After giving away his kingdom, King Lear initially struggles to understand that there is simply no power behind the word “King.” Throughout King Lear, there are many events that positively and negatively alter not only the king’s power, but also his morality. However, due to King Lear’s actions, arrogance, and inability to see what is conspiring around him, King Lear’s morality and power fabricated his tragic downfall through their inverse correlation. Hence indicating a greater connection to Aristotelian concepts of tragedy which support Lear’s character arc. This is seen as Lear loses his power over his subjects, and his morality builds throughout to the resolution of the play. However, this growth was seen to come only after the acknowledgement of flaws, and efforts to remedy said flaws.
However, in order to understand the gravity of Lear's actions, it is needed to look at the act that needs to be rectified. When looking at King Lear’s errors that acted as causes for his power’s downfall, the most prominent example is that of his actions within the first act, and the dissolution of his Kingdom. This is displayed drastically with Lear’s exclamation to Kent saying “Come not between the dragon and his wrath” (1, 1, 122) where Lear symbolically defines himself as a dragon. This metaphorical hyperbole adopted by Shakespeare established the initial notion of Lear’s great power through beastly imagery, while exhibiting Lear’s immoral treatment and ignorance of those close to him. Furthermore, Lear also acts in a similar manner towards his daughter, Cordelia. While Lear stated that he “loved her most,” (1, 1, 124) Cordelia is unable to produce a statement of her love for her father. However, from this inability comes Cordelia’s banishment, as Lear now describes Cordelia as a “stranger to my heart and me.” (1, 1, 115) This renunciation of Cordelia appears to be the point of origin for the tragic downfall within King Lear. Conjointly supporting this concept is Arthur Kirsch, an experienced Shakespeare academic, whose work The Emotional Landscape of King Lear was published within the Shakespeare Quarterly. In the words of Kirsch, he believes that “It is Lear’s rejection of her that initiates the tragic action” (Kirsch, 164) along with Lear and Cordelia’s relationship being the “emotional as well as structural spine of the play.” (Kirsch, 164) However, paralleling Cordelia’s inability to display affection in words, is Lear’s inability to see past his anger. This is excellently depicted within Lear’s interruption of Kent, where Shakespeare utilizes hyphenic interruption to indicate the emotions of Lear blind him from seeing reason in his advisors:
Royal Lear, Whom I have ever honored as my king, Loved as a father, as my master followed, As my great patron thought on in my prayers- The Bow is bent and drawn. Make from the shaft (1, 1, 139-143)
Furthermore, when looking at this scene in a more historical manner, it gives certain aspects of this scene additional context and further bolster the dramatic effect of the actions of the king. At the time of writing the play, King James V was the king of England. Having written the Basilikon Doron, a political handbook for rulers which had stated the dangers of dividing a kingdom between children. This gives King Lear dividing his kingdom with further ironic connotations, and would have been paradoxical to the expectation of the audience at the time King Lear was written.
While Lear loses his power shown within the beginning, he gradually builds to acting in a more moral manner. Lear anathematizes his daughters Goneril and Regan, while giving respect to those who still follow him. This essentially acts as the turning point where Lear not only recognizes his flaw of ignorance, but also begins to act on it. The concept of Lear’s redemptive milestone can be witnessed easily within some of Lear’s dialogue within the third act; Lear surrenders to the storm and states “Here I stand, your slave- A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man.” (3, 2, 19-20) Lear’s statement carries heavy symbolic connotations, as he submits himself to be lesser than not only his daughters, but also to nature itself. However, the proclamation may also be viewed in an idiomatic context, as Lear’s use of the word “slave” can be considered an admission of himself being a slave to his power which became the motivating factor behind Lear’s preceding immoral actions. This admission takes a similar form to Aristotle’s idea of the anagnorisis, as Lear realizes his flaw of having power is what caused him to act indecently to those that were close to him. This becomes the major turning point where Lear’s morality grows greater than his power. Further supporting this interpretation is John J. McLauglin, who has published within the Shakespeare Quarterly, and the South Atlantic Modern Language Association. McLaughlin backs the interpretation of Lear’s interaction within the storm as one of recognition, stating that “Lear’s cure comes as the result of extreme anguish. His suffering in the storm is remedial because it brings insights into the flaws of his life plan and permits him to transcend them.” (McLaughlin, 43) Similar to what was stated by McLaughlin, the pathetic fallacy of the storm mirroring Lear’s emotions may be interpreted as a method for Lear to see himself, and understand firsthand how his power had corrupted him. Even further supporting this idea is the religious beliefs that were seen within Britain, and Europe at the time. King Lear most likely would have viewed it as near-godlike judgment on his actions, as during Shakespearian times natural events would be considered acts of God to affect the human world.
Within the culmination of the play, Lear displays to the audience that he has undergone a moral redemption by making amends with Cordelia, and that his morality has replaced his power. This is put on display through statements such as “Upon such sacrifices, my Cordelia, The gods themselves throw incense. Have I caught thee? He that parts us shall bring a brand from heaven And fire us hence like foxes.” (5, 3, 20-24) Not only does this show Lear’s increased morality, but it also acts as a moment of indemnification towards Cordelia to correct the flaws that Lear had recognized prior. Furthermore, this move towards a more righteous Lear is also seen through his metaphorical expressions declaring to Cordelia to “Come, let’s away to prison. We two alone will sing like birds i’ th’ cage.” (5, 3, 8-9) Lear’s expressive vocabulary using terms such as “singing” and “birds” in a time of imprisonment now shows that while it is at his lowest, he is no longer affected by a lack of power; he has accepted that it no longer blinds him from seeing what the people around him truly are. Also corroborating this interpretation is Rebecca Munson, who has publications within the Penn State University Press, and the Pacific Ancient and Modern Language Association. Munson states that “any inversion of sovereignty, either in the body natural or the body politic, not only mirrors but causes such an inversion in the other.” Munson views sovereignty as a quality of supremacy, which supports Lear’s loss of power, causing his increase in morality. Throughout the third scene within the fifth act, Lear does act in a way that heavily contradicts the way that men were expected to act by expressing emotions that were not bold or outgoing. This may lead to an audience’s interpretation of the king only speaking from madness, and not earnestly to his daughter Cordelia. However, the more direct tone within this act allows the audience to interpret one of the few metaphors within the act as a portrayal of a sincere, and honest Lear. This therefore contradicts the possible alternative interpretation of Lear’s dialogue to be one of madness, and supports the perception of it being one of moral redemption. With all taken into account, solidifies Lear as being joyful going to prison with his daughter, who he now realizes as his most-beloved.
While Lear finally ended up realizing that Cordelia was his most beloved daughter, it is difficult to deny that his power was not a major figure that prevented Lear from realizing this. Throughout the play, the character of Lear changes drastically to develop into a much more moral person at his lowest power, which contrasts the introductory appearance of Lear’s morality. It was exhibited that the disownment of Cordelia would become known to be his greatest flaw, and what would create his tragic decline within the play. However, the tragic course of the king would eventually have Lear end up acting in a much more moral manner, and provided a considerable contrast of action within the final acts of the play. King Lear is a showcase of a quintessential exemplar of an Aristotelian tragic hero through his flaws, recognition, and eventual redemption of said flaws.
Works Cited
Kirsch, Arthur. “The Emotional Landscape of King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol.
39, no. 2, 1988, pp. 154–70. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2870627. Accessed 15 Dec. 2022.
McLaughlin, John J. “The Dynamics of Power in King Lear: An Adlerian Interpretation.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, 1978, pp. 37–43. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2869167. Accessed 19 Dec. 2022.
Munson, Rebecca. “‘The Marks of Sovereignty’: The Division of the Kingdom and the Division of the Mind in King Lear.” Pacific Coast Philology, vol. 46, 2011, pp. 13–27. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41413529. Accessed 19 Dec. 2022.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. SPARKNOTES, 2020.
Comments