Lear and Goriot: A Re-evaluation

O rbis L itteraru m (1972), X X V II, 28-36.
Lear and Goriot: A Re-evaluation
G retchen R . Besser, N ew Jersey
Scarcely had the first installm ents of L e Pére G oriot appeared in serialized
form in the R evu e de Paris (1 8 3 4 -3 5 ) w hen Parisian erities seized upon the
sim ilarity betw een the self-effacing noodle-m aker of B alzac’s new est novel
and the thundering protagonist of S hakespeare’s K ing Lear. This com parison
has since becom e a cliché of literary opinion. N um erous critics, from B arbey
d ’A urevilly to H arry Levin, have linked the nam es of L ear and G oriot, b ut
w ithout probing beneath the surface to ascertain how far or how deep the
resem blance extends.
Close scrutiny of the two texts in conjunction yields a fruitful revelation.
T h e initial resem blance, relating to the m ain story-line and its tragic outcome, is reinforced by sim ilarities of a m ore subtle and pervasive nature,
w hich occur on every level and constitute alm ost a repetition of situation,
structure, and character. T hese resem blances are so num erous and funda­
m ental th a t they can scarcely be construed as m ere coincidence. R ather,
th eir prevalence w ould seem to indicate th at B alzac was not m erely influenced in a casual and superficial m anner by the contem porary vogue for
Shakespeare, but that K ing Lear was a m ore or less consciously-developed
m odel for L e Pére Goriot.
Like m any of his countrym en who w ere discovering Shakespeare in the
1820’s and 1830’s, B alzac was an adm irer of the bard, especially around
the year 1834, w hen he was at w ork com posing L e Pére Goriot. H is library
probably contained, as early as 1827, L advocat’s popular edition of the
O euvres com plétes de Shakespeare. It is possible not only th at he had read
K ing Lear, in French, but had also seen it perform ed on the P aris stage, in
1827 o r 1828, by an English troupe th a t was visiting F rance at the tim e.1
1. Cf. P.-J. Tremewan, “Balzac et Shakespeare”, L ’Année Balzacienne (1967), pp. 261-270.
Lear and Goriot: A R e-evaluation
29
T he epigraph, “All is tru e ,” which B alzac attributes to Shakespeare, was
placed at the head of the first edition of L e Pére Goriot, and later incorporated into the text.
It is a m atter of record th at B alzac freely borrow ed his subject m atter or
ideas from o th er w riters and adapted them for his ow n purposes. W e know,
for instance, th at L ouis L a m b ert was intended to vie w ith G oethe’s Faust and
with B yron’s M anfred, and th at M elm o th réconcilié was a new version of
M atu rin ’s tale. Balzac candidly adm itted that L e M édecin de cam pagne was
m eant to surpass G oldsm ith’s Vicar o f W akefield and that L e L y s dans la
vallée was m odelled on Sainte-B euve’s V olupté.
N o such convenient boast exists in the case of S hakespeare’s K ing Lear.
In faet, the nam e of L ear is curiously absent from B alzac’s pen. A m ong the
74 allusions to Shakespeare in the C om édie hum aine, all the m ajor plays are
represented, w ith the exception of K ing Lear. T he only references to the
latter play occur in two of B alzac’s early works, C lotilde de Lusignan (1822)
and W ann-C hlore (1825), and these are irrelevant for our purpose. N ow here
else, in his novels, notes, o r correspondence, does Balzac even m ention the
nam e of Lear. In the absence of confirm atory docum entation, the possibility
and the extent of S hakespeare’s influence on the genesis of L e Pére Goriot
m ust rem ain a m atter for conjecture. N onetheless, an esthetic confrontation
betw een the two w orks yields a rem arkable num ber of points of resem blance,
which have never been thoroughly analyzed before, and which w ould indicate
an uncanny confluence of ideas, if not a conscious and deliberate borrowing.
First, and m ost obviously, there is the sim ilarity of plot, w hich has form ed
the basis for the L ear-G oriot com parison in the past. T he situation in both
cases is analogous: a doting father, unwise in his devotion and deceived by
his daug h ters’ flattery into believing th at he is loved for himself, n ot for his
possessions, com m its the fateful erro r of ceding his entire fortune to his
children; the latter, outdoing one another in callous egotism, repay his
generosity with betrayal and abandonm ent. T he them e is the same, th at bitter
display of filial ingratitude so poignantly sum m ed u p by Lear: “H ow sharper
than a serpent’s tooth it is / To have a thankless child.”
In addition to this them atic resem blance, w hich has been noted so frequently th at fu rther discussion is redundant, there are other parallels th at are
less obvious and m ore germ ane to our subject. T here is, for instance, the
m atter of structure. In both works, the fundam ental them e revolving around
30
G retchen R . Besser
the father-figure occupies the central panel of a triptych, w hich consists of
three separate but interw oven plots. In K ing Lear, the sub-plots concern
G loucester, o n the one hand, and his b astard son, E dm und, on the other.
They are subsidiary, serving to underscore the prim ary them e of p atem al
blindness and filial ingratitude. Likewise, in L e Pére G oriot, two secondary
plots are interm eshed w ith the title story. T he initial idea, as B alzac jo tted it
dow n in his personal notebook, was evidently that of G oriot: “ Sujet du pére
G oriot: - U n brave hom m e - pension bourgeoise - 600 fr. de rente - s’étant
dépouillé p o u r ses filles qui toutes deux o nt 500.000 fr. de rente, m ourant
com m e u n chien.” 2 To this pivotal them e he added two secondary plots,
one being the “ ed ucation” of Rastignac, the other the unm asking of V autrin.
T h e sub-plots in K ing Lear are m ore intim ately connected w ith Shakesp eare’s m ajo r m otif than are the secondary plots in L e Pére G oriot. L ea r’s
tragedy is m irro red in the story of G loucester, w ho also fails to distinguish
betw een reality and appearance, betw een m erit and flattery. Ju st as L ear is
w rong in judging C ordelia and her sisters, so G loucester is m istaken in his
sons, E d g ar and E dm und. G loucester’s physical blindness symbolizes the
spiritual blindness o f Lear. E d m u n d ’s treachery to his father echoes the
w ickedness of L e a r’s two daughters.
T his process of dédoublem ent has its counterpart in L e Pére G oriot, although on a less significant level. It is not one of the two subsidiary plots th at
reinforces the m ain them e, but rath er a m inor episode, the story of V ictorine
T aillefer and her father. T he situation here, in w hich a heartless father
rejeets his daughter, preferring his w orthless son, is n ot only a thinly-veiled
transform ation of the situation in K ing Lear; it is also the obverse of the
G oriot case. It thus serves the sam e purpose for B alzac th at the story of
G loucester and his sons served for Shakespeare. W hereas the G loucester
episode em phasizes the tragic plight of L ear by providing a recapitulation,
in a m inor key, of the sam e circum stances th at characterize the h ero ’s posi­
tion, th e interlude of the T aillefer family underscores the tale of G oriot
and his daughters, not by reflection, but by contrast. T aillefer is the cruel
fath er who cannot perceive his daug h ter’s virtue, just as G oriot is the doting
fath er who cannot see his d aughters’ faults. Except for R astignac, V ictorine
is the only one of the boarders at the pension V auquer who is capable of
2. Pensées, Sujets, Fragmens, ed. Jacques Crépet (Paris: A. Blaizot, 1910), p. 114.
Lear and Goriot: A R e-evaluation
31
rousing G oriot from his sluggish indifference; he is interested in h er solely
because she is th at incom prehensible specim en, a child who has been disow ned by h er father.
T he T aillefer story bears anoth er im portant resem blance to K ing Lear.
A lthough V ictorine is only a m inor ch aracter in L e Pére Goriot, h er situation
is rem iniscent of C ordelia’s lot to an extraordinary degree. She, too, is a
m odel of saintly virtue, p atient and long-suffering. D espite the faet th at her
noble character has been m isjudged and th at she has been cast o ut and disinherited in favor of her brother, V ictorine, like C ordelia, harbors no grudge
against h er fath er for his h arsh treatm ent, b u t loves him w ithout reproach.
She, also, is subsequently reunited w ith her father and m akes her peace with
him in the end.
If we look further, we find th at the sub-plot involving R astignac is in m any
ways analogous to the story of E dm und. B oth young m en are driven by a
relentless am bition to succeed in the w orld and to overcom e certain obstacles
- his bastard condition in the case of E dm und, his poverty and provincial
background in the case of Eugéne. E ach of them employs the same device
as a stepping-stone to fu rth er his fortunes - he “uses” the love of a w ealthy
w om an to secure the m oney and position he craves. T he w om an in each case
is the h ard -h earted daughter of the guileless fath er w hom she has despoiled.
W hile in S hakespeare’s play we find E d m u n d playing the p a rt of a consum m ate scoundrel and wooing both sisters sim ultaneously in a cynical tour de
force, his self-serving o pportunism is m atched by R astignac, who also courts
b oth of G o rio t’s daughters in turn, and with no real feeling for either of
them . H e is less unscrupulous th an E dm und, for he rejects the opportunity
to com m it m urder to fu rth er his aims, but his self-centered m otivation is of
the same pattern.
In addition to these several parallels of plot and structure, there are striking
com parisons insofar as ch aracter portrayal is concem ed. T he m ajor characters pair off neatly: G oriot w ith L ear, A nastasie and D elphine with Regan
and G oneril. V ictorine shares m any of C ordelia’s traits, just as Eugéne
recalls E dm und, at least in part.
A t first glance, no two characters could be fu rth er apart, in personality
and position in life, th an the overbearing king and the unobtrusive b o u r­
geois. L ear is every inch a m onarch. T hroughout the storm of tragic events
th a t pelt his dignity, he stands erect, in im posing and inflexible majesty. E ven
32
G retchen R . Besser
in m adness he retains his awesome stature. Life can bruise and b a tte r him,
but he shakes his fists at the elem ents of nature them selves. G oriot, on the
o th er hand, is th e essence of stolid impassivity. H e bows his head, hum bly
subm itting to w hatever injuries and indignities life has to offer. W hether it is
the boarders at the pension V auquer who attack him with malicious jokes
and pranks, o r his daughters who assault him with honeyed w ords and
entreaties, he accepts everything w ithout a m urm ur. W hereas L ear is a
ranting, irate victim , G oriot is uncom plaining in his m artyrdom .
D espite this difference in attitude, there are resem blances betw een the two
protagonists th at m ust not be overlooked. In their p atem al role they are
equally incapable of thinking o r seeing clearly. B oth widowed, and dependent u p o n th eir d aughters’ affection, they lap up flattery and refuse to recognize th at they are unloved. T hey are incom petent in judging hum an nature.
This incapacity is not lim ited to their lack of insight about their daughters.
T hey are undiscem ing about the people th at surround them , as well. L ear is
as blind to K en t’s devotion as he is to his children’s guile. G oriot is oblivious
of his surroundings - the students’ taunts, his landlady’s whims, the dram a
played o u t around the figure of V autrin. H e is too absorbed in his two
daughters to be aw are of anyone else. In both cases, L ear and G oriot are the
authors of their own downfall. It is their faulty judgm ent th a t precipitates the
catastrophes th a t engulf them.
T he prim ary difference betw een King L ear and old G oriot is not so m uch
th e faet th at one is a king and the other a com m oner, th at L ear rem ains
dignified in adversity while G oriot grovels at his daughters’ feet. T he funda­
m ental distinction betw een these two characters lies in their awareness (dare
we say, their intelligence?). L ear’s m istaken evaluation of his daughters’
m erit, although the m ainspring of the dram a, is of short-lived duration; it
lasts only long enough to set the wheels of tragedy in m otion. H e soon recognizes R egan and G oneril for w hat they are, and it is this clarity of understanding, his full com prehension of the enorm ity of their crimes, th at causes
his wits to totter. G oriot, o n the o th er hand, rem ains the dupe of his chil­
d re n ’s duplicity. H e is the w illing victim of his ow n delusions. N ear death, he
suffers a m om entary hallucination when, like L ear, he appears to have lost
his m ind. A lthough this is his only instance of m adness, it is also his one
m om ent of clear-thinking aw areness, w hen he finally realizes th at he has
been deceived. D uring this brief m om ent of illum ination, G oriot even goes
so far as to curse his daughters, as L ear h ad done: “ C e sont des infames,
L ear and G oriot: A R e-evaluation
33
des scélérates; je les abom ine, je les m audis; je m e reléverai, la nuit, de m on
cercueil p our les rem audire . . .”3 B ut a m inute later he denies th at he has
ever reproached them . His m om ent of m adness - th at is, of lucidity - is
over. H e dies in the grip of a suprem e delusion, clutching the heads of
R astignac on one side and B ianchon on th e other, w hom he m istakes for his
two girls: “ Le dernier soupir de ce pére devait é tre u n soupir de joie. Ce
soupir fut l’expression de to u te sa vie, il se tro m p ait encore” (V I, 509).
T he co u n terp art to G o rio t’s death-bed scene is the final scene in K ing Lear,
when the half-crazed m onarch appears on stage bearing the dead body of
C ordelia in his arm s. A ltem atin g betw een hope and despair, the old king
frantically searches his d au g h ter’s face for som e sign of life. A t the very
m om ent w hen he him self expires, he seems to have found the proof he was
seeking; he diese, com forted by the fantasy th at his daughter lives. “D o you
see this? L ook on her, - look, - her lips, - / L ook there, look there!”
(V, iii, 31 1-313). It is n o t im probable th at B alzac was influenced by the
m em ory of this death scene w hen he gave to G oriot his final illusions and
m ade him die happy, his last breath a sigh of joy.
B oth L ear and G oriot are beset by an overruling passion, an all-engrossing
idée fixe. It is as a function of their own m onom ania th at they view the world
around them . W ith Lear, it is the passion of rage and the desire for revenge.
N othing else counts, nothing else m atters. W hen, in his dem ented State, he
m eets up with E d g ar disguised as P oor Tom , he is convinced th at only his
children’s heartlessness could have brought a m an so low. This obsessive
hatred feeds u pon itself, coloring every thought and eventually eroding the
king’s sanity.
G o rio t’s m onom ania is no less intense; it m erely has a different, an antithetical, object. W hereas King L ear is consum ed by hate, G oriot is obsessed
by love. Like m any of B alzac’s characters, he is the victim of a self-destructive passion, as relentless and fanatical as G ra n d e t’s avarice, H u lo t’s lechery,
F ren h o fer’s obsession with artistic perfection, o r C laes’s search for the
“ absolute” . G oriot lives only for a w ord from his daughters, a glance, a secret
tryst. L ike a m enial servant o r a lovesick suitor, he is forced to w ait long
hours for a glimpse of A nastasie o r D elphine, as they leave for a drive in the
Bois o r retu rn hom e after a ball. W rapped u p in his two daughters’ lives, he
3. Oeuvres complétes, ed. Marcel Bouteron and Henri Longnon (Paris: Louis Conard, 1912—
1940), VI, 500. Subsequent references to Le Pére Goriot will be cited in this edition.
34
G retchen R . Besser
feels vicariously w hatever they feel; th eir happiness is his happiness, their
p ain is his pain. A lthough B alzac labels him “ce C hrist de la p a tem ité ,”
“un hom m e qui est pére com m e un saint, un m artyr, est chrétien,”4 nonetheless G o rio t’s love for his children oversteps the bounds of paternal affection;
it verges on the unhealthy and the abnorm al. H e procures R astignac as his
d au g h ter’s lover and subsidizes a love-nest for the pair. H e accepts the
shabbiest of treatm en t at his d aughters’ hands and then begs for m ore: “ II
aim ait ju sq u ’au m al q u ’elles lui faisaient” (V I, 314). This exaggerated devo­
tion, tinged w ith m asochistic nuances, is not far from being an incestuous
passion. G oriot loves his daughters n o t m erely as a father, but w ith a lover’s
intensity. H e is pictured kneeling beside D elphine to kiss her feet, staring
fervently in to h er eyes, rubbing his head against her dress, and exhibiting the
foolish and ten d er behavior of an infatuated young swain. H e does not fail
to recognize the com pulsive n atu re of his passion: “ M es filles, c’était m on
vice å m oi; elles étaient mes m aitresses, enfin to u t!” (V I, 497).
A parallel to this attachm ent is discernible in L ear’s relationship with
C ordelia at the end. W hen they are arrested, her father paints a gay picture
of the life they will lead in prison together, happy as two birds in a cage,
w alled up w ith each other, shut off from the w orld, revelling in one an o th er’s
com pany, inseparable fo r life. This ra p t devotion bears a sim ilarity to the
exclusive affection th at G oriot will nu rtu re for his daughters throughout his
life.
Ju st as there are basic resem blances betw een L ear and G oriot, so there
are parallels to be draw n betw een the two sets of daughters. T hey are alike
in their greed and hypocrisy. T hey dissem ble w hen they wish to extort a
favor from their father. W hen they have bled him dry, they take no pains to
m ask th eir true nature. They are h arsh and heartless, m otivated by selfinterest alone. In th eir cruel treatm ent they are, except for G oneril, soundly
seconded by their husbands. In both instances there exists beneath the honeycoated surface a covert anim osity th at em erges in m om ents of crisis. Ju st as
R egan and G oneril are divided by jealousy - each is in love w ith E dm und
and willing to kill the o th e r in o rd er to have him - A nastasie and D elphine
are rivals on a social level. T he bitterness of their long-concealed anim osity
com es to the fore in a scene of uncontrolled verbal abuse. G oriot is caught
4. Letter to Madame Hanska (October 18, 1834), in Lettres å Vétrangére (Paris: Calmann-Lévy,
[ 1924]—1933), I, 195.
Lear and Goriot: A R e-evaluation
35
in the crossfire of angry w ords th at bludgeon and bruise his poor, m angled
heart. It is this violent scene betw een th e two creatures he holds m ost dear
on earth th a t brings on the attack of apoplexy th at finally kills him.
In the sam e way th a t his daughters’ conduct is responsible for G oriot’s
demise, the circum stances contributing to the death of King L ear are all
attributab le to G oneril and Regan: exposure to the blasts of the storm on the
heath; the trau m atic realization of his d aughters’ b etrayal; their evil treatm ent of his old friend, G loucester; the assaults u p o n his sanity. T hey are even
indirectly to blam e for C ordelia’s im prisonm ent and m urder, which is the
final death blow dealt to L ear. It is thus his d aughters’ cruelty th a t is the
ultim ate cause of each fath er’s death.
T he num erous parallels th at can be draw n betw een K ing Lear and L e Pére
Goriot, not im m ediately evident in the story-line itself but em bedded into
structure, situation, and characterization, point very strongly to the possibility th at K ing L ear m ay have occupied the forefront of B alzac’s
consciousness w hen he set about w riting L e Pére Goriot. This is not to sug­
gest th at B alzac ever intended to rew rite o r im prove on S hakespeare’s play, as
he som etim es did in the case of o th er w riters - and perhaps his silence with
respect to K ing L ear m ay be interpreted as showing th at he had no such
intention - b u t rath er th a t he m ay have borrow ed from Shakespeare those
ideas and situations th at suited his needs, and then tailored them to fit his
own conceptual schem e. If this was indeed the case, a glance at the m ajor
differences betw een the two works will give us an idea of the way in w hich
B alzac scaled dow n the proportions of the L ear legend to fit into the m ore
realistic, dow n-to-earth fram ew ork of the C om édie hum aine.
T h e fundam ental difference th at distinguishes th e story of G oriot from
th a t of L ear is one of dim ension. It is not the superficial distinction of genre
betw een d ram a and fiction, w ith atten d an t technical dissim ilaiities, nor is it
the n atural divergencies th a t we w ould expect to find in two authors sepa­
rated by language, nationality, and historical background. R ather, the prim ary
difference is on an esthetic, we m ight alm ost say, a m etaphysical plane.
K ing Lear is a cosm ic tragedy. T h e principal personage is a king, who is
affronted in his royal authority as well as in his fatherhood. H is suffering
exists on a superhum an and sym bolic level. H e is not a m ere m an who has
been flouted and betrayed. H e is the prim al F ath er, reviled by his creation.
H eaven and earth and the elem ents them selves conspire against his beleaguered figure. “T hought-executing fires, vau n t couriers of oak-cleaving thun-
36
G retchen R . B esser
derb o lts” hurl them selves at his w hite head. L ear stands unflinching in the
face of n a tu re ’s onslaught, indom itable representation of hum an dignity and a
living pro test to injustice, both hum an and divine.
T he entire play is of epic proportions. T he secondary characters - G oneril
and R egan on th e one hand, C ordelia and K ent on the o th er - are m ore
intensely evil, m ore virtuously good, than hum an beings on earth can be.
T he action is a m ythical exaggeration of reality. A dreadful destiny befalls
alm ost all of th e protagonists. E d g ar and E dm und fight to the death, G oneril
kills R egan and th en herself, C ordelia is hanged and L ear expires. T he
tragic outcom e is ineluctable, inflexibly determ ined, as if by som e huge, grim,
im placable fate.
T here is no such cataclysm ic feeling in L e Pére Goriot. Setting and ch ar­
acters are reduced to lifelike dim ensions. T h e bourgeois pension, the noodlem aker, his frivolous daughters - all are painfully quotidien. W hereas the
elem ents of the Shakespearean landscape are indeterm inate abstractions that
can be blow n up in im agination to heroic dim ensions, the décor of the pen­
sion V auquer is a specific setting, m inutely detailed to im press us w ith the
im m ediacy of reality. W here Shakespeare’s protagonist is a king, B alzac’s is
a com m on m erchant. W here L ear’s daughters plot against his very life,
G o rio t’s daughters m olest him w ith pleas for fancy ballgowns and m oney
to pay a lover’s debts. W here E dm und betrays father and bro ther and orders
d eath to his enem ies, E ugéne com m its a few peccadilloes. A rm ed cam ps and
w ar and th e co u n try ’s safety are at stake in King L ear; the death of an
ord in ary old m an is the tragedy in Balzac.
In B alzac’s w orld we have entered the dom ain of recognizable experience.
W e are present at a definite m om ent of history, w hen social change and
econom ic upheaval are being felt on all levels of society. R astignac’s defiance
of th e “establishm ent” in the final lines sums u p the spirit of the times, and
old G oriot is m erely a casualty along the ro ad of social change. H e w ould
rem ain anonym ous, undistinguished, were it not for the exceptional pow er
of his passion. It is the m onom aniacal n ature of his paternal love th at tran scends the confines of shabby reality and raises his poor, unhappy story to
the level o f poetic tragedy. His suffering is transform ed into m artyrdom ; the
m an becom es m yth. It is not in his m eek personality, n ot in his hum ble
station in life, but it is in his o utraged fatherhood th at G oriot w alks in the
footsteps of L ear.