Date: 23/09/2012 22:39:20
From: wookiemeister
ID: 203622
Subject: shakespearean fools

just looking through stuff

The Shakespearean fool is a recurring character type in the works of William Shakespeare.

Shakespearean fools are usually clever peasants or commoners that use their wits to outdo people of higher social standing. In this sense, they are very similar to the real fools, clowns, and jesters of the time, but their characteristics are greatly heightened for theatrical effect. They are largely heterogeneous. The “groundlings” (theater-goers that were too poor to pay for seats and thus stood in the front by the stage) that frequented the Globe Theater were most likely particularly drawn to these Shakespearian fools or clowns. However they were also favoured by the nobility. Most notably, Queen Elizabeth I was a great admirer of the popular clown, Richard Tarlton. For the Bard himself, however, actor Robert Armin may have proved vital to the cultivation of his fools.

The fool was not a new character on stage.Indeed, a tradition of had long prevailed in aristocratic courts. The jester, however, was a dynamic and changing part of royal entertainment. Shakespeare both borrowed from the new motif of the jester and contributed to its rethinking. Whereas the jester of old often regaled his audience with forms of clowning – tumbling, juggling, stumbling, and the like – Shakespeare’s fool, in sync with Shakespeare’s revolutionary ideas about theatre, began to depart from a simple way of representation. Like other characters, the fool began to speak outside of the narrow confines of exemplary morality, to address themes of love, psychic turmoil, and all of the innumerable themes that arise in Shakespeare, and indeed, modern theater.

Perhaps central to the Bard’s redrawing of the fool was the actor Robert Armin:

… Shakespeare created a whole series of domestic fools for . greatest roles, Touchstone in “As You Like It,”(1599), Feste in “Twelfth Night,”(1600), and (the) fool in “King Lear,”(1605); helped Shakespeare resolve the tension between thematic material and the traditional entertainment role of the fool. Armin became a counter-point to the themes of the play and the power relationships between the theatre and the role of the fool—he manipulates the extra dimension between play and reality to interact with the audience all the while using the themes of the play as his source material. Shakespeare began to write well-developed sub-plots expressly for Armin’s talents. A balance between the order of the play and the carnevalized inversion factor of festive energy was achieved. Armin was a major intellectual influence on Shakespeare’s fools. He was attuned to the intellectual tradition of the Renaissance fool yet intellectual enough to understand the power of the medieval tradition. Armin’s fool is a stage presence rather than a solo artist. His major skills were mime and mimicry; even his improvisational material had to be reworked and rehearsed. His greatest asset was as a foil to the other stage actors. Armin offered the audience an idiosyncratic response to the idiosyncrasies of each spectator.

Richard Tarlton (died September 1588), an English actor, was the most famous clown of his era.

His birthplace is unknown, but reports of over a century later give it as Condover in Shropshire, with a later move to Ilford in Essex. Firm information on his early life is scarce; traditions maintain that he started out as either a London apprentice, or a swineherd in Ealing, or a water-carrier; and, it is not impossible that he was all three. By 1583, when he is mentioned as one of the original members of the Queen’s Men, he was already an experienced actor.

He was an early yet extraordinary influence on Elizabethan clowns. His epitaph says: “he of clowns to learn still sought/ But now they learn of him they taught.” Tarlton was the first to study natural fools and simpletons to add knowledge to his characters. His manner of performance combined the styles of the medieval Vice, the professional minstrel, and the amateur Lord of Misrule. During the play, he took it upon himself to police hecklers by delivering a devastating rhyme when necessary. He would spend time after the play in a battle of wits with the audience. He worked with Queen Elizabeth’s Men at the Curtain Theatre at the beginning of their career in 1583. The 1600 publication Tarlton’s Jests tells how Tarlton, upon his retirement, recommended Robert Armin take his place.

He was Elizabeth’s favorite clown, and his talent for impromptu doggerel on subjects suggested by his audience has given his name to that form of verse. To cash in on his popularity, a great number of songs and witticisms of the day were attributed to him, and after his death the text Tarlton’s Jests, containing many jokes in fact older than he was, made several volumes. Other books, and several ballads, coupled his name with their titles. Some have suggested that the evocation of Yorick in Hamlet’s soliloquy was composed in memory of Tarlton.

In addition to his other talents, Tarlton was a fencing master. He wrote at least one play, The Seven Deadly Sins (1592); though it was enormously popular in its day, no copy has survived. Besides ballads and a play, Tarlton wrote several pamphlets starting in the 1570s, one of which was A True report of this earthquake in London (1580). These were apparently genuine, though after his death a variety of other works were attributed to him as well. Gabriel Harvey refers to him as early as 1579, indicating that Tarlton had already begun to acquire the reputation that rose into fame in later years. That fame transcended the social limits that judged players to be little more than rogues.

Tarlton, according to one source (one of Tarlton’s sons), gambled away the family’s entire fortune. Tarlton lived in Hanwell and is rumoured to be buried in the grounds of the Drayton Manor House, where he and his family lived. However, now it is a school named after Tarlton’s family called Drayton Manor High School.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/09/2012 20:08:15
From: wookiemeister
ID: 204002
Subject: re: shakespearean fools

Some have suggested that the evocation of Yorick in Hamlet’s soliloquy was composed in memory of Tarlton.
===

i think this credible

In the Elsinore churchyard, two “clowns”, typically represented as “gravediggers,” enter to prepare Ophelia’s grave, and although the coroner has ruled her death accidental so that she may receive Christian burial, they argue that it was a case of suicide. Hamlet arrives with Horatio and banters with one of them, who unearths the skull of a jester whom Hamlet once knew, Yorick (“Alas, Poor Yorick; I knew him, Horatio.”).

Reply Quote

Date: 24/09/2012 20:11:33
From: wookiemeister
ID: 204003
Subject: re: shakespearean fools

jesters /fools seem to pop up on a regular basis in shakespeare

even macbeth has a comedic edge to it when the inn keeper complain s “knock, knock” (i think)

other thoughts still revolve around shakespeare being made from a collection of writers.

just recently i have been more convinced that one writer couldn’t have the range and knowledge of so many subjects

it makes me wonder if “shakespeare” was more of a brandname rather than a singular effort

Reply Quote

Date: 24/09/2012 20:19:53
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 204005
Subject: re: shakespearean fools

Yes Wookie, suicide was looked upon with great distain in times of yore, Sam saved the day of some friend/relative who’s husband committed suicide, if not all their estate would have gone to the King, that was the law in those days, apparently.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1668/01/21/

Reply Quote

Date: 24/09/2012 20:44:26
From: wookiemeister
ID: 204010
Subject: re: shakespearean fools

Peak Warming Man said:


Yes Wookie, suicide was looked upon with great distain in times of yore, Sam saved the day of some friend/relative who’s husband committed suicide, if not all their estate would have gone to the King, that was the law in those days, apparently.

http://www.pepysdiary.com/archive/1668/01/21/


from a religious perspective suicide was forbidden

suicide is often portrayed as being carried out by someone who has lost their mind in shakespeare.

there was some jewish character i knew in the west bank who had trashed his house one night. i had heard his moans and wails and the sound of breaking furniture as i walked by. the house was dark and no one seemed to know or care about him. curious and fairly tired from being worked like a monkey i ventured up the stairs and asked what was going on.

turned out that his missus was having an affair with the security guard (i had noticed some strange behaviour with these two but had dismissed it as the community was orthodox jewish). she and the children were gone.

he had his UZI in his hand and told me he was going to go and kill himself.

by this time i was feeling a little weary of the world (getting sick statistically every two weeks and nearly being finished off by rachael’s fish cakes had taken it out me too).

i then suggested that we both commit suicide together which seemed to at least stop the sobs and moaning and he stared at me silently. explaining further i detailed my way of suicide…. we would take the UZI and some ammunition and go for a walk in the local arab village – when they attacked us (and only when they attacked us) we would go down in a hail of bullets or otherwise. i was on fire, i exhorted him on to our doom what would probably happen and how we would probably die – oh yes i was fully committed now.

well by now he was committed in a technical sense, he had told me of his desire to kill himself and i had suggested a much better way of dying and there was no way out of it if you wanted to save face, the die was cast. agreeing we then set off by foot up the roadway leading out into the darkness and probably to the nearest and wildest arab village. as we were out of the street lights suddenly the lights of the security car came into view in the distance “quick take cover!! – no over here thats too exposed”!, i hoarsely whispered.

the security vehicle rolled by us motionless amongst the broken rocks and thorns of the night. we had now worked up quite a sweat, i had always wanted to go walking in the west bank of a night, it is quite scenic day or night and i was quite happy to get to explore the environs under the guise of some serious venture.

then he said he was tired and wanted to sit down , bad idea, this i knew was going to be a morale killer and i was going to find it hard to shift him afterwards – and we hadn’t even got past the outer boundary, encouraging him and goading him i could not move him further to this desire to kill himself (it was quite annoying) and i resigned myself to the fact he had changed his mind.

after further discussion we came to the conclusion that life wasn’t so bad after all , i went back to my bed making sure i went nowhere near the flea infested chicken coop and thought no more of it that night.

Reply Quote

Date: 24/09/2012 21:02:24
From: wookiemeister
ID: 204014
Subject: re: shakespearean fools

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is an absurdist, existentialist tragicomedy by Tom Stoppard, first staged at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 1966. The play expands upon the exploits of two minor characters from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the courtiers Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The action of Stoppard’s play takes place mainly “in the wings” of Shakespeare’s, with brief appearances of major characters from Hamlet who enact fragments of the original’s scenes. Between these episodes the two protagonists voice their confusion at the progress of events of which—occurring onstage without them in Hamlet—they have no direct knowledge.

The play concerns the misadventures and musings of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two minor characters from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet who are childhood friends of the prince, focusing on their actions with the events of Hamlet as background. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is structured as the inverse of Hamlet; the title characters are the leads, not supporting players, and Hamlet himself has only a small part. The duo appears on stage here when they are off-stage in Shakespeare’s play, with the exception of a few short scenes in which the dramatic events of both plays coincide. In Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are used by the King in an attempt to discover Hamlet’s motives and to plot against him. Hamlet, however, mocks them derisively and outwits them, so that they, rather than he, are executed in the end. Thus, from Rosencrantz’s and Guildenstern’s perspective, the action in Hamlet is largely nonsensically comical.

The two characters, brought into being within the puzzling universe of Stoppard’s play by an act of the playwright’s creation, have generally interchangeable, yet periodically unique, identities. Thus, the two often confuse their own names, as do the other characters when referring to them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are portrayed as two clowns or fools in a world that is beyond their understanding; they cannot identify any reliable feature or the significance in words or events. Their own memories are not reliable or complete and they misunderstand each other as they stumble through philosophical arguments while not realizing the implications to themselves. They often state deep philosophical truths during their nonsensical ramblings, yet they depart from these ideas as quickly as they come to them. At times Guildenstern appears to be more enlightened than Rosencrantz; at times both of them appear to be equally confounded by the events occurring around them.

After the two characters witness a performance of The Murder of Gonzago—the story within a story in the play Hamlet—they find themselves on a boat taking prince Hamlet to England with the troupe that staged the performance. They are intended to give the English king a message telling him to kill Hamlet. Instead, Hamlet discovers this and switches the letter for another, telling the king to kill Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. During the voyage, the two are ambushed by pirates and lose their prisoner, Hamlet, before resigning themselves to their fate and presumably dying thereafter.

Major themes of the play include existentialism, free will vs. determinism, the search for value, and the impossibility of certainty. As with many of Tom Stoppard’s works, the play has a love for cleverness and language. It treats language as a confounding system fraught with ambiguity.

Reply Quote