Review and interpretation of King Lear
BACKGROUND OF THE IDEA In creating the tragedy play King Lear, William Shakespeare used many sources in getting the base-line story, but it required his genius and intellect to place them together to create the true tragedy with its multiple plot lines that his play turned out to be in the end. The story of King Lear (or as it started, King Leir) is first seen in literature in the year 1135, contained in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae. Other authors placed King Leir into their stories including; John Higgins in A Mirror for Magistrates (1574), by Warner in Albion's England (1586), by Holinshed in The Second Book of the Historie of England (1577), and by Spencer in The Faerie Queen (1590). The most influential of all was probably The True Chronicle History of King Leir, which was anonymous. This play was performed as early as 1594, which is when it showed up in the "Stationers' Register." Kenneth Muir even suggested that Shakespeare "may have acted in it". Shakespeare took the best of all the sources of King Leir, added his touches and personality, and created the masterpiece we enjoy today. Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regum Britanniae, gave the description of King Lear and his three daughters, and also the basis for the love test. One major difference is that unlike Shakespeare's Lear, Geoffrey's Leir does not appear to be insane and has not lost
King Lear Act III.
KING LEAR ACT III , ii (1-24)- VARIOUS READINGS Lear, accompanied by his Fool, wanders through a desolate heath whilst a tumultuous storm rages overhead, cursing the weather and challenging it to a fierce duel against himself. In his rage, he commands floods to cover the steeples, lightning to flatten the Earth and to destroy all possibility of future life. Through the use of powerful language, it is as if he were wishing an apocalyptic end to the world that has allowed his monarchical and paternal/domestic "world" to conclude upon his daughters' assumption of power and their further betrayal of him. The physical chaos and turbulent nature of the storm symbolically echoes Lear's internal turmoil and escalating madness whilst simultaneously epitomizing the tremendous power of nature, which forces the now powerless king to recognize his own mortality, human frailty and to develop in him a sense of humility for the first time. The storm may also be a reference to the idea of divine justice, since tempests and thunder have been viewed in both Christian and pagan traditions as a reference to the idea of divine anger or power ( eg. story of Noah's Ark from the Old Testament in the Bible and Thor the Thunder god from Norse Mythology, respectively). If viewed in light of a misogynistic condemnation of feminism, one might rationalize the storm as a means for the pagan god's
Human Nature in King Lear
ESENLILIOĞLU Nilüfer Esenlilioğlu Assist.Prof. Dr. Gillian Mary Elizabeth ALBAN ING 523 Shakespeare Studies 4 December 2013 HUMAN NATURE IN KING LEAR One of the most moving and painful Shakespeare’s plays King Lear explores the human nature and condition through the portrayal of characters by depicting the good sides and evil sides of human nature as well as affirming personal transformation through the protagonist of the play, King Lear. The good in human nature is represented by means of characters such as Cordelia, Edgar, Albany whereas the evil in human nature is projected on the reader through the characters such as Edmund, Goneril, Regan, Cornwall and Oswald. At the beginning of the play, Lear, the King of Britain, who decides to divide his kingdom among his three daughters depending on how much love they would proclaim for him, is the embodiment of the weakness of human nature. He asks each to tell him how much she loves him in Act I, Scene I: “Which of you shall we say doth love us most? (1.1.49). These lines suggest that he is vain just like other humans in real life because he is measuring his daughters’ love for him with land. His two daughters whose evil characters are revealed later in the play express their love which is completely flattering not real love. Goneril answers: “A love that makes ….speech unable/ Beyond all manner of so much
What are Seneca's views on anger (support your answer with evidence from primary sources)? Critically evaluate his views.
Question 2: What are Seneca's views on anger (support your answer with evidence from primary sources)? Critically evaluate his views. Seneca who was a Spanish-born stoics philosopher and a good public speaker between 4 B.C and 65 B.C has given his opinion about anger in his essay 'On Anger'. This essay will illustrate his views on anger by looking at his definition on anger, the discordances of anger with nature, the decision to start anger, the causes of anger, and the process of anger, the good and bad consequences of anger and the remedies of it. It will then critically analysis his views by looking at the consistence with stoicism, the practicability of his remedies and some oversights of his views. Stoicism was a philosophical system started by Zeno. The belief of stoicism was a ruling principle underlay reality and permeated all things. It accounted for the orderliness of nature (Perry, Chase, Jacob, Jacob & Lane 1996:112). It believed that happiness came from the disciplining of emotions by the rational part of soul and individuals should progress morally (Perry et al. 1996:113) In the essay, Seneca gave the definition of anger. Anger is "a burning desire to avenge a wrong" or "a burning desire to punish him by whom you think yourself to have been unfairly harmed."(Seneca On Anger Extracts I2). These were the definitions of anger given by Seneca. Seneca then talked
Tragedy and Silence in Beckett's Endgame and Bond's Lear
Tragedy and Silence in Beckett's Endgame and Bond's Lear Neither Samuel Beckett's Endgame nor Edward Bond's Lear are described by their authors as tragedies, and it seems unlikely that Aristotle would recognise them as such. Nevertheless, both writers draw self-consciously on elements of classical tragedy - though with different aesthetic and moral intentions, and with strikingly different results. In this essay, I will discuss the ways in which Beckett and Bond have adapted the model of classical tragedy, as outlined by Aristotle, to reinvent the genre for the modern era. At the same time, I want to explore the theme of silence. This is a key idea in both plays, but it is interpreted very differently by the two writers in their diverse tragic schemes. Thanks in no small part to Beckett and Bond, tragicomedy has been the dominant theatrical genre of the last half-century - so much so that it has become an almost meaningless catch-all term to describe any play which combines sad and funny elements. However, both Lear and Endgame can properly be described as tragicomedies, as recent productions make clear. A review of the revival of Lear at the Sheffield Crucible states: 'If Shakespeare's Lear blurred the line between high tragedy and black comedy then Edward Bond removes that line completely' (Highfield, 2005). Meanwhile, the programme notes for the Oslo Shakespeare
Animal Imagery - 57 different animals are mentioned in King Lear.
IMAGERY ANIMAL IMAGERY 57 different animals are mentioned in King Lear. Dominant animal imagery is symbolic of the hierarchy and the dismissal of God's law. The traditional order was: God Angels Man Animal Plants Stones Animal imagery represents the breakdown of natural order and the savage instincts of certain evil characters. Therefore these evil characters are not obeying God's law but behaving according to instinct. For example in Act I Scene 4, King Lear refers to Gonerill as possessing a "wolvish visage." In a way the evil characters support Montaigne's views, who questioned the natural order and believed man was not necessarily superior to animals. Animals of prey are used in the imagery, where the non-human nature world taking over, as the civilised world breaks down. This parallels with Montaigne because animal instincts overpower human instincts. A.C. Bradley quotes: "The lower animal souls have found a lodgement in human form and there found brains forge, tongue to speak, and hands to eat enormities." It is interesting to compare the animal imagery in King Lear to that in Othello. The two plays have certain likenesses; they were written together (Othello probably in 1604, and King Lear around 1605). Also they are the most painful of the great tragedies, and they are both studies of torture. However, torture in King Lear is so vast and so inhuman a
An Interpretation of Molire A Critique of the Bourgeois Men
An Interpretation of Molière A Critique of the Bourgeois Men The two plays that I have read by Jean-Baptiste Molière, Tartuffe and The Miser, seem to be centered on a possession that is desired by the father of each story. In Tartuffe, the character of Tartuffe is Orgon's greatest possession. In The Miser, money is Harpagon's greatest possession. Molière seems to use these possessions not only as a way to create comic muse but also as a way to divide the father from the rest of the cast in his plays. Harpagon and Orgon are used to show the audience the traits of the bourgeois. These central characters personas are possibly exaggerated to the point of mockery to illuminate the main characteristics of their ego: avarice, jealousy, and egotism. Molière makes sure to announce the character traits possessed by the bourgeois men in each story. In Tartuffe, Orgon's irrational and excessive behavior is brandished about his character throughout the play by family members, friends, and Mariane's servant, Dorine. Although we do not come upon Orgon's character until the forth scene of the first act, we already have a sense of a man who may be irrational by the words of Mariane's servant Dorine by which she describes Orgon's feelings towards Tartuffe:" He calls him brother, and loves him as his life, preferring him to mother, child, or wife"(Tartuffe 1.2.15-16). This
An essay on Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot.
There is no ideal opening sentence to an essay on Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. This is something which I have incrementally discovered during the course of my research on the play. Perhaps give a succinct synopsis? Two tramps, waiting at a tree for Godot who never comes - it sounds relatively simple, even to a child, but the reality is that Waiting for Godot is far from elementary. The play presents to the first time reader a whirlwind of confusion, discovery and wonderment. Faced with the challenge of deliberating upon Beckett's treatment of time-consciousness in the play further generates panic. How to interpret? How to decide on whose theory is correct (if any theory is correct)? How to transpose ideas into concrete words? How to fill the pages... How to fill the pages is perhaps a useful starting point. Beckett's characters are essentially filling time - the act of waiting being the main action in the play. Two acts of virtual nothingness lead one to ponder why Beckett chose to write Godot at all. Though clearly he was experimenting with the "Absurdist" antics of the day, namely those of non-realism and lack of chronological order etc, Beckett goes further still. We as the audience have at least some expectations of what the play will embrace - usually plot, logical language, recognizable setting, development of setting, conflict etc - all the facets
Say what you have learned about the relationship between parents and children in the two poems and the extract. You should refer closely to the wording of the poems and may also wish to comment on your own experience.
Coursework Question Say what you have learned about the relationship between parents and children in the two poems and the extract. You should refer closely to the wording of the poems and may also wish to comment on your own experience. > Digging The relationship between the man and his father is built on honour, envy and remembrance 'By god, the old man could handle a spade'. His father and grandfather had manual jobs, (worked physically) they didn't work in an office, they didn't work at a shop, they dug, which is what they made livings out of. The poet admires the both of them for what they did for a living, he wasn't embarrassed about what they did, he wasn't ashamed of them, he admired them he envied them 'The cold smell of potato mould, the squelch and slap of soggy peat, the curt cuts of an edge through living roots awaken in my head'. The poet remembers them by all the physical work that they did 'Nicking and slicing neatly, heavy sods over his shoulder, going down and down for the good turf. Digging'. The poet describes how they dug all of their lives, and then he states that he digs as well 'Between my fingers and my thumb the squat pen rests. I'll dig with it'. > Poem at thirty-nine The poets relationship with her father is based on help and advise and knowledge 'He taught me that telling the truth...'. She describes problems and conflicts in there
Based on your study of the first two Acts, how well does Shakespeare present us with characters we can dislike?
Based on your study of the first two Acts, how well does Shakespeare present us with characters we can dislike? Lyndsay Scott From the initial study of the first two acts, it is evident to see that Shakespeare is presenting his audience with a variety of personalities, many of which we, as an audience are actively encouraged to dislike. A Major theme within "King Lear" is the force of Good opposing Evil, so therefore it makes sense to suggest the presence of those perhaps stereotypical "Evil" characters causing trouble, whilst disrupting and shaping the course of the play. Throughout this essay, I hope to show and account for the reasons behind how some characters are portrayed very differently from other characters, and how this effects an audiences' interpretation of them. Whilst studying the play, we should be aware that Shakespeare manipulates events and prose, using various techniques in order to fulfil a certain purpose. Shakespeare moulds his plays in order to have a certain and very predictable effect upon an audience. His use of language that is used by individual characters and the sequence of events that take place throughout the play is by no means coincidental. Shakespeare in actual fact had a very clear purpose when writing his plays. The way in which the play is written serves to guarantee that his audience, ultimately, in light of the evidence shown