Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Thursday, 30 July 2026

Shakespeare on Valour: the Lion, the Wren and the Warpath

Abstract

William Shakespeare's dramatic take on valour is complex and multifaceted, yet we can distinguish a recurring pattern of fake/dubious valour contrasted with real/idealised valour, which in turns leads to a consideration on what valour is for.

Introduction

Let us give a working definition of valour as 'conspicuous courage, typically in conflict'. It has to be conspicuous, to appear to audiences and characters onstage. And drama typically revolves around conflict anyway. We are concerned with actions, the externalised aspect of courage, and sometimes but not always the prospect of witnesses, inciters, mockers or adversaries on the receiving end. And this must imply an appreciation of risk and hazard.

3-part illustration: man in lion headdress stands over a woman threatening her with a club; a wren defends her nesting chicks from a large owl; a crown hangs from a pitchfork.
Shakespeare on valour: the Lion (mere appearance), the Wren (paragon), and the Warpath (collective purpose)

We will first take a brief run through the plays in the (probably unsatisfactory) categories of Tragicomedy, Comedies, Histories and Tragedies. We will ignore for now the idea of 'problem plays' or satires/parodies.

Our aim here is to pick out patterns and themes, and identify questions for a more searching analysis later. Rough notes rather than polished prose will be the style used for brevity, with uncertainty of what is most significant to the question of valour.

Then we will consider how Shakespeare distinguishes between false appearances, true natures and ethical purpose of valour, before concluding.

'Tragicomedy'

In The Tempest, a mature work, Prospero oppresses Caliban by terror, Caliban resists but finds his new masters lack valour (I’ll not serve him; he is not valiant.) Prospero could strike at his foes, but The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance.

Valour here is shown often stupid, stubborn, defensive or drunk, striking at air, achieving little. Sailors need unhampered professionalism to contend with storm, not valour. Mad valour drowns self?

The 'Comedies'

In Two Gentlemen of Verona, a servant lists his sacrifices for a dog, though dogs don’t give medals, nor thanks, nor recognition for taking their pillories. Solidarity is presented as a base attribute. Does a servant’s cheeky retort count as valour when they face a beating? Women are held to hate cowardice (along with falseness and poor descent, says Proteus). Valentine says I take your offer and will live with you, provided that you do no outrages on silly women or poor passengers. Valour is presented in the list of gentlemanly virtues.

In Merry Wives of Windsor, outsider valour is encouraged and mocked in Welsh and French duellists. Some things are deemed contrary to self-styled valour: as Pistol says Shall I Sir Pandarus of Troy become, And by my side wear steel? then, Lucifer take all! The Knight of the Realm Falstaff hides and flees.

In Twelfth Night, Viola implies her lack of valour is due to her sex, yet Sir Andrew Aguecheek’s lack of valour (gift of cowardice says Maria) suggests valour is not determined that way. Antonio follows Sebastian, saying But, come what may, I do adore thee so, That danger shall seem sport, and I will go. Olivia: If one should be a prey, how much the better To fall before the lion, than the wolf?. Fabian to Andrew: to awake your dormouse valour. Do women love valour (in men? by report of valour)? Andrew’s stated preference for valour over policy is more like action over thought. Antonio is not boastful about exploits, says he refused to pay for them (Act 3 scene 3). Swearing terrible oaths and swaggering may give reputation for valour (Toby). Putting quarrels on to taste valour (Viola).

In Measure for Measure, sister Isobel calls brother Claudio coward for preferring his life at her rape’s cost. Pompey the tapster: The valiant heart is not whipped out of his trade. Takes much valour to confront authority figures in Vienna, who have awful tortures at their command.

In Much Ado About Nothing, is there (sometimes) valour in declaring love (if you fear rejection or ridicule, say)? Beatrice cannot become a man by wishing to get revenge for Hero, condemns the courtesy of modern valour, He is now as valiant as Hercules that only tells a lie and swears it. The Watch would rather sleep than tackle criminals. Benedick: In a false quarrel there is no true valour.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream Titania’s defence of Indian boy for votarist’s sake seems to risk much; until her will is subdued by Oberon’s cowardly poisoning. valour flies in face of love?

LYSANDER: This lion is a very fox for his valour.
THESEUS: True, and a goose for his discretion.
A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 5 scene 1)

In Love's Labour Lost, we see: warriors against desire? Valour in performance (stage fright)? In pursuing love (deer)?

In Merchant of Venice, the Prince of Morocco comes closest to valour in a suitor. Mere appearance (or excrement) of valour in Bassanio's beards of Hercules and frowning Mars.

In As You Like It, we see combatants wrestle for credit or in despair; swashing disguises; breaking a sword on a stone; a bullying approach rebuked; and brave lovers mocked.

In All's Well that Ends Well, animal valour is conjured in an image of a hind-lion love-death. Helena says torture me to death King if I cannot effect your cure in 24 hours. Meanwhile Parolles’ valour is extensively mocked. Valour seems empty at court. Frenchmen serve Mars not Woman? Reputation of Commanders' valour is comically disputed. When innkeeper's daughter Diana faces death within the hour, she faces down the King of France.

In Taming of the Shrew, men fear women’s scorn.

In Winter's Tale, Paulina is the exemplar of valour, standing between jailer and danger, confronting jealous King Leontes, shaming others as she would offer combat to defend the Queen if she was a man (but see later). Hermione shows great composure during trial but perhaps not outright valour since she seeks death. Autolychus represents anti-valour.

Summary of Comedies

So, in the Comedies, valour is seen as an admirable quality in men (and possibly a rare one, given the many examples of cowardice, 'mouth honour', empty oath-laden bragging or simply preferring to pick on the weak). Women seem to need valour as much as men in their declarations of love. But some women are particularly forward in defending other women or children, and their valour shines in opposition to powerful men (at the point the play wobbles between comedy and tragedy).

The 'Histories'

In Macbeth we early on hear some suspect testimony from the captain on his thane's extreme battle prowess valour’s minion. Lady Macbeth sees herself as a valour-imparter: the valour of my tongue? But stabbing an old man to death in his sleep is surely contrary to valour. The wren (paragon) against the owl (we'll return to this). Macbeth’s disputed valiant fury is still of an unruly kind. The play ends with a battle of unnatural cowards, charmed Macbeth and flighty Macduff. A few characters do show approximate valour (and die with wounds in front).

In King John we see a badge of proclaimed valour in a lion skin. Hubert risks disobeying king; young Arthur faces horror without falling apart; bastard Faulconbridge tells King John to inspire others against the valour of the invading French The youth says well!

In Richard II, Henry and Mowbray chafe for single combat (defending reputation). Ross says Urge doubts to them that fear. By the exchange of gages after Richard’s fall, we hear sympathy as spur to valour. Banished Mowbray seemed to have turned crusader. Valour can become silliness which gets in the way of truth-finding public investigations. Valour as abnegation of one’s own interests. Valour as standing up to an authority (king). Valour from (self and other) endurance. Valour as strongest and surest way to get.

In Henry IV part 1 Henry4 wants to kill pagans in their homes for crusading glory; praises friend and foe for valour (Hotspur’s is source of envy). Poins predicts cowardice of Falstaff and confederates. Valorous deeds obsess Hotspur, but his wife Kate tells of his other side (PTSD? Peacetime melancholy?). Is valour compatible with love, or a competitor? Falstaff’s valiant lion won’t touch the true Prince excuse (valour versus loyalty?); aged valour more valiant. Glendower mixes valour with restraint contrasting Hotspur’s harsh rage, defect of manners, want of government, pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain. Hotspur disdains poetry yet speaks nothing else in praise of valour; is the report of valour necessarily poetic? Does valour typically require haste? Henry4: nothing can seem foul to those that win. Henry4 is a vile hypocrite in all-abhorred war: the unprovoked war he wishes to pursue in crusades. Does Henry5 vowing to save others’ blood (single combat) constitute the highest form of valour, or posturing? Henry5 says Falstaff owest God a death. Falstaff’s soliloquy on honour. Relation of honour (valour?) to detraction. Hotspur talks so much he is cut off by imminent battle. Valour as becoming a target instead of your lord; as persistence. Hotspur associates Henry5’s valour with vanity (human valour as self-love?). So, valour can be deceitful? What are the rewards of valour? Falstaff, opposite of valour perhaps, has 3 of 150 ragamuffins left alive, those 3 destined for beggary (implied maiming). Does valour encompass jests that endanger comrades (sack a city)? Henry5 delivers captive Douglas free in respect of his valour. What is the goal of valour?

In Henry IV part 2 after war, true valour is turned bear-herd (Falstaff: I have the wars for my colour). In what sense does valour rely on imagination? Women’s tailor Feeble envisaged as valiant as the wrathful dove or most magnanimous mouse but Feeble accepts conscription with We owe God a death. Falstaff: I never knew yet but rebuke and check were the reward of valour. What is the reward of valour? Falstaff: and this valour comes of sherris (Dutch courage) not natural to many. Lord Chief Justice shows valour in standing up to Henry5?

In Henry V we see class comparisons of valour. Face-saving de-escalation (show thy valour, put up thy sword). Valour facing exposure for treason and death sentence. Physical bringing on of valour in to the breach. Inherited capacity for valour. Boy’s observation on (cowardly) companions. Terror used when valour fails? Does wind and sun produce more valour than beer and fog? Brave words (of Pistol) unreliable measure of valour. Can you have hidden valour (Dauphin’s)? Over-valiant mastiffs. Valour depending on (beef) full stomachs? Does having more time and opportunity to consider dangers increase valour shown? Can (care and) valour go out of fashion)? Do few die well that die in battle? Divine aid adding valour. Can valour be transmitted by bodily fluid (horse blood)? Is there valour in evening the odds for a disadvantaged foe? Or wish no advantage being the underdog? How to deal with shame? With unexpected victory? After victory, how should valour present? The price of valour (disordered nature etc). Relation of valour to (lifelong) constancy?

In Henry the Sixth Part 1 we see valour in reclaiming hostages. Do you fear valour more or madness? Joan (later made France’s saint) lets Talbot live. Slack of duty undoing valour. How easily is valour impersonated for pecuniary gain? How is women’s valour smeared? Does prior warning approve valour? Does ambition count against? Is the greatest source of valour maternal (Joan-Burgundy)? Shared intergenerational battlefields. Joan’s offer of supernatural sacrifice. Treatment of prisoners. Joan’s valour in denying ‘father’s’ (vicious?) offer of salvation from execution. What can valour gain (on the long term)? Recognised valour can catapult family to high aristocracy.

In Henry the Sixth Part 2, Jack Cade rails against English who won’t fight for their ancient freedoms but give themselves up to slavery to the nobility, breaking their oaths and betraying their families to rapine. Nobles invent enemy in France. Escalation: you killed our fathers, we’ll kill your children.

In Henry the Sixth Part 3 Henry6’s weapons are words etc but is Henry6’s self-interested peace opposite to valour? Margaret: The soldiers should have tossed me on their pikes before…. Valour and oaths. Valour or revenge? Richard’s testimony of his sons’ valour towards his life’s end. What is inhuman? Tigers? Chivalry and valour. Valour and fame/glory. Response to battlefield loss. Numbers in battle. Draw sword in right or for the crown? Effect of valour on opponents. Is valour a lie, told by aristocracy? Valour in civil war where you might kill kin. Grief and valour. Dying of wounds. Variable mercy. A mother stands up alone to a king. Valour and (newmade or old) friendship. Is valour loyalty- or honour- or kin- or principle-oriented? Queen Margaret: you have no children, butchers (irony). Is there valour in killing a future killer? Is the goal of valour really just to lift a baby to the throne?

In Richard III, we see valour in self-destruction. Sleep-stabbing seems cowardly. Conscience makes cowards? Angels and valour. Guilt and valour. Richard3 prepares for final battle berating subordinates, is haunted (Tomorrow, in the battle, think on me, And fall thy edgeless sword. Despair and die!). Richmond prays and encourages, has angels’ wishes in dreams. Does valour gain strength from clear consciences? Radcliffe: Nay, good my lord, be not afraid of shadows. Omens of success. God’s soldiers. Fight for wives and children, boldly and cheerfully. Stanley’s son held hostage. Richard3 disses foes as badly-led scum: Shall these enjoy our lands, lie with our wives, Ravish our daughters? Calls on St George. What would Richard3 do with a horse, without a kingdom? Dies with wounds in his front.

In Henry VIII Queen Katherine stands up to brace of cardinals.

Summary of Histories

Valour in the Histories is pretty much an aristocratic construct, a kind of weaponised propagandistic class war lie based on a truth embodied by very few examples, and some of those are very much not lords or knights.

The 'Tragedies'

Troilus and Cressida may rather be a satire on war? Valour invoked as defending/competing attributes (wiser, fairer, truer) of women-loved. Cressida's valour is defensive and watchful. Complex debate among Trojans gravitates towards Helen’s beauty/worth inspiring valour. Achilles called ‘lion-sick’, with a pride that eats valour? Animal valours crammed into slow-as-bear Ajax. Factionalism and hollow tents (Odysseus), competition kills in various ways. Does heat breed both love and valour? Voices of lions and acts of hares. How to treat contests (of unequal strength). Valour requires motion? Thersites would rather be a tick in a sheep than such a valiant ignorance: a theme of wars, lechery and incontinent varlets. Corruption encased within armour. Diomede condemns both sides. Sometimes war is murder.

In Timon of Athens senators rebuke Alciabides' character testimony saying there is no valour in drunken quarrelling and revenge. He’s truly valiant that can wisely suffer.

Coriolanus says he cannot make my heart consent to take a bribe to pay my sword in a play largely revolving around questions of valour and class war, where cicatrices — scars of wounds — are esteemed as badges of martial courage (as long as they aren't on the back, one imagines). Coriolanus rejects rewards and honours of valour while embracing combat and comradeship (though his mother Volumnia initially says she’d accept his good report and a dead son), and doesn’t want to hear of deeds in council.

Why do Patricians hold that valour (the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver) is the best qualification for Consulship? While in the same speech Cominius' shows disrepect in woman in the scene throway jibe, do the Patricians fear their power along with that of commoners? Coriolanus reckons speaking openly is valorous, diplomacy is base, while cowardice in war should disenfranchise commoners. But if commoners were valorous and armed, why would they need a smaller military class of nobles to defend them?

What are the Stratocracy’s virtues? Coriolanus, bred i’ th’ wars since he could draw a sword, says (of Rome's commoners, the plebians) On fair ground I could beat forty of them. How should wisdom harness valour? you are too absolute: Volumnia’s arguments are worth quoting her telling rebuke:

To beg of thee, it is my more dishonour
Than thou of them. Come all to ruin. Let
Thy mother rather feel thy pride than fear
Thy dangerous stoutness, for I mock at death
With as big heart as thou. Do as thou list.
Thy valiantness was mine; thou suck’st it from me,
But owe thy pride thyself.
Coriolanus (Act 3 scene 2)

When Coriolanus tells his frenemy Aufidius I also am longer to live most weary, and present my throat to thee and to thy ancient malice is any valour annulled by a deathwish? Indeed, Aufidius later says to a Volsci lieutenant that our virtues lie in the interpretation of the time, a clear indication that behaviour which might be seen as appropriate valour in one situation will be inappropriate in others, and with this he plans to bring down Coriolanus. When Aufidius tells Coriolanus You keep a constant temper, this is not so much an acknowledgement that constancy is a requirement of valour, than a mock.

As the play's final crisis unfolds, Coriolanus appears to re-evaluate his long-suffering/silent wife best of my flesh Virgilia: stubborn-constant, worldview-accurate, an integrated if limited personality. Where is valour in this scene? Perhaps for Coriolanus' martial version, the end of valour is destruction, but the women show a valour that leads to salvation.

In Julius Caesar armies march forward to demonstrate courage. Suicide is taken as a better option than being paraded in triumph, glory is found in losing. Caesar may despise base spaniel fawnings, but is he really supernaturally fearless? Cowards die many times before their deaths; The valiant never taste of death but once. When Octavius calls the third member of the triumvirate, Lepidus, a tried and valiant soldier, Antony replies:

So is my horse, Octavius, and for that
I do appoint him store of provender.
It is a creature that I teach to fight,
To wind, to stop, to run directly on,
His corporal motion governed by my spirit;
And, in some taste, is Lepidus but so.
Julius Caesar (Act 4 scene 1)

which is a decidedly unglamorous view of valour, from a commander who — here at least — seems to appreciate obedient, drilled and disciplined subordinates.

Antony and Cleopatra: Antony may have once thrived on horse puddles and human corpses, but do these hardships make him a valiant soldier? Antony tells Cleopatra she has conquered him, uses a metaphor for valour my sword, made weak by my affection.

Enobarbus, long loyal to Antony, now distances himself from the latter's excess of valour:

Now he’ll outstare the lightning. To be furious
Is to be frighted out of fear, and in that mood
The dove will peck the estridge; and I see still
A diminution in our captain’s brain
Restores his heart. When valour preys on reason,
It eats the sword it fights with. I will seek
Some way to leave him.
Antony and Cleopatra (Act 3 scene 13)

Antony calls self-stabbing 'Valiant Eros' Thrice nobler than myself, and at the end Octavius gives much the same accolade to Cleopatra: Bravest at the last.

Cymbeline compares valour and recklessness, considers valour in (social etc) unequals, valour as redemption, valour in treating prisoners and vanquished, valour in dangerous confession. The play is ambiguous about inherited qualities, the supposed genetic valour of the King's lost sons contrasts with the surprisingly dim son of a clever Queen.

Posthumus shows a leonine association of habitual show and valour, although he is beginning to see the light:

Let me make men know
More valour in me, than my habits show.
Gods put the strength o’ the Leonati in me!
To shame the guise o’ the world, I will begin
The fashion, less without, and more within.
Cymbeline (Act 5 scene 1)

In Titus Andronicus, a particularly unvalorous act — sacrifice of captive — sets off a chain of events. Goth Queen Tamora pleads:

But must my sons be slaughtered in the streets
For valiant doings in their country’s cause?
O, if to fight for king and commonweal
Were piety in thine, it is in these!
Titus Andronicus (Act 1 scene 1)

Titus chooses revenge over mercy, clearly there are double standards in Rome's treatment of patriotic valour. Titus the centrist (approved valour, but poor judge of character?) chooses madly unfit Saturninus. Gives away daughter Livinia in arguable act of despicable cowardice. Titus cannot escape unvalorous son-slaying act by disowning sons. Valour and piety. Marcus calls on Titus not to be barbarous. Aaron’s defence of newborn. Tamora’s exposition of strength: sun, eagles, is your city strong? When we see free Goths, they profess valour. But Lucius calls to hang an infant child. Superdad villain Aaron desperately bargains for the life of his baby. Valour against Rapine and Murder.

In Pericles Prince of Tyre valour in competition combat (and possibly some dancing) wins the Princess. Marina shows more than just undaunted valour and wit in defying brothel culture (more spine than her would-be murderer Leonine).

In King Lear, daughter Cordelia and liegeman Kent stand up to Lear’s apparent rage. Gloster would die to relieve his old master the king, stands the course against terror. Servant stands armed up to Cornwall, both die. The baddies attack weakness. Goodies more insistent on level playing field. Edgar harps on a theme: Men must endure their going hence even as their coming hither. Valour of prisoners? The wages of generalship. Was Kent battle-promoted?

Romeo and Juliet: valour as in standing (servants, innuendo). Nurse rebounds after being sexually assaulted in public. Does voluntary duelling constitute valour or perhaps mimic it? Romeo laments that Juliet's beauty has effected him and softened valour’s steel, but then why does Romeo immediately get the better of Tybalt (without apparently sustaining a scratch) when Mercutio didn’t? The Prince uses a line reminiscent of Angelo in Measure for Measure: Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill. which relates to both civil administrations' suppression of high-spirited deeds. Friar Lawrence dares Juliet’s valour in death-defying, to which she replies (and how can we doubt her):

O, bid me leap, rather than marry Paris,
From off the battlements of any tower,
Or walk in thievish ways, or bid me lurk
Where serpents are. Chain me with roaring bears,
Or hide me nightly in a charnel house,
O’ercovered quite with dead men’s rattling bones,
With reeky shanks and yellow chapless skulls.
Or bid me go into a new-made grave
And hide me with a dead man in his shroud
(Things that to hear them told have made me tremble),
And I will do it without fear or doubt,
To live an unstained wife to my sweet love.
Romeo and Juliet (Act 4 scene 1)

Hamlet: facing the supernatural is not the valour expected of guards. Hamlet seeks examples (will his mother see Denmark in ruins like Hecuba did Troy? Will assassination lead to civil war as in Julius Caesar?), looks for words to fire mood of revenge. Should you aim to send your enemies to hell? Hamlet and Laertes see failing to take revenge for father as moral failing.

Othello’s actual valour is not shown but much attested. Valour in drink? Othello is a play about the suppression of valour (until Emilia at the end). Ophelia dares Othello’s rage. Deceitful Iago declares Rodrigo’s valour is apt. Unarmed Emilia I care not for thy sword. I’ll make thee known, Though I lost twenty lives. stands up to armed lord Othello and equally armed husband Iago.

Summary of Tragedies

The Tragedies are often more explicate of valour, unsurprisingly since the genre deals with high deeds and purer (if not worthier) motivations. In non-Christian Rome, Greece-Troy, Egypt, different cultural standards and expectations of piety apply, and suicide (rejected by Hamlet) may be approved. The consequences are as great as in the Histories, but the characters are generally a bit more reflective, some to the point of self-absorption, as they weigh their actions. Some consider Macbeth to be a tragedy, not a history, and that fits.

Questions Arising

The topics in Shakespeare's plays are often treated ambiguously, tropes are undercut, conventions subverted. The questions raised are often open-ended.

  • Is valour (in)compatible with: desperation; deathwish; wrath; vengeance; professionalism; deceit; injustice; conscience; fear; vanity; ambition; pride; reward?
  • If compatible with reward, what are the rewards of valour: honour, reputation, love, survival (of others, maybe), promotion, loot, even a kingdom? And what of the costs of valour: wounds, possible humiliation and dispossession, death?
  • Can valour be: taught; habituated; inherited; inconstant; imparted by speech or environment or alcohol?
  • Does valour incline to: selfishness or selflessness? Preserving or changing the world? Haste or deliberation? Competition or grace? Imagination or immediate focus? Loyal obedience or dangerous dissent? Heat and motion, or weighed wisdom and justice?
  • Is unseen courage a worthier attribute than obvious valour?
  • Is there valour in disarming yourself (famously Prospero; or (re)arming an opponent) or exposing vulnerabilities? Is there valour in evening the odds for a disadvantaged foe?
  • Can some forms of valour even be scandalous? Woman’s lone pilgrimage in man’s world (Julia in Two Gentlemen of Verona; cast as impudent strumpet, maybe).
  • Or to the contrary, is true valour a feature of the underdog, the undervalued and socially disadvantaged?
  • Is there a time and place for valour? A formality owing to it? A class, gender, role or species determinant? Does it go in and out of fashion? How do we recognise valour?
  • How easy is it to fake valour? In what common ways is this attempted? Is there a playbook, like a code of chivalry?
  • To what extent might legal challenges or whistleblowing (perhaps against powerful authorities) or breaking social codes/expectations require valour?
  • What reactions might valour provoke: envy; desire; emulation; mockery; respect; fear?

Drama may not give definitive answers, but shows patterns of interaction in favouring some interpretations over others, otherwise we could not tell comedies from tragedies.

The Lion (guise or customary form of valour)

The lion is, of course, a heraldic charge in the coats of arms of English Queens and Kings (including Elizabeth I and James I/VI of Scotland), and earlier Richard 'Lionheart'. So it is quite a bold move of Shakespeare to play so subversively with lions. Not least by Falstaff likening himself to a valiant lion, and calling Prince Hal a lion's whelp.

Real lions may be ambush predators, eaters of carrion, sometime predators on much weaker or less aggressive animals. Male lions may kill lion cubs sired by another, and scavenge while female lions do most of the actual hunting. Their family grouping (pride) is named after a Christian deadly sin, and Shakespeare uses 'lion-sick' to mean over-proud.

Moreover, Shakespeare's lions are often hollow skins, trappings and disguises such as Snug the Joiner's theatrical costume or the Duke of Austria's robe. A lion's destiny might to be beguiled by foxes, outwitted by wolves, ultimately becoming old and fangless. Yet referenced lion myths show a gentler, more merciful side than many human characters. The lion's roar may shake the forest, but it gets hungry and tired all the same. When Shakespeare really wants unbridled savagery, he tends to refer to tigers instead of lions.

So we see a pattern in characters with lion names. Leonatus Posthumus hardly inherits his father's valour, remotely instructing his servant to murder his wife over a false accusation of infidelity. Leonato decries his own innocent and unjustly-accused daughter Hero (whose accuser-fiancé is described as a lamb doing lion-like martial feats). Leontes condemns his innocent wife to death on mere suspicion of adultery, kills his son with grief, and orders the murder of his daughter. Leonine is set to murder innocent Marina on the orders of her ungrateful-envious foster-mother Dionyza. In each case a positive reputation is at odds with foul and cowardly actions.

This is a pattern repeated throughout the works. Macbeth (inexplicably woundless in battle) buys golden opinion, then murders his king under his wife's battlements (gold is, of course, the colour of lions and crowns). The martially-reputed Othello turns to sordid spouse murder. Parolles' vaunted valour seems not to extend beyond his scarves, though his arc is more redemptive.

And most signficantly, these outward shows are mocked throughout the plays, as in many of the examples already noted. Mocked, and contrasted…

The Wren (paragon or true nature of valour)

While there are a few warrior characters who might embody valour, they tend to muddy or undermine their own claims. Typical of these, Harry 'Hotspur' Percy is a hothead craving honour. Hector initially seems to argue virtuously, but (perhaps Godspelled) rejects Cassandra's warnings and fights a stupid war. Joan of Arc represents at least four kinds collective-valour cases that we have not especially touched on: nationalism (she fights for France); class (she fights for peasants); sex (she fights for women); and religion (she fights for God); however, Joan is a complex character, who is somewhat changeable (though even the valorous flinch at being burnt at the stake), and pursues some elevated place by the Dauphin's side.

A purer form of valour is presented in contrast to warrior stereotypes and authority figures, and particularly in defiance of them.

The Duke of Cornwall's unnamed servant takes up arms and fatally wounds his evil master, dying in the action. The woman's tailor, Francis Feeble, impresses recruiter Bardolph — Well said. Th’ art a good fellow. — with a stoic response to being called up to fight (and likely die) in the Prince's service, while others buy their way out (although we don't see Feeble in action, where he may flee). Doll Tearsheet stands up against 'Captain' Pistol, knife against sword, peppering him with ridicule. But what if you have no human weapons? What if, like the dove that pecks the estridge, you only have fury (or some other driving emotion)?

Unarmed Emilia stands up to not just one but two armed men, saying to her lord Othello: Thou hast not half that power to do me harm as I have to be hurt which is a fascinating statement that seems to stop him in his tracks, and to her husband Iago.

IAGO: Be wise, and get you home. Offers to stab his wife
EMILIA: I will not.
Othello (Act 5 scene 2)

But Emilia has unfairly punched down on Bianca in the previous scene: O fie upon thee, strumpet!, been a too-easily-duped party to Iago's plots, and her undoubted valour (the only heroic action in a play centring around male martial posturing) comes a little too late, though she pays the ultimate price.

Physician Paulina stands up against the tyranny (he disputes this) of her jealous king Leontes, inspiring her husband to try to save the life of the royal newborn, facing a stream of royal threats and insults:

LEONTES: I’ll have thee burn'd.
PAULINA: I care not:
 It is a heretick that makes the fire,
 Not she which burns in’t. I’ll not call you tyrant;
 But this most cruel usage of your queen
 (Not able to produce more accusation
 Than your own weak-hing'd fancy) something savours
 Of tyranny, and will ignoble make you,
 Yea, scandalous to the world.
Winter's Tale (Act 2 scene 3)

Yet Paulina is too crafty to be a pure exemplar of valour, though valour she displays.

Another female physician, Helen, boldly invites the King of France to torture her to death if she cannot cure his fatal sickess. Yet there is something unsavoury about her motivation to force Bertram to marry her.

It is in Macbeth, a play which ends with a duel between two cowards (the mass-murderer and protection-charm-relier Macbeth, and family-abandoner Macduff), that Shakespeare produces the greatest contrast.

LADY MACDUFF: What had he done to make him fly the land?
ROSS: You must have patience, madam.
LADY MACDUFF: He had none.
 His flight was madness. When our actions do not,
 Our fears do make us traitors.
ROSS: You know not
 Whether it was his wisdom or his fear.
LADY MACDUFF: Wisdom? To leave his wife, to leave his babes,
 His mansion and his titles in a place
 From whence himself does fly? He loves us not;
 He wants the natural touch; for the poor wren,
 The most diminutive of birds, will fight,
 Her young ones in her nest, against the owl.
 All is the fear, and nothing is the love,
 As little is the wisdom, where the flight
 So runs against all reason.
Macbeth (Act 4 scene 2)

So there you have it. Shakespeare's paragon of valour is the tiny mother wren, hurling herself at the mighty owl to defend her young.

The Warpath (goal or best use of valour)

We have seen examples of self-abnegation, service to others, willing sacrifice, dissent, holding power accountable, defending the weak. Shakespeare turns to nature: not ultimately to the haughty lion, but humbler beasts. As Clifford appeals to Henry VI in face of looming battle for the crown:

My gracious liege, this too much lenity
And harmful pity must be laid aside.
To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
Whose hand is that the forest bear doth lick?
Not his that spoils her young before her face.
Who scapes the lurking serpent’s mortal sting?
Not he that sets his foot upon her back.
The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.
Henry VI part 3 (Act 2 scene 2)

As social animals, in the human world, valour must also work at a collective, social, crowd scale.

A generation after Shakespeare's death (in 1616) and the publication of his works in the First Folio (1623), the English staged a revolution (c1640) and cut the head off their King (1649). Whatever the causes, whatever Shakespeare's take on the monarchomachs ("those who fight against monarchs") was, his dramatic works interacted with the times. Under tyrannical oppression, even dormouse valour may awake.

Shakespearean drama is very much concerned with tyranny, with unjust power relations, and more or less cruel abuses, but whilst a keen political analyst and commentator, Shakespeare the dramatist was no utopia-builder (his anarchist idylls seem impractical daydreams or naturalistic musings). Shakespeare satirises war and shows its heinous, criminal, aristocratic and stupid side. But he also mocks the populist uprisings of Jack Cade, and in many cases the multi-headed and changeable commons. Shakespeare's disinterest in parliaments is countered by perhaps a view of the London stage as one, with crowd participation. However, his depiction of Republics (Roman and Venetian) suggests his interest in exploring alternatives to the dynastic rule his plays so mercilessly skewer.

We need valour because the world is unjust, to defend ourselves and others; and to right wrongs, we must confront wrongdoers and their accomplices, who so often hold positions of power or advantage. Shakespeare does not glorify political violence, nor does he shun it. The path to war leads to many harms, but who would prefer to live under Macbeth's regime, and watch their children murdered before them? And dynastic rule may throw up another Macbeth at any time.

Conclusion

We've looked at portrayals and examples of valour in the plays of Shakespeare, looking for patterns in categories and discovering open questions. Where we have identified patterns and answered questions, we find that: conventional appearances of valour (the warrior, the Lion) fall short or are false; underdog characters are more likely to represent true valour when standing up to powerful figures in defence of others without craft or ulterior motives (the healer, the Wren); and we consider that collective valour must be needed to overcome tyranny and oppression.

Shakespeare's take on valour is multifaceted and more angles could be pursued. A semi-automated textual analysis might reveal more, as would comparisons with other works. Shakespeare may have been familiar with the works of political theorists like Machiavelli, whose writings may have provoked some dramatic treatments. Many questions raised here remain unanswered.

What is clear, is that examples of valour inspire others, on stage, in animal paragons, or in real life. Just don’t imagine that dressing in a lionskin and waving a sword about will fool anyone. Or that valour alone is nearly enough: remember Shakespeare's portrayal of fighting thin air in The Tempest, and Hotspur's deficiencies. In our world, the Wren is always fighting off the predatory owl.

Shakespeare on Valour: the Lion, the Wren and the Warpath © 2026 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Wednesday, 30 April 2025

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play

Abstract

William Shakespeare's play The Merchant of Venice is not antisemitic, for though it contains anti-Jewish expressions and anti-Jewish characters, the main Jewish character Shylock is really the play's only honest dealer, if not necessarily likable.

Introduction

On a superficial level, The Merchant of Venice might appease members of a audience who looked for and wanted some negative traits in a Jewish stereotype, but the character of Shylock is complex and multi-valued. In fact, we are treated to an extraordinary number of other things that Shylock values often moreso than money, which latter may even be a proxy for other things.

Portrait of Shylock surrounded by icons.
Shylock's essentially positive characteristics

Shylock

For a start, Shylock is asked by Antonio what rate of interest he will charge, but Shylock refuses to take interest, preferring a contract that will let him hold Antonio at least temporarily in his power. Later we see Shylock pursue his revenge (for the undisputed wrongs he and his people have suffered) in disdain of money and profit.

Salarino: Why, I am sure if he forfeit, thou wilt not
take his flesh! What’s that good for?
Shylock: To bait fish withal; if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me and
hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted
my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies—
and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not
a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions,
senses, affections, passions? Fed with the
same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to
the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer
as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not
bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you
poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall
we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong
a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian
example? Why, revenge! The villainy you teach me I
will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the
instruction.
The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see Shylock mourn his dead wife Leah whose ring he would never sell, and his lost daughter, and her lost respect for him.

Tubal: One of them showed me a ring that he had of
your daughter for a monkey.
Shylock: Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It
was my turquoise! I had it of Leah when I was a
bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness
of monkeys.
The Merchant of Venice (Act 3 scene 1)

We see particularly in the court case that Shylock prizes the law, and learning, and wisdom, and his religion. We see in his condemnation of Christian slavery a side of Shylock that may be empathy, or value honesty over (Christian) hypocrisy (and it is Venice's Christians who are portrayed as hypocrites, not the Jews). We see a man demanding respect and justice, standing up (rather bravely even) against his enemies to demand his rights.

What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
You have among you many a purchased slave,
Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts
Because you bought them. Shall I say to you
“Let them be free! Marry them to your heirs!
Why sweat they under burdens? Let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
Be seasoned with such viands”? You will answer
“The slaves are ours!” So do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.
If you deny me, fie upon your law:
There is no force in the decrees of Venice.
I stand for judgment. Answer: shall I have it?
Shylock, The Merchant of Venice (Act 4 scene 1)

Shylock is not perhaps a popular or greatly likable man. He has moral convictions without being a moral hero. He seems to yearn for but never quite deserve respect. His vindictiveness is understandable but perhaps excessive. He is tricked in the end because he is not a trickster, but an honest dealer. He is the butt of jokes, the target of abuse in the streets and of false representations. He does complain about expenses, but who would not be horrified by his daughter Jessica's extravagance?

There are many clues to Shylock's character that would be completely unnecessary in an antisemitic play, but to end on just one, in Shylock's summary of Launcelot Gobbo's unsurprisingly unsatisfactory stint of service, weighed against his unprofitable points, his Jewish master says the patch is kind. This is Shylock's valuing of kindness against all the other negatives; he has kept his servant all this time, not solely for productive reasons, but of something that must approach fondness (a fondness which is piquantly unrequited). And Shylock says farewell by putting in a good word to his new Christian master, and warning his servant that he may not be treated so well in his new employ.

The Christians

We might as well ask, with slightly more profit, if The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Christian play. No, it's not, but the Christian characters, polities and institutions are as a whole more questionable and questioned in the play.

Portia is explicit about the hypocrisy the Christians display, telling us she is better at setting rules than following her own. For all Portia-disguised’s banging on about mercy, it is Bassanio who offers to meet Shylock’s post-blood 3 times 3000 ducat claim, and Portia who pursues punishment upon Shylock, perhaps out of spite (at Bassanio's apparent disloyalty), and her anti-patriarchal sentiments (she has already implied she has a hot temper).

Christians of all ranks appear to lie and deceive; the sense is that Venice's competitive trading culture encourages sharp elbows.

Several of the Christians make racist remarks, which are clearly signposted as bias or bigotry or ignorance. We can take it that Launcelot Gobbo is an unreliable narrator, who deceives his own father with relish, as well as Shylock.

The play also contains criticism of corrupt obtaining of estates, degrees and offices in Christian Europe.

Jessica

Shylock's daughter Jessica is a Jew with a contrasting personality to her father, but her ambition is to elope and become a Christian wife. It is unclear if she regrets this decision by the end of the play. It is left to production and performance how Jessica plays her doubt-expressing love dialogue and receives the court-imposed inheritance.

I am never merry when I hear sweet music.
Jessica, The Merchant of Venice (Act 5 scene 1)

The Continuum of Life

There is also a consideration if animals and humans are on a continuum, broadening Shylock's powerful universalist plea beyond humanism.

Conclusion

The play successfully treats the subject of antisemitism while giving Shylock some of the best lines and the most powerful arguments. Where Judaism and Christianity are compared, the hypocrisy of Christians is shown up, whereas Shylock pursues an honest, open and for a while apparently legal revenge.

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice is not an Antisemitic Play by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Monday, 31 March 2025

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4

Abstract

That is, there are no 'Good Guys' as any class, faction, faith, ideology, nation etc.

Introduction

It may be very difficult to build popular support for a movement or party without flattering at least one set of people. And to create contrast, the flipside is often demonising, patronising or ignoring Others.

Drawing of jar decorated with scales holding two opposing military tanks with flags, each drooping to the ground.
There are no 'Good Guys'

Valorisation and Heroisation

Political parties, movements, factions, religions, activist groups are typically (and perhaps nearly always) partisan in character.

Nationalists spin myths of their compatriots' glorious past. Right-wing populists imagine their 'pure people'. Religions for the divinely chosen, favoured or rewarded. Class war activists proclaim the virtues of the working class, or on the other side the ruling class. Erotic alliances paint their membership in pretty colours or whitewash. New subcultures emerge with their own positive spins, grievances, othering and supremacy cults. Old established cultures like European imperialists perform primitive ancestor worship, whether direct descendants or not, and their racism reverberates around the world.

Such classes are thus valorised: bigged-up as a group, leading to well-known in-group and out-group tendencies. Mythical pasts are favoured over accurate histories. And individuals from these groups are selected for heroisation: hagiographies rather than warts-and-all portraits. Narratives about victims, martyrs, convenient villains, glorious struggles, national or endemic characteristics are created and pushed.

The Biocratic Alternative

The point of good examples is to abstract from, not idolize.

Biocracy rejects theist and humanist hierarchies in Nature. Humans have learnt to live poisonously on Earth. Therefore humans should learn from other lifeforms how to govern better. These lessons learnt, humans can contribute positively to living planet self-government.

So other hierarchical categories, such as favoured animal 'good guys', 'vermin', 'weeds' and so much be rethought, rejected. We can still keep distinctions between invasive species and aliens which disrupt and degrade ecosystems, often carried by human agency or carelessness. Unhealthy monocultures are the result of human favoritism too.

The aim of biocratic governance, as we have described elsewhere, is the promotion and maintenance of Health at every level. And this does mean defending humans, other lifeforms, their environment and planetary systems from 'Bad Guys' (without justifying collective punishment). It is reasonable to prioritise defence against ecocide and work down from there.

Conclusion

The democratic partisan is reduced to slandering opponents and defending the indefensible, flattering a powerbase with word-bribes and ego-stroking.

The biocratic planet-defender transcends poisonous partisanship and rejects the idea of 'good guys', favouring clear-sighted self-reflection and universalist sciences wherever these come from, in the service of (planetary) life.

Democracy's flaws: There are no Good Guys: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 4 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Monday, 11 November 2024

Life as a value-generating phenomena

Abstract

Life creates value as living processes unfold.

Introduction

This is not an argument that Life has any intrinsic or sacred value. Instead it is an argument that creating value is a function of life.

Life generates value

Thought Experiment

Imagine a barren world on the other side of the Universe where humans will never set foot. Now imagine that simple life appears here for the first time. It requires food: a new value is applied to some material subset of the world. Other values appear as life develops, evolves, complexity and variation increase. As life, and the behaviour of living organisms emerges, so do values.

Implications

As an organism grows, its range of values are likely to grow (up to a point, maybe), and even change over its lifetime, and through its encounters and experiences. The values of a hunting predator are likely to be characteristically different from that of a grazing herbivore, say; of a social animal compared with a solitary lifeform.

But the point is that value emerges from life, not as a theoretical or imposed perspective, but organically and instrinsically, as a natural process.

Conclusion

Life, itself an emergent phenomena, generates value, as an emergent property or behaviour. These values may be simple or complex, stable or unstable, specific or experiential. One could even define life as a value-generating phenomena, although I suspect this would be a problematic reach. As would claiming only life generates value. But as an observation, I think accurate enough.

Tuesday, 18 June 2024

Why Does Poor Things the Movie Hide the British Bombardment of Alexandria from its Audience?

Abstract

The City of Alexandria in or shortly after late 1882 is a setting for a key scene in the novel Poor Things (by Alasdair James Gray) and the movie based on it (directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, script by Tony McNamara). Yet the novel only refers in passing (and the movie, not at all) to a key event which took place that summer, the British bombardment of the Egyptian Mediterranean port city, or the subsequent military occupation of Egypt by the British Empire, which constitute massive colonial war crimes and crimes against humanity. Why were these whitewashed out of the story, especially given the effect of seeing child destitution has on the main character, Bella?

Introduction

First, we will cover some accounts of the historical events around the British bombardment of Alexandria in 1882.

The British Bombardment of Alexandria 1882-7-11 infographic.
British bombardment of Alexandria in 1882

Secondly, we will see what the novel and movie cover, and what they omit, downplay or change.

Thirdly, because it is relevant to the novel and movie, we will summarise a source on prostitution in Alexandria around the time.

Fourthly, we will briefly cover modern perspectives on a similar case of asymmetric bombardment of a largely civilian urban population.

Finally, we will draw some conclusions and attempt to answer the question, why.

History and literature: what happened, who wrote about it

Wikipedia devotes a page to the Bombardment of Alexandria which seems serviceable, but I believe I first read a historical account in John Newsinger's book The Blood Never Dried: A People’s History of the British Empire (now in its second edition), where the author devotes a chapter to The invasion of Egypt, 1882. I later read an account in Priyamvada Gopal's Insurgent Empire: Anticolonial Resistance and British Dissent, who draws on the writings of British diplomat Wilfred blunt in Chapter 3: The Accidental Anticolonialist: Egypt’s ‘Urabi’ Rebellion and Late Victorian Critiques of Imperialism.

In preparation for this article, I went for a more in-depth history in William Wright's A Tidy Little War: The British Invasion of Egypt 1882 (2009, 2011), and a contemporary literary treatment in GA Henty's The Young Midshipman, a Story of the Bombardment of Alexandria. The Wikipedia page links to a series of photographs documenting the destruction of the built environment of Alexandria, not confined to the coastal defences but reducing domestic, public and commercial buildings to rubble and causing widespread conflagration (though there are claims some rubble came from later safety-related destruction of damaged buildings and some fires were started by agents other than naval shelling).

Colonial Rule, Neocolonial Rule, and Egypt for the Egyptians

In 1882, Egypt was formally under Ottoman rule. The summary in BND says the Egyptian Khedive (client ruler) handed effective rule over to the British and French in exchange for modernisation of his country, but the profits were leached off by European corporations and wealth siphoned off by corrupt banks. Egyptian fellahin peasants were starving and over-taxed with flogging, torture and imprisonment (p96). By 1880 90,000 Europeans in Egypt had vast privileges exempt from tax and law, government salaries to them accounted for 1/20th revenue. However British and French also alienated the Army, which allied itself with Chamber of Notables, Colonel Urabi heading a revolutionary movement which proposed moderate reforms, rejected by French and British in 1882-01.

The focus in IE is British diplomat Wilfred Blunt, who is sent to Colonel Ahmad Urabi to put a false spin on open threat by Britain and France against Egyptian Nationalists, and support for Turkish viceroy; and fails dismally. Blunt is like other initially pro-Empire British liberals whose encounters with reality turned them against British colonialism. Blunt’s efforts to get British to back down failed, who invaded in 1882-07, defeating the honourable Urabi and trying him for mutiny and capital rebellion. British bombardment of Alexandria had changed some minds about legitimacy of actions, though press had depicted Urabi as military despot. Instead of court martial and death, civil trial and exile to Ceylon, a sentence which Blunt’s campaign eventually overturned. Blunt warned against what we would now call 'embedded journalists'.

Influenced by Blunt, some parliamentarians also enquired why Britain’s way of showing regard for the Egyptian people ‘was to go out and shoot them’.

Frederic Harrison’s speech and essay ‘Egypt’ before Alexandria bombardment critically overturns the Liberal narrative, showed what corrupt privileges the European ‘civilisers’ enjoyed in Egypt, in tax, ownership, justice, law and salaries. French and British were far more extractive than Ottomans. Rather than military fanatics, the resistance was a national uprising against oppressive and exploitative classes. Bombardment let to righteous fury, as would similar foreign aggression produce an identical reaction in his readers. Colonisation inevitably polarises and enraged rather than accommodates.

TLW provides more detail but basically agrees with the other histories in key respects, providing a list of key Egyptian nationalist demands for reform:

  • Water rights redistributed
  • Agricultural bank founded
  • Schools for all girls and boys
  • Eradication of slavery
  • Better military defences

British and French attempts to divide the Nationalists were scuppered by their own (Gambetta-drafted) Joint Note of 1882-01-06 which pitched Britain and France as Khedive Tewlik’s backers.

The British Bombardment of Alexandria

According to BND, Gladstone (who personally profited from the war) sent a fleet of Anglo-French warships to Alexandria to intimidate nationalists which failed. Instead, popular street rioters turned on Europeans. The British planned reprisals to deter similar outbreaks. The pretext of Alexandrian coastal fort improvements was used to justify a 10-hour naval bombardment of Alexandria with connivance of new Khedive, causing many civilian casualties. British Cabinet member radical John Bright resigns in protest amid national Jingoism.

TLW claims:

This book is the first attempt to tell the story of that war in any detail since the Official History was published in 1887.

and goes into quite considerable detail from the military perspective, unfortunately for our purposes not so much from the perspective of those calling Alexandria home at the time. British Admiral Seymour was given belligerent and blockading orders, and to gain French naval participation in any bombardment if possible (they would not), issuing Egyptians a 24-hour ultimatum to disarm coastal forts before opening fire. The Egyptian war cabinet decided it was altogether shameful and dishonourable to remove the guns as ordered.

British war correspondents were able to cable news stories back to London in time for evening papers.

The fifteen ships of the attacking fleet, which formed the nucleus of the 43 vessels commanded by Seymour in Egyptian waters during June and July 1882, were as varied as the men who commanded them.

Seymore rejected Egyptian offer of compromise, and launched the bombardment, for the first two hours employing salvo fire which was very inaccurate, despite almost perfect conditions (clear visibility, calm seas, anchored ships), before turning to more accurate single-shot fire. The thick armour of the British ironclads was enough to keep out Egyptian shelling bar the odd dent.

Shells began over-shooting the forts at the rate of about two a minute.

although

Deaths in the city residential districts from the British cannonade were few.

but in absence of evidence. No systematic British attempt to assess civilian casualties in Alexandria was made, or at least reported on, to my knowledge. It is likely that many fled the city if they could, judging by reports of thronging refugees. There were accounts of plundering and rioting, but conflicting reports of who or what started the fires that engulfed Alexandria.

Several European residents complained afterwards about the loss of property and the 'hysteria' caused by the shelling.

Percy Scott, clearing shells a week later, reported that Alexandria hit worse than forts probably as high as 30 per cent of those fired may have overshot their targets but not all exploded. Arsonists worked independently of the bombardment. Rubble shown in photographs may have been from controlled detonation of damaged buildings. TLW concludes:

Seymour’s shells may not have destroyed Alexandria but his failure to land marines or sailors and restore order most certainly contributed to the city’s destruction.
File:Report of the British naval and military operations in Egypt, 1882 (1883) (14596878798).jpg
By Goodrich, Caspar F. (Caspar Frederick), 1847-1925 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages/14596878798/Source book page: https://archive.org/stream/reportofbritishn01good/reportofbritishn01good#page/n418/mode/1up, No restrictions, Link
The Southern Bastion of the Light House Fort. First gun disabled.

USAmerican marines were first to land, finding death and destruction, pillage and wine bargains. A mixed party of Britons explored burning city, discovering mewing cats, burst mains, burning buildings, looted stores, hissing steam, burning trees and ‘mutilated bodies’ (which on closer inspection turned out to be dress-makers’ dummies) in Place Muhammad Ali.

My impression is that William Wright gives a somewhat sanitised account. There is an awkward passage where he coyly describes Europeans visiting the 'fleshpots' of Alexandria without detail. Wright does however say that British General Wolseley (who took Cairo without damaging that city) wrote the Admiral Seymour's bombardment of Alexandria was silly and criminal in a letter to his wife Louisa: glorification for the Navy, injurious to England (sic).

The British Invasion of Egypt, 1882

BND: Gladstone now sent an expeditionary Force while the House of Commons vote massively in favour of invasion. The British massacre Egyptians defeated at battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Queen Victoria and Gladstone (who benefited financially) congratulated themselves. Contemporary critics who called it a bondholders’ war were vindicated by later research, though there was also a strategic interest in the Suez Canal.

But according to TLW, Ferdinand de Lessops said his Canal was quite safe and the biggest danger, in fact, was the threat of foreign intervention.

A literary account

In TYM, which we have to interrogate for artistic licence, Henty writes in Chapter 12: Free, of an eye-witness account:

Half the city appeared to be in flames. A sea of fire extended from the port over the European quarter, including the great square, while in many other parts separate conflagrations were raging.

and in Chapter 13: Among Friends

Presently they came to the edge of the district swept by the fire. The walls for the most part were standing, although in many cases they had fallen across the road. On they went, making their way very cautiously until they reached a wide open space surrounded by ruins.
It was calculated that upwards of five hundred were killed.

Describing the British 'pacification' which included summary execution of 'looters', and impressed locals to carry out British orders, in Ch14 A Set of Rascals, Henty writes that of returning population Many of the lower class of Greeks and Italians plundered and caused trouble.

In most respects, Henty's literary account matches the historians', and although his framing tends to valourise the British and apply some racial prejudice, not all historians are free from these faults either.

Official British version

The official British government account of the 'Egypt War of 1882' and the bombardment of Alexandria is disgraceful almost beyond belief, concluding:

In many ways it is surprising that Britain allowed itself to be drawn into direct intervention in Egypt. The Prime Minister, William Gladstone, was well known for his reluctance to be drawn into imperial adventures. Historians have argued as to whether Admiral Seymour exaggerated the threat from the Egyptian batteries at Alexandria in order to force a reluctant government's hand. Whatever the truth, once the British had successfully attacked the city, a land invasion was their logical next step.

However, it does make the link in 'Aftermath' to another British atrocity, conspiring with the French and Israelis to seize the nationalised Suez Canal once more and blame Egypt for starting another war (although it doesn't say all that, of course). What value system lies behind this criminal 'logic' is unstated in official materials for public consumption, and must be inferred.

Novel and Movie: what they reveal, distort and conceal

In both the novel and movie, Bella and Wedderburn arrive by ship in Alexandria, Egypt, almost certainly in the latter half of 1882 (movie) or perhaps up to 18 months later (novel). During this brief stopover, Bella has a profoundly affecting experience witnessing poor beggar children. In the movie, these even appear to be dwelling in the ruins of a coastal fort, but that is hardly made clear. The British invasion of Egypt is mentioned in passing in the novel (Chapter 15 Odessa to Alexandria: The Missionaries) in this exchange between Dr Hooker, Astley and Bella:

Hooker: Britain has carved up the rest of the planet. Less than two years ago you grabbed Egypt from the French — and from the Egyptians.

Astley: We needed their canal. We paid them for it.

Hooker: You also shelled Alexandria, our next port of call.

Astley: They were arming it against us and we needed their canal.

… Bella: But why are British soldiers fighting Egyptian natives? It makes no sense to me.

—Alasdair Gray, Poor Things

The time period in the movie is ambiguous and fantasy-flavoured. However, the script I've seen explicitly sets the action in 1882. Alexandria appears around 1:16:27. We see what could be ruined coastal fortifications 1:17:02 where Astley says Lot of dead babies. Must be hot. They’ll quite rightly rope us, rob us and rape us. Ruins are more clearly seen as recent 1:18:09 extending from hotel on spur in sea. Bella is upset by the sights she’s seen, gives Wedderburn’s gambling winnings to sailors to give to poor in slum next to hotel. But movie-Bella doesn’t try to understand the Alexandrian poor and suffering children's plight (which is almost certainly caused by the historical factors, European and Ottoman colonialism, European hierarchical racism, indigenous rule, the Mediterranean sex trade, British naval terror (aka gunboat diplomacy) and foreign occupation as described previously).

Furthermore, the movie removes the Dr Hooker character quoted above, and his critique of British imperial exploitation (and specifically of Egypt and shelling Alexandria). Movie-Astley is left to make racist remarks implying Egyptians have too many babies and are incapable of adapting to the heat of their own climate. This is at odds with competing indigenous reforms (Khedival modernisation and Egyptian Nationalist demands) the latter of which would have provided universal education opportunities, water security, eradication of slavery etc.

Prostitution in Alexandria: an academic overview

I found it difficult to find more than a single source here, but at least this chapter-length account by Nefertiti Takla of Manhattan College, New York is well-written, clear and relevant. I will assume for the moment that the account is correct, but obviously corroboration would be helpful. I will summarise it now, using Takla's own headings:

The population of Alexandria grew from around 12,000 in 1820, to 104,000 in 1850, to 320,000 in 1900.

Legal situation and demography

According to contemporary reports, prostitution in Alexandria had reached unprecedented levels by the second half of the 1870s.

The rise and fall of cotton created precarious economics.

More aggressive attempts to abolish slavery in Egypt in the 1870s also brought newly manumitted Ethiopian and Southern Sudanese into Alexandria’s expanding sex economy.

An influx came from Balkans war. Calls for regulation went unmet until British occupation of 1882: yearly licences to adults 18+, mandatory weekly medical inspections with venereal hospital confinement, or punishments (fine, prison): prostitution was professionalised. But Europeans (and some Christians, Jews) were given legal immunity from local courts, tried in consular courts, including sex workers from 1886.

It was not uncommon to find women of three or four nationalities in a single brothel, and policing such a brothel often required the cooperation of multiple consulates, which was both logistically and politically challenging.

There was competition between French, Greek and Italian communities. European sex workers were brought under colonial control by British by imposition of martial law during World War 1.

In the early twentieth century, it was both the exploitative nature of the capitulations as well as the racism embedded in the prostitution regulations that gave Alexandria the reputation of being the largest centre of traffic in women and children.

Causes of Prostitution

The British colonial-military occupation restricted city economy during WW1 and was a major driving force behind the spread of prostitution. British military base of Levant operations was sited in the city, which was also target for refugees and migrants. Secret brothels appeared around military Labour Corps camps, labourers without means to send money to families. That situation, combined with the rise in the cost of living during the war, led married women and underage girls to turn to the commercial sex industry in increasing numbers.

Organization of the trade

For varied reasons married women, underage girls, temporary/transient and military-serving sex workers evaded the licensing regime. Wartime colonial state monopoly on transportation led to decline in the international and domestic trafficking of sex workers in Egypt and rise of street walking particularly among married women, and female brothel owners. Postwar lack of work opportunities. With rise of organised crime, Alexandria rose to prominence as the centre of international and domestic trafficking in Egypt that left sex workers increasingly vulnerable to exploitation and organized crime, and since the racism embedded in the regulation system created a higher incentive for native workers to practise their trade covertly, race became a dominant factor in their exposure to gender violence. An infamous 1920 Alexandria serial murder, known in Egypt as Raya and Sakina case, concerns powerful sister brothel-owners who ordered punitive/competition-eliminating murders of 17 sex workers.

Modern perspectives of child casualties of industrialised warfare

This BBC article references a United Nation designation 'Wounded child, no surviving family': The pain of Gaza’s orphans which could easily apply to survivors of the British bombardment of Alexandria in 1882. The British bombardment of Alexandria is ideal for creating what UNICEF calls 'WCNSFs'. That these desperate children just materialise in the movie without mentioning the perpetrators is exactly the cowardly crime of omission that Western journalism is guilty of in present news reporting when it talks circumspectly of humanitarian crises.

See UN reports ‘shocking’ rise in violations against children in conflict in 2023.

Conclusion

The historical events of 1882 are hardly unknown, and found their way into popular literature of the time. As TLW puts it:

The popular newspapers vied in reports of the battles, denunciations of Arabi and a surfeit of bad poetry… perhaps the worst was a fifteen stanza poem from the Scottish bard, William McGonagall

Given the fixation of Poor Things on prostitution, it seems odd to ignore the British colonial impact on prostitution in Alexandria, especially since the opportunity to counter-critique General Blessington, Astley and other presents itself. Why are modern historians like Wright so coy about what these mysterious 'fleshpots' really are?

So, back to the question: Why Does Poor Things Hide the British Bombardment of Alexandria from Readers and Viewers? I am forcefully reminded of the views of Vietnamese-USAmerican author Viet Thanh Nguyen, who says:.

(The Pulitzer Prize-winning author doesn’t want to be a voice for the voiceless, he wants to abolish the conditions of voicelessness)
Now, if you are one of the victors or descended from the victors, you have an investment in selective memory that would justify your existence as a conqueror or the descendant of conquerors. If you are not, let’s say you’re an immigrant or a refugee, the power of the mythology of the country you’ve come to is such that you can internalize that mythology so that you too engage in a selective remembering and forgetting because society is rewarding you for that.

There seems no good reason to include this key scene in Alexandria (instead of child poverty elsewhere) without linking it to British colonialism. Especially given the mini-lectures of Astley. The novel's contrived structure even allows two or three different takes on the main narrative, providing opportunies to reflect differently on the Alexandria episode, which are not taken.

My conclusion is that the director Yorgos Lanthimos and scriptwriter Tony McNamara are complicit in whitewashing the British imperial crimes of bombarding Alexandria, invading Egypt and colonial occupation, with all the moral and legal crimes appertaining to. This is what Establishment-friendly creatives do. The outcome, however small this movie is in the scheme of things, is to encourage similar current and future criminals who see that the British have got away with literal mass murder once again. Author Alasdair Gray made it easy just to remove the relevant lines of dialogue in any movie adaptation, and by various other literary devices (including intellectual dishonesty and fantasising history) undermined his own rather clunky and bolted-on mini-lectures within the text — but at least the 'shelling' and Anglo-Egyptian War are mentioned (even if briefly) in the novel. Whether the depiction of sex work in both novel and movie are also disgraceful, I will let others judge this time.

#PoorThings #BombardmentAlexandria1882 #ChildrenUnderAttack

Wednesday, 29 May 2024

Democracy's flaws: Battle of Wills: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 3

Abstract

One of democracy's fatal flaws is its reducibility to a battle of wills.

Introduction

Following our reflections on our thought experiment on the Sea-People’s Citizen Assembly Scenario, we see that democracy pits people against each other in a contest of wills. It does not consider Health at any scale. This leads to Militarism (War as a continuation of politics, not a break from it).

Sketch of two people shaking fists and thinking violent thoughts at each other.
The outcome of Will over Health

Conclusion

Another essential flaw in democracy, that as a political system it elevates the expressed views (or will) of humans, or a subgroup of humans, over all other requirements for living together, ignoring Health. This is not a flaw of biocracy, a political system which prioritises Health.

More flaws of democracy will be explored later.

Democracy's flaws: Battle of Wills: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 3 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Wednesday, 10 April 2024

Democracy's flaws: Speciesism: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 2

Abstract

One of democracy's fatal flaws is its speciesism.

Introduction

As we saw in our thought experiment on the Sea-People’s Citizen Assembly Scenario, democracy can work perfectly well yet still deliver genocide, ecocide and other undesirable ends.

Illustration of sketchy Tree of Life with animal and plant and a fungi emojis lining its branches, with a small groups of humans with emoji faces gnawing its roots.
Humans gnawing on the roots of the Tree of Life

What is Speciesism?

Philosopher Peter Singer, who specialises in subjects like animal ethics, writes in Animal Liberation Now (2023 version) pp4–5:

Speciesism, in its primary and most important form, is a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species, on the basis of species alone.

Secondary speciesism occurs when, for example, humans favour dogs over pigs.

Singer believes that speciesism (a type of bigotry), is inculcated into small children in Western society (otherwise p245 Children have a natural love of animals), partly to encourage them to consume meat knowing that it is animal flesh.

Conclusion

These undesirable (and unjust) ends are due to an essential flaw in democracy, that as a political system it only takes account of the expressed views (or will) of humans, or a subgroup of humans. This is not a flaw of biocracy, a political system which opposes the speciesist orientation.

More flaws of democracy will be explored later.

Democracy's flaws: Speciesism: Democracy 0 – Biocracy 2 by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0

Wednesday, 20 March 2024

Will and Health: two factors of governance in Shakespeare's King Lear

Abstract

How health and will emerge as two interrelated components of governance (self and state) in William Shakespeare's tragic play, King Lear.

Introduction

As discussed before, from the very opening of the play, Lear's Britain is a state with a projected perilous health, yet the solution (neutralising his two eldest daughters who each plot to gain the crown by bloody civil war) is perhaps too unfatherly/impious/legacy-unfriendly/precedent-setting for Lear, who instead engineers a solution to send beloved youngest daughter to safety while the other sisters (literally) duke it out. By retaining one hundred knights and doddering between them, Lear can even Yojimbo-like take the weaker side until both Albany and Cornwall are exhausted and Cordelia can return with powerful French backing.

Old King Lear in right foreground, looking down from balcony on map of Britain surrounded by his three daughters: Goneril and Regan (with husbands) gesticulating, Cordelia bandaging a dog's paw.
King Lear ruminating on the future health and division of his state

First, we will review an extensive series of quotations from the text (included partly because some are frequently omitted from productions of this very long play), with brief notes.

Then we will consider significant ways Health and Will are represented, and how they relate to Governance (both of self and of state).

Finally, we will try to understand what Shakespeare's play is really saying about the nature of Health and Will in Governance, and whether that leads us to reject some political systems in favour of others.

Key Quotations from the Play, with brief Notes and Scene Summaries

A play which takes from 3 to 3½ hours in theatre, says director Richard Eyre of his television movie of Lear, can be cut down by omitting whole or partial scenes, lose 'complicated plots' and compress dialogue, and so on. The full text is a better guide to the issues under consideration, and I cannot recommend any particular production/performance. However, the BBC's version with Michael Hordern as Lear is worth the watch, though it is not my current interpretation of the play.

Act 1

A1s1 Lear suggests his health is failing and he wants to prevent future strife. Cordelia considers love as riches. Lear speaks of The vines of France, the milk of Burgundy, which indicate the health of the states of Cordelia's two suitors.

Lear’s wilfulness (express our darker purpose) has the effect of granting Cordelia a love match and a safe haven, with Kent banished for future team-up. The sway goes to Cornwall and Albany.

Kent: Kill thy physician, and the fee bestow upon the foul disease.

Lear’s sentence overrides his nature To shield thee from diseases of the world with the kind banishments of Kent and Cordelia with those infirmities she owes.

Regan: ‘Tis the infirmity of his age: yet he has ever but slenderly known himself. Goneril: the unruly waywardness that infirm and cholerick years bring with them.

A1s2 What is a healthy relationship between parent and child to the Glosters?

Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam's issue?

A1s3 Lear's knights riotous, king upbraiding.

A1s4 Steward’s contest of will with Lear. Fools whipped. Ungrateful cuckoo chick. Lear’s sterility curse on Goneril. A dotard in command of dangerous knights.

A1s5 Lear: O let me not be mad.

Act 2

A2s1 Edmund cuts himself to support his lie. Gloster: my old heart is crack’d. Regan: waste and spoil of his revenues.

A2s2 Kent: anger has a privilege.

A2s3 Edgar mortifies himself as poor Tom.

A2s4 Fool says falling leaders stink. Sickness excuse not to meet Lear.

Lear: “Infirmity doth still neglect all office,
Whereto our health is bound; we are not ourselves,
When nature, being oppress’d, commands the mind
To suffer with the body: I’ll forbear;
And am fallen out with my more headier will,
To take the indispos’d and sickly fit
For the sound man. Death on my state!”
Regan: “If, sir, perchance,
She have restrain’d the riots of your followers,
‘Tis on such ground, and to such wholesome end,
As clears her from all blame.”

Lear wishes lameness on absent Goneril. Lear imagines Goneril both flesh-and-blood and a disease in his flesh.

Regan: “What need one?”
Lear: “O, reason not the need: our basest beggars
Are in the poorest things superfluous:
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is cheap as beast’s: thou art a lady;
If only to go warm was gorgeous,
Why, nature needs not what thou gorgeous wear’st, which scarcely keeps thee warm — But, for true need,—”

Cornwall: ‘Tis best to give him way; he leads himself. Gloster protests king lacks storm-shelter.

Regan: “O, sir, to wilful men,
The injuries, that they themselves procure,
Must be their schoolmasters: Shut up your doors;”

Act 3

A3s1 Lear reportedly contends with storm while even hungry predators cower.

A3s2 Lear calls on the will of the storm sulphurous and thought-executing fires to punish himself and others, spilling all nature’s seeds:

Lear: “let fall
Your horrible pleasure; here I stand, your slave,
A poor, infirm, weak, and despis’d old man”
Lear: “My wits begin to turn” Fool: “tiny wit… fortunes fit”

A3s3 Gloster and Edmund discuss the savage and unnatural. Excuse of illness. Gloster: “If I die for it, as no less is threatened me, the king my old master must be relieved.” Edmund: “The younger rises, when the old doth fall.”

A3s4 Kent: The tyranny of the open night’s too rough For nature to endure. Lear: When the mind’s free, The body’s delicate: the tempest in my mind. You houseless poverty Lear to Fool (another indication that the play originally intended the Fool at this point to be Cordelia in disguise).

Lear: “O, I have ta’en
Too little care of this! Take physick, pomp;
Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel;
That thou may’st shake the superflux to them,
And show the heavens more just.”

That is, redistributing wealth is both healthy and just. Edmund/Poor-Tom is tormented and cold, blamed on vice and the foul fiend?

Gloster: “Go in with me; my duty cannot suffer
To obey in all your daughter’s hard commands:
Though their injunction be to bar my doors,
And let this tyrannous night take hold upon you,
Yet I have ventured to come seek you out,
And bring you where both fire and food is ready.”

Gloster: The grief hath craz’d my wits.

A3s5 Cornwall: I will have my revenge.

A3s6 Lear, apparently losing touch with reality, convenes a trial of absent Goneril and Regan. Friends rally round him.

A3s7 Regan, Goneril and Cornwall mean harm to Gloster, approved by Edmund; loyal knights have taken Lear to Dover.

Cornwall: Though well we may not pass upon his life
Without the form of justice, yet our power
Shall do a courtesy to our wrath, which men
May blame, but not control. Who's there? the traitor?

Gloster: You are my guests: do me no foul play, friends. Unnamed servant of Cornwall intervenes to save Gloster’s remaining eye, fatally wounds Duke in fair combat and is fatally backstabbed by Regan. Cornwall finishes blinding Gloster. Remaining servants are appalled by the wilful acts of their ‘betters’.

It is worth noting Gloster's earlier hypocrisy in calling Cornwall 'fiery' when Edmund has so easily stoked Gloster's wrath towards Edgar.

Act 4

A4s1 Gloster: I stumbled when I saw, and As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; They kill us for our sport. wanton here is equivalent to wilful. Gloster, humbled, now sees redistribution of wealth as key to health, reducing the diseases of rich and poor alike.

Gloster: “Here, take this purse, thou whom the heavens' plagues
Have humbled to all strokes: that I am wretched
Makes thee the happier: heavens, deal so still!
Let the superfluous and lust-dieted man,
That slaves your ordinance, that will not see
Because he doth not feel, feel your power quickly;
So distribution should undo excess,
And each man have enough.”

Gloster asks Poor Tom (son Edgar) to lead him to high Dover cliff (and leave him).

A4s2 Goneril: Conceive, and fare thee well. Edmund: Yours in the ranks of death. Albany upbraids wife for monstrosity even before hearing of Gloster’s blinding, Cornwall’s death-by-servant and Edmund’s treachery. Albany: Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile: Filths savour but themselves.

A4s3 Kent and Gentleman discuss Cordelia’s state on hearing news.

A4s4 Cordelia’s description of Lear suggests latter has been self-medicating with wild herbs. Physician prescribes rest and sedatives. Cordelia fears Lear’s ungovern’d rage dissolve the life That wants the means to lead it.

A4s5 Regan regrets letting Gloster live, as his injuries attract sympathy.

A4s6 Edgar: Why, then your other senses grow imperfect By your eyes’ anguish. (a deception). Edgar: Why I do trifle thus with his despair, Is done to cure it.

Gloster: “Is wretchedness depriv’d that benefit,
To end itself by death? ‘Twas yet some comfort
When misery could beguile the tyrant’s rage,
And frustrate his proud will.”

Lear appears wreathed in flowers. Lear: they told me I was every thing: ‘tis a lie; I am not ague-proof. Lear wants general copulation to provide him with more soldiers. Lear seems to have been energised by partial loss of wits and reconnection with nature away from toxic courts. Steward sees Gloster’s life and death merely means for own advancement.

A4s7

Cordelia: “O my dear father! Restoration, hang
Thy medicine upon my lips; and let this kiss
Repair those violent harms, that my two sisters
Have in thy reverence made!”
———
Cordelia: “Mine enemy’s dog,
Though he had bit me, should have stood that night
Against my fire;”
———
Physician: “the great rage,
You see, is cur’d in him”

Dogs are mentioned a great many times with notable inconsistency in King Lear, but this comment links to a previous quip by Cordelia-Fool. In this case, even the health of a biting dog of an enemy is valued. Rage here is Will-linked, ungoverned; and pacified Lear is no longer giving commands, but regaining health and sense.

Act 5

A5s1 Goneril: I had rather lose the battle, than that sister, Should loosen him and me. on Edmund, who plots his ruthless upwards path.

A5s2 Edgar tries to raise spirits of depressed father again.

A5s3 Lear tells Cordelia they can be happy enough in prison.

Edmund: “At this time
We sweat and bleed: the friend hath lost friend:
And the best quarrels, in the heat, are curs’d
By those who feel their sharpness”

Goneril poisons love-rival sister Regan. Gloster has reportedly died of joy and grief by Edgar’s nursing revelations. Goneril reportedly dies by her own knife. Edgar kills Edmund in challenge, who has just enough time to warn… Too late, Cordelia has been murdered by hanging in cell, Lear killed her murderer. Lear: And my poor fool is hang’d! Lear faints and dies.

Key Concepts

Will

See also Weather, Tyranny, Gods, Sport, Revenge, Excess, Want (there is a double meaning in Want, which can be Need — ie Health — or Desire — more like Will).

Will is associated with emotions, but which ones in particular does the play foreground? Rage is a common theme; Lear, Cornwall, tyrants and storms rage to inflict their will; Kent claims anger has a privilege. But rage seems an enemy to good governance, and in each case threatens health: Lear's exposure, servant mortally wounds Cornwall, Kent is stocked. Lust, in the competition between Goneril and Regan for Edmund, and Edmund for land, leads to the wilful deaths of all three. Grief can also 'craze wits'. Fear (of growing old, becoming sick or injured, or mad etc) is another, linked partly in the play to aging and loss.

Wills can sometimes change like the weather.

Health

See also Need, Nursing, Beasts, Wholesomeness, Disease, Nature, Justice, Mortification, Bastards.

How does loss of health (physical, mental) in one affect others? Edgar as Poor Tom mortifies his own flesh, copying beggars; Edmund cuts himself to support a lie; and as we have seen, Regan says Gloster's injuries attract sympathy. Yet many of the characters also wilfully injure others, or at least plot their deaths.

How does loss of health in oneself affect how you see others? Lear has apparently been oblivious to his subjects' health until the night of the storm awakens empathy. But it can also turn yourself inwards, narrow your concerns.

Cordelia-Fool also describes the political sickness of a falling leader, something which might harm followers if they stay loyal. Political sickness can be catching.

Edmund, who considers disinherited bastards like himself healthier than legitimate heirs, rails at a perceived injustice imposed by the wills of a dynastic ruling class. Although rational against convenient superstition, Edmund's will is also a source of injustice.

And what of a healthy society or political system? Gloster’s blindness during conflict shows that ill-health or impairment is multiplied by a sick society, but therefore made more comfortable by a healthy society.

Redistribution, Lack and Superfluity

It is Gloster who, when injured and humbled after willingly risking his life for Lear, attributes the cause of harmful poverty to the vices of the rich and the injustices of an inequitable political-social-economic system. This is loaves-and-fishes communism. Lear had argued that without superfluity, human lives would be worth those of beasts, but his mind changes focus during the storm towards alleviating the poverty of his subjects.

Haste

Haste can be interpreted as unhealthy or desperate will-driven speed. Gloster makes a hasty misjudgement of Edgar. When speedy action is required at the end of the play, haste is too little too late to save Cordelia.

Wisdom

One supposedly-requisite virtue of rulers, wisdom, is treated in various interesting ways in the play. Albany, dividing the factions and own marriage into good and evil, says wisdom is repugnant to the vile, which as much to say wisdom implies a healthy conscience. Gloster talks of the wisdom of nature in a sense of natural laws (perhaps opaque to the science of the time, more transparent nowadays).

The relation of Health and Will

Lear makes a distinction between sick in mind and sick in body, though when bodily sickness diseases the mind, we are not ourselves. Ill health can sometimes make us despair, or retreat upon ourselves; yet it can also create empathy with the misfortunes of others, and look outwards (as Lear does in the storm, recognising at last his lack of care for his subjects). Sick minds can will ill on self and others.

Health and Will in Political Systems

Hereditary Monarchy

Shakespeare's panoramic critique of hereditary monarchy suggests it may be the sickest of all political systems. Typically the throne attracts psychopaths, and even the subjects of peaceful rulers might live in terror of whimsy, incompetence, neglect, succession struggles, religious and civil wars, toxic court politics, foreign entanglements and so forth. There is no solution to the problem of succession in Lear, nor an enfeebled monarch, or plotting Dukes, or warring princesses. Shakespeare's monarchs tend to impiously disdain nature, for example in Cymbeline. Lear may fear the storm is partly nature's revenge upon his misrule. Without retirement or timely death, the subjects of hereditary monarchy might spend considerable time under gerontocracy (the current condition of many countries).

Lear’s court is full of contriving theatrical stratagem and deception, which he describes in his last speech to Cordelia. We are taken back to the start of the play, in the royal court, where we might see the opening act of Lear's great gamble, a strategm now almost played out with the ending he strove so hard to avoid, Cordelia's death. Nobody is taken in by the love-protestations of Goneril and Regan, and from that, the interpretation of the play must understand the illusory-theatrical, false-deceptive, deadly-toxic, sharp-elbowed, cunning-competitive nature of royal courts: plots and counter-plots.

Democracy

Shakespeare does not tend to directly represent democracy on stage, but the theatre itself may have been a temporary mini-parliament during his time. Elections are not usually favourably represented; usually townsfolk seem content to elect idiots to official duties they cannot be bothered doing themselves. But as a Will-prioritising political system, democracy is at the mercy of the kinds of flaws of governance in Lear, such as rage and desire, grief and fear. An elderly demographic, the play suggests, may be particularly prone to fears relating to loss, decline, replacement by younger generation, injury, disease, diminishing mental capacity, dementia and death.

An unhealthy society will tend to produce unhealthy policies, regardless of how its democracy conforms to ideals. While a healthier society might be able change and improve its form organically, learning from its old people without bowing to them.

Biocracy

Shakespeare's plays offer some interesting views on natural governance, from the anarchistic idyll of the Tempest's Gonzalo, to Timon of Athens imagining the world better run by beasts, to the gardeners of Richard II, to the horned burgers of the Forest of Arden (As You Like It), to the (some plant-named) fairies of Midsummer-Night’s Dream, all of which have some features of biocracy. The sense is that animals and maybe plants govern themselves on the basis of naturally-defined health rather than will, as indeed in biocracy.

Conclusion

Wills are essentially unresolvable: there is no political solution that pleases everyone. Health is essentially resolvable: there will be a political solution that maximises the health of a population. Wills are often hidden, to better get one over on rivals. Health is usually transparent.

In a theological/hereditary monarchy, or a democracy, Will (whether divine, channeling-the-ancestors or popular) is paramount, so there can be little scope to question a culture of maldevelopment. Only under a Health-based political system like biocracy can social changes be considered maldevelopment as such. Lear eventually realises his realm has been maldeveloped (he takes personal responsibility but it is also the ruthless political system at fault), and reverts to nature, bedecking himself with wildflowers and using animals as models of behaviour.

Will and Health: two factors of governance in Shakespeare's King Lear by Sleeping Dog is licensed under CC BY 4.0