Shakespeare’s King Lear (1606) and Bertolt Brecht’s the Caucasian Chalk Circle (1948) both tell a story about loyalty. In King Lear, the devoted servant is a man named Kent. Kent’s loyalty knows no bounds when it comes to his master, King Lear. In the Caucasian Chalk Circle, the maid is a woman named Grusha. Grusha’s loyalty knows no bounds when it comes to her Governess’ son, Michael. Devotion and allegiance are twisted concepts in both dramas; King Lear is faced with the betrayal of two of his daughters, while Michael is faced with the betrayal of his biological mother. Amidst this chaos, Kent and Grusha continue their service to those who need it the most (whether to the King, or to the little boy). Service, according to Jonas Barish, “may be thought of as the formalization of relationships between individuals of different social or political rank […] [it] implies rights as well as duties”[1]. In Discourses of Service in Shakespeare’s England, David Evett explains that “Aristotle long ago not only prescribed servants’ need of work and correction, but also food and shelter […] In exchange, servants had one primary obligation: to obey”[2]. Yet, there were circumstances under which the line between obeying and disobeying blurred: “conflicts between the commandments of men and those of God or the moral code”[3]. Thus, Barish’s definition of service is informative but incomplete. His use of the word “duties” does not do justice to Kent and Grusha’s actions; both defy their duties to uphold loyalty and their conscience.
This paper will examine Kent and Grusha as parallels of one another’s allegiance to a greater, more just cause. It will explore how both servants engage in disobedience and mimic the actions of blood relatives to prove themselves of a greater familial value, whether in life or death.[AH1]
Kent’s disobedience is part of his loyalty. Self-interest and commonsense are sacrificed in the name of servitude. In Jonas Barish’s article “Service in King Lear”, Barish notes that “Kent’s good service […] starts (in the play) with an act of disobedience, the only alternative being an act of servility”[4]. We see Kent’s first act of disobedience when he challenges King Lear’s decision to divide up his kingdom; Kent pleads: “My life I never held but as a pawn / To wage against thine enemies, ne’er fear to lose it, thy safety being the motive […] See better, Lear, and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye”[5]. To challenge the king is not part of Kent’s typical job description, but he determines that by disobeying, he will be acting in the king’s favor. King Lear has not placed himself on the winning side; he has sacrificed land, men, and power. Even worse, he has attempted to rid himself of his most loyal patriots: his daughter Cordelia and his servant Kent. He “attempts” but is not successful. In a greater act of disobedience, Kent disguises himself as a man named “Caius”, sacrificing his identity (and life) to support the deteriorating King Lear. Even as Caius, he is obedient and loyal, making heavy weighted remarks such as “I will not sleep, my lord, till I have delivered your letter”[6]. Kent has nothing to gain from this relationship, but he is a prime example of how “loyalty will override […] commonsense […] true service has little to do with prudence or calculation”[7]. Thus, Kent goes to great lengths to prove his loyalty, even though it may be unrecognizable. This reflects loyalty beyond servitude. As Evett points out in Discourses of Service in Shakespeare’s England: “the law of God supersedes the laws of nature and of men, servants were not only allowed to but were indeed obliged to disobey when ordered to do evil”[8]. Taken in the context of King Lear, a servant like Kent may have felt obligated to disobey the King, whose decision to divide up his kingdom would lead to greater evil, but it was not in his role, nor his Godly conscience, to disguise and risk himself on behalf of the king. Thus, his loyalty goes one step further, reflecting familial obligation.
Grusha displays a similar disobedience in the Caucasian Chalk Circle. Bertolt Brecht, a Germany author, wrote this drama in the 1940s. At this time, servants and maids did not have the same undying loyalty that servants paid to kings in the seventeenth century, but there were strict expectations. In Dorothee Wierling’s article “Women Domestic Servants in Germany at the Turn of the Century”, she explains that “the German domestic servant was subjected to a special law which has survived the end of feudalism: the ‘Gesindeordnung.’[…] The Gesindeordnung included no limits to working hours but instructed immediate obedience to employers orders”[9]. Though little context is given for the life of Grusha before the play, one can imagine that to disobey her employers was unacceptable. Grusha makes a choice, much like Kent, about who she is going to respect and care for. Kent chooses the king, the most vulnerable in the play, and Grusha chooses the Governor’s Wife’s baby, also the most vulnerable. Thus, Grusha is like Kent in her decision to obey her moral conscience and fulfil a familial role for baby Michael. In this obedience comes disobedience. She is characterized, perhaps rightfully so, by the Ironshirts as the woman “who’s supposed to have stolen the Abshvili child”[10]. She, deceptively passes “[Michael] off as her own child” committing a crime in the process[11]. When Grusha is caught red handed, having taken Michael as her own, she is given the opportunity (though with punishment) to obey her Governess and return the child. Yet she remarks that she had “saved the child from them”[12]. This is the ultimate disobedience. In doing so, Grusha marks herself as Michael’s family, acting on his behalf rather than her own. She faces the possibility of punishment (even death), to protect her new purpose, just as Kent does in defense of King Lear.
Kent exhibits a childlike quality. This quality further establishes him as a member of the Lear dynasty, beyond his participation in familial obligations. In Act 1, Scene 1 of King Lear, Kent refers to King Lear as his father; he states: “Royal Lear, […] Loved as my father”[13]. This represents a greater dynamic; one in which Kent looks up to and obeys King Lear like a father. This resonates in his behavior. In Martha Rozett’s article “Tragedies within Tragedies: Kent’s Unmasking in ‘King Lear’”, Rozett notes that “[Kent has] passionate outbursts […] [that] have a curiously childlike quality, as will much of his later behavior”[14]. As Kent fulfills this childish role, he bickers with King Lear. In Act 2, Scene 4, Lear and Kent argue back and forth:
LEAR. No.
KENT. Yes.
LEAR. No, I say.
KENT. I say yea.
LEAR. By Jupiter, I swear no.
KENT. By Juno, I swear ay.[15]
This pointless back and forth conversation between King Lear and Kent is like that of a father and child. It is notable that in the context of this conversation, King Lear has banished Cordelia, and is in the midst of losing Goneril and Regan. Thus, there is a void to be filled in the king’s life. Kent, is therefore, not only a most loyal companion who goes beyond what is asked of servitude. He is part of the Lear family, engaging with respect, power dynamics, and comfort.
Grusha also engages in a familial role, transitioning from maid to mother. Grusha’s transition from servant to family is much more literal (as it is the plot) than Kent’s transition, yet her transition reflects a greater societal obligation. In becoming a mother, she proves herself to be better than Michael’s blood related mother. Michael is thus more bound to his better, real mother (Grusha), than his abandoning, neglectful mother. Grusha’s identity is characterized by how she cares for Michael; she goes out of her way to find him milk and food: “Drink, Michael. This is half a week’s pay […] I certainly took on a nice burden with you”[16]. She wraps him in blankets to keep him warm: “I’ll throw your fine little shirt away / and wrap you in rags”[17]. She marries a dying man to provide a roof over Michael’s head. She refuses to pull his arm at the trial, afraid “to tear him to pieces”[18]. Ultimately, she proves herself to be the better mother and is endowed with legal rights to the child. It is fascinating that Brecht chooses to end his story this way. In Michael Freeman’s article “Truth and Justice in Bertolt Brecht”, he reveals that “there is no way that in the United States (or for that matter in Britain or Germany) a court would have cemented a fostering relationship over one based on a blood tie”[19]. This is where the lesson lies in the Caucasian Chalk Circle; even though the real world would not reward loyalty and dedication the way this parable does, the morality and conscience that drive the story should be rewarded. We finish this drama having concluded that a family is defined through effort and loyalty, not blood, a similar sentiment at the end of King Lear.
Both Kent and Grusha are the ones left behind. Grusha is left with Governor dead and his wife fainted and exiled. Kent is left alone, Cordelia and Lear dead. Kent and Grusha make similar decisions: they choose to (and want to) be with their makeshift families. Grusha takes on the role of a mother, while Kent walks off the stage, telling the audience: “My master calls me”[20]. It is implied that he leaves to kill himself, and join his master (or father), in another life. The bonds remain unbroken. A contemporary novel, Little Fires Everywhere by Celeste Ng, dabbles with a similar dilemma; a biological mother (Bebe Chow), who originally felt unfit to care for her daughter, gives her to an adoptive family. Ng explores who earns the right to be the baby’s family and whether it is determined by blood or by dedication and resources. This idea of family versus servant is a more traditional and older phenomenon, but the issue of how we, as a Western society, define family is still complex and undefined. The Caucasian Chalk Circle and King Lear are progressive in how they approach these conversations, teaching us the importance of loyalty in a society governed by greed and self-interest.
Bibliography
Alter, Maria P. "THE TECHNIQUE of ALIENATION in BERTOLT BRECHT'S 'THE CAUCASIAN CHALK CIRCLE.'" CLA Journal 8, no. 1 (1964): 60-65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44328403.
Barish, Jonas A., and Marshall Waingrow. "'Service' in King Lear." Shakespeare Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1958): 347-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2867337.
Brecht, Bertolt, W. H. Auden, James Stern, Tania Stern, and Kristopher Imbrigotta. The Caucasian Chalk Circle. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama, 2021.
Cooley, Ronald W. "Kent and Primogeniture in 'King Lear.'" Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 48, no. 2 (2008): 327-48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40071337.
Evett, David. Discourses of Service in Shakespeare's England. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Freeman, Michael. "Truth and Justice in Bertolt Brecht." Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 11, no. 2 (1999): 197-214. https://doi.org/10.2307/743444.
Rozett, Martha Tuck. "Tragedies within Tragedies: Kent's Unmasking in 'King Lear.'" Renaissance Drama 18 (1987): 237-58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41917230.
Shakespeare, William, and R. A. Foakes. King Lear. Repr. ed. London: Thomson Learning, 2001.
Wierling, Dorothee. "Women Domestic Servants in Germany at the Turn of the Century." Oral History 10, no. 2 (1982): 47-57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40178718.
[1] Jonas A. Barish and Marshall Waingrow, "'Service' in King Lear," Shakespeare Quarterly 9, no. 3 (1958): 348, https://doi.org/10.2307/2867337.
[2] David Evett, Discourses of Service in Shakespeare's England (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 112.
[3] Evett, Discourses of Service, 109.
[4] Barish and Waingrow, "'Service' in King," 349.
[5] William Shakespeare and R. A. Foakes, King Lear, repr. ed. (London: Thomson Learning, 2001), 1.1.156-160.
[6] Shakespeare and Foakes, King Lear, 1.5.6-7.
[7] Barish and Waingrow, "'Service' in King," 351.
[8] Evett, Discourses of Service, 116.
[9] Dorothee Wierling, "Women Domestic Servants in Germany at the Turn of the Century," Oral History 10, no. 2 (1982): 48, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40178718.
[10] Bertolt Brecht et al., The Caucasian Chalk Circle, 2nd ed. (London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama, 2021), 116.
[11] Brecht et al., The Caucasian, 113.
[12] Brecht et al., The Caucasian, 116.
[13] Shakespeare and Foakes, King Lear, 1.1.140-142.
[14] Martha Tuck Rozett, "Tragedies within Tragedies: Kent's Unmasking in 'King Lear,'" Renaissance Drama 18 (1987): 239, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41917230.
[15] Shakespeare and Foakes, King Lear, 2.4.19-24.
[16] Brecht et al., The Caucasian, 55.
[17] Brecht et al., The Caucasian, 68.
[18] Brecht et al., The Caucasian, 127.
[19] Michael Freeman, "Truth and Justice in Bertolt Brecht," Cardozo Studies in Law and Literature 11, no. 2 (1999): 208, https://doi.org/10.2307/743444.
[20] Shakespeare and Foakes, King Lear, 5.3.321.
add something about defying historical norms for servants [AH1]