Return to Chapter Index
Return to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page
CORDELIA, KING LEAR AND
HIS FOOL.
CHAPTER XI
CORDELIA'S STORY.
We have already noted that, in keeping with the normal
function of a secondary plot in a Shakespearean play, the Gloucester plot both anticipates
and reflects upon the action of the main plot. There are a number of instances
of this even if my interpretation of the play is wrong. Gloucester's physical
and spiritual blindness parallels Lear's spiritual blindness, the banishing of
Cordelia has its parallel in what is effectively the banishing of Edgar, the
evil of Goneril and Regan can be seen to be analogous with the evil of Edmund,
the realisation by both fathers that they have been deceived by their children
brings heartache to both, and so on. Given that the secondary plot in Lear
functions in a similar way to secondary plots in other plays, it is worth
considering the title which appears on the title page of the Quarto, viz.,
M. William
Shake‑speare, HIS True Chronicle History of the life and death of King
Lear, and his three Daughters. With the vnfortunate life of EDGAR, sonne and
heire to the Earle of Glocester, and his sullen and assumed humour of TOM of
Bedlam. As it was played before the Kings Majestie at Whitehall
upon S. Stephans night in Christmas Hollidayes. By his Majesties seruants
playing vsually at the Gloabe on the Bancke‑side.
When we think of the emphasis usually given these days to
the deception of Gloucester, the breakdown in that family, the blinding of
Gloucester, the villainy of Edmund, and so on, we might expect that on the
title page, whether or not Shakespeare had a hand in its design, these things
would have been mentioned in the description of the secondary plot by virtue of
their reflecting the main plot. But they are not. Instead, something which has
not been acknowledged to have a parallel in the main plot is the only thing
mentioned out of the secondary plot, viz., "the vnfortunate life of EDGAR,
sonne and heire to the Earle of Glocester, and his sullen and assumed humour of
TOM of Bedlam"! The emphasis of the secondary plot in 1608 was upon the
disguised service of an abused son which ought to point to the disguised
service of an abused daughter in the main plot. Lott has admitted that
Cordelia's "appearances are few in number and what she says and does when
she is on stage is very small in quantity."[1]
It has long
been recognised that Shakespeare's play owes much to Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia
which contains the story of "the Paphlagonian vnkinde King, and his kind
sonne". This is the story of a king who had two sons, one of which he
favoured as Goneril and Regan were favoured, and one which he abused as Lear
abused Cordelia. The abused son Leonatus acts to preserve his father's life,
after the father has been blinded by the evil brother. There are a number of
parallels between this story and the Gloucester plot as well. Commentators on
the relation of this story to Lear usually admit it as a source for the secondary
plot, but do not acknowledge it as a source for the main[2]. And yet,
it is the story of a king, and not just a duke! Surely the service of Leonatus
and Edgar should point to the disguised service by Cordelia! If they do not,
then Shakespeare has depicted a Cordelia who is inferior to both Leonatus and
Edgar. It might even be suggested that Edgar is the real hero of Lear.
Further if we
look at the account of the folktale presented in John Higgins' The Mirror
For Magistrates published in 1578, we see that the story, which is related
by Cordila, as her name is there spelled, focuses more on Cordila. It is titled
"The Tragoedye of Cordila" and focuses on the fact that in despair
she took her own life. It is Cordila's story.
Given the
emphasis on the title page of the Quarto of Lear, the fact that an
important source for the play is the story of a blind King who is led about by
his abused son, and not just a blind duke, together with the fact that at least
one other account of the folktale focuses on the abused daughter of Leire,
Shakespeare surely ran the risk of confusing his audience by having the actor
who performed Cordelia also perform the Fool especially if he did not reveal
what became of the Fool!
We need also
to admit that if Shakespeare didn't intend for us to understand that Cordelia
became the Fool, then he missed an opportunity to demonstrate on stage before
James the principles which he must have known were highly esteemed by the King.[3] In fact,
if this were the case, as has generally been believed, it might be said that
Shakespeare has presented a play which flies in the face of James' principles,
principles which were at least to a lesser degree present in Leir.
As I suggested
earlier an important theme in Lear is "Something from Nothing."
In the secondary plot, we hear Edgar say upon taking the disguise of poor Tom,
"That's something yet; Edgar I nothing am." And yet it is in the main
plot, and from the mouth of Cordelia that the theme of nothing is introduced
into Lear. Lear tells Cordelia that "nothing will come of
nothing", and we would have to say that Lear is right in this given the
way the play is normally understood. But if Cordelia is the Fool, then she has
made herself something from the nothing her father has made of her in the same
way Edgar made something of his being nothing.
The theme of
"Something from Nothing" was quite popular in other plays of the era.
The 1605 play by George Chapman All Fools, was presented "at Black
Fryers and lately before his majestie." The Extracts from the Accounts
of the Revels at Court confirm that "The Boys of the Chapell"
performed this play "On Newers Night" in 1605 (p. 204). There is a
lengthy speech by Valerio at the end of this play, which includes the Latin
maxim of theological debate that "ex nihilo nihil fit". In the
1606 play THE Second Part of, If you know not me, you know no bodie,
Jacke Gresham, who is penniless, looks to marry Lady Ramsie, saying that if
"she kindly bestow her selfe vpon me, why then there's a man from nothing,
for before God I haue spent all...." (lines 2381,2). In 1607 the play THE Miseries of Inforst
MARIAGE was published. It opens with a clown saying, among other things,
"of nothing comes nothing." From all this emphasis on something
coming from nothing in the theatre of the day, one could expect Shakespeare to
make more of this in the main plot, given the use he makes of it in the
secondary plot viz., at the announcement of the disguise of Edgar.
Yet another
play which capitalises on the concept of showing something from nothing is the
play NO-BODY, AND SOME-BODY.[4] First
published in 1606 this play has much in common with Lear including the
division of England between two rulers, resignation of government by the ruler,
accusation of mildness in a ruler, attempted regicide, talk of following the
strongest party, banishment and a mock trial. There is a parasitic character
called Sicophant and a character called Braggart, and there is a clown. The
main theme of the play centres in two main characters, Nobody and Somebody.
Nobody is continually accused and blamed for the misdeeds of Somebody. The
Prologue shows the playwright's preoccupation with the theme of something from
nothing.
A
subject, of no subject, we present,
for No-body, is Nothing:
Who of
nothing can something make?
It is
a worke beyond the power of wit,
And yet inuention is ripe:
A
morrall meaning you must then expect,
grounded on lesser then a shadowes shadow:
Promising
nothing wher there wants a toong;
And deeds as few, be done by No-bodie:
Yet
something, out of nothing, we will show,
To
gaine your loues, to whome our selues we owe.
The similarity of this work to Lear warrants a
separate study. Let it be simply noted here that the interpretation of Lear
I have proposed has shown something out of nothing in the main plot, and has
indicated a moral meaning; and this moral meaning is grounded on lesser than a
shadow's shadow - Lear is but the shadow of the man he was, and the Fool exists
for many only in the shadow of Lear. One can only wonder what influence this
late Sixteenth Century play had on Shakespeare's reworking of the Leir
folklore.
Lear has been
described as the most controversial play in our time[5]. Many
have wanted to see Lear as the play of all Shakespeare's plays that
sinks to the deepest level of despair[6]. Others
have been constant in pointing out the comic elements of the play[7]. It must
be remembered that Leir was the presentation of a folktale with a
pattern closely analogous to the story of Cinderella[8], so it is
not likely that an audience would have taken the dark side of Lear too
seriously[9]. I believe that the wonder of Cordelia and
France, serving in disguise all unknown to any in Lear's world,[10] would
have kept the spirits of the audience high throughout most of the play, so that
it was neither fully tragic nor was it just comic, but the rendering of a well
known folk tale in such a way as to be charged with moral meaning, and very
suitable entertainment for King James and his family on Saint Stephens night of
the festive season in 1606.
Lear comes
down to us labelled as both a History and a Tragedy. How are we to regard it?
Higgins presented what was undeniably a tragedy, but it was "The Tragedy
of Cordila" who in despair took her own life and was therefore condemned.
The anonymous 1605 version of the folktale reversed the fortune of Cordella and
Leir and called it a History. Shakespeare's Quarto version of 1608 is an
obvious contrast with Leir and so is labelled a History also. The Folio
version of 1623 recognized the tragic element in Shakespeare's play and so
labelled it a Tragedy. But it is "The Tragedy of King Lear" not of
Cordelia, because even though she dies, it is not by her own hand, as was the
case with Cordila, and she would have been seen as having gone to heaven to
receive her reward, which would not have been seen as tragic.
Shakespeare's Lear
is not any different from most of his plays in that themes that are introduced
in the opening scene are carried through to the play's close. Thus Gloucester's
adultery which resulted in Edmund's illegitimacy, Cordelia's
"nothing", one's intentions, the need to see better, service, and so
on, are all introduced in the first 150 or so lines of the play. Lear
opened with the conversation between Gloucester and Kent in which Gloucester
said that "the whoreson", Edmund his son, "must be
acknowledged" (1.1.23), even though he has "often blush'd to
acknowledge him" (1.1.9). A little later in this same opening scene we
have Lear's words to France when he seeks to avert France's liking away from
Cordelia, "Whom Nature is asham'd Almost t'acknowledge hers"
(1.1.212). Kent's suggestion to Cordelia that to be acknowledged is overpaid
(4.7.4) hints at the principle of not letting your left hand know what you
right hand is doing, or of doing your alms in secret that you may be rewarded
by your heavenly Father. As I have already pointed out, Kent is seeking
acknowledgment. But my whole thesis is that Cordelia's service as Lear's Fool
goes unacknowledged by everyone but Lear, and even that comes after she would
have been seen as having gone to her heavenly reward. Cordelia's wonderful
service as her father's Fool must be acknowledged even though we might blush to
do so.
Return to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page