As one of the key terms mentioned in class is man, the acts of violence present in King Lear (though there are much more violent plays in Shakespeare’s repertoire) are key to understanding not only our similarities to Shakespeare’s audience in the attraction to graphic displays but also how violence reflects the nature of man.
In all fairness, the play wasn’t always as received well for the violence and suffering it depicts as it is presently. The tide turned for King Lear after the English Civil War (1642- 1651). Hence, a much more palatable version emerged by playwright Nahum Tate that occupied its own moment of popularity in history. Interestingly enough, in Tate’s adaptation The History of King Lear the character of the Fool is completely omitted.
Not only does violence play out in the form of a storm, but in Act 3 scene 7 we see the plucking of Gloucester’s eyes at the hands of Cornwall and Regan. The violence of nature contrasts to that of man. In Cornwall’s pursuit of authority, he is willing to perform the most violent of means against someone much older than him who has provided shelter. His actions beget more violence, and as we will find further on, lead to a devastating fate for Cornwall.
The violence that nature shows brings characters like Lear, Edgar, Kent and the Fool together, while the violence of man unites the more wicked of them all: Cornwall, Goneril, Regan and Edmund. In this grouping, we also see another way that the characters of the play are divided. There are those who act and those who suffer. In this division, there is *seemingly* some justice in that those who act become the source of their own ill-fate, but judging by the sentence passed down on Kent for honesty and Gloucester for naivety, suffering can come to those who do not deserve it as well. The conclusion that emerges in the following two acts will reflect how justice doesn’t always come to only those who deserve it, which is perhaps one of the most difficult points for the audience to come to terms with.The good guy doesn’t always win and the suffering that the bad guy gets in no way makes right that wrong.
What Dariya is getting at here is the nature of the tragic experience in KIng Lear, which has had an effect, as she says, on the play’s stage history. I’m not sure how many other plays by Shakespeare are more violent than this one (maybe Titus Andronicus?). The stakes change when we care about the persons on whom violence is visited, perhaps.
How in the world could you have King Lear without the Fool? Another notable change Cordelia and Edgar have a romance. Oddly in Tate’s version Edmund attempts to rape Cordelia and is saved by Edgar so it didn’t exactly tone down the violence. He did however give it a happy ending where Cordelia survives. Can you imagine if movie remakes today did this? Lots of interesting info on the wiki. I recommend checking it out. Apparently most of the changes are due to changing tastes and politics during the restoration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_King_Lear