What about Elizabeth?
Char's last comment seemed an excellent place for a new tack for the discussion...
To wit: How can Shakespeare at least appear to be so anti-female, with all of England holding Elizabeth in such profound reverence, even after her death?
To answer, consider that Elizabeth did not present herself as a woman for much of her reign!
Remember that she declared herself the "Virgin Queen;" after having played various European royal suitors off each other for years, dangling herself (and by extension all of England) in front of them as the grand prize, she finally announced that she would not wed--she would instead become the bride of England and all its citizens. Thus it became possible even for patriarchal England to revere her, because for all intents and purposes she ceased to be female, since by renouncing sex, she renounced all the (supposed) weaknesses of her sex!
This was incredibly savvy political move on her part--she stalled until England had fully consolidated its power, and could defend itself against the entrenched European monarchies. Thus the English had the most profound reverence for her as their queen (secret police raids notwithstanding. . .)
Oh, and that "Wheel" concept? Originated in the Middle Ages, and was appropriately known: it was the original "Wheel of Fortune"...
LAZ
To wit: How can Shakespeare at least appear to be so anti-female, with all of England holding Elizabeth in such profound reverence, even after her death?
To answer, consider that Elizabeth did not present herself as a woman for much of her reign!
Remember that she declared herself the "Virgin Queen;" after having played various European royal suitors off each other for years, dangling herself (and by extension all of England) in front of them as the grand prize, she finally announced that she would not wed--she would instead become the bride of England and all its citizens. Thus it became possible even for patriarchal England to revere her, because for all intents and purposes she ceased to be female, since by renouncing sex, she renounced all the (supposed) weaknesses of her sex!
This was incredibly savvy political move on her part--she stalled until England had fully consolidated its power, and could defend itself against the entrenched European monarchies. Thus the English had the most profound reverence for her as their queen (secret police raids notwithstanding. . .)
Oh, and that "Wheel" concept? Originated in the Middle Ages, and was appropriately known: it was the original "Wheel of Fortune"...
LAZ
posted by L Lazarow | 8:11 PM
6 Comments:
Let's not make more out of the sonnets' supposed subject than there really is. . .it is true that a significant number of the sonnets were written for a male subject. However--realize that Shakespeare did so at the behest of his noble patron at the time, who was exceptionally homosexual. Thus, although Shakespeare wrote them, he's not really the speaker in any of them...
It's really vital to remember that in WS's time, no one got very far in the arts without a noble patron. The idea of the "starving artist" is not new--many would-be artists had to give up and turn to more lucrative pursuits if no one among the nobility took notice of their talents, and agreed to finance their way (usually in exchange for art-on-demand, i.e., it's my wife's birthday--write a poem in her honor). In part, this is what makes WS's success all the more impressive--because he impressed all the right people, all the way to the top.
Hey... in class today we talked about the Marxist criticism, and since I am not sure where the appropriate place to post this comment is, I'll post it here.
The end of today's discussion was on Kent, and whether he represents the Marxist ideology or not. I feel that he represents aspects of both, but is leaning towards Marxism. Besides the fact that he was banished, and chose to come back to Lear, I have another reason to think this (although I'm not sure if I'm right in this prediction). The reason why Kent may have chosen to stay faithful to Lear could be for a more selfish reason then we discussed today. By remaining loyal, if Lear did regain the throne (and although we as readers know that Lear was doomed to tragedy, Kent and the other characters don't), Kent would have rewarded for remaining one of his only followers. Whatever his reward may be (whether it is more land, power, etc.), he is choosing to be with Lear only to better himself in the long run. This rising up of an individual to more power would cause him to viewed more as having Marxist characteristics... just thought I'd throw this idea out there...
elisa, i was thinking along the same lines as you -- but i think it is just thinking in different interpretations of the story. it can fit all of the literary theories at the same time. it wasn't meant to fit a certain theory at the time it was written. someone correct me if i'm wrong??
as for the kent/marxist ordeal, i thought the same thing as elisa. every time someone said that in class, it sounded right to me. i think that as long as you can explain your position, it can apply. i'm still not sure exactly what my position is, but i think the fact that kent leaves at the end of the play, without complete reassurance that the kingdom is back in order, just assuming that edgar will do a good job in power. he has more of an obligation to his position and monarch than the actual system of government. i'm not sure which direction this points me in, but either way i think that he acts on behalf of the obligation he has, although in the end he kind of drifts away from the obligation... oh well, i guess i'm still unsure.
back to carly:
obviously Edgar is the good and "magical" character as Laz loves to phrase it, but I have to agree that at times he isn't really showing his true strengths. For instance, after his father's eyes have been removed he doesn't really do anything to avenge his honor. He happens to stumble upon the servant carrying Goneril's letter which reveals the plot to kill Albany and join with Edmund, which allows him a window to face his brother. Though Cornwall dies and Edgar can't really take revenge on him, he never even makes the steps to try and discover who is behind his father's newfound blindness. I don't know. I think a truly valient leader, and one as "unrealistically perfect" as Edgar would have been able to come out of hiding and overcome anything in his way. that may not make much sense... but that's what I just thought of.
on the other hand, I think the play definitly sets Edgar up as the supreme ruler just becuase he holds more importance within the plot than Albany ever does.
I have a question about another aspect of Marxist thought. Marxists have this idea that the economy is the basis of a community, determining everything else in the society. Can this be applied to the play? Is there some concept that determines the entire course of King Lear? Would it be land and inheritance, succession, or something else?
I had a question concerning another aspect of Marxist thought. Marx said that the system of economy is the base that determines everything else that goes on in the society. Can this be applied to King Lear? Is there some concept that determines the entire course of the play? If so, would it be land and inheritance, succession, or something else?
Post a Comment
<< Home