King Lear, both head of state and paterfamilias, has multiple claims to power and obedience. His spectacle of dividing the kingdom between his daughters confuses their obligations to him as subjects with their filial obligations, duties which are not necessarily equivalent. Cordelia cannot play both roles at once; she prefers her role as a daughter to her duty to her father as a subject of his kingdom. The duty that Lear expects can only be accomplished by speaking. Cordelia damns herself by being unable to say what is expected. Kent, an alternative model of loyalty in the play, arouses Lear's ire by speaking too clearly. Kent's loyalty—as distinguished from obedience—demonstrates the play's suspicious attitude toward speech. It moves away from forms of affection that attempt to measure fidelity in terms of simple, verbal indulgence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"?Get the original essayA corollary of Kent's distrust of rhetoric seems to be his focus on physical presence and his reliance on with regard to optical evidence. This pattern of knowledge allows Kent to appear almost prescient in recognizing the deception of Lear's older daughters. He also contributes a significant part of his service to the King; by looking beyond the words spoken madly by Lear, he can tend to his Lear's body, like a doctor. Kent's submission is dramatized, he "has done [Lear] a service/unfit for a slave" (5.3.219-20), but this service is not servility. Kent's loyalty to Lear is not grounded in the hierarchical implications of the feudal state, but rather persists because Kent measures an equivalence between his body and that of his king. Kent's model of loyalty is a foil to Cordelia's; similar in nature, but more difficult to explain because it is not based on blood. The way Kent maintains his allegiance to the king is a lovely paradox. This is a pantomime – a subversive act of disobedience. Only by renouncing his name and his identity, and therefore any pre-existing expectations or debts, can he fulfill his duty towards Lear. So, when Kent, disguised as Caius, he must “shave” his identity. Kent takes particular care to modify his language: “If but also I borrow other accents, / That may defuse my speech, my good intention / May carry away” (1.4.1-3). One of the qualities he attributes to himself is being able to “deliver a clear and straightforward message” (1.4.30). This concern with modifying language is apparent in Edgar's relationship with his father, which parallels Kent's pantomime with Lear: as Tom O'Bedlam, he can offer comfort, but he must be careful to cut his language in a coarser fabric. Locating truth in coarse language reflects the conundrum of meaning found in Lear's diatribes - "O, matter and impertinence mingled!/Reason in madness!" Edgar exclaims when he hears the former king speak (4.6.168-9). However, by renouncing his pretensions to nobility, Kent emphasizes his masculinity. Femininity, throughout King Lear, is linked to betrayal, madness and inconstancy. Cordelia is the exception that proves the rule: upon learning of her father's condition, she is moved, but "not to the point of becoming angry" (4.3.15). Above all, it is reasonable. Kent's insistence on his virility, above all refinement, is a mark of his stability. When Lear asks him to identify himself, he responds simply: "A man, sir" (1.4.10) and "What common men are fitted for, I am qualified for" (1.4.30-1). The values ​​he attributes to himself are the stoic opposite ofeffusive and effeminate language and action of the courtiers. He is an aggressive and military man. He therefore cannot help but attack the stupid Oswald: “Having more man than spirit in me, [I] drew [my sword]” (2.4.41). “The spirit”, mental lability, would allow him to accept insubordination, under the guise of diplomacy. It is important to note that Kent is not naturally impetuous, like Hotspur, but can also take on the role of courtier, different modes of address. His allegiance is not to courtly forms, but to the general good of the State, that is to say, of the king. In the first scene of the drama - Kent addresses the king, "Good my lord -" (1.1.120), but before he can begin he is interrupted by Lear's reckless oath of resolution to reward the kingship d 'Albany and Cornwall. Kent, resuming his speech to the king, speaks in the same kind of language that Lear seems to want, the language of obligation and deference: "Royal Lear,/Whom I have always honored as my king,/Loved as my father, as my master followed,/As my great patron thought in my prayers -" (1.1.139-142). King, father, master, boss - note that each title contains its own independent set of requirements and d 'obligations. At this point Lear interrupts: "The bow is bent and drawn, made from the shaft" (1.1.143) Lear urges Kent to get to the point he expresses his impatience with the same language; , the same deferential mode of address that he demanded of his daughters This disdainful gesture is worth noting - it proves that Lear is not only a fool for pretty words, but that he appreciates the power with which it is given. disposes to demand it Kent's words also foreshadow his later speech in Cornwall, which is a parody of courtier language (2.2.97-99) Kent is Lear's subject - a position we will learn to view with suspicion. throughout the play, where being a servant, being in agreement, is treacherous. It's a nice paradox: when obedience seems most complete, it is very improbable. It is almost as if the severing of political allegiance—like the severing of Cordelia's filial obligations—is necessary to elicit a display of true loyalty. Thus, even Kent's honorific figures, no matter how serious, will do nothing to mediate the content of the message and are therefore superfluous. Kent notices this and seizes on the language of the arrow and the target introduced by Lear. “Let it [the arrowhead] fall, though the fork invades/The region of my heart” (1.1.144-5), he implores, and later, “Let me stay yet/ The true emptiness of your eye” (1.1. 158-9). This language is relevant. Kent, whose life hangs in the balance on the king, finds this martial metaphor fitting for the sacrifice to truth and to Lear that he must endure. It is almost as if, certain that he cannot appease Lear's anger, he must deflect it. Lear's statement in (1.1.143) might also reflect that, just as an arrow, about to be shot, will inevitably be unleashed in its course with "hideous rashness" (1.1.151), so that he cannot reverse the judgment on Cordelia that he has already given. Kent captures this meaning - thus his pleas, which he must suspect will be in vain. In his attempt at deviation, his attempt at reversal, he dramatizes Cordelia's “insensible” fault: “Be Kent without manners, / When Lear is mad” (1.1.146). Kent means that Lear's stupid actions demand brutal punishment, exposed by courtly circumlocutions. But in the parallel that Kent draws between his position and Lear's behavior, Kent foreshadows what will be a clear outcome: Lear's madness. This madness, which has something hysterical, unmanly, demands the “lack of manners” – which in its auditory similarity with the “lack of virility» clearly refers to emasculation – of Kent to counter its effects. In the close relationship between manners and manhood, Kent must take the strictest measures in his treatment of Lear. Lear's "madness" will ultimately render him powerless; his temerity is the motive of his eldest daughters to seize the state. Therefore, as Lear is the source of their authority, his dethroning deprives his servants of their exclusive power. Thus, Kent addresses Lear according to his new state, according to the way his unfaithful daughters and sons will see him: “What will you do, old man? (1.1.146). He is an equal, a mortal, but in this confession there is a possibility of tenderness. Perhaps the most relevant description of Kent's connection with Lear is that which arises from this new state equivalence: the relationship between doctor and doctor-patient. It's a complicated relationship. Even if the doctor is in the employ of the patient, the patient must obey him. “Kill your doctor and grant the fees/ On your dirty illness” (1.1.164-5). But there is more to this metaphor than the basic shift in power it implies. Kent also seems to acquire many of the methods and attributes of a physician in his treatment of Lear. Kent emphasizes physical facts as the root of truth, in the same way that a doctor relies on empirical data to make diagnoses. “I claim to be nothing less than I appear” (1.4.12). Likewise, the reason he gives for wanting to join Lear's suite is visual: "You have in your face what I would like to call master: Authority" (1.4.24-5, 27). Authority is therefore something intrinsic, something that cannot be erased by removing the title. Following this principle, Oswald's offense can be described: "His face loves me not" (2.2.82). There is something intrinsic about Oswald's appearance that is unpleasant to Kent. It is in his mutability (2.2.64-77) that his capacity changes, "with every gust of wind and variation of their masters,/ Knowing nothing, like dogs, but following" (2.2.71-71). His “blind” obedience has no stable foundation, no determinable characteristic. Also remember that Kent becomes a member of Lear's retinue. Lear's men are an extension of himself, for they are the only vestige of his authority that he has retained. However, as such they are purely residual and become a source of weakness in the possibility of their removal. When Goneril and Regan begin to chip away at his retinue, not only are they removing creature comforts, but also, in a truly malicious sense, cutting into his own body. It's a physical intrusion to restrict his following - and restricting it literally puts him out in the cold. Kent identifies with this bodily extension of the king. When he comes to see Lear in disguise, he claims that he is “as poor as the king” (1.4.17). His state depends directly on that of the king, his authority derives directly from it. Thus, any act taken against Kent becomes an act against Lear. In protesting Cornwall's imprisonment, “I serve the king; This is a blatant violation – for Lear, it is almost beyond belief (2.4.14-21). But this is Regan's confirmation, as well as Goneril's betrayal. He has almost convinced himself that Regan and Cornwall are indeed indisposed, when he lays eyes on Kent in the stocks. “This act persuades me/ That this remonition of the duke and her/ Is only a practice” (2.4.107-9). Kent, acutely aware of the continuity of his self with that of the king, takes exceptional care of Lear's body. comforts. When Kent initially identified himself as a physician, he meant, metaphorically, a state health physician. However, Lear's body is coterminal with the state, in the sense that the king is.