Deferred Recognition and the possibility of Catharsis through Mimesis in Shakespeare’s King Lear

7/30/2019 Deferred Recognition and the possibility of Catharsis through Mimesis in Shakespeares King Lear

1/15

Deferred Recognitionand the possibility of Catharsisthrough Mimesisin

Shakespeares King Lear

ENGL 2214

Brayden Beham

Submitted to Dr. J. Baxter

23/03/2012


2/15

At the end of King Learthe audience is left with a tragic hero who

(although coming close) doesnt really take part in catharsisor recognitionwith

other characters in the action, but, as the play is a mimeticreconstruction of a

very real psychological state of mind, it is left to the audience to recognize the

truth behind this and to be purified in the sense of catharsisby this

representation of suffering. Lears fundamental misconception is his thought that

he can divest himself of his sovereignty and still remain authoritative. What he

subsequently finds is he doesnt have so much as an identity without his families

and societies recognition of his status. Without his social status he is nothing

and since he has never really known himself anyone when he loses this he goes

mad but can never fully recognize it. King Lear as a character is an unflinching

mimesisof a crumbling psychological state common to elderly men from all

times, more generally the play deals with the precariousness of sanity and the

ever present threat and paradox of madness in the human condition. Lear cant

make this recognition for it can only be that he has been reborn into madness.

Where is the catharsisthe recognition?A possible way for the audience seeing

the play as cathartic is to apply the lessons of Edmunds mini-practice (or play)

on Gloucester at the Cliffs of Dover (IV.VI). Edmund describes the mimetic

implications of what he has done as if it were a play saying, in essence, that

since his inducement of his fathers suffering is done to cure it, although that

inducement is done through a false reconstruction of reality it is no less true. This

is because it appeals to something true and enduring in the human mind through

the spectacle of suffering taken as real which is meant to purify the audience.


3/15

Whereas Gloucester makes this recognitionwithin the action and with another

character Lear does not, and so it is left to the audience to recognize the truth

behind Lears suffering. In this way the catharsistakes the form of the audiences

sympathizing with Lear through their recognitionof the aspect of his character

mimetically expressing a fundamental truth of human nature, even if that truth is

madness and the human struggle to keep it at bay.

Lears underlying madness manifests itself in his wrong-headed idea that

he can divest himself of his kingship and responsibility and still have authority to

do whatever he wants. In effect he is throwing away the identity which society

has constructed for him and which defines him. In this he is really attempting to

turn the tables on nature by reverting to a state of idleness and dependency, a

second infancy taken to the extreme. This comes about through a psychological

flaw in the King which is due to his deteriorating mental state. He is not an evil

character, neither is he a purely good character. He is psychologically flawed and

mistaken and so fits the criteria for a true tragic protagonist. That is since...the

structure of the finest tragedymust be a representation of terrible and pitiful

events (for that is the peculiar thing about this kind of mimesis)there is the sort

of man who is not of outstanding virtue and judgment and who comes upon

disaster not through wickedness or depravity but because of some mistake

(Whalley, 95). Lear is just such a man and it is just this character flaw which

provides the basis for his hamartia. Thus when he disowns Cordelia in the first

scene he misses the mark by misdirecting his sense of authority and

supremacy at her when really he has none. Lear then articulates a hamartian


4/15

resoluteness in saying, The bow is bent anddraw, make from the shaft (I.I.149).

The misdirected course of this arrow becomes the main action which the play

represents. This hamartiawill prove to be the basis for the pathos-as-praxisthat

defines the course of action and theme of the play. As for pathos-as-praxisIn

Whalleys terms,

Pathosprimarily means suffered, something that happens to a person

the complement to something donepathos-as-praxisseems to imply that

the crucial event is to be seen both as suffered and as inflictedthe pathos

as an event is both pregnant and determinate, the beginning of a process.

Peripeteiaand recognition heighten and concentrate emotional force:

pathosis the key event/act that provides substantial foundation and focus

for the peripeteiaand recognition. I have therefore rendered praxis here as

a transaction to indicate the pathos-action paradox (90).

This play displays suffering as a transaction in the way that Lear attempts to

inflict suffering upon Cordelia under the presumption of his authority in the

beginning, and throughout the rest is made to suffer from the loss of his authority

and the partial (yet ultimately failed and problematic) recognition of Cordelias

love for him. This is partial because from a closer look at the opening scenes and

the unity of the play we see that Lears fundamental mistake is not that he cannot

see that Cordelia truly loves him, it is his flawed mental state and his divestment

of authority which has wider implications than the suffering of one daughter.

Goneril and Regan are not malicious characters they are really only acting

according to the necessity that the situation presents. Their father has revealed


5/15

himself to be highly irrational, showing signs of madness in banishing Cordelia.

Thus Goneril exclaims, he always loved our sister most; and with what poor

judgment he hath now cast her off appears too grossly and Regan replies Tis

the infirmity of his age: yet he hath but ever slenderly known himself (I.I.290).

Regan and Goneril as rational, even sympathetic, outside observers see that

Lears folly is a result of his psychological state and out of a very sensible sense

of fear of him and pity for their sister they feel the need to protect themselves. As

Regan and Goneril recognize but Lear fails to realize, he has divested himself of

authority, seeing this, Regan and Goneril know they can act upon him. It is Lears

failure to recognize his initial mistake and his lack of authority that compounds

his suffering throughout the play, not the malicious intents of Regan and Goneril.

Lears pathos-as-praxisis not just a mistake which inflicts suffering upon

Cordelia which is later inflicted back upon him but rather is a mistake that affects

all of his daughters and is thus reciprocated back upon him by all of them. Its

true The emotional power of the tragic recognitionlies in the protagonists

discovery that he is fatally involved, or in danger of being fatally involved, with a

blood-relation [and that] The tragic recognition is an abrupt act of self-knowing

(Whalley, 86). And indeed Lear does eventually realize that he is fatally involved

with Cordelia. But it is not simply Cordelias true love for him which he must

recognize, but the madness within him that his other daughters perceive but

which he represses. In this way he never attains true self-knowledge. He must

but cant admit that he is nothing without his daughters, that all of their fates are

entangled together. His failure to recognize that his madness has affected all of


6/15

his daughters is part of his failed recognition. Regan and Goneril realize Tis his

own blame; hath put himself from rest, And must needs taste his folly (II.IV.284).

This is in keeping with the idea of pathos-as-praxisbecause they do it out of a

sense of the wrongful suffering of their sister and the need for this suffering to

reciprocate back to the king. In this way they are merely the philial agents of

pathos-as-praxisacting upon a recognition of Lears fundamental flaw. What this

amounts to is Regan and Gonerils implicit recognition that Lear must experience

catharsis. However here and throughout the play he implicitly swears it off in a

manner of insane pride betraying a violent psychological repression saying, this

heart shall break into a thousand flaws/or ere Ill weep. O fool, I shall go mad

(II.IV.278-279). This runs counter to his prediction that Thou shalt find/that Ill

resume the shape which thou dost think/ I have cast off for ever: thou shalt, I

warrant thee (I.IV.263-265). If we look at the outcome of the play we see that

Lear is left in a fragmentary and shattered mental state and that he could not

become whole again because of the fundamental mistake of divesting his

authority. Lear in the end fulfills his promise that he will break into a thousand

pieces and go mad before he weeps by keeping off the true catharsiswhich

would come about through a recognition of the suffering he has inflicted upon all

of his daughters. He cant make this recognition because he never again does

regain his authority, sanity, or sense of wholeness.

Lear cannot regain a sense of wholeness because he has given away his

authority. Without this, as the fool so ironically articulates, he is reduced to

nothing, less than a fool he is reduced to the state of a pleading mad man.


7/15

Detecting a note of insolence Lear asks the foo l, Dost thou call me fool, boy?

and the fool replies, All thy other titles thou has given away; that thou wast born

with (I.IV.133-135). This shows so clearly the fools recognition that the titles

which society confers on a person are those which define his existence and give

him a fixed identity. Indeed the fool is right to say to Lear, Thou has pared thy

wit o both sides and left nothing I the middle (I.IV.178-179), because as Goneril

has pointed out he doesnt really know himselfon the inside and thus when he

throws out his titles he is in a state of tragic confusion. He refuses to admit that

without society he has no authority, that he is in fact nothing. He is an old man

and the clich phrase that you cant teach an old dog new tricks could never be

applied better. He refuses to believe that anything can come out of nothing and

thus his plan to become whole again is doomed to failure because he is too old

and mentally feeble to make something out of himself which isnt tied up with the

notions of sovereignty which he should have cast off along with his title. He says

it over and over in the beginning, first to Cordelia Nothing will come of nothing

(I.I.90), then to the Clowns potentially redemptive question, Can you make not

use of nothing, nuncle? to which he echoes back, nothing can be made out of

nothing (I.IV.128-130).

Lear comes close to a recognition of the nothingness of ones identity

when it is not defined by society when he sees Edgar as Poor Tom. The irony

here is that Edgar is playing a part and so when Lear exclaims Thou art the

thing itself: unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked

animal as thou art (III.V.105), his he is being duped into feeling sympathy for


8/15

unaccommodated man by an act. However there is truth to this. Since Lear is

projecting his repressed anxieties about the fact of his own nothingness and the

nothingness common to human existence by reacting to the spectacle in such a

manner (which was by no means intended by Edgar) his pity seems to suggest a

movement towards recognitionand catharsis. But even though it seems that this

may be a kind of recognition of general suffering Lear fails to recognize the

madness and nothingness within him and rather projects it on those around him.

At this point he still has a stubborn and prideful sense of having been wronged by

his daughters, projecting this as the source of Edgars dejection over and over.

He asks, Hast thou given all to thy daughters? And art/come to this? and What,

have his daughters brought him to this passDeath, traitor! Nothing could have

subdued nature to such a lowness but his unkind daughters (III.IV.47-65).

However misguided his view towards his daughters may be, his desire to

sympathize with the sufferers is a solution which takes the form of just the kind of

suffering that Regan and Goneril prescribe for him. In between projecting his

anger on his daughter he suggests to himself, O, I have taen/Too little care of

this! Take physic, pomp;/expose thyself to feel what wretches feel,/That thou

mayst shake the superflux to them,/And show the heavens more just (III.IV.33-

36). His expression that he has neglected the suffering of the multitudes of the

wretched is a projection of his neglect of self-reflection and his own neglected

capacity for sympathy. This equation leaves the possibility for catharsisand

recognitionwide open. That through his suffering he may come to a realization of

the wrong he did to not only Corelia but to Regan and Goneril is suggested by his


9/15

own conviction that he ought to suffer. However his lack of self-reflection and his

madness get the better of him and although he suffers greatly, this kind of

catharsisand recognitionis never achieved. Rather a different kind of catharsis

and recognitionis suggested through the figure of Edgar who as we have seen

appeals deeply to Lears potential forrecognitionand catharsis.

Edgars ability to evoke recognitionand catharsiscomes about from his

capacity to do what Lear believes impossible: to make something out of nothing.

When society ceases to recognize Edgar he recognizes right away that he is

nothing without society defining his identity. To this effect he says, Thats

somethingyet: Edgar I nothing am (II.III.23 [emphasis mine]). In this way Edgars

answer to the fools (actually crucial) question would be yes, I can make

something of nothing. Edgar takes advantage of this, perhaps, unlike Lear,

because he is young and cunning, but mostly because he is able to attain the

level of detached self-reflection as opposed to the build up and abrupt shedding

of years of privilege and repression which keeps Lear from his recognitionand

catharsis. Thus Edgar is able to go on a journey through the fluidity of identity.

However he does it in way which both intentionally and unintentionally reinforces

the sense of a moral order in a chaotic world. This is the essence of the idea of

creating something out of nothing and he does this through mimesis. In his verbal

representation of reality to his father at the Cliffs of Dover he manipulates his

fathers emotions in order to reinforce his belief in justice and moral structure. But

since the means of this reinforcement is fabrication, what does this say about

morality? does this make it somehow less true, a lie? Edgar address this in these


10/15

terms, Why I do trifle thus with his despair/Is done to cure itAnd yet I know not

how conceit may rob/ the treasury of life, when life itself/Yields to the theft

(IV.VI.35-46). This expresses Edgars firm belief that since lies about life

reinforce ones affirmation of life then they must carry a grain of truth because

they reflect on something true and enduring in human nature and the mind. Even

if such fabrications dont express anything morally true about external nature

(with its vicious cycles, indifference etc.) it expresses something very true, even

inherent, in interior human nature.

To me this Edgars defense of his acts reads like a defense of plays

themselves as mimetic constructions of reality, specifically in this case

psychological and moral reality. Edgars conviction that his trifling with his

fathers despair is done to cure it suggest the restorative power ofcatharsis

within a mimesis. This is in tune with Whalleys thoughts on character, For

tragedy is a mimesisnot of men [simply] but of actionsthat is, of life. Thats

how it is that they certainly do not act in order to present their characters: they

embrace their characters for the sake of actions. And so the [course of events] is

the end of tragedy, and the end is what matters most of all. (Whalley, 73). Edgar

here plays the simultaneous role of playwright and character, mimetically

reconstructing reality to bring about a catharsisin his father through leading him

to a recognitionof moral order and a reversalof his fortune. Thus he presents his

character for the sake of action, the action affirmed here is that of action and

persistence in everyday life which Gloucester has nearly given up on due to his

sense of hopelessness and devastation. This is fundamentally the action of


11/15

creating something out of nothing which is so essential to understanding the play.

I like to think of this as a kind of art therapy. Trifling with despair in order to cure it

is an apt description of just the kind of manipulation of the emotions that theatre

itself strives for. Especially the theatre of Shakespeares day which sought in a

big way to reinforce the idea of a moral order.

The same idea is at work here that is behind the mouse trap in Hamlet.

The plays the thing wherein hell catch the conscience of the king because he is

expecting to get an emotional reaction out of Claudius which will reinvigorate his

sense of a moral order which threatens justice upon him. It is the same idea

behind Paulinas extended and hidden practice of deception upon King Leontes

when inA Winters Taleshe conceals the fact of the Queens being alive in order

to have the King suffer and to believe in the just retribution doled out by the gods.

All of these are examples of characters practicing deceit on others in order to get

an emotional response (catharsis) which will reinforce a sense of moral order and

justice. They are all examples of therapy through art, the purgation of suffering

through its representation. The success of this deceit on Gloucester proves its

restorative power. Yet true recognitionand thus catharsisare ultimately deferred

by Lear himself. He still refuses to cry and to come to truly cathartic self-

knowledge. Edgar is able to take advantage of his nothingness and to get in

touch with madness for positive ends because he is younger and more cunning

than Lear. He confirms Aristotles view that madness is an asset to the

poet/playwright. Lear lacks the creativity and vitality of mind that Edgars youth

offers him. Yet somehow Lears suffering is all the more tragic in the way that


12/15

Edgars practice suggests and reinforces the idea of the restorative power of

tragedy through catharsis, and yet Lear (though many opportunities present

themselves) ultimately defers such chances and succumbs to madness.

Lears recognitionnever goes deep enough. This is because his flaw is a

deeply seated psychological one stemming from the irreducible paradox of

madness and he can never really attain the self-knowing that true recognition

requires. If his recognition is that Cordelia is the only daughter that loved him

truly, then surely his recognition of that love and his would-be cathartic speech

about the joys of father/daughter prison life is maniacally extreme. Either falling

short or going too far Lear fails to make the fundamental recognition and that is

too devastating for him to make in his already deteriorating mental state. Indeed

Lear suggests a kind of reversalto Cordelia when they are briefly reunited but his

speech really only conveys his own deep seated madness and lack of

recognitionof his true situation, which amounts to a heightening of pathos in his

representation of suffering. This of course is the birds I the cage speech. But

before we look at it more closely lets look at what Cordelia says before this and

explain it in Aristotles terms.

She says We are not the first/ Who, with best meaning, have incurrd the

worst. (V.III.4-8). This echoesAlbanys warning to Goneril in Act I where he

says, Striving to better, oft we mar whats well. (I.IV.353). It also shows that

neither Lear, Cordelia, Goneril or Regan are totally to blame. Rather it suggests

that in each of them pursuing their own subjective best intents the consequences


13/15

of their actions have been entangled to the point of disaster. The only thing that

would help now would be for the King to see the error of his ways. Yes, hes seen

that he was wrong to cast out Cordelia, but what about Goneril and Regan? In

recognizing the wrong hes done to Cordelia he sees that he is fatally involved

with a blood-relation but he neglects to see how he has wronged his other blood

relations: Goneril and Regan. Thus when Cordelia asks shall we not see these

daughters and these /Sisters?, Lear maniacally replies No, no, no, no! Come

lets away to prison:/We two alone (V.III.8-11). The king is so mad at this point

he is ready to go to prison willingly and to perceive it as a happy end for him. He

is so mad that he cannot have a full recognitionof the extent of his mistake and

thus he defers catharsis. To this effect he says The good-years shall devour

them, flesh and fell/Ere they make us weep (V.III.24-25). His conviction that the

two of them shall not weep keeps the action from being presented by people

acting rather than by narration;

(Whalley, 69). Since the catharsisis not reciprocal between the two characters it

is not true catharsis. As Whalley suggest, Ifcatharsisis the purifying process

that flows out of tragic terror and pity, then it is a matter not only for the audience

but also for the persons engaged in the action (Whalley, 100). For Whalley the

catharsiscomes about within the action of the play and thus between characters

in the play, since this does not happen between Cordelia and Lear the

audiences need forcatharsisis frustratingly and compellingly deferred.


14/15

This is because Lears flaw is a psychological one and stems from

madness which is not easily cured. All of the suffering that has come about was a

result of his thinking that he could retain authority after casting off sovereignty.

His flaw reveals the truth that in society we are nothing without our titles.

However his attitude which leads to his deferral of recognitionshows just how

hard it is for a person to admit that he is going mad. In this way the play deals

with the precarious nature of sanity and the ever present threat of insanity which

is common to all men. In watching Lear suffer the audience is meant to share in

the mimetic representation of a fragmented mind and to sympathize with a man

in the process of succumbing to madness. The audience is meant to take the

representation as real and so apply it to their lives. If we take a lesson from

Edgar we can see the curative, cathartic power, in the representation of despair.

However since Lear cannot make the recognitionand the catharsishimself it is

up to the audience make the recognitionthat this play is about a psychological

flaw which could arise in anyone. Since it is a representation of a psychological

trait common to all it is a mimesisof life, although in this case, the life of the

mind. Aristotleassu,es that an audience or reader will sympathize with that

is enter vicariously intothe human action presented in the play (Whalley, 94).

And this is exactly what the audience must do if a recognitionis to take place at

all and a cathartic effect of is to come about.


15/15

Bibliography:

Aristotle, George Whalley, John Baxter, and Patrick Atherton. Aristotle's Poetics.Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 1997.

Shakespeare, William, and R. A. Foakes. King Lear. London: Thomas Nelsonand Sons, 1997.

Deferred Recognition and the possibility of Catharsis through Mimesis in Shakespeare’s King Lear

Documents

Transcript of Deferred Recognition and the possibility of Catharsis through Mimesis in Shakespeare’s King Lear