Abstract For this paper, I have chosen to discuss a character from Shakespeare's "King Lear" and one from Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness". I selected Cordelia from "King Lear" and Marlow from "Heart of Darkness" because both exhibit more than a little compassion and understanding of the plight of another person. Though the characters in the two works exhibit very different characteristics and do not end up in the same final situation, I will show how similar they are and why.
Abstract The paper reviews the play "King Lear" by William Shakespeare, a tragedy about the downfall of a powerful king and how his flawed judgement affected society at large. It shows how the subplot of Gloucester and Edmund is crucial to the play as Shakespeare has interwoven it as such that the main-plot can?t survive on its own. It examines how Edgar appears throughout Lear's suffering and how the way that Edmund orders Lear and Cordelia's death emphasizes how the two stories are inter-connected. The sub-plot intensifies the tragedy and highlights the important issues of the play such as natural order, filial ingratitude and self-knowledge.
From the Paper "Filial ingratitude is one of the themes in the play and both Lear and Gloucester suffer from it. This occurs because they trust their manipulative children and drive their loyal children away. Cordelia is banished to France when she claims that she cannot, ? heave my heart into my mouth? and Edgar assumes the identity of Tom O? Bedlam after he is made a fugitive. Edmund, Goneril and Regan are surrounded with lies, greed and lust. However, Edmund is a bastard son and could be expected to be of a "base nature". He embraces his illegitimacy,? Thou Nature art my goddess"Now Gods stand up for bastards". On the other hand, Goneril and Regan are both Lear's legitimate daughters and their evil actions are not in their nature, they grow in evil as a result of Lear's flawed judgement and claims that,? the best of his time hath been but rash?. This contrast in their children highlights the fact that Lear is a victim of his own nature whereas Gloucester is a victim of Edmund's machinations."
Abstract This paper reviews William Shakespeare's play "King Lear" with an emphasis on the storm which is featured primarily in Act III. It examines how the storm operates on several levels both integral to the plot and purely metaphorical or aesthetic. It looks at how it serves as an icon of the treachery and ruthlessness of Lear's disloyal daughters and how the pounding rain and thunder is clearly representative of his confusion, anger and increasing madness. It evaluates how it could be a sign of divine disapproval for Lear's abdication of a God-assigned position as earthly ruler since without the storm, Lear would never have met Edgar, nor would Kent run into the gentleman whom he sends to Dover to inform Cordelia of the alliance between Albany and Cornwall.
From the Paper "After giving up his land to them, Lear is at the mercy of Goneril and Regan, who, despite their professed love of the king, conspire to take all of his power away. Goneril perpetually finds faults in the king, uttering ridicules like: ?Here do you keep a hundred knights and squires, men so disordered, so debauched and bold, that this our court, infected with their manners, shows like a riotous inn,? (Lr. 1.4.248-51). After this, Lear makes a plethora of particularly damning statements, including: ?Into her womb convey sterility. Dry up in her the organs of increase, and from her derogate body never spring a babe to honor her. "
Abstract This paper examines textual and historical connections in William Shakespeare's "King Lear", including a look at the "happy ending" version of 1681, connecting the play to some of Shakespeare's other tragedies and evaluating its significance in a modern context. It looks at how much has also been made of the fact that King Lear can be read as either a tragedy or a comedy and why Shakespeare chose to let Cordelia die giving "King Lear" a tragic ending, and not as in Nahum Tate's revisionist version ? a happy one.
From the Paper "King Lear, as G.B. Harrison notes, is ?well known. It was one of many fables which old chroniclers inserted in the dark background of the times before the recorded history of England begins.? (Harrison 17) The story concerns King Lear (or Leir, in many of the versions) and his three daughters. An earlier version of the play, The True Chronicle History of King Leir and his Three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan and Cordella, was staged at the Rose Theatre in April 1594, and published in book form in 1605 (Harrison 18)."
A look at the theme of moral responsibility in William Shakespeare's "Hamlet", "MacBeth" and "King Lear", focusing on the characters of Malcolm, Cordelia and Hamlet.
Abstract The paper examines the similarities between the three characters Malcolm, Cordelia and Hamlet. It looks at how all are the children of kings and all have been usurped and attempts to determine what moral responsibility each holds towards their kingdoms and how this is manifested in the plays. It discusses the idea of legitimacy and how only the righful heir can truly rule a kingdom and how any subversion of this "rule" leads to chaos and discord. It also goes on to examine the ways in which the responsibilties of the three characters in question differ from each other, asking whether it is possible to arrive at a definitive conclusion of how Shakespeare presents the theme of moral responsibility in his work.
From the Paper "The whole tragedy of MacBeth seems designed to illustrate that this is the only possible outcome if the natural heir is usurped: we could conclude from this that Malcolm's moral responsibility, and indeed the responsibility of any such "natural" heir, is to reassert his own right to the throne in such circumstances. But can this view of moral responsibility be extended to the other two characters in question: Hamlet and Cordelia?"
Abstract This paper examines how the theme of sight, insight and their relevance to clear vision is a recurring issue throughout Shakespeare's tragic play, "King Lear". It looks at how this theme is mainly portrayed through the characters of Lear, Gloucester and Albany and how subtle references are also apparent through the dialogue of Cordelia and the Fool.
From the Paper "King Lear's lack of sight yet desire to see is apparent during Act 1, Scene 4 in that he is highly inquisitive upon meeting disguised Kent and asks twice "what art thou?" suggesting he is dependent on the sight of others to form his own judgements. This dependence on the sight of others is also evident in the question Lear directs to Oswald of "who am I, sir?". However, although keen to learn the opinion of others, his quest to discover clear sight is overridden by his temper and his contradictory desire to see things as he wants to see them and not as they truly are. When Oswald tells Lear that he is "[his] Lady's father" and does not refer to him as King (as Lear wishes him to although he has handed over his title and power in an effort to live an "unburdened" lifestyle) he goes to strike Oswald as his true vision interferes with the image that Lear wishes to have."
Abstract This paper is an exploration of the presentation of the titular character in the play "King Lear", from a wide overview of his disintegration and changing role, to analysis of specific quotes from the text which give us insight into Shakespeare's intentions. It covers Lear's presentation in the first act, and how his language, introduction and interplay with the other characters is designed by Shakespeare to make him a figure of status and significance, then considers the role of characters such as Cordelia, the Fool and Gloucester in providing us with more insight into Lear's true nature. There is close analysis of Lear's use of language, and how Shakespeare crafts this to reflect the King's shifting mind state over the course of the play.
From the Paper "Shakespeare presents Lear in the first act as having his own secret agenda. he admits to having a 'darker purpose' and explains his 'fast intent' to the court. The phrase 'darker purpose' hints that Lear masks his true objectives behind a more cautious public agenda. Shakespeare portrays Lear through such comments as a sharp King who considers his position carefully in vital matters, a man who reveals his thoughts only when he deems it to be necessary - who plots his every action. This presentation will fall in sharp and deliberate contrast with Lear's behaviour later in the play, when he sticks stubbornly to a single, unwise agenda and uses desperate tactics to try to enforce it."
Abstract The paper examines William Shakespeare's "King Lear" and discusses how the characters Lear, Gloucester and even Goneril and Regan suffer the consequences of their lack of insight while Cordelia and Kent have the ability to see beyond the appearances or the surface of things. The paper highlights the comparison between those who have moral insight and those who are easily blinded by mere circumstances.
From the Paper "Shakespeare's King Lear is a play about moral insight and moral blindness and how these affect the relationships between people. The well known folly of Lear is paired in the text by the equal folly of many of the other characters, who are punished for their lack of insight. The play is, in many ways, one of the most dramatic and heart-wrenching of the Shakespearean texts. As in Othello, the characters are dreadfully punished for their blindness with respect to the truth. Thus, in turn, Lear, Gloucester and even Goneril and Regan suffer the consequences of their lack of insight."
Abstract This paper explains that Nahum Tate's idea was to adapt Shakespeare to suit the taste of 18th century restoration theatergoers; thus, Lear no longer dies, Cordelia marries Edgar, the monarchy is restored and order once again reigns. The author points out Lear's suffering, which in Shakespeare's original play denotes the nature of humanity and the tragedy and misunderstanding that often accompany human life is completely lost in Tate's rewritten version, especially in terms of the ending. The paper reveals that the use of language by Tate and by Shakespeare also differs significantly; whereas Shakespeare believes in the reductive power of language in its simplest form, Tate's philosophy leans more towards the elevated forms of language hence the greater effect of Cordelia's simple statement in the Shakespeare play.
From the Paper "Other significant differences between the two versions include the roles of the specific characters. Edgar, for example, takes the role of Cordelia's suitor from the beginning of Tate's play, whereas in Shakespeare he never pursues the girl, but does become king at the end of the tragedy. His role in both Shakespeare's and Tate's plays is to restore justice, but in different ways. In Shakespeare's play, his role is tragic. Because of the betrayal by his brother, Edmund, who attempted to dishonor him in his father's eyes, Edgar is obliged to disguise himself. He thus pretends to be a demonic madman in order to escape his father's men. As such he also serves as a parallel for King Lear's madness, and gives him somebody to identify with during this difficulty. Edgar thus has a redemptive function here. In Tate's play, his redemptive function is mainly focused upon Cordelia and eventually the kingdom."
Tags: restoration, comedy, tragedy, ending, language
Abstract The paper shows how "King Lear" by William Shakespeare, is an unforgettably disturbing story of unbearable injustice and cruelty as well as of unseen loyalty and love. The paper explores how, from beginning to end, it is a tale of deception, and not just any kind, but filial deception as well as fraternal deception and deception in relationships by affinity. The author uses quotes from the original text to show how the theme of disloyalty is seen throughout the play.
From the Paper "Birds of a treacherous feather flock together and dupe one another too. The sisters Goneril and Regan now both want Edmund, who rather than choose, takes both of them for convenience and in order to avoid the displeasure of both:"To both these sisters have I sworn my love; each jeaolus of the other, as the stung are of the adder. Which of them shall I take? Both? One? Or neither?" (Act 5 Scene 1 lines 64-67)
"We know how the sisters try to outdo each other till the end, but with Goneril finally poisoning Regan and eliminating her from the competition, Goneril being the original and more wicked of the two. But Goneril meets her own end when her husband Albany gets hold of her secret letter to Edmund and Albany confronts her. In smoldering embarrassment and guilt, she takes her own life."
Abstract The paper explores several texts including "The Confessions" by Augustine, "The Life of Saint Teresa of Avila" by Herself, Petrarch's poetry, and Shakespeare's drama ?King Lear" and shows that all of these are products of societies in which the dominant religious ethos was Christian rather than pagan. The paper shows that although all the texts share this similar historical feature, fundamentally opposing views of the self (the distinction between outer and inner life) are articulated through the theological texts in contrast with the works of lyric and dramatic poetry.
From the Paper "This Christian point of view, of the importance of the interior over the exterior, seems to at first be born out in Shakespeare's ?King Lear.? In the first scene, the king of the title is witnessed undervaluing the contribution of his youngest daughter Cordelia, whom honestly tells him how much she loves him, unlike his superficial and cruel daughters Gonoril and Reagan. "King Lear" is set in pre-Christian times yet was written in a Christian era. This might seem to validate the idea that pagan times valued the exterior, while Christianity values the interior. Yet everyone around and outside of Lear sees through his daughters, except the man himself, even at the very beginning. The king of France marries Cordelia without a dowry. Similarly, in the subplot of Gloucester, the man is unable to understand the treachery of his bastard son until he has rejected his true son. "
Tags: selfhood, Pico, della, Mirandola, Cordelia, Laura
This paper explores the role of Kent in Shakespeare's "King Lear" as a foreshadow of Lear's growth from an unfeeling man, to a man who places love above all else.
780 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 1 source, 2002, $ 27.95
Abstract This author believes that Kent is perhaps one of the most loyal subjects ever written by Shakespeare. He states that Kent is a complex person, who is loyal to his king, even when he must disagree with him. By doing this, the paper says that Kent causes the reader to look for signs of redemption in King Lear.
From the Paper "Kent is blunt and does not know how to soften his words. This gets him into trouble, but Kent's way of communicating also stands in contrast to those around the King who merely say what he wants to hear. Kent's outspoken nature serves to emphasize the cause of King Lear's difficulties: he has lost track of who to believe."
Tags: loyal, redemption, cordelia, stocks, goodness, mad, tragic, play
Abstract This paper discusses the issue of why King Lear declines so much in the first three acts of Shakespeare's "King Lear". The paper outlines what decline entails. The paper analyzes the consequences of King Lear's mistakes during the first act of the play, with special emphasis on the other characters' impact on his decline.
From the Paper "Lear's decline during the first three Acts is a product of several factors, and his eventual condition at the end of Act Three contrasts sharply with his original state. Throughout Act One, Lear is confused by his own decision to split up his kingdom, and yet the play begins with a semblance of order and control. The aged monarch carefully, rationally secures heirs to unite his nation, with such sure language as "our fast intent". However, just as the formal verse and authoritarian atmosphere of the court begins to lose order, so does Lear's state of mind. Just as the play sprawls into diverse sub-plots, imagery and dialogue structure, Lear, much like Leontes in The Winter's Tale, begins to reveal a complex and unstable nature."
Abstract This paper analyzes and compares the language, tone, character, and plot of 'Troilus and Cressida' and of 'King Lear'. The paper examines Ulysses' "Degree" speech and explains its relevance to Act 1 of Shakespeare's "King Lear" and particularly to the relationship of Lear with his three daughters.
From the Paper "Ulysses? speech in Troilus and Cressida is Shakespeare at his most political. It echoes the concerns of King Lear's Act 1 whilst hinting at the writers personal beliefs. In this way, the speech accentuates Lear's mistakes, while prophesising his ultimate, tragic fate. Ulysses takes the role of a political philosopher, diagnosing the ills of the Greek army. He describes the "hollow Grecian tents", tracing it all to the neglect of the importance of "degree" ? ignoring the glue that holds society together."
Abstract This paper discusses each of the main factors of the downfall of King Lear in William Shakespeare's play, "King Lear". The author shows that ultimately, the real sinners are those who purposely and deviously try (and succeed) to force their father into a state of madness and eventual death ? Goneril and Regan, and their respective husbands.
From the Paper "Lear's demise during the play is a consequence of his own foolishness and 'sinfulness'. But the decline is also accentuated and indeed encouraged by many other characters in the play. In order to judge the above question we must analyse the balance between these two 'sets' of 'sinners', and understand the difference between the King's foolishness and sinfulness. The second scene highlights the confusion that may arise over Lear's true faults (foolish or sinful?). The King plans to divide his nation into three amounts, relative to each of his daughter's love for him ('Which one of you should we say doth love us most?'). One can class this decision, in context with the rest of the play, as extremely unwise and foolish. He himself describes it as a 'darker' (1.135) purpose, and this episode paves the way for the terrible consequences that fill the rest of the play. By abdicating his throne to fuel his ego he disrupts the great chain of being, which states that the King must not challenge the position that God has given him. This undermining of God's authority results in chaos that tears apart Lear's world."
