King Lear

An important theme in the play King Lear is the relative influence of “nature” vs. “nurture” in determining an individual’s personality and character.  Which is more influential heredity or environment?  Even today sociologist and psychologist cannot agree.  King Lear, predictably, does not settle the question definitively.  The play seems to support both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, it will be entertaining and worthwhile to explore this theme as it appears in the play King Lear.

         

To help narrow the focus we need to ask a fundamental question: “Was King Lear a good father?”  And also, “Was Gloucester a good father?”  This is the nurture side of the coin of fate. Since for many nurture-brained individuals the answer to this question is directly related to how the children turned out, it provides a systematic approach for discussing this theme which can be accomplished simply by examining the children of King Lear and Gloucester.   The nature side of the coin will be juxtaposed against the nurture side and will be examined also.  Getting back to the question of whether or not King Lear was a good father and whether or not Gloucester was a good father, we will quickly see that this question cannot be answered either by deductive or inductive reasoning.   That is to say, some of the off-spring turned out bad and some turned out good.  Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate why this happened and explore the possibility that Lear and Gloucester  probably  influenced their children’s character and personalities.  Therefore, the rest of the discussion will focus on the daughters of Lear: Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia; and the sons of Gloucester: Edgar and Edmund.

It is very easy to show that Goneril and Regan were indeed bad children.  Their treachery begins in Act 1. sc. 1 as they try to outdo each other plying for King Lear’s favor and gift of lands and power.  Their smooth tongued declarations of superior love are obviously a sham and a dishonest ploy to encourage the king to hand over his kingdom.  Cordelia provides further evidence of their evil  intent when she says, “Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides, who covers faults at last with shame derides.” (1.1.325-326).

          

Goneril and Regan were obviously operating out of greed, but I propose that insecurity also played a part. Lear was principally responsible for his daughters’ insecurity. Even in the prime of his life he had been completely hotheaded and over-hasty (Folger Library p. 26, footnote).  Goneril and Regan simply could not predict what he would do next and they feared for their future.  According to Goneril:

                  The best and soundest of his time hath been

                  but rash.  Then must we look from his age to

                  receive not alone the imperfections of long-en-

                  graffed condition, but therewithal the unruly way-

                  wardness that infirm and choleric years bring with

                  them (1.1.341-346).

Regan observes:

                  Such unconstant starts are we like to have

                  from him as this of Kent’s banishment (1.1.347-348).

         

Growing up in this volatile atmosphere of insecurity must have had a negative effect on these two daughters. Their insecurity was further exasperated even by the response of Lear to their husbands.  We see this in the very first line of the play when Kent says, “I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall (1.1.1).”

          

Goneril and Regan adapted by learning cunning and self-reliance.  Predictably, once they had gained the upper-hand, they were not about to voluntarily relinquish their advantage.  Their adaptation for survival evolved into heinous cruelty and disregard for humanity that cannot be explained solely by their father’s imposed insecurity (nurture).  Kent refers to this when he says, “The stars above us govern our conditions,  else one self mate and make could not begat such different issues (4.3.39-42).” 

         

It is certainly ironic that their survival tactics born of a mutated sense of insecurity propelled them toward self-destruction.  This outcome is predicted by Albany when he says, “Humanity must perforce prey on itself, like monsters of the deep (4.2.57-59).” 

         

Let us now turn our attention to Lear’s third daughter, Cordelia,  undoubtedly the antithesis of Regan and Goneril.  Certainly her virtue and honesty is established early in the play when she refuses to play the “I love you more” word game.  She explains her abhorrence for false flattery when she says, “So young, my lord, and true 1.1.118-119).”  The King of France is justifiably smitten by her, “Fairest Cordelia, that art most rich being poor;  Most choice, forsaken; and most loved, despised, thee and thy virtues here I seize upon (1.1.290-292).”  But how could this be?  Kent attempted to explain the dissimilarity by suggesting that the stars were responsible.  Obviously, Cordelia’s personality provides a strong argument for nurture.  In other words, since the three daughters had the same gene pool (nature), Cordelia must have been treated differently in some way (nurture), which would explain why she turned out differently from her two evil sisters.  There is some evidence that Lear treated her differently. He apparently loved her more which is revealed when he says, “I loved her most and thought to set my rest on her kind nursery (1.1.37-38).”  This probably enhanced Cordelia’s security but undoubtedly had a negative effect on Goneril and Regan as well.  Nevertheless, this loving attitude toward Cordelia probably had a tremendous positive influence on her personality.  In addition, her nurturing experience was undoubtedly different from that of the older daughters because there was apparently a number of years between them. Perhaps Lear learned from his earlier parenting mistakes. 

         

Even today birth order seems to have a significant influence on the personalities of siblings.   It is interesting that conventional wisdom predicts that the first born will be a leader and independent, the second born will be competitive, while the third born is usually compliant and eager to please.  This seems to fit the pattern for Lear’s three daughters.

         

Now let us turn our attention toward Gloucester’s two sons, Edgar and Edmund.  Two brothers could not be more different.  Edmund contrives against Edgar and turns their father Gloucester against him by lies and deception.  His deception culminates in the treacherous betrayal of his own father in order that he might gain his father’s title and position. 

Edmund states:

                          

                           This courtesy forbid thee shall the Duke

                           Instantly know, and of that letter too.

                           This seems a fair deserving, and must draw me

                           That which my father loses- no less than all.

                           The younger rises when the old doth fall (3.4.21-25)

In turn this betrayal leads to  a most gruesome scene when Cornwall plucks out the eyes of Gloucester:

                           See’t shalt thou never. -  Fellows, hold the chair.-

                           Upon these eyes of thine I’ll set my foot (3.7.81-82)

Another example of Edmund’s despicable behavior is his self-serving ambition toward Regan and Goneril.  He says, “To both sisters have I sworn my love, Each jealous of the other as the stung are of the adder.  Which of them shall I take (5.1.63-65).”  Edmund’s final horrible act occurs when he bribes a soldier to kill Lear and Cordelia:

                           Come hither, captain, Hark.

                           Take thou this note.  Go follow them to prison.

                           One step I have advanced thee.  If thou dost

                           As this instructs thee, thou dost make thy way

                           To noble fortunes (5.3.31-35)

On the other hand, Edgar is shown to be noble and virtuous. Even Edmund admits this when he states:

                           A credulous father and a brother noble,

                           Whose nature is so far from doing harms

                           That he suspects none; on whose foolish honest

                           My practices ride easy  (1.2.187-190).

         

But how can this be?  They are brothers born to the same father. Why then such stark differences in their character and personalities?  Both nature and nurture help explain these differences.  However, it is still arguable which had the most influence.  Nevertheless, let us discuss their impact.  First of all, Edgar and Edmund are half brothers.  They had the same father but a different mother.  This does not automatically suggest that Edmund was born to be bad and Edgar was born to be good.  However, we should not discount the reality that heredity could have played an important role in the development of their personalities.  We are not told much about Edmund’s mother.  We may  infer that she lacked moral purity, but so did Edgar’s father.  I suggest that nurture had the greater impact on each brother’s character and personality.

         

It is obvious that Edmund was raised as a bastard child.  Gloucester refers to Edmund in the most crude and demeaning language in Act 1 when he says the following:

                           

                           Though this knave came something

                           saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet was

                           his mother fair, there was good sport at his making,

                           and the whoreson must be acknowledged (1.1.21-24).

Surely this harsh reality and Gloucester’s condescension greatly influenced Edmund’s personality in a most negative way.  Even Edmund’s name was bastardized from his elder brother Edgar. It is very doubtful if Gloucester ever showed a personal interest in Edmund.  There was no father-son bonding. Apparently, Edmund was customarily sent away for long periods of time.  In Act 1 Gloucester says, “He hath been out nine years, and away he shall again (1.1.32-33).”  Consequently, there was no loyalty toward his father whatsoever.  Edmund felt that he had to make his own way.  In Act 1 he says, “Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit (1.2.191).”  This culminated in Edmund’s awful betrayal of his father.

         

Nature and nurture do seem to play significant rolls in determining the character and personality of an individual.  Which one has the most influence continues to be a subject for debate.  In the final analysis these two variables cannot explain the divergent behavior that takes place in the play King Lear.  There is another factor that seems to hold sway in many instances.  Moralists and theologians refer to it simply as man’s freewill.  In spite of heredity and environment each of us is still a free moral agent.  Ultimately each of us has the freedom to choose between right and wrong. 

         

It is clear that Shakespeare believed in man’s/woman’s freewill.  For example, according to Edmund:

               

                           This is the excellent foppery of the world, that

                           when we are sick in fortune (often the surfeits

                           of our own behavior) we make guilty of our disasters

                           the sun, the moon, and stars, as if we were villains

                           on necessity; fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves,

                           thieves, and treachers by spherical predominance;

                           drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced

                           obedience of planetary influence; and all that we

                           are evil in, by a divine thrusting on.  An admirable

                           evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish

                           disposition on the charge of a star (1.2.125-135)!

          

Furthermore, it is Edmund who most dramatically exercises his freewill in Act 5 near the end of the play when he says the following:

                           I pant for life.  Some good I mean to do

                           Despite mine own nature.  Quickly sent-

                           Be brief in it- to th’ castle, for my writ

                            Is on the life of Lear, and on Cordelia. 

                           Nay, send in time (5.3.291-295.) 

This poignantly illustrates that Edmund accepted responsibility for his immoral actions and exercised his freewill to choose right over wrong in spite of the negative influence of his  nature and nurture.