To What Extent Is There a Correlation between King Lear's Morality and Power?

Nala Cyriac

Mr. Cohen

ENG4U

October 14th, 2025

To What Extent Is There a Correlation between King Lear's Morality and Power?

King Lear is widely considered morally improved by the time the play concludes, yet there is no sufficient evidence to support this claim. The sad reality is that when one holds ultimate power, morality becomes insignificant. Since Lear never truly believed he gave up his power, he never overcame his fatal flaw and thus, never achieved true moral growth. Considering how his opening act of abdicating the throne was tainted by selfish motives, which later caused him to deny all things that did not align with his beliefs and.  Finally, his descent into insanity proves his failure to grasp the reality of his situation; making it clear that he never grows from the stubborn old man we meet at the beginning of the play. 

Since the time of his introduction, Lear has been compelled to action based on ulterior motives. We witness this first while he was in the midst of abdicating the throne, holding onto whatever power he could by making the division of wealth a competition of ego stroking. 

Know that we have divided in three our kingdom, and ‘tis our fast intent to shake all cares and business from our age, conferring them on younger strengths while we unburdened crawl towards death. [...] Tell me, my daughters, (since now we will divest us both of rule, interest of territory, cares of state) which of you shall we say doth love us most that we our largest bounty may extend where nature doth with merit challenge? (1, 1, 35)

It is important to note that when Lear is expressing his intent to step down, this is all done in his own self-interest, describing his abdication as him being “unburdened.” Yet still, to make himself feel better about his old age and his decision to step down, he seizes this opportunity as a chance to inflate his ego. With at least some idea that this choice will have some implications, he is left in a very sensitive state, causing him to be especially infuriated by Cordelia’s average remarks of her affection, which results in rash action. “Here I disclaim all my parental care, propinquity, and property of blood, and as a stranger to my heart and me hold thee from this for ever” (1, 1, 113). Despite Cordelia never having insulted him, he took her lack of overt flattery as disrespect and responded accordingly: disowning her and refusing to pay her dowry. Blinded by rage and hurt, Lear never takes a moment to think about his actions, launching into dialogue to proclaim his anger and enact personal justice, sharing his views with all the characters present. “Come not between the dragon and his wrath.” (1, 1, 122) His use of metaphor, comparing himself to a dragon, highlights his perceived grandeur and influence, a theme that remains throughout the course of the play. Lear’s behaviour in this opening scene has been endlessly dissected by experts, and in an essay published through Oxford University’s journal, Shakespeare Quarterly, the author examines what his behaviour is supposed to tell us about his character. “So Lear’s action in the first scene horrifies us as it is meant to. His test of his daughters shows he is a man who has never understood his duties or the characters of men” (Stuart, 169). As cited by many academics, Lear’s behaviour at the start of the play is an indication of his low morality, with one student making an interesting connection to his power. “He is able to say whatever he wants and disown his own daughter without cause with no consequence” (Carpentier). The very fact that his actions are never challenged highlights the power that he held at the start, which he refuses to truly accept the loss of later on. In another article published in Shakespeare Quarterly, the motives of his abdication are questioned, revealing the power-driven nature of this choice. 

It is power that motivates the strange opening action: an aged king directs a public ceremony in which he voluntarily abdicates his kingdom to his daughters. No understanding of this scene is possible without the realization that Lear has no intention of stripping himself of power. Quite the contrary, his intent is to retain power at any cost. He is willing to give up political power, which no longer means anything to him, only because he thinks that doing so will enable him to consolidate the personal powers he fears are slipping away with advancing years (McLaughlin, 37).

At the time, it was very rare for monarchs to willingly give up their power, with successors usually rising after their death. In fact, there were many plots to seize power in order to overthrow the current ruler. Shakespeare often references the stubborn, power-hungry nature of kings through depictions in his other work. He also lived through the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, whose rise to power was anything but simple: suspected of being involved in a plot to assassinate her sister to convert the country back to the Protestant religion and attempts were made to overthrow her during her rule. Hence, Shakespeare would have been aware of the typical stubbornness displayed by rulers at the time, likely ingraining his portrayal of King Lear with similar qualities. 

This theme of stubbornness continues throughout the play, as we see on various occasions how Lear is unable to accept disappointment, his own shortcomings, or the suggestion of inferiority. Shortly after handing over power to his daughters, it is clear that he no longer possesses the influence needed to control his subjects. It is then that Regan suggests that he stay with her and dismiss some of his knights. However, insulted by the mention of these preposterous ideas, he remarks that he would rather be a slave. 

Return to her, and fifty men dismissed? No, rather I abjure all roofs, and choose to be a comrade with the wolf and owl—to wage against the enmity o’th’air—necessity’s sharp pinch! Return with her? Why, the hot-blooded France that dowerless took our youngest born—I could as well be brought to knee his throne and, squirelike, pension beg to keep base life afloat. Return with her? Persuade me rather to be slave and sumpter to this detested groom (2, 4, 197).

Lear assumes he should be well protected and should live with the comforts of the life he gave away, failing to realize what abdication truly entailed. The repetition of the phrase “return with her?” highlights the absurd notion of the question in Lear’s mind, as though he is scoffing at the idea. Displaying almost a soliloquy's length yet being presented through dialogue highlights Lear’s exaggeration and flawed morals, believing this request is so unreasonable that it requires a lengthy, sarcastic response. Still believing he wields the power and influence of a king, he assumes the right to the luxuries of his former title, showing that he never truly believed he gave up the power of being king, only the responsibilities. Additionally, considering the prominence of patriarchal values at the time, the idea of a woman challenging a male’s authority would have been unfathomable, potentially explaining Lear’s reaction to this perceived disrespect. Lear may have even considered his daughters to suffer from female hysteria, a condition characterized by ‘unusual’ traits for women at the time, such as speaking too much or failing to obey society’s expectations. Lear’s rigid adherence to the beliefs of the time around rank and a woman’s role highlights his stubborn nature, which he fails to improve on. Furthermore, when examining his interaction with Edgar disguised as a beggar, his ignorance and stubbornness are highlighted through this encounter. “Dids’t thou give all to thy two daughters, and art thou come to this? [...] Death, traitor! Nothing could have subdued nature to such a lowness but his unkind daughters” (3, 4, 46). Believing that his issues are the only ones that could lead to such unfortunate circumstances, he refuses to believe anything contradictory. Despite the loss of his influence and command, finding himself in the same misfortune as someone in the lowest class, his mindset remains unchanged. Several sources highlight the comparative treatment of Lear after giving up his power, with one commenting, “People who used to serve him now treat him like an equal” (Theroux). The other characters in the play provide an idea of one’s status, with one’s association linking with their rank as well as acting as representations of the appropriate response to witnessing certain actions. Based on the behaviour of the supporting characters, Lear’s ignorance and stubbornness are obvious. In an article published by Wayne State University Press, academics are encouraged to discuss the topic of King Lear’s morality. Author Judd Arnold notes their significance, as even the other characters, who act as the voices of reason, never approve of his actions. 

All come to agree that Lear's spiritual renewal depends on his learning to see himself as more than simply a victim of a loveless universe. Not one of these comforters ever expresses the conviction that Lear achieves such saving insight (207). 

With the other characters presenting this grounded point of view, they emphasize how Lear never makes this pivotal realization and thus never alters his flawed views and moral faults.

Lear refuses to accept his situation to the bitter end, causing him to fall into delusion. During a treacherous storm, Lear proclaims his frustration and self-pity, saying, “I am a man more sinned against than sinning” (3, 2, 57). In this climactic moment, highlighted by the booming thunder and cracking of lightning, pathetic fallacy is used to portray the depth of his emotions. Lear believes himself to have been unjustly wronged, feeling sorry for himself and his circumstances. After finally encountering a situation where the luxuries of his title cannot protect him, he cannot fathom the idea that his own actions may have led him to this place, causing him to have a psychotic break. It is important to note that it is very rare to see Lear perform soliloquies to provide moments of introspection, and when they appear, they are clouded by his maddening state. Aristotle proposed the framework for tragic characters by establishing the three main traits they must exhibit: hamartia, anagnorisis, and peripeteia. These refer to a fatal flaw present in their characterization, the realization of said flaw, and finally, their reaction to this realization. King Lear’s descent into insanity proves Shakespeare followed this framework by never having him learn of or improve from his stubborn, narcissistic ways. Inspired by watching Greek dramas, which likely contained the philosopher’s principles, it is no surprise that many of his plays exhibit a similar structure. At the peak of his delusion, Lear crowns himself with flowers to mimic the symbol of his former power. “Crowned with rant fumiter and furrow-weeds, with burdocks, hemlock, nettles, cuckoo-flowers, darnel, and all idle weeds that grow in our sustaining corn” (4, 4, 3). He is so unwilling to give up his title and influence that he feels the need to cling to makeshift remnants of his former glory and remind others of his perceived status. “I am a king, my masters, know you that?” (4, 6, 188) In a longstanding journal published through the John Hopkins University Press, one author discusses the significance of using nature as a symbol of power. “Lear seems to try to copy nature so as to become a force of nature himself.” (Schehr, 58) Understanding nature as a powerful, uncontrollable force, Lear believes that he can incite similar power by connecting with it. 

In conclusion, Lear’s stubborn denial of failure and loss of influence contribute to his unreliable mental state by the end of the play, which denies all claims of moral growth. With his own selfish motives influencing the decision to relinquish his title, he fails to realize the consequences of this decision and the corresponding loss of power. When confronted with this reality, he digs in, unwilling to accept his circumstances. When the truth becomes inescapable, he retreats into his mind, allowing his delusions to control his actions. As an audience, we crave inspirational stories that suggest the possibility that people are capable of improvement. Perhaps that is why we grasp at any chance to claim our titular character’s moral growth but the actual story of King Lear fails to quench these desires. The article by Judd Arnold highlights how even experts may incorrectly interpret Lear’s morality, as their views are tainted by the many popular inspirational stories that emphasize such growth. However, Lear’s behaviour indicates that he is a different type of protagonist.

I suspect that such responses to the Lear in the opening of the play are colored by academic expectations of tragic heroes. [...] implying, thereby, that Lear's progress, like theirs, will be a movement away from blind arrogance, toward self-discovery and moral perception; in short, to the spiritual redemption which produces tragic grandeur. But the initial exhibition of Lear's willful folly does not easily suggest the kind of strength which challenges a cosmos in Job, Prometheus and Oedipus (209).

Works Cited

Carpentier, Evan. King Lear Presentation. 6 October 2025.

Judd, Arnold. “How Do We Judge King Lear?” Criticism, vol. 14, no. 3, 1972, pp. 207–26., JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23099018. Accessed 7 October 2025.

McLaughlin, John J. “The Dynamics of Power in King Lear: An Adlerian Interpretation.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, 1978, pp. 37–43., JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2869167. Accessed 7 October 2025.

Schehr, Lawrence R. “King Lear: Monstrous Mimesis.” SubStance, vol. 11, no. 3, 1982, pp. 51–63., JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/3684314. Accessed 7 October 2025.

Shakespeare, William, and SparkNotes. King Lear: No Fear Shakespeare Deluxe Student Editions - Shakespeare Side-By-Side Plain English. Barnes & Noble, Incorporated, 2020.

Stuart, Betty. “Truth and Tragedy in King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 2, 1967, pp. 167–80., JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2867703. Accessed 7 October 2025.

Theroux, Haven. “King Lear Presentation.” Accessed 6 October 2025.