The centuries-old dilemma between materialism and spiritualism has embedded itself in the Western conscience as the defining question of reality and manifests itself in works of literature throughout the ages. The relationship between materialism and spiritualism is ambiguous in and of itself. The philosophy of materialism postulates that development and change in society is centered around the interactions between material objects, whereas spiritualists envision a predominantly immaterial world that dictates all material interactions. However, asking this dichotomous question is analogous to asking which came first, the chicken or the egg? Logically it seems that both philosophies make a justifiable point, however, if we closely examine the numerous intricacies embedded in the fabric of nature, the answer becomes evident, just as it becomes evident, after biological experimentation, that the egg came first. History has repeatedly emphasized the veracity of spirituality, that an idea, a spark of innovation is the “egg” that influences the development of material possessions. This radical world view is most clearly seen in Shakespeare’s classic play, King Lear, in which Shakespeare parodies man’s futile attempt to center his life around material objects.
Throughout the plot of King Lear, Lear attempts to justify his love for his daughters by granting them material possessions. He uses his vast jurisdiction and wealth to his favor in gaining his daughter’s love, essentially adopting a materialistic point of view. However, Shakespeare, not inconspicuously, repeatedly shows how these ideals continually backfire on Lear. Lear believes, as do most foolhardy materialists, that man’s greatest source of happiness are his material poss...
... middle of paper ...
...d the worst”(5.3). She sacrifices everything for King Lear in the end, as is shown when she kisses him to “repair those violent harms that my two sisters have in thy reverence made”(4.7) and eventually dies for him.
After viewing the text of King Lear in this perspective, the continual battle between materialistic ideals and spiritualistic ideals throughout the plot becomes evident. A collective analysis of this work and many others would reveal the contemporary faith in spiritualistic ideals as opposed to materialistic ideals. However, as one takes into consideration works of antiquity, the transition of philosophical ideals over the passage of time becomes evident. The broad spectrum of gradual change from spiritualism to materialism becomes more than conspicuous. Works such as King Lear continually raise the age-old dilemma of materialism and spirituality.
“It is a wise father that knows his own child” stated by William Shakespeare, a poet, which suggests that a good parent must have a connection with their child. However, Shakespeare lacked parental affection, the plays that Shakespeare had written, never had a well established relationship between a parent and their child. However the correlation between a parent and child may vary in many occasions and factors such as a healthy/unhealthy relationship, a tempting desire for self success, and a change of heart. Therefore, through an analysis of Jeannette Wall’s The Glass Castle, William Shakespeare’s King Lear, Tennessee William’s The Glass Menagerie, and Martin Fan’s bond with His parents, it becomes clear that the establishments between a
The tragedy of Shakespeare’s King Lear is made far more tragic and painful by the presence and suffering of the king's youngest daughter, Cordelia. While our sympathy for the king is somewhat restrained by his brutal cruelty towards others, there is nothing to dampen our emotional response to Cordelia's suffering. Nothing, that is, at first glance. Harley Granville-Barker justifies her irreconcilable fate thus: "the tragic truth about life to the Shakespeare that wrote King Lear... includes its capricious cruelty. And what meeter sacrifice to this than Cordelia?"5 Yet in another passage Granville-Barker has come much closer to touching on the real explanation. I quote the passage at length.
King Lear is a Christian Play About a Pagan World It is evident that King Lear contains references to both the Christian and Pagan doctrine. However, they seem to be expressed in entirely different styles. King Lear is purposefully set in a pre Christian era with numerous references to classical Gods but conversely there appears to be a striking resonance of Christian theology throughout the play. These echoes appear in various forms including the idea of Edgar being a Christ-like figure and also the presence of a supposed divine justice. Therefore there is truth in the view that although King Lear has a pagan setting, its significance is ultimately relating to Christianity.
In King Lear, Shakespeare portrays a society whose emphasis on social class results in a strict social hierarchy fueled by the unceasing desire to improve one’s social status. It is this desire for improved social status that led to the unintentional deterioration of the social hierarchy in King Lear. This desire becomes so great that Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall were willing to act contrary to the authority of the social hierarchy for the betterment of their own position within it. As the plot unfolds, the actions of the aforementioned characters get progressively more desperate and destructive as they realize their lack of success in attaining their personal goals. The goals vary, however the selfish motivation does not. With Edmund, Goneril, Reagan and Cornwall as examples, Shakespeare portrays the social hierarchy as a self-defeating system because it fosters desires in its members that motivate them to act against the authority of the hierarchy to benefit themselves. A consideration of each characters actions in chronological order and the reasons behind such actions reveals a common theme among the goals for which morality is abandoned.
King Lear had come so accustomed to his praise, that it is the sole thing he lived for, he needed it to survive, his treatment as a king was his Achilles heel in this play. He wanted to step down as king and divide his kingdom into 3 sections, giving them to his daughters to rule. Goneril and Regan were more than willing to accommodate his request to demonstrate their love for their father and king by professing their love to him in dramatic fashion combined with a good bit of exaggeration. While Cordelia on the other hand, found it a struggle to profess what she thought to be known by her father and king, she states, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave / My heart into my mouth. I love your majesty / According to my bond; nor more nor less (Scene 1.1, Lines 91-93).
Communication is the key essential for one to fully understand and personify the thought of another. Without the key essentials themselves, a knowledge for wisdom and understanding would be lost, thus, causing a breakdown towards communication and emotional intelligence. Within the theatrical play, King Lear written by William Shakespeare himself, comes the story of the falling of an old English Elizabethan king, Lear, whose patriarch role was taken away; due to the act of his own pride. Other than the play’s main plot, King Lear too portrays the telling between the lost of communication and the consequences of its breakdown between people, parents and children. The lack of communication and understanding is shown throughout the entire play,
Through Lear, Shakespeare expertly portrays the inevitability of human suffering. The “little nothings,” seemingly insignificant choices that Lear makes over the course of the play, inevitably evolve into unstoppable forces that change Lear’s life for the worse. He falls for Goneril’s and Regan’s flattery and his pride turns him away from Cordelia’s unembellished affection. He is constantly advised by Kent and the Fool to avoid such choices, but his stubborn hubris prevents him from seeing the wisdom hidden in the Fool’s words: “Prithee, tell him, so much the rent of his land comes to: he will not believe a fool” (Shakespeare 21). This leads to Lear’s eventual “unburdening,” as foreshadowed in Act I. This unburdening is exacerbated by his failure to recognize and learn from his initial mistakes until it is too late. Lear’s lack of recognition is, in part, explained by his belief in a predestined life controlled completely by the gods: “It is the stars, the stars above us govern our conditions” (Shakespeare 101). The elder characters in King Lear pin their various sufferings on the will of...
Absolute in every child’s mind is the belief that they are right, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Until children grow up to raise children own their own, a parent’s disputation only inflates that desire to prove. Part and parcel to this, as one may find out through personal experience or by extension, cruelty towards parents is a reflection of a child’s own inadequacy (whether in large or small scale). In this sense, King Lear is a story of children with a desire to break past their hierarchal status. Whether it is the belief that a woman shall take a husband, and with that guard her inherited land, or what role bastards truly deserves in a society that preemptively condemns them. Cruelty at the hands of children accounts for almost
Materialism links to the prevalent criticism of modern beliefs that material possessions and physical comfort are more important than spiritual values. In King Lear, one can rather easily interpret the character of Edmund as a personification of this criticism. Paul Delaney delves into this notion in his critical essay, stating that from a Marxist literary reading of King Lear, one can view Edmund as “typifying the new bourgeois ethic of irreverent, individualist quantitativeness”. This statement holds a large amount of truth as Edmund, instead of maintaining his good relationship with his father (Gloucester) and Edgar, selects to strive towards material possessions such as land and power, isolating and effectively ruining the lives of those closest to him in the process. Ultimately, the pursuit leads to Edmund’s downfall, which could have been prevented had he not sought comfort in his elevated status.
The tragedy King Lear by William Shakespeare ought to be seen as a lesson on what not to do as a parent. By picking favorites, King Lear and the Earl of Gloucester leave a lasting impact on their children 's psyche, ultimately leading to them committing horrible crimes. The rash judgments, violent reactions, and blindness of both Lear and Gloucester lead to both their and their children 's demise. As a result, all of the father-child relationships in the play begin to collapse.
In the beginning of the play the reader learns that Lear is ready to give up his kingdom and retire from a conversation that two noblemen, Gloucester and Kent, are having. He asks his three daughters; Cordelia, Goneril, and Regan to express their love for him to help him make his decision as to who would inherit his kingdom. Cordelia has always been his “favorite” daughter and when asked how much she loved her father she does not lie to him and tells him “I am sure my love’s more ponderous than my tongue” (1363). Rather than being grateful for such love and honesty, Lear banishes her to France and divides his kingdom to his two other daughters. Kent does not agree with Lear’s decision and Lear banishes him too.
In Shakespeare's “King Lear”, the tragic hero is brought down, like all tragic heroes, by one fatal flaw; in this case it is pride, as well as foolishness. It is the King's arrogant demand for absolute love and, what's more, protestations of such from the daughter who truly loves him the most, that sets the stage for his downfall. Cordelia, can be seen as Lear’s one true love, and her love and loyalty go not only beyond that of her sisters but beyond words, thus enraging the proud King Lear whose response is: "Let pride, which she calls plainness, marry her". Here, Lear's pride is emphasized as he indulges in the common trend of despising in others what one is most embarrassed of oneself.
Shakespeare expresses two major themes in King Lear: love and wisdom. King Lear’s struggle to recognize authentic love, love himself, and acknowledge the wisdom imparted on him, due to his weak emotional state, results in needless conflicts and the deaths of many. In the first scene of King Lear, Lear reveals his plan to split his kingdom between his daughters by asking them how much they love him. The daughter that proves she loves him the most receives the largest portion of the kingdom (1.1.46-50). Kent intends to calm Lear down, yet Lear’s unstable emotions at the time lead to him thrashing out against Kent, even threatening him.
No tragedy of Shakespeare moves us more deeply that we can hardly look upon the bitter ending than King Lear. Though, in reality, Lear is far from like us. He himself is not an everyday man but a powerful king. Could it be that recognize in Lear the matter of dying? Each of us is, in some sense, a king who must eventually give up his kingdom. To illustrate the process of dying, Shakespeare has given Lear a picture of old age in great detail. Lear’s habit to slip out of a conversation (Shakespeare I. v. 19-33), his brash banishment of his most beloved and honest daughter, and his bitter resentment towards his own loss of function and control, highlighted as he ironically curses Goneril specifically on her functions of youth and prays that her
Bengtsson, Frederick. “King Lear by William Shakespeare.” Columbia College. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.