"Nuncle" Lear

King Lear offers the opportunity to notice the passage from a simple dychotomical structure to a dychotomic-antonymical one. Let us recall that dychotomy is a process of "dividing certain stems into bifurcated branches". This definition perfectly matches the statements from the two first cues of the tragedy: " KENT : I thought the king had more affected the Duke of Albany than Cornwall . - GLOUCESTER: It did always seem so to us: but now, in the division of the kingdom, it appears not which of the dukes he values most; for equalities are so weighed, that curiosity in neither can make choice of either's moiety " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene I). Let us also point out that, although the kingdom should be divided into three - and so it is intended to be -, when the curtain is raised, all we learn about is a bifurcation of power.

The third cue introduces the second simple dychotomy of the play, that also goes all the way to the end, alongside the main plot, like an echo and, at times, like a herald of it: "KENT: Is not this your son, my lord? - GLOUCESTER : His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge. [.] But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet is no dearer in my account " ( ibidem ). That is to say that Gloucester has two sons he loves as much - one born out of, the other after wedlock. It is due to this very similitude (the double-fruited love) that the author has Gloucester and his son Edmund dispatched to welcome the King of France and the Duke of Burgundy, equal suitors (for the time being) of the love of the youngest daughter, Cordelia.

The tragedy progresses in stages. The realm of England is hence divided into two, but in two different ways, as shown: on the one hand, between Albany and Cornwall ; on the other hand, given the new circumstances, between Cordelia and the pair Regan-Goneril, her sisters. Consequently, there comes a moment when Cordelia, too, announces the simple dychotomy that her marriage is bound to produce: "CORDELIA: [.] Haply, when I shall wed, that lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry half my love with him, half my care and duty. " ( ibidem ).

Once this expository part concluded, the simple dychotomies blow up one by one, turning into antonymical dychotomies; in other words, an antagonism occurs between the two branches of the bifurcation. Such antagonisms within unities overflow the stage and suffocate the kingdom of England . Let us check out the subtle differentiation that occurs between the two older, most beloved sisters. Goneril loves her father Lear: "GONERIL: [.] Beyond all manner of so much. " ( ibidem ); then, it is Regan's turn to speak: "REGAN: [.] I am made of the self-same metal that my sister is, and prize me at her worth. In my true heart I find she names my very deed of love; only she comes too short. " ( ibidem ). We know only too well that this "only she comes too short" is bound to place the two sisters (one as like the other as two peas) on opposite stands. The dychotomic-antonymical structure arising can be worded like this: I love father as you do and unlike you.

The bifurcated unity of France and Burgundy becomes antonymical in the words of the old King: "KING LEAR: [.] The vines of France and milk of Burgundy . " ( ibidem ). The King of France clarifies the dychotomic-antonymical situation hovering like an unknown poison in the throne hall: he addresses his rival suggesting that he is too much tempted by the princess' dowry and too little by her noble being: "KING OF FRANCE: [.] Love's not love. " ( ibidem ). Cordelia follows in his steps and reveals her sisters' attitude: "CORDELIA: [.] I know you what you are. [.] Time shall unfold what plaited cunning hides. " ( ibidem ). She actually accuses the two faces they juggle with, that is, their use of masks that conceal the truth.

The time has come for a new outburst - that of the simple dychotomy represented by the inheritance: "GONERIL: [.] If our father carry authority with such dispositions as he bears, this last surrender of his will but offend us " ( ibidem ).

In no other shakespearian tragedy does the unitary world evolve so gradually towards a dychotomic-antonymical one. We first witness the bifurcation of the unity, then the two resulting aspects become antonymical, without, however, separating (which would make them elements on an antithesis): they remain two simultaneously opposed aspects of one and the same identity. This last process can be best observed in the presentation of the basic situational dychotomic-antonymical structure, which is an element of the play architecture: "KING LEAR: [.] Here I disclaim all my paternal care, propinquity and property of blood, and as a stranger to my heart and me hold thee, from this, for ever. " ( ibidem ); Goneril takes the motif further by explaining its other aspect: "GONERIL: [.] .he always loved our sister most. " ( ibidem ). It is obvious that Lear stands for both a father and an enemy. Three scenes later, the Fool reveals the other aspect of this structure: "FOOL: [.] .why, this fellow has banished two on's daughters, and did the third a blessing against his will. " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene IV).

Even the frail connection still existing between the retired King and the newly-appointed mistresses of England , Regan and Goneril, is being undermined by the same logical impossibility. Cornwall gives his messenger the following answer: " CORNWALL : [.] .he cannot flatter, he, an honest mind and plain, he must speak truth! An they will take it, so; if not, he's plain. These kind of knaves I know, which in this plainness harbour more craft and more corrupter ends than twenty silly ducking observants. " ( King Lear - Act II, Scene II).

We remember that one of the simple dychotomies we have come across was represented by the bifurcated unity between Albany and Cornwall . From the quotation above, we may see Cornwall evolving towards a lack of principle. Here is Albany 's new image now, that dychotomizes the inheritance antonymically. It is most interesting that the very terms of the portrait present a double-faced man. And yet, it is not the truth: the terms in which the portrait is being drawn are due to the fact that its author - namely the adventurous Oswald - reflects his own personality in it: "OSWALD: [.] .but never man so changed. I told him of the army that was landed: he smiled at it; I told him you were coming: his answer was 'The worse'; of Gloucester's treachery, and of the loyal service of his son, when I inform'd him, then he call'd me sot, and told me I had turn'd the wrong side out. What most he should dislike seems pleasant to him; what like, offensive " ( King Lear - Act IV, Scene II).

Without further insisting on other tedious details, let us only say that the novelty brought about by the analysis of King Lear , compared to the earlier ones, is the possibility that whatever is being defined today as parity between two parts divided from one common body should prove tomorrow to be an inner antithetical disparity, the possibility of equality to mean inequality as well, the possibility that a fair distribution should contain the seed of genuine unfairness.

In Lear's case, the origin of dychotomic-antonymical thinking resides in a confusion. The old King makes a comment on Cordelia's statement: "KING LEAR: So young, and so untender? " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene I). But, while saying the word "young", he thinks: whatever is young is good; hence, he means "so good and yet so bad". So, by utterring this sentence, he defines his own daughter through a dychotomic-antonymical structure - her of all people, who is just the type of person she claims to be: "CORDELIA: So young, my lord, and true " ( ibidem ). Such a mislabelling is due, on the one hand, to his hesitation between the rational and the emotional levels and, on the other hand, to his incapacity to tell a lie from truth. At an even deeper level, what might be the underlining motivation of this unstable complex of the King's judgment, unless it is the dychotomic-antonymical thinking he always carries within himself, as a resilient disturber of his sane judgment?

He does not experience the dychotomic-antonymical situation in the same way as Edmund does. The latter infers and induces it to his own advantage, coldly, building up a two-sided world so he may better sneak in between them towards his despicable political purpose, so much like Iago's; does he not tell his brother: "EDMUND: .I am no honest man if there be any good meaning towards you. " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene II), just like that other maniac of power who manages to destroy the Moor while crying out and loud to whomever stops to listen to him that he is honest? The social circumstances in which Edmund displays his dychotomic-antonymical behaviour are these: "EDMUND: A credulous father! And a brother noble, whose nature is so far from doing harms, that he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty my practises ride easy! " ( ibidem ).

The first suggestion pertaining to dychotomic-antonymical thinking that Edmund makes to his father is apparently harmless and has to do with language. He holds the fabricated epistle and waves it in Gloucester 's face: "EDMUND: I shall offend, either to detain or give it. " ( ibidem ). So his technique is to have the victim's mind accustomed to the possible existence of a dychotomic-antonymical behaviour. To this end, he lets the above-mentioned figure of speech slip, as if by chance, into the logical sequence of the talk. Now that Gloucester has been unknowingly initiated to it, Edmund makes the following step: "EDMUND: I hope, for my brother's justification, he wrote this but as an essay or taste of my virtue " ( ibidem ). As one may see, he accuses Edgar of deceitfulness, but does so in a favourable context, because the night-shade tastes badly and his father's palate has not yet grown accustomed to it. What we obviously deal with here is a concealing of his own deceitfulness. The lesson is an elementary one: charge your victim with your own sins and you will be considered virtuous.

One of the cleverest concoctions of dychotomic-antonymical thinking is the theory of chain-spying, analyzed in connection with Montaigne's essays. Let us now see how it works in this tragedy: "EDMUND: If your honour judge it meet, I will place you where you shall hear us confer of this, and by an auricular assurance have your satisfaction. " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene II). So Edmund acts as a provoker to spy on Edgar and Gloucester spies on both of them. The gullible father has no way of knowing, unfortunately, the passage in Montaigne's Essays that says: "The one for whom you betray another while being of use to him as much as you used to be to that other, does he not know that you are bound to do the same to him? [.] For the two-faced men may be useful for what they bring you, but you must make sure that they take away from you as little as possible". Indeed, Edmund first puts on a behavioural mask - "EDMUND: [.] .my cue is villanous melancholy, with a sigh like Tom o' Bedlam." ( ibidem ) -, then meets his brother with the very same proposition: "EDMUND: [.] .I will fitly bring you to hear my lord speak. " ( ibidem ), that is, he suggests that he should spy on Gloucester as a provoker and Edgar should spy on the both of them. The twofold dychotomic-antonymical aspect of this spying situation cannot go unnoticed.

In Othello , the Provoker (Iago) talks to Victim no. 2 (Cassio). They are being spied upon by Victim no. 1 (Othello). The Provoker is the brain of the whole action.

In Hamlet , in the play-within-play, Victim no. 1 (Hamlet), who is both Provoker and brain of the action, spies on Victim no. 2 (Claudius); in the scene of the dialogue between Hamlet and Ophelia, Polonius is the Provoker and brain of the action spying on Victim no. 1 in complicity with Victim no. 2.

The purpose of dychotomic-antonymical thinking may be summarized as being the overthrowing of unanimously accepted values in favour of certain personal or group interests. This ideal can be achieved by spreading confusion as to what the unanimously accepted values are. Confusion may be spread through all the means used by dychotomic-antonymical thinking to tamper with reality. The means differ from one situation to another. In the case of the tragedy analyzed, the means is "parents should obey their children": "EDMUND: .I have heard him oft maintain it to be fit, that, sons at perfect age, and fathers declining, the father should be as ward to the son, and the son manage his revenue " ( ibidem ), says Edmund speaking of his brother but stating, in fact, his own ideal. Gloucester acknowledges that ideal through his own bitter observations: " GLOUCESTER : [.] .there's son against father: the king falls from bias of nature; there's father against child. We have seen the best of our time: machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all ruinous disorders, follow us disquietly to our graves. " ( ibidem ). He thus rounds up the dychotomic-antonymical situation by providing its lacking reverse; moreover, he describes the outlook of a society dominated by the dychotomic-antonymical behaviour. Goneril introduces that ideal into the main architectural structure, referring to her father Lear: "GONERIL: [.] Old fools are babes again; and must be used with cheques as flatteries - when they are seen abused. " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene III). This is the purpose the two sisters are actually after. Regan, too, contributes her own view: "REGAN: O, sir, you are old. Nature in you stands on the very verge of her confine: you should be ruled and led by some discretion, that discerns your state better than you yourself. " ( King Lear - Act II, Scene IV).

It is interesting to notice that not long after Shakespeare, in the second science-fiction novel in the history of world literature, produced across the Channel and entitled The Comic History of the States and Empires in the Moon and the Sun , Cyrano de Bergerac (1619-1655) undertakes a profound satire of the above-mentioned ideal, arguing that the parents' obeying of their children was a sort of day-dreaming widely spread at that time, that had produced a mass dychotomic-antonymical crisis and was still being ridiculed by the next generation of writers.

Defining the ideals of dychotomic-antonymical thinking and noticing their remergence is a first stage in the prevention of the dychotomic-antonymical crisis, be it an individual or a mass one.

A man facing dychotomic-antonymical thinking is a man in a world of traps. He constantly runs the risk of either falling a victim to it or being contaminated by it. In the first scene of the tragedy, Kent notices the King's dychotomic-antonymical thinking, since he exclaims: " KENT : [.] .Lear is mad.. majesty stoops to folly. " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene I) but is immediately contaminated and he, too, starts speaking of own and the same person by using two conflicting labels: " KENT : Royal Lear. What wilt thou do, old man?. " ( ibidem ). As it seems, one cannot live in a dychotomic-antonymical world unless one takes up a likewise behaviour (we have already discussed this in our comments on Hamlet's madness). This is why Kent decides to disguise himself: " KENT : If but as well I other accents borrow, that can my speech defuse, my good intent may carry through itself to that full issue for which I razed my likeness. " ( King Lear - Act I, Scene IV). And yet, when Lear meets him disguised and asks: "KING LEAR: What dost thou profess? What wouldst thou with us? " ( ibidem ), he readily answers, forgetting all about the role he plays: " KENT : I do profess to be no less than I seem. " ( ibidem ).

All those surrounding the characters implied in such situations that are likely to be given two conflicting interpretations join in the game. For instance, among others: " Fool : I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are: they'll have me whipped for speaking true, thou'lt have me whipped for lying. " ( ibidem ). Or, likewise, Albany , whose wife Goneril confesses that she does not blame him for his obliging kindness and politeness, but that they are not proof of intelligence (see Act I, Scene V). Precisely to avoid running such risks, a man who wants to survive and see his plans achieved ends up by defeating his own self and take on masks, no matter how his inner being tries to resist. We have witnessed Kent's torments; we remember Cornwall accusing him of deceitfulness; here he is trying to voice deceitful flatteries, but doing it so clumsily: "KENT: Sir, in good sooth, in sincere verity, under the allowance of your great aspect, whose influence, like the wreath of radiant fire on flickering Phoebus' front. - CORNWALL: What mean'st by this? - KENT : To go out of my dialect, which you discommend so much. I know, sir, I am no flatterer. " ( King Lear - Act II, Scene II). This is not an attempt to assume a dychotomic-antonymical behaviour for the sake of his own redemption, but a useful means (the only way, in fact) of revealing the truth. In mathematics, such a method would be called reductio ad absurdum .

The play's general richness of human characters also supplies an example of dychotomic-antonymical behaviour meant to protect one's own person. For instance, Edgar cannot find the redemption of his life except by indulging in disguise and pretending to be mad. Society forces him to accept humiliation rather than flattery. He refuses to join the side of the deceitful. Even the low accompany him along the way of blood-stained dignity. The second servant is ready to rush into the arms of evil-doing, provided Regan and her husband remain on the side of good (see Act III, Scene VII). How could one not feel like losing one's mind? " GLOUCESTER : 'Tis the times' plague, when madmen lead the blind. " ( King Lear - Act IV, Scene I): parents forget about their natural love for the children who have come out of their own entrails; children forget about theirs for their parents; brothers end up by hating each other, wives by wishing their husbands' death. All love is being desecrated.

In this tragedy, in which all the elements combine into a flawless use of all the forms generated by dychotomic-antonymical thinking, the need is felt to have a proof of its creator's awareness as to this method of acquiring knowledge. Indeed, the required proof meets us halfway. We come across an artificial dychotomic-antonymical structure - a linguistic structure, to be more precise - containing both the notion it stands for and its denial in one and the same word. Shakespeare coins the word nuncle ( n + uncle ) that we have analyzed earlier in this essay. This both artificial and, more than any other, deliberate dychotomic-antonymical structure entitles us to state that the analyses we have undertaken illustrate a very important area of the shakespearian creation, one that has remained virtually unexplored so far. Although it is mentioned towards the end of the essay, it is the foundation stone of the researches undertaken and the basis of truth.

See the article quoted above: Mihai Radulescu, "Stilistica antropologica. O aplicatie: Gândirea dihotomic-antonimica" (Anthropological Stylistics. An Application: Dychotomic-Antonymical Thinking), in Revista de istorie si teorie literara ( Journal of Literary History and Theory ), vol. 24, no. 4, 1975.

Les Essais de Montaigne , 4 vols., Paris, Ernest Flammarion Éditeur, [no date], III, 1.



[ inapoi ]  [ sus ]  [ inainte ]