As we discussed in class, it seems almost cruel that Shakespeare should show us one moment of harmonious justice only to tear it apart one moment afterwards. The entirety of the play seemed to be leading up to that triumphant moment when the true daughter would be reunited with her repentant father.

In the fairy tale version of this story that I grew up with, father and daughter are reunited in the end–after the father experiences a revelation as to the meaning of filial devotion and the dangers of excessive pride. (Here is a link to the various fairytale versions of the “how much do you love me” story http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/salt.html) In the link you can see how parallel King Lear is with the German “love like salt” tale.  Except for the tragic ending, where father and daughter die.

Now to get back to my original question, why? I think Shakespeare wanted to write a play that was more in the fun traditional Greek tragic style–where, you know, everyone dies and eyes are gouged out (think Oedipus, Antigone or The Trojan Women). What makes this play so especially tragic is that for all the constant grinding forward from bad to worse, we keep being tricked into thinking the horrible events have plateaued, or at least that there is room for optimism.

Edgar is one of the main vehicles for this unwarranted optimism. For example, in act 4 scene 1 right before he finds his disfigured father he says: “…The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune, /Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear: /The worst returns to laughter…/The wretch that thou hast blown unto the worst/ Owes nothing to they blasts.” This is incredibly painful to read a second time around because we know just low, dejected and wretched a thing fortune can make of man. It’s like something a vaudeville act; “well, at least it isn’t raining.”

Sweet optimism makes the bite of bitter fortune that much sharper. I cried when Lear carries Cordelia’s body out, maybe because I identified with the father daughter relationship. Maybe because nothing is more painful to me than the idea of a father suffering the loss of his child, of a father’s heart breaking. Perhaps Lear’s death was actually an act of mercy on Shakespeare’s part. To let him live after witnessing his daughter’s death would have been the cruelest punishment.

I suppose Cordelia had to die to show the audience how serious a crime it is to take unadorned love for granted. A father who takes his children for granted commits the greatest sin of all, throws away the most precious treasure. If Lear alone had died after his redemption it would not have been such a tragedy. He was elderly and in those days such a long life was a rarity, therefore it was not so unnatural for him to die.  But it is a a complete disruption of the natural order for an old man to bury his young daughter. Not only was she young, but beautiful and unendingly good. That is where the tragedy lies. 

I don’t think I have fully answered my own question, except to say that any other combination would not have been thoroughly tragic, and that is why Cordelia had to go.