Action and Observation in Shakespeare's King Lear

Shakespeare's King Lear is a profound exploration of action and observation, where the interplay between these elements reveals the intricacies of human experience. As we delve into this tragedy, we can identify various models of observation and action, with characters embodying distinct responses to their circumstances. This essay will examine how these models interact and ultimately shape the narrative, reflecting on the roles of characters such as Kent, Edgar, the Fool, and Edmund, while considering the implications of their actions and observations on the audience.

The Role of Kent: Compassionate Observer

Kent serves as a pivotal character in King Lear, embodying what Schlegel referred to as the "science of compassion." Despite being humiliated by Lear in the opening act, Kent disguises himself as Caius and remains devoted to his king. His observations of Lear's "hideous rashness" (I.i.153) compel him to share in his master's suffering. Kent's poignant declaration,

I have a journey, sir, shortly to go;
My master calls me; I must not say no. (V.iii.323-324)

demonstrates a blend of tenderness and duty, with its simple rhyme and rhythmic balance adding emotional weight. Kent's responses throughout the play parallel the audience's own emotional journey, making him a vital link between the characters and the spectators. However, his observations do not lead to effective action, rendering him a tragic figure who ultimately shares Lear's fate. He exemplifies the Aristotelian observer, whose participation is rooted in pity rather than agency.

Edgar: The Detached Spectator

In contrast to Kent, Edgar represents a more detached model of observation. Disguised as Poor Tom, he encounters his suffering father, Gloucester, and maintains composure despite the emotional turmoil surrounding him. In a pivotal moment, Edgar reassures Gloucester,

GLOUCESTER
Know'st thou the way to Dover?
EDGAR
Both stile and gate, horse-way and foot-path. (IV.i.56-57)

His matter-of-fact response underscores his ability to observe without becoming emotionally entangled. Edgar's detachment allows him to process suffering analytically, aligning him with the Brechtian spectator who engages with the narrative critically. Unlike Kent, who is consumed by his emotions, Edgar's observations propel him into action, making him a redemptive force in the play.

The Fool: The Chorus of Realization

The Fool serves as a unique observer in King Lear, taking on the role of a chorus without intervening directly in the action. His observations are pointed and incisive, providing commentary on Lear's folly and the absurdity of the situation. For example, he quips,

FOOL
Give me an egg, nuncle, and I'll give thee two crowns.
LEAR
What crowns shall they be?
FOOL
Why, after I have cut the egg in the middle and eat up the meat, the two crowns of the egg. When thou clovest thy crown I' the middle and gavest away both parts, thou borest thine ass on thy back o'er the dirt. (I.iv.161-168)

Through his playful yet biting language, the Fool highlights the inversion of power and the hollowness of Lear's title. His barbed wit compels Lear and the audience to confront the deeper implications of the tragedy. Although he cannot act, the Fool's observations prompt critical reflection, guiding both Lear and the audience toward a realization of the chaotic state of the world.

Edmund: The Architect of Action

While Kent, Edgar, and the Fool provide varying models of observation, Edmund stands out as the embodiment of effective action. He is a self-serving character who subverts traditional values, viewing the world through a lens of pragmatism and ambition. His declaration,

Thou nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me, (I.ii.1-5)

reveals his rejection of societal norms in favor of personal gain. Edmund's ability to manipulate those around him, coupled with his ruthless ambition, positions him as a driving force in the play. His actions instigate significant plot developments, including the blinding of Gloucester and the tragic demise of Lear and Cordelia. Unlike the other characters, Edmund seamlessly integrates observation and action, making him a formidable antagonist.

Comparative Analysis of Action and Observation

Conclusion: The Interplay of Action and Observation

In King Lear, Shakespeare masterfully weaves together the themes of action and observation, creating a complex tapestry of human experience. Each character embodies a unique model of observation that informs their actions, ultimately shaping the narrative's trajectory. Kent's compassionate observations lead to emotional participation, while Edgar's detached perspective fosters redemptive action. The Fool serves as a catalyst for realization, prompting both Lear and the audience to reflect on the tragedy's implications. In stark contrast, Edmund's self-serving ambition drives the action forward, underscoring the nihilistic undertones of the play. Through these diverse models, Shakespeare invites the audience to engage with the narrative on multiple levels, prompting reflection on the nature of human experience and the consequences of our actions.

References:

• William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of King Lear, ed. Celeste Flower, Longman 1993
• W. H. Auden, The Dyer's Hand and Other Essays, Vintage International 1989
• A. C. Bradley, Shakespearian Tragedy, Macmillan 1908
• Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, Fourth Estate 1999
• John Willet, The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht, Methuen 1964