The Character of Kent In King Lear :: William Shakespeare Plays Essays

The Character of Kent In King LearWhile memorializeing Eva turner Clarks analysis of King Lear, in her Hidden Allusions in Shakespeares Plays, I was stricken by the polarity of our interpretation of this supreme drama. Where Clark finds historical and political allusions, specially for the years 1589-1590, I find personal anes. For King Lear is a piece of cake of internal, personal tragedy. With this in mind I strongly disagree with her statement, I consider Kent represents Drake. (P. 869 n.) therefore I sought another contemporary of Oxfords who would take on the characteristics and qualities of the Earl of Kent. In looking tor this prototype, I drew upon J. Thomas Looneys methodology. (See Shakespeare Identified, p. 80.) Simply verbalise my task was to examine the text of Lear, to draw from it a definite fancy of the character and qualities of the Earl of Kent, and then look for a man who fits that description. Once such(prenominal) a man was found it was necessary to con nect him with the character of Kent and with the author. eventually I found that my conception of Kent had been accurately described by S.T. Coleridge, Kent is, perhaps, the near to perfect goodness in all Shakespeares characters, and yet the most individualized. There is an extraordinary charm in a bluntness, which is that only of a noble arising from a contempt of overtrained courtesy, and combined with easy placability where goodness of heart is apparent. His fanatical affection for and fidelity to Lear act on our feelings in Lears own kick upstairs virtue itself, seems to be in company with him. (Complete Works of Samuel Coleridge, Vol. IV, edited by W.G.T. Shedd, Harper and Bros., New York 1884, pp. 138-39.) The first two requirements of Looneys blueprint had been completed. I had read and examined the text of Lear, and with the aid of Coleridge, I had out-lined the qualities of Kent. It was now necessary to find the man. He must be blunt only charming noble and courteous , but not overbearing in rank or slavish to authority. He must be loyal to his country, his monarch, and his friends. He must be soulfulness worthy to lead men even nations. (It must be remembered that Kent is one of the triumvirate who, it is implied at the close of the play, will lead Englands destinies.) He must be someone who had won the highest respect and admiration of Oxford the man chosen to be old King Lears personal champion (and, in effect Oxfords in any case?