AC Bradley subtitled the play, "The Redemption of Lear." What do think he meant by this comment and how far do you agree?

Authors Avatar

AC Bradley subtitled the play, “The Redemption of Lear.” What do think he meant by this comment and how far do you agree?

AC Bradley’s condemnation of King Lear is reminiscent of the typical Christian critical approach and interpretation to, “King Lear,” which employs the idea that the play illustrates Christian virtues. The, “Redemption of Lear,” is in congruence and could be interpreted as the Salvation of Lear, which falls in line with the salvation of Christ Jesus- a highly Christian perspective and proves Bradley’s hypothesis worthy of its origins. Furthermore this interpretation is also in line with that of humanist critics such as Kettle, who call the process the, “Humanising,” of Lear and emphasises the value of the human experience of Lear- and that the play becomes a story of his progress from being a vain king to a sensitive man. These two differently originated interpretations congressing to an analogous conclusion I deeply agree with: Lear indeed ceases to be a vain and egotistical king and becomes a considerate and altruistic man. Cleary shown here…………..

It is more than fitting that Bradley, subtitled the play, “The Redemption of Lear,” as the play originated partly from the book written by Geoffrey Of Monmouth’s “History Regum Brittaniae,” (History of the King of Britain). Although many particulars remain the same, Shakespeare made his own unique adaptations: Lear’s madness, the storm and the Fool. Considering that Lear’s madness is the key to his redemption which is symbolised by the storm and driven by the choric commentary of the Fool, it is clear that Shakespeare made these adaptations in order to make Lear’s redemption a central theme and therefore Bradley’s condemnation is more than appropriate.

When considering his redemption it is incredibly important to look at the progress of Lear through a break down of stages. In Act 1:1, Lear’s behaviour with Kent is redolent of Lear’s psychological, vain, tyrannical and blind sense of mind. The passage reinforces the irony of a king at his most peremptory at the moment when he is giving his power away. This would have been highly alarming to the Jacobean audience, who believed that kingdom division only led to war. Shakespeare’s prophecy is particularly apt because in 1642, civil war did preside due to kingdom division. Lear threatens Kent with the violent image drawn from the world of archery

Join now!

“The bow is bent and drawn; make from the shaft.”

The image is typical of the aggressive and authoritarian language of Lear in the first two acts, the alliteration hyperbolising this further. Lear’s reaction is typically lacking in proportion and redolent of the same neurotic insensitivity, which he revealed in banishing Cordelia.

“Have no such daughter, nor shall ever see

that face of hers again. Therefore be gone

Without our grace, our love our benison.”

This is archetypical of the most Aristotelian opening to any of the major Shakespearian tragedies Lear thus demonstrates his, “Hubris,” ...

This is a preview of the whole essay