“The Naked Fellow”: Performing Feral Reversion in King Lear

Abstract

L'homme est la maladie mortelle de la nature. --Alexandre Kojeve The Singularity of Edgar King Lear is play riddled by onlys, haunted by exceptional. It is only one of Shakespeare's major tragedies that has subplot; only major tragedy whose protagonist (Lear) confronts double (Edgar); only tragedy where madness, real or feigned, is purely Shakespeare's invention, not to be found acknowledged sources. Finally, it is only tragedy whose actions mainly unfold non-military outdoor settings, an original feature looking ahead to late romances. In view of above, we may infer that Edgar--the apparently deranged hero of subplot who extra muros affords king jocular version of himself--lies at core of King Lear's theatrical singularity. Sadly, critical approaches to this seldom live up to his exceptional nature. Though standard interpretations of play often neglect Edgar, other readings accord him centrality second only to king's. In either case, however, exact nature of his role remains undecided. Bradley thought he was that excited least enthusiasm, dismissal that contrasts with prominent role he was given 1608 Quarto title page, showcasing the unfortunate life of Edgar, sonne and heire to Earle of Gloster, and his sullen and assumed humor of Tom of Bedlam. (1) Northrop Frye, who warned that no one can study King Lear without wondering why Edgar puts on this Poor Tom act for Lear's benefit, was probably unpersuaded by Harry Levin's explanation of Edgar's vagrant grotesquerie terms of therapeutic correlative for Lear. (2) Today, R. A. Foakes registers contradictions that remain once Edgar's symbolic function as unaccommodated man who awakens Lear and Gloucester to consciousness has been ascertained. (3) Partly to avoid these perplexities, category romance was soon suggested by critics eager to cast Edgar role of Orphic, metamorphic trickster, type presumably explaining his swiftly adopted antic dispositions: poor Tom, peasant, gentleman, and King of England. (4) Behind these disguises some spotted Stoic patience and triumph of re-conquered identity. Such readings assumed difference between identity and role, and subordinated trials of abnegation and role-playing to thrills of comedic restoration. But King Lear multiple avatars of Edgar's assumed alienation fall short of providing comforts of cognitive deliverance. The pastoral pattern that Maynard Mack links to learning process through self-recognition others appears savagely undercut. (5) Edgar's multi-functional part includes a loving son, choral device, complement to Edmund, voice of dislocation and disintegration storm, thrust of hope and patience Act IV, and possibly naif process of learning throughout play. (6) For Rosalie L. Colie, Edgar is someone who has exchanged his identity for role and who remains throughout far more complex and significant than his role characterizes. (7) Such excess would involve Lear's recognizing in this new outcast case of his own kind. (8) These readings furnish similar figure: that of receding identity lurking behind Protean multiplication of roles. What hard-pastoral, un-pastoral, or anti-pastoral approach fails to address is motivation drawing this identity to engage role-playing. Janet Adelman sees masochistic Edgar as moral emblem, and yet an emblem of what? The strange blending of moral harshness and pity characterizing Edgar casts him merely into an emblem of delay, intractable intention and failed action, demonstrably line with Hamlet. (9) Other critics are less inclined to overlook motivational structure of character's personality. S. L. Goldberg, for instance, sees him as lethal character moved by violent ambition toward throne. …