: Why do you think that Edgar did not reveal his identity to a father who he has heard say:
: Ah dear son Edgar, : The food of thy abused father's wrath- : Might I but live to see thee in my touch : I'd say I had eyes again.
: I would appreciate any thoughts. TOM; HERE'S MY GUESS. (1)IT SCREAMS 'PLOT DEVICE' TO ME. FROM MEMORY, THERE IS STILL A WAYS TO GO BEFORE THE PLAY CAN END, AND FOR THE SYMMETRY OF THE DENOUEMENT IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT EDGAR APPEARS AS A MYSTERY WARRIOR OF APPARENTLY LOW BIRTH. HAD HE ANNOUNCED HIMSELF TO POPS ANY EARLIER THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THWARTED. (2) ALSO CONSIDER THAT GLOUCESTER'S HEART 'BURST SMILINGLY' AFTER, REPEAT AFTER THE SIDE OF THE GOOD GUYS HAD DUSTED EDMUND'S LOT, IE THE PLAY CAN STAND TO LOSE HIM AS THE MORAL HE SERVES TO ILLUSTRATE HAS BEEN AMPLY UNDERLINED. (3)NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD 'EYES'; THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT HE HAS BEEN METAPHORICALLY BLIND TO THE VIRTUE OF EDGAR AND THE VICE OF EDMUND, AND AS THIS IS THE WORLD OF A SHAKESPEARE TRAGEDY THEN SORRY, GLOUCESTER ME OLD FRUIT, BUT YOU'RE DESTINED TO SUFFER A LITTLE BIT LONGER I'M AFRAID. SOME HAVE SAID THAT THIS SCENE, ALONG WITH LEAR'S DISCOVERY OF THE DEATH OF CORDELIA, SHOWS GRATUITOUS PORTRAYAL OF SUFFERING BY SHAHESPEARE. PERSONALLY I WOULD SAY IT IS A VERY SOBER ATTEMPT TO REINFORCE THE MORAL LESSON POINTED TO BY THE DOUBLE-PLOT OF THE PLAY. OR SOMETHING. HOPE THIS AIMLESS GIBBERING IS APPRECIATED. : Tom