• Again and again in The Tragedy of King Lear by William Shakespeare, action derives from the inability for an individual to accept their respective vulnerability to feeling, such that we do not simply need to observe Lear and Gloucester’s obvious fall from authority in order to perceive this – the necessity of analysing the idea of ‘love’ and poetic justice apprehended by Capitalism via the inspection of each and every character in the play. It is evident, that upon viewing the drama in such ways, that several more themes; such as bourgeois family dynamics, or the very nihilistic irony of existentialism would surely become the focus of discussion – however, it is my belief that a justified view from a Capitalist perspective on emotion highlights the necessary morals Shakespeare conveyed through this tragedy.

    There is, without a doubt that, within the drama exists two different types of love. Naturally, as we have the love of justice, we have the polar opposite; the love of cruelty. It is the love of justice that bases both Gloucester and Lear’s downfall – the request for a love that they both believe rightfully belongs to them. With Lear’s attempt to bargain love through materialistic means in the Love Test scene, it is his narcissistic and naive personality that results to the imperialistic speech; “Which of you shall we say, doth love us most” which subsequently places Lear in a position of power over the three daughters. Now it is because of Cordelia’s refusal to comply that consequently, returns “Nothing” to the ‘everything‘ Lear has offered in dowry and the love a parent gives to a child. Because of Lear’s childish and ego centric behaviour, it is as the fool describes it; to “...grow old before you grow wise...” would lead to this idea of giving something for something. However, as Orwell states in his essay Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool the correct way would in fact be, if you are prepared to give kindness, it would be foolish to expect something in return; “If you throw away your weapons, some less scrupulous person would pick them up” where the meaning is that you are free to distribute love, though it would be unwise to expect happiness to derive from it.

    Although it is often described that Gloucester, because he is part of a parallel sub-plot, that he is similarly under the effects of so-called “blindness” of insight. This, although is true to some extent, it would be meaningless for Shakespeare to incorporate a sub-plot to repeat the same scenario - Gloucester’s downfall is similar in the sense that it is caused by a certain love of poetic justice – that he expects his children to love him, as he has loved them in due respect as a parent. However in Gloucester is a certain sense of cowardice, rather than a narcissism. Especially depicted so in Michael Elliott’s BBC adaptation, where a close-up shot to Gloucester’s face reveals the quick and evident change in emotion and belief, ironically so because of Edmund’s soliloquy; “...top the legitimate!” as Gloucester has instantly and fully believed in Edmund. It is evident also in Gloucester’s behaviour that, because he rashly acts, and acts in haste to attempt to remove Edgar – because of his confusion as to accepting the unexpected betrayal of a son; it can be seen that Gloucester is in fact more afraid to confront his son personally than to simply end Edgar’s life. It is because of this cowardice mixed dangerously with foolishness that brings about the blinding, and eventual death of Gloucester. Thus, it is from this moral that one learns that it would be foolish to seek the fulfilment of poetic justice, not only in family but also in life.

    It would appear, however that there exists another type of love besides this love of justice; what can one call the lust for power and the longing of status? It is the love of cruelty that manifests itself in the play vividly through the elements of greed and self-promotion – Capitalism. This is evident in hyperbolic statements of love by both Goneril and Regan; beginning with Goneril the oldest, is her false cries of love – “...beyond all that is rich and valued” which is ironic because she is simply complying because of status and wealth. Regan follows similarly, although finding her sister coming too short she adds; “...an enemy of all pleasures...” also ironic in the sense, both sisters fight over the right to love Edmund. This betrayal of paternal bonds of course, re-occurs in the parallel subplot; Edmund’s soliloquy reveals to the audience his discontent, and in doing so reveals, to a certain extent sadness where one can eventually come to even sympathizing with him. It is with; “...if I cannot have lands by birth, let me have them by wit!” justifies a cause for the need to do so – because of his father’s cowardice to admit Edmund as a son and as a consequence permit him no land, Edmund must in a sense wrench for the wealth and status he wants or rather, as he feels it needs. However, in deed Edmund appears much more sinister than speech, accompanying both daughters of Lear (“...All three marry in an instant...”) all for the sake of, in some respects, the same narcissism as Lear; in which Edmund solely and truly believes that these tangible manifestations of love are owed to him. However, what he differs in Lear is the fact that, where Lear is simply requesting a proof of love in return, Edmund is put in the position where everything he does is for the sake of self-satisfaction.

    Although one may view Lear’s test has a nobler cause than Edmund’s capitalist ideals, it is certain that either of them remain in flaw – to seek love for self-content remains in all respects selfish; you cannot simply force another to feel the same way about you. However it is the love that each and every person should have that one should learn from the more minor characters in the play; Cordelia, Kent and the Fool show much more virtuous, neutral loyalty where one does not expect anything for kindness; this can only be described as a patient love. Kent, although exiled remains in service of Lear even into a storm, still referring to Lear as “Master”. Cordelia shares a similar patience, as in response to Lear’s “...if you have poison for me to drink, I will drink it...” she does and says nothing of the sort as it has been Cordelia who has ironically been the most true; complying to “...say what we feel, not what we ought to say...” as said by Kent in the last scenes. The Fool, however remains a special case – despite calling Lear “N’uncle” in a sense of familiarity, it is questionable whether he feels any true love towards Lear, furthermore his sudden disappearance after Act IV remains puzzling. Although this may be true, the Fool kept patience with Lear and helped him, if not guided him to his epiphany where all others have abandoned him.

    Ultimately on first inspection, the drama can be seen as a cruel reality in the sense that poetic justice does not, and cannot possibly truly exist in reality. It is also true, from this viewing that Love should not, and cannot be manifested in any form besides emotion. However, many overlook the subtle support the Fool, Kent and Cordelia offer because the main issues of Lear and Gloucester with their ego-centrism, and the self-profit obsessed daughters of Lear along with Edmund that overshadow the latent love that man should be feel and experience.