Summary

Act 4 develops the Edmund-Goneril-Regan plot as they jockey for and seek to consolidate their power (scenes 2 and 5), as well as the comedic plot of the rebel resistance, including the return of Cordelia (scenes 3 and 4).

These developments are framed by two scenes (1 and 6) wherein Edgar, still not recognized by the blinded Gloucester, both comforts his father and helps him on his own journey toward tragic wisdom. The reunited father and son (a reunion of which Gloucester remains ignorant) are joined in the same scene by Lear for an additional reunion, this time between the mad king and his loyal courtier, Gloucester. The deeply melancholy mood of these moments is interrupted by the appearance of Oswald who, seeking Goneril’s favor, tries to assassinate Gloucester but is thwarted and slain by Edgar.

The final moments of Act 4 (scene 7) are reserved for the anticipated reunion of old Lear with his daughter.

Scenes 2-5: Power Struggle

The chief interest of scene 2 is the domestic falling-out between Goneril and Albany. What is the cause of this dissension? There is a farcical dimension to this scene involving one of the play’s two sordid love triangles. Identify a passage or two you find amusing, disturbing, or both, and indicate why you think them dramatically effective. Here are some suggested passages, linked to audio (though feel free to focus on other passages): 4.2.12-18 4.2.50-59

Whereas the first farcical love triangle involves Goneril, Albany, and Edmund, the second, introduced in scene 5, is of a different sort. Identify its three members and comment on passages you think effective.

Scenes 3’s chief purpose is to build anticipation of Cordelia’s return. I single out two brief passages for comment. The first, 4.3.12-14, echoes an earlier remark of Lear’s, the one about Hysterica passio (2.4.54-56). Compare these two passages. How are they similar, how do they differ, and how do they impact our experience of the play’s gender issues?

The other passage that interests me, 4.3.33-36, seems to answer Lear’s earlier question, “Is there any cause in nature that makes these hard hearts?” (3.6.76-7). What think you of Kent’s answer here, and to which other characters in the play might his observation be applied?

Cordelia’s appearance in scene 4, her first since departing for France at the close of the play’s opening scene, would be emotionally powerful even without any dialogue. Note first her description of Lear at lines 1-10. Consider too the biblical allusion at lines 23-24. Comments?

Scenes 1 and 6: Blind, Mad, and Blessed

Scene 1 of Act 4 follows immediately after the blinding of Gloucester in the final moments of Act 3. I single out one detail for comment. In his soliloquy at the beginning of the scene (4.1.1-9) Edgar suggests that things cannot get much worse, and that those who have reached bottom can comfort themselves at least in the hope of something better. But when Gloucester enters stumbling, eyes bleeding, Edgar changes his tune: 4.1.28-29. What does he mean? And what are the implications for a writer of tragedies—including the author of King Lear? Other comments about this scene?

Scene 6, the longest of Act 4, has two major phases: a continuation of Edgar’s reunion with Gloucester, followed by Gloucester’s reunion with Lear.

The first phase culminates in Gloucester’s “suicide,” which Edgar helps him commit, explaining to the audience, “Why I do trifle with his despair / Is done to cure it” (4.6.34-35). What does he mean? And to which aspect of Aristotle’s theory of tragedy does this allude?

Approaching Gloucester, who thinks he has plummeted from a great height, Edgar describes his fall: 4.6.51-57. Comments on this passage? What makes it so beautiful? For me, “Thy life’s a miracle” (57) is one of the most emotionally powerful in the entire play—yet I’m uncertain as to why. Thoughts?

Pretending to be someone other than the man who led Gloucester to the supposed edge of the cliff—“That poor unfortunate beggar (70)”—Edgar goes on to describe that other self: 4.6.71-76. Like his earlier pronouncement that Gloucester’s life is “a miracle,” this description of Edgar’s beggar self, his role as Tom’o’Bedlam, seems somehow more than simply the description of a madman. There is something unearthly about this figure, both monstrous and beautiful, but it eludes my critical grasp. Thoughts?

I observe, finally, that this vivid and perhaps visionary description is followed immediately by what appears to be an additional moment of recognition, of anagnorisis (remember that term?): 4.6.77-79. What, exactly, does Gloucester “remember”? And why should it inspire his decision to endure his suffering rather than end it through suicide?

Side note: I hope it is apparent that for many, if not most, of my questions there are no definitive answers. I often feel critically defeated by this play, unable to get my arms around it, so to speak. But I’ve grown to be comfortable with my partial ignorance. For the fact that we struggle fully to grasp a work of art is consistent with its greatness—one reason why we return to it again and again.

The reunion of Gloucester and Lear that follows (4.6.83-181) is filled with passages both luminous and darkly obscure. Identify one or two that you find striking or otherwise emotionally powerful and try to explain why (especially if you’re not sure why—for these often turn out to be the most interesting passages of all).

Scene 7: “Where did you die?”

The reunion of Lear and Cordelia is the simplest yet most powerful instance of anagnorisis in the play: “I think this lady / To be my child Cordelia” (4.7.71-72). It mirrors in simplicity and power Lear’s earlier recognition of his old friend: “I know thee well enough. Thy name is Gloucester” (4.6.171).

I offer two readings for comment, followed by a concluding question: 4.7.31-42 4.7.60-72 Responding to Lear’s confession, that she has “some cause” not to love him (75-77), Cordelia simply says, “No cause, no cause,” repeating the words for emphasis. What are we to make of this? Are we inclined to accept such a response? And what, exactly, does she mean? Is she saying that Lear has done nothing that would make him unworthy of love? Or is she saying, rather, that when it comes to loving or not loving her father, cause has nothing to do with it? Other thoughts?