Seite 17 [17]
INTRODUCTION
Patterson and Michael Mangan go as far as to conclude that Lear represents
James I himself." Although scholars disagree strongly on the extent to which
this contention is warranted, further historical approaches to the play have
been unable to disregard Patternsons and Mangans conclusions.
As far as the topic of dividing the kingdom is concerned, King Lear conforms
to the tradition of the so-called “Brutus-plays.” Holinshed’s Chronicles records
that the renowned founder of Britain, King Brutus, divided his kingdom among
his three sons, Locrine, Camber, and Albanact, in order to prevent future
strife among them concerning inheritance.?° On his accession to the throne
of England, however, in his Basilikon Doron, King James projected the image
of the “second Brute” who would reunite England and Scotland, as opposed
to Brutus, who had divided it among his sons. Between 1604 and 1606, many
works of literature supported this “public image,” among which the most
outstanding is the 1605 civic pageant The Triumphes of Re-United Britania,
an excellent dramatic example of Jacobean propaganda by Anthony Munday,
Shakespeare’s fellow playwright.”
Regarding more direct biographical connections, there are some striking
similarities between the literary character of King Lear and historical figure
of King James I. To begin with, both of them were famous for their fondness
of dogs and hunting,” and like Lear and his Fool, King James I also had a
court jester, Archie Armstrong, whose company he particularly enjoyed.”
Secondly, the name of Cordelia’s two suitors, the Duke of Albany and the
Duke of Cornwall, corresponded to the titles James I’s two sons would hold
in those days, a resemblance the audience may have recognized when hearing
the very first sentence of the play:** “I thought the King had more affected
the Duke of Albany then Cornwell.” Leonard Tennenhouse even remarks
that this preference for Albany bearing a Scottish title and also being one
of the very few who remains alive at the end of King Lear implicitly refers to
1° See Annabel M. Patterson: Shakespeare and the Popular Voice, Cambridge, MA-Oxford,
Cambridge University Press, 1989, 106-109 and Michael Mangan: Elizabethan and Jacobean
Tragedy, in Michael Mangan: A Preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies, London—New York,
Longman, 1991, 102-104.
Reginald Armstrong Foakes: Introduction, in William Shakespeare: King Lear, ed. Reginald
Armstrong Foakes, The Arden Shakespeare. Third series, London, Thomson Learning, 1997, 12.
For a detailed list of such propaganda pieces see Annabel M. Patterson: “Betweene our
sentence and our power:” King Lear and the double text, in Annabel M. Patterson: Censorship
and interpretation. The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England, London¬
Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1984, 65.
Marcus: Retrospective, 157.
3 Mangan: Elizabethan, 103.
Mary Axton: The Queen’s Two Bodies: Drama and the Elizabethan Succession, London, Royal
Historical Society, 1977, 136.
Shak-speare: His True Chronicle, sig. Blr.