1. By exploring the dramatic presentation of Edmund in King Lear, evaluate the view that he is
‘beyond redemption’.
Unpack quotation – ‘beyond redemption’
Redemption – forgiveness, atonement from sin, rescue, divine deliverance.
Repenting involves contrition, confession and an attempt to make amends according to Aquinas
Critical starting points
‘chief agent and prime mover’ ‘powerful intellect and a strong energetic will’ but it is ‘pride’ that his
undoing (Samuel Taylor Coleridge)
It is does ‘not seem inevitable’ (AC Bradley on Edmund’s reversion)
Kenneth Muir- Edmund shows ‘the gradual workings of redemption’
Key points/ paragraph plans
Yes – Machiavellian villain/ Renaissance self-fashioner, defying ‘custom’> in a way he is beyond
theological redemption as he doesn’t even it acknowledge. A lustful, animalistic view of nature as his
‘goddess’ suggests he is almost beyond redemption in the Christian sense of the word.Satan/ P Lost
energy/ soliloquies/ ‘motiveless malignity’ Iago (Coleridge on Othello)/ Don John in Much Ado About
Nothing – Granville Barker: ‘half brother to Iago’
- Self-defining opening speech, plosive b almost shattering the metre he so confidently adopts;
power of language but also sexuality (we also assume he is good looking, evidenced by
carnal lust of Goneril and Regan). He will not ‘stand in the plague of custom’ – moment of
energy but also confusion for the audience; how should they respond?
- Appeals to an unrestricted ‘Nature’ – rebels against conventionalities of nature (e.g great
chain of being advocated by Lear where nature issues punishment and weather reflects the
overturn of power – his cry for winds to ‘Blow’). Edmund’s understanding of this conceptual
metaphor becomes associated with lust/ overturn of convention. His sexualised language
reflects this where he imagines ‘top’ th’legitimate’ Edgar – its pun on tupping suggesting an
animalistic sexual dominance – as well as the opportunity for an actor to add lewd actions to
his vow of tumescence!
- Satan/ P Lost energy/ soliloquies/ ‘motiveless malignity’ Iago (Coleridge on Othello)/ Don
John in Much Ado About Nothing – Granville Barker: ‘half brother to Iago’Energy of
soliloquies/ opportunistic approach; initial aim is get Edgar’s land. As the kingdom falls, he
adapts to the news that Cornwall and Regan are at the castle and prepares to exploit their
presence. Like Iago – prepared to succeed at any cost. Narrative of ‘self-fashioning’ tricks the
other characters (although it is less clear in Lear the extent to which Edmund causes the key
downfalls; Gloucester’s eyes are gouged out because he helps Lear) Stephen Greenblatt
calls moments like this ‘the improvisation of power’ – authority is established in moments
where order (political, theological, sexual etc) is violated – like Marlowe’s heroes, the
renaissance self-fashioner seeks to shatter restraints. Esp. compared to people like Kent with
his selfless loyal service.
- His actions and behaviour allow us to feel little redemption – betrayal of father with letter
concerning French invasion, stolen from his father causes Gloucester’s punishment.
Noticeably, evidence given against his father shows a sanctimonious lack of remorse and
elsewhere in the play makes it hard to pity him (and likewise, believe him when he is
remorseful at the end). For example, act 3, sc5 ‘How malicious is my fortune, that I must
repent to be just?’ / ‘I will persevere in my course of loyalty, though the conflict be sore
between that and my blood.’
- He causes the death of Lear and Cordelia; pivotal role in catastrophic climax. Double murder
only action he directly takes upon himself, although he doesn’t actually commit it himself ‘to
be tender minded, does not become the sword’

2. - Imagery: ‘toad spotted traitor’ - toad secretes poison/ toad squatting and plotting (lack of
activity); ‘spotted’ – sins?
- Death because he has ‘over-reached – defeated by nobility/ victim of his own arrogance.
Denied the redemption of a tragic hero – slow, laborious and ultimately futile redemption
Yes- dichotomy between Edmund and Edgar highlights it further; good v evil, manifests itself in
the final battle/ bugle call. Edgar as victor
- His collapse at the end is a sign of his ‘ineffectuality/ egoism’ (Robert Heilman), just as his
downfall is ego in answering a nameless challenge.
- Spiritual climax of the plot – Edgar and Edmund- one rises as the other falls
No – victim of patriarchal society/ Marxist reading ‘God stand up for bastards’ (destroyed even by
G and R); ultimately destroyed by system, evidenced by language and treatment by Albany at end of
play – a ‘subject of this war, not a brother’. Within the context of Renaissance drama, bastards cleary
go against the hegemony i.e. an ideology that defends a particular aristocratic mode of property
inheritance.
- Society of Lear ruled by a loving that is associated with division and share e.g. who Lear
‘values’ most. Lear’s call for quantified loving sets up the subplot of Gloucester, lust corrupting
love. First mention of Edmund, Glou. refers to his ‘breeding’, whilst the silent figure of
Edmund is on stage. Bawdy jokes and reference to ‘whoreson’ degrading; he is categorised
as a product of lust. In Jacobean society, the principles of legitimacy and succession were to
key to maintaining the hierarchy, ensuring political stability and continuity. Edmund’s status as
a bastard/ character represents a destabilising force (corruption/ anti-establishment/ links to
GP plot and prescient of Civil War)
- Devoured by ‘tigers’ – Goneril and Regan – soliloquy in act 5, sc 1 ‘To both these sisters have
I sworn my love…Which one of them shall I take? Both? One? Neither?’
- Power struggle evident in differences in quarto and folio – in Q, Edmund behaves with
confidence at Albany’s suggestion of sounding the bugle to prove his innocence (he defiantly
calls for Albany to sound the trumpet), whereas in the folio, he seems trapped by Albany (he
cries ‘Let the trumpets sound’ and Edmund is silent) – ‘neither can be enjoyed/ If both remain
alive’
- Regan: ‘I create thee here/ My lord and master.’
No – Edmund merely part of a wider schematic in KL to turn the world upside down./ sub plot
as a tool to highlight young over old (reflection of Goneril and Regan). Another person of lower status
affected by chaos and turmoil. Malign universe taking over – ultimately futile
- Lear notes that he has ‘ta’en too little care of this’; fracture within society reflected within his
own court, via Gloucester and his affair/ his raucous knights (perhaps a criticism of James I,
insisting on absolute values, whilst quick to abscond responsibility to his courtiers who
abused their position)
- In a way, the court facilitates Edmund’s succession, evidenced by the responsive reactive
stage play and frequent soliloquies often directed to the audience in the early stages – as
though opportunities are almost too good to be missed. In Nunn’s 2007 version, actor shows
a sense of glee/ pantomime villain that is hard to resist, particularly considering the tantrums
of Lear and the power struggles of his daughters – more inclined to side with the under-dog.
- Gloucester’s comment; ‘loyal and natural boy’ when he disowns Edgar in favour of Edmund
- Parallel progression in plots occurs – Edgar becomes part of king – Regan’s questions
notably call Edgar ‘my father’s godson’ – ‘did my father’s godson seek your life?’
- ‘The younger rises when the old doth fall’; allying himself with Goneril and Regan; also lexicon
suggests it is ‘natural’ (although conceptions of nature are not fixed in the play)
- His downfall is caused by too many opportunities? Shakespeare’s irony – victim of too much
prosperity - both sisters!

3. No – ‘I pant for life. Some good I mean to do…’ Final turn at the end of the play. Feminist reading;
ending more satisfying? Actively pursues desires – allowed to atone for himself.
- Failure to be Machiavelli’s ‘facile in deceit and craft like the fox, boldness and fierceness of a
lion’ (the prince)
- Apparently recognises love at last/ sees clearly – Wilson Knight suggests he ‘recognises love
at last, its power, its divinity’
- ‘the wheel is come full circle, I am here’ – wheel analogy
- His spiritual crisis is difficult though – track dramatic structure and stages of redemption
o Realises he has lost all ; first confession of sins: ‘What you have charged me with,
that I have done/ And more, much more; the time will bring it out;/ Tis past and so am
I. However, he doesn’t yet confess the ‘more’ (cordelia and lear)
o Curiosity to know his attacker’s identity (although driven by fear that he has been
killed by a commoner!) – reputation, status and dignity are suddenly important to him:
‘Let’s exchange charity’ ‘no less in blood than thou art’
o Empathy – ‘touched’ by Edgar’s story about helping Glocester – still struggling with
conscience – ‘speak on’ – as he doesn’t yet confess about lear. Postpones action,
lapses into the role of a listener- ‘inertia of immorality’ (Waldo McNeir) – again as
same seen with Goneril and Regan
o Recognition of love – deaths of G and R: ‘yet Edmund was beloved’ – reflection
suggests turning point in morality (however, isn’t this lust not love?
o Act of reparation: ‘some good I mean to do despite mine own nature’ however it is
ultimately futile. Penance isn’t good enough?
Conclusion
- Shallow opportunist who lacks Tybalt’s fire or Iago’s ingenuity – overmatched by women;
temporizes between good and evil but never really understands the nature of virtue and vice,
highlighted by the characters around him. Ultimately he ‘chooses’ Goneril and Regan – united
in death. Verge of faith into the abyss of evil. Arguably he has no real beliefs at all and a
moral weakness which ultimately causes the two key catastrophes of the play. He underlines
the tragic futility of the play – opportunity/ fate creates tragedy.