DOCSLIB.ORG

Edmund in King Lear the Role of Edmund in Shakespeare's King Lear Is Simultaneously Minor Yet Pivotal I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Edmund in King Lear the Role of Edmund in Shakespeare's King Lear Is Simultaneously Minor Yet Pivotal I Rachel Horton ENG 4336 Evil or Misunderstood: Edmund in King Lear The role of Edmund in Shakespeare’s King Lear is simultaneously minor yet pivotal in the play as a whole. The main plot discusses Lear and his struggle to maintain both his kingdom and his family. In this respect, Edmund means very little in the grand scheme of things and serves primarily as a sub-plot character who mirrors the main plot. Yet Shakespeare moves him fairly quickly into a person of influence in the play and in the conclusion, Edmund’s actions directly impact the final tragic ending. As a bastard child, Edmund has little to look forward to from family or society. Edmund, therefore, has an unequivocal desire to “get ahead in the world, and, since he has little charity, his quickest and most direct method is to supplant his brother” (Ellis 277). This desire leads to a “swift deception” (Ellis 275) of both Gloucester and Edgar and results in an “inversion of order” (Ellis 289). As a bastard son in a restrictive and hyper-ordered society, Edmund is determined to “strike off all shackles that might inhibit the free play of his energies. He therefore denies the inherited medieval standards of Elizabethan society” (Delany 431) and attempts to push himself forward in a manner that is indicative of a “political ruthlessness” which espouses a “strict and often brutal functionalism in social life” (Delany 433) He flippantly brushes aside the individual's obligations to society as no more than "the plague of custom" (I.ii.3) and calls upon Nature to “stand up for bastards” (I.ii.10). His bitterness and ambition may be justifiable, but his character is too hard to earn the sympathy of the audience. Edmund’s original goal to supplant his brother and overthrow his father is a “limited objective” but later, when events play into his hands, “he widens his ambitions to include his father’s title and then the crown” (Matthews 27). McNeir describes Edmund as an “opportunist like Iago” and implies that Edmund simply wants to see the world fall apart through any means Rachel Horton ENG 4336 possible. The end of the play, however, does not necessarily justify such an extreme comparison. Edmund does have the opportunity to rethink his actions. Unlike Iago, who never displays any regret for the mayhem he causes in Othello, Edmund seems to display some sympathy in the end. After his bout with Edgar, Edmund attempts to take back his original orders for the murder of Cordelia and Lear. Yet, Edmund never arrives at the point of recognizing his own personal failures and Lear and Cordelia’s deaths are ultimately caused not “by fate or accident, but by the evil character of Edmund” (McNeir 214) for like Hamlet, his hesitation causes tragedy. In the end he is still weak, still entirely self-absorbed, and “he reverts to the demonic sisters before heeding the dictates of his new born conscience” (McNeir 187). Had Edmund received compassion or sympathy from his father or society, perhaps his end would have been less tragic. Yet even in the end, when he has the power to make a difference, Edmund still vacillates and it is in this that Edmund’s evil exists (Mathews 28). Rachel Horton ENG 4336 Works Cited Ellis, John. “The Gulling of Gloucester: Credibility in the Subplot of King Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 12.2 (1972). 275-89. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/449894>. Delaney, Paul. “King Lear and the Decline of Feudalism,” Publications of the Modern Language Association, 92.3 (1977). 429-40. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/461706>. Mathews, Richard. “Edmund's Redemption in King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly. 26.1 (1975) 25-29. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/2869263>. McNeir, Waldo F. “The Role of Edmund in King Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500- 1900, 8.2 (1968). 187-216. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/449655>. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • King Lear | H1 Notes
    King Lear | H1 Notes Edmund • Edmund, Gloucester’s illegitimate son, is undoubtedly one of the most Machiavellian and cunning characters in the play. • Bitter as a result of his lack of social status due to being born the “bastard” son. • Questions prejudice society has against children born out of wedlock, “Why brand they us/ With base?” • Feel sorry for him as it is clear that he has not received the same love from his father as his legitimate brother, “I have so often blushed to acknowledge him”. • Driven by ambition to improve his own social status and wealth, whatever the cost. • Clearly an immoral character who has no regard for his family. He hatches a plan to have his brother written out of his father’s will, a shocking act which makes his lack of care for Edgar evident, “Edmund the base/ Shall top the legitimate”. • His malicious nature is evident from the beginning of the play in Act I Scene II, where he tricks his father into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is plotting to kill him, “The contents, as in/ part I understand them, are to blame”. • Although Edmund’s cruelty is striking, I feel compelled to admire his creativeness in coming up with a plan to so effectively fool his father. • Edmund is also seen as cunning and two-faced as he ‘advises’ Edgar to go into hiding as Gloucester is looking to kill him, “Brother, I advise you to the best; go armed”. • Although incredibly immoral, it is quite admirable that Edmund so successfully turns his brother and father against each other.
    [Show full text]
  • “Revenge in Shakespeare's Plays”
    “REVENGE IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS” “OTHELLO” – LECTURE/CLASS WRITTEN: 1603-1604…. although some critics place the date somewhat earlier in 1601- 1602 mainly on the basis of some “echoes” of the play in the 1603 “bad” quarto of “Hamlet”. AGE: 39-40 Years Old (B.1564-D.1616) CHRONO: Four years after “Hamlet”; first in the consecutive series of tragedies followed by “King Lear”, “Macbeth” then “Antony and Cleopatra”. GENRE: “The Great Tragedies” SOURCES: An Italian tale in the collection “Gli Hecatommithi” (1565) of Giovanni Battista Giraldi (writing under the name Cinthio) from which Shakespeare also drew for the plot of “Measure for Measure”. John Pory’s 1600 translation of John Leo’s “A Geographical History of Africa”; Philemon Holland’s 1601 translation of Pliny’s “History of the World”; and Lewis Lewkenor’s 1599 “The Commonwealth and Government of Venice” mainly translated from a Latin text by Cardinal Contarini. STRUCTURE: “More a domestic tragedy than ‘Hamlet’, ‘Lear’ or ‘Macbeth’ concentrating on the destruction of Othello’s marriage and his murder of his wife rather than on affairs of state and the deaths of kings”. SUCCESS: The tragedy met with high success both at its initial Globe staging and well beyond mainly because of its exotic setting (Venice then Cypress), the “foregrounding of issues of race, gender and sexuality”, and the powerhouse performance of Richard Burbage, the most famous actor in Shakespeare’s company. HIGHLIGHT: Performed at the Banqueting House at Whitehall before King James I on 1 November 1604. AFTER: The play has been performed steadily since 1604; for a production in 1660 the actress Margaret Hughes as Desdemona “could have been the first professional actress on the English stage”.
    [Show full text]
  • Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-Going Adaptation of King Lear
    Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of English © Lynne Bradley, 2008 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photo-copying or other means, without the permission of the author. ISBN: 978-0-494-52942-3 ii Meddling with Masterpieces: the On-going Adaptation of King Lear by Lynne Bradley B.A., Queen’s University 1997 M.A., Queen’s University 1998 Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) iii Supervisory Committee Dr. Sheila M. Rabillard, Supervisor (Department of English) Dr. Janelle Jenstad, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Michael Best, Departmental Member (Department of English) Dr. Annalee Lepp, Outside Member (Department of Women’s Studies) Abstract The temptation to meddle with Shakespeare has proven irresistible to playwrights since the Restoration and has inspired some of the most reviled and most respected works of theatre. Nahum Tate’s tragic-comic King Lear (1681) was described as an execrable piece of dementation, but played on London stages for one hundred and fifty years. David Garrick was equally tempted to adapt King Lear in the eighteenth century, as were the burlesque playwrights of the nineteenth.
    [Show full text]
  • Descendants of Llyr King Lear
    Descendants of Llyr King Lear Generation 1 1. LLYR KING1 LEAR was born in 10 AD in Abt,,British Columbia,Canada. He died in 10 AD in AD,,,. He married PENARDIM CELTIC. She was born in Judea, , British Columbia, Canada. Llyr King Lear and Penardim Celtic had the following child: 2. i. BRAN THE2 BLESSED (son of Llyr King Lear and Penardim Celtic) was born in 21 AD in Monmothshire, , , England. He died in 1936 in Monmothshire, , , England. He married ENYGEUS BEN JOSEPH. She was born in Ad, Maluku, Indonesia. She died in Ely, Cambridgeshire, , England. Generation 2 2. BRAN THE2 BLESSED (Llyr King1 Lear) was born in 21 AD in Monmothshire, , , England. He died in 1936 in Monmothshire, , , England. He married ENYGEUS BEN JOSEPH. She was born in Ad, Maluku, Indonesia. She died in Ely, Cambridgeshire, , England. Bran The Blessed and Enygeus Ben Joseph had the following children: 3. i. CARADOC THE3 SILURES (son of Bran The Blessed and Enygeus Ben Joseph) was born in Trevan, Llanilid, Glamorganshire, England. He died in Avalon, Cape May, New Jersey, United States. He married LIVING VENISSA. ii. CARADOC CARACTACUS OF SILURIA (son of Bran The Blessed and Enygeus Ben Joseph) was born in 1980 in Siluria, , , England. He died in 1954 in Rome, Roma, Lazio, Italy. iii. KING OF THE SILURES CARADOC (son of Bran The Blessed and Enygeus Ben Joseph) was born in 65 AD in Trevan,Llanilid,Glamorganshire,. He died in Rome,,,. Generation 3 3. CARADOC THE3 SILURES (Bran The2 Blessed, Llyr King1 Lear) was born in Trevan, Llanilid, Glamorganshire, England.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of King Lear [1681]: Lear As Inscriptive Site John Rempel
    Document generated on 09/29/2021 12:39 a.m. Lumen Selected Proceedings from the Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies Travaux choisis de la Société canadienne d'étude du dix-huitième siècle Nahum Tate's ('aberrant/ 'appalling') The History of King Lear [1681]: Lear as Inscriptive Site John Rempel Theatre of the world Théâtre du monde Volume 17, 1998 URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1012380ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1012380ar See table of contents Publisher(s) Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies / Société canadienne d'étude du dix-huitième siècle ISSN 1209-3696 (print) 1927-8284 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this article Rempel, J. (1998). Nahum Tate's ('aberrant/ 'appalling') The History of King Lear [1681]: Lear as Inscriptive Site. Lumen, 17, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.7202/1012380ar Copyright © Canadian Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies / Société This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit canadienne d'étude du dix-huitième siècle, 1998 (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ 3. Nahum Tate's ('aberrant/ 'appalling') The History of King Lear [1681]: Lear as Inscriptive Site From Addison in 1711 ('as it is reformed according to the chimerical notion of poetical justice, in my humble opinion it has lost half its beauty') to Michael Dobson in 1992 (Shakespeare 'serves for Tate ..
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Villains: the Displacement of Iago and Edmund
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works School of Arts & Sciences Theses Hunter College Spring 5-2-2019 Shakespeare's Villains: The Displacement of Iago and Edmund Julius C. Adena CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_sas_etds/461 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Shakespeare's Villains: The Displacement of Iago and Edmund by Julius Adena Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Literature, Language and Theory,, Hunter College The City University of New York 2019 Date: Thesis Sponsor: May 2, 2019 Gavin Hollis May 2, 2019 Cristina Alfar 1 Table of Contents Introduction Chapter 1: Iago’s Displacement and The Mentality of War ……………………...……..6 Chapter 2: Edmund’s Displacement: Home and the Natural World …………………... 19 Conclusion: Iago, Edmund, and the Displaced English …………….…………………. 29 2 Introduction Iago and Edmund are Shakespearean villains that are displaced from their positions. Iago manipulates Othello into thinking his wife has been unfaithful which leads to her murder while falsifying the reputations of characters in the play. Edmund, Gloucester’s bastard, distorts the truth about his brother to gain the advantage. While it is simple to condemn Iago and Edmund, it is important to recognize why they commit such heinous actions. Both characters have been removed from the thing they desired the most: Iago's duty as a soldier and husband, and Edmund's aspiration to be a beloved son.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial Treatment of the Shakespeare Apocrypha
    Egan, Gabriel. 2004j. 'Editorial Treatment of the Shakespeare Apocrypha, 1664-1737': A Paper Delivered at the Conference 'Leviathan to Licensing Act (The Long Restoration, 1650-1737): Theatre, Print and Their Contexts' at Loughborough University, 15-16 September Editorial treatment of the Shakespeare apocrypha, 1664-1737 by Gabriel Egan The third edition (F3) of the collected plays of Shakespeare appeared in 1663, and to its second issue the following year was added a particularly disreputable group of plays comprised Pericles, The London Prodigal, Sir John Oldcastle, A Yorkshire Tragedy, Thomas Lord Cromwell, The Puritan, and Locrine. Of these, only Pericles remains in the accepted Shakespeare canon, the edges of which are imprecisely defined. (At the moment it is unclear whether Edward 3 is in or out.) The landmark event for defining the Shakespeare canon was the publication of the 1623 First Folio (F1), with which, as Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor put it, "the substantive history of Shakespeare's dramatic texts virtually comes to an end" (Wells et al. 1987, 52). Only one more genuine Shakespeare play was first printed after 1623: The Two Noble Kinsmen, which appeared in a quarto of 1634 whose title-page attributed it to Shakespeare and Fletcher, "Gent[lemen]" (Fletcher & Shakespeare 1634, A1r). Perhaps inclusion in F1 should not be an important criterion for us and we should put more weight on such facts as Pericles's appearing in quarto in 1609 with a titlepage that claimed it was by William Shakespeare. But the same can be said for other plays that got added to the Folio in 1663: The London Prodigal, Sir John Oldcastle, and A Yorkshire Tragedy were printed in early quartos that named their author as William Shakespeare and the other three in quartos that named "W.S".
    [Show full text]
  • Hamlet, Macbeth, and Lear Offstage: the Slgn.Lflcance of Absence
    . ' j ·· . [ William B. Bache Hamlet, Macbeth, and Lear Offstage: The Slgn.lflcance of Absence In terms of the canon, Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear seem to evolve out of the nine Shakespeare plays that deal with English history. Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear may even be thought of as a natural consequence of the history plays, a poetic flowering of that dramatic achievement, a kind of neo-historical unit. For all three of these tragedies develop and extend the implications of the central lesson of the history plays: kingship, the problems of authority and responsibility, aspects of realpolitik, all that being a ruler involves and means. Denmark, Scotland, and Britain are countries torn with internal trouble and shaken by outside force . But Hamlet, Macbeth, and King Lear are also family plays, plays that in each instance con­ centrate on a family that happens to be royal. In fact, Hamlet is about a man who is both son and prince, heir to the throne; Macbeth is about a man who is both husband and king, usurper of the throne; King Lear is about a man who is both father and king, abdicator of the throne. In familial terms, Hamlet is only a son; Macbeth is only a husband; Lear is only a father. Shakespeare was magnificently able to integrate the private and the public concerns of the action of each play. Specifically, the noble Hamlet, Macbeth, or Lear is of consequence to the world and of significance to himself and to his family. And the action renders the interplay of these responsibilities: to self, to the family, to the state or the world.
    [Show full text]
  • The Malcontent Figure in Macbeth and King Lear King Lear and Macbeth Are Two of Shakespeare’S Most Famous Tragedies
    The Malcontent Figure in Macbeth and King Lear King Lear and Macbeth are two of Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies. They were written and performed at critical moments in England’s history, and both relate to the monarchy in ways that attempt to educate and forewarn the monarchs of proper ruling over the land. In these plays, Shakespeare utilizes a new type of character known as a malcontent figure. This type of character, often associated with Niccolo Machiavelli and his work The Prince, is one who is not satisfied with their place in the world. Even after they gain more power, their ambitious hunger is not satisfied. In both King Lear and Macbeth, the malcontent characters continue to feed their ambitions until their death by slaying. This essay will examine how Shakespeare presents the malcontent figure as seen in Macbeth and King Lear and how the malcontent figure applied to the political context of the Elizabethan and Jacobean era. Machiavelli’s piece The Prince, published in 1532, introduces the malcontent character as someone who manipulates truth and virtue for their own personal gain. The Prince was often referenced as a guide to attaining and maintaining power. (Burns) It was a great influence on the writings of the Renaissance as an idea that was both interesting but repellent. The use of a malcontent figure was to show how far one could or should go for their goals, even when this mindset leads to evil acts. (Burns) The idea of the malcontent figure is not restricted to a specific type of person.
    [Show full text]
  • King Lear by William Shakespeare
    King Lear By William Shakespeare ACT I SCENE I. King Lear's palace. Enter KENT, GLOUCESTER, and EDMUND KENT I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall. GLOUCESTER It did always seem so to us: but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the dukes he values most; for equalities are so weighed, that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety. KENT Is not this your son, my lord? GLOUCESTER His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge: I have so often blushed to acknowledge him, that now I am brazed to it. KENT I cannot conceive you. GLOUCESTER Sir, this young fellow's mother could: whereupon she grew round-wombed, and had, indeed, sir, a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed. Do you smell a fault? KENT I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it being so proper. GLOUCESTER But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account: though this knave came something saucily into 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. Do you know this noble gentleman, Edmund? EDMUND No, my lord. GLOUCESTER My lord of Kent: remember him hereafter as my honourable friend. EDMUND My services to your lordship. KENT I must love you, and sue to know you better. EDMUND Sir, I shall study deserving.
    [Show full text]
  • Othello FM.Qxd 1/14/05 9:25 AM Page I
    Othello FM.qxd 1/14/05 9:25 AM Page i OTHELLO THE MOOR OF VENICE William Shakespeare WITH RELATED READINGS THE EMC MASTERPIECE SERIES Access Editions EMC/Paradigm Publishing St. Paul, Minnesota Othello FM.qxd 1/21/05 12:09 PM Page ii Staff Credits Laurie Skiba Shelley Clubb Managing Editor Production Manager Brenda Owens Lisa Beller Editor Design and Production Specialist Jennifer J. Anderson Petrina Nyhan Associate Editor Electronic Production Specialist Nichola Torbett Leslie Anderson Associate Editor Cover Designer Paul Spencer Parkwood Composition Art and Photo Researcher Compositor Valerie Murphy Cheryl Drivdahl Editorial Assistant Proofreader Cover image: Paul Robeson as Othello and Peggy Ashcroft as Desdemona in a stage production of Othello, London, 1930. © Bettmann/Corbis. [back cover] Engraving of William Shakespeare from the First Folio, courtesy of the Library of Congress. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Shakespeare, William, 1564–1616. Othello : the Moor of Venice / by William Shakespeare ; with related readings. p. cm. – (The EMC masterpiece series access editions) ISBN 0-8219-2956-9 1. Othello (Fictitious character)—Drama. 2. Shakespeare, William, 1564- 1616. Othello. 3. Othello (Fictitious character) 4. Venice (Italy)—Drama. 5. Jealousy—Drama. 6. Muslims—Drama. 7. Cyprus—Drama. I. Title. II. Series. PR2829.A1 2004 822.3’3—dc22 2004053207 ISBN 0-8219-2956-9 Copyright © 2005 by EMC Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be adapted, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without permission from the publisher. Published by EMC/Paradigm Publishing 875 Montreal Way St.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare's Reclamation of the Leir Story
    47 King of Legend, King of History: Shakespeare’s Reclamation of the Leir Story Graham Osborne West Chester University he earliest historical accounts of the origins of Britain, those penned by Gildas (ca. 540) and Bede (ca. 731), begin T with the Roman conquest of the British Isles by Julius Caesar, implying that Britain prior to Roman occupation is unknowable. It is not until Geoffrey of Monmouth’s publication of Historia Regum Britanniae (ca. 1136) that the people of Medieval England gain a national narrative predating Caesar’s arrival upon British shores. Geoffrey’s story, known as the Galfridian account, claims to have been translated from an ancient text and reckons the history of Britain all the way back to Brutus, grandson of Trojan Aeneas. In its time, it was accepted as history, but by the British Renaissance, historians had all but abandoned the Galfridian tradition of British antiquity as imaginative non-history. As many of Geoffrey’s kings had become the subject of history plays by that time, their loss of historicity threatened the future for stage adaptations of the stories of Gorboduc, Locrine, Leir, and others. However, King Leir is rescued from being lost to the annals of forged history and re-popularized by William Shakespeare in his play The Tragedy of King Lear. While other playwrights adapting tales from Historia held tight to the Galfridian tradition of history, Shakespeare abandoned its trappings to write his Lear, thus situating its themes on a timeless foundation of an interweaving national narrative pointing toward the country’s new monarch and a unified future determined by action rather than fate.
    [Show full text]