As I am writing about existentialist influences on modern literature for another class of mine, I think that it can be interesting to analyze the tragic ending of King Lear through a similar lens. While Kierkegard's original conception of existentialism concerning man's ability to create meaning in his life despite the relative absence of God has been utilized by other philosophers such as Sartre and Marcel to influence their own notions of existential thought, it seems that the underlying belief that an individual is responsible for his/her own fate unequivocally remains. As we see at the ending of King Lear that all of the central characters experience a demise, it seems that perhaps with the exception of Cordelia, everyone is eventually killed as a direct consequence of their own decision making. In this sense, the characters experience the harsh reality that in a world devoid of God's influence, there is little redemption to be gained in forgiveness or regret. While Gloucester eventually regrets his decision to disown his son Egdar, his realization comes too late as he has already lost his eyes due to the alliance that was able to be formed between Edmund and the Duke of Cornwall. While the reader may feel sorry for Gloucester, as I must admit I did during the reading, if one is to trace back to the origins of his decisions, it can be argued that Gloucester sealed his own fate by not only giving birth to a "bastard" son who was susceptible to greed, but because he was so easily persuaded to believe that his son Edmund was a traitor.
Further, while Lear may regret his decision to banish Cordelia, his remorse does nothing to save either him or his daughter from tragedy. Like Gloucester, his realization comes too late, as the emotional effects of such family division has already led Cordelia to reach the depths of her despair and end her own life. As Regan is poisoned by Goneril, and Goneril kills herself for a complex litany of reasons including her probable remorse over betraying her father and her sister and her despair from losing Edmund and her power over the kingdom, the consequences of Lear's original decision to prematurely divide his property reaches its most tragic of endings. It is in this world of despair, that Edgar remains, one of the last remaining survivors in a sort of post-apocalyptic landscape where he has survived due to his honest nature that never wavered throughout the play even during his moments of animalistic self-deprecation. Thus, Edgar survives, relatively alone except for the presence of his human "essence" that he has cultivated for himself against the play's godless world where man's fate is left in own his hands and not in that of a compassionate God willing to reward belated utterances of remorse.
2 comments:
My apologies for the typo in the title, by "exitentialist" I mean "existentialist".
Danielle, this is an interesting look at the existential mood of the play. There is definitely a sense that the characters have fallen from God's grace and lost favor with the spiritual forces of the world. On the other hand, the fact that man's fate is "in his own hands" recalls the Sermon on the Mount and the teaching of measure for measure. As you point out, every character comes to a karmically justified end--except perhaps Cordelia. But her purity (which is represented in language that associates her with Christ) may cast her as a Christ-like figure who is crucified for the sins of mankind.
Post a Comment