King Lear by William Shakespeare - Research Paper Example

 King Lear by William Shakespeare The plays of William Shakespeare have had an ongoing and significant effect on English literature, and in fact world literature for nearly four hundred years now. In their language, characters, themes and performance they have affected the lives of many millions of people. One of the most widely performed and studied of these plays is “King Lear”. The play is one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies, dealing with a man raised to great heights – Lear, the protagonist, is the king, a man in his old age, and a father (Kossick, 1999: 21) – who through poor choices, has to lose his power, and indeed his sanity before he is able to understand what is important in life. In the words of an advertiser, publicizing a performance of the play: “He achieves a life without ‘lendings’ – the accumulated material possessions we cling to for meaning – or the need of them” (Bardeweb.net, Date Unknown). Throughout the play, the inversion of good and evil so apparent in Lear’s mind comes to permeate the characters and the action of the play. Only in the very final scenes is order restored, the evildoers punished, and at least for the time being, can good triumph. But good and the restoration of order have come too late for Lear and Cordelia (from: Theatrehistory.com, Date unknown). As a comment on the social context in which Shakespeare wrote the play, this restoration of order was threatening not to arrive, until the ascension of James I to the throne of England, and presenting the hope that England and Scotland would be unified (Jones, 1977: 212-215). Before the ascension of James I, the threat of civil war was widespread. Shakespeare alludes to this several times in “King Lear”. Muir (1947:64-66) comments that Shakespeare believed that personal immorality in the ruling class is a disease that spreads evil throughout society, in extreme cases causing it to fall apart. By the close of the play, Britain is rescued from the evil in its leadership, represented by the two sisters, civil war in Britain is avoided, and the French invasion caused by Lear's lack of judgment is defeated by Albany. While Shakespeare does not oversimplify the state of society, it may very well have been that an Elizabethan audience would have understood the positive end of the play to reflect the future under James I. The unfolding of Lear’s story, however, serves to emphasize Shakespeare’s understanding of human psychological, social and political events. Lear’s mistake is to divide his wealth, land and power between his three daughters based on how much his daughters say they love him: “Which of you shall we say doth love us most? …Which of you shall say you love me most that my largest bounty of reward may extend…” (I i 51-55). He does not, however, realize the extent to which greed can pervert human nature. His decision to trust the insincerely expressed, flattering statements of Goneril and Regan, over the honest words of Cordelia set up the central tragedy of the play. It is not, however, only a tragedy of family. Pride, ingratitude and kingship serve to strengthen the audience’s awareness of the tragic consequences of Lear’s choices. Lear, as the king, can never be sure that the love he receives is selfless (Muir, 1947: 64). His daughters, who should love him selflessly, show him both insincere affection and genuine affection. He cannot distinguish and banishes Cordelia when she refuses to flatter him. This is a mistake stemming from family, his own pride, his daughters’ (Goneril and Regan) ingratitude, and kingship. It is also an error that highlights perhaps the most important theme of the play: an examination of parent-child relationships. Collingwood (1938: 295) comments that, “apart from the idea of the family, intellectually conceived as a principle of morality, the tragedy of Lear would not exist.” Children are both a threat and a support in old age, and in everyday life, this contrast plays out among all humans. Children should leave their parents, yet the support of children for old family members is necessary. When the children are as immoral as the two daughters of Lear, the selfishness with which children have to abandon their parents and lead their own lives is magnified (Muir, 1972: xxii). The evil unleashed when Lear cedes power to his two daughters is evidence of another of Shakespeare’s central concerns, not only in this play: Appearance vs. Reality. Because of Goneril and Regan’s betrayal of their father, and Lear’s inability to understand that betrayal, the very universal order is disturbed. The King is irrational, in fact insane; the country is thrown into civil and external war; the natural order of human relationships is disturbed. Central to the idea of Shakespearian tragedy, though, is also the necessity for the hero to become a “tragic hero” able to recognize and accept his failings before he dies (Jones, 1977: 178). In the play, the suffering that Lear undergoes leads to his redemption in the view of the audience. He has recognized that his choices and attitudes were wrong. In the sub-plot (to be more fully noted later in this essay) Gloucester is ably to die having found resolution. Gloucester’s heart “burst smilingly” (V iii 198). This is, however, also to be considered in the light of Cordelia’s death – Shakespeare does not imply that the world has become a simple place, where goodness can triumph completely. Rather, the world is a place in which even the greatest of people can fall prey to evil. It is the position of Lear – a king in the time when the “Divine Right of Kings” was unquestioned (Elton, 1966: 38) – which gives rise to this apparent chaos. He is characterized as a king who does not anticipate anything other than absolute devotion from his followers, including his daughters. He does not separate his personal power from his material position, according to Prior (1973: 77) and thus, when he loses the position as powerful, authoritarian, egotistical king, he descends into the madness of the heath scenes. It is only through his madness that he can rediscover his humanity. By reuniting with Cordelia he is able to recognize the value of mutual forgiveness, patience and loyalty: “We two alone will sing like birds i’th’cage/ When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down, / and ask of thee forgiveness (V viii 9-11). The play has resolved family and traditional relationships, and Shakespeare has revealed that Lear has been able to change from the morally insane king unable to distinguish between good and evil even in his daughters, into a wiser old man, aware of the value of humanity and goodness. He is, briefly, able to distinguish between the appearance of people and situations, and their reality. In order to sustain the examination of the changes to Lear and the violent and chaotic results of his choices; the psychological changes he experiences; and the corrupt, disordered state of society, the structure of the play and its language are significant. The story of a King Lear had definitely been seen in London before Shakespeare produced his tragedy. "The true Chronicle History of King Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan and Cordelia, as it hath been divers and sundry times lately acted," was printed, probably for the first time, in 1605 (Jones, 1977: 21). The play is most likely a conflation of two texts: “The History of King Lear” and “The Tragedy of King Lear” (Kossick, 1999: xx) but Shakespeare chose to present a play in which there are no moral certainties. He altered previous versions of the story in one significant way, enabling the tragedy that has affected audiences so deeply. In the many versions of this story that preceded Shakespeare's, Lear does not go mad, but recovers his throne and leaves it to Cordelia: “Shakespeare plainly felt that life makes more strenuous demands than a happy ending can illustrate, and at the core of his story is human failing” (hudsonshakespeare.com, Date unknown). In the standard structure of Shakespeare’s plays, “King Lear” is separated into five Acts (Baldwin, 1947: 3-5). But the sub-plot and events unrelated to Lear’s progression allow the audience to follow the action of the play – the events surrounding Edgar and Gloucester, and the actions of Edmund, Regan and Goneril provide a sense of the sequence of events (from: hudsonshakespeare.org, Date unknown). These sub-plots also serve to keep clear in the audience’s minds what the moral high-ground is that Shakespeare wants to present. Lear’s fall from power, his madness, isolation and eventual restoration are not presented as sequentially following one another. This unusual structure is carried further in the choices Shakespeare makes in language usage. The tone of the play varies widely, and is often disjointed. Lear’s ramblings when he is insane are at times rational and wise, at times illogical and disconnected, and at times humorous. Importantly, also, the structural devices Shakespeare employs are not usual for his tragedies. Elements traditionally associated with comedy appear: a double plot; the use of a jester; the use of disguise; changes in setting from royal court to country; contrasting youth and age (from: hudsonshakespeare.org, Date unknown). The tragedy associated with Lear as a tragic hero seem to be undercut and made absurd by some of these comedic devices. Further, the traditional Shakespearian language structure – Iambic Pentameter and rhyme structure to create free verse (Fowler, 1930: 608 and 504-506) – is at times altered to show the contrasts between the disguised character and the true character. Kent, for instance, announces that he will 'other accents borrow / that can my speech defuse' (I iv 1-2), and thereafter only speaks in verse to Lear. Edgar also uses prose as Tom O'Bedlam but speaks poetry as himself and the hypocritical sisters use verse to flatter their father and prose to plot against him. It is clear that evil is presented fully in this play, even in the very language used by Shakespeare. The character, Lear, dominates the play. Despite the complexities of plot, the deviance or loyalty of the other characters, it is in the language and thoughts of Lear that Shakespeare’s dramatic genius emerges. An actor, Edwin Forrest, is reported to have said, after being complimented on how well he had played Lear: “Play Lear! What do you mean, sir? I do not play Lear! I play Hamlet, Richard, Shylock, Virginius, but by God, sir, I am Lear.” (The Methuen Book of Shakespeare Anecdotes, 1992: 67). Evil does not triumph in “King Lear”. Instead, it is clear after a study or viewing of the play the desire for power and wealth is self-destructive. Even when good appears to have won, however, evil still waits within all people to undo any of the positive that good may have done. The complexity of Lear’s journey of self-discovery is a lesson to the audience, but not a simple one. It may well be that, as has been claimed, “King Lear” is Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy. Certainly it is so that this is a complex, insightful and devastating view into the human psyche. References (Text) Baldwin, T.W. (1947) William Shakespeare’s Five-Act Structure London: Oxford Press Collingwood, R.G. (1938) The Principles of Art London and New York: Methuen Elton, R. (1966) King Lear and the Gods Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Fowler, H.W. (1930) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage Oxford: Humphrey Milford Jones, E. (1977) The Origins of Shakespeare Oxford: Oxford University Press Kossick, S.D. (Ed) (1999) King Lear Pretoria: De Jager Haum Muir, K. (Ed) (1972) “King Lear” in The Arden Shakespeare Series London and New York: Methuen Muir, K. (1947) “Authority and Justice” in Modern Quarterly Miscellany London: Oxford Press: 64-66 Prior, M.E. (1973) The Drama of Power Evanston: Evanston Press The Methuen Book of Shakespeare Anecdotes (1992) St Ives: Clay Ltd (Internet) “An analysis and history of the play by Shakespeare” available at TheatreHistory.com at http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/kinglear001.html accessed June 8, 2011 “Commentary” at Hudson Shakespeare.org available at http://hudsonshakespeare.org/Shakespeare%20Library/Commentaries/comm_king_lear.htm accessed June 7, 2011 “Commentary” available at Shakespeare Resource Center at http://www.bardweb.net/plays/lear.html accessed June 8, 2011 “King Lear commentary” at Absolute Shakespeare.com available at http://www.absoluteshakespeare.com/guides/king_lear/commentary/act_i.htm accessed June 8, 2011 “The Madness of King Lear” available at TheatreHistory.com at http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/kinglear001.html accessed June 8, 2011 “William Shakespeare, Directed by Dominic Cuskern and Sidney Fortner” available at Theatreonline.com at http://www.theateronline.com/pb.xzc?PK=21446 accessed June 10, 2011   Read More