King
Lear
To
help narrow the focus we need to ask a fundamental question: “Was King
Lear a good father?” And also, “Was
Gloucester a good father?” This is the
nurture side of the coin of fate. Since for many nurture-brained individuals
the answer to this question is directly related to how the children turned out,
it provides a systematic approach for discussing this theme which can be
accomplished simply by examining the children of King Lear and Gloucester. The nature side of the coin will be
juxtaposed against the nurture side and will be examined also. Getting back to the question of whether or
not King Lear was a good father and whether or not Gloucester was a good
father, we will quickly see that this question cannot be answered either by
deductive or inductive reasoning. That
is to say, some of the off-spring turned out bad and some turned out good. Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate why this
happened and explore the possibility that Lear and Gloucester probably
influenced their children’s character and personalities. Therefore, the rest of the discussion will
focus on the daughters of Lear: Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia; and the sons of
Gloucester: Edgar and Edmund.
It
is very easy to show that Goneril and Regan were indeed bad children. Their
treachery begins in Act 1. sc. 1 as they try to outdo each other plying for
King Lear’s favor and gift of lands and power.
Their smooth tongued declarations of superior love are obviously a sham
and a dishonest ploy to encourage the king to hand over his kingdom. Cordelia provides further evidence of their
evil intent when she says, “Time shall
unfold what plighted cunning hides, who covers faults at last with shame
derides.” (1.1.325-326).
Goneril and Regan were obviously operating out
of greed, but I propose that insecurity also played a part. Lear was principally
responsible for his daughters’ insecurity. Even in the prime of his life he had
been completely hotheaded and over-hasty (Folger Library p. 26, footnote). Goneril and Regan simply could not predict
what he would do next and they feared for their future. According to Goneril:
The best and soundest of his
time hath been
but rash. Then must we look from his age to
receive not alone the
imperfections of long-en-
graffed condition, but
therewithal the unruly way-
wardness that infirm and
choleric years bring with
them (1.1.341-346).
Regan
observes:
Such unconstant starts are we
like to have
from
him as this of Kent’s banishment (1.1.347-348).
Growing
up in this volatile atmosphere of insecurity must have had a negative effect on
these two daughters. Their insecurity was further exasperated even by the
response of Lear to their husbands. We
see this in the very first line of the play when Kent says, “I thought the King
had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall (1.1.1).”
Goneril and Regan adapted by learning cunning
and self-reliance. Predictably, once
they had gained the upper-hand, they were not about to voluntarily relinquish
their advantage. Their adaptation for
survival evolved into heinous cruelty and disregard for humanity that cannot be
explained solely by their father’s imposed insecurity (nurture). Kent refers to this when he says, “The stars
above us govern our conditions, else one
self mate and make could not begat such different issues (4.3.39-42).”
It
is certainly ironic that their survival tactics born of a mutated sense of
insecurity propelled them toward self-destruction. This outcome is predicted by Albany when he
says, “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, like monsters of the deep
(4.2.57-59).”
Let
us now turn our attention to Lear’s third daughter, Cordelia, undoubtedly the antithesis of Regan and
Goneril. Certainly her virtue and
honesty is established early in the play when she refuses to play the “I love
you more” word game. She explains her
abhorrence for false flattery when she says, “So young, my lord, and true
1.1.118-119).” The King of France is
justifiably smitten by her, “Fairest Cordelia, that art most rich being
poor; Most choice, forsaken; and most
loved, despised, thee and thy virtues here I seize upon (1.1.290-292).” But how could this be? Kent attempted to explain the dissimilarity
by suggesting that the stars were responsible. Obviously, Cordelia’s
personality provides a strong argument for nurture. In other words, since the three daughters had
the same gene pool (nature), Cordelia must have been treated differently in
some way (nurture), which would explain why she turned out differently from her
two evil sisters. There is some evidence
that Lear treated her differently. He apparently loved her more which is
revealed when he says, “I loved her most and thought to set my rest on her kind
nursery (1.1.37-38).” This probably
enhanced Cordelia’s security but undoubtedly had a negative effect on Goneril
and Regan as well. Nevertheless, this
loving attitude toward Cordelia probably had a tremendous positive influence on
her personality. In addition, her
nurturing experience was undoubtedly different from that of the older daughters
because there was apparently a number of years between them. Perhaps Lear
learned from his earlier parenting mistakes.
Even
today birth order seems to have a significant influence on the personalities of
siblings. It is interesting that
conventional wisdom predicts that the first born will be a leader and
independent, the second born will be competitive, while the third born is usually
compliant and eager to please. This
seems to fit the pattern for Lear’s three daughters.
Now
let us turn our attention toward Gloucester’s two sons, Edgar and Edmund. Two brothers could not be more
different. Edmund contrives against
Edgar and turns their father Gloucester against him by lies and deception. His deception culminates in the treacherous
betrayal of his own father in order that he might gain his father’s title and
position.
Edmund
states:
This courtesy forbid
thee shall the Duke
Instantly know, and
of that letter too.
This seems a fair
deserving, and must draw me
That which my father
loses- no less than all.
The younger rises
when the old doth fall (3.4.21-25)
In turn this betrayal leads to a most gruesome scene when Cornwall plucks
out the eyes of Gloucester:
See’t shalt thou
never. - Fellows, hold the chair.-
Upon these eyes of
thine I’ll set my foot (3.7.81-82)
Another
example of Edmund’s despicable behavior is his self-serving ambition toward
Regan and Goneril. He says, “To both
sisters have I sworn my love, Each jealous of the other as the stung are of the
adder. Which of them shall I take
(5.1.63-65).” Edmund’s final horrible
act occurs when he bribes a soldier to kill Lear and Cordelia:
Come hither, captain,
Hark.
Take thou this
note. Go follow them to prison.
One step I have
advanced thee. If thou dost
As this instructs
thee, thou dost make thy way
To noble fortunes
(5.3.31-35)
On the other hand, Edgar is shown
to be noble and virtuous. Even Edmund admits this when he states:
A credulous father
and a brother noble,
Whose nature is so
far from doing harms
That he suspects
none; on whose foolish honest
My practices ride
easy (1.2.187-190).
But
how can this be? They are brothers born
to the same father. Why then such stark differences in their character and
personalities? Both
nature and nurture help explain these differences. However, it is still arguable which had the
most influence. Nevertheless, let us
discuss their impact. First of all,
Edgar and Edmund are half brothers. They
had the same father but a different mother.
This does not automatically suggest that Edmund was born to be bad and
Edgar was born to be good. However, we should not discount the reality that heredity could have played an important
role in the development of their personalities.
We are not told much about Edmund’s mother. We may
infer that she lacked moral purity, but so did Edgar’s father. I suggest that nurture had the greater impact
on each brother’s character and personality.
It
is obvious that Edmund was raised as a bastard child. Gloucester refers to Edmund in the most crude
and demeaning language in Act 1 when he says the following:
Though this knave
came something
saucily to the world
before he was sent for, yet was
his mother fair,
there was good sport at his making,
and the whoreson must
be acknowledged (1.1.21-24).
Surely this harsh reality and
Gloucester’s condescension greatly influenced Edmund’s personality in a most
negative way. Even Edmund’s name was
bastardized from his elder brother Edgar. It is very doubtful if Gloucester
ever showed a personal interest in Edmund.
There was no father-son bonding. Apparently, Edmund was customarily sent
away for long periods of time. In Act 1
Gloucester says, “He hath been out nine years, and away he shall again
(1.1.32-33).” Consequently, there was no
loyalty toward his father whatsoever.
Edmund felt that he had to make his own way. In Act 1 he says, “Let me, if not by birth,
have lands by wit (1.2.191).” This
culminated in Edmund’s awful betrayal of his father.
Nature
and nurture do seem to play significant rolls in determining the character and
personality of an individual. Which one
has the most influence continues to be a subject for debate. In the final analysis these two variables
cannot explain the divergent behavior that takes place in the play King Lear. There is another factor that seems to hold
sway in many instances. Moralists and
theologians refer to it simply as man’s freewill. In spite of heredity and environment each of
us is still a free moral agent.
Ultimately each of us has the freedom to choose between right and
wrong.
It
is clear that Shakespeare believed in man’s/woman’s freewill. For example, according to Edmund:
This is the excellent
foppery of the world, that
when we are sick in
fortune (often the surfeits
of our own behavior)
we make guilty of our disasters
the sun, the moon,
and stars, as if we were villains
on necessity; fools
by heavenly compulsion; knaves,
thieves, and
treachers by spherical predominance;
drunkards, liars, and
adulterers by an enforced
obedience of
planetary influence; and all that we
are evil in, by a
divine thrusting on. An admirable
evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish
disposition on the charge of a star (1.2.125-135)!
Furthermore, it is Edmund who most
dramatically exercises his freewill in Act 5 near the end of the play when he
says the following:
I pant for life. Some good I mean to do
Despite mine own
nature. Quickly sent-
Be brief in it- to
th’ castle, for my writ
Is on the life of Lear, and on Cordelia.
Nay, send in time
(5.3.291-295.)
This
poignantly illustrates that Edmund accepted responsibility for his
immoral
actions and exercised his freewill to choose right over wrong in spite
of the negative influence of
his nature and nurture.
No comments:
Post a Comment