Sara Kaplan
English 504.02
Advanced Shakespeare
Stephan Flores
Critical Summary
February 17, 2005
The Marriage of Text and Context through Metaphor in
Richard McCoy's “Look upon me, Sir”: Relationships in King Lear
In "'Look upon me, Sir': Relationships in King Lear," Richard McCoy argues that only through close textual analysis can the reader of Shakespeare's King Lear appreciate social contexts used to interpret relationships. Furthermore, McCoy argues that the metaphoric language of King Lear (specifically referencing God and the body) forces the reader to acknowledge the significance of one's physical presence in order to have a fulfilling relationship. Paul Alpers is McCoy's main inspiration for this argument because Alpers “deployed the techniques of close reading to blast increasingly glib generalizations about the play's 'sight pattern'” (Alpers qtd 46). McCoy's essay analyzes the relationships of Edgar and Gloucester and Cordelia and Lear. Though privileging the text as the primary source, he explains how contemporary theories (such as feminism, queer theory, deconstruction, and New Historicism) consider the presence of the body as significant in defining relationships (46-47).
After reviewing the criticism from which his argument derives, McCoy begins his analysis of Edgar's relationship with his father, Gloucester. Edgar is a “problematic figure” according to McCoy because he both “moralizes” while also being “smug” (47). McCoy cites Maynard Mack, argues that Edgar is a “Morality figure” who creates “adversity” as well as “compassion” (47). Edgar plays two roles, thereby complicating his character. McCoy shows through the text that Edgar's “'mind much sufferance doth o'erskip'” showing Edgar's emotional conflict (47). Finally, McCoy shows how Edgar's conflicted emotions reflect upon his relationship with Gloucester because Edgar saves his life (48).
McCoy brings the reader back to the body and “identity” within the context of Edgar (48). McCoy explains that Edgar has defeated his brother and he decides to reveal his “identity” and “the story of his flight and disguise and his sufferings and struggles” (48). Unfortunately, as McCoy shows with further textual proof, Edgar, though heroic, was “remarkably harsh,” “smug,” and “misogynistic” when he refers to his father's blindness and his “brother's bastard origins” (48).
What is even more unfortunate is that, finally, “the errant father and loyal son are reunited and can truly recognize one another for who they are,” but Gloucester dies, not being strong enough to sustain his emotions and Edgar never receives his father's blessing (Mc Coy 48). Therefore, McCoy explains that though the father and son “recognized” one another, Edgar's harsh sentiments, combined with Gloucester's overwhelming emotions, destroyed a lasting reunion.
McCoy explains how Edgar's identity is revealed; Gloucester dies before they can have a true relationship—so there is recognition, but no relationship. However, this “poignant but 'good' death, permits a kind of emotional and moral equilibrium… in a rhapsodic discordia concors”; there is chaos and control (49). McCoy refers back to Alpers regarding the contradictions surrounding Gloucester's death and his relationships with Edgar. Alpers adds that “'physical wholeness, presence, and contact…[require] Gloucester's moral recognition…about Edgar as Edgar—a real person and a real son, not merely…an abstract truth'' (49). McCoy reminds the reader that Edgar actually reveals himself offstage and Edgar's morals are questioned when he describes his father's death stating that “his father's heart 'burst smilingly'” contrasting his father's suffering with Edgar's “characteristic smiling spin” whereby he seems to find some thrill in his father's death (49).
After analyzing the complexities of Edgar's relationship (or not) with his father, McCoy complicates bodily recognition and relationships with Cordelia and Lear. Cordelia constantly chases after her father but, “Lear savagely disowns her” (McCoy 49). Cordelia, after being rejected, “sent to aid him” but he goes mad; and where there was discordia concors between Edgar and Gloucester, Lear's madness is “far too volatile” for any harmony (McCoy 50).
Finally, as McCoy suggests, though Lear is mad, he does achieve reconciliation with Cordelia, but because of his “struggle… At first he succumbs to despair…Upon waking and seeing her, he is convinced that he has died and gone to hell…” (50). McCoy textually shows how like Edgar and Gloucester's reunion and reconciliation and recognition, there is turmoil and the relationship cannot sustain itself despite “the prospect of genuine benediction” (51).
McCoy suggests that Cordelia is not the only one in the relationship who was “recognized;” Lear was also revealed, and he becomes mad to “regain some control” (51). Hiding identity can be a means of control. Cordelia tries to regain Lear's love by insisting that he “'look upon me, Sir'” and he “evidently hears and sees what she means”; McCoy adds that “Lear's acknowledgement of his errors and their consequences is not complete, but it suffices” (51). When he actually “looks upon” her, he is forced to recognize her bodily presence.
McCoy examines the sincerity of Lear's repeated posturing and his attempt to “prolong that moment indefinitely” when he finally “look[ed] upon” and recognized her, but this “inevitably diminishes his comprehension of their significance” and he cannot recall why it was so important to actually see her; their relationship thereby diminishes.
After McCoy analyses the complexities of the two relationships, he further examines the language (the text) of the play in terms of its “disturbing god-talk” explaining how the body is not only important to sustain relationships, but the “god-talk” and the “body” becomes metaphysically metaphorical (53). After citing several examples from the play and the historical significance of the Eucharist in Catholicism and Calvinism, McCoy summarizes Theodore Beza who explains that “communion establishes relationships among believers and God”(55). Therefore, communion is a metaphor for the physical contact. McCoy then defends the argument that metaphor “reinforces” the notion that the play is “fiction” to those that might argue that “physical contact as a metaphor seems contradictory”; rather, it is how their presence is used within the play that is metaphoric (55).
McCoy examines how the body and physical contact are used in King Lear's death scene with Cordelia's corpse, metaphorically. Lear “clings to the hope that she might revive” (56). McCoy cites the literary critic, Michael Goldman who explains that Lear cannot distinguish between life and death because he holds her body, literally; however, she is also dead and has no presence—her body is meaningful and meaningless (56).
McCoy returns to the theorists he originally mentioned and how their theories relate to the text. Throughout the essay, McCoy repeatedly returns to the text to support each of his claims. McCoy refers to Kathleeen McLuskie, a feminist critic, who explains that we cannot understand the drama and language if we cloud the text with pure emotional responses (57). Lear actually addresses both the “actors and audience” to “Look there, look there!” (57). Again, McCoy suggests that we be sympathetic and acknowledge the passion of the text, but that we do not become enveloped in its fiction.
Lastly, McCoy shows that we can understand the metaphors (the text) in our own lives, therefore, the play is successful for the reader (58). The text directs the audience to “'look there' at the bodies of Lear and Cordelia,” forcing us to recognize and have a relationship to the text, but also understand how it is applicable to our social and cultural contexts (58).
Work Cited
McCoy, Richard C. “'Look upon me, Sir': Relationships in King Lear." Representations 81 (Winter 2003): 46-60.