Dissecting the Eye: Optics and Seeing in King John and King Lear
In the Renaissance, the eye began gazing at itself. Ophthalmological studies grappled with a
conflicting Classical inheritance: the eye as a metaphor struggled to come to terms with the eye as
an organ. In King Lear and King John – two plays notably concerned with matters of seeing, and
revolving dramatically around two scenes of blinding – Shakespeare scrutinises optical models. It is a
commonplace to note the sensory barrage of King Lear, see, for example: ‘there is something in its
very essence which is at war with the senses’ (Bradley: 202). However, this opinion is yet to be set in
dialogue with contemporary discourses of the senses. Reading Lear alongside ophthalmology, we
can recognise how it is not ‘at war’ with the senses at all. Instead, it is engaged in a close embrace
with the senses. It is sensory at heart. Its drama is a question of the senses. Rather than having ‘lost
[his] optic nerve’ (Clark: 2), as the philosophers seemed to have done – Shakespeare is instead in the
process of dissecting it. From the idolatrous eye of King John to the corporeal organ of King Lear,
Any exploration of Renaissance optics must first honour its Classical inheritance. Indeed, it is
through Classical perspectives that we can best access the dual-perspective Shakespeare’s plays take
on the question of seeing. Enduring in the Renaissance semantics of sight is Neoplatonism – and
Platonic allusions in both King John and King Lear establish rival assessments of contemporary ocular
theory. In King John, Platonism arises at face-value. We see Plato’s extramission theory harkened
semantically in: ‘eyes as red as new enkindled fire’ (IV.ii.l.169) or the hot poker which will ‘sparkle in
your eyes’ (IV.i.l.127). Continually in King John, eyes are syntactically coupled with heat, fire, or light
– in much the same way Plato conceived of fire emanating from the eye. Paired with the militarism
of the Bastard’s speech and the action of ‘new enkindled’ – it is clear that the eye, here, is an active
agent of sight. Passive reception in the form of intromissionism, a theory gaining strength in the face
of Renaissance ophtalmology, will be discussed later. In King John, however, even the repetition of
the lexical unit ‘burn’ in reference to Arthur’s blinding in IV.i implicitly nods towards the play’s
Neoplatonism. Arthur freely substitutes literal hot poker for executioner’s eyes, crying: ‘My eyes are
out / Even with the fierce looks of these bloody men.’ (ll.81-2) Shakespeare’s lexical freeplay is
markedly Platonic. King John’s wider metaphors similarly tether eyes and light together:
Turning with splendor of his precious eye
The meager cloddy earth to glittering gold: (III.i.ll.82-3)
On one hand a cerebral metaphor of perception, these lines are notable in the persistent
Neoplatonism of King John. ‘Eye’ and ‘gold’ as units stand out at the end-line, emphasising their
union through the play. The eye is capable of ‘splendor’ – it actively emits ‘glittering gold’. ‘Precious
, eye’ figures the eye as the divine or bright. Either in the sense of expensive ‘precious’ stones, for
example, or in ‘precious’ spiritualism; both senses in use in the period. 1 The spiritual sense recurs in
‘the beauteous eye of heauen’ (IV.ii.ll.14-16) Neoplatonism’s endurance into Renaissance thought is
perhaps largely owing to the religious significance of extramissionary optics, and the ‘eye’ of heaven
is a recurrent metaphor in Renaissance literature.
In King Lear, we can see very similar metaphors recurring, but their effect upon the overall
perspective of the play is reversed. Instead of presenting Neoplatonism, extramission theory is
critique in order to make way for the more Aristotelian concept of intromission, which dominates
optical discussions in King Lear. It is significant that Plato’s imagery features most heavily early in the
play, spoken when Lear is at his most vengeful, autocratic and foolish:
Lear. For by the sacred radience of the Sunne,
The miseries of Heccat and the night:
By all the operation of the Orbes, (I.i.ll.116-118)
The polysemy of ‘orbes’2 here may be interpreted as a coupling of eyes with the ‘radience of the
Sunne’. Niki Turner, designing Gregory Doran’s 2016 production at the RSC, mirrored this text in the
large staring golden orb behind Lear’s throne, and the eye-like medallions bedecking his cloak.
Visually, eyes take on the Platonic resonance of light and fire. Berating Goneril, Lear cries,
You nimble Lightnings, dart your blinding flames
Into her scornfull eyes: (II.iv.ll.186-7)
Here is a more overt Platonism. ‘Lightnings’ stand in for the Plato’s ‘beams’, whilst the verb ‘dart’
clearly illustrates the eye actively shooting outward. This is a penetrative model of sight, one that
incorporates light and heat. At face value, then, Lear’s concept of the operations of the eye align
closely with Arthur’s substitution of hot poker for gaze. However, Shakespeare presents the
Neoplatonic as unwise, violent, and outdated: the railings of the ‘old man’ Lear. The II.iv speech in
which the above occurs in a long tirade, broken only by the other characters’ ‘no more’ or ‘fie’. As a
dialogue – if such a one-sided sequence can be considered dialogue – the tone is not in Lear’s
favour. There is a notable density of exclamation, followed by sentences running on and on in
seemingly endless vitriolic circles. Aurally, Lear’s speech is thick with sibilance and hard consonants –
‘fen-sucked fogs’ (l.161) a particularly strong example. Lear is raving. His Platonism is not precious,
1
‘precious’, sense 1b and 2, OED Online [accessed 02/10/20].
2
‘orb’, sense 4: ‘the eye’, OED Online [accessed 02/10/20].
In the Renaissance, the eye began gazing at itself. Ophthalmological studies grappled with a
conflicting Classical inheritance: the eye as a metaphor struggled to come to terms with the eye as
an organ. In King Lear and King John – two plays notably concerned with matters of seeing, and
revolving dramatically around two scenes of blinding – Shakespeare scrutinises optical models. It is a
commonplace to note the sensory barrage of King Lear, see, for example: ‘there is something in its
very essence which is at war with the senses’ (Bradley: 202). However, this opinion is yet to be set in
dialogue with contemporary discourses of the senses. Reading Lear alongside ophthalmology, we
can recognise how it is not ‘at war’ with the senses at all. Instead, it is engaged in a close embrace
with the senses. It is sensory at heart. Its drama is a question of the senses. Rather than having ‘lost
[his] optic nerve’ (Clark: 2), as the philosophers seemed to have done – Shakespeare is instead in the
process of dissecting it. From the idolatrous eye of King John to the corporeal organ of King Lear,
Any exploration of Renaissance optics must first honour its Classical inheritance. Indeed, it is
through Classical perspectives that we can best access the dual-perspective Shakespeare’s plays take
on the question of seeing. Enduring in the Renaissance semantics of sight is Neoplatonism – and
Platonic allusions in both King John and King Lear establish rival assessments of contemporary ocular
theory. In King John, Platonism arises at face-value. We see Plato’s extramission theory harkened
semantically in: ‘eyes as red as new enkindled fire’ (IV.ii.l.169) or the hot poker which will ‘sparkle in
your eyes’ (IV.i.l.127). Continually in King John, eyes are syntactically coupled with heat, fire, or light
– in much the same way Plato conceived of fire emanating from the eye. Paired with the militarism
of the Bastard’s speech and the action of ‘new enkindled’ – it is clear that the eye, here, is an active
agent of sight. Passive reception in the form of intromissionism, a theory gaining strength in the face
of Renaissance ophtalmology, will be discussed later. In King John, however, even the repetition of
the lexical unit ‘burn’ in reference to Arthur’s blinding in IV.i implicitly nods towards the play’s
Neoplatonism. Arthur freely substitutes literal hot poker for executioner’s eyes, crying: ‘My eyes are
out / Even with the fierce looks of these bloody men.’ (ll.81-2) Shakespeare’s lexical freeplay is
markedly Platonic. King John’s wider metaphors similarly tether eyes and light together:
Turning with splendor of his precious eye
The meager cloddy earth to glittering gold: (III.i.ll.82-3)
On one hand a cerebral metaphor of perception, these lines are notable in the persistent
Neoplatonism of King John. ‘Eye’ and ‘gold’ as units stand out at the end-line, emphasising their
union through the play. The eye is capable of ‘splendor’ – it actively emits ‘glittering gold’. ‘Precious
, eye’ figures the eye as the divine or bright. Either in the sense of expensive ‘precious’ stones, for
example, or in ‘precious’ spiritualism; both senses in use in the period. 1 The spiritual sense recurs in
‘the beauteous eye of heauen’ (IV.ii.ll.14-16) Neoplatonism’s endurance into Renaissance thought is
perhaps largely owing to the religious significance of extramissionary optics, and the ‘eye’ of heaven
is a recurrent metaphor in Renaissance literature.
In King Lear, we can see very similar metaphors recurring, but their effect upon the overall
perspective of the play is reversed. Instead of presenting Neoplatonism, extramission theory is
critique in order to make way for the more Aristotelian concept of intromission, which dominates
optical discussions in King Lear. It is significant that Plato’s imagery features most heavily early in the
play, spoken when Lear is at his most vengeful, autocratic and foolish:
Lear. For by the sacred radience of the Sunne,
The miseries of Heccat and the night:
By all the operation of the Orbes, (I.i.ll.116-118)
The polysemy of ‘orbes’2 here may be interpreted as a coupling of eyes with the ‘radience of the
Sunne’. Niki Turner, designing Gregory Doran’s 2016 production at the RSC, mirrored this text in the
large staring golden orb behind Lear’s throne, and the eye-like medallions bedecking his cloak.
Visually, eyes take on the Platonic resonance of light and fire. Berating Goneril, Lear cries,
You nimble Lightnings, dart your blinding flames
Into her scornfull eyes: (II.iv.ll.186-7)
Here is a more overt Platonism. ‘Lightnings’ stand in for the Plato’s ‘beams’, whilst the verb ‘dart’
clearly illustrates the eye actively shooting outward. This is a penetrative model of sight, one that
incorporates light and heat. At face value, then, Lear’s concept of the operations of the eye align
closely with Arthur’s substitution of hot poker for gaze. However, Shakespeare presents the
Neoplatonic as unwise, violent, and outdated: the railings of the ‘old man’ Lear. The II.iv speech in
which the above occurs in a long tirade, broken only by the other characters’ ‘no more’ or ‘fie’. As a
dialogue – if such a one-sided sequence can be considered dialogue – the tone is not in Lear’s
favour. There is a notable density of exclamation, followed by sentences running on and on in
seemingly endless vitriolic circles. Aurally, Lear’s speech is thick with sibilance and hard consonants –
‘fen-sucked fogs’ (l.161) a particularly strong example. Lear is raving. His Platonism is not precious,
1
‘precious’, sense 1b and 2, OED Online [accessed 02/10/20].
2
‘orb’, sense 4: ‘the eye’, OED Online [accessed 02/10/20].
