2025-02-27 21:06:45 ¶ ● ⬀ ⬈

##

You asked for Edmund asks and I'm here to deliver. Sorry if this really surface level or straight up wrong, I am but a normie when it comes to enjoying Shakespeare. So there's before the scene where Gloucester gets blinded, Edmund is sent away by Cornwall and it felt like a missed opportunity to make him prove his loyalty. Eventually, I assumed Cornwall didn't want him backpedaling and that got me wondering, would he? I mean, would it have changed anything if Edmund was in the room or tasked with blinding Gloucester? On one hand, Gloucester's situation is of Edmund's own design, it's not like he doesn't know how serious treason is. On the other hand, he may not like or respect him much but he still craves his approval and it makes me wonder what would change if he was holding the blade.

lizardrosen:

> edettethegreat:

> > lizardrosen:

> > > edettethegreat:

> > > > oh this is interesting

> > > > in short, I think bringing Edmund along for Gloucester’s interrogation would be counterproductive on many levels.

> > > > For the most surface level explanation, at this point Gloucester didn’t know that Edmund betrayed him. He still believes Edmund is a good and loyal son. If there’s any chance of him surviving the interrogation and getting away (as he does), you would want to have someone who he trusts to keep him under control.

> > > > standard ‘playing politics’ move.

> > > > During the interrogation – Regan, after Cornwall is stabbed and Gloucester’s eyes are out, reveals that Edmund has betrayed him. It doesn’t seem like this was part of the original plan, and this ultimately ends up costing Edmund his life.

> > > > On the topic of Cornwall potentially needing Edmund to prove his loyalty– the only thing being involved in Gloucester’s torture would prove is that Edmund hates Gloucester. Which he already knows, as he heavily implies he’s aware that Edmund’s intentionally destroying the Gloucester noble lineage to become earl. And he thinks that that’s very cool of him :)

> > > > On top of all that, dragging Edmund into the interrogation is not the role he want to play here. Whatever he’s got going on here– “thou shalt find a dearer father in my love” – again, this is another political move. He recognizes what Edmund is capable of, and most likely wants to use this new connection he has to him. Edmund turned to him to denounce Gloucester as a traitor, and Cornwall wants to play the role of Edmund’s 'savior’ who removes this 'awful evil traitor’ Edmund was 'brave enough’ to denounce.

> > > > Him sending Edmund away before the torture could be a way of saying 'don’t worry, I’ve got this covered from here.’ He’s choosing to actively take a part in Edmund’s ascent to the Earldom, proving allegiance to the brand new earl of gloucester.

> > > > in short. the torture functions more as Cornwall proving his loyalty to Edmund’s cause than any potential loyalty test for Edmund.

> > > > and of course imma shout out @suits-of-woe’s Cornwall analysis posts– he understands Cornwall on a level deeper than I could ever hope to, and I feel like reading his Cornwall Analysis Saga should be required text for anyone playing Cornwall

> > > op your tags are so good!!
> > > #anyway yeah edmund really doesn’t have to prove his loyalty#it’s cornwall that’s gotta prove his loyalty. to keep edmund loyal to him#I really love how cornwall just. knows.#he knows what edmund’s up to. he finds the crimes endearing :)#he’s like ‘yessss boy. succumb to the darkness! be your worst self!’#edmund’s like 'ouhhh nouuuu I totally don’t want to betray my father.. but it must be done :(’#cornwall’s like 'boy. I think it would be real cool of you were behind all this in an attempt to get the earldom.’#'I would respect you so much for that. of course of course that’s not what’s happening’#'but either way. forget about that other guy.. I’m your dad now.’

> > > i really like this analysis of edmund and his relationship with cornwall

> > > can you talk about how regan revealing edmund’s involvement leads to edmund’s death, though? i definitely agree that this wasn’t part of the plan, but didn’t edgar find the letter from goneril to edmund and act on that information, and not anything gloucester said?

> > oh you’re right, I don’t think Gloucester ever canonically told Edgar what happened– iirc Edgar does seem to be aware of everything by the time it’s up to his duel, but then again he was suspicious from the start that he was framed.

> > I do think that Regan telling Gloucester about Edmund lead to Edmund’s death in a roundabout way– in the sense that 3.7 ends with Cornwall’s servants saying they’ll lead Gloucester wherever he wants to go. Right before Regan revealed Edmund’s betrayal, Gloucester was calling out to Edmund for help– so it’s likely he would have been asked to be lead to Edmund, so Edmund could avenge him.

> > naturally no avenging would take place, and he would either kill off Gloucester himself, or arrange for his death in a more indirect way.

> > Had Gloucester never ended up back with Lear & Co., he would have never ended up with Edgar again, which means the two of them would never have ended up by the cliffs of Dover and never ran in Oswald. and so on and so fourth.

> > so in short,, yeah Regan my beloved you messed up but it’s ok I still love you <3

> okay yeah, i see that roundabout connection, thank you for explaining! it’s actually wild to imagine gloucester going to edmund instead, what a different story it would become!

Gloucester: Edmund help they took my eyes!!

Edmund, loading a gun: oh did they.