Commentary on Act 1 sc 4
Home return to text

King Lear Index

Kent, disguised This is the first we've seen of Kent since his exile in scene 1.  He is disguised as a 'common' labourer - and, given the conventions of Shakespearean drama, will be recognised by no-one.  As always with Kent, he is to be contrasted with Oswald; Oswald does whatever his mistress commands - because he aims to rise: servant-as-careerist - whereas Kent has accepted a reduction in his social status in order to serve Lear - even despite Lear's commands, and without reward.  ( one issue about Kent's 'story': he never gets the recognition he deserves from Lear: in the last scene, Kent's revelation of his identity is swept away by Cordelia's death.  Is he working for that recognition - or are his labours on Lear's behalf, unrecognised, their own reward?  Kent says here:  So may it come, thy master, whom thou lov'st / Shall find thee full of labours.  In a full sense, Lear never does find  Kent - he never recognises what Kent has done for him.  Does this mean Kent's labours end in disappointment?  Not if the point of Kent's work on Lear's behalf was the service, not the reward.)  Kent serves out of love - and from scene1, love is an  attitude, a desire to help, not an agreement.  Kent's effective  definition of love is the same as Cordelia's.  
What is the effect of - and what is the reason that - so many characters in Lear are disguised: both Kent and Edgar amongst the 'good' characters will spend most of the play hiding their identities, while obviously Edmund, Goneril and Regan hide their true natures.  For the bulk of the play, simple and plain 'Truth' cannot 'appear': it must be hidden or distorted (think of the Fool's riddles/jokes).  Relate this,  possibly,  to Cordelia's exile.  (Cordelia-a figure for the simple 'Truth')
..not stay a jot.. Lear's entry into the scene.  There is immediately the same peremptory tone as in scene 1.  Isn't there something infantile about Lear's demands for immediate satisfaction?  If there is, isn't there some substance to Goneril's complaints - old fools are babes again - ?  Except that her tone, attitude, is wrong.  Lear, in his tragedy, is not an innocent victim - in these early scenes he is indeed insufferable in his rashness, temper, foolishness.  But everything depends on the attitude towards these faults:  Kent, the Fool, even Cordelia,  know Lear's limitations - but they still love him - according to their bond, which is not conditional - and that love shows itself by attempting to correct the errors caused by weaknesses.  Goneril's tone, by contrast, is too simply reductive: the eyes of love can see weakness clearly (look at Kent's words to Lear in scene 1) - but they attempt to correct it for the sake of the one loved, not their own. Lear is insufferable, but Goneril has no care.
A man, sir. The plainest answer, obviously - almost aggressively so.  It seems like stating the obvious - except that others in the play (and in the real world) wouldn't define themselves in this way: the first element of self-definition would be in terms of status or job: that is, a definition in terms of social distinctions.  (Oswald, Goneril, Regan, you know, would define themselves in terms of their position: Edmund can't - yet, and it tears him up)
..no less then I seem.. Kent claims that, with regard to him, appearance and truth are the same.  (incidentally, isn't this phrase, at first sight, the wrong way round?  That is, shouldn't it be:  to be no more than I seem ?  Except, if you think about Goneril's and Regan's claims about their 'love' for their father in scene 1, by claiming more than is possible, they are merely showing how little their actual love is.
..as poor as the king.. An honest joke on Kent's part - calling Lear poor.  But Lear, in his present complacency, chooses to interpret it in a way that merely confirms his own sense of his role as king: a king is poor only in that a king has no one above him - he is the only person who does not possess someone he has to look up to.  Except that in this scene, Lear will begin to discover that he has people who he has to look up to, who he is dependant on, now : his daughter, Goneril.
authority In Kent's view of the world, there are people who possess, in themselves, status and power.  What Kent's sentence implies is that, even without knowing that Lear is king, he possesses something about him, in his own person, something that demands respect.  This 'authority' is his by virtue of who he is, rather than acquired by learning and competence.
..mar a curious tale in telling it The first three 'qualities' that Kent claims are all to do with speech: honesty, plainness, and an inability to tell complicated, fanciful stories.  Like Cordelia, Kent can only tell the plain, unembellished truth.
So please you.. Oswald's response to the king's direct question is merely formally polite, inattentive.  Oswald is following Goneril's instructions in scene 3: put on what weary negligence you please.
..the world's asleep. Lear, for the first time probably in his life, is finding that his orders, his calls for attention, are not being instantly obeyed - by Oswald and the other servants, because they are following Goneril's instructions, by the Fool for a somewhat different reason: he is depressed by Cordelia's absence.
ceremonious affection This unnamed knight points out to Lear what he has noticed: that Lear is being deliberately ignored and snubbed by both Goneril's servants and Goneril herself.  But note how cautious the knight is in pointing this out: he feels he has to be apologetic: I beseech you, pardon me, my lord, if I be mistaken.. He knows what Kent's fate was in scene 1 when he had to point out unpalatable truths.  But this time Lear is more receptive - Thou but rememberest me of mine own conceptions.. A small step, maybe, but Lear is beginning to have to notice what reality is, separate to his own desires and wishes.
Since my young lady's.. The Fool is pining at Cordelia's absence, and Lear's stupidity in casting her off.
It is odd that the Fool only appears in the play when Cordelia is no longer present - and when Cordelia returns, he disappears from it.  Cordelia and the Fool never appear in a scene together.  Lear's And my poor fool is hang'd (Act 5 scene 3, line 304) probably refers to Cordelia - but it could equally well  refer to the Fool, especially as he has disappeared out of the play without explanation.
my lady's father Oswald's response,  to what Lear asks as what he thinks is an obvious question.  Oswald defines Lear in relation only to his daughter - since it is the daughter that now has the power.  Lear has now only  a secondary, dependent identity in Oswald's eyes.  Lear's question Who am I? in fact is going to become a real and substantial question - for Lear himself, from this time on.  (If he isn't, in any meaningful sense, the King - then who is he - since being king has hitherto been the effective and only definition of who he is)
I'll teach you differences Kent is re-affirming the social distinctions, those distinctions being necessary to the proper functioning of society.  Oswald has treated Lear as an equal - being merely negligently polite, bandying looks (exchanging looks, looking straight at the king).  By knocking him down, Kent re-asserts the difference between the King's and the servant's status.