In Act 1, Scene 2, Gloucester and his illegitimate son Edmund reveal two contradictory views of human agency. Gloucester looks to the heavens to explain the troubles of the world: "These late eclipses of the sun and moon portend no good to us. Though the wisdom of nature can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself scourged by sequent effects"(1.2.109-12). Edmund mocks his father's beliefs and instead places the blame for human misery squarely in the hands of humans. He asserts:
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 (1.2.125-33).
What do we make of these philosophical speeches? Do these speeches tell us about the character of Gloucester and Edmund? Do they expound on a major theme or debate in this play? Given the events of the play and the reaction of the characters, does one of these views prove correct? Is our belief in God "the excellent foppery of the world"? Is this a play in which the divine controls human agency or humans themselves?
These two speeches, though given by father and son, present two totally different perspectives on life that come into conflict repeatedly throughout the play. Gloucester argues for the traditional view, that people have their fates determined through their set duty and position in society (as a child, a servant, etc.) and they must live up their role as best they can. Edmund, meanwhile, believes in the much more Machiavellian view that our destiny is completely in our own hands and we should use any means possible, including lies and violence if necessary, to achieve our full potential. The rest of the characters in the play generally fall into these two camps and their clashes represent a struggle between these two worldviews.
ReplyDeleteGloucester’s argument, as seen in this speech, is that everyone has their place in society and must fulfill the obligations that come with it to be a worthy citizen; no one should seek to change their role because it has come about by fate and should not be altered. The old earl follows this philosophy for the entire play, though sometimes incorrectly (due to Edmund’s tricks). First, he exiles Edgar on account of (false) evidence that he is plotting to kill him. One of the most important duties in the traditional hierarchy Gloucester supports is the parent-child relationship. A child should respect and honor their parents, and plotting against their life clearly violates this. Another important structural relationship is the importance of the king, and Lear’s decision to divide his power amongst his daughters is therefore abhorrent to the earl. As he muses worriedly to himself just after the dramatic opening, “the King gone tonight, prescribed his power,/Confined to exhibition? All this done/Upon the gad?” (I.2.25-7). Not only does the impulsiveness of the king’s actions bother him, but the fact that Lear has basically forced himself off of the throne while somehow trying to retain his kingly status is clearly very troubling to Gloucester. As the play progresses, the old earl becomes one of the struggling king’s most loyal supporters, putting his own life in great danger to help his lord. When the king’s messenger (Kent in disguise) is placed in the stocks, Gloucester pleads on his behalf, angry at the insult to his majesty, “The King must take it ill/That he, so slightly valued in his messenger,/Should have him thus restrained” (II.2.158-60). He grows even more frantic when Lear himself is cast out into the storm by his daughters, totally violating not one but two of the bedrock obligations of the old world. Gloucester confides to Edmund,
I like not this
unnatural dealing. When I desired their leave that I
might pity him, they took from me the use of mine
own house, charged me on pain of perpetual
displeasure neither to speak of him, entreat for
him, or any way sustain him (III.3.1-6)
continued...
Gloucester soon does indeed abandon his castle and aid the king, and he is severely punished for it, becoming a captive in his own home and being blinded by Cornwall. However, from his perspective, this risk is totally natural: the king is his superior, and it his therefore place to care for him. However, Gloucester’s weakness is probably his total lack of comprehension of others who do not follow his view. Edmund completely takes advantage of the old man with his lies about his brother, and Goneril, Regan, and Cornwall also manage to take over his dominion and turn him into a prisoner without any real resistance. Even as they torture him, he helplessly exclaims, “I am your host;/With robber’s hands my hospitable favors/You should not ruffle thus” (III.7.48-50). In the traditional world, the guest-host relationship is sacred and important, but the next generation cares nothing for it. Gloucester is thus doomed. A number of other characters in the play follow this position as well. The Earl of Kent is a perfect example as well, as he risks his life by returning to the king’s service in disguise even though it was Lear himself who banished him. Cordelia too is a believer in this hierarchy, as she, when asked by her father how much she loves him, simply answers, “I love your Majesty/According to my bond, no more nor less” (I.1.101-2). Unlike her gushing, deceitful sisters, Cordelia knows and will admit her duty. She is a daughter, Lear is her father, she must take respect him accordingly. Lear himself often follows this philosophy as well, but he tries to live both ways, expecting flattery and overly extreme extravagance while also constantly referencing his daughters’ duty to their father. His torn nature is his great flaw (or a part of his madness) and certainly causes his downfall.
ReplyDeleteEdmund’s perspective, on the other hand, is that nothing is set and every effort should be made to advance one’s self in the world, whatever means may be necessary to do so. This is the “new world” approach, the style of living explained by the likes of Machiavelli, and it is used in the play to wreak havoc on those who follow the older, more trusting philosophy. Edmund lays out this idea quite plainly with his self-exhortation, “Let me, if not by birth, have lands by with./All with me’s meet that I can fashion fit” (I.2.191-2). Unlike his father, he is not content to be happy with his lot in life and live up to it to the best of his ability. Edmund wants more, he wants it all, and he will work to get it himself is nature is not generous enough to grant it to him by birth. He can use his cleverness and actions to make anything happen, and he cares little about consequences for others. Edmund’s reasons for following this approach are fairly clearly explained in an early speech,
Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines
Lag of a brother? Why “bastard”?
(2-6)
Continued...
Because he is a younger brother and a bastard child, Edmund will not receive any of the wealth and status of his brother Edgar, and so he seeks ways to rebel from the system and undermine the traditional hierarchy. He wants to forge his own destiny and win power for himself. To this end he deceives his father, betrays his brother, and eventually betrays his father as well. As he reports his father’s “treachery” to Cornwall, earing himself the Earldom in the process, he declares, “I will persevere/in my course of loyalty, though the conflict be sore/between that and my blood” (III.6.22-4). This statement can be seen as very ironic, since one would generally think that the “course of loyalty” would be to his father, not to his quest for power. However, this is not the case here. Edmund is not at all the only character in the play to take this approach to the search for power. Goneril and Regan completely suck up to their father early in the play until he has given them their land, and then abandon him and totally disrespect him afterward. Unlike Cordelia, whose devotion to her father is constant and appropriate, they first severely cross the line with their declarations of their father being the only important thing in their lives, then do so again in the other direction with their harsh treatment of him. These actions make them natural allies of deceitful Edmund, and thus they end up on the same side in the impending war. At least by the end of Act III, it seems that this crew is winning the conflict, with Lear and his friends on the run and the kingdom firmly in the sisters’ control. However, I doubt that Shakespeare will ultimately support such a troubling conclusion, so we must keep reading to see the final result.
ReplyDelete