v
The Kingdoms of Lear in Tate and Shakespeare: A Restoration Reconfiguration of Archipelagic Kingdoms
Atsuhiko
Hirota
University
of Kyoto
hirota.atsuhiko.5e@kyoto-u.ac.jp
- Nahum
Tate’s The History of King Lear (printed in 1681) has long been regarded
as an inferior rewriting of Shakespeare’s masterpiece. This estimation,
however, gave way especially in the last decade of the twentieth century to a
more positive one that sees the work as representative of a number of political
adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays written during the time of the Exclusion
Crisis—a political struggle, running from 1678 through 1681, between Charles II
and Parliament over the latter’s attempt to exclude the Duke of York (later
James II) from succeeding to the English throne.[1]
More recently, John Kerrigan, among others, contended that the entire corpus of
seventeenth-century literature ought to be re-evaluated from the archipelagic
perspective—with reference to interactions between the ethnic, religious and
national groups around the “Atlantic Archipelago” including Great Britain and
Ireland.[2]
- In
this paper I join in the re-evaluation of Tate’s King Lear, especially
in terms of this archipelagic framework. I believe this approach is appropriate
to this play because Shakespeare’s King Lear is in itself an
archipelagic play. It is, moreover, a reconfiguration of the often archipelagic
stories of King Leir.[3]
The story of Leir and his daughters originates in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s The
History of the Kings of Britain (Historia Regum Britanniae). This
tale was repeatedly rewritten and reconfigured in various Elizabethan texts,
among which are the presumed sources of Shakespeare’s play, namely The
Mirrour for Magistrates (1559), Holinshed’s Chronicles (1577, 87), The
Faerie Queene (1590) and The History of King Leir (1605), an
anonymous play probably first performed by the Queen’s Men. While references to
the King of Hibernia (i.e. the King of Ireland) particularly reveal the
archipelagic dimension of King Leir, Shakespeare’s King Lear is
even more conspicuously archipelagic and Jacobean: Shakespeare’s re-introduction
of the Duke of Albany into the story locates this play in the Jacobean context
of Anglo-Scottish relations. The contemporary political relevance of Tate’s King
Lear is also archipelagic because, as Tim Harris observes, the Tories
viewed the Exclusion Crisis “within a multiple-kingdom framework” rather than
“a purely English perspective” (239). Here I focus on Tate’s representations of
the Dukes of Albany, Cornwall and Burgundy. The political situations in which
these three dukes are located in Tate’s play differ from those in Shakespeare’s
play. I argue that this difference characterizes Tate’s reconfiguration of
Shakespeare as a response to the altered political context of the Exclusion
Crisis.
The Duke of Albany’s Claim for his One-Third of the Kingdom
- Tate’s
King Lear ends happily: after a civil conflict (rather than a war with
the invading French force), Lear and Cordelia are rescued by Edgar and the Duke
of Albany, the old king is restored to the throne he had once given up, and
Cordelia is to inherit the throne and marry Edgar. By then, the
villains—Edmund, Goneril, Regan and the Duke of Cornwall—are all dead (as in
Shakespeare’s play) and the Duke of Albany is alone in charge of the forces
that captured Lear and Cordelia. With this happy ending, Tate returns to the tradition
of earlier Leir narratives: where, for example, in the chronicles of Geoffrey
of Monmouth and Holinshed, Leir recovers the throne and Cordelia inherits the
kingdom.[4]
Thus, he reconfigures Shakespeare’s play by reversing Shakespeare’s tragic
reconfiguration of the Leir tale—a reconfiguration by which Shakespeare leaves
Lear and Cordelia dead at the end of the play.
- In The History of King Leir, the husbands of Gonorill and Ragan are the
Kings of Cornwall and Cambria, respectively. At the end of the play their
forces are defeated by the King of Gallia (who remains in Britain and on stage
to the end). Cornwall says, “There is no meanes of safety but by flight, / And
therefore ile to Cornwall with my Queene” (2618-19). Cambria also says that he
is taking a horse (2624). With the aid of the Gallic force, Leir recovers his
original kingdom, which he had divided and given to his sons-in-law.[5]
The Kings of Cornwall and Cambria, however, also retain their original
kingdoms, so that Britain remains divided into three.
- Shakespeare’s
play differs radically from King Leir in that it restores Britain to one
kingdom and gives that kingdom over to Albany. Shakespeare’s Albany declares
the resignation of his power to Lear:
You lords and noble friends, know our intent.
Here Albany returns to Lear his “absolute power” as long as the old king lives. As Lear dies some 15 lines later (in both texts), it would be natural to presume that Albany soon recovers this “absolute power” at the end of the play. What part of Britain does Shakespeare’s Albany mean when he speaks of the temporary resignation of his “absolute power”? One possibility is that Albany is talking of Britain in its entirety, as implied by the term “absolute.” If such is the case, he would have no ambition to retain the one-third given to him and Goneril. The term “absolute” might also indicate that Albany is returning his unlimited sovereign power to Lear. This interpretation is supported by his use of the royal plural. When he hears of the deaths of Goneril and Regan, Albany says, “This justice of the heavens, that makes us tremble, / Touches us not with pity” (225-26; 205-6). In this speech he uses the royal plural for the first time. With the deaths of the sisters, Albany assumes that he is now the sole ruler of Britain. The repetition of “us” in this speech emphasizes this change. After Lear’s death, Albany says to Kent and Edgar, “Friends of my soul, you twain / Rule in this kingdom, and the gored state sustain” (313-14; 294-95). While the use of the singular “my” indicates that he is talking as a friend rather than a sovereign, what Albany is offering to Kent and Edgar in these lines, according to Stanley Wells, is not entirely certain: “It is not clear whether Albany is inviting Kent and Edgar to share the rule with him (perhaps as members of his council), or to resume their feudal roles” (274). Yet the singular “kingdom” suggests that Albany is again talking of the entire realm. Albany resigns his rule to Lear and returns again to being a mere duke as he was before the division of the kingdom(s). Then, with the death of the old king, Albany recovers all of Britain.[7] Shakespeare thus dramatizes the re-unification of a kingdom in the period when the union of England and Scotland was a contemporary issue (although James VI and I’s union project had been rejected by the Commons by 1607).
What comfort to this great decay may come
Shall be applied; for us, we will resign
During the life of this old majesty
To him our absolute power; (Q: scene 24. 290-94; F: 5.3.271-74)[6]
- Pointing out the difference between Shakespeare and Tate in
their respective characterizations of the Duke of Albany, C. B. Hardman
observes the potential association, in Tate’s play, between the Duke of Albany
and James Duke of York, whom Parliament sought to block from succeeding to the
English throne. He writes, “Albany’s presence is even less apparent in Tate
than in the Folio, but criticism of him is muted, he is less overtly
ineffectual, and his cuckolding is less obvious” (921).[8]
In addition, Albany’s characterization changes the play’s political outcome: in
Tate’s final scene, when Lear says to Albany after being rescued by the duke,
“Thou, inhumane Lord” (5.6.64), Albany replies, “Since then [since the time he discovered
Goneril’s villainy] my Injuries, Lear, fall in with Thine: / I have
resolv’d the same Redress for Both [Lear and Cordelia]” (86-87).[9]
Cordelia urges him to speak further and Albany says:
The Troops by Edmund rais’d, I have disbanded;
In contrast to Shakespeare’s Albany, Tate’s Albany “resigns” the kingdom “save what Part your Self conferr’d / On Us in Marriage,” namely, except for the third of it given to him and Goneril in the opening scene of the play. This indicates that he returns to Lear the following two-thirds of the kingdom: 1) the “ample Third” (1.1.91) which Lear gave to Regan; and 2) the “richer Third” (98) which Lear intended for Cordelia and “invest[ed] jointly with full Right” (139) to Albany and Cornwall, following Cordelia’s refusal to declare how much she loves her father. The kingdom Cordelia inherits and will reign over with Edgar consists of these two parts of Lear’s original kingdom. The ending of Tate’s King Lear is a happy one in the sense that the evil characters are punished with their deserved deaths and the legitimate sovereign is restored. Yet the once divided kingdom will remain divided. The restoration of the old monarch is not without vicissitude.
Those that remain are under my Command.
What Comfort may be brought to cheer your Age
And heal your savage Wrongs, shall be apply’d;
For to your Majesty we do Resign
Your Kingdom, save what Part your Self conferr’d
On Us in Marriage. (90-96)
- Tate’s
ending suggests the separation of Scotland from England, an issue especially
relevant to the political situation during the Exclusion Crisis. Kerrigan
observes that the court party argued “that, since the Scots were loyal to the
Duke of York, any change in the succession would encourage Scotland to separate
from England and whip up another round in the wars of the three kingdoms”
(288). James Duke of York, who also held
the title of Duke of Albany, was in Scotland from November 1679 to February
1680 and again from October 1680 to March 1682. During these visits, according
to Tim Harris, he “played an active role at the head of the government” in
Scotland (330) and consolidated the support of the Scots.[10]
Of course, Tate’s Albany is not James (just as Cornwall is not Charles, who
“held the dukedom of Cornwall”).[11]
Yet, the title of Duke of Albany could have reminded the contemporary audience
of the Scottish factor in the political situation of the time.
The Feud between the Dukes of Cornwall and Cambria
- In
Shakespeare’s King Lear the structure of Lear’s kingdom is simple.
Although there is a reference to “followers” in the Quarto and “attendants” in
the Folio in the opening scene of the play, the only British aristocrats with
any significance are two dukes (Albany and Cornwall) and two earls (Gloucester
and Kent).[12]
It is as if Lear’s court is reduced to his families and this handful of
aristocrats. Moreover, in Shakespeare’s play the war is fought between the
French force led by Cordelia and the British forces (the alliance between
Goneril-Albany and Regan-Edmund). No other power is mentioned.
- The
structure of Lear’s kingdom in Tate’s play is more complex. Firstly, there are
the “Commons.” The frequent references to them as a political power recall the
1640s as well as the early 1680s, when the king and Parliament were in
confrontation. Tate’s Edmund says at the opening of Act 3 scene 2, just after
Lear strays into the heath in the storm:
The Riots of these proud imperial Sisters
Edmund explains that the heavy taxation imposed by Goneril and Regan as a result of their wasteful living has angered the commoners. While their “Complaints” are vain, if loud, the situation is changing. Still believing that his bastard son is loyal to him, Gloster says to Edmund:
Already have impos’d the galling Yoke
Of Taxes, and hard Impositions on
The drudging Peasants Neck, who bellow out
Their loud Complaints in Vain—Triumphant Queens!
With what Assurance do they tread the Crowd. (3-8)This change in the State sits uneasie. The Commons
Repine aloud at their female Tyrants,
Already they Cry out for the re-installment
Of their good old King, where Injuries
I fear will inflame ’em into Mutiny. (3.2.32-36) - In Tate’s
play the Commons emerge as a power strong enough to influence a struggle
amongst aristocrats. Hearing
about the Commons’ potential mutiny, Edmund says, “ ’Tis to be hopt, not fear’d”
(37). Gloster responds:
Thou hast it Boy, ’tis to be hopt indeed,
On me they cast their Eyes, and hourly Court me
To lead ’em on, and whilst this Head is Mine
I am Theirs, a little covert Craft, my Boy,
And then for open Action, ’twill be Employment
Worthy such honest daring Souls as Thine.
Thou, Edmund, art my trusty Emissary,
Haste on the Spur at the first break of day
With these Dispatches to the Duke of Combray;
You know what mortal Feuds have always flam’d
Between this Duke of Cornwall’s Family and his;
Full Twenty thousand Mountaners
Th’ inveterate Prince will send to our Assistance. (38-50) - Gloster
reveals that the Commons have already asked him to be their leader and that the
alliance between the Commons and himself has been established. Then he orders
Edmund to go to the Duke of Cambria (“Combray”) to seek assistance. Gloster
expects that the duke will send twenty thousand Welshmen (“Mountaners”) to
their aid, as his family has been a traditional enemy of the Duke of Cornwall’s.
If titles such as Cornwall and Gloster indicate their respective holders’
direct connection to these places—just as the reference to “Mountaners” reveals
the Duke of Cambria’s connection to Wales—the strategic importance of
Gloucester is obvious. It is a point of contact between Wales and Cornwall, and
between these regions and the rest of Britain. Thus, the
Cambria-Gloster-Commons alliance will effectively cut off the connection
between Cornwall and the main body of Britain. The alliance between the Duke of
Cambria and the Commons might even be analogous to the alliance between the
Duke of Monmouth (a Welsh title) and the Whigs in the Exclusion Crisis.[13]
- The
Duke of Cambria does not appear on stage. Yet the audience is reminded of him
when later Regan says sadistically to Gloster after she and her husband have
plucked out his eyes, “There—read, and save the Cambrian Prince a
Labour, / If thy eyes fail thee call for Spectacles” (3.5.60-61). Regan thrusts
the blind Gloster his letter to the Duke of Cambria, which Edmund, betraying
his father, had handed to the Duke of Cornwall. (The stage direction at the
beginning of this scene indicates that the Duke of Cornwall has the letter in
his hand.) The Duke of Cornwall further says, “Turn out that Eye-less Villain,
let him smell / His way to Cambray, throw this slave upon a Dunghill”
(66-67). Tate thus makes Cambria an important, albeit absent, player in
Britain’s political rivalries.
- References to the Duke of Cambria reveal that both the status
of the Duke of Cornwall and the political landscape of Lear’s kingdom in Tate’s
play differ from those in Shakespeare’s play, which itself differs from its
apparent primary source texts. In King Leir, Gonoril marries the King of
Cornwall and Ragan the King of Cambria, while the King of Hibernia is Leir’s
originally intended husband for Cordella: the extent of Leir’s Albion and his
means of ensuring his kingdom’s security are thus both analogous to those of
Elizabethan England: Scotland is excluded and Ireland is the main target of the
kingdom’s security policy. Shakespeare changes the titles of the husbands of
Lear’s two elder daughters, thereby rearranging the political geography: in his
play, the Dukes of Albany and Cornwall represent the North and the West, respectively.
Shakespeare’s choice of the Dukes of Albany and Cornwall is a return to the
tradition that began with Geoffrey of Monmouth and ran through Holinshed’s Chronicles.
In The History of the Kings of Britain, Gonorilla and Regau marry
Maglaunus Duke of Scotland (dux Albaniae) and Henuinus Duke of Cornwall
respectively (40-41). Holinshed’s Chronicles changes the names of the
husbands slightly but follows Geoffrey in their titles. The “Second Book of the
History of England” recounts, “The father [Leir] ... married his two eldest
daughters, the one unto Hennius the duke of Cornewall and the other unto
Maglanus the duke of Albania” (Bullough 317). Here it is not specified which
daughter marries which duke.
- Cambria is introduced in The Myrrour for Magistrates,
in which Gonoril marries an unnamed King of Albany and Ragan Hinnine Prince of
Camber and Cornwall (91-95). In Briton Moniments, in The Faerie
Queene Book 2, Spenser makes Gonoril’s husband Maglan King of Scots and an
unnamed husband of Regan King of Cambria (canto 10 stanza 29).[14]
In this tradition, Cornwall and Cambria are interchangeable and represent the
West, with the dukes of these regions as spouses of one or the other of the
elder daughters paired against the dukes of Albania/Scotland, who represent the
North. By the introduction of the Duke of Cambria as a rival of the Duke of
Cornwall, Tate—like the author(s) of King Leir—does not characterize
Cornwall as the sole representative of the West: he is but one of the western
dukes. With the introduction of this rivalry, Tate makes the political
situation of the West more complex than in Shakespeare’s play.
- The rivalry between the Dukes of Cornwall and Cambria also
underlies the political aspect of Cornwall’s marriage to Regan because his
long-term enemy Cambria must be the primary concern of Cornwall for the
security of his dukedom. The relationship between Lear and Cornwall in Tate’s
play is not the same as that in Shakespeare’s either. Tate’s Lear begins with
the bastard Edmund’s soliloquy arguing his right to seize Edgar’s inheritance
(1.1.1-21). This opening suggests the contemporary significance of Tate’s play
because it recalls the political role of the Duke of Monmouth (an illegitimate
son of Charles II) in the Exclusion Crisis. Edmund’s opening speech replaces
the dialogue between the Earls of Kent and Gloucester that opens Shakespeare’s
play:
KENT I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall.
This dialogue, in which two courtiers have observed that Lear has favoured Albany over Cornwall, suggests the tension between Lear and Cornwall, which may be recalled later as the audience sees Cornwall’s treatment of Lear and his followers. The absence of this dialogue at the beginning of Tate’s play renders neutral the Lear-Cornwall relationship.
GLOUCESTER It did always seem so to us, but now in the division of the kingdoms [F: kingdom] it appears not which of the Dukes he values most: for equalities are so weighed that curiosity in neither can make choice of either’s moiety. (1. 1-6; 1.1.1-6)
- The rivalry between the Dukes of Cornwall and Cambria suggests
that the Lear-Cornwall alliance aims at limiting Cambria’s power in the West.
Cornwall and Cambria are both dukes and in this sense are equal. However, by
marrying Regan, Cornwall acquires one-third of the kingdom as their joint
“hereditary” possession (1.1.90) and becomes a member of the royal family. This
marriage, and the division of Lear’s kingdom, make Cornwall and his descendants
overlords of Cambria, their traditional rival. Lear, in turn, has acquired (or
he thinks he has acquired) an ally in the West, whose power will help subdue
Cambria. By introducing the Duke of Cambria into the British political scene,
Tate changes the political positions of both Cornwall and Lear from those in
Shakespeare’s play: there is a potentially dangerous power in Wales, and Lear
is reducing its threat by establishing an alliance with an alternative power in
the West. In the West, with the deaths of the Duke of Cornwall and Regan, the
power balance changes yet again. The Lear-Cornwall alliance collapses, but the
Duke of Cambria with “[f]ull Twenty thousand Mountaners” (3.2.49) remains
uninfluenced by the conflict in the royal family. Cordelia, and especially
Edgar, who will have interests in the West due to the inheritance of the
earldom of Gloster, will have to consider how to deal with this duke, who is
ready, and possibly willing, to send a troop of twenty thousand men.[15]
The kingdom of Cordelia and Edgar is less centralized, less secure, than the
Britain at the end of Shakespeare’s King Lear, in which all members of
the royal family are dead and a new dynasty in a unified kingdom is beginning.
The Duke of Burgundy and the Absence of the King of France
- One
of Tate’s boldest alterations of the tradition of Lear plays, including
Shakespeare’s, is the absence from his play of the King of France. In the Lear
tradition, Cordelia invariably marries a king of France (or Gallia or Celtica).
In fact, in King Leir, the King of Gallia appears as the leader of the
victorious Gallic force, accompanied by Cordella, at the end of the play. As
the King of Gallia says to Leir, “Thanks be to God, your foes are ouercome, /
And you againe possessed of your right,” Leir replies:
First to the heauens, next, thanks to you, my sonne,
The King of Gallia declines this offer. If he had accepted, Britain would have been his, because at this moment there is no one in Britain who could stop him. The absence of the King of France from Tate’s play effectively removes the always sensitive issue of a potential invasion of the French force. (As is often argued about Shakespeare’s versions, the French presence in the Folio is smaller than in the Quarto, suggesting that Shakespeare tried to revise his play in this respect.)
By whose good meanes I repossesse the same:
Which if it please you to accept your selfe,
With all my heart I will resigne to you:
For it is yours by right, and none of mine. (2633-39)
- The
absence of the King of France from Tate’s play also removes the rivalry between
Continental rulers regarding Cordelia. In Shakespeare’s play, Lear has been
keeping the rivals in his court waiting to find out who will wed Cordelia. Lear
is in a position to choose between the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy
(between the “vines of France and milk of Burgundy” [1.1.82; not in Q]),
though, in the light of his persistent references to the ranks of these two
suitors, it is likely that France might well be his preferred ally, and that he
is trying to use Burgundy as a foil in order to raise the bid.[16]
In any case, by adding the Duke of Burgundy to the Lear story, Shakespeare
makes his Lear behave as if, through the marriage of his daughter and the offer
of one-third of his kingdom, he has taken some initiative and has chosen to
align himself with one Continental power at the expense of another.
- In Tate’s play, the Duke of Burgundy is the only candidate for
Cordelia’s husband in Lear’s mind (although Cordelia wishes to marry Edgar from
the beginning). Unlike in Shakespeare’s play, none of Lear’s daughters are
married at the beginning of Tate’s King Lear. Lear says, “You, Burgundy,
Cornwall and Albany, / Long in Our Court have made your amorous
sojourn / And now are to be answer’d—” (1.1.71-73).[17]
Lear speaks, however, as if the marriage between Goneril and Albany is an
already settled issue. He says:
Of all these Bounds, ev’n from this Line to this
Similarly, though he does not refer to Cornwall by his title, Lear treats the marriage between Regan and Cornwall as a matter not to be disputed. The same may be said about Cordelia and Burgundy. When Lear declares that Cordelia is now without dowry, Burgundy says, “Pardon me, Royal Lear, I but demand / The Dow’r your Self propos’d, and here I take / Cordelia by the Hand Duchess of Burgundy” (180-82). This is a conflated and abridged version of the reply of Shakespeare’s Burgundy, who says, “Royal Majesty [F: Most royal majesty], / I crave no more than what your highness offered; / Nor will you tender less” (1.180-82; 1.1.190-92) and finally “Royal Lear [F: Royal King], / Give that portion which yourself proposed, / And here I take Cordelia by the hand, / Duchess of Burgundy—” (1.230-33; 1.1.239-42).[18] In both plays, Burgundy suggests that he had already negotiated and reached an agreement with Lear concerning the dowry.
With shady Forests and wide-skirted Meads,
We make thee Lady, to thine and Albany’s Issue
Be this perpetual— (81-84)
- Nevertheless, when Tate’s Burgundy next speaks, he reveals a
relationship different from that found in Shakespeare’s play. Shakespeare’s
Burgundy says to Cordelia after Lear refuses his demand, “I am sorry, then, you
have so lost a father / That you must lose a husband” (1.234-35; 1.1.243-44).
In contrast, Tate’s Burgundy speaks only to Lear: “Then Sir, be pleas’d to
charge the breach / Of our Alliance on your own Will / Not my Inconstancy”
(1.1.185-87). Burgundy’s reference to an “alliance” rather than a “husband”
emphasizes the political aspect of the courting and thus the political
repercussions of the “breach.” It also characterizes the relationship between
Lear and Burgundy in a new way: Tate’s Burgundy speaks to Lear in a more abrupt
and demanding tone, perhaps reflecting the fact that while Shakespeare’s Lear,
by taking advantage of the France-Burgundy rivalry, takes the initiative in
establishing a new alliance, Tate’s Lear has no choice but Burgundy as partner
in the Continental alliance.
- The
absence of the King of France from Tate’s play might reflect the Anglo-French
relationship under Charles II. France in the late seventeenth century was much
more powerful than in the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods. Englishmen feared
Louis XIV’s ambition for a universal monarchy and were uneasy about the
Stuarts’ intimacy with Catholic France.[19]
The landing of a French army was a real fear. As Jonathan Bate writes, “Tate’s
prologue ends with a reference to the Popish Plot, and the first performance of
his Lear was contemporaneous with the trial in London of Oliver Plunket,
Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of Ireland, on trumped-up charges of
conspiring to land a French army” (61). French intervention into British civil
strife was a dangerous topic, especially given political tensions, one of whose
causes was the Duke of York’s Catholicism. The elimination of the King of
France from the play might have been the least provocative way of reconfiguring
the Lear tradition so that it would be palatable to a late-seventeenth century
audience. At the same time, this alteration changes the relationship between
Lear and the Duke of Burgundy. The duke’s position is stronger in Tate’s play
than in Shakespeare’s: this strength suggests the relative weakness of Lear.
Conclusion
- The comparison of the forms and characteristics of the
kingdoms of Leir/Lear in King Leir and Shakespeare’s King Lear
reveals that Shakespeare reconfigured the Lear story from an Elizabethan to a Jacobean
frame. Shakespeare (re-)introduced the pan-British and international
perspectives into the plot (while erasing the Irish issue). The British
framework is particularly relevant to the early Jacobean period when a king
from Scotland was ambitious to be an active player in international politics. Similarly,
a comparison between Shakespeare’s and Tate’s representations of the kingdoms
of Lear, especially from the archipelagic and international perspectives,
suggests the relevance of Tate’s play to its specific historical context.
Lear’s kingdom in Tate’s play is characterized by weaker royal power. The
insistence on autonomy by the Duke of Albany and the change of the power
balance in the West further suggest that Cordelia and Edgar will inherit
sovereignty with an even weaker hold. (They cannot expect a friendly
relationship with the Duke of Burgundy, either.) The causes of this weakness
are comparable to the problems during the Exclusion Crisis. First, the Duke of
Albany’s claim for autonomy is reminiscent of the possibility of Scotland’s
secession in support of James Duke of York. Second, the rivalry between the
Dukes of Cornwall and Cambria introduces the possible alliance between the
latter and the Commons, which recalls the role of the Duke of Monmouth in the
Crisis. And third, the elimination of the King of France, leading to the
weakening of Lear’s position in his relationship with the Duke of Burgundy,
reminds the audience of the threat of Louis XIV’s France.
- The characteristics of Lear’s kingdom in Tate’s play also would have recalled, for people living at the time of the Exclusion Crisis, the political history which England experienced from the 1640s onward. The alliance between Parliament and opposition aristocrats and the possible separation of kingdoms (especially of Scotland) were nightmares for Englishmen of the time. Critics have observed various analogies between the characters of Tate’s King Lear and historical figures: such as those between Edmund the bastard and the Duke of Monmouth (Maguire 34-35); Cordelia and Edgar and Mary and William (Maguire 39); Edgar and Charles II (Hardman 915-16); and the Duke of Albany and the Duke of York (Hardman 921-2). This play, nonetheless, does not simply suggest these direct, one-to-one analogies. Following up on Shakespeare’s reconfiguration of the Lear story, as it addressed the archipelagic and international situation of the early Jacobean period, Tate reconfigured Shakespeare’s play to be relevant to his own time. As a result, we see that the kingdom of his Lear exists within a sphere of archipelagic and international relations differing markedly from those of Shakespeare’s.
Notes
