There is no radical development of Kent’s character in the play; he remains, throughout, unfailingly courageous and dependable. However he does have two personas. As the Earl of Kent, he represents what is best in the feudal tradition which put a high value on qualities like allegiance, honesty and faithfulness. In disguise as the plain, blunt servant Caius with a special place in the King’s favour, he has the freedom to be even more outspoken without the inhibitions imposed by rigid social hierarchies. He makes no attempt to conceal his contempt for Oswald and for Cornwall and Regan and, as the audience tends to share this contempt he usually has them on side, however outrageously he behaves.

The audience, indeed, is invited to admire his cheerful stoicism in the stocks, his courageous love of Cordelia, and his costly loyalty towards the King. We feel for Kent at the end of the play when Lear is too preoccupied with grief to understand and appreciate that Kent had stayed faithfully beside him as the disguised Caius and now only expects and hopes to die. Some critics have argued that Kent, as a representative of the hierarchy that Lear destroyed when he gave away his power, becomes irrelevant. Others argue that, politically, Kent does Lear more harm than good. In Act 1, Scene 1 although he is correct, Kent inflames Lear’s anger and reduces his own influence. Attacking Oswald in Act 2 helps precipitate the confrontation between Lear and Regan which proves disastrous for Lear.

More traditionally, Kent is seen as a force for good in the play. At one level, many of the characters in King Lear are paired: “the good son (Edgar) and the wicked one (Edmund), the vicious duke (Cornwall) and the mild one (Albany), the superficial suitor (Burgundy) and the perceptive one (France), the affected, devious servant (Oswald) and the plainspoken one (Kent as Cauis), the honest daughter (Cordelia) and the deceitful one (two in this case: Goneril and Regan). Kent is initially paired with Gloucester: the blunt, hot headed earl in contrast to the cautious, courtly one.” (Ron Simpson, “Letts Explore King Lear”) Is this too simplistic? What are the complicating factors? How do you see Kent’s role?