King Lear and Illigetimacy Shakespeare’s treatment of illegitimacy in the play King Lear can be interpreted in many ways depending on the audience. The situation of illegitimacy is portrayed through the relationships of the characters the Earl Of Gloucester and his two sons Edgar and Edmund. Edmund is the illegitimate son while Edgar was born within the law. We learn of Edmund’s illegitimacy in the opening scene in the first act where The Earl of Gloucester is holding a conversation with Kent while Edmund is nearby. Gloucester speaks flippantly and lightly of the way his illegitimate son came into the world while introducing him to Kent saying, “ Though this knave came something saucily into the world before he was sent for, yet his mother was fair, there was good sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged” (Act I, Scene I, Lines 19-24). There are several peculiar things about this dialogue. One of the interesting aspects of Gloucester and Kent’s discussion is the readiness of Gloucester to admit he has fathered a child out of wedlock. This may be influenced by the fact that Edmund had obviously grown into a son that a father would be proud to have. At first meeting he seems polite, courteous, and loyal. Perhaps these admirable character traits are cause for Gloucester’s willingness to publicly claim Edmund as his own. Another unusual occurrence in the opening dialogue is that Gloucester calls Edmund a whoreson and a knave while he is close by and probably in hearing distance. This seems odd because Gloucester professes to feel only love for his son and no shame but he seems to almost mock him in this situation. One explanation for this behavior may be that deep down Gloucester still harbors some discomfort about the relationship between himself and his son despite his verbal proclamations of shamelessness. This could be inferred from Gloucester’s statement, “ His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge. I have so often blushed to acknowledge him that now I am brazed to ‘t.” (Act I, Scene I, Line 9). Again, depending on the audience the attitudes displayed in the play by the characters and Shakespeare himself by his writing can be interpreted in a variety of ways depending on the observer. Originally Shakespeare’s played were viewed by people alive during the Elizabethan era.
Although Shakespeare was known to be a talented writer, there seems to be many things that have inspired Shakespeare to write this play. King Lear, for example, it mainly based of King Leir, a legendary king of the Britons, which was accounted by Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regum Britanniae in 1135. However, the play King Lear seems to be influenced and inspired by many historical events and lawsuits occurred in Britain at the time it was written.
Thou shall honour thy father and thy mother, is not only one of ten powerful commandments but is also the foundation for King Lear's perception of himself and his overwhelming situation in Shakespeare's masterpiece King Lear. After a recent life-altering decision, Lear's seemingly stable and comfortable world has been thrown into upheaval through the disobedience and lies told by not only his two daughters but also by his servants! Thus, after being dishonoured by his family and attendants, Lear forms an accurate perception of his situation, that he is "a man / More sinned against than sinning" (Act III scene ii lines 60 - 61).
Gonorill. Regan. Cordelia. Those names should ring a bell if you have ever read or seen “The Tragedy of King Lear.” The plot behind this play revolves around King Lear’s relationships with each of these three characters; his daughters. King Lear has a different relationship with each of them. Gonorill, Regan and Cordelia all have very distinct personalities. In this play, King Lear decided it was time to give up and divide his kingdom amongst Gonorill, Regan and Cordelia. He determined who got what based off of their love for him. Each daughter was asked to express their love for their father but, only Gonorill and Regan end up with portions of King Lear’s kingdom.
In Chapter 4 of a book titled Escape from Freedom, the famous American psychologist Erich Fromm wrote that "Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction" (Fromm 98). Fromm realized that avarice is one of the most powerful emotions that a person can feel, but, by its very nature, is an emotion or driving force that can never be satisfied. For, once someone obtains a certain goal, that person is not satisfied and continues to strive for more and more until that quest leads to their ultimate destruction. For this reason, authors have embraced the idea of greed in the creation of hundreds of characters in thousands of novels. Almost every author has written a work centered around a character full of avarice. Ian Fleming's Mr. Goldfinger, Charles Dickens' Scrooge, and Thomas Hardy's John D'Urberville are only a few examples of this attraction. But, perhaps one of the best examples of this is found in William Shakespeare's King Lear. Edmund, through his speech, actions, and relationships with other characters, becomes a character consumed with greed to the point that nothing else matters except for the never-ending quest for status and material possessions.
In Shakespeare story King Lear, two of the women were portrayed as emasculating and disloyal while the third was honest and truthful. Showing, that most women who have power can’t be trusted. The story told of a king named Lear who had three daughters named Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia. Lear had given his two oldest daughters Goneril, and Regan a piece of land even though they had lied to their father telling him feelings that they didn’t really have. Then there was his youngest daughter she was as honest and truthful as any other child could be.
Two powerful characters in the play, aging King Lear and the gullible Earl of Gloucester, both betrayed their children unintentionally. Firstly, characters are betrayed due to family assumption. Lear banished his youngest daughter Cordelia because he over estimated how much she loved him. When questioned by her father, she responds with, "I love your Majesty / According to my bond, no more nor less." (I,i, 94-95) Lear assumed that since Cordelia was his daughter, she had to love him in a certain way, but he took this new knowledge and banished her without further thought. Secondly, characters were betrayed because of class. Edmund, the first-born son in the Gloucester family, should have been his father's next of kin. He would have been able to take over the position of Earl upon his father's death if he did not hold the title of a legitimate bastard. In his first soliloquy he says, "Why Bastard? Wherefore base? / When my dimensions are as well compact/ my mind as generous, and my shape as true " (I,ii, 6-8) Edmund believes he is at least equal, if not more, to his father in body and in mind, but the title that his father regrettably gave to him still lingers. Lastly, characters were betrayed because of family trust. Gloucester trusted his son Edmund when he was told that his other son was trying to kill him. Upon reading the forged letter written by Edmund, he responded with, "O villain, villain! His very opinion in the letter! Go, sirrah, seek him." (I,ii,75-77) Gloucester inadvertently betrayed Edgar because he held so much trust in his one son that he was easily persuaded to lose all trust in his other one. These blind characters were unfortunately betrayed there children, but they did it unintentionally and will eventually see there wrong doings.
If we seek to justify Shakespeare's King Lear as a tragedy by applying Arthur Miller's theory of tragedy and the tragic hero, then we might find Lear is not a great tragedy, and the character Lear is hardly passable for a tragic hero. However, if we take Aristotle's theory of tragedy to examine this play, it would fit much more neatly and easily. This is not because Aristotle prescribes using nobility for the subject of a tragedy, but, more importantly, because he emphasizes the purpose of tragedy -- to arouse pity and fear in the audience, and thus purge them of such emotions.
King Lear is a play about a tragic hero, by the name of King Lear, whose flaws get the best of him. A tragic hero must possess three qualities. The first is they must have power, in other words, a leader. King Lear has the highest rank of any leader. He is a king. The next quality is they must have a tragic flaw, and King Lear has several of those. Finally, they must experience a downfall. Lear's realization of his mistakes is more than a downfall. It is a tragedy. Lear is a tragic hero because he has those three qualities. His flaws are his arrogance, his ignorance, and his misjudgments, each contributing to the other.
It tainted his familial bonds and gave him a sense of determination to escape society’s value of him. The notion of bastardy drives this aspect of the plot and is the single most important idea when looking into the phenomenon of cruelty between Edmund and Gloucester in King Lear. Edmund’s story is tragic because there is no resolution for his biggest grievance apart from a larger paradigm shift, marking a change in society’s value of the bastard. It is safe to say that Edmund and Gloucester’s relationship was plagued by powers greater than themselves. Shakespeare elevates their relationship to start a dialogue about family and societal values—creating a deeply layered and tragic
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the Fool is a source of chaos and disruption in King Lear’s tumultuous life. The Fool causes the King distress by insulting him, making light of his problems, and telling him the truth. On the road to Regan’s, the Fool says “If thou wert my Fool, nuncle, I’d have thee / beaten for being old before thy time.” (1.5.40-41). He denies the king the respect due to him as an aged King, causing the King to wonder at his worthiness. The fool also makes light of Lear’s qualms making snide remarks in response to Lear’s ruminations. When Lear asks Edgar cryptically, “wouldst thou give ‘em all?” the Fool responds, “Nay, he reserved a blanket, else we had been all shamed” (3.4.69-72). The Fool’s snide remarks do little to maintain Lear’s fragile control of his faculties. However, the Fool speaks to the king candidly, a rare occasion in Lear’s life. Even Kent acknowledges the truth of the Fool’s statements, saying, “This is not altogether fool, my lord” (1.4.155).
The concept of Marxism is a popular one which is still being implemented in modern times, a prime example being within literature. When observing and analysing a text from a Marxist literary viewpoint, one must interpret the text as the author commenting on their society, culture and the political issues that were prevalent at the time; thus the background of the author must be researched. Marxism focuses more on the ideological and sociological aspects of the text as opposed to a psychological viewpoint of each character within the text. Marxist critics also reflect on texts in different ways, believing that literature is created as a product of ideology and not the desires of the authors/playwrights themselves. In the three texts King Lear,
Gloucester and Lear, create their eventual downfalls due to their inability to read deceit. Though these characters share the same tragic flaw, the means by which they make their errors is completely different. Gloucester remains a poor reader because he is quick to believe his sense of sight. When his illegitimate son, Edmund, reveals a deceitful letter designed to incriminate Edgar, Gloucester is quick to believe him. “Abominable villain”(1.2.74) he cries out before he even examines the letter with his reading glasses. Edmund’s trickery is conducted cleverly, but Gloucester’s lack of disbelief is unexplainable.
Despite its undeniable greatness, throughout the last four centuries King Lear has left audiences, readers and critics alike emotionally exhausted and mentally unsatisfied by its conclusion. Shakespeare seems to have created a world too cruel and unmerciful to be true to life and too filled with horror and unrelieved suffering to be true to the art of tragedy. These divergent impressions arise from the fact that of all Shakespeare's works, King Lear expresses human existence in its most universal aspect and in its profoundest depths. A psychological analysis of the characters such as Bradley undertook cannot by itself resolve or place in proper perspective all the elements which contribute to these impressions because there is much here beyond the normal scope of psychology and the conscious or unconscious motivations in men.
During the 1600s, Europe was standing between the scientific revolution and the the combined power of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolutions. This time was filled with religious confusion fueled by the transitioning monarchs and the desire to divorce that King Louis XIV had. Through the confusion, William Shakespeare sat down and wrote the play, “King Lear” to provide some of the environment he grew up in to the audience. Although the play Shakespeare wrote was fictional, it did comply with the time it was written. It supported the customs and values of the time while it influenced its own milieu.
To begin, King Lear makes the conscious decision to split up his land, but he choses the most egotistical way to decide which of his daughter’s received which piece of land. Near the beginning Lear says, “Which of you shall say we doth love us most,/ that we our largest bounty may extend/ Where nature doth with merit challenge,” (I.i.52-54). This quotation demonstrates how Lear was constantly seeking ways to build his ego, and was looking for reassurance that he was still the best man that he could be. It proves to the reader or viewer that Lear is clearly not in his right mind. Demonstrating that maybe this character cannot be trusted, as a true king would not be likely to enact this type of behaviour. Society has trained most individuals that someone who constantly seeks attention is not an individual that anyone should want to associate with. Lear’s attitudes in regards to giving up his land to his daughter’s show that he ne...