The character of the fool is a recurring character type in the plays of Shakespeare. Often, the Shakespearean fool is portrayed as a clever commoner who uses his wits and crafty words to tease or mock his companions of higher social standing. Some critics argue that the character of the fool was created mainly as comic relief, to provide some sort of respite from the intense, often emotionally wrenching action of the main plot. Nevertheless, Shakespeare creates his “fools” to be beyond just comic relief. His characters provide a deeper insight to the extreme and help make such horrific or complex events more understandable to the audience. This is true of Falstaff in Henry IV Part One and the Fool in King Lear. Both characters, through their ironic functions, reveal truths to the audience unseen by the protagonists themselves.
In Henry IV Part One, the audience is introduced to Falstaff as a thief, a liar and a glutton. Falstaff stands for disorder, indulgence, and anarchy, everything that threatens Prince Hal’s ascension to the throne. Although he is portrayed as a cowardly, dishonest, and selfish, the audience is far from offended, but in fact delighted with him because he seems to take on these characteristics not only to gratify himself, but also to amuse others. His unrestrained indulgence of his own appetites, whether it is for “sack” and money, has neither malice nor hypocrisy in it, which is why the audience is made to almost ignore the consequences resulting from his endeavors, for no truly harmful outcomes are brought forth.
The relationship between Falstaff and his companion Hal has been an interesting subject of critical study. There is a possibility that Hal actively seeks out and maintains his relationship with Falstaff in order to gain some valuable lessons about human nature, both good and bad. Some have even argued that Hal’s motives may be much more Machiavellian in that he can prove his maturity and worthiness of being a ruler by first associating with and then vigorously rejecting his licentious friend. However, it seems that his main purpose in the play is to ridicule the ideals of heroic honor cherished by both Hal and Hotspur. It is because of these fights that he puts on to oppose the received rules and restraints of society that the audience in some way respects him and treats him endearingly.
Though Falstaff is technically a knight, the life he chooses to live seems to be completely incompatible with the ideals of courtly chivalry and moral righteousness that one may typically associate with the title of knighthood. For instance, Falstaff is willing to commit robbery for the money but also for the sole entertainment of it. However, it is this unconcerned frivolity of society’s morals that attracts Prince Hal to Falstaff and that attracts audiences to him as well. Falstaff is portrayed as the antithesis of honor and an embodiment of heedless rebellion and disorder. He takes bribes from able-bodied soldiers and recruits a completely incapable army unfit for battle, leading them to their demise. He even refers to his soldiers as “food for [gun] powder” (4.2.66) while marching them off to a battle that they are completely unprepared for. He later, on the battlefield, stabs Hotpsur’s corpse after Hal killed him and takes the body to be his own trophy in battle hoping for a reward from the king and taking credit for Hal’s accomplishment. Indeed, one of Falstaff’s famous speeches is about the uselessness of honor. He asks, “Can honor set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No… What is honor? A word” (5.1.130-133). He considers honor to be a mere abstract concept, but something that can’t practically help in any manner because only the dead can have honor, but honor does no use to him when he’s dead. However, though Falstaff mocks honor by complaining about how useless it is to the living, he remains charming in the audience’s eyes because there is some truth to his seemingly absurd speech. In a play where many of the characters are obsessed with the concept of honor in battle, Falstaff’s speech stands out and is strangely convincing, and he is truly one of the few that survive the battle. Hotspur, the character who seems to emphasize the honor of battle most, is slain in battle and even Hal, though he survives and becomes king, isn’t quite the same carefree and lighthearted character as he was in the beginning of the play. War and honor have changed Hal into a more ruthless and power-hungry prince. Because of Falstaff’s unwavering character, though his morals seem to be slightly unprincipled, his argument against honor is very persuasive.
Falstaff completely disregards honor, a concept central to the play’s notion of leadership. Because of this, Falstaff acts as a foil to Hal’s character. The plot makes it very obvious that Hal must redeem his honor in battle in order to become a successful ruler and heir to the throne, which means that ultimately, he must reject Falstaff as a companion as well. However, Falstaff’s ideas about honor provide an important insight into the plot. It is ironic that Falstaff, one of the most unethical characters, seems to be the most appealing to the audience rather than Hotspur and Hal, who are both honorable in their own ways. It is because Falstaff knows himself and stays true to himself, realizing that he cannot, and does not, want to work his way up in power and status, but rather wants to enjoy the simple things in life like a large meal and bottle of sack. He also seems to truly understand what price must be paid for honor and he, being genuinely honest, is unwilling to pay it. While this may seem like an act of cowardice, it could also be seen as having good sense and wisdom. This separates him from the characters of Hal and Hotspur as they are made to seem as if they don’t really know what they themselves want: they pursue honor as a means of pleasing either the king or the people. Falstaff seems to serve a function of showing that there is no real useful purpose in the honor that Hotspur and Hal are willing to die for.
Although Falstaff is one of the most corrupt characters in Shakespeare’s play, he seems to provide a quite convincing argument against the value of honor to Shakespeare’s audience. The audience can’t help but to agree with Falstaff because he really is not incorrect in his argument, but it is humorously juxtaposed with the morals of Hal and Hotpsur, the two characters portrayed as the most noble and just. Falstaff may not be the most honorable or virtuous, but he survives until the end, making his character quite convincing.
On the other hand, the Fool in Shakespeare’s play King Lear plays a similarly paradoxical and ironic role. King Lear stages a complete deterioration of a civilization. Children turn on their parents, brother attacks brother, and sister murders sister. All social, ethical and familial bonds of society are completely severed and chaos ensues. It is completely understandable how Lear, once a great and powerful king, becomes mad. Through all this, the Fool remains a faithful companion from Lear’s rule to his demise.
The Fool’s social purpose is to make Lear laugh, but throughout the play, he makes serious and thoughtful comments on the action of the play and points out to Lear his faults in his behavior. The Fool is paradoxically wise, similar to Falstaff’s strange and convincing wisdom. The Fool is Lear’s personal comedian, but interestingly, he’s also the only person that Lear allows to criticize him openly. When Kent offends Lear
by pointing out his wrongs, Lear banishes him from the kingdom and when even Cordelia, his favorite daughter, doesn’t speak what Lear wants to hear, he disowns her and banishes her as well. The Fool speaks very bluntly and honestly to Lear, but all he receives is a threat of being whipped, but nothing more.
His reproaches to Lear are so pointed and earnest and his perception of the wrongs done to Cordelia are so perceptive that the audience cannot consider him to just be a comical fool. He is highly intellectual and uses his wit to urge his king to fix all offenses and transgressions.
Ironically, in a way, the Fool and the king begin to swap roles. The Fool always seems to be helping Lear understand his decisions and his mistakes and their consequences leading the audience to question who the real fool between the pair is. Lear asks, “Doest thou call me a fool, boy?” to which the Fool replies, “All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with” (1.4.132-135). There again, as with Falstaff’s speech about honor, a very strange truth in the Fool’s answer. It is in some ways true that the king relinquished his title of a “king” by allowing his corrupt daughters to take power. Because the king still does not seem to understand the consequences that follow his decision to relinquish power to his two dishonest daughters, he has been debased to the level of a fool.
The Fool also sings, “Then they for sudden joy did weep, and I for sorrow sung, that such a king should play bo-peep, and go the fools among” (1.4.175-178). Although the sentiments may be somewhat playful, the Fool’s language strongly critiques the king’s situation. In his song, those who weep in happiness are the ‘daughters’ that the Fool claims Lear has turned into ‘thy mothers’ (1.4.173) and to contrast, the Fool sings in ‘sorrow’ that Lear has handed over such authority to his children. He explicitly describes Lear as putting ‘down’ his ‘breeches’ so that his daughters, who have now become like his mothers, may use ‘the rod’ on him (1.4.174). The Fool provides a complete inversion of social hierarchies by criticizing and almost lecturing the king, but the Fool suggests that Lear himself is responsible for the breakdown by allowing his daughters to rule over him. The Fool provides a very intelligible and honest commentary that not only allows the audience to understand what is happening in the plot, but also helps Lear to realize his mistakes.
Lear himself becomes more aware of his situation while conversing with the Fool. Interestingly, unlike many of Shakespeare’s other tragic protagonists, Lear has no moments alone or speeches made to himself to reflect privately on the state of his mind and on the action of the play. The Fool, instead, provides a means for Lear to do this and really digest and understand what is going on. Lear, throughout the play, seems to increasingly depend on the Fool to be his voice of reason or his conscience, because the Fool constantly reminds Lear of his mistakes and is able to almost manipulate and guide his feelings into realizing the consequences. Again, it is the great irony that the king, who is supposed to be wise and powerful, is in fact a fool who is completely dependent on the actual court Fool who is surprisingly full of wisdom and truth. The Fool’s character is the external critic and internal conscience that Shakespeare has developed to serve the function of helping us better understand King Lear.
Shakespeare seems to use comic characters in his plays to function almost ironically and paradoxically. In the examples of Falstaff from Henry IV Part One and the Fool from King Lear, both characters play an ironic function, although they are portrayed as some of the less likeable or relatable characters, seem to have the most wisdom and attract the most endearment from the audience. As Shakespeare’s fools speak truth to the other characters, they also speak truth to the audience. Both Falstaff and the Fool allow for the shifting of focus from the fictional world to the audience’s reality in order to help more effectively convey the themes of the dramas. Both characters function as foils to their protagonists, pointing out their weaknesses and frailties, allowing the audience to see deeper into the major characters. It is because of this function that the audience cannot help but to easily relate to both characters and are persuaded to agree with their nonconventional, but convincing thoughts.