Oldal 17 [17]
OCR
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, LondonMadison, 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.
