Catharsis in William Shakespeare’s King Lear

King Lear, is a play written by Shakespeare, any critic will attest to how thoughtfully this piece of art was contrived. However, many unwaveringly argue that this play is to be described as a tragedy, nothing more and nothing less. On the other hand, some critics believe that because the play ended leaving the readers with such strong emotions that there is a sense of catharsis and therefore, the play can not be described as a tragedy. David Bevington sides with the belief that King Lear should be classified as a tragedy. Specifically he argues that the ending to the play is why it can be described as a tragedy. An argument by Angel Bell argues the exact opposite. Angel Bell believes that King Lear as a whole, possesses a great deal of catharsis. The ending specifically is why the play can not be considered a tragedy. The argument is centered around whether or not readers have a sense of relief after the play is over. If there is no sense of relief then David Bevington is correct in classifying the play as a tragedy. But, if the reader does receive some sort of relief when the play comes to an end then Angel Bell has proven that there is a sense of catharsis in the play. There can not be both. However, in order for these argumentative essays to be deemed as credible the authors must follow logical argumentation. Logical argumentation consists of four main points: relevance, acceptability, sufficiency and rebuttal. A credible argumentative essay must possess all four of these points. Overall, both David Bevington and Angel Bell provide persuasive arguments, but Angel Bell awards the most compelling evidence proving that Shakespeare’s King Lear does have a sense of catharsis.

David Bevington provides a solid argument when it comes to describing the play as a tragedy. Bevington’s argument greatly consists of evidence that carries a great deal of relevance in proving his point. Firstly, Bevington pulls a quote from the play from when Lear is furious at Goneril. The quote reads, “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/ To have a thankless child!”. At first glance this excerpt may not seem relevant to the conclusion he is trying to make, but his analysis proves it is in fact an excellent piece of evidence. Bevington’s analysis points out that Leer is comparing Goneril to a snake. This is a biblical reference to Satan in the Garden of Eden. It is relative evidence because this biblical reference points to the fact that it was a snake that started the beginning of man’s fall. Bevington points this out because Shakespeare’s character Leer is saying Goneril is the reason he has fallen. This is important because Bevington is showing Shakespeare’s foreshadowing of the tragic fall at the end of the play, similar to the tragic fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Bevington not only uses relevant evidence but he also uses acceptable evidence in his argumentative essay. Continuing on the animal based metaphors, Bevington uses another excerpt that Leer states once he has realized the damage Regan has done. The excerpt states, “flay thy wolvish visage”. Here Leer has found himself with nothing and with no one. It is clear Leer is alone because he has fallen low enough to call his own daughter a wolf. Bevington uses this quote because it shows that Leer does not only believe his daughters have fallen into animal like chaos but also because it shows he himself has fallen to an animal like level. This is an acceptable argument because the quote Bevington uses directly indicates an animal reference. No mature person could read that quote and think otherwise, that is why his argument can not be disputed. David Bevington does his duty as a critic in providing relevant and acceptable evidence.

David Bevington is focused on solidifying his argument in favor of identifying King Lear as a tragedy, it is proven he uses relevant and acceptable evidence but will he also use sufficient evidence and offer a chance of rebuttal? The next point Bevington makes in his argumentative essay is centered around a quote that takes place once Shakespeare's character Albany sides with Leer. Albany, also outraged at Goneril, calls her a snake, “gilded serpent” (5.3.86). Bevington uses this slide towards Goneril to bring together his two previous points. Bevington points out one more animal metaphor that proves that at this point in the play, the characters have succumbed to an animal like being. There are no rules or guidelines anymore, it is mayhem. This quote again emphasis’s Bevington's point that the character’s of King Lear have fallen to an animal level. This quote also relates back to ‘the fallen’ theme Bevington made in the previous paragraph. The snake reference refers to Satan and points back to the beginning of man's fall. Bevington wraps up his argument with what is one of the most provident quotes in the play. Bevington says that it is in this scene with “Cordelias, dead limp body” that is most tragic of all. This is the fall that has been foreshadowed. “I know when one is dead and when one lives;/ She’s dead as earth.” Bevington closes his argument with this quote because of it’s disparity. There is no talk of hope nor of possibility, and it is overall for that reason he argues the play is a tragedy. While David Bevington’s argument up to this point was solid, he abruptly ends his essay here. Bevington’s essay is missing a necessary key component that any sensible argument needs, a rebuttal. Bevington talks of “Albany becoming more sympathetic to Lear’s cause as time wears on '' but does not state the possibility of this being a sign of hope. Overall, Bevington’s argument was good because he used relevant, acceptable and sufficient evidence yet lacking because there was no evidence of rebuttal.

Angel Bell believes that there is a sense of catharsis in King Lear, meaning the play can not be classified as a tragedy. This is a relative argument because if he is correct in his argument then how the play is read and how it is classified moving forward would change. Bell uses evidence that is relative to proving his point. Bell uses Edmund and Edgar as his first leading argument. In King Lear Edmund is an evil character, Edmund is the bastard son of Gloucester. He is jealous of Gloucester's legitimate son Edgar. Edmund puts Edgar through a great deal of pain and suffering because Gloucester was going to give all of his land and wealth to Edgar. Edmund is quite clearly a villian in the play. However, Bell uses Edmund’s death to help argue his underlying point. Towards the end of the novel, Edmund is killed in a duel and Edgar regains what was his to begin with, his father’s land and wealth. Bell argues that because Edgar ultimately received his fortune, the reader gains a sense of catharsis. Edmund’s death and Edgar’s gain is just, and this evidence gives the reader comfort. This is relevant evidence in a relevant argument. Bell also use’s acceptable evidence in his argument. Bell points out that according to Aristotle a tragedy “should arouse the emotions of pity and fear, but in a healthy and balanced proportion.” Bell says that the end of the play does not leave the audience in a feeling of despair and stress. Bell continues to talk about Goneril and Regan. Like Edmund, Bell points out that Goneril and Regan are villains throughout the play. However, at the end of the novel, again like Edmund, Goneril and Regan die. Bell argues that this again gives the audience a sense of justice and catharsis. Here, Bell is using acceptable evidence to show that King Lear does not meet Aristotle’s definition of a tragedy. Bell’s relation back to Aristotle is acceptable evidence because it helps draw a clear and reasonable conclusion to the fact that King Lear does indeed possess a sense of catharsis, especially at the end. Overall, Angel Bell’s start to his argumentative essay is very strong as it contains both a relevant argument with relevant and acceptable evidence.

Angle Bell not only meets the requirements of relevance and acceptability in his essay but he also has sufficiency and even offers a rebuttal. Bell offers the rebuttal to his argument before bringing home his last point, this in and of itself is sufficient. First, Bell talks about Cordelia’s unfair death. This is exactly the point Bevington was trying to make. Bell acknowledges that her death was not just and even goes farther to acknowledge the critics who believe King Lear’s death was unjust. Some critics believe that Lear lived a fool and died a fool, these critics believe that these two deaths are unsanctioned, and leave the audience in despair. This is the rebuttal to Bell’s argumentative essay and he acknowledges this point of view. However, Bell continues with a counterpoint. Bell believes that Lear deserved to die because of his mistakes and insanity. Critics who agree with this line of thinking also believe that Lear’s death was justified and therefore, for these critics, Lear’s death brought about a sense of peace and catharsis. This is sufficient evidence because Lear’s death carries great weight in the play being that he is the main character, the title owner and he who the audience has the greatest connection to. After this point is made Bell even continues to give a little credit to those who refute his argument. Bell says that the novel’s classification in part has to do with the characters who the readers focus on and who the readers connect with, or focus on the most. Bell states that catharsis can be hard to see depending on which aspects of the play are focused. Bell closes his essay by pointing out that the reader’s do in fact feel catharsis in the end of the play. Specifically, surrounding the character’s Bell used in his essay: Edmund, Goneril, Regan and ultimately Lear. Overall, Bell’s argumentative essay efficiently met the requirements of offering a rebuttal and sufficiency.

David Bevington and Angel Bell both provided persuasive arguments, but Angel Bell awards the most compelling evidence proving that Shakespeare’s King Lear does have a sense of catharsis. Bevington and Bell both met the logical augmentation requirements of relevance, acceptability, and sufficiency however, Bell is the only one who offered a rebuttal. It is for this reason that Bell’s argument is ultimately stronger. A quote that further strengthens Bell’s argument is “I tax not you, you elements, with unkindness. I never gave you kingdom, called you children; You owe me no subscription. Then let fall Your horrible pleasure. Here I stand, your slave, A poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man. But yet I call you servile ministers. That with two pernicious daughters join Your high engendered battles 'against a headSo gold and white as this. O, ho, 'tis foul!”. Here is where Lear recognizes himself as a victim. Lear did not die a fool. This proves that Lear was not happy, this means Bell’s argument is ultimately proven. In Lear’s death, he found peace. This means that although others may not see it, there is even catharsis found in Lear’s passing. In conclusion, Bell’s essay contained the most solid argument meeting all the requirements and ultimately proving that there is indeed a great deal of catharsis in Shakespeare’s King Lear.