King Lear: Were the Deaths of King Lear and Cordelia Futile?

Because King Lear is killed by events that he himself set in motion, it can be argued that his death is futile. Cordelia’s death, as well, is arguably futile because although she dies to save Lear, he dies anyway. These arguments, however, fail to take into account that death is not the worst thing that can happen, and the implications of a character’s death do not end with the character themselves. If one takes the larger context into account, neither King Lear’s death nor Cordelia’s death are in vain.

Although Cordelia failed to save her father from death, she did save him from the power of her sisters, and from his disgrace. In the brief time before his death, he regains some of his honor, and is once more like a king. Cordelia, however, gave her life not only for her father, but for her country. Cordelia’s actions that led to her death saved England from the drawn out civil war that would likely have taken place as her sisters fought for the crown. Her actions also saved the kingdom of England from being ruled by one of her sisters. In this light, Cordelia’s death was far from futile.

In a similar way, Lear’s death also saved the kingdom of England. Lear was a fool, and although he regains some honor near the end of the play, he was a broken man. Such a man should not be king, lest he destroy the kingdom, and Lear starts off the play by doing. If Lear had survived, it would have been bad for England. Even if he was wiser from having seen the results of his folly, he was mentally unhinged because of the abuse that he suffered at the hands of his daughters. Because of his previous actions, it would have been questionable how much power he should have, and whether he should be obeyed as king. Quite likely, someone as cunning as Edmund would have seized the opportunity to take the crown, and England would be faced with revolt. It was much better that King Lear die in peace before he could cause any more damage.