“...the error of age is to believe that experience is a substitute for intelligence.” (Lyman Bryson) In the play King Lear by William Shakespeare, such an idea is explored. Lear is a King who is physically aged but as the play progresses, it becomes clear that he lacks the intelligence which usually accompanies it. The play is set in a time where the King was equal to God himself, he was set apart from the common man as somewhat of a transcended being. Shakespeare breaks this unspoken relationship through the events of his play. Lear’s rash decision to banish his loving daughter Cordelia and hand total power of his kingdom over to two his uncaring daughters, Goneril and Regan sets of a chain of events which send him on a downward spiral to become the basest of human beings. Shakespeare uses the characters of the Fool, Cordelia, Kent and Goneril as well as irony, foreshadowing, and diction to portray Lear as nothing more than an unseeing old human being. The Fool is a character in the play who is the embodiment of Lear’s conscience and through him, the audience is able to witness the folly of the King. His name bears quite a significant irony as throughout the play it is made apparent that it is the Fool who is the wiser. He states that, “this fellow banished two on’s daughters, and did the third a blessing against his will” (1,4,101-103) The Fool lays bare the folly Lear in not recognising the worth of a true daughter yet through his foolish act, he has done Cordelia good. In a way this irony of the Fool foreshows the future judgement of this judgemental monarch. In the play it is Cordelia who is banished and the other two who have blessings poured on them, but the Fool provides the audience with a different perspective on this matter; one, which is increasingly unapparent to the ailing King who is quick to continue his living in denial, stating that, “[All] This is nothing, Fool” (1,4 127) Shakespeare’s placement of the Fools as Lear’s conscience allows the audience to feel the emotions which the king should be experiencing. In the event of Cordelia’s banishing “the Fool hath much pinned away” (1,4,71-72) Shakespeare shows the Fool’s sadness to contrast with the apparent lack of some in the King. This also evokes audience empathy. Through the Fool Shakespeare is able to convey to the reader the apparent folly of a vain King and the enormity of his folly.
Absolute in every child’s mind is the belief that they are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Until children grow up to raise children own their own, a parent’s disputation only inflates that desire to prove. Part and parcel to this, as one may find out through personal experience or by extension, cruelty towards parents is a reflection of a child’s own inadequacy (whether in large or small scale). In this sense, King Lear is a story of children with a desire to break past their hierarchal status. Whether it is the belief that a woman shall take a husband, and with that guard her inherited land, or what role bastards truly deserves in a society that preemptively condemns them. Cruelty at the hands of children accounts for almost
nothing more than to get hr father out of the way so that she and her
When one examines the words “pride” and “self-respect”, it is possible one may assume that the two are identical in meaning. That the words go hand in hand like butter and bread. For quite some time I was pondering on the meaning of the two words “pride” and “self-respect”. The more consideration I put into the two the deeper I was in a maze of confusion. After a long thought on the subject I had come to my own conclusion.
Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, portrays many important misconceptions which result in a long sequence of tragic events. The foundation of the story revolves around two characters, King Lear and Gloucester, and concentrates on their common flaw, the inability to read truth in other characters. For example, the king condemns his own daughter after he clearly misreads the truth behind her “dower,”(1.1.107) or honesty. Later, Gloucester passes judgment on his son Edgar based on a letter in which he “shall not need spectacles”(1.2.35) to read. While these two characters continue to misread people’s words, advisors around them repeatedly give hints to their misinterpretations, which pave the road for possible reconciliation. The realization of their mistakes, however, occurs after tragedy is inevitable.
Despite its undeniable greatness, throughout the last four centuries King Lear has left audiences, readers and critics alike emotionally exhausted and mentally unsatisfied by its conclusion. Shakespeare seems to have created a world too cruel and unmerciful to be true to life and too filled with horror and unrelieved suffering to be true to the art of tragedy. These divergent impressions arise from the fact that of all Shakespeare's works, King Lear expresses human existence in its most universal aspect and in its profoundest depths. A psychological analysis of the characters such as Bradley undertook cannot by itself resolve or place in proper perspective all the elements which contribute to these impressions because there is much here beyond the normal scope of psychology and the conscious or unconscious motivations in men.
These classic tropes are inverted in King Lear, producing a situation in which those with healthy eyes are ignorant of what is going on around them, and those without vision appear to "see" the clearest. While Lear's "blindness" is one which is metaphorical, the blindness of Gloucester, who carries the parallel plot of the play, is literal. Nevertheless, both characters suffer from an inability to see the true nature of their children, an ability only gained once the two patriarchs have plummeted to the utter depths of depravity. Through a close reading of the text, I will argue that Shakespeare employs the plot of Gloucester to explicate Lear's plot, and, in effect, contextualizes Lear's metaphorical blindness with Gloucester's physical loss of vision.
Thou shall honour thy father and thy mother, is not only one of ten powerful commandments but is also the foundation for King Lear's perception of himself and his overwhelming situation in Shakespeare's masterpiece King Lear. After a recent life-altering decision, Lear's seemingly stable and comfortable world has been thrown into upheaval through the disobedience and lies told by not only his two daughters but also by his servants! Thus, after being dishonoured by his family and attendants, Lear forms an accurate perception of his situation, that he is "a man / More sinned against than sinning" (Act III scene ii lines 60 - 61).
In Shakespeare’s King Lear, the Fool is a source of chaos and disruption in King Lear’s tumultuous life. The Fool causes the King distress by insulting him, making light of his problems, and telling him the truth. On the road to Regan’s, the Fool says “If thou wert my Fool, nuncle, I’d have thee / beaten for being old before thy time.” (1.5.40-41). He denies the king the respect due to him as an aged King, causing the King to wonder at his worthiness. The fool also makes light of Lear’s qualms making snide remarks in response to Lear’s ruminations. When Lear asks Edgar cryptically, “wouldst thou give ‘em all?” the Fool responds, “Nay, he reserved a blanket, else we had been all shamed” (3.4.69-72). The Fool’s snide remarks do little to maintain Lear’s fragile control of his faculties. However, the Fool speaks to the king candidly, a rare occasion in Lear’s life. Even Kent acknowledges the truth of the Fool’s statements, saying, “This is not altogether fool, my lord” (1.4.155).
In Elizabethan times, the role of a fool, or court jester, was to professionally entertain others, specifically the king. In essence, fools were hired to make mistakes. Fools may have been mentally retarded youths kept for the court’s amusement, or more often they were singing, dancing stand up comedians. In William Shakespeare’s King Lear the fool plays many important roles. When Cordelia, Lear’s only well-intentioned daughter, is banished from the kingdom Fool immediately assumes her role as Lear’s protector. The fool is the king’s advocate, honest and loyal and through his use of irony sarcasm and humour he is able to point out Lear’s faults. Functioning much as a chorus would in a Greek tragedy, the fool comments on events in the play, the king’s actions and acts as Lear’s conscience. As he is the only character who is able to confront Lear directly without risk of punishment, he is able to moderate the king’s behaviour.
Literature often provides an avenue for instruction on the human condition, and King Lear is no different. Perhaps the most important take away from King Lear, is the concept of recognizing true loyalty. The downfall of the play’s protagonists stems from the inability of leaders to recognize loyalty, and to be fooled by flattery. King Lear’s sin of preferring sweet lies is one that begins the entire play, with his inability to reconcile his favorite daughter’s refusal to flatter him. It is made clear that Cordelia does indeed love her father, but she refuses to exaggerate that love: “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave/my heart into my mouth. I love your Majesty/ according to my bond, no more nor less” (2.2.100-102). Cordelia’s declaration is an honest one, but doesn’t venture into the realm of exaggeration. However, it is made clear that King Lear desires flattery not truth, as demonstrated by his demand that Cordelia “mend her speech a little” (1.1.103). Gloucester parallels King Lear in placing his faith in the wrong child. Thus, a common motif of blindness to truth emerges. The truth is something one should seek for themselves, and to recklessly doubt those who are loved without hearing them out is foolish. This idea expressed in King Lear is timeless, and thus is relevant even in the modern
Shakespeare's good characters, in the play King Lear, are considered good because they are loyal even when they are disguised from or unrecognizable by those to whom they owe loyalty. In addition, their loyalty does not waver even when they are banished or mistreated by those to whom they are loyal. Cordelia, Edgar and Kent are all characters that exemplify this goodness and unwavering loyalty.
There are billions of people in the entire world, however, chances such as certain individual shares the same personality, height, or hobbies of other people who live in the opposite extreme of the globe is ultimately bizarre. In a similar idea, a William Shakespeare’s play, entitled King Lear demonstrates the similarities of people, particularly through the work of relativeness that runs in blood. The play revolves around King Lear and his three daughters, along with a parallel sub-plot of Gloucester and his two sons. Mainly, Lear banishes and disowns Cordelia, one of his daughters, and grants the other two, Goneril and Regan with his inheritance and power. But unfortunately, Goneril and Regan eventually betrays Lear, whereas Cordelia comes back to save him. Also, the play corresponds to a well-known phrase, “like father, like daughter”, which genuinely refers to Lear and his daughters. Altogether, King Lear’s existence as a father projects distinguishable affinities between his and the lives of his daughters. The father and daughters’ similarities vary solely depending on how the characters exhibit their actions through their own will.
This new Lear is certainly a far cry from the arrogant king we saw at the beginning of the play. Shakespeare has transformed Lear from an ignorant old king into some sort of god, using a seven stage process: resentment, regret, recognition, acceptance and admittance, guilt, redemption, and optimism. Lear’s transformation can be simply described as a transition from blindness into sight, he did not see the value in listening to others, but in the end he gained a sense of optimism and idealism. There is no doubting that Shakespeare has portrayed Lear as a flawed figure, who, through his misfortune and suffering, goes from a contemptuous human being to one who has been purified into an omniscient, godly type character, proving that ignorant people can truly change to become caring individuals.
King Lear is a play about a tragic hero, by the name of King Lear, whose flaws get the best of him. A tragic hero must possess three qualities. The first is they must have power, in other words, a leader. King Lear has the highest rank of any leader. He is a king. The next quality is they must have a tragic flaw, and King Lear has several of those. Finally, they must experience a downfall. Lear's realization of his mistakes is more than a downfall. It is a tragedy. Lear is a tragic hero because he has those three qualities. His flaws are his arrogance, his ignorance, and his misjudgments, each contributing to the other.
No tragedy of Shakespeare moves us more deeply that we can hardly look upon the bitter ending than King Lear. Though, in reality, Lear is far from like us. He himself is not an everyday man but a powerful king. Could it be that recognize in Lear the matter of dying? Each of us is, in some sense, a king who must eventually give up his kingdom. To illustrate the process of dying, Shakespeare has given Lear a picture of old age in great detail. Lear’s habit to slip out of a conversation (Shakespeare I. v. 19-33), his brash banishment of his most beloved and honest daughter, and his bitter resentment towards his own loss of function and control, highlighted as he ironically curses Goneril specifically on her functions of youth and prays that her