Ms Cotter's Class

Overview:

The character of Kent performs a number of dramatic functions in the play:

Kent is the epitome of fidelity in the play- he remains absolutely and unquestionably faithful to Lear throughout and serves as a foil to the treacherous and immoral characters as well as providing much needed relief from the cynical evil and nihilistic themes evident in the play

His loyalty to Lear reminds us that Lear is fundamentally good, though flawed. His unwavering loyalty and staunch devotion to the king suggests that there was once a version of the king that inspired such feelings in Kent

Kent maintains the link between Lear and Cordelia and indeed between the audience and Cordelia 

Similarly, Kent updates the audience on important military and political developments in the play 

Kent provides important commentary on Lear’s mental state 

Kent’s fate is inextricably tied to Lear’s- he will not take over the Kingdom at the end of the play because his duty has always been first and foremost to serve Lear- Albany and Edgar are sufficient 

Question: Is Kent actually necessary? Would Gloucester not have been able to fulfil the same dramatic function? Or Cordelia? 

Analysis of Kent’s role in the play

Immediately, Kent is established as the voice of reason and serves to draw attention to the gravity of Lear’s impulsive behaviour in the opening scene, stating ‘be Kent unmannerly when Lear is mad… thinks’t thou that duty shall have dread to speak when power to flattery bows?’ He calls Lear’s decision ‘hideous rashness’ and urges him to ‘see better.’ His plain, forward and honest language contrasts with the hollow flattery of Lear’s scheming daughters. Although his criticism of Lear’s decision-making enrages the King, it is motivated by his deep-seated loyalty and concern for Lear, as he states ‘my life I never held but as a pawn to wage against thy enemies; nor fear to lose it, thy safety being the motive.’ Indeed, this quote is central to Kent’s purpose in the play- he exists to protect Lear at all costs. 

Banishment does not prevent Kent from serving Lear. In scene 4, he returns, disguised as the lowly servant Caius to help Lear. Angered by Oswald’s disrespectful behaviour towards Lear (he calls him ‘My lady’s father’) he trips him. Later, he aggressively attacks Oswald, calling him ‘A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, super-serviceable finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave’. Kent is utterly disgusted at the treatment Lear has received at the hands of Goneril and her servant and does not attempt to conceal his contempt towards them. When questioned by Cornwall, Kent’s responses are blunt, as he notes himself ‘Sir, ‘tis my occupation to be plain.’ This bluntness is interpreted as ‘saucy roughness’ by Cornwall and Kent is subsequently punished like a common criminal by being placed in the stocks. He is only too aware of how deeply insulting this will be to Lear, telling Cornwall ‘you shall do small respect, show too bold malice against the grace and person of my master, stocking his messenger.’ Once more, Kent’s central concern is Lear’s welfare. In this instance, he also serves to highlight the conflict between Lear and his daughters.

Kent also serves a practical dramatic function in that he is a trusted and valuable source of information for the audience. While in the stocks, an undeniably low moment in the play, he reads a letter from Cordelia, imbuing the bleakness with a sense of hope. He now serves as the play’s only link to the physically absent Cordelia. We are informed that he will co-operate with her in restoring the kingdom to its former state of order. When Cordelia lands in Dover, Kent sends a messenger to her to inform her of Lear’s ‘unnatural and bemadding sorrow’. Not only does Kent act as a link between Cordelia and Lear, he also informs the audience about political and military developments. He tells us ‘there is a division, although as yet the face of it be covered…’twixt Albany and Cornwall.’ He also informs us that Cordelia is planning to invade with French forces to restore order to the kingdom ‘from France there comes a power into this scattered kingdom.’ Kent also comments on Lear’s diminished mental state, clarifying for the audience just how bewildered he has become. In Act 3, he tells us ‘all the power of his wits have given way to his impatience.’ Thus, Kent serves an important function in updating the audience on important dramatic developments in the play. 

Kent’s most admirable trait is his unwavering and unconditional loyalty to Lear. During Lear’s lowest moments in the play, Kent is present. He guides him into the hovel, as Lear asks ‘wilt break my heart?’ Kent response is wholly indicative of the love he feels for Lear ‘I had rather break mine own.’ At the end of the play, when Lear recognises him, asking ‘are you not Kent?’ Kent explains that he has been at Lear’s side throughout, stating he has followed his ‘sad steps.’ Kent demonstrates a wonderful sense of empathy for his king, urging the others to let Lear die in peace ‘vex not his ghost: O let him pass! He hates him that would upon the rack of this tough world stretch him out longer.’ Kent’s ultimate sign of devotion comes at the close of the play, as he refuses Albany’s offer of co-ruling with himself and Edgar, choosing to follow Lear in death. His noble statement, expressed poetically in iambic pentameter is among the most beautiful last words of any Shakespearean character and perfectly encapsulates Kent’s fidelity: ‘I have a journey, sir, shortly to go. My master calls me, I must not say no.’ This level of loyalty is inspiring, and reminds us of the fundamental goodness of Lear’s character. While Kent’s impending death is indeed tragic, the sacrifices he has made for Lear remind us of the innate good in humanity and are a reminder of compassion, love and loyalty; concepts which have been absent for large portions of the play. 

While Kent serves a rather practical function for much of the play, he is above all the epitome of loyalty in the disordered kingdom, placing his master’s needs before his own at all times. His role is significant, serving to remind us through the worst moments in the play of the beauty of fidelity and compassion. Kent counteracts the evil and nihilism in the play wonderfully and his impending death at the close of the play is the ultimate proof of his unwavering loyalty to his master.