Overview and analysis of Shakespeare and King Lear
William Shakespeare, the most famous and celebrated English poet, has been known to the world over the past 400 and more years, and yet had remained a mystery throughout this time. Many researchers and historians have undertaken the task of writing his biography, and still it is not well known. The reason for this is that the facts about Shakespeare's personal life have been drawn from two types of sources, the first one referring to official documentation, which in the time of his life was restricted to court and church records, while the second is his rich opus. Indeed, according to Bevington (2010), much can be learned about his personal life from his poems, plays and sonnets, even though it is all indirect and inconclusive.
The scarce existing documented records only give an outline of Shakespeare's life. It is known that he was baptized in Stratford-upon-Avon at the Holy Trinity Church on the 26th of April, 1564. From this day, scholars have identified his birth date as April 23rd, which coincidences with the date of his death, but there is no real prove of that. He was the third child of John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, and had two older sisters and three younger brothers. His father was a leather merchant and a public official, holding the positions of a bailiff and an alderman. No official records exist about the education of William, but it is supposed that he had learned reading, writing and has been introduced to the work of the classics in King's New School in Stratford, as he could attend this school without paying tuition because he was a child of a public official (Potter, 2012).
It is known that he married Ann Hathaway, who was six years older than he was, in November of 1582, and they got their first child, Susanna, in May the following year. Two years later, they also got twins, Hamnet and Judith, but he lost his only son to unknown causes when he was only 11 years of age. This is followed by the so called "lost" or "dark" years, for which no records about Shakespeare exist. In the late 1580's he had arrived in London and begun to work as a horse attendant in some of the finer city theaters (Potter, 2012).
In the following decade, he was starting to become known as a playwright and actor, and might have even produced some plays. At the end of this period, he was already a managing partner in an acting company in London called Lord Chamberlain's Man. 15 of his 37 plays were published by the year of 1597, and he has attracted the attention of his patron, the Earl of Southampton, to whom he has dedicated some of his work. His work brought him enough funds to begin buying land, and he soon had a big house in Stratford, leases to a real estate and, together with his partners from the acting group, he built the Globe theater by the Thames River. He died in 1616, on the day of his birthday, as it is believed (Bevington, 2010).
This following part of this essay is dedicated to King Lear, as one of the most prominent works of Shakespeare, and covers several issues including the various interpretations of the play, an analysis of the characters and the play as a whole, and an overview of the strongest metaphors and allusions that appear in the play.
When observing the interpretations of King Lear, it must first be noted that they depend on the perspective from which the interpreter comes from. This perspective represents a construct that is determined by religious, social and cultural conditions that influence the way of thinking and seeing the world. Therefore, it is not unreasonable that, throughout the year, many interpretations of this play have emerged. For a bigger period of time, the main interpretations were related to the Christian doctrine, and many affirm this standing. The main reasons for this are found in the play's last act in which Cordelia heals her father's madness. In addition, the name with which Lear refers to her is "a soul in bliss", that some interpret as a clear sign of her sanctity. Furthermore, the notion of suffering followed by forgiveness, a clear Biblical concept, is very present in the play. However, many also oppose this stance. They ask questions such as: why is evil allowed for so long without being checked, why is the ending of the play so bleak, why characters that are good like Cordelia, for example, are not protected by God and similar (Muir and Wells, 1982).
In the second half of the twentieth century, other non-religious interpretations have appeared. These include the psychoanalytical approach, by which Shakespeare was using the play as a prophylactic medicine, to ease his own pains and sufferings at the time, the absurdist or nihilistic approach, by which the world is cruel and cold, and human beings suffer in it, dying without any sense or meaning, in absolute wretchedness. Another perspective interprets King Lear as a play that is focused on property, power and inheritance. This aspect states that Lear actually lost his mind when he lost his status and social power. In the same time he has also lost the power he had as a father. So, Shakespeare's attempt here is to address what happens when power is redistributed in a catastrophic way (for the individual). By some authors, King Lear simply demonstrates the dangers that can happen when traditional patriarchal ways are not followed (Mehl, 1999).
Another interesting perspective of interpretation King Lear has received refers to the femininity. Some assert that the reason the king went med was because he was not able to accept the fact that he was dependent on women, specifically his daughters. This stance makes King Lear a play about the anxiety of males. Of course, some authors have offered the completely opposite approach, stating that the play is all about masculine power and patriarchs. From this perspective, the redemption of the females is nothing but a restoration of the male power and patriarchy. Indeed, the women on the play are either forced to submit, as Cordelia was, or they must be destroyed, like Regan and Goneril (Holland, 2002).
It is believed that King Lear is probably the best play Shakespeare ever wrote, because in it, he has been most honest about his inner self and his feelings. The play is based upon depths of nature, upon strong force of the writer's passion, upon the war of elements inside the being, upon the opposition between the basics of human affection and bolting of imagination. Lear, the protagonist, has a mind that is staggered between attachment and sudden passions. This mind serves its purpose as it sets the foundation for the story. Indeed, if it is not for his haste, his blindness towards all and everything that is not dictated by his affection or passion, that lead him to misfortunes and increases the pity that the reader builds for him. He has once been a man of wisdom, reasonable and just, and is now nothing but a rash temper (Woodford, 2004). He expects everyone to treat him as a king, and when they not, instead of standing up to them, he looks for refuge in distraction and entertainment, often responding to his occurring problems with outbursts and anger. Eventually, the king will reveal his fright and apprehension of the future, however, he will refuse to submit to decisions made by others. He sticks to his decisions, no matter how bad or dangerous they are, and tries to retain some control, which is evident by his running off to the storm. By the end, Lear will show regret, empathy, remorse and compassion, even though his pity expressed for the others is mainly caused by his pity for himself. It is his suffering that will show him that he is not beyond the justice of God, that he can make mistakes and that he must take responsibility for his own actions (Leggat, 2004).
This growing infirmity of time and nature expressed in the king are welcomed by his two elder daughters, who are glad that his incapacitated as this increases their hopes of inheritance. They continuously seek for reasons to persecute him, and find pleasure in increasing his internal fire, so as he is burned out as soon as possible. Both Goneril and Regan are depicted as bloodthirsty and cruel, which is evident by the way in which the seek punishment for Gloucester. Especially Goneril shows her need and desire of power, until the end, when she is willing to give up anything for the man she loves. Regan demonstrates the same character as Goneril, with the difference of her being better in deception. Indeed, she is easier in assuming politeness and respect. She even shows concern about the opinion of the public and its support of her. Cordelia, on the other hand, is a personification of a completely opposite character. She either does not sees his weaknesses, or pities him when she does, and this is a motive for her to express even greater respect and tenderness. She attempts to away or postpone his distemper by trying to easily give him the truth, but she realizes, because of the love and the duty she feels for him, that this must be done in little and gentle steps or otherwise it will have the opposite effect. She shows no desire for revenge, remains pure and virtuous throughout the play, and even accepts her own and her father's capture with the stoicism of royalty (Cameron, 2007).
And when Cordelia is not around her father, it is the Fool who assumes the role of his protector. He is the advocate of the king, honest and loyal. He uses humor, sarcasm and irony to help straighten things out, but also for moderation of the behavior of the king. His sharing of the fate of his master further supports the impression of him being the protector of Lear until Cordelia comes.
Gloucester's destiny is in many ways similar to the one of his king. He too is blind to what is going on around him, even before he actually is blinded. He escapes responsibility by trying to blame everything on the stars, but is willing to die for his king at the end. As the king himself, Gloucester is despaired, questions God, but also finds humanity and compassion in the embrace of his tragic destiny. Kent stands out from the other characters in the play by his integrity, loyalty and goodness. He is selfless and is devoted to the king, realizing that it is his destiny to protect the king, which is why he is even prepared to welcome death, once that the king is gone.
Edmund, Gloucester's illegitimate son, is an opportunist with strong ambitions that led him to conspire with Goneril and Regan. His Machiavellian approach in the beginning when he seems ready to sacrifice everything and anything for the satisfaction of his own needs leads to the impression that he is a villain and that he does not have a conscience. He does not hesitate, and shows no concern for his father, whom he betrays, or for the killing of the king and Cordelia. But, he does repent his actions at the end, which shows a dash of humanity and true Gloucester blood still exists in him. Edgar, Edmund's brother, is very different. He has an innate dignity and honesty, making him in the good and loyalty of others. He is compassionate and understanding, accepting at the end all the flaws of his father (Sadowski, 2003).
It is also important to mention Duke Albany, who represents an antithesis to Goneril, his wife. At the beginning of the play, he does not have much strength and it is difficult for him to stand up to Goneril, representing gentleness and kindness in comparison with her cruelty and selfishness. However, he shows himself as highly humane and moral as he attacks the integrity of Goneril. By the end of the play, what can be witnessed is a great personal growth of Albany. Cornwall, Regan's husband on the other hand, is anything but humane. He is vicious and cruel, ambitious and uncontrollable (Cameron, 2007).
In alignment with the above analysis of the characters in King Lear, a much broader analysis of the play as a whole can be made. The basic human characteristics of the roles indicate Shakespeare's attempt to reflect humans as they are, with their deepest feelings, passions and desires, and their influence on their actions. He seems to seek for a balance between the good and the bad characters, desperately trying to show that wherever there is cruelty, selfishness and greed, there is also honesty, goodness and loyalty. There is also always a chance to reflect, repent and change for those who really and truly wish to embrace love for one another, for self, for God. Shakespeare's King Lear is nothing but a mirror of humanity, with excellent portrayal of kinship and suffering, and all that it brings to the human being. But, the greatest power of the play is probably the unclearness of whether good or bad has triumphed in the end and the notion that each readers gets about being empowered him or herself to decide on this (Granville-Barker, 1993).
But, strong emotions and realistic observations about the nature of human beings are not the only elements that enrich this tragedy. Indeed, all of the above is supported, strengthen and emphasized by a pool of metaphors and allusions that Shakespeare uses so freely and eloquently. Blindness is probably the strongest metaphor in the play, referring to the blindness of fathers, i.e. parents in seeing their own children for what they really are. This is evident in both Lear and Gloucester, and both of them are carried off by this blindness into some foolish and unreasonable actions. Later on in the play, when Gloucester is truly blinded, his loss of sight only strengthens the symbolic meaning by emphasizing his inability for seeing the truth. By the end, both him and the king seem to gain a better vision as their senses diminish, for one his sanity, and for the other his blindness, as if their own sufferings open their eyes to reality and understanding (Rosenberg, 1972). Another powerful metaphor is the storm in which Lear rushes after the fight with his children. The storm may even be considered a more important one, as it can be interpreted in several different ways. Namely, it is clear, as Lear points it out himself, that the storm is a true replication of his internal state, and a reflection of his raging feelings and growing madness. From the other hand, the storm can also represent a wider social turmoil. The kingdom is shattered with the division, it is on the brink of a civil war, there is no respect for authority. Perhaps Shakespeare had suggested that our own personal suffering and problems are not the only storms we have to survive, and that we must face other, much wider and deeper challenges as well. Finally, and in support of the above stated, the storm represents the overpowering force of nature, and the fact that nobody, not even royalty, is invulnerable to its affect (Ray, 2007).
The play is also extremely rich in allusions, which Shakespeare has used to amplify the strong emotional context of the drama. There are, among others, numerous allusions that Shakespeare has made on forces of nature and pagan gods, to mythology and history. There are numerous Biblical allusions. However, it may be stated that probably the greatest allusion of all is the one to Christianity represented by the character of Cordelia. This allusion is presented in many points of the play, her quiet love, her goodness, her readiness to forgive her father at the end, her calm acceptance of her ill fate, her sanctification, and finally her death, all of these are related to Christianity, even though the play does not really reflect the doctrine of the religion, as Lear is not truly saved or redeemed, and his death is terrible (Manser, 2009).
Again, the allusions, as well as the metaphors and strong symbolism used by Shakespeare, serve for the creation of a deeper and more significant emotion for the reader, almost placing him in a state of self-wondering and reflection about good and bad, about values and about changes in life. Their generous use supports, promotes, and encourages the emotions and the actions throughout the play, giving it the strength of influencing the inner being of the reader as it does. It may be concluded, hence, that it is not the story, the superbly formed characters, the themes chosen for the play, and it is certainly not the metaphors and allusions the author has used that make this play so powerful. It is their presence, their interrelations and their balance.
References
Bevington, David. Shakespeare and biography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2010.
Cameron, Lloyd. King Lear, by William Shakespeare. Glebe: Pascal Press. 2007.
Granville-Barker, Harley. Preface to King Lear. London: Nick Hern Books Limited. 1993.
Holland, Peter. King Lear and its afterlife. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2002.
Leggat, Alexander. King Lear: second edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 2004.
Manser, Martin. Dictionary of allusions. New York: Facts on File. 2009.
Mehl, Dieter. Shakespeare's tragedies: an introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1999.
Muir, Kenneth, and Wells, Stanley. Aspects of King Lear. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1982.
Potter, Lois. The life of William Shakespeare: a critical biography. Chichester. 2012.
Ray, Ratri. William Shakespeare's King Lear. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. 2007.
Rosenberg, Marvin. The masks of King Lear. Cranbury: Associated University Presses. 1972.
Sadowski, Piotr. Dynamism of character in Shakespeare's mature tragedies. Cranbury: Associated University Presses. 2003.
Woodford, Donna. Understanding King Lear: a student casebook to issues, sources and historical documents. Westport: Greenwood Press. 2004
