Shakespearean Entertainers: Unveiling the Distinct Roles of Fools and Clowns

This chapter analyses Shakespeare’s inheritance from the Vice-dramas with specific emphasis on the ways in which fools, clowns and jesters, with a clear element of the Vice evident in their roles are incorporated into the romantic or more serious plots of Shakespeare’s romantic comedies. This chapter argues that there was a distinction between the characters drawn by Shakespeare as fools and as clowns; while Shakespeare’s fools are witty entertainers, the clowns are portrayed as simple minded and silly. However, neither the fools nor the clowns could be called mentally deficient or ‘fools’ in the real sense. At the time when Shakespeare wrote his plays, fools and clowns were people kept in royal and elite households as entertainers, many of these people had distinct physical features that were then considered to be deformities, like dwarfism, or they were mentally ill or educationally backward. There is a difference in the real practice of the households and the way Shakespeare depicted his fools and clowns, which were more based on the Vice characters of the Morality plays rather than a reflection of the real practice concerning fools in the period.

In the Morality plays, Vice characters were often infantilised or treated parodically as infants or children; this was not done usually for the depiction of actual innocence of the Vice, but for comic effect because “presenting adults as children (and vice-versa) is an enduring source of laughter which may have no explicit moral or political intent” (Carpenter, Laughter and Sin: Vice Families in Tudor Interludes 23). However, such attributes of the Vices should not be confused with the natural fools of the Elizabethan England who also were used to provoke laughter, but whose actions were often innocent. On the other hand, the Morality play Vices were not innocent. As noted about the comedy and laughter provoked by the Morality Voce: “the innocence of such laughter may be contradicted, as plays set up a contrast between infantile manners and dangerous moral violence. Laughter at the vices may begin simply, but is always a double-edged sword” (Carpenter, Laughter and Sin: Vice Families in Tudor Interludes 25). Therefore, we might draw a clear distinction between the Vices of the Morality plays and the real life fools, in that although both were used at times for comedy and laughter, the fools were often innocent and truly childlike and were treated as such by the society at the time. How did Shakespeare characterise his fools? Were they based on the Vice characters of the Morality plays or the real life natural fools? The answer is not quite simple because Shakespearian fools are complex and varied. It may be argued that Shakespeare drew two kinds of characters – fools and clowns, the former were more Vice like, while the latter were closer to the natural fools of the real world. This chapter discusses the nature of the fools as drawn in Shakespeare by drawing on the literature on the real natural fools in Elizabethan England and comparing these fools with the fools and clowns drawn by Shakespeare. What is uncovered in the chapter, reveals significant differences between the characterisation of fools and clowns by Shakespeare where the former is definitely more akin to the Vice characters of the Morality plays while the latter is similar to the natural fools in its simplicity and innocence. The difference can also be laid to the difference between natural and artificial fools as explained below.

Shakespeare did not portray his fools to be truly foolish or unwise, rather he portrayed them as wise and witty, which goes against the actual practice of the period in which he wrote. Carpenter (2013) writes that there is a difference between ‘natural fools’ and ‘artificial fools’, the former being an “individual with a mental impairment of some kind who might be kept as a source of entertainment, especially in noble or royal households, up until the earlier seventeenth century” (p. 5). Thus, in wealthy families, a certain kind of individual who had mental impairments, was kept as a source of entertainment in the period in which Shakespeare wrote. Though these people were called fools because of their mental impairments, today, this is not the word that we would use to describe them. Carpenter (2013) further writes that “the unimpaired artificial fool, on the other hand, consciously crafted witty discourse and entertaining behaviour for professional purposes” and was different from the natural fool, the former being “an object of interest to philosophers, commentators and theologians discussing the relation of folly to rationality, the interpenetration of wit and folly, and how we can all be defined as fools” (p. 5). Therefore, there was a difference between natural fools in the actual world and artificial fools in Shakespearian theatre. Therefore, it can be said that Shakespearian fools were modelled more on the Vice characters and not on the actual fools in Elizabethan England.

Contrary to the fools in the actual Elizabethan homes, the fools on Shakespearian stage were not foolish and some of them were portrayed as wise. This may be due to the important role played by the fool in Shakespearian comedies as well as tragedies as the speaker of the truth and someone who spoke his mind to anyone, including the most powerful people in the play. For example, the interactions between King Lear and his fool are remarkable in the way that the fool was allowed to speak with the king and get away with speaking the most unpalatable truth at times, as the following speech between Lear and the Fool shows. King Lear says: “Dost thou call me fool, boy?” and the Fool answers back with impunity: “All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with” (Act 1, Scene 4). King Lear’s folly in investing his daughters with too much power is seen by the Fool as the biggest mistake and he leaves no opportunity to remind the king of his folly in language such as this. Only the Fool is allowed to speak in this manner and by doing so, Shakespeare’s fool becomes an important part of the play in being able to show the characters as well as the audience the folly of the characters. In Shakespearian plays, the fool was not always the object of laughter, although he was often witty and made the audience laugh. In real life, fools of the period were often made fun of because of their deformities, which is something that is difficult to relate to at this time because it is no longer considered to be “acceptable, or even understandable, to treat those with mental impairments as a source of laughter” (Carpenter 6). King Lear’s fool is ‘touched’ in the way that makes him similar to the natural fools but, he is also able to see the follies of Lear and therefore has an inner philosophical nature, which people at the time may not have related to with natural fools.

Shakespeare crafted some of his fools as having a discrepancy between their inner philosophical natures and the actual professions of jesters and fools, which demand a certain kind of entertaining behaviour. A jester is internally an intellectual, but externally a comedian. Internally, intellectually and philosophically, the fool is supposed to tell the truth to the characters and the audience; but being a fool, his truths come out in comic or sarcastic phrases, sometimes ambiguous and hard to comprehend by the characters. One of the insightful statements on the fool’s character is as follows:

“The Fool does not follow any ideology. He rejects all appearances, of law, justice, moral order. He sees brute force, cruelty and lust. He has no illusions and does not seek consolation in the existence of natural or supernatural order, which provides for the punishment of evil and the reward of good. Lear, insisting on his fictitious majesty, seems ridiculous to him. All the more ridiculous because he does not see how ridiculous he is. But the Fool does not desert his ridiculous, degraded king, and accompanies him on his way to madness. The Fool knows that the only true madness is to recognize this world as rational (Kott 166-167).”

This statement shows how the fool was characterised as a person who was without any mental or psychological form in the conventional sense. The fool was not good or bad; he had no ideology and was not for any ism or thought. He was not a believer in justice or moral order, but was nevertheless able to see the world as it was. Whether wise, like Touchstone, or ‘touched’ like Lear’s Fool, he was able to see the truth and speak the truth, in which he was privileged because he was allowed to speak it. The last sentence of the excerpt from Kott above is especially important because it shows that the fool understood that although he was thought to be mad by everyone else, the only true madness was to see the rationality in the world, which was superficial.

The similarity between the fools and Vice characters is more in the nature of the way they both were used as instruments of awareness of follies and vice by the playwright. As earlier Morality playwrights like Heywood used Vice-like characters to make the characters and the audience more aware of vice and folly, while using the Vice in comic and evil ways, Shakespeare’s fools and jesters were also used as instruments for truth and awareness. Like the Vice characters in the Morality plays, fools and jesters were also comic, foolish, glib, and were invested with a complexity of meaning in their language through the use of satire, irony, and pun. However, behind this multi-layered comedy, there was a clarity in thought about truth and the world, in a way that the other characters in the plays lacked. However, because the fools and jesters were different and ‘abnormal’, they were allowed to be truthful, even insulting, because it was thought that these fools were ‘touched’ by supernatural forces, and therefore, had the privilege to speak as they wanted (Bell).

Critics of Shakespearian drama have explored the function of the fool in the drama. Ellis argued that the fool served the function of presenting a different worldview than the one adopted by the majority of the characters in the play and even the society as represented by the audience. The worldview presented by the fool was radically different and in some ways insightful of the Shakespearian logic itself (Ellis). On the other hand, Mullini argues that fools served the function of disrupting the traditional order of society and subverted the conventional language to give it a different meaning. Kaiser has noted that the characteristics of fools were not just found in the obvious fools, but were also seen in some other characters of the Shakespearian drama; he gives the example of Falstaff in Henry IV, who is not only a Vice but also bears similarities to the "wise fools." Willeford’s analysis brings the fool closer to the Vice characters of the Morality plays, where he compares Hamlet with the Vice as well as notes that Hamlet was more of a Shakespearean fool. The use of the fools and clowns in the more tragic and serious plays of Shakespeare is explored by Cox, who investigated the manner in which Shakespeare blended comedy and tragedy in the serious plays.

Comic servants, clowns and fools

The period of time in England to which Shakespeare belonged was one where it was common for rich households to have fools and jesters as entertainers of the household. The tradition of fooling in England dates back to the medieval times, and by the time Shakespeare started writing, this tradition was well entrenched, as noted:

“The Fool was a nearly indispensable presence at renaissance revels...he was apart from the ordinary men, irresponsible, but adept at uttering home truths which others would be afraid or too proud to acknowledge. Shakespeare follows this tradition. As a rule, his clowns stand aside from the intrigue of the play...they stand for the instinctive nature as contrasted with culture...whenever they appear, they turn affection to ridicule” (Salingar 15-16).

As Salingar notes above, the fool was an almost indispensable presence at the revels. There are two points worth mentioning about the characterisation of the fool in the revels, which has a bearing on the characterisation of the fools and clowns in Shakespeare’s plays. The first point is that the fools at the revels were distinguishable from ordinary men. The second point is that they were masters at telling the truth unlike most ordinary people, who would be scared to speak this truth. Both these aspects of the character of the fool at the revels were adopted by Shakespeare in the characterisation of his own fools. The fools in Shakespearian drama were distinct characters, who were different from all others and they were given to plain speaking even to the face of the most powerful and influential characters in the play. Another aspect of the Shakespearean fool was that these characters were usually ironical. In King Lear, Lear’s Fool is always ridiculing the king, but he remains loyal to him till his end. In Twelfth Night, Feste is a clown, but he is also shown to be one of the most reasonable and intelligent men in the play. In Elizabethan England, fools had a very conflicted place as they were to be protected and treated kindly but it was also socially acceptable to take pleasure at the limitations of the fools and laugh at their words and deeds (Carpenter).

Fools and jesters were male actors who used flamboyant clothing as distinguishing features. They cracked jokes and made satirical comments, which were usually laughed away by the patrons instead of giving offense to anyone. Robert Armin, a professional actor with the Lord Chamberlain’s Men specialising in fools parts published a work called Foole Vpon Foole, as a history of six real-life fools and he explains the six fools as very distinct persons with distinct deformities (Carpenter). For example there is the flat fool, with his upper lip turned in and a big underlip; the fat fool with “one ear bigger and the other far and flaming eyes and flat nose; Lean Leanard with a little head, a high forehead, a squint eye and crooked hand. The fools therefore had certain bodily idiosyncrasies that were markers of their identity and source of fascination and humour (Carpenter). As Shakespeare was familiar with the concept of fools, he too incorporated similar characters in many of his plays (Barber). There are two kinds of fools that are seen in Shakespeare’s plays: the wise fool (Ellis uses the phrase ‘fools of mature comedy’); and the natural fool or an idiot who would be used for light entertainment (Bell; Berry; Calderwood). Shakespeare’s As You Like It gives a good example of a wise fool in the character of Touchstone. Wise fools are also seen in the characters of Feste in Twelfth Night, and Lear’s Fool in King Lear. Examples of natural fool or idiot characters from Shakespeare’s dramas are seen in the characters of Lance in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing.

At this point, it will be worthwhile to consider the role played by jesters in the courts of the day in Elizabethan England, when Shakespeare wrote his plays. The jester, by this time, had come to become a mainstay in many of the aristocratic households, where he played the role of an entertainer and a comedian. It has been noted that the clowns, jesters and fools of the day were given the licence to do many things or act in a way that would be considered to be completely inappropriate if done by ordinary people:

“Within certain limits or on certain licensed occasions (such as Carnival), double dealing and practical jokes are permissible and even admirable. This assumption...goes far back into the origins of literary comedy; without it, most European comedy as we know it would disappear” (Salingar 89).

Clearly, the tradition of fooling was an important part of the English, or even European culture at the time, and for certain events and occasions, fools and jesters were given the licence to act in a certain way. Typically, jesters and fools belonged to the poor and peasant class, but were men of significant talents, with the ability to entertain people with songs, storytelling, satire, and even physical comedy. Shakespeare’s fools and clowns were invested with these qualities, but Shakespeare extended the psychological elements in his own fools and clowns by making them more complex. In many ways, Shakespeare also invested many of the fools with the elements of the Morality play Vice characters. However, as the fools were more obviously based on jesters in courts, the interesting question about Shakespeare’s fools and clowns is how he utilised the characteristics of Vice characters from the Morality plays and merged these characteristics with his own fools and clowns, and how Shakespeare incorporated these characters into more serious or romantic plots of his plays.

It has been argued that the fools and clowns in Shakespeare's plays were not included to serve any major function or role in the play but were merely included for adding comic relief in some of the more serious plays of Shakespeare (Levin). If that is the case, then the fools and clowns are closer to the Morality play Vice characters in the sense of the function of the characters. However, it may be noted that Shakespeare’s Vice-like characters were more than comic relief and he increasingly invested the Vice-like characters with complex psychological insight and function so as to highlight some of the important themes of his plays. The contrary view (to fools being comic relief), would be more appropriate in the context of Shakespeare’s fools as the clowning in Shakespeare’s plays went beyond comic relief, with the fools making the difficult scenes in the play more accessible and understandable to the audience (Weimann). Falstaff is a good example of a character that is inspired by the earlier Morality plays, and who also contains characteristics of a fool or a jester (Calderwood).

Fools were also able to bring understanding of realities to the characters and the audience (Weimann). For instance, Feste says to Olivia: “The future is uncertain, laughter momentary, and youth 'a stuff will not endure” [Twelfth Night, Act 2, Scene 3]. This is a statement that marks the realities of nature and the world, which is ever changing. Feste’s insight and his sharing of this insight with Olivia is an important aspect of the role that Feste plays. Nevertheless, fools are not taken seriously, and they are thought more of clowns or even madmen in some ways. The natural fools were more likely to be the object of jests rather than being the initiator of jests in contrast to professional or artificial fools (Carpenter). Indeed, most fools in Shakespearian drama were intelligent; yet, Hal says “How ill white hairs become a fool and a jester.” To this, Falstaff replies, “Master Shallow, I owe you a thousand pounds.” As Henry comments on Falstaff’s age to point a discrepancy between his age and his demeanour or nature as a fool, Falstaff also sees King Hal and sees that he is merely a shell of the person he once knew.

It has been noted that Shakespeare had some sympathy for those who were somewhat mad or eccentric (Ellis). In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Duke Theseus says:

“. . . I never may believe

These antique fables, nor these fairy toys.

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,

Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend

More than cool reason ever comprehends.

The lunatic, the lover and the poet

Are of imagination all compact . . .” [Act 5, Scene 1]

Shakespeare understood the bipolarity of categorisation of people in the world into two extremes of those who were ‘normal’ and the minority of those who were ‘fools’. Ellis argues that Shakespeare understood that for the majority of the world, the opposites of normality and madness are not harmonised, but the poet is different from the majority of people as are lunatics and lovers. The fool too is different, as he unlike most people, is able to understand his own existence from the inside (Ellis). Moreover, the wider public’s unacceptability of the fool, is a reason why the fool sets out to reflect upon his nature and behaviour. Because the fool self-reflects, he is different from the majority of the world that is not used to reflecting on their behaviour or thinking of their nature, and this sets the fool apart and makes him someone who is different from the rest. According to Ellis, Shakespeare showed this aspect of fool’s being in his plays. On the other hand, natural fools in real life attracted laughter at them and their physical deformities ; the body of the natural fool was physically deformed, which led to sufferance of bodily pain but invited laughter from the others (Carpenter). Shakespeare did draw some difference between natural and wise fools. Characters like Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing, were deliberately incorporated into plays for the purpose of comedy and they were not like wise fools in the sense of being incorporated for providing psychological insight or truth speaking; rather, these natural fools were completely unaware of their self and of those around them, to the extent that they elicited laughter from other characters for their simple-mindedness. As noted by Calderwood: “The Fool’s function is to tell subversive truths to a court society foolish enough to think its own truths are the truth” (126).

A classic example of this plain-speaking is seen in the character of Touchstone in As You Like It, who observes everyone and comments on what he observes in his caustic way. Touchstone’s wit is not easily comprehended by most of the other characters in the play and he is wise enough to know that he depends on the good humour of the others. He makes fun of a foolish knight, who is a friend of Rosalind’s father, only to be told by Rosalind:

“Enough! Speak no more of him; you'll be

whipped for taxation one of these days.” [Act 1, Scene 2]

Touchstone’s reply is the classic exposition of the difference between the wisdom of the fool and that of the world in general:

“The more pity, that fools may not speak

wisely what wise men do foolishly.”

The statement is profound in the sense of the paradox of the wise fool’s wisdom. A fool is wise but is an object of comedy and laughter, and even when he speaks something that is wise and truthful, he is not to be taken seriously; on the other hand, many wise men speak foolishly but are taken seriously because they conform to the world’s standard of wisdom, which the fool does not. Natural fools did not comment on any other characters like the wise fools did, and they did not have any sarcastic or caustic comments to make. These characters were completely deprived of the ability to think and reflect to the extent that they were usually unaware of the other characters’ laughter at their expense (Ellis).

Berry notes:

“The theatrical fools of the end of the sixteenth century were only one manifestation of a long tradition of fooling, more or less continuous since at least the Middle Ages, which evolved alongside the theatre but was by no means dependent upon it” (110).

It is clear that the tradition of fooling is not necessarily dependant on theatre, as fools and jesters were also part of aristocratic households and the courts. However, when Berry notes that theatrical fools were the manifestation of the long tradition of fooling, does he include the Vice tradition of the previous centuries as seen in the Morality plays? Berry himself notes that Will Kemp, who played several of Shakespeare's famous clowns, was described as “the Vice-gerent generall to the ghost of Dicke Tarlton” (110). Dick or Richard Tarlton was a popular fool in the Elizabethan court considered to have considerable influence over the queen. This statement is also significant in showing a link between the Vice and the fool characters. A vice-gerent or general is a master of revels or a minister of the Vices (Bell 9). That the Shakespearean fool or clown is descended from the Morality play Vice is observed by many scholars have pointed out by Hornback. The actor, Dick Tarlton has been credited with fusing the traditions of the Vice with that of the fool (Hornback 18). When Tarlton died, it was noted that “Now that Tarlton is dead, the consort lackes a Vice” (Hornback 19). However, after Tarlton’s death, Will Kempe is considered to have survived him in the dual role of clown and Vice (Hornback 19). Kemp was the most popular clown in England, and in the modern times he can be compared to the popularity of Charles Chaplin as a tramp (Bell 10). Kemp was also a master at creating a relationship between himself and the audience, in the same way that the older Vices were masters at this aspect. He would get into the audience or the crowd, wink at them from time to time, and talk to them (Bell 10). This is also similar to the Vice tradition of developing a rapport with the audience. Purcell (2009) notes that in Richard Brome's 1638 play The Antipodes, Kemp and Tarlton were mentioned as bad examples of clowns and were both criticised for "holding interloqutions with the Audients" (Gurr 2002). However, this kind of foolery is deliberate, whereas the natural fool’s comedy was not deliberate, rather it was embodied because hilarity was not just thought to be a reaction to fools but a symptom or behaviour of fools (Carpenter). As laughter was linked to the body of the natural fools and their deformities, it was thought that they not only evoked laughter, they embodied it. However, Shakespeare did not always invest his fools with such natural deformities as a source of their comedy. He was able to derive psychological qualities that were not linked to the bodies of the fools but their inner mental qualities that led to their ability to make others laugh. In this Shakespeare’s fools did not always accord with the natural fools of the real world or the representation of such fools in the real world. Example can be seen in the characterisation of Touchstone and Feste discussed below.

Touchstone

Touchstone is a wise fool, which means that he is witty and intelligent. He is also shown to be a keen observer of human nature and he shows this by constantly commenting on the other characters in the play. His wit is somewhat sarcastic and cynical. Like Feste in Twelfth Night, Touchstone too is able to play with language, and he is a master at twisting arguments. Although a fool and a jester, Touchstone is continuously criticising the wisdom of foolishness.

Touchstone is considered to be the “more obvious instance of the Shakespearean fool” (Ellis). Unlike others, he is extremely aware of existence and its realities and he understands the meaning of life better than other characters in the play:

“And so from hour to hour we ripe and ripe,

And then from hour to hour we rot and rot.” [Act 2, Scene 7]

Touchstone has cynical views of most institutions in the society, and he expresses his cynicism through caustic commentary. Love and marriage are considered to be instinctive but social customs are preventative of natural phenomenon. He is the most cynical about people’s lack of self-awareness and believes that most people are self-congratulatory and preening in nature, which feeling he expresses as: “the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.” Above all, Touchstone has the fool’s awareness of the difference between himself and the others:

“When a man's verses cannot be understood,

nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child,

Understanding, it strikes a man more dead

than a great reckoning in a little room.” [Act 3, Scene 3]

Feste

As noted above, Feste in Twelfth Night was one of Shakespeare’s wise fools. In one of the statements made by Olivia in the play, it seems that being wise is one of the characteristics of being a fool:

“This fellow is wise enough to play the fool, and to do that well craves a kind of wit. He must observe their mood on whom he jests, the quality of persons, and the time.” (Act 3, Scene 1)

Viola made the above comment on Feste, her own fool, and from her words, one may deduce that being a fool was considered to be an occupation that required a certain kind of wit and intelligence. A person was to be intuitive and discerning in order to be able to understand the moods of the people and the time when he played his jokes on them. However, this characterisation of fools cannot be aligned to the way fools were actually perceived in the Elizabethan society. They were objects of laughter and thought to be touched or simple. While Viola observes that wisdom is a key quality of the fool, the natural fools were not perceived in this light in Shakespearian England. Then why did Shakespeare devise the fool and why did he derive qualities that were different from natural fools that he could clearly perceive in the society in which he lived? One possible answer is that Shakespeare devised a character that could entertain and provide comedy in his plays which is similar to the natural fools but at the same time, he created a distinction between the natural and the artificial fool. Feste is one of the prominent fools in Shakespeare’s repertoire of plays. Although considered to be a wise fool, Feste was also an entertainer. He sang, danced, and made jokes, thus, generally entertaining people. Olivia has an obvious respect for Feste, and he is allowed to move freely within her household. Feste is considered to be intelligent and able to use language effectively. Olivia pays respect to Feste by asking him for opinions on anything that she considers of importance.

Feste is also closer to the Morality play Vice characters in his duplicity and ambiguity rather than to a fool of the real world. Feste is urbane and ambiguous. He never lets his real feelings and ideas be known to the audience and rather he uses his humour and comedy to make fun of everyone around him. The audience will never come to know what Feste is really thinking or the person that he is behind the mask of folly and affectation that he dons at all times. He appears to serve only the function of making jest of the others. Malvolio thus says of him: “I marvel your ladyship takes delight in such a barren fool.” (Act 1, Scene 5) The only statement that Feste makes, which may be illuminative of his real self is:

“Those wits, that think they have thee, do very oft

prove fools;

and I, that am sure I lack thee, may

pass for a wise man.” [Act 1, Scene 5]

Again, like Touchstone, Feste notes the irony of the notion of wisdom in the society by making a distinction between his own wisdom, which is never taken seriously by anybody and the foolishness of others which passes for wisdom. He is also somewhat melancholy at times, which may not accord with the common or general perception of the clown or fool. This can be seen in his response to Olivia’s question as to what a drunken man is like: “Like a drowned man, a fool, and a madman: one draught above heat makes him a fool, the second mads him, and a third drowns him.” (Act 1, Scene 5) He does not respond to the question in a comic way; rather his answer is somewhat sad and discerning of the condition of the drunk. In the same way, Feste notes the other vices of man in general and especially focuses on how human beings progress from irresponsibility and joy of childhood to the vice that comes with age. In this sense, Feste’s role is in conformity with the didactic traditions of the Morality plays. Feste uses music and song to deliver these ideas and messages to the audience as well as the characters (Quennell and Johnson). Due to this, it has been said:

“Feste is a wise fool, a mature, sensible wit who is conscious of his superiority to the fools who surround him. He has little to do with the plot until the last act. His function is to indicate to the audience the foolishness of the main characters” (Quennell 76-77).

Like the Vice characters of the Morality plays, Feste uses comedy and humour to punctuate his doses of reality. For instance, to Olivia’s command of “Take the fool away”, Feste responds: “Do you not hear fellows? Take away the lady.” This is comic, and at the same time it is ironic because the fool turns the tables on the lady and he justifies this by saying that because she is mourning her brother, she is a fool: “The more fool, Madonna, to mourn for your brother’s soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen.” (Act 1, Scene 5)

Lear’s Fool

The fool in King Lear is known by the name of ‘Fool’. He plays an important role in the drama and is one of the key characters in the play. Fool is always by King Lear’s side and as such he is King Lear’s companion. As King Lear gradually turns to madness, Fool is beside him and even in death, they are close as Fool is hanged just before Lear’s death. Fool’s character in King Lear is also significant for the psychological role that this character plays as the inner consciousness of King Lear. The paradox of the situation is that the King is foolish while the Fool is wise. Fool, as a wise fool in the play, is the alter ego for King Lear and when King Lear embarks on one foolish or mad act after the other, Fool comments on these acts constantly. The Fool is sarcastic and caustic in his approach to his king and rubs in the foolishness of his ways after King Lear makes any foolish mistake. The inverse relationship between Fool and King Lear’s intelligence is such that Fool is beside King Lear throughout the latter’s foolishness; but as King Lear begins to gain better understanding and finally attains some wisdom, Fool dies as there is no need for his character anymore. Natural fools in the Elizabethan England often had the quality to not only cause laughter at themselves but also to cause laughableness in others because “laughing at the reductive physicality of the natural can draw the spectator into the fool’s own sphere, partly dissolving the sense of separation and hierarchical superiority between the two that initiated the jest” (Carpenter 11). In this, Lear’s Fool is closer to the real natural fools as compared to other fools devised by Shakespeare. Did Shakespeare having something specific in mind while devising the character as an alter ego of Lear? As noted by Carpenter, fools had the ability to dissolve the hierarchical difference between themselves and the others. This is something that we seen in King Lear. While King Lear remains foolish, however, it seems to be Fool’s duty to remind him constantly of his follies, in a way that no one else would dare to:

“I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are.

They'll have me whipped for speaking true;

thou'lt have me whipped for lying;

and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace.

I had rather be any kind o'thing than a fool.

And yet I would not be thee, nuncle.

Thou hast pared thy wit o'both sides and left nothing in the middle.” [Act 1, Scene 4]

The above statement by Fool is significant and shows the internal and psychological struggle of the fool. He would rather not be a fool, but he would not like to be like Lear either. He is aware of his position as a fool, bound to tell the truth to the King, else he will be whipped, and bound to lie, else the king’s daughters will have him whipped. This conflict is the natural domain of the fool. Yet, Fool is unable to do anything other than speak the truth, even when it is insulting:

“When thou clovest thy crown i'th'middle and gavest away both parts, thou borest thy ass o'th'back o'er the dirt. Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gavest the golden one away.” (Act 1, Scene 4)

Despite Fool’s unsparing wit and sarcasm at the expense of the king, the fool cuts a sorry figure, becoming more and more frail towards the end and when he is finally hanged, Lear’s response is one of pity and sadness: “And my poor fool is hanged.” Fool, while alive is also pessimistic as well as comic. His principal function in the play appears to be to highlight the truth of the situation and to point out the follies of the king and the corruption of his court. In that, his purpose seems to be aligned to the role that the Vice characters played in the Morality plays, where they brought the audience closer to the knowledge of vice and virtue through their own evil actions. Fool is not evil, but he is still attempting to elicit a chastened response from the audience through their insight on human nature and human follies. In this, Lear’s Fool, as well as Touchstone and Feste, play a similar role of highlighting folly and vice. While their natures may not be the same in the context of evil, these fools and the Vice characters from the Morality plays appear to play the same role in bringing the audience to consider the nature of folly and vice.

Lance

One of the natural fools in Shakespearean plays is seen in the characterisation of Lance in the play The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Launce or Lance makes his appearance in the third scene of the second act of the play. His introduction itself is comic and reminiscent of the older Vice characters who entered comically into the interludes:

“Nay, 'twill be this hour ere I have done weeping; all the kind of the Launces have this very fault. I have received my proportion, like the prodigious son, and am going with Sir Proteus to the imperial's court. I think Crab my dog be the sourest-natured dog that lives: my mother weeping, my father wailing, my sister crying, our maid howling, our cat wringing her hands, and all our house in great perplexity, yet did not this cruel-hearted cur shed one tear: he is a stone, a very pebble-stone, and has no more pity in him than a dog: a Jew would have wept to have seen our parting: why, my grandam, having no eyes, look you, wept herself blind at my parting. Nay, show you the manner of it: This shoe is my father; - no, this left shoe is my father; no, no, this left shoe is my mother: - that cannot be so neither: yes, it is so, it is so; it hath the worser sole.” [Act 2, Scene 3]

Launce seems to be in some pathos over his separation from his family when he takes on the journey with his master. The description of the family as given by Launce is such as cannot fail to amuse the audience with his emphasis on the weeping women, wailing father, howling maid, and the "perplexed" household. This is compared with the bored and unmoving attitude of the dog Crab. The way the fool describes the father and mother to the audience using his shoes, saying that the one with the worser sole is his mother, is an expression of double meaning, where he compares the sole of the shoe with his mother’s soul, is reminiscent of the Vice-like talk in the old Morality plays. At the same time, the loyalty that Launce shows to the sourest-natured dog that ever lived is also interesting (Hall). It also shows Launce to be a real simpleton, different from other fools in the other Shakespearean plays who were wise and knowing. Other clowns and fools have a reflexivity that is missing in the character of Launce (Hall). However, this may not be entirely correct as the following speech from Launce does show him to be more understanding than others have supposed him to be: “I am but a fool, look you, and yet I have the wit to think my master is a kind of a knave.” (Act 3, Scene 1) In this, Launce seems to be more understanding than otherwise supposed; however, the next part of the speech is again meaningless:

“But that’s all one, if he be but one knave. He lives not now that knows me to be in love, yet I am in love. But a team of horse shall not pluck that from me, nor who ’tis I love. And yet ’tis a woman, but what woman, I will not tell myself. And yet ’tis a milkmaid. Yet ’tis not a maid, for she hath had gossips. Yet ’tis a maid, for she is her master’s maid, and serves for wages. She hath more qualities than a water spaniel, which is much in a bare Christian.” (Act 3, Scene 1)

It is possible that Shakespeare has used this part of Launce’s speech as including a flash of intuitive genius in which he is able to perceive the knavery of Proteus even without knowing the betrayal of Valentine by Proteus. That would be reasonable in the tradition of natural fools who are touched in the sense of having flashes of intuition, even though they are mentally deficient. As Carpenter notes, natural fools were not usually capable of “conscious or sophisticated verbal wit of the artificial fool” (12), but in real world, there were some natural fools like Will Somer who had become known for his repartee. There were also fools that were known for their verbal comedy or wisdom, where verbal comedy or wit either contained of the fools’ revelations of their “own laughable lack of comprehension of social and intellectual skills or they may be valued for their truth-telling, their inability to use words to deceive, to flatter or to lie” (Carpenter 12). In this speech, Shakespeare shows the fool aware of Proteus’ knavery, while the rest of the speech proves him to be a natural fool nevertheless. It is also possible that Launce’s flash of intuition may just be Launce’s reliance on the dog Crab, who barks at Proteus to show his mistrust (Warren). In that case, Launce is one of the rare fools who is not invested with the intelligence that would make him akin to the Vice characters of the Morality plays or even like Vice-like characters of Shakespeare’s plays and also similar to some of the natural fools in the society of the time.

Bottom

Bottom’s character in A Midsummer’s Night Dream, is fool’s character, but endowed with a certain sensitivity, which is hid behind a cloak of extroversion (Ellis). It has been argued that Bottom’s character develops a veneer of extroversion because he is extremely sensitive to criticism and is easily hurt by disapproval (Ellis). However, in order the protect himself from the criticism of others, Bottom becomes loud and even a nuisance in some ways. Others, like Peter Quince, definitely see him as a nuisance, and attempt to get Bottom to behave. On the other hand, Bottom scared himself, thinks that those who run away from him, are merely playing a game with him:

“I see their knavery: this is to make an ass of

me: to fright me, if they could. But I will not

stir from this place, do what they can: I will

walk up and down, and I will sing, that they shall

hear I am not afraid.” [Act 3, Scene 1]

Clearly, Bottom’s subsequent bad behaviour results from his fear of others and their rejection of him and as he says, he resorts to singing and walking about, putting on a brave face, so that the others may not see his fear. Ellis writes that in acting thus, Bottom’s behaviour is merely a reaction to the behaviour of those around him. Therefore, he is always conflicted and never at home or at peace with himself and his behaviour. The characterisation of Bottom is similar to natural fools in some way because naturals were recognised to be “innocent” or morally innocent because fools do not have the wit to make ethical judgements or to sin. Bottom’s behaviour even when bad is not driven by anything malicious, rather he is afraid of the others and being afraid he tries to hide his fear behind bad behaviour. Therefore, there is an innocence to his character.

Dogberry

Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing is also a natural fool. There is a contrast between Feste and Dogberry, which is interesting; this being that Feste is a master at twisting words and giving these words a different meaning, while Dogberry is an incompetent speaker and cannot use language in the ordinary way or sense. This inability to speak properly was a very distinct quality of some of the fools in the real world during Shakespeare’s time. There are examples from how the natural fools of the time sometimes mumbled or spoke in words or sentences that were incomprehensible. For example, Jemy Camber was renowned for misunderstanding words or misusing words. John i’the Hospital, another natural fool at Christ’s Hospital would not know how to respond to simple questions as noted by Robert Armin who asked Jemy what his coat cost him, only to get the incomprehensible reply “groate” and the answer was always groate to whichever question was asked regarding the cap, band shirt, or beard (Carpenter). This evoked laughter because Jemy was so obviously naive and did not have the understanding of what such words betrayed about him.

Clowns

Trinculo

In The Tempest, the court jester, Trinculo is unlike a wise fool. He does not have the wit of Touchstone or the wisdom of Lear’s Fool. Rather, Trinculo is silly and somewhat stupid, although he is not a natural fool or an idiot. Trinculo provides comedy to the play as his failed efforts to oust Prospero and his partnership with the drunken butler, Stephano, and indigenous servant, Caliban, for mounting a coup against Prospero, provide comic elements to the play.

Incorporation

Shakespeare was able to incorporate fools and jesters into his most comic as well as tragic plays. It is said that Shakespeare was able to do so because he was ironic, and one of the ironies was in how he managed to merge the comic with the tragic (Berry). However, there may be something in the fool’s character which allows for such ironic merging of the comic with the tragic. The fool was a comic and a jester, but he also spoke truth and was allowed to be didactic even to the point of insulting (as in King Lear). There is a natural ambiguity in the character of the fool, which may be inspired by the Vice characters of the Morality plays as well as a tendency for laughter and mirth that was akin to the natural fool of the actual society. This may explain the way the fool characters were able to be merged in the most tragic of Shakespearian dramas as well as comedies. More like the Vice characters, fools were also ambidextrous, which makes them paradoxical figures, capable of mirth and melancholy at the same time. Touchstone is a good example of a character capable of melancholy and comedy at the same time, as is Feste.

As You Like It is an example of a work that is both serious and comic at the same time. This is the use of irony by Shakespeare. Many of his plays depict similar irony. One of the ironies, in the context of the fools is that the wisdom of the fool is not met by similar wisdom of the others around him. The fool knows the world as no other character does, as is as seen in the following narration by Jacques, of his meeting with Touchstone in the forest:

“A fool, a fool! I met a fool i' the forest,

A motley fool; a miserable world!

As I do live by food, I met a fool

Who laid him down and bask'd him in the sun,

And rail'd on Lady Fortune in good terms,

In good set terms and yet a motley fool.

'Good morrow, fool,' quoth I. 'No, sir,' quoth he,

'Call me not fool till heaven hath sent me fortune:'

And then he drew a dial from his poke,

And, looking on it with lack-lustre eye,

Says very wisely, 'It is ten o'clock:

Thus we may see,' quoth he, 'how the world wags:

'Tis but an hour ago since it was nine,

And after one hour more 'twill be eleven;

And so, from hour to hour, we ripe and ripe,

And then, from hour to hour, we rot and rot;

And thereby hangs a tale.' When I did hear

The motley fool thus moral on the time,

My lungs began to crow like chanticleer,

That fools should be so deep-contemplative,

And I did laugh sans intermission

An hour by his dial. O noble fool!

A worthy fool! Motley's the only wear.” [Act 2, Scene 7]

Jacques, like Touchstone, is a fool character, who is more Vice-like than Touchstone for the ambiguity of his character, as well as his tendency to amuse himself without regard to his body or fate. This is a trait that is common to the Vice, in which the Vice character is uncaring about his own fate and is more focused on the mischief he can cause. An example can be seen in the following statement by Aaron:

“If there be devils, would I were a devil,

To live and burn in everlasting fire,

So I might have your company in hell

But to torment you with my bitter tongue.” [Titus Andronicus, Act 5, Scene 1]

Aaron is willing to burn in everlasting fire, and is indifferent to the sufferings of the others, as well as himself. This is similar to the character of the Vice in Morality plays as well as Shakespeare, where both are indifferent to the fate of others as well as themselves. This is not however aligned to the natural fools of the real world in Shakespeare’s time, who were considered to be innocent and blameless. Natural fools were considered to be both blameless and harmless in Elizabethan England as noted by Robert Armin in Foole Vpon Foole where he writes of the fool as an “innocent Idiot that never harmed any” (Carpenter 15). The fools were indeed valued at the time for their ability to lighten the moods of people by having harmless fun so that people might for some time forget their cares (Carpenter). Therefore, all Shakespearian fools were not entirely modelled on the natural fools; some of them had closer affinity to the Vice characters. Vice characters in the Morality plays derived enjoyment from villainy and proudly declared their villainy for the audience to see and observe in their actions and even soliloquys (Spivack). This is true for some of the Shakespearean Vices who too did evil for the sake of doing evil and for disrupting the unity and order of the world around them (Spivack). The more obvious Vice-like characters are Falstaff, Aaron, and Iago. There is a duplicity in these characters, which lends well to their Vice-like roles in the plays. For instance, there is an ambiguity as to why Aaron is acting in the manner he does, and we are never clear about his motives, although the racial aspect does suggest itself. Aaron’s villainy may be the fact of his race, as Maus observes that Aaron is a “stage descendant of the ‘black men’ of medieval morality plays, which conflated traditional depictions of the devil with racist conceptions of ‘Moors’ and ‘Africans’” (Maus, 1997, p. 376). Aaron himself refers to this in Act III:

“Let fools do good, and fair men call for grace.

Aaron will have his soul black like his face.”

However, this also suggests a similarity between Aaron the Vice, and fools such as Feste and Touchstone, who are all perceived by the greater society to be of a certain nature and they are themselves all conflicted between their actual philosophical natures and the need to present themselves in a certain way to the world as is expected of their characters. In other words, their inner selves and outer selves are conflicted. As they are fools, and different from others, they are expected to ‘play the fool’, which is what they do. It may even be said that they are playing the role that is expected of them, rather than what they really are. In this, we find a complexity of Shakespeare’s fools to the same level as is found in the Vice characters. Did Shakespeare deliberately keep this ambiguity in the characters so that they could be modelled on both Vice and fools at the same time? What purpose did the characterisation of Shakespearian fools as characters capable of irony serve?

Shakespeare’s comedies were a combination of both elements: light and dark, and this is particularly seen in the play Twelfth Night. Thus, combining the two elements, Shakespeare was able to include irony in his works, be these comedies or tragedies. This meant that his comedies would have dark elements, and his tragedies would have light elements. King Lear, a tragedy, for instance, contains light humour. This ironical interspersing of dark and light elements is what makes many of Shakespeare’s characters paradoxical and ironical. It is in this paradox or irony that the link between fools, clowns and jesters, and Vice or Vice-like characters can be explored. It may be noted that Vice was able to adapt to both comic and tragic roles because “his two-fold nature allowed him to take an active position in both comedy and tragedy” (George 80). Therefore, in the interspersing of the comic and tragic, both Vice and the fool and jester are adept. Therefore, there are significant similarities between the Vice characters and the fools, clowns and jesters of Shakespearean stage, not the least of this significance is the historical evolution of these characters:

“The roots of both types of images go back to the folk tradition of the Feast of Fools, and then, in late Middle Ages, with the development of sacred drama, the folklore image is implemented in a foolish soldier, cunning fool, stupid rustic man and Vice. Usually in early comedies written by Shakespeare we are dealing with clowns, not fools, although their functions are very similar: both stand for the “voice of Nature", i.e. a spontaneous course of events, both often become the only characters who are able to speak the truth (aware or unaware) as it is.” (Pastušuk 313)

As Pastušuk notes, the roots of both the wise as well as natural fools go back to the folklore tradition and are manifested in the folklore images of fools and Vices as well as the development of the sacred drama. This is a link between the fools and clowns and the Morality play Vices. Shakespeare’s clowns and fools all share certain common features, these being “inexhaustible vitality, good humour, naturally healthy perception of life” (Pastušuk 317). These features make it possible for the fools and the clowns to adopt merrymaking, joking, singing and dancing, and also observing the realities and commenting on these. In this, the fools and clowns share a common feature with the Morality play Vice characters. However, for the same reasons it can be said of the similarity between the natural fools and the Shakespearian fools. The comedy element that was supposed to be embedded in the natural fools is also found in the comic elements of the Shakespearian characters as well as the Vice characters of the Morality plays. However, there is a crucial difference between the Vice characters’ comedy and the comedy of the natural fool of the real world: the former’s comedy is aimed at mischief, while the latter’s comedy is a way of lightening the cares of others and is harmless (Carpenter). Unlike the Vice character, the natural fool is incapable of damnation because he is incapable of sin. Although, Vices have also been thought of as buffoons or fools, their buffoonery was often malicious and given to mischief making which is very different from how natural fools were given to comedy. Morality play Vice characters as well as the Shakespearean Vice-like figures were given to bawdy comedy, as pointed out by Spivack:

“brawls . . . lascivious toys . . . profane witticisms . . . sudden and grotesque entrances, shoving aside of the audience . . . insults, scabrous language, profanity, long speeches of pure fustian, puns, malapropisms, garbled proclamations, double entendres, elegant foreignisms, and endless jests about anatomy, virginity, marriage, and the gallows” (117).

This is very different from how the natural fools of the time were perceived as noted by Carpenter:

“Spectators are often credited with recognising and accepting the natural’s lack of malicious intent, thus allowing them to enjoy what would otherwise be unacceptably unsociable or challenging behaviour” (16).

Indeed, if the natural fool’s behaviour was perceived to be artificial, then he could be culpable for his truth-telling behaviour as is recorded in Armin’s work on the real fools. This signifies a crucial difference between the qualities of the natural and the artificial fool, with the latter thought to be one that uses “crafted mockery to manipulate others and their opinion of him” (Carpenter 17). This is also a difference between many of the Shakespearian fools and the natural fools. Shakespearian fools may have some of the physical deformities of the natural fools, but they had the capacity to be philosophical and aware as opposed to simple and unaware of their behaviour and its implications. Some of the Shakespearian fools also had added complexities, such as, a touch of melancholy and, which adds to their complexity and irony. This complexity is reminiscent of the tradition of the Vice characters in the Morality plays and not the natural fools of the real world. The fools seem aware of this similarity and link with Vices, as noted by the Clown in Twelfth Night:

“I am gone, sir;

And anon, sir

I'll be with you again,

In a trice.

Like to the old Vice.” [Act 2, Scene 4]

The Clown is calling attention to the similarity with the Vice himself, when he says that he will be back again in a trice like the old Vice. One of the similarities between the Vice and the Shakespearean fool or clown is the improvisatory powers of both characters (Weimann and Bruster). A Shakespearean character that shows a combination of fool and Vice is Richard III, who is shown to be conniving and cunning, and at the same time, he is comic and prods the audience into laughter. He is aware that he is not a Vice, but like a Vice, Iniquity, he has the ability to “moralize two meanings in one word”. Hornback writes that Richard III, like Faulconbridge in King John, is a descendant of the Vice character of the earlier Morality plays.

Giles-Watson also writes about “the singing Vice and his dramatic descendants — singing clowns and fools” (64), to link the two characters from different eras. Here, the context of singing and how it is important to the formulation of both the Vice as well as the clown and fool characters is a significant point (Giles-Watson). This is because both the Vices and the fools used bodily performance as well as singing to distinguish themselves from the other characters in the plays. Weimann and Bruster argue bodily performance and language helped constitute the agencies of clowns and fools. Giles-Watson further notes that apart from bodily performance and literary language, the agency of the fools was also constituted through music and song. Feste is a good example of how Shakespeare used music to help constitute the fool’s agency and how this also linked the fool to the old Vice (Giles-Watson).

Like the Vice characters of the Morality plays, the fools and clowns of Shakespearean stage were intelligent, more so than the other characters, irrespective of their appearance as fools and buffoons, and they are aware of their superior intelligence. This seems to be duplicitous as the character seems to be modelled on the fool but, having the intelligence that is not fool-like. As noted by Feste to Olivia: “I wear not motley in my brain.” This is significant in the sense that the Shakespearean fools have been given considerable intelligence, which marks them as being different from other characters in the plays, but more similar to the Vice characters of the Morality plays. Iago too is witty, intelligent and nuanced and able to bring Othello to his downfall. Iago’s cunning is used in a way that is reminiscent of the cunning of the old Vices; this may not be seen in the fools and clowns, who despite all their buffoonery, are not necessarily evil; however, there is a similarity in the intelligence in both characters. Iago is evil without a reason (Hazlitt, 1825); and he is diabolical (Happé, 2009). Fools and clowns in Shakespearean drama used their intelligence in a different way; they were experts on human nature and used their awareness to make the characters more aware of their own follies. The fool in King Lear, is constantly nit-picking and commenting on the king’s mistakes. Fool does not want to ruin the king or to bring his downfall and is not evil for the sake of being evil. Despite his caustic and insulting commentary on the king, he is loyal to the king. In this, there is a significant difference between the Vice characters and the Fool in King Lear. This can be seen in the awareness of the Fool himself in King Lear, that he is no knave (which is what would have brought him closer to the Vice). The following speech clarifies this:

“That sir which serves and seeks for gain, And follows but for form,

Will pack when it begins to rain,

And leave thee in the storm.

But I will tarry; the fool will stay, And let the wise man fly: The knave turns fool that runs away; The fool no knave, perdy.” [Act 2, Scene 4]

This speech shows that while the Fool knows that the wise decision will be to go away and not stay, he would advise the knaves to heed his advice and leave, while he himself will stay against his own advice, because he knows that this is the right thing to do for his master. This shows his awareness of the right action that needs to be taken by him. If the purpose of this speech is to teach a lesson in loyalty to the audience, then the Fool is able to do so in a way that is opposite of how a Vice character would have given the same lesson in a Morality play. A Vice character would have also been used as a device for giving a lesson, but his actions would not have been as simple or noble as that of Lear’s Fool. That is a significant difference between the Vice and fools.

Another difference between the Vice characters and the Shakespearean fools and clowns is that the Vice characters deliberately led the other characters to folly, being aware of the consequences of such follies to the characters, while the fools and clowns in Shakespearean plays used their wisdom to warn the characters of their follies and to warn them of the false appearances of other people by telling the truth at all times. Therefore, despite their other similarities, there is a crucial difference between fools and Vices, in that the former are generally not evil or malevolent. They seem to play the role of providing counsel to the hero in some parts, which can be seen as a rhetoric of the counsellor (Frye). This also brings the Shakespearian fool closer to the natural fools who were not malicious and told truth as they saw it without thinking of hurting anyone.

Yet another important difference between the Vice and the fool or clown is the reason for their behaviour or conduct. The fool or clown in Shakespearean drama was given a licence to be outrageous because he was considered to have been touched by nature. This is similar to how the natural fools were given a licence to speak their mind and do their antics. It was thought that they were innocent and, that comedy was simply embedded in them. Their comedy was also seen as serving a purpose in that it was meant to lighten the cares of others. Therefore, they were allowed to follow their natural instincts and socially accepted for the same. Their outrageous behaviour was not meant to serve a didactic function in a deliberate sense but rather indirectly as noted by Hans Miesko who said that fools remind us of sin and the wrath of God and the punishments in body and soul that can be inflicted by God for our actions (Carpenter). On the other hand, the Vice was given the licence to be outrageous in order to serve the didactic purpose of the Morality plays (Hornback 18). The Vice, unlike the fool or clown, was not innocent. Of all the characters in the Morality plays and interludes, the only characters that were given a completely free hand were the Vices, who were the only ones who could improvise within the play. The Shakespearean drama included similar improvisational characters as Vices, but also included other improvisational characters that had some Vice-like qualities, in the form of fools and clowns (Hornback).

Did Shakespeare model his fools on the real life fools?

Undoubtedly, Shakespeare created fools that were for the most part, witty entertainers; these fools cannot be said to be similar to the real life fools that were at the time kept in upper society households in Elizabethan England. We can see that in some way, these fools were similar to the Vice characters of the Morality plays. However, Shakespeare also also created clowns that were simpler minded and silly and similar to the natural fools in the real world in that they lacked malicious intent or even awareness of themselves or their words. Elite households kept such fools to entertain them. These natural fools were simple minded, often lacked awareness and were valued by the princes and elite households for their ability to evoke laughter and lighten up the cares of the others (Carpenter, Laughter and Sin: Vice Families in Tudor Interludes; Carpenter, Laughing at Natural Fools). Many natural fools of this period tended to be mentally ill, or educationally backward, or physically deformed. Such physical deformities distinguished the fools from the others and in this created a value for the fools in elite households. It cannot be said that Shakespearian fools always reflected the real practice concerning fools in the period. The discussion in the previous sections has shown how the fools in the real world were different from the fools in Shakespearean drama as well as the ways in which some Shakespearean fools were similar to the real life fools, such as, Lear’s Fool. Therefore, it is not possible to explain the development of Shakespeare’s fools in a linear fashion.

Lippincott argues that Shakespeare did not draw on Armin’s natural fools to create the fools in his plays because Shakespeare’s fools were wise enough to stay detached from comic situation. However, he notes that there was something common between some of Shakespearean fools and Armin’s natural fools (Lippincott). Felver however has argued that Armin did inspire the characterisation of Touchstone thereby drawing a link between the development of Shakespeare’s fools and the fools of his time; however, he does not say that Shakespeare’s fools were drawn on the natural fools that Armin wrote about in his Foole Vpon Foole (Felver).

Even if it is admitted that Shakespeare’s fools were different from the real world fools, which they seem to be even from the discussion in this chapter, it can be seen that Shakespeare seems to have used both the Vice tradition and the real world experience to inform the characterisation of these characters in his own plays. It cannot be said that the development of the fools in Shakespeare’s writings is linear. However, the way Shakespeare portrayed the fools, even those who are similar to the natural fools, he draws them as melancholy and aware and that does not accord with the real life fools that Armin wrote about. Therefore, we can agree with Lippincott that there was a difference in real natural fools and Shakespeare’s fools.

Conclusion

Shakespeare was undoubtedly influenced by the existing tradition of fooling, which is considered to have been developed from the Vice characters. The tradition of fooling was manifested on the stage as seen in Morality plays as well as Shakespearean plays; and also in aristocratic homes and revels. However, there was a difference between natural and artificial fools. In royal and aristocratic homes, it was common practice to have natural fools as entertainers. These natural fools were mentally deficient or had certain physical deformities, which led them to be used as fools. Morality plays used what can be called as artificial fools. These persons were not necessarily mentally deficient, but they were given to foolery and jest on stage. While this aspect of comedy was common to both natural and artificial fools, the purposes of the comedy and the intentions and motivation of the two were different. Natural fools were usually simple minded and innocent individuals who were given to plain speaking because of their naivete and lack of awareness of how their speech was construed by the others. This led to laughter on the part of the observers, who laughed because the natural fools either did not know what they were saying or spoke the truth without realising its import. On the other hand, the artificial fools were deliberate in their speech. In contrast with the natural fools who did not want to hurt anybody by their speech, the artificial fools of the Morality plays were motivated by the desire to make mischief and trouble others. Therefore, there is a crucial difference between the fools in real life and the fools on stage in Morality plays. In Shakespeare’s plays, we find both kinds of fools, natural and artificial.

There is little doubt that the fools of Shakespearean plays have their roots in the Vice characters of the Morality plays of a previous period, but there is also a possibility that the , clowns and jesters of Shakespearian plays were sourced from the actual society; in other words, the inspiration of fools, clowns and jesters in Shakespearian plays may have not just come from the Morality plays, but may also be traced to the natural fools in the real society of the Elizebethan period in which Shakespeare wrote. As this chapter has uncovered, fools and jesters were also well entrenched in the entertainment of noble and aristocratic homes by the time Shakespeare began writing his plays. The revels, in particular, employed fools and jesters as an essential part of entertainment and merriment. In their deportment and behaviour, these fools and jesters were much like the Vice characters. Like the Vice characters in the Morality plays, the fools and jesters were also multi-talented; they could dance, sing, make jokes, and some of these were acrobats as well. However, there was a use of both artificial and natural fools and these characters varied in their character considerably. It would not be possible to say that for all their similarities in the ability to evoke laughter from their audience, the artificial and natural fools were the same. This chapter shows that they were not similar and that the dissimilarities between natural and artificial fools is also essential to understanding the differences between the fools in Shakespeare that were modelled on the Vice characters and the clowns were modelled on the natural fools. It can also be said that Shakespeare created a variety of fool like characters that were based on both artificial and natural fools.

The similarities between Shakespearean fools and Vice characters are apparent from the text of some of the plays that were explored for this chapter. Like Vice characters, fools used physical movements and their bodies extensively. Another similarity between fools and Vices was that they were both different and distinct from the other characters in the plays. This distinctness came from their dress, mannerisms, and even physical deformities or abnormalities in some cases. The fools themselves were intelligent beings, just like the Vice or Vice-like characters, and usually their intelligence was in the form of a greater or higher awareness of the world around them as compared to the other characters in the plays. Both the fools and the Vices used this higher awareness to enlighten the other characters as to the knowledge that they had; but the similarity stopped here.

On the other hand, despite the similarities in the fools and the Vices, there are some fools that are dissimilar to Vices in crucial respects and similar to natural fools of the real world instead. Thus, unlike the Vices, some of the Shakespearean fools were not malevolent; rather, they used their higher awareness to make their masters more aware of the pitfalls and problems in their actions and behaviour. This is true of fools like Touchstone. Touchstone played the fool though he was wise bringing him closer to the Vice, but, his playing the fool was not malevolent, which brings him closer to natural fools who were not driven by the urge to hurt others. On the other hand, Lear’s Fool is closer to natural fools in his demeanour and actions; he is plain speaking and evokes laughter, he is deformed in some way. But, he is not intelligent like Touchstone and not driven by malice like the Vices. Characters like Lear’s Fool however, were more intuitive than their ‘normal’ masters and able to see things and people more clearly. The Vice characters were not benevolent in this sense and they liked to make mischief for the sake of making mischief. In this respect, some of the Shakespearean fools and the Vices are very different from each other. Most of the Shakespearean fools, be these artificial or natural, did not want to make trouble or mischief in the same way as the Vices did.

Another similarity between the Vices and the fools was that they were both used in the plays to satisfy an ulterior purpose. The Vices were used to make the characters in the Morality plays as well as the audience members more attuned to the vices around them and the need to restrain themselves from taking actions similar to the mankind characters, which often led them into trouble. Therefore, the Vices in the Morality plays satisfied a didactic purpose. The Vices in the Shakespearean plays were more complex than the Morality play Vices. Shakespearean Vices have more psychological depth and went beyond serving a didactic purpose. The Vices in Shakespearean dramas like Hamlet and Richard III, were very complex and insightful about the psyche of the characters. The fools were not as complex as Vices of Shakespeare. They did imbibe some duality, as seen in the characters of Feste and Touchstone; but they did not imbibe the complexity of Richard III or other complex Shakespearean characters. In that, the Vice characters like Richard III and the fools were very different from each other.

Another common purpose that the Vices of Morality plays as well as Shakespearean plays and the fools was of comic roles. These characters provided comic relief in some of the most complex and difficult scenes in the plays (the Gravedigger in Hamlet). This is similar to the role played by some Vices in the Morality plays, who provided comic relief from the seriousness of the didactic message of the Morality plays. Similarly, Shakespeare incorporated fools and jesters in some of his most serious plays. However, it may also be noted that Shakespeare also used more ‘serious’ and melancholic fools like Feste and Touchstone in some of his lightest comedies. On this note, it may be said that there is some irony in how Shakespeare incorporated his fools and jesters in the plays, mixing the light with the dark.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Self reflective assessment.

Works Cited

Barber, C. L. Shakespeare's festive comedy: A study of dramatic form and its relation to social custom . Princeton University Press, 2011.

Bell, Robert H. Shakespeare's Great Stage of Fools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Berry, Edward. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites. London: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Calderwood, James L. Metadrama in Shakespeare's Henriad: Richard II to Henry V. Univ of California Press, 1979.

Carpenter, Sarah. "Laughing at Natural Fools." Theta XI – Théâtre Tudor (2013): 3-22.

—. "Laughter and Sin: Vice Families in Tudor Interludes." Theta XII, Théâtre Tudor (2016): 15-38.

Cox, C. "‘Horn-Pypes and Funeralls’: Suggestions of Hope in Shakespeare’s Tragedies." The Work of Dissimilitude: Essays from the Sixth Citadel Conference on Medieval and Renaissance Literature. 1992. 216-34.

Ellis, Roger. "The Fool in Shakespeare: A Study in Alienation." The Critical Quarterly 10 .3 (1968): 245-268.

Felver, C. S. "Robert Armin, Shakespeare's Source for Touchstone." Shakespeare Quarterly 7.1 (1956): 135-137.

Frye, N. Fools of Time: Studies in Shakespearean Tragedy. University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Giles-Watson, Maura. "The singing'vice': music and mischief in early English drama." Early Theatre 12.2 (2009): 57-90.

Gordon, G. S. and E. K. Chambers. Shakespearian comedy and other studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944.

Hall, Sam. Shakespeare's Folly: Philosophy, Humanism, Critical Theory . Oxon: Routledge, 2016.

Happé, P. "Deceptions:‘The Vice’of the Interludes and Iago." 8 (2009): 107-9.

Hazlitt, William. Characters of Shakespeare's Plays. London: Wiley and Putnam, 1825.

Hornback, Robert. The English clown tradition from the Middle Ages to Shakespeare. Suffolk: DS Brewer, 2013.

Kaiser, Walter Jacob. Praisers of Folly: Erasmus, Rabelais, Shakespeare. Cambridge: Harvard Univ Press, 1963.

Kott, Jan. Shakespeare, our contemporary. London: WW Norton & Company, 1974.

Levin, Richard. The Multiple Plot in English Renaissance Drama . Chicago, 1971.

Lippincott, H. F. "King Lear and the Fools of Robert Armin." Shakespeare Quarterly 26.3 (1975): 243-253.

Maus, Katharine Eisaman. "Titus Andronicus." Shakespeare, William and Stephen Greenblatt. The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: Norton, 1997. 371-77.

Mullini, R. "Playing the Fool: the Pragmatic Status of Shakespeare's Clowns." New Theatre Quarterly 1.1 (1985): 98-104.

Quennell, Peter and Hamish Johnson. Who's who in Shakespeare. New York: Psychology Press, 2002.

Pastušuk, H. O. "The image of fool as a genre-forming element in Shakespeare's comedy." Litteraria Humanitas XVI (n.d.): 313-321.

Purcell, Stephen. Popular Shakespeare. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Salingar, Leo. Shakespeare and the Traditions of Comedy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Spivack, Bernard. Shakespeare and the Allegory of Evil. The History of a Metaphor in Relation to His Major Villains.[On the Connection Between Shakespearean Villains and Mediaeval Morality Plays.]. London: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Warren, R. "The 'Two Gentlemen of Verona'." Shakespeare Quarterly 35.3 (1984): 338-339.

Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre. New York: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Weimann, R. and D. Bruster. Shakespeare and the Power of Performance: Stage and Page in the Elizabethan Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.