Enjoying King Lear

The following item is a helpful consolidation by A.I. of several items about King Lear. It summarizes accurately my attack on the traditional misrepresentation of the play as a merely nihilistic tragedy, which elite pessimists have favored for centuries.

A. I. How important is Hugh Macrae Richmond's reinterpretation of "King Lear"?

Hugh Macrae Richmond's reinterpretation of King Lear is significant for challenging the traditional view of the play as an unremitting tragedy. His argument, particularly outlined in the essay "King Lear as Tragicomedy," recasts the play's opening scene and emphasizes its potential for a double-ending, more aligned with Renaissance tragicomedy than with neoclassical tragedy. 

Key aspects of Richmond's reinterpretation

• Lear's calculated gambit: Richmond argues that Lear's division of the kingdom is not a sign of flagging senility but a calculated political maneuver to protect his beloved daughter, Cordelia. By arranging for Goneril and Regan to receive their portions first, he believed he could give the richest third of the kingdom to Cordelia. The plan fails due to Cordelia's honesty, which Lear fails to recognize as true virtue.
• Reasserting tragic tension: This reinterpretation shifts the core of the play's tragedy. It is not an old man's folly that sets events in motion, but a king's misguided, self-sacrificial devotion to virtue. This choice restores a "true tragic tension" to the play, as Lear's excellent intentions lead to ruin.
• Emphasis on tragicomic elements: Richmond highlights the comic elements and consolatory aspects often overlooked in a purely tragic reading. He points to the play's echoes of Pauline wisdom and the restoration of order under Edgar, who acts as a redemptive figure from the genre of the late romances.
• Focus on the spectator's role: In his larger work, Shakespeare's Tragedies Reviewed: A Spectator's Role, Richmond argues that Shakespeare was highly attuned to the audience's interests. He suggests that Shakespeare deliberately employed a mixture of tones and situations—including humorous counter-movements to tragic scenes—to engage the audience rather than conforming to rigid classical rules. 
•  

Importance and impact

Richmond's reinterpretation has contributed to a more nuanced understanding of King Lear by moving beyond the purely nihilistic readings common in the 20th century. 

• Enriches literary criticism: By offering a fresh perspective on Lear's motivations, Richmond provides a compelling alternative to viewing the protagonist as merely a foolish old man. His argument has illuminated a new path for scholarly inquiry into the opening scene.
• Influences stage direction: This reading also has practical implications for staging the play, encouraging directors and actors to explore a broader range of emotions and intentions than a solely pessimistic approach would allow. A performance informed by Richmond's ideas might show Lear as a shrewd, if misguided, political actor rather than a simple victim of his own vanity.
• Broadens critical lens: Richmond's method of "syncretic criticism," which combines close reading with a broad historical perspective, has influenced how critics approach Renaissance drama. By analyzing the play in the context of its European models and contemporaries, he demonstrates how Shakespeare adapted traditional forms for the specific tastes of his audience. 

A Reader's Comment

Professor Richmond: I had the pleasure this weekend of reading your paper "King Lear as Tragicomedy". It is without exaggeration one of the most illuminating discussions of Lear I've seen.  I was struck by the insight that Lear's division of his kingdom is not a sign of flagging powers but rather a misguided yet carefully considered tactical move to pre-empt Goneril's inheritance and ensure Cordelia's sovereignty over the richest portion of the kingdom, and that "this reading of the opening scene restores the play to true tragic tension, with a monarch unwisely sacrificing himself to his excessive devotion to virtue, and a heroine whose excellence carries with it the penalties of intransigence" -- not to mention your observations on the play's comic elements, its echoes of Pauline wisdom, and the consolations it offers via Edgar's succession (Edgar who has always seemed to me somehow transplanted from the redemptive realms of the late romances into the chaotic world of Lear). I am so grateful for discovering your work, and look forward to its guidance in deepening my understanding of Shakespeare. Best regards,  Steve Mitchell

A.I.   St. Paul & King LearAn Elaboration on Pauline wisdom's echoes in King Lear per Richmond

According to Hugh Macrae Richmond's reinterpretation, King Lear reflects Pauline wisdom by emphasizing that true wisdom and spiritual grace are found not in worldly power and appearances, but in humility, foolishness, and suffering. This reading stands in stark contrast to traditional interpretations that focus solely on the play's nihilistic or pessimistic elements. Richmond's analysis draws parallels between the spiritual journey of St. Paul and the central characters of King Lear, particularly Lear himself.

St. Paul and the reversal of worldly values

In his epistles, St. Paul famously describes a radical reversal of worldly values, encapsulated in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:27–28: 

"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are."

Richmond identifies several echoes of this idea in the play's tragicomic structure. 

Cordelia's embrace of "nothing"

• Contempt for worldly praise: Cordelia's refusal to participate in her father's "love test" directly inverts the courtly expectation that love can be measured and articulated through flowery words.
• The wisdom of "nothing": When asked what she can say, Cordelia's simple response, "Nothing," is initially dismissed by Lear. However, this "nothing" ultimately proves to be the greatest virtue. Richmond aligns this with the Pauline idea that what is valued by the world (power, empty praise, flattery) is "nothing" in the eyes of God, while the "nothing" of humility and honesty holds true spiritual worth. 

Lear's descent into "foolishness"

• From king to beggar: Lear’s descent from a powerful king to a madman on the heath mirrors the Pauline reversal. As he loses his worldly authority and sanity, he begins to see the world with newfound clarity.
• Wisdom in madness: In his supposedly "mad" speeches, Lear sheds his royal robes and strips away the superficial trappings of power to understand the true nature of humanity. His recognition of the poor and oppressed ("Poor naked wretches, whereso'er you are") demonstrates a compassion he lacked as king, a wisdom born from his own suffering and apparent "foolishness".
• The Fool's function: The presence of the Fool reinforces this theme. The Fool, who speaks truths disguised as nonsense, acts as a living embodiment of the paradox of divine wisdom appearing as earthly folly. 

Redemption through suffering

• Lear's rebirth: Though his story ends tragically, Richmond emphasizes Lear's profound transformation. He gains compassion and humility, ultimately achieving a state of grace with Cordelia that transcends the worldly power he lost.
• A transcendent kiss: As one analysis puts it, the grace Lear finds in Cordelia's arms "incomprehensibly outlives such tragedy," echoing the idea that spiritual salvation and reconciliation ultimately transcend earthly suffering and even death. 

By highlighting these echoes of Pauline wisdom, Richmond’s analysis re-frames King Lear as a drama of spiritual redemption, not just unrelenting despair. It suggests that suffering, when accepted with humility, can lead to a deeper, more profound wisdom and grace. 

AI responses:   What other Shakespeare plays show Pauline wisdom?

                         Elaborate on specific instances of Lear's speeches showing Pauline wisdom

                         How does Richmond's syncretic criticism help identify Pauline wisdom in *King Lear*?