To What Extent Do You Agree That Realisation Leading to Tragic Sorrow Is More Compelling in King Lear Than in the Rather Moralistic Burial at Thebes? Context on Aristotelian and Jacobean Tragic Reception

...

Since being blinded, Gloucester understands more through his suffering “I see it feelingly”. He can now metaphorically ‘see’ the truth through his senses. In the end, our feeling of pity is enormous towards Gloucester. He reflects upon Lear’s madness “How stuff is my vile sense/ that I stand up and have ingenious feeling/ of my huge sorrows!” (Lines 267-9). He wishes he was insane and could forget his grief. He is suffering greatly although in a different way to Lear, giving the audience a compelling feeling of pity towards Gloucester.

The fool for me was the most admirable character in the course of King Lear. In terms of Aristotelian tragedy The Fools are retained in large parts of Jacobean tragedy e.g. the most profound wisdom spoken by the fool is often relayed in song. The fool, during the Jacobean times lived an incredibly harsh life; they were often mentally handicapped and used for entertainment, thus immediately provoking pity upon him. In King Lear the Fool plays on visual metaphor, there is no form of symbolism- he is extremely insightful during the course of the play and is the only one allowed to say things in the magistrate than no one else can, for example he is not afraid to declare Lear as foolish with the use of the word “coxcomb.” We grow to be fascinated by the Fools wit and insightful comments, however towards the end we are only informed in a line that the Fool was killed. There was no detail of how, coming across that he is irrelevant even after the advice he gave the King, pity is felt for him as the moralistic idea of regal position can only give you recognition.

In terms of realisation of the characters, King Lear in Act 5 has full anagnorisis, there is also some degree of restoration and due to his massive downfall and death, the some what restoration of his actions are much more compelling. The same is for Gloucester, however his realisation takes time, as Edgar has to continue to remind him that it is in fact his fault and not the Gods. The absence of Gods in King Lear could be a problem to some audiences, however its retrospective audience at the time would have understood that this was in fact the full anagnorisis. Gloucester’s realisation is a turning point of the play, the [1]forces of unnatural are returned “O my follies. Then Edgar was abused.”

In The Burial at Thebes, Antigone does not have realisation- she is not relatable in this sense to the audience and therefore lacks tragic sorrow. Creon however has full understanding of his actions and therefore is awarded the tragic hero status, according to Aristotelian poetics. The moralistic views of the play are much more compelling to the audience in the time period due to the obedience and fascination of The Gods. In total Lear seems to be more deserving of our sympathies as he has humbled himself “O I have ta’en/ Too little care of this” (Lines 32-33) unlike Creon in The Burial at Thebes. Lear is realises that he should have taken a larger interest in his Kingdom and the subjects within his Kingdom. He did not do enough, whereas Creon believes that as a leader, he has his subjects at the forefront. The aspect of Gods towards Lear and Creon are taken for granted in their seek for divine retribution, and therefore could be seen as less compelling.

However I believe the entire analysis of the plays is according to the Hegelian Enigma, both of the plays are compelling in their own way to their retrospective audiences. This would be due to the time period in which they were set and the meaning of Gods and viewpoints.

---------------------------------------------------------------

...