Monday, October 12, 2015
Missing Madness
From what I can gather, familial ties were very important during Shakespeare's time-- they governed much of the social interactions of the day. It's slightly appalling, then, to watch Goneril and Regan (as well as Edmund) turn on their fathers for titles and wealth. This betrayal ultimately drives Lear (and in some ways, Gloucester) mad. As I explored the backstory of the play using the Shakespeare Oxford Reference, I was reminded that Shakespeare loosely based the script off of existing stories, histories, and plays about the same king. Though he based Lear off of an existing storyline, he added one more element to the play that was historically incorrect-- Lear's descent into madness. Historically and in earlier representations of the story, Lear doesn't go mad! But that's one of the main focuses of Shakespeare's play-- how family betrayal can set a man mad. Why did he characterize Lear as a madman? Perhaps his descent into madness, especially evident in Acts 3 and 4, demonstrates how grotesque Goneril and Regan's betrayal is because it's committed against family. Because he has vested his daughters with the power of his kingdom, Lear gives them a sort of parental control over him and steps into the role of a child (further emphasized by his association with the fool and Tom/Edgar). His return to almost childlike behaviors-- erratically cursing the weather, blaming the people surrounding him, whining about his daughters' abuse-- highlights their unnatural turning upon the man who raised them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From a religious standpoint a decent into madness or insanity in general, from what I understand, was seen as a devil possessing a person. I wonder, since families are so important in Christian doctrine, if this could also be seen as a warning that when family members turn on one another they are letting evil in.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a pretty cool historical tidbit. To see that despite basing this off of other text, Shakespeare added his own, extremely important element that we ponder over as we read the play. This is a testament to his lasting power, right? I do find that an interesting choice. If he was going to change the story, there are so many different angles he could have taken, with Lear not going mad but others seeing him as mad despite his reason, or something like that. But to actually have him go mad based on these familial follies is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, he could be incorporating the dramatic circus of court that became central gossip for the developing middle classes. Familial relationships don't always count for much when a crown is involved.
ReplyDelete