Gender and Class Inversion in Shakespeare's Play King Lear - Essay Example

Gender and Inversion within King Lear Using Alan Durband’s Translation of William Shakespeare “King Lear” Published by Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd. 1986 To understand the inversion of gender and class roles imbedded in Shakespeare’s King Lear, one must understand early modern expectations of both personal and political behavior. This was a time when patriarchal views dominated society. Men were the divinely chosen leaders of wealth and home. Women were the ornamental treasure whose chastity and loyalty determined their worth in society. In terms of class distinctions- the gentry were wealthy, well educated, and wise; the poor were uneducated laborers. In King Lear Shakespeare uses both class and gender inversions in order to exemplify the repercussions of placing power and greed over relationships and loyalty. While no poor character is introduced as having the traditional characteristics of the gentry, or is royalty always with the charm of the destitute, Shakespeare’s class in inversions are quite blunt, and we follow dramatic falls in class that seem to question who is better off. The traditional role of the Fool in an English court was of servant allowed to speak his mind ridicule whomever he pleased for the entertainment of the King. While very actions could be very brash, they were always at the mercy of the court and never taken seriously. Shakespeare used this role as a confidant for King Lear after he falls victim to his daughters. He is the voice of truth when King Lear decides to move to Regan after Goneril threatens to downsize his retinue (Act One, scene 4), in telling his not expect better treatment: Fool: “Shalt see thy other daughter will use thee kindly; for though she’s as like this as a crab’s like an apple, yet I can tell what I can tell.” In addition to being the King’s confidant, Shakespeare uses the character of the fool as the one delivering moral lessons to the audience. His songs speak of loyalty, restraint, and duty- all topics that if broached by a fool at the time no one would pay attention to. In using the Fool as a moral compass Shakespeare inverts his normal role as entertainment to a teacher- the fool is wiser than this royal house. Within this play we see two members of the gentry fall from grace. King Lear begins as the typical ideal king- strong, fair, and level headed. He then does something foolish and self-centered. In deciding how to divide his wealth among his daughters, he asks them to tell him how much they love him as a caveat to his decision. His daughters Goneril and Regan shower Lear with lies ( something a proper Lady should never do) and Cordelia, the daughter who has always shown her love stays silent (Act One, Scene 1). His need to hear flowery words and disregard of the actions of his children in the past was a foolish mistake- the heart of this work. His mistake costs him more than the crown- it drives him to poverty, madness, and ultimately death. It is an inversion of class meant to warn against self-righteousness. The second fall is that of Edgar: Betrayed by Edmound and chased out of his normal place he sought refuge in going into hiding as a poor madman. In this guise, he befriends King Lear in his down trodden state. Now, while Edgar is pretending to be mad he retains the qualities of nobleman- He is loyal to his father, his country, and Lord. He even describes the morals one should have (Act Three, Scene 4): Edgar: Take head o’th’foul fiend. Obey thy parent: keep thy word justly; swear not; commit not with a man’s sworn spouse; set not thy heart on proud array…” The inversion here is the juxtaposition of Edgar’s portrayed state (a poor madman) and these noble ideals. These traits stand out more because of it. Edgar has been betrayed by brother and father and is still just. Perhaps that is why he is one of the few left alive in the end. From opening scene Shakespeare inverts class ideals of his time with his character development to force his audience to face flaws in human character. A perfect example is how we begin the play: with an introduction of Kent and Gloucester two Earls of favor in King Lear’s Court. Immediately we are shown Edmound- Gloucester’s illegitimate son. We learn that the Earl has had to explain Edmound’s heritage so much that he is no longer embarrassed by it. However the person he finds at fault for this situation is anyone but himself ( Act One, Scene 1). Gloucester’s denial of fault is a subtle example of hubris- self-righteous pride. It is type of pride that is a fault for the gentry of 16th century England. Looking at the other side of the coin, a man in Edmound’s position in real life would be expected to simply accept his lot and be grateful for any acknowledgement that his father give him. As we know, Edmound’s greed causes him to betray his brother and father- ultimately leading to his death. Gloucester hardly comes away unscathed- for his hubris and distrust of his elder son he follows a path where he ends up losing his eyes and endures much suffering. This however, is just a side story to the most starling inversions of this play. The characters of Goneril and Regan are, in every sense, the opposite of what ladies in their positions were supposed to be at this time. As mentioned earlier women in 17th century England were loyal, chaste, and virtuous; more so for royalty as their worth was judged on these traits. These two roles are conniving, harsh, lacking respect, selfish and adulterous. To begin with, they shower their father with praise in order to be assured portions of his estate, only to at the end of the scene speak among themselves about their father as a troublesome burden (Act One, Scene 1): REGAN: Tis the infirmity of his age: yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself. GONERIL: The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash; then must we look to receive from his age, not alone the imperfections of long-engraffed condition, but therewithal the unruly waywardness that infirm and choleric years bring with them. Right away we are shown that King Lear made a deathly mistake in entrusting these two as the stewardesses of his estate. Instead of honoring him they treat his old age as a sign of weakness- using this chance to pounce. They begin by culling his retinue, eventually telling the king he has no need for any. Regan herself is so bold as to tell King Lear he is old, at the end of his life, and in need of being governed by someone wiser- who know him better than he does himself ( Act Two, Scene 4). That is a statement and attitude unheard of by a Lady. It does not end there the cruelty of Regan is almost glorified in Act Three, Scene 7 when she not only calls for the blinding of Gloucester, but skills a servant with a sword for talking back. It is an action that speaks volumes as it shows she has no fear of combat, is willing to kill, and does not shy away from violence. What of Goneril? Here relationship with Albany speaks volumes contradictions of her gender expectations and her character. She calls her husband “mild” and states “…“I must change names at home, and give the distaff into my husband’s hands.”...” (Act Four, Scene 2). It is a clear declaration of her expectation to dominate her household. For his part Albany does not trust her – calling her vile and filth. This leads to actual verbal fights between them. Women of 17th century England did not talk back to their husbands or publically express doubts of their lord’s manhood. In the end both women also betrayed their marriage vows for Emound. After Goneril’s love letter exposed the whole thing, we find jealousy drove Goneril to poison Regan then stab herself. Edmound then confesses to being engaged to them both. They died- a just ending to characters so contradictory to their expected gender roles. On one hand you could see these characters as the instruments of punishment for King Lear’s pride especially as Cordelia- the one virtuous child- dies entangled in this web as well. It seems however, that these roles are too robust to simply be conduits for karma. These are so developed and deep in their opposition to societal expectations of the time- that they must also contribute to the greater moral of the piece: that the pursuit of power at the expense of duty corrupts everyone. The juxtaposition of character and status/gender is the inversion that meant as behavior lessons to the audience. A warning from Shakespeare’s time: behave self-righteously and the rules of the world will not protect you from your downfall. Shakespeare seems to have seen his world as rules and expectations that not everyone can live up to. Though society, no matter the period, will always try. Read More