Are we to take this to mean that Kent would commit suicide shortly to join his "master" Lear, or was it simply implied that he had to tend to the bodies of the dead and help pick up the pieces for those that remained?
shareI've often wondered at that myself. I guess it depends on the performance -- I usually think Kent means that he needs to join Lear in death, but I have a hard time imagining a character like Kent offing himself.
shareOne would think that Kent probably has a sense of duty not only to his King, but to the Kingdom. How could he do his calling in life - serving - if he were dead?
shareGood point, Edward. King and kingdom are, I would suppose, deeply connected.
I just finished watching Brook's Lear for the first time in almost ten years. It, ah, "made an impression" when I first saw it, and that impression was reinforced last night.
In the context of that unrelentingly bleak vision, I am able to imagine the mighty Kent (he looks about seven feet tall at times) taking his medicine and literally following his king into death. However, most versions of Lear -- bleak as that play is -- don't come close to Brook's for depicting a terrifying, Godless universe.
Kent seems pretty "old school" compared to his contemporaries. While Edgar and Albany might be capable of remaining behind and doing what needs to be done (after *not* saying what needs to be said), I think Kent is made of different mettle. He's always been my second favourite character in the play after Lear himself, though I can't say why on any intellectual level.
If you haven't seen Brook's, you should. It's not for everyone, admittedly -- I know preeminent bard scholar Bloom can't stand him -- but it's hard to deny it's viceral power. I recommend you at least check out the opening confrontation between Lear and Kent (it might be on youtube); it's handled with such understated power. No shouting or beating breasts, just a series of words that leaves the viewer reeling.
Anyway, your question is very fitting -- and I'd say a person's answer to that question dictates one's feelings as far as Kent is concerned. Is he a quitter who can't take it? Is his loyalty such that he can't bear living without his master? Is his loyalty so strong that he'll spend the rest of his life doing what he *imagines* Lear would expect of him?
More literally, when he says that he has a "journey" to go on, I can't help but think of death. If he plans to persevere, wouldn't he stay with Edgar and/or Albany (whomever you imagine taking up the crown)? Anyway, sorry for the rambling.
Paul Scofield's recent death reminded me of how finding a copy of the Brooks Lear has long been on my "to do" list.
In any case, it's quite likely that Shakespeare left Kent's fate ambiguous intentionally, leaving it open for different dramatic interpretations.
Different interpretations are certainly possible but I wouldn't call the line "ambiguous". Kent has a "journey" to go on because his (dead) "Master calls". It takes some stretching to imagine a meaning other than death and, based on three productions and a reading, I've always interpreted the line that way. In the recent production with Sir Ian McKellan Kent delivers the line while fingering a pistol (this version is apparently set in the 19th cent. or thereabouts, probably so no one would see Sir Ian in beard and flowing robes and think of Gandalf the Grey).
share-which is updated to the 19th century, Kent puts a pistol in his pocket as he says this line, implying that yes, he plans on committing suicide.
shareI guess I don't follow. If not suicide, what would be the alternative interpretation of Kent's line?
share