Nietzsche, King Lear, and the Noble Mentality

Clara Neubauer

Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher whose writings on human psychology have had a great influence on Western philosophy. In On the Genealogy of Morals, he describes human psychology in terms of two main categories: noble and slave mentality. Each of these categories has distinct personality types and actions; briefly, the noble mentality loves that which enables it to say yes as emphatically as possible to itself, while the slave mentality despises and resents that which goes against it. In King Lear, three of the characters, King Lear, Cordelia, and Edmund, serve as good examples of these two categories. While King Lear and Cordelia are both nobles (in the literal sense as well as in Nietzsche’s terms), they express this nobility in quite different ways. Though they share the same fundamental strong-willed and self-valuing attitude, Lear asserts himself in a rash and often delusional manner, while Cordelia expresses her strong will with a heightened sense of generosity and kindness. On the other side of the spectrum, Edmund serves as a prime example of the slave mentality with his cunning and deceptive manners.

From the outset of the play, the character of King Lear appears to fit well into the noble personality. Nietzsche describes a “noble” in various ways; foremost as a confident, sincere human being with a “cheerful” outlook (cheerful meaning that they take life as it comes and appreciate whatever happens). Additionally , a noble does not hold grudges or resent their enemies; rather, they have a love and respect for those who are able to challenge them. On a slightly more negative note, nobles tend to have a self-confidence which can morph into something which resembles rashness and even violence at times. Nietzsche writes of “this ‘boldness’ of noble races - mad, absurd, sudden in its expression; the unpredictable, in their enterprises even the improbable”(Nietzsche, 22). Many of these descriptions fit King Lear. The readers are introduced to a man who early on holds a contest to decide which daughter will receive the most land based upon how much they love him. This is not a well-thought-through idea; breaking up his kingdom is bound to cause political and social tensions, and dividing it amongst his daughters is most certainly going to cause familial tension. However, as Goneril, his daughter, says, “The best and soundest of his time hath been but rash (1.1.300-301)”. (1.1.300-301) One could argue that King Lear’s need to hold this contest implies an insecurity and a desire to be flattered.

However, although he does certainly crave approbation, it seems that he has a strong self-confidence which feeds on this flattery. When Goneril and her sister, Regan shower him with extremely exaggerated praises, he accepts it all quite readily. He desires flattery but also believes himself quite worthy of it.

Nietzsche further describes the noble manner as one which “acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say ‘yes’ to itself still more gratefully and more jubilantly” (Nietzsche, 19). A noble man is self-sufficient; he never defines himself in terms of others unless it reinforces and uplifts himself. King Lear certainly fits into this. His decision to split up his kingdom is quite thoughtless and only serves himself; his plan to go live with his daughters and have them take care of him is also quite selfish and egoistic. Lear’s response to Cordelia’s lack of flattery further shows his incapacity to comprehend or deal with things that go against his personal conception of reality. Rather than trying to talk with her (or, conversely, plot some sort of revenge against her), he impulsively banishes her. He simply eliminates anything from his life (Cordelia as well as his servant Kent) which does not support how he desires things.

In the following scene, Lear goes to live with Goneril, who he assumes will take care of him and respect him even though he has forfeited his official power. This, however, is far from what Goneril (and Regan) have in mind, and as both of the sisters begin to disrespect him more and more (culminating in their removal of his hundred knights), Lear is completely taken aback and does not really know how to respond. His knights are a hugely important part of his sense of being and identity, as they represent his formidable power as a “king.” There is a very interesting moment when Lear goes to reside with Regan after Goneril has suggested removing half of his men. Lear is talking to both Goneril and Regan and states, “No, Regan, thou shalt never have my curse. / Thy tender-hefted nature shall not give / Thee o’er to harshness. Her eyes are fierce, but thine / Do comfort, and not burn” (II.4.168-171). The fact that Lear truly believes that Regan is still going to be kind to him after witnessing what her sister has done shows Lear’s complete lack of a sense of reality. He believes what he wants to believe and cannot see what is written plainly in front of him. Nietzsche writes about the noble mentality: “Indeed there is too much carelessness in contempt, too much taking-lightly, too much looking away and impatience mixed in, even too much of a feeling of cheer in oneself, for it to be capable of transforming its object into a real caricature and monster” (Nietzsche, 19). Lear is almost incapable of taking his enemies (his daughters) seriously, because he simply looks away from and can’t accept things which run counter to his version of his identity.

This is what eventually leads Lear to a place of insanity. While one with a slave mentality would respond to a crisis like this with deep resentment or a plan for how to get revenge, Lear’s noble mentality is challenged to its core, and he has simply no rational way to deal with the situation. He would rather continue not to accept things the way they really are than bluntly face reality. He never stops calling himself a “king,” even when he’s naked and crazy out on the heath. His insanity is a sort of defense mechanism; his mind will do anything to preserve its noble sense of self and kingship, even if it means denying all other reality. That being said, when Lear is reunited with Cordelia, the readers do finally see a sort of apology. Lear states, “If you have poison for me, I will drink it. / I know you do not love me; for your sisters / Have (as I do remember) done me wrong. / You have some cause, they have not” (IV.7.74-8). He further calls himself a “very foolish fond old man” (IV.7.62). Lear, at this point in the play, has lost his identity as a “king.” He offers some remorse (although mingled with a sense of self-pity, rather than of pure apology). And yet, even though he may no longer call himself a “king,” one could argue that he never loses his noble mentality. At the very end of the play, after he and Cordelia have been caught and are being taken away by Edmund, Lear refuses to confront Goneril and Regan, and instead describes how he and Cordelia will “live, / And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh / At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues / Talk of court news…” (V.3.11-14). In true noble mentality, he holds no real resentment against his daughters, and instead cluelessly pictures the world only how he imagines it. He has no thought for the fact that Cordelia is unhappy with this arrangement, and even seems relatively cheerful with the way things have turned out. Therefore, although he does lose his identity as a “king,” he never loses his core sense of nobleness (in terms of Nietzsche).

On the complete opposite of this is Edmund. Edmund is a prime example of a “slave mentality,” which is described by Nietzsche as a resentful, sneaky attitude which thrives on reaction rather than action. A slave is usually quite prudent and thoughtful; he can spend years plotting how to get revenge for something or someone that has wronged him. Nietzsche writes, “In order to come into being, slave-morality always needs an opposite and external world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to be able to act at all, - its action is, from the ground up, reaction” (Nietzsche, 19). Edmund is the bastard son of Gloucester, and he has spent his entire life living in the shadow of Edgar (the legitimate son). The readers are introduced to Edmund as a resentful but extremely clever and plotting man. He is able to take advantage of his father and brother quite easily, as they never would expect that he would be turning against them in this manner. He states, “A credulous father, and a brother noble, / Whose nature is so far from doing harms / That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty / My practices ride easy” (I.2.177-178). While Gloucester and Edgar are good examples of noble mentality, Edmund fits well into the category of slave, with his creative and sneaky devices for how to get what he wants.

Edmund furthermore shows a greater sense of logic than some of those around him (which is a sign of a slave, who is usually smarter and more self-aware than a noble). While his father and brother strongly believe in a supernatural fate which lies in the stars or in nature, Edmund states, “when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own behaviour, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars” (I.2.120-122). In contrast to other characters, Edmund acknowledges that one is in full control of one’s behavior, and that one’s behavior has real and important consequences. While he does feel self-pity, he also logically evaluates his situation and notes that, though unfair, it is simply a fact of society that a bastard son will be looked down upon. Throughout the rest of the play, Edmund continues to display strong slave characteristics, willingly toying with both Goneril and Regan (and having affairs with both of them) to continue to remain in power and get the revenge that he desires. Although he is ultimately killed by his brother Edgar, Edmund in the end is one of the most complex characters the readers see in King Lear.

The final character who shows a version of noble mentality (albeit in quite a different manner than King Lear) is Cordelia. From the beginning, Cordelia is portrayed as sincere and honest (perhaps to a fault). She is unable to flatter her father with false terms and states, “A still-soliciting eye, and such a tongue / That I am glad I have not, though not to have it / Hath lost me your liking” (I.I.237-238). Nietzsche writes, “the noble human being lives with himself in confidence and openness (gennaios “noble-born” underscores the nuance “sincere” and probably also “naive”)...” (Nietzsche, 20) Cordelia is quite naïve in a way. Although she does the right, Socratean action by not lying to her father, she does not really think through the extreme repercussions of her action. Furthermore, when she takes leave of her sisters after having been banished by her father, she states, “I know you what you are; / And, like a sister, am most loath to call / Your faults as they are named. Love well our father. / To your professed bosoms I commit him; / But yet, alas, stood I within his grace, / I would prefer him to a better place” (I.I.278-281). This is a very interesting passage, because although she is of course angry at her sisters, it is never expressed at resentment or hate, but rather a pleading desire that they protect her father whom she loves so dearly. For the entirety of the play, Cordelia is never portrayed as a resentful character, although she very well could have become one. When she later finds out about what her father has been through, she is described as responding: “Not to a rage. Patience and sorrow strove / Who should express her goodliest” (IV.3.16-17). She never expresses her frustration as anger, but rather as a kind desire to make things better as best she can. In this sense, she is a sort of noble, but a noble who is still able to look past herself (unlike Lear). She is quite selfless (exempting her brief and arguably rash moment near the beginning of the play when she refuses to flatter her father) and feels deeply for others.

While of course there are many more possible subcategories one could describe, it seems as if these three characters in particular fit strongly into one of the two categories defined by Nietzsche. This is explainable by a few reasons; one that there were certain common character types who would be written into plays and that audience members were likely to recognize and respond well to. In addition, the idea of noble and slave was originally born out of the nobility, who, as Nietzsche describes, originally defined “good” or “right” as something that reinforced their own strong sense of sense and of yes-saying. In Shakespeare’s time, these nobility were still quite present, and the idea of nobly desiring things in life to serve oneself was not a foreign concept. On the other hand, the plotting slave-type character (such as Edmund) would be quite interesting and curious to witness for the audience. In conclusion, although of course most everybody is going to be some sort of a mix of noble and slave, it is possible and quite useful to use Nietzsche’s complex philosophy to describe Lear’s characters in terms of these two categories.

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Frederic. On The Genealogy of Morals. Pittsburgh: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1998.

Shakespeare, William. King Lear. New York: Penguin Random House, 1999.