Category: King Lear

Regan and Goneril are portrayed with various defiant actions against the inequalities occurring in the contemporary society of the male-dominated world. It is an aspect that makes them be argued as relentless and formidable unfaltering women. These women are known to have great contempt for establishing the epitome of femininity and fertility embodied by Cordelia, who is killed. Indeed, it can be stated that the systematic oppressions produce these elements in the patriarchal society.

Some aspects confront the contextual and traditional ideas of the Jacobean, ideal and quintessential female. However, their actions are known to respond directly to exploitation, limitless and ingratitude incompetence of male counterparts and figures, both spousal and paternal. This article describes (with support) how Goneril and Regan show an inexhaustible will to commit atrocities and manipulation.

The sisters (Regan and Goneril) apply different strategies to pursue power and ensure that they live significantly in the patriarchal society. The strategies that these women employ play a vital role in concreting their positions as both relentless and strong women. Unlike them, the other women in the society are not only submissive but also silent. Indeed, Regan and Goneril are displayed as women who are defiant to the traditional submissiveness expected from them.

The female archetype is described as an element of the oppression (systematic) in the patriarchal community that supports oppression and neglect. The archetypal confrontation in this society is not only vital but also a necessity for survival. Indeed, Regan and Goneril show and pose active defiance from the paradigm of the culture, which should reflect an ideal woman. Indeed, this element is early established within the self-indulgence character of King Lear of love test (Serpieri 13). In this case, each of the daughters shows their manipulative capacity and boasts about their love (disingenuous) while trying to pursue power.

Goneril and Regan are cunning and wit, enhanced and demonstrated with astronomical imagery of space and eyesight. Quoting, Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter, Dearer than eyesight, space, and liberty; Beyond what can be valued rich or rare, No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honor (Harkins 9). More importantly, this quote also illustrates the apparent love (boundless) for the father. It is an element emphasized further with the alliterative expressions utilized repetitively in the text. Quoting, word can wield, less than life, rich or rare. This aspect draws the wealthy, affluent, and natural connotative visual imagery.

It is an aspect that contrasts with the fulfilled archetype of Cordelia, who is represented as a sublimated woman who is gauche and ineloquent in speech. Notably, her blind honest submission to King Lear and the norms of the society force her not only to death but also through imprisonment and exile.

Goneril is a woman who goes against the contextual Jacobean ideas and expectations of fidelity, faithfulness, and purity. This aspect is shown through her assertion to the sexually provocatively suggestive advances of manipulation towards Edmond. Quoting, Wear this; spare speech. Decline your head. Then kiss, if it durst speaks, Would stretch thy spirits up into the air (Serpieri 32). Indeed, this quote implicates that there is the repeated use of long, drawn-out and soft sibilant s sounds in the phrases stretch they spirits, durst speak, kiss, and spare speech. These phrases play a vital role in evoking sexually and femininely charged behavior that the Jacobean society demonizes. In this society, such display of lust and affection is taboo, and that is why it should be shunned with immediate effect. Gonerils will to defy the social expectations demanded from her community exemplifies her strength as a woman who is manipulative and resilient when it comes to survival.

Regans and Gonerils behaviors and actions stem from the incompetence and neglect of the male figures (masculinity) within their family. It is shown that their lives do not indicate their spousal or paternal support or fostering. For instance, Goneril goes on and implicates that her father is absent of any parental or divine wisdom when she states that his father is old and reverend. Quoting, Goneril states, I do beseech you To understand my purposes aright: As you are old and reverend, should be wise (Harkins 23).

These words implicate possessiveness in the language used with the terms within my and you, along with the imagery (visual) of reverend and old. The words play an essential role in exemplifying Regans and Gonerils contempt of their dad. More importantly, the words I would you would make use of your good wisdom, Whereof I know you are fraught, also implicate her humor and sarcasm of being wisdom furnished (Harkins, 11). It is an element that indicates how her father is incompetent and also negligent to her duties both as a caring paternal father and as a king.

Regans and Gonerils pursuit to ensure that they advance to the high rungs which the males dominate is an aspect that makes them go against the social order hierarchy. However, this aspect is problematic for them to achieve because it is more expensive in terms of the repercussions, rejections, and opposition they face. As a result, their capacity of mutilation, murder, and manipulation is exercised to a further extend, which is atrocious, quoting, Pluck out his poor old eyes, nor thy fierce sister In his anointed flesh stick boarish fangs (Wahidah 17). These words indicate the alarming scene where Gloucesters eyes are being mutilated.

It is a situation displayed with contrast in old and poor, with boarish and fierce fangs. The situation escalates the scene of malicious and brutal punishment. In this case, the will of Goneril is to propel and excel into the upper echelons of the ruling. It is something that she intents and does with excess force and brutality and the extend of murder. Gonerils actions ends up transforming herself into a monster.

In general, both Regan and Goneril present themselves as figures of pure defiance of female aspects into the social order of their patriarchal Jacobean society. As a result, they end up being and doing things that ensure that they go against the moral compass which should define women. More importantly, they sacrifice their morals as a way of finding their survival means. It is an aspect that makes them sometimes murder their servants with a sword.

These actions, amongst others, play a vital role in indicating their complete departure from gentle feminine qualities. They all use the possible means to ensure that they become an icon of masculinity with all means, even if it means using brutal ways of grasping power and being heard, such as mutilation and murder. Although the two sisters fight patriarchy relentlessly, they end up dying at the end unjustly, just like Cordelia. Due to Regan and Goneril, male chauvinism should be fought with all means because society is supposed to perceive both men and women with equal measures.

Works Cited

Serpieri, Alessandro. The Breakdown of Medieval Hierarchy in King Lear. De Gruyter Mouton, 2019.

Halpern, Richard. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARES KING LEAR. Theatre Journal 72.1 (2020): 81-85.

Harkins, Matthew. The Politics of Old Age in Shakespeares King Lear. Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 18.1 (2018): 1-28.

Wahidah, Nurul. The Love and Fool Tragedy in King Lear Drama by William Shakespeare. TAMUMATRA: Jurnal Seni Pertunjukkan 1.1 (2018).

A sense of entitlement can arise from the way a person is treated or from their temperament and as such, it is a dangerous attitude to acquire or encourage because it may lead to disparaging outcomes. Feelings entitled to something without having an associated sense of responsibility can lead to destructive behavior and choices. In King Lear, there are a number of characters who reveal a clear sense of entitlement. This behavior leads them to do horrible and ultimately self-destruction. The two faithless sisters Goneril and Regan have grown up expecting a life of royal privilege and as such feel entitled to their inheritance. This is without an accompanying sense of responsibility for their fathers care. Edmund, on the other hand, feels that even though he is known as a bastard, he has no legal right of inheritance. King Lear also feels that he is entitled to an easy and smooth-running early retirement from the bothers of kingship. A sense of entitlement leads each of the characters to devastating actions. Thus the play becomes an expression of the fact that to avoid the severe consequences that result from the feeling of entitlement, good fortune should be welcomed as a delightful surprise rather than the inevitable.

Feeling entitled, even to something that is to be expected or which has been promised such as an inheritance from a loving parent, can potentially distort behavior in many negative ways. Even in the most reasonable of people, feeling entitled to something can lead to such negative behaviors as greed. Greed further leads to others for rude, hurtful, and destructive deeds. At worst it may lead to violence. This assertion is reflected in daily occurrences especially news items on the media. Most of the stories that make headline news involve such negative accomplishments as politicians accepting bribes or even family feuds such as inheritance squabbles in wealthy families. The perpetrators of these woeful exploits behave and sometimes even assert explicitly that they are warranted special treatment. In King Lear, the princesses feel that they are entitled to not only the property that he has allocated to them but the chance to enjoy it without any respect due to him. The sisters also want to be free from his care. This is evidenced by the resentment Goneril expresses when she wants her father to feel unwelcome and ignored by the serving staff of her castle. She expresses a most un-loving attitude in the following quotation:

Put on what weary negligence you please,
You and your fellows; Ill have it come to question:
If he dislike it, let him to our sister,
Whose mind and mine, I know, in that are one,
Not to be over-ruled. Idle old man,
That still would manage those authorities
That he hath given away! Now, by my life,
Old fools are babes again; and must be used
With cheques as flatteries,when they are seen abused.
Remember what I tell you (Act I. Scene III.)

Goneril asserts that if her father was stupid enough to give up his property, he should not expect to retain his kingly authority as well. They lock King Lear, their father out in the cold when they were supposed to give him shelter. As an additional evidence of her inhuman ambition and greed, Regan kills the servant who objects to the cruel damage of Gloucesters eye. She also encourages the blinding of the other eye and adds horror by letting Gloucester know that Edmund has betrayed her thereby betraying Edmund in the process. This demonstrates that there is no loyalty among the entitled. Finally, Regan is perfectly willing to discuss adultery with Edmund, in spite of her husbands blameless behavior. Thus, these daughters from hell are willing to kill, injure and commit adultery with Edmund, who seems aligned with their ambitions. The two sisters feel entitled to the lands and power associated with their fathers kingdom, and thus no obstacles should thus come in their way. In addition, the fun of a new sex partner, adds to the excitement. There seems to be no limit to the selfish behavior they will engage in to get what they feel entitled to enjoy: power, privilege, sex, property and freedom from responsibility.

Feeling entitled to something for which one has no reasonable expectation can motivate awful behavior as well. Edmund is clearly one of those people who feel entitled to things that he has no reasonable expectation of getting. This happens sometimes in estate cases when a distant relative feels left out after nothing is left to them. They had no reason to get anything, but they feel a considerable level of resentment. Stories about the kids from wealthy families are heard demanding forgiveness for such misdemeanors as sexual misconduct or unsafe driving. Tabloids news shows pictures of movie stars punching photographers. The media also report the wealthy and influential people carrying guns into nightclubs. The current economic depression even seems to have been caused by people who think that they deserve to be millionaires no matter the cost to others. Edmund is someone who feels entitled to something. As a bastard, and whoreson, he has been raised outside his biological fathers social circle and has not been legally recognized. He has no legal expectation of an inheritance. As a bastard, he has no expectation of being included in the family or in his fathers life and plans in the same way as Edgar does. In fact, his father is very clear that he is going away again almost immediately rather than staying and becoming a part of the family. However, as he makes it absolutely clear, he feels that he deserves to have it all. He wants money, favor, power and connections, whether he gets them through dishonesty and betrayal. He expresses his ambition in a sort of prayer to Nature in the very first act of the play. Rather than the standard Greek gods that the other characters call on and refer to, Edmund calls on Nature, a sort of faceless deity that is not really part of the household of the gods. He makes his intentions clear in the following quotation:

Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. 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 moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madams issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our fathers love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards! (Act I. Scene II.)
Later in the same scene he explains how he will manage this:
I see the business.
Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit:
All with mes meet that I can fashion fit. (Act I. Scene II.)

Edmund feels entitled to everything that his brother Edgar has, just because he is as compact&generous&and true. This leads him to commit awful deeds. He tries to turn Gloucester against his legitimate son through deception and lies. He uses dialogue and byplay to mislead his father about Edgars intentions and actions. In a stunning demonstration of his complete lack of morals, he betrays his own father to Cornwall, thus precipitating Gloucesters blinding. All this while, he is flirting with each of the sisters and planning to enjoy their property. He could, instead, have behaved in an honest and loving way with both the father and brother, and counted on Gloucesters basic goodwill with Edgar. There was a strong probability that Edmund could have honestly and authentically integrated himself into their good graces. He and Edgar could have been allies. His father could have been the mentor he wanted to be. Both Edgar and Gloucester seem to be relatively decent. He might well have been able to earn their goodwill and potentially share in the good fortune of the family (e.g. introduction to a share of their wealth, and a position in the household, for example) legitimately, despite his legal illegitimacy. However, his sense of being entitled to all this without any sense of earning it prevents him from even thinking about such a course of action. He launches into vicious plotting as soon as he is introduced in the play. Additionally, Edmund could have pursued an advantageous match for marriage amongst the ladies in and around the court by simply presenting himself as the attractive young man his father describes. If Cordelia was able to secure a husband through her personal charms alone, with absolutely no prospects for an inheritance, then there would definitely be a chance for him to marry respectably as well. However, this is not Edmunds way because he feels entitled to what others have or are expecting. If he cannot get what he feels entitled to by simply being, as he feels that the legitimately conceived Edgar has gotten, then he plans to get what he wants any possible way. The results of his sense of entitlement are disastrous for his father, his half-brother, and the two sisters.

King Lear feels entitled to a comfortable life, without regard to how it affects others. There are suggestions throughout the play that he may always felt entitled throughout his life as king. He acknowledges that he did not pay enough attention to the needs of his most vulnerable subjects. As we see him in the first act, he feels he is entitled to a retirement with all the honors of his position. He wants to be able to enjoy a royal life. He wants to be free of maintaining a household. He would, no doubt, like to be shut of governing the kingdom with all those tiresome audiences, law-making sessions and boring wars. However, this is a complete failure in the most literal sense of the word. The king should have considered very carefully before handing over his property to his two horrible daughters. It was irresponsible not to prepare for possible outcomes. Even if he had trustworthy daughters, he was unknowingly including their husbands in his legacy. As the King, he had an obligation to his people not to leave their leadership in such an irresponsible way. He could have prepared for the worst but he didnt. It is not that hard to believe that individuals, including people he loves, are willing to turn their backs on him when money and other materialistic desires take over. Furthermore, he was irresponsible in feeling that he was entitled to a simplistic hand-over of the kingdom. This is unrealistic in the extreme. This was not a minor matter of dividing the family furniture. Moreover, he should have considered all the inputs that were available. He could have reasoned with Cordelia and listened to her comments about her two evil sisters. If he had done so, none of this would have happened. If he had not felt so inconvenienced by the complexity of having to puzzle out what his youngest daughter felt, he would have listened to her. If he had not felt so inconvenienced by the complexity of having to puzzle out what his youngest daughter felt, he would have listened to her. King Lears Fool also pegs his problem accurately. The Fool tells Lear that he has made himself into a child to be spanked by his two daughters and made them into mothers, when he should have continued to be the father of his family and of his country:

I have used it, nuncle, ever since thou madest thy
daughters thy mothers: for when thou gavest them
the rod, and putst down thine own breeches, (Act I. Scene IV.)

It is wise to contain the feeling of entitlement as well as not giving others the impression that they are entitled to anything. A sense of entitlement leads so readily to warped and anti-social behavior. Thus it should probably be avoided. In King Lear, this is certainly visible in many of the main characters.The sisters, feeling entitled to property and power without responsibility destroy lives to get what they feel entitled to. Edmund, feeling entitled to what Edgar has, destroys his own family and is responsible for Cordelias death. The king, feeling entitled to lay down his scepter and kick up his heels, behaves unwisely and brings down his whole house. The devastating events of King Lear offer a warning to us all: Better to welcome good fortune as a surprise than to assume that one deserves it.

Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Lear. Washington, DC: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2005. Print.

King Lear is a play written by William Shakespeare, dating back to Elizabethan times. This play follows the stories of two royal families and the dysfunction within it. The parents and children from the families all possess qualities and attributes that prove them to be inhumane. As much as we do not see it, children exhibit some of our greatest traits and show remarkable a resemblance to ourselves, but in many cases, they portray the negative traits too. Both of them show to be responsible for destroying the structures of their families and ruining what was once whole. However, who is more responsible for these breakdowns? It is clear when reading the play that the children are more at fault than the parents. Firstly, one must consider the greed portrayed by the parents and children. Secondly, one must consider the pain caused by parents and children. By appropriating these two criteria, children clearly are more at fault for the family breakdowns in the play.

To begin, focusing specifically on the children, the greed portrayed has a negative impact on the structure of the family. (Edmund in brothers shadow) “Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land. Our father’s love is to the bastard Edmund As to the legitimate.—Fine word, “legitimate” legitimate. I grow, I prosper. Now, gods, stand up for bastards!” (1.2.16-22). This quote proves Edgar’s true goal is to rise, willing to go against defying all odds, specifically the unspoken law of respect. This led to Edmund’s family to fall apart because of his greed for power, he was the main factor of his own innocent brother running away leading up to problems later in the play and betraying his own father. Betrayal is also shown in a sense of greed for love seen when Goneril and Regan both desire Edmund unknowing that they both admire the bastard. Regan because of her separation seeks Edmunds love, Goneril notices this and poisons her sister in jealousy, Regan responds “My sickness grows upon me.” (5.3.114), after she had been knowingly poisoned. This leads to Goneril’s death by suicide because of the unthinkable actions she had committed “Your lady, sir, your lady. And her sister By her is poisoned. She confesses it. ” (5.3.239-240). This particular quote depicts how jealousy over one another and betrayal are shown in the children as well as how they instantly turn against each other, thinking about themselves.

On the contrary, by turning the tables and looking at the greed portrayed by the parents, It can be seen that they also immensely at fault for the family breakdowns. Greed is very evident in the parents especially King Lear. The once ruler and the 100 knights that he didn’t treat well alongside his growingly odd requests as well as generally making a mess, lead a confrontation between Lear and Goneril who had asked her father to reduce the number of knights accompanying him. This response surprised Lear and sparked a fight between the two saying “Darkness and devils! Saddle my horses. Call my train together.— Degenerate bastard, I’ll not trouble thee. Yet have I left a daughter.” (1.4.240-243) Lear is clearly angry and very greedy at something he doesn’t even require as he lives in a castle with more than enough people to take care of him but his greed overtakes him as he still wants to be acknowledged as the King, taking offence when he is not recognized as such. “My lady’s father”. “My lady’s father? My lord’s knave, your whoreson dog! You slave, you cur!” Eventually, after an altercation with Oswald, Lear goes onto living in Regan’s castle, having the same issues reoccur until the point in which he just gave up. These quotes are evident to the play as they show how Lear is incapable of taking the hard truth that he no longer rules the kingdom and has no power in respect to his daughters. Lear’s greed for power shows to be an exponential factor in the breakdown of his family, as he drove his daughters away and drove himself into an unstable mental state.

It is clearly evident that both the children and parents both showed acts of greed in the play, the responsibility of it all is seen to be labelled as the children’s overall fault. This is due to the destruction each has caused by their solely independent intentions. For example, Edmund who had one goal which was to rise to the top and push anyone out of his way no matter the cost or who they may be, even family which ended up becoming very destructive. Although Edmund was not the only one with bad intentions, as stated before, both Goneril and Regan had followed in Edmunds tracks willing to kill anyone, even each other to achieve their own personal goals, for their own personal, greedy selves. The children in the play fend for themselves and don’t consider what it may cost them to achieve such gains like the loss of their family and their own humanity. Building off the children’s intentions to hurt each other to get what they want, it is evident that this was clearly not the case with the parents as they had no reason to cause tension within the family or harm anyone. Lear, for example, gave away his kingdom in what he believed was an act of kindness that really did not end up going as he hoped it would. Although some may not agree with his actions, his intentions were pure as he simply wanted to retire and pass on his role to people whom he believed he trusted and did not intend on banishing anyone or ever reverting his decision. The children did not think ahead much either but also caused immense destruction in everyone’s lives causing murders, torture and the break up of their family. The idea of who caused the most physical and mental pain between the two should really be considered as well. The children cause physical pain to the parents in many specifically Edmund when he turned his own father into Cornwall for assisting Lear which led to unimaginable consequences to his father, losing his eyes while Edmund bared to watch. “All dark and comfortless. Where’s my son Edmund? Edmund, enkindle all the sparks of nature To quit this horrid act” (3.7.89-91). His actions also caused his father emotional pain which broke the family structure even more alongside the phycological pain they all caused Lear which led him to become a whole different person and do things that will change his and the peoples live around him completely and permanently.

In conclusion, it is evident that for the majority of the play the children are more at fault than their parents for the breakdown in family structures, taking into deep consideration both the physical and mental pain they caused. While the children may have learned some of their flaws and traits from their parents, they are seen to have acted on it more and are truly the ones at fault. Their negative actions and inhumane attributes are ultimately responsible for destroying the structures of their families and ruining what was once whole.

“How terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise” (Sophocles, line 316, “Oedipus Rex”). People often mistake blind people, or people labeled as somehow flawed, for being ignorant. Whether the blindness is literal, like Teiresias in Sophocles’ Teiresais in “Oedipus Rex,” or blindness as transparency, like the Fool in Shakespeare’s’ King Lear, both of these tragedies contain a persona of a fool, someone whom people think cannot see at all, or cannot see things clearly. The fool in King Lear has no credibility that anyone responds to, although is much more wise than King Lear in the play. He is similar to the oracle in Oedipus Rex, Teiresias, who has authority and is wise, yet Oedipus does not take him seriously because of his damaging information as well as his impaired sight.

Teiresais only appears in Sophocles’ “Oedipus Rex” for one scene. This is the most important scene of the play. In this scene, Oedipus converses with the prophet Teiresias. In this conversation, Oedipus asks the prophet who killed King Laius. Teiresias does not respond immediately with the answer, rather, he talks around the answer to mock Oedipus for his inability to see the obvious. He continues to speak about how if Oedipus knew the truth he would flee the city of Thebes. In fact he even requests “let me go home. It will be easiest for us both” (Line 320). This means that Teiresias knows something about the prophecy but doesn’t want to say anything for the betterment of the two of them. However, Oedipus is deaf, or rather, blind, to what Teiresias has to say. He doesn’t listen, and continues to pressure Teiresias to confess his prophecy. This not only reflects on Oedipus’ willful blindness, but also, through this scene, Sophocles suggests that it is human nature to refuse bad news, knowledge of shortcomings and self-assessment. Oedipus is so caught up in his self-perceived omniscience he is that he is not even willing to consider that he is in the wrong, ever. Oedipus represents an important aspect of humanity: pride. He is blinded by his own pride, by his own opinions, and doesn’t listen to the man who is right, because he is merely physically blind. Following this, Teiresias does not think this is a good idea: “I will not bring this pain upon us both, neither you nor on myself. Why is it you question me and waste your labor? I will tell you nothing” (Line 335). Oedipus responds vehemently and even goes so far as to call him a traitor to the city of Thebes, one of the most capital insults in the ancient world. During this conversation, Sophocles’ language continually hints at Oedipus’ sight or accuracy: “you do not see” (Line 336 ), “you chide me instead” (Line 337), “you are the land’s pollution” (Line 352 ), “even your own words miss the mark” (Line 325 ). Sophocles notifies the audience that Oedipus’ fate lies in Teiresias’ words. Although Teiresias warns Oedipus, very bluntly as well as using innuendo, that it was in fact Oedipus who killed King Laius, Oedipus still refuses to believe him. This ultimately causes Oedipus’s downfall. Once he finally realizes what he has done, Oedipus curses himself, saying “Against those two [Oedipus’ mother and father] I have committed acts / so vile that even if I hanged myself / that would not be sufficient punishment” (Line 1620-3). Even though Teiresias is a prophet with authority, Oedipus makes him a fool by disregarding his input. Playwrights routinely use fools to reveal the truth to the audience, in settings where the other characters do not take them seriously. Since Teiresias and Oedipus are the only two characters involved, Sophocles basically forces the audience to side with Teiresias, against the belligerent Oedipus. Oedipus’ immense shame is compounded by his adamant resistance to Teiresias telling him that he is the cause of the plague in Thebes. In this scene, Sophocles, rather than representing the human nature of his audience with Oedipus’ greatness and authority, highlights humankind’s willful ignorance through Oedipus’ rejection of the truth he desperately seeks.

The Fool in Shakespears’ “King Lear” is a character that gives the audience comedic relief. However, he serves Shakespeare’s larger purpose; we can compare the fool in Shakespeare to the chorus/prophet tradition in Greek Tragedy. The Fool comments on the events that happen throughout the play, and criticizes the king’s decisions, ultimately serving as King Lear’s conscience. In “King Lear,” the fool is Lear’s personal comedian, who in fact, is the only person Lear allows to criticize him. Shakespeare introduces the Fool in Act 1, Scene 4. His very first lines are “Let me hire him too: here’s my coxcomb / Sirrah, you were best take my coxcomb” (Act 1, Scene 4). The Fool calls King Lear a fool, rather than referring him as someone of his stature would be expected to do. He is offering him his ‘coxcomb’ which is a special hat worn by fools as part of their costume. King Lear had just divided his kingdom to his 3 daughters, effectively giving all his power away, which proves to be foolish by the play’s end. With the pivotal words said by the fool, the audience can detect Shakespeare’s sarcasm and the foreshadowing of King Lear’s consequences. In Act 1, Scene 4, the Fool gives King Lear a speech, saying “Mark it, nuncle: Have more than thou showest, Speak less than thou knowest, Lend less than thou owest, … Leave thy drink and thy whore, And keep in-a-door, And thou shalt have more Than two tens to a score.”(quote). The fool speaks wisely, but has no authority, and King Lear has no reason to heed his words. Shakespeare puts the audience in the same predicament: is the audience to listen to the fool’s words as they are, or disregard everything he says as simply coming from the mouth of a fool? The Fool challenges Lear in the same way that Teiresias challenges and criticizes Oedipus. Both kings choose to blind themselves from the opinions of those they deem unworthy of consideration, but because of that mindset they, as well as the audience possibly, miss out on critical information.

Leaders often neglect the opinions of those who are physically or otherwise flawed. After comparing the two fools, the audience is aware that when it comes to leaders, one’s blindness makes people perceive them as fools, but leaders sometimes become blind to the input of the lowly and those deemed unworthy. This ties in with our everyday life. We as humans are blind when it comes to our future. King Lear and Oedipus exhibit a similar type of blindness and negligence that Louis XVI of France shows, and that leads to the French revolution in which Louis XVI was beheaded. This style of rule which ignores opinions of knowledgeable people based on their social class or physical state of being can cause a leader to be beheaded or cause the proletariat [everyone who isn’t royalty… the normal people] to revolt. We never want to see further than what we know. It can be fear of the unknown, oblivious to situations when we know we are in the wrong, even so far as being blinded by love. Human nature hides in the face of fear. As President Roosevelt once said “Nothing to Fear but Fear itself” (Presidential Inaugural Speech of 1933). that we must not live like Oedipus and King Lear, we as the audience are educated by the Fools in both plays, that when a persona is brought upon us we should listen. Not let our hubris blind us in the face of the fool. The act of the fool in both of these tragedies is one of the most important character / lessons we should utilize in our day to day lives.

Prophets are known for being able to ‘see’ the future, or in other words see the unknowable. Teiresias is a prophet so he can ‘see’ in some ways, but not in the literal way. Our language can’t separate the mental/divine knowledge from the same words we use for physical sight, because they are both vital to being human. Humans also need imaginative sight, a mind to process and challenge and asses what surrounds them. Both are very important in many ways. One is animal; physical sight. The other is mainly human, the mind and imagination and cognition. Thus, Sophocles messes with this dynamic of the two meanings of the word ‘see’. He strips Teiresias of his animal ability to see with his eyes, physically, and then gives him a supernatural sight. He is mocked by his own physical state because he can see the future but can’t literally see right in front of him. But he is such an extreme character to show how Oedipus id the exact opposite. He can see right in front of him but fails to see what his actions are causing. Oedipus also cant step back and look at all that’s happened and make connections using his imagination. So Oedipus is more over the animal and less human, since he relies more on his mental and spiritual sight. King Lear is like Oedipus. His Fool is very smart but he doesn’t take him seriously. So are kings wrong for not entertaining opposing views, when they are surrounded by people who agree with them all the time? I think it’s more complicated than that. I think there is a flaw in human nature to want to know everything, and celebrate any type of knowledge that we master, rather than continuously seeking all knowledge and continuing to learn and to improve the mind.

Introduction

Appearing in many of Shakespeare’s plays, the clown or fool figure is one of the most intriguing stage characters in the Shakespearean oeuvre and continues to capture the interest of modern-day critics and contemporary audiences. Although unique to each play, the character of the Shakespearean fool can generally be divided into two categories: the clown and the jester. The term ‘clown’ didn’t emerge until the sixteenth century, and it was formerly intended to designate an ignorant and fairly uneducated individual whose purpose in a performance or theatrical piece was to evoke laughter and entertain the audience with his stupidity. Similarly, the courtly fool or jester would use quick wit and pointed satire to accompany his low comedy.

The history of the courtly fool or jester in England dates back to the twelfth century, with these fools making early appearances in the courts of medieval aristocracy. By the time of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, courtly fools were a prominent and popular feature of English society and were recognised as one of two types: either natural or artificial. As Gale Cengage argues, ‘the former could include misshapen or mentally-deficient individuals, or those afflicted with dwarfism”.[footnoteRef:2] These fools were often viewed almost as pets—though generally greatly loved by their masters—and do not appear in Shakespeare’s writing. The artificial fool, on the contrary, possessed a verbal wit and talent for intellectual humour. Into this category, experts place Shakespeare’s intellectual or ‘wiser-fools,’ notably Feste of Twelfth Night, and King Lear’s unnamed ‘Fool’. [2: Cengage, Gale. Shakespeare’s Clowns and Fools . 1999. . ]

The character of the fool was often played by the same actor in the original productions during the late 16th century. Several scholars have examined the significance of specific Elizabethan actors at the time who were believed to have initially enacted the roles Shakespeare wrote. Predominant among these is the comedic actor Robert Armin, for whom numerous critics have suggested Shakespeare created the witty, even thoughtful, fool roles of Feste (from Twelfth Night), and the Fool (from King Lear). Queen Elizabeth I, however, was a great admirer of another popular actor who portrayed fools: Richard Tarlton, the most famous clown of his era, whose performances are “thought to have influenced Shakespeare’s creation of the character Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream”.[footnoteRef:3] However, although portrayed the same actors in different adaptations, these fools fulfil different functions and have very different attitudes in the various plays. [3: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Richard Tarlton. 30 August 2018. 22 June 2019. .]

In this essay, I intend to develop an argument which looks at how fools are different in their functions in the three following plays: King Lear, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Twelfth Night. For instance, a figure such as Bottom in A Midsummer Night’s Dream is typically classified as a clown, with his main function being to act as a comedic figure and arouse the mirth of audiences. The jester fool, in contrast, was possessed of a verbal wit and talent for a more “intellectual” approach to his humour. For example, placed into this category are Shakespeare’s intellectual or ‘wise-fools,’ remarkably King Lear’s unnamed Fool and Feste of Twelfth Night. While similar, Feste can be classified as more of an ironic commentator, while Lear’s fool rather serves as a conscience and an advocate.

A Wise Fool in the Tragedy King Lear

Firstly, the Fool in King Lear provides a voice that cannot be expressed by the main characters in the play. The Fool in this tragedy is ironic: not only is he the voice of reason, but he both ridicules the King while showing total loyalty and affection simultaneously. The Fool can reasonably be considered the most human of the characters in the play, bringing poignant yet insightful humour into a play classified as a tragedy.

The Fool is King Lear’s closest confidante; he is the king’s dependable and honest advocate, but he is also ready to point out the King’s faults at any time, like no other character in the play can. Shakespeare humanises the Fool, giving him innocent and childlike qualities that constrain Lear to worry about his health and imply that the Fool seeks shelter when he insists on staying with Lear during the tempest in Act III, Scene I. It is during this Act that the Fool disappears from the play and Lear doesn’t seem to notice; this disappearance can be interpreted as his death. The Fool was the only person that Lear could communicate with; for example, Lear trusts and confides in the Fool that “[he] did [Cordelia] wrong”[footnoteRef:4] (1, 5, 24) and that he fears insanity, “o let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven!”[footnoteRef:5] (1, 5, 45). As Edward Berry has argued: “It is the Fool in King Lear who stretches these paradoxes (natural child) to the breaking point, thinking the part of a knave and act”.[footnoteRef:6] We see this when the Fool does not give Lear any respite in this scene, reminding Lear of the mistakes he has made, until Lear finally begins to realise that his foolishness has placed him in a precarious position. [4: Folger Shakespeare Library. King Lear from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019. ] [5: ibid] [6: Berry, Edward I. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites . London: Cambridge University Press , 1984.]

The Fool, despite the connotations of his name suggesting otherwise, is a serious character. Lear speaks to him, and he replies, in prose. While in other Shakespearean plays characters of lower class speak prose while higher status characters speak in verse to highlight the hierarchy and social division, in King Lear verse is used to represent deception, while prose can be seen as representing honesty. For example, in Act I, Scene I, Goneril and Regan use verse to praise Lear, yet once he leaves, their true opinions and feelings about him are revealed. When Lear is talking to the Fool, he uses prose, showing that not only is he comfortable with the Fool and doesn’t feel the need to assert his noble status, but also that he trusts the Fool enough to be honest with him.

Usually, the Shakespearean fool is separate from the other characters and the resolution of the play, manifested in the absence of any sort of romantic pairing or true friendship between the fool and any other character. However, the Fool refers to King Lear as “nuncle”, a contraction of ‘mine’ and ‘uncle’, instantly suggesting a paternal relationship between the Fool and the King. Moreover, the frequent indecent, childish jokes the Fool tells and the way he exhibits fear further his role as a child. This view has been endorsed by Robert Peake who has argued that ‘the Fool’s close paternal association with those around him as protectors makes the fool-child into a kind of son’.[footnoteRef:7] However, while it is true that many of the Fool’s jokes are of a childish nature, certain examples are not reflective of normative filial-paternal discourse. For example, in Act I, Scene IV, the Fool takes leaves and closes the act with the lines, ‘She that’s a maid now and laughs at my departure, / shall not be a maid long, unless things be cut/ shorter’.[footnoteRef:8] Here his wit and childish sense of humour are presented through the use of a bawdy and sexual comment. Nevertheless, this close relationship could explain how the Fool can get away with talking to Lear in a way that would get others in trouble. For instance, the Fool calls Lear a fool: “thou would’st make a good fool”[footnoteRef:9] (1, 5, 38) and “that’s a wise man and a fool”[footnoteRef:10] (3, 2, 43). He also calls Lear brainless: “If a man’s brains were in’s heels, were ‘t not in danger of kibes?”[footnoteRef:11] (1, 5, 9). He ironically comments on Lear’s foolishness, and tries to avert his madness with his own jokes. James Calderwood argues that the Fool’s function is to tell “subversive truths to a court society foolish enough to think its own truths are the truth”.[footnoteRef:12] With this observation, Calderwood captures the essence of the fool, stating how he is the ultimate voice of reason and truth in the play. Thus, the Fool can be considered as “the ‘outsider-within’, living at the borders of accepted reality, issuing alternative reports on ‘what is’ ”.[footnoteRef:13] [7: Peake, Robert. The Fool’s Dual Nature In King Lear As It Is Manifest Through Language. 2002. . ] [8: Folger Shakespeare Library. King Lear from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019. ] [9: ibid] [10: ibid] [11: ibid] [12: Calderwood, James L. Creative Uncreation In King Lear. Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 1, 1986, p. 5-19. JSTOR, ] [13: ibid]

Despite the often riddling nature of the Fool’s jokes and underlying wit, what he has to say to Lear and the audience is, on the whole, clear as well as paradoxical. As a Fool, his function is to see what is ridiculous in the supposedly sane behaviour of his supposed superiors; his role of a fool gives him a certain level of ‘permission’ to say what ordinary advisors and counsellors of a King would not dare to utter. However, we realise that the Fool has no intention of following his own advice. He will not forsake Lear when his fortunes are heading lower and lower, as a supposedly wise person would do. “But I will tarry; the Fool will stay, / and let the wise man fly” (2, 4, 88-89). Even though Lear hardly notices these odd admonishments of the Fool, the audience does hear them indeed, and recognise, that they are given in a thoroughly paradoxical sense.

The Fool disappears from the play in Act III, Scene VI when Cordelia returns to England. Many critics have stressed the significance of the reason that the Fool isn’t in the play at that moment; it’s perhaps because it was common for the actor that played the Fool to also play the character of Cordelia, leading to the thought that Shakespeare could have considered Cordelia to be the Fool in disguise. This has led some critics to speculate that Cordelia the Fool could have been played by the same male actor since in Shakespeare’s day all female roles were played by males. Some people have taken Lear’s “my poor fool is hang’d”[footnoteRef:14] (5, 3, 369) as a close reference to this factor. It is not incorrect to consider this, since both Cordelia and the Fool parallel each other in certain ways: both of them see right through the praises of Regan and Goneril, and they both solemnly love Lear; the Fool’s association with Cordelia is indicated by the fact that he has been pining away since she left. “If the doubling theory is true, he transforms into Cordelia, representing what Lear now needs more than the truth – love”.[footnoteRef:15] [14: Folger Shakespeare Library. King Lear from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019. ] [15: Calderwood, James L. Creative Uncreation In King Lear. Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 1, 1986, pp. 5–19. JSTOR, ]

However, the Fool is, unquestionably, not Cordelia. Lear, the scene after banishing the daughter who had been his favourite, is looking for his Fool, who has entertained him. It’s safe to say that knowing the two people simultaneously and separately impedes any possibility that the Fool and Cordelia are the same person, and that she never really leaves. In addition to this, the reunion of father and daughter would lose its sentimentality. In fact, according to Calderwood, ‘the Fool’s report, which yields a world of undifferentiated foolishness, tells the truth, but tells it slant and incomplete”[footnoteRef:16], so if the same actor doubled as Cordelia and Fool, then we may see the characters respectively embodying part of the truth. [16: Calderwood, James L. Shakespeare & the Denial of Death. University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.]

The Clown in A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Nick Bottom provides a lot of the physical comedy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream — in fact his own name appears to be constructed as an amusement for the audience. This is especially true today, where for modern-day English speakers, the connotations of the word ‘bottom’ include ‘buttocks’ and, vulgarly, ‘arse’, or ‘bum’. Consequently, modern-day audiences may think that the surname ‘Bottom’ for such a character was not a coincidence: the words ‘buttocks,’ ‘arse,’ or ‘bum’ were in Shakespeare’s mind when he came up with the surname ‘Bottom’. However, the Oxford English Dictionary declares that the word ‘bottom’, in the sense of ‘posterior’, dates only from the late eighteenth century. In fact, Professor Holland states that ‘no one has yet proved convincingly that the word ‘bottom’ could at this date refer to a person’s behind; if it could, then the transformation into an ass (arse) would seem almost a literalizing of Bottom’s name”.[footnoteRef:17] However, Sutherland argues this claim, stating that ‘it would be unwise to underestimate Shakespeare’s associative talents, particularly where the human body is concerned’.[footnoteRef:18] After all, ‘Bottom’, in those days, could surely refer to the base of anything, so an association with ‘buttocks’ seems natural enough and acceptable. [17: Holland, Peter. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.] [18: Sutherland, John, and Cedric Watts. Henry V, War Criminal? and Other Shakespeare Puzzles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.]

The character of Bottom is said to have been inspired by one of Shakespeare’s favourite actors, Richard Tarlton. His role involves lots of dancing, singing, and laughter. From the outset, Bottom is presented as bold and outgoing: he is confident in his ability to play any, even all, the roles in ‘Pyramus and Thisbe.’ For example, he states that ‘ If I do it, let the audience look to their eyes. I will move storms’ (1, 2, 24-25) [footnoteRef:19]. As the audience realises, this confidence is misplaced, and Bottom is little more than a swaggering fool — indeed, an ass, as Puck’s prank makes later on in the play makes obvious. Bottom’s use of exaggerated language also adds to his comic appeal. For example, he exclaims that if he would be given the role of Thisbe, he would speak her lines in a ‘monstrous little voice,’ an obviously contradictory and rather ironic statement, considering the fact that, in the following Act, he will turn into a monster himself. He then would ‘aggravate’ his voice if he played the lion’s role so that the ladies in the audience would not be frightened. Therefore, through Bottom’s word choices that show his silliness, his main function is adding comedic elements to the play. [19: Folger Shakespeare Library. A Midsummer Night’s Dream from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019. ]

Although Bottom can be classified as a traditional Shakespearean clown since he is the main source of comedy in the play, his character is also used to draw the audience’s attention to deeper and rather serious themes, such as the correlation between reality and imagination. In preparing for the performance of ‘Pyramus and Thisbe,’ Bottom continuously draws his other actors’ attention back to the question of the audience’s gullibility: will they realise that the lion is not real but rather an actor, or will the ladies be shocked when Pyramus kills himself? To solve the latter problem, Bottom urges Quince to write a prologue, telling that Pyramus is not really dead, and that Pyramus is simply Bottom the weaver. In this case, Bottom directs the audience’s attention on the complexity of altering reality and perception; his solution hints to his belief that the players’ acting will be too convincing, that they will fully realise the goal of theatre. Similarly, to keep the women from being scared of the lion, he suggests the actor playing the lion show half of his face to show that he’s, in fact, a man, not an animal. This belief in the power of theatre extends to his solutions for bringing moonshine and a wall into the play. In creating a wall for the play, he thinks that covering a man with plaster will sufficiently convince the audience.

The humour surrounding Bottom usually arises from the fact that he is completely oblivious of his own ridiculousness; the majority of his speeches are over-the-top and overdramatic, and he thinks that the others take him as seriously as he does himself. This foolish feeling of self-importance reaches its peak after Puck transforms Bottom’s head into one of an ass in Act III, Scene I. When Titania, who’s under the effects of a love potion, falls in love with the now ass-headed Bottom, he is certain that the devotion of the magical, beautiful fairy queen is nothing out of the ordinary and that all of her feelings of affection are his proper due. His complete unawareness of the fact that his head has been transformed into one of an ass parallels his incapability to grasp the absurdity of the idea that Titania could fall in love with him, adding to the humour of the play.

A Sombre Fool in the Problematic Comedy Twelfth Night

While the Fool in King Lear is surpassing in such a bleak and desolate tragedy and Bottom provides humour in a beguiling comedy, Twelfth Night is generically a very different play compared to the other two. Twelfth Night is considered one of Shakespeare’s most famous comedies; however, it is perhaps ironic how the fool, Feste, is rather sombre, suggesting that the designation of comedy is not altogether unproblematic. Shakespeare presents Feste as a wise, well-drawn, cunning, and versatile. The function of his character in Twelfth Night is to reflect on the actions and emotions of the others by allowing himself at keep a certain distance from the other characters and not becoming emotionally connected and involved in the plots of the play. Feste conveys subtly his messages and thoughts through his songs to the audience about the other characters in the play. He also can somewhat be referred to as the narrator of the play because of his comments on actions that occur within the play and various foreshadowing events.

Feste is not only a wise fool, a man in complete intellectual as well as emotional control of himself, but a man who has chosen the part of ‘professional jester’: he works throughout the play as a truth teller who reminds the other characters in the play that holiday doesn’t last forever. It is indeed Feste who points out to the revellers that the future is indefinite, laughter is momentary, and youth “a stuff will not endure”[footnoteRef:20] (2, 3, 34-35). Feste’s depiction of man’s inescapable growth from a child’s holiday kingdom of irresponsibility and happiness into age, vice, disappointment, and death draws upon an old, moral tradition. It is simple pessimism is informed and sweetened, nevertheless, not only by the music to which it is set, but by the acceptance and tolerance of Feste himself. Exactly because of his detachment and anonymity in the play now finished, he can be trusted to speak not only for himself but for all mankind. Blakemore Evans has also stated that “like childhood happiness, all comedies come to an end – the great and consoling difference lies in the fact that one can, after all, as Feste points out, return to the theatre”.[footnoteRef:21] His argument is indeed true; nothing can be done about the harsh facts that Feste points out; they must simply be faced. [20: Folger Shakespeare Library. Twelfth Night from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 23 June, 2019. ] [21: Evans, Blakemore. The Riverside Shakespeare, Second Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1997, p. 440-441.]

Another example of Feste’s control over himself and the manipulation of other characters is that “from here on in it will be Feste who dances attendance on the revelry, singing, matching with Viola, and being paid by almost everyone for his presence”.[footnoteRef:22] Feste is a clever fool, who uses sensible, and mature wit, and is conscious of his superiority to the characters who surround him. “He has little to do with the plot until the last act. His function is to indicate to the audience the foolishness of the main characters”.[footnoteRef:23] An example of this is Feste’s interchange with Mary in prison: he is undoubtedly hysterically laughing at what he has just been up to; “nay, I’m for all waters”[footnoteRef:24] (4, 2, 66) may have another meaning that he was just on the verge of losing control of himself. “He is ‘for all waters’ primarily in that he represents the fluidity of revelling celebration. And finally, when all is done, “The rain it raineth every day,”[footnoteRef:25] (5, 1, 415) and Feste reverts to gnomic utterance in a full and final seriousness. Water is rain that falls to us from Heaven. The world goes on.”[footnoteRef:26] Our revels now are ended, but the actors coagulate into humanity, in this case, “But that’s all one, our play is done/ And we’ll strive to please you every day” [footnoteRef:27] (5, 1, 430-431). [22: Hollander, John. “‘Twelfth Night’ and the Morality of Indulgence.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 67, no. 2, 1959, p. 220–238. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27538802.] [23: Quennell, Peter. Who’s Who in Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.] [24: Folger Shakespeare Library. Twelfth Night from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019. ] [25: ibid] [26: Hollander, John. Twelfth Night and the Morality of Indulgence. The Sewanee Review 67.2. 1959, 129-173.] [27: ibid]

As referred to with the Fool in King Lear, the iconic Shakespearean Fool is a ‘distancing tool’ that allows him to present a type of honesty and morality to his audience. As a character, he typically would be separate from the main action of the play, ‘having a tendency not to focus but to dissolve events, and also act as the intermediary between the stage and the auditorium”.[footnoteRef:28] This doesn’t mean that the fool himself is a moral being but rather can function as a kind of mouthpiece for the writer by noticing and subsequently pointing out what the audience may acquire from this moral. This is a result of the distinct connection that the fool has with the play’s audience; according to Robinson, he is one of the very few characters Shakespeare “allowed to break the fourth wall and speak directly to and interact with the viewer”.[footnoteRef:29] This is true because, while he is the jester, he actually speaks more truth than folly, an important distinction for both audience and characters. For instance, Feste demonstrates the qualities that the audience needs to see in his fellow characters in order to understand their motivations better. This catalytic activity is comparable to the one of the Fool in King Lear because while they have different roles in their respective plays, these two clowning characters reveal a certain level of transparency to the story. As Robinson argues, “the distance afforded these fools from both the audience and their fellow characters puts them in a sort intermediary world from which they comment”.[footnoteRef:30] While for Feste this is most apparent in the ease with which he moves through each household in Illyria, it could be argued that the Fool in King Lear ultimately does build a bond with his ‘master’, and a certain level of relationship is attained, whereas in Twelfth Night the Fool is in complete isolation from the characters. [28: Welsford, Enid. The Fool; His Social and Literary History. Gloucester: P. Smith, 1966.] [29: Robinson, Brooklyn D. “Playing the Fool: Feste and Twelfth Night.” Scripps Senior Theses, 2016, p. 12.] [30: ibid, p. 13]

Therefore, Feste plays an important function in Twelfth Night. His status as a fool in an aristocratic household provides him with the single and unique position of being able to sincerely comment on everybody and everything around him. This requires that he be both involved in the action as well as at a distance from it in order to properly observe; for example, his lack of a sexual partner is a type of freedom which enables him to focus entirely on his clowning. Moreover, it also presents a certain level of ambiguity within his character. Who would Feste attract and be attracted to? The ability to observe the play and the lack of a partner provide Feste with a unique perspective on the play, one which only he is capable of viewing.

Conclusion

In conclusion, what Shakespeare does, uniquely and remarkably, is to take a traditional, conventional and comedic character and transforms it into a richer, extraordinary, plural vehicle for exploring in all its myriad forms. However, it is ironic that the clown, Feste, in the comedy Twelfth Night is a sombre character and the Fool in King Lear and A Midsummer Night’s Dream are comedic. Shakespeare is no stranger to irony, and these three great plays are no exception. Their behaviours are, therefore, shaped not only by their different roles but by the genres of the plays which condition their function. In other words, a fool in a comedy fulfils a qualitatively different role from one in a tragedy. The ironic, off-beat humour of Lear’s fool cannot triumph – the play is too dark – he must disappear. Bottom’s physicality, on the other hand, is being celebrated right through to the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Feste in Twelfth Night, in contrast, pulls at the expectations of genre – he ends the play but in a darkly sardonic and foreboding manner. Thus are the roles of the fools shaped by the generic expectations and manipulations of the plays.

Bibliography

1. Berry, Edward I. Shakespeare’s Comic Rites . London: Cambridge University Press , 1984.Calderwood, James L. Creative Uncreation In King Lear. Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 1, 1986, pp. 5–19. JSTOR, .—. Shakespeare & the Denial of Death. University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.
2. Cengage, Gale. Shakespeare’s Clowns and Fools . 1999. .
3. Evans, Blakemore G. The Riverside Shakespeare, Second Edition . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. , 1997.
4. Folger Shakespeare Library. A Midsummer Night’s Dream from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019.
5. Folger Shakespeare Library. King Lear from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019.
6. Folger Shakespeare Library. Twelfth Night from Folger Digital Texts. Ed. Barbara Mowat, Paul Werstine, Michael Poston, and Rebecca Niles. Folger Shakespeare Library, 22 June, 2019.
7. Holland, Peter. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
8. Hollander, John. Twelfth Night and the Morality of Indulgence. The Sewanee Review 67.2. 1959, 129-173.
9. Peake, Robert. The Fool’s Dual Nature In King Lear As It Is Manifest Through Language. 2002. .
10. Quennell, Peter. Who’s Who in Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.—. Who’s Who in Shakespeare. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
11. Robinson, Brooklyn D. Playing the Fool: Feste and Twelfth Night. Scripps Senior Theses, 2016, 13.
12. Sutherland, John. Henry V, War Criminal? and Other Shakespeare Puzzles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
13. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Richard Tarlton. 30 August 2018. 22 June 2019. .
14. Welsford, Enid. The Fool; His Social and Literary History. Gloucester: P. Smith, 1966.

Part 1 Reading Responses

Week 5. Describe the character of Lanval’s lady and the character of Queen Guinevere in Lanval by Marie de France. Compare and contrast them, commenting on their different characteristics, social standing, relationships with other characters, and roles/functions in the unfolding of the narrative.

Gender role is at the heart of Marie’s lay Lanval. The two most bold and powerful characters are women. Although Lanval’s lady and Guinevere are strikingly different, they both challenge the stereotypical function of a woman’s role in society. The narrative is predominantly dictated by the influence of both women.

Lanval’s fairy-like lover’s introduction is praiseworthy and dramatically built up. We are not only made aware of her description, but also of this which are associated with her: her maids, her wealth, and her grand tent. She is an extremely beautiful lady. She possesses fair skin, curly blonde hair and dark eyebrows. She is powerful and wealthy, yet mysterious. Although she is one of the most important characters, yet she is interestingly unnamed. Furthermore, she is faithful, gentle and generous. Guinevere on the other hand is unfaithful and dishonest. She is open to use her status to flirt with Lanval to gain sexual approval.

Guinevere is a part of the kingdom and courtly love. Being the Queen of England, she is also a powerful figure. Although Guinevere has influence, her power is attributed to her royalty, not from her own character.

We are introduced to Lanval’s lover at a time when he has hit rock bottom. He flees town, escaping loneliness, marginalisation and his loyal knightly duties. It is at this point, in solitude where his life will be changed forever. The build up to his first encounter to the most beautiful woman of the land is quite extraordinary. I find the dramatic descriptions of her wealth, beauty and exclusiveness to be intense. It is interesting that Lanvals lady is the key character of the narrative, yet she is unnamed. It could be part of her exclusiveness and an effort to keep her status high that she is referred to as Lanvals lady. We also know that she is a mystical and mysterious character. It is not known if she is a fairy or a human being. What are the chances of stumbling across two beautiful maids and a grand tent, in which resides the most beautiful woman of the land? Surely the knights of Arthur would have discovered her at some point. After all, it was a period of war and struggle, as indicated that Arthur was concerned about the Picts and Scottss.

Furthermore, she is loyal. Her love for Lanval is genuine and pure. She is also a generous lady, promising Lanval with self-sufficient wealth, provided he will not disclose his encounter with her.

Week 11. King Lear. Secondary Source.

Dr Wallace rightfully alludes that there is never a dull moment in King Lear. There are twists and turns right up to the end – Wallace. Dr Wallace observes that the end of King Lear is excessively tragic. The emphasis at the end suggests that the beginning is comparatively less tragic. While I empathise that death and killing occurs in the final scenes of the play, I do however assert that the causation is equally tragic. The events at the beginning and middle of the story which caused the peak of tragedy at the end are equally as tragic as the ending.

From the very beginning we learn that Lear is a tragic hero. Lears fails to foresee that his power is reliant on his throne. His lack of wisdom and foresight makes him give away his kingdom to his deceitful and greedy older daughters.

Furthermore, Edmunds manipulative nature and clever schemes aid to the tragic events to follow. Perhaps his insecurity and self-entitlement stems from being an illegitimate son. His first evil ploy to turn his father and brother against each other. Then, his grand plan to use Goneril and Regan to his advantage.

Upon expelling their father out of his own kingdom, Lear had to resort to seeking refuge with his friend Gloucester. The extent of his suffering leads to his madness. Although both daughters work as a unit to bring down Lear and snatch his land, they despise each other. Regal notices the lustful tension between her husband and Goneril and wants revenge.

These bleak moments lead up to the ‘frenzy of tragic events’ – Wallace. Lear’s situation leads to his death and Cordelia, his one and only supporting daughter is murdered. In the midst, Goneril poisons her sister Regal, before taking her own life.

Although the heaviest scenes are in the final acts, the entire play is scattered with tragedies in their own right.

Part 2 Essay

In LIT107, we have studied King Lear, The Duchess of Malfi, and The Tempest. Which playwright offers the profounder insight into human nature, in your view? Discuss at least TWO (2) plays, and support your analysis with detailed reference to each text: give act, scene and line numbers for all quotations from, paraphrases of, and allusions to, the texts.

William Shakespeare incorporated a wide range of personalities in his tragedy, King Lear and his comedy, The Tempest. Both plays consist of complex characters and interesting social behaviours which allow us to explore and engage in deeper discussion into the human nature of these characters.

The most complex of all is King Lear. His role is not limited to being the head of state. Rather, we see him from a variety of angles. His human nature is expressed through his fatherhood to his daughters, friendship to Gloucester and his behaviour as an enemy.

Lear as a father craves unconditional love, praise and admiration from his daughters, in return for his kingdom. Lear values the approval of his daughters far greater than his throne. A father seeks to constantly please and fulfil the needs of his children. Due to the extent of sacrifices parents make, seeking approval and love is an reasonable expectation.

The false praises of his two eldest girls were received well by Lear. Although they exaggerated their love for him, it was comforting to him, as they cleverly told him what he wanted to hear. Their behaviour alludes to the selfishness of human nature. If the stakes are high, humans will even manipulate family for personal gain.

In contrast, Cordelia, the youngest of the three expressed her love honestly without exaggeration. While she was the most honest of the three, her level of praise was unsatisfactory to Lear, resulting in her banishment. Lear’s reaction toward Cordelia exposes his fragile emotional condition. Her truthful response failed to fill the emptiness of his yearning for approval.

Upon receiving their share of land, Gonerill and Regan’s greed extended to Lear’s entire kingdom. Their evil grew so much, that they perceived their own father as an obstacle between them attaining ultimate power. Their heartless ploy to kill Lear is a testimony that the love for power and greed for wealth is the root of all evil. So much so that it can make a person capable of mowing down loved ones to achieve it.

Their wicked attitude made him realise his lapse in judgement toward his truthful youngest daughter, Cordelia. His decision to expel her resulted in extreme guilt and regret, which also contribute to his insanity. Lear faced emotional turmoil after the death of Cordelia in the final scenes of the play. “And my poor fool [Cordelia] is hanged. No, no, life! Why should a dog, a horse, a rat have life and thou no breath at all”.

Furthermore, King Lear welcomed suggestions from the Fool. Although he had absolute power and was surrounded by obedient servants, King Lear allowed fool to speak freely. In the presence of authority and sound hierarchy, a lowly worker who speaks freely is perceived as lack of King Lear’s authority and weakness. While the social status of fools are low, his advice for his master was wise and sincere.

Lear: Dost thou call me fool, boy?

Fool: All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with. (1.4.141-143) (Shakespeare).

A noteworthy feature of the Fools interactions with King Lear is his ability to convey an honest opinion. Seldom do friends give honest feedback which is truly in the best interest of the friend. In most cases, people say what the other wants to hear. Particularly if the other is more powerful, and by telling sweet tales it will serve self-interests. In this case, the fool is able to harness the power of humour to articulate honest opinions and views.

After many tragic encounters and experiences, King Lear came to terms with the true nature of people and was able to distinguish the good from the bad. ‘Unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art.’

Shakespeare’s The Tempest is a brilliant attempt to address aspects of human nature. The use of a complex, yet interesting plot, along with a variety of personalities enables an enriched discussion to surface assumed and nuanced behaviours of humans.

Certain traits and impulses are uniform in all characters of the play. The most noteworthy commonality is the desire for power and control. The degree of the sought power differs from person to person. However, every character demonstrates that they seek power, control and liberty in their own capacities.

The love for power and control is first manifested in Prospero’s behaviour. His motive is to win back his throne and reclaim his status in Milan. His innate authoritative nature is carried with him to the island. Soon after arriving, his authoritative predisposition leads him to taking Ariel and Caliban as slaves. Prospero harnesses his leadership ability to establish order, civilisation and self-preservation. His ability to engage Ariel and Caliban with tasks is effortless.

Furthermore, Prospero recognises that a position of responsibility requires knowledge. He is constantly seeking knowledge to develop himself as a leader. An example of this is the knowledge of Magic. He utilises his knowledge and ability of Magic to sanction Sycorax and capture spirits as slaves.

Prospero’s brother Antonio plays an evil, deceitful and treacherous character. He removed his own brother from his position as Duke of Milan and assumed the position for himself. He even removed him from the country, to solidify his position. We are exposed to Antonio’s toxicity again in the latter part of the story. He manipulates Sebastian to kill his own brother Alonso, the King of Naples.

Social status and the colonialism is a major theme that shapes The Tempest. Prospero represents the coloniser. He perceives himself and his kind superior Caliban and the like. Caliban is depicted as the unfortunate native who is in need of the coloniser to civilise him. Caliban is perceived as such firstly due to being different. He doesn’t fit the bill for an ideal civilised man because he is not human, rather another creature. Secondly, his illegitimacy impacts his social status. Prospero maintains his generalised view of Caliban as the other. Interestingly, his daughter does not share this view.

In the final scenes of the play, Prospero is faced with his adversaries on the island including Antonio and Alonso. At this point, the viewer assumes that Prospero will rightfully exercise justice and inflict punishment upon them for their wrongdoings towards him. Instead, Prospero forgives all those who harmed and attempted to harm him. It is at this point we realise the bigger picture. That Prospero orchestrated the storm to gather the wrong doers in one place, just to forgive them. The wrongdoers in turn regretted their doings and repented, remorsefully.

We can deduct from this that the Duke of Milan, Prospero was a faithful Christian. His vision was to bring people closer to Christianity. He realised that he will more likely achieve this by softening their hearts and exposing them to forgiveness and repentance, rather than applying the force of justice.

Works Consulted

1. Wallace, J. (n.d.). The Tempest by William Shakespeare. Learning Module, Week 13.
2. Cliffsnotes.com. (2019). Play Summary. [online] Available at: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/t/the-tempest/play-summary [Accessed 21 Jun. 2019].
3. Cerezo, S. (2019). Human Nature and Superiority. [online] Summer Shakespeare at New Paltz. Available at: https://npshakes.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/human-nature-and-superiority/ [Accessed 21 Jun. 2019].
4. Study.com. (2019). What is Human Nature? – Definition, Theories & Examples – Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com. [online] Available at: https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-human-nature-definition-theories-examples.html [Accessed 20 Jun. 2019].
5. Aqa.org.uk. (2019). Aspects of tragedy: text overview – King Lear. [online] Available at: https://www.aqa.org.uk/resources/english/as-and-a-level/english-literature-b/teach/text-overview-king-lear [Accessed 20 Jun. 2019].

William Shakespeare’s King Lear follows the philosophy, that ultimately we all control our own destinies. All through life, one will in general experience changes dependent on choices they make that lead them to how they came to be. A poor judgement of character refers to the inability to tell whether an individual is genuine, solely based on a characters opinion. The character fails to own their wrongdoings, never feeling responsible. The definition of blindness usually refers to a literal or figurative inability to see. Shakespeare puts this recognition to address when he utilizes visual impairment as a reason for debasement in his play King Lear. The visual impairment utilized by Shakespeare is to a lesser degree a physical blemish than it is a psychological one, with hindrances, for example, absence of sensible judgment and indiscreet activities. An example of the blindness Shakespeare uses in todays society is when you love someone and cannot see any fault or wrongdoing as a result of the depth of your love. In the following essay, we will be looking into King Lear, and the portrayal of how Characters in Shakespeare King Lear are responsible for their actions and the choices they make throughout the play, by first looking at his judgement of character, further elaboration and qualification will be made looking into his portrayal of blindness, and lastly, how he acts on anger, allowing his judgement to be clouded by indignation.

Firstly we must assess the extent of Lear’s own responsibility for his downfall, through his actions and character shortcomings. A subject noticeable in the play is that of ‘judgment of character’, and it is in the ‘affection test, and it is in the ‘love-test’ of the opening scene that Lear’s judgement of his daughters is tested. The two elder, Goneril and Regan, behave in a obsequious way in order to gain advantage. towards their father, claiming

“Sir, I love you more than words can wield the matter;

Dearer than eye-sight, space, and liberty;

Beyond what can be valued, rich or rare;

No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour;

As much as child e’er loved, or father found;

A love that makes breath poor, and speech unable;

Beyond all manner of so much I love you.” (I.I.55-61)

Cordelia merely says,

‘Miserable that I am,

I can’t hurl my heart into my mouth.

I adore your greatness as indicated by my bond;

no more nor less”(1.1.90-92)

Lear neglects to understand that this articulation is increasingly legitimate and basic than those of Goneril and Regan. His actions in the first scene cause a move of intensity among Lear and his two residual daughters and appear to shape the establishment for his fast approaching ruin. By banishing Cordelia he debilitates as opposed to fortifies his control over his daughters, as Goneril

and Regan are now well-placed for their struggle for supreme power. All through the play, King Lear is continually searching for clarification from his girls, requesting that they demonstrate to him the amount they adore him. Lear constantly looking for qualification, he poorly judges his daughters character’s, not realizing there is a possibility his daughters are not truthful, which does happen. He is to blame for not seeing this, being naive to the fact he has been deceived.

Secondly, Lear’s lack of self-knowledge and understanding is often presented through ‘sight’ and ‘blindness’ imagery. When wronged or challenged, Lear dismisses them with ‘Out of my sight’, marking his refusal to look on those who have questioned his judgement. Moments before his banishment, Kent urges the King to reconsider his rash actions, ‘See better, Lear.’ and then adds ‘let me still remain/the true blank of thine eye’ – that Lear will begin to see things accurately by looking through Kent. When one of Lear’s servants, Kent, says

“And in thy nest consideration check this hideous rashness.

Answer my life, my judgement,

thy youngest daughter does not love thee least,

nor are those empty-hearted whose low

sound reverb no hollowness”(1.1.167-173).

Lear is being naive and not seeing that he is pushing the people that care and love him the most away, and keeping the people that are lying to him, like his two other daughters are Cordelia has his told her father how much she loves him. Her speech is honest, but less persuasive than her sisters’. He banishes her from his sight and from the kingdom altogether. When Lear’s faithful servant Kent tries to reason with him Lear also banishes him. Kent tells him to ‘See better’ meaning that he needs to open his eyes to the mistake he is about to make. Lear later regrets this as his other two daughters betray him. Lear is blind to things right in front of him, his blindness and stubbornness adds to the reason he is responsible for his actions throughout the book. It can be argued that King Lear’s blindness was the direct reason behind his entire downfall and tragic death. His blindness led him to the decisions he made, and his blindness being apart of an individuals whole self, further explains Lear’s responsibility for his actions.

Lastly, this essay will discuss the nature of a person, specifically how King Lear acts on anger and how ones upbringing plays a significant role in how they act and respond, making them responsible for their actions, simply a character flaw very person has. The downfall of Lear starts at the beginning of the play, when he rejects his favourite daughter, and hands the kingdom to his other two daughters. In fact, fate backfires on Lear, and is given to the good, which includes Kent and Albany. When Lear says, “The terrors of the earth! You think I’ll weep. No, I’ll not weep”(2.4.282-283), he is saying that in spite of the punishments he has gotten, he is trying to not let it get to him, still managing to keep himself sane. King Lear is the only person who can be accountable for his own decisions. Lear tends to act very impulsively throughout the play, acting out of anger. Examples of this can be when he gets angry and banishes his loyal friends and family, cursing the Gods and even killing a guard. Lear has issues with controlling his rage, which contribute to his misfortunes. He refers to himself as a dragon at the opening of the book. If Lear had been able to manage and control his anger better, many mistakes could have been avoided. ”Peace, Kent! Come not between the dragon and his wrath.’ (I, i, 120-121). In this line he is referring to himself as a dragon. A dragon is a symbol of evil, representing acting on anger and someone in need of strength. King Lear is to blame for his own downfall, because he is temperamentally wrathful and arrogant. Lear dividing up his kingdom and resigning power, also factors into his downfall, decisions he made, and he is to blame for. He fails to realize he is to blame for any decision, first blaming his daughter Cordelia, next General and Regan, and lastly the Gods, referring to himself as a ‘poor old man’. He neglects to take blame for seeing his own faults.

Throughout the book King Lear by William Shakespeare, by analyzing King Lear we see how characters are responsible for their own actions, through poor judgement of character, blindness, and how these are connected to a person as a whole. William Shakespeare’s King Lear follows the philosophy that in the end, we all control our own destinies, resulting in each character being responsible for their actions. King Lear’s downfall is believed to be the fault of his two malicious daughters, Regan and Goneril. However, it is in fact the fault of King Lear himself for his misfortunes due to his poor judgement of character, blindness, and how he acts on his temporary anger. King Lear is responsible for any actions he made, and although he fails to realize it, he is to blame for his downfall.

Through all the suffering, there is still hope in the world. Shakespeare introduces a society in his play King Lear in which no one can emerge victorious. The fact that tragedy makes no distinction between good and evil is evinced at the end of the play as although King Lear’s daughters are continuously contrasted, they are all lead to their deaths in the end. Suffering is a recurring concept in the play, symbolized by graphic violence to illustrate physical suffering and the declining mental condition of the protagonists. However, despite all these dramatic and cruel events, hope is still subtly present in the world of the play as it is portrayed through the development of characters.

The horrific suffering of the begins through King Lear’s unnatural division of the land in which Lear satisfies Goneril and Reagan’s greed when he asks “which of thee doth loves us most”. The fawning replies of Reagan and Goneril, “I love you more than word can wield the matter” and the honesty of Cordelia, ‘I love your Majesty according to my bond, no more, no less” which negatively aids the suffering that follows as Goneril and Reagan each receive half of the kingdom through their obsequious flattery while Cordelia is wrongly left to depart “farewell Cordelia, to thou unkind”. The event of Goneril and Regan beating down King Lear and his escort of knights expresses the suffering King Lear will face as this humiliation deprives Lear of his very last ounce of power. Their responsibility for Lear’s tragic downfall into madness and mental instability becomes evident when they urge him venture the wilderness despite the storm.

Nonetheless, while Goneril, Regan and Edmund perform grievous actions in order to fulfill their ambition and desires in certain situations, others may become better as a result of them.The protagonist of the play Lear is a clear example for this. Before his sufferings, he was a violent and narcissistic King that showed his misjudgement as he punished his most loyal people Cordelia and Kent. But after going through harsh pain, Lear declares to Cordelia that he will ‘kneel down, And ask thee forgiveness’ promoting his complex development in his character flaws to come to terms with his own faults. This series of events suggests that in order for Lear to improve himself, his tragic sufferings were a necessary step to push him to change. At the end of the play, it seems that Edmund too has changed his ways for the better when he says ‘some good I mean to do, despite of my own nature’ which suggests that no matter what, we still have basic morals to regain. Thus hope is still present in the world of King Lear as redemption reveals the good nature of people.

Hope can also presented in King Lear, in the way in which directors stage the characters on set. In one dramatic interpretation of the play, in act 1 scene 1, Lear is sat down solitary with Gonerill and Regan at his side. This not only portrays the Kings increasing age, but also the manipulative power Gonerill and Regan initially have over him. During this first scene we see the gap between Cordelia and Lear increase progressively, again portraying a physical representation for their relationship and love for one another growing further and further apart. After this distancing, Cordelia, positioned front stage right, has both Kent, The Fool, and towards the end of the scene, France. The dramatic effect of this is clear to the audience; it physically highlights the allegiances of the characters, and is used also to portray other various notions in a more physical manner, one of which is hope. Hope is presented in the way in which The Fool, Kent, and France side with Cordelia, implying to the audience she is not alone in her banishment, and that perhaps these characters may

Hope can also present the way the managers stage the characters on set in King Lear. In a dramatic interpretation of the play, Lear sits alone with Gonerill and Regan at his side in act 1 scene 1. This not only depicts the growing age of the Kings, but also originally has over him the manipulative authority of Gonerill and Regan. During this first scene we see a progressive rise in the divide between Cordelia and Lear, again depicting a physical depiction of their connection and love for each other. Following this distance, Cordelia, placed right at the front point, has both Kent, The Fool, and France at the end of the scene.

Do you ever read a book and question why the author is delivering the moral? I believe your answer is “NO”. As viewers, we tend to forget that the main role of a narrative is to draw its audience into exploring and questioning key aspects of its context. Today let’s consider if this statement, “a narrative’s main function is to question aspects of our world” is true by discussing, “in what what does Shakespeare question aspects of his context and how is this mirrored by Kurosawa’s Ran”. Throughout Shakespeare’s play King Lear and Kurosawa’s film Ran, the narratives draw their viewers into questioning and exploring the issue of a divided kingdom. In King Lear the breakdown of parent-child relationship results in a contested kingdom. Through the fathers’ realisation the importance of loyalty in creating a unified kingdom is affirmed. The same idea portrayed in King Lear is mirrored in Ran, hence demonstrating that same ideas can be portrayed in different context, culture and time period. King Lear was composed at the end of the Elizabethan Era when the monarch was King James I. Since King James I was the King of Scotland at the time, he united the unfriendly nations together. Similarly in Ran, Kurosawa explores the same ideas as the play.

King Lear questions the issue of a divided kingdom through the depiction of parent-child relationships. This is mirrored in Ran as both texts shows the fathers passing on the inheritance to their children by dividing their kingdom. In Act 1 Scene 1, Lear examines each of his daughter’s love towards him through the unreliability of their flattering speeches.

Despite the speeches her older sisters make, Cordelia truthfully expresses her feelings towards Lear, “I cannot heave / My heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty / According to my bond; no more nor less.” The use of metaphor demonstrates that love comes with honesty. However, Lear is blinded by flattering and ignores the moral obligation of a parent, ultimately banishing Cordelia and disowning her as his daughter: “Here I disclaim all my paternal care / Propinquity and property of blood…” The use of accumulation and alliteration illustrates Lear’s anger, and therefore his blindness to Cordelia’s sincerity and showing the detached bonds between Lear and Cordelia. This key event of banishing the youngest but the most loyal child is mirrored in Ran where Hidetora banishes Saburo because he disagrees to Hidetora’s decision on the division of the kingdom. Saburo’s disobedience and insolent manner triggers Hidetora to banish him, in the scene Hidetora proclaims “I cut the bonds between us!”. In this full shot the positioning of Hidetora standing up and Saburo sitting down shows that Hidetora has the power as he is lowering down at Saburo. In Saburo’s line “I’ll tell you. What kind of world do we live in? One barren of loyalty and feeling”, the use of a rhetorical question delivers Saburo’s opinion on how foolish Hidetora is to pass on all the authority of his land to his oldest son, Taro. Thus, in King Lear parent-child relationships relate to the contextual issue of a contested kingdom, and this idea that a child’s honesty and respect can in fact cause broken bonds is mirrored in Ran.

Lear and Hidetora’s realisation of their faults highlights the importance of loyalty in creating a unified kingdom and family. In this way, Shakespeare encourages loyalty to the monarch. In King Lear, Act 1 Scene 4, “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is / To have a thankless child! Away, away!”, the use of animal imagery and the repetitive use of exclamation marks and “away” delivers the huge shock Lear has received after discovering Goneril’s true nature. In Act 4 Scene 7, Lear’s tone of desperation and despair in “You must bear with me. / Pray you now, forget and forgive. I am old and foolish.” emphasises his late realisation of his flaws after being betrayed by his disloyal children. He comes to value Cordelia’s loyalty and his error in dividing his kingdom. Similarly, this idea of a father realising their faults after being betrayed by their own disloyal children is mirrored in Ran. Hidetora’s sons, Taro and Jiro, attack the third castle in order to kill their father and his soldiers. The long shot of the burning castle allows the viewers to clearly see the process of the loss of Hidetora’s power and the use of primary colours red and yellow symbolises the violent acts of the sons. In the long shot where Hidetora reunites with Saburo, “I have so much to say. When we’re alone and quiet, we will talk, father to son. That’s all I want.”, the repetition of “we” and the relationship that Hidetora describes as “father to son” expresses how much he has reflected on his actions as well as emphasising his love towards his son. Conclusively, the two father figures’ realisation of their flaws causes them and therefore the audiences to question the division of the kingdom as their realisation restores bonds with their loyal children.

In summary, Shakespeare demonstrates the importance of a united kingdom in his context of political uncertainty and Kurosawa mirrors this idea in Ran. In both texts the exploration of parent-child relationships and the two fathers’ realisation of their faults in banishing their loyal children ultimately shows the negative effects of disunity and disloyalty. Therefore, both texts demonstrates the same idea through the differing context, culture and time period and we can agree to this statement “a narrative’s main function is to question aspects of our world.”

The desire to gather power and to control what one wants to encourage their greed can be a dangerous quality. King Lear, written in 1608, by William Shakespeare, is a tragedy that represents the horrible impacts of abusing power and leads to his death. The abuse of power plays an immense role all throughout the character’s lives in this play which in turn leads to their demise. They utlilize their position to exile anybody with no clear reason, abusing the gatekeeper’s trust, utilizing their control and power to torture others, and mishandling the power they become intrusted with. The greed and abuse of control have negative impacts and will end up leading to a dangerous circumstances.

The misuse of power is shown in the beginning periods of the play. King Lear has enough measure of power first and foremost. He is always addressed to with appropriate terms, it’s anything but difficult to realize that he has a lot of power and is regarded since all of the notorious acts he has committed, nonetheless, he misuses it. King Lear is so up to speed with his very own power and authority, he figures he shouldn’t be addressed and studied for dividing up parts of his power and legacy based on the affection he receives alone as he is blinded from the truth and reality. Lear recognizes that he is a ruler and thinks he has the option to be dominant. After Kent cautions him about the potential challenges he will have to move his power, he fiercely outcasts him and even threatened him with execution. Lear abuses his power on Kent, ”Kent, on thy life, no more’ (1.1, 165). When Lear asks Cordelia to speak and she refuses, he states, “nothing will come from nothing. Speak again” (1,1, 95). Lear acts like a child in this scene, he has trouble understanding something as abstract as love. Even when others show him the reality, his pride in being a king blinds him from the truth. Kent calls himself, “the true blank of thine eye” (1.1, 170). As Kent, later on, states that Cordelia is a genuine little girl and Lear is committing an error, despite everything he won’t listen in as he chooses blindness instead. Kent and Cordelia are helping him, not frustrating him. King Lear’s confidence is letting go from the power he has and in the long run turns into the victim of his pride. King Lear uses his power, mishandling it, and afterward loses control. Lear using his power on Cordelia and Kent has set up a dangerous and corrupted future for himself.

Edmund’s dangerous effects are shown after he begins to gain power and trust from Gloucester. Edmund’s corruption comes after controlling his dad. Edmund wants to gain his dad’s riches and land. His greediness for power and control transforms him into deceitful man creating brutal outcomes. After framing Edgar, he at long last persuades Gloucester to give him all his inheritance. In the wake of being granted the Earl of Gloucester and picking up the legacy, he requests that they murder Cordelia. Since he has gained so much power and inheritance, he believes that he can become dominant and request to submit such corrupt acts without any consequences. In addition to the fact that this ends up resorting him toward the end, yet he additionally repents the unimaginable acts he has committed. Edmund has a change of heart as he states, “This speech of yours hath moved me, And shall perchance do good. (5.3, 235).” He tries to save Lear and Cordelia, but it’s too late. Edmund had a heart however his increase of power transformed him. The abuse of his power culviates regret, that regret executes him at last. He mishandled his power by requesting to get Cordelia executed yet it would wound up crushing him toward the end as he is thinking twice about it. Edmund’s abuse of power is demonstrated when he requests the execution of Cordelia, this makes a destructive and undermined death for Edmund as he apologizes for what he did minutes before he died.

Cornwall abuses his power by enjoying seeing other characters suffer. Cornwall is a very brutal character in this book, an example of this is shown when Kent is put into the stocks, “Kent in the stocks for disrespect Fetch forth the stocks! As I have life and honor, There shall he sit till noon” (2.2, 135). By placing Kent into the stocks, he is expressing that he is better than the king. Cornwall’s capacity has given him the privilege to mishandle it and use it to humiliate Kent. He gains joy seeing him suffer. Him picking up control through his wife gives him over the top pride. Another case of this was the point at which he tore out Gloucester’s eyes for offering shelter to King Lear. This was pointless and was excessively extreme. He has a desire to slaughter Gloucester for submitting minor treason, be that as it may, he knows there could be consequences for murder, he essentially tortures him and feels unrivaled doing so. After gaining all this power, he misused it by torturing characters without reason which shows the dangerous impacts of gaining lots of power. Cornwall’s inheritance of power makes him a very abusive person, thinking that he could do whatever to anybody and have the right to enjoy it.

In conclusion, the abuse of power can corrupt and have dangerous impacts. Lear, Edmund, Cornwall, Goneril, and Regan all create a destructive environment because of their misuse of power and greed for control. They’re all ready to execute such horrible acts just to feed their greedy attitudes. Once that desperation for power is achieved and is later on mishandled, dangerous and destroying results will happen.