Analysis of the king Lear

The kingdom's division as alluded to by Kent and Gloucester is strange in that it is

not mentioned in the context of Lear's daughters. The seeming arbitrariness this
sheds on Lear's enactment of the love test provides a contrast through which to
view the misplaced importance Lear is placing on words, appearance, and position.
We will soon learn that Kent and Gloucester are two of the only men who could
provide Lear with sound, sincere advice, thus endowing their original take of the
situation with a greater significance. They have no problem with Lear's decision to
divide the kingdom as he is old and is attempting to escape greater conflict after
his death. Thus Kent's revolt against Lear's actions arises not from Lear's initial
undertaking but from his reaction to Cordelia. Notice too that he does not protest
when Lear asks for an estimation/competition for love from his daughters or when
Goneril and Regan respond in very coarse, superficial words. He only strikes
against Lear's rule when Lear does not notice the sincerity of Cordelia's words and
then moves to strip her of his love and titles. This is not only foolish but hurtful
and unjust.

The love test was foolish but, on the surface, harmed little. Yet, Goneril and Regan
likely knew that their sister would not compete with them if their were extravagant
enough in their claims of love toward their father. Of course, they did not love him
with their all, but in Lear's old and insecure state, they knew he would fall for their
insincerity and Cordelia would refrain from competing on such a hypocritical
level. Notice the sonorous quality of the sisters' names. The two oldest have very
harsh, coarse sounding names, lacking in femininity or beauty. Cordelia's name is
much more melodic and feminine. This is the first constructed quality which sets
her apart from her sisters. Also pay attention to the inflated verse Goneril and
Regan use when addressing their father as opposed to the much harsher prose they
regress to upon his exit in scene i. Their true voices are symbolized by the harsh
prose we receive from them when alone, just as their names reverberate with
crudeness. Cordelia however often speaks in rhyming couplets, a much more
elevated form than her sisters, which allows her to be further set apart from their
hypocrisy. We also note that Kent will at times, especially in his defense of
Cordelia, slip into rhyming couplets. Shakespeare stresses the elevation of
language to symbolize the true nature of characters, highlighting Kent and Cordelia
as honorable characters.

Cordelia frequently however understates her sincerity and true affections. She is
aware that her sisters speak superficially, employing terms of value and worth in
expressing their love, and refuses to echo their hypocrisy, thus responding more
coldly than she likely otherwise would. Her asides to the audience give an
unadulterated view into her thoughts, similar to the true voices of Goneril and
Regan we meet at the end of scene i. Her response "Nothing" echoes these asides
instead of disguising them and illustrates to the reader how Cordelia as a character
is stripped of pretense and artifice. The idea is echoed literally and symbolically in
Lear's comment of scene iv, "Nothing can be made out of nothing" (I.iv.126). In
the very same scene that Lear admits he has overreacted toward Cordelia, though
only at this point acknowledging that Goneril's offense is greater, he perceives that
truth and sincerity cannot be represented by pretense. Regardless of how well Lear
has been fooled by the artifice of his older daughters, he allows the Fool to
counteract his elderly need for praise and love. Not surprisingly in Shakespeare's
plays, the Fool is often the least foolish, directing the lead characters to their
miscues in slightly comedic or condescending ways. His singing to Lear illustrates
further the use of language and the presentation of language which Shakespeare
employs to distinguish between different characters' qualities or the different
intentions of single characters.

King Lear is a parable, encrusted with symbolic figures and actions toward a
predicted and fabled end. Suspension of disbelief must be enacted on a level as
many readers are moved to question Lear's decision making and early blindness
toward truth and goodness. As one critic raises, how would Kent and France
recognize Cordelia's sincerity and inner beauty when her own father cannot? On a
realistic level, Lear has started to regress toward dementia and old age. We know
by Kent and Gloucester's loyalty toward him, that he had once been more
reasonable. On the figurative and more appropriate level, Lear is a allegorical
figure in a parable and must move blindly toward this character demise in order to
be resurrected to honesty and the goodness his fallen daughter represents in the
end. He committed a fatal and selfish human error which cannot be mended
without the journey and transformation he must undergo. The story of King Lear
had been kicked around in old British literature and lore, but Shakespeare appears
to be the first to allow it to end as tragically as the story's course first suggests.
With this in mind, Lear's life is headed in an almost inevitable downward spiral.
The plot centers more around how Lear will handle this spiral and his conquering
of artifice and insincerity.

Blindness is one of the most frequently employed metaphors in King Lear.

Blindness will become a physical problem for Gloucester later in the play, but its
metaphoric weight is used to foreshadow and heighten this development. Lear is
blind to the blatant hypocrisy of his two oldest daughters from the first moment we
meet him. However, unlike the implication that he was once a more noble man
since he has the support of seemingly noble subcharacters, Kent and Gloucester,
we are not given the impression that he ever knew well enough to previously
suspect Goneril or Regan of ingratitude or dishonesty. They have obviously shown
their true colors at some point before though since Cordelia responds in such a
manner to alert us that she will not sink as low in hypocrisy as her sisters will. For
instance, she comments, "A still-soliciting eye, and such a tongue/ That I am glad I
have not, though not to have it/ Hath lost me in your liking" (I.i.231-233).

Thus, although Lear has obviously favored Cordelia, he has been blind to the
inherent ingratitude of his two other daughters and is foolish enough to trust them
with his livelihood after more foolishly disinheriting Cordelia and exiling Kent. A
good example of this is presented in the very first scene. Lear cries to Kent, "Out
of my sight!" to which Kent retorts, "See better, Lear, and let me still remain/ The
true blank of thine eye" (I.i.158-159). He wishes to be allowed to remain the one
who could center Lear's focus. Yet even when Kent reenters the play disguised, he
cannot alter the course that Lear has begun. Lear becomes increasingly blind to the
truth around him. Sight, or the lack of it, is referenced a few scenes later more
explicitly when Lear himself notices that he has lost sight of what is important, so
to say. He cries, "Does any here know me? This is not Lear./ Does Lear walk thus?
speak thus? Where are his eyes?" (I.iv.216-217). Kent cannot become his eyes as
the tragic plot and subplot move toward blindness and disillusion.

The subplot of child betraying sibling and father eerily and intentionally mirrors
the plot of children betraying father and father betraying child. Shakespeare's
method of juxtaposing the two plots through the interspersing of a scene relating to
the plot with a scene centered around Edmund's sinister conspiracy allows the
audience to have a heightened awareness of the actions of one through the other. In
both, the strong, honorable patriarch is undone by the ingratitude of at least one of
his children. Both patriarchs seem to have contributed slightly to the misdeeds of
their children. Gloucester directly separates his sons as legitimate and illegitimate
and mentions it frequently. He also notes that he sent Edmund away, likely
because of his illegitimacy, for a long period of time and plans to do so again.
Stripped of property and title, one is less surprised by Edmund's move to undo his
destiny. However, Shakespeare creates in the characters of Edgar and Gloucester
hearts which seem honorable and trusting, making Edmund's plot to betray them
more disgusting. Note that Gloucester immediately believes the letter which
Edmund shows him, not at once questioning Edmund's honesty although it would
be doubtful that Gloucester had any previous reason to suspect or distrust Edgar.
Similarly, Edgar immediately believes Edmund when he tells him he should worry
about his safety and his relationship with his father. The audience gains from these
interactions that Edmund has done nothing in the past to arouse suspicion. Instead
it seems that he has been waiting patiently to upset the familial balance and now
hurries to do so when threatened with further military service.

But remember, we must also keep in mind that an attempt to make sense out of
every encounter and character intention is not the purpose of the play. Instead, we
must explore the character flaws and relationship developments as they are
entwined within the parable Shakespeare is constructing and expanding. The
parable's breadth is exaggerated and amplified by the doubling of themes in the
plot and subplot. The demise of the father's position through betrayal by his own
children was considered to be one of the cruelest, harshest offenses imaginable.
This reflection of plot, for which the seeds are planted in Act I, magnifies the
horrors of the tragedy. In this manner, blindness is one of the main symbolic and
physical vehicles through which Shakespeare describes the horrors of ingratitude,
insincerity, and hypocrisy.

Goneril is represented to the audience as one of the most evil participants in the
familial crimes taking place. This character description is illustrated through the
contrast Shakespeare establishes between her and her husband. Woman as the most
evil of characters is not a new experiment for Shakespeare. Shortly before writing
King Lear, he created a Lady Macbeth who expressed the need to sacrifice one's
own children if necessary to gain more power and who urged her more
weakhearted husband to kill the kindhearted King. Though in the end of Macbeth
Lady Macbeth is suffering from her evil, she was still the instigator who brought
about the continued evils by urging her husband to yearn for more and more
power. Here, Goneril also yearns for power but does not feel the need to aim
indirectly for it. Albany is basically told to stay out of her way as he is too weak to
know what is best. She places more trust in her servant Oswald, it seems, as she
sends him off to run her important letter to Regan whereas she pushes Albany off
to the side. She manipulates how her sister will act and the manner in which they
will strip Lear of his property and authority. The stories she creates of Lear's
riotous knights and so on are supported by nothing in Shakespeare's text. The
characters in Lear's train who speak to him are well behaved, polite, and honorable.
They try to protect him and Lear himself is shown well when he places the blame
for Goneril's coldness on himself instead of her and her household. Thus we exit
the first Act with the knowledge of Cordelia's goodness, Lear's previous goodness
and impending madness, Fool's truth telling, Edmund's plotting, and Goneril's evil.
The parable is well in place.