Listen to Peter as he takes a deep dive into the play, discussing everything you need to know about King Lear as a Leaving Cert student and giving you loads of interesting ideas to use in your essays.

You can find this podcast series on Studyclix Explains, our podcast channel dedicated to bringing you high-quality notes in audio form.

Click below to listen to each episode on Spotify:

Or search "Studyclix Explains" wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also check the podcast out on our YouTube channel below:

Peter Tobin has his own YouTube Channel where he regularly uploads free and brilliant content covering the Leaving Cert English course - we can't recommend enough that you check him out and hit subscribe to get updates on the new videos he makes.

We recommend having the play to hand while you listen to the podcast. We have also included the transcript of this podcast so you can take down the notes you find useful.

If you have ideas for the Studyclix Explains channel, topics you'd like us to cover, or guests you'd like us to get on, please let us know. You can follow Studyclix on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat and share your ideas with us there.

• YouTube and Spotify: Studyclix Explains
• Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: @studyclix
• Tiktok: @studyclix.ie
• Snapchat: study_clix

Otherwise, drop us a line at info@studyclix.ie

Below is a transcript of this full podcast packed full of top tips and H1 notes. Make sure to copy these into your notebook to use on the day of your exams!

King Lear

Hello and welcome to this Studyclix Explains podcast looking at Shakespeare’s King Lear.  We’re going to take a look at some background to the play, go through the plot, look at the characters and themes as well as some examples of the sort of language and imagery you can write about in the Leaving Cert English exam. So let's get started!

King Lear was completed in the year 1606 and was first performed in front of King James I on the 26th of December of that year at Whitehall in London. Where King Lear comes from, however, is a matter of some debate. There are, in fact, a number of versions of King Lear. There was an early version, using the title King Leir and it’s possible that it’s part of Shakespeare’s early works. According to the Shakespeare biographer Peter Ackroyd, it’s more probable, however, that it was a play that, as an actor, Shakespeare took part in and later rewrote for his own acting company. 

Actors of the Elizabethan stage had to learn off many, many lines often to more than one play at a time and, as such, it’s not surprising that there is so much ‘borrowing’ of plots and phrases (and sometimes whole lines and more) between various playwrights of the time. Much of it would have been accidental. To be accused of plagiarism or copying was a fairly standard accusation of the time and would not have damaged Shakespeare’s or any other playwright’s reputation.

He created multi-faceted, complex characters with the words that he put on the page, he built whole societies, whole worlds with little more than scratches of ink on paper. Shakespeare wasn’t quite as interested, however, in creating or inventing plots for his plays. 

The story of King Lear, like the origin stories of a number of Shakespeare’s plays, can be found in a book called Holinshed’s Chronicles, a sort of history book of the time. In the Chronicles, we see the story of a King called Lear in pre-Christian England who has decided to divide his kingdom amongst his daughters. The story is remarkably similar to the play that we know. There are, however, some interesting differences. The ending of the story in the Chronicles, just like the earlier version entitled King Leir, is a happy one. Lear and Cordelia are reunited, together they take back the kingdom that he had given away and, after Lear’s eventual death, Cordelia inherits all. 

Another book that was popular at the time was a book called Essayes, translated from French by a man called John Florio. We know that this was an influence on Shakespeare as there are approximately 100 words in that book that are new to the English language that appear in King Lear. Similarly, yet another book, Arcadia by Sir Philip Sydney, appears to have given Shakespeare the inspiration for the sub-plot of Gloucester, Edgar and Edmund. As you can see, Shakespeare borrowed from all around him and then turned his own creative talents upon the ‘borrowed’ material to make something hugely impressive. 

Yet another potential source for King Lear comes from a story that Shakespeare would have been familiar with and that a friend of his, the Earl of Southampton actually had first-hand experience of. An older gentleman was becoming senile in his later years. He had three daughters. The elder two daughters wanted him to be declared insane so they could take control of his estate but a third daughter, astonishingly called Cordell or Cordelia, went to Lord Cecil to make the case that her father was fine. The father died in 1604 but, because of his youngest daughter’s kindness, he left almost everything he had to her. Cordell or Cordelia then went on to marry a man called Sir William Harvey who was the stepfather of Shakespeare’s friend, the Earl of Southampton. 

Shakespeare was not precious about his work, certainly not at the beginning anyway. Plays were not seen as literature and were written for pure entertainment. For the vast majority of his life, Shakespeare’s plays were not collected together or published in any coherent form. To emphasise this, Shakespeare rewrote and edited and changed his plays often. Aside from the early version called King Leir, there are actually two versions of King Lear itself. They are considered different enough from each other that the new Oxford edition of his plays contains both. These two are called the Quarto (the earlier one) and the Folio (the later one) versions. 

According to Peter Ackroyd again, the central differences between the two versions show us that the changes Shakespeare made were all about the drama of the plot. The Folio version focuses more closely on Lear himself and there is a quicker pace to the events. It’s less of a history giving you all the information about everything happening at the time and more a character study – a tragedy if you will – that draws us in to examine one character in close detail. There’s also a potential nod to censorship. The Master of Revels, an early version of the censorship board, would most likely not have looked kindly on a play showing a French army on English soil as we see in the Quarto version but which is only hinted at in the folio version. 

Finally, as all subjects in Elizabethan and Jacobean had to do, we must think of the king as well. King James I came to the throne in 1606 and, shortly after, made Shakespeare and his company of actors, the King’s Men. Shakespeare took this role and the status that comes with it very seriously. The play, despite its bleakness and particularly the grim ending, deals with some things that King James himself was particularly interested in. King James was already the King of Scotland when he came to the English throne so he unified the two kingdoms. In Act three of the play, Shakespeare even changed the word English in the Quarto version to the word British in the Folio. 

King James was deeply concerned with creating a unified kingdom of Great Britain. In a book that he himself had written for his son, he warned that ‘by deuiding your kingdoms, yee shall leaue the seed of diuisionand discord among your posteritie’. Essentially saying that dividing your kingdoms would lead to ruin. 

For all its darkness and challenges, it’s perhaps unsurprising that King Lear was not a very popular play with audiences. There are few recorded performances of it from when it was written up until the late 1670s. In fact, for the two hundred years or so from the 17th to the 19th century, it was a rewritten version (rewritten by an Irishman) that was performed in the English stage. In this rewritten version, everything ends well. Cordelia marries Edgar and everyone lives happily ever after. 

The play opens with the characters arriving to hear some announcement from King Lear. Gloucester, his son Edmund, Kent, Goneril, Regan and their husbands Albany and Cornwall as well as Cordelia have all gathered to hear what the king has to say. It transpires that Lear, old as he is, wishes to unburden himself and to divide up his kingdom between his daughters in advance of his death and to avoid any conflict between them. 

The idea, according to Lear, is simple. He wants each of his daughters to publicly proclaim how much they love him and he will apportion lands and titles to match their declarations. The elder two of Lear’s daughters, Goneril and Regan tell their father how much they love him, more than life itself it seems while Lear’s youngest daughter refuses to play the game. She tells her father she loves him just as much as she is expected to and, should she marry, she will have to divide up that love between her father and her new husband. She is critical of her sisters who she suspects are simply trying to line their own pockets. 

He disowns Cordelia, who then is taken as a wife by the King of France and leaves. He banishes the Earl of Kent, his closest confidante, for standing up for Cordelia. He divides his kingdom equally between Regan and Goneril and plans to spend his remaining years staying with them, a few months each at a time, along with his retinue of knights that he says he will keep to show his status, along with the title of ‘King’. 

We then see Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester plotting against his father and his half-brother, Edgar, Gloucester’s legitimate son. 

Lear is staying with Goneril who instructs her staff to treat the king and his men with disrespect in order to drive him away. This disrespect causes Lear to complain to his daughter about his and his men’s treatment. She takes the opportunity to tell him that he has too many men and they’re causing chaos in her home, that if he wants to stay, he must reduce the number of knights that he has with him. 

Lear reacts badly, taking the request as disrespectful, both as a daughter and as a subject. But he realises that he’s acting like the king without the authority to actually do anything – he’s given all his power away. He says he will travel to stay with Regan and, while he’s on the way there, Goneril sends a messenger to Regan to tell her the plan. In the meantime, Kent, disguised as Caius, has been put in stocks.

Meanwhile, Edgar, under the impression that he has offended their father Gloucester and encouraged to flee by Edmund, has disguised himself as a mad man – Poor Tom, in an effort to avoid detection. 

Lear arrives expecting a warm welcome from Regan but instead finds his servant – Kent disguised as Caius, in stocks and his two daughters united in their desire for him to not keep any knights at all. Furious and heartbroken, he declares that they are monsters and heads off into the countryside with only the fool for company all while a storm is brewing. 

Kent sends a message to Cordelia in France and then heads off in search of Lear. 

The Fool tries to shelter Lear from the elements, and then Kent finds them and guides them to a nearby hovel for safety.

Gloucester, upset at how Lear has been treated, confides in Edmund that he plans to help Lear. Edmund, to curry favour, betrays his father’s intentions to Cornwall and promises to help catch his father in the act. 

In the hovel, Lear, the fool and Kent as Caius meet Poor Tom who continues to pretend to be mad to keep his identity secret. They hold a mock trial of Lears daughters. Gloucester arrives and encourages them to flee as Regan and Cornwall are looking to capture them. Kent leads Lear to Dover in order to meet Cordelia and the French forces. 

Gloucester is captured by Cornwall and Regan and Cornwall removes Gloucester’s eyes as punishment while telling Gloucester that it was Edmund who betrayed him. Gloucester realises he trusted the wrong son. He is blind but he has finally seen the truth. A servant of Gloucester’s enraged at how Cornwall has treated his master, attacks Cornwall, mortally wounding him.

Edgar disguised as Poor Tom meets Gloucester his now blind father. He doesn’t yet reveal himself and agrees to accompany him to Dover so that Gloucester can end his life. Meanwhile Goneril and Edmund arrive to the Duke of Albany’s palace and are met by Albany. He is horrified at goneril’s actions and denounces her. Goneril then plots with Edmund to kill Albany and pursue their own ambitions. 

The action moves then to Dover and we see Kent discussing the imminent arrival of the French forces led by Cordelia and we also learn about her concern for her father and what she’s been hearing about his madness. She arrives and sends our search parties to find him. 

Regan, now a widow, tries to enlist the help of her servant, Oswald in killing Gloucester. She begins to express interest in Edmund and his ambitions. 

The action moves back to Dover where the characters are beginning to congregate. Edgar, still disguised as Poor Tom, leads Gloucester to the cliffs of Dover and tricks him into thinking he has survived a miraculous fall. Lear, now completely mad stumbles upon them and is found by Cordelia’s soldiers who take him to see her. 

Meanwhile, Regan and Goneril are competing for Edmund. Edgar delivers a letter to Albany revealing Goneril and Edmund’s plot. Edmund debates his loyalties between the sister and his own ambition. 

A battle begins between the British and French forces and the British are victorious. Lear and Cordelia are captured. Edmund orders that they are imprisoned but secretly sends orders for them to be executed. Goneril poisons Regan out of jealousy over Edmund. Albany confronts Edmund and reveal’s Goneril’s plot. Edgar challenges Edmund to a duel and wounds him fatally. Goneril, realising her defeat, kills herself. Edmund, dying tries to revoke his order to execute Lear and Cordelia but is too late. Lear enters with Cordelia’s dead body and he is utterly devastated by her death. Lear, heartbroken, does and Albany and Edgar are left to restore order in the kingdom. 

So, now we know what happens in the play, we are going to take a slightly closer look at the idea of tragedy in Shakespeare and in particular in King Lear.

King Lear is an example of a tragedy. That doesn’t simply mean that it has an unhappy or tragic ending, it refers to a very specific genre of theatre that has certain conventions or rules that must be followed. 

Tragic drama focuses on a single individual, whom we call the tragic hero or the tragic protagonist. The Tragic Hero, in this case Lear, should enjoy the good will of the audience.

In Shakespearean tragedy, the hero is invariably a man of status, an eminent individual who is engaged in great events. Lear is King of Britain and a commanding presence.

The tragic hero must be motivated by a serious purpose or undertake a serious course of action. Lear’s serious purpose is to abdicate his throne and to retire happily with Cordelia looking after him. 

Through that purpose or action, the tragic hero inevitably meets with grave physical and/or spiritual suffering. The direction of his career in the play is always from prosperity to adversity. Lear starts out as a strong ruler, but has lost everything he holds dear by the close of the play.

The hero’s passage from good to bad fortune us the result of some initial and fundamental human error. This may be a false step, a miscalculation or a defect of character. Such a defect is generally described as the hero’s tragic flaw. Lear’s division of the kingdom between two evil daughters is foolish and prompted by pride and vanity but it is not wicked. 

External factors also have a part to play. In Shakespearean tragedy it is very difficult to avoid the impression that fate is working against the hero from the beginning. Whatever Lear may do, he is in some sense a doomed man. The influence of order, justice and reason is extremely limited.

The tragic hero’s situation is organised in such a way that he has no chance of a happy outcome. It is the tragic dramatist’s task to ensure that the tragic hero’s activities are inseparable from disaster. If the force’s supporting Lear had won the battle, allowing Lear to spend the remainder of his life in the care of Cordelia, the necessary tragic ending would be absent. 

The audience must be persuaded to identify with the tragic hero in his sufferings. He must remind us strongly of our humanity, so that we can see him as in some way standing for us. He must be vulnerable to extreme suffering, as Lear clearly is, and we should feel some degree of pity and fear in response to what happens to him. Lear’s suffering is partly physical, but mainly mental and spiritual: his obsessive focus on filial ingratitude disturbs the balance of his mind. 

For the hero, recognition is the essential tragic experience. It occurs when he finally understands his character and situation. Recognition is not simply Lear’s knowledge of what has happened to him; it also involves a new awareness of the unalterably fixed pattern he has created for himself through his deeds. He recognises his initial blindness to the villainous natures of Goneril and Regan, and to the reality of Cordelia’s love for him. He gains a profound sense of his own folly and a desire for forgiveness. This implies recognition on his part that he must share the burden of responsibility for what he has helped to bring about. 

The tragic hero grows in stature and in the audience’s estimation as he faces up to his destiny and confronts it. Lear’s last speeches reflect his increased self-awareness, and his blindness and ignorance die with him. 

Goneril, Regan, Cornwall and Edmund, the agents of social and moral disorder, involve ‘good’ characters (Cordelia and Edgar), as well as the less good Gloucester,  as victims of their corrupt schemes. As the play reaches its conclusion, a semblance of order is restored. The villainies are exposed and Albany and Edgar will rebuild the wounded state. 

In King Lear, the gap between the tragic hero’s initial error and its consequences is appallingly wide. Once Lear rashly decides the banish Cordelia and Kent, he sets a chain of events in motion beyond the power of human beings to control. His acts of senile foolishness precipitate the collapse of an entire social order. The binds of nature, as well as those of society, break apart and human beings prey upon and torment each other,

Cordelia, the youngest daughter of King Lear, is a very well-known character in Shakespeare, despite the fact that she’s barely in the play at all. The impact of her refusal to go along with her father’s love test at the beginning, her strength of character in standing up to her father’s savage verbal abuse as well as her forgiveness at the end have an outsize effect. Although we don’t really see her – her influence is everywhere.

All we know and think of Cordelia stems from the fact that she refuses to go along with Lear’s love test. It’s not that she doesn’t love her father, it’s that she refuses to debase that love by competing with her sisters, who she knows do not mean what they say. Lear’s reaction is severe – she is banished but her value and, you could almost say, her correctness in this instance, is demonstrated by the fact that the king of France marries her. 

It's almost as if, in the court of King Lear, a collective mania has taken hold – led by Lear himself – where those who lie and deceive are rewarded and those who are good and tell the truth are punished. That’s certainly true of Cordelia but outside of Lear’s court, outside of the kingdom, it’s obvious that she is good and noble. 

Regardless of how we choose to see Cordelia, it’s clear that Shakespeare uses her to explore many of the themes we see in King Lear, including love, loyalty and, I think most importantly, redemption. Even though she is limited in terms of stage presence, the idea of Cordelia returning to England, with the French forces, acts as a sort of control on the rest of the action in the play, it shapes the plot. As many of the characters roam the countryside, seemingly aimlessly, it is their desire to get to Dover to meet Cordelia and the French forces that gives them purpose.

It's also gives Lear a redemption arc. He has behaved terribly and has realised the folly of his actions almost immediately with Cordelia’s elder sisters Goneril and Regan but in order for the audience to truly feel anything for him, we need to see him reunited with Cordelia. And it’s Lear’s shame, his reluctance to see his daughter again because of the shame he feels at his actions that redeems him in the audience’s eyes. The ending of the play is of course desperately bleak but I believe that this small moment where Lear is redeemed, gives the play enough hope or positivity to make sitting through the rest of the events at the end worth it. 

Cordelia then is not on stage for long but she doesn’t have to be. It’s what she represents, the ramifications her actions have that are the real measure of her character and, to that end, she’s up there with some of the best known of Shakespeare’s female characters. 

King Lear, the character, can be hard to warm to, especially at the beginning of the play.

Our first impressions of him are that he is proud and arrogant. He orchestrates a love test to coerce public declarations of love from his daughters. He comes across as rash and impulsive. He banishes Cordelia and Kent, the only two people who appear to be loyal to him. Stanley Cavell, the American philosopher, viewed the play King Lear in terms of identity and self -awareness and he said that "Lear's tragedy lies in his initial inability to see the truth about himself and others, but his eventual recognition brings a form of tragic wisdom."

By the time Lear begins the see the truth of the world, he has fallen far. He’s mad, naked, rolling around in a hovel with another seeming madman – Edgar disguised as Poor Tom. But we begin to be on his side. Even when Lear is being mistreated by his daughters it’s hard to immediately sympathise with him. His mistreatment, while we recognise it as mistreatment, doesn’t automatically make us feel sorry for him. 

It’s when he recognises the folly of his ways, not just in dividing his kingdom or trusting Regan and Goneril and banishing Cordelia, but in how he’s lived, how he has treated people in need in his own kingdom, this is when we begin to see the full effect of Shakespeare’s arc for the old King. Being reunited with Cordelia at the end redeems Lear for the audience, and for himself. Even if he is to be in prison, he won’t mind so long as Cordelia is there.

There are some interesting wider contextual aspects that influence our reading of Lear as a character too. Obviously, as Shakespeare is writing and performing the play, there is a real king on the throne. And just like with Queen Elizabeth before King James, Shakespeare needs to keep the monarch onside because without their blessing, there is no theatre and, certainly by the time he is writing Lear as his company is known as ‘The King’s Men’. But there’s also a subtle critique of the nature of power and authority in the play. Lear make spoor decisions, he’s clearly not protected by a higher or divine power, he’s not infallible. He misjudges people repeatedly including those suffering in his kingdom, Goneril and Regan thinking they’re honest and Cordelia, thinking she’s not. There’s also Kent and Poor Tom whom he cannot recognise – both literally and metaphorically. We cannot respect Lear for his kingly qualities – he may have been a good king in the past but certainly not now. We may, however, be able to respect him for his personal growth, his development of understanding and his final redemption before he dies. 

Ultimately, what Shakespeare shows us in the play and through the character of Lear in particular, is that status and power are transient. They come and go and are totally arbitrary. Love, on the other hand, is lasting – certainly the love that Lear and Cordelia have for one another. The play also encourages us to as the questions Why is a king a king? Is it because of his title or the number of knights in his retinue? Or is it because of the good he does, the wisdom he has and the example he sets? It’s up to us as the audience to decide. 

There are a number of ways of looking at the characters of Goneril and Regan, Lear’s two eldest daughters. A simple way of seeing them is as one-dimensional representations of evil. They grow and develop in wickedness throughout the play until their devious actions lead to their own deaths. But this is quite simplistic and doesn’t give the opportunity  to focus on their function within the world of the play or Shakespeare’s intentions through characterising them in the way that he does. 

There is no doubt that, by the end, Goneril and Regan are two of the most depraved and evil characters in all of Shakespeare’s plays but it’s interesting to note that, at the beginning at least, they do not seem to possess the desire nor the personality to wish their father dead or even to exact the kind of punishment that they do upon Gloucester at the end of Act 3 (taking out his eye). 

In fact, Lear plans to live with Cordelia after dividing up his kingdom and his impetuous and rash behaviour in casting Cordelia out means he decides, on the spot without asking anyone, that he will spend the rest of his life travelling between his two other daughters’ households. It’s clear then that all of this is unexpected. Regan and Goneril would have expected a modest part of the kingdom at which point they could have forgotten about their father as they disappeared from each others’ lives. Lear’s rush of blood to the head has now thrust both Goneril and Regan into the limelight so to speak. They have been deceitful to try to secure as much as they could for themselves and it has backfired somewhat with Lear’s (completely impulsive) decision that he would keep a hundred knights as his retinue. This one hundred is of course many times more with all the other people that would attend a knight and the king himself and, putting all of this on each daughter every second month would be a considerable strain. Add to this the fact that, despite giving up power, he consults no one on this pronouncement and simply announces it and we see that this would indeed be difficult for them. 

In this light might it be possible to have some small sympathy for Regan and Goneril? Even at this point, there doesn’t seem to be any appetite for the destruction of King Lear. That comes later.

If we’re looking for people to admire, we could do worse than looking at the next character, that of Kent. Kent is Lear’s closest and most trusted advisor. He attempts to intervene when he sees that Lear is making bad decisions – particularly banishing Corelia for being honest and telling the truth and, when he becomes banished in turn, he disguises himself to stay close to Lear so that he can protect him, regardless of Lear’s behaviour, regardless of whether he deserves it or not. Kent is willing to sacrifice himself for his king and goes through a number of challenges. It is for these reasons why the critic AC Bradley, says that "Kent stands as a pillar of loyalty and truth in the chaotic world of Lear, his actions guided by a steadfast commitment to his king and a deep sense of duty."

Kent's compassion is evident in his care for Lear during the king's descent into madness. He remains by Lear's side, offering support and protection. His compassionate nature is seen when he helps Lear through the storm and provides him with shelter and care. Kent's compassion extends to others as well, as he shows concern for the well-being of the Fool and Edgar. His willingness to endure hardship for the sake of others highlights the play's exploration of compassion and the human condition.

But Kent’s role as a moral anchor may be looked at in a slightly different way, especially his willingness to endure hardship. If we consider the ending of the play, the pessimistic and bleak outlook on the world and life it offers us, we could be tempted to look at Kent’s actions as a counterpoint, a glimmer of hope in the dark. But one critic in particular suggests otherwise.

Kent is loyal to Lear despite Lear’s best efforts to drive him away. That loyalty in itself can be admired but in light of the events of the whole play, it is entirely futile and brings only suffering. One might say this is noble suffering and we could come back to what we said about Shakespeare trying to write plays that were somehow sympathetic or supportive of the established order – King Lear may not be depicted in the most generous of lights but we are encouraged to see Kent’s behaviour in supporting the king no matter what as noble and correct, especially in contrast to characters like Goneril, Regan and Edmund.  

The next character we will look at is Gloucester. The Eearl of Gloucester,  like Kent, is one of Lear’s most trusted aides.

King Lear is betrayed by his two eldest daughters – Goneril and Regan. He is truly loved by the other – Cordelia. 

Gloucester has two sons – one legitimate, Edgar – and one illegitimate, Edmund. We see how, similar to Lear, Gloucester experiences betrayal from one of his children but he fails to recognise which one. He is metaphorically blind, just as Lear is and then, as if the point wasn’t clear enough, he is also literally blinded. It’s when he is blind, just like Lear, that he truly ‘sees’ so to speak. He recognises the foolishness of his ways and he seeks to make amends. So we can say that Gloucester mirrors Lear’s journey from blindness to insight.

In the case of Gloucester, there are many more mitigating factors. His behaviour isn’t fully on par with Lear’s. He is actively deceived by Edmund and we can understand perhaps why he does what he does. 

Gloucester's suffering is profound, marked by his physical blinding and the betrayal of his trusted son. This intense suffering, however, becomes a catalyst for his moral and emotional redemption. Guided by his loyal son Edgar (disguised as Poor Tom), Gloucester gains a deeper understanding of loyalty, love, and the human condition. His recognition of Edgar's loyalty and his own failings is a moment of tragic redemption.

Gloucester's relationships with his sons, Edgar and Edmund, are central to his character. His misguided trust in Edmund and harsh treatment of Edgar create a complex dynamic of love, betrayal, and guilt. Gloucester's eventual realization of Edgar's loyalty and Edmund's treachery brings a poignant sense of guilt and regret. His expression of this guilt and his attempts to reconcile with Edgar highlight his deep parental love and desire for forgiveness.

Despite his flaws, Gloucester's nobility and courage are evident throughout the play. His decision to help Lear despite the dangers posed by Regan and Goneril's forces demonstrates his bravery and sense of duty. Even after his blinding, Gloucester's resolve to continue and seek redemption showcases his inner strength and resilience.

The next two characters we will look at together, as we did with Goneril and Regan. While they are more nuanced and are characterised differently to the two sisters, they work in contrast to eachother to give the audience a picture of filial loyalty.

Edmund is the illegitimate or bastard son of Gloucester. He jokes with Kent at the beginning of the play about Edmund’s conception – a brief affair with a woman who was not his wife. Edgar is Kent’s legitimate son, born in wedlock they are very close in age and all that separates them, as Edmund points out in his famous soliloquy, is that Edgar, his half-brother, was conceived in a marriage bed with a woman who was Gloucester wife by law. Edmund is conceived in a bed of passion, with a woman who wasn’t Gloucester’s wife. Does that make them different, Edmund asks? And if it does, then surely it should favour him as he was conceived in a moment of passion and energy and not as a product or a stale and tired relationship. 

And it’s not just social stigma he’s talking about. Under law, he is unable to inherit any of his father’s property or his title of Earl. Edmund is presented to the audience as switched on, aware of his surroundings and his own ambitions and very intelligent. Edgar, on the other hand, is shown to be naïve and easily falls into the traps that his brother sets for him. As the legitimate child, who will inherit all of his father’s estates as well as the title of Earl, we get the sense that he is a little foolish, lacking agency and just playing the role of the dutiful son who will one day take his father’s place. It seems that Edmund’s necessity is the mother of his energy and cunning. 

Edmund has been viewed over time in different ways. Some of them focus on his character simply as a representation of illegitimacy – he behaves the way he does because he’s a bastard. Those views have been replaced, over time, with a more nuanced view. It’s clear that Edmund is charismatic, he draws the other characters in – not just his brother, but also his father, Goneril and Regan. He rises quickly over the course of the play. This charisma and drive is caused by his sense of injustice at the way he is treated by society and perhaps even by his father. 

Edgar, on the other hand, grows through the play from a position of comfort and naivety to being a natural leader and he steps into the vacuum created by the death of almost everyone else. We get the sense that things will be restored under Edgarr. A.C. Bradley views Edgar as a symbol of moral fortitude and resilience. Bradley emphasizes Edgar's transformation from a naive and trusting son to a cunning survivor and eventual moral victor. He writes, "Edgar’s journey from innocence to experience and his ultimate triumph over Edmund symbolize the redemptive power of virtue and endurance."

While at the end, Edmund seems to recognise the wrong in what he’s done, trying to undo his actions too late in revealing that he has ordered the murder of Cordelia. The most telling of Edmund’s words though, come after he is mortally wounded and he sees that both Goneril and Regan have died for him. He says “Yet Edmund was beloved”. 

Who is the greater villain in this scenario – Edmund or the society that refused to allow him to be loved and accepted on the same terms as his brother?

The Fool in "King Lear" is a pivotal character, serving as both a source of comic relief and a profound commentator on the events of the play. His relationship with Lear, his use of wit and humour, and his role as a truth-teller make him one of the most complex and intriguing characters in the play.

Despite his role as a jester, the Fool possesses deep wisdom and insight into the nature of Lear’s actions and the broader human condition. His jests and riddles often contain profound truths that challenge Lear and the audience to reflect on the play’s events. This is evident in his remark,

highlighting Lear’s lack of foresight.

The Fool’s loyalty and affection for Lear are central to his character. He remains by Lear’s side during his descent into madness, offering comfort and counsel through his humor. His loyalty is unwavering, even when Lear’s other followers abandon him. This loyalty is seen when he stays with Lear during the storm, offering companionship and support.

His use of humor and wit serves multiple purposes: it provides comic relief, highlights the absurdity of the situation, and delivers sharp critiques of Lear’s actions and decisions. His clever wordplay and jests mask deeper truths and offer a unique perspective on the unfolding tragedy.

The Fool’s primary role is that of a truth-teller. Under the guise of folly, he speaks truths that others dare not voice, critiquing Lear’s decisions and the actions of those around him. His ability to speak truth to power is a key aspect of his character, as seen in his frequent admonishments of Lear’s foolishness in dividing his kingdom.

Stanley Cavell explores the Fool’s role through the lens of recognition and self-awareness. Cavell suggests that the Fool’s insights and jests force Lear to confront his own identity and the consequences of his actions. He observes, "The Fool serves as a mirror to Lear, reflecting his folly and guiding him towards a painful but necessary self-recognition."

The last two characters we will look at as a pair, just like the sisters, Regan and Goneril and the brothers, Edmund and Edgar. These two, Albany and Cornwall are not brothers but the husbands of Regan and Goneril. 

While these two are secondary characters, they perform important functions. They are both Dukes and, as such, established in the hierarchy of the world of the play. 

Albany’s defining characteristic is his inherent sense of morality. Despite his initial passivity, he possesses a strong moral compass that guides his actions as he becomes more aware of the evil around him. His condemnation of Goneril’s cruelty and his opposition to her schemes highlight his ethical stance. This is evident when he rebukes Goneril, saying, 

At the beginning of the play, Albany appears passive and somewhat naive, particularly in contrast to his wife, Goneril. He seems unaware of her true nature and the extent of her cruelty. His initial reluctance to confront the wrongdoing in his household reflects his passive disposition. However, this passivity is not due to a lack of principles but rather a lack of assertiveness.

His character undergoes a significant transformation as the play progresses. Spurred by the unfolding tragedy and the realization of Goneril’s treachery, Albany becomes more assertive and morally decisive. His growth from passivity to active moral leadership is a key aspect of his character arc. This transformation is marked by his increasing willingness to stand up against evil and fight for justice.

Cornwall, on the other hand, is, as the critic Harold Bloom suggests, an instrument of Shakespeare's portrayal of political and personal corruption. Bloom argues that Cornwall's sadistic nature and ruthless quest for power serve to illustrate the chaotic and anarchic world of "King Lear." He writes, "Cornwall’s unrelenting cruelty and ambition make him a key figure in the disintegration of social and moral order."

Cornwall’s defining characteristic is his capacity for extreme brutality and cruelty. His most notorious act, the blinding of Gloucester, is a vivid demonstration of his sadistic nature. Cornwall takes pleasure in inflicting pain and suffering, revealing a deeply malevolent personality. This is evident when he says, 

Cornwall is driven by ambition and a desire for power. His alignment with Regan and Goneril in their schemes against Lear and Gloucester underscores his willingness to engage in ruthless actions to achieve his goals. Cornwall’s ambition blinds him to moral considerations, making him a dangerous and unscrupulous character.

His actions reveal a profound moral blindness. He is indifferent to the suffering of others and lacks any sense of empathy or compassion. This moral void is highlighted in his interactions with Gloucester and Kent, where his decisions are guided solely by cruelty and self-interest.

Cornwall is manipulative and cunning, adept at using others to further his own ends. He collaborates with Regan and Goneril to consolidate power and eliminate threats. His ability to manipulate situations and people to his advantage is a key aspect of his character.

Now let’s look at some of the themes that Shakespeare explores in the play. The first one we’ll look at is authority and power. In "King Lear," Shakespeare presents a complex examination of what it means to hold power and the consequences of its misuse.

At the beginning of the play, King Lear decides to divide his kingdom among his three daughters based on their declarations of love for him. This act demonstrates Lear's authority as a king, but also his vanity and desire for flattery.

He says,

Lear's abdication of power is meant to be a controlled transfer, but it quickly spirals out of control. By relinquishing his authority, Lear unwittingly sets the stage for political and familial chaos. His decision to give power to Goneril and Regan, who deceitfully flatter him, while disowning Cordelia, who speaks the truth, highlights the dangers of superficial judgments.

As the play progresses, the once-powerful king finds himself stripped of his authority and descending into madness, symbolizing the fragility of human power.

Lear says, 

Lear's journey from power to powerlessness serves as a powerful commentary on the nature of authority and the human condition. It reminds us that true power cannot be measured by titles or wealth, but by wisdom, humility, and integrity. Lear does not recognise that his authority comes not from the person he is but the position he holds and, if he does not have that position, then he does not have power. He is arrogant and blind to the true nature of power but learns the truth over the course of the play.

Next, let's look at the theme of madness. In "King Lear," madness is not just a personal affliction but a lens through which Shakespeare explores the breakdown of social order and the human psyche. It’s important to remember that the characters who present as mad, Poor Tom, The Fool, Lear, Lear is the only one who is truly mad. 

King Lear's descent into madness is one of the most poignant aspects of the play. His madness reflects his internal turmoil and the chaos that ensues from his poor judgment. Initially, Lear's madness is hinted at through his irrational decisions and erratic behaviour.

Lear says, 

As Lear's madness deepens, it becomes a powerful symbol of his vulnerability and humanity. In the storm on the heath, Lear rages against the elements, projecting his inner turmoil onto the natural world.

In the famous scene on the heath in Scene 2 Act 3, he says, 

This scene marks a pivotal moment where Lear's madness also serves as a form of enlightenment. Stripped of his kingly robes and pretensions, Lear gains insight into his own nature and the human condition.

This becomes evident when he says, 

Through Lear's madness, Shakespeare invites us to question the thin line between sanity and insanity and the societal structures that define and confine our understanding of both. 

Another significant theme in "King Lear" is blindness and insight. This theme is intricately linked with the characters' journeys and their ability to perceive truth and reality.

King Lear and Gloucester both suffer from metaphorical blindness. Lear is blind to the true nature of his daughters, misjudging their intentions and character. Gloucester, on the other hand, is deceived by his illegitimate son, Edmund, and is blind to the loyalty of his legitimate son, Edgar.

We see many examples of sight, literal and metaphorical being mentioned in the play. In Act 1 Scene 1 says to Kent,

while Kent responds,

Gloucester's literal blindness, inflicted by Regan and Cornwall, serves as a powerful physical manifestation of his earlier inability to see the truth.

Ironically, Gloucester gains true insight only after he is blinded. His suffering leads to a deeper understanding of himself and the world around him.

In Act 4 Scene 1 he says,

Both characters' journeys from blindness to insight underscore the idea that true vision is not a matter of physical sight but of understanding and wisdom.

Now, let's explore the theme of love. In "King Lear," love is depicted in its various forms—familial, platonic, and romantic—and its complexities are laid bare through the relationships between characters.

At the heart of the play is Lear's misguided demand for a public display of love from his daughters. Lear equates love with flattery, leading to his tragic misjudgment.

In Act 1 Scene 1 he says

Goneril and Regan's professions of love are nothing but deceitful exaggerations, while Cordelia's honest and modest declaration is dismissed. He is trying to measure the worth of love through what the character says – it is a profound misunderstanding.

Cordelia's love, though understated, is genuine and steadfast. Her return to save her father, despite his harsh treatment, underscores the depth and purity of her love.

Additionally, the subplot of Gloucester and his sons mirrors the main plot, with Edgar's loyalty and love for his father standing in stark contrast to Edmund's treachery. Edgar's care for Gloucester, especially after he is blinded, highlights the theme of filial love and devotion.

Through these relationships, Shakespeare explores the complexities of love—its capacity for both selflessness and betrayal, its vulnerability to manipulation, and its ultimate, redeeming power.

Finally, we will look at the theme of appearance vs reality. "King Lear" is rife with characters who conceal their true intentions and identities, leading to a dramatic exploration of deception and truth.

The most obvious example is the contrast between Goneril and Regan's outward flattery and their inner malice. Their deceitful appearances lead Lear to misplace his trust, resulting in his tragic downfall.

Goneril says,

While Regan, trying to outdo her sister says,

In contrast, Cordelia's refusal to embellish her love highlights the play's concern with sincerity and truth.

She says,

Another layer of this theme is seen in the character of Edgar, who adopts the guise of Poor Tom to survive and help his blinded father, Gloucester. His disguise is a necessity, a means to reveal truths and protect himself and his father.

Conversely, Edmund’s manipulations and deceitful appearance as a loyal son stand in stark contrast to his true nature as a schemer.

Ultimately, "King Lear" reveals the dangers of trusting appearances and underscores the value of perceiving deeper truths. This theme serves as a powerful reminder of the often deceptive nature of appearances and the importance of discerning reality.

"King Lear" is a rich tapestry of themes that explore the depths of human nature, authority, madness, love, and the complex interplay between appearance and reality. As we’ve seen, Shakespeare uses these themes to challenge our perceptions and invite us to reflect on the complexities of the human experience.

"King Lear" is renowned not only for its complex characters and profound themes but also for its vivid imagery and powerful symbolism. Shakespeare uses these literary devices to enhance the emotional impact of the play and to underscore its central themes. Let's explore some of the key images and symbols that Shakespeare weaves into the fabric of this tragedy.

One of the most striking images in "King Lear" is the storm on the heath. The storm is a powerful symbol of the chaos and turmoil that engulfs the characters, particularly Lear himself. It represents both the literal and metaphorical storms that rage throughout the play.

When Lear ventures into the storm, it mirrors his inner turmoil and descent into madness. The storm's fury reflects Lear's anger and confusion as he grapples with his loss of power and betrayal by his daughters.

This imagery of the storm also serves to strip Lear of his kingly pretensions, reducing him to a vulnerable, old man exposed to the elements. 

Shakespeare frequently employs animal imagery in "King Lear" to convey the primal and savage nature of the characters' actions. This imagery underscores the theme of the degeneration of humanity and the brutality that can arise when social order collapses.

Goneril and Regan are often associated with predatory animals, emphasizing their ruthlessness and inhumanity.

Albany says,

Lear himself uses animal imagery to express his sense of betrayal and the unnatural behavior of his daughters.

He says,

This animalistic imagery serves to dehumanize the characters, illustrating how their actions deviate from natural familial bonds and societal norms.

Clothing and disguise play a significant symbolic role in "King Lear." Characters often use clothing to conceal their true identities and intentions, reflecting the theme of appearance versus reality.

The most notable example is Edgar, who disguises himself as Poor Tom to evade capture and to help his father, Gloucester. His change in appearance symbolizes his loss of status and the stripping away of his former identity.

He says

Similarly, Lear's descent into madness is accompanied by a change in his attire. As he loses his authority and sanity, he sheds his royal garments, symbolizing his fall from power and his vulnerability.

This stripping away of clothing parallels Lear's stripping away of pretensions and his journey towards self-awareness.

The imagery of vision and blindness is central to "King Lear." This motif underscores the theme of insight and the characters' ability—or inability—to see the truth.

Similarly, Lear's madness and suffering lead to moments of profound insight. His journey through madness allows him to see more clearly the nature of his daughters and the human condition.

This imagery reinforces the idea that true vision and understanding often come through suffering and self-reflection.

Nature and the natural order are recurring motifs in "King Lear." Shakespeare uses imagery of the natural world to explore the disruption of social and familial order.

Lear frequently invokes nature as he curses his daughters and rages against the injustices he faces. The natural imagery underscores the idea that the betrayal and cruelty he experiences are violations of the natural order.

Additionally, the storm on the heath, as discussed earlier, symbolizes the natural world's response to the breakdown of human order. It reflects the chaos and disorder that result from Lear's abdication of power and the treachery of his daughters.

In "King Lear," Shakespeare masterfully employs imagery and symbolism to deepen the emotional impact of the play and to underscore its central themes. From the storm on the heath to the animalistic depictions of characters, these literary devices enhance our understanding of the tragedy and the complex human experiences it portrays.

I hope you all enjoyed this podcast series on King Lear.

Want more resources on King Lear? Find review sampled answers here.