This series of lectures, particularly these ones on King Lear, are really fascinating. I studied the play, a few years ago, on a Diploma Level 3 course I was doing, as an access to higher education, which never actually materialised into anything substantial, and I must of completely missed Shakespeare's point, here. Unless it was a very cursory reading of the text, from a tutor who failed to understand the real meaning of the beginning. I thought that Lear was going senile, and when the two evil sisters poured out all the pretentious lying of how much they loved their father, they were as pleased as punch at the lands they were allocated, and that was in the Trevor Nunn/Ian Mcckellan film version of, I think, the RSC production of it, as well. Anyway, I must watch it again. Whatever the case, it is well worth a look, if only for the beautiful vision of whichever actress it is who plays Cordelia, in a tight fitting bodice. She is absolutely mesmerising! I was utterly transfixed! The sisters are really good, too. And Sylester McCoy, previous Doctor Who. The hanging scene is horrible! Do not even mention eye-ball scourging/blinding, if you will. It gives me the willies! 'Bind him to this chair.' 'Tighter!' 👀
God smites with the Truth as we fall upon it to our knees, self inflicted, we are humbled by its Grace and in its Clarity as we are made to see our Humanity. How true it is: Man proposes, God Disposes! We are blinded by Its Light of merciful insight having arrived at it too late to avoid our own Tragic making.
On clothing, it is also an outward symbol of jurisdiction, a statement of our particular subjection to the law. This relates to social penalties for dressing up (a commoner dressed as a king would be punished) and down (a king dressed as a commoner would not be punished, although taking a risk like Henry V canvassing his troops before Agincourt). On a ruler commanding the storm, well, I guess we are getting to that in a couple of lectures. I like the discussion of the state of (human) nature, although I think that Hobbes said that human could exist peaceably in a condition of mere nature, but the problem there was that nothing structural exists to prevent it descending into a war of all against all. And often what is termed anarchy or law of the jungle is actually another form of archism like gangsterism, which probably describes Regan, Goneril and Cornwall better. That their gang-rule was challenged by servants was something I had noticed before, although I think this is a theme throughout Shakespeare's work, that excellence can appear anywhere in human society, but least where power corrupts.
I'm reading Lear now. These lectures are great. Here's a question. Up until the gouging out of Gloucester's eyes, are any of the actions of Goneril and Regan defensible?
This dear professor knows a lot more than me, believe me, but the majority of his unresolved questions regarding this play can be rectified by incredulity on the authorship question. But then again, he may indeed know what "Edgar," the aristocrat disguised as a beggar, and Lear talk about behind the scenes. One can only say so much about civilizational founding myths. One without a city is either a beast or a god, after all.
Troubling that Shakespeare had no library to bequeath; we try to guess what he read. One thing for sure is the Bible but it's a scary climate for professors tempted to include it as a source. Here, in KL, it seems helpful to consider the story of Nebuchadnezzar, because there we are told why an obviously absurd situation makes sense.
As I remember, from the very first scene, Lear has already divided the kingdoms, his decision made, regardless of the answers from the three daughters. I´ll go back and reread.
@@TheWhitehiker If you were Cordelia, without the trait of stubbornness you fault her with, what would you have said in the twisted competition of lies that Lear was gobbling up, in order to offer even more flattering words than Regan’s? “I profess Myself an enemy to all other joys Which the most precious square of sense possesses, And find I am alone felicitate In your dear Highness' love.” She is saying “I disown else in this world that could give me joy, other than you father”. How would you top that if you were Cordelia? Again, he is expecting her to have the best flattery. What would you say to him to be more flattering than you disowning joy from any source other than him since any other joy is contemptible in its unworthiness?
@@TheWhitehiker She literally says “I love your Majesty”. Would you attempt to outdo Regan’s flattery that her love is so profound that she considers herself an enemy of all other joys? If so, what would you say? If not, what would you say? And what makes you think even though those words don’t win the fake flattery contest, her flattery would be sufficiently superior to “I love your Majesty” so as not to be disowned?
