<p align="center"></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://jeanatacc.com/2011/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dyce.Lear_.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-3397" alt="Dyce.Lear" src="http://jeanatacc.com/2011/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Dyce.Lear_-300x229.jpg" width="300" height="229" /></a></p>
<p align="center"><a href="http://shakespeare.emory.edu/illustrations/Dyce.Lear.jpg">http://shakespeare.emory.edu/illustrations/Dyce.Lear.jpg</a></p>
            Often regarded as one of William Shakespeare’s best works but rarely mentioned amongst his most well-known, <i>King Lear </i>is a tragedy of timeless quality, presenting a portrait of a family at war, and the madness that comes with it. Written some time between 1603 and 1606, published in 1608, and later revised and published again in 1623 (1: Taylor &amp; Warren), the play tells the tale of an aging king driven to madness by his three daughters, who go to war with one another over in the inheritance of their father’s kingdom. Wandering the storm-ravaged countryside with the court fool, Lear tries to understand how he could have failed so spectacularly as a father to have such cruel daughters who have no love for him, and only lust for power. Meanwhile, while two of the three daughters wage fierce battles with one another for control, one daughter attempts to reconcile with her father, and prove to him that she truly does love him, and wishes to rebuild their family.

The play was very timely for the era in which Shakespeare wrote it. For example, there is a heavy focus within the text on the words “nature”, “natural”, and “unnatural”, suggesting that the play is very much about the conflict between man’s ambition and nature. This would be very relevant to the renaissance, which saw a period of enlightenment in science and culture, but was often in conflict with the beliefs about the natural world. In his book, <i>Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature</i>, John F. Danby suggests that <i>King Lear </i>is a dramatization of the meaning of “nature”, as well as an allegory for the old school of thought dying out and being replaced by the age of reason brought forth by the renaissance, with Lear and his two warring daughters representing the old world, and Edmund and his third daughter as a stand-in for the new world. (Dabny)

As a work of fiction, the play was particularly innovative in that it dealt with direct criticism towards the old ways of thinking. While an allegory, it was also a very pointed critique at those who wished to stay in the dark ages and would settle all with war or bloody conflict, particularly families of wealth and power. This was somewhat unheard of as most of those kinds of conflicts were internal and kept away from public discussion.

The play was only performed once during Shakespeare’s lifetime, which would have pre-dated King James I in late 1606 (Taylor, Gary). During the Puritan government that followed, all theatres were shut down, and thus the play could not be performed again until after the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. The play was then heavily revised and adapted during this time, not resembling much of Shakespeare’s original work at all. (Taylor, Michael) It could be inferred that like most of his works, the play was seen as the work of an amateur, and not well respected until much later on.

<i>King Lear </i>is now regarded as one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies, a masterpiece that is the source of much debate and analysis, and lives on as a beloved work. Performed on stage many times throughout the years, the title role was most famously portrayed by James Earl Jones, which has arguably become the definitive performance of the play. Many plot points of <i>King Lear</i> have been used in films, such as <i>The Godfather Part III</i>, which features Michael Corleone attempting to retire from his criminal empire, resulting in the organization being thrown into chaos and internal conflict. (Howard) The most prominent of the play for screen was in 198, when Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa adapted it into a film called <i>Ran, </i>complete with a feudal-era Japan setting, along with gender-swapping the warring children to be the lord’s sons, as opposed to daughters. The film is a masterpiece of world cinema and arguably one of the finest screen adaptations of a Shakespeare play ever produced. One could argue that this level of influence on modern pop cultures suggests that the play is well revered today.

Personally, this is my favorite play by Williams Shakespeare. Having studied it in multiple courses, as well as having studied <i>Ran </i>many times as a film critic, I find it to be the Bard’s most dense and thematically potent work. From Lear’s monologue in the storm to the timeless themes of familial conflict and the need for love within a family, it has always been one of the most fascinating works of fiction out there, and it was a great pleasure revisiting it in this capacity.

In comparing <i>King Lear </i>to many of Shakespeare’s other works, the theme of familial turmoil is very prevalent within his canon, but never so much so as in <i>King Lear. </i>The closest relative of Shakespeare’s work would probably be <i>Hamlet</i>, a play about a young duke whose father is murdered by his uncle in order to seize the throne, and he must decide whether or not to kill himself or take vengeance. While addressing very different plot points, both also examine the perils of power struggles within family dynamics.

For example, while both involve family bloodshed over seats of power, they deal with different perspectives within those families. While <i>Lear </i>primarily takes on the viewpoint of the lord himself, <i>Hamlet </i>approaches the struggle primarily from the perspective of children. However, they are similar in that both deal with children who find themselves thrust into a war for power that they did not want. Hamlet and Cordelia both find themselves fatherless due to the power struggles within their families, albeit under different circumstances. They struggle to express love for their fathers, and have regrets of things unsaid. This theme of conflict forcing a gap between fathers and their children runs through much of Shakespeare’s work, and has influenced many great works of fiction since.

<i>King Lear </i>is the kind of work of art that endures not only because it is of peerless quality, but also because what it has to say about the human condition applies today as much as it applied to the people of the bard’s time. It should be preserved and celebrated as a tragic reminder that family should always come before power, wealth, or the like.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;
<p style="text-align: center"> <b><span style="text-decoration: underline">Works Cited</span></b></p>
<p align="center"><b><span style="text-decoration: underline"> </span></b></p>
Taylor, Gary (a); Warren, Michael, eds. (1983). <i>The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare’s Two Versions of King Lear</i>. Oxford: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarendon_Press">Clarendon Press</a>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number">ISBN</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-19-812950-9">978-0-19-812950-9</a>.

Taylor, Michael <i>The Critical Tradition</i> in Wells and Orlin pp. 323–332

Howard, Tony <i>Shakespeare's Cinematic Offshoots</i> in Jackson (a) pp. 295–313.

John Danby, <i>Shakespeare’s Doctrine of Nature: A Study of King Lear</i> (London, 1949), p.50

Shakespeare and Hunter p.45; Taylor, Gary (b) pp.18–19.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;