Gloriela Iguina- Colón
Ms. Healy
AP Literature
In King Lear, William Shakespeare explores many elements of 16th-century society, especially the monarchy, which was disintegrating and in political tumult during the 16th century, instrumental in English identity. At the top of the hierarchy was the King. A hegemonic symbol of power and order, the King was the head of state and head of the royal family. This play examines the necessity of the King and the social order by depicting a world in which this status quo is challenged. The evolving social status of the characters in King Lear is a catalyst for personal anagnorisis. King Lear’s decline is due to the precarious foundations of his identity, which he progressively discovers due to his continually degraded social status. He struggles to balance his roles of being king and a father. As they are both gradually diminished, Shakespeare portrays King Lear’s identity loss: his kingship, his daughters and, eventually, his mind. These losses, however, provoke him to explore and realize who he truly is.
King Lear’s decision to relinquish his responsibilities as monarch to his daughters and their husbands trigger his decline as king and as a person. He renounces his duties as king but requests to maintain his title and entourage. “Ourself, by monthly course,/With reservation of an hundred knights/By you to be sustained, shall our abode/Make with you by due turns. Only shall we retain/ The name, and all th’ additions to a king./The sway, revenue, execution of the rest,/ Belovèd sons, be yours; which to confirm,/This coronet part between you” (1.1.134-141). By dividing up his kingdom and relinquishing his power, he arrogantly assumes that his old age allows him to be king without the responsibilities. The mere title of King along with his diminishing entourage of knights and servants, as per his daughters’ requests, are now the only remainders of his life as monarch. The Fool, a character who is deceptively wise, uses a genius metaphor comparing an egg to Lear’s naïve, unwise decision to give up his throne and a daughter, “Why—after I have cut the egg i’ th’ middle and eat up the meat—the two crowns of the egg. When thou clovest thy crown i’ th’ middle, and gavest away both parts… Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gavest thy golden one away” (1.4.143-148). As the Fool cynically states, Lear has taken out the middle of the egg and is left with the “crown” of the egg. The middle, the yolk, contains the substance and nutrients of the egg; without it, the egg is incomplete. He elucidates the fact that Lear’s abdication of the throne was commensurate with giving himself away. His whole life, his identity had been built upon his role as King, now, without that role, he had diminished himself. King Lear has given away the essence of who he was as king and as a person. The Fool goes on to say, “I am better than thou art now. I am a fool. Thou art nothing” (1.4.177-179). This is a very powerful statement, as it highlights Lear’s personal degradation and social decline. Throughout the play, the Fool offers prophetical, complex and simultaneously seemingly foolish insight and advice. The presence of the Fool makes the reader question society’s definition of wisdom and social status. The Fool is one of the very few who remain loyal to Lear and seem to have the King’s best interest in mind. The Fool, one of the characters with lowest social standing, compares himself to King Lear, once the epitome of power and status. His conclusion confirms the catastrophically deleterious impact the abdication of the throne and exiling Cordelia has had on Lear. In King Lear, the social order is completely violated, thus destroying the hierarchy that maintained everything in its place. Destruction and tragedy ensued when this was challenged. The King and the Fool becoming one entity demonstrates the complete annihilation of the status quo.
Lear’s royal life was one of opulence, power, and luxury; once dethroned, the gradual loss of his material possessions catalyzes his evolution into a more introspective man. His daughters, Goneril and Regan question his need to have an entourage now that he is not king. Lear responds to Regan, “O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars. Are in the poorest thing superfluous. Allow not nature more than nature needs, Man’s life’s as cheap as beast’s. Thou art a lady; If only to go warm were gorgeous, Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear’st, Which scarcely keeps thee warm” (2.4.261-267). This is representative of the culture that existed in 16th century England, one in which the external and outward appearances were important in defining a person’s status which was commensurate with their identity. Unlike his daughters who continue privileged lifestyles, Lear is being stripped of his dignity, as he finds himself at the mercy of his daughters. Lear further explores what makes one human when he is subjected to homelessness after his daughters, Goneril and Regan, lock him out of the castle during a raging storm. “Unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art.— Off, off, you lendings! Come. Unbutton here” (3.4.102-104). The contrast of his beautifully, yet unpractically, clothed daughters to the near nakedness of Poor Tom, an insane beggar who was once a member of the court, is revelatory. It mirrors Lear’s evolution from a life of luxury to a life of necessity; He goes from being King in divine right to being homeless in ungodly conditions (Doncaster). Lear examines that which sets people apart from animals. The social hierarchy and social customs were necessary to distinguish man from animal; however, Lear becomes more compassionate and empathetic towards poor people’s situations. His loss of identity has engendered a sense of humanity. He shifts his focus from the superficial to the internal aspect of the human experience, feelings of love, loyalty and empathy.
King Lear’s relationships with his daughters change throughout the play are most crucial in his identity and in his eventual descent into insanity. Unlike many of Shakespeare’s plays, King Lear starts in the middle of a transitional moment in the plot. The protagonist is quickly introduced and his plan is promptly presented. This parallels King Lear’s rash thought process behind giving up his authority as head of state. After a lifetime as king and as a father, he bases this monumental decision upon the spontaneous professions of love from his daughters, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. “Tell me, my daughters,/ (Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state)/ Which of you shall we say doth love us most/ That we our largest bounty may extend/ Where nature doth with merit challenge?” (1.1.47-52). King Lear here confirms that his daughters’ love for him will be determined by their unfounded and, possibly, deceitful articulation of their love rather than consistent displays of it. As King, his decision should have been based on a pragmatic analysis of which of his daughters and their husbands was more apt to inherit the throne, and with it the fate of thousands of people whose lives were under the King’s jurisdiction. His arrogance superseded his duty to the English people. His flaw was in not being able to distinguish his role as a father and his role as King. King Lear placed his identity in the opinion of others. He erroneously and tragically confused filial love with adulation. This character flaw leads him to disown Cordelia, his youngest daughter who honestly declares her love, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave/ My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty/According to my bond, no more nor less” (1.1.91-93). His conceit blinds him from the truth that Cordelia’s declaration of love is the most loving, as it is honest. His inability to see her love for him through her actions, and not her words, however, does not last. “O most small fault, how ugly didst thou in Cordelia show, Which like an engine, wrenched my frame of nature/ From the fixed place, drew from my heart all love/ And added to the gall! O Lear, Lear, Lear!” (1.4.257-260). This short monologue, although succinct, encapsulates the frustration and desperation Lear now feels as he realizes that he exiled his only daughter who was loyal and respectful. He divulges to the reader that his relationship with Cordelia was commensurate with his identity as a man. As he says very eloquently, Cordelia “wrenched from his frame of nature” that which was most vital for him; his very self worth was placed, based and founded on his daughter’s love.
His evolution out of ignorance is ironically that which drives him to insanity. He discovers that Goneril’s and Regan’s love for him is a farce while also realizing the indestructible bond between fathers and daughters. “…yet thou art my flesh, my blood, my daughter—/Or rather a disease that’s in my flesh,/Which I must needs call mine. Thou art a boil,/A plague-sore or embossèd carbuncle/ In my corrupted blood” (2.4.214-220). He articulates the undeniable connection that will forever torment him. This realization catalyzes his insanity. “Does any here know me? Why, this is not Lear./ Doth Lear walk thus? Speak thus? Where are his eyes?/… /Who is it that can tell me who I am?” (1.4. 212-218). These series of questions revisits the idea that Lear has placed all his self worth in others. Walking and talking are two of the most basic aspects of human behavior; Lear is, thus, questioning his very humanity. The allusion to his eyes is symbolic for being “blind”, or oblivious, to his daughters’ loyalty. Unable to answer his own questions, the Fool responds, “Lear’s shadow” to which Lear responds, “I would learn that. For by the marks/ Of sovereignty, knowledge, and reason/ I should be false persuaded I had daughters” (1.4. 213-222). The Fool implies that Lear is only a symbol of what used to be. Everything that made him Lear, his kingship and his daughters, are gone. Lear continues by saying that the presence of his daughters in his life is doubtful, and, thus, his role as a father is also dubious. This dialogue confirms that Goneril’s and Regan’s betrayal, and Cordelia’s exile, have diluted Lear’s essence. His identity along with his daughters is an illusion.
Shakespeare explores the many ironies of life by challenging the very foundations of 16th century English society. King Lear is the vessel through which Shakespeare challenges the materialist culture, which existed then and continues to exist in the 21st century. Humans tend to place their most priceless possessions, their morals and values, in those that are expendable, such as clothes and houses. The very internal characteristics which define humans are in constant struggle with the external aspects that people preserve in order to distinguish themselves from the rest of the the animal kingdom while further fitting into human civilization. There is a fine line between what is humanizing and dehumanizing when, like Lear, people decide to prioritize social status and superficiality in their identity.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Crowther, John, ed. “No Fear King Lear.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web. 14 Jan. 2014.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/gperf/episodes/king-lear/background-on-shakespeare/488/
Doncaster, Sarah. Representations of Nature in King Lear. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000. (January 9, 2013) < http://www.shakespeareonline.com/essays/learandnature.html>