.

Introduction
This essay is about the construction of the plot in King Lear. Throughout the essay I will refer to
the quarto text The History of King Lear.

As for the construction of the plot both form and content will be taken into consideration. Since a
tragedy is normally characterized by the rise of a conflict that terminates in a catastrophe, I
intend to deal especially with those aspects of form and content which relate to the conflict that
is significant for King Lear.

With regard to this conflict several questions can be asked. First of all there is the question of
what constitutes the conflict and which different forms this conflict takes. Furthermore we need
to examine whether the structure of the play and the development of the conflict correspond with
each other. Moreover I would like to point out some traits of the construction, such as the
double-action, which seem to be special about King Lear. The following paragraph will deal with
the introductory part of the play, in which the basis for the conflict is established. And after that
the further development of this conflict will be considered.

2. The Exposition
The function of an exposition in general is to set a situation, scenery out of which the further plot
can develop. The main characters are introduced, the reader is shown how the characters are
related to each other and what the circumstances of their lives are like. In a tragedy, however, the
exposition has to contain an additional aspect. Since the conflict is a necessary element in a
tragedy, the situation displayed in the exposition needs to have some traits which can give rise to
such a conflict. Therefore the exposition hints at difficulties which initiate a conflict and finally
the catastrophe, which is also a means to arouse the audience’s interest and attention. So the
exposition gives a lot of information, and its design is decisive for the development of the play.1

The first scene in King Lear starts with a short conversation between Kent, Gloucester and
Edmund, in which some information about Edmund’s relation to his father is given. Then the
conversation is interrupted by Lear’s entrance, who immediately declares that he intends to
divide his kingdom and thus sets the action going. Later on in the play the division of his
kingdom and above all the fact that he rejects Cordelia, who unlike Gonoril and Regan really
loves him, turn out to be fatal faults. But as early as the first scene we notice that Lear is wrong
in doing so. Gonoril’s and Regan’s speeches, which seem to be overdone and show their
hypocrisy, Kent’s warning, Cordelia’s honest behaviour and her way of reproaching her sisters
indicate that deep conflicts will be caused by this event.

Furthermore Lear is characterized as a man who insists on his subjects and his daughters obeying
his orders and submitting to his will. Lear’s reaction to Cordelia’s unwillingness to take part in
this public `contest of love´ (Sc. 1; 38-100) reveals tyrannical features.2 This impression is
supported by the banishment of Kent. Lear’s fault becomes obvious; it is Lear’s character which
makes him set a situation out of which the tragic conflict arises.
So the first scene fulfils the features of an exposition; it introduces the main characters and
constitutes the basis for the development of the main plot dealing with Lear and his daughters.
However, there is a double-action in King Lear. For that reason a second exposition can be found
in the second scene.3 The second scene exposes Edmund’s evil plans to win his father’s favour
by showing his brother in a bad light and his first step to realize those plans. Here the basis for
the conflict is even easier to recognize than in the first scene, the reason for which might be that
fewer people are involved in the second plot of the double-action. And in addition to that
Edmund already pursues his goal, while Gonoril and Regan have not yet influenced the action.
Of course it would have been possible to design one exposition for both the main and the sub-
plot. The fact that two expositions exist stresses the separateness and, to some extent,
independence of the two plots;4 although it must not be forgotten that there are many overlaps
between the two plots. Furthermore it deserves mentioning that the first scene already introduces
Gloucester and Edmund and thus is part of the exposition of the sub-plot. The second scene
finishes the introductory part of the play; and now the action can proceed.

3. The Development of the Conflict

At first only the main plot in King Lear will be dealt with, while the sub-plot will be discussed
later on in this section.

Before the development of the conflict can be described, it must be stated that there is obviously
not only an outward conflict between two contrary groups of characters, but also an inner
struggle within the hero himself.5 Yet these two different levels on which outer and inner struggle
take place must be considered as interdependent. So the development of Lear’s mental state
cannot be separated from the relationship to his daughters.

It is typical of a tragedy that in the first half of the play one of the two parties involved in the
conflict - normally the tragic hero – is successfully pursuing his intentions and thus seems to be
victorious. But then the plot reaches a turning point after which the apparent victory turns into a
decline leading to the final catastrophe. The turning point is normally marked by the fact that the
conflict and also the tension reach their climaxes. A good example of this pattern can be found in
Macbeth. The special thing about King Lear is that although Lear is the tragic figure in this play,
the construction pattern just mentioned does not apply to the rise and fall of his cause.

The first half of the play is characterized by Lear’s decline and Gonoril’s and Regan’s rise; and
the second half ends up with Lear’s death. Lear’s decline seems only to be interrupted by his
reconciliation with Cordelia and the growing insight that his insanity reveals. Yet there is an
explanation of this deviation from the conventional pattern. It is not Lear who influences the
action in a decisive way. His decisions to divide his kingdom and to reject Cordelia set the action
going, and Lear’s reactions to Gonoril’s

and Regan’s behaviour towards him put it forward (Sc. 4 and 7). After the storm scene, which
can be seen as the climax and turning point of the play, Lear’s role is a totally passive one.6 But it
is Gonoril, Regan, Cornwall and Edmund who take over the active parts. And the rise and fall of
these figures correspond with the conventional construction of a tragedy. These characters are
advancing very successfully up to the moment, when they try to force Lear to give up his entire
entourage and when Lear is exposed to the storm.

[...]