How far do you agree with the view that "Lear is a character bent on his own destruction from the outset of the play"?

How far do you agree with the view that “Lear is a character bent on his own destruction from the outset of the play”?

The view of Lear being bent on his own destruction from the beginning of the play is an acceptable claim. The way he begins in the play, dividing up his country for his daughters, in essence, this spelt disaster. Unlike other renaissance dramatists, who used ‘mad scenes’ for comic use, Shakespeare seems intent on displaying madness in a more sinister portrayal.

In favour of the claim, much can be said. In his thought process of dividing up his kingdom, it would appear, that nothing went through his mind to make him question what he was doing. When the audience, and indeed the characters first formally hear of the division of the country, Lear says,

‘…’tis our fast intent to shake all cares and business from our age’

here, and later on in his speech, Lear says that the responsibility of the nation must be transferred to younger shoulders, and that those of the older generations should wait, and crawl to their death. To the audience, as indeed to later analysers of the play, this may have been an early indicator to what was going to happen later in the play. The fact that Lear says that the country should be divided, the responsibilities taken from the shoulders of the elder generation, and that the elder generation should wait and crawl to their death, is mildly disturbing, considering he was the king. The thought processes needed to muster a decision like this, must have been made by one under either considerable strain, or one of a limited mental capacity. Dividing ones country up, while king, to your sons in law and claiming all that is left for you to do, is crawl to your death, there is little, if any sense here.

The behaviour of Lear with his followers differs throughout the novel. To begin with, his devout followers such as Kent and Gloucester, pious and virtuous to the king, as were the masses which served him. But as the play progresses, he loses his masses, because he loses his crown. But, throughout the novel, Kent remains loyal to the king. Lear behaves (laddish) with his knights, they go out and hunt: spend all day out in the country, and return demanding Food and care. Such childlike behaviour is this, that Goneril has an outburst at her father, she says;

“Men ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

“Men so disordered …that this, our court… Shows like a riotous inn”

Goneril then says;

“…epicurism and lust

Makes it more like a tavern or a Brothel”

Anchoring the facet that Lear, with his knights is childish. Goneril speaks her mind of what Lear, claiming the manner of the knights, and indeed her father, resemble that of a brothel. Lear claims outrage at his daughter, curses, and leaves for Regan’s residence. This shows Lear in a very bad light, although being the king. He shows no maturity or leadership, he is simply one of the lads. Subsequent to this argument with Goneril, Lear bears a grudge on his daughter, and shows utmost maturity when saying farewells, as he curses his daughter. Lear’s attitude toward his other daughter, Regan, is not much helped when she proposes, with her sister, that he must sacrifice all but one of his knights if he wishes to hold residence with at least one of his daughters. After this, Lear begins a self-destructive stage, where he dons his crown, and strips himself of all his clothes, (the removal of clothes, the clothes signifying that he is the King), and retreats to the fields. The parent-child relationship is not so evident in this play, that the father, and mother, must love their children regardless of much. Lear disowns both his daughters in a very short space of time, both for reasons, which should be reversed, not getting what he wants. To the Jacobean theatre, the issues of the family break-up with Lear and his daughters, and indeed with Edmund, Edgar and Gloucester, was a reflection on the anxieties of the period. Medieval views on gender and class were under scrutiny by the masses. The audience would have seen the play, not just as a breakdown of a character, but as the breakdown of an entire way of life, which, for the public, would have been a reflection of the age that they lived in.

Lear’s abandonment of his Kingly virtues, are symbolic of his madness. When he retreats to the hills and strips himself of all his clothes, in essence, Lear is stripping himself of everything monarchic, removing the clothes, which distinguish him as the king. When the storm starts, it is symbolic of Lear’s growing anger, distress, and ultimately, his madness. The storm, which progressively gets worse, is appallingly destructive, almost too much for man to endure.

Throughout the play, as in many of Shakespeare’s plays, the Fool’s role is a commentator, but in King Lear, the Fool adopts a different role. The Fool acts as Lear’s conscience, among other roles, which include being the representative for Cordelia, and the vehicle for Pathos. When the Fool first comes into contact with Lear in the play, he is very bitter and critical towards Lear.

“All thy other titles thou hast given away; thou wast born with”

By analysis and the assistance of study guides, it has become evident to see that in the Fool’s early encounters with Lear, he is representing Cordelia, Cordelia was Lear’s favourite daughter, the criticism and bitterness that the Fool expresses are those of which Cordelia would be thinking. The effect of this on the audience would have been subliminal, but the form of it would offer a different angle on Lear’s actions.

Against the claim that Lear’s character is bent on his own destruction from the outset of the play, it is necessary to look at the actions of characters surrounding Lear.

“Natures of such deep trust we shall much need; …you first we shall seize on”

This is an early indication, in act two, that Cornwall’s character is morally dubious. This early indication allows the audience to see that Cornwall is prepared to stand by his wife and sister-in-law against Lear. The treatment of Lear by his daughters is atrocious, they have all the power their father had, and yet demean and humiliate him. They plot together and take from him everything he has been used to for the majority of his life. The sisters plot together and gradually eat away their father’s sanity, the breaking point for Lear is the removal of, all but one of his knights. This kind of treatment would send many people insane, the children Lear brought up, clothed, fed and watered, suddenly take a blind hatred and unrelenting cruelty towards their father. This, in all fairness to Lear, would make any father, or indeed any person mad, having lost his hierarchical status and the majority of his dignity, he retreats to the hills to be at one with the microcosmical nature.

The ‘learning’ process, which Lear encounters in the novel, really starts when he realises what a mistake it was to give his country to his daughters. In his madness, Lear retreats to the hills, when he does this, the play changes direction. Lear becomes one with nature, by removing his clothes and exposing himself he put himself at natures mercy. Lear comes to realise the desperation of the poor and homeless, he begins to see the depravity in the world.

The injustice of what of the actions that Lear has to endure during his daughters ‘reigns’ is as horrifying as it is inhuman. What the daughters put upon their father is nothing short of torture. The Lear had lived his life in luxury, having everything he wanted, when he wanted. But as soon as he handed the country to his daughters, he lost all self-respect, dignity and ultimately, his sanity. The removal of everything that made Lear comfortable and happy meant that he had nothing to live for, except his daughters, but as the play shows, they were ruthless and cruel, leaving the King without any comforts and reasons to live. Apart from all the sorrow and depression Lear had at this stage in the play, he always had his faithful jester, the Fool. The Fool follows Lear up into the hills as a loving pet would its owner. The relationship of the Fool and Lear is a refreshing break among the anguish that is endured in this play, what with Gloucester’s savage torture, fair Cordelia’s banishment and the general darkness of the poem.

According to the work of the Greek Philosopher Aristotle, horror and pity are the two emotions that the audience should feel when watching a tragedy. These two emotions are certainly expressed in King Lear, mainly from the Madness of Lear. It is an interesting and difficult concept, to say that Lear’s character is bent on his own destruction from the outset of the play, but for one to generate opinion, one must be able to distinguish between Lear’s ‘Sane’ and ‘Mad’ portrayal. Is he just mad anyway, or do the actions throughout the play remove his mind and replace it with the mind of a wildcat.