Absolutism and the Idea of a Family Unit in King Lear

Professor Little explained that the play King Lear not only underscores the notion of absolutism but also criticizes its implications that lead to Lear's destruction and the divisions of the nation. However, there is another way to read the role of absolutism in King Lear. The play seems to suggest that although the idea of absolutism may be problematic, it is a necessary requirement to uphold the unity of a family and the unity of a nation. Before Lear distributes his nation into equal amounts to his daughters and sons-in-law, they remain the subjects of Lear's control, regardless whether their submissions to this absolute king are willing or not. The idea of absolutism that Lear embodies, though may repress individual self-interests among his daughters (except Cordelia), maintains the family as one unit and becomes a core ideal that emphasizes the unity of family. But with the intention to disseminate his absolute authority and eliminate the key "cement" (i.e. absolutism) that glues the family together, Lear inevitably destroys the family unit. With the clash in the aristocratic family leads to a catastrophic consequence-the disunity of the nation. Without the idea of absolutism in Lear's family suggests the absence of absolutism ultimately creates chaos in the domestic sphere of the royalty, which the disorder in Lear's private domain results in disharmony in the public realm. Although Shakespeare may use the play to denounce James I' support for absolutism, the notion of absolutism, indeed, sustain the unity in the family and in the nation. Does the collapse of absolutism give us the answer to govern the nation or keep the family as a unit more successfully?

Xian Yan Liu, Section 1D Amanda Waldo