But (I am forced to dwell on the point, because I am sure to slur it over is to be false to Shakespeare) this dumbness of love was not the sole source of misunderstanding. If this had been all, even Lear could have seen the love in Cordelia"s eyes when, to his question "What can you say to draw a third more opulent than your sisters?" she answered "Nothing." But it did not shine there. She is not merely silent, nor does she merely answer "Nothing." She tells him that she loves him "according to her bond, nor more nor less"; and his answer,
How now, Cordelia! mend your speech a little, Lest it may mar your fortunes,
so intensifies her horror at the hypocrisy of her sisters that she replies,
Good my Lord, You have begot me, bred me, loved me: I Return those duties back as are right fit, Obey you, love you, and most honour you.
Why have my sisters husbands, if they say They love you all? Haply, when I shall wed, That lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry Half my love with him, half my care and duty: Sure, I shall never marry like my sisters, To love my father all.
What words for the ear of an old father, unreasonable, despotic, but fondly loving, indecent in his own expressions of preference, and blind to the indecency of his appeal for protestations of fondness! Blank astonishment, anger, wounded love, contend within him; but for the moment he restrains himself and asks,
But goes thy heart with this?
Imagine Imogen"s reply! But Cordelia answers,
Ay, good my lord.
_Lear._ So young, and so untender?
_Cor._ So young, my lord, and true.
Yes, "heavenly true." But truth is not the only good in the world, nor is the obligation to tell truth the only obligation. The matter here was to keep it inviolate, but also to preserve a father. And even if truth _were_ the one and only obligation, to tell much less than truth is not to tell it. And Cordelia"s speech not only tells much less than truth about her love, it actually perverts the truth when it implies that to give love to a husband is to take it from a father. There surely never was a more unhappy speech.
When Isabella goes to plead with Angelo for her brother"s life, her horror of her brother"s sin is so intense, and her perception of the justice of Angelo"s reasons for refusing her is so clear and keen, that she is ready to abandon her appeal before it is well begun; she would actually do so but that the warm-hearted profligate Lucio reproaches her for her coldness and urges her on. Cordelia"s hatred of hypocrisy and of the faintest appearance of mercenary professions reminds us of Isabella"s hatred of impurity; but Cordelia"s position is infinitely more difficult, and on the other hand there is mingled with her hatred a touch of personal antagonism and of pride. Lear"s words,
Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her![183]
are monstrously unjust, but they contain one grain of truth; and indeed it was scarcely possible that a nature so strong as Cordelia"s, and with so keen a sense of dignity, should feel here nothing whatever of pride and resentment. This side of her character is emphatically shown in her language to her sisters in the first scene--language perfectly just, but little adapted to soften their hearts towards their father--and again in the very last words we hear her speak. She and her father are brought in, prisoners, to the enemy"s camp; but she sees only Edmund, not those "greater" ones on whose pleasure hangs her father"s fate and her own.
For her own she is little concerned; she knows how to meet adversity:
For thee, oppressed king, am I cast down; Myself could else out-frown false fortune"s frown.
Yes, that is how she would meet fortune, frowning it down, even as Goneril would have met it; nor, if her father had been already dead, would there have been any great improbability in the false story that was to be told of her death, that, like Goneril, she "fordid herself."
Then, after those austere words about fortune, she suddenly asks,
Shall we not see these daughters and these sisters?
Strange last words for us to hear from a being so worshipped and beloved; but how characteristic! Their tone is unmistakable. I doubt if she could have brought herself to plead with her sisters for her father"s life; and if she had attempted the task, she would have performed it but ill. Nor is our feeling towards her altered one whit by that. But what is true of Kent and the Fool[184] is, in its measure, true of her. Any one of them would gladly have died a hundred deaths to help King Lear; and they do help his soul; but they harm his cause. They are all involved in tragedy.
Why does Cordelia die? I suppose no reader ever failed to ask that question, and to ask it with something more than pain,--to ask it, if only for a moment, in bewilderment or dismay, and even perhaps in tones of protest. These feelings are probably evoked more strongly here than at the death of any other notable character in Shakespeare; and it may sound a wilful paradox to a.s.sert that the slightest element of reconciliation is mingled with them or succeeds them. Yet it seems to me indubitable that such an element is present, though difficult to make out with certainty what it is or whence it proceeds. And I will try to make this out, and to state it methodically.
(_a_) It is not due in any perceptible degree to the fact, which we have just been examining, that Cordelia through her tragic imperfection contributes something to the conflict and catastrophe; and I drew attention to that imperfection without any view to our present problem.
The critics who emphasise it at this point in the drama are surely untrue to Shakespeare"s mind; and still more completely astray are those who lay stress on the idea that Cordelia, in bringing a foreign army to help her father, was guilty of treason to her country. When she dies we regard her, practically speaking, simply as we regard Ophelia or Desdemona, as an innocent victim swept away in the convulsion caused by the error or guilt of others.
(_b_) Now this destruction of the good through the evil of others is one of the tragic facts of life, and no one can object to the use of it, within certain limits, in tragic art. And, further, those who because of it declaim against the nature of things, declaim without thinking. It is obviously the other side of the fact that the effects of good spread far and wide beyond the doer of good; and we should ask ourselves whether we really could wish (supposing it conceivable) to see this double-sided fact abolished. Nevertheless the touch of reconciliation that we feel in contemplating the death of Cordelia is not due, or is due only in some slight degree, to a perception that the event is true to life, admissible in tragedy, and a case of a law which we cannot seriously desire to see abrogated.
(_c_) What then is this feeling, and whence does it come? I believe we shall find that it is a feeling not confined to _King Lear_, but present at the close of other tragedies; and that the reason why it has an exceptional tone or force at the close of _King Lear_, lies in that very peculiarity of the close which also--at least for the moment--excites bewilderment, dismay, or protest. The feeling I mean is the impression that the heroic being, though in one sense and outwardly he has failed, is yet in another sense superior to the world in which he appears; is, in some way which we do not seek to define, untouched by the doom that overtakes him; and is rather set free from life than deprived of it.
Some such feeling as this--some feeling which, from this description of it, may be recognised as their own even by those who would dissent from the description--we surely have in various degrees at the deaths of Hamlet and Oth.e.l.lo and Lear, and of Antony and Cleopatra and Coriola.n.u.s.[185] It accompanies the more prominent tragic impressions, and, regarded alone, could hardly be called tragic. For it seems to imply (though we are probably quite unconscious of the implication) an idea which, if developed, would transform the tragic view of things. It implies that the tragic world, if taken as it is presented, with all its error, guilt, failure, woe and waste, is no final reality, but only a part of reality taken for the whole, and, when so taken, illusive; and that if we could see the whole, and the tragic facts in their true place in it, we should find them, not abolished, of course, but so trans.m.u.ted that they had ceased to be strictly tragic,--find, perhaps, the suffering and death counting for little or nothing, the greatness of the soul for much or all, and the heroic spirit, in spite of failure, nearer to the heart of things than the smaller, more circ.u.mspect, and perhaps even "better" beings who survived the catastrophe. The feeling which I have tried to describe, as accompanying the more obvious tragic emotions at the deaths of heroes, corresponds with some such idea as this.[186]
Now this feeling is evoked with a quite exceptional strength by the death of Cordelia.[187] It is not due to the perception that she, like Lear, has attained through suffering; we know that she had suffered and attained in his days of prosperity. It is simply the feeling that what happens to such a being does not matter; all that matters is what she is. How this can be when, for anything the tragedy tells us, she has ceased to exist, we do not ask; but the tragedy itself makes us feel that somehow it is so. And the force with which this impression is conveyed depends largely on the very fact which excites our bewilderment and protest, that her death, following on the deaths of all the evil characters, and brought about by an unexplained delay in Edmund"s effort to save her, comes on us, not as an inevitable conclusion to the sequence of events, but as the sudden stroke of mere fate or chance. The force of the impression, that is to say, depends on the very violence of the contrast between the outward and the inward, Cordelia"s death and Cordelia"s soul. The more unmotived, unmerited, senseless, monstrous, her fate, the more do we feel that it does not concern her. The extremity of the disproportion between prosperity and goodness first shocks us, and then flashes on us the conviction that our whole att.i.tude in asking or expecting that goodness should be prosperous is wrong; that, if only we could see things as they are, we should see that the outward is nothing and the inward is all.
And some such thought as this (which, to bring it clearly out, I have stated, and still state, in a form both exaggerated and much too explicit) is really present through the whole play. Whether Shakespeare knew it or not, it is present. I might almost say that the "moral" of _King Lear_ is presented in the irony of this collocation:
_Albany._ The G.o.ds defend her!
_Enter Lear with Cordelia dead in his arms._
The "G.o.ds," it seems, do _not_ show their approval by "defending" their own from adversity or death, or by giving them power and prosperity.
These, on the contrary, are worthless, or worse; it is not on them, but on the renunciation of them, that the G.o.ds throw incense. They breed l.u.s.t, pride, hardness of heart, the insolence of office, cruelty, scorn, hypocrisy, contention, war, murder, self-destruction. The whole story beats this indictment of prosperity into the brain. Lear"s great speeches in his madness proclaim it like the curses of Timon on life and man. But here, as in _Timon_, the poor and humble are, almost without exception, sound and sweet at heart, faithful and pitiful.[188] And here adversity, to the blessed in spirit, is blessed. It wins fragrance from the crushed flower. It melts in aged hearts sympathies which prosperity had frozen. It purges the soul"s sight by blinding that of the eyes.[189] Throughout that stupendous Third Act the good are seen growing better through suffering, and the bad worse through success. The warm castle is a room in h.e.l.l, the storm-swept heath a sanctuary. The judgment of this world is a lie; its goods, which we covet, corrupt us; its ills, which break our bodies, set our souls free;
Our means secure us,[190] and our mere defects Prove our commodities.
Let us renounce the world, hate it, and lose it gladly. The only real thing in it is the soul, with its courage, patience, devotion. And nothing outward can touch that.
This, if we like to use the word, is Shakespeare"s "pessimism" in _King Lear_. As we have seen, it is not by any means the whole spirit of the tragedy, which presents the world as a place where heavenly good grows side by side with evil, where extreme evil cannot long endure, and where all that survives the storm is good, if not great. But still this strain of thought, to which the world appears as the kingdom of evil and therefore worthless, is in the tragedy, and may well be the record of many hours of exasperated feeling and troubled brooding. Pursued further and allowed to dominate, it would destroy the tragedy; for it is necessary to tragedy that we should feel that suffering and death do matter greatly, and that happiness and life are not to be renounced as worthless. Pursued further, again, it leads to the idea that the world, in that obvious appearance of it which tragedy cannot dissolve without dissolving itself, is illusive. And its tendency towards this idea is traceable in _King Lear_, in the shape of the notion that this "great world" is transitory, or "will wear out to nought" like the little world called "man" (IV. vi. 137), or that humanity will destroy itself.[191]
In later days, in the drama that was probably Shakespeare"s last complete work, the _Tempest_, this notion of the transitoriness of things appears, side by side with the simpler feeling that man"s life is an illusion or dream, in some of the most famous lines he ever wrote:
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, As I foretold you, were all spirits and Are melted into air, into thin air: And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, The cloud-capp"d towers, the gorgeous palaces, The solemn temples, the great globe itself, Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep.
These lines, detached from their context, are familiar to everyone; but, in the _Tempest_, they are dramatic as well as poetical. The sudden emergence of the thought expressed in them has a specific and most significant cause; and as I have not seen it remarked I will point it out.
Prospero, by means of his spirits, has been exhibiting to Ferdinand and Miranda a masque in which G.o.ddesses appear, and which is so majestic and harmonious that to the young man, standing beside such a father and such a wife, the place seems Paradise,--as perhaps the world once seemed to Shakespeare. Then, at the bidding of Iris, there begins a dance of Nymphs with Reapers, sunburnt, weary of their August labour, but now in their holiday garb. But, as this is nearing its end, Prospero "starts suddenly, and speaks"; and the visions vanish. And what he "speaks" is shown in these lines, which introduce the famous pa.s.sage just quoted:
_Pros._ [_Aside_] I had forgot that foul conspiracy Of the beast Caliban and his confederates Against my life: the minute of their plot Is almost come. [_To the Spirits._] Well done! avoid; no more.
_Fer._ This is strange; your father"s in some pa.s.sion That works him strongly.
_Mir._ Never till this day Saw I him touch"d with anger so distemper"d.
_Pros._ You do look, my son, in a moved sort, As if you were dismay"d: be cheerful, sir.
Our revels....
And then, after the famous lines, follow these:
Sir, I am vex"d: Bear with my weakness; my old brain is troubled; Be not disturb"d with my infirmity; If you be pleased, retire into my cell And there repose: a turn or two I"ll walk, To still my beating mind.
We seem to see here the whole mind of Shakespeare in his last years.
That which provokes in Prospero first a "pa.s.sion" of anger, and, a moment later, that melancholy and mystical thought that the great world must perish utterly and that man is but a dream, is the sudden recollection of gross and apparently incurable evil in the "monster"
whom he had tried in vain to raise and soften, and in the monster"s human confederates. It is this, which is but the repet.i.tion of his earlier experience of treachery and ingrat.i.tude, that troubles his old brain, makes his mind "beat,"[192] and forces on him the sense of unreality and evanescence in the world and the life that are haunted by such evil. Nor, though Prospero can spare and forgive, is there any sign to the end that he believes the evil curable either in the monster, the "born devil," or in the more monstrous villains, the "worse than devils," whom he so sternly dismisses. But he has learned patience, has come to regard his anger and loathing as a weakness or infirmity, and would not have it disturb the young and innocent. And so, in the days of _King Lear_, it was chiefly the power of "monstrous" and apparently cureless evil in the "great world" that filled Shakespeare"s soul with horror, and perhaps forced him sometimes to yield to the infirmity of misanthropy and despair, to cry "No, no, no life," and to take refuge in the thought that this fitful fever is a dream that must soon fade into a dreamless sleep; until, to free himself from the perilous stuff that weighed upon his heart, he summoned to his aid his "so potent art," and wrought this stuff into the stormy music of his greatest poem, which seems to cry,
You heavens, give me that patience, patience I need,
and, like the _Tempest_, seems to preach to us from end to end, "Thou must be patient," "Bear free and patient thoughts."[193]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 158: Of course I do not mean that he is beginning to be insane, and still less that he _is_ insane (as some medical critics suggest).]
[Footnote 159: I must however point out that the modern stage-directions are most unfortunate in concealing the fact that here Cordelia sees her father again _for the first time_. See Note W.]