The Double Casting of Cordelia and Lear's Fool: A Theatrical View

Author(s): Richard Abrams

Source: Texas Studies in Literature and Language, Vol. 27, No. 4, The English Renaissance and
Enlightenment (WINTER 1985), pp. 354-368
Published by: University of Texas Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40754779 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 03:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

University of Texas Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Texas Studies
in Literature and Language.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams

The Double Casting of Cordeliaand Lear's Fool:

A TheatricalView

Proposednearthe turnof thepast century,thehypothesisthat

the actorplayingCordeliadoubledas the Fool in earlyproduc-
tionsofKing Lear accordswithour best knowledgeof Shake-
speare'stheatricalpracticeand has rarelybeen contested.Strictly
speaking,ofcourse,the theoryremainsunprovablewithoutex-
ternalevidence;yetit restson two fairlyfirmsupports:that the
two charactersnevermeeton stage and thatduringCordelia's
absencethe Fool takes overherfunctionoftellingLear the pain-
fultruthabout himself.In addition,such a theorystrengthens
variouslinereadings,forexample,the play on "nothing,"Lear's
descriptionof the Fool as a "houselesspoverty"afterdriving
Cordeliafromherhome,"And my poor foolis hanged." But
thoughcriticshave notedverbalironiesproducedby doublecast-
ing,the sustainedtheatricalimpactof thisdeviceon spectators
cognizantofthe actor'srole shifthas yet to be explored.Only
recently have criticsadvancedbeyonda naiveconceptionofdouble
castingas a necessaryevil in smallElizabethanactingtroupes,
recognizingthe potentialproductionvalues of this technique
whichenabledShakespeare"to inform, commenton, and,per-
haps, augmentthe eventsenacted."1In thisessay I discuss the
theatricalbenefitsof doublingthepartsof Lear's two "truth-
tellers,"showinghow audienceawarenessofthe actor's change
heightensthe play's pathosby inducingan ironicconsciousness.
Past workon doublingin Lear focuseson Cordelia'sand the
Fool's relationshipto theprotagonist.Here,however,I concen-
trateless on theirrelationto Lear thanon theircommonrelation
to Lear's thirdtruthteller,his servantKent,also in disguisefor
mostoftheplay,hencepresentingan analogywiththe actorof
Cordelia/Fool in his doubledrole.If we acceptthe doublecasting
hypothesis,two scenes can be definedas reunions:the actual
reunionof Kent and Cordeliain act 4, scene7; but also, and less
obviously,the Fool's greatscene (I.iv) whichreunitesthe actors

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool • 355

formerly playingCordelia(nowthe Fool) and Kent (nowCaius)

soon aftertheirinitialexit.Viewedas a pseudoreunion, act 1,
scene4, resolvesexpectationsset up by the play's firstscene,to
whichwe turn.
Twicein parallelactionsin act 1, scene 1, Kent is presentedas
the befriender ofoutcastchildren.Mildlyin the case of Edmund
slightedby the callous Gloucester,and thenmoreboldlyin Cor-
delia's case, he succorsunderdogsaggrievedby parentaltyranny.
Yet whileEdmundthanksKent forhis kindnessand promisesto
4
'studydeserving/'Cordelianeglectsto do so.2Needlessto say,
no blame attachesto this omission;herhands are fullat the mo-
mentofKent's departure.Still,theopeningscene'sparallelfather-
childdisturbancesobviouslyfunctionto establisha behavioral
normwhichCordelia,forall thatis rightin herposition,failsto
satisfy.This failureis emphasizedon hereventualreturnfrom
Francein act 4. ReunitedwithKent,she makesimmediateamends
forherminorfaultby expressinggratitudeand a keendesireto
repayservice(IV.vii.1-3).But even earlier,ifCordeliareturnsre-
cast as the Fool in act l's pseudoreunionscene,s/hedisplaysa
sense of obligation.As the actorreenters,he ignoresthe kingwho
has been callingforhis fooland heads directlyforKent,his cox-
combextendedin tokenof a greaterpayment.
Superficially,the Fool offersprepaymentto hireCaius, who
the
displays follyof"takingone's partthat'sout offavor"(I.iv.94).
Lear is currently out of Goneril'sfavor;therefore, Caius, volun-
teering to serve such a master, deserves to be costumed as a fool.
But meaningsproliferate in the Fool's firstwitticism.Having
'
changedhis appearanceby shavinghis beard(cf.Kent's 'razed
. . . likeness,"1.4),Kent himselfis "out of" his old "favor"
(face),yetessentiallyunchanged,stillrecognizableas the same
principledfoolwho earliertookCordelia'spart whenshe was "out
of favor"(disliked).By the same token,Kent-as-Caius,volunteer-
ing to resumehis old service,seeks to take his ownpart- thatis,
the part of a man out of favor,since Kent,banishedfromhis
former master'spresence,is now out of Lear's favor.All these
meaningscan be signaledin performance. A briefpause and nod
ofrecognition beforeslow,knowingdeliveryof the phrase"out of
favor"wouldindicatethat the Fool recognizesCaius as the man
whopreviouslytookCordelia'spart,and the audiencewouldthen
read the Fool's act ofextendinghis coxcombas a gestureofgrati-
tude on his formermistress'sbehalf.Moreover,in a doublecast
performance, the gratefulgesturewouldbe read as proceedingnot
just from Cordelia'srepresentative but fromCordelia-reincarnate
to Kent-reincarnate. What we see (thatthe actor-Cordelia has

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 356

returned) colorswhatwe hear(thatthe Fool wantsto "hire"Kent).

As Cordeiiarrevenant, the Fool pays Kent not onlyforservicesto
come("hire")but forservicesalreadyrendered.3
Viewingthe Fool's paymentof Kent as an expressionof the
recostumedCordelia'sgratitudeto a formerbenefactor, the audi-
ence can now see deepermeaningin the coinof thatpayment:an
articleofthe actor'slatest apparel.In his exit linesof act 1, scene
4, Lear speaks ofresuming"the shape" he has apparently"cast
off"forever(11.300-01). Shape, MauriceCharneyremindsus, "is
a theatricalterm,meaningthe wholemake-upand appearance
demandedby a specificrole."4Hence,Lear's finalphraserecalls
the beginningof the scenein whichthe castingoffof shapes
figuresprominently on levels ofbothstoryand staging.Kent
opens act 1, scene4, by callingattentionto his razed appearance.
Audiencesknowthatthe actordoes not growa beardbetween
performances but simplyremovesa falsebeard,and on the Fool's
entry, which is also the actor-Cordelia's reentry, thisknowledgeis
activatedby parallelism,forifone of Lear's truthtellers returns
minusa propbeard,the otherpresumablyreentersstrippedofthe
itemoftheatricaldisguisewhichmostreadilyturnsa man intoa
woman,a long-haired wig.5Indeed,because bothhave cast off
theirrichercostumes,the Fool offersto dress Kent against the
cold. Knowingwhatit is to feelcold himself(sincehe is playedby
the newlystrippedactor-Cordelia), the Fool hands the shornKent,
exposed for Cordelia's sake and in dangerof "catchfing]cold
shortly"(11.95-96), his coxcomb.6 Of course,a fool'scap barely
coversthe wearer.But thatin effectis the Fool's point,carried
forwardin richwordplayon a snail's shellas a "house" to "put's
head in" (I.v.24-27, also III.ii.25) and on a hovelas "a good head-
piece" in a storm(III.ii.25-26)- thatthe art ofour necessitiesis
strangeand can makevile thingsprecious.By givinghis cox-
comb,the Fool assertsthat,fortakingthe disinherited Cordelia's
part and now Lear's part,Kent deserves at least a fool's minimal
protectionagainst the cold,a cap "to put's head in"; and he as-
sertsthisin a manneralludingto his ownrecentcostumechange.
One passage ofLear*s much-studied clothingmotifstrongly
foreshadows the actor-Cordelia's costumechange.Franceprotests
to Lear, "This is moststrange,/That she whomeven but now
was yourbest object . . .";

shouldin thistriceoftime
Commita thingso monstrousto dismantle
So manyfoldsoffavor
(I.i.216-18)

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool • 357

-phrasing echoedby Cordeliain herexit lineswhenshe indicts

her"plighted"(Q: "pleated," heavilydraped)sisterswhosecun-
ningtimewill "unfold"(Li.280-81). The themeof strippingdown
willresonate,of course,bothin dialogue(Poor Tom's changefrom
courtfinery)and stage imagery(Lear's unbuttoning), firstrecur-
ring,afterCordelia'sexit,in Kent's returnin the rough,durable
clothingof a countryservingman.Yet if France's metaphorical
descriptionof the dismantledCordeliais evervisuallyapplicable
to Cordeliaherself,it mustbe in the actor-Cordelia's returnas the
unaccommodated Fool, forwhennextwe meetCordeliain propria
personashe is dressedpresumablyas a queen or generaland tries
to make a changeforthe betterin Kent's costume(IV.vii.7-8) as
wellas reoutfitting herfatherin freshraiment.But in act 1, scene
4, the audiencecan appreciatethe literalproprietyof France's
metaphorof a strippedCordeliawhenthe actorreappearsas the
ill-cladFool. Moreover,the recostumedCordelia's(Fool's) sym-
patheticgestureof sharing"her" clothingto protectthe exposed
Kent can thenprefigure Lear's charityon the heathwhen,cold
and wet,he sympathetically bids the drenchedFool enterthe
hovelbeforehim.
BeforeI straytoo farfroma discussionof theatricaldynamics
towardlargerinterpretive questions,let me tryto distinguishthe
insights of the study from thoseof the playhouse,notingthe dif-
ferentways in whichmeaningis generatedon page and stage. A
passage in a textpossesses potentiallyinfiniteresonance;inter-
pretationmustallow forits capacityto play offof any otherpas-
sage in the mindof a hypothetical reader.But a theatricalevent,
such as the doublingof Cordeliaand the Fool, is at the mercyof
onrushingevents.Reenteringin a periodof confusedstage action
whenit is unclear"who is who,who is beingsentfor,and who
answers,"7 therecostumedactor-Cordelia sets offa shockofrecog-
nition.However,the tremorssoon subsidewhenfresherevents
such as the Fool's baitingofLear and Lear's quarrelwithGoneril
competeforour attention.This is not to denythat spectators,
tickledby suggestivedialogue,may flashback to the actor'srole
changeat any moment.For instance(StephenBooth's example,
p. 164,n. 20), "If the actorwho playedCordeliain Li is a maid no
longer-is nowplayingthe Fool- thenthe Fool's exit speech,
'She that's a maid now,and laughs at mydeparture,/Shall not
be a maid long,unless thingsbe cut shorter'. . . reverberates in
yet another extravagant direction."But veryquickly the actor
formerly playingCordeliagains acceptancein his newrole,so
thatby the end of a busy scenelike act 1, scene4, Lear's exit line
about resuminghis cast-offshape is presumablyglossed by our

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 358

recollection ofthe actor-Cordelia's rolechangeratherthan serving

as a retrospective gloss on what we have alreadycomfortably
accepted.
But ifthe actorrapidlygains credibility in his newrole,on an-
otherlevelthe audience remains permanently shocked.WhenCor-
delia returnstransformed, the floodgatesof bizarrepossibility
open,fornothingcan be sacredin King Lear ifCordelia'sperson
is not. Bradley'sviewof Lear's youngestdaughteras "a thing
enskiedand sainted"couldscarcelyhave surviveda production
in whichCordelia,leavingthe stage withdignifiedforbearance in
the firstscene,comesback in an anticmodethreesceneslater.
One knowsthatthissillychatterboxis notCordelia,onlyherFool;
yetthe feelingpersiststhatit is Cordelia.Our two impressions
vie forauthenticity, likethe teasing"naturalperspective"of "is
and is not" at the end of TwelfthNight.And morethan shatter-
ing complacency, Cordelia'stransformation conditionsour expec-
tations;it buildstensionintothe Fool's partfromthe beginning.
Awarethatthe Fool's actorwilleventuallybe neededto play a
moreimportantrole,we sense thatthe characterhimselfis living
on borrowedtime.Our firstdefinitenewsof Cordelia'simpending
returncomesin act 2 (II.ii.161 ff.);yetprobablywe guess we
shall see heragain even at herinitialdeparture-an awareness
thatbringsthe Fool's exit speechesundermorbidscrutiny.Al-
thoughhe is neverseriouslymenacedonstage,the Fool's partings
generallyleave it uncertainwhetherthisexpendablecharacter
willreturn.For example,act 1 scene4, featuresa runningexit,
whilehis exit linesin the nextsceneominouslyconcludethe act:
"She that's a maidnow,and laughs at mydeparture,/Shall not
be a maid long,unlessthingsbe cut shorter"(I.v.45-46). If, as
Booth recognized,the actorplayingthe Fool is himself"a maid
no longer,"thenthe doubleentendrein "unless thingsbe cut
shorter"underscoresin a distressingmannerthe possibilityof
the actorchangingback to Cordelia.The "thing" in dangerof
beingcut shorteris both the Fool's traditionally outsizedtool
and his houron the stage.8Indeed,thesetwo meaningsharmo-
nize,since,accordingto the infantilefantasyofwomanas a cas-
tratedman,the Fool's phallictruncationimpliesthe curtailment
ofhis presentdramaticincarnation.Castrationanxietiesrecur
throughout the Fool's speeches,reminding us of his secretshar-
ing in the identity of a character of oppositegender.If the Fool's
"thing" is cut shorter, then the actor's stage lifeas a man will
also cometo an end. He willbecomea maid again,resumingCor-
delia's cast-offshape.
Otherpassages play offour awarenessthatthe Fool's character

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool • 359

is unstablesincehis actorwillbe neededto play Cordeliaagain.

The songon the heath,echoedfromFeste, suggeststhatLear's
Fool is not specificto this timeand place but floatsthroughthe
King's Men's repertory-an impressionheightenedby Shake-
speare's failureto providea historyforthe Fool whomysteriously
originatesin Cordelia,so thatheract 1 departurerobs himof
vital substance,causinghimto pine away.9Thentoo,the Fool's
odd scene-closing prophecyof Merlinprophesying ratifiesour im-
pressionof his doubleness,since,as well as sharinghis beingwith
Cordelia,Lear's Fool exists bothin the audience'spresent(hence
confidently alludingto the historicalMerlin)and in a distantpast
beforeMerlinwas heardof.10And finally,ofcourse,the exit line
mostpowerfully intensifiedby our awarenessofdoublecastingis
the Fool's actuallast lineoftheplay,"And I'll go to bed at noon"
as a riposteto Lear's ' 'We'll go to supperi'th' morning(III. vi.
82-83). By now the Fool's functionhas been drasticallyreduced
by Lear's revivalof conscienceand by Poor Tom's usurpationof
the Fool's place in Lear's counsel.So "I'll go to bed at noon" sig-
nals the disappearancewe have long awaited,to whichmanydra-
maticsigns are now pointing.In the recentOliviertelevisionpro-
ductionofKing Lear, the director,MichaelElliott,cut Kent's
finalremarkwhichcues the Fool's exit ("Come,helpto bear thy
master./Thou mustnot stay behind"),and the audiencewas then
shownthe shiveringFool strandedin the hovel.Everyonegrasped
thatthe Fool's end was at hand. But in a productiondoublingthe
rolesofthe Fool and Cordelia,the Fool's jeopardyneed not be
telegraphedin this obviousmanner.The audience'sawareness
thatCordeliais returning to resumehercast-off rolealreadycre-
ates an air ofcrisisin the Fool's part.AnticipatingCordelia'sre-
turn,we read darkmeaninginto "And I'll go to bed at noon" at
the momentofthe line's delivery.
Cordeliareturnsin act 4 scene4, accompaniedby herretainers.
Lear has been sighted,and Cordeliashowsselflessconcernforher
father'swelfarebut failsas yet to reunitewithherloved ones.
Her nextscene,however,featuresbothreunionand cognitio.Cor-
delia entersspeakingwithKent and is presentlyjoined by Lear,
broughtin sleeping.Thus, act 4, scene 7, is a retakeof the actors'
reunionscene(I.iv), whichbroughtKent,Lear, and the actor-Cor-
delia togetheras a trio"out of favor";the major antagonistsof
the play's openingare finallyreconciledin theirownpersons.The
two scenes(I.iv and IV.vii) are linkedby significant echoes;we
have alreadynotedthe parallelismof the Fool hiringKent with
a coxcomband Cordelia"paying" gratitudeforservice.Similarly,
in herfirstwordsof act 4, scene7, Cordelia'sshorttimeremaining

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 360

in an ironicmodemade familiarby the ever-de-

is foreshadowed
parting Fool:

Cordelia:O thougood Kent,how shall I live and work

To matchthygoodness?My lifewillbe too short
And everymeasurefailme.
Kent: To be acknowledged, madam,is overpaid.
(IV.vii.1-4)
Cordeliabeginswhereheralterego leftoff;she takes up the Fool's
refrainofcurtailment ("unless thingsbe cut shorter/'"And I'll
go to bed at noon"),announcinghertragicfatein the same way
thatthe Fool's propheciesannouncedhis earlydeparture.Then
too,Cordeliaintroducesthe subjectofclothing-the Fool's topic
("coxcomb"),alongwithpaymentforhire,in his firstexchange
withKent. "Be bettersuited,"she begs Kent,"These weeds are
memoriesof thoseworserhours./1 pritheeput themoff"(11.6-8).
Her requestgoes unheededand is the morecuriousin that,in
all probability, we wouldneverhave noticedKent's "failure"to
change back to his former costumehad not Shakespearereminded
us.11It appears,then,thatShakespeareis proddingus withvarious
echoesto remember act l's blurredreunionthe betterto appre-
ciate act 4's satisfyingresolution.
By firmly reestablishing Cordeliain herrolebeforebringingin
Lear, Shakespeareoperatesfromthe surestoftheatricalinstincts,
safeguarding the tendernessofhis greatrecognition scene. Iden-
tityalready seems confused elsewherein act 4, scene 7: Stanley
Cavell showsthat Lear probablytakes the doctoraccompanying
CordeliaforthekingofFrance,12 and one tendermomentis played
perilously close to comedy(Lear [to Cordelia]:"You are a spirit,
I know.Wheredid you die?"). A delicatebalance could be upset
if,even fora moment,Lear, wincingto makeout his daughter
("MethinksI shouldknowyou"),was suspectedofglimpsingher
physicalresemblanceto the Fool. To cleara space forthe return-
ing Cordelia,then,the memoriesof Cordelia's"worserhours"in
the Fool's rolemustbe effaced.But once Lear has recognizedCor-
delia,the Fool may slip back in. "I am a veryfoolishfondold
man" (1.60), Lear confesses,preparingto enunciatewhathe fears
is the derisibletheorythatthe angeliclady standingbeforehim
is his favoritedaughter.And again on exitinghe tells Cordelia,
"You mustbear withme. /Pray you now,forgetand forgive.I
am old and foolish"(11.83-84). Thereis no likelihoodherethat
Lear is thinkingof his Fool, but Shakespeareno longermindsif
we recallthe Fool. "I am old and foolish"is whatJohnMeagher,
in connectionwithanotherline("And mypoorfoolis hanged"),

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool • 361

calls an "unrecognizing recognition/'13and as such it constitutes

Lear's tributeto his mostpatientschoolmaster, acknowledging
thatthe Fool's greatlesson ("Dost thoucall me fool,boy?") has
finallypenetrated.Thus, the scenethatbegan withCordeliare-
payingKent appropriately ends (at least in the Folio version;
QuartofollowsLear's and Cordelia'sexit witha dozen linesof
dialogue,presumablydeletedin revision)withLear's indirectpay-
mentoftributeto the Fool's wisdom.Alreadydeeplymovingif
addressedonlyto Cordelia,Lear's admissionof follygains poi-
gnancyifdirectedalso to the actorformerly playingthe Fool's
role.For then,in the modeof an "unrecognizing recognition,"
Lear atteststhathe himselfis willingto undergothe low trans-
formation he forcedon his daughter.As the actor-Cordelia was
obligedto play the Fool, so Lear as a "child-changed father"(IV.
vii.17)is preparedto repayin kind:to be cast down,indeed,re-
cast in the selfsamerolehe forcedon his beloved.
Alongwithhis two descriptionsof himselfas "foolish"in act 4,
scene7, Lear uses the noun"fool" threetimesnearthe end of the
play,twicemetaphorically ("great stage of fools,""naturalfoolof
fortune")and the thirdtimeeithermetaphorically or in distant
allusionto the absentFool himself("And mypoorfoolis hanged").
No one but Lear uses the wordor a derivativein the latterpart
of theplay,and all fiveof Lear's lateruses are probing,compared
to his earlierliteral-minded usage of "fool" in directaddress,re-
and immediate reference to the Fool himself.14The shift
sponse,
fromothercharacters'controlof the wordfooVsmetaphoricalex-
tensionsbeforeCordelia'sreturn(e.g.,Goneril'sfourapplications
of "fool" to Albanyin IV.ii) to Lear's exclusivelatercontrolis
revealing.Verbaldistribution studiesofindividualShakespearean
plays such as S. L. Bethell's studyof Othello,documenting the
gradual transfer of the languageof deviltryfromlago to Othello,
revealsubterraneancharacterresemblances.15 Similarly,Lear's
shifting "fool"references suggesthowdeeplythe Fool has marked
his master.Thoughinitiallyassociatedwith,and in a sense ema-
natingfrom,Cordelia,the Fool is finallyabsorbedback,not into
Cordelia,but intoLear himself,who not onlycherisheshis com-
panion'smemorybut strangelyperpetuateshis being.Lear's com-
memoration of the Fool is touching.The Fool's offstagepining
convincesus of his genuineaffection forCordelia,but we question
his feelingforLear. We recall,forinstance,that the Fool would
have remainedcontentedly in Goneril'shouseifnotdriventhence,
and we wonderwhyhe continuesto nag afterLear showsrepen-
tance.Yet despiteour ambivalence,Lear asks no questionsbut
returnspureforimpure(oruncertain)love. Whereasin theopening

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 362

scenehe insistedthatCordeliaprovideverbalassuranceof her

love,he gives heralterego the benefitofthe doubtand finally
revealsa revivedpaternalinstinctby keepingthe Fool alive with
elegiacallusionsafterhis mysteriousdisappearance.
In additionto evidencingmoralgrowth,Lear's absorptionof
the Fool pointsto largershiftsin theplay's ontologicalor repre-
sentationalpremises.The king'srelationto his Fool as a false
other,a projectionof conscience,is paradigmaticof his manyam-
biguousobject-relations throughout the drama.Severalcritics
commenton this aspect ofLear; forinstance,RichardFly dis-
cusses Lear's relationto his hundredknightson analogywith
Talbot's shadow-substance bondwithhis armyin 1 Henry VI,
observingthat "in a mannerthatpossiblydefeatsanalysismuch
ofKing Lear exists as reflecting shadowsof Lear's centralexpe-
rience."16 However,thesestudiesignorethe ironywherebyShake-
speare's adaptationof the actionto Lear's innerlifefollowsfrom
Lear's ownearlyinsistencethathis daughtersmirrorhis self-love.
Again,the Fool's statusis focal."[A] screenon whichShakespeare
flashes. . . readingsfromthe psychiclifeofhis protagonist,"17
and by traditiona motleyimitationofroyalty,Lear's Fool be-
comespreciselywhathe calls Lear, "Lear's shadow" (I.iv.221),
destinedto be reabsorbedby his master-hence,goingto sleep at
noonlike a shadow- whenLear has learnedall thatthe Fool can
teach.Indeed,Lear himselfdefinesthe Fool's pedagogicmethod
vis-à-vistheiroverlappingidentities.Justbeforethe Fool's first
appearance,Lear tellshis Knight(theonlyone of the shadowy
hundredwe meet),"Thou but rememb'rest me ofmineown con-
ception" (I.iv.64). The remark'sreal thrust carriesbeyondits im-
mediatecircumstance, however;rather,it servesto introducethe
Fool, who,as Lear's externalizedconscience,can influencehis
masteronlyby reminding himofwhathe alreadyknows.Thus,
the Fool lives thelifeof an echo,unlikeCordelia,who refusesto
reflectin flattery herfather'sconceptionofhowmuchlove she
owes him.But ifCordelia'sinitialrefusalto be reducedto a mere
reflectorof Lear's self-loveresultsin the adventof hermirrory
or shadowlikealterego,whosefunction is preciselyto "rememb[er
Lear] of [his]ownconception,"thenthe situationchangeson her
returnto England.In act 1 Cordeliais stubbornly independent;
yetin act 4 she returnscompliant,Lear's satellite,neveragain
recovering herformer To put the case forthischange
integrity.
we
provocatively, may say that,on herreturn,Cordelia'sroleis
remodeledon the partheractorhas been playingeversince she
wentto France.
Let me step back to explorethispropositionin a broaderper-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool . 363

spective.As oftennoted,eventsin Lear seem to occurin mocking

fulfillment of Lear's fantasies.This is truenot onlyof the appear-
ance and disappearance ofemanated"subcharacters"like Poor
Tom and the Fool, but ofthe suddenblowingup of the stormand
the behaviorof otherwiserealisticallyconceivedmajorcharacters.
The same patternconstantly repeatsitself.First,a fantasystrikes
Lear, thenit is realizedin the narrative,so thatthe eventappears
to owe its dramaticoccurrenceto Lear's anticipationof it. Take
the way in whichLear's sorrow"holp the heavensto rain" (III.
vii.62).If,in the self-characterizing phraseof Kent's anonymous
Gentleman-interlocutor, Lear is a man "mindedlikethe weather"
(III.i.2), thenby the same tokenthe weatheris mindedlikeLear;
it owes its disorder,on an artisticlevel,to patheticfallacyand,
on a magicallevel,to the sacredbond unitingkingand kingdom.
But thatbondhas been severed-at least Lear himselffearsit
has been- so thatwhathappensis inexplicableto him."I'll not
weep," he maintains(II.iv.278),and an instantlater,pat on cue,
natureweeps forhim;stage directionscall forsoundsof "Storm
and tempest."The wholesequenceleaves himsuspicious;"What
is the cause of thunder?"(III.vi.146) is the firstquestionhe asks
his "philosopher,"Poor Tom. It is as thoughthe character-Lear
cannotrestcomplacently in the audience'soverviewof the storm
as an instanceofpatheticfallacybut,committedto the reality
oftheplay-world, mustwrestlewiththeparadoxthattheseevents
nonethelessseem theatrically contrived.18 Thus, the stormsimul-
taneously shakes Lear's solipsism,makinghimfeelsmall,and re-
inforcesit by encouragingthe delusionthat he is the cruelgods'
cynosure,that the weathercenterson him."They told me I was
he his " 'Tis a
everything," complains about daughters, lie"; "When
the thunderwouldnot peace at mybidding;thereI found'em,
thereI smelt'em out" (IV.vi.101-04).Yet the lie that he is every-
thingcontainsa truthdramaticallysupportedby the thunder's
responsivenessto his bidding.Even when,exposed to violent
natureon the heath,he oughtto be learningthe lesson of his
own insignificance, Lear enjoys the illusionof solipsisticcen-
trality,imagining that he mattersenoughforthe gods to find
and punish.
OthereventsfollowLear's fantasies;forexample,Goneril'sand
Regan's murderouscompetition forEdmund's sexual favorsgath-
ers momentum soon afterLear's mostcynicalpronouncements
on women'slust. But Lear's mainfantasy-come-to-life is the re-
turningCordelia, who materializes in a formconsistent withhis
desiresand hoversdreamlikeoverher"scarce awake" fatheras
he graduallyregainsconsciousness(IV.vii.51).A virtualpersonifi-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 364

cationoffiliallove,Cordeliaon herreturnseemsfadedin verisimil-

itude,moreidealizedthanbefore,muchin theway thatan initially
assertiveDesdemona,purgedof attributesin thecourseof Othello,
becomestheideal sacrificial victimby sheddingherparticularity.19
No newpressureto conform comesfromLear,whomoderateshis
early insistenceon obedience,prefersto kneelbeforehis wronged
daughter,and begs forgiveness. But Shakespeareremembers and
grantsLear's original, nowunstateddesireforabsolutelove.Where-
as initiallyCordelia,refusing to flatter,stoodaloneon principle,
thereturned Cordelia,echoingChrist,definesherselfentirelyin re-
lationto herfather("O dear father./It is thybusinessthatI go
"
about, IV.iv.23-24).Led offto prison,she no longercares to punc-
tureLear's pleasantfantasyoftheirquasiconnubialwithdrawal
("We too alonewillsing")by reminding him,merelyfortruth's
sake,thatshe did notmarrylikehersistersto love herfatherall.
More a creatureofherfather'sdesiresthanherindependent-
spiritedact 1 prototype, thereturning Cordeliaparadoxicallygains
pathos by takingon a tinge of insubstantiality,even as the Fool
gainedpathos by our anticipatingthe actor'seventualabandon-
mentoftheFool's role.Cordelia'sprophetic commentto Kent,"My
lifewillbe too short,"barelynoticeablein thetextregisterswith
strangeforceon an audiencetheatrically rehearsedin watching
the Fool's propheciesof a foreshortened liferipento fulfillment.
Alertforclues as to the directionthe plot willtake,"Oh no," we
say in effect, "firsttheFool; nowher!" Indeed,thetheatricallogic
behindthe killingoffofCordeliaextendsthe logicofbringingher
back in a formresponsiveto herfather'swishes.For if Shake-
spearefulfillsLear's unstatedlingeringdesireforabsolutelove,
he also recallsand fulfillsLear's unrealizedparentalthreatto re-
voke his daughter'sbeing.At the heightof his anger,Lear intem-
peratelyspokeofreabsorbingthe childwho displeasedhim("Bet-
terthou/Hadst notbeenbornthannott'havepleasedme better")
in termsbarelymorecivilizedthan "The barbarousScythian,/
Or he thatmakeshis generationsmesses/To gorgehis appetite"
(I.i.116-18).This imageryrecursin the Fool's childlikeobsession
withbeingeaten (e.g.,I.iv.206-08),whichprovesprophetically
accurate;the fateofreabsorption intoLear, fromwhomhe ema-
natedas a voice ofconscience,overtakeshimin his noontimeor
midplayretirement whenhe goes to bed like Lear's shadow.But
afterthe Fool's finalexit,the threatofingestionor reabsorption,
fromwhichShakespearespun out hersurrogate'sfate,is visited
on Cordeliaherself.Returningbriefly, Cordeliavanishesagain as
though, fromthe time she reappeared herhalf-sleeping
to father,
she wereonlyLear's dream,"Too flattering-sweet to be substantial"

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool • 365

(Romeoand Juliet,II.i.141). Thus, despiteretracting his curse(or

moreprecisely,supersedingit witha blessing),Lear mustat last
endurethe indecenthorrorof a parentoutlivinghis own child.
Initiallyreducinghis daughtersto flatteringmirrorsof his own
vanity,he mustultimatelystand alone,experiencing the pain of
being"everything."Cordeliabecomesunrealagain,incapableof
mistinga lookingglass, of sendingforthnewprojectionsof her
now-canceled being,as Lear pronouncesoverhercorpsethe words
thatbid simultaneousfarewellto bothhis daughterand herdou-
ble: "And mypoorfoolis hanged."
Theatricaldoubling,as we have studiedit in Lear, is morethan
an expedientpermitting a small actingcompanyto stage a large
play, and finallyeven more than a meansof commenting on the
similarfunctionsof two temperamentally dissimilarcharacters.
By upstagingCordelia'sand the Fool's actionsat keymoments
throughthe mobilityofthe doublecast actor,Shakespeareex-
poses Lear's largelyimpenitent solipsism,his desireto be "every-
thing," which entailsotherpeoplebecomingless real thanhimself.
In a fineessay on the play,E. A. J. Honigmannwritesof the
overarching realnessof King Lear's titanicprotagonistvis-à-vis
a host of necessarilydwarfedside characters:

Lear seemsto have a geneticrelationshipwithalmostevery-

one else. . . . Thus Cordelia,Kent and the Fool sympathise
and obscurelycommunicatewithone another,and in a sense
meltintoone another:Kent not onlytalks of Lear as one
whomhe has "lov'd as myfather"... as the Fool calls him
"nuncle,"but we hearthatsinceCordelia'sgoingintoFrance,
"the Fool hathmuchpinedaway" . . . that Kent and Cor-
delia are secretlyin touchand admireeach other,and finally
that Cordeliaand the Fool have becomeone in Lear's mind
("And mypoorfoolis hang'd"). All three,Cordelia,Kent
and the Fool, exist separatelyand yetpartakeof one an-
other'sidentity,and all threeare refractedimagesof Lear,
or ofhis betternature.20

Honigmannthendiscussesthe characterswhoreflectLear's self-

ish naturebut nevermentionsdoublecastingwhich,alongwith
theplot deviceshe does mention,controlsan audience'simpres-
sion that side characters"meltintoone another"or "are secretly
in touch[with]each other,"finallydisposingthesecharactersto
incorporation in the king.Viewinga doublecast performance of
an
Lear, audiencewitnessesthe dramaticillusiondecomposing
and reforming in rhythmsintensifyingour grasp of the action.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 366

Of course,otherShakespeareanplays also featuredoublecasting,

and one wonderswhether, in thoseplays too,illusionsbreakup
and reform in characteristic ways. In an interpretiveera likethe
present when performance-centered criticismis flourishing,re-
searchinto "Shakespeare'sart ofdoubling/'as GiorgioMelchiori
has recentlycalled it, offersa fascinatingfieldforconjecture,po-
tentiallyvaluablebothto theatricaland textualstudies.

UniversityofSouthernMaine
Portland,Maine

Notes
1. StephenBooth,King Lear, Macbeth,Indefinition, and Tragedy(New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1983),p. 134. Booth's illuminating
essay, "Speculations
on Doublingin Shakespeare'sPlays" (App. 2, pp. 127-55),questionsthe "hard
scholarship"of such studiesas thatofWilliamA. Ringler,Jr.("The Numberof
Actorsin Shakespeare'sEarly Plays," The Seventeenth-Century Stage, ed. Gerald
Eades Bentley[Chicago:University ofChicagoPress, 1968],pp. 110-34),sagely
notingthat"even thehardevidenceon Renaissancedoublingpracticesis soft."
For specificdiscussionofCordeliaand the Fool, see Booth,pp. 33-34, 129, 134-
46, 153-54,163-64. GiorgioMelchiori("Peter,Balthazar,and Shakespeare'sArt
ofDoubling,"ModernLanguageReview [1983],pp. 777-92) discusses"doubling
by function"inRomeoand Juliet,a conceptclearlyrelevantto Cordeliaand the
Fool.
The doublecastinghypothesis'sfirstproponentsare Alois Brandi,Shakspere
(Berlin:Hoffman, 1894),p. 179,and WilfredPerrett,The StoryofKing Lear (Ber-
lin:Mayer& Müller,1904).ThomasStroup("Cordeliaand the Fool," Shakespeare
Quarterly, 12 [1961],127-32)makessomeinteresting points(e.g.,Lear's reduc-
tionofCordeliato a "houselesspoverty"is his),but his articlesuffersfroma
strongtextualbias maskingas theatricalconsciousness.Notingthatthe Fool
appears357 UnesafterCordelia'sfirstexit and thatCordeliareappears356 lines
afterthe Fool's finalexit,Stroupargues,"Time [sic]is exactlymetedout for
somereason,probablyforthechangein costumeand make-up"(p. 127).Even
settingaside thepossibilityof an interludebetweenacts 3 and 4, the stage busi-
ness surrounding Gloucester'sblindingtakes longerthanthe relativelyunevent-
fulactionseparatingCordelia'sexitand the Fool's firstentry;also, the costume
changecan be effected in a matterofmoments,as Boothshows;it hardlyre-
quiresthe "exact measure"of sometwentyminutesofperformance time.Even
less plausible,in myview,is H. L. Anshutz'sargumentthatthecharacterCor-
notjust the actorplayingher,returnsdisguisedas the Fool, "Cor-
delia herself,
delia and the Fool,"ResearchStudies(WashingtonState University), 32 (1964),
240-60.
2. King Lear, I.i.28,30; all Shakespeareancitationsare fromThe Complete
Works,gen.ed. AlfredHarbage(Baltimore:Penguin,1969).For a discussionof
changesin the Fool's partin the apparentF revisionofQ Lear, cf.JohnKerri-
gan, "Revision,Adaptation,and the Fool in King Lear," in TheDivision of the
Kingdoms:Shakespeare'sTwo VersionsofKingLear,ed. GaryTaylorand Michael
Warren(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983),pp. 195-245.Kerrigan'sessay,though

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Cordeliaand Lear's Fool • 367

excellent,failsto take up the questionofdoublecasting.SeveralF changes(the

reattribution of "Lear's shadow,"the inclusionof "And I'll go to sleep at noon,"
thedeletionofthedialoguefollowing Lear's and Cordelia'sexitin IV.vii),discussed
in mytext,offerenrichment oftheironiesassociatedwithdoublecasting;that
wouldnotmean,however,thatthe stage productionreflected in the Q version
separatedthe two roles.In the same volumeBeth Goldringarguescogentlythat
at I.i.162Cordelia(ratherthanCornwall)intervenes withAlbanyto preventLear's
violenceagainstKent,"Cor.'s Rescue of Kent,"Division,pp. 143-51; Cordelia's
gesturedoes not changethe fact,however,thatthe ceremony ofthankingKent
remainsunfulfilled.
3. Hence the ambiguitiesof the Fool's gesturelineup withLear's overdeter-
minedact ofhiringKent,whichcues the Fool's entry."There'searnestof thy
service"(I.iv.88-89),Lear tellsCaius, meaningthathe definitely plans to hire
him(removing theearlierconditionof "If I liketheeno worseafterdinner")and
simultaneously payinghimforservicealreadyrenderedin trippingOswald.Com-
pare Caius's doublehiringby Lear and the Fool to the Fool's owndoubleemploy-
mentby Lear and Cordelia.
4. MauriceCharney," 'We Put FreshGarmentson Him':NakednessandClothes
in King Lear," in Some Facets ofKing Lear: Essays in PrismaticCriticism, ed.
Rosalie L. Colie and F. T. Flahiff(Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress, 1974),
D. 80.
5. No reference to Cordelia'sor the Fool's relativehairlengthsoccursin KL;
fortheroutinestrategemof a girlcuttingherhairto looklikea boy,see however
TGV, II.vii.42-44.For the motifof "undressingthepart" in KL, cf.JamesBlack,
"King Lear. ArtUpside-Down,"ShakespeareSurvey,33 (1980),35-42, esp. 36-
37. Regardingactual costume,therewouldperhapsnot have been muchchange
in lengthfromCordelia'srobesto the Fool's petticoat,takenby Lear forthelong
robeof a manofjustice in thehovel(cf.Leslie Hotson,Shakespeare'sMotley
[1952;rpt.New York:Haskell House, 1971],pp. 69-70).
6. The usual gloss for"catch cold shortly,"citedin theVariorumand Arden
Lear, gives "be turnedout of doorsand be exposedto theinclemency of the
weather."However,thismeaningis read back intothe lineby editorsfamiliar
withLear's and the Fool's fateofbeingdrivenintothe cold; spectatorsviewing
theplay forthe firsttimehave notyet seen thishappen.Cordelia,of course,was
threatenedwithexposure(ofsorts)yet foundwarmshelterin France(hencethe
Fool's immediatequalification about Lear doinghis thirddaughter"a blessing
againsthis will").Thus it is the actor-Cordelia, morethanthecharacter-Cordelia,
whoillustratesthe sense in whichKent is in dangerofcatchingcold.The Fool's
wordslook to thepast and the future,but his strippedappearancemakesan im-
mediatevisual statementabout chilliness.
7. Booth,p. 154; cf.Stroup,pp. 128-29; Anshutz,p. 244.
8. Feste's "A foolishthingwas but a toy" is verballysimilar.For thepriapic
fool,cf.Leslie Hotson,The FirstNightofTwelfthNight(NewYork:Macmillan,
1955),chap. 7.
9. If RobertArminplayedbothFeste and Lear's Fool, the song about the
windand therainbecomesstillmorehaunting;cf.JulianMarkels,"Shakespeare's
Confluence of Tragedyand Comedy:Twelfth Nightand King Lear," Shakespeare
Quarterly, 15 (1964),75-88; WilliamA. Ringler,Jr.("Shakespeareand His Ac-
tors:Some Remarkson King Lear," Proceedingsof theComparativeLiterature
Symposium,12 [1981],183-94),challengesthe traditionalassumptionthatArmin
playedthe Fool on thegroundsthathe wouldtherefore have been too old to
doubleas Cordelia.However,his strongestargumentis undercutby Doris Adler,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RichardAbrams• 368

whoseOhio ShakespeareConference paperon "RobertArmin:Cordeliaand the

Fool?" is abstractedin ShakespeareNewsletter, 27 (1977),30.
10. For the fool'sdoublenessofbeing,WilliamWilleford, The Fool and His
Scepter(Evanston:Northwestern UniversityPress, 1969),chap. 3, "The Fool and
Mimesis,"also chap. 4; forthe scatteringofthe seeds offolly,henceof the Fool's
being,throughout theplay,JohnReibetanz,The "Lear" World:A Studyof King
Lear in Its DramaticContext(Toronto:Universityof TorontoPress, 1977),pp.
80-107.
11. The best discussionis Hugh MacLean, "Disguise in King Lear. Kent and
Edgar," ShakespeareQuarterly, 11 (1964),49-56. RachelMassey pointsout to me
thattheprincipal"good" characters-Edgar/PoorTom,Kent/Caius, Cordelia/Fool
-all provethemselvesby theirwillingness to undergocostumechanges.
12. StanleyCavell,"The Avoidanceof Love: A ReadingofKing Lear" in his
Must WeMean WhatWe Say? (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1976),
chap. 10.
13. Cf.JohnC. Meagher,"Economyand Recognition: ThirteenShakespearean
Puzzles,"ShakespeareQuarterly, 35 (1984),18.
14. Similarly, the firstmetaphorical use of "fool"in the mainplotis Goneril's
"Old foolsare babes again" (I.iii.19),so ifthe Fool is absorbedintoLear, he may
also be said to originatein Lear. As an instanceofdirectresponseto the Fool's
accusations,Lear's "Dost thoucall me fool,boy?" producesthedelayedresponse
in the same scene,"Beat at thisgate thatlet thyfollyin" (I.iv.262).This leaves
onlyII.iv.270 (Lear's "foolme not so much")as a gratuitoususe of "fool"early
in theplay,comparedto Lear's fivegratuitousallusionstowardthe end. The
classic studyof "Fool in Lear" is WilliamEmpson,The Structureof Complex
Words(Norfolk, Conn.:New Directions,1951),chap. 6. For anotherillustration
of Lear's continuation ofthe Fool's role,cf.E. A. J. Honigmann, Shakespeare:
Seven Tragedies:TheDramatist'sManipulationofResponse(London:Macmillan,
1976),pp. 118-19: "The extraordinary onenessofthe two [theFool and Lear]
continuesafterthe Fool has droppedout of theplay,forin IV.6 Lear echoesthe
Fool's voiceand personality, continuing his riddling(e.g.,'youreyes are in a
heavycase, yourpursein a light'),his Schadenfreude, his sex obsessionand,
probably,his 'fantastic'generaldemeanour."
15. S. L. Bethell,"Shakespeare'sImagery:The Diabolic Images in Othello,"
ShakespeareSurvey,5 (1952),62-80.
16. RichardFly,Shakespeare'sMediated World(Amherst:Universityof Massa-
chusettsPress,1976),p. 113. Cf.textforn. 20, below.
17. MaynardMack, "The JacobeanShakespeare:Some Observationson the
Construction ofthe Tragedies,"in Essays in ShakespeareanCriticism, ed. James
Calderwoodand HaroldToliver(EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1970),
p. 33.
18. Cf.Leontes's"unrecognizing recognition" of thetheatricalfalsenessof the
"real" worldin WT, I.ii.291ff.:"Is thisnothing?/Why,thenthe worldand all
that'sin'tis nothing,"etc.
19. I owe thisviewof Desdemonato IrvingMassey's brilliantunpublished
essay,"The Ethicsof Particularity: Leibnizand Literature."Massey writes,
"Like all sacrificialvictims,Desdemonamustbe pure;but,as the specialkind
of sacrificialvictimshe is, whatshe mustbe pureof is attributes, otherthanthe
attributeofinnocenceitself."
20. Honigmann, p. 116.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 03:01:06 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions