Something to Chew On

The funny thing about my topic is not only do you have a right to say the word "bastard" regularly but you also have to think about "bastards" a lot. Particularly Shakespeare's "bastards" and so-called "bastards." I've been thinking about Edmund in particular. Whereas the Bastard in King John is depicted as sort of a hero and the illegitimized children in Richard III and The Winter's tale are innocent, Edmund lives up to his connotation. Why?

At first I was thinking that Shakespeare changed/evolved his views with the times. With the supposedly illegitimate Elizabeth dying and later being replaced by James, Shakespeare became more liberal with how he depicted people of questionable birth, since King Lear was written after Elizabeth's death and King John written just before. But after double-checking the chronology of these plays, I realized maybe that didn't make sense.

Then I followed a link on Shakespeare Online from a survey of top villains to an in-depth article about Edmund, and something struck me: it wasn't Edmund's birth that made him a villain (I already agreed with that, but I was wondering if Shakespeare did) but it was his pride and ambition. This fits much better with my topic. The Tudor dynasty was marked by contention because a lot of people with big plans for personal advancement (similar to Edmund) got involved in the Tudor drama and tried to take advantage of what was happening. For instance, Anne Boylen and Katherine Howard both came from ambitious families. And Shakespeare had an apparent distaste for social climbers and showed it in his plays through characters like Edmund and Oswald. Anyway, food for thought I am currently munching on--nom nom nom!