Hong 1
Kibok Hong
Prof. Tina Iraca
ENG 407-02 (Shakespeare II)
Exam 3
9 Dec 2011
1. How do you explain the ambiguity about justice in King Lear? The play suggests
that villainy will destroy itself, but there is no reprieve for Lear and Cordelia. Even if
political order is restored, isn't it overshadowed by the personal chaos and disaster of
Lear and Cordelia? Is there any redemptive message in King Lear? Give textual
example(s) to support your view.
King Lear is widely regarded as one of William Shakespeare’s most depressing
plays. The aging British monarch is subjected to constant humiliation and degradation
resulting from his misconception of justice, and his youngest and most highly principled
daughter Cordelia suffers a seemingly senseless death. From the moment, Lear makes the
fateful decision, subdividing his kingdom based upon his daughters’ protestations of love
for him, which is clearly unjust since daughters Goneril and Regan lie to get what they
want whereas Cordelia is banished for not brokering her love for territory, justice is
presented in rather ambiguous terms. The antagonist Edmund ultimately pays for his
treachery with his life, but Lear and Cordelia are not spared. This suggests that while
political order is eventually restored under the strong moral leadership of Albany,
Edmund’s brother Edgar, and Kent, this outcome is largely eclipsed by the dual tragic
deaths of Lear and Cordelia. Therefore, many modern readers and critics regard the play’s
conclusion as being devoid of redemption, which runs contrary to the conventional
attitudes of Elizabethan England. Shakespeare and his contemporaries were proponents of
Hong 2
divine justice, which meant that only God in his infinite wisdom could distinguish between
just and unjust. Similarly, redemption is not necessarily realized in the mortal life, but
may instead be the soul’s eternal reward in the hereafter.
Despite his deteriorating mental capacities, Lear nevertheless still believes that
earthly justice is rooted in power (Bloom 77). This contention is reflected in his
observation:
The usurer hangs the cozener.
Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pigmy's straw doth pierce it. (4.6.166-170)
This again can be traced back to the Christian notion that kings are divine messengers of
God, which legitimizes their rule and allows them to interpret His justice as they see fit.
Lear’s suffering forces him to reevaluate his understanding of justice, and even though his
ordeal has deepened his compassion, “Lear... perceives, crucially, the limitation of a
society that depends on empathy alone for its justice” (Bloom 74). Because it appears
justice falls short throughout the play – particularly with the King’s anguish apparently for
nothing and Cordelia’s needless execution for treason – there is a sense that perhaps
human justice is as flawed as humanity itself.
The suffering of Lear and Cordelia represents the Christian belief that such
hardship “is part of providential and redemptive design” (Bloom 71). After Lear’s elder
daughters banish him from his realm just as he had exiled Cordelia, he seeks redemption
Hong 3
from his youngest daughter asking, “Pray you now, forget and forgive. I am old and
foolish” (4.7.85). She forgives him, but this is not the end of their suffering. Edmund
takes them prisoner and orders Cordelia hanged, but his change of heart on his own
deathbed does not halt the execution. Holding his daughter’s limp body in his arms, a
crazed Lear cries out, “This feather stirs. She lives. If it be so, It is a chance which does
redeem all sorrows That ever I have felt” (5.3.279-280). The King soon joins his daughter,
which might suggest he felt short of redeeming in life, but was able to achieve redemption
in death, which is far more important from a Christian perspective. In his analysis of the
play, Andrew C. Bradley wrote, “The only real thing… is the soul, with its courage,
patience, devotion. And nothing outward can touch that” (327). Instead of fleeing, both
Lear and Cordelia confront their deadly fates with courage and dignity, and like Jesus
Christ, sacrifice their physical bodies to secure eternal redemption for their Christian souls.
2. It is difficult to “see” the true Henry V. He is manipulative, charming, and a
potent Machiavellian. However, there are glimpses into Hal's tortured soul and
moments when he seems vulnerable. He represents the relationship between
individual conflict of the Machiavellian king vs. the “human” man. How do you
perceive Henry? Give textual example(s) to support your view.
As King, the Henry V, William Shakespeare presents in his historical play appears
to be far removed from the fun-loving Prince Hal of his reckless youth. This is apparent
from the opening scene when Canterbury finds an astounding gap between the man who
used to be a prince who is now king. Canterbury observes,
Never came reformation in a flood
With such a heady currance scouring faults;
Hong 4
Nor never Hydra-headed willfulness
So soon did lose his seat, and all at once
As in this king. (1.1.34-38)
Truly, it seems Henry is a changed man – a scholar, moving orator, and strong leader.
Perceptions of Henry become muddled because he sometimes slips back into ‘Hal’
persona, but these moments are fleeting. While battling territorial enemies, King Henry is
also waging a war within – between his true inner self and the Machiavellian ruler he seeks
to project outwardly.
The King seems to change personalities effortlessly, and quickly switches from the
fun-loving prince. Shakespeare memorably depicted in Henry V (Parts I and II) into the
powerful leader that will command the loyalty and respect of his subjects (Hall 45). In The
Prince, Machiavelli cautions that it is “far better to be feared than loved if you cannot be
both” (96). Furthermore, Machiavelli adds, “Without such a reputation, he can never keep
his army united and disciplined” (97). In his Machiavellian ‘makeover,’ the King
distances himself from any reminders of his old life including his one-time closest
compatriot John Falstaff (96). The former commoner friends, Brdolph, Nym, and Pistol,
with whom Prince Hal cavorted, blame the King for Falstaff’s rapid physical decline and
imminent death. Bardolph, whose thievery and wild antics once amused Hal, was
subsequently executed in France because he pillaged towns that defied the King’s edict, in
spite of Pistol’s futile pleas to spare his life. Rather than reveal any semblance of grief for
his former reveler, Henry remarked simply, “We would have all such offenders so cut off”
(3.6.98).
Hong 5
Perhaps the greatest conflict between the “human” Hal and King Henry takes place
when a drunkard has been arrested for publicly criticizing the monarch. Against the
recommendations of his advisors, the King decides to set the man free, explaining, “It was
an excess of wine that set him on, and on his more advice we pardon him” (2.2.42-43).
The drunk likely reminded the King of his younger self, when he engaged in similar public
displays of rebellion. However, when the King discovers that three members of his inner
circle – Cambridge, Scrope, and Grey – have conspired against him, he shows no mercy.
He delivers the trio’s sentence with cold and swift retribution:
You have conspired against our royal person,
Joind with an enemy proclaimed, and from his coffers
Received the golden earnest of our death,
Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and his peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt,
And his whole kingdom into desolation...
Get you therefore hence,
Poor miserable wretches, to your death,
The taste whereof God of his mercy give
You patience to endure, and true repentance
Of all your dear offences. (2.2.168-174, 178-182)
Hong 6
To show forgiveness in the face of professional betrayal would be a sign of weakness from
the Machiavellian perspective. This public execution would further cement Henry’s
reputation as a strong leader whose commitment to justice is above reproach. It is likely
that this is when the King realized that Hal and Henry could not peacefully co-exist. He
must be perceived as a Machiavellian icon and not as a human being with feelings and
flaws. They must be carefully concealed by noble acts and poetic rhetoric. In the battle
between human preservation and the Machiavellian ideal, Machiavelli won and Prince Hal
was lost to Henry V forever.
Hong 7
Works Cited
Bloom, Harold, ed. William Shakespeare's King Lear. New York: Chelsea House, 1987.
Print.
Bradley, Andrew C. Shakespearean Tragedy. New York: The Macmillan Company,
1905. Print.
Crowther, John, ed. “No Fear King Lear.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2003. Web.
7 Dec. 2011.
Crowther, John, ed. “No Fear Henry V.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2004. Web. 7
Dec. 2011.
Hall, Joan Lord. Henry V: A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997.
Print.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. Trans. George Bull. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Books, 1961. Print.