Lear and Gloucester

I think that there are a lot of similarities between the stories of King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester. However, I think that the most interesting similarity lies in their respective falls from grace; each of their downfalls is the result of placing their trust in the wrong children. That being said, I think that King Lear comes off as the bigger fool of the two. Essentially, Lear chooses to place his trust in his two eldest daughters simply because they are the most willing to feed his desperate need to hear their words of love and devotion. He is so blinded by this incredibly needy and ill conceived idea that he cannot sense the hollowness behind their word. In the end, he banishes Cordelia, the one daughter who seems to truly love him and yet can only say “nothing”. The use of the word “nothing” is repeatedly used throughout the play, usually to mistakenly describe non worth to real worth (Cordelia’s love, Cordelia’s value after being banished, to describe the fool; it is even how Edmund describes his sinister plan). It appears as though King Lear, in his insular world, has no concept of the real value of things. It comes as no surprise to anyone but King Lear when in Act III. iv, he mutters his famous words “Is man no more than this?”. King Lear brings all his personal tragedy upon himself with his rash and misguided plan to essentially base the division of his kingdom upon speeches of love without any test or consideration for their validity. It is especially interesting to note that at the end of that first scene Goneril and Regan use the outlandishness of Lear’s plan as proof that he has “poor judgment” and to justify their intended takeover.

The Earl of Gloucester’s downfall is a bit more complicated. He is blinded, literally and figuratively, by his mistrust in his bastard son Edmund. It has always seemed to me that much of the Earl’s trust in Edmund comes from an unspoken guilt about the role Edmund (as illegitimate) has been forced to play and the benefits he has been unable to attain. Perhaps this underlying guilt helps in the deception that Edmund has invented. You can almost sense the relief of conscious it is for him to turn against his son who has been given everything and embrace the seemingly meek Edmund. However, Edmund, like most great Shakespearean villains, is very convincing all on his own. I love a good Shakespearean villain and Edmund certainly does not disappoint. Much like Othello’s Iago, Edmund is a master of deception and his machinations are always thrilling to watch. It is fascinating the way that Shakespeare villains rarely tell their victims what they want them to believe. Instead, through a series of expert maneuvers, the victims are lead to reach the desired conclusion all on their own. Edmund is no exception in his use of this ploy. I always like the way Edmund (just like Iago) falsely appears to defend Edgar to his father all the while planting the seeds of doubt and destruction. I always find the fall of Gloucester the most tragic albeit less grandiose as Gloucester has simply been blinded by the evil maneuvers of a brilliantly evil son. For me, Gloucester’s self deception comes from a good, albeit misguided, place. King Lear on the other hand, has been destroyed by his own vanity, self imposed insulation, and a complicated political situation that he helped create.