Therefore to take Schneider's wider point further; can death mean the same today as it did in Elizabethan times? And if Shakespearean tragedy is reliant on death as its theme, and the metaphors which convey this theme based on this conception, can that theme be relevant to a modern audience? The behaviour of Shakespeare characters can be said to always relate back to their relationship with the central theme. Therefore it may be that a modern audience would look to the hubris and lack of foresight displayed by Lear and Gloucester throughout the early sections of the play, and the metaphorical delivery of this message, and see this in the modern context, perhaps to see the men as conceited or arrogant, or foolish and stupid. Schneider argues however that this behaviour was typical of men of power and influence at a time of such low mortality and in a setting where death could come unexpectedly, often violently, at any time, and that therefore much of the meaning may be lost to a modern audience.
“Whatever the reason, posterity's opinion meant a great deal more in Shakespeare's day than it does in ours, and a good name after death was more important than a good life beforehand. Or, as Shakespeare puts the case, out of the mouth of Iago into the ear of Othello:
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed. (3.3.157-161)”
(Schneider 1995 sec 8)
So what then can we say of the “matrix” of metaphors by which Shakespeare conveys his meaning? For, if as Schneider and others have argued, the basis of that matrix is unintelligible to a modern audience, if fundamental themes such as death are understood so fundamentally differently as to be irrelevant in their intended original interpretation, is not the whole basis of relevance called into question, is not the timeless appeal- of which so much is spoken – in reality an illusion?
Many of Shakespeare’s plays however are cautionary tales about the kind of hubris and foolishness that absolute power can bring. His central characters in the tragedies usually display some weakness of character which allows the tragic circumstances to unfold. Again one could well argue that this moral is a distinctly Elizabethan one. That in our days of corporate and democratic accountability the power of any individual to allow their weakness or foolishness to affect those over whom they hold power is nothing as compared to the 16th century; with its absolute monarchs and divine right of kings.
“In relation to the monarchy, Hamlet, Macbeth and King Lear all have a theme which was a matter of political argument throughout the Tudor and Stuart periods: the question of kingship.”
(Marsh 1998 p183)
So then it may be an acceptable criticism to argue that without understanding the underlying social and historical context, and to simply take the plays and writings of Shakespeare in isolation would be to not understand many of the themes in the play. For example in King Lear the division of the kingdom speaks to the Elizabethan audience as the whole of England was in political turmoil at that time, Scottish Jacobites supported catholic pretenders to the English throne and Elizabeth’s government enforced England’s Protestantism in an often brutal fashion. Also the trickery and scheming of Edmund, the unjust treatment of Edgar as a result of this and the manipulation of Gloucester, as with the flattery of Lear by Goneril and Regan and his blindness to the honesty and truth of Cordelia, speak perhaps clearly of the dangers of absolute power, and its weakness to manipulation; again a theme perhaps all to close to the hearts of the Elizabethan audience.
However can it truly be said that this historical contextualisation- or a perceived lack of it- is such a barrier to the appreciation of the play by a modern audience as to deem the central themes and messages irrelevant? It could perhaps be argued that the appreciation of the historical context is a necessary part of the appreciation of the work in general; certainly it is true that a certain degree of contextualisation is necessary in the teaching of Shakespeare, and perhaps an audience today would miss much of the relevance of the plays without this knowledge. However there are perhaps even broader themes to King Lear, as with all the plays, which require no historical appreciation to understand. These themes, as an ardent Shakespearean would argue, are the themes that are timeless, and are the means by which Shakespeare has, and perhaps always will, stayed relevant.
Therefore turning once again to King Lear; the themes of the play must, for the relevance of it to a modern audience to be justified, both appeal to and be understood by that audience. Perhaps it could be argued that historical context is an element of audience appreciation which can, if lacking, be taught or otherwise explained. However if the central themes, the “metaphors, images, allusions and statements”, are irrelevant to the audience then the message of the play is lost, and perhaps then it truly does become little more than a historical curiosity.
"By all the operation of the orbs
From whom we do exist and cease to be;
Here I disclaim all my paternal care,
Propinquity and property of blood,
And as a stranger to my heart and me
Hold thee, from this, for ever."
(King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1, lines 111-116)
The opening to the play sets the beginnings of the tragic trap which lays ahead, for both the audience and the characters. Lear in his pivotal central role sits in judgment of the love of his own daughters, much could be said perhaps of the meanings attributable to the folly of the division of the kingdom, but central and fundamental to the theme would seem to be Lear’s decision. For on being flattered by the sliver tongues of Goneril and Regan (as mentioned perhaps symbolic of the power of manipulators in absolute monarchical government; but again perhaps not crucial) Lear is blind to the true love and loyalty of Cordelia. The passage above is the moment at which Lear’s blindness to reality leads him to banish Cordelia and the faithful Kent in a fit of vengeful rage. This mistaken pride and blindness to true feeling sets a central theme of the play, vision and insight, and the text is rich with metaphors which convey this theme.
In King Lear vision and insight is used to symbolise a lack of understanding of the reality of this world. This theme runs throughout the play, Lear is blind to the love of Cordelia, the loyalty of Kent, the true nature of the suffering under which many of his subjects live, Gloucester is blind to the manipulation of Edmund and the loyalty of Edgar, Lear blind to the same traits in Regan and Goneril, and it is all brought home by repeated use of blindness and sight as a metaphor. Whilst it is possible to argue that the kind of lack of insight of which the play speaks is particular to the 16th century, it is not perhaps as convincing to say that this kind of blindness is not still in existence today. Almost anyone can think of a time in their life during which they have been blind to the truth and gone on to regret the choices they have made and it is a strong argument, often made, that it is this identification of common themes in the human condition in the works of Shakespeare that makes them timelessly relevant.
“Howl, howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stones:
Had I your tongues and eyes, I’d use them so
That heaven’s vault should crack. She’s gone forever!
I know when one is dead, and when one lives;
She’s dead as earth”
(V.iii.256–260)
The climax of the play is tragic in the extreme. Cordelia is brought before the audience dead in the arms of her once proud father, his re-found sanity and insight coming to late to save the one thing in his life which was true, the unconditional love of his child. Arguably even more than the death embrace of Romeo and Juliet this moment is tragedy to the point of being unbearable. The original audience, to compound this hopelessly tragic final outcome, would have been versed in the ancient Celtic legends of the mythical king, upon which the play is based, and be fully expecting the loving father and daughter to be re-united in love and new found wisdom. Revolinski (2002) makes this point, and goes on to use later examples of the play having been re-written to follow the traditional tale, the harrowing grief stricken Lear delivered from him madness into the depths of despair and a death of pure grief and exhaustion replaced with a wiser old man returned to the love of his daughter and his Kingdom.
Why then, having cautioned his audience on the dangers of blindness to reality, the consequences of the hubris and foolishness this in turn brings- Lear’s torment on the heath, with his fool playing the role of cautioner, as Lear slips into madness being testament to this lesson- does Shakespeare seek to put Lear, and more importantly his audience through, further suffering? Why did he not keep the story in its original form, why was Lear’s suffering in madness not enough to tell the cautionary tale? Perhaps it could be said the Shakespeare deems this facet of the human personality so important, so fundamental, that its consequence need be highlighted in the most graphic fashion imaginable.
“In Shakespeare's Lear, we are made to feel the full intensity of despair before we may pick up the pieces. By leaving us in this state, Lear forces us to do the work of reconciling ourselves to the universe, or of reconciling ourselves to our understanding of it. By forcing us to struggle to regain hope, we hopefully cling to it even more, especially after experiencing something so close to its loss. This experience that Lear thrusts us into is why Shakespeare's Lear is the version of the story we remember. And this is why Cordelia, or hope, must die. We must struggle with the finality of despair, before we can truly appreciate hope.”
(Revolinski 2002)
So it is perhaps clear that Shakespeare, with the drama and terrible anguish of the final scene of this perhaps greatest of Shakespearean tragedies, is seeking to make his most fundamental and striking observation on the human condition. That through suffering and despair, as Revolinski states, an appreciation of hope can be gained. And if that hope is a hope of men being able to see life for what it really is, to value virtue and not self interest, to value justice and not the pretence of it, to value good above evil, humanity above self, then perhaps Shakespeare speaks directly to what many would see as the best of human nature. For this message to be conveyed, however, he must perhaps first show us the very worst, and its consequences, and as Revolinski states, this is perhaps why the tragedy of King Lear is, for him, the greatest of all tragedies.
“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.”
(King Lear, 5, iii, 310-25)
The death throw repentance of King Lear’s Machiavellian schemer Edgar speaks perhaps directly to this timeless appeal to the better half of human nature. Through Edgar Shakespeare is perhaps saying that if the future is to be a future in which “we that are young” (the modern audience perhaps) “Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say”, or are ruled by our vision unclouded by political or financial self interest or our pride in our achievements, that such tragedy may not ever need to be seen again. For the greatest of tragedies are those which could and often should have been avoided. The genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, famine in Africa, the murder of children at home and countless other tragedies, large and small, in all our lives, are perhaps the modern “weight[s] of this sad time”, and a parallel could surely by found in any era of human history. Shakespeare then appeals to us to see the weakness of humanity in order that we may see its strength, to see suffering (as Revolinski states) in order to see hope, to see blindness in order to appreciate sight, to see evil in order that we see good. It would perhaps need to be a powerful argument that, historical and grammatical boundaries withstanding, this is not a message that can appeal to any audience, and be relevant to them.
Bibliography
Books
Danson, Lawrence, “Shakespeare’s Dramatic Genres” 2000 Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hawkes, Terence, “Meaning by Shakespeare” 1992 Routledge, London
Kott, Jan, “Shakespeare our Contemporary” 1965 Cox & Wyman, Norfolk
Marsh, Nicholas, “Shakespeare: The Tragedies” 1998 Macmillan Press, London
Rehder, R.M, “York Notes: William Shakespeare: King Lear” 1980 Longman Group, Essex
Websites and Online Resources
BBC Education – King Lear (various authors, none cited.)
Revolinski, Elaine 2002
RSC – Online Play Guides, King Lear (various authors, none cited.)
Schneider, Ben Ross, Jr. "King Lear in Its Own Time: The Difference that Death Makes." 1995, Lawerence University
Sutherland, John 2001, Guardian 09/02/01