‘Edgar I Nothing Am’: Figurenposition in King Lear

Summary

Readers of King Lear must now 'acknowledge' the widely influential view of Edgar first proposed by Stanley Cavell, who questioned the sincerity and timeliness of Edgar's decision not to reveal himself to his grief-stricken, blinded father until it is too late to save him. Cavell's opinion has affected the response of critics as widely divergent in their approaches as Janet Adelman and S. L. Goldberg, and has taken hold in many quarters. It is a misleading view, in my opinion, not only because it ignores basic facts about the ways Shakespeare 'manages' his dramatic personae, but also because it fails to describe the relationship between a character's language and his stage location. It may be most mistaken, however, because it loses sight of the 'affective' response to King Lear that Shakespeare elicits from his audience.

Readers who share Professor Cavell's perspective overlook the functions Edgar performs as a 'choric' character and as the 'symbolic' figure of Poor Tom, preferring to limit their focus to 'psychological' examinations of his 'realistic' persona. This is surprising, especially in the light cast by Maynard Mack's suggestions about the ways Shakespeare 'manages' his characters in the play.