THE RIGHT WOMAN AT THE WRONG TIME

The Female Quixote by Charlotte Lennox is a humorous, witty and insightful novel about a beautiful young lady Arabella who sees herself as a heroine from the French romance novels. She dreams of adventures and romance, yet never fulfilling her desires, her destiny is led to disappointment and disillusionment just as Don Quixote by Miguel De Cervantes. Finally, she is trapped by social conventions following the main female role she was trying to escape from with her demands and rebellious acts. Lennox demonstrates tension between the artificial behavior dictated by both contemporary and old-fashioned societies amongst the upper class. The natural way in which Arabella wishes to behave however is being governed strictly by old fashioned customs she learned from the French romance novels. Though, Arabella may appear as unconventional due to her odd customs and traditions, I strongly believe that she is the most conventional character in the story. The key element is to understand that she is in fact following social conventions, yet the conventions belonging to a society that is 2000 years older than her. Mack sees Arabella "Like the people around her" she "is every bit the empiricist, reasoning from her senses, but she functions with a different store of experience". This is experience is "formed from the classical historical settings of seventeenth-century French romances rather than from eighteenth-century English society" (195). Therefore, Arabella's behavior cannot be judged or misinterpreted. However, it must be acknowledged that she is a follower of conventions and her only connection to the real world was through the French novels.

Arabella may be portrayed as being an autodidact of social conventions because though her father paid for the best education, she taught herself how to act in society. To further analyze this, the first point which needs to be considered is that Arabella is locked in a castle away from modern society. She is not in touch with the real world or exposed to the new rules of behavior. Therefore, our beautiful heroine unintentionally relied on the only source of education she found; the French romance novels that belonged to her mother who passed away. This may also be her only connection to the mother she never had. Therefore, Arabella holds on to these books, firmly believes in them and accepts every word as valuable lessons that her mother, if alive, might have passed on. Furthermore, Arabella when meeting The Countess, immediately connects and desires to build a relationship. I believe Arabella's sees The Countess as a mother figure who will give her the reassurance she has longed for. Interestingly, The Countess was also fond of Arabella and desired a close relationship. However, for The Countess, Arabella was a mirror of her youth and knowing that she had also been credulous of the romantic novels, felt the need to save her from these illusive stories as she had been saved"....she herself had when very young been deep read in Romances; and but for an early Acquaintance with the World, and being directed to other Studies, was likely to have been as much a Heroine as Lady Bella" (Lennox 323).

Through this passage, the Countess believes that if she had not encountered the real world she would have had the same absurd notions as Arabella does. Arabella innocently believes that the seventeenth century norms of society are acceptable because she learned these from her mother's books. Being the only possession she had from her mother and being a woman of higher rank, Arabella could only assume to behave as a true heroine does. Moreover, her reasoning behind strongly believing in these novels, is due to the fact that they are indeed exciting and adventurous romances that happened to extraordinary historical women. Hypothetically speaking, if Arabella would have been aware of the modern rules of conduct, in addition to having read the romance novels, and yet she would have chosen to act in an old fashioned manner, then one may say that the protagonist is of rebellious, unconventional and nonconforming nature. Moreover, the Countess is an example of a Lady of higher rank who would have fallen unconsciously into the same folly as Arabella had she not been acquainted with the outside world. Arabella’s family, servants and acquaintances, assumed she knew the way to behave in public, therefore when she challenged this thought, they considered her delusional and mad.

            "If you knew more of the World, Lady Bella, said Miss Glanville pertly, you would not    be so apt to think, that young ladies engage themselves in troublesome Adventures: Truly       the Ladies that are brought up in Town are not so ready to run away with every Man they    see (Lennox 88).

 

            Therefore, I ask, Is Arabella really crazy? Well "As Motooka puts it, "She does not see armor where there is no armor; she sees the riders as they are. Yet she interprets their appearance in such an odd way that her companions look upon her 'as one who [is] out of her senses'" (Mack 195), just as she "never hesitates to call things as she sees them: the gardener a prince, the highwaymen knights, the horse races the Olympic Games" (Mack 193). The term experience is crucial in understanding why she is viewed as a crazy woman. Arabella's experience with society is different from her family and peers. Miss Glanville cannot comprehend where her cousin comes from in terms of experience, since her upbringing was based on modern social beliefs. Lennox constantly reveals Arabella's innocence when it appears in her dialogue such as "No, really! interrupted Arabella, innocently (88). It's important to attach this concept of innocence to understand why Arabella falls into these old-conventions.

            Canadian literary critic Herman Northrop Frye, says that "Tragedy involves a movement from the ideal world to the real world, from innocence to experience, from the mythos of summer to the mythos of winter, and therefore Frye calls tragedy the mythos of autumn" (Tyson 222). Clearly, this novel is tragic because The Female Quixote ends tragically. Arabella is practically forced into marrying her cousin and the end of her little independence and glorious youth is perpetuated by marriage. Though it is unclear, if she was unconsciously trying to avoid this tragic ending for her, Arabella innocence helps her transgress through the novel. Therefore based on Frye's definition of Tragedy, Arabella's journey from "innocence to experience" occurs when she is in touch with the real world and is placed in real life experience.

            The turning point occurs when Arabella puts her life at risk. The moment she sees "four Horsemen riding along the Road towards them" her "imagination bewilder'd as it was in the Follies of Romances" and she "plunged into the Thames, intending to swim over it, as Clelia did the Tyber" (362-363). Though the madness of her action is debatable, her intention was innocent. Arabella was concern in protecting her chastity, therefore proposed to her women "What that beauteous Roman Lady perform'd to preserve herself from violation by the impious Sextus, let us imitate to avoid the Violence our intended Ravishers yonder come to offer us" (Lennox 363) Arabella's self-confidence, determination and strong will help her get through most of the time imposing respect, trustworthiness and character. Though her family and peers may find her somewhat delusional, she manages to gain their acceptance which would describe her as a courageous woman in a male domineering society.

            The reality is that Arabella was always forced into following rules. Her father, for example locked her in a castle "He taught her to read and write in a very few Months" (Lennox 6) then "the best Masters of Music and Dancing were sent from London to attend her" (Lennox 7). Therefore, "The Female Quixote's derision of Arabella lends extra force to its subordination of romance, for as a female Quixote, she is already subordinate - a subordinate character in the novel's social world, a subordinate sign in its formal one" (Langbauer 31). Arabella is submissive to her father and is expected to play this role with Mr. Glanville after they are married. Arabella does rebel against her father's will to marry Glanville, but the reason behind this idea comes from the convention "What Lady in Romance ever married the Man that was chose for her? (Lennox 27) Though she is aware she cannot disobey her father, she then develops an aptitude to dislike Glanville because heroines don't marry the man that is proposed to them (Lennox 27).

            Though these attitudes are not characteristic of a submissive woman, her disobedience towards her father and apathy towards Glanville, also take place because Glanville doesn't follow the conventional rules of courtship. Arabella's old-fashioned manners influenced her lack of appreciation toward this young handsome man who was trustworthy and truly loved her.

Therefore, Arabella courageously challenges her father's beliefs when she exclaims:

            "But if it is your absolute Command that I should marry, give me not to one who, tho'       he has the Honour to be allied to you, has neither merited your Esteem, or my Favour, by        any Action worthy of his Birth, or the Passion he pretends to have for me" (Lennox 41).

 

Moreover, continues by explaining the real challenges a lover must encounter and fulfill in order to deserve a lady of such royal worth "Has he merited my Esteem, by his sufferings, Fidelity, and Respect; or, by any great and generous Action, given me a Testimony of his Love, which should oblige me to reward him with my Affection? (Lennox 41).

            Evidently Arabella strictly follows a set of norms which blind her to see Glanville for what he truly is, "The Truth is, she had too much Discernment not to see Mr. Glanville had a great deal of merit; his person was perfectly handsome" (Lennox 30). Nevertheless, Glanville being an ideal bachelor for many ladies is charmed by Arabella. Therefore one may conclude that luckily "the unromantic Arabella turns out to be very romantic after all" (Langbauer 33). Glanville fell in love with Arabella at first sight admiring her beauty. However, when she spoke so eloquently and strangely, he became fascinated with her personality and his desire grew stronger. The fact that her views of courtship confuse Glanville, empowers her greatly to command the relationship. Laurie Langbauer says that "Romance is "empowering not imprisoning" and "the conventions of romance are what might give women voice" (Gordon 500). Therefore, Arabella's conventional romantic behavior keeps her self-righteous, and in command of her decision concerning matters of the heart.

            Arabella was tangled in these fairy tales to an extent that she felt obliged to follow the rules of courtship, romance, fashion, language and so on, unwilling to break any of these conventions. Arabella followed these codes of conduct strictly, word by word because she was looking for a brave man and therefore expected greatness. I agree with Langbauer when she states "Arabella's excess of behavior actually reflect what is wrong with romance. She acts the way she does because she believes in romance and is simply acting out its conventions" (Langbauer 29). This statement supports that Arabella's behavior is being dictated by the conventions of romance. Moreover infers that every society has conventions and Arabella's ridiculous over-the-top behavior exposes the ones from the eighteenth century.

            Clearly Arabella never questions these conventions nor the heroines romantic demands or condemnations that lead to dangerous and bloody consequences. Furthermore, Arabella emotionally tortures Glanville "...through the profound respect he has for me...I will voluntarily bestow it on him...as because I do not wish his death" (Lennox 132). Arabella doesn't realize the insensitivity she is portraying by these absurd comments. Infuriated, Miss Glanville tries to enlighten her when she questions her outrageous statement.

You do not wish his death Madam!...Is it such a mighty Favour, pray, not to wish the       Death of my Brother, who never injured you? I am sure your Behaviour has been so       extremely inhumane that I have repented a thousand times we ever came to the castle (Lennox 132)

However, Arabella ignores Miss Glanville and is convinced that her rigor has caused Glanville a deadly illness because all heroines have this effect over their lovers. Thus not realizing the emotional pain she is causing her family as well as herself for denying to see Glanville. She wants to know how he is and cares for him, but in order to see him without breaking the code, she justifies this urge by claiming that she has the divine power to save his life (Lennox 132).

Arabella's submissive role becomes apparent the moment her initial behavior is juxtaposed by her adaptation to modern society after speaking with the doctor. The last chapter is ground breaking because the doctor is the only character that is able to question her beliefs with strong arguments that would break the magic spell of the novels. Arabella convincingly fights to defend the importance of the French Novels as well as her conventional romantic beliefs. Consequently, the doctor manages to gain her attention when he mentions the most delicate subject of all: death. When he says "I hope, Madam...with Horror in his looks, that no Life was ever lost by your Incitement" (Lennox 381), he enlightens her with the fear of anyone dying on her behalf "Is it possible, cried the Doctor, that such Gentleness and Elegance should be stained with Blood? (381). Until this point, she had never questioned the extremity, torturous and bloody sacrifices imposed by the French novels and "recovering herself" she says

" I tremble indeed to think how nearly I have approached the Brink of Murder, when I      thought myself only consulting my own Glory; but whatever I suffer, I will never more      demand or instigate Vengeance, nor consider my Punctilios as important enough to be     ballanced against life" (Lennox 381)

 

Though some readers may interpret this incident sudden and unbelievable, I believe that it was unexpected, yet realistic. Langbauer points out "what actually convinces her to give up romance is not so much the Doctor's logic as her own shame, and it is later "Reflections on the Absurdity of her Past Behaviour, and the Contempt and Ridicule to which she now saw plainly she had exposed herself" which clinch her rehabilitation" (33). Therefore I agree with this rationale behind her quick realization of how delusional she had been. "This quixotism, critics have agreed, is defined not only by the mistakes Arabella makes—substituting the reality of French romances for that of eighteenth-century English society—but also by her ability to keep making them " (Mack 193). Arabella until the last chapter had always possessed the same fantastic ideas and had argued her way through several mistakes. I feel for Arabella when she comes to her realization. I picture her with the Doctor as all the dramatic events flash through her mind, and the her surprise, when she was able to comprehend the dangers of the conventions of courtship she treasured dearly. Though she matures when she loses her innocence and gains experience, she is not necessarily happy. With this notion I support the idea that though Charlotte Lennox's is humorous and romantic, the underlying theme is tragedy.          

            The protagonist Arabella thinks of herself as a heroine who dreams of adventures and romance, never quite fulfilling these ends disappointed and disillusioned just as Don Quixote. Finally she is trapped by social conventions, following the main female role she was trying to escape from with her demands and rebellious acts. "Mrs. Lennox's desire to ridicule the French heroic romances, and to point out their potentially harmful effects on the minds of inexperienced readers, is seen in her earliest writings. Mockery of romance conventions is found in 'Shallum to Hilpah'; one of the best of her 1747 Poems"(Isles 420). Evidently, Lennox succeeds in mocking these conventions through Arabella’s character. From my perspective she is basically saying 'this is how ridiculous we would be if we were to follow the old-fashion traditions'. Furthermore, Langbauer states "The Female Quixote both mocks and lauds its heroine's quixotism and the way it ridicules romance actually exposes the attractions of that form" (30) which supports the argument that French Novels were attractive because it invoked a passion for romance which had been lost in eighteenth century British society. Therefore, Arabella's behavior was being perpetuated by the vivacity of these historical Heroines as well as her longing for romantic affairs characteristic of young girls.

Although Arabella may seem nonconformist and unconventional by disregarding all the 18^thcentury social conventions, she brings suffering to her family with her stubbornness, as well as with her condemning and self-torturous behavior. Simply because she imposes upon her family and servants a new set of values, attitudes and beliefs, doesn’t necessarily make her a revolutionary. She is the tragic heroine in her own play. Arabella creates an imaginary world to cope with her repressed desires due to the isolation and captivity imposed by her father. Heroines’ lives are maneuvered by a serious of adventures that in romance novels occur only to them. What is interesting to note, is that the plot comes to the protagonists in the French novels, whereas Arabella has to find these adventures and dangerous encounters filled with imaginary lovers and fictional ravishers. Arabella's delusive view of the world stems from her desire to be a famous Heroine. Additionally, "Margaret Dalziel has suggested that [Unlike Don Quixote, Arabella is also created to be the heroine of a serious love story, a story with the conventional romantic characters, and the conventional romantic ending]" (Langbauer 30). Arabella indeed achieves to portray the possibilities of being a Heroine during her time. She succeeds in being an outstanding and noticeable woman next to all the dull and plain females around her. Though the end may be somewhat sad, Glanville does deserve her love in the end because he stands by her during all her tortures, rejection and strange behavior. Glanville unlike Sir George protects her and never tries to fool her or set her up like Sir George. Glanville behaves like a man in the French Novels who is worthy of her love. I believe that Lennox revives the passion of love and exposes the frivolous superficial society of the eighteenth century through Arabella's imaginative adventures. Moreover, The Female Quixote captures the quintessence of the conventions of romance. Arabella's commitment to follow these conventions has placed her as the perfect woman during the wrong times. Arabella is the most conventional character throughout. Her life depends on these codes of conduct, she breathes through them. I believe that through this novel, Lennox extravagantly exposes the danger of romance and fiction, as well as the seriousness in which social traditions such as "marriage" are being maneuvered.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Lennox, Charlotte. The Female Quixote or The Adventures of Arabella. 1752. Ed. Margaret Dalziel. New York: Oxford UP, 1989.

· Mack, Ruth. "Lennox 's Quixotic Ethnography "Novel: A Forum on Fiction 2005, Vol. 38 Issue 2/3. PP 193-213

· Langbauer, Laurie. "Romance Revised: Charlotte Lennox's The Female Quixote", NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction Vol. 18, No. 1. Autumn 1984. Pub. Duke University Press. PP.29-49

· Gordon, Scott Paul."The Space of Romance in Lennox's Female Quixote”. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 38, No. 3, Restoration and Eighteenth Century. 1998. PP 499-516

· Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide 2 Ed. August 2006. PP 221-224

 

 

 

A DOLL'S HOUSE (Essay)

A DOLL’S HOUSE

 

              Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll House is undeniably a controversial play since for over a century it has raised a vast number of questions on its true purpose. One of the indisputable ideas found in the play is the idea of liberation from social restraints for a chance to discover oneself. However, the main dilemma revolves on the question of whether or not this play appeals to human beings as a whole or only to women. Therefore, many women’s rights movements have used this play as a tool to achieve equal rights. Despite Ibsen’s claims of being involved with women’s rights, more precisely“ the problem of women”, feminism is a predominant element in A Doll’s House. Many critics have supported each side of the argument and there is a continuous controversy about the main purpose of the play. One side shows that Ibsen truly based the play on the idea of the pursuit of individual freedom. On the other hand, the argument is that the play deals with the pursuit of women’s freedom from a male domineering society.

The presence of feminism is controversial in this play mainly because the author claimed that the main theme revolved on the idea of individual freedom, not particularly women’s. Ibsen claims that his initial intention was to portray the pursuit of freedom as a human being:

“I thank you for your toast, but must disclaim the honour of having consciously worked for women’s rights. I am not even quite sure what women’s rights really are. To me it has been a question of human rights. And if you have read my books carefully you will realize that. Of course it is incidentally desirable to solve the problem of women: but that has not been my whole object”. (Durbach, 91)

In addition to this, he portrays Nora’s decision based on personal choice due to marital disillusion, her dependency on her husband and her incompetence to do anything on her own. “Nora’s liberal impulse belongs not only to the history of women’s liberation, but also to the problematic context of an age in which the free spirit must define itself in a world reshaped by a series of revolutions in social and political life” Durbach says (3) Another fact is that some women’s rights had already been achieved before A Doll’s House was written. For instance, during the 1800’s Norwegian middle class women obtained the right to find employment and protection in the workplace. Moreover women achieved other rights such as legal status of minor males in 1845 and education in 1882. A Doll’s House was written in 1879, ten years before women achieved total control over their own funds (Durbach, 92). However, Ibsen told the Norwegian Women’s Rights League that whatever he wrote “has been without conscious thought of making propaganda,’ and that he was ‘more poet and less social philosopher” (Salome, 24).

Even though Ibsen’s initial intentions were not concerned with women’s rights, Nora’s liberation from her dominant husband is the central idea in his play. Therefore, many women’s rights movements have interpreted this play as a tool to achieve equality. The reason why this idea of feminism is very controversial is due to the fact that one can find many references to support feminist beliefs despite the author’s opposition on this matter.

Moreover, the time-period when it was written encourages feminists to believe that it was a call to fight against oppression. Joan Templeton argues “The power of A Doll House lies not ‘beyond’ but within its feminism; it is feminist Bildungspiel par excellence, dramatizing the protagonist’s realization that she might, perhaps, be someone other than her husband’s little woman” (138). A Doll House has been used as propaganda in the Women’s liberation movement in the late 1960’s. For example Kate Millett’s Sex Politics (1970) who believes that A Doll House “is a blow against the patriarchy, and Nora is ‘the true insurrectionary of the sexual revolution…battling the sexual politic openly and rationally…[with her] band of revolutionaries.”

.. Consequently, this idea of liberty helped shape a political issue “The problem of women”. Nonetheless, Ibsen sees Nora as humanity, trapped “…between the seductive and soul-destroying security of her doll’s house and the frightening emptiness of the freedom that awaits her beyond the door.” (Durbach, 94)

Some critics’ rebuttal is that Mrs. Linde (another female character in the play) chose to reenter the domestic lifestyle, which contradicts the interpretation that Ibsen was indeed portraying feminist beliefs. However, Mrs. Linde represents an older woman who is accustomed to the conventional rules of society, in which she believes that a woman’s goal in life is to serve a man and a family. Nora, on the other hand, is demonstrating a new generation of empowered women capable of freeing themselves from the restraints of a husband whose hubris is to believe he is superior to women:

Helmer. I’d gladly work for you day and night, Nora - and take on pain and deprivation. But there’s no one who gives up honor for love.

Nora. Millions of women have done just that.

Helmer. Oh, you think and talk like a silly child. (449)

From Ibsen’s “Notes for Modern Tragedy”, he concluded the following ideas regarding modern women:

“…woman is judged by masculine law…A woman cannot be herself in modern society. It is an exclusively male society, with laws made by men and…judges who assess feminine conduct from a masculine standpoint….A mother in modern society, like certain insects, retires and dies once she has done her duty by propagating the race…”(Salome, 23)

Lou Salome says that Ibsen was outlining Nora’s life if she would have remained in the doll’s house. Furthermore she explains that Ibsen never proposed liberation as a solution, on the contrary, she believes the interpretation of her emancipation relies on the reaction of a male-domineering society. (23) I strongly disagree with Salome’s interpretations of Ibsen’s plays and public statements. Ibsen made it clear when he said “It is an exclusively male society” and Nora’s life in the doll house symbolizes the domestic role of women in society.

At the beginning of the play, one can see Helmer and Nora’s relationship portraying a domestic mentality in which women are inferior to men. In fact, in Act I, from the moment Helmer enters the house, he uses nicknames as “lark” , “squirrel” and “bird” (all delicate defenseless animals) to call his wife (Bedford, ). As the play moves along, Nora acts like a doll, she is Helmer’s little toy and she does as he pleases: “Ibsen’s man-and-wife is a parodic bourgeois version of the pan-cultural ideal of marriage as a relation of natural superior and inferior, in which the wife is a creature of little intellectual and moral capacity whose right and proper station is subordination to her husband”, Templeton states (138).

This house is a make-believe world fit for dolls:

“The pillar of society who owns the doll is a model husband, father, and citizen. In his little household with the three darling children and the affectionate little wife, all on the most loving terms with one another, we have the sweet home, the womanly woman, the happy family life of the idealist’s dream. (Shaw, 40)

This statement shows that despite all the comforts and years of marriage, Nora feels compelled to leave because Helmer’s lack of sacrifice makes her reexamine their marriage. In addition to this, she discovers that there isn’t any true love, and feels that Helmer is a stranger to her and that all her sacrifices have been in vain. Her only accomplishment was saving his life, yet she is aware that this act of love is a threat to her husband’s masculinity. However, the moment when “the miracle” was supposed to occur, she finds out that for Helmer “honor” is far more important than love. What Helmer calls honor is simply a euphemism for destroying his reputation. Nora reevaluates her life, herself and realizes she is not fit to raise her children, since she has always been a doll; it is now her task to find the person within.

The fact that Nora left her husband is not sufficient evidence to support the presence of feminism. However, one mustn’t forget that Nora was a mother of three children. Just as for men’s self-realization “children shall not be an impediment” (Templeton, 143). It is chauvinistic to believe that Nora’s act is insane and outrageous as Torvald exclaims:

Helmer: Oh, it’s outrageous. So you’ll run out like this on your most sacred vows.

Nora: What do you think are my most sacred vows?

Helmer: And I have to tell you that! Aren’t they your duties to your husband and children? (Bedford, 448)

Moreover, “Ibsen doesn’t separate Nora as mother from Nora as wife because he is identifying the whole source of her oppression, the belief in a “female nature”, an immutable thing in itself whose proper sphere is domestic wifehood and whose essence is maternity.” (Templeton, 143) This statement implies the domestic responsibility assigned to women in a male domineering society. Despite these imposed obligations, Nora decides firmly to leave the comfortable household, the loving children and the over protective and possessive husband to confront an unknown world:

Helmer: You talk like a child. You don’t know anything of the world you live in.

Nora: “No, I don’t. But now I’ll begin to learn for myself. I’ll try to discover who’s right, the world or I” (Bedford, 449).

 

WORK REFERENCES

·         Jacobs, Lee. The Compact BedfordIntroduction to Drama 5^th Edition. New York: Boston, 2005.

·         Shaw , George Bernard. The Quintessence of Ibsenism. New York: Brentano’s, 1904.

·         Templeton, Joan. Ibsen’s Women. United Kingdom: Cambridge UniversityPress,1997.

·         Durbach, Errol. A Doll’s House: Ibsen’s Myth of Transformation. Boston: Massachusetts, 1991

·         Salomé, Lou. Ibsen’s Heroins. Trans. Siegfried Mandel. New York: W.W. Norton,1962

 

 

 

 

 

The Role of Nature in Shakespeare's King Lear

NATURE IN KING LEAR

   
           The Tragedy of King Lear by William Shakespeare is founded on the theme of Nature portrayed throughout the play from Lear’s kingship to personal human relations, from representations of the physical world to notions of the gods, from the portrayal of human nature to the use of animal imagery. Nature is the core of the play King Lear. Shakespeare’s take on nature is ambiguous thus he portrays the two extremes of human condition: good and evil. Through his characters, he asserts that humans are neither good nor evil by nature. However, Shakespeare reflects on what should be considered natural, since the concept of nature stems from social construct. In the play, there is a noticeable distinction between the natural ways in which people wish to behave as opposed to what is considered natural in society. Elements of the natural world, such as Mother Nature and the animal kingdom, are invoked in the characters’ speech, as they use their different concepts of what nature is in order to justify their actions. Through this essay I will demonstrate good and evil nature mainly through the two juxtaposing characters: Cordelia, the Jesus-Like daughter, and Edmund the Machiavellian son, as well as the use of animal imagery to depict natural character traits. The plot begins on the day King Lear decides to divide his inheritance amongst his three daughters. The proud King demands his daughters to show off their undying love for him in order to gain their share. However, King Lear’s notion of love is shallow, pompous and showy, which results in a great disadvantage to Cordelia’s natural way of being. Unfortunately, King Lear’s royal authority belongs to the civilized world. Therefore, he goes against the natural world when he misinterprets Cordelia’s love and casts her out. One of the biggest problems in the play is that Lear calls upon nature: “which of you shall we say doth love us most/ That we our largest bounty may extend/ Where nature doth with merit challenge” (Act 1, Scene 1, Lines 52-54). Lear mistakes Cordelia’s true natural, loyal behavior as unnatural and disobedient when she sincerely expresses “I love your majesty according to my bond, no more nor less” (Act I, Scene I, Lines 94-95) without the pompous performance played by Goneril and Reagan. Lear curses Cordelia exiling her outside society disclaiming "propinquity and property of blood" (Act 1, Scene 1).

            Lear’s lack of understanding of the natural bond between parents and children leads him to his tragic demise. He is easily fooled by Goneril and Regan's fake “natural” behavior when they give their long speeches and flatter him.  Eventually, “Those pelican daughters” (Act 3, Scene 4, Line 75) and “Unnatural hags” (Act 2, Scene 4, Line-281) as Lear later on refers to them, throw him out of the house once they've obtained status and power yet fear he might take it back. Further on, they plot on killing Lear. On the other hand, Cordelia’s love is unconditional.  Lear must go through a series of humiliating events to learn the true nature of love and the importance of the bond that Cordelia truthfully tried to explain. Cordelia is a tragic heroine, since she returns from France and easily forgives her father despite his wrath. Most importantly Cordelia gives Lear another chance to redeem himself as a king, a father and a human being.

Shakespeare brilliantly portrays human nature through Edmund and Cordelia. By placing them
in a similar situation, he is able to demonstrate that humans act accordingly to their nature.  These two juxtaposing characters are stripped away from their royal wealth due to social norms. On one hand, Cordelia faces adversity being a legitimate loving and obedient daughter, yet she doesn’t follow the selfish and disloyal path that Edmund does. Cordelia is one of the few genuinely good characters in the entire play.  In contrast to her two sisters she’s a saint. Lear’s poor judgment and misunderstanding of the father-daughter bond ultimately leads to his tragic loss.  The subplot of the main plot is the relationship between Gloucester and his legitimate son Edgar and his bastard son Edmund. Gloucester as Lear, misunderstands the natural behavior of his sons. Edmund, a “natural” son, feels he is more deserving than his brother in spite of the social law of primogeniture. By calling Edmund "loyal and natural boy", Gloucester mistakes Edmund’s unnatural behavior to be natural and casts out Edgar from the civilized world to the natural world. Lear and Gloucester share that they are both deceived and furthermore, mistake unnatural behavior (conspiracy against parents) to be natural (loyal and loving behavior). These misunderstandings ultimately lead to their downfall. Edmund calls on Mother Nature: "Nature, art my goddess." This statement implies that nature provides an evil force. Edmund's views this baseness as natural. Furthermore, Edmund recognizes his own evil nature and decides to use it to his advantage.  He mocks the notion of any kind of supernatural or divine influence over one's destiny in the following lines: “…as if we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsions; knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance, drunkards liars and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence” (Act I, Scene 2, Lines 131-135). In Edmund's soliloquy at the beginning of Act 1 Scene 2, we learn of his malevolent intent to degenerate his legitimate half brother.

Machiavelli believed that by nature, humans are not perfect in virtue and therefore, humans do not only posses good qualities, but bad ones “For if men were all good, this rule would not be allowable, but being they are full of mischief…” (p. 100).  Although he recognized that loyalty and trustworthiness can be gained, he believed that in times of adversity people are generally ungrateful, insincere, anxious to look out for their own safety, and greedy for gain “They are unthankful, inconstant dissemblers; they avoid dangers and are covetous of gain” and will rebel if they are in danger. (p. 99). Therefore, Edmund’s natural behavior represents Machiavelli’s belief of human nature being evil driven by a selfish, insincere and disloyal natural way of being. Contrary to Edmund, Cordelia also faces adversity and she stays true to her benevolent nature. Her character counteracts Machiavelli’s argument of human nature. Through this, Shakespeare hints that Machiavelli’s beliefs aren’t necessarily true and do not apply to human nature.

         Edmund reflects the character traits found in Machiavelli’s The Prince, as he rebels against the laws of society and is willing to hurt others in order to achieve power and status. He is ungrateful to his brother and father and deceives everyone around him for his benefit. Edmund appears to be loyal and trustworthy and knows how to play with these virtuous qualities, protecting his reputation while betraying others.  He’s character reflects the lion and fox-like qualities described in Machiavelli’s depiction of the ideal ruler. Thus, he is conscientious of his wickedness since the “end justifies the means”. Edmund inverts the order of society by attacking the convention of marriage and law of legitimacy. “Thou, Nature, art my goddess; to thy law/ My services are bound…” (Act I, Scene 2, Lines 1-22) Through this passage Edmund expresses his reverence to Nature (nature being the gods) and therefore demands “Now, gods, stand up for bastards” (Act I, Scene 2, Line 22). He explains that his conception comes from lust and passion being the most natural way of procreation. Furthermore, he rejects society and laws that deprive him from his right of being a legitimate son. Therefore, he only abides to the laws of nature and questions the reasoning behind labels such as “bastardy”.  Surprisingly Edmund does not consider the fact that even if he were legitimate; he is not entitled to his father’s inheritance because he is the second son. However, his natural ambition sees no limits in obtaining what he most desires.  Edmund cunningly expresses to Edgar that his father has turned against him when he says “I promise you the effects he writes of succeed unhappily as of unnaturalness between the child and the parent” (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 155-156). Ironically, Edmund understands the concept of naturalness and unnaturalness and therefore uses this to manipulate all those who are benevolent. Surprisingly, Edmund does not feel remorse for any of his actions until his on the verge of death in Act 5 when he states “Some good I mean to do, Despite of mine own nature (Act 5 Scene 3 Lines 243-244).

      Shakespeare uses animal imagery in King Lear to indicate the unnaturalness of a character's behavior and conspiracy against parents. Most of these images portray nature as vicious and uncaring representing the “survival of the fittest”. When Lear speaks to Regan about Goneril's attitude, he describes it in terms of animal behavior "O, Regan, she hath tied/ Sharp-toothed unkindness like a vulture” Lear also curses Goneril, "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is. To have a thankless child!" (Act 1, Scene 4, Line-295) Goneril and Regan are together described as "pelican daughters" (Act 3, Scene 4, Line-75). Young Pelicans are believed to attack and kill their parents this would portray conspiracy against parents.  Albany also speaks of the two sisters in comparison to animals by calling them "Tigers, not daughters" and names Goneril a "gilded serpent". These images of tigers and vultures are of animals that eat other animals, only to satisfy their hunger at the expense of others. This describes the nature of both Goneril and Regan throughout the play which represents Machiavellian character traits. Through greed and desire they drive Lear to madness, blind Gloucester and kill their sister. Their own downfall also stems from their animal appetite. They both lust after Edmund, and are "Each jealous of the other as the stung are of the adder". Jealousy leads them to their deaths, as Goneril poisons Regan and then kills herself with a knife.

 Nature plays an important role in the play King Lear. There is a distinction between the natural ways in which humans wish to behave as oppose to what is considered natural in society. The relationship between parents and children are conflictive creating tension amongst both families. The overall shift of power and obverting the natural order results in King Lear’s loss of his daughter, Gloucester’s death and Lear’s despair. The natural and unnatural behavior of characters influences and determines the events presented in both King Lear and Gloucester’s families and are paralleled in each of the plots. Therefore, nature is an important thread throughout the play and has several meanings which include the true nature of individual characters, the external violence of nature and its consequences, and the innate impulses of individuals which determine their actions. There is also the nature of animals which shows how evil can place men below animals. These different forms of nature play an important role. Cordelia is naturally a good loving daughter who comes back after being rejected to save her father and the kingdom whereas Edmund is a cunning, serpent, Machiavellian son who betrays his family to obtain power and status. Despite her father’s rejection Cordelia is truly the moral hero of the play, sacrificing all and transcending the traditional female role for the sake of loyalty, love, and truth.

BIBILIOGRAPHY

·        Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King
Lear. Signet Classics; Revised Edition. June 1, 1998.

·        Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince.
Shakespeare Survey Coursepack. Hunter College 2010