1 |
Does lear fit aristotle's definition of a tragic hero?
Posted by myrlettae on Apr 17, 2009. |
King Lear Group
2 |
In so far as Lear is a king, he belongs to high rank/station, and therefore basically qualified in the role of a tragic hero. Again, he is generally inclined to goodness, and his passage from renunciation of kingship to his disaster & death shows a downward curve from prosperity to adsversity. And in this downfall, he arouses the emotions of pity and fear. But the error which lies at the root of Lear's sufferings is his division of kingdom--Goneril & Regan being rewarded, and Cordelia banished--an error resulting from his 'anger'. It was a flaw more in the person/character of the old king than in the circumstances. This is not strictly the Aristotelian 'hamartia'. However, the tragedy of Lear assumes cosmic dimensions to become truly universal. Posted by kc4u on Jun 13, 2009. |
3 |
It all depends on how his definition is translated:
His definition is as confusing today as it was then. Lear's action was serious, has magnitude (from his high position), arousing pity and fear along with a catharsis. If you translate it other ways, i am sure someone can fir their definition. There are words in the ancient text that don't translate very well, and the contemporary meanings are not very clear. http://www.paredes.us/tragedy.html http://www.authorama.com/the-poetics-1.html
Posted by epollock on Jun 13, 2009. |
4 |
![]() |
I've enjoyed reading your comments on King Lear, but well it,s been a long time since I last read the play. I think tragedy is to have suffering, and King Lear, who is from a high rank-really suffered from his misjudgment, and misunderstanding of love and the ways to express or show it. Cordelia also is a victim for her father's irrational decision and her sistres'greed. Posted by sohair on Aug 23, 2009. |


