Sara Eliav
The characters of Shakespeare’s King Lear are representative of the social hierarchy that was present in Elizabethan England. A time of innovation and artistry, the sixteenth century stimulated an ongoing analyses of human interaction. Interest regarding fairness and perception was an offshoot of such analyses. The most distinct inequality that is displayed in King Lear specifically regards the lives of Edmund and Edgar. Edmund’s mother and father never married, classifying him as one of illegitimate birth. This puts Edmund on a lower rung within society. His half brother Edgar, the “legitimate” son, is considered more noble. Despite status defined at birth, the brothers do not conform to expectation. In their attempts to survive warfare and rise to power, Edmund and Edgar are able to defy the expectations and prejudices of their society.
Edmund, for example, responds radically to the abuse that he has experienced. He has been mistreated since childhood and is, therefore, determined to attain power and honor . Edmund contrives to send Edgar into a state of shameful solitude, in order to reduce the threat of competition. In a confrontation with Edgar, Edmund discloses his scheme. Edmund has gained Gloucester’s trust by, paradoxically, portraying Edgar as the treasonous schemer. Edgar flees in fear when Edmund slashes his own wrists (1.2. 20-40). When Gloucester enters the scene, Edmund shows the lord his fresh scars. Edmund, with the representation of his slashed wrists, is able to convincingly formulate a lie, declaring that Edgar is planning to murder Gloucester.
Though Edmund’s motives mainly revolve around a desire for power, this desperate attempt to attain support from Gloucester shows deeper emotional complexity. Edmund, through lying and scheming, is, ironically, able to portray himself as helpless. Society may have encouraged lowly behavior from Edmund by designating him as one of illegitimate birth. During the Medieval period, illegitimacy was more widely tolerated. As time progressed into the sixteenth century, illegitimate status became a greater stigma. It attracted distrust and was associated with trickery (Pitchard 25) . Edmund is able, nonetheless, to attain Gloucester’s sympathy and trust. Gloucester becomes convinced that Edgar is, in fact, the traitor, rather than Edmund. He, eventually, sends officials to pursue and capture Edgar.
In Act II Scene III, Edgar, though part of nobility, has been forced into hiding. He disguises himself as “Poor Tom”, a beggar that has been released from an asylum. Edgar’s adoption of this disguise serves as proof of society’s negative view toward the poor and ill. Furthermore, as Edgar formulates his new identity he states that “face I’ll grime with filth” (2.3.8). This is ironic, as Edgar is of high status but chooses to adopt an appearance of dirtiness. He diverts from expected idealism and perfection, showing outwardly his feeling of panic. Instances of uncomposed behavior are surprising when displayed by nobility. Edgar’s personal expression of insanity may be an attempt at rebellion. A life within the confines of high expectation and nobility could have affected Edgar’s sense of self. The transformation into “poor Tom”, may represent Edgar’s confusion regarding his identity. In addition, his solitude at this point sets the mark for the beginning of journey toward personal discovery.
Edmund also displays a rather deranged, yet clever, sort of behavior as he goes on his own quest to achieve higher status. As the French plan to invade England, Gloucester and Edmund meet again. Gloucester discloses his plan to join Lear’s side in battle, abandoning Lord Cornwall. After his father has left the scene, Edmund rejoices and articulates the final part of his scheme to betray Gloucester. He plans to tell Cornwall of Gloucester’s treachery (3.3.1-22). The deep, intellectual thought that Edmund exhibits is unexpected considering his social status. Though his harsh feelings toward Gloucester violate ethical principle, Edmund may not be acting with such basic intent. He is expressing fear, for Edmund worries that his progressive rise in status will be set back. Gloucester has withdrawn all potential support for Edmund, leaving Edmund in formal abandonment. Edmund’s rebellion is likely a result of such profound psychological trauma and insecurity, rather than basic evil intent.
Society’s standard, at the time, did not consider one’s true emotional potential. Shakespeare, in contrast to Elizabethan assumption, often uses the portrayal of illegitimates to present those who have great potential to be good as well as evil. It seems, then, that Shakespeare utilized the theme of hierarchical injustice in order to analyze the variability in human nature. He creates characters that showcase “duality and fluidity, the capability to belong to more than one group” (Pitchard 26). This is clear regarding Edgar, as well, who shifts between nobility and poverty. Both Edmund and Edgar, therefore, demonstrate the extent to which social mobility is possible even within a prejudicial environment.
Works Cited
Pritchard, Katie. Legitimacy, Illegitimacy and Sovereignty in Shakespeare’s British Plays.
Thesis. University of Manchester, 2011. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
Shakespeare, William. Ed. Paul Werstine and Barbara Mowat. New York: Folger
Shakespeare Library, 1993. Print.
The ending of King Lear is one that completely shocks readers. Myself among many others are usually exposed to stories that end with the good characters triumphing over the bad, yet Shakespeare throws us for a loop when he kills off almost everyone in the play. The demise of Goneril and Regan, the evil sisters fighting over power, is more expected than the sudden death of Lear who seemed to have learned from his past mistakes in the end. The question is why such a depressing, gloomy final scene? What was the reasoning behind the sudden death of so many characters? The ending supports the idea that in this play, no matter who’s considered noble and who’s considered dishonorable, each character has a fatal flaw that in the end leads to their downfall. In fact, the final scene hits the nail right on the head when proving how hamartia (in not just the heroine) has such a huge impact on the entirety of the play, and is the driving theme of King Lear.
Many areas of the text point to this theme of fatal flaws that in turn lead to the death of multiple characters. Most notably are Goneril, Regan, Edmund, and Lear. Goneril and Regan, the older daughters of King Lear, fight many battles throughout the play. At first they argue with one another over who loves their father more, but later team up together to take him down. However, by the end they’re back where they started: fighting over a man (in this case Edmund). In the final scene, a knight appears while holding a bloody knife and declares them both dead: “Your lady, sir, your lady. And her sister by her is poisoned. She confesses it.” (V.iii.239-240). Their fatal flaw is jealousy over one another. It was clear even in the first scene, when Goneril professes her love for Lear and Regan retorts with “Sir, I am made of that self mettle as my sister, and prize me at her worth. In my true heart, I find she names my very deed of love- only she comes too short.” (I.i.68-71). Just by observing the way Regan responds to her, it is obvious that jealousy has been an issue between the two since the beginning. The poisoning of one sister because and the heartbroken suicide of the other is a clear sign that envy was to blame.
Edmunds death was also the result of his fatal flaw: valuing power over family. In the beginning of the play he deceives his father by telling him that his son Edgar was trying to kill him. And afterwards he shows no remorse when Edgar runs away, not to mention he doesn’t care when Gloucester leaves and never returns. His ability to act this heartless seems unreal. But in a final duel at the end, Edgar takes his revenge and kills his brother. The fact that it was Edgar who caused Edmunds downfall is ironic seeing how Edmund seemingly caused his.
A mixture of arrogance and ignorance causes Lear’s demise. He treats his youngest daughter Cordelia horribly by disowning her, as he spews out: “here I disclaim all my paternal care, propinquity, and property of blood, and as a stranger to my heart and me hold thee from this for ever.” (I.i.114-117). Lear instead gives his power to Goneril and Regan who immediately turn against him. Having realized how cruel he was earlier as he slowly descends into madness, he and Cordelia make up. But soon after, she is killed and the huge amount of grief and regret Lear has towards her causes him to also pass away. His egotistical attitude by overestimating the amount of power he had (arrogance) and not being aware of true love versus fake (ignorance) clearly paved the way for his downfall.
This idea of fatal flaws within a tragedy is something that Shakespeare is very familiar with. Not only is it seen throughout the text of King Lear, but also it is prevalent in many other plays by this author. Victorian critic A.C Bradley, who wrote the work Shakespearean Tragedy in 1904, emphasizes the Aristotelian notion of the tragic flaw: the tragic hero errors by his own actions, which joins with other causes to being about his ruin. According to Bradley, “the idea of the tragic hero as a being destroyed simply and solely by external forces is quite alien to him; and not less so is the idea of the hero as contributing to his destruction only by the acts in which we see no flaw.” (Bradley). His belief was that Shakespeare’s characters bring their fates upon themselves and in return deserve what they get. King Lear’s dismal final scene perfectly exemplifies this.
Works Cited
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print.
Bradley, A. C. Shakespearean Tragedy. London: Macmillan, 1905. Print.
Eugenia Sanabria-Fernandez
Shakespeare’s play, entitled King Lear, perfectly exemplifies horrendous consequences due to false perception and ignorance. The sub plot of the play is, in many ways, a mirror of the main one, and in both cases, Lear and Gloucester fail to see through dishonestly, falling prey to their own blood. Their refusal to see the truth results in them losing their power, and eventually their lives. Shakespeare’s plays usually bring questions of philosophy to the table, forcing the audience to question issues from everyday occurrences to their deepest beliefs. In King Lear, practically every character dies. Characters who are made out to be villains, like Edmund, Goneril and Regan, receive the expected fate of death, but many of the good characters, like Cordelia and Lear, also die. This is not what is expected to happen, being that good characters commonly triumph over the bad ones. Through this lack of justice to the most loyal and respectable characters, the audience is made to question the legitimacy of divine justice, and ultimately the existence of a God.
Shakespeare lived in Elizabethan England while writing King Lear. During the years surrounding the creation of the play, England had gone through large political and religious changes. “England was thrown into a kind of religious identity crisis over the next few decades…Each of these shifts was accompanied by danger, persecution, and death.” (Bengtsson). This is a plausible reason for the extent to which the play questions religion, and to why its plot delves into the topics of death, corruption, and human suffering. Throughout the play, characters dance between begging the Gods for their help and cursing them for putting them in the situations they are in, similar to the population of England at the time. Scene 2 begins with a plea from Gloucester’s illegitimate son Edmund, “Now gods, stand up for the bastards!” (1.2.23) Edmund refuses to conform to the expectation set for bastards, leaving nothing to the gods, and taking matters into his own hands by deceiving his family in order to secure his seat at the throne. This does not end well for him, with the play concluding in his death. This is normally viewed as an example of justice, because he pays for his actions. However, Edmund is led to react to the situation in such a way because he has been shunned by society for being a bastard, something seen today as complete injustice because he did not decide bastardy for himself.
The play ultimates touches on the nature of human suffering. King Lear takes place in a world that is not run by a god, where people, good and bad alike, must all suffer. In Act 1, Edmund prays, “Thou, Nature, art my goddess; to thy law my services are bound” (1.2.1-2). The belief is that in the natural world, justice will reign supreme because it is natural order. Edmund takes this into consideration in his soliloquy, believing that justice will be served and he will be granted his rights to the throne. Edmund isn’t the only character to express his waning faith. As the story unfolds, Gloucester declares “As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; They kill us for their sport.” (4.1.37–38). This is after he has been blinded and has lost faith in the concept of divine justice. His faith has greatly diminished after he receives a punishment he does not deserve. On the other hand, Edgar keeps an optimistic view, claiming that “the gods are just” (5.3.169). He believes humans get what they deserve, and in the end he is one of two characters left to rule England. Of course, there is always the argument that a life left to be lived alone is no life at all. So the question remains: If a god exists, why does he allow these injustices to occur?
Shakespeare’s prodding of the firm religious beliefs held during those years has yet to be answered. In fact, the question of whether or not a god exists still remains a question in modern times. There are moments in the play, like when Gloucester and Edgar are reunited, that we are given the hopes that a god exists. There are scenes, like Cordelia’s return, that lead us to believe, for a moment, that she will defeat the terrible Goneril and Regan, and that harmony will be restored in the kingdom. But after Edmund’s struggle with his terrible fate and Lear’s grapple with insanity, Shakespeare leaves us with an open ending, killing off characters both good and bad alike, without any reconciliation. The only thing we are left with for sure is the fact that, whether you believe in a god or not, human suffering and death will always exist.
Works Cited
Bengtsson, Frederick. “Historical Context for King Lear by William Shakespeare.” Columbia
College. Columbia College, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
Shakespeare, William. “Folger Shakespeare Library: King Lear.” New York City: Washington
Square Press. 1993. Print.
Finding the Fool
Jolene Cobb
Shakespeare’s King Lear is dense in its themes about character roles in society. This brings one to question the roles of the Fool and of King Lear and the theme of power. King Lear believes in his own power and omnipotence. The Fool understands his status in society but is not oblivious to the power he truly owns. How, then, does the king’s naive and easily manipulatable character make him the fool in the play?
The fool’s status is definite. However, as King Lear’s position of power goes through a transition throughout the play, the fool “gains” power. He becomes more relevant to society than the king. He understands his place and unlike the king, knows that “he that has and a little tiny wit, with heigh-ho, the wind and the rain, must make content with his fortunes fit, for the rain, it raineth every day”(III.ii.75-78). The fool knows what he has – he is especially content with the few material items he possess and understands that they prove his status in society. He is complacent and certain of his possessions and understands that “rain” happens – that sometimes life has its own misfortunes. Quite ironically, King Lear replies “true, my good boy’ (III.ii.79). Lear agrees with the fool, even though the source of his power is rooted in the fortunes he has received as King. Lear is seen here as lesser than in comparison to the fool because he is oblivious to the awareness that power comes from being content without the items possessed or previously possessed, at that, by him.
More foolish than being naive to his status, King Lear decides to portion his power to the daughters that hyperbolized their love for him. His power weakens when he gives in to the words of Goneril and Regan and instead banishes Cordelia despite her honesty. He essentially becomes lesser than for portioning the very possessions he associates with power – the land, the knights, and other assets of monarchy – to the least deserving of his daughters. Lear, as is shown throughout the text, confides more in the opinions of the Fool than of his own daughter Cordelia. He disowns her upon her expressing her honest feelings toward him but encourages the Fool in his honest criticism. Similar to Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, or What you Will, the fool establishes a relationship with the king such that he can be completely honest in his criticisms of the king and not be disowned. It is for this reason the king’s character makes him the fool in the play. The fool’s character grows into one that is more aware and experienced in the world than Lear’s. He thoughtfully forms his opinions and judgement, unlike King Lear(Williams, Maggie. Shakespeare examinations. Ginn and Co,1888).
The theme of power is expressed specifically through the relationship shared between the fool and the king in Shakespeare’s King Lear. King Lear’s obliviousness to the limits of his own power makes him the fool in the play. Through instances in the play where Lear’s power has been examined, the reader can thoroughly analyze how the Fool’s complacency throughout the play deems him less foolish than the king.
Diana Mellow
In mathematical terms, guilt and blame are inverse functions. As one of these emotions increases, the other decreases. A person who feels incredibly guilty about an experience is less likely to blame someone else for it; on the other hand, someone who blames another person completely will probably not suffer from guilt. So, if a mathematician finds a function’s inverse by flipping it over the line y=x, it would make sense that an individual must also cross some line of moral inversion for guilt to become blame or vice versa. In King Lear, this line is the attainment of political power. As the characters in the play gain power, they become less guilty and more willing to place blame on others.
Shakespeare brings up the issue of guilt early in the first act and threads it through the rest of the plot. One of the first mentions of this emotion is contained in a line by a supporting character: “My lord, I am guiltless as I am ignorant of what hath moved you” (1.4.286). Albany’s phrase serves many purposes at once. It functions as an apology, an expression of confused frustration, a sign of encouragement to Lear, and, perhaps most fascinating, an evasion of guilt. Shakespeare clearly links guiltlessness to ignorance, using “as” to complete the simile. Albany is unaware of most of the forces moving Lear–deep internal turmoil, loss of power, fragmentation of identity–so Albany is able to avoid the responsibility associated with these complex emotions. Not that Albany himself plays a great role in the onset of Lear’s problems. But if he were more cognizant of them, Shakespeare suggests, he might feel the need or responsibility to acknowledge them. Without the prerequisite knowledge, there is no guilt and therefore no internal trouble on the observer’s part.
Albany’s offhand remark does not prove as true when applied to the other characters of the play. Goneril and Regan seem to evade guilt, but their guiltlessness is certainly not born from ignorance. It is a product of the blame they deflect from themselves and place on their father. Goneril points to Lear as the source of her frustration, claiming that “by day and night he wrongs me” (1.3.4). She presents herself as the victim without acknowledging the ways in which she has wronged Lear. Goneril and Regan deceived their father into thinking that they loved him more and were more worthy of the inheritance than their younger sibling, Cordelia. Once in power, the two sisters try to strip Lear of his last physical connection the the kingdom he once ruled–his knights. Goneril completely blames Lear for his attachment to his knights, which makes it that much simpler for her to avoid guilt. Goneril and her sister are so focused on maintaining their power over the kingdom that it makes them blind to emotional responsibility. The feelings of guilt and obedience traditionally integral to being a good daughter during the time period in which the play is set, and certainly in the society from which Shakespeare was writing, have been inverted: The daughters’ power makes them more willing to blame others and less willing to blame themselves.
Cordelia seems somehow immune to this process. She preserves the traditional parent-child relationship and even goes so far as to forgive her father. As Lear lies asleep and clearly growing mad with old age, Cordelia explains his illness to the doctor as a “great breach in his abused nature” (4.7.15). She presents her father as a man who has been abused and grown strong from it, and she implies that old age is simply a “breach” in his personality and nothing to blame him for. Cordelia also describes her father as “child-changed,” and in doing so accepts the collective guilt for her father’s circumstances (4.7.17). She admits that Lear has been changed back into a child by all of his children, not just Goneril and Regan. Cordelia acknowledges her role in the precipitation of the family conflict. Even when given the chance to blame her father, Cordelia simply says “No cause, no cause” (4.7.76). It seems strange that Cordelia, having been banished from the kingdom by her own father, is so ready to forgive him while Goneril and Regan are not. But the sisters are actually reacting to their disparate circumstances in a predictable way. While Goneril’s and Regan’s political power intoxicates them and practically extinguishes all their guilt, their youngest sister’s banishment from the kingdom makes her reluctant to blame others.
Physically, the power between Cordelia and her father changes. William Blake’s painting of Lear and Cordelia in prison shows a weak father laying helpless in her daughter’s lap. Ian McKellen plays the king as a grovelling old man at Cordelia’s feet in the Trevor Nunn film interpretation. Over the course of the play, Lear slowly deteriorates into frailty and senility. Cordelia chooses not to prey on his weakness; her sisters take advantage of the opportunity. By forgiving her father so easily and accepting some of the guilt for his circumstances, Cordelia leaves Lear his power. She refuses to invert her emotions the way Goneril and Regan do at the beginning of the play. Shakespeare suggests that power often causes an imbalance of guilt and blame in individuals, and the refusal to invert these emotions can preserve power dynamics.
Works Cited
Blake, William. Lear and Cordelia in Prison. 1778-80. Pen and Watercolor. Tate Gallery, London.
King Lear. Dir. Trevor Nunn. Perf. Ian McKellen, Ben Addis. Royal Shakespeare Company, 2009.
Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. King Lear. New York: Simon &
Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print.