Studies in Literature and Language
The Dialectics of Speech and Silence in Shakespeare’s King Lear
Abstract
This article deploys the critical lines of new historicism, feminism and performance studies to argue that Shakespeare’s King Lear is a critique of King James I’s absolute authority and the destructive ideology of gender difference via the binary opposites of speech and silence. A new historicist reading would argue that the dominant male powers in King Lear eliberately foster the subversive behaviour of others (Cordelia, Regan, Goneril, Edmund) in order to crush it publicly and so assert their dominance. However, in this paper, I argue that King Lear is a trial of language, ending with the renunciation of patriarchal speech and the subordination of male figures to Cordelia’s silence. Following materialist feminist criticism, I argue that Regan and Goneril are reproducers of the masculine ideology of power, property and linguistic domination. While Shakespeare criticises male figures’ absolute voices that are ventriloquised by Regan, Goneril and Edmund, he represents silence as a subjective space of truth and honesty and a site of rebellion against unjust speech as illuminated in the figure of Cordelia whose silence undermines Lear’s game of words.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alfar, C. L. (2003). Looking for goneril and regan. In C. S. Abate (Ed.), Privacy, domesticity, and women in early modern England (pp.167-93). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Belsey, C. (1985). The subject of tragedy: Identity and difference in renaissance drama. London: Methuen.
Bennett, J. (1962). The storm within: The madness of lear. Shakespeare Quarterly, 13, 137-55.
Berry, P. (1999). Shakespeare’s feminine endings: Disfiguring death in the tragedies. London: Routledge.
Bloom, G. (2013).Voice in motion: Staging gender, shaping sound in early modern England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bradley, A. C. (Ed.). (2007). Shakespearean tragedy: Lectures on Hamlet, Othello, King Lear.
Brown, H. (1963). Lear’s fool: A boy, not a man. Essays in Criticism, 13, 164-71.
Cannon, W. W. (2012). Hearing complexity: Speech, reticence, and the construction of character. In L. Magnus & W. W. Cannon (Eds.), Who hears in Shakespeare? Auditory worlds on stage and screen (pp.41-59). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Carroll, W. C. (1993). “The base shall top the legitimate”: The bedlam beggar and the role of edgar in King Lear. In D. Young (Ed.), Shakespeare’s middle tragedies: A collection of critical essays (pp.221-38). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cavell, S. (2003). Disowning knowledge in seven plays by Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cox, C. S. (1998). “An excellent thing in woman”: Virgo and viragos in King Lear. Modern Philology, 96(2), 143-57.
Dollimore, J. (1989). Radical tragedy: Religion, ideology and power in the drama of Shakespeare and his contemporaries (2nd ed.). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Doran, M. (1976). Shakespeare’s dramatic language. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Dusinberre, J. (1996). Shakespeare and the nature of women (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.
Elton, W. (1966). King Lear and the Gods. San Marino, Calif: Huntington Library.
Ferine, E. (2002). Shame in Shakespeare. London: Routledge.
Gesch, K. (2008). “Not what we ought to say”: Male anxiety and the power of female speech in Shakespeare’s King Lear and Richard III. Concept, 31, 1-12.
Goldberg, J. (1983). James 1 and the politics of literature: Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne and their contemporaries. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University.
Goldberg, S. L. (1974). An essay on King Lear. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenblatt, S. (1988). Shakespearean negotiations: The circulation of social energy in renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hadfield, A. (2003). The power and rights of the crown in Hamlet and King Lear: “The King: The King’s to blame”. The Review of English Studies, 54(217), 566-586.
Halio, J. (1992). Gloucester’s Blinding. Shakespeare Quarterly, 43(2), 221-23.
Harvey, E. (1992). Ventriloquized voices: Feminist theory and English renaissance texts. London: Routledge.
Jardine, L. (1983). Still harping on daughters: Women and drama in the age of Shakespeare. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Kahn, C. (1986). The absent mother in King Lear. In M. W. Ferguson, M. Quilligan & N. J. Vickers (Eds.), Rewriting the renaissance: The discourse of sexual difference in early modern Europe (pp.33-49). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kott, J. (1965). Shakespeare our contemporary (B. Taborski, Trans.). London: Methuen.
Leggatt, A. (2005). Shakespeare’s tragedies: Violation and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leider, E. (1970). Plainness of style in King Lear. Shakespeare Quarterly, 21(1), 45-53.
McElroy, B. (1973). Shakespeare’s maturetragedies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McEwan, N. (1976). The lost childhood of Lear’s fool. Essays in Criticism, 26, 209-17.
McLaughlin, J. (1978). The dynamics of power in King Lear: An Adlerian interpretation. Shakespeare Quarterly, 29(1), 37-43.
Nowottny, W. (1960). Some aspects of the style of King Lear. Shakespeare Survey, 13, 49-57.
Rudnytsky, P. (1999). “The dark vicious place”: The dread of the Vagina in “King Lear”, Modern Philology, 96(3), 291-311.
Rutter, C. C. (2002). Enter the body: Women and representation on Shakespeare’s stage. London: Routledge.
Salkeld, D. (1993). Madness and drama in the age of Shakespeare. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Shakespeare, W. (2011). Hamlet: Text of the play, the actors’ gallery, contexts, criticism, afterlives, resources. In R. S. Miola (Ed.). New York, London: W. W. Norton.
Shakespeare, W. (1993). King Lear: A parallel text edition. In R. Weis (Ed.). London: Longman.
Shakespeare, W. (1997). Othello. In E. A. J. Honigmann (Ed.). Walton-on-Thames: Thomas Nelson and Sons.
Sheridan, A. (1980). Michel Foucault: The will to truth. London: Tavistock Publications.
Sun, E. (2010). Succeeding King Lear: Literature, exposure, and the possibility of politics. New York: Fordham University Press.
Thompson, A. (1991). Are there any women in King Lear? In V. Wayne (Ed.), The matter of difference: Materialist feminist criticism of Shakespeare (pp.117-28). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
White, R. S. (2000). Innocent victims: Poetic injustice in Shakespearean tragedy. Newcastle: Tyneside Free Press.
Zimmerman, S. (2002). Animating matter: The corpse as idol in the second maiden’s tragedy. Renaissance Drama, 31, 215-43.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/8608
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2016 Bilal Tawfiq Hamamra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Share us to: 
Online Submission: http://cscanada.org/index.php/sll/submission/wizard
Please send your manuscripts to sll@cscanada.net，or sll@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: caooc@hotmail.com; sll@cscanada.net; sll@cscanada.org
Articles published in Studies in Literature and Language are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).
STUDIES IN LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE Editorial Office
Address: 1055 Rue Lucien-L'Allier, Unit #772, Montreal, QC H3G 3C4, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org
E-mail: office@cscanada.net; office@cscanada.org; caooc@hotmail.com
Copyright © 2010 Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture 
