Return to Chapter Index
Return to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page

CORDELIA, KING LEAR AND HIS FOOL.

CHAPTER V

SPEECH PREFIXES IN LEAR.

Probably without exception all modern texts of Lear, and all other Shakespearean plays, commence with a listing of characters in the play often headed DRAMATIS PERSONÆ. This listing of the characters, with a brief description of many of them, can prove quite helpful to first-time readers of the play who are struggling to determine what abbreviated speech prefixes like "Cor.", "Corn." and "Cur." might mean. But most of these lists do not have Shakespearean endorsement for by far the majority of the Quarto and Folio editions of Shakespeare's plays come without any kind of list. Only in seven plays in the First Folio edition is there an attempt made to list the characters.[1] All Seventeenth Century editions of Lear are devoid of such lists, and no list of characters appears until 103 years after its first performance. In 1709 Nicholas Rowe's seven volume edition of Shakespeare's plays[2] gave a list of characters to Lear for the first time. Rowe's list for Lear was compiled not only a century after the original production, but at a time when Nahum Tate's radically different version of Lear held the stage. Rowe's list, though not as complete as modern lists, is basically what we have in modern texts, and reflects what appears to be, on the surface, the characters of the play.

However, when one delves into the speech prefixes of the Quarto and Folio editions of Lear, and other Elizabethan and Jacobean plays, both Shakespearean and non-Shakespearean, one has good reason to question the contents of any DRAMATIS PERSONÆ for any edition of Lear to date, for it is not uncommon for characters in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century editions of plays to have variations in speech prefixes throughout the play, and even to share the same prefixes with other characters in the play. These variations can be seen in Lear by comparing the Quarto and Folio editions of the play, and it is my contention that we have not yet recognised all of the instances in Lear where speech prefixes change for a character.

Before we proceed to look at the speech prefixes in Lear let us consider variations and duplications in speech prefixes in other plays. The play THE HISTORIE OF the two valiant Knights, Syr Clyomon Knight of the Golden Sheeld, sonne to the King of Denmarke And Clamydes the white Knight, sonne to the King of Suauia[3], published in 1599, contains examples of speech prefix variation and duplication. The female character, Neronis, for most of the play has her speeches prefixed "Neronis," or some abbreviation of her name, but towards the end of the play, when she is disguised as a page, her speeches are prefixed by "Page" (lines 1771 and 1789), and by her disguised name "Curdaser" (line 1867). The "vice" in the play, who is called "Subtill Shift" claims the name "Knowledge." His speeches in the main are prefixed by "Shift", but towards the end of the play, when his knowledge becomes important to the plot, his speeches are prefixed by "Knowledge" (line 2134 and 2143). There are four kings who appear throughout the play. Only Thrasellus, King of Norway, has all his speeches prefixed by his name. King Alexander has some of his speeches prefixed by his name, and some by "King". All the speeches of both the King of Suavia and the King of Denmark share the prefix "King" with Alexander[4]. None of these irregularities in speech prefixes present us with a problem in understanding who is speaking as each speech is read in the context of other speeches and of stage directions.

In Samuel Rowley's play, When You See Me You Know Me[5], first published in 1605, prefixes for most of Cardinal Woolsey's speeches are abbreviations of his name, but two are prefixed by his title.[6] Again, no problem is encountered in understanding the connection.

The B text of Marlowe's The Tragicall History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus[7], contains the speech prefixes "Clown" and "Robin", before lines which are plainly for the same person. A reading of the earlier A text[8], however, does not give one the impression that "Clown" and "Robin" are necessarily the same, yet presumably they were. If one were to construct a Dramatis Personæ with no more than the A text in hand, one would probably show two characters, "Robin" and "Clown."

If we turn our attention to texts of Shakespeare's plays, we find similar variations and duplications in speech prefixes. There is an interesting variation in the speech prefixes of the clown in The Merchant of Venice, whose opening speech at Act 2 Scene 2 is prefixed "Clo.", but upon the arrival of his father "Old Gobbo" in the same scene, the clown's speeches are prefixed "Lan.", and "Laun." Before the scene ends, the clown's last two speeches are prefixed "Clo." These variations are uncorrected in the Folio. In the Folio play, The Comedie of Errors, the father of the twins, whom we meet first as a Merchant with speeches prefixed "Mar.", later shares that prefix with another merchant introduced in Act 4.1. Then, to avoid confusion, from 5.1.195 onwards the father's speeches are prefixed "Mar.Fat.", "Fa.", "Fat.", "Fath." and "Father." Throughout the play speech prefixes of Angelo the Goldsmith are either an abbreviation of his name or of his profession. In the First Quarto of Loues Labour's lost[9] the speech of the Princess of France at 2.1.13 is prefixed "Queene" and thereafter they are prefixed by abbreviations of "Princess" and "Queen". When Costard the Clown is introduced we find his speeches prefixed "Clowne.", "Clow.", "Clo.", and "Cost." When he appears at 5.2.549 dressed as Pompey, the stage directions give, "Enter Pompey." There is no attempt to correct these irregularities in the First Folio edition of Loues Labour's lost. Throughout The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, the speeches of Prince Hal are prefixed by some abbreviation of prince until he becomes king in place of his father Henry IV whose speeches had been prefixed by "King." In the final scene, Hal's speeches are prefixed by "King" since this is what he has become. When we come to the Second Quarto edition of Romeo and Juliet[10], the editor of the Arden Edition points to the inconsistencies of speech prefixes. "Lady Capulet is Capu.Wi (1), Ca. Wi(1), Wife. (5), Wi. (1), Old La. (6), La. (14), Mo. (12), M. (4)." Concerning Lady Capulet's speech prefixes, Brian Gibbons observes, "Although on some occasions it seems that Shakespeare varies her speech prefix according to the way he thinks of her function in a particular scene, on others the variation seems purely arbitrary."[11] These and other inconsistencies in speech prefixes are carried over into the First Folio.

Generally speaking, none of the inconsistencies in Shakespeare's speech prefixes present us with a problem in understanding who is speaking as each speech is read in the context of other speeches and of stage directions. No doubt many other examples of inconsistencies and duplication could be found in the texts of Shakespeare's plays.

It is perhaps worth noting at this point that the plays that introduce clowns, also known as fools, almost always have the clowns' speeches prefixed by "Clown" or some abbreviation of it. We know the name of the clown from stage directions or from how the clown is addressed. In the case of Touchstone, of As you Like it, the Folio shows a stage direction at the beginning of 2.4, "Enter Rosaline for Ganimed, Celia for Aliena, and Clowne, alias Touchstone." A few lines into this scene he is called Touchstone by Rosalind, and then in 3.2 he is twice called Touchstone by Corin. In Twelfe Night, or, What you will, Feste, the Clown's name, is known to us from only one speech by Curio at 2.4.11. Likewise, the name Lavatch, the clown in ALL'S Well, that Ends Well, is known to us from only one speech addressed to him at the opening of 5.2 by Parolles.

So much then for Shakespeare's plays other than Lear. Now let us consider speech prefixes for Lear. All Quartos coincide in assigning inconsistent prefixes to Oswald's speeches. When he first appears in 1.3, his speeches are prefixed "Gent." He is next introduced by the speech prefixes "Steward.", and "Stew.", in the first part of 1.4, but before that scene closes, at the time we hear his name from Goneril, his responding speeches are prefixed "Oswald.", and "Osw." The remaining speeches for this character are prefixed "Steward" and its abbreviations. We know that all these speeches apply to the same person because the prefixes are redacted to "Steward" and its abbreviations in the Folio. If we did not have the Folio amendments, we might be forgiven for failing to connect all these speeches to the same character, for Goneril's words to her gentleman, "Put on what weary negligence you please, you and your fellow-servants", could give us the impression that the Steward we next meet is one of the gentleman's fellow-servants. But the Folio settles the connection. Remembering Brian Gibbons' comments concerning variations in the speech prefixes for Lady Capulet's speeches in Romeo and Juliet, we might suggest here that it seems that Shakespeare varies Oswald's speech prefixes according to the way he thinks of his function first as some sort of gentleman, and then as a Steward, presumably dressed in a different manner to a gentleman. About his part in the play, we will have more to say later. Here we note only the variety in his speech prefixes.

In all the Quartos the speech prefixes for the dukes, Albany and Cornwall, are a mixture of abbreviations of their names as well as the shared prefix "Duke." The "Duke" prefixes are all eliminated in the Folio. All Quartos coincide in assigning the prefix "Bastard" and its abbreviations to the speeches of Edmund. It seems that Shakespeare wants to keep before the reader the illegitimacy of Edmund. However, the Folio introduces an inconsistency in Edmund's speech prefixes at the end of 1.2 when two of his speeches carry an abbreviation of his name. In all the Quartos the speech prefixes for Edgar are his name or some abbreviation of it, but Edgar's stage direction at 3.6 calls for the entry of "Tom," his disguised name. The Folio changes this to his name.

Summarising what we have seen of speech prefixes in Lear so far, we can say that, in both the Quartos and the Folio, characters can have more than one speech prefix introducing their speeches or stage direction marking their entry. They can be introduced by their name, their rank in society, their status at birth, or their disguised identity. Given this, together with the fact that clowns or fools are normally introduced by "Clown", it is not unrealistic to propose that the prefix "Fool" in Lear applies to Cordelia while she is so disguised, and that the identity of the Fool is made known right at the end of the play when Lear holding the dead Cordelia exclaims "And my poor Fool is hang'd...." All this would be quite consistent with normal practice in the composition of the texts of Shakespeare's plays.

Of course, the thing that sets us to thinking that Cordelia could not be the Fool is the statement at 1.4.71,72 "Since my young Lady's going into France, Sir, the Fool hath much pined away." There has never been an adequate explanation as to why the Quarto prefixes this speech "Servant" while the Folio gives it to "Knight". Why would Shakespeare make such a change? What we haven't taken note of is that both servants and knights can be disguises employed by other characters in plays. They are both forms of disguise adopted by characters elsewhere in Lear. We have just seen Kent disguise himself as a servant, and later in the play Edgar will disguise himself from the other characters in a knight's armour. I am proposing that this Servant/Knight was none other than France, who gives to Lear a false report of Cordelia's departure for France in order to facilitate her appearance before Lear disguised as his Fool.

This statement by the Servant/Knight has often been used to suggest an emotional attachment of Cordelia and the Fool, but there is nothing beyond this statement to suggest this. The statement could be France's clever device to have Lear think that Cordelia is in France, at the same time that France offers an explanation for the non-appearance of the Fool. The plot device of the false report is to be found elsewhere in Lear as well[12]. It is used extensively by Edmund to mislead his father and his brother. I have come to the conclusion that if we take a close look at the Quarto and Folio speeches of several "minor characters", as we have traditionally viewed them, we can justifiably come to see them as France in various disguises, in the same way as we are able to see Oswald behind the Gent/Stew/Osw/Stew prefixes of the Quarto.

What I am proposing is that in the Quarto, France first disguises himself as a servant, then as a knight and finally as a gentleman. In the Folio he is disguised first as a knight then as a gentleman. Multiple disguises in plays were quite common at that time. We have a great example of multiple disguise in Lear, where Edgar disguises himself first as the lunatic Poor Tom, then, dressed in the old man's garments as a peasant, he leads his blind father towards Dover. He next appears as an unknown knight before Albany and Edmund, and finally as himself again. Of course, none of these disguises are reflected in the speech prefixes which are simply variations of Edgar's name, but they would be certainly evident on the stage. It would have been as easy for Shakespeare to have France go through the disguises Servant/ Knight/ Gentleman as it was for him to have Edgar take on his multiple disguises. That this is what Shakespeare does, I believe, is evident from the way the speech prefixes are revised from Quarto to Folio, from the language of these speeches, from what is said in response to these speeches, and from the central interests of these speeches. Set out below are the relevant sections of the two versions of the play. Notice how the speech prefixes change from the Quarto to the Folio.

QUARTO

FOLIO

1.1.217 Fra. This is most strange, that she that	Fra. This is most strange,/ That she whom
euen but now/ Was your best object,	euen but now, was your object,/ The
the argument of your praise,/ Balme of	argument of your praise, balme of your
your age, most best, most deerest,/	age,/ The best, the deerest, should in this
Should in this trice of time commit a	trice of time/ Commit a thing, so
thing,/ So monstrous to dismantell so	monstrous, to dismantle/ So many folds of
many foulds of favour,/ Sure her offence	favour: sure her offence/ Must be of such
must be of such vnnaturall degree,/ That	vnnaturall degree,/ That monsters it: Or
monsters it, or your for vouchct affections/	your fore-voucht affection/ Fall into taint,
Falne into taint, which to beleeue of her/	which to beleeue of her/ Must be a faith
Must be a faith that reason without	that reason without miracle/ Should neuer
miracle/ Could neuer plant in me.	plant in me.

Cord. I yet beseech your Maiestie/ If for I	Cor. I yet beseech your Maiesty/ If for I
want that glib and oyly Art,/ To speak	want that glib and oylie Art,/ To speak
and purpose not, since what I well entend/	and purpose not, since what I will intend/
Ile do't before I speake, that you may	Ile do't before I speake, that you make
know/ It is no vicious blot, murder or	knowne/ It is no vicious blot, murther or
foulnes,/ No vncleane action or	foulenesse,/ No vnchaste action or
dishonored step/ That hath depriu'd me of	dishonoured step/ That hath depriu'd me of
your grace and fauour,/ But euen for want	your Grace and fauour,/ But euen for want
of that for which I am rich,/ A still	of that, for which I am richer,/ A still
soliciting eye, and such a tongue,/ As I	soliciting eye, and such a tongue,/ That
am glad I haue not, though not to haue it,/	I am glad I haue not, though not to haue
Hath lost me in your liking.	it,/ Hath lost me in your liking.

Leir. Goe to, goe to, better thou hadst not	Lear. Better thou hadst/ Not beene borne,
bin borne,/ Then not to haue pleas'd me	then not t haue pleas'd me better.
better.

Fran. Is it no more but this, a tardines in	Fra. Is it but this? A tardinesse in nature,/
nature,/ That often leaues the historie	Which often leaues the history vnspoke/
vnspoke that it intends to do,/ My Lord of	That it intends to do: my Lord of
Burgundie, what say you to the Lady?/	Burgundy,/ What say you to the Lady?
Loue is not loue when it is mingled with	Loue's not loue/ When it is mingled with
respects that stands/ Aloofe from the intire	regards, that stands/ Aloofe from th'intire
point, will you haue her?/ She is her selfe	point, will you haue her?/ She is herselfe
and dower.	a Dowrie.

Burg. Royall Leir, giue but that portion/	Bur. RoyalllKing,/ Giue but that portion
Which your selfe propos'd, and here I take	which your selfe propos'd,/ And here I
Cordelia/ By the hand, Dutches of	take Cordelia by the hand,/ Dutchesse of
Burgundie.	Burgundie.

Leir. Nothing, I haue sworne.

Lear. Nothing, I haue sworne, I am firme.

Burg. I am sorry then you haue so lost a	Bur. I am sorry then you haue so lost a
father,/ That you must loose a husband.	Father,/ That you must loose a husband.
Cord. Peace be with Burgundie, Since that	Cor. Peace be with Burgundie,/ Since that
respects/ Of fortune are his loue, I shall	respect and Fortunes are his loue,/ I shall
not be his wife.	not be his wife.

Fran. Fairest Cordelia that art most rich	Fra. Fairest Cordelia that art most rich
being poore,/ Most choise forsaken, and	being poore,/ Most choise forsaken, and
most loued despis'd,/ Thee and thy vertues	most loued despis'd,/ Thee and thy vertues
here I ceaze vpon,/ Be it lawfull I take vp	here I seize vpon,/ Be it lawfull I take vp
what's cast away,/ Gods, Gods! tis strange,	what's cast away,/ Gods Gods! Tis strange,
that from their cold'st neglect,/ My loue	that from their cold'st neglect/ My Loue
should kindle to inflam'd respect,/ Thy	should kindle to enflam'd respect./ Thy
dowrelesse daughter King throwne to thy	dowrelesse Daughter King, throwne to my
chance,/ Is Queene of vs, of ours, and our	chance,/ Is Queene of vs, of ours, and our
faire France:/ Not all the Dukes in watrish	faire France:/ Not all the Dukes in watrish
Burgundie,/ Shall buy this vnpriz'd precious	Burgundy,/ Can buy this vnpriz'd precious
maide of me,/ Bid them farewell Cordelia,	Maide of me./ Bid them farewell Cordelia,
though vnkind/ Thou loosest here, a better	though vnkinde,/ Thou loosest here a
where to find.	better where to finde.

Lear. Thou has her France, let her be thine,/	Lear. Thou hast her France, let her be
For we haue no such daughter, nor shall	thine, for we/ Haue no such Daughter, nor
we euer see/ That face of hers againe,	shall we euer see/ That face of hers
therefore be gone,/ Without our grace, our	againe, therefore be gone,/ Without our
loue, our benizon: come noble Burgundy.	grace, our Loue, our Benizon:/ Come
	Noble Burgundie.
Exit Lear and Burgundie.	Flourish. Exeunt.

Fran. Bid farewell to y our sisters.

Fra. Bid farewell to your Sisters.

Cord. The jewels of our father,/ With washt	Cor. The Jewels of our Father, with wash'd
eyes Cordelia leaues you, I know you what	eie s/ Cordelia leaues you, I know you what
you are,/ And like a sister am most loath	you are,/ And like a Sister am most loth to
to call your faults/ As they are named, vse	call/ Your faults as they are named. Loue
well our Father,/ To your professed	well our Father:/ To your professed
bosoms I commit him,/ But yet alas stood	bosomes I commit him,/ But yet alas,
I within his grace,/ I would preferre him to	stood I within his Grave,/ I would prefer
a better place:/ So farewell to you both.	him to a better place,/ So farewell to you
	both.

1.4.59
Seruant. Sir, hee answered mee in the	Knigh. Sir, he answered mee in the
roundest maner, he would not. Lear. A	roundest manner, he would not.
would not?	Lear. He would not?

Seruant. My Lord, I know not what the	Knight. My Lord, I know not what the
matter is, but to my iudgement, your	matter is, but to my iudgement, your
highnes is not entertained with that	Highnesse is not entertain'd with that
ceremonious affection as you were wont,	Ceremonious affection as you were wont,
ther's a great abatement, apeer's as well in	theres a great abatement of kindnesse
the general dependants, as in the Duke	appeares as well in the generall
himselfe also, and your daughter. Lear. Ha,	dependants, as in the Duke himselfe also,
say'st thou so?	and your Daughter.
	Lear. Ha? Saist thou so?

Seruant. I beseech you pardon mee my	Knigh. I beseech you pardon me my Lord,
Lord, if I be mistaken, for my dutie cannot	if I bee mistaken, for my dutie cannot be
bee silent, when I thinke your highnesse	silent, when I thinke your Highnesse
wrong'd.	wrong'd.

Lear. Thou but remember'st me of mine	Lear. Thou but remembrest me of mine
owne conception, I haue perceiued a most	owne Conception, I haue perceiued a most
faint neglect of late, which I haue rather	faint neglect of late, which I haue rather
blamed as mine owne ielous curiositie,	blamed as mine owne jealoue curiositie,
then as a very pretence & purport of	then as a very pretence and purpose of
vnkindnesse, I will looke further into't, but	vnkindnesse: I will looke further intoo't:
wher's this foole? I haue not seene him	but where's my Foole? I haue not seene
this two dayes.	him this two daies.

Seruant. Since my yong Ladies going into	Knight. Since my young Ladies going
France sir, the foole hath much pined	into France Sir, the Foole hath much
away.	pined away.

Lear. No more of that, I haue noted it , goe	Lear. No more of that, I haue noted it well,
you and tell my daughter, I would speake	goe you and tell my Daughter, I would
with her, goe you cal hither my foole....	speake with her. Goe you call hither my
	Foole....

1.5.50
Lear. ...are the horses readie?	Lear. ...are the Horses ready?

Seruant. Readie my Lord.

Gent. Ready my Lord.

2.4.1
Lear. Tis strange that they should so depart	Lea. 'Tis strange that they should so
from hence,/And not send backe my	depart from hence/ And not send backe
messenger.	my Messengers.

Knight. As I learn'd, the night before	Gent. As I learn'd,/ The night before, there
there was/ No purpose of his remoue.	was no purpose in them/ Of this remoue.

2.4.61

Knight. Made you no more offence