My Masters Thesis on The Signigificance of the Sub-plot in King Lear.

1. Paper
For a Research in the Field of English
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in
English Literature
University of Karachi
Department of English
June 1st
, 2015
Muhammad Raza
EP-111527/ EP-17952
mrazanagari@gmail.com
+92-342-2498562

2. Abstract
The sub-plot in Shakespeare’s King Lear is of immense significance. It complements the main plot
by intensifying its action and dramatic effect. The double plot probes into the miseries of human
sufferings. It discusses how humans err by giving examples of Lear and Gloucester’s
misjudgments. The most important function of this particular sub-plot is to neutralize the tragic
effect of the resolution of the main plot. The sub-plot provides an easy and important release of
tension and the emotional satisfaction that at least some injustices are resolved towards the end.
The conflict between Edmund and Gloucester contribute in our understanding of King Lear.
Significance and Function of the Sub-plot in Shakespeare’s King Lear
This paper discusses the significance and function of the sub-plot in King Lear. In King Lear,
Shakespeare has constructed the two plots in such a harmonious manner that one plot seems to be
the natural echo of the other. The main plot and a fully developed sub-plot share important
features with each other. Schlegel, a German critic says in surprise, “with what
ingenuity and skill the two main parts of the composition are dovetailed into one
another.” (qtd. in Soomro.p.2). The sub-plot involving Gloucester, Edmund and Edgar
serves to intensify the main action of the play.
A few major and minor critics have shed light on the sub-plot in King Lear . For
instance, John Ellis has discussed the credibility of the sub-plot in King Lear along
with the gulling of Gloucester. He says “Edmund's swift deception of Gloucester and
Edgar, comments by parallel and contrast not only on the main plot but also on the

3. character of Lear.” “Gloucester's fumbling and confused response to the deception
contrasts with Lear's tragic strength and will in the face of the machinations against
him by his own children.” (Ellis. p. abstract). Apart from this, Kenneth Muir, one of
the editors of the play attempts to answer the question, “Why Edgar writes to
Edmund, who is with him in the same house,” with the same kindly patience:
“Edmund’s forged letter, which he pretends was thrown
through the window, might be regarded as a more plausible
method of broaching conspiracy then by word of mouth
because the writer could deny his hand-writing, or pretend
he was making an essay of his brother’s virtue; and
Gloucester, having swallowed a camel, was not likely to
strain at a gnat.” (qtd. in Ellis. p.283)
I found it interesting to take a closer look on the dynamic relation between the two
plots and to analyse that how far our meaning and understanding of the play is
influenced by the combination of the two plots.
The very first scene of King Lear sets the comparison and contrast between Lear and Gloucester.
Gloucester jokes about his bastard son while Lear angrily banishes his favourite daughter,
Cordelia. By the end of the second scene we realize how important their children are to both men
and yet how little the really know about them.
In both the plots, we have a father deceived by his children; King Lear in the main
plot, by his two elderly daughters and Gloucester in the sub-plot by his illegitimate

4. son. King Lear suffers at the hands of his villainous daughters, Regan and Goneril to
whom he abdicates his power in the main plot whereas Gloucester is victimized by his
bastard son Edmund, in the subplot, who makes a fool of his old father, together with
the truthfully loving children, who are Cordelia in the main plot and Edgar in the sub-
plot. The later ones are mistreated by their parents because of the cunningness and
manipulation of the villainous siblings.
The first function of the sub-plot in King Lear is to reverberate with the main plot. It reinforces
and intensifies the theme that fathers should be cautious of such children who flatter them too
much and try to persuade them that their other children are intriguing against them. For instance,
King Lear conducts a love-test amongst his daughters, stupidly intending to measure the degree of
their love for him; "Which of you shall we say doth love us most . . ." (1.1.51). Regan and Goneril
are full of flattery and flowery words and get rewarded, but honest Cordelia speaks truthfully,
abstaining from using sweet words. She says in her turn, “You have begot me, bred me, loved
me. / I return those duties back as are right fit,/ Obey you, love you, and most honour you.”
(1.1.96-98)
Both Lear and Gloucester suffer tragedies which begin from flaws and follies in their characters
and errors in their dealing with the matters of succession and inheritance. Due to these
shortcomings in their characters they misunderstand their offspring and thus disown and disinherit
the right, faithful and loving ones and favoured the false offspring. In both the cases, Cordelia and
Edgar are a second set of victims, who suffer for none of their faults but due to the errors of their
parents respectively. In the main plot Cordelia is disinherited by King Lear for not expressing her

5. love in words in the very first scene. “Nothing/Nothing will come of nothing. Speak again.”
(1.1.89-90).
Similarly, Gloucester is convinced by Edmund with very little evidence of Edgar’s plot against his
life. Neither Lear nor Gloucester takes the responsibility for what has happened. Gloucester says:
“these late eclipses…” (1.2.96) have brought about these change, and Lear blames innocent
Cordelia for her losses. Neither realizes that his foolishness has brought about these changes.
Edmund is determined to "prosper" and "grow." Ruthlessly, he manipulates on old
Gloucester's weakness and persuades him that Edgar seeks his death to obtain his
inheritance. He forges a fake letter to give the impression that Edgar is against his father’s life.
Gloucester bursts on Edgar “O villain, villain! His very opinion in the letter! Abhorred villain;
Unnatural, detested, brutish villain! Worse than brutish! Go, sirrah, seek him; I’ll apprehend him.
Abominable villain, where is he?” (1.2.75-79). And Edgar, being told that Gloucester seeks
his life for some reason, flees. With Edgar thus removed, Edmund now seeks to
destroy his father and reports his alleged "treason" to Cornwall who removes the old
man's eyes in act 3. Gloucester comments after losing his eyes: “All dark and
comfortless.” (3.7.83-85)
The audience is set up to accept Lear and Gloucester as old fools. Neither man takes
the responsibility of what has happened. Gloucester says “these late eclipses”(1.2.96)
have brought about these changes, and Lear blames Cordelia for her sufferings.
Neither acknowledges or realizes that his own actions and foolishness have brought
about these events.
Gloucester, however, comments on Lear’s actions against his power in scene 2. He is amazed that

6. the king has limited his power so suddenly. When Edmund suggests that “sons at perfect age, and
fathers declined, the father / should be as ward to the son, and the son manage his /
revenue”(1.2.68-70), Gloucester is enraged by what he thinks are Edgar’s words. He calls Edgar
unnatural, and since this is exactly the action taken by Lear with his daughters. We can assume
that he thinks Lear’s act was also unnatural.
At Goneril’s palace Lear foreshadows Gloucester’s fate when he says “Old fond eyes, / beweep
this cause again, I’ll pluck thee out” (1.4.278-79). In the same way that Lear fears for his own eyes
because of Goneril, so does Gloucester lose his eyes because of Edmund. At the end of act 1 Lear
foreshadows his own destiny, “Oh, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven!” (1.5.38).
Just like Lear, Gloucester also suffers filial ingratitude. Both the betrayals occur because the
fathers foolishly believed in their sinister children who tricked them into believing that their
generous siblings are villains. In act III, King Lear falls into madness and becomes a victim of his
misfortune without taking any action to solve his problems. He just wanders around the forest
crying in rage and madness. Shakespeare brings together the both plots in act 2 scene 2 when
Regan, Cornwall, Gloucester and Edmund meet at Gloucester’s castle. Lear arrives at Regan’s
castle and is outraged when Cornwall and Regan do not meet him.
However, Lears tries to imagine that Cornwall and Regan respect him, and makes excuses for
them by assuming that perhaps Cornwall is ill and thus he does not come to meet me. When their
actions do not conform his expectations and Regan proves to be as evil as Goneril, then Lear
realizes that he was wrong in supposing these two daughters more loving than his banished
Cordelia. Lear soon acknowledges that the disease of his daughters is in his own blood. The
realization of his errors and his loss of power and Cordelia drive him to the madness seen in act 3.

7. Gloucester and Lear meet in scene 4 of act 3 in the midst of a raging storm. Although, Gloucester
has not suffered more than Lear, but his words began to echo those of Lear in the earlier scenes.
He says “Thou sayest the king grows mad: I’ll tell thee,friend, / I am almost mad myself”
(4.3.152-153). Gloucester helps the king and cares for him like a child, similar to the way Edgar
helps Gloucester after his eyes are plucked out. Edgar appears like an angel to help his old father
when he falls down the cliff at Dover. "Think that the clearest gods, who make them honors of
men's impossibilities, have preserved thee." (4.6.73-74)
Death begins in act 3 scene 7. A servant dies defending Gloucester, and Cornwall is fatally
wounded. Gloucester at this point realizes his mistake and his former blindness in misjudging his
offspring. After losing his sight, he can now see. When he is turned out his wandering in the
country reminds us of Lear in the storm. Likewise, Lear in his despair now has learned to see.
Gloucester and Lear share many similarities at this point. Both men now desire the company of
Tom who represents wisdom. They also acquire a sense of justice and care for less fortunate men.
Lear looks after his fool in the storm, and Gloucester calls for clothes for poor Tom. Their
similarities intensify the pain and change in each man. Also, Shakespeare’s use of a king and a
nobleman both suffering from their foolishness emphasizes the universality of man’s suffering. On
the other hand, they do not suffer in the same way. Gloucester does not lose his mind, and Lear
does not try suicide.
Edgar is the only character in the play that may be said to have chosen his own deprivation. “I will
preserve myself . . . / And with presented nakedness outface/ The winds and persecutions of the
sky.” (2.3.6,11-12) In the final scene of the play he appears as a knight in shining armour, but what
he finds is the debris of the world which has exploded in Act 1. The only wisdom that he is

8. blessed with at the end is the knowledge of insufficiency.
Finally, the story completes the circle. The sub-plot provides an easy and important release of
tension and the emotional satisfaction that at least some injustices are resolved. For this reason,
Edmund is killed at the end and Edgar is restored to power and is reconciled with his father, who
dies in his arms. “O dear son Edgar . . . /Might I but live to see thee in my touch / I’d say I had
eyes again” (4.1.21, 23-24). Edgar tells Gloucester his identity and asks his father’s forgiveness,
thus causing Gloucester’s heart to break “Twixt two extremes of passion, joy and grief” (5.3.202) .
Similarly, Lear also dies with Cordelia in his arms, trying so hard to believe her alive that it strains
his heart as well. Although, these men have learned much, but as in real life, wisdom in old age
and recognizing one’s children for what they are do not always bring peace and happiness. Both
are tragic heroes, who achieve wisdom and humanity after suffering. The dismal final scenes of
the play in which almost everyone dies, serves to emphasize Shakespeare’s intent to show two
unfortunate characters who suffer from foolishness and vicissitude of life.
Words Counted: 2751

9. Works Cited
Cavanagh, Dermot. “Bereaved Sense: Problems of Definition in King Lear” Critical Survey,3.2
(1991), (P. 157-162). <http://www.jstor.org/stable/41555576>. (Last accessed 11-05-2015)
Ellis, John. “The Gulling of Gloucester: Credibility in the Subplot of King Lear.” Studies in
English Literature, 1500-1900, 12.2 (1972). (275-89) <http://www.jstor.org/stable/449894>. (Last
accessed 13-04-2015)
Lyons, Bridget Gellert. “The Subplot as Simplification in King Lear.” Some Facets of King Lear.
Ed. Rosalie L. Colie and F.T. Flahhiff. Toronto: U of Toronto, 1974. 23-38.
Muir, Kenneth.ed. The Arden King Lear. London,1952. P.1i.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear: The New Penguin Shakespeare. General Editor: Shakespeare,
Williams.The Tragedy of King Lear:The HJB Anthology of Drama. Ed. W.B.Worthen. Ft.Worth:
Harcourt, 1993. (P.174-214)
Somroo, A. R. “Double Plot in King Lear." www.scribd.com. 27 Nov. 2010. P.2.

10. Bibliography
Bradley, A.C. “King Lear.” In Shakespearean Tragedy, 154-163. London: Macmillan, 199d4
Cavanagh, Dermot. “Bereaved Sense: Problems of Definition in King Lear” Critical
Survey,3.2 (1991), (P. 157-162). <http://www.jstor.org/stable/41555576>. (Last accessed 11-05-
2015)
Cliffs Notes King Lear. Contributors: Sheri Metzger - Author. Publisher: Wiley. Place of
publication: New York. Publication year: 2000.
Ellis, John. “The Gulling of Gloucester: Credibility in the Subplot of King Lear.” Studies in
English Literature, 1500-1900, 12.2 (1972). (275-89) <http://www.jstor.org/stable/449894>. (Last
accessed 13-04-2015)
Lyons, Bridget Gellert. “The Subplot as Simplification in King Lear.” Some Facets of King Lear.
Ed. Rosalie L. Colie and F.T. Flahhiff. Toronto: 1974. (p. 23-38).
Mangan, Michael A preface to Shakespeare’s Tragedies India Pearson 2003, (p.102-4)

11. McNeir, Waldo F. “The Role of Edmund in King Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900,
8.2 (1968). 187-216. < http://www.jstor.org/stable/449655>.
Routeledge and Kegan Paul Ed. Shakespeare’s Tragedies by G.B Harrison. London 1961,
(p. 158-83)
Somroo, A. R. “Double Plot in King Lear.” Scribd.com. 27 Nov. 2010. (p.2)
Shakespeare, William; G. K. Hunter (ed.) (p. 1972–1996). King Lear. New Penguin
Shakespeare.