A Comparison Between King Lear and Oedipus
King Lear Comparison
A tragedy is not only an imitation of life in general but an imitation of an action, as Aristotle defined his ideas in the Poetics, which presents Oedipus as an ultimate tragic hero. There is a obvious link between the two characters in that blindness – both literal and metaphorical – is a strong theme in the stories.
Issues of self-recognition and self-knowledge are significant for Oedipus as well as King Lear. For Aristotle, Reversal, Recognition and Suffering are key elements in a complex tragedy. The human instinct to seek knowledge of and to know an individual’s character is essential to understand their actions (Aristotle, 1-49). King Lear and King Oedipus find that self recognition and self-knowledge are very important keys to understand their behaviour and as a consequence their lives. They learn by painful suffering that wealth and kingship means nothing and that both are only common men in the end. So all three key terms of Aristotle’s complex tragedy could be found in the plays: reversal, recognition and suffering.
At the start of the play, King Lear is defined by his kingship, wealth and power, but when he introduces the ‘love-contest’ over his inheritance, the losing and suffering begins. First and most obviously, he loses his wealth and power. Although the hundred knights and title he retains, having given away his royal power, give him an illusionary security, without his power he is only a poor imitation of a king. It is the Fool who demonstrates with his honest and teasing answers that Lear has lost his identity, not only his property. He says “All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with” (1.4.142) and “now thou art an 0 without a figure; I am better than thou art now. I am a fool, thou art nothing” (1.4.184). The Fool as well as Kent also tries to show Lear that his decision is not only about property and losing a big part of his identity. It is also about losing his most valuable
A tragedy is not only an imitation of life in general but an imitation of an action, as Aristotle defined his ideas in the Poetics, which presents Oedipus as an ultimate tragic hero. There is a obvious link between the two characters in that blindness – both literal and metaphorical – is a strong theme in the stories.
Issues of self-recognition and self-knowledge are significant for Oedipus as well as King Lear. For Aristotle, Reversal, Recognition and Suffering are key elements in a complex tragedy. The human instinct to seek knowledge of and to know an individual’s character is essential to understand their actions (Aristotle, 1-49). King Lear and King Oedipus find that self recognition and self-knowledge are very important keys to understand their behaviour and as a consequence their lives. They learn by painful suffering that wealth and kingship means nothing and that both are only common men in the end. So all three key terms of Aristotle’s complex tragedy could be found in the plays: reversal, recognition and suffering.
At the start of the play, King Lear is defined by his kingship, wealth and power, but when he introduces the ‘love-contest’ over his inheritance, the losing and suffering begins. First and most obviously, he loses his wealth and power. Although the hundred knights and title he retains, having given away his royal power, give him an illusionary security, without his power he is only a poor imitation of a king. It is the Fool who demonstrates with his honest and teasing answers that Lear has lost his identity, not only his property. He says “All thy other titles thou hast given away; that thou wast born with” (1.4.142) and “now thou art an 0 without a figure; I am better than thou art now. I am a fool, thou art nothing” (1.4.184). The Fool as well as Kent also tries to show Lear that his decision is not only about property and losing a big part of his identity. It is also about losing his most valuable