Shakespeare’s Philosopher King: Reading The Tragedy of King Lear by Guy Story Brown (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 303 Bychkov, will recognize the abundant incidence of aesthetic outliers: that is, "not all sensory (aisthetic) experiences are revelatory and not all revelatory experiences are sensory (aisthetic)" (326). To counter this objection, Bychkovs concluding remarks articulate a possible space for an original and productive new field of study he dubs revelatorics (326-34), which would include a "phenomenology" of broader aesthetic human experiences which are in excess of the sensual. The patient reader who accompanies Bychkov through the occasionally dense thicket of the detailed textual analysis of Part Two will be well rewarded by a sophisticated, hermeneutically viable narrative of a continuous revelatory aesthetic tradition from Plato onward. Ultimately, Oleg Bychkovs creative, meticulously researched and lucidly written monograph makes a decisive contribution to a number of scholarly fields and will appeal to a wide array of readers, whether they are concerned primarily with the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar, antique or medieval aesthetic theory, contemporary aesthetics, hermeneutics, theological method, or opening up heretofore uncharted byways for thinking the beautiful. Jennifer Newsome Martin The University ofNotre Dame Shakespeare's Philosopher King: ReadingThe Tragedy of King Lear. ByGuy Story Brown. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-88146-185-5. Pp. 373. $45.00. This analysis of King Lear does not divide itself into thematic chapters but rather uses the style of a running commentary on the Bible,following Shakespeare's play act by act, scene by scene, line by line, with the assumption that readers will supply their own copies of the drama. While this approach requires a reading area with room to simultaneously spread out both Brown's book and King Lear, and it necessitates the use of multiple bookmarks (to follow both texts and Brown's copious endnotes), it also allows a very close reading of the text and enables Brown, in the same manner as Shakespeare, to build up his argument dramatically. Brown generally follows the 1623 Folio text, but frequently comments on other editions of the play. A reader whose edition of Lear follows the 1608 Quarto or some combination of editions will find that line numbers do not always match, but the analysis runs close enough to cause no problem. While many critics have noted the role of Edmund as the character of Vice in a medieval Morality Play,Brown goes further with this parallel and finds Morality Playtraits in many more characters. He also examines this playas not only a Tragedy, but also as Shakespeare's first History play and an almost Comedy, in the classical 304 CHRISTIANITY AND LITERATURE sense. (He does note in his introduction that Lear is not strictly historical, in that Shakespeare does not follow the ending as presented in Hollingshead's Chronicle.) Lear's Fool represents Folly itself, exerting an evil and destructive influence over the King, while Edgar becomes a Christ-figure who would, if not thwarted, redeem both Lear and Gloucester. Twice, Brown notes, Edgar hides himself or someone else within a tree, Tree meaning the Cross. Likewise,the "hovel" in which the other characters first meet Edgar stands in for Christ's manger. Brown expects readers of his analysis to already have familiarity with not only other works of Shakespeare but also with a range of medieval and Renaissance literature and philosophy. He frequently references Chaucer's "Monk's Tale" and "Merlin's Prophecy;' Roger Bacon, Machiavelli, Spenser, and Sidney's Arcadia.One should also know Erasmus' ThePraiseofFolly and the basic teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Brown'sanalysis divides the play into two main parts, which he labels "the Rise of Edmund" and "the better half;' a division which makes the subplot of Edmund, Edgar, and Gloucester essential to one's understanding of the Lear,Goneril, Regan, Cordelia story. The Lear of part one is, like Edmund, a man of the flesh, and Kent's early address to him as "old man" reflects New Testament warnings that we must put to death the "old man" and become new creatures in Christ. This Lear is a manipulative demagogue, accustomed to having his own way,raging when crossed, egged on by his Fool. Edmund's introduction, before we even meet Lear, prepares us...