1. Introduction:
... This is the basic plot of the legend of King Lear. Geoffrey of Monmouth, a magister and later bishop of Saint Asaph, used it for his Historia Regum Britanniae, also known as The History of the Kings of Britain, a work which pretends to be a history of the British rulers. It was written between 1135 and 1138 and served William Shakespeare as a source for his tragedy called King Lear, which was written between 1603 and 1606.
It is no big secret that legends, plays and even traditions sometimes undergo massive changes in the course of time. By comparing the modern celebration of Halloween or St. Nicholas´ Day to their original meaning, we are able to detect various differences. These changes could be seen as a kind of defamiliarization of their ancient message. Can they simply be seen as a try to change old and established elements into modern and popular objects that are suitable for the longing and the desire of the mass? By having a closer look at today´s commercial character of Halloween and Christmas, one would tend to agree. On the other side, it seems to be quite logical that different periods with different social and political circumstances can cause different interpretations and expectations of a piece of literature or an event.
Although Shakespeare´s and Geoffrey´s works are dealing with the same background legend, their message and their intentions seem to be quite different. As it was Shakespeare who adapted the Lear story and provided it with several changes, the question arises why he did so. Did he make these changes for commercial reasons? Did he try to integrate the legend into a contemporary context in order to influence the masses to attend his play? Was he politically dependent and in some way forced to do it? Are contemporary values and ideas of his era the key to explain the changes? The aim of this paper is to find out, or at least to approach Shakespeare´s and also Geoffrey´s intentions for providing their own versions of the story of King Lear with special characteristics.
In order to be able to compare the different works, it seems to be necessary to provide some background information about both in the following...
2. Geoffrey of Monmouth´s "Historia Regum Britanniae"
3. William Shakespeare´s "King Lear"
4. Possible reasons for the different endings
4.1 Specific patterns
4.2 Religious influences
4.3 Different genres
4.4 Political influences and dependencies
5. Conclusion
6. Works cited
Table of Contents
1. Introduction:
2. Geoffrey of Monmouth´s Historia Regum Britanniae
3. William Shakespeare´s King Lear
4. Possible reasons for the different endings
4.1 Specific patterns
4.2 Religious influences
4.3 Different genres
4.4 Political influences and dependencies
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper investigates the underlying motivations for the starkly different endings in the legend of King Lear as presented in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" and William Shakespeare's tragedy "King Lear". It explores how evolving historical, political, and genre-specific contexts influenced these authors to adapt the narrative, specifically focusing on the shift from a chronicle-based restoration of order to a tragic, chaotic conclusion.
- Comparative literary analysis of medieval historiography versus Elizabethan drama.
- Examination of political patronage and contemporary royal anxieties in both 12th and 17th-century Britain.
- Analysis of genre-specific conventions (chronicle vs. tragedy) and their impact on character fate.
- Investigation into religious and cultural shifts, particularly regarding the portrayal of suicide and female authority.
- Synthesis of historical socio-political contexts as catalysts for literary transformation.
Excerpt from the Book
4.4 Political influences and dependencies
When it comes to speculations about the authors´ motives, the possibilities of political dependencies and influences also play an important role. Geoffrey of Monmouth, as well as William Shakespeare, was far from being politically and financially independent, and so, both maybe provided their works with some implicit political messages in order to satisfy their patrons. This kind of acting was common and quite necessary, considering the fact that the degree of their works´ success depended on the blessing and on the courtesy of the influential people.
In his work The legendary history of Britain, John Tatlock describes the political situation in the British Kingdom around Geoffrey of Monmouth´s lifetime (288). In 1120, King Henry I lost his only legitimate son, and the question about a successor arose. Robert, Earl of Gloucester, King Henry´s eldest illegitimate son and Geoffrey´s patron, would have been a suitable candidate, but his illegitimacy eliminated his chances. Instead, the king made his barons swear to accept as sovereign his daughter Matilda, Robert´s half-sister. According to Tatlock, she sometimes called herself regina, and so, she was the first female ruler of England (288). She was married to a French prince and also, like Cordelia, opposed by one of her relatives, her cousin Stephen of Blois. He, like Cordelia´s nephews in the Historia, did not like the idea of a female ruler. This conflict led to years of civil war and unrest in the kingdom. Although the exact year when Geoffrey was writing the Lear story is not known, we can still detect several obvious parallels between the reigning Matilda and the fictitious figure of Cordelia.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the basic plot of the King Lear legend and the central research question regarding why Shakespeare significantly altered the ending of the original source material.
2. Geoffrey of Monmouth´s Historia Regum Britanniae: Provides background on Geoffrey of Monmouth and his "Historia", evaluating its nature as a mixture of historical pretense and imaginative narrative.
3. William Shakespeare´s King Lear: Examines the textual history of Shakespeare’s play, noting its genre classification and the various literary and historical sources that inspired his tragedy.
4. Possible reasons for the different endings: Analyzes specific factors such as literary patterns, religious context, genre conventions, and political dependencies that likely drove the divergent narrative conclusions.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes that there is no single cause for the changes, but rather a complex combination of socio-political, personal, and formal influences that shaped both authors' works.
Keywords
King Lear, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae, William Shakespeare, Literary Adaptation, Political Patronage, Medieval Historiography, Elizabethan Tragedy, Cordelia, Matilda of England, Genre Analysis, Literary Patterns, Historical Context, Patronage System, Cultural Transformation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper examines why the legend of King Lear, specifically the ending of Cordelia's story, differs so drastically between Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th-century historical chronicle and William Shakespeare's 17th-century tragedy.
What are the central thematic areas explored?
The central themes include the influence of political patronage, the constraints and expectations of different literary genres, the impact of contemporary religious values, and the reflection of historical power struggles in fictional narratives.
What is the core research objective?
The goal is to approach the underlying motivations of both authors, seeking to understand whether the narrative changes were driven by personal style, commercial success, political loyalty, or specific moral messages.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a comparative literary analysis approach, contextualized by historical and sociological research into the authors' respective time periods and political environments.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body systematically analyzes four key drivers for change: specific literary patterns, religious influences, genre conventions, and the impact of political dependencies on the authors' creative freedom.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Keywords include King Lear, literary adaptation, political patronage, medieval historiography, Elizabethan tragedy, and cultural transformation.
How does the role of Matilda of England influence the interpretation of Geoffrey's work?
The paper suggests that Geoffrey may have modeled Cordelia after Matilda to support his patron, the Earl of Gloucester, implicitly advocating for a female successor during a time of political instability.
What role does the patronage system play in Shakespeare's version?
The author highlights that the breakdown of the patronage system during the reign of King James I serves as a potential backdrop for the chaos and misery depicted in Shakespeare's tragedy.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Julian Binder (Autor:in), 2011, Approaching possible reasons for the different endings in Geoffrey of Monmouth´s “Historia Regum Britanniae” and William Shakespeare´s “King Lear”, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/189685
