Is King Lear an Aristotelian tragedy?
...th the good and the evil are defeated to some extent Moreover, at the commencement of the play, all is well and peaceful. Although the King abdicates, he still possesses the love of his daughters, and is able to excersice power and authority against the one which did not please him. But the play reaches a crescendo when Lear's kingdom divides and his daughters and followers betray him. Thus the development of the plot is towards chaos and disharmony. Secondly, the play features nothing but characters of high social status, the Kings, Dukes, Queens and so forth. The heros and heroines, namely Lear and his three daughters as well as Gloucestor and his sons, all suffer a tragic fate as a result of their character flaws. King Lear¡¯s excessive pride in himself, Cordelia¡¯s inability to please her father, Gornerill and Regan¡¯s treachery, Gloucestors¡¯ ¡°blindness¡±, Edgar¡¯s naivety, and Edmond¡¯s vengeful nature all lead their eventual destruction. Furthermore, the plot builds around a catastrophe, one that which provokes pity and fear. The development of the play follows the collapse of the physical and psychological world of Lear¡¯s. The King¡¯s progression from sanity to insanity driven by the betrayal of his daughters and the loss of his power and self-dignity arouses the compassion of the audience. The deterioration of his relationship with his daughters and the chaotic division of his kingdom is feared by the viewers. However despite these accordance to the Aristotelian definition of a tragedy, there are many aspects of the play that the definition does not encompass. A Freudian reading of the play would uncover many other aspects of the play not necessarily relevant to its tragic nature. In such a perspective, we see the depth of the play in psychological and philosophical terms. Metaphorically, the King is no longer merely a King, but the representation of an old man, struggling to g...