Write about fools and clowns in Shakespeare plays? or Contribution and importance of Fools and clowns in Shakespeare plays/ roles of fools and clowns in Shakespeare works.
In this essay we are going to discuss about fools and clowns in Shakespeare plays and the contribution and importance of the fools character.
THE FOOL IN SHAKESPEARE
The Fool in Shakespeare is introduced into comedies as well as into
tragedies, historical plays as well as romances. The main purpose of such an appearance of the
Fool in certain scenes is to relieve the tragic tension or even to intensify the
tragic tension by lending a grim, sarcastic tone to his humour or fooleries. Sometimes, the function of the Fool is to
moralise or sermonise or philosophise over certain situations and incidents of
the play or even upon the actions of certain characters, mostly the actions o
the hero of the heroine of the play; or sometimes his function is to gives the
connecting links between the scenes or the Acts of the plays, while at other
times, his function is to explain certain things, either the behaviour of the
hero or the heroine or the trend of the action of the play which would
otherwise remain unintelligible to the audience. Hence, the Fool is not merely a humorist but
a philosopher and a critic. He is not
always necessarily a fool or an imbecile or a half-witted fellow; but, on the
other hand, he is one of the wisest or the most learned character in whole
play. It is through the lips of the fool
that sometimes Shakespeare speaks and expresses his own opinion on certain matters. Most of the Fools in Shakespeare are the west
persons inspite of their pretensions of stupidity or imbecility.
Cumberland Clark remarks about the
Elizabethan Fool:
‘The duty of the Fool or Jester was to amuse his master and mistress and
entertain their guests. He was an
important and privileged person and was allowed liberties denied even to the closest
friends of his employer. No one was
immune from his jests since there was no slander in an allowed fool. Nevertheless, the life of the Fool was not an
easy one. His friends were few, and he
was subject to the caprices of his master. A man in such a post had be of more than
ordinary tact, wisdom and resource-not wisdom however, in the accepted sense of
the world. His wisdom and way of looking
at life differed from that of the world in general. Some Fools were men of intellect amounting almost
to genius; others were not far removed from imbecility. Many were the gradations. Today, as often as not the fool of the class
is actually more quick-witted than his companions who excel in the mechanical
side of study. He may indeed have a
mental equipment differing only in quantity, not in quality, from that of his
fellows.”
The most remarkable Fool in Shakespeare’s play is the Fool in King
Lear. He possesses considerable
wit. He speaks many outrageous things,
and yet Lear does not take any offence; for example, he reminds Lear of the
ingratitude of his daughter when Lear is himself smarting under the very same
wound. That is why in no other play of
Shakespeare, the Fool contributes so much of pathos as the Fool in King
Lear. Although he appears to be a half-witted
fellow yet his tongue appears to be too sharp, sarcastic and also witty at the
same time. All the qualities of a jester
and a satirist are combined in Lear’s Fool.
This Fool’s words add to the tragic tension of the storm scene in the
play instead of softening the atmosphere, which is produced by the fury of
Nature in the form of the storm out-of-door which is in perfect sympathy with
the storm in Lear’s heart. It is most
pathetic when Lear remarks about his fool:
“Poor fool and knave, I have one part
in my heart
That’s sorry yet for these.”
We do not know in what manner the Fool in Lear dies but we know that he
surely dies, because he could never survive his master to whom he was so much
devoted as the master was also equally devoted to him. The Fool’s death is typical of he unbalanced
mind of a Fool whose thoughts are concentrated upon one person, one thing, and
one mission in life, and who, therefore, can not or does not like to survive
the person for whom alone he lives.
Cumberland Clark, who is found of analysing psychologically every
character in Shakespeare’s plays, performs the same operation in the case of
Fool in King Lear:
‘The Fool in King
Lear is the most psychologically interesting of Shakespearean
clowns. Imbecility is characterised by a
cessation of the growth of the brain at an age before maturity is reached. Perhaps, in the parlance of today, we should
call the Fool feeble-minded people often make droll companions, just as the
Fool does in this play, and many of them exhibit a wonderful power of repartee
and dry humour. The attention of the
feebleminded is never fixed for any length of time; and Lear’s Fool is a good
example, fitting as he does, from one topic to another with great
rapidity. Feeble minded people are
usually very affectionate and obedient.
Great catastrophies affect them more adversely than normal people, since
they come as a greater shock and remove their main anchor to life. To a genuine imbecile such is a shock not so
great because he is incapable of understanding all that it means.
‘Much that has been discovered of late hears about the structure and
function of the brain might well be included here in shedding further light on
the character of Fool in King Lear, but although pertinent, it would be of
interest only to the technician. Suffice
it to say that the psychologist must classify the fool definitely with the
imbecile or weak-minded, since he appreciates with what wonderful accuracy
Shakespeare has portrayed in his creation this special type with all its
individual traits From the literary point of view, the Fool is artistically
necessary to the play: from the
psychological point of view he is an extremely interesting a, and a remarkable
escape of Shakespeare’s knowledge of the labyrinths of the human mind.
According to certain critics, Touchstone stands second amongst the Fools
of Shakespeare, probably because he talks more like a learned and wise person
than as a fool. Of course, he represents
the true of the conventional, domestic jesters, who weared parti-coloured
garment, a fool’s cap, and also who carry a staff with jingling ells attached
to one end of it. But he is not like the
common Fool; he appears to be quite learned and philosophic, and that is why,
we find him speaking, not sense and nonsense, nor even in season and out of
season; but he chooses his topic or subjects of his talk quite prudently and
suitable to the occasion. Unlike the
conventional fool he does not play upon words; rather he hates punning, because
he considers such methods exciting laughter in the audience as foolish; he
believes more in appealing to the philosophic mind of his listeners. Like Feste of Twelfth Night he is not a
corrupter of words, because he believes more in logical or argumentative
remarks which can appeal only to the intellect or the thinking power of his
audience. Mark what Jacque says about
him, ‘Is not this a rare fellow? He is as good at anything and et a fool. Jacques says further about him:
“When I did hear
The motley fool thus moral the time,
My lungs began to crow like chanticleer
That fools should be so deep-contemplative.”
One chief peculiarity of Touchstone’s humour is that
it is never malicious, because his aim is not to wound any body’s feelings, and
he utters a good deal of truths which we can not expect from the lips of the
ordinary fool or even from the average wise man. He is devoted to the exiled Duke, and that is
why, he follows him in his exile. That
is why, we say that Touchstone is not and ordinary fool.
Cumberland Clark remarks very correctly
about ‘Feste, the Fool in Twelfth Night:-
‘Feste of Twelfth Night also belongs to the group of domestic fools,
having served Olivio’s father. His
jesting is professional foolery rather than spontaneous humour. He strikes one as a man of intellect and
character, who, perhaps found his work uncongenial. He entertains as much by his singing as his
clowning, for he is an accomplished musician and entrusted with the delightful
songs of the play Obviously he is a man
of some education, for he shows himself familiar with Greek history and knows
something of the Pythagorian philosophy.
He is freely admitted to the reels of Sir Andrew Aguecheek and Sir Toby
Belch, and is a special favourite with everyone on account of his mellifluous voice. Malvolio alone hated Feste; and although Olivia
rebuked the steward for dispraising the fool, she afterwards turned round and
said, ‘Now you see, Sir, how your fooling grows old, and people dislike
it. The discussion that has risen over
the song which brings the play to a close in an illuminating comment on the
general estimate of Feste’s character.
Some regard the ditty as a kind of history of life, which could only be
entrusted to a singer of intelligence.
Others, however, dismiss it as an improvised jig, such as were common in
Elizabethan house-holds.’
Trinculo in The Tempest is a mean type o the Shakespearean Fools,
because he lacks decent humour or intelligent wit, because he indulges mostly
in plays upon words or in vulgar, which is nothing but buffoonery, and because,
on to of all, he is a damned coward and a confirmed addict to drinking. Even Caliban, a monster, hates Trinculo, and
outwits him. The only one remark which
Trinculo makes and which is worth-nothing is, ‘Misery acquaints a man with
strange bed-bellows’; otherwise, Trinculo is really one of the most degenerate
forms of the Elizabethan Fool.
There are other Fools or Clowns in Shakespeare’s plays but they are not
as remarkable as the Fools we have just criticised or analysed; and yet some of
them are mentionable. These are
Launcelot Gobbo in The Merchant of Venice; Costard in Love’s Labour’s Lost; the
son of the old shepherd in the Winter’s Tale; the grave-diggers in Hamlet, the
Clown in All’s Well that Ends Well; and the jesters who appear in Othello and
Timon of Athens.
Shakespeare’s Fools should be classified
according to the various types of humour which Shakespeare uses in his
plays. We have seen that in most of the
comedies, Shakespeare uses either witty humour or farcical humour, grim humour
or ironic humour philosophic or romantic humour, bantering or biting humour,
pungent humour or refreshing humour. The
variety of the Fools in Shakespeare’s plays indicate not only his own insight
into the various springs of humour but also his observation of the various
types of persons, who are capable of expressing their humorous spirit in their
own typical ways which can be clearly distinguished from one another. We can surely distinguish Falstaff from
Touchstone or Feste from the Fool in King Lear, Lancelot Gobbo from Trinculo,
and the grave-digger from all other clowns and fools in Shakespeare’s
plays.
Comments
Post a Comment