Social order seems to be the biggest theme present in King Lear. It is the one theme whereby most of the other major themes stem off of. The father-daughter relationship where the daughter's father is also her lord and king. The king-fool relationship that reverses any conventional preconceptions about a fool's role in a king's court. And there are probably a bunch others that I've forgotten. In any case, this social heirarchy is both critiqued (as Fatima proposed in class) and praised. Here's my take:
In the relationship between King Lear and his three daughters, he treats his daughters as if they were loyal servants, not his own flesh and blood. In the first scene, Goneril and Regan states their love (more like allegiance) for their father, not unlike when a knight pledges to protect his king. Cordelia, the seemingly only sane person in the whole play, states that her love only goes so far as it should from daughter to father. She criticized her sisters' confessions for professing more love to their father than to their respective husbands. This is where the critique of the social order comes in. King Lear confused the roles his daughters played in his court. Breaking up his kingdom and selling it to the highest "bidder" completely breaks down the familial relationships between the members of his family. Instead of unconditionally giving his daughters each a dowery, he makes it into a contest which breeds jealousy and unneeded competition. (but i'm no psychologist)
The praise comes when you see the good people step up. As Lazarow said in class, there's the hope in a monarchy whenever there's a change in power. Tyranny gives way to justice and a peaceful time can begin.
Agreements? Disagreements?
And can anyone give any primers on literary analysis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Albert, when you said, "This is where the critique of the social order comes in", I wasn't sure what you meant. Did you meant that King Lear didn't follow social order because he demanded that his daughters express their love for him? Or that he did follow social order, and that's what got him into trouble with his two elder daugters?
Personally, I thought it was the breakdown of social order which harmed Lear in the end. Let me explain:
Lear seemed to be a rational and capable ruler at the beginning of the book. He didn't need to give his land to his daughters; he seemed perfectly capable to run the country himself. His decision to give them this power seems to be a breakdown in social order for this reason. A king should not give up power before his time. Furthermore, he gave his power up to women. I don't beleive many women ruled during Lear's time - another breakdown. My last point on that issue is about Cordelia. When she's asked to praise her father, she tells him that she can only love him as much as duty allows her. In this sense, Cordelia, the only good daughter, is staying the within social order. It seems to me that staying within social order would have led to better events later on.
Comments? All comments except those about spelling errors, please.
Anisha
I agree with your comment about how King Lear treats his daughters more as royal subjects rather than daughters. This image of the women in the play could be Shakespeare's deliberate attempt at trying to send out a message about the social status of women in society (at the time). He makes the women seem as objects capable of doing great harm if not suppressed and he proves that to the audience later on through Gonreil's and Regan's 'evil' acts (betraying father, abadoning him, etc.) and their disgraceful ends. This image of females can also be seen in Shakespeare's other plays (ex: Macbeth). That doesn't necessarily mean that Shakespeare despised women. Rather it was the influence of the cultural views at the time that helped him reach that conclusion about the female sex.
We can go in more depth with this topic of 'roles/images of women in Shakespeare's plays' by looking at this whole issue through the feminist critical lens.
However, I'll wait to start that discussion once we get more in depth with the types of literary criticisms in class tomorrow.
For the most part, I agree with you Albert. Shakespeare uses King Lear to critique social order, especially of Elizabethan England.
In this play, the roles of women are very different from what they would be in England at this time. All three of the main women characters have very strong personalities even though women of this time were expected to be docile and reserved. Cordelia shows bravery and honor far beyond what is expected of a woman while Goneril and Regan are scheming. These two will commit any act, no matter how horrible, to reach an end that they desire. It was surprising to me to see women displayed with such forceful characteristics.
Also, social order is defied in this play throughthe concept of the passing on of power. In England at this time, Lear would have given all of his land and power to Goneril, his eldest heir (and Albany probably would have done most of the leading of the country since he was her husband). The fact that the country is divided implies that it is also weakened; not only is the familial relationship broken down, the unity of all of the citizens in the country is weakened as a result of the division. This relates back to Shakespeare's critique of the corruption of government. Once the country is restored to its whole self, it will then have the opportunity to strengthen itself.
Gloucester's passing on of wealth and power also defies common social order. In the period in which this play takes place and the period in which it was written, it would be completely unheard of for a father to pass his power on to an illegitimate son, no matter what his legitimate son did. I think (but am not positive) that the illegitimate son would not even be legally able to inherit from his father. If Gloucester had decided to disinherit Edgar, the money and power would have gone to his next legitimate heir (brother, cousin, etc.), not Edmund. By ignoring this social custom of passing on of wealth, Shakespeare allows Edmund to reach a level of supreme evil that he could not otherwise.
We've already discussed the role of the Fool as critique of social heirarchy so I won't really go into that...
And as a side note, Albert, Cordelia is not "the seemingly only sane person in the whole play." Kent and Albany are also sane throughout, as are Goneril, Regan, Cornwall, and Edmund. The 'bad' characters must use logic and reason to formulate their plans to gain money and power.
I too would be interested in a primer on literary analysis...
Anisha, I don't really agree with your comment that Cordelia stayed within the social order when she tells Lear "she can only love him as much as her duty allows." I think this statement of Cordelia's is actually a break away from social order. At this time women were subservient to men and daughters were one hundred percent obedient to their fathers. Thus, Cordelia would have been more likely to tell her father exactly what he wanted to hear, which is that she loved him more than anything else. However, Cordelia takes a stand for what she believes is the truth, not what would be the socially acceptable thing to say.
Liz, I understand what you're saying about Cordelia not obeying her father. However, I think that in either sense, she would be breaking social order. To love her father more than she's supposed to breaks social order. To disobey him does as well. I think its more of a question of which is the less of two evils.
(Sorry, that last comment was Anisha)
The whole analysis of social order is fairly complicated. This is how I interpreted it:
Lear caused the breakdown of social order when he surrendered his power before he was supposed to do so. He gave his kingdom to Goneril and Regan, who acted as women were expected to act in professing their love for their father. I agre., Albert, that their pledges are very much like those knights would make to their king. I think it is important that the women who act as they are expected to act in Elizabethan society turn out to be evil. Perhaps Shakespeare was disapproving the low status of women?
Cordelia cannot do what is expected; that is, she cannot express undying love and loyalty for her father because of logical drawbacks. Her attitude is considered to be disobedient and defiant of social order, yet she is the good sister. Again, does this reflect on Shakespeare's view of women?
So, just as Elizabeth said (brilliant, by the way), in dividing his kingdom Lear weakens the family structure. Socially, the kingdom turns upside down as Edmund gains power that should be Edgar's and the fool becomes Lear's advisor. One point Laz brought up while bleeding on my essay that we did not cover in class about the fool: maybe Lear deserves no better than the companionship of the socially inferior fool. After all, Lear brought his tragedy upon himself. Only a fool would remain loyal to Lear after his rash behavior.
Anyway, to summarize all that, I think the confused social order shows that Lear made poor choices as a ruler. Feel free to attack all my silly opinions; I am used to it from last year, though I wonder who will be so bold as Matt Weiss.
In regards to Theresa's post, I thought that Cordelia's being seen as the bad and disobedient daughter for being, in actuality, the good daughter, was more telling of the effects of human evils and flaws upon the order of things than of how women were treated in certain cases. Now that you mention it, I think it does speak of how women were expected to observe tradition and do as they were told in many cases, and that if they broke from tradition or did not obey they were punished in some way, even if what they did was the correct or more logical choice given the circumstances.
That said, upon first reading it I viewed Lear's disowning of Cordelia for her disobeying of him as a prudent example of the effects of certain malevolent human traits upon other humans. Throughout the play and throughout all of Shakespeare's plays that I have read or seen acted out, deceit/treachery/backstabbing and ambition/greed/power lust have always played large parts. Generally, one can attribute almost everything nefarious done by the antagonist of a Shakespearean tale to ambition, greed, or power lust, and the antagonists tend to accomplish most of what they manage to do on their way to power (whether or not they manage to obtain it at some point in the play) by way of chicanery and treachery. For example, in Macbeth, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth lie to almost everybody and have hitmen (or in Duncan's case, Macbeth himself) murder those who stand in their way to power (King Duncan, Banquo and his son since Banquo's son was to be king, etc.). By the end of the novel, nearly all of the sadness, death, and destruction caused or thrust by one human upon another is done for the purpose of ambition and done by way of chicanery. In King Lear, Edmund, Goneril, and Regan do what they do because they desire the kingdom (and in the case of the latter two, Edmund) and they do it by forging letters, secretely ordering executions, lying to each other and to others, and so forth. As with Macbeth, most of the sadness, death, and destruction in the play is caused by ambition and at least partly done by way of things done behind the scenes and mistruths.
This, in turn, brings me back to Cordelia's harsh treatment by Lear after her refusal to do as he demands. Prior to Cordelia's refusal, Goneril and Regan both lied about how much they "loved" their father and king, and they did this with the desire of parts of Lear's kingdom. When Cordelia refused to do as asked, not only did she show her unwillingness to utter even a white lie (if one wishes to call it that) and flatter her father, she also showed that ambition is not among her chief guides throughout life as it is for Goneril and Regan. It is through this act and further acts that Cordelia establishes herself as a woman of unwavering character controlled not by ambition and avarice but by her strict sense of morals. Regan and Goneril's actions, meanwhile, set the stage for their roles as servants of their ambitions and, frequently, are echoed by similarly treacherous actions which usually result in death, destruction, pain, sadness, and other great stuff along those lines. :)
can'twaitfor08
Theresa, I disagree with your point about Shakespeare and the status of women. Yes, Regan and Gonriel do act as they are told, but they do this for personal gain. If Shakespeare was commenting on the his disapproval about the status of women, I don't think his female charactors would have done so much evil. They would have been the driving force to stop the bad deeds by their husbands. If you are saying that because they are pushed into a lower status, these women turn evil, I would disagree as well. Regan and Coneril are in no way controlled by their husbands. They take control of power and use it horribly. I think it just shows how corrupt women are with too much power.
That was Anisha, again. Sorry!
Theresa: The point you brought up about the Fool being sort of a pity companion for Lear...
I really don't think that was his purpose in the play. I think it reaffirms all of the good qualities that are present in a regular human being. It basically raises the common folk onto a higher pedestal. It shows that lowly servants can actually have as much, if not more wisdom than a king whose "divine right" gave him the throne.
After all, the Fool gave Lear extremely valuable advice. If Lear deserved to have "only" a fool to be his companion, and the Fool was a guide, in a sense, then was Lear really being punished?
This brings up the whole question of whether Shakespeare was critiquing the social order of the day or praising it. Here, it seems more to be critiquing the social order simply because a court jester is giving moral advice to a king.
Also, Theresa, your reasoning about acting accordingly in the Elizabethan era will make you evil is a little.... eh...
As Anisha said, I think it would've been more effective if the women were doing something good, or preventing an evil.
But, you may have a point. It all hinges on whether Shakespeare was trying to elevate family values above social order or not. If not, then you're reasoning is correct (I think). If yes, then Cordelia's actions were expected of her and therefore, Goneril and Regan are evil.(duh)
That's all for now.
I think both Albert and Theresa are right concerning the role of the fool... he is a mixture of these two theories. The fool does play an integral role in guiding Lear through the storm and prolonging Lear's life. By giving advice to Lear when one in his role usually would not, the fool serves as a critique of the social order. At the same time, Lear has acting so irrationally and brought all his troubles on himself that he does not deserve the company of anyone but someone like him -- a fool. I, however, don't think this is punishment for Lear because the fool does indeed guide him. The fact that Lear only deserves to have the company of the fool actually magnifies his foolish acts.
Anisha, again, I must disagree. A lower status could indeed motivate these women to commit evil deeds. While I do agree that Goneril and Regan's husbands do not push them into a lower status, society as a whole does. Like I have said before, at this time women were subservient to men in society -- that is just a fact. With such forceful and ambitious personalities, it is no surprise that these women push for all the power they can get. After being supressed by society for so long, these women are finally placed in a position of power and they find that they enjoy it. They enjoy the power so much, that they will stop at nothing to gain even more control. As Jacob said, ambition is the driving force behind most of the evil deeds in Shakespeare's plays.
Feel free to agree or cut me down.
A lot has been said here, but I was most intrigued by Albert's original use of the word "subjects" to describe how Lear treated his daughters. I saw their relationships in a much more gritty way than what has been suggested so far. In the beginning of the play, Lear is a domineering. He is like a cruel master, making his daughters "sit" and "roll over" like dogs, just to gain his dowry.
I see Goneril and Regan as products of their environment. For a moment, I'd like to go out on a limb and suggest something that is not in the actual piece, but rather, what I imagined upon first reading the play. It is recognized that of the time, women were of a lower status to men. Lear in all likelihood did not just one day start treating Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, like they were his pets. Their whole lives they had been trained by Lear to behave as he wished. It is then no surprise that Cordelia, the youngest daughter (and thus the one given least training of all) was the one to rebel.
The father-daughter relationships seemed little more than Lear dangling a piece of bacon in front of the daughter's faces. Taking their reactions into account, I agree with Elizabeth, that the daughter's lower statuses could account for their behavior to first gain power, then maintain it. Goneril and Regan's greed and barbarism were results of their upbringing. To tie it into today's class, their reactions to the chance to move up politically was purely id driven. Raised as animals, they developed little superego to restrain this viciousness inside them. Thus, what we perceive as lacking morality could be only nature instinct to them. Goneril and Regan see each other not as sisters, or even equals, but purely competition.
There are certainly holes in this logic (i had a lot of difficulty deciding how I wanted to approach this idea, especially since it is more of a prediction from the structure and behavior at the beginning of the play). If you take one thing from this, it is that Lear was likely the at least part of Goneril and Regan's foul behavior. This can be either in a parenting sense (as i suggest), a pure social context (women being perceived inferior to men in virtually all aspects at that time and treated as such), or a combination therein.
Concerning the status of women in the play:
I agree with Elizabeth that the oppressive, patriarchal nature of society at the time could have driven the evil deeds committed by Goneril and Regan in "King Lear." If we examine the system of inheritance at this time, all of a family's wealth was passed through the first male child. Therefore women were usually unable to inherit any familial wealth or titles. In certain cases where there was no male heir, a woman was able to inherit wealth and titles, as was the case for Queen Elizabeth I. As soon as a woman married, however, she lost all of her legal rights (right to inherit, own property, etc.) to her husband. With this in mind, it is understandable that Goneril and Regan clung to their power. As two married women, if they were to loosen their grip or falter at all in their evil plans, their power might be snatched up by the men in their lives. I think in this case Shakespeare is more examining why evil deeds are committed (ambition, power lust, etc.) than commenting on the then popular belief that women are innately evil.
As for the relationship between King Lear and the Fool:
It is my understanding that the perception of the family in Elizabethan England was slightly different than it is today. While there was a definite heirarchy within a family (with the father equivalent to the "king" of his family), apprentices, servants, and perhaps even fools were viewed as a part of the whole family. Going off of this foundation, the king's relationship with the fool is not so unusual. The fool's loyalty to the king despite his rash actions is one born out of duty, and the king's confidence in the fool is an outcome of a long-nurtured bond. This may seem foreign to us, but I think Shakespeare was illustrating how many leaders of the time were forced to rely on their servants (and fools) because they were unable to trust their power-hungry kin who seeked their crown.
Comments? Criticisms? As Elizabeth said, feel free to agree or cut me down.
Kelsie, I don't think it is necessarily correct to characterize the Fool and Lear's relationship as usual, even for the time period. The fool's position was supposed to be that of a lowly person only fit of entertaining the king with humor or silliness. It is then queer that Lear would invest so much of an emotional connection to a figure that is meant to be a small pea to society.
I agree with the latter part of your statement, that Shakespeare was commenting on the fact that Lear had no one to trust in his court. I feel like your idea that the Fool and Lear would naturally have that type of relationship is misleading though. Shakespeare used the Fool because of his low status to argue this point. Had the fool been a person Lear would trust in naturally, he would not be a lowly figure, and more likely a member of the court. The reality is that Lear's court is so pathetic that the only person he feels he can trust is this miniscule blip to society.
I too find the relationship between Lear and the Fool as unusual in that the Fool could seem to exist in Lear's mind (sort of as a conscience) and it would have the same effect ( i think). [sort of like a mental bond]I get this reasoning from the fact that the Fool disappears after all is done and Lear realizes that Cordelia was the only one that truly loved him. The fool sort of becomes ingrained into Lear. Or it could be that the Fool is no longer necessary because Lear realizes his faults and thus disappears... sort of like when Gloucester loses his eyes and then is able to see that Edmund had been playing him the entire time.
Agreements; Disagreements?
As to Oren's previous comment, I somewhat feel that it's the other way around. I don't really feel Shakespeare gives kind of feel to Lear's personality. Rather, I see Lear's genuine request of his daughters' love. His daughter's however merely say empty words to get their "due" share of the land. I think the correct term for this is a "gold-digger." But I also found it ironic that even though his daughters suck-uped to Lear, Goneril and Regan still got just 1/3 of Lear's kingdom. (is that what they would have gotten anyway?)
TEXT SUPPORT:
KENT: I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall.
GLOUCESTER: It did always seem so to us. But now, in the
division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the dukes he values most, for equalities are so
weighed that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety.
= they were equally
divided anyway o.0
I'm not really sure about the thing about the "lower status" the daughters have and the thing about their having a "bad environment."
Anyone want to show me where that idea came from?
I agree with the several people who have said that much of Goneril's and Regan's evil behavior can be attributed to their quest for power. This is an interesting demonstration of misuse of power.
Howwever, their evil is also a Christian view which pervaded the time period. Women were innately evil because of Eve and the forbidden fruit. Just something to consider.
Theresa is correct about the fact that Christians at the time perceived women to be innately evil and the cause of the fall from innocence. However, it is interesting that though many of Shakespeare's female characters possess this evil nature, some (such as Cordelia) do not. It's inconsistencies like these that make it hard to really understand Shakespeare's own personal views on women and where they fall in the social order.
Elizabeth, I have to disagree with you (suprise, suprise) about the role of women. I don't think Shakespheare disapproves of the low status of women.
King Lear shows that power in the hands of women destroys them. If he beleived that women were being treated badly, wouldn't he also beleive in change for the better? If this is true, he would not have made his female charactors self-destruct due to power. This just reinforces the fact that oops, its too late. Giving women power now is just going to hurt everyone.
Anisha
There's something that's been confusing me since after class today. We've been talking about Shakepeare's view of women for a while now... but something interesting.
From my understanding, Cordelia is the one who leads the French troops into England. She seems to be the one in (relative) charge, and the King of France is not present. In her own way, she is gaining power. However, she doesn't use it for bad.
Is this telling us anything about women in general? Or just Cordelia?
Dan, I disagree with your view on King Lear's request. He seems to ask them more out of pride than love. He wants a decleration of their love - something I don't think someone does out of love. He seems to just enjoy hearing himself being talked about. His pride gets the best of him. This comes back to Theresa's point on Christian influence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pride one of the deadly sins?
I'm not saying that Shakespeare disapproved of women. I'm talking more about what could have possibly motivated Goneril and Regan to commit the acts that they did. I'm a big believer in historical literary criticism so I was putting my whole argument in the context of the Elizabethan period.
As women with forcible personalities, Regan and Goneril would not have been content with being supressed and their second-class citizenship. Thus, when given a little bit of power, they would strive for more.
I wasn't trying to get at Shakespeare's view of women, rather at the motivation of characters.
I don't think Shakespeare was necessarily approving of giving women this "lower status" they had in society as part of the Elizabethan times. Laz brought up in class the idea that every character is representative of essentially one part of a "whole" person. When adding all the characters up together they form the complexity of one person.
I argue that the use of his female characters represent not women as a gender, but a different facet of humanity. We have to remember the time in which this was written in conjunction with the historical circumstances and social norms/ideas regarding gender relations. King Lear being written for such a time means that Shakespeare likely recognized specific mindsets and dispositions to females. Thus he could have given his women attributes that fit these biases simply to make for characters that able to be related to.
Therefore, it is conceivable that his female characters may have had no political or social criticism applied to them at all, but rather a critique of humanity as a whole. To make this believable, however, Shakespeare knew his audience and dared not to defy their biases.
Elizabeth, I agree with you 100% then. Both elder sisters had strong personalities that couldn't have been forced back. I thought you were taking this solely from a feminist view.
A point that I wanted to make in class but didn't get a chance to...
Fatima talked about how Goneril, Regan, and Edmund's natures could be a product of the absence of a mother figure in the play. Then someone else mentioned (I don't remember who, sorry) mentioned how Edmund's evilness could've been a product of society's scrutiny on his legitimacy. I think this is a pretty valid argument. (Unless Laz already disproved it. If so, I'm just shooting myself in the foot, as it were... Oh well). Being shunned by not only his father, but by society itself is a pretty sobering thought, definitely almost enough to cause the power hungry nature that surfaced in Edmund. The emphasis on being a pureblood is evident in all royal families. If there was a marriage to be held, it must be between those of royalty, which accounts for the high rate of genetic disorders. So, Edmund, being born out of wedlock (bad) due to an affair (bad still) and being shunned by his own father (if his own father won't love him, who will?) gives society all the right reasons to hate him. Tough life huh?
Goneril and Regan are also products of society's pressures. We mentioned in class how almost any wedding in those times were arranged and rarely any were out of love. Society therefore places the burden of marrying for the good of the family on each woman, especially one of royalty. Goneril and Regan are obviously not happy with their marriages. This is shown by how they profess all their love for their father and make no mention of their husbands. They're simply not attracted to their husbands, most likely due to their absence of power/manipulativeness, as evidenced by G+R's attraction toward Edmund.
Anisha:
Her leading troops into battle might be a forfeiture of her womanhood, similar to how Queen Elizabeth said she was married to England and essentially became a man. Cordelia, by being left in charge of the army, becomes more masculine. This is probably saying that men still possess all the good qualities of rationality and not letting emotion get in the way of things.
That's what I think, but I'm no literary critic. :P
We were also talking about how even though there was no mother figure, because Lear favored Cordelia, she did not end up like her sisters. And the same goes for Gloucester favoring Edgar instead of Edmund. I, however, feel that this is not the case. The betrayal of Goneril and Regan came as a shock to Lear, as did Cordelia's lack of desire to flatter Lear. I think this shows how little involved Lear was in all his daughters' lives. I mean, if Lear had actually taken the time to get to know any of his daughters before, he would have realized their tendencies. It is unlikely that Cordelia just woke up that day and said "Yea. I'm not going to lie about my feelings anymore." It's probably likely that she felt and talked that way all the time but Lear never paid attention to her (even though she was his “favorite daughter”). On the other hand, Lear’s indifference toward his older daughters is more obvious because their innately being evil. It is the same case with Gloucester. Edmund's idea of seizing power wasn't just a whim. It was premeditated, and I'm sure that if Gloucester paid enough attention to Edmund, he would have seen how much Edmund despised being an "illegitimate" and Edgar being the “legitimate” one. Likewise, if Gloucester actually paid attention to Edgar, he would have seen that Edgar genuinely loved him. Thus, the attention of fathers in the absence of mothers does not explain the fact of why Cordelia and Edgar turned out not to be evil. I think it has to do more with the fact that they loved/ had someone to love. In the case of Cordelia, she loved her father and was also loved by the king of France. But in the relationships of the Goneril and Regan, King Lear was more apathetic. And a hatred/dislike of their husbands (maybe because they had arranged marriages) did not help. In any case, I do not see Lear paying attention to any of his daughters; the same thing goes for Gloucester and his sons.
Albert, your point about Cordelia is interesting. Cordelia is more "manly" by leading the troops. However, when she is captured and right before death, she goes to tears.
Act 5 Scene 3:
LEAR:
Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia,
The gods themselves throw incense. Have I caught thee?
He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven
And fire us hence like foxes. Wipe thine eyes.
I don't think she forfeited her womanly side, the way Queen Elizabeth did. She seems to just have held those qualities off while she was leading battle.
Another possibility is that Cordelia isn't really the leader. She could be simply a figure-head or the one with the "womanly ideas and feelings" to rescue her father. I know there is not any direct texual references to this. However, if we look at her husband in the first Act, he seems to be someone who commands over her. He tells her to "say goodbye to her sisters". This isn't a horrible command, but I think it hints at status over hers. I think its fairly rational to assume that she isn't the one completely in charge. (Monsieur La Far is left in command).
Post a Comment