Write a note on the ending of the play King Lear.
How far is the ending of the play King Lear satisfying? Does Lear die believing that Cordelia is alive? Do you find the ending of King Lear too painful? Do you think that the play should have ended differently?
Poetic Justice in the Case of the Wicked Characters
King Lear ends with the deaths of Cordelia and Lear. Cordelia is hanged to death under the orders of Edmund. Lear too was to have been hanged at almost the same time but, before he could be hanged, he found Cordelia being hanged by a villain, and he put that villain to death with his sword. An attempt was certainly made by Edmund, before he died, to have Cordelia saved from being hanged but, before Edmund's revised order could be communicated to the captain at the prison, Cordelia had already been hanged. Just before Lear comes, carrying the dead body of Cordelia in his arms, the deaths of Goneril and Regan have been reported, and their dead bodies have already been brought before Albany and the others. A little later, the death of Edmund is reported; and moments afterwards Lear who has been lamenting Cordelia's death, himself also dies. Now the deaths of Goneril. Regan, and Edmund in the final scene of the play bring great satisfaction to us. We feel happy that the evil-doers have all met the end which they deserved. These evil-doers have brought appropriate punishment upon one another and upon themselves. This is what poetic justice demanded. But some critics have felt that the deaths of Cordelia and Lear were unnecessary from the dramatic point of view. According to them, Shakespeare should have spared the lives of both Cordelia and Lear and should have allowed them to spend the remainder of their lives peacefully in each other's company. These critics feel that these two deaths come as a shock to the audience, and that the death of Cordelia especially is too painful to be endured. Cordelia, according to them, has done no harm to anybody; and for the dramatist to have represented her as falling a victim to the evil machinations of Edmund and Goneril was too great an injustice to her.
A Happy Ending Given to the Play by Nahum Tate
In this connection it is necessary to point out that the ending of this play was regarded as being too painful even when the play was first produced. As a consequence of this feeling, and for certain other reasons too, Nahum Tate, the then poet-laureate, produced a revised version of Shakespeare's play in the year 1681. Tate remodelled the play, making three major alterations. He omitted the Fool from his version. He introduced a love-story, making Edgar and Cordelia fall in love with each other, eliminating the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France altogether, and making sexual love a dominant motivation throughout the play. But finally, and above all, Tate gave a happy ending to the play so that there is a general reconciliation in the midst of which Edgar and Cordelia, helped by others, restore order and justice in the kingdom. The last words of the play leave the two lovers, Edgar and Cordelia, in possession of the country and of one another. Edgar says at the end:
Divine Cordelia, all the gods can witness
How much thy love to empire I prefer......
Lear too in this version finds peace and happiness. Tate's version took Hundred and fifty years till eventually this version was ousted, and the immediate hold of the stage; and it continued to do so for the next one original version restored.
Dr. Johnson in Favour of a Happy Ending
The popularity of Tate's version of the play, with its happy ending. dely showed that the audiences approved of it and preferred it to the original ending given to the play by Shakespeare. So great a critic as Dr. Johnson too approved of this happy ending, saying that the public had taken a decision in this case and that Cordelia, from the time of Tate, had always retired "with victory and felicity". Dr. Johnson also said that he himself had been so shocked by Cordelia's death that he would never again be able to endure reading the last scenes of the play.
Lamb's Objection to Tate's Happy Ending
However, there is no unanimity of opinion among critics on merits or demerits of the ending as given to the play by the Shakespeare. Charles Lamb strongly objected to the happy ending provided by Tate. Lamb felt that the play, as written by Shakespeare, was beyond all art and that any tamperings with it were objectionable. Lamb felt that the living martyrdom, which Lear had gone through, and the flaying of his feelings alive, made it absolutely necessary that the only proper thing for the dramatist to do at the end was to let Lear die. In Lamb's opinion, Lear if allowed to continue living, would not have been able to sustain this world's burden. All the sympathy that the audience feels for Lear during the period of his suffering and madness would be a complete waste if Lear is to continue to live and if he is to be restored to his kingship with Cordelia by his side. According to Lamb, then, Tate had made a mistake by altering the play's ending and making it necessary for actors like Garrick to act the role of the new Lear who, after all his suffering and torment, attains a serenity of mind and royal authority. Lamb wrote in a witty vein: "Tate has put his hook in the nostrils of this Leviathan*, for Garrick and his followers, the showmen of the scene, to draw the mighty beast about more easily."
Schlegel's Objection to a Happy Ending
Then there is the view of Schlegel who also objected to the happy ending given to the play by Tate. Schlegel wrote: "Cordelia's death has been thought too cruel; and in England the piece is in acting so far altered that she remains victorious and happy. I must own, I cannot conceive what ideas of art and dramatic connection those persons have who suppose that we can at pleasure tack a double conclusion to a tragedy; a melancholy one for hard-hearted spectators and a happy one for souls of a softer mould". Schlegel goes on to say that, after surviving so many sufferings, Lear can only die; and that it is a truly tragic end for him to die of grief over the death of Cordelia. If Lear were to be saved and to pass the remainder of his days in happiness, the whole play, says Schlegel, would lose its significance.
Bradley's View
Then there is the opinion of A.C. Bradley. This critic is in two minds as regards the present unhappy ending of the play. After expressing the view that the blinding of Gloucester is a blot upon King Lear as a stage-play. Bradley poses the following question with regard to the play's ending: "Is this too a blot upon King Lear as a stage-play ?" And he says that it is difficult ("Leviathan-a sea-monster) to answer this question. He describes the changes made in the play by Tate as sentimental and disgusting. But at the same time he says that, taking his courage in both hands, he will boldly say that the ending given to the play by Shakespeare is too painful. And yet Bradley does not take any firm stand in this matter, wrapping his attitude with a lot of verbiage, so that we do not understand what he is really driving at. In any case, he is not as categorical as Lamb and Schlegel were.
Lear's Death Absolutely Necessary from the Dramatic Point of View
Leaving the eminent critics on one side, let us look at the matter from an independent point of view. A tragedy depicts exceptional misfortunes and exceptional suffering. The hero or heroine or the main protagonist is the principal victim of this exceptional misfortune and suffering. A tragedy always ends with the death of the hero who, in the case of Shakespeare at least, suffers largely on account of a flaw in his own character but partly also on account of the circumstances for which not he, but fate is responsible. Now, Lear is the hero in this play; it is Lear who suffers indescribably throughout the play till he achieves some consolation and comfort by his reunion with Cordelia. Within a few days of the commencement of his stay with Goneril, he finds himself no longer being treated properly in her bousehold; he quarrels with her and goes to Regan. Regan too does not eceive him affectionately or kindly. Then both sisters combine to oppose his will and treat him in a most callous manner. From this point onwards Lear becomes a sympathetic character (that is, a character who wins the sympathy of the readers and the audience). During the storm, Lear suffers physically as well as mentally: physically because he is bodily exposed to the fury and olence of the elements, and mentally because the ingratitude of his two daughters has become a torture to him. The pressure of the storm and of this ngratitude is too great for him to bear, so that he goes mad. In a state of madness he makes several speeches which show him emerging as a wiser man than he was at the outset. Reunited with Cordelia, he achieves peace of ind. Now the proper ending for the play would not be to leave things here. The tragic effect of all that has gone before would be almost dissolved if the play ends only with the deaths of the evil-doers, leaving Lear happy and erene in Cordelia's company. The requisite degree of emotional and ramatic effect can be achieved only if, like other Shakespearean tragic heroes, Lear too dies at the end. No valid objection can therefore be raised to Lear's death at the end of the play. If some readers find his death unbearably painful, there is something wrong with their emotional reactions. In this Connection it would be worth while calling to our minds the way in which Hardy's famous story Tess ends. That novel ends with the execution of the heroine, and nobody has ever objected to that ending, painful though it Certainly is. Lear is a hero in whom the tragic flaw has been conspicuous, almost glaring, in the first two Acts of the play. His sufferings are a direct esult of that flaw which may be described as arrogance, vanity, egoism, and a dictatorial temper. After he has suffered on account of his own folly and blunders, the proper ending for him would be death in order to complete the tragic effect of the story.
The Flaw in Cordelia's Character
It is chiefly Cordelia's death that is deplored by a majority of those who regard the ending as too painful. According to them, Cordelia is entirely innocent and to represent her as meeting her death at the end as a result of Edmund's villainy is something most unjust, and therefore shocking. But one feels like asking if there is any rule of dramatic writing which demands that no innocent person should suffer or should die without being guilty of some serious lapse. But, before we go into that, we would like to point out that Cordelia is not entirely innocent. She too suffers from what may be called a tragic flaw in her character. When asked by her father in the opening scene what she has to say with reference to her love for him, she replies: "Nothing" She is given another chance to speak but still she has "nothing" to say. We can, of course, defend her at this point by saying that she is by nature reserved and reticent, that she does not indulge in boastful talk, and that there is an inner compulsion for her not to speak in a magniloquent manner of which she is by nature incapable. But the point is that, when further pressed by her father to say something, she makes matters worse by saying that, when she gets married, half of her love for her father would go to her husband. Now this is curious logic. This statement by her shows sheer perversity. Love cannot be divided in the manner in which Cordelia says it would be divided in her case. A girl's love for her father is different from her love for her husband, and there is room in her heart for both kinds of love. Cordelia should therefore not have gone out of her way to tell her father that her love for him would be reduced by half after she gets married. This is the deficiency or the flaw in her character.
The Appropriateness of Cordelia's Death
Even if we brush aside this flaw in her character, we cannot maintain that innocent persons should never be punished. In fact, the spectacle of an innocent person being subjected to persecution or cruelty can evoke a strong emotional response. After all, large numbers of innocent people in this world do become victims of persecution and cruelty. There is nothing far-fetched in Cordelia's being subjected to harassment and death under the orders of a villain like Edmund. After all, she has invaded England and tried to crush the rightful rulers of the country, even though she has done so in a just cause. All the martyrs of the world die in just causes. Cordelia's death is therefore not altogether without any basis or justification, even though the justification is very small. Her death, and thereafter the death of Lear, constitute the only appropriate ending that was possible for Shakespeare to give to his play. It is Cordelia's death which largely gives us the feeling that something precious has been lost, though Lear's death also contributes to this impression. The two deaths together produce in us that enormous sense of waste which Bradley regards as an essential experience in our reading of Shakespearean tragedy.
The Heroic Spirit of Lear and Cordelia; the Cathartic Effect
A tragedy is expected to bring about a catharsis or purgation of pity and fear and similar other emotions which always dwell in the human heart in a dormant state. This catharsis is effected by this play also, and it is effected largely by the fate which Lear and Cordelia meet. Our feelings of pity and fear are aroused to the maximum degree by the misfortunes and death of Lear, and by the death (whether undeserved or partially deserved) of Cordelia. At the end of the play, we are bound to feel that something exquisite has been lost; and at the end of the play we are filled with admiration for the heroic spirit displayed by both Lear and Cordelia. After all, it is the greatness of the human spirit which is the real theme of every true tragedy in literature.