Between Fate and Free Will, Which One Do You Think Is More Responsible for the Tragedies in the Iliad?

 Although the relationship between fate and free will in the Iliad remains unclear throughout the length of the epic, it is noticeable that human action remains a vital tool to seal whatever is foretold in fate, especially in case of tragic events. For thousands of years, people have struggled to determine the roles and proportions of free will and fate in human lives. In The Iliad, Homer writes of a continuous struggle between the mortal Greeks and Trojans, along with constant conflict among the gods. Fate is viewed differently by soldiers in war and the gods. The major question here is, is every action predetermined, or is there room for free will? Although the gods do uphold fate, as determined by the boundaries of every person's life, the rest is open to human free will. Heroic culture, the tendency to possess women, and arrogance are some determiners of human action that eventually lead to the ultimate tragedy of the Iliad.

The war hero culture and its relation to masculinity as well as fame make a number of tragic decisions in the Iliad. For instance, the fate of Achilles is foretold by prophecy, although the gods help bring it to pass. Thetis tells Achilles that he has the choice to either return home and live a long life without glory or die a glorious death fighting at Troy. He controls his fate up until he makes his choice. Achilles decides to fight, knowing that he is sealing his fate when he returns to battle. Questioning whether or not something comes from destiny or fate, or whether it comes from your own actions can have outcomes that coincide together. An example is in The Iliad Achilles does not want to fight, and his friend, Patroclus decides to wear Achilles's armor, along with pretending to be Achilles by choice. Patroclus then meets his fate of dying, being killed by Hector. If Patroclus did not decide to wear the armor of Achilles, he may not have died. Again, the death of Patroclus is what inspired Achilles to want to fight. Distraught and revengeful, Achilles returned to war and killed Hector. In her essay “Character as Fate in Ancient Literature, Mary Gould says, “Achilles could have quit when Patroclus was killed. He could simply have gone in the direction opposite of outrage and returned home.” This shows how the choice of Achilles going to fight and kill Hector was free will. Life events feed off of each other. The choice of fighting and killing ended in the fate of dying. The fate of dying causes a choice of more fighting and that choice causes more fate of dying.

Possessing women as property and objects is another such reason which brings tragedy to both the parties of the war. The soldiers of the poem often use the idea of fate to justify their type of actions, as they try to reason that the current battle might be their fated time to die. As Hector puts it to encourage his followers into the deathly battle: “And fate? No one alive has ever escaped it, / neither brave man nor coward, I tell you— / it’s born with us the day that we are born.” Yet, it is only because the royal family of Troy is not ready to give up that Helen is the only reason for the death toll in the Trojan camp. Similarly, seizing the daughter of Chriseis, a priest of Apollo’s temple, was the reason for a plague in the Achaean camp, and, yet, the army considered it as a curse and fate. As stated by Professor E. Joy in her sample student essay “Fate is Simply Free Will Driven by Ego, “Of the ladder, it can logically be assumed that had Agamemnon not taken the woman or other wised angered Apollo, there would not have been a plague and most if not all the men who died would have lived longer.”

Arrogance is another vital tool in causing destruction in the Iliad which was attempted to be passed over to fate. While humans are given their skills and qualities, some characters use the idea of fate as a scapegoat to justify their unacceptable actions. For example, after the Greeks have suffered enormous losses and it becomes clear that Agamemnon erred in offending Achilles, in place of apologizing for his unnecessary rage, Agamemnon says, "Zeus and Fate. . . stalking through the night, / they are the ones who drove that savage madness in my heart, / . . . on my own authority, true, but what could I do? / A god impels all things to their fulfillment." Regardless of how much the gods influence individuals, there is no evidence for Agamemnon's complete lack of control. Within the constraints of fate's control lie multiple opportunities for personal choice. Human free will may be very much restricted, but it does not disappear entirely. So, the arrogance of Agamemnon and Achilles in taking away a girl, and leaving the war, is completely personal choices that caused enormous loss of lives.

To conclude, it is undeniable that gods interrupted the natural flow of action in the Trojan War but they are not the sole cause of the tragedies that befell both parties of the war necessarily. Rather, it is human free will to uphold the war culture as a model for attaining fame and proving the masculinity of the soldiers which led to the ten-year-long war. Besides, owning a girl without any of her opinions to either stay or return to her former family is another conflict of interest in a chosen few aristocrats in the epic that results in casualties of commoners. Finally, the biggest force beyond the individual and national tragedies in the epic is the arrogance of many characters who would later back it up with fate.

Comment on the common features of the Writings of Emerson and Thoreau

 As contemporaries of each other, Emerson and Thoreau share many similarities in their bodies of work. They focused on simplicity and individuality, rejecting materialism. Emerson was a transcendentalist and in his writings are many characteristics of this time period such as nature, the goodness of mankind, and individualism. Henry David Thoreau, too, being a transcendentalist, valued feeling over reason, imagination over science, and nature over civilization. Emerson and Thoreau believed, basically, that we were born well and that society and government brought out the basic evil in us. These two authors wrote a plethora about self-discovery and about government influence. In some aspects, both writers’ works overlap in nonconformity, self-reliance, free thought, confidence, and the importance of nature.

In “Self Reliance”, Emerson discusses being one’s own person and not allowing society to mold someone like a piece of clay; “Trust thyself” are the exact words he used.  Trusting oneself means it is okay to be different if one wants or chooses to be different. Similarly, Thoreau believes that following one’s own path in life is the best way to go.  They believe that being oneself and having a simple life is the best life. Thoreau's Walden gives this strong message of non-conformity. He rather suggests moving alone sticking to personal ideology.

One of Thoreau’s famous quotes is, “Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity!”  This means making one’s life as simple as possible.  He thinks that the poor are the fortunate ones since they have the least to look after and worry about while the rich have so much to look after that they do not have time for themselves. Living a simple life enables one to be free of commitment and obligations. One only has to worry about one’s self. This is possible when a person finds the necessary confidence to express their unique inner thoughts as a transcendentalist. It is highlighted the importance to return to nature to enhance the quality of human beings by living simply since being apart from common social rules is the only way to be in communion with nature’s wisdom. Those transcendental characteristics could be seen in Emerson’s ¨self-reliance¨ or Thoreau’s ¨Walden ¨

Consequently, what Thoreau proposed was simplicity rejecting modern civilization to return to nature and let the individual develop his/her highest possibilities. Thoreau not only critiqued modern society as Emerson did but also he practiced his ideology: he experienced that life is better without the crowd, luxuries, and complexity. The transcendentalist poet spent two years close to nature. He lived at Walden Pond where he wrote entire journals recounting his experience. During the Age of Transcendentalism, people believed that if they went to nature they would be closer to God. They used nature in order to form a better relationship with God. Since God created nature, people believed there was no evil there. In the text Nature, Emerson talks about getting away from society and going to nature in order to be alone. Emerson believes that nature can give you different emotions. “in the presence of nature, a wild delight runs through the man, in spite real sorrows.” (Emerson 220). If you go to nature you will have a changed experience. Nature will bring out different emotions you have never felt and experienced before. Being in nature, you will feel like a changed person and come out with different emotions. Thoreau said he wanted to live life to the fullest and get the most out of his experience in nature.

So, both Emerson and Thoreau were Transcendentalists, who focused on nature, individual emotion, self-reliance, non-conformity, and simplicity in their works. They believed in the inherent goodness of humankind as well as a universal connection of all souls to the one of God. They wanted to promote free thinking through their lives and works.

Discuss Edger Allen Poe as the most prominent American Romantic author

 Edgar Allan Poe is widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States, and in American literature. His poems and stories explore the darker side of the Romantic imagination, dealing with the mysterious, the supernatural, and the horrifying, known as Gothic or Dark Romantic. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotions, imagination, and individualism, as well as the glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather than the classical. In America, it dominated the literary scene from around 1820 to the end of the Civil War (1865) and the rise of Realism. Poe was one of the country's earliest practitioners of the short story and is considered to be the inventor of the detective fiction genre, as well as a significant contributor to the emerging genre of science fiction. The Romantic features in Poe’s writings include intuition and emotion, setting and time, characterization, and subject matter.

Perhaps the most dominant characteristic of the Romantic Movement was the rejection of the rational and the intellectual in favor of the intuitive and the emotional. In his critical theories and through his art, Poe emphasized that didactic and intellectual elements had no place in art. The subject matter of art should deal with emotions, and the greatest art was that which directly affected emotions. The intellectual and the didactic were for sermons and treatises, whereas the emotions were the sole province of art; after all, Poe reasoned, the man felt and sensed things before he thought about them. Even Poe's most intellectual characters, such as M. Dupin ("The Purloined Letter," "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," etc.), rely more on intuition than on rationality. As one examines M. Dupin, Poe's famous detective, one notes that he solves his crimes by intuitively placing himself in the mind of the criminal. Throughout Poe's works, his characters are usually dominated by their emotions. This concept explains much of the seemingly erratic behavior of the characters in all of the stories. Roderick Usher's emotions are overwrought; Ligeia and the narrator of that story both exist in the world of emotions; the behaviors of the narrators of "The Tell-Tale Heart" and "The Black Cat" are not rational; in "The Cask of Amontillado," the hatred of Montresor exceeds all rational explanations. Throughout Poe's fiction, much of the behavior of his characters must be viewed and can be explained best in terms of the Romantic period in which he wrote.

Usually, in a Romantic story, the setting is in some obscure or unknown place, or else it is set at some distant time in the past. The purpose for this is so that none of Poe's readers would be diverted by references to contemporary ideas; Poe created new worlds so that his readers would concentrate wholly on the themes or atmospheres with which he infused his stories. Poe believed that the highest art existed in a realm that was different from this world, and in order to create this realm, vagueness and indefiniteness were necessary to alienate the reader from the everyday world and to thrust him toward the ideal and the beautiful. Thus, Poe's stories are set either in some unknown place, such as in "The Fall of the House of Usher," or else they are set in some romantic castle on the Rhine, or in an abbey in some remote part of England, as in "Ligeia," or else they are set during the period of the Spanish Inquisition (the fourteenth century), as in "The Pit and the Pendulum." In other words, Poe's reader will not find a story that is set in some recognizable place in the present time. Even Poe's detective fiction is set in France rather than in America, thus giving it a Romantic distance from the reader.

Often the characters are not named or else they are given only a semblance of a name. The narrator in "Ligeia" does not even know Lady Ligeia's last name or that of her family. With the exception of a story like "The Cask of Amontillado," where the narrator is addressed by another character, or a story like "William Wilson," where the title identifies the pseudonym of the narrator, we usually do not know the names of the narrators of the other stories discussed in this volume, or even the names of the narrators of most of Poes other works. For a Romantic like Poe, the emphasis of literature ought to be on the final effect and the emotion produced thereby. The greatness of "The Pit and the Pendulum" is not in knowing the name of the narrator but in sensing his fears and his terrors.

The Romantic writer is often both praised and condemned for emphasizing the strange, the bizarre, the unusual, and the unexpected in his or her writing, and it is out of the Romantic tradition that we get such figures as the monster in Frankenstein and Count Dracula. The Romantics felt that the common or the ordinary had no place in the realm of art. Poe eschewed or despised literature that dealt with mundane subjects. Such things could be seen every day. The purpose of art, for Poe, was to choose subjects that could affect the reader in a manner that he would not encounter in everyday life. Thus, the subject matter of many of his tales dealt with living corpses, frightening experiences, horrors that startled the reader, and situations that even we have never imagined before.

In conclusion, what might sometimes seem puzzling in a story by Poe, such as an unexpected ending or an unexpected event, is not puzzling if we remember what he created as a result of his writing during the Romantic tradition. While his tales can be read as "stories," they take on further significance as superb examples of the Romantic tradition. So, Poe creates certain emotions through the characters, settings, and subject matter of his writings.

Discuss the major stages of the first national period of the American Literature

 American literature is the body of written works produced in the English language in the United States. Like other national literature, American literature was shaped by the history of the country that produced it. The First National Period can be traced back to the history of American poetry, drama, fiction, and social and literary criticism from the early 17th century through the turn of the 21st century. From the colonial to the literature around the independence, American literature turned truly American by 1800 and got a Romantic turn by 1830, and finally, the First National Period ended in the Realism movement.

The first European settlers of North America wrote about their experiences starting in the 1600s. This was the earliest American literature: practical, straightforward, and often derivative of literature in Great Britain. A new era began when the United States declared its independence in 1776, and much new writing addressed the country’s future. American poetry and fiction were largely modeled on what was being published overseas in Great Britain, and much of what American readers consumed also came from Great Britain.

By the first decades of the 19th century, truly American literature began to emerge. Though still derived from British literary tradition, the short stories and novels published from 1800 through the 1820s began to depict American society and explore the American landscape in an unprecedented manner. Washington Irving published the collection of short stories and essays The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. in 1819–20. It included “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” and “Rip Van Winkle,” two of the earliest American short stories.

In New England, several different groups of writers and thinkers emerged after 1830, each exploring the experiences of individuals in different segments of American society. Edgar Allan Poe most vividly depicted, and inhabited, the role of the Romantic individual—a genius, often tormented and always struggling against convention—during the 1830s and up to his mysterious death in 1849. Three men—Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, and Walt Whitman—began publishing novels, short stories, and poetry during the Romantic period that became some of the most enduring works of American literature. During the 1850s, as the United States headed toward civil war, more and more stories by and about enslaved and free African Americans were written. Emily Dickinson lived a life quite unlike other writers of the Romantic period: she lived largely in seclusion; only a handful of her poems were published before her death in 1886, and she was a woman working at a time when men dominated the literary scene. Yet her poems express a Romantic vision as clearly as Walt Whitman’s or Edgar Allan Poe’s. They are sharp-edged and emotionally intense.

The human cost of the Civil War in the United States was immense: more than 2.3 million soldiers fought in the war, and perhaps as many as 851,000 people died in 1861–65. Walt Whitman claimed that “a great literature will…arise out of the era of those four years,” and what emerged in the following decades was a literature that presented a detailed and unembellished vision of the world as it truly was. Naturalism, like realism, was a literary movement that drew inspiration from French authors of the 19th century who sought to document, through fiction, the reality that they saw around them, particularly among the middle and working classes living in cities. Samuel Clemens was a typesetter, a journalist, a riverboat captain, and an itinerant laborer before he became, in 1863 at age 27, Mark Twain. Twain’s story was a humorous tall tale, but its characters were realistic depictions of actual Americans. Twain deployed this combination of humor and realism throughout his writing. Henry James shared the view of the realists and naturalists that literature ought to present reality, but his writing style and use of literary form sought to also create an aesthetic experience, not simply document the truth. He was preoccupied with the clash in values between the United States and Europe. His writing shows features of both 19th-century realism and naturalism and 20th-century modernism.

Thus, the literature of the United States was shaped by the history of the nation. The colonial-era ended in independence which was followed by the true independence of American literature. But, Romanticism reached America from Europe soon. The Civil War’s harsh reality finally shook off the aesthetic and brought the nation back to Naturalism. 

A Short Note on Pardon Selling

 For the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, the commercialization of indulgences — essentially promising a get-out-of-purgatory-free-card — was the historical equivalent of the prosperity gospel today. This was not merely the corruption of an isolated few. Importantly, the development of the indulgence system created systematic means for which the churchmen could line their own pockets at the expense of believers.

The indulgence system was formalized by Pope Urban II in 1095. When the Crusades began soon after, many people participated in the military campaign believing that this act would earn them indulgences. There were also other means — including charitable donations — through which one could be rewarded with indulgences.

By the late Middle Ages, abuses to the system were rampant. Some sought to extract the maximum amount of money they could for each indulgence. Others promised much more than remission from temporal punishment — granting salvation from eternal damnation and prosperity in one’s current life for great sums of money.

The sale of indulgences in the Middle Ages was satirized by Chaucer in 'The Pardoner's Tale', a pardoner being someone who sold indulgences. A rich criminal would earn more honor in society than a poor commoner in this way.

History of the Bible and the Christianity

 The history of the Bible and Christianity goes back to two thousand years which is blood-stained by the imperialistic Roman civilization. It is said that Christianity is a religion stolen by the Europeans from Asia. Although Jesus Christ was born in the Middle East, today’s center of Christianity is in the Vatican in Western Europe. The reason is the war between Roman and Jewish where Christians were taken away from the Middle East to Rome to multiply their very fast. Later the Roman emperors turned to Christianity, established Catholic Church, and translated the Bible from the original language Hebrew to English. The major focus of this journey is related to imperialism, class discrimination, and the politics of the Romans.

The Jewish-Roman War of the 1^st century led to the fall of the Jewish kingdom and the enslavement of the Jewish as well as the Christian peoples from the Middle East who were then taken to Rome. This destructive war helped the flourish of Roman imperialism. Although before this war the Jewish people tortured the Christians to stop the growth of the new religion, the Jewish community grew weaker and weaker after the war. On the other hand, Christianity found a new ground in Europe after being transported there. The class discrimination of Rome was facilitating the process.

In Rome, the social hierarchy was so strong that a rich or noble person was considered religiously more honored whereas a poor or low-born person had a similar prospect in the afterlife. The pagans of the land had to depend on money more to please a god than on their spirituality. When the new Christians arrived, they offered equality before God. Even if not in the worldly life, anyone could access Christian heaven in the afterlife with their deeds. So, the lower class mass accepted Christianity hugely. Many inventions of torture by the Roman emperors failed to control this massive conversion.

Finally, Emperor Constantinople applied the method that changed Roman politics forever making Catholicism the new form of Christianity. As he turned Christian, he started the new Catholic Church which will have his close people as the clergymen. This way, he could control every aspect of the religion in the name of preaching and supporting it. Catholicism altered the practices of Christianity in a way that supported the rulers and the aristocrats. The Bible was translated into Latin for the Roman people in accordance with the interest of the rulers, too.

Thus, the history of Christianity and the Bible is a result of the imperialism, class discrimination, and politics of ancient Rome.

Political Background of the Translation of the Bible into English

 John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English to solve the corruption of the English society in the name of religion which was being facilitated by the Holy Scripture being available in Latin only. Since the common people’s language was English, any priest could command them whatever they wanted demanding that they have found the instruction in the Bible. Nobody would be able to check them since the Bible had no English translation. Thus, it facilitated corruption, discrimination, and domination.

 

The church in Wycliffe’s period turned out to be a money-making machine, and priests corrupted their sacred profession by misinterpreting the Latin Bible to the commoners for personal benefit that Wycliffe tried to stop by translating the Holy Scripture. The church demanded one-third of a nation’s land as their property to use in earning money. They could command whatever they wanted to the common people as an instruction from the Holy Bible since nobody would be able to justify it. As a result, dangerous practices like pardon selling, money in exchange for a confession, and high church tax for expensive festivals started. Wycliffe planned to stop it by making the Bible available to common people so that they can raise their voices against these malpractices.

Discrimination in the name of religion was also being facilitated by misinterpretation of the Bible by the clergymen. Any rich person could buy forgiveness for any crime with money. Thus, they would indulge in limitless crimes against the poor. At the same time, they would not lose honor in society as they were being innocent once they buy pardon. Besides, a person would consider more religious than others by paying more money for the festivals. Although none of these are prescribed in the Bible, the English-speaking people could not be sure about that as long as the Bible was written in English. They had to trust the people of the church who knew Latin. Wycliffe tried to stop these discriminations by translating the Bible into English.

The church was dominating not only the common people but also the emperor’s being backed up by the Papal power. Even though the Holy Book instructed people to live a simple life and show compassion to others, the churches of Wycliffe’s period adorned themselves with gold and expensive metals by exploiting poor believers. They wanted to intrude political, social, and national decisions of a state. This domination was easier for them as they could invent a ‘God’s Order’ any time as per their need only because they had the sole authority over the Bible. John Wycliffe’s translation could end this situation for the common people and the statesmen alike.

So, the translation of the Bible into English from Latin by Wycliffe was an attempt to resolve the corruption, discrimination, and domination in the name of the religion that was happening because common people were deceived by the clergymen who knew Latin.

The Triangle of Money, Aristocracy, and Religion from The Canterbury Tales

 Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales is a criticism of the social and religious corruption of medieval England where rich, aristocratic, and religious communities backed up each other in their common interests. During the Chaucerian period, the church dominated most dimensions of common people’s lives, but it also shared the domination power with the upper-class society in exchange for money or worldly interest. The image of a sacrificing and abstaining clergyman became simply absent. Besides, a person’s social respect came as a birthright, and all human virtues and glories were attached to a person of high birth automatically. Chaucer showed how the triangle of money, aristocracy, and social class facilitated corruption, gender discrimination, domination, and moral degradation through his characters and tales.

A society where religion runs after money is very much expected to be corrupted. In Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, such a reality of medieval England is presented through the characters of the Friar, the Prioress, the Pardoner, the Monk, the Nun's Priest, the Second Nun, and the Parson. The prioress eats sauce, meat, and wine in one sitting, and feeds her dog with roasted meat. It is clear that she doesn’t have a job to earn. So, the source of her rich food is the church money which is supposed to feed poor people. Besides, the monk wears the best furs in the land and a gold pin. His numerous horses and their maintenance costs, too, come from the public money given to the church. And, yet, he passes all-day riding and hunting leaving the church ground. The friar not only receives gold coins instead of letting the rich people regret him for their sins but also flirts with girls bribing them with silver cutleries.

Author Geoffrey Chaucer illustrates how independent, free-thinking women were perceived as less attractive and immoral by social standards, while men are admired for these traits through his depiction of each character. Although many of the stories contain minor female characters, only two of the women, the Prioress (nun) Madame Eglentyne, and the Wife of Bath, Alice, are introduced in the prologue. The Prioress represents the ideal female of the time. She is meek, submissive, visibly well-dressed, and conservative. On the other hand, the Wife of Bath is a feminist icon because of the feminist ideals she upholds in her stories. But, she is abhorred by the other pilgrims as a lusty woman only because she married five times, although she remarried after the death of her husband in each case.

Domination of poor and lower class people by the upper-class ones is a common practice in the Prologue. The Knight is supposed to tell the first tale only because of his social position, and not for any apparent pleasing story. His son, though is held with honor, is a lustful boy, always looking for women to flirt with. Besides, when a rich man can buy pardon for any crime he commits, he can always continue crimes against the poor people.

The Canterbury Tales represents the moral degradation of English society in the medieval period. Religion is bought and sold with money. A priest is a lecherous flatterer. Rich people have limitless freedom to commit any crime whereas the poor are always downtrodden. Being a male opens the common door for a person to indulge in sexual activities beyond the marriage bond whereas being female demands to meet certain stereotypes. A pilgrimage doesn’t call for psychological purity.

Thus, it can be concluded that the triangle of social power, money, and aristocracy leads to social degradation in morality, discrimination of class and gender, and domination in Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales.

A Short Note on Shakespeare’s Characters from Preface to Shakespeare

 According to the Preface to Shakespeare, the celebrated criticism of Samuel Johnson on the works of the greatest dramatists of all times, Shakespearean characters were 'faithful mirror' of nature. They are not 'modified by the customs of particular places' which are 'unpractised by the rest of the world'. Also, these characters are not the representative of certain profession or temporary fashion which has application only to a small number of audience. According to Johnson, "they are the genuine progeny of common humanity." He opines that Shakespearean characters are eternal, available in all times and all places of common people's lives.

The emotions upon which they act and talk are also found in every human mind. Shakespeare's characters are 'commonly a species'. And, yet, all of them are clearly 'distinct from each other'. "Shakespeare has no heroes; his scenes are occupied only by men, who act and speak as the reader thinks that he should himself have spoken or acted on the same occasion." In his play, a senator of Rome can play a buffoon. It's because "his story requires Romans or kings, but he thinks only on men. He knew that Rome, like every other city, had men of all dispositions; and wanting a buffoon, he went into the senate-house for that which the senate-house would certainly have afforded him." Thus, he overlooked "the casual distinction of country and condition" while drawing up his characters.

I personally support the arguments of Johnson in this regard. I think when a drama represents human life in a natural way, it should not discriminate between class, race and nation to project positive or negative sides of it. King Lear is as much a father as Shylock the Jewish usurper. Edmund the bastard is as much a policy maker as the wise duke Prospero. At the same time, I agree with Johnson that a character wins the heart of the most number of people when it's emotions are relatable to them and felt by them. Thus, friendship, love and honesty should be counter balanced by follies like ambition, fear and pride in equal proportions in dramatic characters. Othello and Macbeth are great examples of this balance.

A Short Note on Shakespeare’s Comedy from Preface to Shakespeare

 While discussing Shakespeare's Comedy from Samuel Johnson's point of view, it must be cleared first that the critic opined that "Shakespeare’s plays are not in the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies, but compositions of a distinct kind." In the Preface to Shakespeare, Johnson argues that Shakespeare mingled 'joy and sorrow' 'with endless variety '. Through timeless characters like Shylock and Caliban, "Shakespeare has united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow not only in one mind but in one composition." Although this mixture is against the contemporary practice, for Johnson, the aim of a drama 'is to instruct by pleasing', and 'all pleasure consists in variety'.

But, at the same time, Johnson believes that Shakespeare's natural strength lies in his comic scenes. It was his instinctive quality as 'his comick scenes, he seems to produce without labour, what no labour can improve'.

While discussing Shakespeare's Comedy from Samuel Johnson's point of view, it must be cleared first that the critic opined that "Shakespeare’s plays are not in the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies, but compositions of a distinct kind." In the Preface to Shakespeare, Johnson argues that Shakespeare mingled 'joy and sorrow' 'with endless variety '. Through timeless characters like Shylock and Caliban, "Shakespeare has united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow not only in one mind but in one composition." Although this mixture is against the contemporary practice, for Johnson, the aim of a drama 'is to instruct by pleasing', and 'all pleasure consists in variety'.

But, at the same time, Johnson believes that Shakespeare natural strength lied in his comic scenes. It was his instinctive quality as 'his comick scenes, he seems to produce without labour, what no labour can improve'. The Marchant of Venice and Twelfth Night provides with moments of laughter which is infinitely appealing. "His comedy pleases by the thoughts and the language." Beautiful examples could be the scene of the winning of Portia by Basanio's wit and the fool's fooling with Malvolio.

A Short Note on the Dramatic Language of Shakespeare from Preface to Shakespeare

 Shakespeare's comic dialogue, according to Johnson, upheld the language of 'the common intercourse of life' (Johnson 7). 'A conversation above grossness and below refinement, where propriety resides' (Johnson 7). This, Johnson opines, comes out of 'a certain mode of phraseology so consonant and congenial to the analogy and principles' that it is 'to remain settled and unaltered' (Johnson 7). His comic dialogues are 'smooth and clear, yet not wholly without ruggedness or difficulty' just 'as a country may be eminently fruitful, though it has spots unfit for cultivation.' But, Shakespear's tragic dialogue is 'a disproportionate pomp of diction and a wearisome train of circumlocution' to Johnson that, he believes, 'tells the incident imperfectly in many words, which might have been more plainly delivered in few' (Johnson 9). He does not support the way Shakespeare deals with the narrative parts as he believes they are showing 'dignity and splendor', and, yet, are long and 'tedious' (Johnson 9). Johnson also thinks that Shakespeare's 'set speeches are commonly cold and weak' in tragic dialogues as his 'natural' flow is obstructed by traditional 'amplification' practice (Johnson 9). Moreover, Johnson finds that Shakespeare 'very often neglected' 'the equality of words to things' 'and trivial sentiments and vulgar ideas disappoint the attention' as they are 'bulky' in tragic dialogues (Johnson 10). In other words, Johnson finds Shakespeare's comic dialogues more appealing and appropriate than tragic ones.

Johnson’s Comparison Between Shakespeare’s Comedy and Tragedy

 'Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature' - wrote Johnson (Johnson 3) in 1765, and today, in the 21st century, Shakespeare is still the best of the dramatists of all times in the English language, be it in creating comedies or tragedies, and so is the criticism by Johnson. The definition and characteristics of comedy and tragedy have changed over time from the ones contemporary to the critic. The class-conscious theatre of the 18th century considered comedy as the reflection of the common man's daily trivial emotions that 'merely' pleased the audience with the union of protagonists in love (Johnson 6). On the other hand, tragedy's purpose was to instruct by depicting the tragic fall of a noble hero (Johnson 7) of royal or aristocratic birth due to a hamartia or fatal flaw. The tone of a classical tragedy like Oedipus Rex was purely serious and grim (Barstow 2). Now, Johnson states, "Shakespeare's plays are not in the rigorous and critical sense either tragedies or comedies ..." (Johnson 5) instead "Shakespeare has united the powers of exciting laughter and sorrow not only in one mind but in one composition" (Johnson 6). Such an example is The Marchant of Venice where the happy endings of Bassanio and Antonio lead to the tragic fall of Shylock whose hamartia is to be a Jew (Shakespeare, act V, scene II). Although Johnson lauds the author's mixture in his Preface to Shakespeare (Johnson 6), he criticized the tragedies and comedies from both the strong and the weak ends. Comparing the ingenuity, characters, language, and dealing of emotion in Shakespearean comedy and tragedy, Johnson tries to prove that the dramatist's tragedies were 'always something wanting' or lacking whereas his comedies were best to the length that 'surpasses expectation or desire' (Johnson 7).

According to Johnson, "Shakespeare’s tragedy seems to be a skill, his comedy to be instinct" (Johnson 7). He wrote his tragedies with 'toil' but comedies were produced 'without labour' as it was 'his natural disposition' (Johnson 7). Therefore, 'he seems to repose' in comedies whereas 'in tragedy, he is always struggling after some occasion to be comick' (Johnson 7). Such comic reliefs are found in the last scene of the first act of King Lear as the fool keeps on teaching and entertaining, and right after the regicide in Macbeth in the door-knocking scene (Shakespeare, act II, scene III). On the other side, his genuine capabilities in comedies are in their full bloom in winning Portia by Bassanio's wit in The Marchant of Venice (Shakespeare, act III, scene II) and in Ariel's mischief with Caliban and Stephano in The Tempest (Shakespeare, act III, scene II). To this, Johnson certifies, "His comedy pleases by the thoughts and the language, and his tragedy for the greater part by incident and action" (Johnson 7). The intensity of terror and the upward flow of events in the murders after murders in Macbeth is one best example of this. This way, Johnson praises Shakespeare's comic writings over his tragic ones.

To Johnson, Shakespeare’s characters are 'commonly a species' and are universal and timeless (Johnson 3). This is obviously the idea of stereotyping which Hall shows arise as a result of fixing the 'natural' characteristics (Hall, 1997). But then Johnson compares wonderfully that though Shakespeare's 'characters are praised as natural', 'the sentiments are sometimes forced' and the 'actions improbable' just 'as the earth upon the whole is spherical' but 'its surface is varied with protuberances and cavities' (Johnson 8). Rosalind in As You Like It is one such most beloved comic characters of Shakespearean comedy. And again, the critic complains that 'neither his gentlemen nor his ladies have much delicacy, nor are sufficiently distinguished from his clowns by any appearance of refined manners' (Johnson 9). Here, the cultural hegemonic practices are obvious that a theater had to uphold and circulate the distinction of classes which is to be absorbed and internalized by the audience as 'natural' for mimicry and reproduction of power strata (Gramsci, 1972). He also disapproved of Shakespeare’s 'contest of sarcasm' amongst the comic characters which the critic defines as full of 'gross' and 'licentious' jokes (Johnson 9). Another objection to Shakespeare’s tragic and comic characters was that they were carried 'indifferently through right and wrong' without any poetic justice which was to Johnson the failure of the moral purpose of the author (Johnson 8). This is another reflection of neoclassical ideology that moral and rational are one and the same (Hagstrum, 1950). Thus, Johnson shows Shakespeare's comic characters are relatively successful from multiple dimensions.

Shakespeare's comic dialogue, according to Johnson, upheld the language of 'the common intercourse of life' (Johnson 7). 'A conversation above grossness and below refinement, where propriety resides' (Johnson 7). This, Johnson opines, comes out of 'a certain mode of phraseology so consonant and congenial to the analogy and principles' that it is 'to remain settled and unaltered' (Johnson 7). His comic dialogues are 'smooth and clear, yet not wholly without ruggedness or difficulty' just 'as a country may be eminently fruitful, though it has spots unfit for cultivation' (Johnson 8). But, Shakespeare’s tragic dialogue is 'a disproportionate pomp of diction and a wearisome train of circumlocution' to Johnson that, he believes, 'tells the incident imperfectly in many words, which might have been more plainly delivered in few' (Johnson 9). He does not support the way Shakespeare deals with the narrative parts as he believes they are showing 'dignity and splendor', and, yet, are long and 'tedious' (Johnson 9). Johnson also thinks that Shakespeare's 'set speeches are commonly cold and weak' in tragic dialogues as his 'natural' flow is obstructed by traditional 'amplification' practice (Johnson 9). Moreover, Johnson finds that Shakespeare 'very often neglected' 'the equality of words to things' 'and trivial sentiments and vulgar ideas disappoint the attention as they are 'bulky' in tragic dialogues (Johnson 10). In other words, Johnson suggests Shakespeare's comic dialogues are more appealing and appropriate than tragic ones.

Johnson states that in Shakespeare's comic scenes, the characters 'act upon principles arising from genuine passion, very little modified by particular forms' (Johnson 7). Also, 'their pleasures and vexations are communicable to all times and to all places' (Johnson 7). Besides, 'they are natural'. Thus, they become 'durable' through centuries. These emotions are 'primitive' to Johnson which he believes will not suffer 'decay'. Beautiful examples are Orsino's famous expression of love pursuit in Twelfth Night (act I, scene I) and Miranda's love in first sight in The Tempest (act III, scene I). Opposite to this, the critic thinks that overtly emotional scenes of Shakespeare's tragedy end in 'tumour, meanness, tediousness, and obscurity' (Johnson 9). In tragedy, Johnson finds Shakespeare 'now and then entangled with an unwieldy sentiment, which he cannot well express, and will not reject' (Johnson 10). So 'he struggles with it a while, and if it continues stubborn, comprises it in words such as occur, and leaves it' (Johnson 10). The extremely complex emotions of Othello can be a very relevant example. Johnson also complains that Shakespeare 'is not long soft and pathetick without some idle conceit, or contemptible equivocation' (Johnson 10). Thus, the 'terrour and pity, as they are rising in the mind, are checked and blasted by sudden frigidity' (Johnson 10). An example could be the comic relief of Hamlet in the grave diggers' jokes right after the death news of Ophelia (act V, scene I). In this manner, Johnson implies that Shakespeare's dealing with emotion in comedy is more balanced and universal than in tragedy.

Johnson, being an editor of Shakespeare, neutrally criticizes him as he believed in certain rationality contemporary to his age. But, today, although this very first systematic criticism of Shakespeare is considered invaluable, the rationalities are changed with feminism and other post-modernist critical approaches. The 'common men' praised by Johnson as 'natural' are 'males' in a single-gender dominated universe from a feminist point of view (Coppélia 589) and class conscious stereotyping in the theory of cultural hegemony (Gramsci, 1972). Johnson compared Shakespeare's comic and tragic works' success with a prior declaration that Shakespeare did not much distinguished between them (Johnson 5) himself rather they are imperfectly categorized by later editors (Johnson 6). And yet, the critic upholds Shakespeare's comedy over his tragedy by analyzing their ingenuity, characters, language, and emotional expression. Sometimes, this is done without much exemplification or reference to the actual dramatists' works. In both positive and negative criticism, Johnson justifies Shakespeare's performance as an authoritative voice. However, his final tone stays the same throughout the preface and stays on till this date - "The stream of time, which is continually washing the dissoluble fabricks of other poets, passes without injury by the adamant of Shakespeare" (Johnson 7).

 

References

Barstow, Marjorie. “Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle.” The Classical Weekly, vol. 6, no. 1, 1912, pp. 2–4. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4386601. Accessed 23 Dec. 2020.

Gramsci, Antonio, Quintin Hoare, and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers, 1972.

Hagstrum, J. H. “The Nature of Dr. Johnson's Rationalism.” ELH, vol. 17, no. 3, 1950, pp. 191–205. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2871953. Accessed 23 Dec. 2020.

Hall, Stuart, ed. Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices. Thousand Cakes, CA: SAGE, 1999.

Johnson, Samuel, 1765. Preface to Shakespeare. Project Gutenberg eBook. 2004.

Ronan, Clifford. Review of Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women, by Coppélia Kahn. Comparative Drama, vol. 32 no. 4, 1998, p. 589-593. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/cdr.1998.0031.

Shakespeare, William. The Merchant of Venice. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman, 1994.

Shakespeare, William, and Rex Gibson. Macbeth. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print.

Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.

Shakespeare, William, and Horace H. Furness. As You Like It. New York: Dover Publications, 1963.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. New Folger's ed. New York: Washington Square Press/Pocket Books, 1992.

Shakespeare, William, and Stephen Orgel. King Lear. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 1999. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Twelfth Night. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1928.

Shakespeare, William, and Russ McDonald. The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice. New York: Penguin Books, 2001. Print.

Ecocritical Analysis of The Tempest

 Ecocriticism emerges in the field of literary criticism in the face of the environmental degradation and ecological crisis. Ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the physical environment, it takes an earth centered approach to literary studies .Despite the broad scope of inquiry and disparate levels of sophistication, all ecological criticism shares one fundamental premise the human culture is connected to the physical world, affecting it and affected by it. Ecocriticism takes as its subject the interconnection between nature and culture, specifically the cultural artifacts of language and literature. Shakespeare’s The Tempest has to offer, as it also speaks the issue of morality, primogeniture and even carrier some interesting Eco-critical reading. The play explores the relationship between man and nature further probes the destruction of the original social when the ecological balance is broken.

The Tempest begins with a storm: we find ourselves immediately in the middle of a chaotic situation, where sailors are desperately trying to prevent the ship from colliding with an island. The atmosphere is gloomy, death is in the air, and we feel uneasy and anxious about what is going to happen. What we perceive at first is an inevitable faith looming over helpless human beings, small and powerless under the merciless fury of an ungovernable sea.

It is interesting to notice that, in this context, land is dangerous: sailors try to steer away from a shoreline and the boatswain claims that a landless sea would be safer. However, Gonzalo expresses longing for the land with the lines “Now would I give a thousand furlongs of sea for an acre of barren ground – long heath, brown furze, anything. The wills above be done, but I would fain die a dry death” (1.1.6568). More than simply suggesting two different points of view, this contraposition between dangerous land and land as a safe idyllic place can remind us of the dichotomy which characterizes the discourse of the island and, more generally, the human attitude towards the natural world.

Thus, Shakespeare wrote The Tempest in a context where ecological crisis was a serious matter and individuals were affected by environmental changes. Above all, individuals were starting to control nature in an unprecedented way. The first scene portrays a fearsome natural disaster which nearly kills a number of travellers. However, the point is that the tempest is the result of Prospero's manipulation. Which means that the real responsible for such a horrible and dangerous situation is a human being, not the weather. The nature of Prospero's magic is quite mysterious: we know that the core of his power lies in his books, and that the island is populated by spirits who obey him through the mediation of Ariel. Furthermore, thanks to Caliban, Prospero has acquired knowledge about the island vegetation. Thus, both Ariel and Caliban represent the connection between Prospero and the island. Although Prospero does not interact with the island directly and he does not seem interested in its flora and fauna, throughout the play, he uses a number of figures of speech which refer to the environment. he pictures three images connected to the natural world. First, with the line “To what tune pleased his ear, that now he was the ivy which had hid my princely trunk and sucked my verdure out on't” (1.2.85-87), he compares himself to a tree, creating the tree metaphor to describe the betrayal of his brother, who is compared to an ivy that sucks the energy of the tree. Then, he uses the personification to picture their journey through the sea: “There they hoist us to cry to th'sea that roared to us, to sigh to th'winds, whose pity,  sighing back again, did us but loving wrong” (1.2.148-151). This line represents the winds as ambivalent because they did wrong in blowing the ship to sea, but were also full of pity. Like the boatswain, Prospero humanizes the wind, attributing to it both the fault for their unfortunate situation and the sentiment of pity. Finally the line “hear the last of our sea-sorrow” (1.2.170) marks the beginning of a series of sea compounds in the text, among which “sea-storm” (1.2.177), “sea-sorrow”, and “sea change” (1.2.401) are the most relevant. According to Mentz, the sea writes all human plots and stories, and the three compounds evoke three different situations: respectively chaos and fear, loneliness and desperation, possibility and hope (2009:9). Again, these situations and the consequential feelings are manifestations of what is definitely human. To Prospero, the natural world exists only in relation to himself.

In the context of colonialism, anthropocentrism means that the white European male considers both the landscape and its inhabitants as elements which he has the right to exploit. The colonizer takes his superiority for granted, his actions are based on the assumption that everything he encounters in the New World is there at his disposal. Either he is only interested in establishing his power, and other civilizations are not even worthy of being considered human; or, to some extent, he wants to build a relationship, though not a fair one: from his superior position, the colonizer becomes the master who educates his slave. However, Prospero refers to him as a “subject” and Caliban himself seems to think that “the man is made by the nature and behaviour of the master”.

From an ecocritical perspective, we can associate the character of Prospero to the scientist or, more in general, to the Western individual who, in the name of progress, exploits nature for his aims; thus, Ariel and Caliban represent the environmental response. One the one hand, we perceive the natural world as passive: we postpone the necessity of dealing with the ecological crisis and we continue to exploit our environment. On the other hand, the truth is that the natural world is not passive at all: the danger of climate change is real and its consequences have been occurring for decades. Consequently, if we associate Prospero's island to Gaia hypothesis, we may argue that both Ariel and Caliban are involved in the environmental living process: Ariel has the power to direct natural elements, while Caliban's connection with nature lies in his ecological knowledge. These characters represent both an intermediary between Prospero and the environment, and the result of human intervention in the non-human.

 The union between Ferdinand and Miranda is compared to a natural growing process that has to be preserved and nurtured in a pure and chaste way, otherwise bad weeds will destroy it. There is a parallel between women and nature: Prospero literally gives Miranda to Ferdinand as a gift, a seed that will produce a flower, but only if Ferdinand keeps it intact until the wedding ceremony. Thus, to some extent, the seed purity is protected and respected; however, it  is something that will provide a benefit for both Ferdinand and Prospero. As soon as the ceremony will have granted the holiness of the union, Ferdinand will make a flower out of the seed, so that the dukedom of Milan and the kingdom of Naples will be caught under the same power, for the benefit of the two male rulers. As this metaphor suggests, Prospero is interested in nature only as far as his anthropocentric needs are concerned. However, it sounds improbable that a man of his “art” and power could not manage to create a means that allowed him to leave the island. More likely, the act of deforestation is simply a way to control and govern the place where he has established his mastery.

Marxist Approach in the Hamlet

Before we discuss the presence of Marxism in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, let’s first discuss the ground-lying questions of Marxism in literature. Some of these questions could include:

·         Whom does it benefit if the work or effort is accepted/successful/believed, etc.?

·         What is the social class of the author?

·         Which class does the work claim to represent?

·         What values does it reinforce?

·         What values does it subvert?

·         What conflict can be seen between the values the work champions and those it portrays?

·         What social classes do the characters represent?

·         How do characters from different classes interact or conflict?

In Hamlet, we do see a sense of class struggle in some characters but we also see huge gaps in the classes. Barnardo, Marcellus, Guildenstern, Rosencrantz, and Horatio all represent the lower classes for the way they are addressed. Barnardo’s line “Who’s There?” could simply just be Barnardo asking who is there but it also could represent the people of Denmark asking about the situation on the throne. The reader soon learns of King Hamlet’s murder but the people of Denmark never know the truth but many become suspicious like Hamlet of why Gertrude would marry Claudius so fast? This could be seen as a way of Gertrude preserving her power. In Claudius’ address to “Denmark”, he only speaks to the royalty but not the common people because he wants to make sure nothing suspicious rises in the common people. After Marcellus and Horatio see the ghost, Marcellus says one of the most important lines in the play, “Something is rotten in state of Denmark” meaning the corruption of the throne.

Shakespeare presents us with many characters both of royalty and middle class to show the relations between them or even the struggle between the two. Whenever one looks for Marxist principles in Hamlet, it is important to note the character’s class and the struggle between two different classes.

1.      How does Marxist theory apply to Hamlet?

One can argue that Claudius killed his brother King Hamlet in order to gain political, social, and economic power. This reflects the Marxist concept that economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities and the damaging effects on human values. 

2.      Is Hamlet a bourgeoisie?

Examples of the bourgeois would be Hamlet, Claudius and Gertrude, the ones with the most power and the royal status. Directly beneath these characters are the middle class which includes Polonius, Laertes, Horatio, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. 

3.      Negativity in Feudalism

Marxist theory illuminates power struggles in Shakespeare's play, Hamlet by demonstrating that a feudal society naturally leads to corruption which can be seen by examining the levels of violence, lust for power, excessive class struggle, as well as a lack of justice.

4.      Class Struggle

There is profound reasoning behind "[h]amlet's reluctance to murder Claudius while praying, lest his soul should enter heaven" (Smirnov 1). His withdrawal from committing the murder is indicative that the two social classes exist even in the afterlife; the closest resemblance of heaven would be the bourgeoisie class in life while hell would be categorized as proletariat. Hamlet was violent enough to think about killing Claudius and postponing his plan so he doesn't enter the bourgeoisie class even after death. Claudius expresses violence by killing King Hamlet so the person that was once the biggest bourgeoisie during his lifetime is now a proletariat since he is in hell. This is the case for as long as his sins are not forgiven. The violent actions are portrayed to affect other people, therefore a universal truth that everyone must face including someone as prestigious as King Hamlet. He was happy being the king, but is now going to struggle for power as he compensates for all of his previous sins now that he is dead.

Next, the priest expresses to Laertes that “[s]hards, flints and pebbles should be thrown on [Ophelia]; Yet here she is allow’d her virgin crants,”(5.1.232-233). In other words, he is against the idea of Ophelia being buried in the churchyard. So, there are classes of dead bodies, too.

  In Marxism, getting and keeping economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities. There are a few substantial examples of Marxism throughout Hamlet, one of them being the continuous tension between the dialogues of Hamlet and Claudius. Hamlet’s rhetoric conveys notions of the more lowly classes, as his dialogue shows him being rather respectful to those lesser than him and identifying the significance of things other than money and power in one's life. For example, Act 3, scene 2, line 61 shows Hamlet telling Horatio, “that no revenue hast but thy good spirits." This shows that Hamlet recognizes the worth of Horatio’s life because of his charm and happiness, rather than needing money to be happy and move forward. In addition to this, Hamlet also mocks those whose true motives of getting economic power (Claudius) rule their lives. An example of this is in Act 3, scene 2, lines 99-101 Hamlet is seen responding to Claudius in a sarcastic manner, saying,  “Excellent, i' faith, of the chameleon’s dish. I eat the air, promise-crammed. You cannot feed capons so." Hamlet speaks to Claudius in a nonsensical, almost vulgar way, one which boldly clashes with Claudius’s more poised and elite language, saying “I have nothing with this answer, Hamlet. These words are not mine.” This is a reserved response to a vulgar claim. Overall, the king speaks in a more authoritarian, direct and “royal” manner, compared to Hamlet’s playful and sarcastic banter. This clash between the two verbal styles creates a socially charged energy throughout Hamlet, as the literary styles throughout the play and seen in the royal court seem to be constantly changing between the respectful and disrespectful. This clash between the vulgar and elite is still evident in the streets and in some cases even in courts today. Hamlet denounces Marxism, whereas Claudius reinforces it.

Another significant Marxist element in Hamlet is the character of Claudius himself. Claudius's killing of the king shows the struggles of the lower classes to move themselves up in the social hierarchy. Claudius will do absolutely anything to keep his new found power, and his murder of Hamlet's father proves to show to what lengths he will go to for wealth. Power itself seems to have a strong grip over Claudius, as he is willing to send his wife's son to England rather than have himself be dethroned for his previous actions.

Lastly, one of the most prominent Marxist elements in Hamlet is the parallel between Claudius and Hamlet's relationship and class struggles. It seems that as the tension builds between Claudius and Hamlet, the status of Fortinbras's nation seems to become less stratified as well. In the beginning of the play, the issues of Fortinbras’s nephew are briefly mentioned, while the conflict between Claudius and Hamlet begins to brew. Just as Hamlet is sent away from his home, a climactic scene in the play and a significant moment between Hamlet and Claudius, he runs into Fortinbras, who is fighting for land for his nation. Just as Hamlet has struggled against his now superior stepfather, a nation is struggling against others. In this section of the play, Hamlet makes an extremely Marxist remark after having witnessed the struggles of Fortinbras and his people. Hamlet claims, “This is th' imposture of much wealth and peace, That inward breaks and shows no cause without Why the man dies” (Act 4 scene 4 lines 28-30). Hamlet directly denounces how wealth can destroy a nation, just as Marxists say capitalism can destroy a nation because it takes the focus away from the real issues of society.

In act II, scene 2, there is a notable difference between the working class and royalty. King Claudius and Queen Gertrude tell officers Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to spy on Prince Hamlet to find out what hurts him; to what they answer: “But we both obey, / And here give up ourselves in the full bent / to lay our service freely at your feet, / to be commanded.” (1375) Another difference between classes exists in act III scene 3. King Claudius tells Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to take Hamlet to England. Both courtiers assures they will do the job. In both examples, it is easy to recognize that Guildenstern and Rosencrantz belong to the working class. King Claudius do not ask them to do something, he tells them what to do without asking if they could it; and both courtiers admit that is their wish.

Base/Superstructure: Their morality depends upon their social class: Ophelia is ‘gentlewoman', Hamlet is ‘rude’ yet ‘noble’

Existential Crisis & Absurdity in Madame Bovary, The Metamorphosis, The Outsider, A Doll’s House and The Cherry Orchard

 

Madame Bovary Considering luxury as the essence of life, Madame Bovary faces an existential crisis when she becomes unable to meet the luxuries out of loans as well as doesn’t get a way to come out of the loan. This purposelessness in life leads her to take the absurd action of committing suicide.

The Metamorphosis Samsa puts more emphasis on his family than on her basic existential needs, be it physical or psychological. He faces existential crisis twice as he turns into some other animal losing the essence of humanity in his life, and as his family throws him away at this metamorphosis taking away his sole purpose of existence.

The Outsider Meursault’s absurd beliefs are that life is meaningless and without purpose. He doesn’t believe in the essences of life or the afterlife that society and religion attach to humanity. He just aims at moving through whatever comes before him without any moral or other types of reasons or responsibilities or expectations. All his attempts and hardships just turn out to be totally absurd.

A Doll’s House Nora understands her whole existence as Mrs. Helmer, a mother and wife, vulnerable, and useless, only other than the single success in saving her husband’s life. This image of her identity makes her think that her husband is going to sacrifice to protect her. When just the opposite happens, she faces extreme existential crisis and identity crisis. Her whole life, home, and attempts turned absurd.

The Cherry Orchard The aristocratic characters simply find their identity in their family’s past glory, and so holding on to the state and the orchard becomes the sole purpose of their existence. As a result, selling the orchard threatens their existence and the meaning of life. Furs are the most affected character as he serves feudalism at the expense of any personal achievement, and now the whole system cannot simply leave him alone. Life without this service as an ultimate truth would be absurd for him.