Can King Lear be defined as an Aristotelian Tragedy ? When viewing upon a tragedy, a reader is offered to empathize the suffering a character endures through pity and fear, yet still being able to feel that enticing pleasure. With this being said, King Lear can be defined as a tragedy even by Aristotle, one of the most renowned masterminds on tragedies. Based on the Aristotelian principles for a tragedy, the ‘perfect’ tragedy must contain plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and song. King Lear echo’s Aristotle’s concept of tragedy, as the accepted king with that disastrous flaw in his character and that evokes understanding of the audience. Shakespeare's play sets King Lear to be the ruler of Britain, where he is highly-esteemed by people below him in social status. His reputation corresponds with Aristotle’s definition of the ‘tragic hero’, who must be of noble blood. and considered great amongst their surroundings. The tragic hero, said Aristotle, should not be ‘a virtuous man brought from prosperity to adversity: for this moves neither pity nor fear; it merely shocks us’. Lear is a delusional victim caught in his own self-deception; his desires for power and genuine affection push him from direct order and power into over-the-edge chaos. King Lear shows his first sign of quenching for affection when he requests that his three daughters to express how much they love him before he gives away his rule, and duties of his kingdom so that all the kingdom’s problems shall decimate. "Tell me, my daughters,- / Since now we will divest us[give away] both of rule, / Interest of territory, cares of state,- / Which of you shall we say doth love us [King Lear] most? That we our largest bounty may extend / Where nature doth with merit challenge" (Act1, Sc. 1,Lines 50-55). King Lear is showing early signs of “mental illness” when Cordelia says that she loves her father exactly as a daughter should. For this, Lear goes ballistic and disowns her, and even banishes the Earl of Kent for defending her. King Lear doesn’t realize that his actions of dividing the kingdoms between the other two daughters is actually inviting a civil war with the successors. In the ideal tragedy, Aristotle claims that the protagonist will mistakenly bring about his own downfall—not because he is sinful or lacking moral conviction , but rather because of his naïve state of mind; he does not know enough. The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous, so his change of fortune can be from good to bad. This change “should come about as the result, not of vice, but of some great error or frailty in a character.” Such a plot is most likely to generate pity and fear in the audience, for “pity is aroused by unmerited misfortune, fear by the misfortune of a man like ourselves.”. King Lear brings about his own downfall and misfortune through his folly and loses everyone close to him. Only when he sees through his own foolishness and sees himself for what he is, a “poor, infirm, weak, and despised old man” (Act 3, Sc. 2, Line 22), does the audience feel sorry for him. But then, tragically, its too late for him, especially that, given a final chance at happiness with his true daughter Cordelia, she dies and Lear dies of a broken heart. The tragic hero's loss leads him or her to some sort of gain in awareness, self-knowledge, or learning. The end of the tragedy is a catharsis (purgation, cleansing) of the tragic emotions of pity and fear. Catharsis is an Aristotelian term that means “purging,” and Aristotle seems to be utilizing this metaphor of a tragedy by arousing the emotions of pity and fear in order to purge away King Lear’s excess, to a balanced equilibrum. Aristotle also talks of the “pleasure” that is proper to tragedy, apparently meaning the inner pleasure one gets from contemplating the pity and fear that are aroused through an intricately constructed work of art. King Lear should be restricted in being called an Aristotelian tragedy due to the many aspects of the criteria of a tragedy being ignored. Characters in a tragedy should have authentic “consistency” (true to themselves). Once a character's personality and motivations are established, these should continue throughout the play. In the play, King Lear changes from an tyrant, to a madman, and then to someone who is shattered by grief. Consider what Aristotle thought were essential to tragic heroes--that they be nature are good, take suitable actions towards the plot and consistency. King Lear doesn’t adheres to none of these, and particularly doesn’t contain consistency. This wavering changeability can’t classify King Lear in being called a perfect Aristotelian tragedy. The important element in tragedy is action, not character. It is the deeds of men that bring about their destruction; the calamities that befall Lear occur because of the actions taken by him. His actions, are the beginnings of an inevitable agony, for these actions start a chain of events that lead to ultimate catastrophe. Surprisingly Lear also experiences an incredible transformation. Through adversity, Lear gains a new perspective on living. He rejects power and politics and decides that what really matters is being with the people he loves. King Lear also feels sympathy for the hardship undergone by others – especially the homeless that wander about the kingdom. His strange journey makes Lear a much better person. This is all to good in the wrong places; the decisions that he has made in the past will alter his future in unimaginable ways. The Shakespearean tragedy of King Lear is one that the audience can recognize as compelling and believable. It is easy to spot out King Lear’s foolish self-importance that is precedent to his social status. Sadly, this one flaw prevents him from making use of his positive traits to overcome a situation in a series of tragic events. To call King Lear a perfect tragedy is quite controversial because particular values can be read from the play which allows the Aristotelian interpretation. King Lear corresponds to having the six most significant aspects of what it means to be a tragedy. Aristotle said. “ Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; with incidents arousing pity and fear, wherewith to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions. . . . Every Tragedy, therefore, must have six parts, which parts determine its quality—namely, Plot, Characters, Diction, Thought, Spectacle, Melody.”