Monarchy in King Lear
While "King Lear" has evident themes of monarchy, Shakespeare does not portray his king with any extra merit. In fact, Shakespeare has taken away good qualities that a king should have, like empathy, sympathy, wisdom and a sense of justice, as well as a good judge of character. However, themes of monarchy run parallel to themes of fatherhood, we see Lear fail as a father just as he fails as a king. He is too rash, too cruel, too foolish to truly be a proper father or king. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to assert that to be a good king you must first be a good person, as integrity, compassion and justice are integral not only for a decent person, but also a decent king.
This view can perhaps be carried from Elizabethan society, as a king represented more than a nation; a king was God's representative and was therefore not only to be treated with the utmost respect, but was infallible. Therefore, Shakespeare's portrayal of a mad, lost king can almost be construed as blasphemy, were the characters in the play not heathens themselves. The fact that Goneril and Regan so openly defy their king, no matter what family connection they may have, is a shocking idea, and an Elizabethan audience would have been properly outraged.
Arguably, a king must be the subjects he wants to have. By this I mean that if Lear is rash, cruel and foolish, then his subjects should mirror his personality. By this reasoning, Lear should expect the cruelty is he shown by his daughters, who are law abiding subjects to this point. Both Cordelia and Kent have defied in authority in some way; Cordelia by confronting her father and Kent by staying after he'd been banished. Therefore, Lear has brought this upon himself, as king of his subjects, as being god's representative. We must ask ourselves, is this an accurate portrayal of monarchy? Is Lear's kingship the problem that leads to all other issues, or vice versa?
In the beginning of the play, we can witness Lear before his fall. He holds absolute power, he is entirely respected, as he is also incredibly foolish. However, this is unknown to himself and the rest of the cast at this point, and Lear enters in Act One with as much grandeur as can be expected by a king. We initially think that he is a rightful king, a proper monarch for his society but this notion is quickly forgotten with the absurdity of the love-test, and we see a shadow of what this king will be reduced to, a sad, lonely old man, foolish and egotistical. Those who oppose him are quickly dealt with, even those who act out of love, even those who he is directly related to. This gives the audience an impression of foolish monarchy, or at least of this monarch.
A proper and good impression of a king is that of the King of France who, by accepting Cordelia, without dowry and cast off by her father, shows compassion and reason, qualities that Lear lacks, at least at this stage in his life. France is generous and kind, two qualities that if Lear had presented with, might have stopped the events of the play in its' tracks. However, the stark contrast between Lear and France show us what Lear must have once been, and again iterates that an absolute monarch cannot be a fair one, and by being as unquestioning and dismissive of others as Lear is, he encourages his daughters Goneril and Regan to do the same. They are unafraid of divine power, as they have defied and won against the absolute power in their kingdom, god's representative, and have by reasoning defied god and won.
This view can perhaps be carried from Elizabethan society, as a king represented more than a nation; a king was God's representative and was therefore not only to be treated with the utmost respect, but was infallible. Therefore, Shakespeare's portrayal of a mad, lost king can almost be construed as blasphemy, were the characters in the play not heathens themselves. The fact that Goneril and Regan so openly defy their king, no matter what family connection they may have, is a shocking idea, and an Elizabethan audience would have been properly outraged.
Arguably, a king must be the subjects he wants to have. By this I mean that if Lear is rash, cruel and foolish, then his subjects should mirror his personality. By this reasoning, Lear should expect the cruelty is he shown by his daughters, who are law abiding subjects to this point. Both Cordelia and Kent have defied in authority in some way; Cordelia by confronting her father and Kent by staying after he'd been banished. Therefore, Lear has brought this upon himself, as king of his subjects, as being god's representative. We must ask ourselves, is this an accurate portrayal of monarchy? Is Lear's kingship the problem that leads to all other issues, or vice versa?
In the beginning of the play, we can witness Lear before his fall. He holds absolute power, he is entirely respected, as he is also incredibly foolish. However, this is unknown to himself and the rest of the cast at this point, and Lear enters in Act One with as much grandeur as can be expected by a king. We initially think that he is a rightful king, a proper monarch for his society but this notion is quickly forgotten with the absurdity of the love-test, and we see a shadow of what this king will be reduced to, a sad, lonely old man, foolish and egotistical. Those who oppose him are quickly dealt with, even those who act out of love, even those who he is directly related to. This gives the audience an impression of foolish monarchy, or at least of this monarch.
A proper and good impression of a king is that of the King of France who, by accepting Cordelia, without dowry and cast off by her father, shows compassion and reason, qualities that Lear lacks, at least at this stage in his life. France is generous and kind, two qualities that if Lear had presented with, might have stopped the events of the play in its' tracks. However, the stark contrast between Lear and France show us what Lear must have once been, and again iterates that an absolute monarch cannot be a fair one, and by being as unquestioning and dismissive of others as Lear is, he encourages his daughters Goneril and Regan to do the same. They are unafraid of divine power, as they have defied and won against the absolute power in their kingdom, god's representative, and have by reasoning defied god and won.
Although not exactly a monarchy, just like in King Lear there is undoubtedly a sense of social hierarchy in Pride and Prejudice that dominates the novel and strongly dictates the behaviour of characters. It was not only the class you belonged to that dictated your behaviour, it was also your gender. Women were expected to behave in a particular fashion or risk being shunned. Women were prohibited from introducing themsleves to men, instead someone else had to introduce them for them. It was incredibly stifling and an overwhelmingly repressive way of living in my opinion. The injustice of this way of living was seen when Lydia eloped with Mr Wickham and became his lover much to her mother's disgust. This threatens the Bennet family and could cause the other Bennet sisters to remain unmarried, which in Mrs Bennet's eyes would, seemingly, be a catastrophe.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best manifestations of class differences was revealed through Mr Collins behaviour. On one hand he is completely over the top with his upper class patron, Catherine De Bourgh. He treats her as if she is the queen and holds her in high regard and expects other characters to behave in a similar way. Yet at the ball he introduces himself to Mr Darcy (someone who is far superior to Mr Collins) much to the horror of Lizzy. He is socially inept with an exaggerated view of how the class system works. Nonetheless one could argue that other characters behave in just a slightly more diluted way to that of Mr Collins, class and behaviour is everywhere. It's only come characters who discuss it so often, this could even be mirrored in Dublin nowadays.