Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to English Literary Renaissance
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ROBERT Β. HORNBACK
As a the
number
1980s, of Renaissance
notably textualofscholars
in The Division arguedthe
the Kingdoms, persuasively
Quarto and in
Folio versions of King Lear are distinct texts often producing different
literary and theatrical effects. Unfortunately, interest in such variation
was inadvertently quelled by the vast majority of "revisionist" critics
who argued that the Folio text was simply an improved version of the
earlier Quarto text. As a result, much of their work focused on zeal
ously "proving" that the Folio renderings of characters were superior to
their supposedly deficient counterparts in the Quarto. Ultimately, a
sensible majority of critics were persuaded by arguments that the two
texts were substantially different but nonetheless pointed out the flawed,
subjective, and ultimately unprovable logic of authorial perfection as
the sole motivation for substantive textual variants.
As one who ostensibly rejected the logic of authorial perfection,
R. A. Foakes had the last word on the differences between the Quarto
(published 1608) and Folio Fools in King Lear when he appeared to
disagree with John Kerrigan's conclusion that the Folio version of the
character was enhanced by the author. Like the editors of The Division of
the Kingdoms, Kerrigan had employed a theory of revision that assumed
"to revise" simply meant "to perfect," so that he deemed the Quarto a
rough draft at best, a failed attempt to produce the supposedly more
ι. Quoted in Philip Gaskell, "Example 12: Stoppard, Travesties, 1974," in From Writer to
Reader: Studies in Editorial Method (Oxford, 1978), pp. 246-47. Gaskell's essay is still one of the
most thought-provoking analyses of revision for performance and the problems it presents for
editorial practice.
306
© 2004 English Literary Renaissance Inc. Published by Black well Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Maiden, MA 02148, USA.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 307
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
3o8 English Literary Renaissance
Quarto Fool could be analyzed on its own terms, Jonathan Goldber
dismissed all so-called "character criticism" in a 1986 essay entitle
"Textual Properties," reprinted and somewhat qualified in Shakespeare's
Hand (2003). Combining post-structuralist theory with research demon
strating the instability of the Shakespearean text due to performance cuts
sophisticators, and compositors, Goldberg claimed that since "the stabilit
of the word is in question, so, too, is the stability of character." Then, 11
an extension of such all-or-nothing logic, he argued, character "cannot b
assimilated to an authorial intentionality." Even as he once claimed that
his own "critical position [is] more responsive to the radical historicity o
the texts," Goldberg's brand of "rigorous historicism" completely ignore
the relevance of one type of historicism—theater history. Such an a
proach, then, is inherently based on a dismissal of drama as theater. Afte
all, for those who love drama, character has always been a valid concern. B
contrast, Goldberg's decontextualizing, "denaturalizing" approach views
play-texts and characters alike as always already circumscribed by the pag
never the theater. Shakespearean drama itself, like its author, is lifeless,
dead thing to be dissected by Derridean "free play," but never a play
Thus, while there can be "no text," paradoxically, there is merely text, s
that the only valid historical approach is "a return to the letter," affixed to
paper either by the printing press, or, elsewhere in his work, by hand, bu
in any case never lively characters 011 page or stage.1 Regrettably, at leas
in the case of Lear's Fool, this typo-centric dismissal of any consideration
of character undermined a valid form of literary, theatrical, and editoria
analysis. For those concerned about historical contexts, it would be prefe
able to attend to character in Renaissance terms when possible, and con
sider it, and dramatic revisions, within the context of theater culture/'
(p. 46): "Except for cutting, which could be theatrical rather than authorial, the major substantive
changes in F are usually additions of a line or more to existing Q speeches, . . . and hundreds o
small verbal changes . . . explainable as editorial, scribal, or compositorial error, correction, or
sophistication" (p. 32). Knowles too falls prey to the logic of attempted perfecting when he argu
that Folio variants are "local improvements, not significant revisions" (p. 4$, emphasis mine).
5. Jonathan Goldberg, "Textual Properties," Shakespeare Quarterly 37.2 (1986), 215, 214, 216. See
also his Writing Matter: From the Hands of the English Renaissance (Stanford, 1990). In marked contrast
to Goldberg's ahistoric dismissal of theatrical concerns, David Wiles has argued: "To analyze an
Elizabethan play as the product of a single mind is to impose a selective modern point of view
Shakespeare's Clown: Actor and Text in the Elizabethan Playhouse (Cambridge, Eng., 1987), p. 42.
6. While the caveat that there was no sense of stable character in the period—based primarily
on inconsistent speech headings in Renaissance texts—has some merit, the differences between
natural and artificial fools were widely recognized at the time. For discussions of instability o
character in dramatic texts, see especially Random Cloud, " 'The very names of the Persons
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Homback 309
Editing and the Invention of Dramatick Character," in Staging the Renaissance: Reinterpretations of
Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama, ed. David Scott Kastan and Peter Stallybrass (London, 1991),
pp. 88-96; de Grazia and Stallybrass, pp. 255-83; and Random Cloud, "Information on Informa
tion," TEXT 5 (1991), 241-81.
7. Welsford, The Fool: His Social and Literary History (London, 1935), p. 119.
8. Unless otherwise specified, quotations from Shakespeare's plays refer to The Riverside
Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakenrore Evans, et al. (Boston, 1997).
9. On natural fools, see esp. Welsford; John Doran, The History of Court Fools (London, 1858);
Leslie Hotson, Shakespeare's Motley (New York. 1952); Walter Kaiser, Praisers of Folly: Erasmus,
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
3io English Literary Renaissance
The substitution of artificial fools such as Touchstone, Feste, Lavatch
Thersites, Carlo BufFone, and Passarello for the carnivalesque clow
that had dominated the 1580s and 1590s indicates that playwrights we
self-consciously participating in a change of fashion in the years follo
ing 1599. For more than a decade thereafter the artificial fool became t
most prominent comic role. The Shakespearean actor famed for playin
these artificial fools, Robert Armin, the self-proclaimed "Clonnico del
Mundo" ("Clown of the Globe") after c. 1599 and author of Fool Upo
Fool or Sixe Sortes of Sottes (1605), was self-conscious about the distincti
between fool types as he wrote, for instance, in Λ Nest of Ninnies (1608
that "Fools artificial with their wits lay wait / To make themselves Foo
liking the disguise / To feed their own minds and the gazer's eyes.""1
Aware of his popular role as scourge of folly, Armin explained on the
title-page to his satirical Quips Upon Question (1600) that "[I]t is my pr
fession, / To jest at ajester [i.e., a fool], in his transgression." To sum up
then, the self-conscious artificial fool type played by Armin had foils "
jest at" to set himself apart as he distinguished himself from his peers
foolishness through his demonstrably bitter, often satiric wit, rationa
logic and idiom, wise self-knowledge, and, perhaps above all, jests at th
transgressions of those whom he proved to be naturals.
Far from being mere arcane trivia, the historical distinction between
fool types and comic functions so familiar in Shakespeare's day can be
applied not only to an analysis of the textual variants of the Fool in Q an
F Lear, but also to scholarly and dramatic interpretations of the Fool's pa
more generally. Since his return to the stage in 1838, after his editori
excision by Nahum Tate in 1681, the Fool in King Lear has been mo
than an enigma." Kerrigan rightly observes that critical interpretations
Rabelais, Shakespeare (Cambridge, Mass., 1963); John Southworth, "The Innocents," Fools a
Jesters at the English Court (Stroud, Gloucestershire, 1998), pp. 48-60. On artificial fools, see
Charles S. Felver, Robert Armin, Shakespeare's Fool: A Biographical Essay, Kent State Universit
Bulletin (Kent, 1961); Thomas Lodge, Wits Miserie and the World's Madnesse (1596), p. 84; a
Theodore Leinwand's "Conservative Fools in James's Court and Shakespeare's Plays," Shak
speare Studies 19 (1991), 219—34. None of the above actually establishes criteria tor differentiating
between fool types, few even address both types, and none observes the artificial fool's essentially
normative comic function.
10. A Nest of Ninnies and Other English Jestbooks of the Seventeenth Century, ed. P. M. Zall
(Lincoln, Neb., 1970), p. 26.
11. In 1681 Nahum Tate's infamous adaptation of Lear, which he titled The History of King
Lear, appeared with a number of significant changes, among them the addition of a love plot
between Cordelia and Edgar and a happy ending, as well as the expunging of the Fool. The first
production to restore the Fool was that of Macready's in 1838.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 311
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
312 English Literary Renaissance
In addition, given evidence of the fad involving Armin's brand of
artificial fools, determining when Armin (d. 1615) retired, taking his last
exit from Shakespeare's "great stage of fools," may help us begin to date
the Folio revision. It seems likely that Armin was still playing his popular
fool roles as late as 1610, two years after the publication of the Quarto,
since in that year John Davies' Scourge of Folly commends "honest
gamesome Robin Armin" who "playest both" a "foole and [a] knave,"
urging him to continue to "do as thou dost, wisely play the foole."'3 In
1613, however, Shakespeare and Fletcher's Henry VIII included a some
what curious prologue justifying the absence of the legendary fool Will
Somers from the play:
15· John Davies, The Complete Works of John Davies of Hereford, ed. Alexander B. Grossart
(Edinburgh, 1878), II, 60-61.
16. The artificial fool often appropriated the "fool's coat" to mark his profession and give him
license. As Wiles notes, "Anyone could be an 'artificial' fool by dressing up in the motley uniform
of the 'natural."' Wiles, p. 150. Thus, when an observer supposedly complained to John
Heywood thatjohn Pace, a master of arts, educated at Eton and elected scholar of King's College,
Cambridge, in 1539, "had disgraced himselfe with wearing a fooles coate," Heywood retorted,
"It is lesse hurtfull to the commonweale, when wisemen goe in fooles coates, than, when fooles
goe in wise mens gownes." William Camden, Remaines of A Greater Worke, Concerning Britain
(1605), p. 234.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 313
ιη. In the Quarto of Much Ado (ϊόοο), Kemp's name appears in the stag
speech heading for Dogberry in 4.2, partly perhaps to prevent confus
headings for Constable and Conrade (the latter listed as "Con." in the scen
Shakespeare's Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily from t
Library, ed. MichaelJ. B. Allen and Kenneth Muir (Berkeley, 1981), p
headings for Kemp are generally taken as evidence that the part was at l
before he left Shakespeare's company sometime in the year 1598-1599.
18. Further evidence of a fad for Armin's type of fool is suggested by
last Admiral's comedy, All Fools but the Fool (c. 1599, lost), which stron
competition with Armin's popularity.
19. For a discussion of this revision for Armin, see Felver, pp. 65-66.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
314 English Literary Renaissance
better part, "a more demanding role in which, for the greater part of th
play, he is required to disguise himself as a madman," and Armin was a
skilled mimic; and Armin was too old (likely in his forties) by 1603 to
have been referred to as "boy" as the Fool is several times.2" Both arguments
are mistaken. By the logic of the first, Armin should also have played th
lead roles in Hamlet and The Malcontent, since, like the part of Edgar, bot
of these roles require an ability to play a mad natural, yet we know that
Burbage played both roles successfully. More importantly, the modern
assumption that Edgar is a better part ignores the popularity of Armin's
fools at the time, not to mention what a rewarding role the Fool is.
The second claim relies exclusively on the first definition of the word
"boy" in The Oxford English Dictionary, "a male child below the age of
puberty," but ignores three common alternative meanings in early modern
English, all of which could apply to the Fool: "applied playfully, affec
tionately, or slightingly to a young man, or one treated as such" (OED
2); "a servant, slave" (OED 3); and "a term of contempt" synonymou
with "knave, varlet, rogue, wretch, caitiff" (OED 4; after all, the Fool i
called elsewhere "more knave than fool" and Davies claimed that Armin
played both fool and knave). Lear's relationship with the Fool seems to
suit all of the ancillary meanings of "boy" at least as well as the first
possible meaning. Furthermore, since the Fool seems to resent Lear's use
of the term "boy," as is evident when he impudently calls Lear "my boy"
himself (Q 1.4.127; F 1.4.129), the latter meanings are perhaps most
likely. In such a context, even Lear's reference to the Fool as a "pretty
knave" (Q 1.4.89; F 1.4.91) may suggest that Lear is using such words
ironically, "playfully, affectionately, or slightingly." We cannot assume
as critics have that, particularly to an old man m his eighties, a man in his
forties could not appear attractive or even "pretty."
All in all, it seems most likely that when King Lear was first performed,
probably in 1605, a year after his enormous popularity had necessitated
the addition of the artificial fool's part in The Malcontent as well as a year
in which he was capitalizing on his popularity with the pamphlet Fool
Upon Fool, that is, at the very height of his popularity, Armin would have
20. Southworth, p. 134. My quotations from Q and/or F Lear texts refer to King Lear: Λ
Parallel Text Edition, ed. Rene Weis (London, 1993). For reference, in cases of significant variants
between texts, I have generally tried to include as well the through line number (TLN) from
The First Folio of Shakespeare, ed. Charlton Hinman (London and New York, 1968). Where Weis's
parallel text edition has erased notable variants in Q, I have included page signatures (line num
bers unavailable) from Allen and Muir.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 315
Ill
Far from making the Fool more acerbic, the Folio revisions tend to make
the Fool there a sweetly pathetic figure. To Act 3.4, for instance, one of
the storm scenes, the F text adds lines in which Lear expresses concern
for the Fool: "Lear. In boy, go first. You houseless poverty. / Nay, get
thee in. I'll pray and then I'll sleep" (F only, 3.4.26-27; TLN 1807-08).
This added expression of concern for the Fool's condition in F, com
bined with Lear's prior concern for the Fool's exposure to the cold in
both texts ("How dost my boy? Art cold? . . . Poor fool and knave, I
have one part in my heart / That's sorry yet for thee" [Q 3.2.68-73;
F 3.2.68—73]), creates a distinct impression that the Fool's health is
waning in F. The Folio's additional lines also make the Fool there seem
sweet and loyal since he possibly resists going in out of the cold ahead
of Lear. Alternatively, the Folio lines may suggest that its natural Fool
does not always have the proverbial "sense to come in out of the rain"
and depends on Lear for care, as was typical of the natural fool.
The Folio variant that makes the Fool most typically a pitiable natural
is the poignant, enigmatic statement, "And I'll go to bed at noon" (F
only, 3.6.41; TLN 2043), as the Fool's last line. This Folio-only line is
the Fool's response to the mad Lear's inversionary claim, "we'll go to
supper i' the morning" (Q 3.6.78; F 3.6.40). Not only does the Fool
acquiesce to Lear's inversion of custom, but he also identifies pathetically
with a flower that shuts itself away after the passing of the noon-day sun.
The "Go to bedde at noone" was a flower "which shutteth it selfe at
twelve of the clocke and sheweth not his face open vntill the next daies
sunne do make it flower anew, whereupon it was called Go to bed at
noone."22 The allusion suggests the Folio Fool's resignation: since the
21. After mastering the Armin-type in additions to The Malcontent, Marston went on to write
the boy company play The Fawn (1604-1606), featuring the satirical fool Dondolo, apparently to
compete with Armin's continuing popularity. It is also clear that Thomas Wilkins wrote the part
of the witty fool Robin ( The Miseries of Enforced Marriage, 1606) for Armin shortly after King Lear.
22. John Gerard, The Herball (1597), pp. 594~95
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
31 <5 English Literary Renaissance
failing King will not return to glory, the Fool will also "shew . . . not his
face" again. While a bitter rendering of the line is certainly possible
through delivery in modern performance, for those familiar with the
allusion, as a Jacobean audience would have been, the line cannot be so
easily divorced from its pathetic undertones.
The presupposition that the F Fool must be an "enhanced" version of
the supposedly less bitter Q Fool has led revisionist textual scholars to
read the Folio-only line as a "mocking exit line" or as an expression of
the "Fool's determination to leave King Lear with its course half run. . . .
So he resolves to call it a day at 'noone,' to abandon the action at its
midpoint, to absent himself from half the story."23 But this is not how the
line has usually been interpreted in performance. When the Fool was
first restored to the play in 1838 following his excision by Nahum Tate,
Priscilla Florton, playing the Fool as a sweet young, boyish natural,
found pathos in the lines: "When all his attempts have failed, either to
soothe or outjest [Lear's] injuries, he sings, in the shivering cold, about
the necessity of'going to bed at noon.' Fie leaves the stage to die 111 his
youth, and we hear of him no more till we hear the sublime touch of
pathos over the dead body of the hanged Cordelia."24 Likewise, Antony
Sher interpreted the line as his Fool's death knell, a line "which would
make perfect sense coming from a mortally wounded man." Olivier's
television production found the line similarly pathetic: "Here [in 3.6]
pathos is the dominant note. Lear's 'We'll go to supper i' th' morning' is
immediately followed by a close up of the stricken Fool for his 'And I'll
go to bed at noon.' The bustle of Gloucester's urgent return still permits
the camera to linger over the sleeping Lear and his tender removal by
Kent and Edgar to the litter. But the end of the scene is given to the
Fool. . . . We first see him from the rear sitting alone on the bale of hay
as the others leave. After the cut to Edgar [exiting], the angle is reversed
for the camera's zooming return to the abandoned and shivering
figure. That last shot is of the Fool's face, mouth twitching and eyes shut
against the pain of approaching death. "2:> While assumptions of authorial
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 317
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
318 English Literary Renaissance
In addition, because the Folio text cuts the mock trial scene in 3.6, the
Folio's natural Fool offers no resistance to Lear's lapse into madness. In
marked contrast, in Q, as was typical of Armin's artificial fools, the Fool
bitterly calls attention to the transgressive irrationality of Lear's raving
about the imaginary defendant, Goneril, when he refuses to see what
Lear sees:
Lear. Arraign her first. 'Tis Goneril: I here take my oath before this
honourable assembly she kicked the poor King her father.
Fool. Come hither, mistress. Is your name Goneril?
Lear. She cannot deny it.
Fool. Cry you mercy, I took you for a joint-stool. (Q 3.6.43-48)
The final line of this Quarto-only exchange, the Fool's last line in the
Quarto text, shows him refusing to humor the mad Lear. Thus, the
Fool's destruction of Lear's illusion that the stool is not empty and that
Goneril is actually there prompts Lear's angry outburst, as if the Fool had
let her escape: "Stop her there. / Arms, arms, sword, fire, corruption in
the place! / False justicer, why hast thou let her 'scape?' " (Q 3.6.50-52).
David Richman's rare account of the Quarto in performance is instruc
tive here: "The audience invariably laughed when the Fool remarked ot
Goneril, 'took you for a joint-stool.' But in the best tradition of tragic
farce, it was a pained laugh. ... In our production, the mock trial
achieved stunning effects. It was indeed an epicenter" (p. 382). There
fore, contrary to standard revisionist claims that in the trial scene the
Quarto Fool "overlaps with Edgar and Lear" in "[trying] harder to please
the King" and that the mock trial generally "flattens out the distinction
between the Fool and Poor Tom,"29 in Q, Tom and Lear serve as foils
to the Fool, since the Quarto Fool instead separates himself from both,
distinguishing himself as an artificial fool by insisting bitterly on reality
and ultimately opposing rather than merely joining in the madness. In
this scene, as throughout the Quarto, that is, the Quarto Fool is insist
ently and bitterly sane: an emphatically artificial fool.
Contrary to F's additional expression of concern for the shivering Fool
in 3.4, F's added "go to bed at noon" in 3.6, and the omission of the
bitter, "tragic farce" trial scene in F, the Quarto's Fool is recognizably an
artificial fool when he bitterly pursues an attack on Lear's folly 111 several
lines which the Folio text omits entirely: in the Quarto text the Fool
answers his riddle, "Dost know the difference, my boy, between a bitter
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Homback 319
30. The artificial fool quite insistently distinguishes himself from his essentially or naturally
foolish counterpart by artfully proving those around him naturals. Thus, Jonson's play Every Man
Out of His Humour (i 599) includes a pairing of artificial and natural fool as the artificial fool Carlo
Buffone (played by Armin) is paired with Sogliardo, an "essential clown." As Wiles observes,
"Carlo's task in the play is to show up Sogliardo as being essentially a clown" (p. 147). Similarly,
in All's Well That Ends Well, the fool Lavatch turns out to be correct in calling his foil, Parolles,
a fool, since the foolish Parolles ultimately realizes that he can "Being fool'd, by fool'ry thrive!"
(4.3.338) and resolves himself to be a natural. Consistently, the artificial fool has a natural as a foil
to set him off.
31. Which fool is which is not altogether clear, a matter that depends on when the Fool
gestures to himself and when to Lear in performance; but given the bitterness of the jibe and the
fact that Armin specialized in bitter fools, this interpretation seems most plausible.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
320 English Literary Renaissance
the blow of the Fool's bitter truth-telling while simultaneously acknowledg
ing the wisdom ol a pointed jibe, further signals the truth of the artificial
Fool's observation. In addition to the Quarto's bitter insult, it is signific
ant that only in the Quarto do we see an artificial fool assuming the role
of teacher to a simple-witted natural fool; only in Q do we see the Fool
taking Lear's invitation ("No, lad, teach me") to teach him "the differ
ence . . . between a bitter fool and a sweet one." The Q-only passage
thus shows an artificial fool making logical, ordered substitutions ("do
thou for him stand"), rationally explaining and clarifying his logic, and
pressing home the standard point of the wise, philosophical artificial
fool: "Know thyself; know thy folly." The Fool in the Quarto further
explains that Lear has foolishly "given away" all "[his] other titles," and
is now left only with the title of fool "that thou wast born with." This is
a tragic lesson that Lear, who "hath ever but slenderly known himself"
(Q 1.1.280-81; F 1.1.290-91), must learn. In the Folio, therefore, such
lines would have to be cut in order to achieve the consistently disjointed,
enigmatic logic of the natural, since they clearly mark the Fool in the
Quarto as the bitterly rational, wise artificial fool.
Because the Q text so emphatically establishes Lear's folly in dividing
the kingdom and abdicating his throne, the Fool's later commentary
invoking inversion also has an artificial fool's typically biting irony in Q.
Subsequent jibes recall the commonplace early modern theme of "the
world turned upside down." As Peter Burke has shown, the "reversal
between man and beast: the horse turned farrier" and the age and status
reversal where the child "is shown beating [the| father" were familiar
themes in these mid-sixteenth century illustrations.32 As was typical of
parts written for Armin, who claimed it was his very "profession / To jest
at . . . transgression," in the Quarto the Fool's attacks in 1.4 on the folly
of abdication provide a context that clarifies and motivates the Fool's
choric use of inversionary imagery to demonstrate that Lear has foolishly
transgressed. Lear's foolish decision, the Fool rails, has turned the world
topsy-turvy by reversing power and status: "When thou clovest thy
crown i' the middle and gav'st away both parts, thou borest thine ass o'
th' back o'er the dirt" (Q 1.4.149-51; F 1.4.135-37); "[T]hou mad'st thy
daughters thy mother . . . when thou gav'st them the rod and putt'st
down thine own breeches" (Q 1.4.160-62; F 1.4.146-48); and "May not
an ass know when the cart draws the horse?" (Q 1.4.211; F 1.4.197). In
32. Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (New York, 1978), pp. 188-89.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 321
33· Leinwand, pp. 229, 230, 221. Leinwand's comment about "the Quart
specifically to the Quarto-only comments about monopolies which, he ar
conservative political motivation and personal stake in normalcy. Lein
comparison of other Quarto variants.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
322 English Literary Renaissance
bitter-witted artificial fools,34 can one confidently dismiss the fact that
the Q Fool is actually proving Lear a fool. Thus, even if the Quarto Fool
were disingenuously suggesting that he, rather than Lear, is the sweet
fool, we should not ignore the bitterly ironic implications or audacious,
intentional humor of such fooling. If this artificial Fool does appropriate
the title of sweet fool, he does so only to point out the bitter truth that
he has lost the full claim to the title of fool to others, who have not only
adopted the behavior of a fool, but who do it more "naturally."
That the Folio's omission of the 1.4 exchange in Q was not intended
to make the Fool "more consistently a bitter one" is also suggested by the
effectiveness of the Fool's attack in the Quarto-only exchange 011 stage.
In performances of the Quarto at the University of Rochester, noted
above, Richman observed that "in our performance this was one of the
Fool's most successful sequences. 'All thy other titles thou hast given
away; that thou wast born with' elicited a strong reaction from the audi
ence throughout the run. Every night the spectators laughed and gasped,
fully understanding the comedy and growing pain of Lear's situation"
(p. 381). The shock, laughter, and awareness of Lear's pain indicate
that an artificial Fool's obviously bitter humor 111 the Quarto was cer
tainly not lost on its modern audience.
Why, if they are so effective in performance, and if they actually make
the Q Fool the more consistently bitter one, as Richman's production
reveals, were the lines cut in 1.4 of F? One view is that the Quarto Fool's
biting allusions to "monopolies" may have prompted cuts in the Folio
due to censorship. In the context of his critique that the king has given
all his titles away, the Fool claims that even "if he had a monopoly out,"
"lords and great men . . . and ladies too" are such fools that they will not
let him "have all the fool," since "they'll be snatching" at his monopoly
on foolishness (Q 1.4.166-69). Just as Armin's other fools such as Feste are
satirical about universal folly,33 so the Fool's pointed jibe here satirically
34- Equally bitter jesting is, of course, characteristic of Armin's other Shakespearean "fool"
roles since recognizably bitter wit was a hallmark of the artificial fool. The knavish Lavatch, e.g.,
relentlessly taunts the witless Parolles for using a rank metaphor {AWEW, 5.2.6-17). The bitter
Thersites of Troihts and Cressida, a self-described "rascal, a scurvy railing knave" (5.5.28), cruelly
jests that Ajax has "not so much wit . . . [a]s will stop the eye of Helen's needle" (2.1.78-80) and
calls Achilles "thou full dish of fool" (5.1.9) and Patroclus "Achilles' male varl[e]t" (5.1.15).
When Achilles instructs him to bear a letter to Ajax, Thersites retorts, "Let me bear another to
his horse, for that's the more capable creature" (3.3.306-07).
35. The artificial fool generally recognizes the universal folly of mankind. Thus, in Twelfth
Night, Feste shows his awareness of universal folly as he claims: "Foolery, sir, does walk about the
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Homback 323
orb like the sun, it shines everywhere" (3.1.38-39). Likewise, the railing
Cressida (1603) speaks of "[t]he common curse of mankind, folly an
Indeed, "[t]he drift of Armin's fooling ... is towards the universality of
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
324 English Literary Renaissance
cannot conclude that the revision is simply an improvement to a timeless
work of art. Whatever the motive for revision, moreover, we must admit
that it was certainly not to enhance comedy or to make the Folio Fool
more consistently bitter and deliberately needling as revisionist critics
believed.
Although censorship of the Q-only lines is possible, like the systematic
revisions we have already seen in F, the cuts in the Folio in 1.4 are con
sistent with changes that make the Fool a natural and achieve pathos 111
performance, partly by enhancing our sympathy with Lear. Alter all, part
of the rationale behind (or certainly the effect of) omitting the Quarto
Fool's attack on the king's "monopoly" on folly seems to have been to
make Lear less blameworthy, and thus more pitiable, since F also adds
lines for Lear in 1.1 which, by providing a rational motive for his other
wise rash action in dividing the kingdom and by inviting sympathy for
his age, substantially mitigate his responsibility for the chaos that ensues:
while we
Unburdened crawl toward death. Our son of Cornwall
And you, our no less loving son of Albany,
We have this hour a constant will to publish
Our daughters' several dowers, that future strife
May be prevented now. (F only, 1.1.39-44; TLN 45-50; emphasis added)
Not only does F's addition in 1.1 make Lear's death sound imminent
(e.g., Lear figuratively "crawl[s] toward death"), but as Thomas Clayton
argues, it "lays a strong foundation for the development of sympathy
and admiration by providing Lear with a creditable, rational, and regal
motive for his division of the kingdom"—to prevent "future strife."3''
In F, Lear's motivated choice to divide the kingdom and publish his
daughters' dowers in order to prevent future conflict does not appear
to be so obviously foolish. In turn, the ensuing chaos is represented as
beyond his control and, consequently, not clearly his fault, when F
expands Gloucester's ominous, prophetic ruminations about the "late
eclipses" which "portend no good to us" (Q 1.2.97-98; F 1.2.95-96)
and make "future strife" (F only, 1.1.43; TLN 49) seem fated.37
36. Thomas Clayton, '"Is this the promis'd end?' Revision in the Role of the King," in The
Division of the Kingdoms, p. 125.
37. The added lines appearing in the Folio are: "This villain of mine comes under the predic
tion: there's son against father, the King falls from bias of nature, there's father against child. We
have seen the best of our time. Machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all ruinous disorders
follow us disquietly to our graves" (F only, 1.2.100-105; TLN 439-44).
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 325
Again, editors and critics have been puzzled by this variant because few
have entertained the possibility that the earlier Fool could be more
rational than the later one. Even some critics who assume authorial per
fection are thus forced to concede that "to those acquainted with the full
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
326 English Literary Renaissance
Quarto text, the Folio's train of thought appears nonsensical" so that this
is "one of the few clumsy cuts in the Folio text" since the compositors
had "to resort to the settling of nonsense."38 Nevertheless, some have gone
so far as to find that the cut makes the Folio less "set" and "monotonous"
and that the seemingly illogical leap in conversation, a "disjunction" or
"dislocation" in the Fool's logic, makes the Folio Fool the "more urbane
and more oblique" one. And although the Folio's later insertion of a
foolish song in the scene in which Lear discovers Kent in the stocks
("Winter's not gone yet" [F only, 2.4.40-48; TLN 1322-27]) may "seem
distressingly irrelevant" and illogical, the assumption that the revised
Fool must be wiser and wittier leads to the view that such out-of-place
non sequiturs or "disjunction^]" are evidence that the Folio Fool is
"hard-headed" and clearly "disengaged from the King" in keeping with
"the Fool's psychology."3'' Yet such disordered logic is characteristic of
the psychology not of a rational artificial fool but of an irrational natural
fool like the mad Jailer's Daughter in The Two Noble Kinsmen (1613).411
The artificial fool's logic is typically ordered, rational, explicit, some
times even formal and pedantic,41 not disjointed like a natural's.
That the Folio's excision of the Fool's logically ordered, biting critique
in 1.4 was probably intended to affect perceptions of his mental capacity is
underscored by variations elsewhere in the Fool's idiom. It is illumin
ating that Jay L. Halio, basing his commentary on his Folio-only New
Cambridge edition, has argued that the F Fool's "characteristic idiom
38. Taylor, p. 107; Steven Urkowitz, Shakespeare's Revision of "King Lear," (Princeton, 1980),
p. 155, n. 21 and p. 13.
39. See, e.g., Kerrigan, pp. 219, 220.
40. As in the following lines:
I am very hungry.
Would I could find a fine frog—he would tell me
News from all parts o' th' world, then would 1 make
A carrack of a cockle-shell, and sail
By east and north-east to the King of the Pygmies,
For he tells fortunes rarely. (3.4.11-16)
41. Mastery of ordered logic was an obvious proof of rationality. As a result, we regularly see
artificial fools making seemingly ridiculous claims that bait their listeners into saying, "How
prove you that?", "Derive this; come," "Tell me thy reason," or "teach me," so that they may
take 011 the persona of a wise teacher or philosopher instructing an ignorant pupil. Thus, Feste is
granted "leave to prove" Olivia a fool (1.5.58) and uses syllogistic constructions in his conclusion
with Sebastian, "Nothing that is so, is so" (4.1.8-9), and in quoting Gorboduc's syllogism, "That
that is is" (4.2.14). In the same fashion Passarello (another Armin role) in Marston's T7ic Malcontent
can "prove anything" (5.1.52) as when he proves that a "valiant" quarreler is a coward in 5.1.47—
51. All citations are to George K. Hunter's edition o(The Malcontent (Manchester, 2000).
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 327
42. Both productions followed the Folio more than the Quarto. Sher pr
account of his performance in "The Fool in King Lear," Players of Shakes
Jackson and Robert Smallwood (Cambridge, Eng., 1988, 1993), pp. 151-65
Whereas Kerr gave the Fool a northern dialect, the consistently elided form
speech were one of the "signature features of [the] literary southern English
for the exclusive use of'clownish' characters," partly because "dialects of
. . . were often understood as languages of'misrule.'" Paula Blank, Broken E
the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings ( London, 1996), pp. 80—81.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
328 English Literary Renaissance
Beyond the logical disjunction that the Folio achieves by cutting the
passage in 1.4 and by altering the Fool's idiom throughout, other revisions
also systematically make the F Fool an irrational natural. After all, only in
the Folio does the Fool make the strange "prophecy Merlin shall make"
(F only, 3.2.96; TLN 1749) in which he predicts that "the realm of
Albion" (F only, 3.2.93; TLN 1745) shall "come to great confusion" (F
only, 3.2.94; TLN 1746). Initially, there is little to distinguish this F-only
prophecy from the satiric jesting of an artificial fool as it appears to com
ment, allusively, on petty problems in Jacobean England:
But the prophecy soon falls inexplicably from satire into impossibilities
and enigma as it implies that, at the same time, an ideal world will sub
sequently cause confusion:
While the Fool begins logically enough predicting that the conditions in
Renaissance England will be less than perfect, when he illogically shifts
to predicting that Renaissance England will then fall into chaos because
things will also be just and right, his description begins to acquire the
illogical, disjointed, accidental quality of the natural. Then will come the
time, he somewhat lamely concludes, when walking shall be done on
feet. Most importantly, the Fool calls attention to the fact that he actu
ally lives before Merlin. In fact, as Renaissance audiences would have
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 329
The Quarto shows Lear's wits beginning "to turn" as he gropes slowly
toward self-knowledge, while the Quarto's artificial Fool continues to
harp intentionally on the theme we saw earlier: Lear's foolish inversion
of the normal social order in abdicating power to his daughters who have
assumed the disciplinary role of parent/ruler in treating Lear like a dis
obedient child/subject. The Folio, on the other hand reads as follows:
Lear. . . . Who is it that can tell me who I am?
Fool. Lear's shadow.
Lear. Y our name, fair gentlewoman?
(F 1.4.203-205; TLN 743-45)
Although both Fools' lines sting, the F text offers a brilliant revision, one
which future productions otherwise following the Q text closely may
wish to keep because it is so hauntingly effective in performance. But the
Folio's line can also call to mind the unintentional wisdom of a natural
fool gifted with profound insights that he cannot explain.
In addition to revisions making the Fool appear more irrational,
among F's most subtle yet significant revisions to the Fool's character are
those that alter speech headings in the Fool's exchanges with Lear and
Kent in 1.4 to remove the intentional bitterness characteristic of artificial
fools. Along with the Folio's cuts of the Fool's bitterest attack on Lear's
folly there, the F text changes speech headings to insure that the Fool's
remaining bitter lines do not come as a direct response to whomever he
is insulting. The resulting shift toward indirection in F mitigates the
severity and undercuts the intentionality of the Fool's insults. For
instance, after the Fool's first entrance, in 1.4 in the Quarto, the Fool first
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
330 English Literary Renaissance
intentionally mocks the disguised Kent (whom he seems to recognize),
and only then turns to his next opponent, Lear. After twice offering Kent
his coxcomb, the Quarto text has Kent respond, "Why, fool?" (Q 1.4.91),
whereas the Folio text assigns the question to Lear: "Why, my boy?"
(F 1.4.93; TLN 628). Because the questioner is Kent in the Quarto version,
the ensuing response pointedly takes place only between the Fool and
Kent, while Lear is the one impudently discussed as "this fellow":
Whereas the Quarto's artificial Fool bitterly jests about Kent's folly in
following a foolish king, the Folio's choice to replace Kent's question
with Lear's "Why, my boy?" divides the Fool's attention (between Kent
and Lear) and makes the Fool's commentary on Kent's folly in serving
Lear non-confrontational, apparently innocent and unintentional, since
the Fool no longer directly confronts Kent at length before taking on
Lear. The exchange with Kent in the Quarto postpones a long-absent
and independent artificial Fool's acknowledgement of Lear since it
intervenes between the King's earlier greeting to the Fool, "How now,
my pretty knave, how dost thou?" (Q 1.4.89; F 1.4.91), and the Fool's
eventual, pointedly bitter and delayed acknowledgement of Lear. In the
Quarto text it is only after successfully disposing of Kent and rudely
ignoring his King for ten lines as if he were nobody that the bitter Fool
finally acknowledges the King, "How now, nuncle? Would I had two
coxcombs and two daughters" (Q 1.4.97-98; F 1.4.99-100), whereas the
Folio revision makes a natural Fool address some of his early responses
immediately, and therefore more respectfully, to Lear.
Later in 1.4, the Folio changes a speech heading again, effectively
decreasing the bitterness and intentionality ot a direct criticism once
more. After the Fool teaches Lear his rhyming speech ("Have more than
thou showest, / Speak less than thou knowest," etc., Q 1.4. no—19;
F 1.4.111-20), the Quarto text has Lear respond directly to the Fool's
address to him, "This is nothing, fool" (Q 1.4.120), while F's revision
assigns the line to Kent:
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 3 31
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
332 English Literary Renaissance
Fool's criticism in that version pointed, while the Folio's revised, diffused
speech headings seem to have the effect of making the Fool there less
aggressive and less persistent. The Quarto Fool's direct attacks against
Lear's folly and Kent's foolish faithfulness are unmistakably intentional
or "[deliberate] needling" since his responses suggest that he rather than
Lear or Kent orchestrates the scene. Instead of innocently or accidentally
reacting to the other characters as in F, the Q Fool, consistent with
Armin's fool type, intentionally provokes them and sets them up with
riddles in order to knock them down and prove them fools.
Within such a coherent pattern of variants we are able to appreciate
a subtle variant that also appears in 1.4, which makes the Fool in the
Quarto a bitter, pestilent fool rather than simply an irritant, and which
reinforces the Q Fool's status as a professional artificial fool. After the
Quarto's Fool offers Lear his coxcomb and tells him to beg another of his
daughters whom he likens to Lady Brach, the Quarto text has Lear
respond, "A pestilent £»// to me" (Q sig. C4V),44 "gull" being synonymous
with "fool," and "pestilent" marking him paradoxically as an intention
ally bitter artificial one, while the Folio revision has Lear respond, "A
pestilent gall to me" (F 1.4.107; TLN 644), typically glossed merely as a
"source of irritation." Even though this detail could once again be ascribed
to print shop misconstructions, an "accidental" in the text, the difference
should not be dismissed off-hand as necessarily typographical since the
"bitter gull's" consistency with the general tenor of Q's more bitter and
aggressive Fool makes this possibility less likely. In the Quarto text Lear's
use of "gull" alludes to the Fool's profession as fool, forming a parallel to
his irritable retort twenty-four lines later, "A bitter fool" (Q 1.4.126; F
1.4.128), since the lines together distinguish him as an artificial fool. The
Folio's later "gall" could just as easily be attributed to print shop error, but
there too the choice of a word for a natural irritant seems entirely appro
priate to F's occasionally unwittingly irritating natural Fool. The Quarto
Fool, by contrast, like Armin's fools, is not merely an unwitting natural
irritant but an intentionally biting, "pestilent gull," a "bitter" gadfly.44
44· In the parallel text edition Weis apparently takes "gull" as a type-setting error, since he
changes it to the Folio's "gall" reading.
4$. Playwrights regularly emphasized the bitterness of Armin's artificial fools. Hence Passarello,
added to Marston's The Malcontent in 1604 because of Armin's overwhelming popularity, would
have to be a "pestilent fool!" and a "bitter fool!" (3.1.126, 142). Ben Jonson's Carlo Buffone in
Every Man Out of His Humour (1599) is, likewise, "an impudent . . . common jester, a violent
rayler . . . whose company is desir'd of all men, but belov'd of none" (Induction 11. 351—53). Ben
Jonson, Every Man Out of His Humour, ed. Helen Ostovich (Manchester, 2001).
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 333
IV
46. Foakes, pp. 132, 143, 145. See also Urkowitz, pp. 80-128; Michael Warren, "The Diminu
tion of Kent," in The Division of the Kingdoms, pp. 59—74.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
334 English Literary Renaissance
heroines of the romances. As Grace Ioppolo has demonstrated, whereas
Cordelia is an active, military agent in Q, in F she becomes a more
passive companion for her father.47 Likewise, as we have seen, with
remarkable economy, the revisions in the Folio cut or undercut the
Fool's bitterest, wisest, and funniest moments as they subtly but consist
ently add pathos rather than comedy to the Fool's scenes. Recall that
precisely such aesthetic goals were announced in the prologue to Henry
VIII( 1613):
I come no more to make you laugh; things now
That bear a weighty and a serious brow,
Sad, high, and working, full of state and woe;
Such noble scenes as draw the eye to flow,
We now present. (Pro. 1—5; emphasis added)
Like the prologue to Henry VIII, the F Fool came "no more to make you
laugh" but to "draw the eye to flow." Interestingly, then, when the nat
ural reappeared on stage in the Lear Folio after Armin's tenure as stage
fool he was not really subversive as earlier carnivalesque naturals had
been. Instead, the potential subversion in the natural has been neutralized,
ironically enough, tamed, or "normed," as the Folio Fool is, ultimately,
by the time of his disappearance from the play, almost entirely an abject,
sweetly pathetic figure—an exaggerated version of one potentially poign
ant trait of a natural.
47- Grace loppolo, "Revising King Lear and Revising 'Theory,'" Revising Shakespeare
(Cambridge, Mass., 1991), pp. 161-88.
48. Rosenberg, pp. 107-08.
49. Forster, p. 76.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 335
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
336 English Literary Renaissance
a bitter, witty Fool (as well as a culpable Lear), for instance, could choose
Quarto variants. Alternatively, directors wishing to produce pathos in
the relationship between Lear and the Fool might wish to follow th
Folio's natural Fool closely. The tradition of doubling the Fool and
Cordelia to heighten pathos may be even more effective if the F text i
used, since Cordelia is a more passive, sentimentalized, pathetic com
panion to Lear in F than she is in Q—and since pathos is primarily the
effect of the line motivating such potential doubling, "my poor fool is
hanged" (5.3.304). The stage legend that the Fool and Cordelia double
in the original performances is, I believe, more likely in the origina
performances of the Folio than in the initial performances of the Quarto
not merely because of the forty-something Armin's specialization i
artificial fools, but precisely because both the Fool and Cordelia seem to
have been revised to heighten pathos. The actor who played the patheti
female natural fool, the Jailer's Daughter, in Fletcher's and Shakespeare's
The Two Noble Kinsmen in 1613 would have been remarkably suited to
play not only a more pathetic Cordelia in F but also to perform the Folio
revisions to the Fool, since the Jailer's Daughter is, like F's Fool, a swee
natural. Since Two Noble Kinsmen seems to have been a popular play, a
desire to cash in on a fool similar to that play's may even have prompted
the revisions extant in the Lear Folio text after Armin's retirement in the
same year.
Alternatively, the F revision to the Fool's part may also have been
undertaken for Armin's apparent successor, the actor John Shank (or
Shanke), who is thought to have joined the company and taken over
the comic roles sometime "between January 11, 1613, when he is [still]
named in the license to the Palsgrave's troupe, and March 27, 1619,
when his name occurs in the patent to the King's Men." According
to William Turner's A Dish of Lenten Stiff (1613), Shank was known
for "sing[ingj his rimes," and he authored the song "Now Crecht me
save, Poor Irish knave" and Shankes Ordinary (a jig?), and therefore his
arrival may have motivated the addition in F of the nonsensical rhym
ing prophecy in 3.3, often sung in performance.Dl) Baldwin Maxwell
has also argued that Shank was especially known for "thin" roles, being
virtually the very "image of famine" and being described as "a walking
50. Edwin Nungezer, A Dictionary of Actors and of Other Persons Associated with the Public Rep
resentation of Plays in England before 1642 (New York, 1968), p. 317. For discussion of Shank's
connection to singing, as well as jigs, see p. 319.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Robert Β. Hornback 337
51. Baldwin Maxwell, Studies in Beaumont, Fletcher, and Massinger (Chapel Hill, 1939), Chapter
7, "The Hungry Knave in the Beaumont and Fletcher Plays," pp. 74-83.
52. While there is no record of Shank with the company before this time, after March 27,
1619, "when his name occurs in the patent to the King's Men," we find Shank mentioned "in
the livery allowances of May 19, 1619, and April 7, 1621; in the submission for playing The
Spanish Viceroy, without license, December 20, 1624 ... ; in the list of players who took part in
Kingjames's funeral procession on May 7, 1625; in the patent ofjune 24, 1625; . . . and in the
folio list of Shakespearean actors." Nungezer, pp. 317—18.
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 English Literary Renaissance
Equally important, a better understanding of the Quarto Fool has the
potential ot helping to address a malaise affecting this remarkable play
in performance. It is striking how desperate many theater critics have
seemed for a new interpretation of King Lear, and of the Fool in particular.
In an article in The Independent (1991), John Field suggested "a ban on
productions of King Lear for three years." In an Observer article the
following year, Simon Treves's solution was even more drastic as he lists
among his ten commandments for Shakespeare productions, "No, repeat
no, productions of King Lear for at least 10 years." His Commandments
8 and 9 have special requirements for the Fool: "(8) All Shakespeare
clowns must be funny; this instruction to go hand-in-hand with: (9) No
red noses."33 Treves's pleas have had little impact, for since 1992 the
proliferation of Antony Sher-inspired red-nosed, pathetic, tramp clown
Fools continues.
OGLETHORPE UNIVERSITY
This content downloaded from 49.150.0.228 on Sun, 07 Apr 2019 00:21:51 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms