Summary:
Skepticism is not atheism, and it is not nihilism. By "skepticism" I simply mean the philosophical position whereby all claims and belief systems, particularly, although not excluded to, those involving the supernatural, are questioned and critically examined, with the scientific method applied when possible. King Lear contains numerous examples of characters advocating a skeptical worldview.
'The Excellent Foppery of the World':
Skepticism in King Lear
"As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods; / They kill us for their sport." (4.1.41-42) So bemoans the blinded and despondent Earl of Gloucester in King Lear. Whether his claim deserves merit, while intriguing, is far beyond the scope of this paper. What I do intend to explore, however, is whether Shakespeare's play supports or opposes these and other skeptical ideas. I will argue that King Lear strongly advocates a skeptical worldview, not just in regards to belief in theism, but in all areas. A skeptical, humanistic philosophy pervades the entire text of Lear; I do not believe this is incidental.
First, an important distinction must be made. Skepticism is not atheism, and it is not nihilism. By "skepticism" I simply mean the philosophical position whereby all claims and belief systems, particularly, although not excluded to, those involving the supernatural, are questioned and critically examined, with the scientific method applied when possible. Skepticism does not necessarily lead to atheism, just as credulity does not lead to theism. For the purposes of this paper, whether solar eclipses really "portend no good to us" (1.2.109-110) is not important; what is important, and what I intend to show Shakespeare advocates in King Lear, is that people should critically examine the available evidence for that and similar claims.
King Lear contains numerous examples of characters advocating a skeptical worldview. Edmund, the bastard child of Gloucester, provides many. In his opening lines, he declares, "Thou, Nature, art my goddess. To thy law / My services are bound" (1.2.1-2), choosing naturalism over spiritualism. Later, after Gloucester warns him that the recent eclipses don't bode well for them, Edmund says to himself,
This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune (often the surfeits of our own behavior) we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on. (1.2.125-33)
Further, Edmund manipulates other characters' beliefs, invoking the supernatural to support his cause. Directly after dismissing astrology as "excellent foppery," Edmund replies to Edgar that he is "thinking... of a prediction I read this other day, what should follow these eclipses" (1.2.147-8). Later, after accusing Edgar of trying to murder him, Edmund describes to Gloucester how Edgar "stood... in the dark, his sharp sword out, / Mumbling of wicked charms, conjuring the moon / To stand auspicious mistress" (2.1.43-45). Gloucester advocates skepticism on his own, when, after being blinded, he questions the logic of a just god, declaring, "As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods; / They kill us for their sport" (4.1.41-2).
The play contains many skeptical themes as well. Cordelia's death is utterly meaningless; she dies simply because Edmund loses track of time. Since Cordelia is clearly the most pious figure in the play; for example, she is described as crying "holy water" from "heavenly eyes" (4.3.35), we must think that her death, like Glocuester's blinding, happens solely to cast doubt on the existence of a just god. Attempts to cast Cordelia as a Christ-like figure, whose death redeems others, fail as well. Phoebe Spinard writes, "[Cordelia's] death certainly does not redeem [Lear]; as we have seen, he breaks down into denial and despair over it rather than coming to recognition and repentance through it. So the Christian formula does not entirely work either" (Spinard 231).
Regan, Goneril, and Edmund all defy their fathers, doubting the system of patriarchy, and, up to the very last scene, it appears they will succeed. John Hughes calls the struggle one between Learn and Gloucester's static and rigid conservative moral code versus Goneril, Regan, and Edmund's radical naturalistic morality (Hughes 264-65). While patriarchy is not a religion, it is still a faith-based ideology, threatened by skepticism. That they come so close to succeeding casts substantial doubt on that system.
The ending of King Lear appears, at first glance, to be troublesome to my theory. Were Shakespeare truly advocating skepticism, Edmund would defeat Edgar in their sword fight (ideally while Edgar is praying to Jove for victory), marry Goneril, and declare himself King of England. This, of course, does not happen. Edgar, the spiritual, devoted, "natural" son wins the fight, and accepts "such addition as your Honors / Have more than merited" (5.3.364-5). To reconcile this, I would argue that the political and religious climate of 17th century England, which was "internally riddled by the anxiety over whether God was thoroughly merciful" (McEachern 217), forbade such a radical ending. King Lear's ending contains the status quo of the time, but introduces an undeniably skeptical viewpoint. In many ways, it is similar to the ending of William Golding's Lord of the Flies. Readers simply would not accept the novel's "true" ending, with the boys dying in a bloody battle, so Golding created the "happy" ending, letting the pilot rescue them. Just as that ending doesn't take away from that novel's theme, nor should King Lear's ending take away from its theme, a theme repeatedly reinforced throughout the entire text. Furthermore, the violent ending of King Lear hardly resolves the conflict between faith and skepticism.
In his essay " 'God's That We Adore': The Divine in King Lear", Seán Lawrence argues that the skepticism in King Lear is directed only towards the characters' false, Pagan gods, adding that, "the play's skepticism towards the divine might represent a liberation from the pagan characters' false gods" (Lawrence 147). He further states that"[w]hile the play was written in a Christian time, it is set in an imagined pagan time and examines the possibility of a world without revelation. The idols, one at a time, fail and characters must face the possibility that their gods do not correspond to their projections" (Lawrence 156). The play is so negative, and the characters so tragic, because they are worshiping idols. They have no hope for redemption, since the play is set before the birth of Christ.
I do not believe the evidence in the text justifies Lawrence's criticism. The characters voice surprisingly little criticism toward their Pagan gods. Edmund's skepticism isn't directed toward Jove or Jupiter; it's toward astrology and magic. Similarly, the skeptical characters voice criticism toward social conventions which are largely upheld by Chrsitianity. Goneril and Regan lament Lear's patriarchy, and Edmund resents his diminished status as a bastard child. Far from "liberating" them, as Lawrence claims, these characters would encounter the same problems in the Christian religion as they found in their Pagan religion (if Edmund can be said to have a "religion" at all). Also, the death of Cordelia undermines his criticism. Piety is piety; just because Cordelia is worshiping the wrong gods (in Lawrence's view) should not, at least from a Christian perspective, relegate her to such a tragic death. While I agree with him that "the characters imagine the gods, if not quite in their own images, at least as supporters of ideas in which they are invested" (153), his larger point is flawed. Edmund, Goneril and Regan advocate skepticism toward the supernatural, a category in which Christianity is a part. They are not merely "idolaters who are witnessing the twilight of their idols" (Lawrence 150); they are skeptics witnessing the end of supernatural beliefs.
Similarly flawed is John Hughes' contention that King Lear "is not finally an utterly skeptical... play" (262) and that "the 'logic' of Christian forgiveness, gestured towards within the play... suggests a possible way to resist the entrapment" (263) of the skeptical, non-Christian worldview. His belief that, "certain key themes can be read as pointing towards a vision of forgiveness that is illuminating to current debates within Christian theology" (262) does not seem to be justified from the text. King Lear's great act of forgiveness occurs in the final scene, where a dying Edmund repents for his sins, and he and Edgar forgive each other for all their wrongs. However, Edmund's repentance accomplishes nothing; moments afterwards, Goneril, Regan, Cordelia, and Lear all die. Edmund's forgiveness is hardly compatible with Christianity; indeed, the tragic ending invalidates any Christian interpretation of the play. Repentance and forgiveness in King Lear are rewarded with death, misery, and sorrow; this wholly contradicts the teachings of Christ.
In "Dramatic 'Pity' and the Death of Lear," Phoebe Spinrad claims that, "[n]o matter which dramatic or philosophical theory we attempt to explain the play by, we will find that we must discard part of the play in order to make the theory fit" (Spinrad 230). According to Spinrad, no matter which theory we use, be it Aristotlean, Christian, or the Renaissance dramatic convention, parts of the ending must be ignored for the theory to work (233). While I agree with part of this, Spinrad completely ignores the legitimacy of a skeptical reading of the play. Christian readings of King Lear are incompatible with the ending; skeptical readings are not.
That said, Spinrad's criticism is still compelling. The ending of King Lear is so tragic and confusing that it remains immune to most criticism; simple closure is elusive. In that sense, King Lear is remarkably similar to the skepticism it espouses: it's challenging, it's free of dogma, and, in the end, it is richly rewarding to those willing to put in the effort.
Annotated Bibliography
Hughes, John. "The Politics of Forgiveness: A Theological Exploration of King Lear." Modern Theology 17.3 July 2001: 261-287.
In this article, theologian John Hughes explores the Christian aspects of King Lear, arguing that King Lear is not a "skeptical, nihilist play, completely without ethics or virture" (262); rather, it reinforces the logic of Christian forgiveness. He argues that King Lear's criticism is directed toward power, and that a Christian form of charity is reinforced through the text. The violent acts, animalistic imagery, and general immorality of Edmund, Goneril, and Regan show that their rebellious belief system is, in the end, untenable. The never-ending cycle of violence is, both societally and morally, a system doomed to fail. King Lear does contain some hope for a way to break out of this cycle; according to Hughes, the solutions are the Christian notions of redemption and forgiveness. Lear, Gloucester, and Edmund all undergo this type of "transformation [...] as they painfully unlearn the ways of dominance and judgment, regret their errors, and learn compassion and charity" (270).
Kott, Jan. "King Lear or Endgame." Trans. Boleslaw Taborski. Shakespeare Our Contemporary. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, 1966. 127-168.
In this far-reaching and somewhat nihilist reading of the play Jan Kott argues that ""[t]he theme of King Lear is the decay and fall of the world" (152). He points out the characters' references to "nothing," the excessive violence, and the play's tragic ending. He makes special note of the illogic and grotesque humor of Gloucester's "fake" suicide in the cliffs of Dover, noting the irony observed in an actual viewing of that scene (i.e., the cliff is non-existent to both Gloucester and the audience). He argues that both Christian and secular readings of the play are misguided, saying "King Lear makes a tragic mockery of all eschatologies: of the heaven promised on earth, and the Heaven promised after death" (147).
Lawrence, Sean. " 'Gods That We Adore': The Divine in King Lear." Renascence 56.3 (Spring 2004): 142-159.
Lawrence argues that the characters' skepticism towards the gods in King Lear is used to represent their eventual liberation from their man-made, Pagan gods and their false idols. The play's nihilism is directed toward their idolatrous religion, not all religions. He elaborates on this, pointing out the way the characters believe in gods that already partially support their own needs and aspirations, making a special note of the patriarch Lear's constant references to the patriarchal god Jupiter, as well as Edmund's manipulation of other characters' religious beliefs. They "create gods in their own images" that "fail them" (156). At no point in the play, even after witnessing the failure of their Pagan gods, do they embrace some form of Christian theology. Also, Lawrence also emphasizes the two definitions of "nature" we see in the play: Gloucester's "nature" that rewards patriarchy and Edmund's that rewards individuality. Neither man's definition works, because the religious structure in which their beliefs are rooted are fundamentally flawed.
Their liberation from Paganism would, hypothetically, lead them to Christianity, were Christianity in existence at this time. The play's violent ending is justified by the fact that Christ's resurrection has not yet occurred; the characters' gods are bound to fail them. The characters "do not have access to Christ's revelation" (156). Lawrence stops short of suggesting that King Lear indicates some form of Christian revelation on its own; he does emphasize that it dramatizes the problems of Pagan idolatry.
Seiden, Melvin. "The Fool and Edmund: Kin and King." Studies of English Literature 19.2 (Spring 1979): 197-216.
Seiden compares and contrasts the Fool and Edmund. He notes that both men are tragic, lonely figures; Edmund is a bastard and the Fool has no parents, or at least no parents that we see. After expanding on the details of the dual definitions of "nature" in the play, Seiden argues that Edmund represents "individualistic atheism" and the Fool represents "loving, Christian communalism" (206). However, despite this he states that both men fully deserve, and are written to enact, sympathy from the audience.
Spinrad, Phoebe S. "Dramatic 'Pity' and the Death of Lear." Renascence 43.4 (Summer 1991): 230-236.
In this concisely written article, Spinrad argues that no literary theory is compatible with King Lear's tragic ending. He writes in great detail on the flaws one encounters when trying to use an Aristotlean theory, a Christian formula, or the Renaissance tradition to interpret the play. In particular, the Christian formula fails because redemption does not accomplish anything. Edmund's forgiveness leads to Cordelia's death; no one is redeemed. Also, he points out the problems in viewing Cordelia as an "innocent who dies for everyone else's sins" (231); namely, that her death causes Lear only despair. He also disagrees with pessimistic critics view King Lear as a completely meaningless play. Despite the sadness in the end, the "bad" characters have all died, and a "good" character will rule England.
Additional Works Cited
Golding, William. Lord of the Flies. New York: Berkely Publishing Groups, 1954.
McEachern, Claire. "Figures of Fidelity: Believing in King Lear." Modern Philology 98.2 (November 2000): 211-231.
This is the complete article, containing 2,412 words
(approx. 8 pages at 300 words per page).
