I've changed my mind.
I thought I was going to have you post your comments over here at last year's blog so you could interact with their comments. Though I still invite you to take a look at the act one comments, I just noticed that I hadn't fine-tuned a motif-based approach until act two. So we'll stick to posting comments on this blog for now -- at least for act one. In fact, accepting a request from some of you, we'll do all the King Lear blogging here. Above you'll find links to last years act 1 and acts 2 and 3 comments. Here's a link to comments on acts 4 and 5 from last year's class.
So here are the directions and notes:
1. Consider (& take notes on) the motifs (some are images & some are concepts) below...
* what is said and what is true;
* sight (eyes, blindness) and other senses (touch, smell {noses}) [especially as related to truth and understanding];
* fools, madness, and wisdom; duty and betrayal;
* naturalness and unnaturalness (this motif is especially slippery, flickering, and otherwise ambiguous in King Lear);
* animals and humans;
* storms and calms;
* age and youth;
* parents and children;
* rank and status;
* nothingness, loss, nakedness...& self...
[* New for '09 eating, appetites, consuming. Eating is, after all, a way of filling the nothing within.
* Also new for '09: fates, planets, stars.
* & sexuality, lust, etc.
* Oh, & as ever in tragedies, blood; the blood that means related and the blood that is violence.]
All of the aforementioned motifs interact, weaving in and out of each other to form a matrix of association. So when Lear denies Cordelia her inheritance, he doesn't say "get away from me; you're no longer my daughter" (in Elizabethan English and iambic pentameter). He evokes several motifs and images: "Thy truth, then, be thy dower" "For by the sacred radiance of the sun... by all the operation of the orbs" "paternal care" "property of blood" "gorge his appetite" "avoid my sight" (1.1.120-139).
Also be on the look out for inversions: the natural becoming unnatural, the truth that is false, the sight that is a lie, the fool that is wise, etc. & look out for parallels. ("Monster" is tagged on Cordelia and Edgar in Act One.) Look out for motif-words with ambiguous multiple or shifting meanings (especially "nature"). Listen for playfulness and for echoes. Figurative associations often haunt the literal meanings. And repetitions often reveal the play's obsessions.
2. Comment on at least two interrelated motifs. Your comments should refer to at least two specific passages (at least one passage for each motif). Demonstrate your understanding of the play so far by linking the motifs and the passages to each other and to the overall events and themes. Again, we're using close attention to small particulars to illuminate the whole. At the beginning of your post include your name, name the motifs, and quote the passages (include act.scene.line). Your insightful well-supported commentary comes next.
Comments on act one are due by pumpkin time on Tuesday, March 17, 2009. (Sláinte!)
Comments on acts two and three are due by pumpkin time on Wednesday, March 25, 2009.
Comments on acts four and five are due by pumpkin time on Monday, March 30, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments:
Animals
Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 135-140
This passage seems especially important. I remember that our class paused to consider it the other day. There is a close interplay in the last few lines between the motifs of nature and animals. This is also closely interwoven with the sort of pagan reverence of the natural world. Edmund connects this pagan reverence with a submission to the supernatural (and ultimately to fate): “we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars.” And through the connection with animals, I think Edmund suggests that submission to fate is base and instinctual. He mocks the idea of lives being decided by chance occurrences in nature: “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.” He furthers this mockery calling this kind of submission feminine and weak: “I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardizing.”
Edmund’s contempt for the idea fate is pretty obviously related to his situation. He was born a bastard, supposedly forcing him into a lower position. He is made ineligible of most of the privileges that his father’s status should confer to him and worst of all, denied respect with little chance to prove himself. He is determined to escape these circumstances of his birth. (I would also like to point out the irony that Edmund’s view is largely due to these circumstances; i.e. if he weren’t born a bastard he probably wouldn’t be concerned so much with fate and overcoming it – he was fated to not believe in fate.) It seems that Edmund’s view is that people aren’t animals – they aren’t confined to some destiny determined by the stars. However, there is a paradox in this passage when he calls man “goatish.” I think he may be suggesting that when people start believing in fate they become animals in effect and really are confined to the very fate they started believing in.
Nothingness, Sight, Family Relationships
Act 1 Scene 1 Lines 156-181
There seems to be a lot going on on this page but I will try to work out just a little bit of it. The biggest theme I got out of this passage was one of the things that can come out of nothing: devotion/strong relationships. This seems to be summarized in lines 179 through 181: when King Lear orders Kent “Out of my sight!” Kent replies “See better, Lear and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye.” This line combines the motifs of nothingness and sight and seems to be a pun on King Lear’s order: the circle within the center of a target (I’m getting this definition off of page 16) is a “nothing,” a white spot, but it is also the focus of the target, the point you want to hit. It would take me forever to work this pun out entirely but I think the most important thing is Kent’s connection of having very little with bigger and better immaterial things in life. Kent devotes himself entirely to King Lear, giving up much of whatever else he has: “My life I never held but as a pawn.” He connects their relationship to the motif of family relationships: “Royal Lear, / Whom I have… Loved as my father.”
Kent begs Lear to reconsider his “hideous rashness.” He is willing to give up even his life to gain something greater (Lines 175-177). There is also the reference to the proverb “Empty vessels have the loudest sounds” on lines 172 and 173 which returns to the motif of nothingness. Kent’s urging ultimately highlights the ignorance of Lear’s opinion that “nothing comes out of nothing.” It is heavily contrasted with Lear’s opinion and makes Lear’s threats within the passage seem especially cruel because he will eventually need Kent’s wisdom later on.
I’ve tried my best with this one.
What is said and What is true
Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 47-57 EDMUND
Scene 3 Lines 13-22 GONERIL
Scene 4 Lines 14-21 KENT
All three of these passages deal with what is said and what is true.
The third passage i found particularly interesting, and a bit confusing. Kent (in disguise) comes to Lear and wants to be his attendant in the beginning of scene 4. This is a visual displacement of truth. Kent lies about his identity but his intentions seem to be true. "so may if come thy master, whom thou lov'st, shall find thee full of labors." So Kent thinks that if he attends to Lear while in disguise then becomes revealed (when that time comes) his king will want him back, un-banishing him and trusting him again? A seemingly harmless example of what is said and what is true.
The first two are however much more harmful examples of said & truth. Edmund, tortured by is bastardized self and base status compared to his virtuous brother plans to gain his fathers inheritance by screwing Edgar over with lies. Here it is in the form of his own hand, later it is through his cunning tongue. Poor Edgar seems so clueless and trusting relying only on his brothers word. Edgar flips everything in Gloucesters mind so all that is "true" (by Edmund's word) is actually lie.
In the next scene Goneril is having others tell her lies. Oswald is the carrier of her lies to Lear. Later on the truth is reavealed of how both sisters will "deal" with Lear.
Eating, animals, naturalness
1.1.120 (page 15)
This is the passage where King Lear vents about being 'betrayed' by Cordelia. After disowning her "by the sacred radiance of the sun" and additional flair, Lear exclaims that "The barbarous Scythian,/ Or he that makes his generation messes/ To gorge his appetite, shall to my bosom/ Be as well neighbored, pitied and relieved/ As thou my sometime daughter," which in essence means that she is as good to him as a barbarian that eats his young. Eating comes up again moments later as Lear istructs his other daughters' dowers to "digest the third." This "digesting," however, is different from the other kinds of eating that appear throughout the play because it is not filling the empty, but rather emptying the other dower. The earlier type of eating of the young is also not quite filling the empty because of Lear's phrasing, "makes gus generation messes/ to gorge his appetite." "Gorging his appetite" makes be think not of real eating, but rather of devoring something out of malice, to cause pain or to kill. That is just my interpretation.
As for the animals, I think that it is interesting that Lear snaps at Kent, "Come not between the dragon and his wrath, " when later in the act he calls Cordelia a monster.
I forgot my book at school, but to the best of my knowledge there was one scene that struck me as very pertinent to the reoccurring theme of Storms and Calms. The part where Cordelia has an aside to the audience where she says that she will basically not give in to lying to her father though she does love him seems like the ultimate calm that alludes to a storm. It is obvious that the others are going to lie and she will be the one left with nothing. The calm is Cordelia, but the calm also lends itself to future problems that will occur in later acts. To me, Cordelia is both the calm and storm.
My favorite motif is rank and status because it seems like people in Shakespeare's time, as reflected in his plays, always have quite a complex about where they stand. Kent, who is banished form the king although he was and will become his most loyal servant, develpos a complex it seems without the king. He is a servant but because he is the most trusted it puts him at a higher position, and being banished causes him to be nothing. It is like he would rather serve someone than to be no one. That did not come out like I wanted but basically Kent seems to struggle with being independent and tries to serve the king even when he is so disrespected. He cannot change.
Anddd, Benson62 is also me. I don't know why that happened.
Eating, rank, fools and some other stuff I'm not sure about but seems important
1.4.159
This is a short little passage, but its obscurity caught my attention, as did the difficulty I had (and still am having) with figuring out what it means. The passage starts out with the fool asking King Lear to "give me an egg and I'll give you two crowns." This phrase plays with the meaning of crowns (I think) because the reader may first assume that he meant money crowns. (I'm not sure about this.I don't know what money they used but it seems plausible)The fool also plays with crown as the King's headdress and the King's actual head. The play on the word crown makes it seem like the fool is eating the king's brains when he says, "after I have cut the egg i' th' middle and eat up the meat, the two crowns of the egg." This second part confused me a little. I guess if you think about half an egg shell it resebles a pointy crown, but the whole thing seems kind of wierd. Perhaps there is some sort of connection between the kingdom and the egg, meaning that a kingdom divided is like a split egg and much more fragile. This may also connect with the naturalness and unnaturalness of because a whole and cracked egg are both natural and unnatural at the same time. And what I mean by that is that both the whole egg and halved egg can be found in nature, but there is an unnaturalness about each of them. The whole egg seems to fragile to be intact, but the halved is clearly broken.
Rose Pleuler
Motifs: Words and what they can and cannot do, and power.
Scene 1 and then Scene 2.
Throughout the first act of King Lear, characters struggle with words when they don't do what they should, and when there is a difference between what is said and what is true. In the first scene alone, we see a number of characters fighting with the meanings of words. In Goneril's speech to her father, she declares, "Sir I do love thee more than words can wield the matter" (lines 60-1) and that it is "A love that makes ...speech unable." (line 66) These proclamations are clearly contradicted in the fact that she is, in fact, using her words to communicate such a love. It is Cordelia who sees the reality of her love, and that it can't be translated into words, saying, "My love's more ponderous than my tongue." (lines 86-7) As Kent tries to come to Cordelia's rescue when her father lashes out angrily, he declares "Thy youngest daughter does not love thee least,/Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sounds/Reverb no hollowness." (lines 171-3) (this particular line of dialogue reminds me of the concept in As I Lay Dying about the spaces that words take up when they aren't used, because in the notes on the page, the book cites the proverb "Empty vessels have the loudest sounds."...) When Lear turns his anger toward Kent, he says , "with strained pride/ [you] come betwixt our sentence and our power." (line 193-4) Although I know here Lear means the word 'sentence' to refer to 'judgment', and maybe I'm overthinking it, but the line stuck out to me because of it's connection the concept of words not doing what they're supposed to, and it seems like Lear doesn't have as much control over words as he'd like. (And now I wonder if I'll continue to draw strange Anse/Lear parallels for the rest of the play.) In this scene of the play, seems that this business with words and truthfulness connects up with rank and power. That being, Cordelia and Kent side with truth and the belief that words are too complicated sometimes to render emotion, and they both end up in exile, whereas Goneril and Lear who seem to fall into traps of words, are both in power.
Another place worth briefly mentioning about the function of words is Edmund's speech in the beginning of Scene 2. He struggles with the words 'bastard' and 'legitimate.' He doesn't understand how he could be considered less legitimate as his brother Edgar, when "[his] dimensions are as well compact,/ [his] mind as generous and [his] shape as true/ as honest madam's issue?" (lines 7-10) Edmund has already lost power due to a word like 'illegitimate,' but now spends the play trying to win power back with some dishonesty of his own.
Meghan
Nature, Naturalness, Age
1.2.109-124 Gloucester
In this passage, Gloucester talks about both nature and age. By combining nature and time something once natural, progresses into “treachery.” As he says, “Love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide…bond cracked ‘twist son and father.” As time goes on, “Nature finds itself scourged by the sequent effects.” Gloucester is trying to preach to Edmund that all that was once good has gone, for it can only thrive for so long. He wants Edmund to know that throughout youth and age all that is left in the end is violence, evil, and betrayal. Therefore, it will make it all right for him to spy on Edgar because he won’t lose any respect. Another important line in this passage is, “The King falls from bias of nature: there’s father against child.” On a moral level, it is not right for a father to be against their son or vice versa. Shakespeare adds in that it is “from the bias of nature,” or unnatural for this to happen. However, maybe due to the theory of age and time, this will become natural since the entire world is doomed for hollowness and disgrace.
One thing I find particularly interesting in King Lear is the “new” fool. I say “new” because the fool I have grown to know and love is Feste from Twelfth Night. I immediately noticed a difference in the way Lear’s fool speaks. He is almost too malicious. I realize that there is a significant difference in the way a fool functions in a comedy and in a tragedy. The fool in Twelfth Night pokes fun at the characters and supplies fun (in many cases), but looses some sagaciousness for the sake of comedy. Lear’s fool is very sagacious and is the only character that speaks the truth openly to the king.
It seems that in a play full of deceit and insincerity--where insincerity is rewarded and truth is shunned. The character who’s job it is to be insincere (the fool) is the only person who can be sincere and remain in the company of Lear. Obviously, this is because Lear believes the fool is jesting on a much shallower level than he actually is. The audience, however, is continually reminded of the truth of the situation.
Without the fool, I don’t think it would be clear that Goneril and Regan are villains. Anyone can see that they are insincere (which appears to be a motif or possibly the a part of the moral). The fool implies that they are worse than they appear…which we know is true…because this is a tragedy and bad stuff is going to happen.
And so, I get to my two motifs insincerity (which I am suggesting be added to the list) and truth. The characters that speak the truth (Cordelia, Edgar, Kent, etc) are punished and the characters that are insincere are rewarded (Goneril, Regan, Edmund, etc). And the fool (who speaks the truth) is allowed to continue on because everyone assumes he is being insincere.
EX:
Act 1, Scene 4, Line 220
Fool: For you know, nuncle,
The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long,
That it’s had it head bit off by it young.
Truth translation: Lear, you’ve raised your daughter into a strong woman and you’ve made her stronger than you…she’s going to usurp your power.
Even though Goneril and Lear are there when the fool speaks this couplet, the fool is not banished because they assume everything he says is in jest.
Michael McGovern
What is said and what is true
Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 24 – 83, 145 – 186
In this passage, Edmund begins his plan to frame his brother for plotting against his father. From this point on, everything that Edmund says to other people is nothing more than a total lie. Edmund starts his lie by “finding” a letter “from his brother” that expresses a desire to overthrow their father Gloucester. Edmund tells Gloucester this and forces Gloucester to think his son Edgar is nothing more than an “Abhorred villain.” Edmund then begins telling more lies to his brother Edgar saying, “Bethink yourself wherein you may have offended him.” This of course is a complete lie because Edmund truly and secretly offended his father and Edgar had nothing to do with it. The line that seems to sum up Edmund’s lies the best is when he tells his brother as he leaves, “I do serve you in this business.” This of course is another lie because Edmund is in no way trying to help Edgar and is succeeding in ruining his life.
After everything that Edmund had said, the truth behind it all is that he is trying to take control of what would be his brother’s. This is seen when Edmund says, “Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land. Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund.” Edmund’s plot seems to come from the fact that the motif of what is said and what is true seems to surround and define his life. Earlier in the scene, Gloucester says that, “I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it being so proper.” Referring to the fact that he didn’t regret Edmund being a bastard because he turned out to be a good boy. Ironically, what Gloucester said isn’t true because Edmund isn’t a good person and is doing many evil things that no one would be proud of. Gloucester also states that he loves Edmund just as much as Edgar, but Edmund, not believing what is said to be true, thinks he is not as loved as Edgar and beings to develop his plot.
Michael McGovern
Parents and Children
Act 1 Scene 1 Lines 50 – 100, 315 - 355
In this scene, the motif of parents in children is brought up many times. Lear displays his odd relationship with his children by forcing them to profess their love to him in order for them to gain their inheritance. Goneril and Regan both do as they told but Cordelia, being honest and true says, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty according to my bond, no more, no less.” Leer of course is angered and gets mad at Cordelia for being honest to her father, which is something a parent should want their child to do. This furthers the strange relationship Leer has with his children, which places pride and vanity over love. This is demonstrated again, when Cordelia is leaving with her new husband and tell her sisters, “Love well our father. To your professed bosoms I commit him; but yet, alas, stood I within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place.” After Cordelia leaves, Regan and Goneril talk about how Leer is loosing his touch and if they want control of the kingdom they need to “do something, and I’ th’ heat.” This shows that Cordelia, who couldn’t profess her love to Leer loves and cares more for her father than her sisters who were able to tell Leer they loved him. Leer in turn broke of all ties with Cordelia and chose to stay with Regan and Goneril, who are only after his power. This relationship between Leer and his children seems to show that Leer isn’t in touch with his children and doesn’t care how they really feel about them, as long as they keep up appearances of caring. This makes Leer unable to see the true love that Cordelia has for him and allows him to make a very bad decision in disowning her. This passage seems to imply that the relationship between parents and children is based more on lies and deceit than actual love and compassion.
1:2:1-23 Edmund
Motifs: sexuality, nature, family relationships, status…
Here, Edmund vents vehemently on the nature of his birth, being a bastard child. He does something I’ve come to call “Darl-ing” Where, like Darl in As I Lay Dying, he plays with words. Instead of the “am, is, I, what, it, we, not” Etc that Darl has become notorious in our classroom for using, Edmund puts words referring to “bastard” in quotations., making it seem like there’s a sarcasm there (this might be me applying the norms of today to yesteryear, but, I can’t be sure what the quotations really mean outside of my own assumption.) The hinge on his role as a bastard makes his role in the family, and Edmund obviously shows distress over this. He obviously want to have the value of a son born of the marriage, ergo, Edgar, and thus his plot forms.
Edmund also talks of the natural. Sexuality really ties with nature especially in the term “lusty nature”. He makes a comment on the animal in the human, showing the bad with the foreseeable good. He also brings to attention that his birth was of this type. He’s a very angry person.
Edmund’s storyline is one of jealousy and anger. This opening meeting with the character prepares us for his future dealings, with him as the evil brother, deceiving his father and trying to achieve a higher status of value in his family.
Brian Hand
Sight and Truth
1.2. 24-70
In this passage, Shakespeare draws a clear distinction between literal and metaphorical vision. Gloucester enters and sees Edmund hastily put away a letter. Edmund claims that it is "nothing," and Gloucester replies "if it be nothing, i shall not need my spectacles." But even with literal vision, in the form of his spectacles, Gloucester would be unable to see the truth, that Edmund is deceiving
him. The aptly placed line "let's see, let's see," demonstrates what Shakespeare sought to illustrate; it takes more than literal vision to see the truth. Through this scene it is clear that Gloucester cannot recognize when he is being tricked. Because he fails to realize that Edmund is lying, Gloucester is blind not only to lies, but to the actions and behaviors of his own children.
Senses come into play later in the scene when Edmund tells Edgar what he has "seen and heard." Again, Shakespeare is highlighting the deceptiveness of the senses in this bit of dramatic irony. While the audience knows that Edmund is tricking his brother, Edgar believes Edmund because he is an honest man and therefore sees no reason why his brother would lie to him. I also think there is something going on with Edgar and his incredible gullibility. Edgar's willingness to believe his own literal vision and hearing allow Edmund to easily convince him to go "armed," against Gloucester. The fact that Edgar so easily trusts his brother convinces me that he, like his father, is blind to the events unfolding around him.
All of this proves that Edmund is a master manipulator. He is keen in his playing off of people's blindness and reliance on literal senses.
Brian Hand
What is said and what is true
1.2. 125-140
I think an important step in understanding Edmund is recognizing his ability to manipulate not only other characters, but also the audience. Earlier in the scene Edmund deceived both Edgar and Gloucester, and it seems that he is now moving onto the audience. Right before his passage, Gloucester asserts that "the sun and the moon" play a role in the events unfolding around him. Gloucester relies on the sky for an excuse for his misfortunes. But as Gloucester exits, in comes Edmund to call Gloucester's beliefs "the excellent foppery of the world,". Edmund mocks how humans "make guilty...the sun, the moon, and stars," for our bad "fortune."
This soliloquy has two affects, both in Edmund's favor. One, Edmund appeals to the audience with a clever and insightful view on humanity, and two, it portrays Gloucester as a foolish old man, someone who believes he is a "fool by heavenly compulsion."
Sarah Johnson
Sight/eyes/blindness related to what is said/what is true
I think Mr. Cook pointed out this first one in class, but it inspired me to keep watching for these two motifs together. In the first few lines, Goneril goes ahead and sets us up to see deception, because she’s lying about loving her father (as we now know in Act 2) and she says that she loves him more than “eyesight, space and liberty” (1.1.61). So in the end, she does love her eyesight more than her dearest father, who was, unfortunately, blind to this. Regan makes the same ridiculous profession of false love, and then Cordelia does not, and it doesn’t really work out. In the midst of Lear disowning one of his daughters, Kent tries to tell him that he’s setting himself up for disaster (“What wouldst thou do…when power to flattery bows? (1.1.163-165)). Lear tells Kent to get “out of my sight!” to which Kent replies “See better, Lear, and let me still remain/the true blank of thine eye” (1.1.179-181). Not only do both reference sight and seeing (from opposite viewpoints), but Kent also attempts to show Lear the “true blank” (target) that he should be seeing in himself. Lear has that inability to see what is real but insists on seeing that which is not (ie, “my daughters love me!” vs. “my daughters are using me to get power!”). Later, as Lear is casting out Cordelia, he says that the sisters shall never “see that face of hers again” (1.1.305), which, though true, is ironic because Cordelia’s is the only face that has spoken any truth in the entire scene. Cordelia tells Goneril and Regan that they have “washed eyes” (1.1.311), which could be interpreted as “clouded vision”, because they are letting their hunger for power overcome the love they should feel for their family.
Lear is not the only one who sees things that are untrue. Gloucester has his fair share of encounters with seeing lies. For instance, when Edmund is setting up Edgar, he writes a fraudulent letter, and then hides it (like hiding the truth!) from Gloucester. Gloucester gets anxious and proclaims “let’s see, let’s see.” (1.2.46) As Brian pointed out with the spectacles line, Gloucester is blind to true sight and to the deceit played upon him. When he discovers it, he immediately believes it’s true because he’s willing to take it for what it says, not what is true. At one point, he says “These late eclipses in the sun and moon portend no good to us” (1.2.109). I don’t know exactly what this means, but I do know that eclipses are related to darkness/blindness, which is what Gloucester is experiencing himself at the time. He even cites Kent’s banishment for believing in the truth (“His offense, honesty! ‘Tis strange” (1.2.124)). Gloucester is a victim of misrepresented truth that is deceiving to the eye.
Lear even later relates eyes to his identity crisis, when he finally discovers the dishonesty behind his daughters’ lies. “Does any here know me? This is not Lear…Where are his eyes?” (1.4.231-232). This is when the Fool tells Lear that he is really just a “Shadow” (1.4. 237), which is not something we can touch, but only something we can see.
Albany also chastises Goneril for being too forward thinking and power crazed, saying “How far your eyes may pierce I cannot tell./ Striving to better, oft we mar what’s well” (1.4. 368-369). This statement is an interesting summation of the dangers of relying only on our sight, especially what we cannot yet see, to determine our actions. This is especially important because in this conversation, Goneril had been practicing deceit (sending a letter ahead to Regan to pit her against Lear). Overall, everyone is using their eyes for all the wrong reason, and not seeing what is true.
1. Betrayal for power in Family Relationships/ Age
Both Lear and Gloucester have children that are loyal and children that are power hungry. Regan and Goneril both unite and betray their father. In Act 1, Scene 1 lines 330-346, the two daughters talk about their father's age and make reference to time and years. Their father's blindness to their plotting shows yet another motif that highlights that of age and and Regan and Goneril's betrayal.
2. Moon/Stars/Sun
There is a little bit mentioned concerning the moon, the stars, and the sun. It's a motif I'd just like to explore more. In Act 1 Scene 2 line 128, Edmund says, "..we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and stars..." He relates astrology to birth and speaks of the "planetary influence" that exists. This relates to the subject of birth. Edmund continues to talk about the stars in this passage. As he talks about them he talks about his father and the astrolgy involved in his own birth.
Nothingness/ Appetites
Act 1 Scene 4 191-205
In this interaction between the Fool and Lear, the Fool blatantly points out Lear's nothingness after giving his 'loving' daughters his kingdom. The Fool says "Thous hast pared thy wit o' both sides and left nothing i' th' middle." The Fool is speaking of how Lear has divided all of what he is familiar with amongst two of his daughters, and in doing so, he lost who he was. "Here comes one o' the parings," the fool continues, as Lear's daughter Goneril enters. A few lines later, the Fool says "He that keeps nor crust nor crumb, Weary of all, shall want some... [He points at Lear.] That's a shelled peascod." What I find interesting about this passage is that Shakespeare also touches upon the motif of appetites/food/consuming with his word choice. In the two quotes from this passage, the Fool uses words assosciated with food to point out the connection between Lear's nothingness and his daughters; the parent/child relationship is like a fruit/seed relationship. I first thought of food when I read the verb "pared" in line 191, probably because I had reread the motifs and saw appetites listed. (I'm not sure which definition of "to pare" during Shakespeare's time was more popular, as the etymolgoy webpage I looked at listed both 'to remove the outer layer, ex. pare apples' and 'to diminish' as definitions.)The Fool uses "crumb", "crust", "shelled peascod" which are all words clearly assosciated with eating. Crumb, crust, and shelled peascod all imply the abscence of nourishment. This, in turn, reflects upon Lear's absence of true affection from Goneril (and later Regan.)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pared
Planets and fate/ Parent-Children relationships
Act 1 Scene 1 121-125
In Lear's speach about expelling Cordelia from his life in this first scene he swears on many planetary bodies. He calls to the sun and the night. Lines 123 and 124 "By all the operation of the orbs from whom we do exist and cease to be..." reminded me of not just the physical bodies in the universe (and the mystery of how life arrived) but the physical body of pregnant women. It's a stretch, but I think that "orbs from whom we do exist and cease to be" also references the egg all humans come from. And as for ceasing to be...
We talked in F Block today about this dilemna. Once we raise our children, and we grow old, we "cease to be" because our children have to help us in our old age. So in the end, the children from the "orbs" are the downfall of identity as the elderly become children. It is a huge identity crisis for Lear beginning in Act two.
Connections between the mysteries of planetary bodies and parent-child relationships are quite frequent in Edmund's speach in scene 2. He is obsessed with the influence of the stars and the divine in his bastardizing. (1.2.135-140)
To connect the motifs of what is said and what is true to the relationship between parents and children, i will use the hostile relationships of Lear and his daughters and Gloucester and his sons.
Both parents are clueless about the truth about their children. They are surrounded by deception, and the only children who are truthful have been pushed away and wrongly punished.
Ophelia being the only truthful daughter did not flower her speech to get her fathers money, she simply spoke truth which apparently Lear doesn't recognize as real love. His other daughters take EVERYTHING from him, strip him bare, they have no mercy, no respect. They reflect none of their fancy speech in real life, what is said is lie.
Edgar (the good one) is wrongly accused of writing a hostile letter addressing his plot to kill Gloucester. Poor Edgar is pushed out by Edmund the real author of said letter. Now only Edmund (the bastard) is surrounding Gloucester.
The relationships between parents and children are only hostile and deceptive ones. All "good" is pushed away and all "bad" is left to create more deception.
Motifs: familial relations, duty and betrayal.
Act 1 Scene 1 Lines 1-32 and 85-141
Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 27-192
Thus far, it has been blatant that family members are not held in high esteem through the first act. This serious lack of love for each other has led to many betrayals, though some acts of loyalty may have been mistaken as betrayal, and then in turn led to such.
The play opens with Gloucester publicly disowning his bastard son, Edmund, scorning his birth while defiling his mother's name. Edmund is hurt that he does not have an equal right to his fathers love as his "legitimate" brother, Edgar. Gloucester effortlessly betrays both Edmund and his mother with his comments, while Edmund keeps his duty to be respectful to Gloucester. In the second scene, though, Edmund deceives his father as well as Edgar with a fabricated letter. He gives Gloucester the impression that Edgar is planning to kill him in order to get his inheritance faster, and tells Edgar that Gloucester is very mad at him for some reason and to be cautious around him for Gloucester might kill him. While Edmund seems to be loyal to both his father and his brother, he is really deceiving both...and doing it well.
Back in the first scene, we see another familial dispute laced with deceit. King Lear is searching for assurance that his daughters love him, and tells them that whoever can prove their love most will inherit the greatest share of his kingdom. Of course the two elder daughters make up lavish details of their devotion to him, but they are really betraying him by giving him a false sense of acceptance. It is only the youngest daughter who stays loyal to him by being honest about her love, or lack of it, and refusing to lie simply to inherit more land. Lear snubs her honesty and creates an even greater rift between them.
I believe that familial relations and betrayal/duty will prove to be two of the largest motifs present throughout the play, as they have already played a large role. Also, it will be curious to see in the end whether those who have been loyal or those who have betrayed will prevail, because (since I haven't read this play before and don't know the end), I really cannot say that I would expect one to come from Shakespeare rather than the other. Obviously if this were a fairytale of sorts the loyal would prevail, but Shakespeare is known for his tragic endings and I really am leaning towards the cunning and disloyal characters ending up on top.
Alex Trotsky
“Appetite/Blindness”
Act 1 Scene 1
Pg. 15 lines 120-133
“. . . The barbarous Scythian, or he that makes his generation messes to gorge his appetite, shall to my bosom be as well neighbored, pitied, and relieved as thou my sometime daughter.”
In this passage, King Lear expresses his outrage that his youngest daughter, Cordelia will not profess her love for him publicly. Here, the motif of appetite is introduced as the Kind refers to Cordelia as being as distant from him as savages who eat their own children. This passage also reveals King Lear’s blindness, since he is unable to see the truth that Cordelia is the only daughter who is being sincere.
Act 1 Scene 4
Pg. 57 lines 231-236
“Does any here know me? This is not Lear. Does Lear walk thus, speak thus? Where are his eyes? . . .”
In this passage King Lear makes reference to his eyes being gone- thus rendering him blind. This is fitting since he is blind to his daughters’ characters. He trusts those who lie to him and distrusts Cordelia, the only one who was “real” with him. The motif of blindness appears numerous times in the first two acts of this play. Both paternal figures in each conflict (King Lear and Gloucester) deal with the same issue of sightlessness. Both distrust their only child, while they are poisoned by those who are out to seek personal benefit. They hear what they want to hear from their children, and ignore the rest. This issue leaves them unable to differentiate between what is and what is not. Therefore, they are blind to the truth. This similarity is one of many strong parallels between the two conflicts.
I thought that France and Cordelia were a really great example of different kinds of wealth. France says to Burgundy, "Love's not love/When it is mingled with regards that stands/Aloof from th'entire point. Will you have her?/She is herself a dowry." Burgundy refuses to take Cordelia as his wife because she doesn't have any "wealth," but France doesn't care anything about that. His love for Cordelia is wealth enough. This is just one example of how Shakespeare brings up the question of whether money actually means wealth or if there is something more important to wealth. Here it is suggested that love is a greater wealth than a dowry of money.
Bastardization/Natural and Unnatural Children/Relationships between Parent and Child
Act One
Scene Two
Lines 5-11
In this passage Edmund is plotting his overthrow of his brother and his usurping of his fortunes. He contemplates what it truly means to be a bastard child, and his rage and sense of inadequacy is on full display. He rightly observes that his “dimensions are as well compact” meaning that he is of as able a body as his brother and also of the same mind. He is an equal to his brother on all fields excepting the face that he was born out of wedlock. Edmund cannot resign himself to see the point of his mistreatment. He is stewing in anger over the misfortune of his birth, something he has no control over, and his station as a bastard child. He wants only to be seen as the equal he knows he is. This leads Edmund to resent both his brother and his father, and this leads him to begin plotting their downfall.
Alison Randazza
Nature/Unnatural, Family (Father-Son) and I guess a little bit Fate, Planets, and Stars
Act 1 Scene 2 Lines 109-124 Gloucester
I remember this particular passage stood out due to the fact that in this part of Act 1 Scene 2, Shakespeare begins writing in prose. This entire passage falls after Edmund shows Gloucester (his father) the letter supposedly written by Edgar.
Eclipses in the sun/moon must portray either good fortune but probably bad fortune, since Gloucester is speaking about how everything seems to be going against nature (thus becoming unnatural) after a recent eclipse. Gloucester says that the recent eclipse predicts these things: “love cools, friendship falls off…” blah blah blah, as well as “brothers divide” (1.2.113) and “the bond cracked ‘twixt son and father” (1.2.114-5). Of course Gloucester is right when he says “This villain of mine comes under the prediction: there’s son against father.” (1.2.115-7), though he is wrong to think that his legitimate son would go against his father, it is actually his bastard son who is plotting against him - thus the “brothers divide.” Gloucester also touches on how “the King falls from bias of nature” (the king also acts unnaturally) since “there’s father against child” (King Lear against Cordelia).
Gloucester is very dramatic in this passage going on to say that the recent eclipse has ended “the best of [their] time” (1.2.118-9). Since now the world is filled with “machinations, hollowness [and] treachery.” (1.2-119).
Damn those overlapping planets, causing all sorts of unnatural things!
for whatever reason, i thought all the blogging was due friday. so in my mind, i'm still ahead of the game here.
Lucy Fox
Nature, natural, unnatural as intertwined with power and fate, and fated power
1.1 No specific line, just the beginning of the entire play is initiated with the issue of Edmund, Edgar, and Gloucester----Edmund is the “natural” born son, and lacks power because he’s a bastard. He wants, and tries to steal power away dishonestly.
1.1.106 Cordelia, an honest daughter, honors her father simply because he is her father, and is robbed of the power she was to inherit.
1.1.243 Cordelia is a “wretch whom Nature is ashamed almost t’ acknowledge hers.”
What I’m seeing is maybe how Lear seems to think that where there is Nature, there is power(?). And in casting her aside, Lear considers Cordelia unnatural and strips her of her deserved power.
And with regard to edmundedgargloucester, Edgar is unnatural? because he was born in wedlock. And Edmund is natural? because of his bastard-ism, and Edgar will be stripped of his power and Edmund will gain power & be natural? I confuse myself trying to understand it, but I think it’s interesting the connotations and associations with power and privilege that go along with the natural and unnatural. It’s something to be followed.
A theme that is heavily evident in Act One is the collapse of the natural bond between parents and children. Lear's assumption that his daughters will and should proclaim overflowing quantities of love for their father plays upon the idea that love within a family is unconditional. Lear's tangent of mad rage is spurred when that truth becomes untrue. Similarly, Edmund lives a parallel situation. The rage of the bastard child is set off when he learns that his father favors his legitimate son, and Edmund wants to control what he cannot; the expectation of the unconditional. On page 53 the fool eludes to this theme when it talks about the discipline involved in raising children.
Nature
Act 1 Scene 2 (Edmund's initial passage)
In this passage, it appeared to me as if Edmund was debating with nature about his own naturalness and fate. I may be reading it incorrectly, but as a whole, this particular passage of this scene is strikingly bold. Edmund knows that while he may be a bastard child, he is just as natural (humanly?), if not more so, than his brother Edgar. He refers to Nature as his goddess and then ultimately calls upon the gods to "stand up for bastards" (Line 23).
People often refer to nature as "Mother Nature". Edmund is considered to be a bastard child because he was born out of wedlock. In his passage, Edmund questions nature and naturalness. All humans are an aspect of nature, ultimately being a child of Mother Nature. In essence could it possibly be said that all humans are bastards if we are a kin to Mother Nature? Who/what would be the paternal figure in this sense? I wonder of Edmund was "subconsciously" referring to this aspect of nature when making "nature" a form of being by giving it the name of "Nature" rather than simply generalizing "nature". Edmund declares that he is just as humanly as his legitimate brother Edgar, whom also would, in respect, be a kin of Mother Nature, making them equals. Both were created in the same manner and there is no true difference between the two. In reality, nature cannot distinguish between a bastard child and a "legitimate" child, and Edmund courageously questions the morals of those around him and decides to believe in the essence of nature rather than society. Although it is difficult to interpret and explain exactly what Edmund is getting at in his passage, this is what I was able to extract from it...
Act Two Blog Post
Act 2 Scene 1 lines 128-135
CORNWALL
If he be taken, he shall never more
Be fear'd of doing harm: make your own purpose,
How in my strength you please. For you, Edmund,
Whose virtue and obedience doth this instant
So much commend itself, you shall be ours:
Natures of such deep trust we shall much need;
You we first seize on.
Although it is not mentioned, when I read this passage I instantly connected the quote to our pre-set motif of blindness. I see it in the way that Cornwall praises and upholds Edmund as plans are made for Edgar to be punished for going against his father. Edmund’s well woven deceit wins over Cornwall quite flawlessly, and pulls the wool over his eyes in such a maneuver that everyone is soon against Edgar. (wool over his eyes, Cornwall is blind to the truth of the plot). So although not a true motif in that the word blind is not brought up, I do feel as if it is an important connection to make, that blindness comes in many forms. To withhold the truth is to blind someone of it, which is exactly that kind of ‘game’ that Edmund is playing.
1.2.1-23
Here I see the motifs of family, inversion, and nature all intertwined. Edmund states, "Thou, nature, art my goddess." Saying that he only worships natural things. To the rest of the kingdom though, he is unnatural being a illegitimate son. So, here is an inversion, he is in a way saying he doesn't like himself.
Another inversion here is his plan to rid of Edgar and become the heir himself. "Edmund the base shall top t'legitimate"
Of course all of this revolves around family, he wants to gain the affection of Gloucester and lower Gloucester's affection towards Edgar.
This may already be on here.... but just in case it's not...
Emily Castro
Eating/emptiness/nothingness
1.1.96-101
To begin, the repetition of the word “nothing” five times within four short lines clearly indicates that “nothing” is actually something of great eminence within the play, and that significance is exemplified in line 101, in which Cordelia says to King Lear that she refuses to “heave [her] heart into her throat”. This statement, however short, is reminiscent of multiple motifs that lie within the play; by says that she will not “heave [her] heart into her throat”, Cordelia implies that her mouth is empty but her heart is full, unlike her sisters, whose hearts are filled with nothing but whose mouths are full of words that seem honest, loving, and true but actually mean nothing. The statement also encompasses the eating/emptiness motif; if Cordelia’s words were to be interpreted in a literal sense, she would literally be eating her own heart, which is ironic because eating is supposed to fill and empty space within, but in that case, eating would be creating an empty space where a heart once was. The irony of the line also kind of plays into the reoccurrence of paradoxical phrases within the play: for example, “Fairest Cordelia, that art most rich being poor” (1.1.290).
ACT THREE BLOG POST
Act 3, scene 4, lines 136-144
Motifs: Hunger, Nakedness, animals
EDGAR
Poor Tom; that eats the swimming frog, the toad,
the tadpole, the wall-newt and the water; that in
the fury of his heart, when the foul fiend rages,
eats cow-dung for sallets; swallows the old rat and
the ditch-dog; drinks the green mantle of the
standing pool; who is whipped from tithing to
tithing, and stock- punished, and imprisoned; who
hath had three suits to his back, six shirts to his
body
Here, Edgar, as poor tom, talks of the life as a beggar, stripped of all luxuries compares himself as an animal, and naked. He shows hunger so great that he’s willing to degrade himself to eat food that wouldn’t be safe, let alone fit for anyone of status to consume. We’d gone over how hunger is a void within the stomach, and therefore a representation of nothingness. The same could be said of nakedness, when a character is stripped of not only his clothes, but naked to his original status as heir of Gloucester. He is animal like, and natural, which contrasts to his brother, the bastard, which in class, we had gone over is ‘natural’. This naturalness is a real inversion of roles between Edgar and his half brother. All of this presents a definite identity crisis for the son, that is not only a point of interest, but also a point of seemingly insanity. One can question how much of Edgar’s role of Poor Tom is actual acting, and how much is his own insanity, stemmed from discontent at his new role as the hated son, while the bastard comes to take his position.
3.6 50-59
This is the part where Lear seems to be really losing it considering he is talking to a stool and thinks that it is his own daughter. I like this because although it is obvious Goneril is not there, he is speaking the most honesty accidentally. It is obvious that Lear has been losing it, and I’m sure through further conversation it would be even more clear and this may not be necessary but I find it clever in a way that Goneril is comparable to an everyday household object to her own father. I think this illuminates the relationship between Goneril and her father. She is but an emotionless object. How can a daughter claim to love her clearly on the verge of insanity father while really just plotting on how to get rich from his fall? I think by using Goneril as a stool, even though not on purpose, shows how ridiculously unsympathetic she is as a daughter. She sucks just like her name demands.
Meghan Ciaramitaro
3.4.27-41
Unsure of what to write about, I flipped through King Leer and noticed a note I had previously made. In D block, we had discussed the motif of blindness. In Leers passage, (3.4.27-41) he speaks of being able to see for the first time while entering the hovel with Kent and the Fool. During his time as king, he saw only what he needed to see, but in the hovel he was miraculously unblinded by the “poor naked wretches.” (Line 34) By being “exposed” to this, Leer was able “To feel what wretches feel.” (Line 39) This figurative blindness only brings one image to mind, the literal blinding of Gloucester. It is the image of Cornwall forcing out one of Gloucester’s eyes. Although, I don’t appreciate this image, I appreciate the way these two images of blindness intertwine. Leer is finally able to see the lowest of the low, and then he himself states to sink down and lose it. Gloucester, while trying to be loyal to his kind, loses his sight, for a man who it losing himself. With two acts left, the motif of blindness is sure to continue in the tragedy.
Another motif that has caught my attention throughout the play is nature, naturalness, and unnaturalness. If anyone is interested,
2.4.121
2.4.166
2.4.202
3.1.42
3.2.50
3.5.3
3.6.104
3.7.105
are just a few spots this is mentioned. I’ll post later with a follow up of King Leer on PBS.
Nature, Parent/Child, Fate and the heavenly bodies
2.2.7-11
In this passage when King Lear first approaches the storm, he madly calls to the elements to destroy him the way his daughters have. When he is asking the thunderbolts to "Singe my white head" there are several ties between nature and vegetation and parent/child relationships. Lear says "Crack nature's molds, all germens spill at once". He is asking the storm to destroy natures seedlings. The use of seeds in this passage after he has just been shut out by his daughters strengthens the parent/child relationship using a comparison in nature. It reminds me of Dewey Dell and her wet seed in "As I Lay Dying". He also says "Strike flat the thick rotundity o' th' world." "Rotundity o' th' world" made me think of pregnancy and again, parent/child relationships. It is evident that Lear would want to destroy and "strike flat" his direct association with his daughters because of how they have hurt him. Also, the fact that Lear is calling to the heavens and the storm for help furthers the importance of the sky/planets in the play. There is a huge tie between the sky and the fate of the characters, particularly Lear. The storm eventually mimics Lear; the thunderbolts are a physical representation of his madness.
2.4.2-3
Here, Kent attempts to lead Lear inside. He says “The tyranny of the open night’s too rough for nature to endure.” Kent is referring to human nature. Again, this shows how the heavens are connected to Lear, and how the storm is making him even more crazed after seeing his daughters.
Michael McGovern
What is said and what is true/parents and children
2.1.20-99
In this passage, Edmund furthers his lies to both his brother and father. He even goes as far as to cut himself in order to make what he is saying more believable. Here Edmund pretends to fight Edgar to make it seem like Edmund was helping him. However, Edmund spins this story as to make it look like Edgar injured him. Edmund tells Gloucester, “Here stood he in the dark, his sharp sword out, mumbling of wicked charms, conjuring the moon to stand auspicious mistress.” (43-45) Here, Edmund uses the swordfight he started to further incriminate his brother and ruin his life. Edmund foes on to say that he “discovered” Edgar’s plot to overthrow Gloucester to which Edgar “replied” “Dost thou think if I would stand against thee, would the reposal of any trust, virtue, or worth in thee make thy words faithed?” (77-80) The Irony is that in Edmund’s fake story no one, Edgar thought that no one would believe him, when in actuality, everyone believes his fake story that he tells in real life.
This then relates to the theme of parents and children. Edmund’s lies and untruths force Gloucester to change his views of his sons. Gloucester at first loves both his sons, but shows that the realization of Edgar being a bastard is always in the back of his mind. His “true” son Edgar is seen as the proper son and his true air. However, due to Edmund’s lies, Edgar’s status of the natural son is lost and Gloucester now views him as a “strange and fastened villain.” Conversely, Edmund, the bastard, has now gained his fathers trust completely and is now the “loyal and natural boy” in the eyes of Gloucester. The parent/child relationship is further complicated because Gloucester put his faith in the wrong child. He believes the lying and dishonest son and starts a vendetta against the good and honest son. This shows how strange and unfortunate the relationship between Gloucester and his children has become.
Brian Hand
Nothingness/self but also madness
2.3.21
In this soliloquy, Edgar establishes that if he is to survive, he must stop being Edgar and take on the identity of Poor Tom. If he is to escape the charges against him, he must cloak himself in madness by becoming this character. In the final line of the soliloquy, Edgar says ""Edgar" I nothing am." I feel that Edgar is saying that if there is ever to be an Edgar in the future, he must not exist for a while. In becoming Poor Tom, he is literally becoming the "nothing" that he speaks of. But by being Tom, he is nothing too, since Tom exists only in Edgar's maddened world of trickery and deception. By being Tom, Edgar has put himself in a kind of identity limbo, where he is neither himself or who he says he is.
Rank and status/ self/ fates/ planets/ stars
3.4.35-41
Lear is in a peculiar position because his personal growth affects the people in his kingdom, especially the poor. In this scene, Lear begins to recognize parallels between his personal suffering, and the suffering of his people. He notes that as king, he took little interest in the suffering of the poor But now he sees how they suffer as he suffers in this storm, and he cries out to all men to "expose thyself to feel what wretches feel." But in the last line, Lear says, "And show the heavens more just." I think this sums up how Lear's situation is echoed by the suffering people he sees on the streets. In this line, Lear recognizes that in being God's chosen one, he has a responsibility to help his people as he helps himself. By including "heavens" in the final line Shakespeare brings to mind the motifs of planets and stars, meaning fate and uncertainty in an ambiguous world.
Allie L.
Age and youth, foolishness and wisdom (my passages each had both motifs)
1.5.40-44
In this scene, the Fool tells Lear how foolish he is for giving his kingdom away to his daughters.
The Fool says “If thou wert my Fool, nuncle, I’d have thee beaten for being old before thy time.” To which Lear asks, “How’s that?” The Fool replies, “Thou shouldst not have been old till thou hadst been wise” The Fool is obviously saying that Lear is foolish especially in relation to how he has been ruling his kingdom. It also seems from the Fool’s speech that he believes that people that are old should be wise. I’m not sure, but I think that this is a belief held by the other characters in the play and of Elizabethan times. What is interesting about these few lines is that it seems as if the Fool is insinuating that Fools are wise or at least, old Fools are wise. This seems contradictory because we tend to think of Fools as being foolish.
1.1.334-346
In this passage, Goneril remarks that the fact that Lear cast off his best loved daughter shows just how fickle he has become in his old age. Regan replies “’Tis the infirmity of his age. Yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself.” Goneril says that Lear has always been rash and says in a gloomy way that now they not only have to deal with the flaws Lear already has but will also have to deal with the extra stubbornness and difficultness old age will bring. The sentence, “Yet he hath ever but slenderly known himself” is interesting. Does it mean that he doesn’t know his true character or his own mind or known how to make wise decisions? I think from the context that it means something like that he never really knew his mind in things and therefore made rash decisions.
Animals
3.6.69-76 (Edgar)
In this particular passage, Edgar makes another reference to dogs and even names off several breeds; "Mastiff, greyhound, mongrel grim, hound or spaniel, brach, or lym...". Dogs are domesticated animals that tend to have a violent and vicious tendency when it comes to matters of territory, possession and power. This seems to be a parallel to the characters in the play who are competing for their inheritance (particularly Goneril and Regan, but also Edmund who is fearful that his "bastard" brother Edgar may get the inheritance that he believes is not rightfully his.)The savage violence and bloodshed that occurs throughout the play is like that of mongrels; inhumane and wild. On page 161, line 33, Regan refers to Gloucester as an "ingrateful fox". Foxes are often thought to be sly and sneaky, which is the complete opposite of innocent, honest and kind-hearted Gloucester. It seems as if the characters in the play identify one another as a particular animal competing in the hierarchy of the environment, as they are competing for power among their (kingdom?).
Gloucester's blindness also stood out to me as a symbol of sorts. I found it to be ironic that as Gloucester is blinded, he then realizes the truth and the disloyalty of all who are more concerned with their own inheritance from their elders than the true love that they may or may not have for the men. When Cornwall gauges Gloucester's eyes out, he is unknowingly unraveling the truth for Gloucester about the entire situation. Will equality ultimately come of Gloucester's blindness, at least among his sons? Will he share with Lear his intuition of Goneril and Regan's kniving disloyalty, if he has such? And if so, will Lear take this into consideration or will his madness ultimately overtake any sense left at all?
3.4.90-116
By the third act of King Lear, Lear has fully realized the consequences of his former vanity and foolishness. He begins to commiserate with the plight of the less fortunate though still from the point of view of his own tragedy: “Has his daughters brought him to this pass?” But shortly into his first meeting with Edgar (disguised as “Poor Tom”) he starts to establish a deeper understanding of his plight. He asks Edgar, “What hast thou been?” to which Edgar first replies “A servingman.” This term, a double entendre, means both lover and servant and implies the nature of Edgar’s vices: he came to serve his own lust. Similarly, Lear came to serve his own vanity. In any case, Shakespeare seems to make the point that obsessions and foolishness ultimately bring people inevitably into a position of servitude.
This servitude is connected to the “animal” motif: “hog in sloth, fox in stealth, wolf in greediness, etc.” By becoming a slave to their vices, Edgar and Lear lost their sense of control and ultimately became animals. Edgar presents this string of metaphors in a way that simplifies him to exaggerated caricatures based on each of his character flaws. Shakespeare seems to say that when we fall into this decadent condition we lose more than just our sense of control: we lose the many dimensions that make us human. Servitude to vices is further connected to the motif of “nothingness.” I think Edgar as the character Poor Tom exemplifies this connection: he was reduced beyond just a one-dimensional caricature and became “nothing.” Lear asks the question, “Is man no more than this?” and ultimately comes to the conclusion that “unacommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art.” Man is “nothing” and “an animal.” By means of self-control we make something of ourselves but always risk falling back into that state of “nothingness.” Lear’s tearing off of his own clothes seems a sort of surrender to this belief. However, this “nakedness,” this “nothingness,” also comes at a point of elevated understanding and might also symbolize his openness and his acceptance of the reality of the world – he is gaining a deeper understanding from his nothingness.
---
2.4.8-14
As I was skimming the play looking for another passage I came across one that seemed especially similar to Lear’s conversation with Edgar in act 3 scene 4. Lear is greeted by Kent who is just waking up. Lear asks him, “Mak’st thou this shame thy pastime?” Lear is criticizing Kent for accepting his humiliating punishment so passively. The fool jokes about the stocks in comparing Kent’s condition to that of a chained animal: “Horses are tied by the heads, dogs and bears by th’ neck, etc.” In comparing Kent and all humanity to animals, the fool seems to be subtly suggesting that humans must control themselves and each other by constraints. Of course, in this passage the constraint (the stocks) is physical, but other constraints (like social taboos) may be metaphorical. Just as we tie animals to make them more tame (less like animals) we must “tie” ourselves to avoid becoming the animals that we are naturally. The fool’s description of the stocks (“When a man’s overlusty at legs, then he wears wooden netherstocks”) makes them seem less like a punishment than a necessary precaution to prevent people from wandering without a purpose. Words like “overlusty” and “netherstocks” also seem like they could have some kind of sexual connotation – a connection with the vices people may come to serve.
Eating with a little rank
3.4.122-149
So I think that it is pretty much impossible to follow the motif of eating and not notice Edgar's passage on page 143.
When asked to indtroduce himself by Gloucester, Edgar, disguised as a madman-beggar portrays his situation by giving a detailed description of all the foods, or rather animals, that he has eaten. While reading this passage I noticed an interesting tension between truth and exaggeration. Edgar's story is that he used to be a servant but now survives on "the swimming frog, the toad, the tadpole...teh swallows of the old rat and the ditch-dog, drinks the green mantle of the standing pool." Now, all of this stuff is really repulisive, and does seem like mad rambling. But the confusing this is that all these things are actually edible, and probably in desperate situations, the beggars of England probably did eat small creatures of the like. So I don't know whether Edmund is just trying to sound mad, or if he is describing a possible diet of the beggar he supposedly is, or if he actually had to survive on these repulsive things while living in a tree trunk.
In this passage, it seems to me as if eating may be a symbol of status, as in who you are determined what you eat, or vice versa. However, the whole message is ambiguous because it is unclear as to what this 'food' means. Regardless, it is one of several passages in King Lear that effictively turn your stomach, a feeling that I think Shakespeare was aiming for.
Sarah Johnson
Acts 2&3
Sight/Seeing and how it relates to what is said/what is meant
3.4.85-99
This is an Edgar speech, when he is being Tom the Beggar. He has just been asked everyone’s favorite question (Who are you?), and is replying in a most cryptic and curious way. He begins as though describing his old self (which is not what can be seen, and also not what he means), who held a high position and followed orders. He says he “swore as many oaths as I spake words”, which makes it seem rather regretful. It’s almost like Edgar has looked back on himself and created an image of someone he can hate, from the position of Tom. The described man represents some Edmund-like-qualities (like a “fox in stealth” or “wolf in greediness”), which are things Edgar has moved away from. Edgar also begins to give advice (“keep thy foot out of brothels…defy the foul fiend”). Edgar might, again, be warning the audience now against Edmund, and chastising those elements of himself that had once existed in this way. Edgar sets the audience up to see him in this way that he describes, although it is apparent that it is not himself he is describing.
3.7.60-85
This is the passage in which everyone is ganging up against Gloucester and gouging out his eyes. Gloucester explains that he sent Lear to Dover because he “would not see thy cruel nails/Pluck out his poor eyes” (163). This is said in truth and honesty, but is ironic, because Gloucester is afraid for Lear’s eyes, when really he should fear for his own (as we just heard from Regan). The trouble with Gloucester is that while he has his eyes, he cannot see. What he says is usually what he means, but he doesn’t ever know what’s really happening. It is further ironic that he tells everyone he will see/The winged vengeance overtake such children” (163), because although he might yet be avenged, he will never see anything of the sort, since his eyes are about to get gouged out (which Cornwall alerts him to in the next line). While everyone in this passage mostly says what they mean, Cornwall appears to be playing devil’s advocate a little. He takes Edmund’s advice and sends him away, then uses it to justify de-ogling Gloucester. Then, Cornwall has basically no qualms about selling Edmund out to Gloucester for the extra kick in the face. Although it is fair to assume that Edmund doesn’t care about his father’s wellbeing, it’s also fair to say that Cornwall isn’t using great discretion on Edmund’s part. For instance, if I were Edmund, I would still want my blind father to think I loved him, just for the possibility of using him in the future. I also might have just wanted to remove him from power, not ruin his life. Anyways, everyone in this scene is shifty, because they all have different levels of intelligence (as in intel, or “being in the know”), so it’s hard to judge who actually says what they mean.
Continuing to investigate the motifs “family relations” and “duty and betrayal”.
2.4. 1-357
The majority of Act 2 Scene 4 is devoted to the betrayal of Lear’s daughters. The two daughters which he felt were so honestly dedicated to him have turned around and betrayed his wishes. His sanity is waning as he refuses to believe that they could be capable of committing such acts. His power is dwindling and his daughters refuse to speak with him, but he continues to ignore their indifference. Not only are the daughters betraying their father, but Lear is betraying himself by refusing to believe it.
3.3. (in its entirety)
A very short scene, but again Edmund betrays his family (which previously betrayed him by dubbing him “bastard” and making fun of the situation) when he decides to tell Cornwall about his father.
3.4. 121-197
Gloucester goes to Lear’s aid (duty) and finds him with Kent (in disguise), the fool, and Edgar (in disguise). He unknowingly treats his son Edgar whom he had disowned with kindness and invites him to the shelter of his home along with the others. His previous betrayal is replaced by duty as it is a parent’s duty to provide their children with food and shelter, but since he is doing this unknowingly I’m not sure if it really counts…
3.5
Edmund is made Earl of Gloucester after betraying his father….so he gets rewarded for continuing in the destruction of his family.
3.6.
I really need to reread this scene a few times before I can post on it. Lear’s pretend trial of Reagan and Goneril definitely says something about family relations, but I’m just not quite sure what it is yet…I can’t make sense of his insanity.
Towards the end of Act III, I noticed the animal motif frequently. What was interesting was that it was usually in regards to Goneril and Regan. When we start to see King Lear’s insanity deepen, the Fool makes a comment about Goneril and Regan, referring to them sort of as wolf-like. He says “He’s mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf”. Later on, Lear himself says “The little dogs and all…” in scene 6 line 65. This is again, in reference to Goneril and Regan.
Hannah Benson Last acts.
One thing I noticed about the last act, besides being KIND OF out of control, was in the very first scene where Regan and Edmund are talking. Regan is basically curious of Edmund's feelings towards her but moreover Goneril. Edmund admits to liking Goneril, 5.1.11, but then Regan makes it seem like it is ok as long as he hasn't has sex with her. So this is a little backwards and pleads with him to just not get cozy with her sister. Then it gets a little bit of a twisty time when Goneril and Albany decide to join the party and as an aside (5.1.21-22)tells that she does not care if she loses the war as long as Goneril is not victorious in winning Edmund. Ok, so let me get this straight. The sisters fight to be more fake than the other for their father's riches and lands, and now that they have it and must defend it they are fighting about Gloucester's Illegitimate son? It's just highlighting the fact that these girls are just really selfish, impulsively so, and don't care about who it affects as long as they are victorious. I believe the first few pages of Act 5 show how ungrateful and basically psycho these girls are, more than in Act I.
I'm having a hard time with contextual evidence:
I have noticed, in acts 2 and 3, the necessity of disguise. What has needed to be disguised is often any amount of power that may rival another's power. As a result, to express loyalty, people have to disguise themselves as someone with little or no power. For example, Kent has to disguise himself as a poor beggar and servant to be able to remain loyal to his king. If he remained the Duke, or whatever position of power he held, he was considered a threat to the king. Similarly, Edgar had to disguise himself as a beggar and crazy person to remain loyal to his father. Cordelia is an example as well, but not so explicitly. She doesn't disguise herself, per say, but loses any position of power she may have had by staying loyal to her father, because her loyalty consisted of honesty and truth.
In Edgar and Kent's situations, both escape death by disguise. It is only in disguise that they can be loyal, and be seen by the king and Gloucester as loyal and faithful. This encompasses the theme that power interferes with loyalty.
1.1.11-23 Cordelia
[What is said and what is true]
My favorite part of the play was here in scene one when Cordelia refused to confess her love for her father. When she chose to “love, and be silent” I instantly knew she was going to be my favorite character in this tragedy. When Regan and Goneril declared their unconditional love for their father it immediately sets the foundation of how throughout the entire story naturalness is in a sense flip flopped. What is defined as natural is how Cordelia explains to her father why she cannot put her love into words for him but through Lear’s eyes Regan and Goneril’s speeches defines natural and innate love. This ambiguity and mixing of what is natural to what is not is shown through what is said and what is true…stemming back to the beginning moments in this scene 1 where the three daughters are asked to announce their love aloud.
1.1.106 Cordelia
Nature and unnatural with power and fate (same idea as Luc.)
Sticking to talking about the naturalness and unnaturalness what comes along with it is power and fate. In 1.1.106 Cordelia, though in her heart shows complete and natural devotion and honor for her father, is deprived of any power she was suppose to receive as one of his daughters because he mistakes her speechlessnes for nothingness, while in her are truer feelings that can’t be made into words and she doesn’t believe needs to be, unlike with Regan and Goneril.
2.3.21 Edgar
Nothingness\Self
Here Edgar takes on the identity of Poor Tom so as to match the feelings he his having in himself feeling like nothing. By taking on this role and intertwining his feelings and a new identity he allows himself to become face to face with the dishonesty in his life seeing as that’s where the idea of Poor Tom stemmed from.
3.4.35- Lear
Rank and Status
Here Lear is finally no longer blinded to what is true. He begins to associate with the other ache and suffering around him and recognizes no difference between the two. He begins to feel for others the way he would feel for himself.
Alison Randazza
Sight/Seeing, the bigger picture: justice, life/death. Something like that.
4.1.35-42
Poor eyeless Gloucester, the last sight he saw was his son acting like a poor and crazy man, though he did not know it to be his son at the time. Gloucester was misled by his eyes on the truth of the matter though now without eyes he can now “see” and understand a bigger picture -- the cruelty of the world and the vicious nature of justice.
The majority of Gloucester’s outlook comes out in the last two lines of his little speech where he says:
“As flies to wanton boys we are to th’ gods;
They kill us for their sport.”
A very sad outlook on life/death in my opinion, Gloucester is suggesting that everyone is a fly - no one is above or below, therefore everyone dies the same sad death. The good die with the bad and the only reason for it is basically because its “fun” for the gods.
Michael McGovern
5.3.272 – 375
Duty and Betrayal/Parents and Children
In this passage, duty and betrayal comes up quite a bit. Many people show both their duty to Lear, as well as their betrayal to him. Kent is one of the characters who does his duty for the King, he continues to have his best interests at heart. He comes back to say that he is going to, “Bid my king and master aye goodnight.” This shows that Kent still feels the need to perform his duties for the King even though Lear’s time has passed. On the other side of this, there is also a lot of betrayal in this passage. Both Goneril and Regan have betrayed Lear by trying to usurp his power. This led to the infighting between the two sisters which in turn led to Goneril committing a murder suicide with Regan. This contrast of duty and betrayal seems to fit in with the inversions that occur throughout the book. Kent, at first, somewhat betrays Lear by not agreeing with his actions towards Cordelia in act 1. Goneril and Regan also appear to be doing their duty as daughters and princesses by telling their father how much they love him. In this scene however, the roles are completely reversed with Kent acting dutifully and Regan and Goneril betraying their father. This scene also acts as an inversion between previous scenes with Goneril and Regan. Earlier in the play, Goneril and Regan work together in order to betray the power of a prominent man in their lives (Lear). In this scene, they betray each other for the affection of a prominent man in each of their lives (Edmund).
The motif of duty and betrayal in this passage also plays into the motif of parents and children. As a result of Goneril’s and Regan’s betrayals, Lear is unable to be with any of his daughters. Not only has Lear lost Cordelia, his favorite daughter, but Goneril and Regan also die and leave Lear alone to die a broken man. This is another (you guessed it!) inversion from earlier in the play. Earlier in act 1, Lear leaves Cordelia in a similar situation he is in at the end of the play. She is cut off and her family is virtually “dead” to her. She is left alone and saddened and appears to be without her family forever. The motif of parents and children in this passage seems to show that throughout the play, Lear and his daughters never have a relationship that would be seen as good.
“Aminals”
4.6.46-51
In this passage Albany strongly criticizes Goneril and Regan for what they have done to Lear. He calls them “tigers” for their lack of compassion. This seems to me an interesting nuance to the animal motif. It seems to me that in most other instances people were compared to animals for being illogical or decadent. By contrast, this passage mainly contemplates the essential goodness of humans to separate them from animals. Albany previously criticized them for destroying what created them: “She that herself will sliver and disbranch / From her material sap perforce must wither / And come to deadly use.” Now he seems to suggest that either they have lost their nature as humans or they never contained that nature begin with. They committed cruel actions with no remorse. They are even below the level of animals: “A father… Whose reverence even the head-lugged bear would live… have you madded.”
Albany’s words seem to suggest that he has depended on the idea that humans are essentially good. He now praises Lear’s kindness and feels that people should naturally love and bow to it. By contrast, to hurt such a kind man is “degenerate” – inhuman. Now he is forced to call in to question his assumptions about humanity. If humans aren’t essentially good they need “visible spirits” to keep them in line. But if these spirits do not exist or will not help us then “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, / Like monsters of the deep.”
5.3.369-375
In this short passage King Lear laments Cordelia’s death. Although it is only six lines long I think it presents another important nuance to the animal motif. Lear asks, “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life, / And thou no breath at all?” He connects the animal motif with the motif of nothingness (in reference to death) (“Never, never, never, never, never,” “No, no, life?”). Lear has depended on the idea that humans aren’t subject to the same world as animals. That the world humans live in is a just and moral world. Essentially he believed that good things happen to good people. Now the tragedy of the end of this play calls this idea into question. I may be inferring too much but I think that when Lear says “Do you see this? Look on her, look, her lips” he is seeing her in some kind of heaven. He is being reunited with her. Lear’s “heaven” may be metaphorical: even though humans are subject to the same chaotic world as animals, they can still hope for something better from their goodness. Or maybe I’m just getting way ahead of myself.
Sarah Johnson
Acts 4&5
Seeing/Eyesight, What is said/what is true
Good old Gloucester and his blindness. Although being blinded helped him to see (Act 3), he is still pretty oblivious. As the "Old Man" points out, he can't "see [his] way." Gloucester feels that he has "no way", and therefore, doesn't need his eyes anyway. He even acknowledges that he was blind and "stumbled" when he "saw" (was not blind). Then we get the old dramatic irony, because Gloucester says he wishes only to touch Edgar again, and it would be like having "eyes again." (4.1.17 - 25)HA HA HA. because Edgar is Old Tom, about to receive Gloucester and lead him to Dover. Tom says some shifty things "Bless thee, good man's son", ( again, ha ha) to help make Gloucester think he really is mad ("'Tis the time's plague when the madmen lead the blind"). This is also funny because Gloucester directs Old Tom to bring him to the cliff's of Dover so he can throw himself off of them, saying, "From that place i shall need no leading"(4.1.87). More irony, because he thinks he won't need leading because he's going to die, but really he won't need leading because Edgar will trick him into NOT jumping off the cliffs, and that divine intervention has kept him alive. He tells stories to Gloucester to keep him alive, which is the opposite of the intentions behind Edmund's destructive stories. Edgar also tells Gloucester to "bear free and patient thoughts" - (4.6.93)a thing the children in this play are always trying to teach their elders. This is also all said under the pretense that Edgar is a stranger having observed Gloucester's "fall". He does this, all without revealing his secret identity, which somehow always eludes Gloucester. And of course, the greatest irony is that they all die anyways! so Gloucester's sight in blindness is improved, but he is, in the end, subjected to eternal darkness and blindness.
Lear's madness works much in the same way as Gloucester's blind-ing. Before being mad, Lear was blind to many things, but becoming mad he gained his sight on the whole daughters/trust issue. However, he also became oblivious to his capabilities. His madness handicaps him in a way his ignorance had not. It's even hard for him to come to terms with Cordelia. Cordelia, with her crazed father cries out "O, wind up,/ Of this child-changed father!" (4.7.18) This plea actually has two meanings (as pointed out by the note). One: Changed, driven mad by his children. This is pretty accurate...just look at psycho regan and goneril... TWO: changed to a child. This is also true because Lear has lost so many things. His power, when he split up his kingdom, his pride when he was cast out into the storm, his children when he disowned them/was betrayed by them, any shred of dignity he had with his madness, and, to top it all off, his fool. Poor Lear has even offered to give his eyes to Gloucester (figuratively...), he's in such despair. Luckily, Cordelia is willing to overlook Lear's childish blindness, even after his adult blindness, and tries to make amends. Sadly, in the final scene, Lear is the one carrying the (like Gloucester,) eternally blind and dead Cordelia. Lear cries "You are men of stones! Had i your tongues and eyes, I'd use them so that heaven's vault should crack!" Poor Lear then asks for a "Looking glass", (5.3.313)to hold to her lips to see if she might be breathing. Turns out, he's blinded by grief, because anyone could see that she was dead, and there was no way she was coming back to life. Crazy though, he admits to Kent that "mine eyes are not o'th'best." He ends with the command that everyone "Look on her, look, her lips, Look there, look there!" (5.3.374) and dies. Trust Lear to be always looking, but never seeing.
Courtland Kelly
I compleltely forgot we had to do two posts each time, so here's my Act 2/3 post #2
Eating and status
2.2.13-24
I just thought that it was pertinent to bring up another case of eating usesd to infer rank, which in this case is used as an insult. This passage is Kent's famous rant of insults at Oswald, and since I have ben following the eating motif, I immediately noticed the insult "eater of broken meats." At first I thought this might mean rotten meat, but according to the editor's note, it meats leftovers. This insult would go along with the others in insulting Oswald's servant position. This passage confuses me for several reasons. The first, why is Kent insulting Oswald? It seems completely uncalled for, and the insults much to personal for Kent to simply be venting his frustration about Lear. Also, why does it lead to violence? It seems completely out of character for Kent. Perhaps Kent was attacking Oswald in place of Goneril, whome he represents. That would be the most plausible, since was one of the few who saw through the sisters' false pledges of loyalty. But aside from all this, this line shows again how Shakespeare uses food to show rank.
Animals
Acts 4 and 5
I didn't really track the use of animal imagery from the beginning of the play, but I really started to notice it at the end of Act 4 and all the way through Act 5. I noticed that all of the characters who betrayed Lear or Gloucester were at one point or another compared to animals. It seemed like the point was that human beings don't betray each other; that's an animal-like thing to do. In Act 5 scene 3 line 85 Goneril is called a serpent. Instead of a human, she has turned into a cunning serpent who cares for no one but herself. Then in Act 5 scene 3 line 139 Edmund is said to be a toad-spotted traitor. And at the end of Act 5 scene 3 in line 307 Lear says of all those dead (Goneril, Regan, and Edmund), “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,/And thou [Cordelia] no breath at all?” These people have become animals, serpents, dogs, horses, rats, because they have become inhuman in the way they act. In language and in action the traitors are animals whereas the faithful are humans. I thought it interesting too (and didn’t quite know what to make of it) that Lear, in the same place he calls the dead a dog, a horse, and a rat, calls Cordelia “my poor fool.” Perhaps she is a fool instead of an animal because her actions were never for herself, but always to uphold Lear.
Courtland Kelly
4.1.19-25
Food, eating with vision
In this scene, Edgar, disguised as Poor Tom the crazy beggar, meets his father, Gloucester. Although Glocuester makes no mention that he recognizes Edgar's voice, he does suddenly recall his son, sighing the phrase: "O dear son Edgar, the food of thy abused father's wrath, might I but live to see thee in my touch, I'd say I had eyes again." In this passage, food is used differently than in some of the earlier passages. Here, Gloucester states that Edgar fed his ill-directed anger, and therefore also his blindness to Edmunds motives. It is an interesting inverted image, feeding to make blind, or filling with nothing. Very similar to the relationship between Goneril, Regan and Lear...
***
5.3.25-30
Eating
Here we have another instance of eating that is not quite eating. Lear's use of "devour" and "starved" invokes the image not of consuming, but of destroying through eating-like behavior. Lear says, "The good years shall devour them, flesh and fell...We'll see'em starved first." This makes me think of Time eating away at the sisters as they starve, the movement of substance from one place to another. The image is not unlike that in the the first act, where Lear instructs the two sisters' dowries to "digest the third." The reiteration of the image seems fitting since now, at the end of the play, Lear wishes the two lying sisters to be eaten instead of before, when he ordered them to do the eating. A nice inversion.
final acts
motif: inversion of gender roles combined with the ability to practice restraint over emotion/passions
4.2.1
4.2.4-13
4.2.3-35
4.2.62
4.2.75
4.2.82-83
4.3.14
4.3.32
4.5.5
mostly in act 4, we interact with Goneril and Regan. there are countless examples of the women as "tigers, not daughters"(4.2.49). The two beasts are fighting over the Gloucester's illegitimate son, Edmund the Bastard. Regan's husband is dead, but Goneril's is not, and nevertheless, each is vying for his love. Not only are they acting whoreish (an..ahem..unladylike quality), but they are agressive and violent. Goneril reprimands Albany for "sit[ting] still and [crying] "Alack, why does he so?" (4.2.71) at the possible invasion by French forces. It is Goneril who is disgusted by her husband's sensitivity and "moral fool[ishness]" (4.2.71). Then, Albany recognizes the devil in his wife: "Proper deformity shows not in the fiend so horrid as in woman." He goes on to say that she is really a fiend in a woman's body, and for that he cannot directly attack her, although he would like to. here, albany is the feminine one, able to restrain himself. Throughout King Lear, more often than not, it is the MEN who are "milk-livered" and the WOMEN who are fiends. However, there are exceptions.
Cordelia, in 4.3.14, is true to her role of a woman. "She was a queen over her passion, who, most rebel-like, fought to be king o'er her." Here again is that struggle between male and female roles: the rebel-like, man like qualities are struggling for power over the passion, trying to cast aside the queenlike calmness. In some, it does (often the women); in others, it does not (often the men).
I think Shakespeare is just trying to "shake up" (SORRY) the gender roles in his plays for a greater effect on his audience, but also because it reflects the play's theme of craziness and madness.
Alison Randazza
Animals/human nature/insanity, (in)justice
5.3.308-315
This is going to be all over the place because I find as I analyze passages I see more and more connections that can be made.
I have not been following the animal motif throughout the book but like many people on this blog I have been noticing it more and more often as the play progressed. Therefore I do not have any way to connect this passage to any things said previously about Lear as an animal. But anyway… This is passage right after Lear reappears with Cordelia in his arms. Lear “howls” like a dog/wolf/animal as a sign of his severe distress at his daughter’s death. (I think maybe Lear was talked about as a dog at one point, but then again I could be completely wrong). It is the moment which the sane Lear and the animalistic Lear come together and expose themselves at the same time. It seems through all the play the two different sides of Lear “take turns” in a way when coming to the surface. Specifically seen when Lear becomes angry then calms himself down then becomes angry again.
4.6
EDGAR
Why, then, your other senses grow imperfect
By your eyes' anguish.
Eyes.
We went over this in class, how Edgar uses lies to better the future life of his father. He says that they are close to the ocean and that he is, in fact, bringing his father to a cliff, when it is more of an even and flat tract of land. He masterfully uses excuses and tricky lies that make sense to the blind, and easily distract Gloucester over and over again. Here, he says literally, that because your eyes hurt so bad, your other senses are not able to focus. It’s almost practiced knowledge to understand that when we lose one critical sense (sight) the others do intensify to pick up the slack and keep our world tangible to us (sound, smell, touch). Edgar’s work at just lying enough to distract his father from his true wishes is very admirable, and through this scene, almost humerous.
It is by using ‘evil’ to construct virtue that we can ask questions of when is a lie ok? We can obviously see that these lies are good, for they keep Gloucester safe and in the end, give him hope to live and thrive. It’s an inverse from the usual theme of the story, especially among Lear’s daughters, where we see lying be truly evil and used to harm one’s father. Edgar’s initial naivety actually comes back here, because we can see that he is good of heart. He is the only one not using lies and the deception of others to gain, but to help. (Many who follow the work of ‘evil’ would call Edgar’s practices naïve, while others would call it…just being a good person. Either are suitable descriptions of his persona).
5.3
EDGAR
Let's exchange charity.
I am no less in blood than thou art, Edmund;
If more, the more thou hast wrong'd me.
My name is Edgar, and thy father's son.
The gods are just, and of our pleasant vices
Make instruments to plague us:
The dark and vicious place where thee he got
Cost him his eyes.
EDMUND
Thou hast spoken right, 'tis true;
The wheel is come full circle: I am here.
This is the perfect inversion of the story, of any story really. This a theme we see time and time again, when good overcomes evil and the villain loses the keynote battle and falls to the good guy. The passage starts off with a form of blindness, Edmund does not know who has beat him in the fight. This is actually kind of silly, because why would you fight someone without knowing who they are? Anyway, because Edgar still looks like Poor Tom, Edmund is not aware that he is in fact being fought by his brother. Edgar clears up his ‘blindness’ in the beginning of this passage by identifying himself. He gives a bit of a story that seems to enlight Edmund.
Once edmund realizes who he is dealing with, he brings a highlight to the inversion by even saying “the wheel has come full circle.” The cycle where the story flips, and instead of Edgar being on his back, Edmund is.
We can see here that Edgar’s previous naivety is nowhere to be seen, and we can only conclude that what has lead him to this has been nothing short of the experiences he’s faced along the ways of his journey. Becoming Poor Tom has thickened Edgar’s skin a little, and made hima ll the more of a dangerous entity.
MCiaramitaro
4.4.12-23 Madness and Nature
In this scene, Cordelia has a conversation with a doctor about her father’s health. She calls Lear, “As mad as the vexed sea, singing aloud, Crowned with rank fumiter and furrow-weeds.” She describes his madness as unusual and mad happenings found in nature. The doctor replies with, “Our foster nurse of nature is repose, The which he lacks.” By saying this, he is explaining to Cordelia although nature’s random happenings are the cause of Lear’s madness, it is nature that will cure him. If Lear were to take many herbs and rest, then that will be the remedy to his wellness. Although this is a very short scene, Shakespeare beautifully intertwines the two motifs of madness and nature. It is almost humorous that nature is both the cause and cure of Lear’s madness.
One of the themes that I think everyone can see when reading King Lear would be the fact that parents seem to be blind to there children’s wrong doings. From the very beginning we see how Lear is blinded by the praises from his oldest daughters that he doesn’t see how they don’t mean him well while his youngest tries to tell her father the truth and is repaid by being disowned by her father and in parallel you have Gloucester who believes his youngest son Edmund who does not have his best interests in mind over his older son Edgar who has done nothing wrong. Both of these fathers blindness to the real intent of their children does eventually lead to their downfall and in one of the fathers it will lead to actual blindness.
The idea of madness becomes more and more prominent as the story continues on and King Lear begins to lose what little bit of his mind that he had left. One of the things that seem to have a great affect on Lear is when he is turned away from Regan at her home and decides to brave the conditions of the weather and he and the Fool enter the storm that wages outside the comfort of the castle walls. This storm really is the breaking point for Lear after learning that both of the daughters that he thought loved him so much have shown their true colors and the one daughter that spoke the truth he disowns Lear is at a lost and doesn’t know who to trust thus leading him into a downward spiral that eventually ends in him completely losing his mind and maybe never really being aware of what is going on around him.
3.2.127
blindness makes insanity
Lear
Blow winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drenched our steeples,
(drowned)the cocks.
You sulph'rous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers of oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head. And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o' th' world.
Crack nature's molds, all germens spill at once
That makes ingrateful man.
In this speech Lear is challenging the storm that he broods in to worsen. He is daring natural elements to conquer him, as if it poses no threat, as if he holds power over what no being can actually control. Throughout acts 2 and 3 Lear's madness is impending, and I think this passage is a vivid example of what provokes his downfall. Lear's insanity is caused by his refusal to believe what he sees. When his daughters betray him his first reaction is to fall to rage and indulge in long tangents of fury, like he does in this speech. Rage stems from believing that you have been wronged, even if it is your self that wrongs you. And in Lear's case, madness stems from the constant struggle to justify rage. There is also some strong imagery in this passage...
"crack your cheeks" - shatter the face, breaking composition
the use of "cataracts" - implies clouding of vision
"thought-executing fires" - destroying, burning consciousness
"singe my white head" - destroy my age, my existence
"crack nature's molds" - destroy natural expectations, implies family
“ As flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods; They kill us for their sport.”
I think it is almost funny that Gloucester says this. First of all, Gloucester, sorry, but everything that happened to you was man’s doing and most of it was directly your fault. It is strange that Gloucester feels guilty, but never actually takes responsibility for his actions. And when I say strange, I mean irritating. He regrets what he did to Edgar, and he abhors Edmund. Yet, he never traces these feeling back to his own mistakes. Yes, Edmund was a mistake to begin with; the bigger mistake was to raise him as a bastard. This might just be me, but I would probably resent my father if he continuously reminded me of being a mistake by calling me a bastard. Thankfully, later in the act Lear says, “Die for adultery? No.” Well, actually, yes…Gloucester dies because his son (the product of adultery) plots against him. If Gloucester had the Back to the Future DeLorean, I know where he would be going.
“Alack, ’tis he! Why, he was met even now as mad as the vexed sea, singing aloud, crowned with rank fumiter and furrow-weeds, with hardocks, hemlock, nettles, cuckooflowers, darnel, and all the idle weeds that grow in our sustaining corn…..”
This is how Cordelia describes Lear, the first time she sees him when they are reunited. I just thought I would point out how similar it is to how Ophelia is described in Hamlet. Both are singing, and flowers and water are involved. Perhaps, Shakespeare associates these motifs with insanity. Just a passing thought.
Chloe R
5.3.25-30
Appetites, Parent/Child Relationship (inversion)
Act four and five, despite the tragedies, are somewhat comforting because of the reconciliation between Lear and Cordelia. Before Lear and Cordelia are escorted to "prison", they share a sweet moment. "The good years shall devour them, flesh and fell, ere they shall make us weep. We'll see 'em starved first." Lear is telling Cordelia that their jailers and the courtiers will suffer the ages while they, together, make the best of their imprisonment. In this line, Lear uses two words that imply a strong appetite: "devour" and "starved". But these words are used to show the negative effects of time on their jailers. This is the inverse from the use in the beginning of the play. In 1.4.191-205, the Fool is reminding Lear of his nothingness, caused by the blindness about his daughters' love. In these lines, there are several references to appetite/ little nourishment. The fool describes Regan and Goneril as "parings" 1.4.193, and calls Lear a "shelled peascod". The fool says "Thou hast pared thy wit o' both sides and left nothing i' th' middle." This vocabulary about food reflected the negative parent/child relationship in the beginning of the play. Emptiness and appetite were used to emphasize Lear's nothingness and identity crisis. But in act five, because Lear and Cordelia have resolved their angst, Shakespeare inverts this use of appetite and has it reflect the evil ones who will try to separate them (jailers).
The survivors = Edgar, Kent and Albany
The first two were in disguise for almost the entire play. All three were once considered weak but now have survived over everyone else, and have kept their sanity. Edgar and Kent had been kicked out and put down but came back up living through other personalities and using their deceptive extrematies and behaviors for good. Almost all less powerful genuine people survived Cordelia and the rebelious servant protecting gloucester being the only exceptions. Interestingly enough with all the deceptive behavior usually being negative (Edmund, Goneral, Reagan) the deceptive two use it to reveal truth, instead of create more lies. So what is said is either not true or believed to be lie.
4.7.42 – 85 and 5.3.186 – 206
I chose these two passages because I thought they were somewhat great mirrors of each other. The first part from act four involves Lear and Cordelia's reconciliation. The second is Edmund telling the story of how he lead his father disguised as a beggar.
Lear is now the fool, and he finally realizes this. He knows now that Cordelia is the one who loved him more than his other two daughters. Here we have the motif of madness, but in this case the madness is finally settled down, the blindness is fading away. In the end there is a combination of happiness (in reuniting) and a sadness (the battle is about to begin between the sisters.)
Now in the other scene, Edgar tells his story. Here we also have the motif of madness, (Edgar disguised as a beggar) also coming to a close for him. He has revealed his true identity. He also mentions how he revealed his identity to his father, and though he forgave him, Gloucester died shortly after this. So, here we also have the combination of emotions. The reconciliation here, and the sadness brought on by Gloucester's death.
In both these sections madness is somewhat removed, there is no more disguise. Parent and child are reunited and are happy, but both also end with an equal amount of tragedy to conflict with this.
Rose Pleuler
Excess. Rank. Contradiction.
Act 3 Scenes 4 and 7.
King Lear has a speech in the beginning of Act 3 Scene 4 about his deep grief, wrath, the worse of two evils. My impression of this speech changed after Edgar's speech at the end of Act 3 Scene 6.
Reading Lear's speech in the beginning of Act 3 Scene 4, I liked the idea that Lear presented of the sting of the elements dulled in comparison to his grief. ("Thou think'st 'tis much that this contentious storm/ Invades us to the skin So 'tis to thee." Lear, 8-9)
At the time I thought a bit about the idea of this profound suffering, and an idea that seems to follow King Lear around in his flights of rage - 'excess'. Excess is an idea in the play that seems to tie into just about everything. We see excess in greed among almost all, excess in Lust in Gloucester and the later love triangle between Edmund and the two sisters, excess in violence as a general rule... I like to think about excess and the idea of inversions, since we've talked quite a bit about and tracked the word 'nothing', and now I want to track the word 'all.' (What comes to mind right away is in the first scene, "Why have my sisters husbands if they say/ They love you all?" Cordelia, 109-110)
Anyway, I was really into the storm and the bear, and the delicate body imagery (which made me think of Gloucester, but I haven't been able to coherently explain what I want to say there yet,) ... And then I read Edgar's speech. He talks about how his own pain feels lesser now that he sees his King almost collapsing beneath the weight of his emotional burden. This take on pain feels so distinctly unlike Lear's, and it's difference lies in the fact that Edgar wants company in his misery, when I don't think Lear would feel the need or desire to feel connected to Edgar in their similar senses of loss. I think high rank allows for the excess that Lear distributes, and so Edgar of course, being beneath him in rank, would not display the same kind of self-centeredness
Edgar's speech about "How light and portable [his] pain seems now" (Edgar, line 118) reminds me of the fundamental selfishness that Lear has, even with his good intentions. After Lear's speech in Scene 4, when he meets Poor Tom, he asks if Tom is mad because his daughters made him so. I read the line as a bit of funny-crazy, but it also reminds me of his selfishness. Edgar's speech reminds me as a whole that even with Lear's cool imagery about bears and sea and his great suffering, that Lear has done his share of excessive, selfish things.
Sight/Foolishness vs. Wisdom
Acts 2 and 3 blog
In Act 3 scene 6 while Lear, Gloucester, Kent, Edgar, and the Fool are in the cave, the rolse of foolishness and wisdom of masterfully twisted. Edgar, who is truly learned, is taken by everyone to be a fool. But Lear, who is in a new storm of life and is said to be a fool, can see that Edgar is really a "most learned/ justive" (21-22)/ It seems that true sight can see throu a disguise of foolishness to see wisdom. The Fool, also "disguised" as a foolish man can see the truth about Edgar. He says, "for he's a mad yeoman that sees his son a gentleman before him" (13-14). It seems that the "foolish" can see wisdom.
In Act IV once again the motif of sight/blindness is prevalent. For example, in Act IV, Scene 4, Cordelia speaks with a doctor about her father’s apparent madness. When the doctor speaks of Lear’s anguish he states, “That to provoke him/ are many simples operative, whose power/ will close the eye of anguish” (4.4.14-16). In this quote, the doctor is personifying the feeling of anguish and stating that as long as its eye is open, it will be present in the King. He is also stating that there are various medicinal herbs that can close this eye, thus squelching his anguish.
In scene 6, anguish is presented once again, except this time it is Gloucester’s eyes’ anguish (now that he has become blind). Edgar (in disguise) states, “Why then, your other senses grow imperfect/ by your eyes’ anguish” (4.6.7-8). This statement is clearly an inversion, since it is common knowledge that when a person loses one sense, their others senses sharpen. In this case, when Gloucester has lost his eyesight, his sense of hearing should be heightened, but instead Edgar claims that it is diminished since he cannot hear the water (which in reality is not there).
In some of the ending quotes of the play, I drew a connection between the motif of animals and death. Basically everyone ends up dead in the final scenes of the play. Before Lear is gone, he says ““Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life, And thou no breath at all?” I thought it was interesting how Lear compares Cordelia’s death to animals in this scene. Animals have been a constant motif throughout the play. The ultimate motif or even theme that I felt towards the end of the book was death. Here, Shakespeare ties together one of his motifs that existed throughout the whole work, and ties it into the theme that is the ending result of the play.
5.3.308-315
Human nature\insanity
This is the scene when Lear carries his lifeless daughter Cordelia in his arms and cries out in a strange and painful scream as this reality. Like Alison mentioned, I also didn’t exactly follow or clearly pick up on the animal motif throughout the play, but thought of this moment as a perfect depiction of human nature and insanity meeting and coming out in one emotion. Human nature and the natural anguish and unfathomable pain that comes with the loss of a loved one combined with the feeling of insanity within ones own body and mind when overcome with such a profound realization. Again, the idea that as the play progressed that Lear started to see his own self in the poor people around him and sympathize with their misfortune and distress presents itself again more permanently in this moment…that no royalty, rank, land distribution or fortune is even remotely as important or impacting on ones heart as the loss of a loved one (especially if the loss is stemmed back to ones own initial madness and irrational character)
Act 1 Scene 2
The Natural vs. the Unnatural
In the beginning of scene two, Edmund gives his rant on how, being born a bastard, he has always been the under-treated son. In this rant, he calls upon "Nature" as his goddess, claiming that although he is not legitimate, he was always a good son. But more than that, he was his "Natural". But in claiming himself Natural, he is in turn calling Edgar; and all other legitimate children, unnatural. As many people have mentioned however, the sides soon twist, and things that were once natural become unnatural things.
One of the overall themes of Acts 2 and 3 I saw was the one of fools, and foolishness. As Caitlin said before, the fool seems very malicious in this play. Right before starting King Lear, in fact, I read a book entitled "Fool", which was a parody of King Lear all from the perspective of the fool himself. In the novel, the Fool was often called "The Black Fool" for his dark and often malicious humor. As said before, the Fool is truly the only one to speak the plain truth to those around him, and in turn make those who he serves look the fool. For instance, as Lear becomes more and more insane as the story moves on, the Fool is constantly there to remind him of his insanity, and all of the wrongs he committed. he is Lear's never ending conscious, it seems.
Act 4
Seeing
I'm not sure of the exact page number, but it was when Gloucester said "might I but live to see thee in my touch, i'd say i had eyes again" when talking about his wish to see Edgar again. This is an example of an inversion of themes. As you see, Gloucester's most clear moments are when he is physically unable to see; thus his lack of eyes only makes it sight more clear.
nature
Act 5, Scene 5
It is in this scene that it becomes universally clear that Lear has gone mad. He sings nonsense and decorates himself with flowers (reminiscent of Ophelia's madness in Hamlet). It's interesting to me that physically applying nature to one's self indicates madness in Shakespeare's writing. In Lear's case, when he dresses himself in flowers, I think it represents falling to nature and the order of it. Lear is admitting a sense of nothingness. Throughout the play he loses sanity by repeatedly relinquishing his authority and the expectations he lives for and facing hopelessness. In a way, flowers imply a peaceful madness...madness that is more of a surrender than an invasion. By becoming attached to a physical element of nature Lear is submitting his self to the idea that he is not above the natural order, he is a part of it.
Some general notes & then Decay.
First: I meant Act 3 Scene 6 in reference to Edmund's speech in my last post. I got it wrong in the heading but wrote in the actual body of writing, but just to clarify, yep, 6.
A couple of things I noticed in Acts IV and V that I want to point out:
In the beginning of Act IV Scene 7, Cordelia speaks with Kent about his good deeds, and he claims "All my reports go with the modest truth/ No more, no less, but so." (Lines 5&6) My last blog was primarily about excess, and it seems fitting that I rediscover this line in this new context. It makes sense that Kent would subscribe to this idea, especially after his tiny bit of excess in the first Act that has him banished. (The fool, too, is related to this line in my mind, but his opinion seemed to be to remain completely alien then to only be involved in moderation. The fool says in Act 2, Scene 4, "Let go thy hold when a great wheel/ runs down a hill")
A couple of lines that Cordelia has in Act IV Scene 7 caught my eye. With all of the talk of fate and being the playthings of gods throughout the play, Cordelia says to the doctor of waking Lear, "Be governed by your knowledge, and proceed/ I' th' sway of your own will." (Lines 23&24) I know that could be reading a bit far into it, but Cordelia does seem to have taken her own advice back in the first scene when she wouldn't be swayed by the flattering that her sisters did. Later, Cordelia says of her sisters letting Lear out in the rain, "Mine enemy's dog/ Though he had bit me, should have stood the night/ Against my fire." (Lines 42&43&44) This line must be a nod back to Act 2 Scene 2 with Kent's outcry to Regan, "Why madam, if I were your father's dog/ You should not use me so." (Lines148&149) We see so little of Cordelia in the show, and I think it's important to her characterization that she is seen making these sorts of contradictions to what other characters in the play have said.
A little note of 'excess' is with the further depiction of the love triangle between Edmund, Regan, and Goneril. In Act V Scene 1, Edmund asks himself, "Which of them shall I take?/ Both? One? Or neither? Neither can be enjoyed/ If both remain alive" (Lines 65&66&67) And then, when he is injured and hears of both sisters' deaths, he says, "All three/ Now marry in an instant." (Lines 270&271)
And at the very end, some of Edgar's final words seem to throw back to the speech he made in Act 3, Scene 6 ("When we our betters see bearing our woes,/ We scarcely think our miseries our foes" Lines 111&112) At the end of the play, Edgar says, "The weight of this sad time we must obey," (Line 392.) His speech in Act 3 deals with heaviness of burdens, so referring to sorrow as weight seems to be reasserting the ideas he made in the first speech.
And, in the last couple of pages of the play, the word 'decay' shows up in a prominent way. In revealing his identity to the King, Kent says, "That from your first of difference and decay/ Have followed your sad steps." (Lines 347&348) Then, Albany says, "What comfort to this great decay may come/ Shall be applied." (Lines 361&362) While these lines themselves are pertinent but not groundbreaking, the repeated word led me to some thinking about the concept of decay and it's relationship to the play in general. The word is used in the end of the play to refer to the downfall of the King's power, and is in that way related to the process of the story, but also seems related in many places in reference to imagery - like 'rot.' In Act V Scene 3, Lear says of his servant 'Caius', "He's dead and rotten." (Line 344)
The lines that I found particularly compelling referring to rot, however, were in Act 5, Scene 2. As Edgar urges Gloucester to take shelter, Gloucester refuses, "No further, sir. A man many rot even here." (Line 9) Edgar's response is, "Men must endure/ Their going hence even as their coming hither./ Ripeness is all. Come on." (LInes 10&11&12) (This reminds me of a discussion in class a while ago about how fruits and plants reach their ripest moment just before they die.) I wish I had paid closer attention to the imagery with rotting , and my guess is there could be other references, or of illness or spoiled food (Edgar must have some references of eating spoiled food as Poor Tom, right?) throughout. I think decay is a concept worth thinking about in the context of the play because of the delicateness of bodies and mortality, and to see if Shakespeare would agree with the idea that ripeness comes right before rot, and then, what would make 'ripeness', anyway?
Inversions/Senses
2.4.54-57, 3.7.69-112
This Shakespearean tragedy is riddled with inversions, one of which stood out as most prominent to me. In 2.4.54-55, the Fool is speaking to/about Lear, and says "Fathers that wear rages/Do make their Children blind,/But fathers that bear bags/Shall see their children Kind." This statement foreshadows 3.7.69-112, in which Gloucester is made blind when Cornwall gouges out his eyes, but it does not foreshadow it as one would expect. Reading the fools words, one may think that it is one of the sons or daughters in the play that will lose his or her sight, but instead the opposite happens. Because Edmund betrays his father and reveals to Cornwall and Regan that he has gone to help Lear (among other things), Cornwall sees it fit to violently remove Gloucester's eyes with his bare hands; the son is not blind because of the father's neglect, but rather the father is blind because of the son's diabolical greed and disloyalty.
Also, another inversion, but so much an inversion of words, but rather an inversion of actions or occurrences. When Edmund first betrays Edgar, telling Gloucester that he plans to kill him, Gloucester, instead of seeing the truth that is right in front of him, believes his traitorous son. Later, however, once Gloucester has lost the ability to see, he is able to recognize the truth; in his blindness, he is able to see the difference between truth and lies, and realizes that It was Edmund, not Edgar, who so demonically betrayed him.
Something else that I noticed...It now becomes clear that the various and frequently occurring references to the human senses within the play were anticipant of Gloucester's loss of eyesight. Now that he cannot see, he must rely on his other senses to understand what is happening around him.
Act One
Scene Two
Lines 109-110
Motifs: Eclipses & Shifts from Sane to Madness
In this excerpt the the reoccurring theme of the shift from sanity to madness is illustrated by the motif of an eclipse. An eclipse is the shadow of the moon passing over the sun and blocking out it’s rays, in this same fashion the shadow of madness seems to pass over Lear as if blocking out the light of sanity. The change is slow and deliberate, the shadow inching over as Lear’s madness slowly overcomes him and dims the light of reason around him. However, with the image of an eclipse there is not simply just the darkening, there is also the return of the light. This gradual return to sanity seems to happen later in the book, and it instills a sense of hope in the reader, even as Lear seems to be in his darkest hours, by using the motif of an eclipse, one knows that the light will return once again.
Act Three
Scene Four
Lines 73-75
Sickness to Illustrate Betrayal
In these lines Lear uses the concepts of sicknesses and plagues to refer to the betrayal of his daughters. At this point in the play Lear as fallen deep into his own madness and self loathing. Lear is so overpowered by both hatred for himself and the thought of his own wrongdoing towards Cordelia as well as coming to terms with the ingratitude of his other two daughters. Lear sees Regan and Goneril as pestilences, parasites and sicknesses that fed from him took all his wealth and vitality. Their betrayal, to Lear, has manifested as a physical illness in his mind.
More Inversions/Status/Truth and Lies
As kind of a last hurrah, I have chosen to blog on the play as a whole, as opposed to just Acts IV and V. My last post was about inversions, and after reading the play in its entirety, I have decided that "King Lear" is just one big comprehensive inversion. Almost everything that is said is a lie and everything that is undiscovered is a truth. Loyalty, honesty, and morality are punished (Cordelia/Gloucester/Edgar/Kent), and betrayal and dishonesty are rewarded (Edmund/Regan/Goneril) Those who have a fairly low status and who remain in disguise for the majority of the play, and thus are seemingly deceptive, are actually the most honest and heroic people of them all (Kent/Edgar).
Through all of this, what I found to be most fascinating and clever is the use of disguise and deception for good rather than evil. Many of the characters in "King Lear" reek of deception, most of which use it for personal gain, and feel no remorse about the negative effects of their deceptions on others. There are two characters, however, that use deception as a tool to do good, not evil. Both Kent and Edgar are banished from their homes, but recognizing that the people that once loved them were in peril, they disguised themselves as to remain close to said people and protect them from harm. Kent truly cares for Lear, and understands that his fear of nonexistence culminated in his disowning of Cordelia, and wants to help Lear to see how wrong he was in his actions, because he knows that Lear is a kind-hearted man. Edgar loves his father dearly, and when he discovers his father's condition, (after fleeing from home under the impression that Gloucester is plotting to kill him) he returns as an impoverished beggar and forms a friendship with Gloucester, becoming his guide and keeper. These two characters are personified inversions. I think the only thing that really makes sense in the end is that, for the most part justice is served, Kent and Edgar survive, and for the most part in the end the perpetrators received their deserved punishment. What happens in the end of Act V sort of reverses all the inversions, or rights all the wrongs, but that does not negate what previously happens in Acts I-V.
Scene Two
Lines 148-150
Dogs used as a Sign of Rank
The use of the dog motif seems to carry with it connotations of obedience and servitude and in opposition, disobedience. Multiple characters are referred to as dogs or like dogs, such as Kent (in this passage) and Regan and Goneril (in later passages), and these characters are all supposed to fall into roles of servants and lower class than their masters, much like dogs. However, instead of obeying figures of high authority these characters blatantly disobey their masters, Lear’s daughters by casting him out, and Kent by disregarding Lear’s banishment, no matter how pure or tainted the motives are the dog motif is used to show the clear and present disobedience of these characters.
Act Four
Scene Two
Lines 62-68
Emasculation/ Power Lying in Women
One peculiar attribute of King Lear that differs greatly from the rest of Shakespeare’s works is the repeated emasculation of the men in the play. In most of Shakespeare’s other works men, while teetering on the edge of madness have always retained their raw masculinity and power, however, in King Lear the women clearly hold the power. From Regan and Goneril clearly dominating and betraying their father and husbands to Cordelia commanding the armies of France women are given a radical amount of power in this play.
Duty Betrayal/Familial Relations
Oh Shakespeare, always so dramatic... I'm just going to post on the last two acts as a whole because it isn't any specific line or scene that depicts what I want to say:
The Lear Clan:
So basically all of the truths that the audience saw from the get-go are being revealed to the characters. The two evil sisters are in fact evil, and never actually cared for or respected their father, who has returned back to his former opinion that Cordelia is the best daughter EVA. Albany betrays his wife by basically slapping her in the face with his criticisms of her. Goneril betrays her husband by lusting over Edmund and Goneril and Reagan betray each other by competing over the bastard (pun intended). Furthering this, Goneril commits suicide after Edmund's death, but not before she poisons Reagan, and they both die after doing no good for anyone in their family, not even themselves (in retrospect). Lear keeps his duty when he dies of grief after Cordelia, showing his true and unmistakable love for her. Gloucester dies in the same fashion when he is torn by Edmund's death and Edgar's "unvieling".
The Gloucester Clan:
Ironically, while blinded Gloucester (blinded as a result of Edmund's betrayal) is in the presence of Edgar, disguised as Poor Tom, he reveals his regret about the way he treated his son and how high his opinion of Edgar actually is. Also ironically, he asks the old man to cover Poor Tom to keep him warm and safe, a parental duty. Edgar, never wavering from his duty as a son, saves his father from Oswald when he comes as Reagan's beckoning to kill Gloucester. Edgar, though, is also betraying his father by not allowing him to die. This is the second of three chances that Gloucester has to die where Edgar prevents it. It is clear before Oswald's attack that Gloucester wants to die because he tries to commit suicide. After the attack, he wants to wait to be captured and killed after Lear and Cordelia are captured during battle. Edgar is continuing to prolong his father's suffering by preventing him from dying. In a final brotherly battle between the wanted and the unwanted, Edgar defeats Edmund and kills him after all of the betrayal that Edmund managed against his brother and father. In one last hurrah, Edmund tries to make up for all of the horrible things he did by telling where Cordelia and Lear were imprisoned so they could be released before they were executed (as if that would actually make up for anything, psh) but he's too late. So sad. And pretty much everyone dies after betraying their entire blood line...like we didn't see that one coming.
Theory: Was the slang term "bastard" perhaps developed because illegitimate boys have such anger and fury from being isolated and ostracized that they commit evil acts?
Really useful one, compact yet packed with important points.Thank You very much for the effort to make the hard one looks so simple. Further, you can access this site to read Dramatic significance of the subplot in King Lear
Post a Comment