beginning of king lear

8/13/2019 Beginning of King Lear

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/beginning-of-king-lear 1/11

Berghahn Books

THE BEGINNINGS OF 'HAMLET' AND 'KING LEAR'Author(s): G. K. HUNTERSource: Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, No. 44 (May 1975), pp. 1-10Published by: Berghahn Books in association with the Faculty of Humanities, Development and Social

Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41801577 .

Accessed: 23/09/2013 01:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Berghahn Books is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Theoria: A Journal of

Social and Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 123.49.60.210 on Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:07:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=berghahnbooks

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ukzn


http://www.jstor.org/stable/41801577?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/41801577?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=berghahnbooks



THE BEGINNINGS OF 'HAMLET9 AND'KING LEAR5*

byG. K. HUNTER

The pleasureof making startlingtatements as always to betempered y the unfortunateiscovery hat such statements reseldomtrue.The mostone can hopeto get awaywith re startlinghalf-truths.o if begintoday by ndulgingmyselfnd tellingyouthat he

expositional atternsfHamlet nd

KingLear are

dentical,I'm afraid hat will have to spendthe restofthe ecture epentingat leisure, r at least explaining hespecialized ngle of vision nwhich hese tartlingoincidencesan be observed.

Let mebeginwith roughdescriptionfwhy am able to makesucha statementt all. How in factdo the twoplaysbegin?Andalready n that questionI am caught n problemsof definition.When think bout the beginning' f a play,whatdo I mean? Icertainly o notrefer nlyto theopeningmoments r even to theopening cenesofthese woplays,but rather o theopening rocessby whichwe learnto place thevariouselementsn thedramatic

structure.n KingLear the first cenewill in factsuffice; ut inHamletthematerial f Act I scene i is at leastas relevant s thatof Act scene .

Both Hamletand Lear beginwithwhat we maydescribe s con-versationalreludes etweenmenofmiddle ank;and these reludesthengiveway to fullexposition n court scenes of considerablesplendour nd somemoralhollowness.BothKing Lear and KingClaudiusbegin hese ourtoccasionswith peeches rom hethrone,in whichtheyoutline the businessof this important ay- thebusinessfor whichtheyhave assembledthe wholecourt n someofficial ind of meeting.These are speechesof some rhetoricalmagnificence,ut as we advance into the two scenes we discoverthat hemagnificences largely actitious,reated o make an effectrather han effectiveecauseofwhat tcreates.Lear announceshisretirement,hichno doubt s always nroyal ircles n occasionofgreat plendour. t is also, like the retirementf railwaymenfterforty ears n theservice,n occasionfor greatdeal ofhypocrisy.Lear is going o retirend dividehis and and hissovereign owersamonghis three aughters,ndhe is staging if that s thecorrectword thepresent ventso thathis daughters an engage n anoratorical ontestn which heywill how,byoratory, ho oveshim

* Thiswasgivensa lecturen20th ugust974n he epartmentfEnglishduringrofessorunter'sisit o theUniversityfNatal, ietermaritzburg.







2 THEORIA

best,and therefore ho deserves o be rewardedwiththelargestgrant fland. The contest s,however, fake. The firstineoftheplay, ntheconversation etweenGloucesternd Kent,has told usthat he and is alreadydivided,no doubt n someconclaveofcivilservants otally acking n magnificence. he fake nature of thecontest s perhapsmost cruciallyobvious when Lear turns toCordeliaand asks her

whatcanyou sayto draw

A thirdmoreopulent hanyour istersThe mostsimpleof arithmetic ill tellus that,two thirdshavinggone,onlyone kind of one thirdremains.The actual abdicationalso turns ut to have something honey bout it. Lear tellsus hewillkeep

The nameand all the dditions o a king,

but his conceptionof what this reservation'means is obviouslylarger hanthe rhetoricfthe occasionseems o imply.

But it is notreallywith hecontent fthis scene or thecorres-pondingone in Hamlet)that am concerned, ut ratherwiththeprocessby whichShakespeareuncoverswhatis happening theprocessby which the power and limitation f the sovereign sexposed oour view. nLear wesee theKingdeal with hree arallelclaimants the threedaughters, onerill,Regan and Cordeliaand to eachinturnheposeswhat s virtuallyhe samequestion

Whichofyoushallwe saydoth oveus most

The first nd second claimantsconform o the fake ritual andsupport hetermsnwhich hequestion s proposed.But the thirdanswerer, ordelia,deniesthe wholepremise n which he scene ssetup. She refuses o accept hemeaningfulnessfthequestion,ndrestates he relationship etweenherself nd her fathern termscompletelyutside heprevailing rame freference. he ritualhasto change ts naturebefore t can deal withthis mpediment,ndLear soon reveals, f course, n his response o Cordelia as, in areinforcingorm mmediatelyfterwards,n his response o Kent)the ingrainedhabits of authorityhat the ritual was designed oconceal. The audience is caughtby the problemof the honest

answerer,more or lessconfinedo monosyllables,n the context fan established anguage of some attractivemagnificence, utmorally ollow.







THEBEGINNINGSF HAMLET'ND KING EAR' 3

If weturnnowto HamletActI scene i wefind closelyparallelprocess.This scene also beginswiththe King's speechfromthethrone, nd Claudius (like Lear) immediatelystablishes is com-mandoverthe businessbeingtransacted.n whatseemsto be thefirstrather han the ast) speechofhisreignhe brilliantlyalancesthe variousroles he has to performhe feelsdeeply he oss ofhisbrothertheformerovereign) or at leasthe sayshe does- andhe excusesthe haste of his marriage o his brother'swidow, theimperial ointressto thiswarlikestate'. In both thesecases, he

implies,raisond'État has compelledhim to restrain is naturalhuman motion.And for hesamereasonhe has to proceednowtostate-business.laudius's business s,likeLear's,presentedntermsof threeparallelclaimants.This timethe threeparallel figuresremale, but they re not Claudius's sons, to make an exactmatchagainst Lear's daughters.Fortinbras,Laertes and Hamlet areparalleled,however,as the sons of deprivedfathers, arryingparallelburdens frevenge ortheir athershroughouthe engthof theplay. In the scenewe are considering laudius first f allshowshis exemplaryuthoritynd expeditionn disposing f theproblemof Fortinbras. he problemwe alreadyknowabout,forHoratio has outlined t to us in Act I scene . And whatHoratiodescribed here s so complex nitsnature nd so difficulto under-stand,Claudiusnow deals with n a few curt sentences nd quickorders. n respect fthe first laimant n hisattentionheKingofDenmark seems to be in total control.One line after ending heambassadorsto Norway Claudius turnsto anotheryoungman,Laertes.And in respect f Laertes he is no less expeditiousn hiscommand.Again,the effects partlymadebycontrast. et besidePolonius'swordy nd convoluted

'A hath,myLord,wrung rommemy low eaveBy aboursome etitionand at lastUpon hiswill sealedmyhard consent

(that s, I toldhimhe couldgo) Claudius seems o offer s a modelofdecisive ctivity.

Claudius now turns,however, o the third son'; but, as withLear,theco-operationfthepersonsbeingrequired o accepttheirordersdoes not lastbeyondtwo.Claudius'sfirstineto Hamlet smarked ythecleverness e havealready ome to expect f him

Butnow,mycousinHamlet, ndmy on.He makes a double claim forrelationship,oth as uncle and as







4 THEORIA

step-father, ith the implicitbut tactfullynstated xtension fHamleťs role into heir-apparent'. amlet is, however,no moremovedbyrhetoric hanCordeliawas. His replies eemdesigned oavoid givingClaudius any leveragefor the manipulations e soobviously xcels n. He speaks onlyof seeming'or 'acting'as themodes of behaviourthatmightbe expected n the scene. WhenClaudiusmade his opening laimthathe had acquiredhis crownand his wife s a result f his selfless ursuit f dutyrather haninclination, e in the audiencemayhave had our suspicions.Our

recent xperiencef Nixonrhetoric ivesus, ofcourse, n unusualadvantage.But theresveryittle ogo on. Itis not until he ounter-rhetoric f Hamlet establishes tself hatwe beginto identifyhequalityof our suspicion.The relationshipetween egalauthorityand acting nlythenbecomes question.The orotunditynd com-plexity fClaudius'srhetoric,heprotestationbout what he feels,theelaboration fwhathe tellsus is hisdelicate motional alancebetween ontrarympulses all theseseem to be downgraded yHamlet'sriddling efusal o conform.fClaudiushas theenergyocontrolhisemotionsn this laborateway,we seem to be told,thequestionmust rise whether ehas these motions t all.

In Hamlet then,we have thesamethree-stageesponse o royalcommand as we have in KingLear the same designof two con-formists ollowedby one non-conformistho bringsthe wholemeaning f theroyaldisplay ntoquestion.n Hamlet however,heconfrontationndsin a compromise, hich s really hemost thatthesituationwillyield t thispoint.Claudius s anxious, bove all,to save theappearances.The Queen castsherself nto therole ofmediator nd effectivelychieves herend. And Hamlet is at thisstage better quipped to be a spoiler than an antagonist.Thepresence f theQueen allows himbothto ignoreClaudiusand to

obeyhim,whilepretendingo obeyhismother.Hamlethas in factnothing ery recise o setagainstClaudius at thispoint ntheplay,except he senseofa rather asty mellwhich,ikenasty mells heworldover, s hardto define nd impossible o traceto its source.This sense of an undefinablemoral unease is of course equallypresentnCordelia. She cannotbe preciselyureabout thepurposeof thequestion he s bringingnto doubtbyher refusal o answer.Manycommentators ave felt hatshe is, in sceneone,a bitemo-tionally btuse,and, howeverustifiedmorally,morethana littlepriggish.Whydoes shecontinue o be so pig-headedn refusingosaythekind of nicethings hatold men iketo hear? I think hat

we must llow thatthepressure o compromises present erenoless than n Hamlet But in KingLear thepressurenot to back ahunch,notto go after bsolutes s present nly nourperceptionf







THEBEGINNINGSF HAMLET'NDKING EAR' 5the potentialsn the situation;compromises nowhere ndorsedinside hisplay.

Shakespeareuses theoppositionbetweenhollowpublicrhetoricand private ruth-tellingn differentays n the twoplays. n KingLearhiseventual oncernswith heKingand with he onsequencesthat temfrom ommitmento hollowformulation.n Hamlet ontheotherhand,his interesties withthe individualnay-sayer. ssoon as Claudius can find a formulaforcompromise, he courtbreaksup and we are left lone withHamlet. n his commandof

publicrhetoric ereClaudius s verymuchofthetype fthepublicrelations xpert, nd his final peechhas all the marksof a P.R.handout t theend of a difficultnd quarrelsomemeeting,ellingtheworld hat veryones satisfied

Why,tisa loving nd a fair eply.Be as ourselfnDenmark.Madam,come;Thisgentle nd unforced ccord ofHamletSitssmiling o myheart; ngracewhereof,No jocundhealth hatDenmarkdrinks odayButthe

greatannonto the clouds shalltell etc

This successful isengagementeavesHamlet lone onthe tagewithnothing o biteon, while Claudius'sprimitiveuteffective anishBroadcasting ervice hunders ut itsuntruths. he firstoliloquyexploreswhathe can feel the sense of a bad smell but there snothingf his ownhecan formulate. othHamlet nd hisstory recharacterizedythepainfulnessfrejecting hat s aroundone, anaturalenvironmentnd the modes of communication hat seemaccepted nd effectivenit.

KingLear on the otherhand,dealswith hepainfulnessftaking

thefalsities f one's environments natural.The twoplays begin,I havesuggested,yusing he ameexpositoryormula; utShakes-peare'seyes re fixed ndifferentventual oals,andthispushes hematerial f theexpositionn differentirections.n each case theeffectf the nitial onflicts deprivation,ut the twodeprivationsare sharplyopposite. For Hamlet, deprivation omes fromtherequirementhat he stayin the court; he is not to go back toWittenberg;e cannot scapefrom he ituation uilding p aroundhim. nKingLear thedeprivationfCordelia omesfrom erbeingexiled fromthe court.But in each case- and this is a furtherparallel thedeprivations followedmmediatelyyan unexpectednewreinforcement,fferingupport o the embattled ut ll-at-easeindividual.Thus Cordelia is no soonerdisinheritedy herfatherthansheis adopted ntoanother oyal family: heKingof France







6 THEORIA

chooses her as hisqueen.And Hamlet no sooner nnounces, t theend ofthefirstoliloquy, hathe s condemned osilence,here eingnothingutsidehimself ogive upport ohisfeelings,hanHoratioappears nd tellshim hathis fathers still,nsomesense, memberofthecommunity.n each casethe entence fdeprivationuddenlyopensup a positiveway ntothe future.

$ $ * * *

At thebeginningfthis ecture spokeofmyneed tomanipulatetheviewpointn order to producethe startlingoincidences. hetimehas now cometo confess he methods ywhich hishas beenachieved.Manyofyouwillnot have failed o noticeone element nthemanipulation. othHamlet and KingLear begin, have said,with rivate onversations hich hengivewayto large taterituals.I have concentratedttention n the staterituals, nd givencom-paratively ittle pace to the privateconversations. hey are, ofcourse, emarkablynlike.The conversationnKingLear is a shortprose ection fthirty-threeinesonly.The private onversation'nHamlet s, however, full ceneof somehundred nd seventy-fivelines. These figuresre notpresenteds particularlyignificantnthemselves; ut theydo pointto a radical differencef balancebetween hetwosections, etween heprelude ndfugue, s itwere.The identity f pattern have been discussings not, however,falsifiedythisdifference;ndeed hevariation an be used to pointto the differentressures xerted n the patternby the differingsubject-matter.n King Lear the openingconversation etweenGloucester nd Kent preparesus for the action to follow n aperfectlytraightforwarday. We are waiting o see the actionwhich heopening inesrefer o- thedivisionofthekingdom

andthoughhe onversation oves rom hepolitical o thepersonal,from heKing'ssons-in-lawo theEarl ofGloucester's wosons,weare never ompletelyngagedwiththe Gloucestermaterial s thefull oregroundftheplay.The leveloftheprosediscourse oesnotrise ntopassionor excitement.he characters re established, utwithina framework hatneedstheKing and courtto fill t out.In KingLear then, heprelude s preparative nly; tgivesus ourbearingswhile hemajoractorsgathernthewings.

In Hamlet on the otherhand,theprelude s complex, nd on thefaceof t remote romwhatfollows. t is set n theopen. It is mid-night n a northernatitude. t is cold. In the darkness solated

individuals earchforone another nd demandpasswordsbeforeacceptingdentity. ndthey reconscious,t wouldseemfrom heirlanguage, f an inner arkness o less thanan outerone.







THEBEGINNINGSF HAMLET'NDKING EAR' 7

'Tis bitter oldAnd I am sickat heart

says Francisco,conveying sense of more thanmerely hysicaldiscomfort.hewhole cene upportsn impressionfmetaphysicalunease. The characters oheretogether,ven when their dentitiesareestablished,rounda frightening ystery

What,has this hing ppeared gain to-night?

We maynotice hat his s the first ullblank-verseine n theplay,thefirstine to giveus a senseofhaving arrived' t the inguisticnorm.But the ineis nota veryfulfillingormto have arrived t.The significancef thisthing' s notto be madeexplicit;we are tobepermittedoexplorewhatmen ayabout t ratherhanwhat t s.The ghostthatappears on the battlements as theshape and thehabilimentsfthe ateKingofDenmark, nd theconsensus iew sthathe is offeringhem ome kind ofwarning. he preludienatureof thesceneis established y theforecast f direevents hat theghostseems to indicate.But the nature of the warning emainsfrighteninglynfocussed. oratio,whoactsthroughouthe cene sthe rticulatentellectualndreadynterpreter,xplains o theothersand moreparticularlyo us the classical background f ghostlywalking:

A little re themightiestulius ell,The graves toodtenantless,nd thesheeted eadDid squeakand gibbern the Roman streets . .And even the ikeprecurse f feared vents,As harbingersrecedingtill he fates

Andprologue o theomencoming n,Have heaven nd earth ogetheremonstratedUntoour climaturesnd countrymen.

'Fearedevents' ertainlyeem to be impliedbytheghost,butwhatthesefeared ventsmayturn ut to be is shrouded n thedarknesswhichsurrounds verythingn this scene. Horatio has the goodscholar's bility odiscover arallel xamples, uthehasalso,I fear,thescholar'susual inability o say preciselywhatthe function ftheseparallelsmaybe. Arewe to be expectingomethingike themurderf themightiestulius? venHoratiodoesnotsayso. He is,

however,ble to offer s a seriesof alternativexplanations,withmore thantutorial apidity. e has scarcely ecovered rombeing,as he says, harrowedwithwonder',unableto believe heevidence







8 THEORIA

of his owneyes,whenhe begins o offerxplanations. learly hecourse on Spoekwissenschaftt Wittenberg as not wastedon him.He keeps talking, nd soon the factshave begunto cohere nto atotallyplausible explanation.The armaments hat are beingcon-structed,hepreparation f ships,and indeed thewhole stateofwatchfulnesshat has caused thesemen to pace aroundthe battle-ments n the middleof a cold night everythinghathas beenmentioned begins to fit together n a neat cause-and-effectpattern.But Shakespeare'spurpose n this scene is not aimed at

defusingheghost by thepowersof reason. Rather thecontrary.As soon as Horatiohas crownedhisexplanationwith he classicalexemplum havequotedalready 'In the mosthigh ndpalmy tateof Rome' etc.)theGhostenters second ime.Horatio'sapostropheto t sallowed o twist hrough despairingpiral f new lternativeexplanations.What is theghostreallydoinghere?No-one in factknows.Perhapshe is seeking omegood deedthatwill releasehimfrom orment. erhaps as before)he is making omepointaboutthefateofthe nation.Perhapshe is heldbythememory f someburied reasure. s Horatio'sexplanations roliferate,he fact hathe is not really n touchwiththeghostat all becomes moreandmore evident. he qualityof the event eemsto be placed beyondthe apacity fanyexplanation. ndyet t s clearthat heghosthassomethingo say. It was about to speak, t wantedto speak,andthen hecockcrowed nd itfled wayto hell. Whatwas ittryingosay? The explanations f confidentcholarshiphave evaporated;themysterys, indeed, venmore ooming t theend of the scenethan at thebeginning.he ghosthas been seen earlier s a reveredfigure,s a representativef thesplendour fthenation'shistory;butnow heis seen as a figurerom ell, fraid fChristian aylight.Thisparadox neitherspectcancels tsopposite) eems oplacethe

ghost beyondthe normalcategories f explanation.But it has amore mmediate ffectn therelationshipetweenAct scene andAct I scene i. The first cenehas moved n timefrommidnightocock-crow rdaylight.tbeginsnthedark,with eoplewho cannotrecognise ne another, nd ends in the Christiandaylight, romwhich heghosthas to fly way.What kind of a Christian aylightis this hatbanishes heghostof the ateking?The court-assemblyof Act I scene i seems to be conducted n thedaylight.t is, pre-sumably, afefrom ellish isitation. ut, s mydiscussion f thassuggested,t s a daylight hich oncealsonefrom nother, eceives,and darkens ounsel.We mayhave to breakback intotheghost-

infested arkness o pick up thekindofclues thatmaybe availableforus there. t can hardly urprise s thatHamletsaysat theendofActI scene i,whenhe hearsofthe events n theplatform,







THEBEGINNINGSF HAMLET' NDKING EAR' 9

Would thenightwerecome

The clarity f daylight as been,in some sense,devaluedby theeventswhichprecede t.

Thedifferentualities fthese wopreludes an be seen, suggest,as related o the differentatures ftheplaysto which hey elong.Hamletbegins,f can return o mymusical nalogy,nan elabor-ately upported emotekey. We circleround an event argely is-connected romwhat follows.We have in the course of thenight

moved ound mystery. ehave the enseofa truth lmost evealedto us and then adventitiously ithdrawn.We have been givenexplanations hich eemto turn ackon thenature f theexplainerrather han thequalityof thething xplained.The verynatureoftruth nd explanation eems to be at issue. And this s confirmedwhenwe come to the main body of theexpositionn thesecondscene.The preludedeals withhonest ndividuals earchinghroughextraordinaryxperience ora truth hey annot find. n themainmovement e seefacts xposed nsuch a form hat hetruthannotbe known.Hamlet s a playwhichreturnsgain and again to theinadequacyofourunderstandingfwhatwe do or proposeto do.The two scenes I have been dealingwithrelate to one anotherclearly noughas expositions f this ssue,and theextraordinarylength f the openingconversationas againstthat n King Lear)presumably erivesfrom heneed to show humanunderstandingengaged n searching, chievingnd failing.

KingLear however,s not concernedwith hequestions,What sgoingon here?' or 'What is themeaning f this statement?' hequestionwhich ts openingmovement aises s rather,What willhappenwhen hese ventssufficientlylear n theirmeaning)matureinto their onsequences' As a result, heexpositionn KingLear

can afford o be forward-pointingn a simpleway that would bewhollynappropriateo Hamlet At the endofAct I scene ofKingLear the mportantharacters ftheplayhavenearly ll had theirsituations adically ransformed: ent is exiled,Cordelia is bothexiledand marriedor about to be married), ear has given wayhis kingdom, nd his two elderdaughters ave dividedtheroyalpowerbetween hem.At theend ofHamletAct I scene i,however,nothingubstantial as beenchanged:ambassadorshave been sentto Norwayand Laerteshas permission o go to Paris- a poorharvest fconsequences, ne must llow

In an argument elated o thatadvancedhere1 have suggestedthatShakespeare's irstragedies, itusAndronicusnd RomeoandJulietsharean expositorykeletonhavingmuchthe samefunctionas thatfound here n Hamletand KingLear This mayrevealno







10 THEORIA

more than that I have an unhealthy bsessionwithexpositoryskeletons. ut itmayshowsomethinglse- thatShakespearewasliable,as one wouldexpect busyprofessionalo be, to use againthe tructureshathad beensuccessfulnthepast.One wouldexpecthimto repeathimself,nd it has alwaysseemedsurprisinghathedoes so little.Perhapswe have been looking n thewrongplaces,forcontent ather hanform. fmy argumentsre correct,we cansee himwringingotally ifferentffectsut ofidentical tructures.His responsivenesso the natureof the material n theparticular

playso encrusts heunderlyingatternhat hevery xistence f thepattern ecomesproblematical. ut looking n theright lace' andso findinghedeepstructures e are searchingormust lwaysbe aproblematic rocedure, ttaching o the critic s muchas to thework;and this s particularlyhecase (I shouldwarnyou)whenwedeal withcriticswho seek to secure their udience's attention ymaking tartlingtatements.

UniversityfWarwick.

NOTE

1 Nowpublisheds 'Shakespeare'sarliestragedies:itusAndronicusndRomeondJuliet'hakespeareurvey7 1974), -9.

beginning of king lear

Documents