Act 1, scene 2 – LaGuardia Arts English

Scene II. A Hall in the Earl of Gloster’s Castle.

[Enter Bastard]

[Edmund]

My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines
Lag of a brother?

Why brand they us
base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take

Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops
Got ‘tween asleep and wake?—Well then,

:
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive,

[Enter Gloster.]

Glou.
Kent banish’d thus! and France in choler parted!
And the king gone to-night! subscrib’d his pow’r!
Confin’d to exhibition! All this done
Upon the gad!—Edmund, how now! What news?

Edm.
So please your lordship, none.

[Putting up the letter.]

Glou.
Why so earnestly seek you to put up that letter?

Edm.
I know no news, my lord.

Glou.
What paper were you reading?

Edm.
Nothing, my lord.

Glou.
No? What needed, then, that terrible dispatch of it into your
pocket? the quality of nothing hath not such need to hide itself.
Let’s see.
Come, if it be nothing, I shall not need spectacles.

Edm.

Glou.
Give me the letter, sir.

Edm.
I shall offend, either to detain or give it. The contents, as in part I understand them, are to blame.

Glou.
Let’s see, let’s see!

Edm.
I hope, for my brother’s justification, he wrote this but as an essay or taste of my virtue.

Glou.
[Reads.] ‘This policy and reverence of age makes the world bitter to the best of our times; keeps our fortunes from us till our oldness cannot relish them. I begin to find an idle and fond bondage in the oppression of aged tyranny; who sways, not as it hath power, but as it is suffered. Come to me, that of this I may speak more. If our father would sleep till I waked him, you should enjoy half his revenue for ever, and live the beloved of your brother, ‘EDGAR.’ Hum! Conspiracy?—’Sleep till I waked him,—you should enjoy half his revenue.’—My son Edgar! Had he a hand to write this? a heart and brain to breed it in? When came this to you? who brought it?

Edm.
It was not brought me, my lord, there’s the cunning of it; I found it thrown in at the casement of my closet.

Glou.
You know the character to be your brother’s?

Edm.
If the matter were good, my lord, I durst swear it were his; but in respect of that, I would fain think it were not.

Glou.
It is his.

Edm.
It is his hand, my lord; but I hope his heart is not in the contents.

Glou.
Hath he never before sounded you in this business?

Edm.
Never, my lord: but I have heard him oft maintain it to be fit that, sons at perfect age, and fathers declined, the father should be as ward to the son, and the son manage his revenue.

Glou.
—His very opinion in the letter! worse than brutish!—Go, sirrah, seek him; I’ll apprehend him. Abominable villain!—Where is he?

Edm.
I do not well know, my lord. If it shall please you to suspend your indignation against my brother till you can derive from him better testimony of his intent, you should run a certain course; where, if you violently proceed against him, mistaking his purpose, it would make a great gap in your own honour, and shake in pieces the heart of his obedience. I dare pawn down my life for him that he hath writ this to feel my affection to your honour, and to no other pretence of danger.

Glou.
Think you so?

Edm.
If your honour judge it meet, I will place you where you shall hear us confer of this, and by an auricular assurance have your satisfaction; and that without any further delay than this very evening.

Glou.
He cannot be such a monster.

Edm.
Nor is not, sure.

Glou.
To his father, that so tenderly and entirely loves him.—Heaven and earth!—Edmund, seek him out; wind me into him, I pray you: frame the business after your own wisdom. I would unstate myself to be in a due resolution.

Edm.
I will seek him, sir, presently; convey the business as I shall find means, and acquaint you withal.

Glou.
These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us: though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects: love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide: in cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked ‘twixt son and father. This villain of mine comes under the prediction; there’s son against father: the king falls from bias of nature; there’s father against child. We have seen the best of our time: machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all ruinous disorders follow us disquietly to our graves. —Find out this villain, Edmund; it shall lose thee nothing; do it carefully.—And the noble and true-hearted Kent banished! his offence, honesty!—’Tis strange.

[Exit.]

That, when we are sick in fortune,—often the surfeit of our own behaviour,— as if we were villains on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and treachers by spherical pre-dominance; drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in, by a divine thrusting on: an admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of a star!
My father compounded with my mother under the dragon’s tail, and my nativity was under ursa major; so that it follows I am

[Enter Edgar.]

Edg.
How now, brother Edmund! what serious contemplation are you in?

Edm.
I am thinking, brother, of a prediction I read this other day, what should follow these eclipses.

Edg.
Do you busy yourself with that?

Edm.
I promise you, the effects he writes of succeed unhappily: as of unnaturalness between the child and the parent; death, dearth, dissolutions of ancient amities; divisions in state, menaces and maledictions against king and nobles; needless diffidences, banishment of friends, dissipation of cohorts, nuptial breaches, and I know not what.

Edg.
How long have you been a sectary astronomical?

Edm.

Edg.
The night gone by.

Edm.
Spake you with him?

Edg.
Ay, two hours together.

Edm.
Parted you in good terms? Found you no displeasure in him by word or countenance?

Edg.
None at all.

Edm.
Bethink yourself wherein you may have offended him: and at my entreaty forbear his presence until some little time hath qualified the heat of his displeasure; which at this instant so rageth in him that with the mischief of your person it would scarcely allay.

Edg.
Some villain hath done me wrong.

Edm.
That’s my fear. I pray you have a continent forbearance till the speed of his rage goes slower; and, as I say, retire with me to my lodging, from whence I will fitly bring you to hear my lord speak: pray you, go; there’s my key.—If you do stir abroad, go armed.

Edg.
Armed, brother!

Edm.

Edg.
Shall I hear from you anon?

Edm.

[Exit Edgar.]

A credulous father! and a brother noble,
Whose nature is so far from doing harms
That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty
My practices ride easy!—I see the business.

[Exit.]

<a style="line-height: 1.5em;" title="" href="http://vimeo.com/http://vimeo.com/86193457?width=640&height=480" rel="wp-video-lightbox"><img alt="Video" src="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/video-icon.png" width="17" height="”17”" /></a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/differences-by-jordan-ava-nathaniel-and-brandon/#AvaEssay" target="_blank">Commentary Related:</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/differences-by-jordan-ava-nathaniel-and-brandon/#AvaEssay" target="_blank">Ava Prince</a> (This is a commentary from act 1 scene two, where I chose to elaborate on Edmund’s monologue. I changed my stance considerably since I wrote this initial reaction down) <a href="http://nathanblom.com/differences-by-jordan-ava-nathaniel-and-brandon/#AvaEssay" target="_blank">I find the emphasis on bloodline and father and child relationships to be very interesting in this play. While Edumund rants and rails about how being the bastard puts him at such a disadvantage and how awful it is spending your life being put down and supposed a villain: he tries to fight fire with fire by setting his father and half brother against one another, thereby falling right into the role he had just been bemoaning. While one could say he is the underdog and that we should feel pity for him, he only plays into his own stereotypes that he resents so much. Deception and greed seems commonplace in this play</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/lears-sanity-or-lack-thereof-and-its-importance-to-the-play/#GiorgisEssay" target="_blank">Commentary, Act 1 Scene 2</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/lears-sanity-or-lack-thereof-and-its-importance-to-the-play/#GiorgisEssay" target="_blank">King Lear is set in a pre-Christian pagan past, and many characters in the play beseech their plural gods when in distress or need of assistance and their chaos becomes too much to bear. Edmund, the illegitimate son of the Earl of Gloucester, prays to these gods for assistance in his plan to ruin his legitimate half brother Edgar. In this scene, he implores, “Thou, Nature, art my goddess… And my invention thrive, Edmund the base Shall top th’ legitimate. I grow; I prosper. Now, gods, stand up for bastards! (I.ii.334,353-355). The personification of Nature in controlling destiny presents Goddess Nature as an independent and strong willed being, with a cast of suitors trying to woo her into favoring them over others. Despite this overtly pagan supplication to Nature, the play nonetheless retains strong Christian symbolism which connect it to the time it in which it was written.</a>

<a title="This image portrays Edmund's unfortunate situation in society based on the circumstances he was born under. Edmund can be seen as the child on the right, who will be born out of wedlock and his brother Edgar is the child on the left (born to a married woman). Society in the 1600's during which he lived would brand him with the weight of insults such as "bastard" and "base", not allowing him to become king like his brother Edgar because of the circumstances of the time period in which he was born. -Maria Kolomiyets" href="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Individual-Project-1-2-1-Kolomiyets-Maria.jpg"><img alt="Icon - Image" src="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Icon-Image-e1390235028190.png" width="20" height="20" /></a><a title="This image depicts the crushing weight of the label “base”, a derogatory title Edmund has faced his entire life. The background is made up of pages from a dictionary. As a backdrop this is symbolic of how humans often forget the power their words have over other people. The stark contrasting black gives this image the feeling of a warning sign or cautionary tale. The blank face shows how anyone of us can be caught victim of hurtful labels. –Nevada Raffaele" href="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Individual-Project-1.2.6-Raffaele-Nevada.jpg"><img alt="Icon - Image" src="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Icon-Image-e1390235028190.png" width="20" height="20" /></a>   Something I found confusing was the section in Edmund’s monologue in 1.2 where he diverges from his monologue about nature to talk about qualities he possesses. He is in the middle of a rant on his binds to nature, and how his being labeled a bastard is unnatural, when he suddenly begins to describe his physical features. He states how his “dimensions are as well compact, [his] mind as generous, and [his] shape as true as honest madam’s issue.” He then goes on to question why, in light of these qualities, he is still branded a bastard. I think it is fascinating that of all the things that Edmund uses to justify questioning his bastard status he cites his personal qualities, which he has no control over. Just like society uses natural things which out of their control, like stars and moons, to justify their hatred of bastards Edmund uses things of a similar nature, his “shape” and his “dimensions”, to claim that he is no more a bastard than anyone else. – <a href="http://nathanblom.com/the-three-musketeers/#LeoraEssay">Leora</a>.   <a href="http://nathanblom.com/cjtnv/#NevadaRaffaeleEssay">The subplot of Gloucester’s son Edmund and Edgar is a criticism of human compliance to nature. Examining the motivations behind his actions is very indicative to how humans behave under pressure, like all animals, when backed into a corner their reactions can be explosive. After a life of being put down, Edmund uses his cunning to take advantage of his aging father Gloucester, and seize what he believes to be his rightful place. From the get-go, Edmund denounces his life-long title of bastard. “Why brand they us with base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?” (Shakespeare 1.2) The excessive repetition of the word “bastard” and “base” alludes to Edmund’s sense of self-worth and perceived identity, or lack there of. Edmund goes against the grain to overcome his birth, the result is tragedy.</a> -Nevada

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-family-analysis/#SamanthaEssay">Commentary by Samantha Smerechniak </a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-family-analysis/#SamanthaEssay">Edmunds monologue (lines 1-24) in the play I feel is one of the most powerful and insightful moments of the whole play. Throughout the play family and love has played a catalyst for almost every event that has occurred and this monologue gives the reader an opportunity to truly get insight into how Edmund truly feels and why he goes to the lengths that he does to achieve the power that his “legitimate” brother Edgar had innately. Although when reading this I wanted to agree with everything he was saying because it IS unfair that just because he was born only a short while after his brother, he can never have anything he covets to obtain in life, after reading further into the play you realize that Edmund truly is a villain and how this monologue is really misleading. In this monologue Edmund ponders, “Why ‘bastard’? Wherefore ‘base’ when my dimension are as well compact, my mind as generous and my shape as true as honest madam’s issue?” (I.ii.5-7) Everything Edmund believes seems to be true and his reasoning and desperation almost makes me feel sorry for him when in the end he is the villain of the play. This insight to Edmund allows the reader to experience all levels of his character, and gives better understanding to his motives of doing something so seemingly cruel and extreme</a>.

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/how-do-lears-actions-affect-the-course-of-the-play/#ethan_essay" target="_blank">This is the first time Edmund is viewed in a completely negative light by the audience. One of the most striking takeaways from King Lear is how often the audience’s attitude towards many of the characters changes. At the very start of the play, Edmund is viewed with pity. The way Edmund is treated due to his bastardy inspires the audience to root for him. Even while plotting against his father and brother, Edmund is seen as a character to be sympathized with. However, this changes over the course of the play. The magnitude of Edmund’s treacherous actions change, causing the audience’s attitude toward him to shift from pity to abhorrence.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/how-do-lears-actions-affect-the-course-of-the-play/#ethan_essay" target="_blank">-Ethan Cohn</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/familial-relationships/#AllieEssay" target="_blank">Why is Edmund such a horrific person, yet so easy to relate too? In the first scene of Act Two, Edmund sets up a scheme to gain his brother’s inheritance, clearly declaring himself as the villain. And yet, he does not seem evil. Perhaps it is his opening aside in which he talks about how he has been “debased” by society. Societal Roles of pre-Christian times were extremely limiting. Because Edmund was an illegitimate child born to a prostitute, Edmund had almost no legal claims to his father’s money. Although from the tone of his speech, I think what bothers Edmund most is that he has no claims to his fathers love. </a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/familial-relationships/#AllieEssay" target="_blank">It is evident that Edmund is jealous of his legitimate brother, Edgar. He says he wants to “top the legitimate”. He wants to prove he is good enough, even though everyone around him including his father looks at him like he is less than human. His vengeance seems dangerous, but his deprived feelings are human and relatable.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/familial-relationships/#AllieEssay" target="_blank">– Alilie Johnson</a>

I find it interesting how Edmund wants to claim his brother’s inheritance. This mirrors the Lear sisters’ dispute over their father’s lands. However, the differences are the relationships that each child has with his or her father. In Act 1 Scene 1 of King Lear, Gloucester states, “But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account” (lines 17-18). This statement makes it clear that Gloucester loves each of his sons an equal amount. It also clarifies the difference between Gloucester and Lear’s feelings towards each of their children. However, I think that this contrast is useless due to the similarity between Edmund and the two Lear sisters’ thirst for power. This common drive to obtain power undermines the contrast previously presented in the first scene because it suggests that no matter how much love someone is given, they will act out of their own agenda. -Mitchell

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/sparkly-gay-unicorn-peeps/#RayEssay">Commentary</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/sparkly-gay-unicorn-peeps/#RayEssay">By: Ray Blasen</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/sparkly-gay-unicorn-peeps/#RayEssay">I feel very little sympathy for Edmund due to his deception of others. His inability to “defy social order”, as Gloriana rightly phrased it, is difficult in the time period, but to do so only forces him to subscribe to the connotations of a bastard that are implied in Shakespearean text; conniving and treacherous. Perhaps I glossed over a very specific line, but it is of my notice that it is never particularly stated that all of Gloucester’s love goes to Edgar. Though Edmund states “Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund, As to the legitimate” (I.II.17), this comes from a skewed perspective, the unreliable narrator Edmund himself. Another point of view is not introduced on Gloucester’s dedication to either of his sons, though a neglect of Edmund is doubtable with the closeness he apparently possesses with his half-brother Edgar, and with how readily his father believes him. His bitterness (“Fine word, “legitimate”!” (I.II.18)) is obvious, but to go as far as to ensure his father takes Lear-like steps to condemn his blood heir is extreme. Familial bond is a repetitive theme, as is the apparent veil of deception. I think Cassie’s concept of the children’s actions being fueled by greed is worth considering, but perhaps in a different light. Goneril and Regan leech their father for what they can beyond what they have been given, while I still feel that Edmund is merely seeking acceptance, though doing so in exactly the wrong manner.</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/sexism-edmund-and-the-fool/#MichaelEssay">In regards to deception, did anyone notice the differences in Edmund’s speech when he was alone versus when he was speaking to Gloucester? In Edmund’s soliloquy at the top of 1-2, it seems as if he skips a bunch of syllables. I do not know if this is intentional in order to demonstrate Edmund being of a lower status than the other characters, or if it is just what Shakespeare had to do in order to keep the speeches in rhythm. I like to think that the former is true. It would make sense on many levels. It would demonstrate the effects that being a bastard has had on Edmund and may be a result of how he was treated. It would also signify Edmund to be a villain of the piece because he speaks a little bit more basely than the other characters. It also makes sense that once Gloucester entered, Edmund would speak a little bit more respectfully in order to get Gloucester to believe that Edgar is plotting to kill him and that Edmund himself is the more faithful son.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/sexism-edmund-and-the-fool/#MichaelEssay">-Michael Herwitz</a> .

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/sexism-edmund-and-the-fool/#LindseyEssay">There are so many themes within this play it is almost impossible to think about everything. One theme that I feel is prevalent in the second scene is the idea of what is justified, regarding Edmund. We must acknowledge that he has been wronged, that he is in a minority and represents that as part of his character. He wants justice for himself and for the gods to “stand up for bastards!” (Line 23) Edmund is fueled by his inclination to even the moral compass because he has been treated unfairly, however it was hard to keep that in mind as he completely and seemingly unashamedly manipulated his father and brother. He comes up with a brilliant scheme that will get his brother out of the picture and the way in which he goes about carrying out his plan is efficient and manipulative. Yes Edmund has been wronged and deserves justice–but at what cost??? I also agree with Peter when he brings up the strategy of Shakespeare in this play. How he is drawing out similarities in characters that the audience can possibly recognize. It is a subtle connection between characters to be made, but it is prevalent in the first two scenes of act one. The fact that the two scenes very explicitly focus on different people and plot lines emphasizes the connection between the two. By at first isolating the two plot lines Shakespeare makes it easier for us to recognize similarities between situations.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/sexism-edmund-and-the-fool/#LindseyEssay">-Lindsey Wolfram</a> .

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/the-edmund-fanclub/#ArmettaEssay">Edmund had previously been established as a bastard. He had lived his whole life in shame for the fact that he exists, something he clearly has no control over. It would drive me mad as well if every time I meet a stranger my father has to explain that my life is an embarrassing mistake. So although Edmund’s plan to betray his brother, who essentially seems to be a good man, and trick his father is quite devious, it is justified. When Edmund rambles on about the cruelty of his life in his opening soliloquy, and how he is always addressed as “base,” or “bastard,” I personally cannot help be upset with him. Edmund was, similarly to Lear, doomed from the start. Clearly in a situation neither can conquer (Lear being his old age and his inability to see past his pride, and Edmund his apparent “baseness”), both will make poor decisions and in the end pay dearly for it.</a> — Daniel Armetta

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/cjtnv/#JustineThompsonEssay" target="_blank">After reading this scene Edmund’s soliloquy stood out to me. This happens before he is able to convince his father that Edgar is plotting against him. He basically justified his feelings by not being the legitimate child. It makes sense that he would speak about his true feelings and is not holding back. He feels that it is necessary to speak of his feelings because he feels that he was raised by himself. Being without support of his father for so many years he feels no remorse. I am able to sympathize with Edmund by the way that Shakespeare defines his character that continues throughout the play. Edmund constant uses the word ‘legitimate’ and ‘base’ to further his disgust with his own position as well as Edgar’s position. The repetition of the word has a dual purpose by invigorating more anger in Edmund and professing his own feelings of being noticed beyond something that was out of his control. Edmund is upset at the fact that the word plays an important part in social status. His position hinders him from being or receiving what he wants and he is being denied due to a decision that was not his own. </a>-Justine

<a title="" href="http://vimeo.com/http://vimeo.com/85895256?width=640&height=480" rel="wp-video-lightbox"><img alt="Video" src="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/video-icon.png" width="17" height="”17”" /></a><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://soundcloud.com/learproject/armetta-daniel-individual" target="_blank"><img alt="Icon - audio" src="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/audio-icon.png" width="22" height="22" /></a><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Edmund-Artistic.jpg" target="_blank"><img title="Scene 2 of Act 1 of King Lear is the first time we (the readers) are introduced to Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester. In Scene 1, the readers cannot help but feel pity for him and his state, especially when the father talks about his son's mother and his birth so disrespectfully (Act 1, line 23: There was good sport in his making). Therefore, as a reader myself, I went into Scene 2, expecting to find Edmund to unfold as a pitiful soul who despairs in his state. However, Edmund's true character is spiteful, vengeful, and dare I say diabolical. He and his legitimate brother seem to stand as opposites in his book: Edgar being the noble, "good" one, while Edmund being the "evil" one who seeks to ruin his brother's reputation to steal his inheritance. Now, Edmund's reasons for being angry are legitimate: His entire life as he says he has been called "base...bastard...bastardy" (Scene 2, Line 10). He has been consumed by his jealousy of legitimate children, which derives from the fact that he has been disrespected and ignored all his life because he was born out of wedlock. Therefore, Edmund's anger is understandable. However, what is terrifying about Edmund and cannot be justified by his anger is the way he projects his anger onto his brother, and chooses to destroy his possibilities to have posterity through planning to turn Edgar and Gloucester against one another. Not only does Edmund treat this act as if it is sport, he does it knowing his brother has no fault. In Scene 2, line 186-189 he states: "I do serve you in this business/ A credulous father and a brother noble/ whose nature is so far from doing harms/ that he suspects none." Here, Edmund recognizes that his brother Edgar is a good and honorable soul. However, his own anger over being illegitimate consumes him so much that he doesn't care. Instead of being angry at his father, who initiated this problem, he chooses to be upset at his brother because he is too jealous and blind to really see the real problem. Perhaps it is that Edmund sees no other solution but to hate his brother in order to be cruel enough to steal his inheritance. However, the joy that which he does makes his machinations with is what truly makes Edmund a fearful and dangerous character, and is the part of his character that I have yet to understand. " alt="" src="http://nathanblom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Icon-Image-e1390235028190.png" width="20" height="20" /></a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-families-and-connections/#essay3" target="_blank">Act 1. Sc 2 commentary by Dasha Martinez</a> 2.1: Scene 2 of Act 1 of King Lear is the first time we (the readers) are introduced to Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester. In Scene 1, the readers cannot help but feel pity for him and his state, especially when the father talks about his son’s mother and his birth so disrespectfully (Act 1, line 23: There was good sport in his making). Therefore, as a reader myself, I went into Scene 2, expecting to find Edmund to unfold as a pitiful soul who despairs in his state. However, Edmund’s true character is spiteful, vengeful, and dare I say diabolical. He and his legitimate brother seem to stand as opposites in his book: Edgar being the noble, “good” one, while Edmund being the “evil” one who seeks to ruin his brother’s reputation to steal his inheritance. Now, Edmund’s reasons for being angry are legitimate: His entire life as he says he has been called “base…bastard…bastardy” (Scene 2, Line 10). He has been consumed by his jealousy of legitimate children, which derives from the fact that he has been disrespected and ignored all his life because he was born out of wedlock. Therefore, Edmund’s anger is understandable. However, what is terrifying about Edmund and cannot be justified by his anger is the way he projects his anger onto his brother, and chooses to destroy his possibilities to have posterity through planning to turn Edgar and Gloucester against one another. Not only does Edmund treat this act as if it is sport, he does it knowing his brother has no fault. In Scene 2, line 186-189 he states: “I do serve you in this business/ A credulous father and a brother noble/ whose nature is so far from doing harms/ that he suspects none.” Here, Edmund recognizes that his brother Edgar is a good and honorable soul. However, his own anger over being illegitimate consumes him so much that he doesn’t care. Instead of being angry at his father, who initiated this problem, he chooses to be upset at his brother because he is too jealous and blind to really see the real problem. Perhaps it is that Edmund sees no other solution but to hate his brother in order to be cruel enough to steal his inheritance. However, the joy that which he does makes his machinations with is what truly makes Edmund a fearful and dangerous character, and is the part of his character that I have yet to understand.

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/the-parallelism-of-king-lear-and-his-daughters-and-gloucester-and-his-sons/#StevenEssay" target="_blank">A Mastermind at Organization</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/the-parallelism-of-king-lear-and-his-daughters-and-gloucester-and-his-sons/#StevenEssay" target="_blank">Shakespeare has worked to do two things in the second and third acts. He has established the main plot, which follows an overthrow of the political order of the Kingdom of England. Here we see how Goneril, Regan, and Edmund all intend to overthrow their father’s despotic positions and claim their autocracy. Shakespeare has also performed a difficult task. He has caused us to sympathize with Edmund, a villain. He has done this regardless of Edmund’s intent to kill his own father and destroy his brother’s life by (as Gloria mentioned) making Edmund seem level headed (as he is not an astrologist) and by having Edmund represent the poor and the common man, creating obvious empathy for Edmund.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/the-parallelism-of-king-lear-and-his-daughters-and-gloucester-and-his-sons/#StevenEssay" target="_blank"> – Steven Alsheimer</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/wisdom-in-madness-king-lear/#BrennanEssay" target="_blank">Lara Brennan on Mistrust in 1.1 and 1.2</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/wisdom-in-madness-king-lear/#BrennanEssay" target="_blank">The questions that have been raised about the connection between Lear’s rash judgements and Gloucester’s easy paranoia are interesting. There really does seem to be a strong parallel. The lack of trust, and the way in which both men immediately assume the worst of their children suggests an underlying insecurity or sense of doubt amongst the parents. It also should be noted that both men are deceived by other, untrustworthy children. When one considers both of these facts it is compelling to question whether the paranoia and mistrust truly was unfounded. Perhaps a reality of having such immense power is that those close to you will try to use it to their advantage. One might initially assume theme central to this play was paranoia, but as I read it becomes clear that King Lear truly focuses on deception and the things the prompt people to lie or to present themselves falsely.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/wisdom-in-madness-king-lear/#BrennanEssay"></a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/analysis-of-themes-in-king-lear/#Eckman_Essay" target="_blank">After reading the second scene of the play, clear parallels exist between the families of King Lear and Gloucester. While the latter’s story is the subplot, it serves an important role in highlighting key aspects of the central plot. Both men have children who are vying for their father’s wealth, and this competition leads to the major conflicts of the play. Regan and Goneril’s insincere professions of love for their father could be likened to the letter that Edmund wrote in order to frame Edgar for plotting against their father. Lear’s children and Gloucester’s child use dishonest means of securing their father’s partiality and the two men are ignorant as to which of their children truly deserves their wealth. In each plot, the honest child had previously been the favorite of the father. Based on the conversation between Regan and Goneril, one can infer that King Lear originally displayed favoritism towards Cordelia, whom he then disowned. When Gloucester spoke of Edmund to Kent, he admitted that he “often blushed to acknowledge [Edmund]” (10), and one can thus assume that he preferred his legitimate son, Edgar.</a> – Jared Eckman

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-family-analysis/#KendallEssay">Commentary by Kendall Farrell</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-family-analysis/#KendallEssay">I.ii was compelling. We saw a glimpse of Edmund’s true personality and riveting outlook on human kind. “This is excellent foppery of the world…the charge of the star!” (I.ii, 125-135). The beginning of this soliloquy discusses the idiocy of the world. When people are bad or against nature they don’t blame themselves, rather, they blamed the sun, moon, or stars. Most people believe, they never do wrong but Edmund knows better. He doesn’t see why humankind must blame their issues on other things. When we are introduced to the Edmund, he is plotting to gain respect from his father. Edmund’s older, legitimate brother Edgar is 5the loved child. Edgar has his father’s love and respect. This scene shows Edmund’s plan to make Edgar look like an ungrateful and hateful son. While Edmund’s actions are not the most responsible but neither are Gloucester’s, Edmund’s father. Gloucester makes fun of Edmund, he calls out his illegitimacy at every chance he can and doesn’t see Edmund as a real son. Why, as a father, does Gloucester choose a favorite child? It creates the perfect scenario for Edmund to want to do anything for a little respect or love. I find it quite interesting that Gloucester does not question Edmund’s honesty and Edgar doesn’t seem suspicious that all sudden he is told to stay away from his father because Gloucester wants to disown Edgar. Edmund’s different opinion on illegitimate sons allows us to see the idea from multiple perspectives. This scene lays down the foundation for the violence that will occur later on in the play.</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/edmunds-deception/#NewmansEssay" target="_blank">Edmund’s asides in which he questions society’s way of attributing everything to the work of higher powers are very interesting. He claims that “We make guilty of our disasters …as if we were villains on necessity…” (127-129). He critiques society for blaming higher powers for its mistakes and imperfections. Edmund seems to be one of the only characters who questions this mentality because he, as a bastard, has been short-changed by societies standards.</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/edmunds-deception/#NewmansEssay">He complains that he should have “… been that I am had the maidenliest star in the firmament been twinkled on my bastardizing” (138-140) He therefore acknowledges that he identifies with being a bastard, that he is a bastard by nature and not by the nuance of a particular star or outside force. He therefore accepts his status as a bastard without blaming it an outside influence, for he is a bastard not only due to the way he was conceived, but in every way. He simply possesses the essence of being a bastard. Edmund’s thoughts on this are juxtaposed by the entrance of Edgar, his “legitimate” brother, who is, by nature, not a bastard and seems to enjoy better fortune. He is therefore interrupted by his blood brother who represents the rest of society. </a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/edmunds-deception/#NewmansEssay">Emily Newman</a>.

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/the-awesomes-group-essays-gold-edition/#shana" target="_blank">The theme of jealousy arises in this play through the character Edmund. Gloucester’s bastard son Edmund is struggling with a strong desire to be respected by society and to receive the same opportunities as his brother, Edgar. “My father compounded with my mother under the Dragon’s Tail, and my nativity was under Ursa Major, so that it follows I am rough and lecherous.” Edmund is fully aware of his low status as a bastard in society and his lack of respect from others. By creating a fake letter from Edgar stating Edgar’s secret plans to kill his father Gloucester, Edmund attempts to destroy the trust and bond that exists between father and legitimate son. Edmund is clearly jealous of Edgar and wishes to gain familial respect. Jealousy, a motivator of bad deeds, pushes Edmund to frame Edgar, turning his father against him, all in the hopes of receiving the same esteem Edgar receives. -Shana Metcalf</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/desiree-kateri…lly-will-megan/#baraffessay" target="_blank">Flaws in Human Nature – Projecting The Blame</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/desiree-kateri…lly-will-megan/#baraffessay" target="_blank"> By Molly Baraff</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/desiree-kateri…lly-will-megan/#baraffessay" target="_blank">When things are going wrong, it is natural for humans to find some explanation or excuse for the unwanted events: “This is the excellent foppery of the world that when we are sick in fortune – often the surfeit of our own behavior – we make guilt of our disasters of the sun, the moon, and the stars, as if we were villains by necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion…” (I.ii.25). Even though the fault is often our own, Edmund observes that when things do not go our way we tend to put the blame on another person, on fate, or on science. Edmund suggests that by doing this, we are implying that nature forced us to be villainous or stupid. It is not our fault, but the wrongdoing was out of our control and was bound to happen anyway. If we put the blame on another person we are attempting to feel less guilty ourselves, and if we put the blame on nature and science, then we are providing a solid explanation for why things happened the way they did. Edmund is attempting to take the blame of his illegitimacy off himself and his father and place it on the stars. Blaming others for one’s own benefit is one of the many human flaws Shakespeare illustrates throughout King Lear.</a>

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-families-and-connections/#essay4" target="_blank">Act 2 Scene 1 Commentary by Gabby Carmine</a> One notable observation is that in the beginning of Act 2 Scene 1 while Edmund is speaking to Edgar, he consistently refers to their father as “my father” insinuating that he is not also Edgar’s father. “Edmund: Come, come! When saw you my father last? Edgar: The night gone by”(I.2.159-160). This small difference in reference to their father as “my father” instead of just “father” or “our father”, begins to demonstrate that Edmund is isolating the relationship between Gloucester and Edgar. This clearly foreshadows the future events of the potential official disownment of Edgar, and of the designation of Edmund as the heir even though he was a child born out of wedlock. I also see clear similarities between Edmund and Iago from Shakespeare’s Othello. Both men are clearly evil and act against the people that trust them the most. Edmund deceives both Edgar and Gloucester while Iago deceives Othello. I find the similarities between many of Shakespeare’s antagonists to be very interesting. What is perplexing in the story is why the smarter characters like the Duke of Cornwall don’t see through Edmund’s treachery and greed. While it makes sense that Edmund’s family would believe him because immediate family frequently trusts without question, Cornwall is not immediate family and has no reason to trust Edmund, other than Edmund did him a favor by disclosing the upcoming battle. But Cornwall, who is more astute than the other characters, could have taken that information without trusting Edmund.

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/analysis-of-themes-in-king-lear/#Ike_Essay" target="_blank">I think Shakespeare was extremely effective in making both families multidimensional just by putting them side-by-side. We see the deceit of children who feel like they were never given something they deserved, from Regan and Goneril not being favored like Cordelia was by King Lear, to Edmund’s deep jealousy of Edgar, who is only perceived as better because of the way he was born. We also see how the deceit triumphs over the good and true, even in the first two scenes. Edmund is able to turn Edgar against their father by using his trust as Edgar being good, believes what Edmund tells him. We see how manipulative he is when Edmund says to his half brother “Brother, I advise you to the best; I am no honest man if there be any good meaning toward you: I have told you what I have seen and heard but faintly; nothing like the image and horror of it: pray you, away!” (I, ii, 180) While it is obvious that Edmund is driven by selfishness, the element of pity is there. By putting Edmund in a situation that he was helpless in preventing, Shakespeare makes us feel bad for Edmund even though what he was doing was wrong, because we might have done the same. I think it’s extremely interesting to spot literary techniques such as juxtaposition and elements of tragedy after studying them, and to be able to see how Shakespeare effortlessly incorporates them into his plot.</a> – Noelle Ike

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/lears-sanity-or-lack-thereof-and-its-importance-to-the-play/#NicksEssay" target="_blank">King Lear Act 1 Sc. 2 Commentary</a> <a href="http://nathanblom.com/lears-sanity-or-lack-thereof-and-its-importance-to-the-play/#NicksEssay" target="_blank">The theme of King Lear is made clear in this next scene. By now, the story is now focused on more than just Lear and his children: it is about family ties and power struggles. There also seems to be a trend here: it’s the youth that wants to overthrow their elders. It is interesting how deception is also a common action taken. Edmund, the bastard child, deceives his own father by forging a letter and putting the target on Edgar’s back. In a way, Lear’s eldest daughters did the same. The two sisters probably knew the youngest sister would be easy to target and throw out of the picture. I have a feeling as I read on, these themes of deception and power will come back frequently. I predict that maybe it comes back to haunt the culprits, and they actually lose the power they try and gain!</a>

Act 1 Scene 2 Commentary by Madelene Fialla This scene focuses on Edmund and his character. One thing very clear about Edmund is that he doesn’t hold conventional views for the time period King Lear is set in, such as the tradition towards first-born sons and against illegitimate ones in regards to inheritance; why, he asks, does it matter when he’s as cool as any legitimate? In fact, he even argues that being a bastard is cooler for reasons rather shaky, albeit hilarious and colorful. He also decries the belief that stars prescribe destiny, insisting he would be of the same character no matter what star he was born under. It makes a lot of sense that Edmund would hold these beliefs; after all, if societal traditions had any true meaning he would be forced to stick to them, and if his fate of illegitimacy and baseness was prescribed by stars that would mean he could do nothing to change it. Such notions, of course, he thoroughly rejects. However, denying that his star (Ursa Major) has made him “rough and lecherous” is a bit hard to believe as Edmund is clearly doing wrong by tricking his father and aiming to eliminate Edgar. I actually wonder if that was somewhat Shakespeare’s point; I do not know if Edmund was meant to elicit sympathy or be liked (though I strongly feel both). Were these beliefs about stars and illegitimate sons and such common in Shakespeare’s time? If so, I don’t think that people would take kindly to a character mocking them for these ideas. Depending on how Edmund is portrayed and what happens to him by the end of the play one can ascertain whether Shakespeare was intending to support Edmund’s questioning or denounce it. He is already being portrayed as rather wicked, so I am inclined to think the latter, which is too bad because he’s my favorite character so far. He’s incredibly observant and clever, manipulating his father and brother with ease (using things such as reverse psychology) and then chuckling that they’re too noble to suspect deviousness on his part. It makes me wonder what great man he would have been had he not been born so unfortunately, nor had the unluckiness to be a character in a Shakespearean tragedy.

<a href="http://nathanblom.com/king-lear-families-and-connections/#essay3" target="_blank">Act 1. Sc.2 Commentary by Dasha Martinez</a> Scene 2 of Act 1 of King Lear is the first time we (the readers) are introduced to Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester. In Scene 1, the readers cannot help but feel pity for him and his state, especially when the father talks about his son’s mother and his birth so disrespectfully (Act 1, line 23: There was good sport in his making). Therefore, as a reader myself, I went into Scene 2, expecting to find Edmund to unfold as a pitiful soul who despairs in his state. However, Edmund’s true character is spiteful, vengeful, and dare I say diabolical. He and his legitimate brother seem to stand as opposites in his book: Edgar being the noble, “good” one, while Edmund being the “evil” one who seeks to ruin his brother’s reputation to steal his inheritance. Now, Edmund’s reasons for being angry are legitimate: His entire life as he says he has been called “base…bastard…bastardy” (Scene 2, Line 10). He has been consumed by his jealousy of legitimate children, which derives from the fact that he has been disrespected and ignored all his life because he was born out of wedlock. Therefore, Edmund’s anger is understandable. However, what is terrifying about Edmund and cannot be justified by his anger is the way he projects his anger onto his brother, and chooses to destroy his possibilities to have posterity through planning to turn Edgar and Gloucester against one another. Not only does Edmund treat this act as if it is sport, he does it knowing his brother has no fault. In Scene 2, line 186-189 he states: “I do serve you in this business/ A credulous father and a brother noble/ whose nature is so far from doing harms/ that he suspects none.” Here, Edmund recognizes that his brother Edgar is a good and honorable soul. However, his own anger over being illegitimate consumes him so much that he doesn’t care. Instead of being angry at his father, who initiated this problem, he chooses to be upset at his brother because he is too jealous and blind to really see the real problem. Perhaps it is that Edmund sees no other solution but to hate his brother in order to be cruel enough to steal his inheritance. However, the joy that which he does makes his machinations with is what truly makes Edmund a fearful and dangerous character.