A Summary of John Danbys Shakespeares Doctrine of Nature The words nature, natural and unnatural occur over forty

times in King Lear and twenty-eight in Macbeth. There was a debate in Shakespeares time about what Nature really was like. The debate pervades King Lear, and finds symbolic expression in Lears changing attitude to the Thunder, an aspect we shall return to later. Pages 15 to 53. Danby argues that Lear dramatizes, among other things, the current meanings of Nature. There are two strongly contrasting views of Nature in the play: that of the Lear party (Lear, Gloucester, Albany, Kent), exemplifying the philosophy of Bacon and Hooker, and that of the Edmund party (Edmund, Cornwall, Goneril, Regan), akin to the views later formulated by Hobbes. Briefly, the two Natures thus illustrated are as follows. The Nature of Bacon and Hooker (in varying degrees of sophistication) was the orthodox view, according to which Nature is essentially orderly and benign, connected with reason, custom and religion. This concept reflects both external harmony and the harmony within man and society. Thus the conduct of the Edmund party is an offence against both Nature and the individual. The Edmund party are reversing the procedure proper to natural theology (a divine benevolence in Nature what Lear has in mind when he says, thinking of human limitations, Natures above Art in that respect IV.5.85). To Hobbes, by contrast, Nature, as invoked in Edmunds soliloquy (1.2), is a force indifferent to social custom and order; she is more akin to the Romantic conception of the force from which springs strength of mind and animal vigour. The aspirations of the Edmund party are an illustration of the materialistic philosophy of Leviathan: So that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death (Ch.XI). The Baconian view was largely accepted in the 18th-century Age of Reason, while the Hobbesian view was later superseded by the Darwinian view of the 19th century. Danby argues that along with the two views of Nature, Lear contains two views of Reason, brought out in Gloucester and Edmunds speeches on astrology (1.2). Gloucester believes in astral influence; Edmund accepts no connections save material cause and effect. For Gloucester, Nature has a mind; for Edmund, Nature is a dead mechanism, but man has a mind, his best weapon. Society becomes competition. Reason is no longer a normative drive, but a means to satisfy the will. Shakespeare opposes the new rationality against the old Reason. Danby points out that the rationality of the Edmund party is one with which a modern audience more readily identify. In some ways it is more normal, in that up to a point they behave as we unfortunately expect people to. But they carry sold rationalism to such extremes that it becomes madness: a madness-in-reason, the ironic counterpart of Lears reason in madness (IV.5.167) and the Fools wisdom-in-folly. This betrayal of reason, as we shall see, lies behind the plays later emphasis on feeling. The two Natures and the two Reasons imply two societies. Edmund is the New Man, a member of an age of competition, suspicion, glory, in contrast with the older society which has come down from the Middle Ages, with its belief in cooperation, reasonable decency, and respect for the whole as greater than the part. Shakespeares understanding of the New Man is so extensive as to amount almost to sympathy. Danby speculates that this insight could arise from the dramatist being in part a New Man himself which would account for the colour and charm with which he invests the figure in his plays. In fact, Edmund is the last great expression in Shakespeare of that side of Renaissance individualism the energy, the emancipation, the courage which has made a positive contribution to the heritage of the West. He embodies something vital which a final synthesis must reaffirm. But he makes an absolute claim which Shakespeare will not support. It is right for man to feel, as Edmund does, that society exists for man, not man for society. It is not right to assert the kind of man Edmund would erect to this supremacy (p.50). King Lear is thus an allegory. The older society, that of the medieval vision, with its doting king, falls into error, and is threatened by the new machiavellianism; it is regenerated and saved by a vision of a new order, embodied in the kings rejected daughter. The play, in short, offers an alternative to the feudal- machiavellian polarity: an alternative foreshadowed in Frances speech (1.1.245256), in Lear and Gloucesters prayers (111.4. 2836

and IV.1.6166), and in the figure of Cordelia. Cordelia, then, in the allegorical scheme, is threefold: a person; an ethical principle (love); and a community. Pages 57 to 101 contain an interesting section on earlier characters who lead up to Edmund Richard III, the Bastard in King John, and Hal and Falstaff. All of these men are characterized, in varying degrees of frankness, by the pursuit of Commodity (i.e. advantage, profit, expediency) (see King John 11.1.574, and pages 7274). Danbys views on Hal and Falstaff are (I believe) original. Hotspur and Hal are joint heirs of a split Falconbridge, and when Hal rejects Falstaff he is not reforming, as is the common view, but merely turning from one social level to another, from Appetite to Authority, both of which are equally part of the corrupt society of the time. Of the two, Danby argues, Falstaff is the preferable, being, in every sense, the bigger man. (For the alternative view, see A.L.Rowse, Discovering Shakespeare, pages 9293.) According to Danby, by the time he reaches Edmund Shakespeare no longer pretends that the Hal-type machiavel is admirable; and in Lear he condemns the society we think historically inevitable. Against this he holds up the ideal of a transcendent community, and reminds us of the true needs of a humanity to which the operations of a Commodity-driven society perpetually do violence. This new thing that Shakespeare discovers is embodied in Cordelia. Pages 102 to 115 contain a chapter on the Fool and handy-dandy. Danby begins by pointing out that in his gnomic, elliptic idiom, the Fool can juggle with fragments of the two Natures and the two Reasons, and then shrug off the whole business with hideous flippancy. While his heart makes him belong to the Lear party, his head can only represent to him that meaning for Reason which belongs to the party of Edmund and the sisters. His bitterness springs from this dilemma. In the plays allegorical scheme, the Fool stands for mind (reason used properly), where Lear stands for the heart and Cordelia the soul. His head will not allow him to descend the scale with Edmund and the Sisters, and yet he shows no sign of rushing into the natural theology of Lear. The Fool is removed because he is incapable of spiritual growth. His intellect would be out of place in the later scenes of spiritual regeneration. Pages 114 to 140 contain the central chapter on Cordelia. To understand Cordelia is to understand the whole play. She has been misrepresented by some critics as proud. But Kent, whom Shakespeare approves, praises her words and actions (1.1 .177). Danby argues that Cordelia is not a complex character; 19th and 20th-century critics, brought up on the psychological novel, have found difficulties where none exists. In fact, Shakespeare, though he was moving towards character-study as the 19th-century novelist conceived it, stands closer to Malory than to Thackeray; and for the Middle Ages and Renaissance, allegory-hunting was as natural as motive-hunting is for us. In a Shakespeare play, character must be subordinated to the idea (theme) which ensures the organic coherence of the whole (Ulrici). In Lear, this is the idea of Nature. (p.124) Cordelia can be understood on three levels: as an individual; as Woman, therefore the root of individual and social sanity; and as Love personified, the redemptive principle itself. Thou hast a daughter Who redeems Nature from the general curse Which twain have brought her to.

(IV.5.196-8)

The twain, says Danby, are not Goneril and Regan, but Adam and Eve. Pages 125 to 140. Danby now widens his discussion of the two Natures. There is -a third view of Nature embodied by Cordelia. Edmund denies its existence; Lear although he comes to believe in it cannot recognise it when it is before him in Act I. Where Edmunds Nature is rapacious and amoral, where Lears is ordered but punitive, Cordelias is benevolent and healing. The imagery in IV.5 and in the previous scene between Kent and the gentleman, omitted in the Folio, likens Cordelias tears to holy water with an effect like white magic: All blest secrets, All you unpublished virtues of the earth, Spring with my tears; be aidant and remediate In the good mans distress.

(IV.3.15-18)

Cordelia here is almost a Nature goddess, associated with Love and healing. By contrast, the denatured Goneril is likened to a withered branch torn from a living tree: She that herself will sliver and disbranch From her material sap, perforce must wither And come to deadly use.

(IV.2. Quarto)

In her combination of gentleness and toughness ... Cordelia expresses the utopian intention of Shakespeares art (p.125). Her apparent pride at the beginning is merely one aspect of a proper love of oneself, an essential self-respect; and her move to restore her father and redeem the state is another aspect of the same quality. Only in the full mutuality of the individual and the community can our natures be fulfilled and satisfied. This is the true Law of Nature. Actions like Cordelias make for individual and social sanity. She represents integration, where Lear represents only partial integration and Edmund disintegration. Lears is the feudal state in decomposition, Edmunds the Machiavellian state in the making, and Cordelias the norm by which the wrongness of Edmunds and the imperfection of Lears state are judged. Pages 141 to 167. There follows a discussion (Killing the King) of Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Troilus, Macbeth and Othello. In.Julius Caesar, there is a conflict between rival machiavels. The good man, Brutus, is a dupe of his associates and cannot distinguish appearance from reality, while Antonys victorious order is a negative thing. In Hamlet, king - killing becomes a matter of private rather than public morality. The individuals struggles with his own conscience and fallibility take centre stage. The Christian context of the drama introduces the concept of sin, adding moral complexity, while the presence of significant women adds psychological complexity. Hamlet, like Edgar later, has to become a machiavel of goodness (p.151). Troilus and Cressida has no machiavel, but the realism of the Greeks and the idealism of the Trojans correspond roughly to the realism of Antony and the idealism of Brutus. In Othello, the private machiavel destroys purity and nobility the most pessimistic scenario so far. In Macbeth the interest is again public, but the public evil flows from Macbeths primary rebellion against his own nature. The root of the machiavellism lies in a wrong choice. Nacbeth is clearly aware of the great frame of Nature he is violating. (In this context, and as a figure superficially attractive to the romantic mind, he may be compared with Miltons Satan.) Lear combines the optimism of Macbeth (where goodness destroys evil with the pessimism of Othello (where evil destroys goodness . After Othello Shakespeares view seems to be that private goodness can be permanent only in a decent society. The ending of Lear is pure tragedy because the regenerate Lear and the incorruptible Cordelia are the victims, not of a tragic fault, but of the evil co-present in the human world (p.189). (Might one say the same of Antigone ?) Until that decent society is achieved, we are perhaps meant to take as role-model Edgar, the machiavel of patience, of courage and of ripeness. In the Romances of Shakespeares last phase, The Winters Tale and The Tempest, the redemptive daughter figure, fore-shadowed in Cordelia, is allowed to bring the drama to a happy conclusion. In these plays, Lear and Cordelia find each other again and live happily ever after. But of course the later plays move to some extent in a world of fantasy, where, in the interests of allegory, realism is partially suspended. Thus where Lear is allegory against a realistic background, The Tempest is allegory against a background of fantasy. Shakespeare here appears to provide a sort of solution to error and guilt through the purifying notions of repentance and redemption through divine grace. The gods, ineffectual or absent in Lear, have regained their power. But theological problems such as the existence of evil and its persistence, despite our best efforts, remain unresolved. Danby suggests that the theological questions in Lear, about the existence and nature of the gods and their relation with Man, are highlighted by the symbol of thunder. In Lear, thunder has a metaphysical status. Critics have variously interpreted the play as they have interpreted the thunder. Lears own attitude is ambivalent. At first the thunder seems his agent, rumbling on cue when he invokes the gods to touch him with noble anger. Then he sees himself as its victim. Next he turns

on it with disdain. Finally the thunder becomes a sinister sign of some vague disturbance among the great gods. It is neither just nor great, and Lear exhausts himself in his effort to comprehend it. But the strange thing is, that when he calls himself more sinned against than sinning, although we think otherwise, we accept this judgement because we share Lears perplexity about the universe. Our endorsement is not an effect of the sympathy we have for an old man suffering. It results from the thunder and the questions the thunder forces up (p.184). That Lear remains haunted by these questions - Are there gods ? Are they just ? - is clear from the query he puts in his madness to his philosopher, a query thrown up by his troubled unconscious: What is the cause of thunder ? (111.4.159). Later Cordelia speaks wonderingly that her father has survived the deep dread-bolted thunder (IV.6. Quarto). Danby comments: To put even Cordelia in the framework of thunder is an enormous achievement. There are no facile answers as to whether the thunder symbolizes order or chaos; but we know which Cordelia represents, and that is the only relevant choice for us. The metaphysical questions remain unresolved. Pages 196 to 224. In the final section Danby summarizes the different meanings of Nature and Reason, then addresses the vexed question, When is it right to rebel ? He concludes that Shakespeares thought runs through three stages: 1) In the Wars of the Roses plays, Henry VI to Richard III, he shows that rebellion against a legitimate and pious king is wrong, and only a monster such as Richard of Gloucester would have attempted it. 2) In King John and the Richard II to Henry V cycle, Shakespeare adopts the official Tudor ideology, by which rebellion, even against a wrongful usurper, is never justifiable. 3) From Julius Caesar onwards, whenever Shakespeare dramatizes regicide, usually to justify tyrannicide, he moves away from English history (probably in consequence of Essexs rebellion of 1599, in which Shakespeares patron was implicated) to the camouflage of Roman, Danish, Scottish or Ancient British chronicle matter. Danbys conclusion is that Shakespeare, while deliberately avoiding the metaphysical and doctrinal aspects of religion, was thoroughly imbued with the finest spirit of Elizabethan Christianity (p.204). Shakespeare began by seeing a new thrustful godlessness attacking the pious medieval structure represented by the good king Henry VI. Regretfully, he then comes to terms with the times as he saw them under Elizabeth. Last, he recognized the iniquity of the machiavels rule. To this he opposed the society that Lears and Gloucesters prayers (11.4.2856, IV.1.6166) demand, a community of goodness in which Lears regeneration and Cordelias truth might be completed ... I do not myself believe that there is a necessary contradiction between tragic vision and religious vision though some tragedies can be irreligious ... In Shakespeares case, tragic clairvoyance and Christian perception are not mutually exclusive modes of vision. To me, the clairvoyance of King Lear is hardly distinguishable from religious insight. It is not only our profoundest tragedy; it is also our profoundest expression of an essentially Christian comment on society. Its gifts are those of gentleness, compassion and truth, patience and charity. (Pages 202205.) BIBLIOGRAPHY John F. Danby: Shakespeares Doctrine of Nature A Study of King Lear (Faber, 1949) ALSO RECOMMENDED A.L.Rowse: Shakespeares Globe His Intellectual and Moral Outlook (Weidenfeld, 1981)