The Birth Of Contradictory Bastards
By Leora Randall-Tavori
What makes a child a bastard? Is it something written in the stars, a predestined occurrence, or do the laws of society force it upon them? In short, is nature or nurture to blame? “In Elizabethan society bastard children were viewed as something unnatural “despite the fact that bastards [were] also often euphemistically referred to as ‘natural children’” (Brailowsky 198). This dichotomy is thoroughly explored in Shakespeare’s tragic play King Lear, specifically when considering Edmund, Gloucester’s bastard son. The most in depth analysis of this contradiction appears in Edmund’s two monologues in Act 1 Scene 2 of the play. Through these monologues one can examine the way in which natural and unnatural causes play a role in justifying, or challenging, Edmund’s bastard status.
The contrasting treatment of natural and unnatural children is apparent from the very first conversation in the play. However, the hypocrisy fueling this treatment is not acknowledged, or explored, until Edmund’s first monologue. Edmund opens by stating that his “services are bound” to nature, but that he is also trapped by “the plague of custom” (Shakespeare 1.2.2, 1.2.3). This juxtaposition exemplifies the core of the conflict that bastard children are constantly confronting. Society places the blame for bastardy on natural causes that are out of any individual’s control, such as constellations and horoscopes. However, in their initial search for natural causes to blame, society had to manufacture explanations to fit their needs. They had to manipulate nature in order to find patterns within it to support their wholly unnatural beliefs about bastards. In this way Edmund does not only face his bond to nature but also the unnatural “plague of custom” that the unnatural interpretation of these natural events gave rise to. This debate of nature versus nurture brings to the forefront Edmund’s internal struggle, which sets his story in motion.
Edmund continues to explore the detrimental effects of this duality through the examination of his physical self. Edmund notes that his “dimensions are as well compact, [his] mind as generous, and [his] shape as true as honest madam’s issue” (Shakespeare 1.2.6-8). His physical self is perfectly natural by all standards, yet society stands determined to label him an unnatural being and treat him as such. Both parties rely on natural things, the stars, the moon, “dimensions” and “shape”, in order to justify and challenge bastardy. By weighing Edmund’s natural physical state against his supposed unnatural nature, Shakespeare further exposes the flaws in society’s justification of their treatment of bastards.
After this realization Edmund changes his tone. In his first monologue Edmund questioned why nature made him a bastard, and lamented his status as such. However, in his second monologue Edmund claims that he would have been a bastard even if “the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on [his] bastardizing” (Shakespeare 1.2.139-140). Whereas before he blamed his bond to nature for his behavior, Edmund now seemingly severs all ties to nature when it comes to who he is. He even goes so far as to claim that society’s reliance on nature is an easy way out. Society points to stars, and moons, and a variety of other mystical objects as reason to pigeonhole Edmund’s behavior as that of a stereotypical bastard. In this way people can pretend that nature is the source of Edmund’s bastard tendencies, not nurture. As Edmund spitefully notes society avoids taking responsibility at all cost for the role that their nurture, and the norms that they put in place, may have played in causing Edmund to fulfill all expectations he so desperately tried to evade.
As Edmund delves deeper into the contradictions that are the foundations of his social status, Shakespeare’s characterization of Edmund begin to shine through. Throughout these monologues Shakespeare paints Edmund as a true product of the social system. Shakespeare presents his audience with a character who, in other circumstances, could have been the hero of his story. However Edmund has spent his entire life trying to distance himself from his bastardy, efforts that unfortunately result in his proving all of the expectations of bastards true. Interestingly enough, though, even in spite of his bastard nature these two monologues allow the audience to feel sympathy for him, a feeling they would not expect to have towards a bastard.
In this way Shakespeare uses Edmund to force the audience to see the flaws in their social system. He forces them to disregard the notion that “a bastard may be good, but nature makes him bad”, and instead makes his audience truly consider the individual in question (Cotgrave, 1611). Shakespeare exposes the emotional damage that can be done by raising a child to believe he is inferior, and how the actions that result from this upbringing are not caused by stars, or destiny, but by pure humanity, or lack thereof.
Edmund’s actions are the outcome of years of abuse at the hands of society, as well as those of his father. His upbringing instilled in him an inferiority complex that, once stressed, became the catalyst for all of his actions in King Lear. If Edmund had not been brought up to believe that the universe was the cause of the evil inside of him then perhaps he never would have felt compelled to act out in such a dramatic way in order to prove his worth. Or, even if Edmund had chosen to pursue the same path, perhaps it would have been of his own volition. For as much as Edmund tries time and again to escape the social constructs that he is bound by he continually reaffirms them with his actions. He claims that he would have been exactly the same person had he been born under a different constellation, and by doing so acknowledges the system that he is a part of, and plays into it. He claims that only nature’s laws bind him, not those of society, yet the laws of nature have been manipulated by society for their own purposes. All of Edmund’s choices have in some way or another been a product of the bastardy imposed on him by society, whether through natural or unnatural means, and consequently he cannot be held responsible for them. Every decision Edmund made stemmed from the influences and pressures of society. Their indirect nurture, through their abuse of the laws of nature, compelled Edmund to act the way he did. They are the ones responsible for the havoc that he wreaked, and the destruction left in his wake. Through this cautionary tale, Shakespeare takes the case of the bastard child to the extreme, illustrating how the bastardization of children is the product of nature and nurture, and only continues a destructive cycle that impacts not only family units but society as a whole.
The Role of the Fool
By Juliana LoPiccolo
The Fool in William Shakespeare’s tragic play King Lear is in fact one of most intelligent characters in the play, he is placed into the play as a vehicle to acknowledge the moral and unjust dilemmas of society. Many of the characters in the tragic play have a foil, a character that contrasts with the main character, usually one being “bad” and one being “good”. Throughout the play there is a trend of the “bad” characters being rewarded for their unjust actions and the “good” ones being punished and ostracized for their sincere attempts to help others. The Fool exposes these faults in society and serves as Lear’s confidant as he nears his death. When Lear and the Fool are walking through the storm in Act 3 scene 2, the Fool tries to illuminate the faults in society through his language. He addresses King Lear and others, but all are deaf to his advice. The Fool’s true power comes from the way he applies language to reveal the dilemmas in society. Through the use of critical language the Fool offers the veritable truth to Lear as an attempt to protect Lear as his life spirals to his ultimate nadir.
Many of the characters in King Lear frequently use euphemisms to hide the moral dilemmas of society. The Fool is the sole character that attempts to reveal and acknowledge the faults in society instead of hiding behind a façade. In Act 1, scene 4 of King Lear, the Fool talks to King Lear about the recent banishing of Cordelia who, when asked to tell Lear how much she loves him, offers a sincere response and says she does not need to express her love for him, it is simply there and that is enough. The Fool addresses the audience in response to Cordelia’s banishment and says, “why this fellow has banished to on’s daughters and did the third a blessing against his will…. Thou must wear my coxcomb- how now nuncle, would I have two coxcombs and two daughters”(1.4105-109). The Fool addresses Lear, a higher, more powerful man than himself, as nuncle. This suggests some level of familiarity and a different level of respect with Lear instead of addressing him as my lord and in more respectful language that puts Lear on a higher social status than the Fool. Any other character that was inferior to Lear would have used language that would show respect to Lear but the Fool does not. It is ironic that the Fool is the one to challenge the social constructs of society in King Lear, he is the one whose social standing is at the bottom of the totem pole. By the Fool addressing Lear on the same level of himself, if not lower, it’s as if the roles are reversed when the Fool uses casual language to talk to the king. The Fool is trying to make Lear realize that by banishing Cordelia, he has lost the only person that had his best interest in mind. The Fool constantly challenges Lear’s actions in an attempt to reveal the moral dilemmas of society.
Not only does the fool challenge Lear’s authroity but through the use of familiar language he constantly challenges the malice of others. He offers “a stream of riddling verbal commentary on the action, to expose the truth under the words of others” as Ian Johnston wrote in his analysis of the role of the Fool. The Fool accuses society of being distorted and reveals one of the faults in society when he is talking to Lear, “ truths a dog most to a kennel; he must be whipped out. When the Lady Brach may stand by the fire and stink” (1.4.115-118). The Fool exclaims that dogs, people of wrongdoing, are rewarded for their cruel actions while “ the Lady Brach”, people with good intent, are punished by society. The Fool expresses how manipulation and flattery, just how Gonereil and Regan manipulated Lear into thinking that they actually loved him, will get you everywhere. As opposed to being truthful, just as Cordelia is, will just get you punished. The Fool knows that the odds of Lear listening and doing what he advises are slim and probably ineffective; but hopes they will express important truths that will reach him somehow (Johnston, 3). The Fool, who is already at the lowest rank in society, is the only character who is not timid to address these issues.
The Fool is an example of how society rewards the “bad” and punishes the “good”. Towards the end of Act 1 scene 4, the Fool is ridiculed for his attempts to reveal to Lear that Gonereil and Regan do not have Lear’s best intent in mind. Lear fed up with the Fool’s attempts accuses him of lying, “an you lie sirrah, we’ll have you whipped” (1.4.184). The Fool aggravated with the punishment Lear threatens him with offers a comment on how society silences the people who have good intent and rewards those who are only interested in their own advancement, “I marvel what kind thou and thy daughters are. They’ll have me whipped for speaking true, thou’lt have me whipped for lying and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace” (1.4.186-190). Shakespeare creates such irony in this exchange between Lear and the Fool, the Fool only tries to guide Lear, however he is consistently punished no matter what he does. He is punished if he speaks the truth, and he is punished if he remains silent, there is no good outcome for the Fool. The Fool is written as a victim himself in King Lear as just another way to unmask the faults in society.
The Fool, throughout King Lear, criticizes the social constructs by using vulgar and informal language such as “thou” and “thy”, the informal personal to challenge the social hierarchy. In the context of a few lines has the Fool address Lear as thou or thy multiple times, “ Why, after I have cut the egg I’ th’ middle and eat up the meat… when thou clovest thy (crown)…thou borest thine ass on thy back o’er the dirt. Thou hadst little wit in thy bald crown when thou gav’st thy golden one away”(1.4.162-167). Finally the Fool’s anger comes to a pinnacle where he scolds Lear for his foolish actions. He upbraids Lear for giving away all his power and points out that he has nothing since he’s given away all his power to his daughters who could care less about him. In addition to scolding Lear for giving away his power he also challenges the social traditions of respecting those who are of higher social status than you by using the informal personal when talking to him. The Fool feels a strong bond to Lear; he knows he has to protect Lear from everyone’s attempts to take his power away. The Fool is fully aware of the consequences of what Lear is doing in his dealings with his daughters; however, he is not hesitant to be rude to Lear in these attempts.
The Fool is written as the only character that challenges Lear’s authority. The Fool disputes the constructs of society even though he is at the lowest social standing. The Fool has no power other than his language and he manipulates it in a way to expose all those with malevolent intentions. The Fool acts as Lear’s conscience and trusted guide; however, he is also a critic of Lear, a truth teller. Shakespeare’s characters are seldom one dimensional; they are invariably more complex and the Fool is no exception. The Fool is, in fact, one of the smartest characters in King Lear.
What Role Does Nature Play in King Lear?
By George Tsourounakis
Nature and the natural order of things are known as a key base in the play, King Lear. This play explores this theme as well as the order of things and nature’s role in that order. Irony is when the expressed meaning is the opposite of the language used. Nature is a source of irony in the play. Shakespeare uses natural people to encompass the situational irony of each of the characters. The irony from nature can be seen in Lear’s ironic decisions, ironically behaved kin, and ironic age.
Natural irony can be seen in Lear’s age. When Lear is talking with the Fool, they discuss the recent events. The Fool is one of the most knowledgeable characters of the play and he says, “Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise” (Shakespeare 1.5 Line ). This quote perfectly depicts this theme of ‘natural irony’ once more. Lear is clearly not wise enough for his age, which is quite an ironic situation. Usually, one gets wiser with age. Lear has made these poor decisions with Cordelia, Regan, Goneril, and other characters in the play. The Fool notices these follies and tries to enlighten Lear about his mistakes. Lear’s ironic age has been the onset of the unnatural decision which sucks him into the irony of the play.
Sarah Doncaster discusses nature in King Lear and further discusses the ironic situation of Lear’s initial decision to split up his kingdom. This decision was somewhat ‘natural’ of the king because he was growing too old to manage a kingdom on his own. However he made the wrong choice. Doncaster explores the unnatural decision with his quote, “‘To shake all cares and business from our age,’ in order to ‘Unburdened crawl towards death’ to ensure ‘that future strife / May be prevented now’”(Doncaster). Doncaster further delves into the text to say, “However this statement is highly ironic in light of the ensuing catastrophic events which follow“ (Doncaster). Lear interfered with natural order and this ironic situation ensues. When he disturbs nature, chaos begins. Doncaster explains how Lear did not want chaos to happen so he made this plan that undermined order and fate. Nature pays Lear back by having his kin betray him. Doncaster further explores this decision by declaring that it interferes with divine right. The divine right is the natural order of the king and it is the exact order that Lear goes against. Lear brings these ironic consequences upon himself because of his unnatural decision.
When analyzing Lear’s daughters, one can see a surfeit of irony in this natural born kin, especially Goneril and Regan. When Lear makes the decision to split up his kingdom, he asks his daughters to display their affection. When his daughter Cordelia displeases him with her honesty, he awards the kingdom to Goneril and Regan who soon betray him. He grows more and more angry and soon tells them, “No, you unnatural hags, I will have such revenges on you both” (Shakespeare 2.4 Line ). His natural born daughters betray him and are deemed unnatural. That is a substantial statement, to say someone of one’s natural blood cannot be real. Lear’s name calling is truly ironic because he believes his natural kin to love him but they unnaturally betray him. Lear yet again brings this upon himself. While this may be part of his decision, it works to show the irony in his daughters specifically and not the kingdom as a whole. It is also ironic that the daughter who is naturally true and honest is banished from the kingdom. Lear clearly favors the unnatural world and creatures that come from it. With the combination of Lear’s unnatural decision and his kin’s unnatural response, he brings an ironic burden upon himself.
With this nature sourced irony comes many consequences. Lear should have stopped his interference with nature because he brought most of this upon himself. Both Shakespeare and Doncaster explore the theme of nature and irony. Shakespeare sends a message to stop interference or chaos will be brought upon the world.
Listen and You Shall Receive: Heeding the Advice of the Fool in King Lear
By Gloriana Macagnone
It would be folly to heed those who speak in rhyme and song, but the Fool in King Lear should not be ignored. The Fool serves as King Lear’s personal jester and friend, and yet he is considered to be of the lowest status in the play. All who disregard the Fool find themselves unravelling mentally and socially by the end of the play. In William Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, the Fool exemplifies a character whose integrity engenders no recognition from his superiors. The Fool’s insightful, yet bootless remarks emphasize the importance of listening to the underdog, thus adding to the tragedy of the Shakespeare’s King Lear.
The Fool elucidates the kingdom’s chaos by mentioning that the little value placed on truth by Lear will eventually lead to the entropy of the kingdom. The Fool speaks of how King Lear’s daughters resemble him so greatly in their mode of rule. The Fool states, “They’ll have me whipped for speaking true, thou’lt have me whipped for lying, and sometimes I am whipped for holding my peace…” (Shakespeare 1.4.187-189). The overt contradiction in the commands of the Fool’s masters reveals the chaos beneath the facade of perfection that Lear works so hard to achieve. Lear has split his empire into two, but he still yearns for control. The Fool openly publicized Lear’s reluctance to let go of his kingdom by comparing Lear to his daughters. This similarity, the Fool warns, will lead to a struggle for power causing the disintegration of the kingdom, its moral compass, and King Lear’s crown. His conjectures are looked upon with indifference by the other characters, but the audience quickly realizes the veracity of the Fool’s statement. Shakespeare, in this way, stresses the importance of listening to those whom you expect to provide the least insight.
The Fool, knows that his words are worthless, but he does not surrender his power of speech even when it would be highly beneficial to his status. The Fool feels that without speech, he would have nothing. In the second half of his monologue, “I had rather be any kind o’ thing than a Fool. And yet I would not be thee, nuncle. Thou hast paired thy wit o’ both sides and left nothing i’ th’ middle…” (1.4.189-193). King Lear has given away his land to Goneril and Regan, leaving nothing for himself or Cordelia. According to the Fool, Lear has let his ego rule over his intelligence. Lear is neither utilizing his wisdom nor his wit. The Fool, by stating “…I would not be thee, nuncle…” (1.4.189), proclaims that he will always use his rectitude and wit. He would never pair away his brains for a mere ego trip or a statement of flattery. Ian Johnston, in his lecture, Studies in Shakespeare, argues that “the sadness of the Fool comes from his awareness of the inadequacy of his language to do anything more than hold back the chaos momentarily…” (Speak What We Feel: An Introduction to King Lear). The audience feels empty after the Fool’s disappearance because they have come to the realization that one of the only honest characters has vanished. Without speech the Fool would have to submit “to the meaningless of the storm” (Johnston, An Introduction to King Lear). The storm is in reference to both the literal storm in Act III and the metaphorical storm that King Lear and his kingdom are experiencing in a battle for inheritance. The Fool’s attention to Lear’s egotism still goes disregarded and, in the end, the Fool surrenders to this storm. When Lear finally reflects on his own wrongdoings it is too late, for both the Fool and Cordelia have disappeared.
Establishing a feeling of hope throughout King Lear is characteristic of the Fool and his disappearance marks the destruction of all things good in Lear’s kingdom, thus instilling a tragic feeling in the audience. The Fool’s many lines are perceptive and foreboding, but they also posses a feeling of mirth. The Fool sings, “He that has and a little tiny wit/With heigh-ho, the wind and the rain,/Must make content with his fortunes fit,/Though the rain it raineth every day…” (III.ii.81-84). This song alludes to Lear’s impending tribulations after the partition of his kingdom, and yet the ditty brings a moment of merriment to the storm. Without the Fool’s music, the play would be completely void of jollity. Music is a major form of communication with the audience throughout King Lear. and when the Fool disappears, the viewers are left with “…the silence of total destruction…” (Speak What We Feel: An Introduction to King Lear). This “silence” continues through the duration of the play and, as tragedy unfolds, all lively commentary on the chaos is lost. With the Fool’s disappearance, the characters are left with no source of advice. All hope of salvation has vanished for each citizen of the kingdom. The audience, after the disappearance of the Fool, realizes that all is doomed for Lear’s kingdom.
The Fool reveals the importance of integrity and truth in a world of chaos and dishonesty. The Fool accentuates the pertinence of considering the thoughts of all people, despite their social status. With the disappearance of the Fool, the play is left void of honesty, merriment and integrity. Shakespeare’s final lesson emphasizes that sincerity and honor must be valued on every level. Despite social restrictions, all must speak what they feel.
Truth Trades in for Tragedy
By Joy Sunday Okon
Fair is surely fouled, and the foul end up the fairest. William Shakespeare’s tragic play, King Lear, proves just that. Those with duplicitous and ruthless behavior are the ones who bring the compassionate and truthful to their knees. Unmerited fortunes are chiefly noted in the case of Cordelia, who speaks nothing but the truth and procures the most unfortunate ending of all. While she persists in her goodness, the bastard Edmund flourishes in his evil until the end of the play. In King Lear, Cordelia’s admirable qualities prove to be her hamartia, whilst Edmund succeeds in his pursuit of treachery without fail.
Cordelia’s failure to forsake her most valuable trait, honesty, causes her to suffer right from the inception of the play. When asked by her father to “mend [her] speech a little, lest [she] mar [her] fortunes”, Cordelia maintains her integrity and refuses to profess any inflated love for Lear (Shakespeare 1.1.103-104). Lear would rather bribe his daughter into fixing her truthful words instead of accepting the truth and giving her the inheritance she deserves. This reveals the treatment those with respectable traits receive despite their goodness. In another world, it would be her insolence or treachery that would cause her to be the bane of the kingdom, and yet, Cordelia is expelled because of her pursuit of honesty. The ardent love Cordelia’s honesty engenders in France is not commensurate with the punishment she receives continuously throughout the play. Cordelia is eventually forced to leave the life she has known forever, is married off with nothing but shame to her name, and returns to Lear only to be captured and killed. The events of her tragic story would be completely different had it not been for the frankness she displayed. Ambition, fearlessness, even love, taken too far, have driven characters to their tragic endings, although those qualities are admirable in a person. In contrast, Cordelia’s “fault” beats the classic tragedy archetype by displaying a trait one can only wish was constant in them: honesty. Cordelia’s forthrightness provides the impetus for undoing, proving integrity to be her hamartia.
In contrast to Cordelia, the bastard Edmund is rewarded for his cunning when he is thrust into higher echelons of grace and riches. Gloucester, Edmund’s credulous father, believes Edmund’s fabrications and goes from being “blushed to acknowledge [Edmund]” to calling Edmund his “loyal and natural boy” (Shakespeare 1.1.10-11, 98). By Gloucester calling Edmund “natural”, he drastically bends the term which is usually reserved for a child born honorably in wedlock. Gloucester forgets the shame Edmund’s existence brings to his name and wholly flouts social canon, as a result of Edmund’s cunning. While Cordelia, of rightful birth and words, is punished for her virtue, Edmund raises his social status, and automatically augments his father’s love for him with a few cunning words. Gloucester even goes to swear that he will “work the means to make [Edmund] capable” (Shakespeare 2.1.98-99). If Gloucester were to accomplish this, he would flout all conventions of society, endangering his own social standing. Edmund’s success with his devious plans present a “neo-Darwinist argument for survival of the strongest individual”, as his lies have caused him to succeed whilst Cordelia’s truthfulness reduced her to banishment (Metzger, “Parent-Child Relationships: The Neglect of Natural Law). In this case, the strongest individual would be the one who cheats and deviously plots, for those are the ones who enjoy good fortune for the majority of King Lear. Although Edgar, Edmund’s brother, is loyal and worthy of trust from his father, it is Edmund that receives his father’s boon of both love and land. Edmund exemplifies the good fortune of those who practice chicanery as opposed to those who suffer in their morality, as Cordelia does. When juxtaposed, Cordelia and Edmund show that a hateful trait of trickery would sooner receive a reward than an eternally admirable trait, honesty.
In tragedies, both classic and contemporary, a character’s naivete, short temper, bad timing, and many other flaws of human nature cause them to fall to their nadir. Even a character’s compassion, or generosity, when practiced with eagerness, can result in a tragic ending. Cordelia’s probity could never have won over the forces of a lying Edmund. In King Lear, the treacherous prevail over the trustworthy.