Shakespeare's decision to have Lear have three daughters, rather than sons, is functional for the plot of King Lear. Whereas the daughters of a king traditionally inherited equal portions of their father's estate, the eldest son inherits it in its entirety. Thus Shakespeare determines equal statuses for the daughters, as opposed to the hierarchical relationship of brothers.
Lear, however, violates the rules of inheritance in several ways. Not only does Lear resign from the role of king prematurely, but also he has failed to provide an heir to take his place. Lear makes an effort as well to install a sort of hierarchy between his daughters that echoes that between sons. He loves Cordelia more than Goneril and Regan and makes this grading clear when he formally passes down his estate to them in Act I Scene I. Lear has each daughter make a speech to demonstrate their love for their father, effectively putting them in competition to move him. Lear asks Goneril and Regan to speak first, as he expects Cordelia to make the best speech; this choice makes favoritism evident. Lear makes his expectation of a better speech: "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy / Strive to be interessed, what can you say to draw / A third more opulent than your sisters?" (6).
Striving to install hierarchy where it need not exist points to Lear's insecurity. Lear is so uncertain of his daughters' love for him, that he utilizes the occasion of passing down his wealth in order to have them prove their feelings through speech. Moreover, Lear's effort to rank his daughters highlights his mistakes as king. Lear strives to establish the sort of sibling rivalry among his daughters that would exist between brothers; he imitates the traditional pecking order in an effort to relieve his guilt for failing to provide an heir. Soon after, Lear further violates tradition and reveals the ladder on which he deems his daughters by disowning Cordelia. Lear consistently makes poor decisions as king, and then hopes to ignore his failures by imitating tradition. The formal passing down of Lear's estate itself is unnecessary according to tradition; he acts as though has a certain kingly authority by withholding his estate until due submission and flattery are expressed. Lear struggles to convince himself of his status as king.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Montaigne's Attitude Toward Idleness (Blog Prompt 4)
Michel de Montaigne argues that leisure can be dangerous in his essay, "On Idleness." At the same time, however, he is subject to the very "risks" he believes idleness poses, as a retired man letting his mind wander in Essays.
Montaigne essay attempts to back up the adage with which I am familiar, 'an idle mind is the Devil's playground' - the notion that the when without purpose, one is subconsciously vulnerable to deviance. The quotations Montaigne incorporates serve the same purpose the dictum above does: they all substantiate this notion by referring to traditional belief.
Montaigne even combines famous quotations with his own clauses in order to place his belief in context. For instance, he writes: "If we do not occupy (our minds) with some definite subject which curbs and restrains them, they rush wildly to and fro in the ill-defined field of the imagination..." (27). Ending his words with a comma, Montaigne then quotes Virgil to complete his sentence: "as water, trembling in a brass bowl, reflects the sun's light or the form of the shining moon, and so the bright beams flit in all directions, darting up at times to strike the lofty fretted ceilings." Using quotations to both restate and as here, elaborate, his fear of inactivity, Montaigne locates his argument in history and in those of well-respected thinkers.
Montaigne does not admit, however, that all of his essays are the product of his own idle, wandering mind. Even "On Idleness" demonstrates Montaigne's thoughts on an abstract principle, as well as the connections he has made between the beliefs of thinkers in vastly different places and times. Montaigne neither works nor applies his intellect to practical means; he instead thinks and writes.
Perhaps Montaigne is aware of the hypocrisy of his criticism of idleness - he does begin Essays with a disclaimer, as it were, that the views he puts forth are subject to his own individual "imperfection": "Had my lot been cast among those peoples who are said still to live under the kindly liberty of nature's primal laws, I should, I assure you, most gladly have painted myself complete and in all my nakedness" (23). I gather that, whether or not Montaigne is aware of the paradox "On Idleness" reveals, he knows that an idle mind is vulnerable to bad and good. Maybe Montaigne believes that only the idle minds of Virgil, Horace, Martial, Lucan, and his own are susceptible to goodness.
Montaigne essay attempts to back up the adage with which I am familiar, 'an idle mind is the Devil's playground' - the notion that the when without purpose, one is subconsciously vulnerable to deviance. The quotations Montaigne incorporates serve the same purpose the dictum above does: they all substantiate this notion by referring to traditional belief.
Montaigne even combines famous quotations with his own clauses in order to place his belief in context. For instance, he writes: "If we do not occupy (our minds) with some definite subject which curbs and restrains them, they rush wildly to and fro in the ill-defined field of the imagination..." (27). Ending his words with a comma, Montaigne then quotes Virgil to complete his sentence: "as water, trembling in a brass bowl, reflects the sun's light or the form of the shining moon, and so the bright beams flit in all directions, darting up at times to strike the lofty fretted ceilings." Using quotations to both restate and as here, elaborate, his fear of inactivity, Montaigne locates his argument in history and in those of well-respected thinkers.
Montaigne does not admit, however, that all of his essays are the product of his own idle, wandering mind. Even "On Idleness" demonstrates Montaigne's thoughts on an abstract principle, as well as the connections he has made between the beliefs of thinkers in vastly different places and times. Montaigne neither works nor applies his intellect to practical means; he instead thinks and writes.
Perhaps Montaigne is aware of the hypocrisy of his criticism of idleness - he does begin Essays with a disclaimer, as it were, that the views he puts forth are subject to his own individual "imperfection": "Had my lot been cast among those peoples who are said still to live under the kindly liberty of nature's primal laws, I should, I assure you, most gladly have painted myself complete and in all my nakedness" (23). I gather that, whether or not Montaigne is aware of the paradox "On Idleness" reveals, he knows that an idle mind is vulnerable to bad and good. Maybe Montaigne believes that only the idle minds of Virgil, Horace, Martial, Lucan, and his own are susceptible to goodness.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Augustine's Criticism of Paganism
In Book 1: Early Years of Confessions, Augustine criticizes Pagan logic found in Virgil's Aeneid. He thinks it shameful that in the Aeneid, Virgil becomes so upset over the death of his lover, Dido, when his larger problem is a lack of connection to God. Augustine writes: "What is more pitiable than a wretch without pity for himself who weeps over the death of Dido dying for love of Aeneas, but not weeping over himself dying for his lack of love for you, my God....?" (Augustine, 15). According to Augustine, Dido is a distraction from Aeneas' connection to God, and like anyone but God, unworthy of such emotion.
Aeneas' sorrow is understandable in the world of the Aeneid: humans and Gods alike are subject to emotions, irrational and rational. They love, they cheat, they punish, they fear, etc. The logic Augustine imposes on this part of the Aeneas puts his suffering into perspective and makes the matter seem trivial. But further application of this ideal seems dangerously simplistic: at what point does Augustine deem matters unimportant against our faith in God? Also, if Augustine holds Aeneas to Christian standards, can he hold every man, regardless of time and circumstance, to the same standards?
Augustine starts of his Confessions with such ideals that do not allow room for grey areas. Either one is devoted to God or distracted by 'dust.' He then proceeds to condemn theatre as another distraction for God that poses the additional threat of propagating such distraction.
Augustine so worships God because he is responsible for all good things. For instance, Augustine attributes his own positive qualities to Him: "It was your will to endow us sufficiently with the level (of memory and intelligence) appropriate of our age" (12). Augustine claims earlier, however, that God is not only responsible for good but for everything: "You are God and Lord of all you have created. In you are the constant causes of inconstant things. All mutable things have in you their immutable origins. In you all irrational and temporal things have the everlasting causes of their life" (7). This idea that God is responsible for all coheres with the belief that He has created everything, and that we are not wise enough to understand his ways, even if they seem "irrational," "inconstant," or painful (like Dido's death) to us humans. In the Old Testament, Job learns that God is responsible for his pain, but he must ignore it. Similarly, here Augustine advocates disregard for all human interpretation of occurrences, and instead their attribution to a higher plan. It is then confusing why Augustine continuously extols God's benevolence, thanking him for everything such as being "the innermost recesses of my thinking" (16), when God is at the same time the force of everything negative and "irrational." If we should forgo interpretations of life around us and simply attribute everything to God's will, how do we distinguish between right and wrong - how can we even determine what is sinful and what is not?
Augustine's God-centric ideals seem to have the ability to answer all questions with the response, "God willed it." This approach, though perhaps more simple or satisfying than the confusion of emotions and gods and goddesses and fates in Paganism, threatens basic understanding of the world around us and our own feelings.
Aeneas' sorrow is understandable in the world of the Aeneid: humans and Gods alike are subject to emotions, irrational and rational. They love, they cheat, they punish, they fear, etc. The logic Augustine imposes on this part of the Aeneas puts his suffering into perspective and makes the matter seem trivial. But further application of this ideal seems dangerously simplistic: at what point does Augustine deem matters unimportant against our faith in God? Also, if Augustine holds Aeneas to Christian standards, can he hold every man, regardless of time and circumstance, to the same standards?
Augustine starts of his Confessions with such ideals that do not allow room for grey areas. Either one is devoted to God or distracted by 'dust.' He then proceeds to condemn theatre as another distraction for God that poses the additional threat of propagating such distraction.
Augustine so worships God because he is responsible for all good things. For instance, Augustine attributes his own positive qualities to Him: "It was your will to endow us sufficiently with the level (of memory and intelligence) appropriate of our age" (12). Augustine claims earlier, however, that God is not only responsible for good but for everything: "You are God and Lord of all you have created. In you are the constant causes of inconstant things. All mutable things have in you their immutable origins. In you all irrational and temporal things have the everlasting causes of their life" (7). This idea that God is responsible for all coheres with the belief that He has created everything, and that we are not wise enough to understand his ways, even if they seem "irrational," "inconstant," or painful (like Dido's death) to us humans. In the Old Testament, Job learns that God is responsible for his pain, but he must ignore it. Similarly, here Augustine advocates disregard for all human interpretation of occurrences, and instead their attribution to a higher plan. It is then confusing why Augustine continuously extols God's benevolence, thanking him for everything such as being "the innermost recesses of my thinking" (16), when God is at the same time the force of everything negative and "irrational." If we should forgo interpretations of life around us and simply attribute everything to God's will, how do we distinguish between right and wrong - how can we even determine what is sinful and what is not?
Augustine's God-centric ideals seem to have the ability to answer all questions with the response, "God willed it." This approach, though perhaps more simple or satisfying than the confusion of emotions and gods and goddesses and fates in Paganism, threatens basic understanding of the world around us and our own feelings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)