King Lear

1.1. Many of the problems explored in this play have to do with rules and traditions of good and loyal service to a master, or a father, particularly to the king. The chief issue appears to be plain counsel versus flattery. Oswald is the archetypal flattering servant and Kent represents the plain-speaking honest counsellor. The play opens with speculation about which of the King's heirs (Albany or Cornwall) will enjoy the king's best favor. What sort of atmosphere does this set up for the controversy over honest/flattering service?
Another major concern of the play is honest versus flattering children. Lear's daughters serve as examples in this debate, but so do Gloucester's sons, Edmond and Edgar. Edmond and Edgar serve also as examples in another, related debate--natural/ traditional sonship. Edmond is a bastard "natural" son who wishes to enjoy "legitimacy" at his brother's expense. What contradictory senses of the word "natural" are evoked here? What is Gloucester's attitude towards his "natural" son? Kent's? How do the words "natural" and "proper" shift their senses here?
Why does Lear propose the "love test"? Why does Cordelia resist playing the game? Why does Kent intervene on Cordelia's behalf? Try to work out the principles implied in Cordelia's and Kent's use of words like plain, honest, duty, flattery. Why does Lear see plainness as pride in both Cordelia and Kent? What distinguishes between pride and plainness?
How does Lear's decision to give over the executive powers and revenues of his kingdom but retain "the name and all th'addition to a king" (133-37) play into the psychology of the flattery/plainness debate? Has Lear literally chosen a future office of pure flattery and given away all claims to substance? How might he have divided his kingdom and retained some claim on "substance"? What, if anything, leads us to think that Cordelia would have treated him better than her sisters (121-23)?
Try to work out the implied analogies between Cordelia (whom Lear has juridically bastardized (208-210) and Edmond who is naturally a bastard. Cordelia was Lear's favorite; now she is disowned. Gloucester claims to have no favorite (18) but hides Edmond from court (29-30). Cordelia is a model of almost unruly plainness, yet Lear would have chosen her home as his place of retirement into a flattered condition. Edmond flatters his father's superstitions but holds them in contempt (1.2.108).

1.2. Edmond holds all forms of custom and traditions of legitimacy in contempt. He also hold astrological superstitions in contempt and claims "nature" for his preferred deity. What is his concept of nature? What sort of servant to nature is he--a flattering or an honest servant of his goddess?

1.4. Plain-speaking Kent reappears in disguise. What does plainness look like in disguise? Disguised as what? Why does Lear engage him as a servant even though he promises to speak bluntly (30)? Why does Lear tolerate the Fool who reminds him bitterly and repeatedly of his own folly concerning Cordelia (147)? Is Lear two separate men--one who requires flattery and expressions of affection and duty and another who prefers honest criticism and even blunt rebuke (191-96)?
What sort of man is Albany (291-311)?

2.2. Kent and Oswald confront each other. Kent upbraid Oswald with being the worst kind of servant, and by implication, suggests he is the best kind of servant. What are the key features of each in this debate (83-88)? Does Kent overdo his role? Does it appear that way to Cornwall? To Regan? What of Cornwall's argument that plainness can "Harbour more craft and more corrupter ends" than flattery (94-97)? Can a "knave" be "plain"? Is there a difference between honest plainness and dishonest plainness? How can one tell the difference? What of Kent's disguise? Is it a disguise? What does Cornwall mean by alluding to Ajax (116)?
Edgar's plan for disguise (159-78). Edgar, the "proper" and legitimate son will now disguise himself as a "natural," that is, as a poor idiot, "near to beast." Kent, Edgar and soon Lear are all exposed to "nature," that is, out of doors. This both literalizes and symbolizes the condition of being de-legitimized, placed outside of custom and the "order of the law." What challenge to the notions of "natural" and "legitimate" are implied by this?
Why does Lear swear by Jupiter and Kent by Juno (192-193)? Is this a rather bald case of denial on Lear's part? Does Lear appear to value forms of respect more than life itself? Is disrespect worse than murder (193-94)? Does Kent regret confronting Oswald as he did (212)? Is manliness a feature that excludes wit?
Is Kent's punishment at the hands of Regan all that different in cause from Cordelia's at the hands of Lear? Which is more extreme? Is the "fiery qulaity of the Duke" much different from Lear's? Did Lear scant his "duty" towards his daughter as Cornwall and Regan now scant their duty towards Lear? Is Lear still in denial (270-74)?
What illness does Lear begin to experience in this scene? Is it his stomach rising (225-26) or his metaphorical uterus, his sorrow, or his heart (285)?
Can a case be made for Regan and Goneril? Goneril claims that what Lear calls offense is no more than discretion and good order; it only looks like offense to "indiscretion" and "dotage" (360-62). Has not Lear been too quick to take offense in the past, with disastrous results? Has not Regan also got a good point (405-407)? Do they push a good point into offense?
Why does Lear say he will not weep? What notions of manliness does he subscribe to (433-51)?

3.1. The storm forces everyone to seek cover, even bears, lions and wolves (Q1:8.11-13) but the plain-speakers (Kent and the Fool) join Lear (the flattery-lover) on the barren heath.

3.2. Does Lear flatter himself here to speak of the elements as his "servile ministers" as he pretends to command them to destroy him (20)? Does he speak to the elements in a tone of command? of complaint? of entreaty? Why does the Fool charge Lear with taking more care of his penis than his head? What does the figure imply about fatherhood?

3.4. Does Lear, in his grief over ingratitude, begin to ponder a bit the duties he owed to others? In all the concern over duties owed by children to fathers, servants to masters, and subjects to kings, has not Lear forgotten the duties owed in reverse? How does he conceive of the duty a king owes his poorest subjects (32-36)? Does the figure of "superflux" not turn on itself?
Can Lear imagine no other sort of trouble than his own (48-49, 59, 65-70)? Is he so blind and deep in denial that he imagines all injustice is some version of that he suffers? Don't some people suffer at the hands of unjust fathers? Deceptive brothers?
What sort of figure does Edgar present? A man driven mad by the devil, by loose living of all sorts, now sick in his wits and reciting snatches of the commandments and commonplace moral advice. Why does Kent think of him as "unaccommodated man"? Unaccommodated by house, by custom, by family, by law, by fortune, by clothes, by name and "addition"?
Gloucester chooses not to obey Lear's daughters (131-32). In this he negins to join the camp of the conscientious disobedient who now surround Lear. Kent, Edgar, and the Fool--in what various ways are they conscientious in disobedience? And what of Lear? Is he one of this group?
Now Gloucester and Lear, the two undutiful fathers (one openly, the other being deceived) lead "Poor Tom" to shelter--is this what Edgar refers to by saying he smells the blood of a "British man"?

3.5. How does Edmond flatter Cornwall here? Does he also flatter himself?

3.6. Why does Lear, in his madness, pretend to make Poor Tom, disguised Kent, and the Fool into a tribunal to sit in jugement on his daughters? Does his madness envision a different sort of justice, a justice of the rejected, poor, and plain-speaking who have suffered in a world governed by flattery? Why must the king be plaintiff and not judge here? Who established the government of flattery?

3.7. The unnamed servant in this scene plays a role like that of Kent in 1.1--the disobedient servant. When is disobedience a service? When is it not?
How are the roles of servant and master divided here between Cornwall and Regan, husand and wife? What sort of servant is Regan to Cornwall or Cornwall to Regan?
In Q1, what effect does the first servant's conscientious resistance have on the other servants? Is this a rebellion? Is it a just rebellion? Is there such a thing? Why do you suppose these lines were omitted from F1?

4.1. Gloucester's old trust in astrology to predict the future has waned a bit here. Now what sort of world-view has he (37-38)?
This scene presents quite a tableau--the madman leading the blind and an old man clothing a beggar. Do they flatter themselves in their conditions? is wealth and position a kind of blindness to "feeling" (61-65).

4.2. What does Goneril mean in lines 17-18? What is her notion of manliness? Why is Albany not "manly" in her eyes?
Is Albany "milk-livered" or "moral" or both? Is his morality also informed by misogyny (35-37)? How does his character differ in Q1?

4.5. In his raving, Lear oscillates between blaming his own self-ignorance for his condition (97-98) and blaming sexual desire which he conflates with women and their bodies (115-124). What notions of the world's injustices emerge in 148-157? Is this raving or wisdom or both?
Edgar now speaks like Kent a theory of duty that binds servants only to a master's virtues, not his vices (243-44). He also excuses his opening of the letters having determined that his "betters" are now enemies.