King Lear and his Kingship

            There is no denying the fact that once there was discernment that brought into being popular during the 16^th century in England. It was in fastidious proliferated by the Tudor rulers in order to ensure the prolongation by their rules as the system of kingship was supposed to be fixed by the deity himself where men’s willingness was fake and fabricated. This doctrine affirmed that the king was god specified, self-governing and a direct representative of supernatural being on earth. Therefore under no state of affairs was the king to be aloof, put back as this throne appropriated on this would be alongside the strength of character of God. Once a king was named he was to remain one until he died or usual death and even to step down from the kingship was not permissible.

            In his famous book, ‘Troilus and Cressida’ William Shakespeare verbalizes, “Take but degree away, untune that string, And hark, what discord follows” where he sought after to articulate explicitly that for the Elizabethans, the dominion was not minimally a well-designed role where it was a fundamental part of a pecking order predestined by God himself which accommodates the celestial, saintly, human being, mammal and materialistic world. Everything had its selected place in this progression. To dislocate was to provoke pandemonium. The king was God’s right to be heard on earth and whichever attempt to squeeze the throne from him would lead to mayhem and suffice it to pronounce that it was not some far-flung theory which subsequently several Shakespeare’s plays are apprehensive with the remove from power of kings – and that cataclysm perpetually tag along – is a manifestation of the implication of the impression, and of Elizabethan fretfulness about the chain to the queen.

            The Elizabethans would have initiated it easier said than done to comprehend Lear’s renunciation. Even of inferior quality was to carve up the kingdom and thus generate scope for potential rivalry: such an accomplishment could not be tolerated by a people for whom the internecine bloodlettings of the wars of the Roses hang about a folk reminiscence. Shakespeare’s social group would understand Lear’s tribulations: a worn-out aged king with no son to succeed to his favorite daughter uncommitted. But they would have distinguished no answer but for the king to endure: God had placed him on the throne and, in the comprehensiveness of time, God would remove him. If they implicit Lear’s dilemma, they would recognize even better the chaos mechanism from his wrong-headed resolution.

            There is supplementary delicate standpoint in which we have to view this premise of kingship. The play seems to point toward that the altitude of the throne can distort the person who occupies it. Lear has been congregated for so long with adulation that he can no longer make a distinction connecting sincerity and deception. He has for so long been obeyed in every scrupulous that he cannot stand for the slightest delay in the observance of his wishes. That which in the young king might have been forthright and assertive has now degenerated into the vain, harsh and imperious. It is an inquiring feeling whether it occurs in the case of all leaders, rulers and kings. Perhaps but what we know for certain is that Lear has to undergo an agonized flaking away of accumulated layers of insensitivity and obtuseness before finding himself. Would he have needed to do so if he had been a humble servant rather than a sovereign?  It seems by a hair's breadth likely. Is a king sufferer as able-bodied as a ruler?

Parents and Child relationship

            Even supposing, misfortunes in King Lear shoots up to a paramount celestial height, the chronicles finds its pedigree in an awful status like run of the mill which envisage the apprehension between parents and grown up children which reflect readers to be more intensive to have eagerness to know the situation ahead.  At its simplest, the play concerns itself with the expectations of aged parents and the differing responses of their adult children. Shakespeare’s Macbeth had no doubt about ‘that which should accompany old age’ which he clarifies as ‘tribute, devotion, submission’. King Lear would certainly say amen to that although he would add gratitude. His antagonism with Cordelia stems not only just from mortification and hurt pride, but also from rage at her apparent ungratefulness. As  he is progressively broken by Goneril and Regan, his torment resounds on this theme and even until he begins to learn through suffering , Lear’s thoughts are for himself  of what his children’s obligations are to him, of what he has done for them and how it should be rewarded.

            The key problem is that both parents and children are confronting a time of changeover, of exchange of power and authority. The parents are in taking a rain check, the young at the peak of their power and energy. We see two responses from the children. One, from Cordelia and Edgar, is to love and succour their parents, accept their faults, bear no grudge, bide their time. The other, from Goneril, Regan and Edmond, is ruthless, self-centered, annoyed and heavy-handed. The old are past it, no more than an encumbrance and an obstruction. They must be hard-pressed aside and inheritance detained. The best expression of this comes from Edmond, in the words he attributes to Edgar:’ I have heard him of mountain it to be fit that, sons at perfect age, and fathers declined, the father should be as ward to the son and the son manages his revenue’ . Lear, of course, receives similarly short sheriff and In scene iv Goneril speaks repeatedly of his dotage the point is driven home later by Regan. As his daughters strip him of his retinue, Lear brokenly points out’ I gave you all’. The retort expresses well the philosophy of usurping ‘And in the nick of time, you bestow it’ and as such the fool drives home the point:

‘The hedge sparrow fed the cuckoo so long

That it’s hard if head bit off by it young’

            Lear, Gloucester and Kent cherish a conservative view in which family bonds, commitment, amazement and reverence for pecking order are paramount: Gloucester, surveying the crumbling of Lear’s world and his own, laments: “We have seen the best of our time, Edmond, Goneril and Regan are the hard-headed, clear-sighted progressive – modernists who have no time for antiquated ideas. They are of today and the future, ordering their lives and very much in charge of their fate.

            The conflicting attitudes of the children reach their apotheoses dramatically. Goneril and Regan combine to break their father; Edmond contributes to the blinding of Gloucester. Nothing will be allowed to stand in their way. A corresponding apotheosis restores the old values; when Edgar leads his blinded father to some retrieval of hope and happiness, when cordelia reassures the bewildered Lear, they are not being obedient, not responding to any hierarchical imperative. They are simply expressing a love, loyalty and regard too strong to have been undermined by the rash misjudgment of their father.

            This straightforward fiction of two impulsion aged men, betrayed by self-interested progeny and redeemed by the feelings of affection for of a wronged child, has a widespread significance. As children we have got to all come to terms with our attitudes to our parents, to their and our shifting needs. As parents we must brazen out the fact that our children will outgrow us and supersede.

            In view of the above it is evident that there is no easy answer, no superficial ethics. conceivably, however, we learn with Lear and Gloucester , Cordelia and Edgar, that the old must not anticipate to receive all, must continue to give, to realize to learn- and the young must hold out care for and respect for as long as we are concerned with or for craving to receive in question. Things cannot be hurried for which it is universally noted that ripeness is all.

Learning from suffering

            All the way through suffering, Lear learns a new ethical view of his life and human relation relationship with one another specifically if the relation is framed with close human ties. According to him, it is a judgment nowhere in signal in early stages of the play, which develop in a mood of ruthless materialism, of that which can be counted and measured. Gloucester and Kent have a discussion of the sharing out of the kingdom; Lear wants his daughters to express the dimensions of their love; the actual number of knights becomes a crucial symbol of self-hood. A man it appears is what he owns, an expression of his belongings having stressed by his daughters into justifying his needs for a retinue, Lear’s speech  beginning ‘O reason not the need’ is magnificently moved, but cracks down in confusion. He seems to be asserting that man needs superfluous items in order to mark him off from animals, but the line of thought will not hold. It is, in any case a view that he will draw closer to discard.

           

            It is throughout the storm that Lear loses his footing towards a conception of what a man really is, what his true needs are. From uncontrolled against charlatan, he turns to sympathy for the unrehearsed -‘meager nude wretches’ before becoming one himself by dragging off his clothes in emulation of poor Tom. He, by his cosmopolitan outlook enunciates through the world of surface impressions: he recognizes and expresses that he is one of the lowliest.  Lear continues to learn of keen necessity of honesty, sincerity, simplicity and openness. It is a theme which culminates in his in his reunion with Cordelia and particularly in his birds in the cage speech. The important thing is to be with those one loves and trusts, to seek and offer forgiveness as may be necessitated to make merriments to each other company. And regarding the justice of human beings, we find in King Lear that the wealthy and mighty don’t guarantee even handed justice; those with the whip-hand of power and authority often abuse it. Considering Lear’s trial of his daughter’s affection his disgusting punishment of Cordelia and Kent; the flaying of Lear and Gloucester by the newly installed high and mighty; the cruel death of Cordelia. The demented trial of scene iii act vi some how projects deceptiveness of it all, while Lear’s eruption in scene IV against the rascal beadle and robes and furred gowns is a fulminating attack on evil motives virtually. Gloucester contributes to this understanding in that his blinding, by rich and elevated is a catalyst which simply attracts goodness from the ordinary servants and the old man who guides him. This is why like Lear he comes to see the importance of sharing affluence and ruination excess. The best certification of righteousness seems to lie not in setting one man over another, but in mutual sympathy and regard for each others dignity and needs.

            As we are to conjecture that lusting after riches and belongings is eventually self slaughter and severe death of Cornwall, Goneril, Regan, and Edmond seem to peak to this. On the other hand, Lear and Gloucester- two old men who suffer and loss so much –seem in a sense to be triumphant, for they achieve some grasp of man’s need for outspokenness, justice truth, absolution and love.