What is your response to the Marxist reading of Shakespeare’s ”King Lear”?

King Lear, when read from a Marxist perspective, blames everything on the conflict of classes. In particular, there is a focus on the traditional feudalism versus the “new” capitalism. Lear is viewed as a hero because he manages to journey from being a mentally impoverished king to a simple man, while Cordelia is the heroine. The villains of this story are not clear-cut, crude villains but complex villains with more logic and commonsense the conventionalists. The Marxist reading even attempts to reduce the whole story to the idea that the rich are hindered by their material goods, and must drop to the level of the poor to understand the truth.

The Marxist reading believes that King Lear’s rule is feudal, and he along with Gloucester represents the “old order”, the aristocrats who demand unquestioning loyalty and service. These characters believe in obedience from their subjects, and when they do not receive this, they become enraged and rashly throw their power around. For example, when King Lear does not receive a favourable answer from his daughter Cordelia in the “love test”, Lear immediately disowns her, and when Kent dares to challenge Lear, he is banished. Similarly, when Gloucester suspects his son Edgar of defiance, he also flies into a rage. At the same time, Gonerill, Regan, Edmond and Cornwall have the characteristics of the bourgeoisie, the supposed middle class who rise to competition with the feudalists for power.

The bourgeoisie have a more realistic view than the feudalists – for example, in the confrontation with Gonerill and Regan, the old-fashioned Lear wishes to age with dignity and keep his hundred knights – they are one of the symbols of his power and allow him to throw his weight around. On the other hand, Gonerill and Regan see the “riotous knights” as being louts who trash their castles rather than a necessity. However, in the end, all are defeated and killed, following the Marxist ideas that the working class, the proletariat would eventually emerge triumphant.

Instead of condemning him, the Marxist interpretation chooses to view Lear as a hero, one who must undergo a vast transformation from a king to a man. He realises his weakness and insignificance and becomes a humble and caring person, coming to cherish Cordelia over everything else – to the point that he would rather live in prison with her than rule as a king again. For example, at the end, he admits his folly, calling himself “a very foolish and fond old man”. But this is stretching the idea of a hero, since a “hero” is someone idealised for courage, outstanding achievements or noble qualities. Lear has none of these and is an average human being. He is irresponsible – for example, he wants to be treated as a king, but he doesn’t want to fulfil the obligations of governing. He is also extremely conceited and egocentric – he arranges a test where he values a public display of love over true love. He doesn’t ask “which of you doth love us most,” but, “which of you shall we say doth love us most?” With his pride and delusion, Lear is not quite a hero, as he lacks the conventional heroic attributes but is still someone whom the audience can sympathise with.

Cordelia is definitely viewed in a positive light, as she is the most humanitarian of all the characters at the beginning of the play. The audience is encouraged to empathise with her firstly due to her unjust treatment by her father and secondly by the glowing reports other characters give of her. Kent prays, “The gods to their dear shelter take thee”, while the king of France, who has courted Cordelia, says that he still wants to marry her even without her dowry. It is obvious to the audience that compared to her sisters’ elaborate speeches, Cordelia’s love is authentic. Cordelia is also devoted, kind and honest – almost to a fault, as she is punished for her truthful expression of duty. For example, she launches an invasion from her French headquarters in an effort to save her father and is captured and dies in the process. She is a true heroine, a martyr who has given up everything for the love of her father. Her killing serves to make the tragic ending of the play crueler, as she has become a sacrifice to the heartless injustice of the world.

To the Marxists, the new conflicting with the old is merely a power struggle. Edmond is a sophisticated but ruthless intellectual who wants to remove the power from the loyal and legitimate Edgar. “Now, gods, stand up for bastards,” he commands, though in fact he depends not on divine aid but on his own initiative. He is self-made, capable and intelligent – tendencies of the bourgeoisie. However, this leaves out the fact that he Edmond may be driven by revenge for how others may have treated him for his illegitimacy. For example, at the very end of the play, when he realises Gonerill and Regan have died for him, he whispers, “Yet Edmond was beloved”. He seems to be repentant of his villainy, admitting to have ordered Cordelia’s death. This change of heart shows that perhaps Edmond’s brutality did not spring from inborn evil like most Shakespearean villains, but simply from a thwarted, misdirected desire for the familial love that he witnessed around him. Another point that is ignored is Gonerill and Regan’s expected resentment, as Lear has openly admitted Cordelia to be his favourite – in the love test, he had already pre-divided the kingdom up, saving a “third more opulent” for his last daughter. The Marxist reading appears to portray the characters as driven only by their greed for power.

There are many parts of the play which exhibit Marxist beliefs, for example, Gloucester’s speech when he gives Poor Tom his purse displays socialist thinking. He comments that we should limit our desires, as everything is superfluous. He preaches that people should share if they have more than they need – “distribution should undo excess”. The Marxist reading argues that it is only through stripping down to the bare essentials that the characters are able to see the light. For example, when Lear is in the storm, literally stripping off his clothes, he comments on the hypocrisy of society, attacking the abuse of power and status – something he had been engaging in shortly before.

The rich are seen as pitiful, and it is only through allying with the poor that they can gain any insight, as disposable wealth is an impediment – shown as Lear removes his clothes, which mark his rank and are not really his, but mere “lendings”. However, this is an oversimplification of the whole play, saying that the whole play is only about the rich learning to identify themselves with the poor and thus discovering themselves. It ignores the fact that Lear has not really developed as a character – he has not undergone a complete character change and learnt from his mistakes. For example, at the end, he is still pining away for Cordelia, and dies out of grief for his loss. If he had truly learnt from the past, he would approach the situation more maturely and be able to cope like an adult.

Some of the Marxist theory works perfectly with King Lear such as the conflict between groups and Cordelia’s heroinism. However, it often overlooks parts of the play such as Edmond’s bitterness about his illegitimacy and the way he has been treated despite the events being beyond his control and instead making the characters shallow and two-dimensional, only existing for the greedy pursuit of power. Evidently, this reductive analysis makes many sweeping statements about the play, some of which are not totally justified.