Gney 1

Erturul Gney 07080000908 Assit. Prof. Dr. Aylin Atilla 338 Shakespeare and Critical Theory II 29 July 2012

ON THE MANIPULATON OF KING LEAR BY SOCIAL ORDER AND HIS LOST NATURALNESS / KING LEAR AS A TRAGC HERO

King Lear, written in the maturity period of the author, is a highly discussed tragedy of William Shakespeare. The play is acclaimed for its chaotic and paradoxical plot. Moreover, the play consists of existential and tragic concepts through which it becomes focus of interest among the absurd writers. Thereby, the themes of the play varies to a great extent from fatherdaughter relationship, meaning of life, authority-freedom, self love-unconditional love justice to reality-seem and ethic problem of good and evil. In the long run, I decide to study on the problem of ethical conflict of good and evil problem, centered on Lear and social order affair. On the ground of a study depended on social orders impact on the ethical corruption of Lear, we will see the underlying issue of the play: the conflict between his humane nature and unnatural deeds which spiritually blinds and torments him. Aforementioned argument is the basis of Lears tragic flaw and it is a drastically determinant theme in two aspects: On the micro level, why does Lear feel agony for his seemly rightful intentions, done in the name of code of manly honor of social system and on the macro level, he disregards divine essence of the God dominated the universal order in Shakespeares thinking. That is why I would like to probe detrimental effects of a filthy social order upon Lears self in three condition: LearCordelia Kent-Lear and the madness.

Gney 1

Without a doubt, Lear is a tragic hero who obeys corrupted social order to satisfy his unnatural deeds. Throughout the play, his spiritual blindness to appearing forces him to think unwisely and foolishly. As a result of his hubris, he cries out: I am a man More sinned against than sinning. (III. ii. 3) Social order sedates him and leaves Lear in ethical corruption. He is in spiritual blindness and he always blames the others. Though his love for Cordelia is utmost among the daughters, he does not know real what is love. His need to be loved is immensely greater than his capacity for loving. And this is pure egotism, which estranges the audience. (Isenberg 192) It is a striking emotional dilemma in which seemly reasoning ruins Lear. Only when Lear gradually abandons all chains of the social order, he regains his lost goodness and naturalness. Owing to his conflicting self, shaped by social order of seems, Lear does not know the difference between real and seems. Lear at the beginning, sick with self love and a distempered appetite, wrenches apart custom and wise discretion by dividing his kingdom and making his daughters speak prettily for their portions. He divides social form from the cosmic substance for which Cordelia stands, thereby making a breach in the social fabric through which now may pass all these who seek for gain and follow but for form (Markels 82) Thereby, Lear violates natural order of the universe owing to his excessive, unnatural desires which are the sheer result of his ethical dilemma, caused by the hypocrite, materialistic commune morality. Actually, Lear is a zealot man about the norms of social order. He seems to does not know the essence of reality because his world is based on illusions and material profits. First of all, Lears slavery to forms of social order, traps of machivelian social life, looms brightly, when he divides the kingdom among Cordelia, Goneril and Regan. And here are to be answered.Tell me, my daughters, (Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state) Which of you shall we say doth love us most That we our largest bounty may extend Where nature doth with merit challenge? (I. i. 3)

Gney 1

Aftermath, Lear accliams Goneril and Regan for their flattery performance whereas he is irritated from the straightforward answer of Cordelia. In other words, In Act I we see that
Lear has confused effusive declaration of love for love itself. (Dye 514)

Nothing, my lord. Nothing? Nothing. Come on, nothing will get you nothing. Try again. Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty According to my bond, no more nor less. (I. i. 4)

The answer is noteworthy owing to the body analogy of heart and mouth. She indicates the conflict of reality and artificiality through the figurative presentation of heart and mouth. She means that she can not distorted reality of the cosmic order, heart, by putting it into forms mouth. Regarding the reality and appearance conflict in the social order, she is the only daughter who represents the reality of cosmic order, established by the divine will. Cordelia stands for a hierarchy of custom patterned on the structure of created Nature, the Nature of the Chain of Being rather than the Struggle for Existence. (Merkels 82) That is why it is not an overstatement to regard Cordelia as the opposite of corrupted, deviated self of the Lear. As to Lear, unlike merciful and Jesus like Cordelia, he only thinks his own self. When Cordelia rejects to obey his foolish and unnatural command, Lear curses her because his egoism hurts, in other words, his code of honor is offended. Because of his devotion to this illusionary identity, given by hypocrite social order, he seems to in a state of megalomania. Lears life is determined by external standards of unnatural social order which dictates him an illusionary identity like kingship that smashes his real identity, namely fatherhood. Eventually, Lear is numbed with the lies of social order and he forgets the most inner and sincere side of him: his love for Cordelia. For this reason, he reprobates Cordelia Better thou hadst not been born than not t have pleasd me better (I. i. 10) Although he offends her in this line, he expresses contrary psychology in another line: I loved her most, and thought to set my rest on her kind nursery (I. i. 5)

Gney 1

Moreover, When Lear turns to Cordelia, he addresses her not only more lovingly than Goneril and Regan but uses what seems to be the you of parity and respect instead of the thou of paternal and kingly authority he has just used with her sisters. (Dodd 493) His corrupted nature, shaped by social order, forces him to curse her, at the same time, his conscience, pure side, feels a great love for Cordelia. By means of this dualism I assume that the inconsistency of Lears speech is a proof for his ethical blindness which is caused by the conflicting dualism of Lears own nature with unnatural social disorder. Throughout the story, Lear feels the agony of this ethical deadlock, caused by his corrupted reasoning. Although he has a humane side for mercy and love, his self is ultimately dominated by social order which is based on forms and selfishness. Due to this conflict, he can not resist temptations of his corrupted self. Eventually, the cruelty of Lear is evident in this instance. But goes thy heart with this? Ay my good lord. So young, and so untender? So young, my lord, and true. (I. i. 5) Moreover, he insults her again by saying: Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her. (I. i. 6) Apart from the drastic role of Cordelia, in the process of understanding social orders detrimental traits upon Lears self, Lear-Kent relationship is a noteworthy subject. First off, Kent rejects the illusion of the social disorder as he supports Cordelia against Lears corruption. Nevertheless, Lear is irritated from Kents good nature because Kent possesses the moral values of cosmic substance. King Lear, Ive always honored you as king, loved you as my father, obeyed you as my master, and thanked you in my prayers (I. i. 6) In this quatation, his loyalty to the chain of being is obvious. Additionally, When a majestic king starts acting silly, then its my duty to be blunt. (I. i. 6) Hence Kent is a prototype of good person who resists temptations of illusionary goodness of social order or world of seems. As I mentioned before Kent, like Cordelia, part of the cosmic order. As Jonas A. Barish states As we have already suggested, the

Gney 1

quintessence of the good servant and the touchstone for service throughout the play is Kent. (349) Although Kent seems to disobedient, Kent is opposite of the daughters who appears friendly but inside just Nevertheless, spiritual blindness of Lear avoids him to see wisdom of Kent.

Furthermore alienation of Lear from natural order of universal goodness is caused by his bondage to the civilization which is based on illusions and shapes him with artificial identity. Thus, the conflict between his original, inner personality and his unreal identity of code of honour ,dictated by conformist social disorder, drastically tortures him. Finally, with madness Lears self is freed from the pressures of the civilization. Before the awakening Lear's basic problem-his inability to face the reality of the present moment with a full awareness of
self and of the true nature of man. (Dye 516) Firstly, Kent calls clever Lear as mad when he

sanely follows his unnatural deeds and social order of seems. Be Kent unmannerly When Lear is mad. (I. i. 6) Secondly, when Lear is rejected by Regan and Goneril, Lear understands how foolish he is in his intelligence. Eventually, he regrets his place in dirty social order of seems, by saying: Oh, Fool, Ill go mad! (II. iv. 13) The burden of self realization is so heavy that he falls into a melancholic mood because his intelligence gives him unexpected humiliation and sorrows. To make your speed to Dover, you shall find Some that will thank you, making just report Of how unnatural and bemadding sorrow
The King hath cause to plain.

(III. i. 2)

Through Kents observation, I assume state of madness is the most violent and final explosion of the battle between Lears natural side and corrupted social order. After he understands his nothingness in seemly might and popularity of social order Lear cries out this line which could be seen as a Lears escapism from his selfs distorted ethical perception Oh, that way madness lies (III. iv. 1) From these quotations about madness, I assume that the ethical dilemma of Lear, the conflict between his humane side and distorted nature, leads him into madness. When Lear is sane, his deviated unnatural self controls his intelligence, whereas, in insanity, Lear frees himself from slavery of social order. As Edgar points out this paradoxical situation by saying:

Gney 1

O matter and impertinency mixed! /Reason in madness. (IV. vi. 7)

To sum up, Lear is a tragic hero whose self stumbles between: on the thematic level between two kinds of love: divine love, expressed in an ordered cosmic, social, and spiritual hierarchy, and erotic love, a kind of subterranean energy which is the source of chaos, disorder, and destruction. (Gaull 333) This argument becomes a concrete fact in the cases of Cordelia, Kent and the madness. As a result of self love, shaped by social disorder, Lear violates the natural order

of the divine will and he is spirutially blinded to his own real identity. In the long run, he falls into a great agony for his adherence to corrupted social disorder In that sense Lear becomes a matchless tragic hero whose disillusionment and corruption in chaotic and unnatural social order abuses Lears conscience.

Gney 1

Works Cited

A. Barish, Jonas and Waingrow, Marshall. Service" in King Lear Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 9, No. 3 (Summer, 1958), pp. 347-355. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2867337. 29 July 2012. Dodd, William. Impossible Worlds: What Happens in King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1? Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 50, No. 4 (Winter, 1999), pp. 477-507. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2902281. 29 July 2012. Dye, Harriet. The Appearance-Reality Theme in King Lear College English , Vol. 25, No. 7 (Apr., 1964), pp. 514-517. http://www.jstor.org/stable/373238. 29 July 2012 Markels, Julian. Shakespeare's Confluence of Tragedy and Comedy: Twelfth Night and King Lear Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1964), pp. 75-88. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2867879. 29 July 2012. Isenberg, Arnold. Cordelia Absent Shakespeare Quarterly , Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1951), pp. 185-194. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2866650. 29 July 2010.