King Lear and Doctor Faustus: similarities and differences - Essay Example

?KING LEAR AND DOCTOR FAUSTUS: SEDUCED BY EVIL, BUT WITH DIFFERENT TRAGIC FLAWS Introduction There are many similarities between King Lear and Gloucester in King Lear to Dr. Faustus, in Doctor Faustus. King Lear is the story of a King who gives his kingdom away to duplicitous and evil daughters, while he banishes his good daughter for not being sufficiently obsequious. Gloucester, a character in King Lear, also has an evil child and a good child, and, like Lear, is seduced by the evil child and ignores the good child. Doctor Faustus deals with supernatural evil, that of the demon Mephistophilis and Lucifer himself. The similarities regard how all the men are seduced. The difference is in the nature of their tragic flaw. All the men are seduced by evil, and all the men have good at their fingertips, but are unable to capitalize on the good. The major difference is that Lear and Gloucester were simply fools, but Faustus was not and should have known better. Therefore, Lear’s tragic flaw was his foolishness, and Faustus was his stubborn pride. Both men are seduced by evil. In Lear’s case, evil takes the form of his daughters, Goneril and Regan. Both daughters are the same – duplicitous, hateful, with no conscience. In the beginning, they use their words to get what they want from the King, which is 2/3 of his kingdom. They both use empty flattery to accomplish this. Then, when they get what they want, they promptly use their newfound gains for evil. They insult their father, and, in a fiery exchange, Lear leaves the daughters in the middle of a storm. The reason for this is because the daughters had put his faithful emissary, the Duke of Kent, in the stocks for speaking ill of Oswald, who is Regan’s steward. They also pluck out the eyes of Gloucester, because Gloucester allegedly was helping France in a plot against the Duke of Cornwall, who was Regan’s husband. Gloucester’s other “sin” was helping the King after he left the daughters’ castle. Similarly, Gloucester suffered the same as King Lear, in that he put his faith in an evil son, Edmund, who informed on him about Gloucester’s alleged plot against Cornwall. Like Lear, Gloucester also had a good child, Edgar, but he was unable to see this, just like Lear. There is every indication that Lear and Gloucester should have known better. After all, they raised these children. They should have known that these children were evil. They also should have known that their good children, Lear’s Cordelia and Gloucester’s Edgar, were good. That they could not see this until it was too late would imply that both men were foolish. While King Lear could also be said to have a tragic flaw of pride, in that it was his pride that induced him to seek insincere words from his daughters, his bigger flaw was simply blindness. Gloucester had a bit more of a reason not to understand that Edmund was evil, as Edmund was his illegitimate son, and Edgar was his legitimate son. Nevertheless, having raised Edgar, Gloucester should have understood that Edgar’s character was that of a faithful and kind man. Gloucester is spiritually blind, then becomes literally blind. Both men’s tragic flaw was there blindness and ignorance. As with Lear, Faustus in Dr. Faustus was seduced by evil. Unlike Lear, the evil in Faustus’ case took the form of an ugly creature, Mephistophilis. Mephistophilis appears to Faustus because Faustus abjured the holy trinity. When Mephistophilis appears, Faustus agrees to give the Devil soul in exchange for 24 years on earth, where Mephistophilis will serve him and give him his every want. The reason for this is nothing more than the fact that Faustus was bored. He was a learned man in science, medicine, philosophy and divinity, and he found all of this lacking. The irony, of course, is that he sold his soul to the Devil, yet he did not do anything good with his powers. He could have done anything – help the poor, heal the sick, find new cures for disease, etc. What he chose to do with his power, however, was silly things – he plays pranks on the Pope, he conjures up Alexander the Great briefly, he puts horns on a man’s head, etc. Therefore, his “bargain” did not do himself or the world any good. However, unlike Lear, Faustus not only should have known better than to do what he did, but he did know better. Faustus was not a foolish man. In fact, he was probably a genius, in that he was so learned in so many difficult subjects. He understood the bargain that he was making, unlike Lear, who believed that his bargain was in his best interest. Faustus had to understand the bargain, because it was well explained to him, and Mephistophilis at first tries to dissuade him from making it. Faustus’ fatal flaw therefore was not his foolishness and blindness, unlike Lear and Gloucester, but his pride. He wanted people to revere him, and he figured that the best way to do this would be to impress them with his magic tricks. He wanted to have a servant who would give him anything he wanted, because he was bored with his life. He also thirsted for power, and this what brought him to dark magic, which, in turn, brought him to Mephistophilis. As noted above, in both Lear and Faustus, there is another similarity – Lear, Gloucester and Faustus had, at their fingertips, a means for salvation. Lear had Cordelia, who was the only faithful daughter. Cordelia was banished because she did not sufficiently flatter Lear when he asked her to give him words of love in exchange for one third of the kingdom. Cordelia would have done anything to help him, and, in fact, did help him towards the end, after Lear had been betrayed by his evil daughters and goes mad because of it. Gloucester had Edgar, his good and faithful son, who was always looking out for Gloucester and Lear. After Gloucester was blinded by Goneril, Regan and Cornwall, Edgar finds him and helps him. In Faustus’ case, the play makes clear that Faustus, even though he had made a bargain with the Devil, could always turn back to Christ and be redeemed, at any time. Faustus did not give his life to Christ, however, and he ends up condemned in the end. Therefore, one could say that Lear and Gloucester were reunited with the good in their lives, even if it was too late. Faustus, however, was never reunited with the good in his life, so this is another difference between the men. Conclusion In King Lear, the King is a foolish man, as is his good friend, Gloucester. These men do not understand the nature of their evil children, and they paid the price because of this. Lear is essentially banished from his own kingdom, and Gloucester ends up physically blind, which matches his spiritual blindness. On the other hand, Doctor Faustus, with his learned ways, is intelligent but prideful. He wants power and prestige, and a respite from boredom, so he sells his soul to the Devil. Each of the men in each of the plays, however, could have been redeemed if they would have put their faith in the good in their lives. That none of the men did until it was too late was the ultimate tragedy. Read More