The Virtue of Humour in King Lear (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Prism of Laughter. Shakespeare's "very tragical mirth"
Monograph, published by VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken, 2009
The fusion of the comic and the tragic in the Shakespearean oeuvre seems a commonplace, however, in-depth studies devoted to this field have been quite rare. The present work chose laughter as an umbrella term and is mainly based on critical practice. The different manifestations of laughter and the (open or latent) comic on stage/page are examined in detail, with theoretical considerations. The introduction of the problems arising in laughter theories is followed by the investigation of the grotesque correlation of violence and laughter in Titus Andronicus and The Comedy of Errors. The demonic side of laughter and Shakespeare s great villains are explored in the following, then different aspects of the carnival provide the groundwork for interpretation: of Falstaff s carnivalesque laughter, the ambiguity of (carnivalesque) masquerading (Edgar), and finally, the carnivalesque anti-carnival of King Lear is treated at great length. Informed but relatively free of technical jargon, the book should help not only the literary or Shakespeare scholar but might prove useful and enjoyable to anyone else interested in Shakespearean drama.
Shakespeare, 2015
Critical engagements with the topic of humour and laughter and literary–historical enactments of their social power are all too easily polarized around the idea that the comic is somehow essentially conservative or progressive. Bakhtin's dream that the carnivalesque was a transforming social force has tended to give way to studies such as those by Mulkay, Billig and Ghose, among others, which emphasize instead how the comic can reproduce the status quo. Excepting Mulkay, such studies typically focus on laughter specifically. This article presents a more nuanced account of the comic in literary politics by developing an approach to humour's rhetoric and politics that draws afresh on the early modern Aristotelian tradition of thinking about the risible and offers an analytical approach to humour as an emotional response to what I will call the unseemly. Such a view of humour illuminates the similarities that might be observed in A Midsummer Night's Dream between Puck's amusement at the lovers in act three and Theseus's amusement at the artisans' play in act five. Such a view of humour emphasizes the evolving values, the seemliness, that can be common to humour and politics by exposing the conditions under which humour becomes available to many as a rhetorical resource. In doing so, the article points both through and beyond A Midsummer Night's Dream to a fresh conception of the constructive role that humour specifically might play in political transformation.
Shakespeare Illuinations, 1998
The accurate performance of Shakespeare’s script of King Lear as written requires the presence of true comedy almost throughout: that the Fool be funny, not a solemn, sententious chorus; that Edmund’s black humor glitter to his death; that at least until the final scene Lear himself should achieve more and more witty, satirical, and paradoxical insights – transcending his own subjective misery by sharing in proletarian ridicule of the hypocritical establishment of which he was once the head. Indeed, it is Lear who helps the audience to transcend the overpowering suffering which is supposed to be the hallmark of the play, recurrently reversing the audience’s mood, achieving wonder and delight at these unexpected changes of tone.
This academic essay explores the Shakespearean's King Lear fool through a psychological lens. With the wisdom of the Bible, the antiquity and mysticism of Tarot cards, and comparison to other Shakespearean fools, I seek to prove that the archetypal fool is in fact the wisest character and embodies the multifaceted wisdom and knowledge of humanity.
Theatrical Colloquia, 2020
Shakespeare does not introduce the Fool in his plays by accident or in order to entertain or to amuse. On the contrary, his lines are earnest, filled with undertones, his advices are witty, and their purpose is to amend the one they are aimed at, to point out their mistakes, to warn them, and even to intervene in the play’s plot. The journey of the Fool in King Lear shows that, without this character, the play would be situated somewhere at the border with the Irrational. All the characters seem to be lacking reason, they act without logic. By bringing in the Fool, one is presented the image of the “standstill” in which England’s Royalty was. All the irrationality is transferred to the King. The rest of the characters are, thus, “saved”, their actions being justified by affections that darken their minds and, obviously, accountable for those senseless actions is no one else but Lear. The disappearing of the Fool in King Lear remains a mystery that directors have “deciphered” in many...
The Use of Nothing: the Abiding Disappearance of Lear's Fool
2017
This study investigates the disappearance of the Fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear and how that disappearance affects our conception of the character and experience of the play. The investigation begins with the question “why does Lear’s Fool disappear without explanation after Act III?” Possible answers put forth in criticism and performance are examined, and a more complete answer is sought. A comparison of the traditions of medieval fool literature with those of tragic theater reveals opposing forces forged the Fool, making him subject to contradictory demands. The unique nature of the Fool as a marriage of comic function with tragic pathos is shown to make the Fool’s disappearance essential. The investigation concludes that the Fool’s disappearance was necessary to the play and reveals the revolutionary value of Lear’s Fool as progenitor of the clowns of modernity.
The Structure of Laughter in Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV
WEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, 2022
Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV (c.1597) is the second play in a group of four that deals with the first two Lancastrian kings of England, Henry IV and his son Henry V. This loosely connected series is known as the Second Tetralogy because even though the events portrayed precede the four plays that deal with Henry VI and Richard III, Shakespeare wrote those set earlier in English history a little later in his career. The main aim of this study is to investigate the carnivalesque in 1 Henry IV, understood as a layer of unofficial or popular culture that plays against and undercuts or inverts the official world of the court, high politics, and chivalry. The significance of this study lies in its analysis of how this interaction structures the play; these are not just surface features. The main question is how the carnivalesque affects the level of high politics in the play. The context for the study derives from critical approaches to the play that have been influenced by critical theory, especially in the carnivalesque; the procedure is a detailed qualitative analysis using techniques of textual criticism. The main finding is that the play is not only structured along these lines but also that the level of high official culture is itself put in question by a full awareness of the historical events mentioned in the play.
THE FOOL IN ELIZABETHAN COMEDY. Thesis English Studies at University of Salamanca.
Este trabajo trata de la evolución del bufón isabelino a través de la comedia clásica latina con el Miles Gloriosus de Plauto y el parásito latino en Terencio, sin olvidar la comedia en la literatura medieval con Los Cuentos de Canterbury de Geoffrey Chaucer y los interludios del Teatro Tudor con la figura del Vice, utilizando como ejemplo a Ralph Roister Doister y su Matthew Merrygreek, hasta llegar a las características del bufón isabelino aplicado a tres obras de Shakespeare: Mucho Ruido y Pocas Nueces, Sueño de una Noche de Verano y Enrique IV. Palabras clave: Comedia clásica, Parásito latino, Plauto, Miles Gloriosus, Terencio, Chaucer, Los Cuentos de Canterbury, Teatro Tudor, Interludios, Vice, Ralph Roister Doister, Matthew Merrygreek, Bufón isabelino, William Shakespeare, Dogberry, Bottom, Falstaff. The purpose of this essay is to present an evolution of the Elizabethan fool since the Classical comedy with Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus and Terence’s parasitus, without forgetting the comedy during Medieval literature with Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and the interludes when the Tudor theatre with the figure of the Vice, using as an example Nicholas Udall’s interlude Ralph Roister Doister and his Matthew Merrygreek, to the characteristics of the Elizabethan fool in relation to three Shakespearean plays: Much Ado About Nothing, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Henry IV. Key Words: Classical comedy, Latin Parasitus, Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, Terence, Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, The Tudor Theatre, Interludes, Vice, Ralph Roister Doister, Matthew Merrygreek, Elizabethan Fool, William Shakespeare, Dogberry, Bottom, Falstaff.
Shakespeare’s King Lear and the Fool: Swapping Roles - الملك لير والمهرج لشكسبير: تبادل الأدوار
Jouf University Humanities Journal , 2019
Abstract The natural and accepted behavior is that a king should behave like a king. In a different way, a fool might show the conduct of a comedian or a silly person, but the notion in Shakespeare’s King Lear can be seen reversing. As a reader of the play, I believe that Lear is a king and should show responsibility and obligation according to his title. It is expected that the Fool behaves with amusing and humorous activities. This study aims to explore the concepts of ‘irrationality’ and its conflicting ‘wisdom’ to illustrate the profound inverted roles of the two major characters ‘Lear and the Fool.’ Through an analytical and critical examination, the study is meant to expose the comic conducts of King Lear and, on the other side, the wisdom sides of the Fool. The paper starts with an introduction about Shakespeare and the sources of the play, then analytically comments, in its first central part, on the behavior of Lear as a comic person mixing hilarity and inconvenient conduct. It is followed by the second central part, which deals with the aspects of wisdom in the behavior of the Fool. Then the paper ends with a concise conclusion. الملخص: السلوك الطبيعي والمقبول هو أن أي الملك يفترض أن يسلك سلوك الملوك وفي المقابل فالمهرج، من الطبيعي أن يظهر من سلوكه نوع من السذاجة والحمق والفكاهة، لكن الفكرة في مسرحية ’الملك لير‘ King Lear لوليام شكسبير معكوسة، كقارئ للمسرحية، أعتقد أن ’لير‘ هو الملك ويفترض أن يتصرف كملك يتمثل المسئولية والواجب وفقاً لمنصبه، من المتوقع أن يكون سلوك المهرج ينم عن أنشطة فكاهية ومسلية. تهدف هذه الدراسة، في محاولة، لسبر غور مفهوم ’انعدام العقلانية‘ ومقابلها ’الحكمة‘ من أجل إظهار الأدوار العميقة المقلوبة للشخصيتين الرئيسيتين ’لير‘ و’المهرج‘؛ يُعنى بالدراسة إيضاح السلوك الهزلي الفكاهي في شخصية الملك ’لير‘ وفي المقابل إبراز السلوك الحكيم والمتبصر لدى شخصية ’المهرج‘ من خلال إتباع المنهج التحليلي الناقد.
Revival of Shakespeare's Fool in Absurd Theater.
In a very general sense we can say that the fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear has been revived by Samuel Beckett in his play Waiting for Godot, though in a distorted and absurd form which is more prone to clownish stance. The fool in King Lear is at times apparently weird and funny, but his behavioral, dialogical and situational intelligence, prudence and acumen peel off this apparent disposition. The fool in King Lear has no name or in other words and in my view it is the clown named as the fool. The fool in King Lear depicts wisdom wrapped in a clownish disguise, while the clowns of Waiting for Godot depict the foolishness of gestures, action, behavior, situation and conversation that is much thought provoking as well. Beckett’s clowns are very awkward in nature as they portray a gloomy image through their futile existence. Beckett’s clowns make a fool of themselves when they try to realize their aspiration, but failure of intention make things go absurd. On the other hand King Lear’s fool, who is a clown, makes fool of others or in other words tries to bring out the inner fool of Lear himself. The distorted revival of Shakespearian fool in Modern drama seems to be comparatively unconventional and whimsical as the element of Dark Comedy is more prevalent. In this paper I try to figure out the relevance of foolishness as exhibited in the two early mentioned dramas.