|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
NATURE AND KING LEAR Shakespeare's King Lear (1.1106–91) properly belongs to the early seventeenth century, and to the reign of Elizabeth's successor, James I. In its themes and in its somber mood, the play reveals the precariousness of the Tudor and Stuart establishments and the gloom that seems to have overtaken the country at the turn of the century. King Lear calls into question all the familial, social, and political bonds that had been invoked to rationalize and justify the Tudor monarchy in the sixteenth century. More fundamentally, the play comes close to shattering the faith in nature on which the whole social order was supposed to rest. It was not on the stage alone that old certainties were being shattered. The anxious questioning and generalized pessimism of Lear reflect wider social processes and ideological tensions. Shakespeare lived and wrote in an era when one very old and well-honored social system was giving way to another. According to the older, "feudal" way of living, one's position in society rested on the relatively intangible bases of rank, lineage, and loyalty; individuals were supposed to remain in the station to which they were born. But in the early modern period, new social forces associated with the rise of capitalism called feudal assumptions into question. Real authority now seemed to lie not in fuzzy concepts like social rank, but in how much power—most fundamentally, economic power—one could bring to bear. In feudal terms, then, King Lear's aspiration to remain a king while giving up his power makes perfect sense. But in the coldly pragmatic terms of the emerging society (represented by Regan, Goneril, and especially Edmund), it is patently absurd. The ideological debate in King Lear does not refer directly to "economics" or "society," but rather to "nature." The word recurs constantly in the play. Both Edmund and Lear refer to nature as a goddess, but with opposing meanings. When Edmund declares "Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law / My services are bound" (1.2.1–2), he means that he is not bound by worn-out old ideas of custom, legitimacy, and loyalty. In "nature," Edmund worships the chaotic social forces unleashed by the market economy. On the other hand, when Lear cries out "Hear, Nature, hear! dear goddess, hear!" (1.4.271), he invokes a feudal conception of nature as upholding the innate authority of fathers and kings. It is not clear which version of nature is responsible for the storm that batters Lear and his companions in Act 3. Perhaps in the storm, nature is revolting against the unnatural cruelty of Goneril and Regan; or perhaps the natural world is simply mocking all human appeals to hierarchy, reason, and morality. I. Major image clusters Let's start with some of the words that have proved important in the first two plays that we read this quarter, and some that are particularly important to King Lear. I don't particularly instruct you here to look at frequency counts, but look to see where they are interesting. A. Nature Look for references to nature. Nature, in the Renaissance, can be opposed to culture, as it is in The Winter's Tale, at least according to Perdita. Nature can be a goddess who helps maintain divine order in the universe, or nature can be a mechanistic force that is either neutral or cruel. Nature can also refer to "human nature," in terms of the body, mind, or emotions. How do different characters perceive nature in this play? Who talks about nature the most and why? You might also check frequency distribution to see where references to nature are most prominent. When looking at the screen that tells you how many references appear in any given scene, your screen only goes down to 3.7. To see the rest, hit [shift] [down]. B. Fortune Fortune in the Renaissance is a goddess whose attitude toward human endeavor is symbolized by her wheel. In an inevitable and almost mechanistic way, people rise up Fortune's wheel and then fall off. Fortune can be characterized as cruel or two-faced. The term "fortune" can also refer loosely to luck. Look up references to fortun*. Who talks about fortune most often and with what attitude? Do the references come in a particular place or are they evenly distributed throughout the plays. C. Nothing A very important word for this play is nothing. To my mind, this is a difficult word to pin down. What is the quality of nothingness in this play? D. Senses and Body Parts We have been talking some about the role of eyes (sight), hearing, and hands (touch) in King Lear. 1. Look up references to eye*. See whether eyes are passive or active, how they behave, and how effective they are. If you want to, look up references to see* and look*, but don't print out all the lines, just the references. It might be interesting to look specifically at places where one character commands another to look or see. 2. In a famous essay, Stanley Cavell argues that eyes in King Lear are associated with blindness until they become associated with the healing emotional power of tears. Eyes that cannot cry are destructive, eyes that cry are healing. Look up references to tear*. You will get some interference from "tear" as a verb, but since these words sound so much alike, it might be interesting to see if there is any symbolic relation between "tears" and the act of "tearing." Just a thought. 3. We've noticed some how important hands are, in terms of the hand-fast marriage and the parental blessing, but even in more general terms. Look up references to hand* and touch*. Using the frequency count, see if there are more references to hands and touching at particular places in the play. Who takes whom by the hand in King Lear? E. Justice One of Lear's preoccupations on the heath is the nature of justice. Try looking up references to justic* and perhaps to sin*. Can you find any evolution in Lear's ideas about justice? Why do you think that there are an unusually large number of references to justice at the end of the play? F. Woman I just noticed this today, but almost all references to woman* in this play are negative. Look up woman* and see if there are any positive references and where they occur in the play. II. Other matters A. Animals In this class, we have a particular fondness for symbolic animals. Since you are familiar with the use of animal imagery in Othello, see how animals are characterized and how they help to characterize people in King Lear. Try looking up the following words; you may think of others that I have overlooked! beast* kite pelican wolf wolv* centaur* flies tiger* B. Cordelia and the Fool Just as an experiment, look up Cor (which is Cordelia's speech prefix) and hit [insert]. Then hit F2 [combine lists] and add fool [insert]. In what scenes do these two characters appear together? What is the significance of this fact? Discuss the Representations of Nature in Shakespeare’s King Lear. Sarah Doncaster The concept of Nature in Shakespeare’s King Lear [1] is not simply one of many themes to be uncovered and analysed, but rather it can be considered to be the foundation of the whole play. From Kingship through to personal human relations, from representations of the physical world to notions of the heavenly realm, from the portrayal of human nature to the use of animal imagery; Nature permeates every line of King Lear. However as I intend to argue, Nature in all of these contexts is a social construct, which is utilized in order to legitimise the existing social order. In order to do this it is first necessary to draw a very brief sketch of the political and social beliefs of the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages, whilst outlining my arguments for believing that Nature is a socially constructed concept. In light of these arguments I will then analyse the representations of nature in King Lear to show how the play can be seen as both a portrayal of and a contribution to the social and political beliefs of the time. It is well documented that both the Elizabethan and Jacobean age were not known for their unity. It was a time of change and upheaval, Elizabeth I never married and therefore left no heir to the throne, leaving her subjects to worry about who would succeed her, and what was to become of them; when James I succeeded her to become the first Stuart King, although he ended the war with Spain in 1604, he could not overcome the deep-seated political and financial problems that dogged the state. Therefore in order to overcome any debate on Kingship regarding legitimacy or efficiency the representation of unity and harmony between the state and Nature was of paramount importance to his continued reign. ‘Kings are justly called Gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Divine power on the earth.’ [2] This quotation is from a speech by James I to his parliament and it illustrates a belief in the Divine right of Kings. By connecting the notion of the Divine to Kings, James I is legitimising his power through naturalisation, the very fact that James I felt it necessary to reiterate this concept in parliament suggests that it was a social construct, not a natural fact, designed to legitimise and protect the interests of the monarchy. The concept of ‘the Great Chain of Being’ follows on from the notion of the Divine Right of Kings and again legitimises the actions of those holding power. For if by ‘nature’ everyone and everything has its place, and knows its duties and obligations to that place, then the status quo is maintained and those that hold the power cannot be questioned. Shakespeare belonged to a world where notions of man, his nature and his place in the universe were an amalgamation of both Christian and pagan philosophies. According to Reese, ‘it provided a cosmological system which, though complicated, inconsistent and even uncertain in its details, was definite in outline and purpose, and its core was the assurance of the unity and intimate correspondence of the whole of God’s creation.’ [3] Belief in the correspondence and unity of the physical world to the heavenly allowed man to believe in God’s grand plan where everything had its place, and nothing was without a purpose. The fundamental principle of this universe was order, with God at the head of his hierarchy in the heavenly realm, and man, who was created in God’s image, at the head of the physical world, with Kings at the head of the state. This belief in the social order stemming from the natural order is an important concept to grasp when examining the idea of nature being utilized to maintain the status quo.
Approximate Word count = 7221
Approximate Pages = 28.9
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|