Everybody Is a King

In each of us there lies a king. This is how we comfort ourselves whenever the measly portion of comfort that life has allotted us seems to get smaller. We like to fill ourselves with a sense of self-worth, of deserving the respect of a king, insisting that we can nobly rise above the struggles, decisions and complications which plague human life. Unfortunately, this is a fruitless task since no one, not even kings, can escape the moral duties which are part of human existence. The eternal toil of humanity is present in the play King Lear, by William Shakespeare. To display the universality of human existence, Shakespeare has placed each of us inside a king, instead of the other way round. In this way, King Lear becomes an embodiment of every individual, and the play itself becomes a critique of society which provides a moral similar to the 15th Century morality play, Everyman. Everyman’s quest willing to find someone to die with him follows human nature through the maze of temptations and values we all experience. Lear himself takes on the role of Everyman. The trials and tribulations that both Lear and Everyman undergo are symbolic of what each human individual must experience. As they approach death, they come to an understanding of death’s inevitability, learn to supersede materialistic standards to embrace the virtuous, and reject vindictiveness, both of which are represented by the other characters.

There are similarities between Lear and Everyman from the beginning of the play, when it is established that the respective protagonists have not long left to live. For Lear, the advance of old age marks his “crawl toward death” (Shakespeare 1.1.40), and in Everyman, Death himself brings Everyman news of his impending “pilgrimage” (Everyman). In both plays the universality of death is emphasized. Neither Lear’s rank, nor the better moral character he exhibits by the end of the play prove to be a barrier to death. Similarly, although Everyman succeeds in finding a companion to go to Death with him, and in doing so increases the honorable qualities in his character by at last seeing the value in Good-Deeds, he cannot stop Death itself. Death therefore cannot be swayed by material means or by a moral state of mind. This “no man spareth” (Everyman) philosophy of Death means that humans must constantly prepare their moral resume for the inevitable, for clearly both Lear and Everyman are ill prepared for death. Although Lear does divide up his kingdom, he at first neglects to address issues of his morality. Everyman is taken completely by surprise, for “full little he thinketh on [Death’s] coming” (Everyman). Death’s approach fuels the events in which Lear and Everyman try to redeem their moral qualities. While Everyman has a chance to bargain with Death for a friend, we cannot all hope to be so lucky. We will have no opportunity to talk with Death, which means that the lessons learned from Lear and Everyman are all the more important.

Lear and Everyman reveal society’s materialism; both are too concerned about wealth and rank. Everyman believes at first “that money maketh all right that is wrong” (Everyman). Good’s refusal to go with him to death teaches Everyman that money cannot solve everything. Lear’s attempt at preventing “future strife” (Shakespeare 1.1.48) over his inheritance by dividing up his kingdom himself actually hastens the conflict over power. The strife caused by the importance of material wealth and rank reflects Good’s statement to Everyman that “my condition is man’s soul to kill; / If I save one, a thousand do I spill” (Everyman). Clearly, materialism corrupts human nature and impedes filial love. Lear tries to unite material wealth with human tenderness by the division of his kingdom according to who loves him most. The two are shown to be incompatible when Lear gives no land to the one child who truly loves him. Everyman also shows that there should be less importance placed on Goods, because they were only “for a while lent” (Everyman) and will have a new owner once Everyman dies. King Lear expands temporary usage of goods to include power, for Lear still expects that he will retain his rank until the end. His knights, which are a symbol of his status, are taken away by Goneril and Regan, showing that he cannot take his power with him to death, just as Everyman could not take Goods. Lear worries that removing his superfluous knights, which are his symbol of power, will reduce him to an existence that “is cheap as beast’s” (Shakespeare 2.2.456). Yet despite the lack of knights and power, Lear begins the change which will turns him into a better person, indicating that rank is not necessary. Everyman even suggests that it is because of man’s materialism and “wicked tempests, / Verily they will become much worse than beasts” (Everyman).

In the course of the plays, both Everyman and Lear undergo a transformation