Endings and Beginnings: Survival, Hope, and Redemption in King Lear

Endings and Beginnings: Survival, Hope, and Redemption in King Lear

The apocalyptic ending of Shakespeare’s King Lear embodies the antithesis of survival, hope, and redemption. Kent’s unanswered question, “Is this the promised end?” echoes the shock that must have been felt by early modern audiences as they witnessed the death of the entire royal line—person by person.

Kent’s words also reminded audiences that Shakespeare’s conclusion to Lear’s story was, literally, far removed from its “promised end.” For early moderns, Lear was a historical king, ruling Britain in approximately 800 BC. His story, and that of his heir, Queen Cordelia, had been recounted since the 1100s by historiographers such as Monmouth, Holinshed, Grafton, and Stow. This history was popularised in moralities, genealogies, poems, plays, and topographicals. The established account of Lear’s reign, from which Shakespeare uniquely differed, saw Cordelia win Lear back his crown and his kingdom. Lear’s restoration and Cordelia’s subsequent rule was one part of a historical lineage that traced continuously from the nation’s founder, Brute, to the ruling monarch, King James I. Lear’s story was thus part of a larger story of national survival, another beginning, yet Shakespeare rewrote it as an ending.

This paper explores the ending of Shakespeare’s King Lear within its historical and textual context and suggests the play repeatedly offers and withdraws notions of survival, hope, and redemption—manipulating characters and audiences alike.

There are no files associated with this item.