King Lear - Did he learn?

Authors Avatar

King Lear Essay

Did he learn?

Tragedy requires the hero to learn through his suffering.  British writer George Orwell, however, made this comment about Lear: "he is a majestic old man in a long black robe, with flowing white hair and beard wandering through a storm and cursing the heavens. Presently the scene shifts and the old man, still cursing, still understanding nothing, is holding a dead girl in his arms."

Discuss Orwell's comment by first considering why he might make this claim, and them go on to refute the claim.

A tragedy, like all other modes of literature, has its own unique elements, or rather, “requirements”. It involves a tragic hero, whom is often first brought forth to the audience as one that is “larger than life” and is often at the heights of his power. Then, we see the hero falls, falls into darkness, into agony and suffering.  However, through the suffering, he is required to have learnt something, to have acquired insight and wisdom about life. In one sentence, a tragedy requires the hero to learn though his suffering. In “King Lear”, which is a typical Shakespearean tragedy, evidence of such is also seen. However, British writer George Orwell had once made such a comment about Lear, he had said, “he is a majestic old man in a long black robe, with flowing white hair and beard wandering through a storm and cursing the heavens. Presently the scene shifts and the old man, still cursing, still understanding nothing, is holding a dead girl in his arms.” Is he correct to make such a statement?

On the surface, it may appear that George Orwell is indeed making some sense by saying that when the play ends, Lear had gained nothing, and is still as blind and ignorant as he was when the play started. In the earlier acts, we have seen more than once of Lear shouting and screaming at the Gods, raging and screaming. Towards the end of the play, in Act 5 Scene 3, we again see Lear howling and shouting, this time with Cordelia dead in his arms. In addition, also in Act 5 Scene 3, Lear was calling Kent, Edgar and Albany as “men of stones”, totally unaware of what they have done for him; unaware that Kent, even after he was shamefully banished by Lear out of the country, had loyally followed him all along, disguised as Caius; unaware that poor Tom the beggar was actually Edgar. Yes, he was unaware of too much. These evidence may lead us to a conclusion that Lear has not changed one bit throughout the play, and is still the senseless old man whose only way to venge his anger is through cursing the gods and others. However, we are wrong to judge Lear simply by his actions and words. If we analyze deep into Lear’s heart and his state of mind, his changes will become more evident.

Join now!

Like all tragic heroes, Lear has tragic flaws. Three of the major mistakes he had made are the love test, his disowning Cordelia and the banishment of Kent. The love test revealed his habit of quantifying love, which is something that cannot be quantified; and his desire for artificial things such as flattery. He had turned the test into an awful bargaining scene by trying to award people with material things for their love, thus treating human bond as commodity by giving it a value. Another evidence to prove such a habit of Lear is when he was arguing ...

This is a preview of the whole essay