The Nature of Redemption and the Limits of Pessimism in King Lear

Authors Avatar by nipo95 (student)

The Nature of Redemption and the Limits of Pessimism in King Lear Brian Sheldon

King Lear distinguishes itself as Shakespeare’s bleakest tragedy, for it combines a level of brutality and a moral nihilism that are unparalleled in the rest of his works. The question of cosmic justice is the central theme in the play, and yet the dramatist’s perspective on the subject seems to be couched in ambiguity—especially with regard to the significance of the apparently senseless deaths of Lear and Cordelia in the final scene. This ambiguity is highlighted in the contrasting opinions of A. C. Bradley and J. Stampfer. In Shakespearean Tragedy, Bradley contends that Lear attains redemption through his previous suffering, a fact that allows him to die joyfully after casting off the vanities of worldly existence. However, as Stampfer points out in “The Catharsis of King Lear,” this interpretation is untenable because Bradley misjudges the depth to which Shakespeare’s pessimism extends. In the first place, Bradley possesses a weak understanding of pessimism itself, made evident by his presumption that King Lear is “too beautiful” to be pessimistic. This “aesthetic” reaction against pessimism causes him to take a narrow view of cosmic justice, a fact that leads him to conflate the moral with the metaphysical. As Stampfer demonstrates, the ultimate consequence of this twofold error is that Bradley’s claim is not supported by the text of the play. Instead of achieving a final state of happiness and reprieve from torment, the death of Cordelia brings home to Lear a much bleaker truth—namely, that redemption itself is futile.

In asserting that Bradley’s view of pessimism is inaccurate, I would seem to contradict a common intuition. However “pessimism” might be defined, it is generally seen as a distorted

viewpoint that overemphasizes the negative and cheerless aspects of existence. Indeed, the word itself usually has a pejorative ring to it, for it brings to most minds a rather repellent blend of feeblemindedness and moral failure. Pessimism is seen as a sort of slander of existence, for the gloomy world the pessimist claims to inhabit is nothing more than the projection of her own weaknesses and shortcomings. This being the case, it is then assumed that pessimism can have nothing to do with aesthetic value. Bradley appears to subscribe to this notion, for he believes that if King Lear were to be viewed as “only” pessimistic, it would therefore be “composed almost wholly of painful feelings...and that would surely be strange” (Signet ed., 203). Bradley is certainly not alone in thinking that “painful feelings” are an obstacle to aesthetic worth, and so I imagine that the majority of readers would identify strongly with his interpretation of the play.

Widespread as this conviction is, however, it cannot claim any substantive measure of justification. In the first place, we have no reason to presume that a work of art must be congenial or agreeable in some way in order for it to possess worth. Aristotle’s famous definition of tragedy actually requires the “pessimistic” emotions of fear and pity to be forcefully conveyed to the audience. Considering that King Lear provides numerous instances of these “painful feelings,” it almost seems nonsensical for Bradley to simply reject their value out of hand. This becomes evident if we extend Bradley’s argument to other areas of aesthetics. For instance, following Bradley’s reasoning, we would have to conclude that the representations of the Crucifixion by Raphael and El Greco are utterly hideous, for the torment and death of the Savior are surely too “unpleasant” to possess positive aesthetic value—a conclusion that, at least to me, seems clearly absurd. In addition, one should remember that the very idea of the sublime posits that aesthetic value may be found in terrifying and overwhelming experiences. Of course, it is true that the classical understanding of sublimity refers to natural beauty rather than (human)

Join now!

artworks, but all the same, there is no prima facie reason to think that every appellation of beauty must be strictly segregated according to some artificial categorization of experience. The point is that “negative” (i.e., unpleasant, disagreeable) attributes do not automatically preclude positive aesthetic value. Consequently, Bradley is not justified in presuming that the beautiful is limited wholly to the agreeable, the pleasant, and the happy.

More broadly, however, Bradley’s quick dismissal of pessimism is unjustified because he addresses only a partial aspect of the concept that is not representative of pessimism as a whole. In my view, there are ...

This is a preview of the whole essay