King Lear: Flattery and Blindness by Chelsea Fetch Flattery and upholding appearances do not go unmentioned in Shakespeares plays.

Hamlet reveals his views of flattery to Horatio in Act 3, Scene 2 of Hamlet: let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp, expressing his dislike of the practice. In addition, Hamlet seems to dislike false appearances; he tells Ophelia he does not understand why women wear makeup to hide the face they were born with (Hamlet 3.1.141). Earlier, in Act 1, the grieving Hamlet assures his mother that he truly is grieving, rather than seeming to grieve, like his mother and uncle (Hamlet 1.2.83-5). Though Hamlet does not approve of fake countenances and flatter, in Macbeth, the murderous couple supports it. Lady Macbeth constantly reminds her husband to hide his guild under a guise of innocence, and even before the murder Macbeth utters, False face must hide what the false heart doth know (Macbeth 2.1.82). In both cases, these false pretenses create blindness for the people around them, hidingor attempting to hidethe truth. But though the practice of false appearances and flattery appear in small doses throughout Shakespeares plays, King Lear is one of the few where these practices both cause blindness and are the effect of blindness, which is a crucial element to this tragedy. False flattery and deception begin in the first act of King Lear, when both Lear and Gloucester are blinded to their childrens true intentions. All the tragedy of the play can be contributed to this first Act. Certainly, one blatant subject mentioned numerous times throughout the play deals with sight and/or blindness. Interestingly, the first time eyesight is mentioned in the play occurs when Goneril proves her supposed love for her father. Almost immediately she tells Lear she loves him dearer than eyesight (1.1.53). Next, though not a direct mention of eyesight, Regan indicates she feels the same, saying she is made of that self

mettle as my sister (1.1.66). Though author Marvin Rosenberg claims that he thinks Goneril has trouble finding good enough words, I disagree (51). With the abundance of references to sight and blindness, Shakespeare seems to put the first mention here on purpose. Goneril and Regan suggest that they hold the ability to see in high regard; ironically, they are knowingly deceiving their father, who is completely blind to their true purposes. Though the sisters display of false flattery may seem unethical, Lear seems to be asking for it. Lears first words after taking the map are Know that we have divided / In three our kingdom (1.1.34-5). He has already divided up the territory, not leaving any of his daughters out, and never mentioning that one of them might lose her third. A few lines later he asks of them to express their love for him: Tell me, my daughters Since now we will divest us both of rule, Interest of territory, cares of state Which of you shall we say doth love us most, That we our largest bounty may extend Where nature doth with merit challenge? (1.1.45-50) In short, Lear is asking his daughters to profess their love to him for their land, but he has already divided up the kingdom. What use could there be for their passionate speeches, then? In some ways, Lear makes his own mistake by asking for words only, and by making words the test and matter of his own wordsLear make Cordelias silence inevitable and just (Zitner 8). Cordelia herself admits she lacks the glib and oily art / To speak and purpose not (1.1.225-6). The decisions of territory have already been made; therefore, King Lear seems to want to be flattered. He does not care if what is said is true as long as he hears what he wants to hearthat

his daughters have an eternal and undying love for him that cannot be replaced. In this way, Lear blinds himself to the truth of the matter, though both Cordelia and Kent will try to show him his errors. Cordelia and Kent are the two characters of the play that are banished by Lear, and two of the most loyal to Lear. Cordelia attempts to explain her answer of nothing to Lear in lines 92101, to no avail. Likewise, Kent tries to stop King Lear from banishing his daughter, claiming that he cannot stand by while power to flattery bows (1.1.145). However, Lears reaction to both of them is an angry out of my sight! (1.1.155). The kings apparent need for flattery causes him to drive out the two people who love him most. Immediately, Kent pleads See better, Lear, and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye (1.1.156-7). In these lines, the loyal servant is not only asking his master to see the truth of the situation, but is also suggesting that without him, Lear will be totally blind to the deceptions of Goneril and Regan. With their goodbyes, Kent and Cordelia reveal the falseness in the flattery Goneril and Regan present to their father. Before his exit, Kent hopes that the sisters words of love will result in good, loving actions (1.1.185). Cordelias words to her sisters are grimmer than Kents as she leaves; first, she insists I know what you are (1.1.270), and finally warns time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides; / Who covers faults, at last shame them derides (1.1.281-2). Cordelia understands that her sisters have no intention of treating their father with the loving care they had professed, and warns them that though Lear may be blind to it now, they cannot hide behind flattery forever. Once Kent and Cordelia are gone, Lear faces an identity crisis. Presumably, Lear has been king for a very long time; it is who he is. To protect this, Lear specifies that he will retain / The name and all thaddition to a king while dividing up the kingdom (1.1.131-2).

Unfortunately for him, this does not work. Lears uncertainty concerning who he is (and, consequently, his title as king) presents itself as a series of questions, beginning with Kent, disguised as Caius. Lear asks, dost though know me, fellow? (1.4.23) to which Kent immediately replies No, sir (1.4.24). The subject does not know his king; Lear is anybody, nobody to Kent (Rosenberg 99). However, Kent quickly assures Lear that he does possess a characteristic worth following: authority (1.4.27). Lears uncertainty of his identity increases when Oswald, Gonerils servant, appears. When asked who Lear is, Oswalds simple reply is my ladys father (1.4.71). Upon hearing this, Lear becomes furious and even hits the servant. Though Oswald does not seem to be completely wrong with his answerhe regards Goneril as his sole master and Queen over him this moment is when Lear fully expresses his need for flattery and his title. Soon after, when Lear begins to see though Gonerils flattery, he cries Does any here know me? This is not Lear. Does Lear walk thus, speak thus? Where are his eyes? Either his notion weakens, or his discernings Are lethargiedHa! Waking? Tis not so. Who is it that can tell me who I am? (1.4.208-212) When Lear begins to see that the title he possessed and all the flattery he received from his daughters and others was false, he begins to lose faith in himself, a catalyst to his madness. The Fools response to these questions, Lears shadow (1.4.213), solidifies what Lear has begun to realize: he has been blinding himself this whole time, and without the title king, he no longer knows who he is.

The Fool, though not present to challenge Lear when he banishes his daughter and everloyal servant, seems to be the only character the king truly listens to. According to Theodore Weiss, the Fool is a shadow of a man; or, more specifically, a foil and conscience of Lear (80). Before his entrance, the Fool is described as pining away from Cordelias banishment. Lear replies, No more of that. I have noted it well, implying that he has pined away for her, himself (1.4.67). The Fool, through his complicated and interesting speeches, attempts to show Lear the errors of his ways, just like Kents attempts. As one scholar describes the Fools language: the more telling his insight, the more quirky its statement (Zitner 12). Unlike Kent, however, the Fool is the true blank of Lears eye; he clears his kings blurry vision, and when his job is complete, he disappears from the play entirely. In contrast, Gloucester is blinded by Edmunds tricks in a completely different manner. When Edmund first deceives his father with the letter, he shows a feigned reluctance to show it to his father, which Gloucester repeatedly urges Lets see, lets see (1.2.42). Ironically, Gloucester does not see through Edmunds plot at all, even thinking that the handwriting on the letter is Edgars (1.2.62). Edmund does not use flattery to deceive his father; instead, he uses false physical evidence to betray his brother, like the letter or the self-inflicted wound. Once Gloucester has been tricked by the letter, Edmund maintains his plot by keeping Edgar out of his fathers sight. Throughout the entire play, Gloucester never physically sees Edgar (except in 3.4, though he does not see through the Poor Tom disguise). Even when Gloucester is blind, but realizes he was wrong, Edgar hides himself from his father through different vocal disguises. Unfortunately for Gloucester, he does not realize the plot against his son and himself until his eyes are ground out by Cornwall. Interestingly, Goneril, the first character in the play to mention eyesight as stated before, is the one to suggest that to punish Gloucester they should

pluck out his eyes (3.7.5). Gloucester himself refreshes the idea for Cornwall by telling Regan, I would not see thy cruel nails / Pluck out his poor old eyes (3.7.58-9). Immediately following the blinding, Gloucester thinks of the physical torture as a sort of justice; he tells those trying to help him, I have no way and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I saw. Full oft tis seen Our means secure us, and our mere defects Prove out commodities. (4.1.13-21) Here, Gloucester not only suggests the justification of his blindness, but as Bridget Lyons writes, perhaps also has an inadvertent blessing (29). Later, Edgar himself, whose various asides in 4.1 reveal his shock and sadness at his fathers situation, justifies the blinding: The dark and vicious place where thee he got / Cost him his eyes (5.3.172-3). Edgar is trying to make things balance out (Danson 125). However, Gloucester hints at his despair through his lack of selfconcern; at first, he has no way and insists that he be led by the beggar (4.1.46). When alone with Edgar, he reveals that he intends to commit suicide, instead to go to the French encampment. Luckily for him, he is not led by a madman, but his own son. Edgar immediately take pity on his father, claiming he is poorly led before knowing his father has been blinded, perhaps alluding that he would be a much better leader for his father (4.1.10). Despite the old mans insistence that Gloucester not be left with the madman and beggar, Gloucester claims that he has some reason, else he could not beg (4.1.31). A few lines later, the blind man seems to contradict himself by commentating on the wrongs of the world when madmen lead the blind (4.1.46). After all, Gloucester did claim that Poor Tom must have some reason. This line, along with the physical image of an eyeless man, is a way of

tying Gloucesters condition to Lears (Lyons 37). Because Gloucester says that he stumbled when he saw, writes Lyons, we are more likely to assume that Lears recognition that he is old and foolish represents a positive apprehension of truth (37). Gloucesters suffering, deceit by his son, and blindness all create a parallel to Lears sufferings. Similarly, Edgars purposeful disguise as a Bedlam lunatic directly contrasts with Lears uncontrolled, real madness (Lyons 26-7). When Lear and the blinded Gloucester finally meet, the sufferings of both men begin to collide. In his madness, Lear seems to have a new view of his mistakes. Mirroring the Fools early statement, though madst thy daughters they mothers (1.4.155), Lear appears dressed in rags and a crown of wildflowers, like a child pretending to be a king. He admits to Edgar and Gloucester his own blindness: They flattered me like a Dog and told me I had white hairs in my beard ere the black Ones were there They told me I was everything. Tis a lie. I am not Ague-proof. (4.6.96-104) After this, Gloucester recognizes Lears voice and asks, Ist not the King? (4.6.106). Lear answers, Ay, every inch a king, suggesting that he has re-adopted his identity as royalty (4.6.107). At the end of the play, when Cordelia is dead, Lear begins to undergo his own blindness, which coincides with his death. Speaking to Kent, he wonders, Who are you? / Mine eyes are not oth best (5.3.277-8). A few lines later he mentions again that his sight has grown dull and blurred (5.3.281). Never before has Lear complained of failing sight; this is a new ailment for

him. Lears failing vision is similar to Gloucesters blindness. He loses his sight as everything becomes clear: Caius is Kent, who never left his masters side; Goneril and Regans lying flattery result in their death; and finally, as Lear stated in 1.1.87, Nothing will come of nothing; Cordelia cannot be revived, and she is truly dead. Overall, flattery has a huge impact on King Lear. Though the biggest example of false flatter is in the first scene, borne from Lears foolish need for it, flattery is the catalyst that creates the tragedy of the play. As I have shown, the loving speeches of Goneril and Regan and Edmunds letter are deceptive because of their fathers inability to see the truth. That said, blindness and flattery are important themes of King Lear. To highlight this, Shakespeare remind the audience what caused all the death in the last scene when Edgar stays Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say (5.3.324).

Works Cited Danson, Lawrence. King Lear and the Two Abysses. On King Lear. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. 119-135. Print. Lyons, Bridgett Gellert. The Subplot as Simplification. Some Facets of King Lear. Ed. Rosalie Colie and F. T. Flahiff. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974. 23-38. Rpt. In Essays in Prismatic Criticism. Print. Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of King Lear. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972. Print. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 1997. Print. Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Ed. Claire McEachern. N.p.: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. Print. Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc, 1997. Print. Weiss, Theodore. As the Wind Sits: The Poetics of King Lear. On King Lear. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. 61-90. Print. Zitner, Sheldon P. King Lear and Its Language. Some Facets of King Lear. Ed. Rosalie Colie and F. T. Flahiff. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974. 1-22. Rpt. In Essays in Prismatic Criticism. Print.