King Lear Lateness Essay

In Lyell Asher’s “Lateness in King Lear,” he discusses the retrospectivity of mostly King Lear but also minor characters and analogizes Lear and Gloucester. The first part of his article starts by juxtaposing Gloucester’s acknowledgment of the conception of his son Edmund to Lear’s division of his kingdom. Asher states that these events follow a “first the deed, then the naming of the deed” pattern, but I think “deed” can be used loosely here (Asher, page 209). This pattern of knowing and then acknowledging is significant because it shows a time lapse, so the reflection on the past could be brought about by time itself or simply because it was brought to attention later. Asher then dives into the true lateness of Lear himself, which is his age. He argues that being over 80 years old, his age not only constitutes for his rationality to divide his kingdom but also the questioning of his rationality (page 212). He also utilizes Lear’s old age to argue that Lear is turning “his attention so resolutely backward, toward the past” (page 214). This hones in on the lateness of Lear because it is now at the end of his life that he is acknowledging his existence and reign that can only be reflected upon and unchanged. In the second part of his article, he compares Gloucester at the edge of the cliff with Lear looking at his map to divide his kingdom, where both have reached

However, when he was comparing Lear to Oedipus, he focused a great deal on him and then briefly back on Lear. I particularly liked the second sectionof his argument about the comparison between Lear and Gloucester though. I felt that it also set up a good, brief foundation for his third section of his argument. These parts were persuasive for me because it didn’t just analyze the comparisons, but it also brought in several interrelated concepts that just added more substance to his