“Lear manages to fail his duty as King” Evaluate this view with reference to dramatic effects – TIMED (+5 mins)
Mini plan – start of the play // father hood // identity // other kingly characters

In keeping with Jacobean thought, Lear is portrayed as having a divine duty to rule. This is echoed by King James belief of the divine right of the Kings, and both him and Elizabeth saw it a sin to either abdicate the throne, or divide it up – both of which Lear is guilty of. To a Christian audience therefore, he was clearly failed his divine duty in acting as “God Lieutenant” (as King James I phrased it). Whether his failure was necessary in his duty as a father or in finding his identity can be explored.

The start of the play is imperative it setting up Lear’s duty and role as King. He enters the kingdom as an absolute ruler, with an air of grandeur about him, and he was highly respected – as highlighted by the fact he was referred to as “my lord” and “my liege”. His word was never challenged; it held a divine authority evident through the use of imperative such as “Attend the lords” and “Speak first”. Shakespeare deliberately, therefore offers us the perfect painting of a dutiful king. The consequential break down in society is therefore unexpected, and is summarised in the horrific irony that Lear wishes to “divide our kingdom into three” so that “future strife may be prevented”. Lear is blinded by his selfish wish to “crawl unburdened toward death” that he neglects his role as a divine ruler by selfishly dividing the kingdom.

The view that the division is selfish however is rooted in the Jacobean idea of it being a sin against God. Alternatively, a modern audience may interpret the action as a bid to be fair, and non bias (two traits essential to kingship), and not alienate any of the daughters, arguably, as Gloucester does in his flippant statements that Edgar is a “whoreson” that “must be acknowledged”. If his duty as king lies in royal action, then to a Jacobean audience he neglects it, but to a modern audience perhaps he exudes kingly traits through it.

Any sliver of fairness and diplomacy is erased however when Lear states “I loved her most”, in regards to Cordelia. His duty as King therefore is in conflict with his duty as a father. In his “trial of love”, he treats his daughters as courtly subordinates whose job is sycophancy, as highlighted by the Fool: If “thou canst smile as the wind sits, then “thou shall catch a cold”. Lear’s harmatia (As Aristotle coined) is his weakness to flattery, and in doing so he confuses his role as a king with his role as a father; he expects his daughters to flatter him as those in court would. His inability to distinguish between fatherhood and kingship causes him to fail at both. A common critical interpretation is that “confusion is what fuels his linguistic tirades” and this view is well evidenced in the unnatural insults he hurls at his daughters. He calls Goneril a “degenerate bastard” and Regan “a boil in my corrupted blood” – the tragic irony sits in the idea that whilst he readily spouts insults about his daughters being unnatural, he is the one who is the most unnatural in his folly as King and as a father. Compassion, justice, and a level head are all traits that are not only essential to fatherhood but to kingship, and Lear lacks both.

Irony therefore is a key dramatic device employed by Shakespeare when exploring the duty of an “old and foolish” king. Lear thinks he is benefitting the kingdom, but ironically his actions are a catalyst in the consequent deception and treachery, he believes his daughters to be “monsters”, but he is the one who fails to naturally adopt his roles and importantly he is continually solid in his assertions “This shall not be revoked”, yet as Regan emphasises “he hath but slenderly known himself”

Identity therefore, or sufficient lack of, is crucial to his duty as King. Lear attempts to retain his kingly identity, “we shall retain the name”, despite giving away the kingdom and all that forms kingship. Goneril furthers this as she emphasises Lear attempts to “manage the authority, thou hast given away!” One could argue that Lear was never cut out for Kingship, and his vein attempts are the reason why it can only be seen as his apparent identity. He moves from “we shall retain” and “we shall express” to endless “I” and “my”. There is a significant shift from the royal and prosperous “we”, to the lonely and adverse “I”. E.Hall importantly notes that the takes “familial comfort” in royalty and this is one of the reasons why “his fatherhood is compromised”. Whilst in his “apparent identity”, he sees the kingdom as his family, and it is only at the close of the play that he gains insight into his true identity, and realises the irreplaceable value that lies in family. A Jacobean society often sees an analogy between the patriarch and the monarchy and a father and his children. His identity confusion causes his family relationship to suffer which, in line with this analogy, cause the kingdom to also suffer. He cries of a “tempest in my mind” instead of societal chaos, and “filial ingratitude” instead of kingly neglect. Lear is too consumed with the apparent joys of kingship that form his initial identity, and the consequential hardship to finding his true identity as a father is therefore self inflicted.

Lear, in essence, fails to show the kingly qualities, fatherly qualities, or strength of identity to fulfil his role as king. Structurally, the division of the kingdom into three is reflected in the dispersion of kingly qualities into three unsuspecting characters. France, Cordelia’s husband exhibits a show of conscience and reasons in his clarity of mind to realise that “Loves not love when mingled with regards that stand entirely aloof from the matter”, and accepts Cordelia without dowry. Clarity of mind and sound reason is essential to kingship. Equally Edgars strength of identity, despite adopting the role of “Tom o bedlam”, a “passer by” and a “beggar, eye for justice and compassionate disposition (in helping Lear and Gloucester), are qualities of kingship that Lear fails to adopt. Thirdly, and more subtly, Edmond represents ambition, wit and drive, albeit misplaced, instead of a resigned attitude of wanting to “crawl unburdened toward death”. The division of the kingdom into three is structurally reflected in the dutiful kingly qualities being dispersed among three characters. Alternatively, although a sound interpretation, Edmond has no right to be included as he is as consumed for power and material goods as Lear. On his death bed he concludes “some good I mean to do, despite of mine own nature”, and pardons Lear and Cordelia from execution – ironically only a king can do that, so in doing so he dies in possession of the highest power. He deceptively does good, so he finally achieves his own purpose in death.

In conclusion therefore, audience, readers and other characters can universally agree on the fact that Lear not only fails his duty as King, but fails to appreciate the irrevocable damage caused. In this sense, the monarch can be linked to nature, in that the break down of the monarch is bound to cause civil chaos, therefore rendering evil characters morally blameless for their actions. Kingship is at the core of KL and when in the wrong hands, the societal chaos that ensues is fatal.