Essay on Lear and Tempest

  {

TMA 05

Question

Compare and contrast the father-daughter relationships in King Lear and The Tempest.

The following essay will address father-daughter relationships in King Lear and The Tempest.  In answering the question father-daughter relationships will be assessed with reference to existing essays where possible or otherwise a closer reading of the actual text of the play will inform the answer.  Patriarchal power relations will form a critical point of evaluation and thus the resulting quality of the filial relationship will be assessed in each case.  Overarching ideas that emerge from comparative textual analysis will ultimately inform the conclusion.

The story of King Lear is one that has held a longstanding place in English folklore. Believed to have been devised as a play by Shakespeare in 1606 (Ryan, 2000, p.241), Shakespeare in his reworking of The True Chronicle History of King Lear adapts the meaning of the narrative by introducing a subplot.  Shakespeare achieves this through conflating the longstanding text of the Lear story with the subplot of Gloucester. Shakespeare explores a theme that seems to be preoccupied with the sins of the father a recurring biblical theme that holds the notion of patriarchal sins being passed on to children.  This idea of a self-fulfilling curse that befalls specifically those that immerse in iconoclastic beliefs is one that gains salience particularly in the 'blow winds' (3.2.1-10, Norton 2nd edition, p.2528) speech, culminating to 'let the great gods...' (3.2.45-59, Norton 2nd edition, p.2529).  A.C. Bradley picks up on an underlying Christian/ Pagan conflict and reads King Lear 'as a Christian parable of sacrifice and salvation' (Ryan, 2000, p.242).

A suggestion that Shakespeare may have used a staging opportunity in framing a king's downfall amidst pagan beliefs as a means of winning the favour of James I isn't at all unlikely.  Since James I was an absolutist King holding steadfast the values of the Christian faith it is quite possible that pagan beliefs were being scrutinised.  However Ryan (2000, p241) argues that 'At another level, the play delivers a stern rebuke to the absolutist, patriarchal power wielded by kings.'

Certainly King Lear at Shakespeare's time of writing was a subversive text on a multitude of levels, how intentionally is open to interpretation. There is undoubtedly certain tactful political sway in the story telling.  If Shakespeare can use Cleopatra and Antony in a manner that foregrounded Cesar's unification of the triumvirate then Lear's subdivision of the Kingdom in three also has an obvious resonance with Jamesian court. Ryan (2000, p.241) instances how James I had longed for a United Kingdom only to have been resisted vigorously by English parliament.  The symbolism of Lear's daughters equated with the autonomous territories of England, Scotland and Wales is a widely accepted theme (Ryan, 2000, p.242).

Lear's act of staging a test for the subdivision of the kingdom and thus the relinquishment of power is a bemusing opening.  It unfolds only through Lear's ramblings in his enveloping madness that he is an octogenarian and thus the question gradually arises of the nature of Lear's condition and how the need to be nurtured may have come about.  Much of Lear's madness is impinged upon an expectation that Lear harboured with regards to his youngest daughter Cordelia.  Lear had secretly longed to retire in the company of his youngest daughter "I lov'd her most, and thought to set my rest / On her kind nursery" (1.1.123-4, Norton 2nd edition, p.2496).  His motive for staging the test then raises the question as to whether Lear simply craved an affirmation of Cordelia's love and gratitude so that he could announce his desire to retire.  Yet both of Cordelia's suitors were of foreign shores. Burgundy and France both vied for Cordelia's hand only for Burgundy to fold in the absence of a dowry. How it would have been possible for a king to rule his subjects from abroad is an obvious concern.  Lear's doomed nature becomes a central focus of the play as the inextricable, inexorable; inevitability of his misery becomes more and more apparent as the narrative unfolds.  Only his reunion with Cordelia at the end provides an isolated moment of redemption.

The conflict of nature is something of a central theme within the context of the play and thus several commentators have presented ideas on possible meaning.  Principally the natural relation of patriarchal power and subsequent 'dues of gratitude' (2.4.172-3, Norton 2nd edition, p.2524) serve to illustrate a natural course in life.  Thus the acts of ingratitude of Goneril and Regan present an exact embodiment of deviance from the norm or the natural hence Lear calls them 'unnatural hags' (2.4.273-7, Norton 2nd edition, p.2526).

Yet Lear himself is unnatural by castigating Cordelia and excluding her from the estate (Ryan, 2000, p.263).  Lear's later lines 'I am a foolish fond old man / fourscore and upward not an hour more or less;' are framed as to how his undoing might have been ultimately by his own making.  This idea is reinforced by Kent's lines that portend Lear's demise 'Reverse thy doom' (1.1.149, Norton 2nd edition, p.2496), 'thy youngest daughter does not love thee least' (1.1.152, Norton 2nd edition, p.2496).

A consideration is that Lear is in inexorable physical decline given his senior years and his capacity in functioning as a king would be under scrutiny.  Lear's elder daughters having not produced progeny is a failing of evolutionary survival, another aspect of the natural order of things that has not conspired in Lear's favour.  The Hobbesian idea of nature gains salience here, Hobbes structured the nature of man as a state of war and categorised this state as factored by competition, mistrust and glory (Ryan, 2000, p.263).  There is certain parity in Lear's circumstance of deficit in all three Hobbesian characteristics of nature. Man to Hobbes was not naturally given to social inclination but had to be cultured in social ways (Kettle cited in Danson-Brown, 2000, p.246).  Lear's quite dramatic fall from grace to a 'depth of human humiliation' serve ultimately in helping him 'achieve humanity' (Danson-Brown, 2000, p.255).

Copelia Kahn deliberates intensively citing oedipal conflicts as the profound precursors of the family breakdown.  The absence of a maternal presence is extensively put forward as the factor that inhibited development of gender identity (Danson-Brown, 2000, p.256) in Lear's daughters.  Kahn eloquently contextualises Chodorow's ideas of maternal deficit and equates them with filial deficit (Danson-Brown, 2000, p257).

The storm during Lear's 'Blow winds' (3.2.1-10, Norton 2nd edition, p.2528) soliloquy and the tempest of Prospero's conjuring coupled with aristocratic fathers raising daughters in the absence of a maternal figure are uncanny parallels of the two stories.  However that is where the similarity ends as by stark contrast Prospero fills the void of an absent mother with magic. The tempest of Prospero's magic is in brilliant contrast to bleak the winds that Lear beckons in his degenerative state.  Prospero has destiny in his own hands while Lear's forlorn hopes are blown away in scattering winds and his impending fate is out of his control.  Shakespeare uses the ploy of magic effectively; as it not only enables Prospero to right the wrongs of the world in a supernatural way but also engages the audience in make believe.  In Lear's case Shakespeare signposts the gradual decline of Lear's mental state that perhaps culminates to the 'blow winds' (3.2.1-10, Norton 2nd edition, p.2528) soliloquy.

Prospero's magic should naturally have been opposed by the natural order of things since burning at the stake was the punishment of any kind of witchcraft in Shakespeare's time.  The practice of black arts would certainly have had a stigma attached yet Prospero is framed as a man of books whose magic can be seen as simply a manipulation of nature in order to restore provident qualities such as justice.  Also Prospero's acceptance of Ferdinand as his daughters chosen life partner is demonstrative of his achieving the legal state as a 'social animal' (Danson-Brown, 2000, p.248) of Hobbesian reckoning that evades Lear.

Meanwhile both tales of Lear and Prospero are augmented with subplots of father son interests.  Gloucester's subplot pits the accursed hapless end of having given rise to a baseborn son while Alonso's separation from his son is one that harbours hope as a beacon of continuity.  However as far as father daughter relationships go Prospero's story benefits from the subplot of Caliban and Sycorax as a mirror for both magic and patriarchal/matriarchal power relations.  Sycorax's magic is framed as the stigmatised type and thus her son is framed as a hideous beast that is rescued from his own nature by the benevolent knowledgeable magic of Prospero.

Lear's hopelessness is amplified in the height of his woes when he says 'No, you unnatural hags, I will have such revenges on you both...' (2.4.73-74, Norton 2nd edition, p.2522). By contrast Miranda is described as 'O a cherubin' (1.2.153, Norton 2nd edition, p.3070) by Prospero's account of his crisis.  Prospero's conjuring of the storm is framed as something of a disquieting event that has distressed Miranda and raises an audit for an explanation.  Thus Prospero recounts the history of the banishment of father and daughter suffered at the hands of Antonio, Prospero's usurping brother (1.2.1-190, Norton 2nd edition, p.3071).  This is an insight into the quality of the father daughter relationship and frames Prospero as a benevolent magician acting in the interests of divine providence. Prospero recounts the events through gentle persuasion in coaxing Miranda's own memories in a patchwork recollection of an unfortunate family history.  Prospero having reassured Miranda that no one was harmed: 'No, not so much perdition as an hair/ Betid to any creature in the vessel' (1.2.31, Norton 2nd edition, p.3067) then even uses the idea of divine providence in a manner that suggests that humanity did not fail (1.2.160, Norton 2nd edition, p.3070). It is clear from these early exchanges that the father daughter relationship is a conscientious one where the father carefully manages his impression on his child and acts in a manner conducive to expanding her knowledge and betterment.

Lear's contrasting regretful scornful sentiment only highlights his inability in dealing with pre-oedipal conflicts of rearing his daughter in the absence of a nurse.  'Twas this flesh begot/ Those pelican daughters' (3.4.73, Norton 2nd edition, p.2607) where the symbolism of the pelican a bird that reanimates its offspring by feeding them its own blood was a popular regent theme.  A monarch who showed a preparedness of self-sacrifice for their subjects were well esteemed, however Lear gets the symbolism wrong since he neglected Cordelia, his youngest.    Lear's only reprieve is when he and Cordelia are sent to prison by scheming Edmund and Lear's defiance in his ill-fated reunion with his daughter is immortalised in the words 'we two alone will sing like birds i'th cage'.  Yet this is not to be as in the next scene Lear returns with a lifeless Cordelia and harbours a hope that she reanimates and ultimately dies with all hopes forlorn.

In conclusion it is fair to say that while there are striking parallels in the narrative of King Lear and The Tempest the actual father-daughter relationships could not be more different.  In Lear's case pre-oedipal conflict as related by Kahn is a major concern as Lear's preoccupation with power leaves a gaping void of maternal nurturing.  Thus Lear preoccupied with regent symbolism completely mismanages his power transfer to his daughters.  In neglecting Cordelia Lear makes the ultimate mistake of parenthood and loses credibility.  Henceforth Lear's existence as interpreted from his speech begins a journey into the dark side of the human psyche. By contrast Prospero successfully resolves the pre-oedipal crisis by turning to his knowledge base of books.  Through Prospero's interactions with his daughter it very quickly emerges that Prospero is not at all a tyrannical individual or vengeful despite being wronged.  Prospero is framed by Shakespeare as being equipped to deal with the irreplaceable absence of a maternal figure with magic.  Shakespeare astutely employs this substitution and gets the audiences onside at a time when magic and practitioners of magic were stigmatised.  In Prospero's case he is forgiven this character flaw as magic equated as the only worthy substitute for a mothers love is deemed acceptable.  Prospero's bending to his daughters will is demonstrated in his acceptance of Ferdinand as a prospective son in law.

The differences in the quality of the two types of father-daughter relationships offer rich and valuable comparison.  The Lear family broke down when the mother was lost and never really recovered.  Of course Prospero's life broke down with the same loss and a further fall from power yet Shakespeare handed Prospero a supernatural ability in shaping destiny and restoring power.  Lear's fate is sealed when he is on the cusp of finishing the business of bequeathing his wealth. Lear's ignominious end is equated with particularly pernicious daughters though it is open to a multitude of interpretation as to the cause and effect relationship.  Lear grounded in mundane reality himself is not without wrong doing, Prospero on the other hand is magnanimous yet a little too fantastical.

References

Brown, R. D. and Johnson, D. (eds) (2000) A Shakespeare Reader: Sources and Criticism, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Greenblatt, S., Cohen, W., Howard, J. E. and Maus, K. E. (eds) (2008) The Norton Shakespeare, second edition, New York and London:  W. W. Norton.

Ryan, K. (2000) Shakespeare: Texts and Contexts, Basingstoke: Macmillan.