Last updated: April 23, 2019
Topic: HealthAging
Sample donated:

& # 8217 ; s King Lear Essay, Research Paper

Every state of affairs in life has an visual aspect, and a world. The visual aspect of a state of affairs is normally what we want to see. The world, what is truly traveling on, is non ever every bit obvious to the perceiver. Peoples who can non perforate through the superficial visual aspect of a state of affairs will see merely what they want to believe is true ; frequently, the world of a state of affairs is unappealing to the percipient. These are the fortunes environing the struggle that occurs in William Shakespeare s King Lear. As an audience, you find that there is a major character defect in the characters King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester. In the narrative, neither of these two work forces are able to set up the difference, in their heads, between what people are stating and making, and what these people s true motivations are behind their actions. This enables Lear and Gloucester to be betrayed by their ain blood, and become stray from those who have their involvements at bosom. It is the inability to distinguish between visual aspect and world that causes Lear and Gloucester to fall. It seems, that in King Lear, visual aspect, or repute defines character. Edgar says every bit much in soliliquy, when he disguises himself as Poor Tom. Equally shortly as he changes out of his expensive vesture, and into his mendicant drab he decides Edgar I nil am. ( II.iii.21 ) . Although he is still Edgar beneath his camouflage, when he is encountered by his ain male parent Gloucester and his godfather Lear, neither of the two recognise him. It becomes evident that every bit shortly as Edgar s costume changed, all perceptual experiences of his character did every bit good. This same state of affairs is paralleled when Kent, besides banished, returns in camouflage as Lear s retainer Caius. When Lear foremost sees his long clip confident he asks How Now? What art 1000? ( I.iv.9 ) . One wonders how, after 40 old ages of service, Lear would non acknowledge his good retainer Kent, even in camouflage. With this in head, we can reason that Lear and Gloucester are both really speedy to accept people at face value, without any effort to derive a deeper apprehension of them. Similarly, we learn in King Lear, that how we perceive ourselves, may non be how we are perceived by others. Lear, for illustration, believes himself to be a great and respected King, who is affluent and powerful. However, he is invariably reminded by the actions of Goneril, and Regan, that he is an old adult male who has lost his land, his lone faithful girl, and his marbless. O, sir, you are really old! Nature in you stands on the really brink of her confine. You should be ruled, and led by some discretion that discerns your province ( II.iv.146-148. ) this is ground and manner that Regan feels her male parent should be removed from power. Lear, of all time blinded, doesn T see that his two girls are seeking to steal his land. Consequently, when Goneril and Regan are cutting down his train, he still believes that their love can be measured in words and Numberss Thy fifty yet doth dual five and 20, and thou art twice her love ( II.iv.261-262 ) . Lear believes that because Goneril will let him twice as many retainers in her place, she must love him twice every bit much as Regan does. This changeless privation of congratulations and lauding makes Lear really susceptible to persuasion by his evil girls, and finally leads to his losingss. Gloucester, besides perceives himself otherwise than the people around him. He sees himself as a loyal, respected adult male keeping some power and position. On the contrary, Regan, and her co-conspirators decide in act three that Gloucester is such a treasonist ( III.vii.36 ) because he has warned L

ear and his party to get away to Dover. Gloucester, nevertheless, believes himself to be loyal, because he is loyal to the King. But, at the same clip, Edmund and his party believe commitment to the King is a treachery to their cause. Hence, when Gloucester admits to holding warned Lear of the enemy s programs, his eyes are gauged out by Cornwall and Regan as penalty for his treachery. It is interesting, nevertheless, that although Lear and Gloucester were both blinded by their ain self-image, it was merely in existent blinding that Gloucester was able to see Edmund in his true function as the bad seed. Lear, unluckily took much longer to do this realization and suffered greatly for it.

So much of the convulsion in King Lear, comes from nil, that is, nil being said or done. In peculiar, we can look at how Lear, in his desire to hear how good he isloved, makes the error of swearing the substance of spoken words. Lear, in vain asked each of his girls to state him how much they love him, be aftering to split his land consequently. King Lear basks in the congratulations from Goneril and Regan which flatters him, and professes to love him more than anything else in the universe. Cordelia s honest non-answer agencies nil to him after being so verbosely praised by Goneril and Regan. Lear warns his girl that nil will come of nil ( I.i.92. ) . Subsequently, because Lear is more concerned with his self-importance than he is concerned with the truth, he mistakes Cordelia s response for an abuse. What Lear doesn T know, nevertheless, is that the ground Cordelia won t speak the words that Lear wants to hear is because they don t clasp, and can non show the manner she feels about her male parent. She says this herself while Goneril and Regan are so busily praising Lear What shall Cordelia speak? Love, and be soundless ( I.i.63-64 ) . It is Lear s inability to see past Regan and Goneril s fraudulence and into Cordelia s honestness that pushes his lone faithful girl so far off from him and isolates him from one who loves him so much. In the instance of the Earl of Gloucester, it is dry that if he had merely trusted in words ( the manner that Lear did in act one ) , his ruin ne’er would hold occurred. This sarcasm is apparent when Edmund says the bad missive he holds is nil ( truthfully ) . Gloucester will non swear the truth of the words, The quality of nil hath non such need to conceal itself. Let s see. Come, if it be nil, I shall non necessitate eyeglassess ( I.ii.33-35 ) . Gloucester has to see the missive himself to find that it truly is nil. Since Gloucester merely trusts in what he can see, and Lear will merely believe in what he hears, both of these work forces will be deceived over and over once more until they are able to acquire past these surface constructs and develop some apprehension of world. From what has been said, it can be seen that the autumn of King Lear, paired with the subplot of Gloucester s treachery by Edmund provides many analogues which reinforce one another. We watch, in King Lear, these two aging work forces fall from places of regard and power to being the simple and abused nothings of society. Furthermore, we see these same two work forces believe themselves to be one manner, though they are perceived by others rather otherwise. Last, we learn in watching the drama that valuing things by how much they appear to be, non how much they genuinely are deserving gives a false representation of the truth. On the whole, Shakespeare s King Lear is doing a statement about visual aspects and worlds ; specifically, you can t accept things at face value, you must seek for deeper truths and avoid fraudulence.