King Lear and the tragic: the use of "pity" and "fear" in the play

Fear and Pity

Lear is not a tragic hero in a traditional sense; we get Gloucester in the place of this traditional model. It seems to me that, by presenting the traditional model of tragedy alongside something other than this, Shakespeare explores the possibilities of the tragic.

For Aristotle, tragedy was defined in a way by the kind of response it evoked in the audience and in the chareacters themselves – pity and fear. These two words appear often in King Lear, as Shakespeare seems to explore the implications of pity and fear – the traditional description of the response to the tragic.

The first half of the play is full of fear. For example, a couple of quotations from I, iv.

Goneril: Sir,
I had thought, by making this well known unto you,
To have found a safe redress, but now grow fearful,
By what yourself, too, late have spoke and done (I, iv, 209 -- my italics)

And

Alb. Well, you may fear too far.
Gon. Safer than trust too far.
Let me still take away the harms I fear,
Not fear still to be taken. I know his heart.
What he hath utter'd I have writ my sister.
If she sustain him and his hundred knights,
When I have show'd th' unfitness-

Enter [Oswald the] Steward.

How now, Oswald?
What, have you writ that letter to my sister?
Osw. Yes, madam.
Gon. Take you some company, and away to horse!
Inform her full of my particular fear,
And thereto add such reasons of your own
As may compact it more. (I, iv, 334-346 -- my italics)

Does Goneril fear Lear too far? Is he in control of his knights or not? These people live in fear. Regan says at the end of Act II, “Wisdom bids fear.” In fact, there is a conspicuous lack of pity in them. In their world, pity is sinful: “Glou. Alack, alack, Edmund, I like not this unnatural dealing! When I desir'd their leave that I might pity him, they took from me the use of mine own house, charg'd me on pain of perpetual displeasure neither to speak of him, entreat for him, nor any way sustain him.” (III, iii, 1-8).

In their world, there’s a conjunction of pity and fools:

Gon. Milk-liver'd man!
That bear'st a cheek for blows, a head for wrongs;
Who hast not in thy brows an eye discerning
Thine honour from thy suffering; that not know'st
Fools do those villains pity who are punish'd
Ere they have done their mischief. Where's thy drum?
France spreads his banners in our noiseless land,
With plumed helm thy state begins to threat,
Whiles thou, a moral fool, sit'st still, and criest
'Alack, why does he so?' (IV, ii, 50-59 -- my italics)

By Act III, however, fear gives way to pity. “Fool. O nuncle, court holy water in a dry house is better than this rain water out o' door. Good nuncle, in, and ask thy daughters blessing! Here's a night pities nether wise men nor fools.” (III, ii, 10-14 -- my italics). Then this by Kent:

Kent. Alas, sir, are you here? Things that love night
Love not such nights as these. The wrathful skies
Gallow the very wanderers of the dark
And make them keep their caves. Since I was man,
Such sheets of fire, such bursts of horrid thunder,
Such groans of roaring wind and rain, I never
Remember to have heard. Man's nature cannot carry
Th' affliction nor the fear. (III, ii, 42-49)

The basic question asked here is – how can man endure a life of all fear, and no pity?

When Lear does feel pity, or the related word “sorrow”, it’s seen as connected with life, the ability to endure, as Lear in part overcomes his mad egotism:

Lear. My wits begin to turn.
Come on, my boy. How dost, my boy? Art cold?
I am cold myself. Where is this straw, my fellow?
The art of our necessities is strange,
That can make vile things precious. Come, your hovel.
Poor fool and knave, I have one part in my heart
That's sorry yet for thee. (III, ii, 67-73)

However, here Lear’s pity is the result of seeing everything as himself – “you’re cold, I’m cold myself….” If he sees everyone in terms of himself, he’s not capable of self-criticism.

As the idea of pity comes with increasing frequency, the idea of fear in the play is more closely defined. It had seemed to refer to the feelings the “bad” characters had of each other, and of Lear – a fear of their safety, their independence. For a character like Albany, the fear felt in this play is fear of a different order.

Alb. O Goneril,
You are not worth the dust which the rude wind
Blows in your face! I fear your disposition.
That nature which contemns it origin
Cannot be bordered certain in itself.
She that herself will sliver and disbranch
From her material sap, perforce must wither
And come to deadly use. (IV, ii, 30-37 -- my italics)

Two points need to be made: first, the severing of natural relationships, the denying of kinship, is something profoundly to be feared. This is a pervasive theme in the play (Lear and his daughters, Edmund and his father, Cornwall wanting to be Edmund’s father while Gloucester is still alive). It concerns the severing of natural marital relations as well:

Reg. Lady, I am not well; else I should answer
From a full-flowing stomach. General,
Take thou my soldiers, prisoners, patrimony;
Dispose of them, of me; the walls are thine.
Witness the world that I create thee here
My lord and master.
Gon. Mean you to enjoy him?
Alb. The let-alone lies not in your good will.
Edm. Nor in thine, lord.
Alb. Half-blooded fellow, yes.
Reg. [to Edmund] Let the drum strike, and prove my title thine.
Alb. Stay yet; hear reason. Edmund, I arrest thee
On capital treason; and, in thine attaint,
This gilded serpent [points to Goneril]. For your claim, fair
sister,
I bar it in the interest of my wife.
'Tis she is subcontracted to this lord,
And I, her husband, contradict your banes.
If you will marry, make your loves to me;
My lady is bespoke. (V, iii, 75-90)

Regan repeats and echoes I, i, with variations. It’s about unnatural marriages. Albany is the character who sees the horror of the violation of marriage – he understands the horror of this speech.

All of this seems right in Albany. But then, his view of Lear is Lear’s view of Lear:

Alb. Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile;
Filths savour but themselves. What have you done?
Tigers, not daughters, what have you perform'd?
A father, and a gracious aged man,
Whose reverence even the head-lugg'd bear would lick,
Most barbarous, most degenerate, have you madded.
Could my good brother suffer you to do it?
A man, a prince, by him so benefited!
If that the heavens do not their visible spirits
Send quickly down to tame these vile offences,
It will come,
Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
Like monsters of the deep- (IV, ii, 39-45)

This quotation leads to the second of the two points that needed to be made: wisdom and goodness are connected to the fear of the severing of such natural human relationships. If this is what defines wisdom and goodness, can Lear, then, be wise or good? (Rhetorical question!)

These discussions of the violation of natural bonds, and the fear such violations occasion, leads to a reemphasis on pity. Pity is connected with images of procreation, with natural renewal, with a recognition of “otherness”

Act IV, scene vi is important in this connection. At about line 207 a gentleman comments on “A sight most pitiful in the meanest wretch, past speaking of in a king.” Recall, when Lear feels pity, it’s pity of others being like him – Edgar as poor Tom must be pitied because he must have been betrayed by daughters. This gentleman’s pity is the opposite of Lear’s egotism.

Another example occurs around line 225 –

Edg. A most poor man, made tame to fortune's blows,
Who, by the art of known and feeling sorrows,
Am pregnant to good pity. Give me your hand;
I'll lead you to some biding.

This is an affirmation of the natural bond with Gloucester, his father. Pity is connected with conception (“pregnant”), and with goodness, which runs counter to the vile references to conception and children throughout the play, especially by Lear himself.

Pity, then has to do with renewal, and with goodness and the ability to recognize the suffering of others as separate from ourselves. This pity doesn’t extend to the “bad” characters, however. The response to them continues to be one of fear.

Look at V, iii, 225 or so

Edg. What means that bloody knife?
Gent. 'Tis hot, it smokes.
It came even from the heart of-O! she's dead!
Alb. Who dead? Speak, man.
Gent. Your lady, sir, your lady! and her sister
By her is poisoned; she hath confess'd it.
Edm. I was contracted to them both. All three
Now marry in an instant.

Enter Kent.

Edg. Here comes Kent.
Alb. Produce their bodies, be they alive or dead.
[Exit Gentleman.]
This judgement of the heavens, that makes us tremble
Touches us not with pity. (my italics)

Albany here gauges our response. We tremble at heaven’s judgment of Goneril and Regan and Cornwall (i.e. fear) but we don’t pity them. Pity is evoked only by characters deserving of it.

Why pity Lear, then – for he is pitied here.
a) his intentions were to avoid future strife?
b) because he’s not fully knowledgable of himself or others?

Why isn’t he feared? How does he differ from Goneril, Regan, Edmund etc?
a) Lear not consciously evil?

Shakespeare, in Hamlet, suggests that the words to describe the tragic effect of that play are not fear and pity, but woe and wonder. It’s clear that the wonder felt in this play is of the following kind, as Kent says – “the wonder is he hath endured so long.” We wonder at the extent of Lear’s suffering. The woe is “present business” – the death of Lear, Cordelia, Gloucester, the rule of the “gored” state.

Lear and tragic recognition

I want to compare Gloucester and Lear for a moment or two. We’ve seen that Shakespeare has them use similar language patterns in the play – “who yet is no dearer” does not really indicate that he loves either of his sons. So, a comparison of them in the play seems important and apt.

I’ll skip ahead in the “Gloucester” story to the section that I think is most important for my own darker purposes:

Glou. All dark and comfortless! Where's my son Edmund?
Edmund, enkindle all the sparks of nature
To quit this horrid act.
Reg. Out, treacherous villain!
Thou call'st on him that hates thee. It was he
That made the overture of thy treasons to us;
Who is too good to pity thee.
Glou. O my follies! Then Edgar was abus'd.
Kind gods, forgive me that, and prosper him! III, vii, 86-93

Here we have Gloucester at the moment of maximum suffering, and it is here at the moment during which he suffers most, that he learns the truth. This is the expected tragic recognition scene.

The question in this play The Tragedy of King Lear is where is the comparable scene for Lear. Does Lear ever come to the sort of full knowledge that allows him to see himself and others clearly as Gloucester does here (ironically in his physical blindness)? This is what is requisite for the tragic. Can it be found in the play?

Let’s look at another speech by Gloucester:

Glou. The King is mad. How stiff is my vile sense,
That I stand up, and have ingenious feeling
Of my huge sorrows! Better I were distract.
So should my thoughts be sever'd from my griefs,
And woes by wrong imaginations lose
The knowledge of themselves. IV, vii, 284-289

This defines the clear-sighted tragic hero, who comes to his clear-sightedness too late, who is horrified at his own “huge sorrows”, and at Lear’s. But Gloucester sees Lear’s madness as what comforts him, what keeps him from knowing. Does Lear develop such clear-sighted, sane, self knowledge, as Gloucester indicates is opposed to madness?

• Does Lear ever come to know how he has wronged Cordelia, the improper incestuous relationship he’d wanted?
• Does Lear ever come to know his responsibility in the Goneril and Regan part of the plot?
• Does Lear ever know himself?

From the first scene of the play, this last question is an issue – Regan says “he hath ever but slenderly known himself.” His lack of self knowledge is manifested in other ways here too – it’s translated into an inability to judge in many ways: Lear’s intention in I, i, is “that future strife may be prevented now.” But what does he do that could prevent future strife?

a) he proposes an unequal division of the kingdom
b) publicly humiliates his daughters – withholds their dowries
c) Clearly publicly favours Cordelia over his other two daughters
d) Banishes her, and Kent

His action is bad, and leads inevitably to the actions of the rest of the play. There’s an inevitability here that’s part of what separates the comic and the tragic in Shakespeare.

In the comedies, characters intend something, something else happens, characters make mistakes, misjudgments, but are given another chance to set things right, to make things turn out properly. In tragedies there is an inevitability to the actions and consequences, and the consequences are irreversible. Lear intends one thing, the consequences are other. Period. Macbeth can’t change the consequences of his action; even knowing them fully, he can’t avoid them.

Lear can’t judge well from the start, then. But does he learn?? Go through the play and see what his speeches reveal. 5 major scenarios where Lear comments on the action of the play:

1. Act 1 scenes 4 and 5 – concerning Goneril
2. Act 2 scene 4 – concerning Regan
3. Act 3 scenes 2, 4, and 6 – In the storm – the reason in madness bits
4. Act 4, scenes 6 and 7 – after the storm
5. Act 5, scene 3 – the attitude to Cordelia at the end of the play.

1. Concerning Goneril:

Woe that too late repents!-O, sir, are you come?
Is it your will? Speak, sir!-Prepare my horses.
Ingratitude, thou marble-hearted fiend,
More hideous when thou show'st thee in a child
Than the sea-monster!
Alb. Pray, sir, be patient.
Lear. [to Goneril] Detested kite, thou liest!
My train are men of choice and rarest parts,
That all particulars of duty know
And in the most exact regard support
The worships of their name.-O most small fault,
How ugly didst thou in Cordelia show!
Which, like an engine, wrench'd my frame of nature
From the fix'd place; drew from my heart all love
And added to the gall. O Lear, Lear, Lear!
Beat at this gate that let thy folly in [Strikes his head.]
And thy dear judgment out! (I, iv, 266-279)

Lear’s charge against Goneril is “ingratitude”. She’s not grateful for what he’s done. This impies, of course, that she should be grateful, that he’s been correct and bountiful to her. He repeats essentially the same charge a few lines later “that she may feel / How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is / To have a thankless child!” 294-296

In this same section, he says of Cordelia: “O most small fault, / How ugly didst thou in Cordelia show!” But is it fault at all that she shows?

Then later, in I, v, the following quotations: “So kind a father” “monster ingratitude”. It’s a vision of himself as blameless, as simply kind. That’s not the Lear I saw in I, i.

2. concerning Regan

Lear leaves Goneril, and goes for comfort and support from Regan. It’s easy to feel that Lear is in the right exclusively, it’s easy to identify and sympathize with him:

Regan. …Therefore I pray you
That to our sister you do make return;
Say you have wrong'd her, sir.
Lear. Ask her forgiveness?
Do you but mark how this becomes the house:
'Dear daughter, I confess that I am old. [Kneels.]
Age is unnecessary. On my knees I beg
That you'll vouchsafe me raiment, bed, and food.' (II, iv, 149-153)

Look at how Lear views the Goneril scenes we’ve just been looking at. He discounts the possibility of his having any sort of fault here. His vision of himself is of a king father who has simply grown old.

Then, the following from the same scene:

Lear. …Thou better know'st
The offices of nature, bond of childhood,
Effects of courtesy, dues of gratitude.
Thy half o' th' kingdom hast thou not forgot,
Wherein I thee endow'd. (II, iv, 176-179)

The first lines echo Cordelia’s answer to Lear in I, i. Her answer saw “bond” in terms of “love” “honour” and “duty” to obey. He sees “bond” as “courtesy” and “gratitude.” So for him it’s still the same complaint. I gave you half the kingdom; you should be grateful. I’ve done, that is, my duty according to my bond, no more no less. I suggested that he doesn’t see his bond with Cordelia properly – that it’s incestuous. Here, it’s clear he doesn’t see his bond with the other sisters properly either.

Lear’s final speech in II, iv is one of self reflection:

You see me here, you gods, a poor old man,
As full of grief as age; wretched in both.
If it he you that stirs these daughters' hearts
Against their father, fool me not so much
To bear it tamely; touch me with noble anger,
And let not women's weapons, water drops,
Stain my man's cheeks! No, you unnatural hags!
I will have such revenges on you both
That all the world shall-I will do such things-
What they are yet, I know not; but they shall be
The terrors of the earth! You think I'll weep.
No, I'll not weep. (II, iv, 271-282)

It’s still the same old Lear.

3. In the storm:

However, next come the storm scenes, the scenes of external storm and internal torment. This is most often viewed as the turning point, that Lear’s madness is purgative, that it allows him to see clearly – it’s the “reason in madness” idea, that in a state of madness, one sometimes reveals truth. IF something like this happens, it doesn’t do so very quickly! III, ii opens with a speech invoking the storm to wipe out ingratitude:

And thou, all-shaking thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o' th' world,
Crack Nature's moulds, all germains spill at once,
That makes ingrateful man! (III, ii, 6-9)

It’s still ingratitude then – that’s what he sees the events of Acts I and II as displaying and meaning. Go on a few lines to around 17: “I tax not you, you elements, with inkindness, / I never gave you kingdom, called you children, / You owe me no subscription.” These lines suggest again his incapacity to see himself as in any way responsible. He has done everything properly in his view.
With this as the pervasive, unwavering version of the events of the play as seen by Lear, how are we to respond to the lines, “I am a man / More sinned against than sinning.”? This is often seen as Lear’s initial recognition of his own sinfulness. But it seems to me, given the pattern, it only means that they are sinners. It allows the possibility that he hasn’t sinned at all.
One possibility of seeing Lear coming into “knowledge” is in the following from III, iv, 32-33 – “O, I have ta’en / Too little care of this.” But surely the play is not about “this” (poor naked sufferers in the storm) in any major way. This isn’t a response to what we’ve seen in the first two acts of the play. So, if Lear does learn something here, it’s not what he needs to learn in the play. And in this very scene, when Lear refers to the important events in the play, it’s the same old story, the whole thing summed up just a few lines earlier – “filial ingratitude”, and then (around line 19) “O Regan, Goneril / Your kind old father, whose frank heart gave all -- / O, that way madness lies.” That final bit “that way madness lies” is correct. That is madness, viewing the play as Lear does here is madness, but it has been how he’s viewed it from the start. And he continues to as well: “unkind daughters/ discarded fathers”, “those pelican daughters” (Pelicans were thought to feed on their parents’ blood).

Lear’s view of himself as faultless in the play continues in III, vi. In the mock trial scene, Lear gives evidence against his daughters to Edgar and the Fool, concluding with the horrible image of dissecting Regan to see what has gone wrong with her.

4. After the storm

What about after the storm? Is any of the following really “knowing”

Ha! Goneril with a white beard? They flatter'd me like a dog,
and told me I had white hairs in my beard ere the black ones
were there. To say 'ay' and 'no' to everything I said! 'Ay' and
'no' too was no good divinity. When the rain came to wet me
once, and the wind to make me chatter; when the thunder would
not peace at my bidding; there I found 'em, there I smelt 'em
out. Go to, they are not men o' their words! They told me I was
everything. 'Tis a lie-I am not ague-proof. (IV, vi, 98-107)

How close to what really happened is this? When Lear says, very poignantly but without knowing he speaks to Gloucester “Gloucester’s bastard son / Was kinder to his father than my daughters” – this SURELY is not knowing!!

What sort of knowing is revealed in the speech to which Edgar responds “reason in madness”? This would seem to be a central speech:

Lear. What, art mad? A man may see how the world goes with no eyes.
Look with thine ears. See how yond justice rails upon yond
simple thief. Hark in thine ear. Change places and, handy-dandy,
which is the justice, which is the thief? Thou hast seen a
farmer's dog bark at a beggar?
Glou. Ay, sir.
Lear. And the creature run from the cur? There thou mightst behold
the great image of authority: a dog's obeyed in office.
Thou rascal beadle, hold thy bloody hand!
Why dost thou lash that whore? Strip thine own back.
Thou hotly lusts to use her in that kind
For which thou whip'st her. The usurer hangs the cozener.
Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pygmy's straw does pierce it.
None does offend, none-I say none! I'll able 'em.
Take that of me, my friend, who have the power
To seal th' accuser's lips. Get thee glass eyes
And, like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not. Now, now, now, now!
Pull off my boots. Harder, harder! So.
Edg. O, matter and impertinency mix'd!
Reason, in madness! (IV, vi, 152-175)

Read the speech by Lear. It’s about the inability to know, the inability to judge. Moreover, it’s a world where everyone is criminal. This speech can be many things, but it is NOT a speech demonstrating Lear knowing anything.

5. attitude to Cordelia at the end of the play…

Even when he’s reunited with Cordelia, it doesn’t seem to me that Lear has learned anything at all. He’s the same character:

Lear. Be your tears wet? Yes, faith. I pray weep not.
If you have poison for me, I will drink it.
I know you do not love me; for your sisters
Have, as I do remember, done me wrong.
You have some cause, they have not.
Cor. No cause, no cause. (IV, vii, 70-75)

Can he be more mistaken, or mistaken in more ways? Is it true that Cordelia does not love Lear? Is it true that the sisters have “no cause” to have stopped loving Lear?

Lear hasn’t changed. Moreover, he’s the same character in the more disturbing context of the nature of the relationship he envisions between himself and Cordelia:

Lear. No, no, no, no! Come, let's away to prison.
We two alone will sing like birds i' th' cage.
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down
And ask of thee forgiveness. So we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too-
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out-
And take upon 's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies; and we'll wear out,
In a wall'd prison, packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by th' moon.
Edm. Take them away.
Lear. Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia,
The gods themselves throw incense. Have I caught thee?
He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven
And fire us hence like foxes. Wipe thine eyes.
The goodyears shall devour 'em, flesh and fell,
Ere they shall make us weep! We'll see 'em starv'd first.
Come. (V, iii, 8-25)

It’s a reaffirmation. Lear reasserts the desire he had in the first scene, to live with Cordelia, here by withdrawing with her from the world. And with that, we’re right back to Act I, Scene i. There is not development. Lear cannot, then, be called a tragic hero. No wonder Cordelia cries here!

King Lear: Father and Daughters...

What is there in the opening act to motivate the violence we see in the play? Is there anything to make the extreme violence of the play understandable? As something more than just accidents or chance, say, as Gloucester and Edgar sometimes feel?

A more specific version of the same questions – why do Goneril and Regan act as they do against their father? After all, they each get a third, then a half, of the kingdom.

Possibilities:
1. They’re not very nice
2. Power corrupts
3. Do they treat him badly? That’s how I treat my father….

None of these answers seems to me satisfactory – they don’t take into account the possibility of any responsibility on Lear’s part (I’ll get to this idea later).

Part of reading Act I, scene i is imagining what’s happening, and the stage directions are important, as attendants enter, one of whom carries a coronet. This is a small crown, usually the Queen’s, as distinguished from the King’s larger crown.

So, Lear, two married daughters and their husbands, Kent and Cordelia all enter the room in King Lear’s palace. But how is this significant? The situation implies the crown was meant for Cordelia. It seems as if Lear intends to make Cordelia his queen. But if this is true, it’s at least possible that something is unnatural in Lear’s attitude to Cordelia – in some ways the intended act is psychologically incestuous. He’ll put Cordelia in a position a wife should occupy, not a daughter. This is a strong charge against Lear, who, then, is not capable of a natural loving relationship of father/daughter, who wants, and psychologically demands, a husband-wife relationship.

Lear speaks of Cordelia’s dowry. France and Burgandy have been hanging about for a long time, awaiting her hand in marriage (“Long in our court have made their amorous sojourn”). Yet Lear keeps them off stage during this scene, when they should be getting the dowry. His intention, then, seems to be to reward Cordelia, to give her the Queen’s crown – he says later “I loved her most, and thought to set my rest / On her kind nursery.” So:

1. He’ll give Cordelia her dowry directly – it usually goes to the husband but they’re offstage (I’m here assuming that the division of the kingdom IS the dowries)
2. He wants to live with her
3. He loved her most
4. The prospective husbands have no part in all this.

It all points to a father unwilling to depart from his daughter, unwilling, perhaps, to let her marry – he wants to be in the place of her husband, and he tries to guarantee his place with her by rewarding her with the best part of the kingdom. In effect, he gives himself the dowry that ought to go with Cordelia's prospective husband. And if he’s successful in this “plan”, Cordelia as “queen” of England will not be able to marry either of the suitors who are after her – Burgandy and France. She could not move to Burgandy (part of France) nor France; she could not marry either man.

Lear’s opening speech – it must hinge on the meaning of darker purpose. He can’t refer to the division of the kingdom (Gloucester and Kent have just been talking about it, so it’s no “dark” secret), nor the dowries (the division itself is the dowries). Perhaps the darker purpose is dark even to himself? I’ve suggested how it’s dark with respect to Cordelia. And their speeches indicate something of this sort as well. When Cordelia finally speaks, it’s this:

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? Haply, 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,
To love my father all. (I, i)

The speech has a couple of purposes. It is a literary criticism of the speeches of her sisters. Connected with this is clearly the question of the proper way of looking at husband-wife, father-daughter relationships. Cordelia says that Goneril and Regan have been false – that the bond they say they owe to Lear they really owe to their husbands. It is important that this is the language (that is, the speeches of Goneril and Regan) that Lear wants to hear, where daughters conceive of their relationship with their father as they should conceive of their relationship with their husbands.

But looking at Cordelia’s speech more closely, I think you see that, while she can recognize the issue in her sisters’ speeches, she does not see that it’s there in her own. She uses the language of the marriage ceremony to describe her relationship with her father (“obey”, “love” and “most honour”) – and says that her relationship with her husband will be exactly the same – husband and father will share equally – that lord shall take “half my love with him, half my care and duty.” (For the sake of a normative comparison, see Desdemona’s speech to her father, Brabantio, about choosing her husband over her father.)

Look at some of the language used to describe Lear’s actions: Kent calls it “hideous rashness” and a “foul disease”. France says to Lear that “Your fore-vouched affection / [Has fallen] into taint….” The language describes the kind of relationship I’ve been pointing to. I think, then, that I do understand Lear’s darker purpose.