The second act begins with the action taking place at the Earl of Gloucester’s castle. Curan, a man who serves Gloucester, informs Edmund that the Duke of Cornwall and Regan are coming to visit. At this point, then, the main plot (involving Lear and his daughters) and the subplot (involving Gloucester and his sons) start to merge.
Curan also informs Edmund that he has heard a rumor about a war that will soon erupt between Albany and Cornwall, and that is the reason why Cornwall is coming to visit Gloucester. Although this rumor is false, Edmund plans to use this information in his developing scheme to discredit Edgar and get Gloucester to disinherit him. The real reason for the visit by Cornwall and Regan is that they have heard about Lear’s plan to visit them: so, they wish to avoid the old king.
Edmund then speaks with Edgar and subtly accuses him of conspiring against Cornwall and taking the side of Albany. The region of Cornwall is in southwest England, and the various dukes of Albany actually presided in Scotland. Thus, Shakespeare implies that the Duke of Cornwall has become ruler over southern Britain and that the Duke of Albany has become ruler over northern Britain. The area of Gloucester, then, would be under Cornwall’s jurisdiction. Edmund thus tries to assert that Edgar is a traitor to Cornwall, who is his rightful ruler.
Edgar, of course, is not a traitor and has no idea why Edmund (or their father Gloucester) would think that he is. When the Earl of Gloucester appears, Edmund tells him that they must pretend to fight so that their father will not accuse Edmund of being a traitor as well. They briefly exchange a few passes with their swords, and Edgar then runs off. The sly and cunning Edmund then wounds himself with his own sword and tells Gloucester that Edgar did this to him. Thus, Edmund gains the sympathy of his father; and Gloucester becomes even angrier with Edgar.
Edmund adds fuel to Gloucester’s fire by telling him that Edgar tried to “persuade me to the murder of your lordship” (45). The gullible Gloucester believes Edmund, and the Earl then declares that the traitorous Edgar should be burned at “the stake” (63). Treachery and rebellion were serious crimes and were punishable by death.
Gloucester also declares that Edmund is no longer his son: “I never got him” (79). The word got here is short for begot (past tense of beget, to produce a child). Thus, the Earl of Gloucester disowns his honest and loyal son just as Lear had disowned his honest and loyal daughter.
Regan and her husband, the Duke of
Cornwall, arrive at Gloucester’s castle. They ask the Earl about the betrayal of his son and they tell Gloucester that they will assist him in capturing and executing Edgar. When Regan wonders whether Edgar was also one of the one hundred retainers who served Lear, Edmund also jumps on the chance to discredit Edgar even more and asserts that Edgar was indeed with Lear (at line 98).
The Duke of Cornwall also commends
Edmund for serving his father so loyally and promotes Edmund to be one of his own trusted retainers. Edmund humbly and gratefully replies, “I shall serve you, sir, truly” (117-18). However, in actuality, Edmund will continue to serve only himself.
The Earl of Kent, still in his disguise as a commoner, comes to Gloucester to deliver Lear’s message to Regan (that Lear is coming to stay with her and Cornwall). There Kent encounters Oswald, who has come to Gloucester to deliver Goneril’s own letter to Regan. Kent recognizes Oswald as the servant in Albany who acted rudely toward King Lear; and so Kent immediately confronts the offensive servant. Oswald, who took little notice of Lear’s followers, though, does not recognize Kent. Kent is still angry that any servant could be so uncivil and discourteous to a king, and he begins to give Oswald a thorough tongue-lashing (criticism and verbal abuse). When Oswald tells Kent that he cares not for him, Kent responds with the following: “If I had thee in Lipsbury pinfold, I would make thee care for me” (8-9). The word pinfold refers to an enclosure (or fenced-in area) used to keep animals secure. The word Lipsbury is an imaginary place name. Kent uses the two words to suggest that if he had his teeth securely fastened around Oswald (if he had him buried in his lips), then he would rip him to pieces. Kent feels that Oswald deserves the punishment of a traitor, and he is ready to give it to him.
Kent then goes into a long and rather eloquent series of words and phrases to curse out Oswald. He begins by calling Oswald “a knave, a rascal, an eater of broken meats” (13). The words broken meats refer to table scraps, the kind thrown to the dogs. Thus, Kent is suggesting that Oswald is a lowly dog who acts poorly and obnoxiously in return for rewards that are little better than garbage.
Several lines later Kent calls Oswald a
“whoreson cullionly barber-monger” (28). The word cullion comes from the medieval French word for testicle and was used derogatively in England to refer to a base or vile man. The last part of this phrase indicates that Oswald spends too much time at the hair-dresser’s shop. He is a prettified dandy who cares more about his appearance than he does about honor or courage. Oswald, then, is similar to Osric in Hamlet and to the arrogant “popinjay” messenger in Henry IV, Part 1 (described in Act I, Scene 3). All three of these characters represent a certain type of effeminate courtier that appeared in London during the Renaissance. Shakespeare probably knew at least one of these types of courtiers quite well, and his literary characters may be an indirect criticism of him (or them).
Kent’s anger rises to a pitch, and he draws his sword to fight Oswald. Oswald, who is wearing a sword, is a coward who refuses to defend himself. Instead, he screams out for help. So, Kent physically beats him.
The beating and screaming of Oswald becomes rather loud, and Cornwall and Regan (along with Gloucester and Edmund) come outside to break up the quarrel. Oswald becomes brave now that help has arrived, and he tells Cornwall that he “spared” the life of Kent even though Kent acted so rudely and violently (line 54). Kent becomes even angrier at the lie just told by Oswald and tries to beat him so more (but is held back by Cornwall’s servants). Cornwall demands that Kent behave. Of course, Cornwall does not recognize Kent and does not know that he is an aristocrat.
Kent tries to explain himself to Cornwall. Kent tells the Duke that Oswald is a rogue or rascal, and he also uses a simile to describe Goneril’s servant:
Like rats, oft-bite the holy cords a-twain
Which are too intrinse t’unloose. (66-67)
Kent is saying that Oswald, like a rat that bites a rope into two parts, bites or severs the holy or sacred ties between humans (parent and child, husband and wife, master and servant, king and followers). Such holy cords or connections are too intricately tied or formed to untie or unloose easily. Oswald is a gnawing rat that uses his sharp teeth (his malicious methods) to violently separate parent and child (Lear and Goneril) or master and servant (Lear and Kent). Kent also adds that the slick Oswald uses flattery and lies to smooth or to justify the wild passions or emotions of his lord (or lady). Kent is suggesting that Oswald is not to be trusted.
Cornwall, however, is far more offended by the angry and blunt Kent. The disguised earl offends Cornwall when he bluntly asserts that he has “seen better faces” than any of those standing in front of him at that moment (line 85). By the word better, Kent means more loyal and honest. The dishonest but shrewd Cornwall realizes that the honest and plain-speaking Kent could be dangerous to him (at lines 93-94). Just as it happened at the beginning of this play with Cordelia, speaking plainly and honestly will not help Kent’s cause in this scene.
Oswald informs Cornwall about what had happened at the palace of Albany and Goneril. Kent comments that rascals such as Oswald make even great heroes like Ajax appear to be fools (lines 11516). Ajax was a great Greek hero who fought during the Trojan War and was praised for rescuing the body of Achilles. Kent is suggesting that if Oswald told the story about Ajax, the great hero would appear to be cowardly and dishonorable. Oswald, then, turns the truth inside out. Oswald lies. However, since Cornwall is already against Lear and his retainers, the Duke ignores Kent’s comment and disregards his defense for acting angrily and violently against Oswald.
Cornwall then decides to punish Kent by having him put in the stocks (locked in a wooden framework that would be placed around the ankles – and sometimes also around the wrists – of a prisoner). Such a punishment would not only be uncomfortable but could also be physically tortuous. Kent argues that he is too old for such a punishment.
He also argues that out of respect for the king, the king’s messenger (namely Kent himself) should be treated better. But Lear is no longer king. As the Fool had warned Kent, the Earl is more of a fool himself for entering the service of a king without a kingdom.
Cornwall orders that Kent should remain in the stocks for the entire morning, but the Duke’s vile wife Regan changes the order so that Kent must remain in the stocks all day and all night. The Earl of Gloucester attempts to get Regan to change her mind, but neither she nor Cornwall will budge. They are both stubborn and cruel.