Return to Chapter Index
Return to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page
CORDELIA, KING LEAR AND HIS
FOOL.
CHAPTER VI
KENT, A KIND OF PURITAN.
Coleridge described Kent as "perhaps the nearest to
goodness in all Shakespeare's characters...."[1] and
certainly Kent is a good character, but I believe that it is not likely that
James I and Jacobean audiences would have left a performance of Lear
glorying in the goodness of Kent, for what Shakespeare has created in Kent is a
character who is, like Malvolio of Twelfth Night, "a kind of
Puritan", one who is "the best persuaded of himself; so crammed, as
he thinks, with excellencies that it is his grounds of faith that all who look
on him love him" (2.3.141-154). In Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, it was
common to ridicule Puritans primarily because of their opposition to the
theatres in London. This ridicule had to be somewhat restrained in performances
in the public theatres, but there was no need for restraint in performances at
Court which gave its support to the theatres, and to theatrical troupes such as
Shakespeare's. Not only were the Courts
of Elizabeth and James fond of theatre, they were also opposed to the Puritans
for their own reasons.
James'
attitude towards the Puritans can be seen from his Basilikon Doron,
which begins with his explanation to the reader concerning his comments, in the
body of that work, on "Puritanes, and rashe-headie preachers, that thinke
it their honour to contend with Kings, & perturbe whole kingdomes."
(p. 90) He continues:
And
what in other parts I speake of Puritanes, it is onely of their morall faults,
in that part where I speake of policie: declaring when they contemne the law
and soueraigne authoritie, what examplare punishment they deserue for the
same." (p. 91)
He seemed to want to narrow the use of the word Puritan down
to "that vile sect amongst the Anabaptists, called the Familie of
loue" who
"thinke
themselues only pure, and in a manner, without sinne, the onely true Church,
and onely worthie to be participant of the Sacraments : and all the rest of the
world to be but abomination in the sight of God. Of this special sect I
principally meane, when I speake of Puritanes ; diuers of them, as Browne,
Penrie, and others, hauing at sundrie times come in Scotland, to sowe their
popple among vs. (p. 92)
The Puritans and Brownists had, among other things, opposed the
repetition of the Lord's Prayer, and came under criticism again in James' short
work, A MEDITATION VPON THE LORDS PRAYER.[2] On the
matter of prayer, he advises his son Henry, in the first book of Basilikon
Doron,
In
your prayer, bee neither ouer straunge with God, like the ignorant common sort,
that prayeth nothing but out of books; nor yet ouer homelie with him, like some
of the vaine Pharisaicall Puritanes, that think they rule him vpon their
fingers. (p. 105)
In the second book, he warns Henry against "the
pręposterous humilitie of one of the Proud Puritanes." (p. 140)
Considering
James' descriptions of the Puritans as "Proud", and
"Pharisaicall", it is interesting to reflect again on James' words,
which we saw earlier from BASILIKON DORON, namely the conclusion of the
first book:
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)
The "proud Pharisie" is one who glories in his own
godliness, who seeks the applause of men for the good he does at the cost of
his reward from God, and clearly, in James' mind this is descriptive of his
opponents the Puritans. He will even go so far as to write in the second book:
And to
my aduice anent the Church estate, cherishe no man more than a good Pastor,
hate no man more than a proude Puritane. (p. 119)
We have
earlier maintained that Cordelia is acting on the principles contained in the
concluding paragraph of the first book of Basilikon Doron when she
serves her father disguised as his Fool. What we are maintaining here is that
Kent, somewhat like James' "Proude Puritanes", is very much
interested in parading his goodness before others for their admiration, and in
doing so provides a foil for the character of Cordelia.
Even the
received understanding of the action of Lear can readily be seen to
depict Kent as a kind of Puritan. In 1.4, as we learn from Kent that he has
disguised himself, we hear him say:
Now,
banish'd Kent,
If
thou canst serve where thou dost stand condemn'd,
So may
it come, thy master, whom thou lov'st,
Shall
find thee full of labours.
Clearly, his expressed wish here is to be discovered in the
service of Lear by Lear, and no doubt James and Jacobean audiences would see
him also interested in being seen by God, and rewarded at the Last Judgement at
the end of the world. Kent's words here are an echo of another passage from
Matthew 24:
45.
Who then is that faithfull and wise seruant, whome his lord hath made ruler
ouer his houshold, to giue them meat in season? 46. Blessed is that seruant,
whome his lorde when he commeth, shall find so doing.
When Lear asks Kent what he professes Kent replies:
I do
profess to be no less than I seem; to serve him truly that will put me in
trust: to love him that is honest; to
converse with him that is wise, and says little; to fear judgment; to fight
when I cannot choose; and to eat no fish. (1.4.13ff)
John Murphy saw these words as the "combination of
Biblical piety, stock Puritanism, and sly worldly cunning."[3]
At the end of
his quarrel with Oswald and Cornwall outside Gloucester's castle, Cornwall's
words invite us to think of Kent as somewhat of a "reverend braggart"
2.2.123. Even though these words come from Cornwall, I think we can see that
Cornwall is right in this. In 3.1 we see Kent telling the Gentleman that he is
more than his dress suggests and sends him off to Cordelia to show her his ring
and deliver a letter to her which tell of his activities on the King's behalf.
When in 3.6 Gloucester leads Lear, Fool and Kent to the farmhouse, Kent invokes
the Gods to reward Gloucester's kindness, which is what Kent is wanting from
his disguised service. When we meet Kent in 4.3, he has left the poor
distressed Lear unattended to go and enquire about the reception that Cordelia
gave to his letters:
Kent.
Did your letters pierce the queen to any
demonstration of grief?
...
Kent.
O! then it mov'd her.
...
Kent.
Made she no verbal question?
..
Kent.
Was this before the king return'd?
As we suggested in the previous chapter, by this last
comment Kent seems to be wondering whether France has heard all that he had
done. He tells the Gentleman that his identity must remain concealed until some
"dear cause" is taken care of. This dear cause is, no doubt,
obtaining Cordelia's and Lear's acknowledgment of his service, the first of
which comes at the opening of Act 4 Scene 7. When Cordelia acknowledges his
goodness he protests that, "To be acknowledg'd ... is o'er-paid." But
it seems he has sent her several ("All") factual reports of what he
has done for her father. In the Quarto text at 5.3.210-216 we have Edgar's
telling of his encounter with Kent and of Kent's report of what he had done for
Lear:
...with
his strong arms
He
fasten'd on my neck, and bellow'd out
As
he'd burst heaven; threw him on my father;
Told
the most piteous tale of Lear and him
That
ever ear receiv'd; which in recounting,
His grief
grew puissant, and the strings of life
Began
to crack. Twice then the trumpets sounded,
And
there I left him tranced.
...the
banished Kent: who in disguise
Follow'd
his enemy king, and did him service
Improper
for a slave.
If we recall again the words of James to his son at the end
of the first book of Basilikon Doron:
...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,
then we can see that Kent has failed in this, for he has
written to Cordelia of all he has done for Lear, and related it to Edgar in
such a way that he almost died of his own grief in retelling it. Further, when
Kent's identity is finally acknowledged by Lear, Kent reminds him of Caius
(Kent's disguised identity) and seeks to have Lear understand that he was the
same person, not long after we have heard the Doctor (in the Quarto only)
suggest "yet it is danger/ To make him even o'er the time he has
lost." If we remember the comment
of Seneca:
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 (p. 14)
I believe that we can be, like King James and those viewing
the Quarto version of Lear could have been, critical of the Puritanism
of Kent, who has not long before heard how Gloucester died upon the revelation
of the disguised service of Edgar, and now pushes Lear to remember his
disguised service. We could say that in Lear's case "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", but Kent will make it known. He can even be seen to
overlook all that the Fool had done when he persists, "Nor no man
else." The Folio's deletion of the word of warning about the danger in
making Lear go over the time he had lost, as well as the cutting of the report
of how Kent revealed his service of Lear to Edgar (5.3.205-220) lessens the
criticism that could be levelled at the Puritanical Kent, and would have made
the Folio version of the play more acceptable in the public theatre of which
the Puritans were the greatest critics.
There is, in
the words of Albany in the last moments of the play, an interesting
unintentional (on Albany's part) pun on the word "vain". Kent has
just failed to get the kind of acknowledgment that he has wanted from Lear, and
continues to try to get Lear to understand what has happened. Albany tells
Kent:
He
[Lear] knows not what he says/sees: and vain is it
That
we present us to him.
Albany means, as Edgar says, that it's "Very
bootless" that they try to get Lear to understand who they are. But I
believe that Shakespeare had Albany use the word "vain" to cause the
audience to reflect on Kent's vanity! Kent has already stated hypocritically
that "to be acknowledged is over-paid" but wishes to remain disguised
and pushes for acknowledgment[4]. If a member
of the audience had glanced at Kent's vanity in wanting to make his service
known to Lear, what might have been made of Albany's "Very bootless"?
Might not there have been a suggestion of a lack of reward here? Albany will
immediately offer "boot" or reward to Kent and Edgar according to
their merits.
Kent's
concluding words are that he has a journey to go on shortly.
"Shortly" is probably meant to suggest Revelation 1:1:
GOD
THE FATHER hath directed his Sonne and Word, IESVS CHRIST, to send downe an
Angel or Minister, to me Iohn his seruant, and by him to reueal vnto mee
certaine things which are shortly to come to passe.[5]
Kent's master, God, is shortly going to call him to his
reward in heaven and he "must not say no" because God would be
disappointed if Kent turned down his invitation. But, if we make a judgement of
Kent on the basis of Matthew 6:1-4, which I believe repeated allusions to the
end of the world and the last judgement, together with Kent's last words,
invite us to do, then we might wonder whether Kent had any reward left and if
his master would call him! We have already considered the significance of
Matthew 6:1-4 to this play. It reads:
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.
In this passage there is mention of hypocrites which is the
term repeatedly applied to the proud Pharisees in the Gospels (Matthew 23), and
it is the Pharisees, as we have seen, that James I equates with the Puritans.
Jennens[6] thought
that the play would end best just before Kent makes this his final speech, but
we can see that these words fit Shakespeare's characterisation of this
self-congratulating Kent who seeks his reward from men.
If we see in
the Fool and the Servant/Knight/Gentleman, Cordelia and France, as I am arguing
that we can, then Kent's Puritanical nature becomes even more pronounced, in
ways I suggested in the previous chapter, so much so, that we can understand
that while Shakespeare can perform this before the Court of King James, there
is no way that he could perform all of it for the general public of the theatre
without fear of some repercussions from the Puritan authorities, and so he cut
the bitter anti-Puritan satire of Act 4 Scene 3, Act 4 Scene 7 lines 85 - 97 and Act 5 Scene 3 lines 205-220 when
he revised the play as it stands in the Folio.
To see
Shakespeare's inspiration for making Kent the vehicle of anti-Puritan satire we
must return to the 1605 version of Leir. Shakespeare and the unknown
author of Leir add to the traditional story a companion for the
legendary King. Perillus is the companion of Leir who accompanies him,
undisguised from Leir, through the countryside of England, over the channel to
France, then back home to England. One thing that stands out about Perillus is
his constant profession of support for Leir even to the extent of being
prepared to die in his place. Lines 1688-1698 read:
Per. I, who
haue borne you company in life,
Most
willingly will beare a share in death.
It
skilleth not for me, my friend, a whit,
Nor for
a hundred such as thou and I
....
Oh,
but beware, how thou dost lay thy hand
Vpon
the high anoynted of the Lord:
O, be
aduised ere thou dost begin:
Dispatch
me straight, but meddle not with him.
His profession is most incredible when in France (lines 2087
- 2129) he offers to let Leir feed upon his blood.
Per. Alack, my
good Lord, my heart doth bleed, to think
That
you should be in such extremity.
....
Ah, my
deare Lord, how doth my heart lament,
To see
you brought to this extremity!
O, if
you loue me, as you do professe,
Or
euer thought well of me in my life, He strips vp his arme.
Feed
on this flesh, whose veynes are not so dry,
O,
feed on this, if this will do you good,
Ile
smile for joy, to see you suck my blood.
One has the impression in reading Leir that Perillus
would not follow through with his offer. He doesn't anyhow, because Cordella
and the King of France come to the rescue. Then at the end of the play, back in
England, when all confront Gonorill and Ragan, Gonorill calls Cordella a
"(Puritan) dissembling hypocrite/ Which art so good that thou wilt proue
stark naught", (lines 2578,9) words which we are not prepared to apply to
Cordella, but could perhaps consider applying to Perillus. In Shakespeare's
mind, then, Kent is to be presented as a kind of Puritan, whose opinion of
himself is so great that he will not be able to live up to it, and that, I
believe, is the way he does portray him.
For all his
talk, there is very little action on the part of Kent. His two attacks upon
Oswald are, as we shall see, attacks on a youth and only serve to inflame
Cornwall's opposition to Lear. There is what seems to me to be an important
speech by Kent found in the Quarto, but not in the Folio, which shows Kent in a
not too good light. When Gloucester comes to tell Kent that a litter has been
made ready and that he should bear Lear to it and drive him to Dover, we have
Kent telling Fool, "Come helpe to beare thy maister, thou must not stay
behind." Imagine the feelings of an audience towards the man, who claims
to be middle aged, who tries to compel one who is, albeit unknown to him, a
young frail princess, disguised as a jester, into carrying half the weight of
her aged, and possibly heavy, father to an awaiting litter. I take, "thou
must not stay behind" to indicate that Kent thinks the Fool is retreating
from the prospect of having to carry Lear thinking that Gloucester and Kent are
well able to carry him. But Kent is not prepared to exert himself and so either
wants the Fool to assist him or even take his place altogether! In this, I
believe, Kent is being set up to be presented as a hypocrite when he will later
meet up with Cordelia to whom he has reported all he did!
Return to King Lear Notes
Back to Home page
[1]. See E.M.
O'Connor Who's Who and What's What in Shakespeare (New York, 1978) p.183.
[2]. A
MEDITATION VPON THE LORDS PRAYER, Written BY THE KINGS MAIESTIE, London,
1616. pp. 6-19.
[3]. Murphy, J.L., Darkness and Devils
(Athens, Ohio, 1984) p. 177.
[4]. That
"vain" could be used in this way is evident from Kent's own
descrip-tion of Goneril as "Vanity the puppet" (2.2.34), and
Goneril's description of Albany as "vain fool" (4.2.61).
[5]. A
PARAPHRASE VPON THE REVELATION OF THE APOSTLE S. IOHN THE WORKES OF THE MOST
HIGH AND MIGHTIE PRINCE, JAMES London, 1616 (STC 14345) page 7.
[6]. King
Lear, ed. H.H. Furness (Philadelphia, 1880) p. 349.