Among the core insights of the Marxist theory is that the class struggle has characterized the history of societies’ development. Because art, both literature and theater, does not exist separately from society, it has become a crucial aspect of the historical process and people’s comprehension of the world. Thus, it is appropriate to examine pieces of art within the particular context of the time in which it has originated and juxtapose the work of art to the context or approach within it is being analyzed. When applying a Marxist approach to King Lear, it allows to dig deeper into the sociopolitical structure of society at the time when the play was written. In line with Marxist theory, King Lear is an absolute monarch whose focus is placed only on maintaining personal power, which enables him to exploit and neglect his subjects. The play illustrates that a person can only become powerful when they are stripped from the privilege and pomposity and go through the experiences of the lower class.
A Marxist reading of King Lear is expected to reveal that power and materialism significantly limit the worldview of the higher class. For them to understand the reality, they must put themselves in the place of the poor and unprivileged. Lear is an absolute monarch, the representative of a feudalist system. He has lost connection to his people and with his personal understanding of the world (Delany, 1977). Lear’s world is rooted in feudalism, a system in which a person’s role in society is rigid and can never be changed (Ryan, 2017). The old order in which the royals have the highest position in society and expect loyalty and obedience from everyone else is represented by Lear and Gloucester.
Blindly believing in the obedience of their subjects, those in power are adamant about showing their superiority. This is exemplified in the “love test” in which King Lear challenged his daughters to participate. Cordelia did not give the desired answer and said, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty according to my bond, no more nor less” (Shakespeare, 2006, Act I Scene 1). The quote shows that Cordelia’s attitude toward her father is purely transactional – she acknowledges her bond to him according to social relations while he expects deep love, respect, and reverence. Not satisfied with Cordelia’s reply, Lear decides to disown her and banish from the royal society. Moreover, when Kent, Lear’s formerly loyal servant, supports Cordelia, he also gets banished. Similar to Lear, when Gloucester has a suspicion that his son Edgar cannot be trusted, he also gets enraged and dismisses his paternity.
From a Marxist perspective, it is essential to underline the fact that the influential individuals have not given enough care to the needs and expectations of others: “poor naked wretches, wherso’er you are […] How shall your houseless heads and unfed sides Your loo’d and window’d raggedness, defend you from seasons such as these?” (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 3 Scene 4). This example allows to expand on a Marxist perspective that would consider Lear as an absolute monarch who is only worried about extending his own power while neglecting relationships with his subjects.
In the play, the middle-class attitudes can be traced to such characters as Edmund, Cornwall, Regan, and Goneril, who challenge themselves to compete with the power exerted by the feudalist leaders. In line with the Marxist ideas, these characters have middle class characteristics and thus have a more realistic view of the world compared to the play’s absolute monarch (Holbrook, 2010). For instance, in a conversation with Regan and Goneril, Lear says that he would like to get old with the dignity and respect he had as a king while also keeping his knights as they were the sign of his authority. However, the two say no need to show power in such a way, referring to Lear’s subordinates as “riotous knights” who did nothing of value for the kingdom (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 3). The king’s daughters have a different view on power and the feudal system and ignore the outdated “Effects of courtesy, dues of gratitude” that their father hoped to use to influence them (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 1). Lear cannot believe that his elder daughters would give him so much disrespect. They show complete disregard for him and his dignity despite the fact that he has given away his power and the kingdom, which shatters his world entirely. This causes Lear to abandon the society as he has always known it; he enters the world of the lower social class as a person who has lost everything.
When looking at Cordelia from the Marxist standpoint, her character would be perceived as the most humane and well-natured among all others. Importantly, Cordelia knows her self-worth and is critical of those people who express themselves insincerely. Even though Lear treats her unfairly, she sticks to her sincere thoughts, remaining stoic throughout the play. This makes the audience sympathize with her because King Lear treated her unfairly despite the fact that other characters viewed her positively. Worried about the young woman’s fate, Kent prays for Cordelia, “The gods to their dear shelter take thee, maid, That justly think’st and hast most rightly said!” (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 1).
Besides, the King of France, who later marries Cordelia, mentions that he would make her his wife even without the dowry: “Fairest Cordelia, that art most rich, being poor, Most choice, forsaken, and most lov’d, despis’d! Thee and thy virtues here I seize upon, Be it lawful I take up what’s cast away.” (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 1 Scene 1). Therefore, Cordelia’s honesty and the desire for her life to be free of feudalist barriers is what makes her different from the rest of the characters. In the social affairs of that time, it was expected for a powerful man to marry a woman of a similar class and status, however, the King of France dismisses this social expectation for the sake of Cordelia.
Returning to the journey that King Lear experiences, it is only when he gets away from the bourgeoise society that he can perceive the world as an entirely different individual. The tempest that occurs on the health symbolizes the inner struggles that Lear experiences. In the middle of the violent storm, when Lear is exposed to the world of the poor and the “mad,” Lead gets an in-depth understanding of the world in which the disposed exist (Lee, 2009). The exposure to this world allows the former king to realize what has been occurring in his kingdom while he did not pay any attention to the interests of the “wretched” (Tyson, 2014). Throughout the play’s development, Lear has come a long way and can make commentary on social injustices: “A man may see how this world goes with no eyes. Look with thine ears: see how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark, in thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?” (Shakespeare, 2006, Act 4 Scene 6).
While Lear’s development as a character leads him away from the monarchical view of society, other characters succumb to the desire for power. However, the war that consumes Edmund, Edgar, and others affects the lives of Lear and his daughter, with whom he reconciles in the end. As the two are captured, they complete their journey from the highest class to the lowest – one without any power or freedoms. Cordelia is senselessly executed, and her father dies not from battle or old age, but from deep sorrow. This conclusion, arguably, demonstrates that the strive for power is founded on egoistic needs and desires, which aligns with the Marxist perspective of the higher classes’ limited view of societal struggles. One may suggest that Shakespeare shows in this play how the loss of physical riches, such as money and political power, grants people connections to one another and an enriched view of everyday life. Nevertheless, as it is a tragedy, Lear loses all that he has gained in the end, but he dies a different man, one who understands more than he did as a king. There lies the connection with the Marxist theory; even a total monarch, when stripped of all his powers, can learn the experiences of the lower class.
References
Delany, P. (1977). King Lear and the decline of feudalism. PMLA, 92(3), 429-440.
Holbrook, P. (2010). The left and King Lear. Textual Practice, 14(2), 343-362.
Lee, L. S. (2009). “Allows itself to anything:” Poor Tom familiarizing and enacting chaos in King Lear. Inquiries Journal, 1(10), 1-2.
Ryan, Michael, ed. (2017). Literary theory: A practical introduction. John Wiley & Sons.
Shakespeare, W. (2006). King Lear. Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers,
Tyson, Lois. (2014). Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide. Routledge.