Power In King Lear Essay
Philosophers view social class as a division of powers, which continuously shapes society. Power throughout the play is a noticeable theme, which runs until the final lines of the play. Characters portray the theme of power in different manners, having a tremendous effect on the ongoing events. In terms of the marxist theory, Shakespeare has awarded and deprived power from his protagonists throughout a horrendous process in his tragedy of King Lear. The possession of power has moved characters from higher social classes to lower ones, and vice versa. Based on many aspects from the marxist theory, the shift of power has made monsters of some characters, but thoughtful individuals in others. Shakespeare uses the theme of power in King Lear to
…show more content…
shape destiny, and divert what is expected, but it is only when power is abused that these changes become conspicuous. To begin with, Shakespeare starts the process of awarding power to shape not only Lear’s, but Cordelia’s destiny as well. Lear asks his daughters how much love they have for him, and expects an individual reply from each of his daughters. Cordelia’s response changes her destiny when she states her relationship with her father: “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave. My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty. According to my bond; no more nor less” (Shakespeare I, I, 90-92). This is Cordelia’s response to her father, who is dividing his kingdom amongst his daughters. At the moment, Lear is in charge, and such a reply does not meet his demands, compared to Goneril’s and Regan’s empty flattery. The truthful reply by Cordelia, and the fact that she loves her father according to their bond as a father and daughter causes Lear to rage at her due to her lack of love, at least in his point of view. Based on the marxist theory, whoever has the power is the person that controls the upcoming events. Lear, who currently holds the power, decides that Cordelia is not worthy to inherit power in his kingdom, and hands the power to her two sisters. In addition to shaping Cordelia’s destiny, Shakespeare also shapes Lear’s own destiny. Handing all his powers to Goneril and Regan, Lear would surrender his fate to these two daughters, “ 'tis our fast intent, to shake all cares and business from our age; conferring them on younger strengths, while we unburthen'd crawl toward death” (Shakespeare I, I, 40-43). What Lear is not understanding is that his decision to divvy the kingdom would result in his suffering, as he is aging, while his two powerful daughters are planning to take over the whole country. His idea that the younger generation will keep the country running is true, but with all that power in their possession, Goneril and Regan will become monsters. This leaves Lear weak and without cover, which later leads him to lose whatever power he has left. To demonstrate the application of the marxist theory in society, the critical perspective created by Eva Richardson connects both society and the marxist theory. Richardson explains that society is controlled by individuals who own more property, and to be more precise, people who owned means of production, ‘’The means of production in society controlled the society, and whoever owned the factories owned the culture’’. This theory developed by Karl Marx, and restated by Richardson can be applied to analyze King Lear. Lear has the power, which means he can do whatever he wants, which in this case is to divide his kingdom between the daughter that love him the most. Also, based on Richardson’s explanation, power can be used to oppress the poor and the weak. This is present when Lear doesn't give Cordelia a share in his kingdom, but also appears throughout the play as his two daughters oppress him with their power. As a matter of fact, power opens doors for its possessor, but in reality and based on expert opinion, one must expect to be unprivileged when they lose their power.
Furthermore, by giving power to certain characters and depriving it form others, Shakespeare diverts the expected future of the play to one which is everything but conventional.
Going back to the start of the play, Lear decides to divide his kingdom into three sections, “Meantime we shall express our darker purpose. Give me the map there. Know that we have divided in three our kingdom” (Shakespeare I, I, 37-39). According to the marxist theory, only the people with power can choose to perform changes, even when it is against the will of the majority. As he has the power, Lear wants to divide his kingdom, which was uncommon back when the play was written, as kings at that time were aiming to unite England and Scotland. Following the division of the kingdom, Lear’s Fool begins to point out his king’s mistakes. Lear’s Fool is a smart character, despite his name, as he defines Lear’s actions, “Ever since thou madest thy daughters, thy mothers: for when thou gavest them the rod, and put'st down thine own breeches” (Shakespeare I, IV, 15). The Fool expresses his concerns, as he thinks Lear has pulled “breeches’’ his pants down, and the fact that he has given Goneril and Regan a rod to hit him with. After abdicating his thrown to his daughters, and as stated in the marxist theory, Lear lowered himself in society, while his two daughters rose to the highest level in society. Unfortunately, the Fool’s concerns will later become a reality, but for Lear, it is too late. In like manner, and throughout his article, Paul Delany describes the importance of social class in King Lear. Delany also points out that having power is not an issue, but he also mentions that the issue is created by people who hold that power as he compared the two sides in the play, ‘’I shall assume, therefore, that the opposition between the party of Lear and the party of Regan, Goneril, and Edmund is not merely a conflict between good and evil persons; it conveys also a social meaning that derives from
the contemporary historical situation as Shakespeare understood it, …as well as the division of powers’’. Delany explains that Lear lead to the creation of two sides that have a conflict over power. He then adds that power itself doesn't create conflict, it is the people in power that cause conflict in the first place. Although this may be true, power is always in favour of its holder. Above all, in King Lear, power has altered the course of the play, which lead to events that could have been avoided if power was not misused.
Similarly, Shakespeare’s methods of moving power in King Lear allows the abuse of power to take place. Which becomes clear as the events unfold. The abuse of power becomes clear as time passes, and it indirectly affects Lear. Cornwall, Regan’s husband puts Lear’s servant in the stocks. This is the ultimate disrespect to Lear, which leads Kent to say: “Sir, I am too old to learn. Call not your stocks for me: I serve the king; On whose employment I was sent to you: You shall do small respect, show too bold malice. Against the grace and person of my master, stocking his messenger” (Shakespeare II, II, 21). Kent explains that he is the messenger of the king, and he should not be put in the stocks. This method of punishing Kent by Cornwall is a major sign of power abuse, which amongst many, leads to Lear’s loss of his sanity. In similar fashion, the power abuse against Gloucester is used by Shakespeare as another example to demonstrate the presence of the marxist theory, as having power equals the ability to act without consideration of the possible outcomes. Cornwall and Regan want to deliver another disrespectful act to Lear, and by blinding Gloucester, they achieve their goal. After getting his eyes plucked out, Gloucester says: “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport” (Shakespeare IV, I, 37-38). Gloucester wonders whether there is any justice in the universe, and if there is anyone capable of bringing order back to the kingdom. This is philosophical, but after becoming blind, Gloucester begins to understand the world and suddenly becomes wise, which is expected as he is now aware of the abuse of power. To put it differently, Peter Holland used the perfect expression to describe King Lear. Holland describes his research findings regarding King Lear, and mentions that, “King Lear is, above all, a play about power, property and inheritance. Which rejects the notion of humanist sentiments”. Holland’s research results indicated that King Lear is a play where personal satisfaction is the number one priority, and that other people’s interests are not considered. This matches the previous opinions of experts, as they all show that King Lear is all about the power. It must be remembered that Lear’s decision is the cause of all this trouble, whether its in Kent’s or Gloucester’s punishments.
Without doubt, Shakespeare has used power to build the events of the play, whether in awarding or depriving it from his protagonists. As well as using power to shape the destiny of characters, to divert what is expected, and to present the abuse of power, which results in the continuous change of the status of every character. For the most part, being in control is the motivator that drives people towards the possession of power, unfortunately, this usually ends up turning the entire world upside down.
shape destiny, and divert what is expected, but it is only when power is abused that these changes become conspicuous. To begin with, Shakespeare starts the process of awarding power to shape not only Lear’s, but Cordelia’s destiny as well. Lear asks his daughters how much love they have for him, and expects an individual reply from each of his daughters. Cordelia’s response changes her destiny when she states her relationship with her father: “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave. My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty. According to my bond; no more nor less” (Shakespeare I, I, 90-92). This is Cordelia’s response to her father, who is dividing his kingdom amongst his daughters. At the moment, Lear is in charge, and such a reply does not meet his demands, compared to Goneril’s and Regan’s empty flattery. The truthful reply by Cordelia, and the fact that she loves her father according to their bond as a father and daughter causes Lear to rage at her due to her lack of love, at least in his point of view. Based on the marxist theory, whoever has the power is the person that controls the upcoming events. Lear, who currently holds the power, decides that Cordelia is not worthy to inherit power in his kingdom, and hands the power to her two sisters. In addition to shaping Cordelia’s destiny, Shakespeare also shapes Lear’s own destiny. Handing all his powers to Goneril and Regan, Lear would surrender his fate to these two daughters, “ 'tis our fast intent, to shake all cares and business from our age; conferring them on younger strengths, while we unburthen'd crawl toward death” (Shakespeare I, I, 40-43). What Lear is not understanding is that his decision to divvy the kingdom would result in his suffering, as he is aging, while his two powerful daughters are planning to take over the whole country. His idea that the younger generation will keep the country running is true, but with all that power in their possession, Goneril and Regan will become monsters. This leaves Lear weak and without cover, which later leads him to lose whatever power he has left. To demonstrate the application of the marxist theory in society, the critical perspective created by Eva Richardson connects both society and the marxist theory. Richardson explains that society is controlled by individuals who own more property, and to be more precise, people who owned means of production, ‘’The means of production in society controlled the society, and whoever owned the factories owned the culture’’. This theory developed by Karl Marx, and restated by Richardson can be applied to analyze King Lear. Lear has the power, which means he can do whatever he wants, which in this case is to divide his kingdom between the daughter that love him the most. Also, based on Richardson’s explanation, power can be used to oppress the poor and the weak. This is present when Lear doesn't give Cordelia a share in his kingdom, but also appears throughout the play as his two daughters oppress him with their power. As a matter of fact, power opens doors for its possessor, but in reality and based on expert opinion, one must expect to be unprivileged when they lose their power.
Furthermore, by giving power to certain characters and depriving it form others, Shakespeare diverts the expected future of the play to one which is everything but conventional.
Going back to the start of the play, Lear decides to divide his kingdom into three sections, “Meantime we shall express our darker purpose. Give me the map there. Know that we have divided in three our kingdom” (Shakespeare I, I, 37-39). According to the marxist theory, only the people with power can choose to perform changes, even when it is against the will of the majority. As he has the power, Lear wants to divide his kingdom, which was uncommon back when the play was written, as kings at that time were aiming to unite England and Scotland. Following the division of the kingdom, Lear’s Fool begins to point out his king’s mistakes. Lear’s Fool is a smart character, despite his name, as he defines Lear’s actions, “Ever since thou madest thy daughters, thy mothers: for when thou gavest them the rod, and put'st down thine own breeches” (Shakespeare I, IV, 15). The Fool expresses his concerns, as he thinks Lear has pulled “breeches’’ his pants down, and the fact that he has given Goneril and Regan a rod to hit him with. After abdicating his thrown to his daughters, and as stated in the marxist theory, Lear lowered himself in society, while his two daughters rose to the highest level in society. Unfortunately, the Fool’s concerns will later become a reality, but for Lear, it is too late. In like manner, and throughout his article, Paul Delany describes the importance of social class in King Lear. Delany also points out that having power is not an issue, but he also mentions that the issue is created by people who hold that power as he compared the two sides in the play, ‘’I shall assume, therefore, that the opposition between the party of Lear and the party of Regan, Goneril, and Edmund is not merely a conflict between good and evil persons; it conveys also a social meaning that derives from
the contemporary historical situation as Shakespeare understood it, …as well as the division of powers’’. Delany explains that Lear lead to the creation of two sides that have a conflict over power. He then adds that power itself doesn't create conflict, it is the people in power that cause conflict in the first place. Although this may be true, power is always in favour of its holder. Above all, in King Lear, power has altered the course of the play, which lead to events that could have been avoided if power was not misused.
Similarly, Shakespeare’s methods of moving power in King Lear allows the abuse of power to take place. Which becomes clear as the events unfold. The abuse of power becomes clear as time passes, and it indirectly affects Lear. Cornwall, Regan’s husband puts Lear’s servant in the stocks. This is the ultimate disrespect to Lear, which leads Kent to say: “Sir, I am too old to learn. Call not your stocks for me: I serve the king; On whose employment I was sent to you: You shall do small respect, show too bold malice. Against the grace and person of my master, stocking his messenger” (Shakespeare II, II, 21). Kent explains that he is the messenger of the king, and he should not be put in the stocks. This method of punishing Kent by Cornwall is a major sign of power abuse, which amongst many, leads to Lear’s loss of his sanity. In similar fashion, the power abuse against Gloucester is used by Shakespeare as another example to demonstrate the presence of the marxist theory, as having power equals the ability to act without consideration of the possible outcomes. Cornwall and Regan want to deliver another disrespectful act to Lear, and by blinding Gloucester, they achieve their goal. After getting his eyes plucked out, Gloucester says: “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport” (Shakespeare IV, I, 37-38). Gloucester wonders whether there is any justice in the universe, and if there is anyone capable of bringing order back to the kingdom. This is philosophical, but after becoming blind, Gloucester begins to understand the world and suddenly becomes wise, which is expected as he is now aware of the abuse of power. To put it differently, Peter Holland used the perfect expression to describe King Lear. Holland describes his research findings regarding King Lear, and mentions that, “King Lear is, above all, a play about power, property and inheritance. Which rejects the notion of humanist sentiments”. Holland’s research results indicated that King Lear is a play where personal satisfaction is the number one priority, and that other people’s interests are not considered. This matches the previous opinions of experts, as they all show that King Lear is all about the power. It must be remembered that Lear’s decision is the cause of all this trouble, whether its in Kent’s or Gloucester’s punishments.
Without doubt, Shakespeare has used power to build the events of the play, whether in awarding or depriving it from his protagonists. As well as using power to shape the destiny of characters, to divert what is expected, and to present the abuse of power, which results in the continuous change of the status of every character. For the most part, being in control is the motivator that drives people towards the possession of power, unfortunately, this usually ends up turning the entire world upside down.