Daniel:
The Earl of Kent: Loyalty and Status in King Lear
(to be linked with Act 2 Scene 2 lines 15)
In King Lear, William Shakespeare analyzes human behavior by masterfully creating three dimensional, realistic characters. Through these characters, he explores how humans behave in relation to various themes. In the tragic play, a major theme is faithfulness. The character of the Earl of Kent offers a fascinating take on loyalty as he remains so to Lear after countless examples of betrayal and deception. In King Lear, Kent is one of the few who continue to serve Lear after the king loses power. His apparent loyalty is, in fact, simply adherence to the social order.
This is evident in the second act of the play when the earl returns, in disguise as a servant, to come to the aid of his king. Kent is incensed by the disrespect of Lear displayed by Goneril’s servants and insults them. He first reels off a list of status themed slights to Oswald, calling him a, “…beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave…one-trunk-inheriting slave…” (Shakespeare, Act 1, Sc.2 lines 15-19). He continues with that theme calling Edmund a, “goodman boy,” (Shakespeare, Act 2 Sc. 2 line 46). His choice of insults reflect that his dissatisfaction was more rooted in the disruption of the social order, than the personal treatment of Lear.
Kent’s demeanor is almost servile, willing to surrender his own status for the maintenance of the social order. He was not intended to be seen as being virtuous for his loyalty, but to have not known any better than to continue his way of life. The, “…stereotype of the proud and rugged man of Kent was…well established in Shakespeare’s day.” (Cohen as cited in Lofgren, 11). When one considers how such a proud man would have reacted to banishment from their country and having to wear a disguise as a servant, his anger is more understandable. His being from Kent, at the time, would have communicated that attitude, changing Kent from an admirably loyal man to a sort of non-thinking but strong willed character who managed to survive, barely, the chaos that took place in the play, by clinging to the order that he knew.
Kent was motivated to remain faithful to Lear by a desire to restore the status quo of Lear’s England. His insults towards Oswald and Edmund are tinged with disdain for their status as well as their disrespect for the social order. That, combined with his anger at having lost his own status drove him to avenge not only his King, but his society. Unfortunately, this intricacy can easily be lost on modern audiences because Shakespeare relies mainly on now antiquated stereotypes and language to convey that aspect of Kent’s character. What some today would see as courageous loyalty from the Earl of Kent is merely an expression of his love for the status quo.
Kenneth:
Deception in King Lear
(to be linked with Act 1, Scene 1, line 25)
In William Shakespeare’s play King Lear; there are two storylines. One is about King Lear, the king of England who mistakenly gives away his kingdom to his daughters. The other is about Edmund, the son of Gloucester, a bastard who seeks revenge against society by taking his brother’s inheritance. In each of these storylines King Lear’s daughter, Goneril, and Edmund are driven by deception, a powerful force that influences their devious acts.
After King Lear gives away part of his kingdom to Goneril, she turns against him. King Lear foolishly divides his kingdom between his two daughters, Goneril and Regan, who show him false love, and shuns his third daughter, Cordelia, who instead tells him how she truly feels. As the play goes on Goneril and Regan turn against King Lear, showing their true colors, which makes Lear realize his error in judgment. In Act One, Scene Three, Goneril plots to create a conflict that will rattle Lear. She instructs her servant Oswald to treat Lear and his knights poorly, “Put on what weary negligence you please, you and your fellows. I’d have it come to question. If he distaste it, let him to my sister . . . And let his knights have colder looks among you” (Shakespeare 41, lines 13-15, 25). Here, Goneril is trying to drive Lear out of her house by scheming against him. Rather than telling Lear how she really feels, she would instead create an unpleasant atmosphere. She also plans on telling her sister to do the same, “I’ll write straight to my sister to hold my very course”(Shakespeare 41, lines 28-29). In this scene, Goneril goes a long way to make sure her father is discouraged, and exhibits the theme of deception through her dealings.
Edmund also contributes to the theme of deception in King Lear by betraying his brother, Edgard. Edmund was born a bastard, one of the lowest status positions in society, and the permanence of this label haunts him. He expresses his anger when he says, “Lag of a brother? Why ‘bastard’? Wherefore ‘base’”(Shakespeare Act 1, Scene 2, line 6). As a reprisal against his fate, he seeks to gain his brother’s inheritance by tricking his father into believing that Edgar is conspiring against him. “Well then, legitimate Edgar, I must have your land . . . if this letter speed and my invention thrive, Edmund the base shall [top] [the] legitimate”(Shakespeare Act 1, Scene 2, 16-17, 20-22). In this scene, deception impels Edmund to betray his brother for his land, and shows how big of a role it plays in the proceedings of Edmund.
In conclusion, deception is the driving force that causes Goneril and Edmund to perform devious acts. Goneril displays this theme of deception when she initially bestows false praise upon her father, then treats him poorly when he irrationally divides his kingdom between her and her sister. Edmund exhibits this theme of deception when he betrays his brother in an effort to obtain his inheritance, and ultimately take back what he believes fate took from him. All in all, Goneril and Edmund are two characters that Shakespeare uses to carry out the theme of deception in King Lear.
Niall Cunningham:
How does Lear’s descent into madness change the way the other character’s perceive the King?
In William Shakespeare’s King Lear, the title character, a senile monarch, asks his three daughters to profess their love for him so he can distribute his land to those who love him the most. His two eldest daughters flatter him with false love, but when his youngest daughter Cordelia refuses to kowtow to him, Lear banishes her. This one catalytic action suddenly shifts the balance of power and order in the kingdom. Familial bonds are broken, alliances are torn apart and deceit spreads like an epidemic. Lear, the King, is shunned by his children, friends, and allies which triggers his descent into madness. He is forced to rely on his lowest subjects to protect him as he wanders around under a violent tempest. These low subjects are Kent, the Fool, Edgar, and even his friend Gloucester are unconditionally faithful and pious to Lear, but when the King descends into madness, they begin to see him less as a god and more as a human being. They begin to pity Lear while reflecting on their own woes as they discover parallels between Lear’s conflicts and their own.
Kent is the first subject to pity Lear and without realizing it, Kent sees a parallel between Lear’s loss of nobility and his own. Kent was banished for defending Cordelia after she herself was banished for refusing to partake in the King’s ‘love contest’, but he disguised himself as a servant and returned to Lear’s side. But when he, Lear, and the Fool are stranded outside during the storm, Kent’s view of Lear changes drastically. His reverence of Lear ends and he begins to pity him. Kent continually calls Lear “sir” and “master” and begs him to “stand you not so amazed. Will you lie down and rest upon these cushions?”(35, 107, 35-36 Act 3, Scene 6). Kent’s words seem to simply ask Lear to come into shelter or sleep, but he is really begging Lear to return to sanity and trying in vain to retain Lear’s status and sanity. This subtextual pity eventually compels Kent to treat Lear less like a god and more like a child. which mirrors Kent’s pursuit of his own status in his fight against Oswald in Act 2, Scene 2. Once he begins to pity Lear, the parallel is more evident. Kent doesn’t realize at that moment, but like Lear, Kent’s status has fallen. Both character’s were once noble but now are stranded as common men with no help, no shelter, and no royal garments. Both their shifts in status have transformed them and enlightened them on the plight of the common man.
Gloucester’s own issues with his sons mirrors Lear’s dispute with his daughters which makes the king more human in Gloucester’s eyes, and compels him to pity the King. Lear’s humanization inspires Gloucester to reflect on himself. Although Gloucester is a noble and not a servant like the disguised Kent or Edgar, he is still below Lear in the kingdom’s hierarchy and Gloucester is outside Goneril, Regan, and Edmund’s power hungry group so the pity for the King is still filled with irony. He seeks Lear out in Act 3, Scene 4, to bring him back to safety and food, and immediately remarks on the low status and madness that has spread to almost everyone in Lear’s company. He pities the man because of his insanity, and soon realizes the parallels in both their conflicts when discussing with Kent how hard it is to see Lear so disheveled. Gloucester begins to see himself within Lear and describes it to Kent proclaiming that, “Thou sayest the King grows mad; I’ll tell thee, friend, I am almost mad myself. I had a son, now outlawed from my blood. He sought my life but lately, very late. I loved him, friend, no father his son dearer. True to tell thee, the grief hath crazed my wits.” (174-180 Act 3 Scene 4) Gloucester sees this once holy figure as a common man and an mirror of his tortured, betrayed self.
Edgar is the final subject of Lear who pities him during the storm. His disguise of Poor Tom quickly fascinates Lear, but Edgar’s emotions almost remove his veil. In an aside in Act 3, Scene 6 he describes how his emotions have taken hold of him “My tears begin to take his part so much they mar my counterfeiting” (63-64 Act 3 Scene 6). Edgar eventually in the end of the scene speaks in a soliloquy about observing Lear where he describes how seeing “our betters see bearing our woes, we scarcely think our miseries our foes” and we forget our own pains (111-112 Act 3 Scene 6). The experience is almost enlightening as he, like Gloucester, sees the parallels between his family discord and Lear’s.
Gloucester, Edgar, and Kent see Lear at his most base, weak state in the the third act. They all see themselves within the debased King; a man who has fallen from high atop his throne to his hands and knees. Whether his trials mirror their fall from grace, their family issues or any problem within their troubled lives the situation depresses and enlightens these three men. The similarities between characters who are poor, low status, and almost unclothed, seems to parallel Lear, a king, when he is at his basest state which makes one question whether status differentiates one person from another or whether at our weakest state we are all inherently equal.
Avery Homer
According to Aristotle, one major criteria of a tragic character is his or her fatal flaw, or hamartia. This flaw galvanizes the conflict of the play. Although logical, Aristotle’s dogma conflicts with a modern understanding of tragedy, which upholds the idea OF an inciting incident. An inciting incident is an event that inspires many others throughout the play; in other words it is the driving force of the play. It can be argued that the inciting incident of Shakespeare’s King Lear is Lear’s demand for his daughters love profession. Lear’s insecurity, his fatal flaw, however, is what inspires such a demand. Lear’s insecurity therefore is what drives the plot and ultimately engenders the unraveling of is mind.
Because of Lear’s insecurity, many of his choices are determined by the validation of others. King Lear chooses to put his kingdom in the hands of his most obsequious daughter (1.1.56). King Lear’s desperation for affirmation is enough to make him concede his kingdom. This demonstrates the lengths that his insecurity will push him. As the unfavorable consequences of this choice become apparent Lear quickly shifts his focus to someone new. He gravitates towards characters like Kent that show him the respect that he needs to feel whole (1.4.7).
Although Cordelia’s profession of love is the least doting of her sisters, it is clearly the most sincere. “You have begot me, bred me, loved me. I return those duties back as are right fit: Obey you, love you, and most honor you,” (1.1.106). Cordelia’s three-line declaration should directly discredit Lear’s insecurity, but Lear is blinded by his own fragility. This weakness inspires the greed that makes Lear value a more elaborate affirmation over a sincere one. Rather than acknowledging his favorite daughters impartiality Lear is hurt by Cordelia: “so young and untender?” (1.1.118). Lear allows his lack of perception to distance he and his daughter. “Here I disclaim all my paternal care, propinquity, and property of blood,” (1.1.125). Little does Lear know that his spiteful declaration is as powerful as a curse, for he literally is speaking conflict into existence.
Shakespeare’s King Lear supports Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, for Lear’s insecurity inspires another flaw that contributes to his undoing. Lear’s reverence for the gods and nature are twisted by his own fears. Lear speaks of the mysteries of the “Hecate and the night”; Lear nearly commands Hecate, a divine being and the goddess of life and death as if he has the jurisdiction to do so (1.1.122). This demonstrates a hubris that will only aid to his downfall. Lear’s insecurity is the wrecking ball that knocks Lear from the esteem and comfort of his throne to the gloom and desolation of a stormy heath.