Anika Reza

Carleton University
M.I. Cameron
ENG 3304 V
02 April, 2007

BITE THE HOLY CORDS A-TWAIN:

THE STRENGTH AND FRAGILITY OF FAMILIAL BONDS IN KING
LEAR

Our universe consists of many interconnecting bonds. We find that atoms bond together

to form molecules and molecules bond together to make cells and millions of cells bond together

to make human beings (Brandvold). Just as each bond facilitates other bonds we find that social

bonds also consist of many interconnecting ones. Familial bond, such as the parent-offspring

bond, is fundamental to social animals such as human beings as shown through the formation of

families. Humans also rely on a pair-bond, such as the one between a husband and wife, and

societal bond which includes the bond between a King and his subjects (Turner 3-4).

Shakespeare touches upon and explores all three types of social bond in King Lear and the

reciprocal force it represents; privileges are granted as duties are imposed. In the familial bond

the parent loves, protects and nurtures the offspring while the children in turn loves, gives loyalty

to and protects the parents. Though the other types of bonds can be found in King Lear it is the

familial bond which has the most emphasis and impact in the play. If atoms were to break its

bonds it would affect molecules which in turn would affect cells and eventually the human body.
 Reza |2

Similarly a break in the familial bond has the power to reverberate into the greater social order.

Lear disrupts the reciprocity of the familial bond and breaks his ties with Cordelia and this one

break leads to many breaks of bonds which in turn weakens social order. Gloucester too breaks

his fatherly ties with Edgar and these actions eventually disrupt social order. In King Lear

Shakespeare shows unequivocally the importance of our familial bonds and the great harm

caused by breaking these bonds. To keep societal hierarchy and values bonds must be respected

and breaking of bonds not only leads to inner anguish and pain but it eats away at the greater

social cord. Shakespeare however leaves us on a note of hope through the actions of Cordelia,

Kent and Edgar by showing how even the most unfairly severed bond can be mended and

revived if one of the party stays true to the bond.

At the start of the play we encounter a strong and commanding Lear who clearly states

his intention “To shake all cares and business from our age, / Conferring them on younger

strengths, while we / Unburthened crawl toward death” (1.1.37-39). By refusing to honour the

reciprocal force of the bond tying him to his inferiors, his subjects, Lear cuts the bond and thus

“lets loose the forces of disorder, division, and disservice that are to overwhelm the kingdom”

(Barish 348). In order to decide how to divide up his kingdom among his three daughters Lear

conducts the love test. In executing the love test Lear makes the mistake of seeking protestation

of unconditional love while dangling the reward of power and land to the ones that display such

love. Believing pretty words to stand for unconditional love Lear is blinded to the demonstration

of filial bond in honest speech by Cordelia. In answer to Lear’s question of how much each

daughter loves him Goneril states “I love you more than words can wield” (1.1.53) and yet

ironically she goes on to describe, in many words, her love for her father. Regan attempts to

outdo her sister by saying “I profess / Myself an enemy to all other joys, / …I am alone
 Reza |3

felicitate / In your dear highness’ love” (1.1.71-75). The exaggeration and incredulity of such a

statement is lost on Lear who is satisfied with it. In contrast Cordelia’s declaration of love in

saying “I love your majesty / According to my bond” (1.1.91-92) sounds simple and almost cold

but it rings truer than the words of her sisters. Kent recognizes this and states, “Thy youngest

daughter does not love thee least; / Nor are those empty-hearted whose low sounds / Reverb no

hollowness” (1.1.152-154). But this truth is missed by Lear who has so easily broken his bond

of duty to his kingdom that he does not recognize the depth and type of love a filial bond can

create. The selfish way Lear chose to break his kingly bond to his people facilitates his breaking

his familial bond to his daughter Cordelia by saying “Here I disclaim all my paternal care”

(1.1.113). With those words he revokes the dowry previously bestowed upon Cordelia and

banishes her away from his kingdom and his sight.

The unjust nature of Cordelia’s banishment did not go unnoticed and the ramifications

were swift. Kent, in speaking out against the banishment, said, “Reverse thy doom, / …check /

This hideous rashness…” (1.1.149-151). Mistaking his defense of Cordelia as insolence and

treachery Lear banishes Kent and commits another act of breaking a bond. Regan and Goneril

keep silent in front of Lear but in private Goneril observes:

“You see how full of changes his age is; the observation
we have made of it hath not been little: he always loved our
sister most; and with what poor judgment he hath now cast her
off appears too grossly” (1.1.287-290).

Their observation had indeed not been little and fearing their position of affection in their

father’s eyes to be precarious they agree to find a way to ensure their wealth and power. The

breaking of Lear’s Kingly bond to his subjects then led to a break in familial bond with Cordelia

which leads to the severance of ties with Kent. The chain of breaking bonds and the slow sinking
 Reza |4

of the society into chaos continues on as Goneril and Regan begin to prepare to take power from

their father. Regan and Goneril’s protestation of love, having no basis on filial duties, quickly

evaporates in the heat of competition and greed. The breakdown of societal order is seen when

Goneril instructs her steward Oswald to “slack of former services” (1.3.9). When Lear, the King,

asks Oswald about Goneril the steward leaves without answering the question and does not

return even when Lear commands him to. A steward defying the King’s orders does not follow

the natural order of society and this unnatural order has stemmed from breaking of bonds.

Gloucester, being privy to the consequences of breaking bonds, should have known better

than to commit similar mistakes as Lear. Gloucester even foreshadows some of the events to

come when he says:

“Love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide; in

cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in
palaces, treason; and
the bond cracked ‘twixt son and father.
…there’s son against father. The
King falls from bias of nature; there’s father against child”
(1.2.99-103).

Gloucester’s pronouncement of “the bond cracked ‘twixt son and father” foreshadows his

breaking of the bond with Edgar and his declaration that “there’s son against father” speaks of

Edmund’s soon to surface villainy. However, Gloucester is blind to Edmund’s duplicity and

deceit and so he believes Edgar to be plotting his downfall. Gloucester’s final pronouncement

that there is “father against child” applies both to he himself and Lear; both of whom break the

familial bond due to misunderstanding and mistrust. Not only does Lear’s breaking of his bonds

lead to chaos in the realm and a breakdown of societal order but Gloucester’s breaking of his

bonds also facilitates unnatural social occurrences. Cornwall and Regan, guests at Gloucester’s
 Reza |5

house, tie him down like a thief and interrogate him on how he aided the King. Society dictates

very specifically how a guest should behave and assaulting their host does not follow the natural

social order. Gloucester attempts to remind them of their place in society by saying “Good

friends, consider / You are my guests. Do me no foul play, friends” but both Cornwall and Regan

have chosen to forego their role in society in order to pursue their greedy path. Their act prompts

a servant to stand up and defend Gloucester to which Regan exclaims “A peasant stand up thus!”

(3.7.83) her exclamation is evidence of how unusual the event is. A servant defying his master,

for even a just cause, is not allowed in Lear’s society and it is the breaking of the bonds which

enables this to occur.

Edmund is capable of betraying his father because he has broken his filial bond from him

and declared: “Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law / My services are bound” (1.2.1-2).

Edmund chooses to break his filial bond since it was constructed by society, the same society

which declares him “base”, while nature declares him to be the equal of his brother if not better.

By creating a bond with nature Edmund is able to commit horrible crimes while still feeling

righteous by believing he was fulfilling what the bond required; self advancement and survival at

all cost. By rejecting the filial bond Edmund also rejects the role set for him by society which

dictates respecting his father, differing to his older brother and being loyal to his King. And if

Regan and Goneril appear to be “unnatural hags” (2.4.273) to Lear in their lack of filial piety,

they are actually too natural in the sense of animals being natural; they are selfish, greedy,

ruthless and promiscuous (Posner 402). Thus their break from social bonds gives them

permission to be cruel without having guilt or second thoughts.

In contrast to the weak and almost nonexistent filial bonds that Edmund, Regan and

Goneril hold we find Cordelia, Kent and Edgar possessing strong bonds which are not weakened
 Reza |6

by suffering. Granted Kent is not the son of King Lear, however it is arguable that he feel the

same ties a son would which is displayed in his declaration: “Whom I have ever honored as my

king, / Loved as my father, as my master followed, / As my great patron thought on in my

prayers” (1.1.140-142). Kent’s complete love, loyalty and faith in Lear are evident in his words

and even after his banishment from the Kingdom Kent’s love is evident in his actions. Kent

returns in disguise to serve King Lear and eventually takes him to safety when his life appears to

be in danger. Cordelia’s words “O Thou good Kent, how shall I live and work, / To match thy

goodness?” (4.7.1-2) reveals the extent to which Kent aided Lear and kept him safe and secure.

Cordelia’s filial bond to her father stays strong and true even after the unjust manner of her

banishment. On her return to Britain Cordelia’s doctor takes care of Lear and slowly brings him

back to health and it is her love and concern which restores Lear to a more stable state.

“Shakespeare shows unequivocally in the case of Cordelia that an interested, bonded love is no

less capable of beautiful self-sacrifice than its imagined unconditional alternative” (Turner 51).

As we see that Cordelia’s love, based on filial bond, stays true in contrast to her sisters’

professed unconditional love which quickly dissipates. Edgar’s filial bond to his father was so

strong that he returned to the Kingdom even after being banished on unfounded accusations.

Edgar returns disguised as a poor lunatic and he not only cleverly stops his father from

committing suicide but he protects Gloucester from Oswald’s deadly intents. Even after his

father’s death Edgar’s filial bond demands he find justice for his father thus he challenges

Edmund to a righteous battle and says “…thou art a traitor / False to thy gods, thy brother, and

thy father” (5.3.132-133). Edgar goes on to kill Edmund and though the play ends on a sad note,

with many deaths, Edgar survives and gives hope to the audience. Hope since Edgar is an
 Reza |7

individual who respects his filial bonds, and one who understands the importance of bonds will

not break them, therefore order will be fully restored in society and kept in check.

The play King Lear displays how interconnected our world is, our society and our human

relations and they are connected through bonds. Be it molecular bonds, familial bonds or societal

bonds, it is these bonds which keeps society in order and functioning. These bonds are

reciprocal, there is an exchange of love, respect and loyalty, and if one side refuses to honour the

reciprocal force of the bond than it unbalances social order and causes pain, chaos and

bloodshed. Lear’s refusal to honour the reciprocal force of the bond tying him to his inferiors

leads him to seek replacements among his daughters to take his place. In trying to choose what to

give to whom he conducts the love test where Cordelia apparently fails and Lear promptly breaks

his familial bond and declares her to be no longer of his blood. Lear’s breaking of societal bonds

leads to breaking of familial bond which then leads to further breaking of various bonds and

eventually a social and mental breakdown occurs. Having witnessed much of this Gloucester still

makes the mistake of breaking his bond with his son Edgar which leads to further breaking of

bonds within his own family and he becomes a victim of the social disorder that follows. The

mental and social breakdowns which occur because of the breaking of familial and societal

bonds serves to highlight the fact that bonds must be respected in order to keep order. Through

the actions of Lear, Gloucester, Edmund, Regan and Goneril Shakespeare displays the

consequences of breaking these bonds while the actions of Cordelia, Kent and Edgar serves to

show that the bonds, once broken, can be mended and order restored.
 Reza |8

Work Cited

Barish, Jonas A., and Marshall Waingrow. ""Service" in King Lear." Shakespeare Quarterly 9

(1958): 347-355. 28 Mar. 2008 <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-

3222%28195822%299%3A3%3C347%3A%22IKL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7>.

Brandvold, Donald K. "Molecule." Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2007. New Mexico

Institute of Mining and Technology. 25 Mar. 2008 <http://encarta.msn.com/

encyclopedia_761563983/Molecule.html>.

Posner, Richard A. The Problems of Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Shakespeare, William. "King Lear (Conflated Text)." The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the

Oxford Edition. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katherine

E. Maus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. 2479-2553.

Turner, Frederick. Shakespeare's Twenty-First Century Economics: the Morality of Love and

Money. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.