In Shakespeare's tragedy King Lear two of the main characters, King Lear and Gloucester, are struck with different unnatural afflictions. King Lear progressively loses touch with reality throughout the play. Gloucester loses both of his eyes after he is brutally punished for supposed treason. In both cases, the afflictions result in the inevitable downfall and death of both the elderly men.
While their physical and mental inabilities played a crucial role in their downfall, their true Achilles' heels lie within their own families. The bastard son of Gloucester named Edmund betrays his father's trust by revealing Gloucester's treason and tricking him into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is conspiring to kill Gloucester. King Lear's two eldest daughters proclaim their love for their father after he divides his kingdom for his three daughters. They then proceed to undermine and betray King Lear once they take power.
King Lear and Gloucester are both blind when the play begins. They are blinded by their love for their children. As a result of their blindness, they allow their greedy children to manipulate them and they fail to recognize the sincerity of their other children. The two families' stories portray the immense power of greed. In both cases greed was responsible for tearing both families apart and ending both men's lives. It is an urge that can be (and is in this play) more powerful then love or loyalty.
I do agree that both King Lear and Gloucester were blinded, at least metaphorically, from the beginning of the play. However, I do not believe that they were blinded by their love for their children. If their love was the only factor influencing their blindness, they would not have repudiated their supposed unfaithful children as they did. I think many factors such as love (of themselves and the shifting of their love from child to child), greed, and vanity all contribute to their blindness.
ReplyDeleteI like the metaphor of blindness which ends up in the literal sense in Gloucester's case. However the only problem with the metaphor I see is that both Lear and Gloucester realize the mistakes they made towards the end where a blindness would be permanent.
ReplyDeleteUnlike David and Nick, I fully understand and agree with your blindness metaphor. Though Lear (and apparently Gloucester as Shakespeare states but no one sees) is able to repair his relationship with Cordelia and see the flaws in his eldest two daughters, it still does not save him. And his blindness is only lifted because of his daughter Cordelia, as is Gloucester's blindness with his son Edgar. It is not of their own doing, but rather of the pure, innocent, and just characters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that both fathers made bad decision in this play, and I agree with you on the fact King Lear was just out for his daughters affection. However I do not agree with your comparison of the two fathers in the fact of comparing their blindness. I feel like that might be reading into the text to far. However all in all I feel that this was a good post.
ReplyDelete