As I read the very complicated Tragedy of King Lear a theme that emerges is the theme of legitimacy. According to the laws of inheritance, only legitimate offspring,usually the sons, can inherit property, land, money, etc. Edmund the illegitimate son of Gloucester realizes this and works on a plot to get around this law. Edmund creates a fake letter that implicates his legitimate brother in a murder plot of their father Gloucester. In the fake letter Edgar agrees to split the land, property, and money up with illegitimate Edmund. The letter states "If our father would sleep till I /waked him, you should enjoy half the revenue for ever and live/ the beloved of your brother Edgar"(Lear, 1.2, 50-52). I don't find this surprising that Edmund would devise this letter, but what I don't understand is why does Gloucester readily believe this letter. I do have a possible explanation for why Gloucester believes what he read but it is quite speculative. The fact that they receive a letter from Edgar suggests he does not live in the same town as Edmund and Gloucester. It appears to me that Gloucester seems to be closer to his illegitimate son Edmund than Edgar. I do not think Gloucester and Edgar necessarily have a bad relationship, but he doesn't seem like they interact with each other as much as Edmund and Gloucester do.
By the next act after Edmund makes it look like he and Edgar were in an altercation, Gloucester now believes Edmund 100% and decides to let him inherit. He states "loyal and natural boy, I'll work the means/ To make thee capable" (2.1, 85-86). Of course this is a very ironic statement since Edmund is not being loyal and is not Gloucester's natural boy. Again I question how does Gloucester not realize what is going on or at least be suspicious of Edmund. Gloucester knows the laws of inheritance and obviously Edmund is not allowed to inherit. This should be raising a red flag for Gloucester that something is not right with this situation. At this point Gloucester is blinded by what is going on around him.
Shakespeare continues to use irony by having Gloucester's eyes being removed and have him literally blinded. It was Gloucester's metaphorical blindness that lead to him being set up as a traitor and having his eyes removed. The ironic aspect of the situation is Gloucester after he is blinded realizes what was going on and what happened. He states "O my follies! Then Edgar was abused" (3.7, 94). Not to sound unsympathetic, but it was Gloucester's own fault for becoming literally blind. As I mentioned a few times how could you not be suspicious of Edmund given the circumstances. I don't understand why he trusted his illegitimate son so much against Edgar. The only explanation I gave is purely speculative and I would like a better explanation for trusting Edmund. Or is this just part of the plot set-up that Shakespeare expects his viewers and readers to simply accept. I have a tough time simply accepting things without explanations. Typical Shakespeare!
1 comment:
These are great reflections on Gloucester and his sons, Eric. One thing we might think about when we discuss Gloucester is how the system of primogeniture makes the father the obstacle to his sons' inheritance. This may help to explain his reaction to the fake letter--it might confirm some of his worst fears about his Edgar: that all he cares about is his property. This provides a good contrast and comparison with Lear's daughters, too. Cordelia and Edgar both show themselves to be devoted to their fathers not because of the money they receive (both are essentially disinherited), but because of their love and care for them as human beings.
Post a Comment