the soul in its bare greatness. Hence also it is that two lines in this last speech show, better perhaps than any other pa.s.sage of poetry, one of the qualities we have in mind when we distinguish poetry as "romantic." Nothing like Hamlet"s mysterious sigh "The rest is silence,"
nothing like Oth.e.l.lo"s memories of his life of marvel and achievement, was possible to Lear. Those last thoughts are romantic in their strangeness: Lear"s five-times repeated "Never," in which the simplest and most unanswerable cry of anguish rises note by note till the heart breaks, is romantic in its naturalism; and to make a verse out of this one word required the boldness as well as the inspiration which came infallibly to Shakespeare at the greatest moments. But the familiarity, boldness and inspiration are surpa.s.sed (if that can be) by the next line, which shows the bodily oppression asking for bodily relief. The imagination that produced Lear"s curse or his defiance of the storm may be paralleled in its kind, but where else are we to seek the imagination that could venture to follow that cry of "Never" with such a phrase as "undo this b.u.t.ton," and yet could leave us on the topmost peaks of poetry?[163]
2
Gloster and Albany are the two neutral characters of the tragedy. The parallel between Lear and Gloster, already noticed, is, up to a certain point, so marked that it cannot possibly be accidental. Both are old white-haired men (III. vii. 37); both, it would seem, widowers, with children comparatively young. Like Lear, Gloster is tormented, and his life is sought, by the child whom he favours; he is tended and healed by the child whom he has wronged. His sufferings, like Lear"s, are partly traceable to his own extreme folly and injustice, and, it may be added, to a selfish pursuit of his own pleasure.[164] His sufferings, again, like Lear"s, purify and enlighten him: he dies a better and wiser man than he showed himself at first. They even learn the same lesson, and Gloster"s repet.i.tion (noticed and blamed by Johnson) of the thought in a famous speech of Lear"s is surely intentional.[165] And, finally, Gloster dies almost as Lear dies. Edgar reveals himself to him and asks his blessing (as Cordelia asks Lear"s):
but his flaw"d heart-- Alack, too weak the conflict to support-- "Twixt two extremes of pa.s.sion, joy and grief, Burst smilingly.
So far, the resemblance of the two stories, and also of the ways in which their painful effect is modified, is curiously close. And in character too Gloster is, like his master, affectionate,[166] credulous and hasty. But otherwise he is sharply contrasted with the tragic Lear, who is a towering figure, every inch a king,[167] while Gloster is built on a much smaller scale, and has infinitely less force and fire. He is, indeed, a decidedly weak though good-hearted man; and, failing wholly to support Kent in resisting Lear"s original folly and injustice,[168] he only gradually takes the better part. Nor is his character either very interesting or very distinct. He often gives one the impression of being wanted mainly to fill a place in the scheme of the play; and, though it would be easy to give a long list of his characteristics, they scarcely, it seems to me, compose an individual, a person whom we are sure we should recognise at once. If this is so, the fact is curious, considering how much we see and hear of him.
I will add a single note. Gloster is the superst.i.tious character of the drama,--the only one. He thinks much of "these late eclipses in the sun and moon." His two sons, from opposite points of view, make nothing of them. His easy acceptance of the calumny against Edgar is partly due to this weakness, and Edmund builds upon it, for an evil purpose, when he describes Edgar thus:
Here stood he in the dark, his sharp sword out, Mumbling of wicked charms, conjuring the moon, To prove"s auspicious mistress.
Edgar in turn builds upon it, for a good purpose, when he persuades his blind father that he was led to jump down Dover cliff by the temptation of a fiend in the form of a beggar, and was saved by a miracle:
As I stood here below, methought his eyes Were two full moons; he had a thousand noses, Horns whelk"d and waved like the enridged sea: It was some fiend; therefore, thou happy father, Think that the clearest G.o.ds, who make them honours Of men"s impossibilities, have preserved thee.
This pa.s.sage is odd in its collocation of the thousand noses and the clearest G.o.ds, of grotesque absurdity and extreme seriousness. Edgar knew that the "fiend" was really Gloster"s "worser spirit," and that "the G.o.ds" were himself. Doubtless, however--for he is the most religious person in the play--he thought that it _was_ the G.o.ds who, through him, had preserved his father; but he knew that the truth could only enter this superst.i.tious mind in a superst.i.tious form.
The combination of parallelism and contrast that we observe in Lear and Gloster, and again in the att.i.tude of the two brothers to their father"s superst.i.tion, is one of many indications that in _King Lear_ Shakespeare was working more than usual on a basis of conscious and reflective ideas. Perhaps it is not by accident, then, that he makes Edgar and Lear preach to Gloster in precisely the same strain. Lear says to him:
If thou wilt weep my fortunes, take my eyes.
I know thee well enough; thy name is Gloster: Thou must be patient; we came crying hither: Thou know"st, the first time that we smell the air, We wawl and cry. I will preach to thee: mark.
Edgar"s last words to him are:
What, in ill thoughts again? Men must endure Their going hence, even as their coming hither: Ripeness is all.
Albany is merely sketched, and he is so generally neglected that a few words about him may be in place. He too ends a better and wiser man than he began. When the play opens he is, of course, only just married to Goneril; and the idea is, I think, that he has been bewitched by her fiery beauty not less than by her dowry. He is an inoffensive peace-loving man, and is overborne at first by his "great love" for his wife and by her imperious will. He is not free from responsibility for the treatment which the King receives in his house; the Knight says to Lear, "there"s a great abatement of kindness appears as well in the general dependants as in _the duke himself also_ and your daughter." But he takes no part in the quarrel, and doubtless speaks truly when he protests that he is as guiltless as ignorant of the cause of Lear"s violent pa.s.sion. When the King departs, he begins to remonstrate with Goneril, but shrinks in a cowardly manner, which is a trifle comical, from contest with her. She leaves him behind when she goes to join Regan, and he is not further responsible for what follows. When he hears of it, he is struck with horror: the scales drop from his eyes, Goneril becomes hateful to him, he determines to revenge Gloster"s eyes. His position is however very difficult, as he is willing to fight against Cordelia in so far as her army is French, and unwilling in so far as she represents her father. This difficulty, and his natural inferiority to Edmund in force and ability, pushes him into the background; the battle is not won by him but by Edmund; and but for Edgar he would certainly have fallen a victim to the murderous plot against him. When it is discovered, however, he is fearless and resolute enough, beside being full of kind feeling towards Kent and Edgar, and of sympathetic distress at Gloster"s death. And one would be sure that he is meant to retain this strength till the end, but for his last words. He has announced his intention of resigning, during Lear"s life, the "absolute power" which has come to him; and that may be right. But after Lear"s death he says to Kent and Edgar:
Friends of my soul, you twain Rule in this realm, and the gored state sustain.
If this means that he wishes to hand over his absolute power to them, Shakespeare"s intention is certainly to mark the feebleness of a well-meaning but weak man. But possibly he means by "this realm" only that half of Britain which had belonged to Cornwall and Regan.
3
I turn now to those two strongly contrasted groups of good and evil beings; and to the evil first. The members of this group are by no means on a level. Far the most contemptible of them is Oswald, and Kent has fortunately expressed our feelings towards him. Yet twice we are able to feel sympathy with him. Regan cannot tempt him to let her open Goneril"s letter to Edmund; and his last thought as he dies is given to the fulfilment of his trust. It is to a monster that he is faithful, and he is faithful to her in a monstrous design. Still faithfulness is faithfulness, and he is not wholly worthless. Dr. Johnson says: "I know not well why Shakespeare gives to Oswald, who is a mere factor of wickedness, so much fidelity"; but in any other tragedy this touch, so true to human nature, is only what we should expect. If it surprises us in _King Lear_, the reason is that Shakespeare, in dealing with the other members of the group, seems to have been less concerned than usual with such mingling of light with darkness, and intent rather on making the shadows as utterly black as a regard for truth would permit.
Cornwall seems to have been a fit mate for Regan; and what worse can be said of him? It is a great satisfaction to think that he endured what to him must have seemed the dreadful disgrace of being killed by a servant.
He shows, I believe, no redeeming trait, and he is a coward, as may be seen from the sudden rise in his courage when Goneril arrives at the castle and supports him and Regan against Lear (II. iv. 202). But as his cruelties are not aimed at a blood-relation, he is not, in this sense, a "monster," like the remaining three.
Which of these three is the least and which the most detestable there can surely be no question. For Edmund, not to mention other alleviations, is at any rate not a woman. And the differences between the sisters, which are distinctly marked and need not be exhibited once more in full, are all in favour of "the elder and more terrible." That Regan did not commit adultery, did not murder her sister or plot to murder her husband, did not join her name with Edmund"s on the order for the deaths of Cordelia and Lear, and in other respects failed to take quite so active a part as Goneril in atrocious wickedness, is quite true but not in the least to her credit. It only means that she had much less force, courage and initiative than her sister, and for that reason is less formidable and more loathsome. Edmund judged right when, caring for neither sister but aiming at the crown, he preferred Goneril, for he could trust her to remove the living impediments to her desires. The scornful and fearless exclamation, "An interlude!" with which she greets the exposure of her design, was quite beyond Regan. Her unhesitating suicide was perhaps no less so. She would not have condescended to the lie which Regan so needlessly tells to Oswald:
It was great ignorance, Gloster"s eyes being out, To let him live: where he arrives he moves All hearts against us: Edmund, I think, is gone, _In pity of his misery_, to dispatch His nighted life.
Her father"s curse is nothing to her. She scorns even to mention the G.o.ds.[169] Horrible as she is, she is almost awful. But, to set against Regan"s inferiority in power, there is nothing: she is superior only in a venomous meanness which is almost as hateful as her cruelty. She is the most hideous human being (if she is one) that Shakespeare ever drew.
I have already noticed the resemblance between Edmund and Iago in one point; and Edmund recalls his greater forerunner also in courage, strength of will, address, egoism, an abnormal want of feeling, and the possession of a sense of humour. But here the likeness ends. Indeed a decided difference is observable even in the humour. Edmund is apparently a good deal younger than Iago. He has a lighter and more superficial nature, and there is a certain genuine gaiety in him which makes one smile not unsympathetically as one listens to his first soliloquy, with its cheery conclusion, so unlike Iago"s references to the powers of darkness,
Now, G.o.ds, stand up for b.a.s.t.a.r.ds!
Even after we have witnessed his dreadful deeds, a touch of this sympathy is felt again when we hear his nonchalant reflections before the battle:
To both these sisters have I sworn my love: Each jealous of the other, as the stung Are of the adder. Which of them shall I take?
Both? one? or neither?
Besides, there is nothing in Edmund of Iago"s motive-hunting, and very little of any of the secret forces which impelled Iago. He is comparatively a straightforward character, as straightforward as the Iago of some critics. He moves wonder and horror merely because the fact that a man so young can have a nature so bad is a dark mystery.
Edmund is an adventurer pure and simple. He acts in pursuance of a purpose, and, if he has any affections or dislikes, ignores them. He is determined to make his way, first to his brother"s lands, then--as the prospect widens--to the crown; and he regards men and women, with their virtues and vices, together with the bonds of kinship, friendship, or allegiance, merely as hindrances or helps to his end. They are for him divested of all quality except their relation to this end; as indifferent as mathematical quant.i.ties or mere physical agents.
A credulous father and a brother n.o.ble, ... I see the business,
he says, as if he were talking of _x_ and _y_.
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:
he meditates, as if he were considering a problem in mechanics. He preserves this att.i.tude with perfect consistency until the possibility of attaining his end is s.n.a.t.c.hed from him by death.
Like the deformity of Richard, Edmund"s illegitimacy furnishes, of course, no excuse for his villainy, but it somewhat influences our feelings. It is no fault of his, and yet it separates him from other men. He is the product of Nature--of a natural appet.i.te a.s.serting itself against the social order; and he has no recognised place within this order. So he devotes himself to Nature, whose law is that of the stronger, and who does not recognise those moral obligations which exist only by convention,--by "custom" or "the curiosity of nations."[170]
Practically, his att.i.tude is that of a professional criminal. "You tell me I do not belong to you," he seems to say to society: "very well: I will make my way into your treasure-house if I can. And if I have to take life in doing so, that is your affair." How far he is serious in this att.i.tude, and really indignant at the brand of b.a.s.t.a.r.dy, how far his indignation is a half-conscious self-excuse for his meditated villainy, it is hard to say; but the end shows that he is not entirely in earnest.
As he is an adventurer, with no more ill-will to anyone than good-will, it is natural that, when he has lost the game, he should accept his failure without showing personal animosity. But he does more. He admits the truth of Edgar"s words about the justice of the G.o.ds, and applies them to his own case (though the fact that he himself refers to fortune"s wheel rather than to the G.o.ds may be significant). He shows too that he is not dest.i.tute of feeling; for he is touched by the story of his father"s death, and at last "pants for life" in the effort to do "some good" by saving Lear and Cordelia. There is something pathetic here which tempts one to dream that, if Edmund had been whole brother to Edgar, and had been at home during those "nine years" when he was "out,"
he might have been a very different man. But perhaps his words,
Some good I mean to do, _Despite of mine own nature_,
suggest rather that Shakespeare is emphasising the mysterious fact, commented on by Kent in the case of the three daughters of Lear, of an immense original difference between children of one father. Stranger than this emergence of better feelings, and curiously pathetic, is the pleasure of the dying man in the thought that he was loved by both the women whose corpses are almost the last sight he is to see. Perhaps, as we conjectured, the cause of his delay in saving Lear and Cordelia even after he hears of the deaths of the sisters is that he is sunk in dreamy reflections on his past. When he murmurs, "Yet Edmund was beloved," one is almost in danger of forgetting that he had done much more than reject the love of his father and half-brother. The pa.s.sage is one of several in Shakespeare"s plays where it strikes us that he is recording some fact about human nature with which he had actually met, and which had seemed to him peculiarly strange.
What are we to say of the world which contains these five beings, Goneril, Regan, Edmund, Cornwall, Oswald? I have tried to answer this question in our first lecture; for in its representation of evil _King Lear_ differs from the other tragedies only in degree and manner. It is the tragedy in which evil is shown in the greatest abundance; and the evil characters are peculiarly repellent from their hard savagery, and because so little good is mingled with their evil. The effect is therefore more startling than elsewhere; it is even appalling. But in substance it is the same as elsewhere; and accordingly, although it may be useful to recall here our previous discussion, I will do so only by the briefest statement.
On the one hand we see a world which generates terrible evil in profusion. Further, the beings in whom this evil appears at its strongest are able, to a certain extent, to thrive. They are not unhappy, and they have power to spread misery and destruction around them. All this is undeniable fact.
On the other hand this evil is _merely_ destructive: it founds nothing, and seems capable of existing only on foundations laid by its opposite.
It is also self-destructive: it sets these beings at enmity; they can scarcely unite against a common and pressing danger; if it were averted they would be at each other"s throats in a moment; the sisters do not even wait till it is past. Finally, these beings, all five of them, are dead a few weeks after we see them first; three at least die young; the outburst of their evil is fatal to them. These also are undeniable facts; and, in face of them, it seems odd to describe _King Lear_ as "a play in which the wicked prosper" (Johnson).
Thus the world in which evil appears seems to be at heart unfriendly to it. And this impression is confirmed by the fact that the convulsion of this world is due to evil, mainly in the worst forms here considered, partly in the milder forms which we call the errors or defects of the better characters. Good, in the widest sense, seems thus to be the principle of life and health in the world; evil, at least in these worst forms, to be a poison. The world reacts against it violently, and, in the struggle to expel it, is driven to devastate itself.
If we ask why the world should generate that which convulses and wastes it, the tragedy gives no answer, and we are trying to go beyond tragedy in seeking one. But the world, in this tragic picture, is convulsed by evil, and rejects it.
4
And if here there is "very Night herself," she comes "with stars in her raiment." Cordelia, Kent, Edgar, the Fool--these form a group not less remarkable than that which we have just left. There is in the world of _King Lear_ the same abundance of extreme good as of extreme evil. It generates in profusion self-less devotion and unconquerable love. And the strange thing is that neither Shakespeare nor we are surprised. We approve these characters, admire them, love them; but we feel no mystery. We do not ask in bewilderment, Is there any cause in nature that makes these kind hearts? Such hardened optimists are we, and Shakespeare,--and those who find the darkness of revelation in a tragedy which reveals Cordelia. Yet surely, if we condemn the universe for Cordelia"s death, we ought also to remember that it gave her birth. The fact that Socrates was executed does not remove the fact that he lived, and the inference thence to be drawn about the world that produced him.
Of these four characters Edgar excites the least enthusiasm, but he is the one whose development is the most marked. His behaviour in the early part of the play, granted that it is not too improbable, is so foolish as to provoke one. But he learns by experience, and becomes the most capable person in the story, without losing any of his purity and n.o.bility of mind. There remain in him, however, touches which a little chill one"s feeling for him.