Return to Chapter Index
Return to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page
CORDELIA, KING LEAR
AND
HIS FOOL.
CHAPTER II
WHAT
CORDELIA SAID.
Considering
all that has been written that pertains to
Shakespeare's Lear, it is surprising that very little of it has
focused
on what Cordelia actually says at the beginning of the play, and yet
these few
words are the subject of virtually the whole of the first scene, and
they set
in motion the whole chain of events which eventually lead to her death.
Shakespeare deliberately draws our attention to what Cordelia will say
in the
love test by her aside at 1.1.61, "What shall Cordelia speak? Love, and
be
silent." Anyone who had seen a
performance of the 1605 version, or read Leir, might well have
been
listening particularly for what she will say, since at the end of Leir
(lines 1774,5), Perillus, who performs a similar role to that of Kent,
encourages the devastated Leir to go to France to seek Cordella's aid,
by
saying:
Remember
well what words Cordella spake,
What
time you askt her, how she lou'd your Grace.
What
she says in the opening of Lear differs somewhat
from what she says in the opening of the earlier play in that in
Shakespeare's version
she appears to be suggesting that she will respond in a manner
consistent with
what we shall see was James I's notion of how a Christian prince should
respond.
James
was
himself a noted author by the time he arrived from Scotland to take up
the English
throne in 1603 after the death of Elizabeth I. He is most noted, of
course, for
the version of the Bible which he commissioned in 1604 and had
published and
authorised in 1611. While still in Scotland, in 1599, he had written
what is
widely recognised as his best prose work[1], Basilikon
Doron, which was translated into English from Scots, widely read in
England
and even adapted into verse just prior to his arrival in 1603[2]. Divided
into three books, Basilikon Doron is James giving his son,
Prince Henry,
instructions on how to be a good Christian king.
The
amount Lear
owes to Basilikon Doron has not been fully realised. For
example, in the
second book of Basilikon Doron James advises Henry:
God is
euer a seueare avenger of all perjuries; and it is no oath made in
jeste, that
giueth power to children to succeed to great kingdomes. Haue the King
my
grand-fathers example before your eies, who by his adulterie, bred the
wracke
of his lawfull daughter and heire; in begetting that bastard, who
vnnaturally rebelled,
and procured the ruin of his owne Souerane and sister.[3]
This
bears a striking similarity to the Gloucester sub-plot,
which we might see as Shakespeare's attempt to keep the example of
James'
grandfather before the eyes of the young Prince Henry.
Lear's
mistake
in dividing the kingdom into three goes right against the advice which
James
wrote to Henry when James was still only hoping to be made king over a
united
Britain.
And in
case it please God to prouide you to all these three kingdomes, make
your
eldest sonne Isaac, leauing him all your kingdomes; and prouide the
rest with
priuate possessions. Otherwaies by diuiding your kingdomes, ye shal
leaue the
seede of diuision and discord among your posteritie: as befell to this
Ile: by
the diusion and assignment thereof, to the three sonnes of Brutus,
Locrine,
Albanact, and Camber. (p. 138)
The
mistake Lear makes has the consequences for his
posterity James warns of here.
James
advises
Henry concerning his control over the passions of his mind:
I
neede not to trouble you with the particular discourse of the foure
Cardinall
vertues, it is so troden a path: but I will shortly say vnto you, make
one of
them, which is Temperance, Queene of all the rest within you. I mean,
not by
the vulgar interpretation of Temperance, which onely consists in gustu
&
tactu, by the moderating of these two senses: but I meane of that
wise
moderation, that first commaunding your selfe, shall as a Queene
commaund all
the affections and passions of your mind; and, as a Physician, wisely
mixe all
your actions according therto. (p. 139)
It
does not require much imagination to think of Shakespeare
responding to this instruction in describing Cordelia in 4.3.11-14, the
scene
missing from the Folio edition. Here the Gentleman reports to Kent
concerning
his letters:
Ay,
sir; she took them, read them in my presence;
And
now and then an ample tear trill'd down
Her
delicate cheek; it seem'd she was a queen
Over
her passion; who, most rebel-like,
Sought
to be king o'er her.
The
gentleman continues with a description of Cordelia's
behaviour which is consistent with that which James recommended to
Henry.
There
are so
many other correspondences between Basilikon Doron and Lear
that
we might almost think of Lear as a dramatic presentation of the
principles set forth in Basilikon Doron, presented as a
compliment to
James, and for the guidance of his children.
But the sections of Basilikon Doron that most concern
us, when
considering Cordelia's words at the opening of Lear, come at
the end of
Book 1:
Remember
therefore in all your actions, of the great account that yee are one
daie to
make: in all the daies of your life euer learning to die, and liuing
euery day
as it were your last (p. 107)
and
then, of greatest significance, the concluding paragraph
of Book 1:
To
conclude then, both this purpose of conscience and the first part of
this
booke; Keepe God more sparingly in your mouth, but aboundantly in your
heart:
be precise in effect, but sociall in shew: kythe [make known] more by
your
deeds then by your words the loue of vertue and hatred of vice: and
delight
more to be godlie and vertuous in deede then to be thought and called
so;
expecting more for your praise and reward in heauen then heere: and
apply to
all your outward actions Christes commaunde, to pray and giue your
almes
secretly: so shall ye on the one part be inwardly garnished with true
Christian
humility, not outwardly (with the proud Pharisie) glorying in your
godlines:
but saying, as Christ commandeth vs all, when we haue done all that we
can, Inutiles
serui sumus. And on the other part, ye shall eschew outwardly
before the
world the suspition of filthie proud hypocrisie and deceitfull
dissimulation.
(p. 109)
This
instruction draws heavily on two passages from the
Bible[4],
Take
heede that yee doe not your almes before men, to the intent that ye
would be
seene of them, or els ye have no reward of your father which is in
heaven.
Therfore, when thou doest thine almes, doe not blowe a trumpet before
thee, as
hypocrites doe, in the Synagogues, and in the streetes, that they might
be
esteemed of men. Verily, I say unto you, they have their reward. But
when thou
doest almes, let not thy left hand know, what they right doeth: That
thine
almes may be in secret: And thy father which seeth in secret, himself
shall
reward thee openly. ( Matthew 6:1-4),
and,
So
likewise ye, when yee shall have done all those things which are
commanded you,
say, We are unprofitable servants: wee have done that which was our
duetie to doe.
(Luke 17:10)
The
importance
of these passages to what Cordelia says will be discussed below. But
first, so
that we may see the importance some Elizabethans and Jacobeans placed
on these
principles, let us have before us a brief chapter (9) from Book 2 of
Arthur
Golding's 1578 translation of Seneca's On Benefyting:
Therefore
all Authors of wisdomme teache, that some benefites must bee bestowed
openly,
and some secretly. Openly, which are a prayse too attein: as rewardes
of
Chiualrie, and honour, and whatsouer else becometh more honourable by
beeyng
knowen. But as for the thinges that auaunce not a mannes credit or
estimation,
but releeve his weaknesse, his want, or his shame: they must bee giuen
secretly, so as they may bee knowen too none but those that take good
by them.
Ye and sometymes euen he that is too bee holpen must bee beguyled, so
as he may
haue the thing, and yet not knowe of whom he had it.[5]
The
margin of the translation has the printed note,
"[L]et not thy [r]ight hande [k]nowe what [t]hy left hand [d]ooe[t]h"
showing Golding's awareness of the correspondence of these ideas with
Matthew
6.[6]
What
we are
saying, in all this, is that Cordelia, aware that she will one day have
to give
an account of her life to God, is intent on helping (giving alms to)
her
father, in his need, in such a way that he would not know of whom he
had had
the help, that she does not seek any acknowledgment from her father, or
anyone
else, as does Edgar of Gloucester and Kent of Lear, and that she would
have
been seen by James and his family, and other Jacobean audiences as
leaving the
play by means of an untimely death, in order to go to her heavenly
Father's
reward for her deeds done in secret.
Now
let us turn
our attention to Cordelia's several speeches in Scene 1. Her first
words, in an
aside, represent her thoughts after she hears Goneril flattering her
father:
What
shall Cordelia doe? Loue and be silent. Quarto 1.1.63
What
shall Cordelia speake? Loue and be silent. Folio l. 67
What
can we conclude about the change from "doe"
to "speak"? If nothing else, the fact that Shakespeare makes the
change here suggests that this question, which focuses on what Cordelia
will
say or do, was important in Shakespeare's mind. This aside by Cordelia
is an
important one. The theme of what one will say and do is a very
important one in
the play. What Goneril and Regan say they will do for their father
contrasts
markedly with their determination at the end of the first scene that
they
"must do something, and i'th'heat" and their subsequent actions in
the play. When the newly blinded Gloucester is led out to be taken to
Dover by
Poor Tom, the Old Man offers his assistance to Gloucester who asks him
to get
clothes for the madman and to "do it for ancient love" (4.1.43). The
captain who is sent by Edmund to see to the death of Lear and Cordelia
promises
"If it be man's work, I'll do it" (5.3.40). Possibly, Cordelia's
"doe" is meant to reflect James' interest in Henry's making known
"more by your deeds then by your words the loue of vertue and hatred of
vice", whereas the "speake" might, as we have already suggested,
prompt an audience, familiar with the old play, to watch out for what
she will
say, since at the end of the old play the disheartened Leir is prompted
to
"Remember well what words Cordella spake." Leir,
to his own detriment, had not understood Cordella's
intentions in the opening of that play either. Cordelia's "Love and be
silent" is her determination to do what she is about to "do" out
of love without speaking about it. It is what France will call, "a
tardiness in nature, / Which often leaves the history unspoke / That it
intends
to do". (1.1.234-235).
In
the love
contest Regan is then invited to speak of her love for Lear, and her
words are
just as flattering and false as Goneril's, leading Cordelia to say,
again in an
aside to the audience, thus representing her thoughts:
Then
poor Cordelia!
And
yet not so, since I am sure my love's
More
ponderous than my tongue. (1.1.75-77)
For
"ponderous" the Quarto has "richer"
which is in obvious contrast with "poor". While "ponderous"
also had the meaning of weighty, it is possible that the Folio reading
was
meant to suggest that her love was something for the audience to
ponder. Her
love is so great that even if she were going to speak of it, words
would not
adequately describe it. So she determines that she will say nothing,
and does
so. When Lear calls on her to speak she replies:
Nothing
my Lord.
In Leir,
Cordella's comment (line 254) upon Gonorill's speech is,
O, how
I doe abhorre flattery!
and
after Ragan's it is,
Did
neuer flatterer tell so false a tale. (line 274)
For
Cordelia to say this in her asides might have been seen
as a breach of James' instruction to Prince Henry to make known "more
by
your deeds then by your words the ... hatred of vice". James warns
against
"that filthy vice of Flattery" in the second book of Basilikon
Doron (p. 131).
In
the Folio
Lear has Cordelia repeat the "Nothing" and then he warns her that
Nothing
will come of nothing, speake againe.
This
theme of nothing could have been suggested partly by
Gonorill's comment on Cordella's speech in the old play beginning at
line 277:
Cor. I cannot paynt my duty forth
in words,
I hope
my deeds shall make report for me:
But
look what loue the child doth owe the father,
The
same to you I beare, my gracious Lord.
Gon. Here is an answere
answerelesse indeed:
Were
you my daughter, I should scarcely brooke it.
It's
almost as if Shakespeare's Cordelia is not going to
give Goneril the opportunity to pronounce such a judgement upon her,
and
indeed, Goneril does not say anything at this point. But Lear is
unhappy with
nothing, and so Cordelia is forced into making an explanation somewhat
similar
to Cordella's.
Cordelia. Unhappy that I am, I
cannot heave
My
heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty
According
to my bond, no more nor less.
Lear. How, now Cordelia? Mend your
speech a
little,
Lest
you mar your Fortunes.
Cordelia. Good my Lord,
You
have begot me, bred me, lov'd me.
I
return those duties back as are right fit,
Obey
you, Love you, and most Honour you.
Why
have my sisters husbands, if they say
They
love you all? Happily when I shall wed,
That
Lord, whose hand must take my plight, shall carry
Half
my love with him, half my care, and duty,
Sure I
shall never marry like my sisters.
The
Quarto edition adds, "to loue my father all."
Here Cordelia suggests the folly of her father's request, and of her
sister's
responses.
How
would an
audience, familiar with the old play, Leir, have responded to
the words
from Cordelia, "Happily when I shall wed, That Lord, whose hand must
take
my plight, shall carry half my love with him, half my care, and duty"? The words "must take my plight"
would have been interesting. "Must" could suggest a sense that this
is what happens in the folk legend and has to happen here, for there is
nothing
to suggest that either France or Burgundy are under any compulsion from
Lear to
take her plight. And the word "plight" is interesting too, for it can
refer to troth-plight, but it can also refer to one's unfortunate set
of
circumstances, which is the way Gonorill speaks of Cordella's condition
in Leir
(line 187):
I
smile to think, in what a wofull plight
Cordella
will be...
It
is almost as if Cordelia is aware of the plight that
befell her in Leir, when she was cast out and had to wander
around
England and fend for herself, before the King of France met her and
took her
out of her plight. Certainly any member of the audience familiar with Leir
would be aware of it.
The
words
"shall carry half my love with him, half my care, and duty" have an
ambiguity about them too. The person who will take her plight, the King
of
France in both plays, will carry half her love with him, the other half
being
reserved for her father. The remaining words, "half my care, and
duty" could be a reference to her care and duty for the one who would
take
her plight, the other half being reserved for her father, but they
might
equally have suggested, to those familiar with the old play, the care
and duty
which the King of France exercised jointly with Cordella for her
father's
well-being. In this speech in Lear Cordelia has just mentioned
those
"duties" which she will return back as are right fit (1.1.96).
France's carrying half her duty might be understood as meaning that he
will
carry half her duty towards her father.
Cordelia
has little
to say for a while, as Lear speaks of how she will be a stranger to
him, Kent
intercedes for her, Burgundy rejects Lear's offer, and France speaks up
for
her. It is worth noting here some of what is said before Cordelia
speaks again.
Lear tells Kent (1.1.123) how he had thought to set his rest "On her
[Cordelia's] kind nursery", which is what Leir does in the old play.
The
words he uses to banish Cordelia are, "Hence, and avoid my sight"
(1.1.123), which are not as precise as those with which he will banish
Kent.
Kent has to leave the country in so many days, but Cordelia may avoid
Lear's
sight by being in a different room, a different part of the country, or
even
appearing before him in some disguise as she does towards the end of Leir!
In the early part of the source play she does not go straight to
France, but
wanders around England until the King of France, disguised as a palmer,
finds
her and takes her to France.
When
Kent is
banished, he is assured that Lear's resolution will not be revoked,
which turns
out to be highly ironic, even as Kent immediately gives the hint
(1.1.180) that
he's going nowhere since,
Freedom
lives hence, and banishment is here
and,
Thus
Kent, O Princes, bids you all adieu,
He'll
shape his old course, in a country new.
The
first of these statements could be understood to be the
equivalent of what Celia says to Rosalind, in As You Like It
1.3.135,[7] upon
their banishment from Celia's father's court,
Now go
we in content
To
liberty, and not to banishment.
Or
it could be understood that Kent is saying that since he
is banished he will be staying in England. It would be easy to go to
freedom,
but he's going to stay. If the audience had connected Kent and Perillus
by this
point in the play, they might have expected him to remain behind, since
in Leir
Perillus is Leir's faithful companion throughout the whole play.
Kent's
final
words, "He'll shape his old course in a country new" can be
interpreted in two ways. He can be seen to be saying that he will
pursue his
old ways of speaking plainly in a foreign land. Or he can be seen to
mean that
he will do this in a new England! In As You Like It the court
of
usurping Duke Frederick is described as "the new Court" 1.1.95, and
in Lear England might equally be thought of as becoming a new
country
under the new courts of Goneril and Regan. With Kent's reversal of his
banishment in mind it is interesting to note the words of Fool to Kent
at 1.4.100:
Why,
this fellow hath banish'd two on's daughters, and done the third a
blessing
against his will....
By
applying the term "banish'd" to the status of
Goneril and Regan, the Fool implies that the blessing against Lear's
will done
to Cordelia was effectively to allow her to remain behind as has Kent.
But
Kent, who is so full of himself, does not think this through and catch
on.
If
Cordelia
did leave the country, then she is the only one who was expected to go
who did
go. At 1.1.31 Gloucester says of Edmund,
He
hath been out nine years, and away he shall again
and
yet through Edmund's deceit he manages to stay behind.
Kent is banished but does not go, and Edgar is reportedly with Kent in
Germany,
4.7.90, but we know differently. Is it not to be thought odd that all
who are
banished should succeed in revoking banishment except the heroine of
the play?
Cordelia
is
essentially reduced to nothing by Lear in his remarks to Burgundy
(1.1.196-199):
Sir,
there she stands,
If
ought within that little seeming substance,
Or all
of it with our displeasure piec'd,
And
nothing more, may fitly like your Grace,
She's
there, and she is yours.
France
is stunned at the change that has come in Lear's
attitude towards Cordelia, and his speech in her favour perhaps
encourages her
to speak out again (1.1.222-226):
I yet
beseech your Majesty,
If
for I want that glib and oily art,
To
speak and purpose not, since what I well intend
I'll
do't before I speak, that you may know
It is
no vicious blot....
There
is a slight difference between the Quarto and Folio
here, the Folio reading "since what I will intend, / Ile do't
before I speake, that you make knowne / It is no vicious
blot...."
In the Quarto Cordelia has already made up her mind what she "well"
intends to do, and her only wish is that her father "may" know that
her intentions have been pure. In the Folio, on the other hand, she
might not
have decided what action she will take, but she will not speak about
her
intentions, she will leave it to Lear to "make" it known that her
intentions were noble.[8] This
difference between "may" and "make" seems to be reflected
in the last words of Lear in the play which again are different in the
Quarto
to those in the Folio. The Quarto (5.3.305) reads:
And my
poore foole is hangd: no, no life, why should a dog, a horse, a rat of
life and
thou no breath at all, O thou wilt come no more, neuer, neuer, neuer,
pray you
vndo this button, thank you sir, O,o,o,o.
while
the Folio (3277) reads:
And my
poore Foole is hang'd: no, no, no life?
Why
should a Dog, a Horse, a Rat haue life,
And
thou no breath at all? Thou'lt come no more,
Neuer,
neuer, neuer, neuer, neuer.
Pray
you vndo this Button. Thanke you Sir,
Do you
see this? Looke on her? Looke her lips,
Looke
there, looke there.
Commentators
have noted the different endings here, but
there has not been a satisfactory explanation of the differences. The
difference between the Quarto and the Folio after "thank you sir"
seems too great to be attributed to memorial reconstruction. I believe
that in
the Quarto Lear dies upon the realisation that the Fool and Cordelia
are one
and the same. He "may" know, but he dies before he gets a
chance to try to "make" it known to others, as he tries to do in the
Folio, where he invites people to look on the face of Cordelia and
notice that
it is the same as the Fool's. As we have noted before, none of the
other
characters in Lear's world make the connection between Fool and
Cordelia. For
them, Lear "knows not what he sees" and so they pay little attention
to the import of his words. But I am suggesting that James and early
audiences
could have been expected to assert the identity of the Fool.
From
Cordelia's words at the beginning of the play, we can see that in both
the
Quarto and the Folio there is the idea that she is going to do
something for
her father of which she is not going to speak - "I'll do't before I
speak...." She is determining here
that her behaviour will be consistent with the principles given to
Prince Henry
in Basilikon Doron, with Matthew 6, and with Seneca's work on Benefyting,
which principles would have been well known to audiences of the day. In
Leir
she does this at the end of the play when Leir comes to France looking
for her,
and she and the King of France serve him food, saving his life, while
she is
yet unknown to him. There is no way that her claim can have its
fulfilment in
the attempted rescue of Lear later in Shakespeare's play, for Cordelia
will
attribute the rescue to France, she will speak about it before
attempting to
deliver it, and will then not be able to deliver that which she
intended.
Neither can this be said to have its fulfilment in the sacrifice of
Cordelia as
she did not intend for this to happen. If she does anything for her
father
before she speaks about it, it has to be before her supposed return to
the play
in Act 4 Scene 4.
France
understands what Cordelia is saying, when she says "I'll do't before I
speak", as "a tardiness in nature, / That often leaves the history
unspoke that it intends to do". France then says (1.1.237-239),
Love's
not love
When
it is mingled with regards, that stands
Aloof
from th'entire point.
We
might expect from this statement by France that he is not
going to stand aloof from this situation, and that Cordelia is likewise
going
to be there with him.
France
then
declares Cordelia to be his Queen of France, suggesting that she bid
her
sisters farewell and promising (1.1.260):
Thou
losest here a better where to find.
In
the old play Cordella loses all that she has and then
wanders around the countryside until the King of France finds her and
takes her
back to France. Here, however, France has already found her, so there
is no
need for her to wander around England; and it would be expected that
they would
immediately return to France. Why then the uncertain "where"?[9] Surely
the "where" is meant to
suggest to those familiar with the old play that it may not be France!
And if
it's not France, then it would in all probability be England, since in
the old
story the King of France and Cordella return to England to redeem the
country
from the wicked sisters.
Cordelia
then
says to her sisters (1.1.267-274):
The
jewels of our father, with wash'd eyes
Cordelia
leaves you: I know you what you are,
And
like a sister am most loath to call
Your
faults as they are named. Love well our father,
To
your professed bosoms I commit him:
But
yet alas stood I within his grace,
I
would prefer him to a better place:.
So
farewell to you both.
Could
there not have been a suggestion in "I know you
what you are" that Cordelia is familiar with the folk legend, and that
she
recognises what the sisters are likely to get up to? Certainly, for the
audience, the sisters' reputation preceded them. She reluctantly
commits her
father to their bosoms for safe keeping saying, "But yet alas stood I
within his grace, I would prefer him to a better place." What is the
"better place" to which she would prefer her father if she could? It
contrasts with her sisters' bosoms to which she has to commit him, and
could be
a reference to her own bosom, to her own care and keeping, to her own
nursery.
Into whose keeping is Lear entrusted? The Fool's. It is the "Fool who
labours to out-jest" Lear's "heart-strook injuries." Just as in
the sub-plot Edgar, in various disguises, nurses his father's miseries
5.3.180,
so in the main plot, Cordelia, disguised as Fool nurses her father's
injuries.
Cordelia's
final words (1.1.279-281) before departing the stage are:
Time
shall unfold what plighted cunning hides,
Who
covers faults, at last with shame derides:
Well
may you prosper.
The
whole of this statement could refer to Goneril and
Regan, but there is not much time before their evil is before us. It is
there
in the remaining few lines of the first scene. As Creon tells Oedipus
in
Sophocles' King Oedipus: "one day proclaims the sinner."[10] But it is
also possible for the first line of Cordelia's parting words to refer
to
herself. In the Author's prelude to the account of "The Tragoedye of
Cordila" Higgins represents the ghost of Cordila as being bashful and
at
first slow to "vnfold" her grief.
It was also customary for royalty and prominent people in
Elizabethan
plays to unfold their intentions at the beginning of a play. We have an
example
of this in Locrine of 1595, to which Lear would also
appear to
owe much. There Brutus, King of Britain, is about to divide his kingdom
between
his three sons in much the same way Lear determines to divide it at the
beginning of Lear. Brutus says,
Then
harken to your soueraigns latest words,
In
which I will vnto you vnfold,
Our
royall mind and resolute intent....[11]
Cordelia
has not unfolded her intent, so it must be left to
Time to do this. Time will unfold what "pleated" (Quarto) or
"plighted" (Folio) cunning hides. These words have the common meaning
of folded, and so contrast with "unfold". But "pleated"
could be a quibble on the pleats of a ruff worn about the neck by men
and women
of rank in the late Sixteenth and early Seventeenth Centuries, and also
featuring in some clown outfits. "Plighted" can also be a reference to
troth-plight and to dangerous circumstances. Or they both could be a
reference
to Cordelia's hair which was perhaps plaited so that she could wear the
coxcomb. While "cunning"
usually has connotations of corruption today, in Shakespeare's times it
could
mean simply knowledge, skill, art, ability, cleverness or dexterity. It
could
therefore refer to having the kind of skill or dexterity that would
enable a
person to behave in all points like a Fool. Robert Armin, a member of
Shakespeare's troupe, in a little work FOOLE VPON FOOLE OR Six
Sortes of
Sottes, published in 1600, tells the story of "How a Minstrell
became
a foole artificiall, and had Iacke Oates his reward for his labour."[12]
Cordelia's
words at the end of Act 1 could have been expected to suggest to the
original
audience that it would eventually be revealed what a plighted person's
cunning,
skill, or dexterity enabled her to do while hidden from view in the
motley of a
Fool. This, of course, would be consistent with the instructions of Basilikon
Doron, Matthew 6 and Seneca's On Benefyting, and with
Cordelia's
earlier statements about herself. But, it will be objected, is she not
therefore talking about what she is going to do? Well yes, but not
directly. It
is a kind of Freudian slip. She is probably using the words to describe
what
she knows her sisters are going to get up to, and unwittingly gives us
a clue
as to what she well intends to do herself.
We
have seen
ambiguity in a number of speeches to this point of the play.
Shakespeare has
presented a riddle to his audience, which is not fully solved until the
King
makes known in the closing scene what his daughter intended to do for
him. So
far we have only looked at the first scene, and we will find much more
ambiguity as we proceed through the play, so we might ask at this point
why
there should be so much ambiguity at this 1606 Christmas festivity. A
little
over a year had passed since the discovery of the greatest attempt on
royalty
that England had seen, in which King James, his family and court were
to have
been destroyed. Had the Gunpowder Plot succeeded England would, no
doubt, have
come to the confusion which we see at the end of Lear. Early in
1606 A
Discourse of the Maner of the Discovery of this Late Intended Treason
was
published setting forth how King James himself, by "his fortunate
judgement in clearing and solving of obscure riddles and doubtful
mysteries"[13] had
discovered the nature of the plot from an anonymous letter sent to one
of his
lords warning him not to attend Parliament that day. Though some
controversy
surrounded the real discoverer of the meaning of the letter,[14] in his
speech to Parliament in 1605, James claimed that,
when
the Letter was shewed to me by my Secretary, wherein a generall obscure
aduertisement was giuen of some dangerous blow at this time, I did vpon
the
instant interpret and apprehend some darke phrases therein, contrary to
the
ordinary Grammer construction of them, (and in an other sort then I am
sure any
Diuine, or Lawyer in any Vniuersitie would haue taken them) to be meant
by this
horrible forme of blowing vs vp all by Powder; And thereupon ordered
that
search to be made, whereby the matter was discouered, and the man
apprehended:
whereas if I had apprehended or interpreted it to any other sort of
danger, no
worldly prouision or preuention could haue made vs escape our vtter
destruction.[15]
It
could be just such "darke phrases...contrary to the
ordinary Grammer construction of them, (and in an other sort then I am
sure any
Diuine, or Lawyer in any Vniuersity would haue taken them)" which
Shakespeare presents in Lear as a riddle for James to solve. It
seems to
me that the very text of the play as it was published could have been
intended
to be as much a riddle for its readers as the anonymous letter warning
of the
Gunpowder Plot was for James, or the letter which Edmund claimed was
written by
Edgar was for Gloucester.
Return
to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page