90

CHAPTER?

King L e a r : Comic Elements

The Tragedy of King Lear (1605) is one of the most agonizing of Shakespeare’s
great tragedies. It is a pathetic story of a king who recklessly abdicates his throne and
divides his kingdom between his two elder daughters in proportion to their love for him,
depriving his youngest daughter of her dues. The plot represents how the king falls from
his power and prosperity to the abyss of insufferable misery and thereupon, meets with
his own doom. It is also clear that King Lear in power and sanity, seems to be
exclusively wrapped up in egoism. Naturally he looks blind to the fatalities of life and
commits reckless blunders that result in his undoing. But when all his egoism gradually
wears off after a lacerating trauma of life, Lear comes to know the stem realities of the
world of affairs. Soon afterwards, he gets surprisingly imbued with a sense of fellowship
with others. This is exactly what every universal tragedy hinges on.
It is clear in King Lear that an indiscriminate division of the kingdom between
the elder daughters, Goneril and Regan, has been as detrimental to Lear as his act of
depriving his youngest daughter Cordelia of her dues. The result is that both Goneril and
Regan, whom he has given away all his power and possessions, ungratefiilly drive him
out of the palace and he is faced with war against natural calamities. The terrible sight of
Lear’s struggles for existence commands our pity and terror. It is also equally terrible to
see how Lear is driven mad by the brunt of ingrown tensions and sufferings. It is again
pathetic to note how a grand king is reduced to a homeless beggar and finally dies.
The genesis of Lear’s tragedy, however, lies in his fatal flaws that irresistibly lead
him from sanity to madness, from kingship to beggary, from prosperity to misery and
 91

death. In this regard, it has been said that: “Shakespeare in this drama has touched the
farthest limit of tragic art. A single step beyond it would have turned the play either into
a horrible melodrama or a revolting farce.” '
In King Lear, Shakespeare skillfully introduces certain comic elements that can
relieve the intensity of tragic tension. By touching the grotesque and the incongruous in
the grave situations, one can easily trace the ridiculous in the play. The madness of Lear
is obviously a pattern of abnormal behaviour that demands our pity but in reality it seems
almost laughter-provoking. The scenes of disguise are also as ludicrous as those
representing the pattern of madness. The wit and humour of the fool also provide the
audience with a lot of fim and relief There are some other sources of comic relief in
King Lear which are as follows :
1) Lear’s Madness.
2) The Fool’s Witty Humour.
3) Edgar’s Disguise.
4) Kent’s Disguise.
5) Mock-Trial Scene.
6 ) Dover-Cliff Scene.

1) Lear’s Madness: Comic Treatment

In the Elizabethan stage, madness is treated as a material for comedy. According
to Clifford Leech, “Comedy and madness had an association in Elizabethan mind as they
have today. We have seen in Lear and Hamlet a touch of the grotesque, not remote from
comedy.” ^ In King Lear, Shakespeare depicts Lear as an old king who at the beginning
appears to be a self-centered egoist but later, towards the close, all his egoism wears off
 92

and he gets himself exalted by a sense of humanity. This strange transformation makes
Lear redeemed and reborn in his brave new world. “The change in the tragic hero is then
not only and not chiefly a psychological change; it is a moral change, a conversion, a
change in vision. It is a total resettlement of his moral being.” ^
The world of King Lear is obviously a microcosm where all human bonds are out
of joint and everything is set upside down. Shakespeare adroitly portrays the chaos,
disorder and turmoil of Lear’s world with sheer realism of his art. In the beginning of the
play, Lear appears to be a s a ^ old king destined to abuse his power and position. The
same mighty king, by irony of fate, is reduced to a humble mad man, moving about in
the dark, helplessly exposed to the furies of the elements. This sort of degradation of
Lear is partly due to his own follies and egoism and also partly due to the hypocrisy,
ingratitude and betrayal of his ‘pelican daughters’.
It can be said in this regard that Lear terribly suffers from a kin^ of real madness
which is the natural consequence of his own egoism. The mad Lear has to undergo
immense sufferings on account of his follies which have been much criticized by his
fool. It is also undeniable that Lear, after his enormous traumatic experiences, ultimately
realizes the trivialities of life in the evil world to which he himself belongs. In the play,
Lear’s madness is predictably genuine and real. Shakespeare does not want to make Lear
mad at the very outset of the play, nor does he intend to make Lear nearly mad. When he
wanted to represent the pattern of real madness, he creates the real madness of Ophelia in
Hamlet and does it with wonderful truth and skill. In the case of Lear’s madness, there is
however, no exception. In other words ^Lear’s madness, unlike that of Hamlet, is
convincingly real and pathetic.
 93

In fact, Lear fails to protect himself from being really mad like Hamlet. Though
he does not want to go mad, the circumstances oblige him to get demented in the long
run. Therefore, his heart-rending agonies resound : “0 Let me not be mad, no mad, sweet
heaven ! Keep me in temper. I would not be mad.” (1.5.45-46). It is in the storm scene
that Lear’s madness sets in.*pie old king is forced to run amuck when he is ruthlessly
driven out of the palace by his ungrateful daughters. The storm scene represents the
homeless king left at the mercy of nature, to wage against the fiiry of the elements. The
fool is the only companion to stand by Lear in all his calamities, but he constantly pricks
his master’s conscience by some stinging words. The fool’s sarcastic remarks on Lear’s
follies hurt his mind so terribly that Lear is about to break down and so he exclaims : “0
Fool, I shall go mad !” (2.2.459).
The madness of Lear reaches its climax when he is led by the fool to a self-
realization of the incorrigible wrongs done by him out of sheer egoism. The sudden
appearance of Edgar to the homeless king as a bedlam beggar, apparently adds much to
Lear’s wretchedness. It comes to Lear as a blow to his heavy heart. The king in a fit of
madness thinks that Edgar too, might have been driven out by his heartless daughters.
Gradually he loses the integrity of mind and self-control. The more the storm rages upon
him, the more he raves and curses his selfish daughters: “Pour on, I will endure. In such
a night as this ! 0 Regan and Goneril, your old kind father, whose frank heart gave all -
0, that way madness lies. Let me shun that, no more of that. (3.2.18-22).
“The sight of physical torment, to the uneducated, brings laughter. Shakespeare’s
England delighted in watching both physical torment and comic ravings of actual
lunacy.” ^ The storm scene brings to light how mad Lear sufferjand groan5in the midst of
the storm that rages in his heart. In a fit of utter madness, Lear tears off his clothes and
 94

cries out; “Off, off, you lendings! Come, unbutton here.” (3.4.103). the madness of Lear
is, no doubt, a positive indication of his degeneration. By throwing off his clothes, Lear
dramatically wants to rationalize the difference between man and animals. Even by
stripping so, he also wants to come down to the level of animals that need no clothing.
Such a drastic effort|{ made by Lear in a fit of madness is obviously comical, and
laughable on the part of a majestic king like him. This is where the universal tragedy is
the deepest; this is also where it treads the brink of a comedy.
“In King Lear, Shakespeare takes us to the edge of the human world to confront
the terror of life and viciousness of man’s brutality. He offers no solution to the
ungraspable phantom of life.” ^ In most cases Lear’s madness seems to be fantastic,
grotesque and ridiculous. Yet in no way, Lear can be regarded as a comic character. The
loss of dignity or dissipation of integrity in Lear does not, however, bring down his
position to the level of a comic character. Yet in the words of Clifford Leech : “The
tragic hero frequently goes mad.” ’ This madness is invariably a material for comedy.
The same is apparently true of Lear.
We can, however, trace the comic pattern of real madness of Lear in certain tragic
situations. “If Lear were really mad when he divided his kingdom, if Hamlet were really
mad at any time in the story, they would cease to be tragic characters.” * The audience
can sensibly mark Lear’s madness in the absurdity of his inconsistent utterances to his
fool: “We ’11 go to supper F th’ morning.” (3.6.42). This also verbally means that Lear
belongs to a world where someone abnormally goes to supper in the morning. It is
worthwhile to say that Lear’s insanity, being a genuine case of abnormal mind, has
something to excite our pity and laughter.
 95

The extremity of Lear’s madness is noticeable in certain tragic situations, such as

the ‘mock-trial scene’ (3.6), in the firm-house of Gloucester. The comic pattern of this
scene will be discussed in detail later on. The scene with its seriocomic characteristics,
heightens the seriousness of the play and at the same time provides us with ample comic
relief So it can be said that “there seems to run parallel to the tragic pattern an
undercurrent of fierce comedy.” ^
“In Kit^ Lear, we watch Lear stumbling helplessly towards madness but because
he has spent a life time wretched in his own illusion about the nature of his power, the
audience does not feel that it has any special knowledge which would help him out.”
In every sphere of Lear’s wretchedness, the fool is his only companion who faithfully
follows him like a dog, barks at him and even bites him. The fool’s bantering with his
master is so poignant that Lear madly raves in agony. The audience feels much for Lear’s
unbearable sufferings and madness, yet his lunatic ravings often make them laugh.
“In the method of Lear’s madness, there is often a savage humour more
remarkable when all is said than his companioning with the fool.” The fool is not
really mad but he seems to be a scourge to Lear’s affected soul. The fool’s catty remarks
on Lear’s follies are also cause to Lear’s lunatic agonies which touch our hearts and also
make us laugh at him. “These flashes of grotesquerie last long enough to make us feel
the vulnerability of Lear’s tragic stature, but not so long as to destroy it.”
It can be argued that Lear in his madness, comes to see more shrewdly into the
ills of the body politic, the hypocrisy and injustice of men than perhaps any other
character in Shakespeare. “In King Lear, there is no longer any frontiers between the
sublime and the ridiculous, between the sane and the insane, and between man and
beast.” The selfish and cruel daughters of Lear, who are all sane and young, have come
 96

down to the level of the beast - in their mode of conduct with their old father. The bond
of human relationship between father and daughters is out of joint and therefore,
everything is set in utter disorder. The consequence^ which fall upon Lear are
excruciatingly painful and “its painfulness is exactly of that quality which embarrasses in
some forms of comedy.”

2) Lear’s Fool; Comic Creation

The Fool in King Lear is outwardly a clown but inwardly a lively humorous
character. He is professionally a court-fool, - a royal jester who enjoys all the privileges
to entertain the court and also to criticize the wrongSor mistakes of the king. Being
essentially a flm-maker, the fool makes us laugh by cutting jokes at the expense of others
around him. He is shrewd enough to treat Lear with sarcasm and gets away with it.
In the play, the fool acts as the only bonafide companion of Lear when the latter
has fallen in hard times. He keeps company with his old master like a faithful dog and so
he does not desert him even when he is driven out from the palace by his heartless
daughters. He remains completely devoted to the homeless king and protects him from
the storm raging on him. In the course of his service to Lear, he stings Lear’s heart,
pricks his conscience and hurts his sentiment by his biting comments and bantering^
Shakespeare skillfully mingles the jokes and humour of the clown with the cares of the
king.
The fool in Kir^ Lear, however, plays the role of the Elizabethan clown whose
sense of humour often provokes our laughter. He is not always witty in his humour but
he is certainly the cause that wit is in others. Like a philosopher, he criticizes Lear’s
wrong in his indiscriminate division of his kingdom and also occasionally satirizes
 97

Lear’s follies in the matter of his reckless abdication of the throne and the cibwn. The
way he does proves that he is cynical and cruel in his humour. We are continually aware
of the fool’s humour of cruelty as well as of his cruelty of humour, but the fool’s use of it
is not aimless;
Fool. How now, uncle ? Would I had two coxcombs and two daughters?
Lear. Why, my boy ?
Fool. If I gave them all my living. I’d keep my coxcombs myself There’s mine;
beg another off thy daughters.
Lear. Take heed, sirrah - the whip. (1.4.104-109).

“We hear the Fool’s falsetto, snatches, counter-pointing, vdiolly pathetic

utterances of Lear so that a heartless world is never forgotten.” To him Lear’s mistake
is a part of universal riddle of existence. Like a faithful servant, he shares all the
sufferings and calamities of his master. Yet most often his catty remarks resound :
“When thou clovest thy crown F th’ back o’er the dirt. Thou hadst little wit in thy bald
crown when thou gavest thy golden one away.” (1.4.142-146).
The Fool provides a lot of amusements by his commentaries and observations
which expose Lear’s fatal flaws. He often appears to be a scourge to Lear’s affected soul,
yet he is Lear’s comforter in his distress. In this sense^the fool is an evidence of
Shakespeare’s success in his attempt to refute the false notion that laughter and tears can
not be combined together. In the words of David Daiches : “The fool is a remarkable
transformation of a stock Elizabethan dramatic character into a species of chorus, wliose
wry commentary on Lear’s actions between his ‘giving all to his daughters’ and his
succumbing to madness, helps to add a new ironic dimension to the play.” In his satiric
 98

remarks, he cries down : “Now thou art an 0 without a figure. I am better than thou art,
now. I am a fool; thou art nothing.” (1.4.174-176).
The Fool’s loyalty and half-dazed sufferings affect only one side of Lear’s ego
and for the other prevail the fool’s wit and humour. In fact, the fool is not only a ‘half-
fool’, but also a half-mad and to him the king himself is an instance of universal handy-
dandy : “Such a king should play bo-peep / And go the fools among.” (1.4.158-159). In
the play “the fool’s criticism is mostly directed against Lear but Lear’s is directed against
the hypocrisies and injustices of society.” In Shakespeare’s King Lear the conflict is
between the individuals but in Bond’s Lear, it is between man and society. The fool,
thus, bridges the gap between court and country and also combines the wit of the court
with the traditional rustic role of the fool which is all but comical.
In fact, the fool does more than distract the king, he calls attention from another
emotional angle to Lear’s condition so as to provoke our comic laughter. To be fi^nk, the
fool is an admirable chorus augmenting our painfuhiess by emphasis of his humour
which does not serves to merge the incompatible in a unity of laughter. We guess the
germ of witty humour in the fool’s interrogation to Lear : :”May not an ass know v^en
the cart draws the horse ?” (1.4.206). The metaphorical expression in question form,
strikes the point of the fool’s wit and humour.
“The Fool has his place in the tragedy only so long as the king is able to perceive
the truth veiled by the fool’s humour.” There are so many examples of the fool’s
I

humorous questioning, such as; “If a man’s brains were in’s heels, were’t not Ift danger
ofkibes ?” (1.5.10). We can also hear the fool’s admonition to his foolish master: “Thou
shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise.” (1.5.43). In addition to this, the
dialogue given below will also help us to trace the fool’s wit and humour:
 99

Fool. Canst tell how an oyster makes his shell ?

Lear. No.
Fool. Nor I neither; but I can tell why a snail hasa house.
Lear. Why ?
Fool. Why, to put’s head in, not to give it away to hisdaughters and leave and
leave his horns without a case. (1.5.26-32).

“We feel that the fool in Eing Lear is not only a jester but a tragic figure who
shares in the suffering, whose jokes incorporate the sphere of the absurd into the tragedy
and who makes us aware of the close relationship between the grotesque and the
tragic.”'^ In most cases, the fool’s cynic humour brings the mad king to gradual self­
awakening that chastens his anguished soul. Like an idiosyncratic critic, he castigates
Lear also for his wrong in depriving Cordelia of her dues;
Fool. .........Thou canst tell why one’s nose stands I’ th’ middle on‘s face ?
Lear. No.
Fool. Why, to keep one’s eyes of either side’s nose, that what a man cannot
smell out, a may spy into.
Lear. I did wrong hi»,
A
(1.5.20-25).

The fool has a profound insight into Lear’s character; he sees the potentiality of
comedy in Lear’s behaviour. The consequences which fall upon Lear are excruciatingly
painful and “its painfulness is exactly of that quality which embarrasses in some forms of
comedy.” The Fool sympathizes with Lear in his painfulness but his stabbing words
add much to Lear’s pain and thus, heighten the tragedy. In the Hovel scene (3.4) the
 100

Fool’s professional madness gets overclouded by his wit as he comes across Edgar
disguised as a bedlam beggar. Seeing Edgar in tfeers, Lear thinks that he also might have
been driven from the house by his daughters.
It cannot be denied that Lear apparently identifies his own sad predicaments with
that of Edgar but the fool humorously speaks out: “Nay, he reserved a blanket, else we
had been all ashamed.” (3.4.61). The Fool is, so to say, exclusively critical as well as
humorous in his dealings with his master. In the words of L.C.Knights : “The Fool’s
meaning, however, lies not merely in what he says but in the way he says it.” The fool,
however, furnishes a vital reflexive means of activating and monitoring our awareness of
the fundamental issues at stake in King Lear. In the fimction of this clownish figure,
there is a kind of traditional hail-fellow quality which emphasizes an admixture of fiin,
folly and fantasy proper to comedy.
We can have the comedy in the fantastic world of the fool and Lear, wiiere the
cart draws the horse or someone goes to supper in the morning. The king in his madness
seems almost ridiculous whereas the fool is equally humorous:
Lear. We’ll go to supper I’ th’ morning.
Fool. And I’ll go to bed at noon. (3.6.4243).

It is quite clear in the above dialogue that both the king and the Fool are more or
less insane and their insanity is probably a natural consequence of their sufferings in the
storm that fiiriously rages on them. “The complex and delicate transformations of
perception which lies at the heart of Shakespeare’s comic method is mediated by
Shakespearean fools and is indeed, inconceivable without them.” The fool in King
Lear, however, acts as a good connecting link between, Lear and others, between
 101

humour and pathos, between the sublime and the ridiculous. The audience can have a
touch of the fool’s humour again when Gloucester comes up with a torch flickering in
the storm : “Look, here comes a walking fire.” (3.4.107).
It goes without saying that Lear’s Fool is not really a fool; rather he is a comic
fool endowed with a sense of wit and humour. The king, who should be wise enough to
do no wrong, is rather foolish in his action. The opposite is convincingly true of the fool.
The comic potentiality of the tragedy lies in this fact. The king, who in a fit of madness -
calls his fool a ‘philosopher’, is himself a comic fool - the most prodigious laughing
stock. The fool, with his sense of imalloyed humour, may claim equally with Sir John
Falstaff, and other comic characters, but unlike them, he is endowed with many other
characteristics which distinguish him fi-om the foolish king.
There is no doubt in the fact that the Fool’s witty humour not only contributes to
the comic interest of the tragedy but also intensifies its pathos by contrast. In taking over
the fool fi'om the popular tradition of Elizabethan clown, Shakespeare has transmuted the
tragedy by means of his comic genius. Here is an example of comicality serving to make
the tragedy, not only sad, but also bitter.
To take up another relevant point in this regard, it can be said that Lear’s fool is a
master-piece among Shakespeare quick-witted comic creations, wearing the mask of
folly just to exude a kind of wisdom. Surprisingly enough, the sense of wit and humour
noticeable in the fool’s character in the play. There is hardly any character more capable
of exciting our laughter by means of humour. A brief conversation between Lear and the
fool will suffice to confirm the point;
Lear. When were you wont to be so fiill of songs, sirrah ?
 102

Fool. I have used it, nuncle, e’er since thou madst thy daughters th^ mothers;
for when thou gavest them the rod and puttest down thine own breeches.
(Sings) Then they for sudden joy did weep
And I for sorrow sing,
That such a king should play bo-peep
And go the fools among. (1.4.152-159).
The fool’s song, though in snatches, have a power to give the whole tragedy a
flight to a comedy. The jollity of the fool, as expressed through his songs, has certain
affinities with that of Touchstone in 'As you like it’ (1600). It can be remembered that
the theme of Touchstone’s song beginning with ‘Blow, Blow, thou winter wind’, is
man’s ingratitude which corresponds to the fool’s song:
Fathers that were rags
Do make their children blind
But fathers that bear bags
Shall see their children kind. (2.2.223-226).
“The fool is allowed no formal and completed song but needless to say, his
snatches of melody should be melodious indeed.”^^ But most of his songs, though
melodious and soothing, often show how keenly the fool is interested in criticizing
Lear’s folly and man’s ingratitude and treachery which constitute the stem reality of life.
In the play, most of the leading characters are misguided by one another but the fool
alone possesses a clairvoyance which is extra-ordinary. If there have been no fool in
King Lear, the tragedy would have lost its depth and seriousness. Even the tragedy
would have also suffered a serious set-back.
 103

We can sense behind the fool’s babblings, snatches of songs, anA his banterings
his deep understanding of the irony of life. “The significance of the fool consists in the
judgments he passes on the tragic happenings. In Coleridge’s opinion, his wild babblings
and the inspired idiocy articulate and gauge the horror of the tragedy.” In the play, the
light of comedy might have been conceivably projected from the fool who, by means of
his wit and humour, enhances the gloom of the tragedy and at once relieves it.
“The Fool in Shakespeare’s hand is enough proof of what a master-craftsman
could do even with intractable popular material.” In every case of his commentaries
and observations on Lear’s actions, the fool’s humour adds a new comic dimension to
the play. It has been wisely said that “the Fool, who is one of Shakespeare’s triumphs in
King Lear is not, however, extraneous to the tragedy.” It is regretted that the fool, who
is the spring of comic laughter, suddenly disappears at a moment when Lear himself can
carry on the role played by him. The disappearance of the fool is, of course, consistent
with the play and also in other Elizabethan dramas of non-Shakespearean setting. In the
words of Susan Snyder : “The fool, whose worms eye view of great events as well as his
normal office links him to comic clowns and fools, belongs mostly to the pla/s grotesque
comedy.”

Note : The fool in Timon of Athens : Comic Interpretation

( V tt Cetnlc
The fool in Kifig is the real brother of Timon’s fool and both^characters in
their tragic environment. These fools are often found to appear along with the tragic
heroes, but in Tidion of the fool does not follow or accompany his master, nor
does he attempt to probe deep into Timon’s follies. In this sense, Timon’s fool is an
independent identity in the play.
 104

It can be aptly said that Timon’s fool, instead of satirizing his master’s mistake or
follies, engages himself in making fun of some lower qualities. “The Fool’s meaning,
however, lies not merely in what he says but in the way he says it.” Never ridiculous
himself, the fool hardly tries to promote ea as^finest
p ^ t^ in his master’s mind in the matter
of his prodigality. Never does he prick Timon’s conscience against his boundless
bankruptcy. Yet, the fool’s speeches in the play sound funny and amusing. In his
conversation with the servants, his humour comes out as a source of momentary
laughter: “I think no usurer but has a fool to his servant. My mistress is one and I am her
fool.” (2.2.96-97).
The fool’s sense of catholic humour is not deeply related to Timon’s affairs. Yet,
the fool’s wit and humour touches our hearts. In this conversation with Varro’s servant,
the fool appears to be a wise man as his speeches show that there is wit enough in wliat
he says. “The fool in Shakespeare’s hands is enough proof of what a master-craftsman
could do even with intractable popular material.” By means of the fool’s humour,
Shakespeare often tries to make an atmosphere that brings the tragedy near to a frivolous
comedy. A brief conversation between the fool and Varro’s servant confirms the point:
Varro’s Servant. What is a whore master, fool ?
Fool. A fool in good clothes, and something like thee. ’Tis a spirit;
sometime’t appears like a lord, sometimes like a lawyer, sometime
like a philosopher w ith^v stones more than’s artificial one. He is
very often like a knight; and generally in all shapes that man goes
and down in fi-om fourscore to thirteen, this spirit walks
in.
Varro’s Servant. Thou art not altogether a fool.
 105

Fool. Nor thou altogether a wise man. As much foolery as I have, so

much wit thou lack’s! (2.2.105-114).
From the above dialogue, it is clear that the fool has some wit and humour that
characterize him. The Elizabethan audience finds ample scope of comic relief in such
humorous representation of the fool. The real excellence of Shakespeare’s comic genius
liepot so much in the philosophy of his comedy but in the humour he diffuses over tragic
themes by means of certain comic characters and scenes so as to produce comic laughter.
It is interesting to compare the Fool with the fool in Tiitum («PAfteats,
which is often regarded as a comparably bitter tragedy. Both are intended to serve as
comic elements in tragic drama^ but with the following differences. In Timon, the fool
A

does not follow or accompany his master, nor does he attempt to probe deep into
Timon’s folly. In this sense, Timon’s fool is an independent identity in the play.

3) Edgar’s Disguise: Comic Deceit

The Elizabethan dramatists applied the morality convention of disguise to a
variety of new purposes, specially for comic effects. In (Ciiig L«aoi^ Shakespeare depicts
Edgar as one who impersonates many a role in disguise. Essentially a seriocomic
character, Edgar acts as a connecting link between Lear and Gloucester. In both the main
plot and the sub-plot, he appears in disguise to Lear and Gloucester. He is a bedlam
beggar called Tom in the Lear-story, whereas in the Gloucester-episode a Kentish
peasant. These disguise scenes generally seem odious, grotesque and comical.
In fact, Edgar has to assume a disguise of a bedlam beggar just to protect himself
from being really mad in grief or from being punished by his father. He takes shelter in a
hovel where homeless Lear, accompanied by the fool, also takes refuse from the raging
 106

storm. It is quite ludicrous to note how Edgar cries out from within the hovel as soon as
the fool tries to enter it : “Away, the foul follows me.” (3.4.43). The shrieking
voice of Edgar frightens the fool but the king is terribly shocked at the sight of Edgar in
wretched condition.
The sudden appearance of Edgar seems to Lear a fatal blow to his heavy heart
that aggravates his madness. There rages the storm around and also in the heart of mad
Lear. In a fit of madness, Lear thinks that Edgar too might have been driven out from the
house by his wicked daughters. Anyway, the union of these three mad men in the hovel
forms the trinity of madness which is not remote from the grotesque comedy.
In the play, Edgar’s disguise may be treated as a kind of comic defense - a device
by which Edgar defends himself by feigning madness and beggary. “The naked Edgar
reduced to mere animality is seen by Lear as an image of himself” The storm raging
outside the hovel is also a visual symbol of Lear’s state of mind. In other words, the
spectacle of Edgar’s feigned madness reinforces the real madness of Lear. In the hovel
scene, Edgar’s defense-mechanism is explicit in his disguise that marks the unreality of a
mask. So Susan Snyder points out; “Edgar, more complex, provides another example of
the double impact of comic conventions in the play.”
The audience cannot but laugh at mad Lear as irresistibly as at naked Edgar.
Neither Lear nor his fool can recognize this naked bedlam beggar. This is how Edgar in
his disguise, deceives others; on the other hand, he himself is also deceived. In the words
of Bertrand Evans : “Edgar is one of only a few practices in Shakespeare that are
undertaken because the practisers are themselves deceived.” In the hovel, he says to
Lear: “I smell the blood of a British man.” (3.4.172).
 107

It is quite clear here that Edgar plays a dual role in his comic masquerades ; A
pretender of madness and a disguiser of beggary. The scenes of Edgar’s madness and
beggary are conceivably the scenes of simulation or pretension that not only bring misery
on Edgar but also excite our laughter. It seems ridiculous when Edgar babbles like a mad
man to mad Lear ; “Tom’s a-cold ! O, do, de, do, de, do, de. Bless thee from whirl­
winds, star-blasting, and taking. Do poor Tom some charity, whom the foul fiend vexes.”
(3.4.55-57).
We can again hear some other lunatic utterances from Edgar : “Pillicock sat on
pillicock hill; alow, alow, loo, loo.” (3.4.72). The mad king, however, identifies his own
plights with those of Edgar but both, being mad, set foot on a world where the difference
between the reality and appearance strikes a note of hideous incongruity. “The assumed
madness of Edgar reinforces the real madness of Lear, and the character Edgar assumes,
that of a man who was once well-off in the world, reinforces, as he stands by Lear on the
heath, the situation of the man who was once a king.” ”
The scene of Edgar’s mock-beggary, however, marks the patterns of difference
between appearance and reality. The comic structure of the play lies in all such patterns
of madness which are pertinent to the Elizabethan stage convention of comic relief The
real madness of Lear, the assumed madness of Edgar and the half-madness of the fool,
all play against one another to make out of chaos an# almost incredible harmony. The
trinity of madness in the hovel scene (3.4) shifts to the Farm-house of Gloucester where
mad Lear arranges for a mock-trial for his wicked daughters.
The mad Lear emotionally calls Edgar the ‘justicer’ and the fool the
‘philosopher’ in the mock-trial scene but “in some way Edgar helps Lear to accept
madness as Lear’s madness helps Edgar in turn to bear his pain.” In reality, this mock-
 108

trial scene (3.6) shows Edgar’s madness as a sheer mockery of life derived from a long
tradition of moral iconography that pertains to comic laughter.
It has been said that “Edgar’s madness as a role based upon a wholly traditional
and external view of madness as demonic possession, is actually the antithesis of the true
madness of Lear.” The artificiality of Edgar’s pretended madness makes the action
rather mechanical, but the pattern of his disguise is complete in itself, ensuring a sharper
contrast with mad Lear and also a deeper pathos. Obviously Edgar’s disguise which is
related to his madness is almost mechanical and as such it is laughter-provoking.
The same mechanical role of Edgar is again found in the Dover-Cliff scene (4.6)
where Edgar further appears in the disguise of a Kentish peasant just to escort his blind
father, Gloucester to Dover,It is however, comical to note that Gloucester, being blind
therein, can hardly know that he is being escorted by his own son Edgar. Shakespeare
satirically demonstrates how a blind man is being guided by another mad man. This has
been discussed in detail^ later. The comic deceit which is explicit in Edgar’s feigned
disguise also lies in the way he deceives others by his illusionist rhetoric of speech. The
scenes representing Edgar’s disguise are, after all, apparently grotesque, incongruous and
fantastic, and thus, they bring down the flight of pathos of the tragedy.

4) Kent’s Disguise : Comic Convention

It has already been said that the Elizabethan applied the morality convention of
disguise for the sake of comic effects. In the play, Kent’s disguise is simpler than
Edgar’s but in both cases, a sense of self-protection is explicit. Like Edgar, Kent also
assumes disguise as a mode of comic deceit - a kind of defense-mechanism adopted to
escape punishment from others. It is, however, ironical to note that Kent avoids Lear in
 109

order to protect himself from being punished by him but the latter is, on the other hand,
driven out from his palace by his cruel daughters. The king has banished Kent on
account of his rash comments on the king’s wrong done to Cordelia in the matter of his
depriving her of the dues.
It is, however, curious to note that Kent, though banished by the king, is still
loyal to him. He behaves towards Lear in his distress like a faithful servant and also
serves his old master as carefully as the fool does. He is, out and out bonafide to Lear
and his love for Lear is evident in his behaviour towards Oswald who is one of the
servan^f Regan. He uses a series of invectives to Oswald and even beats him when the
latter brings the letter from Regan to disparage Lear. The way he rails on him is violent,
abusive and ludicrous:
Kent. ...... Draw you rogue, or I’ll so carbonado your shanks.....Draw, you
rascal, come your ways !
Oswald. Help ho, murder, help! (2.2.35-37).

In this play, Kent is put in the stocks by Regan on the charge of his beating
Oswald, but soon afterwards, he was released by Lear himself Lear could not recognize
Kent because he is still in disguise, and it gives the play a breath of comic levity.
“Shakespeare apparently invented Kent’s disguise borrowing from comedy, the notion of
serving the loved one incognito.” In the hovel scene, Kent serves his master in disguise
but they both are jeopardized by natural calamities to which they are equally
subordinated. In the words of Boulton : “In most of the disguises and consequent talk at
cross-purposes, so frequent in Shakespeare, there are possible bits of business which
emphasise the comicality, or occasionally, the pathos of the situation.” The
 110

Elizabethan audience is constantly kept in touch with the pathetic, safe-guarded, only by
Shakespeare’s masterful technique, from the pathos of comedy.

5) Mock-trial Scene : Comic Potentiality

In Shakespeare’s tragedies, there are so many comic interludes used at intervals
between the serious episodes. The mock-trial scene (3.6) in Kit^ Lear is one of the most
well-known comic scenes in the tragedy. It is clear in the scene that mad Lear arranges
for a mock-trial for his ungrateful daughters in the farm-house of Gloucester where the
fool and Edgar are also present with him. These three mad men gather to form the trinity
of madness and thereupon^organize a hearing against social injustice and treachery. The
scene is apparently fantastic and absurd in the light of reality of situation. The absurdity
of such scene, merged with the mockery of life, reaches a consummation in the bathos of
the tragedy.
The mock-trial scene (3.6) also emphasizes the provision for redress of the social
injustice, hypocrisy and ingratitude that go beyond the proper limit of human endurance
and capacity. The cause of Edgar’s miseries has also been fantastically identified with
that of Lear’s own. In the Mock-trial, Lear madly calls Edgar the ‘justicer’ and then the
fool the ‘philosopher’. This kind of absurd thing clearly chalks out Lear’s madness
reaching up its extremity. Let us examine the scene anatomically in order to explore its
comic potentiality:
Lear. It shall be done; I will arraign them straight.
(To Edgar) Come, sit thou here, most learned justicer.
(To Fool) Thou sapient Sir, sit here - No, you shefoxes. (3.6.16-18).
 Ill

It deserves all possible emphasis that in this mock-trial scene, Lear seeks justice
for those who are the victims of the unnatural circumstances of the world they live in.1Iie
whole scene seems to be no other than a mockery of reality that has been set against the
appearance of the situation. It also makes it clear that the mad kingbelongs to a world
where everything is set upside down and even he himself isover head andears in utter
chaos. In a fit of madness, Lear imagines the presence of his ‘pelican daughters’ in flie
trial-place but actually the things are different. In this sense, the whole trial scene seems
to be mockable, unreal and comical:
Lear. I’ll see their trial first. Bring in their evidence.
(To Edgar) Thou robed man ofjustice, take thy place.
(To Fool) And thou, his yoke-fellow of equity, Bench by his side.
(To Kent) you are 0 ’ th’ commission, sit you, too. (3.6.31-35).

“It is impossible to do more than touch on the comic ironic grotesque in Lear.
Nothing elsewhere approaches the phantasmagoric equality of the ‘Farm-house scene’,
the trial of Goneril and Regan.” The same phantasmagoria is also evident in the way
mad Lear lodges his complaints against Goneril ; “I here take my oath before this
honourable assembly. She kicked the poor king, his father.” (3.6.42) We can again hear
Lear lodging similar complaints against Regan : “Let them anatomise Regan; see what
breeds about her heart. Is there any cause in nature that makes this hardness ?” (3.6.70).
The audience may find ample scope in the scene to make a discrimination
between Goneril, Regan and their associates, and Edgar, Kent and the Fool. The very
matter of discrimination clearly chalks out a sharp contrast between the good and the evil
but actually “there is no longer any frontiers between the sublime and the ludicrous.
 112

between the sane and the insane, between man and beast.” The scene, however,
stretches comic element to its very limit, if not beyond them. Shakespeare exploits this
comic interlude in order to make a mockery of the gravity of the situation. So
Russell.A.Fraser says : “In comedy, in tragedy, Shakespeare discovers entertainment in
misappreciation.” '^^uch comic interludes can provide for the audience necessary comic
relief and entertainment but the effect sought for, whetiier hilarity or grief, depends on
the perception of tlie audience in such comic intermezzos which are used in violation of
classical decorum.

6) Dover-ClifF Scene; Comic Interpretation

The sub-plot in King Lear essentially deals with the Gloucester-story which is not
also devoid of comic interest. The Dover-Cliff scene (4.5) is the most important comic
scene infused into the pathetic story of Gloucester. It throws light on how Gloucester,
after having been blinded by Regan^Comwall^ proceeds towards Dover to commit
suicide by jumping down from the Dover-Cliff The scene pulsates with an extravagance
of absurdity and incongruity embedded in Edgar’s role to his blind father. “In no tragedy
of Shakespeare does incident and dialogue so recklessly and miraculously walk the tigjit-
rope of our pity over depths of pathos and absurdity.” This to-and-from between tragic
gloom and comic absurdity is, however, the hallmark ofiihis tragic style in King Lear.
In the Dover-Cliff scene (4.5) the disguise adopted by Edgar is central. Before
Lear, Edgar appears as a bedlam beggar bu^^sumes the disguise of a Kentish peasant to
his blind father and thus Edgar’s feigned madness has been skillfully merged with
Gloucester’s faint insanity. The audience can easily see blind Gloucester being led by
mad Edgar who has been forced by circumstances to adopt a disguise of a mad beggar.
 113

Shakespeare’s sense of humour is so vibrant in this regard ; “ ‘Tis the time’s plague
when mad men Lead the blind.” (4.1.48).
The most potential comedy of the grotesque, as evident in the scene, shows how
blind Gloucester, after having arrived at Dover-Cliff, prepares to put an end to his
anguished life. It also sounds ridiculous that Edgar convinces his blind father that they
have already reached the cliff, though they were still actually on the level ground. The
scene, as Shakespeare tries to make it, breathes a spirit of macabre humour. The risibility
of the scene consists not only in Edgar’s pattern of disguise but also in Gloucester’s
response to his madness.
We are to witness sinister humour in this scene when Gloucester prepares himself
for committing suicide by jumping down from the cliff. The potential comedy, however,
lies in the fact that Gloucester, before his deliberate suicide, prays to God and offers his
purses to Edgar, bidding him a farewell like a madman. The way he d o e s ^ is
sardonically jocular;
Gloucester. ........Go thou further off. Bid me farewell, and let me hear thee
going.
Edgar. Now fare ye well, good sir. (4.5.30-32).
It is quite obvious in the play that Edgar in this scene, marshals all comic
resources of verbal illusions. The pathos and absurdity of the scene revitalize the
revolting farce in Gloucester’s suicidal attempts that conjure up a kind of textual black-
hole. Yet the grotesque incongruities in Gloucester’s play-acting call upon all the
resources of the dramaturgy to save the grandeur of the tragedy from the risibility of the
scene so dangerously close to farcical comedy.
 114

NOTES

1. Amaresh Dutta, Shakespeare’s Tragic Vision and art, (Delhi: Kitab Mahal WD.
Ltd., 1963) p. 57.
2. Clifford Leech, Shakespeare’s Tragedies and other Studies,\950, rpt, (London:
Chatto and Windus Ltd., 1961) p. 82.
3. Arthur Sewell, Character and Society in Shakespeare, 1951, rpt, (Oxford :
Clarendon Press, 1951) p. 83.
4. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor, William Shakespeare : The complete Works,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) p. 952.
(The quotation and all subsequent references to this play are made from this
edition and they have been incorporated in the text parenthetically.)
5. Alfred Harbage, Shakespeare : The Tragedies, Twentieth Century Views, Vol-40,
G. Wilson Knight, ch, 'King Lear and the comedy of a grotesque’,
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1964) p. 132.
6 . William Rosen, Shakespeare and the Craft of Tragedy, (Cambridge : Harvard
Univ. Press, 1960) p. 50.
7. Clifford I^ech, Op. Cit, p. 83.
8. A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, (Calcutta ; Radha Publishing
House, 1997) p. 8.
9. Clifford Leech, Op. cit, p. 76.
10. Antony Brennan, Shakespeare's Dramatic Structures, (London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul Ltd., 1986) p. 142.
11. Alfred Harbage, Op. cit, p. 115.
 115

12. Susan Snyder, The Comic Matrix of Shakespeare’s ( Princeton,

N.J.; Princeton Univ. Press, 1978) p. 163.
13. Henri Fluchere, Shakespeare, Trans Guy Hamilton, (London: Longmans, Green
& Co. Ltd., 1960) p. 241.
14. G. Wilson Knight, The Wheel of Fire, 1949, rpt, (London : Methuen & Co.
Ltd., 1969) p. 76.
15. John Lawlor, The Tragic Seme in Shakespeare, (London : Chatto and Windus
Ltd., 1960) p. 162.
16. David Daiches, A Critical History of English Literature, Vol. 2, (New Delhi :
Allied Publishers Led., 1996) p. 278.
17. Allardyce Nicoll, ed, Shakespeare Survey, Vol. 13, ed., Knneth Muir, ch. Madness
in King Lear, (Cambridge; Cambridge Univ. Press, 1960) p. 33.
18. C. H. Herford, H. N. Hudson, and I. Gollancz, Introduction to Shakespeare,
(New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 1994) p. 336.
19. Wolfgang Clemen, Shakespeare’s Dramatic Art : Collected Essays,
(London ; Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1972) p. 204.
20. Alfred Harbage, op. cit, p. 127.
21. L. C. Knights, Some Shakespearean Themes, (London : Chatto & Windus Ltd.,
1959) p. 109.
22. Ruth Nevo, Comic Transformations in Shakespeare, (London : Methuen & Co.
Ltd., 1961) p. 31.
23. Granvile. H. Barker, Preface to Shakespeare, (London : B. T. Batsford
Ltd., 1930) p. 328.
 116

24. S. C. Sengupta, Shakespearean Comedy, 1950, rpt, (Delhi : Oxford Univ.

Press, 1977) p. 182.
25. Sitansu Maitra, Shakespeare's Comic Idea, (Calcutta : Firma K. L.
Mukhopadhya, 1960) p. 29.
26. S. C. Sengupta, Op. cit, p. 182.
27. Susan Snyder, Op. cit, p. 148.
28. L. C. Knights, Some Shakespearean Themes, (London ; Catto and Windus Ltd.,
1959) p. 109.
29. Sitansu Maitra, Shakespeare's Comic Idea, (Calcutta: Firma K. L. Mukhopadhya,
1960) p. 29.
30. T. S. Dorsch, Ed, Essays and Studies, (London : John Murray Publishers Ltd.,
1972) p. 96.
31. Susan Snyder, Op. cit, p. 150.
32. Bertrand Evans, Shakespeare's Tragic Practice, (Oxford ; Clarendon Press,
1979) p. 166.
33. Theodore Spencer, Shakespeare and the Nature of Man, (New York ; The
Macmillan Co. 1961) p. 136.
34. Kenneth Muir, Shakespeare Survey ed., Gary Taylor, Vol. 33, ch.. The War in
King Lear, (New Delhi: Sultan Chand & Co. Ltd., 1886) p. 37.
35. Howard Felperin, Shakespearean Representations : Minesis and Modernity in
Elizabethan Tragedy, (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1977) p. 101.
36. Susan Snyder, Op. cit, p. 149.
37. Maqorie Boulton, The Anatomy of Drama (Ludhiana : Kalyani Publishers,
1985) p. 190.
 117

38. Arthur. P. Rossiter, Angle with Horns, ed., Graham Storey, (London :
Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., 1961) p. 270.
39. Henri Fluchere, Op. cit, p. 241.
40. Russell .A. Fraser, Shakespeare's Poetics in Relation to King Lear, (London
: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1962) p. 144.
41. Alfred Harbage, Op. cit, p. 131.