The purpose of this post is to get a little feedback. I wasn't able to be in class on Tuesday, when we did peer reviews, and I would love to get some input. The paper posted here is very much in a state of flux. I'm still playing around with some things (paragraph order, source placement, etc.) so it will be evolving a great deal before the final is complete. I hope someone will take the time to look at this; I would really appreciate it. Thanks!
Grace
Dayton
Dr.
Burton
ENG
385
December
6, 2016
A Grave Precedent: Historical Repetition in King Lear
When conducting a study of any piece
of literature, by any author, at any time, it is almost always possible to
detect clear and present ties to political, social, or economic climate, either
of the time period at which the piece was written, or from the years that
preceded it. Shakespeare’s King Lear
is no exception. While there are ties to the time in which Shakespeare was
writing, it is also possible to detect echoes of the past when reading the
play. These ties are present in the example of King Lear’s personal plight of a
skewed self-image in comparison with various British monarchs who ruled before
Shakespeare’s day, namely Queen Mathilde, King Richard II, and King Edward II.
Given the great similarities between these unfortunate monarchs, and the tragic
character of King Lear, the notion that Shakespeare drew inspiration from these
historical examples in order to form Lear’s character, likely as a cautionary
tale for the population and rulers of Elizabethan England. While the lives of these monarchs did not actually follow
the downward spiral of Lear, they did have similar characteristics which proved
detrimental or even disastrous to their respective reigns.
Although it is not clear
whether or not Shakespeare was thinking of these particular monarchs as a model
for King Lear, as previously stated, the similarities between Lear and these
unfortunate rulers is uncanny. Despite the differences in the rules of these
three monarchs,
Dayton 2
each had flaws and weaknesses that ultimately
weakened For instance, it becomes clear early on in the play that King Lear has
an extremely distorted self-image; although his cravings for flattery and
accolades are almost certainly indicative of a deep-rooted insecurity, Lear’s
conscious mind has created an inflated image of himself and superimposed it
over all that he says and does, making his actions irrational, impulsive, and
tragically, misguided. This is evident right from the beginning, with his
disownment of Cordelia for her truthful and direct declaration of love for Lear
in Act 1, Scene 1. Lear’s own image of himself
is so inflated that when Cordelia’s declaration of daughterly love is delivered
following the flattery-laden declarations made by her sisters, Goneril and
Regan, Lear reacts with outrage and contempt that Cordelia should love him any
less, when in reality, it is Cordelia’s confession that is the most truthful
and should be taken most seriously. This is apparent in Lear’s words to
Cordelia following her declaration:
Although we as readers are made
aware of Lear’s folly in dismissing his youngest daughter, Lear himself remains
unaware of his error for the majority of the play. In his mind, he is
Dayton 3
untouchable, and worthy of such
accolades and flattery as were delivered by Goneril and Regan. This flaw is
highlighted in Ian McKellen’s 2008 production of King Lear. Although Lear begins the play as a jovial old man, the
smallest suspected hint of doubt as to his daughter, Cordelia’s love and
admiration for him caused him to fly into a rage, beginning as a quiet fury,
and escalating into a vicious shouting match. Through this, it is clear that
Lear’s sense of pride and high opinion of himself are both very much in play,
and these two things factor greatly into his demise, as he places his trust in
the wrong hands and is eventually betrayed by those who once professed to love
him. In these tragic events, we begin to sense a trend of misplaced loyalties
and perils of foolish pride.
This
trend serves not only to facilitate Lear’s downfall, but the similar
unfortunate ends of other characters as well, particularly Goneril and Regan;
although they eventually overthrow their father and gain the land they so
desperately sought, they both lose all they have gained, as Regan is poisoned
by Goneril, who subsequently commits suicide after her lover, the treacherous
Edmund, is mortally wounded. These events demonstrate a and ear is strikingly
similar to the early British monarch, Queen Mathilde.
As the
daughter of King Henry I, Mathilde was given in political marriage to the Holy
Roman emperor at an early age; Following the death of her father and brother,
Mathilde returned to England from Germany (where she had lived from the time of
her marriage) to ascend to the throne. n this way, Lear is strikingly similar
to the early British monarch, Queen Mathilde. Following the death of her father
and brother, Mathilde returned to England from
Dayton 4
Germany (where she had lived from
an early age as part of a political marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor until
his death) to ascend to the throne. However, although she was entitled to rule,
the people ousted her after she proved to be a distant, more autocratic ruler
(behavior learned as an empress in Germany) whereas the English people enjoyed
at least a small amount of control over their monarch—the king, or in this
case, queen, had to be acclaimed by the people in order to remain in power.
When the English people refused to accept Mathilde as queen after her imperious
behavior towards them, Mathilde was forced to fight unsuccessfully for many
years to return to the throne. Alan Eieria put it this way in his 2004
documentary series entitled, “The Kings and Queens of England”.
“She [Mathilde]
behaved imperiously, which may mean ‘magnificently’ in German, but meant
‘intolrably’ in English.” (Eieria, Alan)
Meanwhile,
the country was plunged into chaos as conflict and rebellion broke out against
Mathilde and her unpopular reignAs it is, she lost her crown due to a fatal
combination of unchecked pride and ill-founded loyalties. When it mattered
most, her supposed allies stabbed her in the back, and she was unable to oppose
them and take back her father’s throne. Perhaps if Mathilde had been more aware
of the altered reality of her new situation as Queen of England, she would have
behaved differently and been able to retain her kingdom.
This
overly exaggerated self-importance we see in King Lear is also quite similar to
the behavior of King Richard II. Richard, who had ascended to the throne at the
age of 10, and was successfully suppressing rebellions (Namely the Peasant’s
Revolt of 1381) by 14, began to take
Dayton 5
on a grandiose view of himself,
and behaved tyrannically, leading to further rebellions, which resulted in his
eventual overthrow by Henry Bolingbroke in 1399. Although it is almost certain
that Richard began well enough, by the end of his reign, he was arguably out of
touch with the reality of his situation, which allowed for his overthrow to be
possible. Likewise, King Lear displays a similar distance from the reality of
his situation, which unfortunately, contributed greatly to his fall from
greatness. This is exhibited well in Act 3, Scene 4, when King Lear marvels at
the situations of many poor citizens of his kingdom:
“Poor naked wretches, wherso'er you are,
That bide the pelting of this pitiless storm,
How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides,
Your loo'd and
window'd raggedness, defend you
From seasons such as these?” (Act III, Scene IV,
Lines 28-32)
In the Trinity Theater Company’s production of King Lear, Michael Elliot interprets the
role of Lear with a sense of awe. He still does not seem to pity the “poor
naked wretches”, as it were, but allows for the The fact that Lear was, to this
point, unaware of the poverty of his population speaks to his ignorance and
overall distance from the reality of his situation and that of his kingdom. Perhaps
it is at this point that Lear reaches one of his lowest points in the play, as
he realizes in his banishment that he has misjudged not only his filial
relationship to Regan and Goneril, but also the conditions in which his
subjects live. It is in this moment that we can understand what Lear is going
through as the basic emotions of fear, wonder, and shock come
Dayton 6
together to form the bizarre amalgamation of
human experience which so often accompanies deep personal growth. And yet, so
much of the inner workings of the play remain undefined. Critic and scholar, Morris
Weitz, put it this way. “It is generally admitted that King Lear is the most baffling of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Not that
any of them is not full of difficulties, but King Lear, unlike the others…has yielded no convincing reading.” (Weitz,
Morris)
Thus, much like the small nuances and emotional
intricacies of history and those who play a role in its development, much about
Lear remains unclear; while in many situations this could be frustrating to
readers and scholars who wish to understand and interpret the play, it is this
uncertainty that makes it more feasible and relatable. Rather than being viewed
as just another story, it becomes more like a historical account.
One
final example of Lear’s situation in comparison to actual British monarchs can
be found in the ill-fated rule of Edward II. Edward had the misfortune to
follow his legendary father to the throne. Edward II simply was not his father.
He proved to be a disappointment to the monarchy, not only in military and
political matters, but also in personal ones. Although he married Isabella of
France, it was apparent to all that he harbored homosexual attractions to his
squire, Piers Gaveston. This was a problem in the kingdom, not to mention in
his marriage. Eventually, Edward was ousted from the throne by his own wife,
Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer, supported by a faction of angry
Englishmen. By all accounts, he seems to have been completely blindsided by the
betrayal. After the coup, Edward spent the rest of his life in prison, where it
is said Isabella eventually ordered his murder. Had he paid more attention to
Dayton 7
his wife, and been more aware of the agitation his
actions were causing within the kingdom, he could have possibly averted or at
least delayed his own demise. As with Edward, King Lear experienced a betrayal
within his family, and was utterly unaware of it until it was too late. Had he
paid a bit more attention to his family situation, he might have been able to
alter his course of action and avert tragedy.
As previously
stated, it is not possible to determine for certain if Shakespeare actually
took any inspiration for his character of King Lear. However, the similarities
between Lear and these three particular monarchs of early England are
undeniable, making the theory that Shakespeare drew on Britain’s history to
formulate King Lear’s character, complete with the tragic sense of illusion
about one’s self. Thus, it seems apparent that Lear’s doomed character was
indeed founded on a three-fold precedent, drawn from the misfortunes of early
British rulers in an attempt to remind the Elizabethan population of past misfortunes,
and by so doing,
Dayton 8
Bibliography
Shakespeare, William. King Lear.
Ereira, Alan. “Kings and Queens of England”
(Documentary Series, BBC, 2004)
McKellen, Ian. King Lear (2008)
Elliot, Michael. King Lear (Trinity Theater Company)
Background Research
Pearsall, Ronald. Kings and Queens: A History of the British
Monarchy. Todtri, 1998.
Greaves, Richard, L. Society and Religion in Elizabethan
England. University of Minnesota Press, 1981.
