Skip to main content
editor@theusajournals.com | Oscar Publishing Services Journal Home
Login Register

International Journal Of Literature And Languages

Peer Reviewed | Open Access | E-ISSN: 2771-2834
Published Article

The Politics Of Survival: "Mutual Cunning" And The Machiavellian Ethos In Shakespeare's King Lear

The Politics Of Survival: "Mutual Cunning" And The Machiavellian Ethos In Shakespeare's King Lear

Authors

  • Dr. Eleanor Vance
    Department of English and Renaissance Drama, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Keywords:

King Lear Shakespeare Machiavelli Political Philosophy

Abstract

Background

Shakespeare’s King Lear is frequently analyzed for its profound exploration of justice, suffering, and familial collapse. While critical discourse has explored the play's political dimensions, it often focuses on the overt villainy of its antagonists. The influence and application of Niccolò Machiavelli's political philosophy in Renaissance drama provides a crucial, yet often narrowly applied, framework for understanding the brutal pragmatism that permeates the play's world.

Purpose

This article aims to demonstrate that Machiavellian tactics in King Lear are not confined to the villains but constitute a pervasive ethos of "mutual cunning" adopted by nearly all characters as a necessary tool for survival. We argue that the play presents a political landscape so thoroughly corrupted that even virtuous characters like Edgar and Kent are compelled to employ deception and strategic manipulation, thereby blurring the moral lines between hero and antagonist.

Methodology

Through a close reading of the Arden editions of King Lear [59, 60], this study applies a theoretical framework derived from Machiavelli's primary texts, The Prince [33] and The Discourses [32], along with contemporary scholarship on Machiavellianism in the Renaissance [47, 52]. The analysis focuses on the political strategies, rhetoric, and disguised actions of key characters, including Edmund, Goneril, Regan, Kent, and Edgar.

Findings

The analysis reveals that while Edmund, Goneril, and Regan are clear practitioners of Machiavellian realpolitik, the supposed heroes, particularly Edgar, become the play's most effective Machiavellian figures. Edgar's mastery of disguise and theatricality embodies the concept of virtù, allowing him to navigate and ultimately overcome the chaotic forces of fortuna. Conversely, King Lear's tragedy is framed as a failure of Machiavellian prudence, as he consistently makes politically disastrous decisions based on sentiment rather than strategic foresight.

Conclusion

Reading King Lear through the lens of mutual cunning reveals a deeply pessimistic political vision. The play suggests that in a world stripped of traditional order, the tools for survival and restoration are morally indistinguishable from those used for usurpation. This complicates the play’s final sense of justice and portrays a tragic reality where political efficacy requires the sacrifice of plain-dealing virtue.

References

Barber, Cesar Lombardi. The Whole Journey: Shakespeare’s Power of Development; Edited by Richard P. Wheeler; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1986.

Battenhouse, Roy W. Shakespearean Tragedy: Its Art and Its Christian Premises; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 1969.

Berger, Harry, Jr. Making Trifles of Terrors: Redistributing Complicities in Shakespeare; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1997.

Bradley, Andrew Cecil. Shakespearean Tragedy; Fawcett: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1991.

Bullough, Geoffrey. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1973; Volume 7, pp. 337–402.

Carroll, William C. ‘The Base Shall Top Th’Legitimate’: The Bedlam Beggar and the Role of Edgar in King Lear. Shakespeare Q. 1987, 38, 426–41.

Cavell, Stanley. Must We Mean What We Say? A Book of Essays; Scribners: New York, NY, USA, 1969.

Charney, Maurice. Poetic Justice and the Disguises of Edgar in King Lear. Connotations 2016, 25, 198–208.

Chaudhuri, Sukanta. The New Machiavelli: Shakespeare in the Henriad. In Literature East and West: Essays Presented to R.K. DasGupta; Taneja, G.R., Sena, V., Eds.; Allied: New Delhi, India, 1995; pp. 122–49.

Dawson, Anthony. Paradoxical Dramaturgy in King Lear. Wascana Rev. 1974, 4, 29–38.

Everett, Barbara. The New King Lear. In Shakespeare: “King Lear,” A Casebook; Kermode, F., Ed.; Macmillan: London, UK, 1969; pp. 184–202.

Faber, Melvin D. Some Remarks on the Suicide of King Lear’s Eldest Daughter. Univ. Rev. 1967, 33, 313–17.

Farley-Hills, David. Shakespeare and the Rival Playwrights, 1600–1606; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1990.

Flahiff, Frederic T. Lear’s Map. Cahiers Élisabéthains 1986, 30, 17–33.

Graham, Kenneth J.E. ‘Without the Form of Justice’: Plainness and the Performance of Love in King Lear. Shakespeare Q. 1991, 42, 438–61.

Greenblatt, Stephen. King Lear and Harsnett’s Devil-Fiction. Genre 1982, 15, 239–42.

Greenblatt, Stephen. Shakespeare and the Exorcists. In Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1988; pp. 94–128.

Halpern, Richard. The Poetics of Primitive Accumulation: English Renaissance Culture and Genealogy of Capital; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1991.

Hofele, Andreas. Come to Great Confusion: Chaos in King Lear. In Chaos from the Ancient World to Early Modernity: Formations of the Formless; Hofele, A., Levin, C., Muller, R., Quiring, B., Eds.; de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany; Boston, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 129–47.

Honigmann, Ernst Anselm Joachim. Shakespeare: Seven Tragedies: The Dramatist’s Manipulation of Response; Macmillan: London, UK, 1976.

Jaffa, Harry V. The Limits of Politics: An Interpretation of King Lear, Act 1, Scene 1. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1957, 51, 405–27.

Johansen, Jorgen Dines. The Structure of Conflicting Cosmologies in King Lear. Poetics 1972, 6, 84–127.

Kahn, Paul W. Law and Love: The Trials of “King Lear”; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA; London, UK, 2000.

Kiernan, Victor. Eight Tragedies of Shakespeare; Verso: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1996.

Knowles, Richard. Cordelia’s Return. Shakespeare Q. 1999, 50, 33–50.

Kordecki, Lesley; Koskinen, Karla. Re-Visioning Lear’s Daughters: Testing Feminist Criticism and Theory; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

Kott, Jan. Shakespeare Our Contemporary; Translated by Boleslaw Taborski; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1974.

Lee, Patricia-Ann. Reflections of Power: Margaret of Anjou and the Dark Side of Queenship. Renaiss. Q. 1986, 39, 183–217.

Lefler, Nathan. The Tragedy of King Lear: Redeeming Christ. Lit. Theol. 2010, 24, 211–26.

Lewis, Wyndham. The Lion and the Fox: The Role of the Hero in the Plays of Shakespeare; G. Richards: London, UK, 1955.

MacDonald, Michael. Seventeenth-Century England; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1981.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Discourses of Niccolo Machiavelli; Volume 1, Rare Masterpieces of Philosophy and Science; Translated by Leslie J. Walker; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1950.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince; Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK, 1985.

Mack, Maynard. “King Lear” in Our Time; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA; Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1965.

Maillet, Greg. Learning to See the Theological Vision of Shakespeare’s “King Lear”; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle, UK, 2016.

McElroy, Bernard. Shakespeare’s Mature Tragedies; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1973.

McShane, Michael. Kent’s ‘Obscured Course’: A Covert Coup Attempt in 2.2–4 of Shakespeare’s King Lear. Interpretation 2011, 38, 205–42.

Morris, Harry. King Lear: The Great Doom’s Image, I. In Last Things in Shakespeare; Florida State University Press: Tallahassee, FL, USA, 1985; pp. 115–62.

Muir, Kenneth. Shakespeare’s Tragic Sequence; Hutchinson University Library: London, UK, 1972.

Nuyts-Giornal, Josee. King Lear’s Reflection in the Mirror of Nobody: An Iconographical Question. Cahiers Élisabéthains 1998, 54, 155–73.

Oh, Elisa. Refusing to Speak: Silent, Chaste, and Disobedient Female Subjects in King Lear and The Tragedy of Mariam. Explor. Renaiss. Cult. 2008, 34, 185–216.

Orgel, Stephen. Introduction in William Shakespeare, The Winter’s Tale; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1996.

Oxford English Dictionary (OED), 2nd ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000.

Partridge, Eric. Shakespeare’s Bawdy; E. P. Dutton: New York, NY, USA, 1969.

Perry, T. Antony. Erotic Spirituality: The Integrative Tradition from Leone Ebreo to John Donne; University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, AL, USA, 1980.

Plaw, Avery. Prince Harry: Shakespeare’s Critique of Machiavelli. Interpretation J. Polit. Philos. 2005, 33, 19–43.

Raab, Felix. The English Face of Machiavelli; University of Toronto Press: Toronto, ON, Canada, 1964.

Ribner, Irving. Bolingbroke, a True Machiavellian. Mod. Lang. Q. 1948, 9, 177–84.

Ribner, Irving. Patterns in Shakespearean Tragedy; Methuen: London, UK, 1960.

Riebling, Barbara. Virtue’s Sacrifice: A Machiavellian Reading of Macbeth. Stud. Engl. Lit. 1991, 31, 273–86.

Ringwood, Frances. Shakespeare’s Mavericks and the Machiavellian Moment. Shakespeare South. Afr. 2019, 32, 38–48.

Roe, John. Shakespeare and Machiavelli; D. S. Brewer: Cambridge, UK, 2002.

Rozett, Martha Tuck. Tragedy within Tragedies: Kent’s Unmasking in King Lear. Renaiss. Drama 1987, 18, 237–58.

Rutter, Carol. Eel Pie and Ugly Sisters in King Lear. In Lear from Study to Stage: Essays in Criticism; Ogden, J., Scouten, A.H., Eds.; Fairleigh Dickinson University Press: Madison, NJ, USA, 1997; pp. 49–63.

Rutter, Itala T.C. The Fate of Machiavelli’s Virtu and Fortuna in Shakespeare and Marlowe. NEMLA Ital. Stud. 1987–1988, 11–12, 15–25.

Saleh, Nafiseh Salman. Female Iconography in King Lear. In Fundamental Shakespeare: New Perspectives on Gender, Psychology, and Politics; Salami, A., Ed.; Cambridge Scholars: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2016; pp. 150–61.

Sanders, Wilber. The Dramatist and the Received Idea; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1980.

Schoebaum, S. Richard II and the Realities of Power. In Shakespeare and Politics; Alexander, C.M.S., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 91–109.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Lear, Arden ed.; Edited by Kenneth Muir; Methuen: London, UK, 1987.

Shakespeare, William. King Lear; Edited by Reginald Alexander Foakes; Arden Shakespeare: London, UK, 1997.

Speziale-Bagliacca, Roberto. Lear, Cordelia, Kent, and the Fool: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation. Int. Rev. Psycho-Anal. 1980, 7, 413–28.

Stampfer, Judah. The Catharsis of King Lear. Shakespeare Surv. 1960, 13, 1–10.

Thompson, Ann. King Lear. The Critics’ Debate; Humanities Press: Atlantic Highlands, NJ, USA, 1988.

Werner, Sarah. Arming Cordelia: Character and Performance. In Shakespeare and Character: Theory, History, Performance, and Theatrical Persons; Yachnin, P., Slights, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 232–49.

Zak, William F. Sovereign Shame: A Study of “King Lear”; Bucknell University Press: Lewisburg, PA, USA, 1984.

Zunder, William. Shakespeare and the End of Feudalism: King Lear as Fin De Siècle Text. Engl. Stud. 1997, 78, 513–22.