No protagonist’s journey is complete without an antagonist there to reap in their sorrows. One could argue that King Lear there is no protagonist, but there are clear antagonists. Edmund, bastard son of Gloucester, is one of these painfully obvious villains. Every motive he has is to make himself the victor and drag someone else down. The treachery of Edmund’s villainy enhances the meaning of King Lear by putting him in situations that are not only dramatic, but outrageous. Edmund’s villainous ways add to the theme of madness and betrayal of King Lear. One thing that any reader can be sure of when they begin reading King Lear is that there is some tension between Edmund and his brother Edgar. Most of the problems stem from Edgar’s legitimate …show more content…
It is only an inference that Edmund would not have been happy with Edgar’s status and would then want his father’s. Edmund had to first convey his dedication to his father in order to usurp him. That is where his plan with Edgar comes into play. The reader is made aware that Gloucester has fallen for Edmund’s schemes when he is exclaims “where is the villain Edmund” (II.i, 37). Edmund, like a snake, is able to trick his father into believing that he is the ‘good’ son pinning all the blame on Edgar. To Gloucester, he only has one son and heir, Edmund. This is when Edmund’s truly villainous betrayal comes to light. Gloucester discovers, in one of the worst ways possible, his son’s betrayal when he has just had his eyes torn out. He cries out “Where is my son Edmund? / Edmund…” and Regan answers with “Thou call’st on him that he hates thee. It was he / that made the overture of thy treasons to us” (III.vii, 86-90). Gloucester is calling out to his ‘last’ family member only to learn that he has been betrayed by Edmund. In a sense, Gloucester is alone in the world. He believes that his legitimate son has betrayed him and now has his illegitimate son. His family has betrayed him and now he is utterly alone. Gloucester is an old man with both his heirs as traitors it is a heinous injustice that Edmund has done to his family. With the estrange, due to Edmund’s schemes, Edgar and a traitor …show more content…
His desire for power and status is very clear that there is no mistaking it for something else. Most of the other characters also have reserves of what they will and will not do, at least for the beginning of the play, but Edmund simply does not care. Father, brother, and even lovers, he will not let anyone stand in the way of what he wants most. The treachery of Edmund’s villainous ways is significant to the meaning of King Lear because of how far he is willingly to go to get what he wants and betray his family. Betrayal and madness are two of the major themes of King Lear and Edmund is the epitome of both. His betrayal is so authentic that it is maddening. It is head-spinning to think of the lengths that Edmund has gone to just so he could have title other than bastard. Even his redemption with Edgar is a bit too improbable. With all that Edmund had done to their family, you would think that Edgar would not easily accept him back with open arms. Edmund is a true villain with his dramatic and outrageous betrayal. His true villain status is also seen in his redemption with how easily he manipulates his brother into forgiving him. Edmund did horrible things and Edgar forgives him right then and there because of a few speeches from his brother. Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester, is the true villain
If Edmond is trying to turn the tables to his brother, I feel that Gloucester wouldn't fall for it due to his anger in Act 1 that was expressed. In this act, I noticed a detail about Kent that seems important to the stories plot. Through aspects of dialogue and actions, I feel
He does not recognize the leadership of Peter or Susan. He considers Peter as a rival and is often in conflict with him. He is struggling with Susan, who has appropriated herself the role of mother, Edmund regularly argues with his older siblings since he does not take into consideration their opinion. The only person he ranks himself above is
He is at first coerced by the Witches prophecy and his wife’s words into murdering King Duncan. He is riddled with guilt initially, but he undergoes a quick change in midst of the chaos that unfolds after the murder
Abominable villain! (1.2.75-78)”. This shows how Gloucester’s rashness is very like King Lear’s. They both fail to analyze evidence properly, and both rush to conclusion. They both against the nature of villain, comparatively Lear called Cordelia as a wretch.
gentlewoman?.(F I .iv.231-237; 243). Leggatt emphasizes on Identity of Lear, There is no identity for Lear because of what he did wrong against Cordelia, Cordelia 's “nothing” which is made him is raging and suffering. in addition to an error decision of divided the Kingdom as a result of his grave mistakes by ignoring his fate in folly behavior thus, Lear asking. Is there an identity? The Fool’s answer would seem to be no; his relationships gone, Lear has no identity left.(Leggatt,2005:156).Moreover, Fool says:“Thou hast pared thy wit o’both sides and left nothing i’the middle”;/ “I am better than thou art now./
Throughout the play, deception is a vital element in the betrayal of both King Lear and Gloucester. For example, Shakespeare depicts Edgar’s scheme personality by saying, “A credulous father, and a brother noble— / Whose nature is so far from doing harms” (1.2. 192-193). By utilizing descriptions such as “credulous” and “noble” to describe Gloucester and Edgar, it reveals the malicious aspect of deception. Shakespeare shows the evil behind this deception by revealing Edgar wants to take advantage of the innocent for his own personal gain. In contrast, Kent’s deception is seen as, “If but as well I other accents borrow, /
Yet we may have been deceived by Shakespeare ’s play because he may not have meant us to see King Richard III in it. It is beyond doubt that Richard III is replete with errors of all kinds; factual, chronological and even geographical in its efforts to damn King Richard to its audience; and it succeeds. This is the image of King Richard that has imprinted itself onto our
According to Shakespeare, blindness in this play reaches a meaning beyond the physical inability of the eye to see, but also is a mental flaw that affects multiple characters in the play. Gloucester suffered terrible consequences from this mental flaw. Ironically, Gloucester “stumbled” when he could physically see because although he could use his eyes, he couldn’t see the truth. When Gloucester loses his bodily capability to see, he comes to the realization that often times having something makes us spoiled and that our “defects prove our commodities.” Not having eyesight turned out to be advantageous for Gloucester and his relationship with Edgar.
Abraham Lincoln once said “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” After making terrible and fatal mistakes, the characters in the novel are given the chance to redeem themselves but their power often clouds their better judgment. Caderrouse, the shallow innkeeper, is present when Danglars and Fernand frame Edmond but “[he] did not oppose the infamous deed” (Dumas 104).
The “Fool” exhibits personality traits similar to a young child; he is extremely blunt and has no filter. He is not afraid to speak what is exactly on his mind, saying “Why, after I have cut the egg I’ th’ middle and eat / up the meat, the two crowns of the egg…gav’st away / both parts” (1.4.165). He is laid-back about the matter while King Lear’s outrage grows because he is losing his power. The Fool holds no remorse when frustrating him even more which allows him to get into Lear’s head. Maybe the fool is right to an extent but he has made King Lear stubborn towards his daughters which is the exactly where he loses himself.
Gloucester is blind both figuratively and literally. In the beginning, he is blinded to Edmund’s treachery. It only when he is truly blind that Gloucester is able to see the truth. “I have np way and therefore want no eyes. I stumbled when I saw.”
Cornwall then baggan to persecutes Gloucester and interrogating him, shortly ripping Gloucester's eyes out. While the interrogation one of the British soldiers began to battle with Cornwell fatally wounding him to his death. After Gloucester lost his eyes his son Edward found him wandering in the fields. This scene shows the love and honesty that Edmund held
He appears to be trivial, pitiful, pointles and even pathetic character. Presenting Edward II’s character, Christopher Marlowe tried a new style of character portrayal and he definetely succeeded in it. In the first part of the play Edward II is a consistent character, but in the last part his character begins to change, so ambiguity of his character is notable to the readers. King Edward II showed his assertive personality since the beggining of the play when he went against his peers and barons in order to have his minion Gaveston back at court. He made a huge mistake because he shamelessly showed favouritism and he ignored the barons.