King Lear completes a transformation in the play King Lear that is powerful and noteworthy. As the play progresses, he embraces his emotions and becomes willing and able to shed tears. In the beginning, he tells his daughters that they must confess their love for him in order to receive their portion of the kingdom upon his retirement. This indicates that love, being an emotion, is something of great importance to him, even utmost importance. Coppelia Kahn, on the other hand, would have us believe that Lear is a power wielding, oppressive father that lacks emotion as a result of his patriarchal world. Is this a fair assessment? Or is it an attempt to further a feminist agenda that places all men in a class of unfeeling, uncaring, cold-hearted bastards?
King Lear was responsible to provide for their basic needs, educate his daughters, and see that they married well. He may very well have been affectionate towards them. However, each child is born with her own personality. It’s possible the three daughters were spoiled. The fact that they all grew up in the same environment cannot account for the greed the older two power-hungry sisters exhibited, compared to the apparent humility, honesty and love that the youngest daughter was endowed with. Is the king responsible for their behavior? No, these women are adults and must take responsibility for what they say, think, and do.
For Kahn to infer that the absence of the mother “points to her hidden existence” is farfetched. The late Queen is not mentioned in the play. It is possible that the king played a larger than normal role in nurturing his daughters. The fact that Goneril and Regan have less than desirable character traits, and play the antagonist roles, doesn’t constitute a flattering tribute to a mother figure that didn’t exist in their life.
Kahn is quoted as saying, “He learns to weep and, though his tears scald and burn like molten lead, they are no longer ‘women’s weapons’ against which he must defend himself.” This quote can be taken several different ways. I believe Kahn would have us believe that Lear opposed the shedding of his own tears, and felt that he must have a defensive strategy to keep them at bay. However, consider that women will use crying as a way of appearing hurt, defenseless, vulnerable, weak, etc. in order to manipulate the men in their company to take a certain action, make a certain decision, and such as that. Could Lear have meant that women used their tears as a tool or weapon to try to overcome the opposite sex, and, subsequently, put the male counterpart on defense? The audience must draw its own conclusion to these questions.
Lear is an old man who becomes emotional in his last days. I would dare say that as king, he did not allow himself to cry in front of others. So, naturally, he prefers a noble anger instead of shedding tears from the hurt inflicted by his daughter, when he speaks so eloquently:
“I have full cause of weeping; but this heart
Shall break into a hundred thousand flaws,
Or ere I’ll weep. O fool, I shall go mad!”
Later, when he is at last reunited with Cordelia, he is overwhelmed with emotion, and says:
“ …but I am bound
Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears
Do scald like molten lead.”
He is finally crying, and without shame or difficulty. As Lear undergoes an emotional transformation, he truly begins to know himself better than in any other time of his life. I believe he comes to complete acceptance of his true humanity.