A Comparison Of Compassion and Identity in King Lear and Coriolanus
Shakespeare's Lear and Coriolanus have a great deal in common. Both are first seen as proud, stubborn rulers unwilling to compromise. This causes Lear to lose his kingdom to his scheming daughters, while Coriolanus is betrayed and exiled from Rome due to the influence of the tribunes. Cast out to face a friendless world, Lear learns to sympathize with his fellow men, who daily endure trials such as those he now faces. Coriolanus, in contrast, goes immediately to Aufidius upon being banished and prepares to return, this time to conquer his own home state. His identity as a soldier remains constant, untroubled by internal reflection, and admits no room for empathy for others.
We first see Lear as an autocratic dictator when he divides his kingdom and banishes Cordelia. He rules with an iron fist, refusing to accept advice from anyone. His chief flaw is the tendency to believe he must always be correct. This self-imposed perfection leads to a separation between him and his flawed, human subjects. He simply cannot relate to their way of seeing life, cannot see himself as connected in any way with humankind as a whole. His concern does not extend beyond what immediately touches him and cannot embrace the interests of his subjects, as it should. An example of Lear's inability to understand anyone's perspective but his own occurs when Kent attempts to persuade him to abandon his folly. Lear cannot accept what he sees as Kent's criticism and banishes his advisor. He states:
Thou hast sought to make us break our vows,
Which we durst never yet, and with strained pride
To come betwixt our sentence and our power,
Which nor our nature nor...
... middle of paper ...
.... "King Lear's 'Immoral' Daughters and the Politics of Kingship." Shakespearean Criticism, Vol. 61. Ed. Michelle Lee. The Gale Group: Farmington Hills, 1999.
Brooke, Stopford, A. On Ten Plays of Shakespeare. London: Constable and Company Ltd., 1948.
Campbell, Oscar James. "Shakespeare’s Satire: Coriolanus. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Coriolanus. Ed. James E. Phillips. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970. 25-37.
Dennis, John. "Selected Criticisms." Reader’s Encyclopedia of Shakespeare. Ed. Oscar James Campbell. New York: Thomas Crowell Company, 1966. 148-149.
Farnham, Willard. "Shakespeare’s Tragic Frontier: Coriolanus. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Coriolanus. Ed. James E. Phillips. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970. 55-61.
Shakespeare, William. King Lear. Ed. R.A. Foakes. Surrey: International Thomson Publishing Company, 1997.
At the turn of the century, and after gaining our independence, the United States land mass more than doubled through the use of purchasing, annexing, and war. However, the foreign policy of our government took a predominately isolationist stand. This was a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. General Washington shaped these values by upholding and encouraging the use of these principles by warning to avoid alliances in his farewell speech. The reasoning behind these actions was that the Republic was a new nation. We did not have the resources or the means to worry about other countries and foreign affairs; our immediate efforts were internal. Our goals that were of primary importance were setting up a democratic government and jump-starting a nation. The United States foreign policy up to and directly preceding the Civil War was mainly Isolationist. After the war, the government helped bring together a nation torn apart by war, helped improved our industrialization, and helped further populate our continent. We were isolationist in foreign affairs, while expanding domestically into the west and into the north through the purchase of Alaska. However, around 1890 the expansionism that had taken place was a far cry from what was about to happen. Expansionism is the nations practice or policy ...
As the United States developed into a world economic power, it also became a military and political power. Certain things led Americans to become more involved in world affairs, such as territorial growth. There were also consequences to the nation’s new role, like conflict between citizens and people of power. United States government and leaders had to learn the “hard way”, the challenges and negativity that they would face, such as loss of money and lack of control between certain nations, and the positive effects such as expansion of territory and alliances.
United States expansionism in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century is both a continuation and a departure of past United States expansionism. Expansionism in the United States has occurred for many reasons. Power (from land), religion, economics, and the ideas of imperialism and manifest destiny are just a few reasons why the U.S. decided to expand time and again throughout the course of its 231 year history. Expansionism has evolved throughout the years as the inhabitants of the country have progressed both socially (the Second Great Awakening, the women's suffrage movement, the populist party and the early 19th and 20th century social reformers) and economically (factories, better farms, more jobs, etc.) Expansion changed from non-interference policies to the democratic control of the government as the United States grew in both size and population. Through the use of the documents and events during two major-expansion time periods (1776-1880) and 1880-1914), I will display both the continuation and departure trends of United States expansionism.
For many year, the American boundaries expanded as people moved, at the governments urging, westward for new economic opportunities and later imperialist expansion was no different. While many factors contributed, economic possibility was a driving factor in the expansionist aspirations. The U.S., along with countries like Britain
As the United States grew in power, so did her ideas of expansion. The foreign powers were beginning to move out of their continents and seek land in other countries. The United States soon followed. They followed in their founder’s footsteps and tried to occupy lands in the far seas. However, in the beginning, this need for more land was called Manifest Destiny. This idea claimed that God was forcing them to occupy the new western lands. The expansionism that occurred in the late 1800’s was not a result of Manifest Destiny, and thus this "new" idea of expansionism was different from the expansionism ideas of early America. For the most part, the United States’ need for more land was primarily to keep other nations (mainly European powers) out of the western hemisphere. However the United States began to see reason behind change towards the "new" expansionistic ideas.
During the West movement of 1830’s and 1840’s, there were many conflicts that American settlers faced. The first problem settlers had to solve was relations with the Native Americans. As the numbers of American settlers grew, the life of Native Americans was greatly affected. The Native Americans tried to maintain their cultural traditions and the peace with white settlers, but they were often forced to move out of their homeland. Then came the Black Hawk War, which was the Native Americans’ rebellion against the United States in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. After failure of this rebellion, Native Americans were forced to abandon their lands and move to reservation even with the Fort Laramie Treaty, which promised the pea...
Buss, Terry F., and Adam Gardner. Haiti in the Balance: Why Foreign Aid Has Failed and What
Throughout most of the nineteenth century, the United States expanded its territory westward through purchase and annexation. At the end of the century, however, expansion became imperialism, as America acquired several territories overseas. This policy shift from expansionism to imperialism came about as a result of American's experience in the Spanish American War and the Congressional debates that followed the American victory.
Haiti was once the first black independent republic in the world and the richest island in the Caribbean. Today Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and one of the poorest countries in the world. What could have happened to Haiti in almost two hundred years of history? The country experienced repeated civil war and foreign intervention. Haiti is not isolated from the international world. Thus, it was not out of concern for ordinary Haitians that the United States intervened in Haiti. It was out of concern for profit and stability within the United States' own backyard. The purpose of this paper is to show the negative aspect that the United States had played in the government of Haiti.
Mowat, Barbara A. and Paul Werstine, ed. Introduction. Shakespeare: Othello. New York: Washington Square Press, 1993.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
Fatton Jr. , Robbert. Haiti's Predatory republic :The unending transition to demcracy . Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002.
Dutton, R., & Howard, J.E. (2003). A Companion to Shakespeare’s Works.(p. 9) Maiden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Cohen, Walter, J.E. Howard, K. Eisaman Maus. The Norton Shakespeare. Vol. 2 Stephen Greenblatt, General Editor. New York, London. 2008. ISBN 978-0-393-92991-1
Snyder, Susan. "Beyond the Comedy: Othello" Modern Critical Interpretations, Othello Ed. Harold Bloom, Pub. Chelsea House New Haven CT 1987.