Foils in King Lear: Kent and Oswald

Matin Shariatian

Shakespeare’s plays are always rich in complex and interconnected characters which compare and contrast in such a way that an analysis of these characters reveals the themes of the play. King Lear is no exception to that. This play’s foils reveal the main themes carried in the story such as loyalty, nature, identity, love, etc… This essay will focus mainly on the theme of loyalty as it is the main theme carried by the characters that will be compared and contrasted in this text, Kent and Oswald, two servants with mostly, but not always, opposite natures. Kent and Oswald’s characters quite clearly contrast each other in many levels. Kent’s line “No contraries hold more antipathy/Than I and such a knave” (7, 84-85) is well representative of the connection of these two characters in the play. The most obvious contrast between the two is the people they serve. Kent’s master, King Lear, and Oswald’s master, Gonoril, are enemies in the story as the motivations and actions of one bring the other one down. This marks the most superficial difference between Kent and Oswald. Another aspect in which these two servants differ is their morality and values. Kent, an extremely loyal servant, motivated by defending his values, confronts Lear after the King banishes his daughter for being truthful. He explains “To plainness honour’s bound/ When majesty stoops to folly” (1, 139-140) meaning that he honors his value, plainness, more than the King’s judgment when he feels that the King is wrong. This is of course done in complete loyalty to the King, even though Lear’s blind to it, since Kent is trying to make Lear see that he is making a mistake. Therefore, when it would have been in his best interest to stay silent, Kent decided to speak out in defense of his values and in best interest of the King. However, when Oswald is placed is a similar situation, his actions differ from Kent’s. When he is told by Regan to murder Gloucester, he accepts this morally wrong task because there is a reward for him in doing so: “Preferment falls on him that cuts him off” (19, 38). Therefore, when refusing the task would have been the morally right thing to do, Oswald does what is in his self interest. Oswald’s actions are always done with his best interest in mind whereas Kent’s actions are done with the King’s best interest in mind. Kent and Oswald also differ majorly in the value of their loyalty. Kent, after being banished by his master, comes back disguised as “Caius” so that he could continue serving the King. This is revealed in scene 4: “Now, banished Kent, / if thou canst serve where thou dost stand condemned, / thy master, whom thou lov’st, shall find thee full of labour” (4, 4-6) showing that he is still willing to serve the King after being condemned by him. In fact, so great is Kent’s loyalty to Lear that he is willing to follow him even through death. After Lear’s death, when Kent is given the chance to rule the Kingdom with Edgar, he says that he has a “journey, sir, shortly to go” (24, 316) and that his “master calls” (24, 317) and he “must not say no” (24, 317) indicating that he is going to follow his master in death. Oswald’s loyalty, however, seems to be quite easy to buy. After being told by Regan that there is a reward in it for him if he kills Gloucester, Oswald responds that when he sees Gloucester, “I would show/What lady I do follow” (19, 38-39). Kent’s loyalty could not be bought with a kingdom whereas Oswald’s loyalty was bought with the promise of a reward. Another aspect in which they differ is in their attitudes. Scene 7 is a great example of Oswald’s flattering attitude and Kent’s plainness. When Kent confronts Oswald for disrespecting Lear, Oswald shows cowardly mannerisms by screaming “Help, ho, murder, help” (7, 36) after Kent draws his sword to fight him. But when Cornwall asks Oswald what this is all about Oswald claims to have spared Kent’s life “at suit of his gray beard” (7, 60), therefore showing that he is a liar. He later displays his flattery when he twists the story by saying that Kent attacked him to flatter the King. Ironically, Oswald has his way and Kent is the one accused of being the flatterer and is put in stockings, typical of the universe of King Lear where the good are punished and the bad, rewarded. Kent, however, refuses to flatter Cornwall throughout the scene and tells him “I know, sir, I am no flatterer” (7, 105) and that he will never be even “though I should win your displeasure to/entreat me to’t” (7, 107-108). This scene shows these two different methods of serving your master, one by acting out of self interest and the other by acting out of your master’s self interest. Kent and Oswald, however, are not different in all aspects. Even though these two characters differ greatly in many ways, they are similar in one, and that, ironically, is in their loyalty to their masters. This may seem paradoxical, since the same argument was used to show their differences, but it, in fact, is not. What differs is the value of their loyalty. Although Oswald accepted the task given to him by Regan in scene 7, he always kept his loyalty to Gonoril and never showed Regan the letter he was carrying, even after Regan’s insistence to see it. In fact, throughout the whole play, Oswald never betrays Gonoril and always follows her orders. Though their motivations may be different, one could say is that Oswald is as loyal to Gonoril as Kent is to Lear. Kent is loyal to Lear because it is in Lear’s best interest and Oswald is loyal to Gonoril mostly because it is in his best interest. In scene 20, however, a strange thing occurs. After being slain by Edgar, Oswald tell him to “give the letters which thou find’st about me/To Edmund, Earl of Gloucester” therefore trying to complete his mission after death when it is no longer in his best interest to do so. The fact that he does this shows a strange level of devotion that was never seen before by him, showing the presence of a strange honor among the evil doers and giving them a sense of humanity. Kent and Oswald have very interesting parallels and contrasts in this play. Though it looks like they are complete opposites, they are actually alike in a major aspect, that is, their loyalty to their masters. This goes to demonstrate how in Shakespeare’s plays, just like in real life, things aren’t always what they seem.

Works Cited:
Shakespeare, William. The Oxford Shakespeare King Lear. New York: Oxford University Publishing Inc., 2001. Print.