It shows deep thoughtfulness that you are considering the
            character of the Fool in this way, for this is the kind of questioning that has kept
            scholars discussing and analyzing this (and all of Shakespeare's plays!) through the
            centuries.
However, if you are interested in a definitive
            answer, then I'm afraid you'll simply have to rely on the literal evidence of the text. 
            And, as far as characters in his plays, Shakespeare was clear, obvious and direct.  If a
            character appears onstage and is visible to all, then that character holds conversation
            and is included in the action.  And this is true for the
            Fool.
If Shakespeare, on the other hand, meant a character
            to be an apparition or visible only to one character, then that is made very obvious in
            the text.  In Macbeth, the ghost of Banquo appears at Macbeth's
            banquet, but it is unarguably clear from the words that the other thanes and Lady
            Macbeth speak that Macbeth is the only one who sees the
            ghost.
In Hamlet, the ghost of his
            father is visible and audible to him but not Gertrude, when he visits her bedroom in Act
            III, and Shakespeare makes sure the audience knows this by the words that Hamlet and
            Gertrude speak to each other.  And since Shakespeare does not have any character in King
            Lear remark about the King's imaginary Fool, then we must assume that he is as real as
            any other character onstage.
I'm afraid that there's simply
            no evidence for a playwright in the Renaissance writing anything that is meant to be
            "ambiguous" or that contains "subtext" of any kind.  These are modern inventions and,
            while it is tempting to apply our modern methods of analyses to Shakespeare's plays (and
            can provide very interesting points of departure when staging the plays), there is
            absolutely no evidence to support any supposition that Shakespeare had any such "hidden"
            agendas in mind.
The upshot here is that if Shakespeare had
            meant for the Fool to be a figment of Lear's imagination he would have made this fact
            quite obvious in the language that the other characters speak.  However, this is also a
            very interesting concept to utilize when considering staging the play, and I encourage
            you to stage a scene for your classmates to test it out!
No comments:
Post a Comment