King Lear: Irrationality Lead to Suffering

King Lear: Irrationality leads to suffering. In William Shakespeare’s King Lear protagonists like King Lear and Gloucester commit irrational acts that will bring suffering to other characters as well. Their irrationality stems from their belief that their actions are above their emotional distress. Their illogical decisions however are clouded by other protagonists’ false emotional devotion. King Lear’s irrationality is the outward behavior of a king who believes his power is unlimited. However, he loses power and ultimately becomes powerless in the eyes of the state. This vulnerable position forces him to accept his human condition through genuine self-reflection. Gloucester’s initial irrationality does not allow him to see the differences between Edmund and Edgar; he pays the ultimate price by losing his sight. Every decision is always followed by a consequence, in this case the bad decisions made by the protagonists will end up bringing very painful suffering especially to them. If reason and common sense had been used, King Lear and Gloucester would not have fallen prey to flattery and false representations of loyalty. Irrationality, thus, wouldn’t have been present and therefore the suffering and tragedy of King Lear’s family could have been avoided.
King Lear’s irrationality gives more importance to flattery and pretending of love rather than the actual genuine act of love. He views love and loyalty as a transactional act. “Tell me, my daughters, / which of you shall we say doth love us most, / that we our largest bounty may extend / where merit doth most challenge it? / Gonoril, our eldest born, speak first” (1.44-48). To this request, Gonoril is quick to answer: “Sir, I do love you more than words can wield the matter” (1.48); whereas, Cordelia answers: “Nothing, my Lord” (1.80). Roy Schafer argues that here “Shakespeare is showing how Lear has become incapable of listening to his favorite daughter or remembering her as such. Her “nothing” has become everything to him” (396). Even though King Lear loves Cordelia most, her honesty gives her nothing, because according to King Lear’s irrational expectations of love and how love is performed she isn’t showing love for him. This scene shows how King Lear is prioritizing Gonoril’s superficial flattery over Cordelia’s genuine love. Despite the repercussions, Cordelia’s honest character is a sign of unwavering strength. Schafer continues stating that “Shakespeare is preparing us to realize that Cordelia, in addition to being painfully aware of her sister’s insincerity, is resolving to remain true to herself while salvaging what she can of a bad situation. She will not stoop, as her sisters’ have, to the virtual whoredom of insincere flattery for personal gain” (397). Most significant in this scene is that King Lear equates Cordelia’s supposed disloyalty with her refusal to make empty statements and be false.
King Lear’s exercise in demanding his daughters to profess their love leads him to another irrational act which is dividing up his kingdom when still alive and still desiring to rule. Even though King Lear does not have to give up his power, he thinks it might be a good idea to divide his kingdom to his three daughters. Consequently, he will no longer be able to rule and decide what ever is to be done and how. He tries to continue giving orders, but he fails to do his will. His daughters who are now the rightful rulers won’t let him make decisions any longer. In his arrogance Lear assumes that “I [He] can be patient, I can stay with Regan, / I and my hundred knights” (7.387-388). However Gonoril disagrees with him on keeping all his knights (7.389). Lear is irrational because he refuses to adapt to his new life, one that he chooses for himself. Ivor Morris states that, “Lear’s fault is that he fails to recognize true love before he disposes of his power” (154). If he wanted to maintain his way of living then he would have continued with his kingship.
His irrationality leads him not only to fail as a king but also as a father. He is not able to see Cordelia’s loyalty. “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave / my heart into my mouth. I love your majesty / according to my bond, nor more nor less” (1.82-84). She is not able to say how much she loves him as she is honest and says that love cannot be shown in words but in acts. King Lear becomes angered and he is not able to see how genuine she is. He disclaims all of his paternal care and property of blood and rather sees Cordelia as a stranger to him (1.105-108). According to Schafer, “Note too that in his fury Lear soon acknowledges that he has been counting on Cordelia specifically for care during his declining years- that is to have his daughter mother him. He seems here to be portrayed as experiencing maternal rejection, in addition to his other feelings”(397). King Lear was expecting Cordelia to not only accept the role of queen but also to assume a maternal role. Lear dividing his kingdom was demanding Cordelia to change two facets of her identity, from princess to queen and from daughter to maternal figure. His actions are disrupting the natural order of the monarchy and the family affecting not only himself but those closest to him. It is not until she dies and he is holding her corpse that he realizes all of his mistakes.
In his most vulnerable state, King Lear stripped of all his social-political power he surrenders to true emotion. When Lear sees himself only with Cordelia he leaves his entire ego and asks her for forgiveness as he has realize all the wrong things he has done. “We two alone will sing like birds I’th’ cage. / When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down / and ask for thee forgiveness; so we’ll live,” (24.9-11). When he finds himself with nothing but his young daughter his irrational acts stop and he brings his rationality into scene.
Gloucester is another character from the story that shows irrationality. Gloucester’s mental blindness came from a bad decision, the inability to see the goodness of Edgar and the evil of Edmund. Although Edgar was the good son, Gloucester disowned him. Edmund made him believe through a letter that Edgar wanted to kill him so that he could stay with the earldom. “I have no way, and therefore want no eyes. / I stumbled when I saw” (15.16-17). Gloucester’s ironic phrase shows how he realizes that he was blind in mind but not in sight and that it was not until he actually lost his eyes that he was able to see the loyalty/love and disloyalty/hatred of his sons. In “I Stumbled When I Saw” Robert B. Pierce argues, “The portrayal of Gloucester’s blindness uses the traditional association of physical and spiritual/intellectual blindness, albeit with an ironic twist. That ironic use is itself traditional, drawing on the idea of tragic compensation, so that the blind are supposed to have unique insight”(155). The awareness came too late, since his irrationality had already harmed others. Gloucester lives the last of his days blind but with the knowledge that Edgar remains as a “Poor Tom” and that Edmund took over Edgar’s rightful place.
Blindness is brought up often in the story as a theme. Blindness is usually defined as the inability of the eye to see but, as Shakespeare proves in King Lear, it can also refer to mental flaw. In King Lear, there is a lot of talk about literal vision and metaphorical blindness, especially when it comes to fathers “seeing” their children for who they really are. Gloucester and King Lear are the main characters that display some type of blindness. It is to believe that their blindness was the cause of the terrible decisions that each other seemed to make. Gloucester mental blindness makes him unable to see the good in his bastard son, Edgar and the evil ways of his son, Edmund. Edmund was able to cloud his vision with evil ideas that Edgar was planning on killing him. According to Jay Halio, “The symbolic castration of Gloucester, an acknowledge adulterer and somewhat proud of the fact, may be and appropriate punishment, as evidence both within the play and outside it indicates. For example, after vanquishing Edmund, Edgar says of his father: ‘The Gods are just, and of our pleasant vices / Make instruments to scourge us. / The dark and vicious place where thee he got / Cost him his eyes’ (5.3.170-73)”(222). It is significant that Halio connects castration with blindness. By Gloucester cheating on his wife and producing an illegitimate child, Gloucester is introducing the very evil that will cost him everything later. His blindness is thus a delayed punishment for his transgressions. On the other hand, when Lear mistakenly believes that Cordelia is disloyal and orders her to get out of his sight, Kent responds to this by saying: “See better, Lear, and let me still remain / The true blank of thine eye” (1.148-149). By Kent saying this to Lear he is implying that Lear is “blind” to the fact that Cordelia is the “good” daughter while Goneril and Cordelia are the evil ones.
King Lear and Gloucester bring up irrationality throughout the story; their reckless behavior bring harmful consequences to their loved ones. By the end of the story, King Lear realizes that his bad decisions brought him a life he didn’t want. He needed to lose all of his power and be no one to see that he acted in the opposite way than what he wanted. In “King Lear: The Disguised and Deceived” Marcia Holly states: “And although he fails to achieve Being as king, he achieves it as a man, learning not only what he has done but who he is. His most significant lesson is ‘to bear affliction till it do cry out itself’. The truth Lear grasps involves the nature of personal reality and enables him to achieve some human transcendence” (179). On the other hand, Gloucester was also a victim of his irrationality way of acting and made bad decisions that he happened to realize too late. Holly also states that “Gloucester is motivated, after being blinded, only by a death wish, and refuses to accept any responsibility even for his desired suicide” (179). While I agree with Marcia Holly in King Lear achievement as a man, I disagree with Holly argument that Gloucester refuses to accept any responsibility, as he is aware of his mistakes. What is most tragic is that Lear is there with Cordelia to make amends in her final hours, but Gloucester is never given the opportunity with Edgar.

Cited Works
Schafer, Roy. “Lear, Cordelia, and Forgiveness.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol.53 no.2 (June 2005), pp. 389-409.
Holly, Marcia. “King Lear: The Disguised and Deceived.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol.24 No.2 (Spring 1973), pp. 171-180.
Morris, Ivor. “Cordelia and Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol.8 No.2 (Spring, 1957), pp. 141-158.
Halio, Jay. “Gloucester’s Blinding.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol.43 No.2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 221-223.
Pierce, Robert B. “I Stumbled When I Saw”: Interpreting Gloucester’s Blindness in King Lear. Philosophy and Literature, Vol.36 Issue 1 (2012), pp. 153-165.

Cited: Works Schafer, Roy. “Lear, Cordelia, and Forgiveness.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol.53 no.2 (June 2005), pp. 389-409. Holly, Marcia. “King Lear: The Disguised and Deceived.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol.24 No.2 (Spring 1973), pp. 171-180. Morris, Ivor. “Cordelia and Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol.8 No.2 (Spring, 1957), pp. 141-158. Halio, Jay. “Gloucester’s Blinding.” Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol.43 No.2 (Summer, 1992), pp. 221-223. Pierce, Robert B. “I Stumbled When I Saw”: Interpreting Gloucester’s Blindness in King Lear. Philosophy and Literature, Vol.36 Issue 1 (2012), pp. 153-165.