Page 58 - King Lear: The Cambridge Dover Wilson Shakespeare

INTRODUCTION liii
already clear, however, that I cannot agree with, its
author's interpretation.
Why does Edgar delay so long before revealing his
identity to his blinded father ? Edgar acknowledges that
this was a fault; but why should he have committed it?
And why does Kent not reveal his identity to Lear at the
beginning of the storm ? On the naturalistic plane there
is no reason why these revelations should not have been
made. And they would have given comfort to Lear and
Gloucester. Mr James sees in the failure of Edgar and
Kent to reveal themselves an indication that Shakespeare
is preoccupied with a world in which the good is not
allowed by the gods to intervene actively to palliate
suffering. 'Against the pure wickedness of Cornwall
and Edmund the beneficence of Edgar and Kent are
[sic] not allowed to work with any mitigation' (p. 108).
Lear and Gloucester are not granted this comfort—>
of knowing who these helpers are; but they are granted a
comfort—the helpers are there, and minister to them.
Neither of the suffering protagonists is left alone in his
agony. This is indeed some mercy. 'Solamen miseris
socios habuisse doloris.' In both plots Shakespeare keeps
a careful and subtle balance between providential mercy
and providential disciplining. On the one hand, Lear
and Gloucester are allowed to be devotedly attended;
on the other hand, they can win regeneration only
through purgatorial experience—their suffering must be
intense—it cannot be alleviated beyond a certain point—
they must not know who these attendants are until the
end: but the suffering produces a happy issue. Again:
in the final scene Edmund repents. Why, then, is
Cordelia not saved, as, by means of this turn in the plot,
she might easily have been? Perhaps the foregoing
explanation is relevant here too—Lear, about to be
redeemed, must suffer a Foutrance, but the redemption
is at hand. Or perhaps Shakespeare, seeing life whole, in