lit crit

‘shakespearean tragedy’ kastan

• causes of tragic events in plays are often vague/unidentified

• influenced by medieval tragedy

• tragic events in lear are ‘uncompensated’ for audience. audience doesn’t go away feeling end was just/ pointing out a happy future

• s never intended to write a polot where all villains were punished/ virtuous rewarded

‘the pleasure of tragedy’ AD nuttal→ philosopher’s views on tragedy

• Aristotle – there is a ‘proper type of pleasure’ to be found in tragedy = a moralising one, and the ‘catharsis’ (relief) that follows having watched a tragedy and realising you are ok.​

• Nietzsche – ‘tragic joy’ – there is a ‘higher pleasure’ (appreciation) of tragedy that brings the viewer ‘joy’ about their own lives, it should not be a malevolent (sadistic) ‘pleasure’.​

• Dr Samuel Johnson – the very nature of Art (in this case literature/drama) is that it causes pleasure. So regardless of the play's tone and outcome, the fact it’s high art makes it enjoyable​

• Contemporary (21st century) attitudes – ‘discomfort at describing tragedy is pleasurable’… word seems inappropriate. COMMON SENSE: if people didn’t find it pleasurable, they wouldn’t go and watch it. No need for analysing WHY it is pleasurable.

‘the pleasure of tragedy’ AD nuttel → his concl + evaluation

• people do not find tragedy ‘pleasurable’ as such, but rather ‘enjoy’ being immersed in it w/o cosciously thinking, ‘this is pleasurable’

• instead those watching tragedy are ‘immersed’ in the ‘subject’ itself w/o any specific emotional response of pleasure or anything else

  • however: pleasurable when:

  • Justice of villains’ deaths (Cornwall, Edmund, Goneril, Regan).​

  • Admiration for moral character’s like Cordelia and Kent’s loyalty to Lear.​

  • Humour of A3S2, A4S6, Lear and Gloucester reuniting.

‘The shakespearean Tragic Hero’ AC bradley

• ‘Predominantly the story of one hero’​

• Involves ‘the death of the hero’ that is seen coming, not accidental after a largely happy plot.​

• ‘Essentially a tale of EXCEPTIONAL suffering and calamity’​

• ‘Pity’ is an ‘essential ingredient’ – the playright wants the audience to feel deep sympathy for their hero​

• A ‘total reversal of fortune’.​

• Tragedy is concerned with ‘persons of high degree’ (kings, queens, nobility)… tragedy strikes both ‘peasant and prince’​

• A tragic figure cannot relinquish power (Othello), it must be taken against their will.​

• Tragedy’s cause is again deliberately unclear but can be due to Fate’s ‘caprice’ → fate serves as an instrument of moral reckoning

‘Tragedy and Madness’ Maynard Mack

• Madness is a ‘divine punishment’ (from God, gods, Fate)​

• Madness allows a shield for truth in ‘speech’ (the Fool, Poor Tom, Lear)… Hamlet is ‘privileged’ to say what he really feels and ridicule others under the protection of being ‘mad’.​

• added wisdom + enlightenment

• Shakespeare himself could deliver truths behind the security of ‘mad’ characters (no risk of treason, sedition, etc. as he can always say his creation is crazy and is therefore talking gibberish).

‘Language and Female Power in King Lear’ Carol Rutter

• Fathers do not appreciate daughters (or sons) since Shakespeare starts his play with Gloucester ridiculing Edmund’s illegitimacy in ‘banter’ and ends with Lear’s useless ‘lavishing’ of love upon the now dead Cordelia.

• motherhood is ‘reviled’ in Shakespeare’s graphic imagery conveyed through Lear’s rants about Goneril and Regan.

• Lear’s ‘impotent rage’ is presented as feminine, and contrasted to the ‘cold’, ‘large speech’ of his daughters, who once in power, become masculine.

• Shakespeare deliberately/inadvertently ties ‘silence’ to audience expectations that ‘good women keep their mouths shut’. ​

• King Lear’s ‘cursing’ is an ‘appropriation of female ‘discourse’. In other words, by losing his kingly authority, Lear becomes feminine

• Lear views his daughters who talk as ‘monstrous’ yet he ‘monsters’ his silent daughter who is obedient and loving.​

  ​

‘Ways of Speaking in King Lear’ Frank Kermode on suffering apocalypse and exposition

• Suffering comes from ‘human evil’, when it is inflicted on the ‘good by the bad’ and ‘indiscriminate’ in tragedy. Kermode’s piece seems to point to the role LANGAUGE/WORDS have on inflicting suffering in the play, rather than the physical violence that comes from the words.​

• Apocalypse is the ‘Last Days’ when everyone is destroyed in a ‘day of judgement’. Kermode argues the whoel play of King Lear is an allegory for the apocalypse of England, since everyone has ‘turned on each other’ and started a ‘bestial’ ‘eating’ of others. Is Kermode arguing that King Lear’s ending will lead to to an inevitable divine judgement?​

• The exposition of the play (it’s opening scene) does more than ‘set the geographical scene’ and ‘introduce characters’, in King Lear Shakespeare uses the apparently inconsequential conversation between Gloucester and Kent to introduce the idea of ‘law’ and ‘equity’ and set out the UNFAIRNESS of society from which villainy springs.​

‘Ways of Speaking in King Lear’ Frank Kermode on diffs in how s uses lang with 3 sisters

• Goneril’s and Regan's words are to be ‘manifestly insincere’.​

• The ‘topic of inexpressibility’ to present how Goneril’s love is insincere, whilst Regan’s ‘cedat-formula’ (type of hyperbole) is insincere because it is so ridiculously overblown. ​

• Cordelia is defeated by ‘the genuineness of her love’, exposing her sisters’ ‘rhetorical falsity’ by reacting silently (as a contrast to their language)​

• Kermode makes an interesting point that goodness is silent, whilst evil ‘speaks’. Compare the sisters – compare Edgar and Edmund (consider Edgar hardly speaks as himself yet does good, whilst all Edmund’s words are lies attempting to destroy others)

• Kermode points out the manipulation and suffering in Lear is caused predominantly through LANGAUGE (lies, scheming and arguments) from which violence and death stem.​

‘The morality of king lear’ Fintan O’Toole

• The ending to Lear is a ‘second ending’… Edmund’s death, and Edgar’s rightful reinstatement should be the play’s end but it is not. Why? Good finally beats evil and evil (Edmund) repents before he expires.​

• The re-entrance of Lear with Cordelia, dead, is the real tragedy aimed at leaving audiences ‘upset’ and without ‘comfort’ ​

• Shakespeare has chosen to end the play with Lear’s re-entrance, Cordelia in arms, precisely to deny his play a neat ‘moral’ (message). The ending is relentlessly bleak and unsettling, that appears to say the play does not intend to be morally didactic.

PATRIARCHY: Kathleen Mcluskie

• shakespeare’s vision as conventional and conservative + portrayal of female characters as misogynistic

• misogyny of KL, both the play and its hero, presents women as the source of the primal sin lust, combining with concerns about the threat to the family posed by female insubordination

• action in the play depends on the audience accepting an equation between human nature and male power

• play forces us to sympathise with the patriarchs (Lear and Gloucester), and the masculine power structures they represent

• Cordelia’s love is not a redemption of womankind, but an example of the patriarchy restored

• audience forced to agree that evil women (G+R) create a chaotic world, and must be resisted

• feminine must either submit (cordelia) or destroyed (G+R)

FEMININITY + LEAR: Coppelia Kahn

• wrote ‘the absent mother in KL";

• Lear’s progress by the end of the play was ‘an acceptance of the woman in himself’

• KL is about ‘male anxiety’

• Lear breaks down when he refuses to accept that he is dependent on his daughters, that he needs the feminine

• Lear goes mad because he cannot face his feminine side; he refuses to cry

• when L learns to weep, and rediscovers a loving non-patriarchal relationship with C, he is redeemed

• the play affirms femininity as a positive force

W.R Elton: EXISTENTIALISM / MEANING + GODS

• existential criticism of KL

• KL refuses the popular consolation of significance in suffering

• challenges the optimistic view that KL is a play about meaningful suffering

• argues the play portrays a world where suffering is often arbitrary and w/o clear purpose

• examines the role of gods/ higher powers in the play, suggesting that their actions are often inscrutable/malevolent, rather than just

• the last act “shatters, more violently than an earlier apostasy might have done, the foundation of faith itself”

Arnold Kettle- MARXISM

• focuses on the evolution of KL’s character + position from ‘king to man’

• KL is a reflection of society in turmoil, marked by a clash between trad, hierarchial order and emergence of individualistic values

• fundamentally abt L’s journey → progression from king (defined by position and power) to man (emotions + vulnerability)

• his initial rejection of feminine qualities is instrumental in his eventual acceptance of them

margot heinemann- SHIFT IN SOCIAL ORDER

• play has demystifying potential for audiences to observe the challenges to the divine-absolutist viewpoint of monarchy

• Lear’s abdication mirrors instability of feudal society in decline (G+R+E represent capitalist individualism)

• L’s descent into madness is a symbol of world order breaking down

• exposes plight of landless poor

• E represents capitalist ethos + breakdown of hereditary privilige → cunning ambition replaces loyalty and duty, which contrasts Kent + Edgar (who are forced into exile, showing destruction of old moral structures)

• C is a figure of moral integrity standing against corruption

• execution underscores brutality of transition from feudalism to more rutheless world order

g wilson knight- EDGAR

• edgar is a job-like figure who reminds his father, despite the pagan setting, that men must endure patient suffering for a higher reward → fundamental belief of christian doctrine

Jessica Vanden Berg- CORDELIA AND JC

• Christian parable

• ‘Grace, Consequences, and Christianity in King Lear’

• believes that there is a parallel between Cordelia and Christ, thus her death was necessary so Lear accepts her mercy and receives salvation. he is saved by her sacrifice and alleviated from the eternal effects of his sin, but still suffers from earthly consequences of his sin

Sers Jayne- GLOUCESTER

‘Charity in King Lear’

‘Gloucester is totally unaware of the starvation for love which gnaws at Edmund, and so is unaware of Edmund’s hatred for Edgar’

Stanley

the Fool is able to speak honestly and wisely due to his lowly status: part of the tragedy lies in Lear consulting the Fool too late

martha rozett

in ‘Kent’s Unmasking in King Lear’ argues that “his [Kent’s] final lines reinforce the audience’s sense of him as a character who exists only to serve the king he loves

Samuel Coleridge

• Kent is presented as the ideal model of virtue in King Lear, but is in no way two dimensional – the audience picks up on a "charm in his bluntness", accompanied with an "easy placability where goodness of heart is apparent". In other words, Kent is presented as a very likeable and good-natured character. Kent's devotion and servitude towards Lear comes from a sense of benevolence and duty. This makes us like Lear because Kent supports him ​

• Oswald is placed in antithesis to Kent, "as the only character of utter irredeemable baseness in Shakespeare". He is simply a willing tool of Goneril and has no respectability whatsoever. The comparison of the two (in A2S2) only emphasises Kent's virtue more

• “Oswald’s loyalty to perform such destructive acts as an agent of Goneril and Regan is appalling​

William B Bache

• To Goneril and Regan, Lear was more king than father; to Cordelia, Lear was more father than king

• G+R detest the favourite child and their now doting father.

• Lear’s public persona as a king distorts his perception of reality, making him blind to the true nature of his children- he remains unaware of their resentment until they take action.

• Throughout the play, Lear is transformed and redeemed

• Bstorm symbolizes Lear’s internal chaos and his psychological unravelling- through stripping him of his royal status and comfort, Shakespeare has Lear begin to see the true nature of human suffering.

• Lear questions what it means to be human, and this moves him towards humility. He shifts from demanding obedience to recognising shared vulnerability.

• By the time he reunites with Cordelia, he no longer seeks dominance and instead, he expresses genuine love.

• Lear’s redemption comes at a cruel price because just as he fully understands love and humility, Cordelia is killed and his final moments are filled with despair. Shakespeare has his death be ambiguous and conclude his transformation- he dies not as a king but as a father, fully embracing his humanity.

halvorson

‘The profound insight of the Fool enables him to expose the foolish thoughts and deeds of those who inhabit the higher ranks in society’

orwell

argues. the fool is like a trickle of sanity running through the play

barish

“Oswald is Kent turned inside out, the bad servant anatomized, and their altercation in the courtyard of Gloucester’s castle presents in almost schematic form the confrontation of true service with false”

McNeir

• edmund’s changes

• "Edmund swings from unfaith to the verge of faith suspended in indecision, sinks into the abyss of evil once more, and tries to crawl out-too late."

• argues he embraces individualism and meritocracy rather than feudal loyalty

• a machiavellian figure (prioritises power over morality)

• rejection of fate and belief in self-determination

• force of destruction

jan kott

• world governed by meaningless suffering, where characters have no control over their destinies. This aligns with existentialist critiques of fate, where Shakespeare depicts a chaotic universe devoid of divine intervention.

• argues that King Lear is a “metaphysical tragedy”, where fate does not serve justice but instead highlights the absurdity of human suffering:

• Shakespeare strips away illusions of divine order, leaving man alone in a world where fate is blind, cruel and indifferent

Heilman

• "Gloucester gains full insight just as he is blinded... punished at his one moment of high affirmation

  • Heilman highlights that true vision comes only through suffering: Gloucester "sees" the truth after losing his eyes, just as Lear gains wisdom through madness and loss.

  • Gloucester’s physical blindness mirrors Lear’s moral blindness

• Gloucester’s subplot is essential to the play’s artistic and thematic unity

• Gloucester’s story reinforces + deepens the tragedy’s major concerns- particularly themes of blindness, suffering, deception, justice and redemption

S.L. Goldberg

• Edgar is the personification of justice, to vindicate the Gods and the rightful order'

• Edgar is a character who believes in a divine justice system, but ultimately, it is human, natural justice that prevails.

• Edgar's unwavering faith in a divine order is challenged by the events of the play, where he witnesses the corruption and chaos caused by the characters' actions.

• Goldberg's interpretation emphasizes the contrast between Edgar's initial belief in supernatural justice and the reality of the play's world, where human justice is ultimately the force that brings order.

robert peck

• Edgar and Cordelia both act as spiritual physicians... in their capacity their actions resemble those of Christ

• introduces concept of edgar’s ‘cosmic pligrimage’ → importance due to journey of growth and self discovery

• draws parallels between edgar’s journey and medieval high comedy, where the virtuous protagonist prevails over evil, suggesting that Edgar’s growth is emblematic of a broader humanistic triumph

• Edgar emerges as a guiding force, helping them navigate their suffering, with Edgar assuming the role of a philosophical and spiritual guide after the fool’s disappearance