Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critical views on King Lear
Critical views on King Lear
King lear as a philosophical tragedy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critical views on King Lear
Christian Versus a Nihilist Interpretation of King Lear
Traditional, orthodox or dominant views are opposed by resistant, variant, dissident, divergent, subversive, aberrant or niche ones.
King Lear arouses dialectical or polemic interpretations because it, like most of Shakespeare’s tragedies is a problematic play raising complex questions without providing neat pat solutions. Until 1962, the play was presented in either the sanitised and now totally discredited Nahum Tate’s version with a fairy tale "everyone lived happily ever after" ending or a traditional Aristotelian interpretation attempting to engender audience empathy, identification, "arousing pity and fear", leading to the purging of emotions and Catharsis.
It was Jan Kott’s interpretation as Theatre of the Grotesque (1930’s) that inspired Peter Brook of the Royal Shakespeare Company to present an Epic Theatre interpretation of the play diametrically opposed to all traditional approaches. This was a pivotal presentation that radically and profoundly influenced future productions. The Christian interpretations follow the Aristotelian tradition while Nihilists follow the Epic Theatre, in the Platonic Tradition.
The Christian view is one of optimism based on hope. Based on dogma passed down throughout the ages through the teachings of Jesus, Christians believe in the dignity of man created in God’s image. Though they acknowledge human imperfection and fallibility, they also believe in salvation and redemption. Christians reject moral relativism and espouse the moral absolutism of truth, the mystery of creation, affirmation of life, divine justice, triumph of good over evil, upright living and faith in a loving benevolent God. Like Aristotle, they assert a rational moral order in the universe and that while suffering is inherent in the human condition, it can lead mankind to a noble form of dignity.
Christians argue that Lear has to become mad in order to become wise, that Gloucester can really only see once he becomes blind, yet the brutal gouging out of his eyes inspires the greatest upheaval of traditional order when a servant turns on his master, Cornwell, slaying him. Edgar makes some of the most profound observations that support the Christian view:
“The gods are just and of our pleasant vices
Make instruments to plaque us.”
The dark and vicious place where thee he got
Cost him his eyes. V.3.170
Albany expressing the fallibility of man and the nature of man’s evil, begins to comprehend what is happening concluding:
“Humanity must perforce prey on itself IV.
Through Lear, Shakespeare expertly portrays the inevitability of human suffering. The “little nothings,” seemingly insignificant choices that Lear makes over the course of the play, inevitably evolve into unstoppable forces that change Lear’s life for the worse. He falls for Goneril’s and Regan’s flattery and his pride turns him away from Cordelia’s unembellished affection. He is constantly advised by Kent and the Fool to avoid such choices, but his stubborn hubris prevents him from seeing the wisdom hidden in the Fool’s words: “Prithee, tell him, so much the rent of his land comes to: he will not believe a fool” (Shakespeare 21). This leads to Lear’s eventual “unburdening,” as foreshadowed in Act I. This unburdening is exacerbated by his failure to recognize and learn from his initial mistakes until it is too late. Lear’s lack of recognition is, in part, explained by his belief in a predestined life controlled completely by the gods: “It is the stars, the stars above us govern our conditions” (Shakespeare 101). The elder characters in King Lear pin their various sufferings on the will of...
undergoes a redeeming reversal of character. Lear slowly starts to go mad, Lear. O, let me not be mad,
Throughout William Shakespeare’s King Lear, many of the characters call out to divine beings in times of anger or pity or distress. There are a few types of idols worshiped and often called upon in the play, such as pagan gods, Nature, and Fortune. What is the role of idolatry and divine providence in King Lear, and how do the characters react to the various idols? The idea of idolatry comes up mainly in Seán Lawrence’s article “‘Gods That We Adore’: The Divine in King Lear.” Lawrence talks about the various characters who “invoke idols who are conceptual, not material, constructions,” and the fact that they use their “religion” as a justification for their own moralities, actions, and power, despite their different motives (145). Lawrence
Harbage, Alfred. " King Lear: An Introduction." Shakespeare: The Tragedies: A Collection of Critical Essays.
‘If little faults, proceeding on distemper, shall not be wink’d at, how shall we stretch our eye when capital crimes, chew’d, swallow’d and digest’d appear before us?’
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
In The Tragedy of King Lear, particularly in the first half of the play, Lear continually swears to the gods. He invokes them for mercies and begs them for destruction; he binds both his oaths and his curses with their names. The older characters—Lear and Gloucester—tend view their world as strictly within the moral framework of the pagan religion. As Lear expresses it, the central core of his religion lies in the idea of earthly justice. In II.4.14-15, Lear expresses his disbelief that Regan and Albany would have put the disguised Kent, his messenger, in stocks. He at first attempts to deny the rather obvious fact in front of him, objecting “No” twice before swearing it. By the time Lear invokes the king of the pagan gods, his refusal to believe has become willful and almost absurd. Kent replies, not without sarcasm, by affixing the name of the queen of the gods to a contradictory statement. The formula is turned into nonsense by its repetition. In contradicting Lear’s oath as well as the assertion with which it is coupled, Kent is subtly challenging Lear’s conception of the universe as controlled by just gods. He is also and perhaps more importantly, challenging Lear’s relationship with the gods. It is Kent who most lucidly and repeatedly opposes the ideas put forth by Lear; his actions as well as his statements undermine Lear’s hypotheses about divine order. Lear does not find his foil in youth but in middle age; not in the opposite excess of his own—Edmund’s calculation, say—but in Kent’s comparative moderation. Likewise the viable alternative to his relationship to divine justice is not shown by Edmund with his ...
The element of Christianity enters here, because King is a God-appointed position, not to be given up. Lear, however, decides to disregard this fact, instead focusing on the immediate gratification he will receive from his daughters, and boosting his self-esteem while making him feel loved. Lear essentially offers his land and power for love, "Which of you shall we say doth love us most? That we our largest bounty may extend where nature doth with merit challenge," forgoing his God-given position and rights.
Gloucester and Lear, create their eventual downfalls due to their inability to read deceit. Though these characters share the same tragic flaw, the means by which they make their errors is completely different. Gloucester remains a poor reader because he is quick to believe his sense of sight. When his illegitimate son, Edmund, reveals a deceitful letter designed to incriminate Edgar, Gloucester is quick to believe him. “Abominable villain”(1.2.74) he cries out before he even examines the letter with his reading glasses. Edmund’s trickery is conducted cleverly, but Gloucester’s lack of disbelief is unexplainable.
"It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us--the lesson of the fearsome, the word-and-thought-defying banality of evil" (252).
King Lear is at once the most highly praised and intensely criticized of all Shakespeare's works. Samuel Johnson said it is "deservedly celebrated among the dramas of Shakespeare" yet at the same time he supported the changes made in the text by Tate in which Cordelia is allowed to retire with victory and felicity. "Shakespeare has suffered the virtue of Cordelia to perish in a just cause, contrary to the natural ideas of justice, to the hope of the reader, and, what is yet more strange, to the faith of chronicles."1 A.C. Bradley's judgement is that King Lear is "Shakespare's greatest work, but it is not...the best of his plays."2 He would wish that "the deaths of Edmund, Goneril, Regan and Gloucester should be followed by the escape of Lear and Cordelia from death," and even goes so far as to say: "I believe Shakespeare would have ended his play thus had he taken the subject in hand a few years later...."3
Therefore, there is an inclination to agree with J C Maxwell, as despite the setting of the King Lear being Christian, its morals and concepts of atonement and redemption, lean towards Christian theology.
King Lear as a Tragedy Caused by Arrogance, Rash Decisions and Poor Judgement of Character
In Shakespeare's classic tragedy, King Lear, there are several characters who do not see the reality of their situation. Two such characters are Lear and Gloucester. Both characters exhibit a blindness to the world around them. Lear does not see clearly the truth of his daughters mentions, while Gloucester is also blinded by Edmond's treachery. This failure to see reality leads to Lear's intellectual blindness, which is his insanity, and Gloucester's physical blindness that leads to his trusting tendencies. Each character achieves inner awareness at the end as their surreal blindness is lifted and they realize the truth. Both Lear and Gloucester are characters used by Shakespeare to show the relevance of having a clear vision in life.
In every religion there is a distinctive understanding of value and duty, of right and wrong, and of good and bad. Modern Christianity is no exception and believes in each of these things. Christians know there is only one God and he created and rules over all things. They know that it is through Gods grace and love that we may have eternal life. That love and grace does not come without a price. The price is a life that is lived for God. It carries with it certain ethical and moral responsibilities to the community and all mankind. Those moral and ethical responsibilities are the backbone for society.