption it would not have been such a tragedy. He was elderly and in those days such a long life was a rarity, therefore it was not so unnatural for him to die. But it is a a complete disruption of the natural order for an old man to bury his young daughter. Not only was she young, but beautiful and unendingly good. That is where the tragedy lies.
I don’t think I have fully answered my own question, except to say that any other combination would not have been thoroughly tragic, and that is why Cordelia had to go.
Examination of Froth and Clown by Escalus and Justice | Photo Credits: BBC
Looking back to the day we had to act out the scene highlighting Pompey and Escalus (2.1.136-256), there is no denying that coordinating the rather tricky Shakespearean language entwined within the scene, the appropriate atmosphere of the characters and the setting and the limited resources (and not to mention ability) into a cohesive portrayal of this particular scene was initially challenging. However, being able to retrospect the challenges in recording the scene, and both understanding and analyzing the significance of the scene only gives an opportunity to once again appreciate the genius of Shakespeare in breathing life into what would be just merely physical movement, voices and props.
Before we had a chance to look at our dialogue we knew that we had to refrain from using the books on stage while filming. The productions we had seen of Shakespeare’s plays were powerful because the actor not only interpreted each line in his/her own way but also because they were able to look out into the audience and convey their emotions to the audience. So, the first thing that popped into my mind was a teleprompter. We’ve seen simple technology such as this being used on a daily basis in so many different TV shows and what we were taping was a video so in that aspect it worked out perfectly. When we finally read the scene we realized it was very apt to use the prompter because it was a court scene. Using the chair for Escalus to sit down and face his back towards the audience was a decision we took since he was the authority in that scene. Simple actions from Froth, Pompey and Elbow like stepping forward to present their case (i.e. read their parts) each time really immersed us into the roles as novice actors.
Unknowingly, a typical tribunal type of atmosphere arose from just our positioning, which eventually became necessary to get the feeling for the more serious questions regarding the actual law that was to be enforced and the type of crime that was committed. The second most important dramatic technique, attempted, was the idea of Pompey reciting the four lines alone as both Escalus and Elbow phase out of the line of sight of the camera to emphasize a sense of cynicism in the justice system presented by Shakespeare because it illustrates the persistence of certain deeds, and even the possibility of helplessness in erasing that same persistence. Just as Pompey critically derides Escalus’s duty to the law, “Does your worship mean to geld and splay all the youth of the city,” the selected scene that was required of us definitely gave the opportunity to not merely enact but to feel, at the very minimum, how the language woven within the directions of how the props and setting would be displayed creates the right atmosphere in thinking on terms like cynical justice or corruption. Hence going back to what was mentioned earlier, this is just a taste of the genius in Shakespeare breathing life, which can be appreciated only when one has attempted to enact that selected scene.
We found it very enjoyable working on this project despite everyone’s initial hesitation towards group projects. Everyone in this group was extremely cooperative, which helped a lot considering we had to do a number of retakes (close to 20?). One scene that stood out for us was the one between Escalus and Pompey regarding Pompey’s nickname. We all laughed out loud during the “bum” comments because we didn’t realize how hilarious they were until we recited the play.
The scene showed us a very different dynamic to Shakespeare’s work in that it showed comedy, however, it also illustrated his ability to created striking conversation. The scene the group did was not an introduction to the types of subjects the play addresses, but also the kind of quick hitting, “right back at you” type of dialect. In addition, while it was able to delineate multiple dynamics, it showed a very interesting lens in that it portrayed class distinction by way of vocabulary which was a bit new to me when it came to Shakespeare. All in all, he believes that sometimes we lose sight of the meaning behind Shakespeare’s work because of the language, but if we take the time to find the power behind the dialogue, we can gain a better understanding of the play, the times, and Shakespeare himself.
The graveyard scene in Hamlet is one of the most iconic moments of the play often referenced out of context, and as a result many of its important details go missed. As a group, our initial meeting focused on planning and logistics. We wanted to do Shakespeare’s work as much justice as we possibly could in light of our modest situation, and what became readily apparent was that even if nothing else was available Yorick’s skull had to be used as a main prop. Something that we all felt as a profound truth in this experience is that Shakespeare’s plays were certainly meant to be seen, heard, and performed. There is undoubtedly so much more to be learned from playing one of his characters instead of simply reading the lines. As fortune would have it we were able to use an area of the Baruch Performing Arts Center that allowed for ease of filming, the sound of our voices to carry well to our amateur filming apparatus, and also for our characters to be positioned in a way that we felt truly made the scene come to life.
Reid by far had the most challenging task in portraying Hamlet; a character whose tendency to branch into soliloquy made his portion of the scene the lengthiest and most long-winded. His task in our practice readings, and finally in the ultimate performance was preventing the words from melding together and becoming a drone. His use of vocal inflections and varied expressions, a result if his familiarity with the piece, brought the character to life, making what could have been a boring recitation into a worthy theatrical effort.
For Nolan, embodying the character of Horatio really helped him to understand the importance and significance of this character. Horatio was the one person that Hamlet had full trust and confidence in. Where every other relationship he has falls into disarray, the one he has with Horatio stays constant and cordial. This certainly allows the reader to delve further into the mind of Hamlet, but for the actor playing Horatio this effect is even more profound. Horatio has very few lines in the gravedigger scene so he has plenty of time to observe and ponder Hamlet and his sudden return to Denmark. He’s the first individual to truly see the changes that Hamlet experiences, the first person to understand the implications of what actions are to come, and the last person alive to see how these necessary events unfold.
Karina was fascinated by the depth provided by a character that is so often glossed over. She jumped at the chance to portray the comic relief, whose few lines and small role held so much life and character and spoke volumes of the tone and mood of the play itself. It was a very different experience seeing a character portrayed, and being the character yourself. Speaking his jokes, singing his songs, ‘sitting in his grave’ added a layer to the play that reading lines in a book failed to provide. The gravedigger provides exposition from an outsider’s point of view, he is a common man who faces death not with melancholy or petulance, but with rationality and realism. As Hamlet stated “the hand of little employment hath the daintier sense” (5.1.70),and after digging an imaginary grave for seven minutes it is easy to see why humor and honesty would be necessary to make the most of the gravedigger’s vocation.
One thing for sure, it is very easy to see how easy it is for Shakespeare’s work to be represented differently in each production. Lines and scenes can be interpreted differently by different directors and actors causing these variations. We each had different ideas of what the scene would look like and it was especially fun having the opportunity to let the scene flow forth from each of our minds into physicality. We got to collaborate and create a shared organic vision for the scene, and share this interpretation with others.
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.
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.
Although Shakespeare had crafted many characters and numerous plots, he still managed to tie them together. Hamlet and King Lear, for instance, both touch on the idea of succession. In Hamlet, Claudius murdered King Hamlet to seize the throne. In King Lear, the king passed down his kingdom to the wrong daughters. Both plays questioned the legitimacy of succession.
Perhaps Shakespeare found interest in exploring the idea of succession because of what was happening in England at the time. In the years between the writing of Hamlet and King Lear, the crown had been passed down from the “Virgin Queen” to James I. Towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, the queen put a ban on the discussion of succession because she had neither married nor had children. Shakespeare, nonetheless, embedded the topic into his plays.
In both Hamlet and King Lear, succession had taken a turn for the worse. In Hamlet, Claudius’ rise to the crown was blatantly illegitimate. By killing his brother, Claudius not only had the opportunity to marry his wife but to also derail prince Hamlet from the path to becoming king. This situation stands in stark contrast with Harry’s situation in Henry IV, in which Harry suddenly had to assume the role of the “second-in-line.” To fix the illegitimate succession, Hamlet turned to destruction. Almost everyone died, except for Horatio who lived on to tell the story. Succession inevitably went on but beyond the scope of the play.
In King Lear, the king sought to fix his misjudging of character. Lear, like Elizabeth, had been on the throne for a long period of time. Lear was concerned with preserving his legacy. However, he was blindsided by the flattery of his daughters Goneril and Regan. The king turned all that he had into nothing.
King Lear opens with Lear disowning his favorite daughter for her honesty and rewarding the empty flattery of her older sisters. Lear also rejects Kent, a loyal man who seeks to help Lear realize his error. Shakespeare examined the problems of valuing the appearance of the virtues and morality in many of his plays. Angelo in Measure for Measure and Macbeth are examples of powerful men who display the appearance of virtue but are secretly great criminals. Lear goes mad rather than face the truth that his daughters’ protestation of love was only empty flattery. Lear as a king holds the appearance of virtue but acts in a manner that directly opposes morality. It is only when he ventures into the heath with the Fool and Kent and is faced with the storm that he begins to understand the world as it really is. The irony is that the play’s most moral men all end up on the run in the heath. Each holds an appearance that is at odds with their character. They hold the likeness of the mad and the poor while the wicked live in opulence.
