Blind lead the sight
In Shakespeare's "King Lear" the issue of sight against blindness is a recurring theme. Blindness, in Shakespeare, is a mental flaw some characters posses, and vision is not derived from physical sight, it includes mental intuitiveness. King Lear and Gloucester are the two examples Shakespeare incorporates this theme into. Each of these characters' lack of vision was the primary cause of the unfortunate decisions they made, decisions that they would eventually come to regret. The blindest of all was undoubtedly King Lear. Because of his high position in society he is supposed to be able to distinguish good from bad: unfortunately, his lack of insight prevented him to do so. However, his "vision" is clouded by his lack of insight. Since he cannot see into other people's characters, he can never identify them for who they truly are. When Lear is angered by Cordelia, Kent tries to reason with Lear, who is too stubborn to remain open-minded. Lear responds to Kent's opposition with, "Out of my sight!" to which Kent responds: "See better, Lear, and let me still remain" .Kent, once banished, creates a disguise for himself and is eventually hired by Lear as a servant. The king's vision is so superficial that he is easily deceived by
In Lear's character one sees that physical sight does not necessary guarantee clear sight. Gloucester however shows that physical blindness does not bring about lack of insight into other people's intentions. Prior to the loss of his eyes, Gloucester's vision was very much like Lear's. He was unable to see what was going on around him. Instead, he only saw what was presented to him on the surface. His blindness denies him the ability to see the goodness of Edgar and the evil of Edmund. Although Edgar was the good and loving son, Gloucester all but disowned him. He was ready to kill the son who would later save his life. Gloucester's blindness begins when Edmund convinces him by means of a forged letter that Edgar was plotting to kill him. When Edmund shows him the letter that is supposedly from Edgar, it takes very little convincing for Gloucester to believe it. As soon as Edmund mentions that Edgar could be plotting against him, Gloucester calls him an "Abhorred villain, unnatural, detested, brutish villain" . He does not even stop to consider whether Edgar would do such a thing because he cannot see into Edgar's character. The idea of Edmund being after the earldom never occurs to him. At this point, Gloucester's life is headed down a path of damnation similar to Lear's because of a similar lack of sight. King Lear, by William Shakespeare, is a tragic tale of filial conflict, personal transformation, and loss. The story revolves around the King who foolishly alienates his only truly devoted daughter and realizes too late the true nature of his other two daughters. A major subplot involves the illegitimate son of Gloucester, Edmund, who plans to discredit his brother Edgar and betray his father. With these and other major characters in the play, Shakespeare clearly asserts that human nature is either entirely good, or entirely evil. Some characters experience a phase of transformation, where by some trial or ordeal their nature is profoundly changed. We shall examine Shakespeare's stand on human nature in King Lear by looking at specific characters in the play: Cordelia who is wholly good, Edmund who is wholly evil, and Lear whose nature is transform
Some common words found in the essay are:
Cordelia Kent, King Lear, Cornwall Fortunately, Edmund Edgar, Dover Lear, Gloucester Edmund, Poor Tom, Edgar Edgar's, William Shakespeare, Lear Gloucester, king lear, physical sight, lack insight, love cordelia, eyes gloucester's vision, throughout play, lack vision, edgar plotting, cordelia love, cleared late, human nature, love cordelia love, lack insight people's,
Approximate Word count = 1461
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
