EN 220

Professor Oliver Fletham

Jeremie Simon

Research Paper: Existentialism in King Lear

Research paper motive:

From our reading, King Lear is the book I enjoyed studying the most. I liked the universal

dimension of the play. I tried in my research paper to show the existential journey Lear has to

go through to find freedom and well-being. To do so, I am first going to explain why is King

Lear dealing with questions of existentialism and why existentialism is not only a philosophy

from the 19th century and 20th century. Then, I will analyze the step by step existential

evolution of Lear.

Research Paper:

Introduction: the growth of existentialism

Even though the term “existentialism” appeared in the 1940’s in France, the ideas,

concepts and the philosophy that this term subsumes have always existed. Jean Paul Sartre,

who largely participates in the development of existentialism, states that, “existentialism has

never been invented [1]” which implies that it has always been present. Later, he even adds

that existentialism was not a philosophy but an attitude of life and a general vision.

I believe the reason for the late appearance of existentialism coincides with the

individualization, the alienation, and the decline of religion in western societies.

Existentialism focuses on the individual and his environment (entourage, society, and

universe). It is a philosophy that generates a number of practical imperatives, such as: getting

1
over our angst, being an authentic individual, and reaching a state of total freedom –being

“existentially free” [2]-.

The 19th century theory of alienation by Marx [3] explains the growth of absurdity felt

by people at the end of the century. Marx asserted that the recent industrialization of society

was alienating people. By not owning what they produced, the workers lost control of their

life. In other words, they did not see the end of their labor. This impression of absurdity is

later reinforced during the early 20th century with the German expressionist movement in art

with work such as Metropolis by Fritz Lang

Religion also played an important role in the development of existentialism. Indeed,

for a long time, it provided answers to questions related to the concept of the afterlife; people

did not have to worry about death and the consequences of having a finite life. Assuming that

one does not consider their life the same way knowing whether it is finite or not; one can

endure more pain in life knowing that there is an infinite afterlife awaiting them in death. As

the influence of religion decreases more people start to wonder about the meaning and the

significance of human life. So the decline in religions in the early 20th century brought the

existentialist philosophy to the foreground.

Additionally, the 19th and the 20th centuries are marked by the development of the

individualization in western societies mostly because of the breakdown of the traditional

family model. As existentialism is by nature an individualistic process, individualism is a

favored context for its development. The questions of existentialism are about finding

yourself so it is opposed to collectivism and could not have developed in non-individualistic

oriented society; this is for instance why existentialism was born in Europe and not in Asia

2
 Existentialism in tragedy

Existentialism becomes incontrovertible over the 20th century but the feelings of

absurdity and angst have always been a common concern in literature and especially in

tragedy. Since the core concept of tragedy is related to the main themes of existentialism,

tragedy is the best means for an author to develop concepts inherited from the existentialist

movement. The fundamental rules of tragedy [4] “impose” the existence and death of a tragic

hero (es) before the resolution of the play onto the writer. Hence, in a tragedy, the destiny of

the characters is already decided. So, when presented with a tragic play, the first impression

of the viewer or the reader, is a sensation of absurdity. Seeing these characters fighting

against their respective conditions and destinies while knowing at the same time that whatever

they will do, they will die before the end of the play automatically makes one think of the

incongruous role humans have on earth.

King Lear is not the first play by Shakespeare that deals with existentialist matters

and questions about life and death (Othello, The Tempest, Troilus and Cressida). Even though

critics often argue over this subject [7], many have linked Shakespearean tragedies to

Aristotle’s precept about tragedy in that the protagonist must be an admirable but flawed

character and the audience able to understand and sympathize with him. Thus, when

considering that Shakespeare wrote his tragedies according to the rules proposed by Aristotle,

we can say that the existentialist thematic is often approached. However, King Lear differs

from the other existentialist plays in its way of approaching the subject. If The Tempest could

be linked to Nietzscheian ideas (Prospero illustrates the Nietzcheian concept of Übermensch),

King Lear could be compared to the works of Dostoyevsky, such as Crime and Punishment,

3
because in both the main characters, Lear and Rasrolnikov, experience existential

progressions.

King Lear

In King Lear, Shakespeare presents the existential crisis of an individual. The play is

about an old King, Lear, about to retire. After dividing his kingdom and giving up his

authority, he finds himself rejected and experiences the absurdity of trying to fit in the world.

The flow of events force Lear to go through an existential progression described as a

symbolic journey. From this journey Lear goes from an egocentric and impetuous monarch to

a much better person liberated from his anguish and satisfied by his condition. We can see

something very Darwinian in King Lear (evolution of species). In order to survive, Lear is

forced to accept his new environment and existence. A change is imposed upon him without

him wanting it and he must accept it to fit into the world.

Through the play, Lear dramatically changes from ignorance to knowledge, from an

unauthentic to an authentic person and from despair to happiness. The first impressions of

Lear transmitted by Shakespeare are his grandeur, his magnificence and his strength. By Act

I, he is a confident monarch using very formal language written entirely in blank verse. He

uses the royal ‘we’ when speaking about his opinion to illustrate the unity of the country

behind him. Behind these appearances of ease and respect, Act I mostly shows Lear’s

stupidity. First, Lear divides his kingdom, which is a mistake of the inexperienced. We know

today, from history, that dividing a kingdom makes it weaker and more likely to be attacked.

Second, in order to divide his kingdom, Lear proceeds to use a ‘Love Test’ that is only made

to flatter his ego since he already planned to divide it. Finally, Lear prioritizes appearances

over reality by letting himself be flattered by Goneril and Regan, and by banishing Cornelia.

4
By Acts II and III, we can see the beginning of changes in Lear’s behavior. Lear loses his

title, his land, and suddenly the respect of his two daughters as well. He realizes they fooled

him “they flattered me like a dog” leading him to curse them as “wicked creatures”. As the

play progresses, Lear starts to enter into madness evidenced through the loss of his beautiful

language.

The existential evolution of King Lear

The point of departure of King Lear’s existential crisis happens in Act II. Lear loses

his power and endures for the first time the refusal of the others. He first finds himself

rejected by Gorneril who reduces the company of his hundred knights. Then, once at

Gloucester’s castle, he experiences another refusal from his other daughter, Regan. Conscious

of the ridiculousness of his stubbornness and his pathetic negotiations with his two daughters,

Lear panics and isolates himself; he starts by refusing help from others and the company of all

of his people. We can assume from Shakespeare’s early description that Lear has never been

left alone and experiences the feeling of loneliness for the first time. His loneliness is essential

for his existential progression. Sartre mentions in Nausea that isolation and loneliness are the

foundations for becoming existentially aware; so for Lear to explore his own life he has to be

completely alone. Lear faces the absurdity of his life, banishing his beloved daughter and

offering his kingdom to his wicked daughters. Fleeing Gloucester’s castle, immersed in the

storm, he slowly plunges into the solitude despite the presence of Kent and the Fool. Left by

the gods who do not respond to his desire for divine justice and far from his people, the

presence of Kent and the fool is barely felt and Lear is, for all intents and purposes, alone.

Lear is forced to contemplate his existence on his own. While facing nature, the symbol of the

divine, he starts to enquire into the nature of man and to reject anything related to society.

5
 The passage of the storm is one of the key moments in Lear’s reflections. The storm is

the symbolic wake-up call for King Lear, helping him to think about his life and his mistakes.

Although Lear is alone and suffering from the storm that is raging against him, for the first

time he stops blaming what surrounds him. “I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness. I

never gave you kingdom, called you children. you owe me no subscription”(Act III scene 2).

As he begins to understand that the universe is indifferent to what he feels, he becomes

stronger in relation to his surroundings. This passage is also very important because it is the

first one dealing with the sensation of absurdity. The universe is demonstrating all of the

violence it is able to express against one single man who is victim to the dishonesty of his

daughters. From Lear’ point of view, the violence of the universe is absurd and, therefore,

nature has no conception of justice. Lear requires divine justice; he wants the “true sinners”,

Goneril and Regan to be punished by the “good” Cornelia. Lear becomes indifferent to the

violence of nature and starts to transcend himself by becoming conscious to the fact that he is

the only one who can change his life.

Lear first responds to the absurdity of the world by refusing society pronouncing,

“Then let fall your horrible pleasures. I stand here your slave” (Act III, scene 2, 18-19), “I

will say nothing” (Act III, scene 2, 37-38). Lear also removes all of his clothes, reducing

himself to the bare essence of the human being, an animal, while stating that, “people are just

animals”. Lear is afraid to do anything judicious or deep; foregoing anything that would make

sense forcing him to evolve from his situation. Lear prefers being passive, refusing to

confront his own existence. Earlier in this paper, I attempted to show that it is not only

legitimate but also very natural to wonder about the meaning and the significance of human

life. What is surprising here about King Lear is that he never undergoes this kind of work. He

6
never wonders what his title implies in his relationships with others or how they really feel

about it. As a consequence, it is impossible to imagine Lear going from a brutal confrontation

with the universe to a transcended state without an intermediate step. Lear’s passive reaction

is therefore explained through the harshness of his shock and the violence of his existential

evolution.

It is a general truth that understanding the limit of our own existence becomes a matter

of stress, fear, and angst. Because of the space-time limitation people want to realize timeless

things so that they can give meaning to their existence and vanquish their feelings of

absurdity. To do so, they perform actions that will make them famous, express themselves

through art, or make a family in order to create something durable that will perpetuate their

name. This anguish in the existence of being (per se) is less implicit in the play; however, it

still plays an important role, as manifested in the suicide trial of Gloucester. Due to these

space-time limitations and Lear’s consciousness and fears of them, in order to survive he

clings to his last hope, Cordelia. Lear uses the love he feels for Cordelia to transcend himself.

Shakespeare, in this the darkest of all his plays, suddenly gives his audience some hope about

the reasons for living by making the core concept of love a reason to transcend one’s

existence. Both Gloucester and Lear understand who they really love and make it their motive

to survive. Lear transcends his existence through the revelation of the love he feels for his

daughter Cordelia, giving meaning to his own life. At the moment Lear rejects society, love,

by being immaterial and intelligible, appears as the only real thing he can still possess and is

therefore placed above everything else. Gloucester experiences the same thing. When he is

about to die, he finds the required resources to survive so he can express his love to his

beloved son Edmond.

7
 The sensation of hope through love is confirmed when Lear and Cordelia are finally

reunited. Lear admits his mistakes and begs for forgiveness acknowledging all the wrong he

has done (mea culpa), “Forget and forgive me, I am an old and foolish” (Act IV, scene 7, 83-

84). By Act V, the audience discovers a new Lear transcended by love. Lear has learnt

humility, which contrasts with his arrogance in the first Act. He has concerns for others such

as poor Tom and Cordelia, feeling real and vivid feelings such as hatred, anger, and love for

the first time throughout the play.

Even transcended, Lear is still in a state of angst and rejection of the society. By Act

V, Lear prefers going to prison rather than facing his two daughters, Goneril and Regan.

“No, no, no, no! Come, let’s away to prison.

We two alone will sing like birds i' th' cage.

When thou dost ask me blessing, I’ll kneel down

And ask of thee forgiveness. So we’ll live,

And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh

At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues

Talk of court news, and we’ll talk with them too

Who loses and who wins, who’s in, who’s out

And take upon ’s the mystery of things

As if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out

In a walled prison packs and sects of great ones

That ebb and flow by the moon”. (Act V, scene 3, 8-19)

His desire to be with his beloved daughter, Cordelia, is so strong that he is ready to

8
renounce to his freedom. By doing so, all the existential work he has done so far is in vain; he

will never live free, fearless, and liberated from his angst. Cordelia becomes not only his

reason to live but also a reason to fool and persuade himself into thinking that he has just

reached the ultimate state of happiness and well-being. Cordelia is no longer perceived as the

love that will enlighten his life but as an opioid that will keep him away from pain. Lear

reaches love but still cannot live with the absurd.

The next step in Lear’s existential evolution is the development of his indifference to

the universe and the realization of his freedom. Cordelia dies, simeltaneously robbing Lear of

his hopes, his love, and his reason to live. This frees him from everything, and as Chuck

Palahniuk astutely observes, “it is only when we have lost everything that we are free to do

anything”[6]. Thus, Lear becomes truly free, he is calm and appeased. He has no more angst,

since angst is provoked by the hopes we have for our future and Lear has no more hope. Lear

stops fearing the absurd and recognizes it. “Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life and

thou no breath at all?” (Act V, scene 3 308-310). He finally accepts what is happening to him.

In Act V scene 3, Kent acknowledges that his, “eldest daughters have fordone themselves and

desperately are dead”. Lear only responds with “Oy, so I think”. (Act V, scene 3, 293-294).

This simple answer fully illustrates his state of acceptance and recognition of the absurd.

In the final stage of his existential development, Lear decides to die. Two opposing

perspectives can be analyzed in order to explain his death: non-acceptance versus “freedom”.

The first perspective is more straight-forward, presenting the suicide as an act of the non-

acceptance of society. People generally commit suicide because they think they do not fit into

their society. Hence, despite his existential journey, Lear cannot accept the harshness of the

absurdity of life and after the loss of all his hopes he cannot find any reason to continue to

9
pursue his life. Also, one could add that Lear is so passive to life that he did not even commit

a “real suicide”, but just let himself die.

Alternatively, within the second perspective, Lear could be interpreted as being freed

from the handicap of his angst, thus making him completely indifferent to what is happening.

He reaches a stage of absolute freedom in which he stopped being afraid of everything

including death. He is free from his hopes and has nothing to live for. He has already

reconciled with Cordelia and told her everything he wanted to say. Therefore, he is

“existentially free [2]” and dies almost happy knowing that good (Edgar, Cordelia and,

depending on the interpretation, Albany) triumphs over evil (Goneril, Regan, Edmond).

Furthermore, one could also add that humbled by his existential freedom, he allows himself to

die. This interpretation is further enhanced through widely-accepted idea that suffering

enriched King Lear. Many authors argue that Lear is, at the end of the play, a “better person”

because of all of his suffering throughout his existential evolution. This point is based on the

famous Nietzsche quote, “What does not kill me makes me stronger”[8] and even the Biblical

story of Job from the Old Testament [5]. I think that Lear’s existential evolution has more to

do with a matter of not fitting in the society (Darwinian concept) than being in great pain and

sufferance even if I think it is only once in despair that Lear is able to begin his existential

evolution.

Footnotes:

10
[1]: Jean Paul Sartre stated in his 1943 essay Being and Nothingness that existentialism has

neither been discovered nor invented but was adopted by people.

[2]: reference I found in the Nietzsche’s Wikipedia page.

[3]: theory mainly developed in his work called Economics And Philosophical Manuscripts

1884

[4]: Aristotle defined these rules for tragedy in the antiquity

[5]: The book of Job, part of the Old Testament, illustrates the idea that pain makes people

stronger.

[6]: This quote is extract form the novel “Fight Club” written by Chuck Palahniuck in 1996.

[7]: The German philosopher Hegel argues in his essay “Theory and Tragedy” differentiates

Greek tragedy and Shakespearean tragedy. According to him, while in Greek tragedy the

conflict of ethical forces is represented by characters, the conflict in Shakespearean tragedy is

rendered as by the personality of the individual personality which must manifest self-

destructive passions because only such passions are strong enough to defend the individual

from a hostile and capricious external world.

[8]: This quote comes from the book Twilight of the Idols written in 1888 and published in

1889.

Works Cited:

1-King Lear by William Shakespeare

2 –Sartre, Jean-Paul, Nausea. Editions Galimard 1938 Paris.

3- Sartre, Jean-Paul, Being and Nothingness. 1943 Paris.

Word count: 3265

11
12