The character of Kent in King Lear While reading Eva Turner Clark's analysis of King Lear, in her Hidden Allusions in the Works of Shakespeare, I was struck by the polarity of our interpretation of this supreme drama. Where Clark finds historical and political allusions, especially for the years 1589-1590, I find personal ones. Because King Lear is the drama of an internal and personal tragedy. With this in mind I strongly disagree with his statement: "I believe Kent represents Drake." (P. 869 n.) I then sought another Oxford contemporary who satisfied the characteristics and qualities of the Earl of Kent. In researching this prototype, I drew on J. Thomas Looney's methodology. (See Shakespeare Identified, p. 80.) Simply put, my task was to examine the text of Lear, draw from it a definite conception of the character and qualities of the Earl of Kent, and then look for a man who would fit that description. . Once such a man was found it was necessary to connect him to the character of Kent and the author. I eventually discovered that my conception of Kent had been accurately described by S. T. Coleridge. Kent is, perhaps, closest to perfect goodness of all Shakespeare's characters, and yet the most individualized. There is an extraordinary charm in a frankness, which is that only of a nobleman, arising from the contempt of excessive courtesy, and combined with an easy conciliation where the goodness of the heart is evident. His passionate affection and loyalty towards Lear act on our feelings in favor of Lear himself: virtue itself seems to be in company with him. (Complete Works of Samuel Coleridge, Vol. IV, ed. WGT Shedd, Harper and Bros., New York: 1884, pp. 138-39.) The first two requirements of Looney's project had been completed. I had read and examined the text of Lear and, with Coleridge's help, had delineated Kent's qualities. Now it was necessary to find the man. Must be frank but charming; noble and courteous, but not domineering in rank or a slave to authority. He must be loyal to his country, his monarch and his friends. It must be someone worthy of leading men; even nations. (It should be remembered that Kent is one of the triumvirate who, it is implied at the end of the play, will guide the destinies of England.) He must be someone who had won the utmost respect and admiration of Oxford; the man chosen to be old King Lear's (and, indeed, Oxford's) personal champion?