伪装和替身:扮演李尔王

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Renaissance Drama Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1086/713983
J. O'rourke
{"title":"伪装和替身:扮演李尔王","authors":"J. O'rourke","doi":"10.1086/713983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"n this essay I will advance a contrarian (though not original) claim about theater history—that it is far more likely that Robert Armin, the company clown of the King’sMen, played Edgar, rather than the Fool, in the original casting of King Lear—and I will use this argument as a gateway to revisiting the familiar and widely contested hypothesis that the roles of Cordelia and the Fool were originally doubled by a boy actor. I will show how a wealth of circumstantial evidence supports the likelihood that the disguising of the character of Edgar as a Bedlam beggar served as a vehicle both for unleashing Armin’s improvisatory skills and for exploiting his cultural profile, and I contend that Armin’s portrayal of the mocknatural fool Poor Tom functions as a metatheatrical device designed to lay the groundwork for the doubling of Cordelia and the Fool. This set of conceptual castings has two significant interpretive implications: (1) Instead of Armin (as Fool) leaving the play near its midpoint, Armin as Tom is able to upstage the young actor who has usurped his usual role as the licensed court fool; and (2) when Lear is accompanied in exile not only by two disguised figures (Kent/Caius and Edgar/ Tom) but also by a doubled actor, the performative logic of the play reflects its moral logic. As the complementary devices of disguise and doubling incrementally transcend realism, they magnify the scale of the challenges Lear faces as he tries to settle his moral accounts before he dies. Lear’s serial recognition scenes with familiar but obscured figures—the disfigured Gloucester and the disguised Kent and Edgar—rehearse the logic of a morality play as they register Lear’s acknowledgments of his moral debts to his closest followers. It is always possible for Lear to penetrate the disguises and discover that Caius is really Kent and that Tom is Edgar, but a doubled Cordelia/Fool presents a challenge of a different order. Lear’s finalmisrecognition of Cordelia as “mypoor fool” (Q 24.300) ismore than","PeriodicalId":53676,"journal":{"name":"Renaissance Drama","volume":"49 1","pages":"57 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disguise and Doubling: Casting King Lear\",\"authors\":\"J. O'rourke\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/713983\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"n this essay I will advance a contrarian (though not original) claim about theater history—that it is far more likely that Robert Armin, the company clown of the King’sMen, played Edgar, rather than the Fool, in the original casting of King Lear—and I will use this argument as a gateway to revisiting the familiar and widely contested hypothesis that the roles of Cordelia and the Fool were originally doubled by a boy actor. I will show how a wealth of circumstantial evidence supports the likelihood that the disguising of the character of Edgar as a Bedlam beggar served as a vehicle both for unleashing Armin’s improvisatory skills and for exploiting his cultural profile, and I contend that Armin’s portrayal of the mocknatural fool Poor Tom functions as a metatheatrical device designed to lay the groundwork for the doubling of Cordelia and the Fool. This set of conceptual castings has two significant interpretive implications: (1) Instead of Armin (as Fool) leaving the play near its midpoint, Armin as Tom is able to upstage the young actor who has usurped his usual role as the licensed court fool; and (2) when Lear is accompanied in exile not only by two disguised figures (Kent/Caius and Edgar/ Tom) but also by a doubled actor, the performative logic of the play reflects its moral logic. As the complementary devices of disguise and doubling incrementally transcend realism, they magnify the scale of the challenges Lear faces as he tries to settle his moral accounts before he dies. Lear’s serial recognition scenes with familiar but obscured figures—the disfigured Gloucester and the disguised Kent and Edgar—rehearse the logic of a morality play as they register Lear’s acknowledgments of his moral debts to his closest followers. It is always possible for Lear to penetrate the disguises and discover that Caius is really Kent and that Tom is Edgar, but a doubled Cordelia/Fool presents a challenge of a different order. Lear’s finalmisrecognition of Cordelia as “mypoor fool” (Q 24.300) ismore than\",\"PeriodicalId\":53676,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Renaissance Drama\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"57 - 76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Renaissance Drama\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/713983\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Renaissance Drama","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/713983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这篇文章中,我将提出一个关于戏剧史的相反观点(尽管不是原创的)——在《李尔王》的最初选角中,更有可能是《国王的仆人》剧团的小丑罗伯特·阿明扮演埃德加,而不是傻瓜——我将以此为出发点,重新审视一个熟悉的、广受争议的假设,即科迪莉亚和傻瓜的角色最初是由一个男孩演员扮演的。我将展示大量的间接证据如何支持这样一种可能性,即把埃德加这个角色伪装成一个疯人院的乞丐,作为一种工具,既释放了阿明的即兴技巧,又利用了他的文化背景,我认为阿明对假傻瓜可怜的汤姆的刻画是一种元戏剧的手法,旨在为《科迪莉亚与愚人》的替身奠定基础。这组概念性的选角有两个重要的解释性含义:(1)阿明(饰演傻瓜)没有在戏演到一半的时候离开,而是饰演汤姆的阿明抢了年轻演员的风头,后者篡夺了他通常扮演的合法宫廷傻瓜的角色;(2)当李尔王在流放中不仅有两个伪装的人物(肯特/凯斯和埃德加/汤姆)陪伴,而且还有一个替身演员,戏剧的表演逻辑反映了它的道德逻辑。随着伪装和加倍的补充手段逐渐超越现实主义,它们放大了李尔王在死前试图解决道德问题时所面临的挑战的规模。李尔王一系列熟悉但模糊的人物——变形的格洛斯特和伪装的肯特和埃德加——的识别场景排练了道德剧的逻辑,因为它们记录了李尔王对他最亲密的追随者的道德债务的承认。李尔总是有可能穿透伪装,发现凯斯是真正的肯特,汤姆是埃德加,但一个双重的科迪莉亚/傻瓜提出了一个不同顺序的挑战。李尔王最后把科迪莉亚误认为是“我可怜的傻瓜”(第24章300节)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Disguise and Doubling: Casting King Lear
n this essay I will advance a contrarian (though not original) claim about theater history—that it is far more likely that Robert Armin, the company clown of the King’sMen, played Edgar, rather than the Fool, in the original casting of King Lear—and I will use this argument as a gateway to revisiting the familiar and widely contested hypothesis that the roles of Cordelia and the Fool were originally doubled by a boy actor. I will show how a wealth of circumstantial evidence supports the likelihood that the disguising of the character of Edgar as a Bedlam beggar served as a vehicle both for unleashing Armin’s improvisatory skills and for exploiting his cultural profile, and I contend that Armin’s portrayal of the mocknatural fool Poor Tom functions as a metatheatrical device designed to lay the groundwork for the doubling of Cordelia and the Fool. This set of conceptual castings has two significant interpretive implications: (1) Instead of Armin (as Fool) leaving the play near its midpoint, Armin as Tom is able to upstage the young actor who has usurped his usual role as the licensed court fool; and (2) when Lear is accompanied in exile not only by two disguised figures (Kent/Caius and Edgar/ Tom) but also by a doubled actor, the performative logic of the play reflects its moral logic. As the complementary devices of disguise and doubling incrementally transcend realism, they magnify the scale of the challenges Lear faces as he tries to settle his moral accounts before he dies. Lear’s serial recognition scenes with familiar but obscured figures—the disfigured Gloucester and the disguised Kent and Edgar—rehearse the logic of a morality play as they register Lear’s acknowledgments of his moral debts to his closest followers. It is always possible for Lear to penetrate the disguises and discover that Caius is really Kent and that Tom is Edgar, but a doubled Cordelia/Fool presents a challenge of a different order. Lear’s finalmisrecognition of Cordelia as “mypoor fool” (Q 24.300) ismore than
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Renaissance Drama
Renaissance Drama Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信