Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
is misleading. We can only understand the experience of his heroes in terms of their
rank and status and in relation to the societies of which they are a part”
1
counter the intuitive urge to measure the heroes’ experiences against our own values,
and attempt to imagine their situation in terms of the context of their (fictional)
existence.
I will begin by discussing King Lear. Our current social and ethical framework
would cause us as readers to interpret the plight of Lear and the major themes within
the play completely differently than the Elizabethan audience for whom it was
written. To the modern audience Lear is a humanistic tragedy about the foolish desire
of a father to have the love of his daughters vocalized. To the Elizabethans however,
this drama dealt with key cultural and historical issues of the time. The play was
written at a time where there was a great emphasis on the “chain of being”, actions,
and their consequences. It also emphasized the problems with dividing a kingdom, at
a time in which King James was calling for a united Great Britain. We can not
understand the gravity of Lear’s actions without understanding the conventions of the
time in which the play is set, and the time of its intended audience. Lear makes three
mistakes that lead to his tragic fall that the modern reader would probably take no
great notice of without applying a historicist reading and considering the values of the
time in which Lear is intended to exist. Firstly, he hands his kingdom over before his
death, when at the time doing so was against convention, and against the standard
order of the “Elizabethan World Picture”1. A king remains the most powerful
authority over his land, so chaos ensues if there is a king without land to reign over
(as Lear had decided to be), and if there is a kingdom under the rule of an authority
lesser than a king, whilst the previous and capable king is still alive. Secondly, Lear
errs in dividing his kingdom into parts instead of allowing it to remain whole. Not
only must we consider the gravity of this action in terms of the fictional world which
Lear inhabits and its social conventions, but also in terms of the world which
Shakespeare was writing for. At the time of this play, King James I, the patron of
Shakespeare’s theatre company was attempting to create a United Kingdom, and so
we can see why Shakespeare would be warding off separatist ideas by showing the
destruction and chaos that occurs with a kingdom divided. Lastly, Lear hands his
kingdom over to daughters, when the convention was to pass kingdoms down to male
1
Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. Penguin, London 1972
2
heirs. Again, this can be analyzed against the cultural and historical events of
Shakespeare’s time, in particular, Elizabeth I’s reign, and her ascension to the throne
due to an absence of a male heir. In these three errors committed by Lear we can only
comprehend the gravity of their consequences in terms of the context created by the
play. That is, to the modern reader, it is not such a detrimental action to pass down
assets to the female gender, and in general, the division of assets is expected between
siblings. To grasp the predicament that Lear places himself in by committing these
three errors we must interpret his experience in terms of what it would be like to be a
king at the period of time in which King Lear is set. In that time period it was simply
unacceptable to do what Lear did, and the chaos and turmoil Lear suffers as a direct
result exemplifies the errors he commits and their social unacceptability. Likewise,
when we consider the parallel plot of Gloucester and his two sons, it would be
impossible to understand Edmund’s motivation for his actions without considering the
implications of being a bastard son during the period of the play. In our modern
society there is far less emphasis on the social implications of being a bastard son, but
in Lear’s social context, the fact that Edmund is a bastard as well as the youngest son
condemns him to receive none of his father’s wealth, creating a clear motivation for
his evil plans.
3
Similarly, without considering Coriolanus’ social position it is difficult to understand
his contempt for the plebeian people. Once we regard Coriolanus as a member of the
Roman military we can see how the immobility of the Roman plebeians frustrates
him. The same holds true when we look at Titus Andronicus. It would be unrealistic
for the modern reader to understand why Titus kills his daughter without taking into
account the fundamental principles held at the time it is set. A deep sense of pride and
family honour drives Titus to commit his daughter’s murder, which at our present day
would be unacceptable and unheard of, yet was completely acceptable within the play.
Had Titus let his daughter live, she would be forever branded with the physical
reminders of her rape and mistreatment. Titus kills her out of fatherly love, choosing
to preserve what’s left of her honour rather than allowing it to slowly fade away. In
our modern day there is a higher regard for the value of life and far more contempt for
death, so the reader would have difficulty with the concept of paternal piety without
placing Titus’ actions in the context of his historical world.
4
Bibliography and Works Cited
Tillyard, E. M. W. The Elizabethan World Picture. Penguin, London 1972
Shakespeare, William (Edited by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor). The Oxford
Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Oxford University Press 1998