By a clever use of trickery, which results in Gloucester’s discovery of the false letter, the scheme ironically displays Edmund as they loyal son. This is all part of Edmunds plan, ‘legitimate Edgar, I must have your land’ (act1, 2,16). Act 1 scene 11 communicates Edmund’s Machiavellian character. G. Wilson Knight describes Edmund as ‘animal like, both in grace of body and in absence of sympathy.’ He appears to show no remorse as his plans come into fruition, leaving his father vulderable and his brother in hiding disguised as a bedlam vagabond ‘poor Tom.’
Edmund’s soliloquy foregrounds the theme of nature. Peter Washington describes this theme as having two sides: chaos and order. Edmund believes in the chaotic, animalistic nature Washington mentions. In his soliloquy he proclaims ‘ Thou nature art my goddess, to thy law my services are bound.’ G. Wilson Knight believes he means that he obeys ‘nature’s law of selfishness’ and has an animal like perspective on life. He seeks to fulfil his desires immediately without considering consequences. There is something Darwinian in his approach to nature, a belief in the survival of the fittest and the will power to do whatever he needs to to reach his goals. He completely rejects the natural order and hierarchy believed in by Lear and asserts the time is ripe for a new power to take over, a view shared by Gonerill and Regan. A.C Bradley says that Edmund is a product of nature – and has a natural appetite to establish himself against the natural social order, as he feels he has no place within it. Edmund even suggests that nature is a malevolent goddess who is responsible for providing him with the cruel nature he uses to challenge the status quo.
It is debated that it is Lear himself who suffers most with regards to nature. He believes strongly in loving family ties, a trait Edmund clearly does not share. Bradley believes that if Edmund has any affections or dislikes, he just dismisses them as complications. Lear is tormented by the treachery of his two ‘monstrous’ daughters. They convince Lear they are the doting and loyal daughters, yet once Lear divides his kingdom they turn their backs on their father. This torment caused by the unnatural nature of his daughters takes a physical manifestation in Act 3 scene I and II. This symbolic storm connects physical nature and human nature with dramatic effect and marks the beginning of Lear’s descent into madness. He becomes consumed with his devious daughters. This is shown when he meets Edgar, disguised as Poor Tom – “Didst thou give all to thy daughters? /And art thou come to this?” Edgar’s disguise also shows how the natural order that once prevailed in Lear’s kingdom has crumbled to chaos and corruption.
This corruption cannot be wholly blamed on the evil nature of Regan, Gonerill and Edmund. Lear and Gloucester’s lack of sight regarding their ‘bad’ children, result in their blindness to the loyalty of their ‘good’ children. This leads to power being distributed among the evil characters – a vital turning point in the social order of things. The theme of sight and blindness is indirectly introduced through Edmund’s soliloquy via his plan to deceive his father. Nevertheless the theme of blindness actually precedes the soliloquy and is prominent in the first scene. Lear falls for the sickly-sweet flattery of his eldest daughters whilst Cordelia, his true and loyal daughter, is disinherited despite Kent’s warning of ‘see better, Lear’ (act1,1,157). Lear responds to this warning with an ambiguous dismissal, ‘out of my sight’ (act1,1,157) showing his concrete belief in his own family perceptions but can also be read with regards to insight. Consequently, insightfulness, or the lack of it, becomes apparent in the play, a catastrophic flaw in both Lear and Gloucester. Lear’s lack of understanding destroys his relationship with his daughters and is the major cause of his tragedy. This is echoed by the subplot of Gloucester and his sons. It has been said that the themes are more apparent in the subplot than in the main plot, which is true in some respects, perhaps it is easier to see the theme of sight and blindness through Gloucester than through Lear. This may be due to the physical blindness incurred by Gloucester, which is explored as well as the metaphorical one.
Lear’s inability to see his daughters for who they really are, creates insoluble problems for the king, which results in a temporary loss of sanity. However, it seems a bizarre paradox that Lear should gain clarity of vision during his periods of madness. This is shown through his realisation of his eldest daughters disloyalty, and unmistakably when he responds to Gloucester’s request to kiss his hand – ‘Let me wipe it first; it smells of mortality’ (act 4,6, 133). This demonstrates his understanding of the natural order he stood for is dying under the influence of the ‘evil children’. Unlike Lear, Gloucester retains his sanity but again only achieves an amount of insight through suffering. He loses his physical ability to see as a result of Regan’s inhumane cruelty, ‘Pluck his eyes out’ (act 3, 7, 5). It is only after this horrific even that Gloucester comprehends Edmunds trickery, ‘O my follies! Then Edgar was abused’ (act 3, 7, 89), ‘I stumbled when I saw’ (act 4,1 19). Due to this, Gloucester is a physical embodiment of the theme of blindness to awareness.
In his soliloquy, Edmund also establishes the theme of family, which is closely linked with both the theme of nature and the theme of blindness. Family relationships are fundamental to both the sub and main plot. Both Lear and Gloucester appear to have raised their children without a mother figure, and as such the play focuses on the bonds between fathers and their children, and the collapse of these bonds. The breaking of these bonds is brought into a wider context with the collapse of old society. Lear initially has the unmistakeable authority of a medieval monarch. It was believed by medieval Kings that God chose them to rule and as such they were only accountable to God, thus Lear was used to asserting his power without challenge. This is revealed in his comment to Cordelia, ‘better thou had not been born than not t’ have pleased me better’ (act1, 1,232). King James who came to the throne in 1604 believed devotedly in the Divine Rights of Kings.
Lear’s absolute authority is undermined almost immediately when France takes Cordelia’s hand in marriage despite Lear’s dismissal of her. This disinheritance of Cordelia allows for the younger generation of opportunists to undermine the hierarchy through treachery and deceit. There are also examples of the chaos extending from the disruption of the great chain of being. Edmund upsets this chain of being by asserting himself as above his legitimate brother Edgar, and in turn Edgar also upsets the chain of being by disguising himself as a madman and leading Gloucester secretly, when he is the rightful heir of his father’s lands, wealth and status.
To conclude, the soliloquy in Act 1 scene ii is of vital importance to the whole play. It reveals the motivation behind Edmund’s plans - he desires revenge. It can also be said that Edmund feels insecure about his illegitimacy, and that he loses everything according to the attitude displayed in this soliloquy. It is suggested that Edmund himself may suffer from a level of sightlessness, he was blinded by his own yearning for power and wish to usurp his brother that he didn’t consider the outcomes of his actions. This is perhaps the reason for his change of heart in act 5, scene 3. He tries to warn of the fate waiting for Lear and Cordelia before death overcomes him. Peter Washington believes this radical reversal of Edmund’s character is a means of dramatic effect and that Edmund is a ruthless, ingenious and quick thinking villain who takes a sardonic delight in plotting despite its consequences on others. He is merciless when he gives Cornwall the means for his father’s capturing, which leads to Gloucester’s eyes being removed, and he feels no remorse for these actions until he begins to die. Therefore there is strong support to suggest Edmund remains evil.
Word count = 2020.
Bibliography
Bradley. A.C
Knight, Wilson G 1930
Warren, Rebecca, King Lear – York Notes, Longman, 2003
Washington, Peter, King Lear – Brodies Notes, Macmillian, 1991
