Hey.
A 'traditional' interpretation is simply one that retains the basic elements of the text, and the perspectives of the original work. An example of a traditional interpretation of King Lear is the Michael Elliot (Grenada, 1983.) version, which retains a similar feel to the play, emphasising the 'redemption' of Lear. (Through Lear appearing in white and clean-shaven, 'purified' in Act V, Scene III.)
In the sense of the original interpetation, I think it's more to do with it's comment upon the ruling of the state, and the importance of the 'Chain Of Being' (Every citizen has their place in society.). King Lear's key mistake, according to the original play, is abdicating from his reign, for the following reasons.
-Dividing the kingdom into three (The importance of a single strong ruler was upheld during the Jacobean era. An example of this can be seen in 'Leviathan', which basically states that without a single sovereign ruler or assembly, man's life is doomed to be 'nasty, brutish and short'.)
-Giving power to his daughters.. (And thus violating the principle of primogeniture. While Elizabeth had ruled only a short time previous, female rule was still looked down upon..)
This interpretation has in itself changed drastically, as seen in Peter Brook's view, who believed that Lear's key mistake was not dividing his kingdom, but dismissing Cordelia and thus abandoning a balance of power.
The 'Jacobean' reading also viewed much of the play's tragedy as superfluous, which would influence the Nahum Tate version, which gave the play a happy ending, and then became the dominant interpretation until 1838.. (King Lear was not performed during the English Civil War.. It's a controversial play, in a political sense.)
This differing ways of viewing Lear provide grounds for an interpretation, which is largely conveyed through the editing and emphasising of dialogue (In my opinion.).. It's like say, in a 'Feminist' interpretation of King Lear, Regan and Goneril are generally shown in a better light. Indeed, some readings view them as heroines attempting to overthrow the shackles of patriarchy.
King Lear is actually an excellent play to create interpretations from, because there are 'traces' of many diverse concepts and doctrines present within the text, to emphasise in an interpretation.
When I had to do an interpretation, I did a combined Existensialist/Marxist reading, based on a few key lines;
Marxist-
A peasant stand up thus!-Regan (Class oppression)
Plate sin with gold, and justice's hurtless lance doubtless breaks. Arm it with rags and a pygmy's straw doth pierce it-Lear (Although I'd argue that this second line is actually a comment urging reform of the kingship, rather than revolution. However, it's up to the interpretation, which is key.)
Existensialist-
When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools-Lear (View of the universe as absurd..but......)
Men are going hence even as their coming hither. Ripeness is all-Edgar (We must struggle on regardless.)
Even a few lines such as these are enough to create an interpretation.The rest is in the
direction. Mine was also transposed to be set in Revolutionary Russia 1917-18, with Tsar Nicholas II as Lear.
An interpretation can also be conveyed through selective editing, which is clearly apparent in the Peter Brook version, which attempts to interpet Lear as a nihilistic play. (For instance, Edmund's
Some good I mean to do in spite of my own nature is omitted, to great effect.).
Of course, you don't necessarily have to believe your 'reading', but notice it in the play, and then depict your interpretation to reflect that, which is probably what is being looked for, as in, do you support your interpretation through textual evidence and/or editing?
Apologies for the rambling, but hopefully it's been helpful.
