"King Lear alone among the great tragedies, adds to its plot a sub-plot fully developed. And it suffers somewhat under the burden." Do you consider this a valid objection to the structure of the play?
How, in your opinion, does the Gloucester story affect the dramatic impact of the Lear story?
Do you think that Shakespeare has successfully interwoven the main plot and the sub-plot in King Lear, and achieved structural unity in the play?
What purpose does the Gloucester story serve in King Lear? Would you say that this story interferes with the unity of the plot as a whole and tends to weaken the dramatic effect of the Lear story?
Write a critical note on Shakespeare's use of a sub-plot in King Lear.
Analyze the structure of King Lear, clearly bringing out the inter- relationship between the main plot and the sub-plot.
Two Opposite Opinions Expressed By Critics
Only King Lear, among the great tragedies of Shakespeare, has a fully developed sub-plot. While the main plot in this play deals with Lear and the misfortunes that he has to face as a consequence of the ingratitude of his two elder daughters, the sub-plot deals with the misfortunes which Gloucester has to experience as a consequence of the ingratitude of his bastard son Edmund. The parallelism between the two stories is obvious. Both men suffer the disastrous consequences of their folly and want of judgment in elying upon their wicked children. Each is consoled and comforted by his good child, Cordelia in the case of the main plot, and Edgar in the case of the the critics with regard to the effect of the introduction of the sub-plot in this sub-plot. Now, it is a curious fact that there is a difference of opinion among play. According to some, the sub-plot interferes with the structural unity of the play and, at the same time, weakens the dramatic effect of the Lear story point out the skilful manner in which Shakespeare has interwoven the main by diverting g our attention to the characters and events of the sub-plot. Others plot ant the sub-plot, thereby keeping the unity of the whole play intact, and they also express the view that the dramatic effect of the main plot is reinforced by the sub-plot, rather than weakened by it. Before arriving at our own conclusion, it would be worth while looking at these two approaches to the play.
Bradley's Criticism of the Sub-Plot
A critic of the eminence of A.C. Bradley regards the sub-plot in this play as a defect. He is of the view that this play suffers from a structural weakness which arises chiefly from the double action, which is a peculiarity of King Lear among the tragedies. He points out that by the side of Lear, Lear's daughters, Kent, and the Fool, who are the principal figures in the main plot, stand Gloucester and his two sons who are the chief persons of the secondary plot. By means of this double action, says Bradley, the dramatist secured certain highly advantageous effects from the strictly dramatic point of view; but the disadvantages were dramatically greater. The number of essential characters is so large, their actions and movements are so complicated, and events towards the close crowd on one another so thickly, that the reader's attention is rapidly transferred from one centre of interest to another, and is in this way over-strained. The reader becomes intellectually confused or at least emotionally fatigued. The battle, on which everything turns, hardly affects the reader. The deaths of Edmund, Goneril, Regan, and Gloucester seem only trifles as compared to the incomparable pathos of the close. The insignificance of the battle is evidently due to the fact that there was no room in the play to give to the battle its due importance and effect among such a large number of competing interests. Bradley goes or to point out that, on account of the double plot in the play, we have in the last scene no fewer than five persons who are technically of the first and foremost importance-Lear his three daughters, and Edmund, not to speak of Kent and Edgar, of whom the latter is at any rate technically of great importance. And again, owing to the pressure of persons and events, and owing to the concentration of our anxiety on Lear and Cordelia, the duel between Edgar and Edmund, which occupies so much of the space, fails to excite sufficient interest. The truth is that all through both Act IV and Act V Shakespeare has too vast a material to use with complete dramatic effectiveness.
Schlegel's Defence of the Sub-Plot
On the other side is the view of Schlegel who forcefully defends the sub plot in this play. Schlegel is surprised that the incorporation of the two plots should be censured as destructive of the unity of action. According to Schlegel, the two stories have been dovetailed into each other with great ingenuity and skill. Schlegel also thinks that the sub-plot heightens the dramatic and emotional effect of the main plot. The pity felt by Gloucester for the sad fate of Lear becomes the means which enables his son Edmund to bring about Gloucester's complete destruction, and affords the outcast Edgar an opportunity of becoming the saviour of his father. On the other hand, Edmund becomes active in his support of Regan and Goneril against the French forces; and the illicit passion which both sisters entertain for him leads them to execute justice on each other and on themselves. The laws of the drama have therefore been sufficiently complied with; but that is the least. It is the very combination of the two stories which constitutes "the sublime beauty" of the play. The two cases resemble each other in the main: an infatuated father is blind towards his well-disposed child; and the unnatural children, whom he prefers, bring about the ruin of all his happiness. But the circumstances in the two cases are so different that these stories also form a strong contrast to each other. Were Lear alone to suffer from his daughters, the impression would be limited to the powerful compassion felt by us for his private misfortunes. But two such unheard-of examples taking place at the same time have the appearance of a great commotion in the moral world. The picture becomes vast and gigantic, and fills us with such alarm as we would experience at the idea that the heavenly bodies might one day fall from their appointed orbits. Thus in Schlegel's opinion the dramatic impact of the play is greatly increased by the Gloucester story.
The Sub-Plot, a Parallel to the Main Plot
An examination of these two points of view shows that there is more substance in Schlegel's approach. From our own reading of the play also we would feel that the fate which Gloucester meets serves to enhance the dramatic affect of the Lear story. In fact, the presence in the play of a second father, who meets a sad fate on account of the malignity of his own son, and on account of his own folly, lends additional force to the sad fate which the main protagonist meets for similar reasons. The sub-plot in this play offers, not so much of a contrast to the main plot, as a close parallel to it. As if to indicate at the outset that this is going to be so, Shakespeare cleverly echoes near the beginning of the sub-plot a word that has been impressively used near the beginning of the main plot. The word "nothing" links the two stories at the very start, suggesting that they are going to be in the same key. In Lear's interrogation of Cordelia, the word "nothing" is emphasized unforgetfully. In Act 1, Scene ii, when Gloucester finds Edmund reading a paper, he asks what Edmund is reading. Edmund replies: "Nothing, my Lord." Gloucester then makes a remark in which the word "nothing" occurs twice.
The Dramatic and Emotional Effect Reinforced
The two plots reinforce each other in a remarkable manner. Lear lacks sound judgment at the start; and so does Gloucester. Lear rejects the loving daughter and clings to the false ones; Gloucester likewise rejects the loving son and clings to the false one. Both fathers bring dire suffering on themselves through their own folly. At the same time, both are the victims of dynamic evil, existing outside themselves, and bringing itself to bear upon them. Both are comforted in their sufferings by those whom they have wronged, Edgar being as full of loving forgiveness as Kent and Cordelia are Both Lear and Gloucester learn wisdom through suffering, and achieve spiritual salvation. The wisdom that each learns is essentially the same. Like Lear, Gloucester comes to sympathize with the poor and the down-trodden. Lear, in his misery during the storm, had expressed his deep sympathy for the poor houseless persons who had no roof over their heads to protect them against the fury of the elements. He wished the rich people to part with some of their "superflux" and to give it to the poor. Gloucester in his misery, not long afterwards, cries out to the heavens, wishing the "superfluous and lust dieted man" to give away some of his wealth so that an equitable distribution should undo excess, and each man have enough. The parallel between Gloucester's "superfluous" and Lear's "superflux" is noteworthy. Again, Gloucester, like Lear, learns in his torment, the value of patience. Gloucester makes up his mind to commit suicide and asks the Bedlam-beggar to lead him to a cliff-top. For Gloucesters' own good, Edgar deceives him, and Gloucester's life is preserved. Through this experience, Gloucester learns the lesson of endurance, and resolves henceforth to bear affliction. Lear, likewise, learns the lesson of endurance, humility, and tolerance as a result of all that he has gone through. Furthermore, in both cases, we feel that the sufferers have to endure much greater suffering than could be justified by the faults in their characters and by the blunders which they committed. In both cases, the sufferers have been more sinned against than sinning. Thus Shakespeare's management of the main plot and the sub-plot (or under-plot) is masterly. Circumstantial differences between the two provide the interest of contrast; and at the same time the essential similarities emphasize the message of the play and deepen the dramatic affect. In any case, the play does not suffer under the burden of the sub-plot, because the sub-plot is not really a burden on, but a support to, the main plot.
The Same Paradox in Both Cases
It is noteworthy also that Lear, though technically sane at the outset, really behaves like a madman; and that, when he goes mad in a literal sense, he begins to speak wisely (because in his mad speeches there is plenty of reason and wisdom). This is a paradox about Lear. There is a corresponding paradox in the case of Gloucester. At the beginning, Gloucester can see with his eyes, but is lacking in a full mental, moral, and spiritual vision; and that is why he cannot see the worth of Edgar. It is when he loses his eye-sight in the literal sense that he begins to attain this fundamental vision, and he then begins to realize the worth of the son whom he had wronged and learns also the value of endurance. In this respect also, the two plots are the same; they are the same in fundamental significance.
The Close Interweaving of the Two Stories
The interweaving of the main plot and the sub-plot is also perfect and has been effected with great skill. Edmund, the villain of the sub-plot, is brought into a direct contact with two of the principal evil-doers (Cornwall and Regan) early in the play, and they take him under their wings. It is through Edmund that Cornwall and Regan learn about the secret activities of Gloucester, and it is on account of this betrayal by Edmund that Gloucester is blinded for having given succour to the mad Lear and for having sent him to Dover for protection. In this way both Edmund and Gloucester play an important role in the main plot. Not only that, Edgar, the third character in the sub-plot, is also brought into a close relationship with the main plot. During the storm, Edgar encounters Lear who is accompanied by Kent and the Fool. Lear begins to take an unusual interest in Edgar who now comes into the forefront, pushing the Fool into the background. Lear in fact does not make a move from this place unless he is assured that Edgar would also go with him. before Gloucester and Edgar in the countryside near Dover. Here Lear delivers some of his most important speeches which contain much wisdom although they are being delivered by a man who has lost his wits; and the audience who listens to these speeches in wonderment and dismay comprises Gloucester and Edgar. It is here that Edgar finds reason in Lear's madness. Edmund's role in the main plot becomes more and more important in the last two acts. After the death of Cornwall, he is appointed by Regan to command her forces, and he is largely instrumental in winning a victory over the invading French army. Meanwhile, both Regan and Goneril have fallen in love with Edmund, and Goneril has even been plotting with him against the life of her husband. It is on account of her jealousy that Goneril poisons Regan and it is on account of her frustration in love that she herself commits suicide. (Another reason for her suicide is, of course, the exposure of her plot against her husband's life). The relationship between the two stories is further strengthened when Albany, acting upon Edgar's suggestion. summons Edgar to prove Edmund's treachery, and when Edgar fights a duel with Edmund who receives a fatal wound in the fight. The interweaving of the two stories could not have been closer or more intimate.
The Deaths of the Two Protagonists in the Same State of Mind
It has already been pointed out that the dramatic affect of the Lear story gains in intensity on account of the sub-plot. When Gloucester comes to aid Lear during the storm on the heath, Lear has already gone mad, while Gloucester tells Kent that he himself is going mad, his reason being that the son whom he had been loving very much had proved treacherous towards him. Gloucester does not go mad, but he is soon afterwards blinded. The blinding of Gloucester adds to the emotional effect of Lear's madness on us; and this effect is further accentuated when the mad Lear faces the blind Gloucester in the countryside near Dover. Similarly, the pathos of the situation, when Lear recovers from his madness and recognizes Cordelia, is enhanced by the fact, already known to us that Gloucester's life has been saved by Edgar on two occasions, first when Gloucester wanted to commit suicide, and again when Oswald wanted to kill him. Subsequently Gloucester dies experiencing the extremes of two passions, joy and grief joy at discovering that Edgar had been with him all the time after he had encountered him on emerging from his castle where he had been blinded. and grief at the thought that Edgar had deeply been wronged by him in the beginning. Lear dies in a similar mental state: he is feeling heart-broken at Cordelia's death, but at the same time he thinks that she is not dead and that her lips seem to be moving. Thus both men die in a similar state of mind, and each dies after being reunited with his loving child to whom he had been so unjust. Here again the Lear story gains in dramatic affect by the proximity of the Gloucester's story.
Another Key to the Unity of the Play
A different approach has been made to this aspect of the play by one of the critics. According to him, Lear and Gloucester are two different types of men. Lear imposes on the world his own erroneous conclusions about children and court. He invites tragedy by three errors of understanding- errors with regard to the nature of kingship, the nature of love, and the nature of language (the value of certain statements about love). Gloucester, on the other hand, accepts rather than imposes. His error of understanding is that he too easily falls under the influence exerted upon him. He accepts the will of others (of Edmund, for instance) without effectually questioning their rightness. Thus Lear and Gloucester are, in terms of structure, not duplicates, but complements. This, says our critic, is one key to the unity of the play. The completeness of the play, its cosmic inclusiveness, is in part attributable to this double-focused presentation of the tragic error of understanding. We see its basic forms which are action and inaction: one tragic character imposes error; the other accepts it. The roles continue consistently throughout the play-Lear as active, Gloucester as passive.