The Ludicrousness of King Lear
by Sam Zagnit
It’s surprising that Shakespeare’s King Lear is not treated as a comedy. His portrayal of a power hungry nobility only serves to mock the very monarchical system itself. Both of Lear’s elder daughters deceive their own father in order to procure his wealth of land, and Edmund the bastard cannot stop killing and lying in order to climb up the royal succession. This backstabbing nature of the monarchy is exactly what makes it so ridiculous. Most importantly, Shakespeare depicts the tragic life of King Lear, an abdicated ruler. The play centers around Lear’s struggle to maintain his subjects’ respect and his daughters’ love, all of which he loses. With these examples, Shakespeare makes a shrewd comment about the superfluousness of the ruling class, and the fate of Lear becomes a stand-in for Shakespeare’s attitude towards the “nobility.”
Shakespeare wrote King Lear around 1606, which coincides with the reign of King James I, who ascended to the throne in 1603, succeeding Elizabeth I. Although he was a supporter of the arts, James “articulated his belief in an absolutist theory of monarchy and the divine right of kings, desiring to command not only complete obedience but also complete devotion” (Bengtsson). Being that Elizabeth had previously established an equal relationship with the parliament, British government became uneasy. In addition, many Protestants, including Shakespeare himself, feared that religious persecution would start up once more as it had before Elizabeth. In fact, James passed the Popish Recusants Act, “an act to cause persons [existing Protestants] to be naturalized or restored in blood to conform [to Catholicism] and take the oath of allegiance and supremacy [to the Pope]” (Burton). From his actions, one can see how England would not be happy with this new monarch, and as a result, King Lear takes on many attitudes and opinions held by the people of England towards James I, and serves as an opportunity to express discomfort and dissent within the country.
Shakespeare provides a means of mockery in portraying the villains of the tragedy as backstabbing and negligent social climbers. Both Goneril and Regan have no love for their father, but in order to inherit the kingdom, they deceive Lear by feigning their love. Goneril suddenly loves her father “more than word can wield the / matter” (I.i.60-61), and Regan “[is] alone felicitate / In [his] dear Highness’ love” (I.i.83-84). In these portrayals, Shakespeare casts the nobility as power hungry and ruthless, caring only for their royal status. A similar instance can also be seen in Edmund’s character. Being the illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester, Edmund stops at nothing to “top the legitimate” (I.ii.21) and climb the ladder of succession. He first discredits his own brother Edgar, and then betrays his own father, making himself the Earl of Gloucester. He then continues to court both Regan and Goneril, who end up killing one another due to jealousy, and finally orders the death of both Lear and Cordelia. Slowly, Edmund has worked his way up so that he is almost king. This power-craze and social climbing clearly illustrates the behavior of the nobility during the 17th century. So obsessed with inheritance and power, nobles would stop at nothing to make sure they had the crown. In fact, when Mary, the Queen of Scots, threatened Queen Elizabeth I’s power, Elizabeth “had her imprisoned and kept under surveillance” (BBC History). Mary was eventually executed when a letter conspiring to kill Elizabeth was intercepted. Shakespeare successfully draws a parallel to the ruling class’s obsession with power and status in the play, and illustrates the frustration felt toward the monarchy. In fact, not once in the play are the subjects of the kingdom mentioned. Because the entirety of the tragedy is focused on power and succession, rather than actual troubles of the kingdom, it can be inferred that Lear’s kingdom is objectively ineffective, and incapable to rule.
The Bard continues his lampoon of the wealthy ruling class in using metaphor to demonstrate this incapability of the monarchy. Specifically, King Lear himself becomes a metaphor for the crumbling and ineffective aristocracy. He is described by his own daughter Regan as “…old. / Nature in [him] stands on the very verge/ of his confine. [He] should be ruled and led / By some discretion, that discerns [his] state / Better than [himself]” (II.iv.165 -169). The reader clearly sees that Lear is unfit to rule. He is old and senile, and cannot fully function on his own nor be depended upon to make rational decisions. This parallel serves to further exemplify the ineffectiveness of the broken monarchical system. Just like Lear, the monarchy is at the end of its life: nobles fight over who will be heir to the crown rather than actually making progress in the kingdom.
Shakespeare also uses irony of the situation to further his criticism of nobles. After Goneril refuses to see Lear, he is outraged, and does not understand why. The Fool then remarks on the truth of the situation, asking Kent to take his coxcomb. “If thou follow him,” says the Fool, “Thou must needs wear my coxcomb” (I.iv.107-108), implying that Kent would be as foolish as Lear if he were to go along with the old king. The irony here is that the “Fool” clearly sees Lear’s foolish and irrational behavior in giving his land away to the very daughters who love him the least. That Lear is unable to recognize this only serves to mock the short-sightedness of the nobility even more. In a play about the ruling class, the only wise and clear-headed one is the Fool.
Shakespeare uses The Tragedy of King Lear to ridicule the nobility and reflect a negative opinion toward the English ruling class in the 1700s. Throughout the play, the reader sees Lear’s madness and ineffectiveness manifest more and more, and always the only one who sees the truth and sheds light on the events is the Fool. Shakespeare also draws a parallel to power hungry monarchs obsessed with status and inheritance in his characterization of Goneril, Regan, and Edmund, and thus illustrates the neglect of the true purpose of government: to lead the people. In this way, The Tragedy of King Lear becomes a criticism, illustrating Shakespeare’s attitudes towards the flawed ruling class of his time.
Works Cited
Bengtsson, Frederick. “Historical Context for King Lear by William Shakespeare.” Columbia College. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. <http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1763>.
“Mary, Queen of Scots.” BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/mary_queen_of_scots>.
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.
Burton, Edwin, Edward D’Alton, and Jarvis Kelley. “Penal Laws.” The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 21 Jan.
2014. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11611c.htm>.
Nature Over All
by Joseph Morag
We are lucky, today, that the majority of the world’s nations are democracies. This has only been the case in very recent times. For the greater part of human history, society has subscribed to the belief that birth is the most important determinant of one’s future. In Elizabethan England, this was especially true. Those born into the nobility enjoyed a lifetime of privilege, while those born outside of their ranks mainly existed to serve them. A century later, the British encountered an even stricter form of this belief when they conquered India. The Hindu caste system, which dictated one’s future based on birth just as British society did, was deemed even by the English to be excessively restrictive. After gaining control of the Subcontinent, the conquerors attempted to supplant the caste system with the semblance of a meritocracy. The new subjects of the Empire, instead of embracing this imposition of a foreign culture’s values, responded with general unrest and discontent, showing that no society, no matter how unfair or prejudiced, tolerates interference well. Shakespeare’s King Lear demonstrates the same concept: that any violation of society’s conception of the natural order brings chaos, and that the only way to restore harmony is to conform to the expectations of that society.
It is important to distinguish the concept of nature present in King Lear from the imagery it invokes in modern culture of picturesque forests teeming with every sort of adorable squirrel and chipmunk imaginable. As Sarah Doncaster puts it in her essay “Representations of Nature in Shakespeare’s King Lear,” nature in Shakespeare’s hands, “is a social construct, which is utilized in order to legitimise the existing social order.” The notion that any violation of this nature causes personal upheaval and natural catastrophes is best demonstrated when looking at the play backwards. Edmund, the comically evil villain, referred to by Shakespeare in the stage directions merely as “The Bastard,” ascends to supremacy by deceiving his father, Gloucester, and framing his half brother Edgar, the legitimate heir to his father’s estate. Through fraud, he convinces Gloucester that Edgar plans to usurp him, forcing his brother to go into hiding, grievously upsetting nature. In traditional English society, Edmund, an illegitimately conceived bastard, would be exiled from the royal family on principle. For him to ascend to the throne would be inconceivable. Therefore, his bid for power is punished by death. After his duel with a disguised Edgar, he confesses to his crimes and tells his opponent “If thou’rt noble, I do forgive thee” (V. iii. 200-201). This demonstrates his return to social norms. Edmund knows, deep down, that he did not deserve his newly acquired royal status, because he was not born into it. A true noble inflicting punishment on a lowly bastard for such pretentions of greatness is the only remedy for this behavior. Edgar, by rising to the task of defeating his brother, the disruptor of nature, restores harmony to the kingdom.
The most obvious instance of natural imbalance leading to catastrophe, however, is certainly Lear’s transition from King to beggar. At the play’s onset, Lear is absolute master of his kingdom. He commands total admiration and respect from his eldest daughters, who adore him “dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty; beyond what can be valued, rich or rare; no less than life” (I. i. 58-60). These profusions, made by Goneril, are empty gestures of flattery, but they are no less than a King of Lear’s stature deserves. Some time after Lear relinquishes his estate to his daughters, however, he is degraded to the point where he must take shelter in a hovel from a storm when his own daughters refuse to house him and his knights. Lear wanders in the storm like a madman, literally yelling at it “Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! rage! blow!” (III. ii. 1). Lear addresses the weather personally, as if it was a sentient being. This behavior is not entirely a function of Lear’s madness, however. As nature and society are intertwined in Shakespeare’s writing, the storm can be seen as a manifestation of the natural and societal chaos that Lear has caused by abdicating the throne. Lear’s decline in status has plunged the elements into complete disorder, as well as his own mind. He spends the next scenes raving and tearing his garments and holding a bizarre mock trial for his unfaithful daughters. He only regains a modicum of sanity when he is rescued by Cordelia, who treats him as he deserves, giving him fresh garments and restorative medicine. When Lear wakes in her presence, he is not entirely lucid, not knowing his whereabouts and surroundings, but the doctor declares that “The great rage you see is killed in him” (IV. vii. 90-91). Once Lear is restored to his former majesty, his madness is quelled. The imbalance of nature is rectified, and consequently, the mind of nature’s king is healed.
Works Cited
Doncaster, Sarah. Representations of Nature in King Lear. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000. 6 Jan. 2014. <http://www.shakespeare-online.com/essays/learandnature.html>.
Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Lear. Ed. Louis B. Wright and Virginia L. Freund. New York: Washington Square, 1957. Print.
None So Blind
by Isabelle Leipzinger
A person’s perception is influenced by his or her character. Because of this subjectivity, there is often a disconnect between how things are perceived and reality. People often see what they want to see or hear what they want to hear. Blindness is literally defined as the inability to see, but it is also defined as “lacking perception, awareness, or discernment” (New Oxford American Dictionary). In King Lear, Shakespeare illustrates that figurative sight often is more important than the physical ability. Through Shakespeare’s deliberate language and complex characters, he demonstrates that a lack of perception can lead to impulsive decisions that eventually render a tragic demise.
In the beginning of the play, King Lear’s vanity, which is arguably one of his fatal flaws (hamartia, as defined by Aristotle) is the character trait that leads to his faulty perception. King Lear wants so badly to hear professions of love that he is unable to differentiate between honesty and dishonesty. However, it is not always clear whether King Lear has “lost this perception” or is “unwisely ignoring it” (Bradley). Even in the beginning of the play, it becomes evident that King Lear’s ability to perceive is significantly impaired. When he calls upon his daughters to profess their love in order to receive a share of his kingdom, he is pleased by Goneril’s flowery flattery, although it is clearly hyperbolic: “Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter/Dearer than eyesight, space and liberty” (I.i. 60-62). As A.C. Bradley states, “The rashness of his division of the kingdom troubles us [the readers]” and his “motive is mainly selfish” (Bradley). King Lear’s infatuation with himself leaves him satisfied with the false professions of love and blind to the less-extreme but truthful declarations of his daughter, Cordelia.
Shakespeare uses deliberate language and irony to showcase King Lear’s inability to perceive what is true and what is false. When Kent tries to convince King Lear that Lear’s older daughters were merely acting and Cordelia was actually being truthful, King Lear says, “Out of my sight!” to which Kent replies “See better, Lear, and let me still remain/The true blank of thine eye” (I. i. 169-181). This is ironic, because Lear is yelling “Out of my sight” to another person when the truth of the situation is out of Lear’s sight. A frustrated Kent yells back, “See better,” which denotes that he is imploring King Lear to see beneath the surface and not just what he wants to believe. Shakespeare illustrates through impeccable control of his diction that Lear is his own hinderance.
Shakespeare also demonstrates that a lack of perception can lead to impulsive behavior through the similarly “blind” character Gloucester. When Gloucester’s son Edmund goes to him with false news of the plan by his other son, Edgar, to take over the throne, Gloucester is aghast and immediately turns against Edgar, whom he formerly had loved and trusted. Instead of considering what he has just been told in a rational manner, Gloucester says, “Abhorred villain! Unnatural, detested, brutish Villain! Worse than brutish… Abominable villain” (I. ii. 79-82). Prior to this encounter, Gloucester had not trusted Edmund and referred to him as his “bastard” or “illegitimate son.” However, as soon as Gloucester hears something that is a potential threat to his power, he does not consider the possibility that the story of the threat could be false. Gloucester immediately sees Edmund’s “proof,” a falsified letter, as legitimate and makes rash decisions based on it. This demonstrates that Gloucester’s fear of losing power was strong enough to alter his perception, causing him to oust his actually loyal son and name his devious son his new heir. Shakespeare uses this situation to illustrate the danger of a lack of perception.
Shakespeare conveys the importance of perception and figurative sight (seeing into others’ intentions and feelings) rather than the importance of physical sight. He demonstrates that people have “blind spots,” some of which are character flaws and some of which are deliberate, that preclude them from comprehending reality. As later seen in the play, Gloucester’s hasty decision to disinherit his son Edgar based on a false perception, led to Gloucester’s ultimate death. Similarly, King Lear’s misperceptions of his children also led to thoughtless decisions that brought about his death. Even though King Lear eventually regained the ability to distinguish between appearance and reality, it was too late.
Works Cited
Bradley, A.C. “King Lear.” Shakespearian Tragedy. Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and
Macbeth. Macmillan and Co., London, 1919. Project Gutenberg. Web.
“Blind.” The New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd ed. 2011. Print.
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New
York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.
The Mockery of Royalty in King Lear
by Katia Czartorysky
The presentation of persistent incompetence of the elite class would seem unlikely in a Shakespearean tragedy. Yes, it in turn led to the expected downfall of almost all principle characters, but there seems to be another element of the play of King Lear – shameful ridicule. The repetition of dishonesty, superficiality, and blatant ignorance serves as an overwhelming theme of the dysfunction of nobility. Indeed, one of the main aspects of King Lear is the representation of royalty’s foolishness.
A clear example of the naiveness of the nobility is Regan’s hunger for power and wealth at an extent where she demonstrates little respect towards her own father – also her beneficiary. She insults his age and rudely implies that he no longer deserves the status of king and should pass it on to someone more capable. Ironically, she has the least potential for being an adequate ruler, “O sir, you are old… You should be ruled and led by some discretion that discerns your state better than yourself” (II.iv.165-169). Her shameless remark touches upon Lear’s own flaws, his deteriorating mental capacity, which contributes to the unfolding of the tragic aspect of the play. His condition hinders his ability to make logical judgments, one faulty decision being to give his power to Goneril and Regan, both inexperienced and greedy.
This portrayal of incapability may be compared to a monarch who was in rule during Shakespeare’s life, Queen Elizabeth I. Other than instigating a severe economic depression after an unsuccessful war with Spain, costing at the time’s prices millions of their currency, she also demonstrated an immense desire for maintaining wealth and power. She lived an extravagant lifestyle, indulging in expensive luxuries. When she felt that Mary, Queen of Scots, who was a likely successor and threatened her status, Elizabeth imprisoned her for 19 years. Mary was executed in 1587. Prior to the execution, Elizabeth wrote to Mary, ‘you have planned… to take my life and ruin my kingdom… I never proceeded so harshly against you’ (“Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603)”). Queen Elizabeth’s harsh treatment of those who threatened her power and her overindulgence while her people were suffering from poverty parallels to Goneril and Regan’s obsession with their power while lacking responsibility.
The Fool, a character that throughout the play is labeled as the ignorant one happens to be the only character that sees and notes the chaos occurring in Lear’s kingdom. After being abandoned, Lear is without shelter during a storm, and the Fool jests at his unfortunate circumstance, “He that has and a little tiny wit, with heigh-ho, the wind and the rain, must make content with his fortunes fit, though the rain it raineth every day” (III.ii.81-84). Not only is he remarking on Lear’s idiocy, but also implies that his hopelessness is a common occurrence when he says, “though the rain it raineth every day”. At this point of the play it is clear that failure is rampant in the kingdom’s elite class.
King Lear possesses the traditional elements of a tragic play, having a protagonist and other principle characters with fatal flaws leading to a culminating downfall. However, the constant presence of these characters acting illogically and driven with greed and incompetence raises the question of the general portrayal of their class. It is the sly, comical message between the iambic lines that is poking fun at those who view the rest of the world as mere peasants and how they irresponsibly carry the weight of governing others.
Works Cited
“Elizabeth I (r.1558-1603).” The Official Website of the British Monarchy. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2014. <http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofthemonarchy/
kingsandqueensofengland/thetudors/elizabethi.aspx>.
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear.
New York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.
The Role of Society in King Lear
by Katherine Berko
Blood gushing from stabbed eyes. Sipping poison slipped by one’s very own sister. Fathers turning against their sons. Such are the horrid outcomes of the characters in King Lear. Shakespeare has written one of the greatest tragedies of all time with this play and from the very start, has provided no cushion of happiness for his viewers. They are immediately thrust into a world of turmoil-Lear’s favorite daughter is banished by him, Gloucester is deceived by his younger son, Lear is sent into a storm by his ungrateful heirs…and the list goes on. Yet, what is it that causes these wretched consequences? Is it because there are many diabolical personalities in the play? Many mistakes made by fathers in disbelieving their trustworthy children? No. The answer is that society is ultimately responsible for the end results of the play. The world of King Lear demonstrates for the audience, by illustrating with its various characters and their doings that a society built around a social hierarchy and material wealth will always be a place of unhappiness, filled with people committing wicked actions.
Shakespeare scribbled King Lear away between the years 1603 and 1606. This was a tumultuous time because Queen Elizabeth I had died but had left no heir and no husband to seize her monarchy. Therefore, the citizens were worried and the competition for her regency was strong. In writing the play, Shakespeare broached this uneasy topic by creating the character King Lear, who is unsure of whom to pass down his power too. Thus, Shakespeare builds a setting with many of the current concerns and problems of his Elizabethan world (yet they are approached in a disguised manner). This time period in England was one where, when a person was born into his position in society, he remained there. One’s position in society meant everything-what one was expected to act like and how others treated oneself. At the top of the rigid hierarchical social pyramid were the monarchs (Lear…eventually Goneril and Regan) and below the royalty were the nobility (Gloucester and Kent), whom generally held possession of expansive lands, great amounts of wealth and were addressed elaborately with lots of deference. Money was constantly spent and acquired for, similar to today’s day and age, it was a driving factor in one’s social status (Nelson).
Once a bastard, always a bastard. Edmund was born as such (the illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester), yet refuses to conform to the standard life he is expected to lead. “Wherefore should I stand in the plague of custom, and permit the curiosity of nations to deprive me…Why bastard? Wherefore base? Legitimate Edgar I must have your land” (1.2.2-17). Here Edmund speaks out in a soliloquy to the audience about why he wants to defy the “plague of custom” and actually improve his social position. He is envious of his legitimate brother, Edgar, whom is destined to inherit all of Gloucester’s fortune and property. Just after he speaks these frustrated words he deceives his father, tricking him into believing that Edgar is plotting to kill him so that he can gain control of the family riches. Edmund’s scheme, if it goes accordingly, will get him all of which Edgar was supposed to inherit, therefore upgrading Edmund’s monetary status and societal position in the seemingly permanent set-up of the British aristocracy. Edmund, having been degraded all his life for being born from the “wrong woman’s womb”, has no other choice but to commit such an atrocity should he wish to escape the conformity of what society has destined his life to become.
Born with better strokes of luck than Edgar, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia are in-line for their father’s crown. Yet, just because one is born into a high rank of society or with a lot of money does not mean one does not crave an even higher rank or even more money. Such is the case with the eldest daughters, Goneril and Regan. At the start of the play, they lie to their father about how much they love him because they want to gain even more power and money. Cordelia on the other hand, is honest about her love for Lear and in turn, is banished. “If it be you that stir these daughters’ hearts against their father, fool me not so much to bear it tamely; touch me with noble anger and let not women’s weapons…stain my man’s cheeks” (2.4.316-320). Lear is extremely angry here because his daughters have received his inheritance and are bossing him around now, while he has stupidly sent away Cordelia, the honest daughter. Yet Lear dangled the prospect of an inheritance in front of Goneril and Regan (whom have a downfall for material wealth) and they, being from a nation that values power/money above all else, were like cats getting strings of yarn dangled in front of them-they snatched the opportunity. They were ruthless afterwards because they chose to shun their father so that they would look more powerful to the public-yet he realizes this too late.
Ultimately-Edmund would never have lied to Gloucester about Edgar, and Goneril and Regan would never have lied to Lear if the world in which they were from did not revolve around one’s social place, prosperity and power. They would have had no incentive otherwise because Edmund would not have been shamed for being a bastard and the sisters would have felt no urge to prove their growing superiority to the masses. If Edmund never deceived his father, Gloucester would never have become blind while if the sisters had never stolen their father’s trust, he would never have gone crazy, Goneril would never have poisoned Regan and committed suicide and Cordelia would not have died. Thus, the tragic parts in the tragedy would not exist just as a world without the unhappiness would be happy.
Works Cited
“King Lear: Background on Shakespeare.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/king-lear/background-on-shakespeare/488/>.
Signet Classic Edition Teacher’s Guide. Hern, Leigh Ann; Ellis, W. Gieger; Reed, Aretha J. S.
(co-eds.), Penguin. Web
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New
York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print.
“The Stucture of Elizabethan Society.” Walter Nelson. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.
<http://walternelson.com/dr/node/246>.