EA 190 Shakespeare & Japan Week 6 and 7 Lectures

Weeks 7

I. Shakespeare and the Conventions of Tragedy

A. Is Shakespeare following the conventions of tragedy, or flouting them?

1. My position: Shakespeare expects you do know the conventions of tragedy, and he uses that knowledge to manipulate you.

WIKIPEDIA ON TRAGEDY:
“As the Greeks developed it, the tragic form, more than any other, raised questions about human existence. Why must humans suffer? Why must humans be forever torn between the seeming irreconcilable forces of good and evil, freedom and necessity, truth and deceit? Are the causes of suffering outside of oneself, in blind chance, in the evil designs of others, in the malice of the gods? Are its causes internal, and does one bring suffering upon oneself through arrogance, infatuation, or the tendency to overreach? Why is justice so elusive?”

“Tragedy must maintain a balance between the higher optimisms of religion or philosophy, or any other beliefs that tend to explain away the enigmas and afflictions of existence, on the one hand, and the pessimism that would reject the whole human experiment as valueless and futile on the other.”

“As to the Classical unities, Shakespeare adheres to them only twice and neither time in a tragedy, in The Comedy of Errors and The Tempest. And through the mouths of his characters, Shakespeare, like Aristotle, puts himself on both sides of the central question of tragic destiny—that of freedom and necessity. Aristotle says that a tragic destiny is precipitated by the hero’s tragic fault, his “error or frailty” (hamartia), but Aristotle also calls this turn of events a change of “fortune.” Shakespeare’s Cassius in Julius Caesar says, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, / But in ourselves,” and, in King Lear, Edmund ridicules a belief in fortune as the “foppery of the world.”

But Hamlet, in a comment on the nature of hamartia, is a fatalist when he broods on the “mole of nature,” the “one defect” that some men are born with, “wherein they are not guilty,” and that brings them to disaster (Act I, scene 4).”

B. The convention of exposition: that as quickly and smoothly as possible in the first act the playwright is supposed to give us our bearings, to let us know who's who and what's what, who we're supposed to root for, and who we're supposed to be booing.

Watch the opening scene Act 1 Scene 1 (Gloucester, Kent and Edmund)

1. QUESTION: Do we know who to root for by the end of the scene?

a. Would you think that Gloucester was the good guy and Edmund the bad guy just from this opening?

b. What has Gloucester done for Edmund?

c. What does this first impression do for us as the audience?

d. Later point that Edgar (who tends to try to moralize everything) makes with regard to his father:

“The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
 Make instruments to plague us.
The dark and vicious place where he thee got
Cost him his eyes” (5.3. p. 249)

Watch Act 1 Scene 2 (Lear tests his daughters and banishes Cordelia)

2. QUESTION: What do we find out about Lear in Act 1 Scene 2?

a. list characteristics

b. But whose point of view are we getting at this point? NOTE: everyone who is morally good in the play (Kent, Gloucester, Edgar, Cordelia, Cornwall) loves and honors Lear. Only those who turn out to be villains have bad things to say about him. So who do we trust?

3. QUESTION: How long does it take us to really get that Goneril and Regan are bad? If you just looked at the first scene, what negative things might you say about Cordelia? About Lear?

(video 16:00 sisters talk, video 35:00 Lear curses Goneril or here, video 1:04:00 Goneril and Regan send Lear into storm)

a. Goneril and Regan

b. Cordelia:

 

4. QUESTION: Why is Lear dividing his kingdom and marrying off Cordelia at the same time? Does this make any sense at all?

a. Historical background: King James I trying to get Parliament to declare him King of Britain, and pointing back to King Leir, who supposedly made the mistake of dividing up England, Scotland, and Wales. Jamese would reunite what had been divided. But then what is Lear's mistake?

1) Should he have not abdicated at all? But when he dies he still has no male heir, and the same problem will be facing the kingdom.

2) Should he have given everything to Cordelia and her new husband? But then he's turning over the British kingdom to France or Burgandy!

3) Should he have given everything to his eldest born daughter, Goneril, and her husband Albany (along the lines of primogeniture)? But we can see what a horrible person Goneril is.

If Shakespeare is making a comment on the current situation (union versus anti-union), he is not taking any kind of clear and stable position. The invasion of Britain by France at the end, is also highly problematic in terms of politics

b. If Lear marries Cordelia off to the Duke of Burgandy or the King of France, where does he expect to go to spend his retirement? How will Cordelia rule the center of England from France?

c. Cordelia recognizes what Lear is doing, and refuses to go along with it. [1.1.105-115, p. 13]
 
"Good my lord, you have begot me, bred me, loved me: I
Return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey you love you, and most honor you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say
They love you all? Happily, when I shall wed,
Half my love with him, half my care and duty.
Sure I shall never marry like my sisters,
To love my father all."

5. If Shakespeare was intending to show us who to root for, he appears to have failed. So what is he doing?

a. We’ll see this in Ran as well.

b. Right at the start, implicit criticisms of the inequalities of social structures such as marriage,  primogeniture -- they are hidden causes of the subsequent tragic developments. Not just that Lear is ignorant or rash -- that the system is set up to fail.

II. Belief and skepticism in King Lear

From a modern perspective, King Lear seems to be asking the question: is there a god or gods who care what happens to human beings? Is there such a thing as justice in this world? This is a difficult question to ask straightforwardly in Shakespeare’s time because it would have been considered blasphemous.

A. Not long before King Lear was written, using the lord’s name in vain or any kind of blasphemy (especially implying that there is no God) on stage was outlawed.  How does setting the story in a prehistoric Britain allow Shakespeare to get around this?

1. Video: Ian McKellen talking about faith in gods in King Lear

B. Two world views in King Lear (skepticism vs faith). In Ran we will see the conflicting views of skepticism and Buddhism.

1. The "faith" position: those who believe that the gods/Fortune's wheel/ astrology determine our fate.

WIKIPEDIA ON THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE (Rota Fortunae, not the game show!):

"The Wheel of Fortune, or Rota Fortunae, is a concept in medieval and ancient philosophy referring to the capricious nature of Fate. The wheel belongs to the goddess Fortuna, who spins it at random, changing the positions of those on the wheel - some suffer great misfortune, others gain windfalls. Fortune appears on all paintings as a woman, sometimes blindfolded, "puppeteering" a wheel."

See also images of the Rota Fortunae

a. In the case of the gods (Apollo, the Sun God is called on most often), they will punish those who are bad, and reward those who are good.

b. In the case of Fortune's Wheel, the wheel turns round to bring those who have fallen back to former grace (if they have learned their lesson in humility and justice).

c. In the case of astrology/horoscope, it would seem that all is fated and beyond our control.

(From a to c, human beings appear to have a decreasing amount of control over their fate.)

2. The skeptic's position: that human suffering is caused by humans, and that gods, or Fortune, or astrology have nothing to do with it.

NOTE: A belief in "Nature" (with a capital "N") is more ambiugous -- the word itself is generally used to mean " the natural world" or "one's natural disposition." If the character believes that Nature and Society are distinct, then they tend toward the skeptical position. If they believe that events in Nature reflect events in Society (eg. eclipses = bad omens about social relations), then they tend toward the first position (faith in gods/fortune/astrology).

3.  Who are the characters who seem to believe in skepticism, at least initially?

 

4.  Who are the characters who believe in the gods, at least initially?

 

C. Examples of Skepticism:

Trevor Nunn production (2008) with Ian McLellen

Philip Winchester as Edmund, part 1 (2008)

Philip Winchester as Edmund, part 2

1. Edmund

[1. 2. 108-121 p. 35] Gloucester talks about eclipses as omens.

video (Trevor Nun production): 21:14

video: Raul Julia 23:46


[1.2. 125 p. 37] After he leaves, Edmund argues that astrology is bunk, Nature does not = fate, suffering is created by humans:

“This is the excellent foppery of the world...”

video (Trevor Nun production): 21:40

2. Fool: "Fortune that arrant whore, Ne'er turns the key to th' poor" [2.4.58-59, p. 101]

 

D. Characters who believe in fortune/astrology/gods:

Lear, Gloucester, Edgar, to a certain extent Kent

 

E. Does what happens to each character support their beliefs about the way the world is or challenge those beliefs? For example, are their prayers answered?

F. At the end of the play do any of the characters still believe in the existence of benign deities who care about what happens to human beings? Cite scenes/lines to support your position.

1. Are any prayers heard? Are any attempts to explain events by supernatural intercession shown to be true?

2. Fortune's wheel becomes a rack in which Gloucesters eyes are gouged out; or a metaphorical wheel of fire that Lear is being tortured upon at the end of the play.

3. Edgar's attempt to teach his father to believe through miraculous jump from cliffs of Dover

a. Fails in the long term
b. Audience knows it is all faked. How does this effect our sense of Edgar's goodness?

4. What happens in the end? Why does Cordelia die?

video

Edgar: [5.3.204-207, p. 249]
"The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices/
make instruments to plague us./
The dark and vicious place where they he got/
cost him his eyes.

Edmund:
Th'hast spoken right. 'Tis true,/
The wheel is come full circle; I am here." [5.3.208]

And after Edgar describes his father’s death, Edgar says:


“This speech of yours hath moved me,
And shall perchance do good. But speak you on.
You look as you had something more to say.” [5.3.236, p. 251]

When Edmund hears that Goneril and Regan are dead:

video (4:00)

"Yet Edmund was beloved./
The one the other poisoned for my sake,/
and after slew herself." [5.3.287, p. 253]

Then Kent walks in and asks where Lear and Cordelia are (the obvious question).

Albany: Great thing of us forgot!/ Speak Edmund, where's the King? And where's Cordelia?"[5.3.282, p. 253]

Edmund says [291-295]:
“Some good I mean to do/
Despite of mine own nature. Quickly send—
Be brief in it—to th’castles, for my write
Is on the life of Lear, and on Cordelia.
Nay, send in time”

Albany says "The gods defend her!"

The silence of “nothingness” that is played upon throughout the play, becomes the silence of the gods at the end:

Lear
"The feather stirs, she lives! If it be so,/
It is a chance which does redeem all sorrows/
that ever I have felt." [5.3.319-21, p. 257]

But Cordelia is
"dead as earth." [313]

Kent: Is this the promised end?
Edgar: Or image of that Horror?
Albany: Fall and cease!

Weak last moralizing attempt by Albany:

"All friends shall taste the wages of their virtue, and all foes/
The cup of their deservings." [5.3.364 p. 259]

And then one more moral by Edgar.

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
The oldest hath borne most; we that are young
Shall never see so much, nor live so long." (5.3.392-95, p. 261)

6. Many early critics objected to the ending:

Bradley: the catastrophe, "does not seem at all inevitable...In fact it seems expressly
designed to fall suddenly like a bolt from a sky cleared by the vanished storm."

Is there any supranatural or supernatural force that will intercede for human beings?

II. So what is the lesson learned, if any?

DISCUSSION QUESTION 2: Choose EITHER Lear or Gloucester and answer the following questions:

a. How do Lear or Gloucester understand themselves at the beginning of the play? That is, how do they view themselves, positively or negatively and why?

b. How do the characters around them view them? For example, how do Goneril and Reagan view their father? How does Cordelia view him? How do Edmund and Edgar view their father?

c. Do you think Lear and Gloucester have learned anything at the end of the play? Can we "moralize" Lear's and Gloucester's experience --that is, is there any lesson to be learned from their suffering/ experience? Why or why not? Cite scenes/lines to support your position.

It will be helpful to also think about how some of the minor characters, particularly Kent, Albany, and the Fool, understand Lear and Gloucester, but you don't have to consider them in writing.

CLASS PRESENTATION on Imagery in King Lear (type out your notes to turn in with week 7 discussion questions)

Pick ONE of the following kinds of imagery in the play and note all the instances you can find (lines and page numbers). Pick two of the images you've found (not just the first two you run into please!), quote the lines in which the image appears, and discuss what you think the image means in that specific context and in the wider context of the play.

In other words, you need to come up with a thesis for how this kind of imagery is working in the play as a whole, present that thesis, and then give two examples (with pg #s, line #s) to support your argument.

SIGN UP SHEET

a. Weather: how does it appear to reflect the external social chaos and the internal mental turmoil of Lear? How does he respond? How do people around him respond?

b. Vision and blindness, both literal and metaphorical: i.e. the difference between literal blindness (eg. after Gloucester gets his eyes plucked out) and the blindness of not understanding (eg. Gloucester not recognizing which son actually loves him).

c. Clothing and nakedness: how do clothes "make the man" in King Lear? How are clothes related to power? Why does Lear take off his clothing when he goes mad?

d. Nothing and nothingness: When Cordelia replies "nothing" to her father's request to tell him how much she loves him, he says "Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again." From this moment onward, the idea of nothing, nothingness, naught, zero (a mathematical concept which had only just been introduced) appears repeatedly. What is the effect of all this nothinginess?

e. Animal imagery (predation and animal nature): used to describe Goneril and Regan, especially, but other characters as well, such as Cordelia. How are traits attributed to the characters, positively and negatively? Are they gendered? Do they change over the course of the play, and how does that indicate a change in attitude voiced toward that character?