 |
| Poor, poor Gloucester. |
Well. This play keeps getting more and more depressing. I haven't seen this play since high school and much of it escaped me then. So the sheer hopelessness in this play is getting to me quite a bit more this time around. One tiny ray of light in this play though is the theme of loyalty throughout. We see this most obviously displayed in Kent. He was mistreated by Lear, and yet he still continues to labor on his behalf. Fighting, disguising, etc. He goes and finds him in the dangerous storm, and like the good friend that he is, he gently and consistently persuades Lear to listen to him. That's dedication, without a doubt.
I found an interesting article about Kent on the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship about Kent and his potential historical counterparts, here. The author quoted a piece by Samuel Coleridge on Kent's character, and I thought I'd include it here because it's so interesting.
"Kent is, perhaps, the nearest to perfect goodness in all Shakespeare’s characters, and yet the most individualized. There is an extraordinary charm in a bluntness, which is that only of a nobleman arising from a contempt of overtrained courtesy, and combined with easy placability where goodness of heart is apparent. His passionate affection for and fidelity to Lear act on our feelings in Lear’s own favor: virtue itself, seems to be in company with him. (Complete Works of Samuel Coleridge, Vol. IV, edited by W.G.T. Shedd, Harper and Bros., New York: 1884, pp. 138-39.)"
I think that the contrast between Kent and Lear is especially important because in Lear we see this childish yet senile person who selfishly throws tantrums, all the while inspiring a sympathy of sorts. Kent however keeps a level head, and despite his unfortunate situation in being cast aside and in disguise, he remains loyal.
On the flip side we have Gloucester, who actually exemplifies both sides of this. He easily switches loyalties from Edgar to Edmund with very little to persuade, but when considering his loyalty to Lear he gets his eyes gouged out. That's another pretty strong display of love.
I really like your parallel between Kent and Lear. I hadn't looked at them that way, but you're right that the level-headed Kent works well as a foil to King Lear. The scene that's problematic for this, however, is when Kent beats up Oswald. He seems to do this more out of a temper tantrum than out of loyalty to the king.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of contrasting Lear with Kent. Another character that I think is pretty much completely good is Edgar. He willingly helps Gloucester out even though his father betrayed him and tried to kill him. That's real loyalty!
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Gloucester's loyalty to Lear is admirable in the face of his familial disloyalty? I've been having back-and-forth feelings about him. He is so eager to believe the bad about Edgar without verifying the false information and therefore, I don't feel too bad for him when Edmund takes advantage of him. But his loyalty to King Lear makes him a noble subject, right? I can't tell whether he's a victim or not!
ReplyDelete