"All is sad and dark and deadly" Are Kent's words a fair summary of the tragedy of King Lear? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Samuel Johnson said that Gloucester's blinding was an "act too horrible to be borne in a dramatic exhibition" and that he was "too shocked by Cordelia's death, he had to re-read the play until he was entrusted with the task of curing her.1 Nor was Dr. Johnson alone who found himself unable to bear the violence and apparent injustices manifested in King Lear The 18th century certainly found the work "utterly sad" and he preferred Nahum Tate's watered-down 1681 original, a tragedy that was simply too tragic, doomed not to be performed for nearly 150 years. Lear is a dark work, with the near-triumph of Edmund's discontent, Lear's intense suffering and Gloucester and the apparent lack of justice at the piece's conclusion Shakespeare places his tragedy in an extreme and entropic universe that makes his audience uncomfortable, and indeed should do so. the sheer violence of Act III.7 bears witness to Kent's nihilistic expression at the show's close. However, Lear's universe, as I have just stated, is a universe of extremes, and not simply negative ones. As AC Bradley notes: In the world of King Lear there is the same abundance of extreme good and extreme evil. It generates an abundance of selfless devotion and invincible love.2 The work contains a group of characters who are unequivocally good. Kent, for example, is a paradigm of devotion. In Act II he is publicly insulted and humiliated. Despite Lear's threats, Kent remains determined to serve his master, even braving the storm to be close to him. Cordelia is also vilified and punished by Lear, yet she is a model of magnanimity and familial love. Even the Fool hides an affectionate nature behind his sardonic jokes. In Act I.4 the audience learns that he has "felt sorry" for Cordelia, while his last line in the play, "Now, my good lord, lie here and rest a while," addressed to Lear, is of real care and worry. .On the one hand we have Regan's disgusting reaction to the torment of her host, Gloucester: Go push him out at the gates and let him sniff his way to Dover. [III.7.94-95]And on the other, the sweet and carefree loyalty of the Old Man who guides his blind master in the scene that follows:O my good lord, I have been your tenant and your father's tenant these eighty 'years . [IV.1.12-14]These two opposites inhabit the same world and must necessarily do so for the work to be tragic. Kent's relentless devotion increases the cruelty of Goneril and Regan, and the desperation of Act V can only be achieved by the catharsis and hope of reunion between father and daughter in Act IV. The first defines and at the same time exalts the second, its opposite. Tragedy involves characters and spectators oscillating between these two extremes. A truly "sad" show would only overload the audience with an emotion, immunizing them against it in the long run. “Without opposites [there] is no progression,” as Blake clearly stated. Shakespeare creates an antithesis within the play, which Lear himself embodies. In some moments, her language is the most verbally aggressive of the entire piece: Into her womb conveys sterility! She dries up the organs of growth, And from her despised body no child is ever born to honor her! [I.4. 290-293]This series of violently misogynistic curses, directed at his daughter Goneril, is the most cruel and terrifying outburst in the work. Nothing Cornwall, Regan or Edmund say doescome close to this. Yet the same figure is capable of some of the most tender and lyrical lines ever written, such as the famous "The Birds in the Cage" speech from Act V.3. Lear's language encapsulates the dichotomy of tragedy. Love and loyalty are as much a part of King Lear's core as self-centeredness, lust, malice, and deceit. However, for drama to reach the level of tragedy, the balance must tip in favor of the latter. Ultimately, the glimmer of hope, the promise of redemption in King Lear is gone. My interpretation is that the second half of the play is a Shakespearean twist on the Passion. Cordelia's return is met with a sudden surge of imagery from clearly Christian, rather than pagan, language: There she shook the holy water from her heavenly eyes and the clamor grew moist. [IV.3. 30-32] Cordelia, if the Gentleman is to be believed, does not cry tears, but holy water. Even in the form of hyperbole, the playwright draws a parallel with Christ that is difficult to ignore and pervasive in two scenes in particular. In act IV.3, Cordelia is described to the viewer using Christian lexicon: 'passion', 'patience', 'the best', 'Faith' and 'blessing'. And again, in the next scene, when Cordelia speaks, her language continues this pattern, with words like: 'blessed', 'virtue', 'aident' and 'remedied'. Here is a figure who was ostracized precisely because she stood for the truth while those around her relished hypocrisy. Cordelia's return holds great promise. It embodies the hopes of salvation of both characters, like Kent, and the audience, on a national and political level. She is the 'Sun' [IV.3.19], the light that shines in the darkness and on her lips hangs the 'medicine' of the 'Restoration' [IV.7.26-27]. In Act V the parallels between Christ and Cordelia continue. She is sentenced to death, although innocent, and is in fact hanged. After carrying his daughter's corpse on stage, Lear dies believing that Cordelia is still alive, uttering the words, "Look at her, her lips, / Look there, look there!" [V.3.311-312]. But this is a false resurrection and Cordelia a false Messiah. His execution is not followed by a rebirth. Kent is once again the spokesperson for the audience and its question: "Is this the promised end?" [V.3.264], says it all. The answer, of course, lies inert on the stage. However, Cordelia's path in the play is echoed in Edgar, in much the same way that Gloucester's plight is comparable to Lear's. Edgar is also virtuous, but yet he suffers and dies not physically, but spiritually when he exclaims: 'Edgar, I am nothing!' [II.3.21]. And unlike Cordelia, his resurrection is real, when in Act V he claims his identity as Gloucester's son. However, his rebirth does not bring with it healing and salvation, on the contrary. The revelation of his existence occurs twice, once off-stage and once on-stage, and on both occasions he meets death: first that of his father and then that of his bastard brother Edmund. So, if Cordelia is the false Messiah in King Lear, Edgar is the anti-Messiah. And the message it brings with it is certainly not the 'promised end': The older one has endured more; we who are young will never see so much, nor live so long. [V.III. 327-328] Here, the pun on “borne” suggests a new life for the “older,” while the “young,” usually a beacon of hope and fertility, are doomed to short lives – “nor do they live so long". Edgar's closing words are disturbingly equivocal. They allude to the antithesis constantly at work in the work, a mixture of hope and desperation. Perhaps the couplet is ultimately nihilistic, and the work as a whole is equally so. Redemption remains unattainable. However, even if I agree that the words of. 304 -305