I apologize in advance to those who wanted to read a *real* post: this is more of an inquiry, and is of course targeted mostly toward those with an existing background in the subject, but of course anyone is encouraged and welcome to take part by way of response, or even thinking about King Lear the way I’ve set out here (although I may not have done quite such a good job of explaining myself, for brevity’s sake).
Since I’m trying to make myself more marketable for the academic market – and even more than that, pursuing a subject I’m interested in for long-term research – I’d like to use this forum to ask for some advice from those willing to give it. I’m in the process of ‘working up’ a course paper I wrote several months back in my M.A. program, hoping to submit it for publishing: I’m hoping I can gain some perspective and advice here on where I can go for further research.
My thesis for the paper is that King Lear can be read as being informed by a series of interrelated socio-economic changes occurring at the time in early modern England. I am attempting to situate the play within the context of the movement from a communal, subsistence based economy toward a privatized proto-capitalistic, profit based economy that, I would argue at least, occurred simultaneously with and in direct relation to the debate between primogeniture and gavelkind (divisible inheritance rather than a scheme in which the oldest male heir inherits property undivided). In addition, I’m also incorporating two other ideas: (1) the idea that the shift in England’s economy was in large part due to a shift in the nature and goals of the ‘old’ aristocracy that Henry eradicated to solidify his power and claim to the throne in contrast to that of the ‘new aristocracy’ that remained in power through to Elizabeth’s reign (2) that the debate over inheritance schemes was much more widespread than contemporary historians and critics let on for the most part.
My overall goal, then, is to argue that King Lear is a warning against the dangers of a complete turn toward proto-capitalism, a profit-based economy, and primogeniture. Things start to go awry when Lear diminishes steadily the amount of inheritors among which he will divide his land in response to the profit-driven actions of those inheritors: Cordelia does not love him enough, and he reads this as a concern over land and inheritance only; Regan and Goneril remove themselves by their attempts at making profit from their land and their aging father. In general, I’m looking for any advice or thoughts you can give me on such an argument, especially in terms of primary and secondary resources. If you need more detail on this, please email me at laurelai@live.com and I’d be happy to provide you with some or all of the paper, depending on how interested you are and how much detail you need.
There will be a real post soon, I promise!
