Scene
iii, Act V is one of the most important scenes in the play. A great many
changes have occurred since the first scene. Cordelia has proved to be right in
her refusal to take part in the abdication ceremony, and Lear has learnt this
from the harsh treatment he has received from his two other daughters.
That a change in relations between them has come about can be seen
immediately from the diction. Roger Fowler has written about the personal
pronouns used in the first scene. Lear, being of the highest authority, can use
the more intimate thou form to show his superiority, whilst his daughters have
to refer to him by using the more distant, deferential you form. Kent’s
rebellion is shown by his insolent use of the thou form when addressing Lear.
However, Cordelia uses “thee” in the same sense as Kent does in the first scene
in line 182. It is intimate, a word to be used by family members to each other,
and as one would address an equal. Lear still employs “thou”, but in this
context it is unlikely that he would use it to assert his superiority. Indeed,
Lear says “we” six times, but it is not the ‘Royal We’ he has used so many
times before. By this, he conveys that he too considers Cordelia as an equal,
and it imparts to the reader that Lear is less egocentric than before. Although
their positions have changed, Cordelia still addresses him by his title of
King.
What little Edmund says here is curious, especially in regards to the
word order ("Until their greater pleasures first be known /That are
to censure them”). This seems to be a very long drawn-out way of saying
something which is relatively simple. This may be connected with the fact that
2
it
is a lie. He is telling both his captives and his guards that they will
receive a fair hearing, whereas in fact, Edmund plans to have them secretly
murdered. This is a much more subtle way of doing things than Cornwall’s method
of publicly blinding Gloucester, which ultimately costs his life. Edmund is
also playing the role of the triumphant battle commander, and this is the kind
of thing he would be expected to say. Note that he does not actually refer to
himself as one of those who will censure them, for he is still officially the
Duke of Albany’s deputy. “Censure” is an important word here, meaning ‘to
criticise strongly’, which is not as bad a fate as say, impeachment. Hearing
this, Lear launches into his final escapist speech.
Although Edmund no doubt enjoys this, he remains dispassionate
throughout, his speech largely confined to the imperative mode. Notice here
that nobody seems to be in a particular hurry to obey him. He tells the guards
to take the captives away twice. Yet they do not depart until Lear says “Come”.
Is it possible that they are treating their former ruler with more respect than
they would with any other prisoner? However, due to the lack of stage
directions, it is impossible to discover whether Edmund finds this delay
frustrating. Of the two prisoners, Cordelia seems to be the more coherent and
eloquent. Unlike Lear, the end of her sentences are rhymed (“first/worst”,
down/frown”). She also has a studied use of syntax: ”Shall we not see these
daughters and these sisters?” Cordelia makes a point of referring to Lear’s
relationship with Goneril and Regan before her own, although it is not necessary
to refer to them in such an indirect way.
Of course, much interpretation depends on the text used. Presumably the
one used here is the Arden edition, so I decided to compare it with my Penguin
edition by Professor G.K.Hunter of Yale University. A major difference is that
he reads line 17 as “God’s spies”. He takes this to refer to
3
one
God “even though this requires a monotheistic faith from the pagan Lear”. Yet
line 21 reads: ”The gods themselves throw incense.” Hunter also believes that
“He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven,” refers to the Last
Judgement, when the Antichrist will rule in chaos. So Hunter would have us
believe that Lear springs from being a Pagan to a Christian in the space of a
few lines. Perhaps the ambiguity is Shakespeare’s. Such an image connotes that
Edmund (“He that parts us”) is the Antichrist, defeated by the risen Christ
(Edgar?). However, there is nothing diabolical about Edmund.
As Danby writes, Edmund is the New Man of the New Age, a prime example
of individualism. Danby quotes Hobbes: ”the universal wolf.... the felicity of
this life consiseth not in the repose of a mind satisfied.”(Leviathan Ch.XI).
This concurs with Lear’s imagery of “packs and sects”, as in 'wolf packs’. He
is quite accurate in his belief that those in power will fall in and out of
favour, like waves, appropriate for these ‘monsters of the deep’. Yet Lear’s
imagery is quite unrealistic, when the best he can hope for is a prison cell,
on his own. Indeed, he seems almost to relish the prospect, for he will get
what he wanted, to be treated as an equal, to be able to talk to “poor rogues”.
Perhaps he thinks Cordelia is frightened and wants only to comfort her. She
does the same, only briefly: ”We are not the first/Who, with best meaning, have
incurr’d the worst.” Cordelia cries, probably in pity if she thinks that Lear
really means what he says. Hunter seems to think that the “good years” are
bogeymen, but I think a far more realistic reading would be that Lear hopes
Time will destroy his other daughters with bad fortune, a strange thing for an
eighty year-old to say.
There are many examples of inversion in the father-daughter relationship
in the play, and another comes in line 10, when Lear promises to invoke his
daughter’s forgiveness when she
4
asks
for his blessing. This is another example in which he acknowledges the fact the
he was wrong and she was right. In a sense this is natural; as Houlbrooke
reports, parents who willingly gave away their power and wealth were frowned
upon as foolish in Shakespeare’s day. However, the parental blessing slowly
lost its power as Edmund’s New Age of individualism approached.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
King
Lear Penguin, edited by G.K.Hunter.
Linguistic
Criticism by Roger Fowler.
The
English Family 1450—1700 by Ralph A.Houlbrooke.
Shakespeare’s
Doctrine of Nature by John F.Danby.
