In the first act, we got to witness how bad Goneril and Regan are as not only daughters, but as humans. Pushed by greed and envy, they swindled their father’s trust and dowries through flattery. Seeming to be the antagonists of the story, a third and even worse character is revealed in the second and third acts. The worst of them all, Edmund, proves to be their fearless and completely evil leader in the second part of Shakespeare’s play.
Having read Othello in the past, Iago is the only Shakespearian villain that is eviler than Edmund. Deceptive, cunning, and appearing to have no purpose, Iago causes death by lying to each character in Othello’s story. Like Iago, Edmund is pushed by weak jealousy and desire for purpose. A bastard child, Edmund thinks he is less loved than his brother Edgar, but there is no evidence for this, besides his father calling him certain slang terms for an illegitimate child.
Edmund’s tactics, which include fake letters, feigned swordfights with his good brother, and other lies, eventually lead to the bloodiest scene read so far in the play. Gloucester, a good man, who looks out for the good of his country and family, has his eyes cast out for “treason.” Even after Gloucester makes Edmund “capable” (2.1.86) early in act 2, meaning he will inherit all his property, he still craves more power. This drive for more power pushed by apparently nothing really shows the evil side of Edmund.
One of Edmund’s counterparts, Kent, also reveals himself to be one of the play’s best and most good willed characters in the play. In act 1, he snuffed out Goneril and Regan’s intentions with ease and was not afraid to speak out about it. Now, disguised as a fool, his “anger hath a privilege” (2.2.65). Angered by the evils of other characters, he lashes out at Oswald with insults that would put Nick Cannon’s Wild N’ Out to shame.
Kent’s passionate dialogue, beginning at line 2.2.13 and ending at line 22, sets the tone that this will be a angry, confrontational conversation. As a fan of rap music, I have not seen insults so clever and hilarious as a “one-trunk-inheriting slave” and a “son and heir of a mongrel bitch,” (2.2.17, 2.2.20). The threat “I will beat into a clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition” (2.2.21-2) is both hilarious and intimidating because of its menacing and witty language. It is why Shakespeare is one of my favorite authors of all time.
Author: Sean Macander
Irony in the General Prologue
In our anthology’s introduction to Geoffrey Chaucer, the first thing mentioned is the topic of the three estates in medieval social theory. Both the authors and Chaucer realize how important these estates and distinctions are to society. The aristocracy, clergy, and common each fill their own roles in society. By the time Chaucer was born, moving from class to class had become an attainable goal due to the Black Plague killing a large portion of the population. Skill and education became less of a demand, while labor and bodies to work powered the commoners into the upper class.
Chaucer’s father was a merchant in the common class at the beginning of his life. By the time the poet was an adult, his father earned enough money to propel Chaucer into the noble aristocracy. Chaucer provides the reader interesting insight into both classes, something that was uncommon in his time. The characters that he presents show his experiences and opinions, which are often humorous and ironic. Vivid description, irony, and poeticism are Chaucer’s main tools in at least the first part of these tales.
The first ironic character group is the Knight and his entourage. The noble servant himself, his son, and his yeoman are three completely different character types but in the same class. First, there is the Knight, an honorable, humble man who wears simple, rust-stained clothes without shame. His actions and war record speak for themselves. On the other hand, however, is his son. A young, well-dressed Squire, he is not necessarily a bad person, but provides a contrast to his father. While his father has survived the horrors of war, the squire cannot sleep because he is in love. Finally, the Yeoman, who may be even closer to the lay class than the nobles, hunts like a rich man. Chaucer chooses each of these characters to live three different types of the noble life.
The second class is the clergy class. Monks, nuns, and friars, who are supposed to represent the holy and honorable church, are not shown by Chaucer. Instead, he shows the Prioress, who is described as almost too beautiful for the church. The narrator has to restrain himself from talking about her looks too much. The two holy men are the most ironic characters described in the first part of the tales. The monk, who hunts and does not believe in the old rules of the saints, is a direct criticism of the Church in Chaucer’s times. Finally, there is the friar, a described ladies’ man who could take money from the poorest woman in town. These characters do not fit the description as clergy.
Finally, Chaucer describes the lay class. The merchant, clerk, and lawyer all have some tone of deception about them. The merchant hides his debt behind large cloaks. The clerk thinks intelligence will overcome his hunger. The lawyer thinks if he appears to be more busy, he will earn more money. Chaucer’s depiction of the three characters represent how the laity desire to be rich like the upper classes, but it tends to be more of a façade.