King Lear Flaws Essay, Research Paper

Of all Shakespeare’s great tragic heroes, Lear is perhaps the least typical. In

the beginning of the play Lear is already an old man; his best days have passed,

though doubtless there is still about his person a certain regal carriage.

Lear?s petulant behavior betrays him, and soon, when he engages his three

daughters in the dreadful game of flattery, wherein Goneril and Regan swear the

whole allegiance of their hearts to a father, leaving nothing for a husband, it

becomes clear that Lear is something less than natural. In the first act, Lear

assumes one of the least attractive roles in Shakespearean literature, that of a

bad father. Lear at first does not realize that his temper and deep seeded need

of blandishment leads to the usurpation of his divinity. Only through rejection

and madness is Lear able to understand and change his destructive attitudes and

behavior. As a tragedy, King Lear portrays a protagonist whose fortunes are

conditioned by his hamartia, or tragic flaw. As defined by Aristotle, ?the

protagonist of a tragedy should be a person ?who is not eminently good or

just, yet whose fortune is brought about by some error or frailty? (Jacobus

IIV). This error is not necessarily a flaw in character; hamartia can be an

unwitting misstep in definite action or the failure to perform an action (Jacobus

IIV).? Lear’s hamartia is the capricious division of his powers and kingdom

before his death – more specifically, the rejection of Cordelia because she will

speak "nothing." Lear?s flawed character traits that enabled him to

make this mistake were his disrespect of the chain of being, his faith in the

substance of spoken words, and his rashness. Lear believes himself a great and

respected King; Goneril, Regan, and the Fool constantly remind him that he is an

old man who has lost his kingdom, his faithful daughter, and his wits through

his own folly. In Lear?s whimsical desire to hear how great he is, he trusts

the substance of spoken words. He is not concerned with the truth and so he

mistakes Cordelia’s response for an insult, a non-answer. She will not give him

the words he desires because they do not hold the substance of what she knows to

be truth. Through his madness Lear breaks down the false illusions of his

courtly world. Where the earlier speech is concerned with power and title (Blow

winds and crack your cheeks! Rage blow!?), the later speech is concerned with

humanity and friendship (Poor naked wretches, whereso?er you are?). Lear’s

madness can be seen both as a result of his arrogance and as a remedy for it:

The Fool’s statement that "truth’s a dog must to kennel; he must be whipped

out." foreshadows the pain that Lear will have to pass through before

attaining enlightenment. Lear?s madness is unarguably the ranting of a mad

man. However, Lear?s ravings contain some method in them. As a result of

Lear?s madness, he slowly and methodically realizes his fatal error, and the

corresponding personality traits. Lear understands that the consequential

suffering of all his subjects is due to his mistakes. In the final scene, Lear

asks who and what he is, and he is told (most bluntly by the Fool) that he is

nothing. He no longer has importance to the other characters. However, Kent, the

Fool, and Cordelia make him more than nothing does by serving faithfully,

speaking bluntly, and loving unconditionally. Though in the end Lear is able to

understand his flaws, he is never able to use the knowledge he has attained to

emend his destructive attitudes and behavior. That is what makes ?King Lear?

a tragedy. In conclusion, Lear brought upon himself the ultimate punishment; the

comprehension of his personal faults, which led directly to the suffering of all

who loved him. Although Lear knows full well the error of his ways, his

situation restrains him from accomplishing any sort of change in this respect.

As a footnote, it is interesting that ?the Bard?s patron, King James of

England was seeking to unite England and Scotland at the same time that

Shakespeare was writing King Lear. That Shakespeare chose to show a divided

kingdom in King Lear leading to tragedy confirm that Shakespeare was either a

significant social and political commentator or simply a royal ass kisser

(Martin, Long, and Tichenor, Side 3).?

Bibliography

Jacobus, Lee. The Bedford introduction to Drama third edition. Boston:

Bedford Books, 1997. Martin, Reed., Long, Adam,. and Tichenor, Austin. The

Reduced Shakespeare Company Radio Show [audio recording] 2 cassettes. Laughing

Stock Productions, Ltd. 1994.

326