On Johnson's Commentary on King Lear
An Essay

by Kimber

In his commentary on "King Lear", the 18th century English writer Samuel Johnson remarked on some of the more obvious and pointed discrepancies in the play. He noted among other things Shakespeare's portrayal of Lear, the mood of the play, the death of Cordelia and the handling of the ending. All of these subjects have been questioned by critics since the writing of the play.

He begins with his disappointment with the characterization of Lear. He states that it was a misinterpretation based on books of the time that were unfortunately taken for true history. The mixture of cultural and social institutions, he felt, lent little credulity for a serious representation of not only Lear but the entire story surrounding him.

Johnson also objected to the barbarism and vulgarity in the play. There was a common feeling among the theatrical community that they were above such base and uncouth methods as gore and violence on stage. All the violence was conducted off stage so that the gentile audiences wouldn't be offended. Johnson felt that the removal of Gloucester's eyes was going too far even if the actual acting out wasn't seen. He simply felt the entire mood of the play carried too much gratuitous torture to be acceptable drama.

This is part of his reasoning behind disliking the final scene. The shock of the injustice in Cordelia's brutal and untimely death was going too far. He commented that he was amazed Shakespeare wrote it this way because it went not only against common decency but public opinion and the Chronicles. I believe that Johnson is implying by this that Shakespeare was trying to play on the audiences blood lust with this scene rather than maintain accuracy.

As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't really struck with that great a sense of indignation. Actually disgust is closer to the feeling elicited from this play. It may be a personality quirk of mine but I find no sympathy for people who spend their lives on an eternal search for an ego boo. I don't really feel for anyone but poor Corlelia, who refused to perform for his favor and was disowned just that quickly. I also have a great deal of respect for her because she didn't blame her father for his stupidity.

As for historical accuracy in a Shakespeare play we must remember that all playwrights of the time were under the scrutiny of those in power. Plays, when written about the great and powerful, were skewed to make the members of the current ruling family look good and their enemies look bad. And of course Shakespeare was appealing to the baser aspects of his audience's personality. Since the beginning of time, people have been entertained by sex and violence; look at the gladiatorial games and Chaucer. Part of Shakespeare's motivation had to be to fill the theater and make them come back for the next play. This is no different now, nor is it likely to change in the future. I think Shakespeare, like every other playwright or screenwriter, have been and will be critiqued for these aspects of their writing until the end of time.