How does the first scene of king lear foreshadow the rest of the play?

How does the first scene of King Lear foreshadow the themes and imagery of the rest of the play?

Ben Alborough 10wd

In Lear's very first scene, many of the play's basic themes and images are presented. The consistent imagery of eyesight and of "nothing," familial and social ties and the slow but gradual dissolution of Lear's kingship all make their first appearances in the first few lines of Shakespeare's play, as perfect examples of the foreshadowing of the rest of the book.*

The idea that an otherwise powerful and politically strong monarch could simply forfeit all rights to the throne would have been horrifying for an early 17th century audience. The recent gunpowder plots and political unrest would have duly proved to the populace how necessary a strong monarch was.

This leads us to the idea of the foreshadowing of Kingship. Kingship is a prominent theme, established right at the very beginning, and one which aptly foreshadows elements which appear later in the script. The scene starts halfway through a conversation between Kent and the Earl of Gloucester, who are casually chatting about which duke of the realm, he prefers, and which he will bestow favours upon, therefore straight away proving Lear’s authority over some of the powerful men in the land.

Also notable is the shift in the style of conversation from prose to blank verse whenever Lear is speaking, a subtle sign again showing power.

But the first example of foreshadowing comes as Kent is referring to Lear as “my liege”, a title suggesting complete and utter loyalty to whom it is spoken unto, and a phrase with even more meaning back when the play was written. And yet, not a few lines later, after Lear has thrown his kingdom away to his two daughters, Kent starts to refer to Lear as simply “Lear” or “Old man”, truly unwise names to call a King. This change in attitude and language symbolises Lear’s descent from complete authority to essentially nothing later on in the play. He has nothing, he is nothing, he is just “Lear” or “Old man”.

It is also interesting to see how Lear addresses the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France, in the knowledge that although they seem to be adversaries, they completely submit to Lear’s word. He asks for Gloucester to “Attend the Lords of France and Burgundy”, almost as if they are tools in a dentist’s surgery.

All these elements added together form the basis of a very strong monarch, which is why it would receive such a strong response when he gives up all his royalties simply because he is tired.

It is also worth noting how ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

All these elements added together form the basis of a very strong monarch, which is why it would receive such a strong response when he gives up all his royalties simply because he is tired.

It is also worth noting how the state of the country is almost completely reversed between the covers of the play.

A much larger theme resolving throughout the play is that which focuses on the subject of social and familial ties, i.e. cruelty of parents. It ties in with unnaturalism, in the sense that bonds shown between family members are not as they should be, or are flawed, or, how respective family members do not treat their respective relatives in a way which would be usual to us now, as it was in Jacobean times.

In the first page of the first scene, Gloucester is casually chatting about his bastard son’s conception, going quite into depth, fully aware that Edmund (aforementioned son) is standing right behind him.

“ … this knave came something saucily to the world… there was good sport at his making…” etcetera.

In addition, during this conversation, Gloucester refers to Edmund only as “knave”, “he”, “him” and even the highly offensive “whoreson”, almost as if he wasn’t there.

This scene would have been interpreted by a Jacobean audience in much the same way it would be interpreted by a modern audience, with a fairly shocked approach, empathising with Edmund maybe, appreciating the harshness of Gloucester’s words and the cruel treatment of his “bastard” son, however, the Jacobean audience would have had another reason for this reaction.

The Great Chain of Being was a medieval conception of the order of the universe, and the things therein, with God at the top, surrounded by angels, then kings, the aristocracy, peasants, animals, plants etc., a hierarchy loosely connected with the order of creation in the bible, with Hell at the very bottom. It was basically a statement saying everything was God sent, including children, and with Gloucester being an Earl and so high up the chain, abusing his child would have been seen as abusing his divine position, and therefore disobeying the natural order, and therefore God.

The humiliation of Edmund at the hands of Gloucester is later tipped on its head in a perfect example of role-reversal, with Edmund right at the top of his wheel of fortune, and Gloucester at the very bottom with no eyes (which in itself is irony connected with self-knowledge). Although whether or not this is foreshadowing is debatable. Perhaps it is foreshadowing in the fact that maybe Gloucester was receiving comeuppance which might have been seen as obvious from his manner earlier on, and was just subtle foreshadowing.

Also the overthrowing of his father for his own gain follows a running theme throughout many of Shakespeare’s works, ( including the much shallower Much Ado About Nothing )in that bastards are always jealous, selfish, cunning and ruthless whilst the legitimate child is always on the good side, and eventually thwarts his half-brother’s plans.

Another example of unnaturalism within families is during the “division of the kingdom” portion of scene 1, in which he turns and starts talking to Cordelia. When Lear begins the short conversation between them, he introduces her as “our dearest”, and yet not five minutes later, he stops referring to her by name, just as Gloucester was doing earlier on in the scene to Edmund, banishes her from the kingdom, removing all that she owns and will ever own, before marrying her off to a foreign dignitary, hoping never to see her again simply because she was being honest to him when it was clearly obvious that her sister’s weren’t. This could be subtly suggesting how, in the future, his daughters do pretty much exactly the same to him, except over a longer period of time and without all the marrying off.

To conclude, I would like to say that there is one hell of a lot going on in the play, especially in Scene 1, and to analyse it all in the depth that was written intending to be done would take an eternity. However, there is one philosophical concern that springs up which centres on the basis of Christianity, or rather, the lack of it, as the entire play could be interpreted as a rather mild and subtle attack on Christianity. It is unknown Shakespeare’s personal beliefs concerning religion and superstition, but this play does suggest elements of atheism, buried deep within it. It is plain to see that nothing in the play goes right, or if it does, something happens to correct it and to return the play to misery, and the basic report made by centuries of analysis of the play is that Shakespeare was saying that the only way to succeed in life was not at the hands of some divine deity, but in the initiative that everyone needs to cooperate and “be nice” to each other. The evidence is hidden all throughout the play, and it is thought that Edmund’s speech in Act 1 Scene 2 is (more or less) Shakespeare voicing his own opinions, although, it might not have been intentional by Shakespeare at all, however, it is an interesting subject.

Personally, I do not find Lear a particularly drawing and interesting read, as it is almost the exact polar opposite of the kind of literature I prefer, but I do appreciate the genius, the effort and the motivation pumped into it by the playwright, and although I do not like it for my part, it is still a brilliant piece of work.