NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... er his penance, far from demonstrating unfairness of nature, shows that it is never to late to live honourably and that dying happily and with honour is more important, and rewarding, than the personal gain sought by Edmund, Gonerill and Regan, who of course die unhappily and unfulfilled, as they are too greedy and selfish. Having said this, in Act 5 Sc 3 Edmund realises that he has caused a lot of damage and seeks forgiveness for it. I pant life; some good I mean to do Despite of mine own nature. I think that this is optimistic as it shows that a person can change and that even though Edmund wrongs he can at least seek penance for his mistakes. Edmunds soliloquies earlier in the play showed his selfish, Celtic, nature, but here we see how he renounces that nature and admits that it brought no good and also that his unnatural relationships with Gonerill and Regan caused all three to marry in an instant.
It could be said that Edmund only seeks to do good on his deathbed to attempt to go to heaven and, when taking into account his behaviour throughout the play it quite easily be argued that he is lying when he attempts to do good in order to be acknowledged as good by God and the court, as he realises that his selfish plans have failed. The act of penance would therefore become selfish if he is only attempting to seem good and natural before he dies to secure a place in heaven. This would be pessimistic, as it would show that Edmund couldnt acknowledge that his nature is wrong and that he has caused unnecessary harm. However, I think that it would be cynical to suggest that Edmund is lying, and, given that the play is symbolic and not a psychological study, I believe, that this is another example of optimism in the play and an attempt by Shakespeare to show that people can change. In Act I Scene I, Cordelia refuses to take part in the love-test, and although the wisdom of her nothing is often called into doubt, the point is that she wouldnt flatter Lear, while her sisters flatter and praise him in an attempt to deceive him. No less than life, with grace, health, beauty, honour, As much as child eer loved a father found This flattery is natural to them, yet unnatural to Lear, who cannot fathom any other motive for their words.
Their declarations of affection are rhetorical constructions designed to manipulate and abuse Lears inability to contemplate any other context or motive to the typical Roman one by which he lives. Through nothing Cordelia is the only one of his daughters who reveals her true nature to him, even though that is not the same as Lears nature, in that she realises the matriarchal nature of her sisters and is prepared to use the powers that her sisters have to restore order. She answers nothing because she has no ambition to wield a sword like her sisters. Her Celtic nature is shown late and used for good in order to restore order. Restoration hang Thy medicine on my lips, and let this kiss Repair those violent harms that my two sisters Have in thy reverence made! This could be considered a Celtic, white magic, way of awakening her father from his madness.
This shows how Cordelia uses her sisters nature to restore order. I see this as being optimistic, despite the fact that for a lot of the play good is banished and chaos rules; Gloucester's trial is called justice while the trial in the hut staged by Lear comes much closer to true justice; the weather is chaotic; women reign and begin to commandeer activities that are symbolically and traditionally performed by men, like Gloucester himself, such as swordsmanship (3. 7. 79). Ruthlessness and selfishness, for a while, defeat truth and loyalty. This has been interpreted as being pessimistic and it could be thought that Shakespeare is trying to demonstrate to the audience that everyone makes mistakes, and we are all susceptible to the blindness that caused Lears and Gloucester's downfall. However, this would be a pessimistic view of the play. In my opinion, the point of the play isnt to demonstrate the mans ability to destroy himself shown in Lears abdication, Gloucester's adultery and the way Gonerill, Regan and Edmond end up destroying each other in a web of lust and vice but it is optimistic, more about the fact that we can learn and good nature can prevail.
This learning is shown through Gloucester and Lear; they both realize that thy have been deceived by their children, and that they have done wrong themselves and begin to see what life is about, particularly ironic, as Gloucester is blind Your eyes are in a heavy case, your purse in a light; yet you see how this world goes. Lear learns that he was wrong in abdicating and that he should have been content to play his role as king. When we are born we cry that we are come To this great stage of fools. This is the moment Lear understands that he was wrong in abdicating and that he shouldnt have tried to be anything less than king in the same way that Edmund shouldnt have aspired to inherit Gloucester's land. The fact that they do repent and learn is surely far more optimistic than the fact they committed a crime in the first place is pessimistic. After all, if a mistake were irrevocable, we would all be at fault and all our lives would be lived in vain, which is why I dont think Shakespeare intended the play to be pessimistic.
In my opinion, the mere existence of Cordelia and Kent is optimistic. Earlier I mentioned how Cordelia is unconsciously inspired by Christ from Christian theology. Her words, O dear father, / It is thy business that I go about is echoed by Luke 2: 49. Many other comments about her have a Christ-like, pureness about them. Most choice, forsaken; and most loved despised. Kent's loyalty is also optimistic in its mere existence, as in 5. 3 he still says I have a journey, sir, shortly to go / My master calls me, I must not say no.
The love and loyalty shown by both Kent and Cordelia towards Lear are, in my opinion, optimistic by their mere existence, and the fact that they their good is the force that eventually prevails makes it even more optimistic. Stampfer sees the play as being about ossification of the human spirit, the stupidity of Lear, the manipulation of human behaviour to satisfy ourselves, mans nexus of appetites and a demonstration of how unforgiving nature is. I dont agree with Stampfer and see the play as about the endurance of the human spirit, the fact that we can all learn and seek penance for the mistakes, which we undoubtedly make. I agree further with Bradley when he says, about King Lear, that Its final and total result is one which pity and terror are so blended with a sense of law and beauty that we feel at last, not depression, and much less despair, but a consciousness of greatness in pain, and of solemnity in the mystery we cannot fathom. I have the same opinion as Bradley here, as I see the play as being optimistic. However, for me, the simple existence of such characters as Cordelia is optimistic as I feel the play demonstrates that as long as such characters exist and subsist than we can live in hope of a better society.
Free research essays on topics related to: edmund, optimistic, lear, human spirit, cordelia
Research essay sample on Wrong In Abdicating Good In Order Play
