1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
nordsb [41]
3 years ago
7

Summary of king lear in 200words​

History
1 answer:
Naily [24]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Lear, the aging king of Britain, decides to step down from the throne and divide his kingdom evenly among his three daughters. First, however, he puts his daughters through a test, asking each to tell him how much she loves him. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father flattering answers. But Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and favorite daughter, remains silent, saying that she has no words to describe how much she loves her father. Lear flies into a rage and disowns Cordelia. The king of France, who has courted Cordelia, says that he still wants to marry her even without her land, and she accompanies him to France without her father’s blessing.

Lear quickly learns that he made a bad decision. Goneril and Regan swiftly begin to undermine the little authority that Lear still holds. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear slowly goes insane. He flees his daughters’ houses to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise.

Meanwhile, an elderly nobleman named Gloucester also experiences family problems. His illegitimate son, Edmund, tricks him into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom.” Like Lear, he heads out onto the heath.

When the loyal Gloucester realizes that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father, he decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover him helping Lear, accuse him of treason, blind him, and turn him out to wander the countryside. He ends up being led by his disguised son, Edgar, toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought.

In Dover, a French army lands as part of an invasion led by Cordelia in an effort to save her father. Edmund apparently becomes romantically entangled with both Regan and Goneril, whose husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany.

You might be interested in
How did Alexander Palmer justify the Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920? Palmer supported taking radical action against conservatives
MrRa [10]
<span>Alexander Palmer justified the Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920 when Palmer warned of an imminent communist takeover.

A raid done on the Union of Russian Workers headquarters on November 25, 1919 uncovered a bombed factory hidden behind a false wall. This discovery lend credence to the threat of communist takeover. 



</span>
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Can someone please help me? :(
Aleonysh [2.5K]

Answer:

D

Explanation:

I believe the other's are incorrect and I think the church was quite wealthy.

6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the Homestead Act prompt a lot of people to head westward?
Ilya [14]
"<span>c. Settlers could buy 160 acres of land for $10" would be the best option from the list since the government provided unsettled land. Although this exact pricing was not always constant.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
(no bot or link answers) [100 point + brainiest to whoever mets the standard] Describe the causes and consequences of conflict b
AURORKA [14]

Answer:

The colonization of Indians by non-Indian society exemplified just how lines got drawn on the land in the Pacific Northwest. It was not a clear-cut or precise process, and it was not a process that was seen the same way by all the parties involved. Policy toward Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest was an extension of the Indian policy developed at the national level by the U.S. government. In other words, the rules and regulations for dealing with Indians were established and administered by various federal officials based in Washington, D.C.—by superintendents of Indian affairs and Army officers, by Senators and Congressmen, by members of presidential administrations and Supreme Court justices. Yet western settlers—the residents of states, territories, and localities—attempted with some success to modify national Indian policy to suit their own ends. Moreover, the natives who were the objects of these policies also attempted to modify and resist them, again with a limited degree of success.

Joseph Lane

To explain the development of relations between Indians and non-Indians in the Pacific Northwest, then, one needs to keep in mind that there were federal points of view, settler points of view, and native points of view. The plural—"points of view"—is deliberate. It is also crucial to keep in mind that there was no unified perspective among any of the parties involved. Neither the officials of federal government, nor the settlers of the Northwest, nor the Indians of the region were unanimous in their thinking about and responses to American Indian policy as it was applied in the Pacific Northwest. (Indians from the same band or tribe sometimes ended up fighting one another; some women proved more sympathetic to Indians than men did; the U.S. Army was often much more restrained in dealing with natives than settler militias were.) This lack of agreement was surely one of the things that complicated, and to some extent worsened, relations between Indians and non-Indians. It makes generalizations about those relations tenuous.

Joseph Lane (right). (Reproduced in Johansen and Gates, Empire of the Columbia, New York, 1957. Photo courtesy of Special Collections, University of Oregon Library.) Portrait of Isaac I. Stevens (below). The federal Office of Indian Affairs assigned to Stevens the task of carrying out the new reservation policy in Washington Territory. (Special Collections, University of Washington, Portrait files.)

Isaac Stevens

Although it is risky, then, I want to offer the generalization that 19th-century America was an achieving, acquisitive, non-pluralistic, and ethnocentric society. It had tremendous confidence in its way of life, and particularly its political and economic systems, and it aspired to disseminate its ways to those who seemed in need of them or able to benefit from them—including Indians (and Mexicans and, at times, Canadians). The nation was tremendously expansive, in terms of both territory and economy. Its assorted political and economic blessings (at least for free, white, adult males) seemed both to justify and feed this expansionism. Thus expansion was viewed as both self-serving (it added to the material wealth of the country) and altruistic (it spread American democracy and capitalism to those without them). The nation's self-interest was thus perceived to coincide with its sense of mission and idealism.

American Indian policy bespoke this mixture of idealism and self-interest. White Americans proposed to dispossess natives and transform their cultures, and the vast majority of them remained confident throughout the century that these changes would be best for all concerned. Anglo-American society would take from Indians the land and other natural resources that would permit it to thrive, while Indians would in theory absorb the superior ways of white culture, including Christianity, capitalism, and republican government. For the first half of the 19th century, federal officials pursued this exchange largely with an Indian policy dominated by the idea of removal. Removal policy aimed to relocate tribes from east of the Mississippi River on lands to the west, assuming that over time the natives would be acculturated to white ways. There were numerous problems with this policy, of course. For our purposes, one of the key problems was that removal policy regarded lands west of the Mississippi as "permanent Indian country." By the 1840s, numerous non-Indians were moving both on to and across those lands, ending any chance that they would truly remain "Indian country." By midcentury the Office of Indian Affairs had begun devising another policy based on the idea of reservations. This institution, new at the federal level, has had a central role in relations between Northwest Indians and non-Indians since 1850.

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
I’m Christian iconography what did the Latin cross represent?
tatiyna
A. Christ's crucifixion.

Jesus Christ was supposedly tortured and killed on the cross in Isreal, leading the Latin cross (one central beam with two "arms" on either side, slightly more than halfway up ✝) to become a symbol of Christianity.
8 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • On which point to William Lloyd garrison and Fredrick Douglas disagree
    15·1 answer
  • When did the Nazis begin deporting jews to poland
    8·1 answer
  • The Middle Ages lasted approximately from _____
    11·1 answer
  • What women grew during the Neolithic Era
    11·1 answer
  • How did the French and Indian War affect the relationship between Britain and its American colonists?
    11·1 answer
  • Felix Longoria helped thousands of immigrants escape poor economic conditions in Mexico. true or false​
    9·1 answer
  • What made Crusaders states, such as the Kingdom of Jerusalem, vulnerable?
    5·1 answer
  • Who urged the 13 colonies to unite<br><br> Benjamin Franklin <br> Thomas Jefferson <br> John Adams
    10·1 answer
  • 15 POINTS!! PLEASE HELP two negative affects of education during the industrial revolution and one positive affect
    5·1 answer
  • Which point on the number line best represents 30?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!