SUMMARY ON PARADISE LOST

PARADISE LOST

INTRODUCTION

        Paradise Lost is about Adam and Eve--how they came to be created and how they came to lose their place in the Garden of Eden, also called Paradise. It's the same story you find in the first pages of Genesis, expanded by Milton into a very long, detailed, narrative poem. It also includes the story of the origin of Satan. Originally, he was called Lucifer, an angel in heaven who led his followers in a war against God, and was ultimately sent with them to hell. Thirst for revenge led him to cause man's downfall by turning into a serpent and tempting Eve to eat the forbidden fruit.

SUMMARY

        The story opens in hell, where Satan and his followers are recovering from defeat in a war they waged against God. They build a palace, called Pandemonium, where they hold council to determine whether or not to return to battle. Instead they decide to explore a new world prophecied to be created, where a safer course of revenge can be planned. Satan undertakes the mission alone. At the gate of hell, he meets his offspring, Sin and Death, who unbar the gates for him. He journeys across chaos till he sees the new universe floating near the larger globe which is heaven. God sees Satan flying towards this world and foretells the fall of man. His Son, who sits at his right hand, offers to sacrifice himself for man's salvation. Meanwhile, Satan enters the new universe. He flies to the sun, where he tricks an angel, Uriel, into showing him the way to man's home.

        Satan gains entrance into the Garden of Eden, where he finds Adam and Eve and becomes jealous of them. He overhears them speak of God's commandment that they should not eat the forbidden fruit. Uriel warns Gabriel and his angels, who are guarding the gate of Paradise, of Satan's presence. Satan is apprehended by them and banished from Eden. God sends Raphael to warn Adam and Eve about Satan. Raphael recounts to them how jealousy against the Son of God led a once favored angel to wage war against God in heaven, and how the Son, Messiah, cast him and his followers into hell. He relates how the world was created so mankind could one day replace the fallen angels in heaven.

        Satan returns to earth, and enters a serpent. Finding Eve alone he induces her to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. Adam, resigned to join in her fate, eats also. Their innocence is lost and they become aware of their nakedness. In shame and despair, they become hostile to each other. The Son of God descends to earth to judge the sinners, mercifully delaying their sentence of death. Sin and Death, sensing Satan's success, build a highway to earth, their new home. Upon his return to hell, instead of a celebration of victory, Satan and his crew are turned into serpents as punishment. Adam reconciles with Eve. God sends Michael to expel the pair from Paradise, but first to reveal to Adam future events resulting from his sin. Adam is saddened by these visions, but ultimately revived by revelations of the future coming of the Savior of mankind. In sadness, mitigated with hope, Adam and Eve are sent away from the Garden of Paradise.

Differences between Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis

Differences between Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign language use or any significant semiotic event.

The objects of discourse analysis—discourse, writing, conversation, communicative event—are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of sentences, propositions, speech, or turns-at-talk. Contrary to much of traditional linguistics, discourse analysts not only study language use 'beyond the sentence boundary', but also prefer to analyze 'naturally occurring' language use, and not invented examples. Text linguistics is related. The essential difference between discourse analysis and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics of a person/persons rather than text structure.

Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, including linguistics, education, sociology, anthropology, social work,cognitive psychology, social psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography, communication studies, and translation studies, each of which is subject to its own assumptions, dimensions of analysis, and methodologies.
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning.

Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology, linguistics and anthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (e.g., grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance.

Characteristics of Modern Drama in English Literature

Characteristics of Modern Drama in English Literature

1.#Realism

Realism is the most significant and outstanding quality of the Modern English Drama. The dramatists of the earlier years of the 20th century were interested in naturalism and it was their endeavour (try) to deal with real problems of life in a realistic technique to their plays. It was Henrik Ibsen, the Norwegian dramatist who popularised realism in Modern Drama. He dealt with the problems of real life in a realistic manner of his play. His example was followed by Robertson Arthur Jones, Galsworthy and G. B. Shaw in their plays.

Modern drama has developed the Problem Play and there are many Modern Dramatists who have written a number of problem plays in our times. They dealt with the problems of marriage, justice, law, administration and strife between capital and labour in their dramas. They used theatre as a means for bringing about reforms in the conditions of society prevailing in their days. Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House is a good example of problem play. The problem play was a new experiment in the form and technique and dispensed with the conventional devices and expedients of theatre.

2. #Play_of_Ideas

Modern Drama is essentially a drama of ideas rather than action. The stage is used by dramatists to give expression to certain ideas which they want to spread in the society. The Modern Drama dealing with the problems of life has become far more intelligent than ever it was in the history of drama before the present age. With the treatment of actual life, the drama became more and more a drama of ideas, sometimes veiled in the main action, sometimes didactically act forth.

3. #Romanticism

The earlier dramatists of the 20th century were Realists at the core, but the passage of time brought in, a new trend in Modern Drama. Romanticism, which had been very dear to Elizabethan Dramatists found its way in Modern Drama and it was mainly due to Sir J.M. Barrie’s efforts that the new wave of Romanticism swept over Modern Drama for some years of the 20th century. Barrie kept aloof from realities of life and made excursions into the world of Romance.

4. #Poetic_Plays

T.S. Eliot was the main dramatist who gave importance to poetic plays and was the realistic prose drama of the modern drama. Stephen Phillips, John Drink Water, Yeats etc were from those who wrote poetic plays.

5. #History_and_Problem_Plays

Another trend, visible in the Modern English drama is in the direction of using history and biography for dramatic technique. There are many beautiful historical and biographical plays in modern dramatic literature. Shaw’s Caesar and Cleopatra are historical plays of great importance. John Drink Water’s Abraham Lincoln and Mary Stuart are also historical plays.

6. #Irish_Movement

A new trend in the Modern English Drama was introduced by the Irish dramatists who brought about the Celtic Revival in the literature. In the hands of the Irish dramatists like Yeats, J.M. Synge, T.C. Murrey etc. drama ceased to be realistic in character and became an expression of the hopes and aspirations of the Irish people from aspirations of the Irish people from remote ways to their own times.

7. #Comedy_of_Manners

There is a revival of Comedy of Manners in modern dramatic literature. Oscar Wild, Maugham, N. Coward etc. have done much to revive the comedy of wit in our days. The drama after the second has not exhibited a love for comedy and the social conditions of the period after the war is not very favourable for the development of the artificial comedy of the Restoration Age.

8. #Impressionism

It is a movement that shows that effects of things and events on the mind of the artist and the attempt of the artist to express his expressions. Impressionism constitutes another important feature of modern drama. In the impressionistic plays of W.B. Yeats, the main effort is in the direction of recreating the experience of the artist and his impressions about reality rather than in presenting reality as it is. The impressionistic drama of the modern age seeks to suggest the impressions on the artist rather than making an explicit statement about the objective characteristics of things or objects.

9.#Expressionism

It is a movement that tries to express the feelings and emotions of the people rather than objects and events. Expressionism is another important feature of modern drama. It marks an extreme reaction against the naturalism. The movement which had started early in Germany made its way in England drama and several modern dramatists like J.B. Priestly, Sean O’ Casey, C.K. Munro, Elmer Rice have made experiments in the expressionistic tendency in modern drama.

Marxism literary and the new criticism theory

Marxism literary and the new criticism theory

Marxism literary theory and the new criticism theory are among many wide schools of theory with historical importance. These theories differ in their methods and conclusions as well as their text. Different theories complement and supplement each other in their goals, methods, conclusions and text. The present day literary theory dates back in the 1960s. Literary theory was at its highest peak in popularity in some of the leading universities in America such as John Hopkins and Yale. It is from these universities that the influence of literary theory started spreading and by 1980s it was being taught almost everywhere. During this time, literary theory was supposed to be an academically cutting-edge, and as a result the majority of university literature departments wanted to teach and learn theory and integrate it into their curricula.

The goal of Marxist literary theories is to represent class conflict as well as to reinforce class distinctions through literature. Marxist theorists frequently champion writers who are sympathetic to the working classes and those whose works challenge the economic equalities in capitalist societies. In maintaining the spirit of Marxism, literary theories developing from the Marxist paradigm have sought Modern ways of understanding the relationship between literature and economic production as well as cultural production. Literary theory has drawn a lot of influence from the Marxism analyzes society.

New Critics in their works usually include inherent moral dimension, and occasionally a religious dimension. For instance, New Critic may read a poem by Thomas Eliot for its level of honesty in expression of torment and contradiction of a serious exploration of belief in the present world. On the other hand Marxist critic might see New critics' point of view as ideological instead of critical. They would argue that critical distance should be kept from the poet's religious standpoint for the poem to be understood. New criticism theories look at literary works in the view of what is written and not upon the authors' goals or biographical issues. In contrast, the Marxists emphasize themes of class conflict.

Marxist literary criticism

Marxist literary criticism is used to describe literary criticism influenced by the philosophy of Marxism. Twentieth century leading proponents of Marxist theory are also literary critics. They include, George Lukács, Terry Eagleton, and Raymond Williams. Marxist theory has different goals. One of its simplest goals is literary assessment of the political "inclination" of a literary work, hence determining whether its literary form is progressive.

According to Marxists legal systems, religious beliefs, and cultural frameworks are determined by social and economic conditions. Therefore Art should represent these conditions truthfully and also seek to better them. The popularity of Marxist aesthetics has reduced in nowadays consumerist society; however it continues to pose responsible questions.

Marxist basis of evaluation is hard to establish although it is one of the vigorous and varied 20th century school of aesthetics. Marxist theory has not been able to explain how the political, artistic, and legal superstructure of a nation reflects in its economic constitution. Â Assumptions from its generalizations have been stunningly inaccurate. For instance the hypotheses with which Marxism explained the rise in living standards of capitalist working class; the Russian-Chinese conflict revolution in Russia; and the uprisings in Berlin. The fact that Marxism fails intellectually is a prove that it has weaknesses in literary criticism.

Despite Marxist critism theories having weaknesses it is a good thing that it allows intellectual freedom. Sometimes the authors writing may have been influenced in some way by the state. For instance, the communist world was totally different from what writers were allowed to show. This means that the literary work of time could not be analyzed by simply looking at the author's goal as it is proposed by new criticism. Reading the literary work very closely and particularly the language used by the author would help to analyze the work more critically. In this case Marxism is very crucial because what people read that is what they practice.

Some contemporary Marxists such Terry Eagleton have tried to rehabilitate or revise marx. She recognizes the fact that literary work like that of Shakespeare create value because by reading them we are made to think and get something out of them thus getting some values from them. This supplements new criticism theory that looks at the moral and sometimes the religious dimensions such as honesty.

Georg Lukacs contribution

In his contribution towards Marxism and literature, Georg Lukacs, maintained that the text contained in classic realist writings in describing events of ordinary occurrence and social conditions give a vivid picture of the entireness of a society and its evolution. He argues that the literature of naturalism shows the contradictions that exist in societies and within the individual in the context of a dialectical unit. He acknowledged the fact that realist novels present a partial image of a society. However, he also supported the idea that the value of a novel lies in its description of the nature of a society in a historic period. He also argued that any literary work does not reflect individual phenomena in isolation as modernist text depicts, but should be the whole process of life found in realism. However, Lukas was opposed by Bertolt Brecht, who argued that society is dynamic and hence reality also changes. This is why Bertolt maintained that modes of representation should change accordingly. The methods and goals of representation are always changing in the quest to describe present-day realities.

Raymond Williams contribution

According to Williams, any literature potraying an ever changing culture has the counter-hegemonic and dominant ideology. Therefore Marxist criticism leaning towards William's theories considers literature as an important vehicle for ideology.

Williams' believed that where there was no common culture, a cultural and literary tradition is founded on selections made in the present and shaped by value decisions and power interests. This way he deconstructed the idea that truth is integral in a literary tradition. This contribution complements the new criticism theory that seeks to understand moral dimension of every literary text.

He also suggested the term "structure of feeling" for analysis of literature. Even though she acknowledges that the term cannot be equated to an ideology since it lacks specificity of class and it is not universal; the term gives the dimension of experience more emphasis. Structure of feeling supplements new criticism theory since it emphasizes the experience dimension. This means that the text is not subjected to critical interpretations but instead the primacy of the text is upheld.

New criticism

New Criticism as a school of thought of literary interpretation stresses the significance of studying texts as comprehensive works of art in themselves . They argued for upholding primacy of text other than analysis based on context. According to proponents of this theory literary texts are usually comprehensive in and of themselves. They elevate the purpose of criticism in academics such as in the maintenance of language and poetry at the same time helping their development. Criticism is very important as it forms an inherent part of social development. Majority of new criticism studies see the theory as one that focuses on close reading of structure, theme, technicalities and the message contained in the literary works.

New criticism supplements the Marxism criticism theory in its objective. Marxism theory interprets every literary work on the basis of how it responds to social inequalities. Social development is therefore an inherent part of the Marxism theory. New criticism also gives some focus to social development though indirectly. New criticism theory expects that by focussing on criticism at the academic level, the same will trickle down to the society at large and hence leading to social development.

Unreasonable assumptions of Marxism and new criticism

One of the assumptions of the New Critics is that biographical and historical information is not important in the study of a literary text. This assumption restricts the reader so much and is often seen as excessively authoritarian. Historical and biographical information is necessary as it can create an experience dimension that can pass some values to the reader. In so doing social development occurs. Marxism emphasizes the use of historical and biographical information in analyzing literary works. Marxism assumes that a literary work is a reflection of the society that produces it. This assumption is not always true. Some literary works may have had some external influenced thus depicting a society in a way that people wants to see it and thus may not be a true reflection of the society. Since new criticism does not emphasis the historical and biographical information of text, but instead on close reading of structure, theme, technicalities and the message contained in the literary works, it complements the Marxism assumption. Therefore the blend of both Marxism and new criticism can complement each other as mentioned above.

Humanism

Marxism does not put emphasis on the use of Marx ideology of class conflict for academics but instead for social development. Therefore proponents of Marxism criticism theory believe it is most useful in the humanist world outside the academy. As discussed earlier, the new criticism is so much focussed on academics and not the society. It is so restrictive to the reader and does not use biographical and historical information in analysis of a literary work. On the other hand, Marxism can be referred as being humanistic. It is humanistic because it empathizes with the victims of social inequalities. Marxism therefore seeks to analyse literary works using the Marx ideology of class conflict. The Marxists hope that by analyzing literary works using class conflict ideology, the reader will be able to recognize the inequalities existing in the society and thus can find ways of overcoming them and bring about an equal society.

According to Patricia Waugh humanism is not only found in Marxism but rather in all theories. She sees theories as a means by which one can exercise crucial capacities of being human. One can reflect or be rational about life through a theory and in the process one can stand back to make second order judgements about the world and our behaviour in it.

In conclusion, Marxism criticism theory and New Criticism are different in many ways. These differences are what complements and supplements each other. For instance, since New Criticism does not emphasize on the use of historical and biographical information in analyzing literary works, Marxism complements it. On the other hand, New Criticism supplements Marxism's structure of feeling by emphasizing moral dimension in the analysis of literary works. Raymond Williams a proponent of Marxism acknowledge values such as truth as integral to the literary tradition.

Essay on Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden

Essay on Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden.

John Dryden was one of the most shining stars of the Restoration Age, that’s why this age is also known as the age of Dryden. He was the great critic. So, Dr.Samuel Johnson quotes as...

“The Father of English Criticism, who first taught us to
Determine upon principles the merits of composition”

His Life:

Born-9, August, 1631, Aldwincle, Thrapston, Northampire, England.
Death-1 May,1700(aged 68 years) London, England.
Occupation-Poet Laureate, Critic, Dramatist.
Education-At Cambridge University.

His Creative Works:

Ø  Preface to the Fables
Ø  Preface to the Indian Emperor
Ø  The Wild Gallant
Ø  An Essay on Dramatic Poesy
Ø  All for Love
Ø  Absalom and Achitophel
Ø  Macflecknoe.

But, here we are Only Concerned with ‘An Essay on Dramatic Poesy’. So let’s discuss this essay in detail.

An Essay on Dramatic Poesy,
Introduction:

Dryden developed a very ingenious plan of writing his essay. In 1665 great plague broke out in London. In order to escape from the infection of the plague, many people left London. So, Dryden takes this situation and develops a plan to write a great treatise on drama. He imagines the  he and his friends sails out  of London in a boat on the river of thames.so,to avoid boredom the journey, they decide to hold some useful discourse on the theory of drama in different ages in Greece,Rome,France and of England. They decide to allot one age to each of the four friends.

Each taking up the defense of dramatic Literature of one country or one age. Crites speaks for the Greek and the Roman dramatists and their principles.  Lisideius expresses his view that the French drama is superior to the English drama. So, he favors French dramatists. Eugenius claims that the English Drama of the last age in England is better than the Ancient Dramatists. Neander (For Dryden himself) pleads for England and Liberty. So, Dryden holds that ancient principle should be respected, but should not be followed blindly.

Dryden’s definition of drama

Here, Dryden expresses his views on Drama that what a play should be, therefore, he defines drama as

“Just and Lively Image of human nature,
Representing its passions and humors,
And the changes of fortunes to which it
Is subject, for the delight and instruction Of mankind”.

Therefore, Dryden and his friends talk about what a play should be, further, Lisideius conveys his view about Drama as ‘a just lively image of Human nature ‘.after this discussion, they start to give their views and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of French and English Drama. At last the debate goes on about the comparison between Ancient and Modern writers.

Violation of the three unities

As far as the unities of the time, place and action are concerned. This group further discusses the playwrights like Ben Jonson, Moliere and Shakespeare with a deeper insight. John Dryden himself.

Also defenses English tragic-Comedy.

He comments that the French plays may be more regular but they are not as lively as that of English. For example in William Shakespeare’s Plays the more lively and just images of life can also be observed. Therefore, Dryden here condemns French Plays s lack of just and lively image.
         
Eugenius’s arguments on the superiority of the Moderns over the Ancients
           
Eugenius defends the English dramatists of the last age with a highly penetrating insight. It is true, he says that the Ancients Greek and Roman scholars laid down many basic principles of Drama. The English authors gave due respect to them, but they had no clear-cut concept of dividing a Play into Acts. The Dramatist set the voyage of dividing a play into five acts. Most of the Ancient Greek Playwrights wrote their plays on highly popular episodes of Thebes or troy on which many narrative poems, epics and plays had already been written. Therefore, the spectators found nothing new in them. Many times they spoke out the dialogues before the actors spoke them. The English Dramatist wrote their Plays on new Themes. In Comedies, the Greek and Roman playwrights repeated common theme of lost children coming back to their home after gap of many years. This often repeated theme lost its interest to the spectators.so,the English Dramatist invented new and interesting themes. In all these respects the English Dramatists of the last age were better than the Greek or Roman Dramatists.

Crites’s arguments in favor of the Ancients

Crites begins defending the Ancient Greek and Roman Poets and dramatists, and expresses his views that Ancients are better than the Modern one. The Ancient writers set rules of drama like, Aristotle also laid down the principles of the three unities of time place and action. By the unity of Time he meant that the action of a play should not be exceed “Compass of a natural day”, By the Unity of Place he meant that scene ought to be continued in the same place from the beginning to the end for the stage s “But one and the same Place”. It is Unnatural to shift the action from one place to another, especially to distant places. This will give the greatest likelihood to untruth. By the Unity of action, he meant that there should not be two or more actions. There should be only one action at a time to cover the whole Plot. The Ancient observed the three dramatic unities faithfully, and The Romans, The French, and The English dramatists tried their best to observe them, though not always successfully.Thus, The Ancients are our first law-givers as well as models for the Moderns to follow.
 
Lisideius view in favor of the superiority of the French drama over the English Drama

Defending the French Drama and Dramatist, Lisideius says that they far surpass the English and even the Greek dramatists.Corneill and some other French dramatists have so reformed their theatre that no European theatre stands comparison to it. So as far as the three dramatic unities are concerned, the French Dramatists observe them more faithfully than the Greeks themselves who propounded them. In observing the unity of time, they are so scrupulous that the action in some of their plays is limited to only twelve hours. The French are equally faithful in observing the unity of place. Many of them limit to the very spot of ground where the play is supposed to begin.However, none of them exceeds the compass of the same town. Equally conspicuous is the observance of the unity of action. There are under plots in their plays.

Further, the French generally write their tragedies on well-known historical facts which the people can easily comprehend. They do not make their plots so complicated that the spectators may lose their patience. In their plays the hero is most important, and rest of the characters are marginalized to him.Finally,The French write their plays in beautiful rhyming verse which is far sweeter than the blank verse in which the English plays are written. To Sum Up, The French playwrights are superior to the English.
  
Neander’s view in favor of English Drama

Dryden in the person of Neander rises up in defence of English dramatists and strongly pleads that English Dramatist are fully justified in not slavishly accepting the classical principles in many respects. They have developed their own principles and proved themselves to be superior to the Greek and French dramatists in many ways. In the First place French drama, whether comic or tragic, lacks in emotion and passion. English dramatists surpass them in both. The English tragedies produce fear and pity more powerfully, and their comedies excel in producing delightful humors and Romantic love. He equally defends the insertion of under plots which highlight the main plot.

Coming to the dramatic unities of Time and Place, he says that their observance might adversely affect the total impact of a play. It is unbelievable that sufficient material for the plot of a good play.Finally, coming to Shakespeare, he says “He was the man who of all modern, and perhaps ancient poets, had the largest and most comprehensive soul. He was naturally learned; he needed not the spectacle of books to read literature; he looked inwards and found him there.

The Ancient versus Modern Playwrights

Here, by this essay, John Dryden makes comparison between Ancients versus Modern Playwrights.Crites makes favor of the Ancients by giving some views about them.

A. Crites favors the Ancients

The first significant thing which favors Ancients that they are acknowledged models of the modern. They had a special technique for writing drama is that of perfection. And further, Crites expresses his views that the Ancients were honored and rewarded by the merits of their drama. They closely observed nature and depicted faithfully in their plays. The Rules and unities of composing drama, which were made by the Ancients. Therefore, Crites favors Ancients rather than Moderns.

B. Eugenius favors Moderns

Eugenius tries to reply to Crites by making Modern dramatists better than that of Ancients. Of course, Moderns have written drama the way the Ancients were written. But, they have not blindly imitated them. Their themes of the drama were similar, but not Moderns tried to present the same thing in a better way and in a different way. They have perfected the division of plays and divided their plays not into acts but into various scenes. The Ancient observed the three unities of time place and actions are not perfect. In fact, the Moderns tried to get perfection of these unities in their dramas.Ancients’s plays do not perform one of the function of drama, that of giving delight as well as instruction. There was no rule to punish vice, but even, they have mostly shown a prosperous wickedness. Therefore, by giving the reply to Crites in favor of Moderns, Eugenius tries to differentiates Moderns from the Ancients.

Mixture of tragedy and comedy

Being a liberal Critic, Dryden, who tries to give his view on mingling of tragedy and comedy.sometimes, it may be possible that one becomes bore after watching comedy drama. so here, the same thing is told by Dryden that the eye can pass from an unpleasant object to  pleasant one.so,also the soul can move from the tragic to the comic. There were no rules of mixing tragedy and comedy in their plays. But, they had written play of tragedy, no comic elements were there. But, perhaps, Aristotle would have revised his rules. That’s why, Dryden puts here that “Had Aristotle seen the English plays, He might have changed his mind”.Hence,the views of John Dryden proves that he is more frank as well as liberal as he suggests the mixture of Tragedy and Comedy must be there.

Rhymed verse versus Blank verse

Heroic couplet was used as a form of poetry in the Restoration Age as this form was mastered by John Dryden. He puts his idea on Rhyme through the mouth of Neander, while Crites attacks on Rhyme and puts forward his ideas that Rhyme must not be used in the drama. Of course, it may be utilized in comedy plays, because a play is made up of dialogues, if Rhyme is used, than the play seems unnatural or we may call a Rhymed Verse play, which is not permitted to use it.

Neander’s Defence

In making attempt to give reply to Crites, Neander favors Rhyme and further says that Rhyme makes the play natural.Therefore, it must be used in the play.Moreover, he puts forward his view that Rhyme is different from Blank Verse. Rhyme is a type of similar word at the end of the lines, while a Blank Verse stand alone, which was used by Christopher Marlowe and other Elizabethans. In a form of tragedy they used Rhyme.So, at last, Neander makes a comment and it indicates that he favors Rhyme.

Comparison between Shakespeare and Ben Jonson

In this essay, Dryden makes comparison between two great Elizabethan Dramatists like William Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. So let’s discuss this comparison in detail.

A. Shakespeare:

William Shakespeare was one of the prominent dramatists of the Age of Elizabeth. He describes the thing in such a way that not only one can see, but also you feel it. He wrote 37 Plays and in which he portrayed all the things in his Dramas and Sonnets. Though, he was not considered a great writer in the days of Elizabethan.
B. Ben Jonson:

Another writer of high quality in the Elizabethan Age was Ben Jonson, who was considered superior to William Shakespeare in those days. Because, Wit; Humour in his Dramas makes him a learned man. Jonson was a judge himself, therefore, as one can observe in his Dramas that he wrote plays, which contain Homour and Wit also.
      
One critic Atkins states,
“If I would compare him with Shakespeare,
I must acknowledge him with the more correct   
Poet, but Shakespeare the great wit, Shakespeare
Was the Homer, or father of our dramatic poets;
Jonson was the Virgil, the pattern of elaborate writing
I admire him, but I love Shakespeare”.

So, Neander expresses his view about this comparison. Now let’s explain his ideas about another comparison between Fletcher and Beaumont in detail.

A. John Fletcher

John Fletcher belonged to the Age of Elizabeth, who was Dramatist of high quality and poet too. Fletcher wrote most of his play as a comedy and of course his real talent lay in it. By writing tragicomedy he generates laughter and power of arousing emotions. John Fletcher was the first person, who Customized 10 syllable line of Elizabethan Dramatic Blank Verse. The Themes of his plays were love or honor .sometimes both theme or subject can be observed in a tragicomedy. So, he was a man of technical abilities too.

B. Francis Beaumont:

The most influential play Wright and poet of Elizabethan Age. He also more wrote comedies and his comedies help Beaumont to stand as a man of talent. He was more famous for his tragicomedies, which he wrote with Fletcher. They both have written ten Plays in collaboration. So these collaborations had helped to establish both men in the ranks of the best dramatists. Therefore; Dryden makes comparison of both the Dramatists.

Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe

Doctor Faustus
             ----Christopher Marlowe
      
Summary:

Doctor Faustus, a talented German scholar at Wittenburg, rails against the limits of human knowledge. He has learned everything he can learn, or so he thinks, from the conventional academic disciplines. All of these things have left him unsatisfied, so now he turns to magic. A Good Angle and an Evil Angel arrive, representing Faustus' choice between Christian conscience and the path to damnation. The former advises him to leave off this pursuit of magic, and the latter tempts him. From two fellow scholars, Valdes and Cornelius, Faustus learns the fundamentals of the black arts. He thrills at the power he will have, and the great feats he'll perform. He summons the devil Mephostophilis. They flesh out the terms of their agreement, with Mephostophilis representing Lucifer. Faustus will sell his soul, in exchange for twenty-four years of power, with Mephostophilis as servant to his every whim.

In a comic relief scene, we learn that Faustus' servant Wagner has gleaned some magic learning. He uses it to convince Robin the Clown to be his servant.

Before the time comes to sign the contract, Faustus has misgivings, but he puts them aside. Mephostophilis returns, and Faustus signs away his soul, writing with his own blood. The words "Homo fuge" ("Fly, man) appear on his arm, and Faustus is seized by fear. Mephostophilis distracts him with a dance of devils. Faustus requests a wife, a demand Mephostophilis denies, but he does give Faustus books full of knowledge.

Some time has passed. Faustus curses Mephostophilis for depriving him of heaven, although he has seen many wonders. He manages to torment Mephostophilis, he can't stomach mention of God, and the devil flees. The Good Angel and Evil Angel arrive again. The Good Angel tells him to repent, and the Evil Angel tells him to stick to his wicked ways. Lucifer, Belzebub, and Mephostophilis return, to intimidate Faustus. He is cowed by them, and agrees to speak and think no more of God. They delight him with a pageant of the Seven Deadly Sins, and then Lucifer promises to show Faustus hell. Meanwhile, Robin the Clown has gotten one of Faustus' magic books.

Faustus has explored the heavens and the earth from a chariot drawn by dragons, and is now flying to Rome, where the feast honoring St. Peter is about to be celebrated. Mephostophilis and Faustus wait for the Pope, depicted as an arrogant, decidedly unholy man. They play a series of tricks, by using magic to disguise themselves and make themselves invisible, before leaving.

The Chorus returns to tell us that Faustus returns home, where his vast knowledge of astronomy and his abilities earn him wide renown. Meanwhile, Robin the Clown has also learned magic, and uses it to impress his friend Rafe and summon Mephostophilis, who doesn't seem too happy to be called.

At the court of Charles V, Faustus performs illusions that delight the Emperor. He also humiliates a knight named Benvolio. When Benvolio and his friends try to avenge the humiliation, Faustus has his devils hurt them and cruelly transform them, so that horns grow on their heads.

Faustus swindles a Horse-courser, and when the Horse-courser returns, Faustus plays a frightening trick on him. Faustus then goes off to serve the Duke of Vanholt. Robin the Clown, his friend Dick, the Horse-courser, and a Carter all meet. They all have been swindled or hurt by Faustus' magic. They go off to the court of the Duke to settle scores with Faustus.

Faustus entertains the Duke and Duchess with petty illusions, before Robin the Clown and his band of ruffians arrives. Faustus toys with them, besting them with magic, to the delight of the Duke and Duchess.

Faustus' twenty-four years are running out. Wagner tells the audience that he thinks Faustus prepares for death. He has made his will, leaving all to Wagner. But even as death approaches, Faustus spends his days feasting and drinking with the other students. For the delight of his fellow scholars, Faustus summons a spirit to take the shape of Helen of Troy. Later, an Old Man enters, warning Faustus to repent. Faustus opts for pleasure instead, and asks Mephostophilis to bring Helen of Troy to him, to be his love and comfort during these last days. Mephostophilis readily agrees.

Later, Faustus tells his scholar friends that he is damned, and that his power came at the price of his soul. Concerned, the Scholars exit, leaving Faustus to meet his fate.

As the hour approaches, Mephostophilis taunts Faustus. Faustus blames Mephostophilis for his damnation, and the devil proudly takes credit for it. The Good and Evil Angel arrive, and the Good Angel abandons Faustus. The gates of Hell open. The Evil Angel taunts Faustus, naming the horrible tortures seen there.

The Clock strikes eleven. Faustus gives a final, frenzied monologue, regretting his choices. At midnight the devils enter. As Faustus begs God and the devil for mercy, the devils drag him away. Later, the Scholar friends find Faustus' body, torn to pieces.

Epilogue. The Chorus emphasizes that Faustus is gone, his once-great potential wasted. The Chorus warns the audience to remember his fall, and the lessons it offers.

English Literature

English Literature

#Who_is_the_mother_of_English?
Fanny Burney died on this day in 1840. Burney was one of the best-selling writers of the late eighteenth century, and for Virginia Woolf' she is “the mother of English fiction.”
#Who_is_called_the_father_of_prose?
William Tyndale: The Father of English Prose. The King James Bible, since its publication in 1611, has had a profound influence on the development of the English language, not only in the words and phrases that it employed but also in the syntax and grammatical usages that it rendered into the English vernacular.
#Who_is_the_father_of_comedy?
Aristophanes c. 446 – c. 386 BC) was a Greek poet and playwright of the Old Comedy, also known as the Father of Comedy and the Prince of Ancient Comedy. Of his forty plays, eleven are extant, plus a thousand fragments of the others.
#Who_is_the_father_of_the_short_story?
Edgar A. Poe is called the "father" of the short story because he is credited with setting up the first guidelines for the short story.
#What_is_realism_in_drama?
Realism in the theatre was a general movement that began in the 19th-century theatre, around the 1870s, and remained present through much of the 20th century. It developed a set of dramatic and theatrical conventions with the aim of bringing a greater fidelity of real life to texts and performances.
#What_are_the_key_elements_of_a_tragedy?
Six Formative Elements of Tragedy. After discussing the definition of tragedy, Aristotle explores various important parts of tragedy. He asserts that any tragedy can be divided into six constituent parts. They are: Plot, Character, Thought, Diction, Song and Spectacle.
#What_is_realism_and_naturalism_in_Theatre?
Naturalism is a movement in European drama and theatre that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It refers to theatre that attempts to create an illusion of reality through a range of dramatic and theatrical strategies
#Who_is_known_as_the_father_of_naturalism?
The best-known "proponent of naturalism" was the novelist and French art critic Émile Zola (1840–1902); he was one of the most passionate defenders of Taine's theories, putting them to use in his novels. Zola's foreword to his novel Thérèse Raquin (1867) became the fundamental manifesto of literary naturalism.
#Who_is_known_as_the_father_of_realism?
Henrik Ibsen
Transcript of Henrik Ibsen: The Father of Realism. Henrik Ibsen was a monumental playwright and revolutionary for the world of theater. Through his works, he made a significant contribution to sparking the women's rights movement, and changing previously accepted roles imposed by society as a whole.
#Who_is_the_father_of_tragedy_in_English?
Christopher Marlowe
Christopher Marlowe. English dramatist, the father of English tragedy and the first practitioner of English dramatic blank verse, the eldest son of a shoemaker at Canterbury, was born in that city on the 6th of February 1564.
#Who_is_considered_the_father_of_tragedy?
Aeschylus
Aeschylus (Aiskhylos) is often recognized as the father of tragedy, and is the first of the three early Greek tragedians whose plays survive extant (the other two being Sophocles and Euripides).
#Who_is_the_father_of_the_English_language?
Geoffrey Chaucer
Geoffrey Chaucer. He was born in London sometime between 1340 and 1344. He was an English author, poet, philosopher, bureaucrat (courtier), and diplomat. He is also referred to as the father of English Literature.
#Who_is_known_as_the_father_of_drama?
Henrik Ibsen
Henrik Ibsen is famously known as the Father of Modern Drama, and it is worth recognizing how literal an assessment that is.
#What_kind_of_plays_did_Aristophanes_write?
The surviving plays of Aristophanes, in chronological order spanning a period from 425 to 388 BCE, are: “The Acharnians”, “The Knights”, “The Clouds”, “The Wasps”, “Peace”, “The Birds”, “Lysistrata”, “Thesmophoriazusae”, “The Frogs”, “Ecclesiazusae” and “Plutus (Wealth)”.

Summary Of Sense and Sensibility

Summary

Sense and Sensibility tells the story of the impoverished Dashwood family, focusing on the sisters Elinor and Marianne, personifications of good sense (common sense) and sensibility (emotionality), respectively. They become destitute upon the death of their father, who leaves his home, Norland Park, to their half brother, John. Although instructed to take care of his sisters, John is dissuaded of his duty by his greedy wife, Fanny. The family—which, in addition to Elinor and Marianne, includes their mother and a younger sister—moves to Barton Cottage in Devonshire. There the open and enthusiastic Marianne meets Colonel Brandon, a staid and settled bachelor 20 years her senior. Although he expresses an interest in Marianne, she discourages his attention and instead becomes infatuated with the attractive John Willoughby, who seems to be a romantic lover but is in reality an unscrupulous fortune hunter. He deserts Marianne for an heiress, and she eventually makes a sensible marriage with Colonel Brandon.

During this time, Marianne’s elder sister, the prudent and discreet Elinor, and Edward Ferrars, Fanny’s brother, have formed an attachment. However, she is outwardly reserved about her affections, especially after learning that he has been secretly engaged to Lucy Steele for several years. Although Edward loves Elinor, he is determined to honour his commitment to Lucy. When the engagement is revealed, Edward is disowned, and Colonel Brandon offers him a living as a clergyman. Later Elinor is told that Mr. Ferrars has married. Believing that the Mr. Ferrars in question is Edward, she is both shocked and relieved to discover that Lucy has wed Edward’s brother, Robert. Edward arrives at Barton Cottage and proposes to Elinor, who accepts.

“Ode to the West Wind”

“Ode to the West Wind”
P. B. SHELLY

Summary

The speaker invokes the “wild West Wind” of autumn, which scatters the dead leaves and spreads seeds so that they may be nurtured by the spring, and asks that the wind, a “destroyer and preserver,” hear him. The speaker calls the wind the “dirge / Of the dying year,” and describes how it stirs up violent storms, and again implores it to hear him. The speaker says that the wind stirs the Mediterranean from “his summer dreams,” and cleaves the Atlantic into choppy chasms, making the “sapless foliage” of the ocean tremble, and asks for a third time that it hear him.

The speaker says that if he were a dead leaf that the wind could bear, or a cloud it could carry, or a wave it could push, or even if he were, as a boy, “the comrade” of the wind’s “wandering over heaven,” then he would never have needed to pray to the wind and invoke its powers. He pleads with the wind to lift him “as a wave, a leaf, a cloud!”—for though he is like the wind at heart, untamable and proud—he is now chained and bowed with the weight of his hours upon the earth.

The speaker asks the wind to “make me thy lyre,” to be his own Spirit, and to drive his thoughts across the universe, “like withered leaves, to quicken a new birth.” He asks the wind, by the incantation of this verse, to scatter his words among mankind, to be the “trumpet of a prophecy.” Speaking both in regard to the season and in regard to the effect upon mankind that he hopes his words to have, the speaker asks: “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?”

Robinson Crusoe By Daniel Defoe

Robinson Crusoe
               ----Daniel Defoe

Summary

Robinson Crusoe is a youth of about eighteen years old who resides in Hull, England. Although his father wishes him to become a lawyer, Crusoe dreams of going on sea voyages. He disregards the fact that his two older brothers are gone because of their need for adventure. His father cautions that a middle-class existence is the most stable. Robinson ignores him. When his parents refuse to let him take at least one journey, he runs away with a friend and secures free passage to London. Misfortune begins immediately, in the form of rough weather. The ship is forced to land at Yarmouth. When Crusoe's friend learns the circumstances under which he left his family, he becomes angry and tells him that he should have never come to the sea. They part, and Crusoe makes his way to London via land. He thinks briefly about going home, but cannot stand to be humiliated. He manages to find another voyage headed to Guiana. Once there, he wants to become a trader. On the way, the ship is attacked by Turkish pirates, who bring the crew and passengers into the Moorish port of Sallee. Robinson is made a slave. For two years he plans an escape. An opportunity is presented when he is sent out with two Moorish youths to go fishing. Crusoe throws one overboard, and tells the other one, called Xury, that he may stay if he is faithful. They anchor on what appears to be uninhabited land. Soon they see that black people live there. These natives are very friendly to Crusoe and Xury. At one point, the two see a Portuguese ship in the distance. They manage to paddle after it and get the attention of those on board. The captain is kind and says he will take them aboard for free and bring them to Brazil.

Robinson goes to Brazil and leaves Xury with the captain. The captain and a widow in England are Crusoe's financial guardians. In the new country, Robinson observes that much wealth comes from plantations. He resolves to buy one for himself. After a few years, he has some partners, and they are all doing very well financially. Crusoe is presented with a new proposition: to begin a trading business. These men want to trade slaves, and they want Robinson to be the master of the tradepost. Although he knows he has enough money, Crusoe decides to make the voyage. A terrible shipwreck occurs and Robinson is the only survivor. He manages to make it to the shore of an island.

Robinson remains on the island for twenty-seven years. He is able to take many provisions from the ship. In that time, he recreates his English life, building homes, necessities, learning how to cook, raise goats and crops. He is at first very miserable, but embraces religion as a balm for his unhappiness. He is able to convince himself that he lives a much better life here than he did in Europe--much more simple, much less wicked. He comes to appreciate his sovereignty over the entire island. One time he tries to use a boat to explore the rest of the island, but he is almost swept away, and does not make the attempt again. He has pets whom he treats as subjects. There is no appearance of man until about 15 years into his stay. He sees a footprint, and later observes cannibalistic savages eating prisoners. They don't live on the island; they come in canoes from a mainland not too far away. Robinson is filled with outrage, and resolves to save the prisoners the next time these savages appear. Some years later they return. Using his guns, Crusoe scares them away and saves a young savage whom he names Friday.

Friday is extremely grateful and becomes Robinson's devoted servant. He learns some English and takes on the Christian religion. For some years the two live happily. Then, another ship of savages arrives with three prisoners. Together Crusoe and Friday are able to save two of them. One is a Spaniard; the other is Friday's father. Their reunion is very joyous. Both have come from the mainland close by. After a few months, they leave to bring back the rest of the Spaniard's men. Crusoe is happy that his island is being peopled. Before the Spaniard and Friday's father can return, a boat of European men comes ashore. There are three prisoners. While most of the men are exploring the island, Crusoe learns from one that he is the captain of a ship whose crew mutinied. Robinson says he will help them as long as they leave the authority of the island in his hands, and as long as they promise to take Friday and himself to England for free. The agreement is made. Together this little army manages to capture the rest of the crew and retake the captain's ship. Friday and Robinson are taken to England. Even though Crusoe has been gone thirty-five years, he finds that his plantations have done well and he is very wealthy. He gives money to the Portuguese captain and the widow who were so kind to him. He returns to the English countryside and settles there, marrying and having three children. When his wife dies, he once more goes to the sea.

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift

Gulliver's Travels
                  by Jonathan Swift

Gulliver goes on four separate voyages in Gulliver's Travels. Each journey is preceded by a storm. All four voyages bring new perspectives to Gulliver's life and new opportunities for satirizing the ways of England.

The first voyage is to Lilliput, where Gulliver is huge and the Lilliputians are small. At first the Lilliputians seem amiable, but the reader soon sees them for the ridiculous and petty creatures they are. Gulliver is convicted of treason for "making water" in the capital (even though he was putting out a fire and saving countless lives)--among other "crimes."

The second voyage is to Brobdingnag, a land of Giants where Gulliver seems as small as the Lilliputians were to him. Gulliver is afraid, but his keepers are surprisingly gentle. He is humiliated by the King when he is made to see the difference between how England is and how it ought to be. Gulliver realizes how revolting he must have seemed to the Lilliputians.

Gulliver's third voyage is to Laputa (and neighboring Luggnagg and Glubdugdribb). In a visit to the island of Glubdugdribb, Gulliver is able to call up the dead and discovers the deceptions of history. In Laputa, the people are over-thinkers and are ridiculous in other ways. Also, he meets the Stuldbrugs, a race endowed with immortality. Gulliver discovers that they are miserable.

His fourth voyage is to the land of the Houyhnhnms, who are horses endowed with reason. Their rational, clean, and simple society is contrasted with the filthiness and brutality of the Yahoos, beasts in human shape. Gulliver reluctantly comes to recognize their human vices. Gulliver stays with the Houyhnhnms for several years, becoming completely enamored with them to the point that he never wants to leave. When he is told that the time has come for him to leave the island, Gulliver faints from grief. Upon returning to England, Gulliver feels disgusted about other humans, including his own family.

Modern schools and Movements in linguistics perspective

Modern schools and Movements in linguistics perspective.

The study of linguistic changes over time in language or in a particular language or language family, sometimes including the reconstruction of unattested forms of earlier stages of a language. This is the study of linguistic change in “the synchrony and diachronic”.

HISTORICISM

Historicism, in the sense in which the term is being used here, does not necessarily imply evolutionism: the view that there is directionality in the historical development of languages. Evolutionism was, in fact, quite influential in linguistics in the late nineteenth century; and Jespersen, in the book referred to above, defends a particular version of it. Other version have been put forward by idealists of various schools; and also, of course, within the framework of dialectical materialism, by Marxists. It is probably true to say, however, that, with a few notable exceptions, most linguists in the twentieth century have rejected evolutionism. Historicism, as we shall see in the following section, is one of the movements against which structuralism reached and in relation to which it may be defined.

STRUCTURALISM

Saussure was the founder of the Modern structuralism, where he focused not on the use of language, but rather on the underlying system of language and called his theory semiology. However, the discovery of the underlying system had to be done via examination of the parole. As such, Structural Linguistics is actually an early form of corpus linguistics. This approach focused on examining how the elements of language related to each other in the present, that is, ‘synchronically’ rather than ‘diachronically’. Finally, he argued that linguistic signs were composed of two parts, a signifier (the sound pattern of a word, either in mental projection – as when we silently recite lines from a poem to ourselves – or in actual, physical realization as part of a speech act) and a signified (the concept or meaning of the word).

What is commonly referred to as structuralism, especially in Europe, is of multiple origin. It is both conventional and convenient to date its birth as an identifiable movement in linguistics from the publication of Saussure’s Course de linguistic generate in 1916. Many of the ideas that Saussure brought togetherin the lectures that he delivered at the University of Geneva between 1997 and1911 (upon which the Course is based) can be traced back into the nineteenth century and beyond.

FUNCTIONALISM

In linguistics, the approach to language study that is concerned with the functions performed by language, primarily in terms of cognition (relating information), expression (indicating mood), and conation (exerting influence). Especially associated with the Prague school of linguists prominent since the 1930s, the approach centers on how elements in various languages accomplish these functions, both grammatically and phonologically. Some linguists have applied the findings to work on stylistics and literary criticism. The most characteristic feature of the Prague school approach is its combination of structuralism with functionalism. The latter term (like “structuralism”) has been used in a variety of senses in linguistics.

The terms ‘functionalism’ and ‘structuralism’ are often employed in anthropology and sociology to refer to contrasting theories or methods of analysis. In linguistics, however, functionalism is best seen as a particular movement within structuralism. It is characterized by the belief that the phonological, grammatical and semantic structure of languages is determined by the functions that they have to perform in the societies in which they operate. The best-known representatives of functionalism, in this sense of the term, are the members of the Prague School, which had its origin in the Prague Linguistic Circle, founded in 1926 and particularly influential in European linguistics in the period preceding the Second World War.

GENERATIVISM

Generative grammar or Generativism is a very important concept in linguistics. It refers to the fact that languages are systems with limited sets of linguistics item out of which we can generate endless number of sentences. The term ‘Generative Grammar’ is given by Noam Chomsky and “Generativism” is a movement or trend which follows the concept of ‘Generative Grammar” For any given language, if you have a list of grammatical rules that is so complete that you can say, using that list of rules alone, that any given sentence is grammatical (or not), then you have a generative grammar for that language. In another sense, generative grammar is the attempt to construct such a list of rules.

The term ‘Generativism’ is being used here to refer to the theory of language that has been developed, over the last twenty years of so, by Chomsky and his followers. Generativism, in this sense, has been enormously influential not only in linguistics, but also in philosophy, psychology and other disciplines concerned with languages.

COGNITIVISM

In the 1950s, a new school of thought known as Cognitivism emerged through the field of psychology. Cognitivists lay emphasis on knowledge and information, as opposed to behaviorism, for instance. Cognitivism emerged in linguistics as a reaction to generativist theory in the 1970s and 1980s. Led by theorists like Ronald Langacker and George Lakoff, cognitive linguists propose that language is an emergent property of basic, general-purpose cognitive processes. In contrast to the generativist school of linguistics, cognitive linguistics is non-modularist and functionalist in character. Important developments in cognitive linguistics include cognitive grammar, frame semantics, and conceptual metaphor, all of which are based on the idea that form–function correspondences based on representations derived from embodied experience constitute the basic units of language.

Ode on a Grecian Urn by Keats

Ode on a Grecian Urn by Keat

The popular poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn" was composed by John Keats in 1819. The poet was very much impressed after seeing the beautiful urn that was belonged toLord Holland. The beautiful artistic pictures were engraved on it. Thus the poet was very much inspired to compose this poem after seeing the beauty of urn. 

Keats is known as a great lover of Greek art and culture. As a result, the poet composed this beautiful ode on Grecian Urn. He calls the Grecian urn bride who is pure still. It is a symbol of quietness. There are many pictures of Greek culture and art engraved on it. There are young lovers who are following their beloved in the pictures. There is a picture of a boy who is playing the flute under the tree. A singer is also singing his sweet song under the tree.

The poet believes that the leaves of the tree where the singer is singing will never shed their leaves. Because they will always enjoy his songs. The is also a picture of a large number of people engraved on it. Those people are going to attend a religious ceremony. Therefore their village will be empty forever because they will never return to their village. Thus the poet is very much impressed to see the beautiful pictures ofmen, women, leaves trees and musician engraved on the Grecian Urn. 

Ode on a Grecian Urn...analysis 

Stanza--1

In the first stanza, the poet says that the Grecian Urn is as quiet as-pure bride. It is kept in one place for a number of years. It seems to the poet like a foster child of silence and time. It is standing very quietly at one place for many places. And time has passed so slowly that it can not destroy the beauty of Grecian Urn. 

It seems o the poet like ahistorian who tells the story of the past through his pictures engraved on it. In fact, it tells the stories of Greek life. The poet is very excited to know about the art of Grecian Urnwhether it is related to the valley of Arcady orTempe. He also wants to know about the pictures carved on it whether it is ofordinary people or Gods.He also wants to know about the lovers who are pursuing their beloved. 

Stanza--2

In the second stanza, the poet expresses his feelings about music. He says that the music we hear by our ears is very sweet but the music which we hear through our imagination is sweeter and stable. Our soul is also connected with it strongly. The poet further asks the magician carved on the Grecian Urn that they should continue their music.

Thus the poet feels silent joy by their silent sweet music. The poet says that the boy who plays the flute under a tree will never stop to play his flute and the tree will never shed its leaves. The lover who tries to kiss his beloved will try always to kiss her. Thus he will always love her. 

Stanza--3

In this stanza, the poet expresses his thought on the stability and permanence of ancient art and culture. He says that the trees carved on the urn will enjoy always the spring because they will never shed their leaves. The singer will never stop his singing and his song will always be melodious and fresh. And the love of lover towards his beloved will never change with time. 

Stanza--4

In this stanza, the poet describes another picture carved on the Urn. It is a picture of a number of people who are going to make the sacrifice of a calf on some green alter. A priest is also going to lead them. The soft sides of the calf are decorated with flowers. The poet says that the town or village of those people will be empty forever. 

There will be no one to tell the reason of emptiness of the village because nobody will come back. The poet wants to know about the town out of which the people have come. The poet is very curious to know whether the town is situated by a river or on the sea-shore, or it is built on a hilltop with a fort in its midst. According to the poet, art has made the life of those people immortal. 

Stanza--5

In the last stanza, the poet says that there are pictures of forest trees, trodden weeds, men and women carved on it. It is a beautiful piece of Greek art.according to the poet, the silent shape of the urn confuses our minds deeply. We are unable to understand the feelings expressed in the pictures of urn completely. We can not understand the real nature of eternity. 

Now Keats calls the urn'Cold Patoral'. It means that the poet wants to say that it is not a living thing. It is a piece of marble with rural scenes carved on it beautifully. According to the poet it will live in the midst of future generations and try to give them a message that beauty and truth are the same things. To understand this thought is enough for them to relief from their pain and suffering.  

                                                                                                                  

The popular poem "Ode on a Grecian Urn" was composed by John Keats in 1819. The poet was very much impressed after seeing the beautiful urn that was belonged toLord Holland. The beautiful artistic pictures were engraved on it. Thus the poet was very much inspired to compose this poem after seeing the beauty of urn. 

Keats is known as a great lover of Greek art and culture. As a result, the poet composed this beautiful ode on Grecian Urn. He calls the Grecian urn bride who is pure still. It is a symbol of quietness. There are many pictures of Greek culture and art engraved on it. There are young lovers who are following their beloved in the pictures. There is a picture of a boy who is playing the flute under the tree. A singer is also singing his sweet song under the tree.

The poet believes that the leaves of the tree where the singer is singing will never shed their leaves. Because they will always enjoy his songs. The is also a picture of a large number of people engraved on it. Those people are going to attend a religious ceremony. Therefore their village will be empty forever because they will never return to their village. Thus the poet is very much impressed to see the beautiful pictures ofmen, women, leaves trees and musician engraved on the Grecian Urn. 

Ode on a Grecian Urn...analysis 

Stanza--1

In the first stanza, the poet says that the Grecian Urn is as quiet as-pure bride. It is kept in one place for a number of years. It seems to the poet like a foster child of silence and time. It is standing very quietly at one place for many places. And time has passed so slowly that it can not destroy the beauty of Grecian Urn. 

It seems o the poet like ahistorian who tells the story of the past through his pictures engraved on it. In fact, it tells the stories of Greek life. The poet is very excited to know about the art of Grecian Urnwhether it is related to the valley of Arcady orTempe. He also wants to know about the pictures carved on it whether it is ofordinary people or Gods.He also wants to know about the lovers who are pursuing their beloved. 

Stanza--2

In the second stanza, the poet expresses his feelings about music. He says that the music we hear by our ears is very sweet but the music which we hear through our imagination is sweeter and stable. Our soul is also connected with it strongly. The poet further asks the magician carved on the Grecian Urn that they should continue their music.

Thus the poet feels silent joy by their silent sweet music. The poet says that the boy who plays the flute under a tree will never stop to play his flute and the tree will never shed its leaves. The lover who tries to kiss his beloved will try always to kiss her. Thus he will always love her. 

Stanza--3

In this stanza, the poet expresses his thought on the stability and permanence of ancient art and culture. He says that the trees carved on the urn will enjoy always the spring because they will never shed their leaves. The singer will never stop his singing and his song will always be melodious and fresh. And the love of lover towards his beloved will never change with time. 

Stanza--4

In this stanza, the poet describes another picture carved on the Urn. It is a picture of a number of people who are going to make the sacrifice of a calf on some green alter. A priest is also going to lead them. The soft sides of the calf are decorated with flowers. The poet says that the town or village of those people will be empty forever. 

There will be no one to tell the reason of emptiness of the village because nobody will come back. The poet wants to know about the town out of which the people have come. The poet is very curious to know whether the town is situated by a river or on the sea-shore, or it is built on a hilltop with a fort in its midst. According to the poet, art has made the life of those people immortal. 

Stanza--5

In the last stanza, the poet says that there are pictures of forest trees, trodden weeds, men and women carved on it. It is a beautiful piece of Greek art.according to the poet, the silent shape of the urn confuses our minds deeply. We are unable to understand the feelings expressed in the pictures of urn completely. We can not understand the real nature of eternity. 

Now Keats calls the urn'Cold Patoral'. It means that the poet wants to say that it is not a living thing. It is a piece of marble with rural scenes carved on it beautifully. According to the poet it will live in the midst of future generations and try to give them a message that beauty and truth are the same things. To understand this thought is enough for them to relief from their pain and suffering.  

Feminism

Feminism

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.
This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.
Feminism in Literature
Feminist literature, as the name suggests, is based on the principles of feminism, and refers to any literary work that centers on the struggle of a woman for equality, and to be accepted as a human being, before being cast into a gender stereotype. Not all these works follow a direct approach towards this goal of equality. It is only through such media that women believed a change was possible in the way they were perceived in society. Not all feminist literature has been written by women, but also by men who understood women beyond the roles they were expected to fit into, and delved into their psyche to understand their needs and desires. Some works may be fictional, while others may be non fictional. Here, we take a look into the characteristics of feminist literature, and give you a list of some of the many works of this genre that make for a good read if you truly desire to learn extensively about this form of writing and what it stood for.
Characteristics
Feminist literature is identified by the characteristics of the feminist movement. Authors of feminist literature are known to understand and explain the difference between sex and gender. They believe that though a person's sex is predetermined and natural, it is the gender that has been created by society, along with a particular perception about gender roles. Gender roles, they believe, can be altered over time. The predominance of one gender over the other, is a common concept across almost all societies, and the fact that it is not in favor of women is an underlying, yet blatant, characteristic of feminist or women's literature. Here, it is argued that any society that does not provide channels of learning and knowledge to both genders equally is not a complete and impartial society.
Critics argue that there wasn't much difference between male and female authors, and that there was no need to identify a separate class of literature termed as feminist or look for traces of feminism in literature. However, if you read any such work, you will realize how such writers criticized society's andocentric (male-centered) approach, and tried to understand the beliefs and needs of the opposite sex with a subjective, and not an objective, approach. Take for example Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. The protagonist, Elizabeth Bennett was a woman of her mind. Despite the societal pressure (put on her by her mother) to choose a partner, and to lead a life that was decided for all women, she decided to choose her own path towards what she wanted. And none of this was blatantly approached. She did not put an outward fight, in order to choose her life course. The entire piece of work is subtle, and the only clear characteristic of the protagonist you will notice is her assertiveness. And that is one clear characteristic of the feminist approach toward literature.
Women in literature of the feminist nature are always featured as the protagonist, who, more often than not, do not readily accept the traditional role of women as decided by society. They are ready to make their own decisions, to express this choice of personal decision-making, and are ready to deal with the consequences of these choices, actions, and decisions. Though a daughter, a mother, a sister, or a wife, any piece of feminist literature first deals with a woman as a woman. It is not these relationships, roles, or stereotypes that give these female characters in literature their identity. Their identity is defined by their choices and their beliefs which are then associated with these roles. It is important to note that not all works of feminist literature have happy endings, both for the character, and for the author of the work. Women have been ostracized by society for openly demanding equality, and have had to face several negative consequences of their decision to go against the waves.
Women have been treated as important subjects even in many literary works by men. For instance, Henrik Ibsen, a Norwegian author and playwright, often focused on women, women's issues, their troubles faced by society, and the decisions they made based on their personal values and beliefs. If you take a look at the play called 'A Doll's House', by this very same author, you will clearly notice the strength and character of the protagonist.
Not all, but some pieces of feminist literature (particularly non-fiction) showcase and stress on women's suffrage and a demand for equality in society, for political, social, and economic rights. In modern feminist literature, the attack on a male-dominated society became more forthright and straightforward, where women demanded a closer look into the patriarchal and capitalistic approach towards feminism.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte

Jane Eyre
            ----Charlotte Bronte
Ten-year-old orphan Jane Eyre lives unhappily with her wealthy relatives, the Reed family, at Gateshead. Resentful of the late Mr. Reed’s preference for her, Jane’s aunt and cousins take every opportunity to neglect and abuse her as a reminder of her inferior station. Jane’s only salvation from her daily humiliations is Bessie, the kindly servant who tells her stories and sings her songs. One day, Jane confronts her bullying cousin, John, and Mrs. Reed punishes her by imprisoning her in the “red-room,” the room in which her uncle died. Convinced that she sees her uncle’s ghost, Jane faints. When she awakes, Jane is being cared for the apothecary, Mr. Lloyd, who suggests that she be sent off to school. Mrs. Reed is happy to be rid of her troublesome charge and immediately sends Jane to the Lowood School, an institution fifty miles from Gateshead.

Jane soon discovers that life at the Lowood School is bleak, particularly because of the influence of the hypocritical headmaster, Mr. Brocklehurst, whose cruelty and evangelical self-righteousness results in poor conditions, inedible meals, and frequent punishments for the students. During an inspection of the school, Mr. Brocklehurst humiliates Jane by forcing to stand on a stool in the middle of the class and accusing her of being a liar. The beautiful superintendent, Miss Temple, believes in Jane’s innocence and writes to Mr. Lloyd for clarification of Jane’s nature. Although Jane continues to suffer privations in the austere environment, Miss Temple’s benevolence encourages her to devote herself to her studies.

While at Lowood, Jane also befriends Helen Burns, who upholds a doctrine of Christian forgiveness and tolerance. Helen is constantly mistreated by Miss Scratcherd, one of the more unpleasant teachers at the school, but maintains her passivity and “turns the other cheek.” Although Jane is unable to accept Helen’s doctrine completely – her passionate nature cannot allow her to endure mistreatment silently– Jane attempts to mirror Helen’s patience and calmness in her own character. During the spring, an outbreak of typhus fever ravages the school, and Helen dies of consumption in Jane’s arms. The deaths by typhus alert the benefactors to the school’s terrible conditions, and it is revealed that Mr. Brocklehurst has been embezzling school funds in order to provide for his own luxurious lifestyle. After Mr. Brocklehurst’s removal, Jane’s time at Lowood is spent more happily and she excels as a student for six years and as a teacher for two.

Despite her security at Lowood, Jane is dissatisfied and yearns for new adventures. She accepts a position as governess at Thornfield Manor and is responsible for teaching a vivacious French girl named Adèle. In addition to Adèle, Jane spends much of her time at Thornfield with Mrs. Fairfax, the elderly housekeeper who runs the estate during the master’s absence. Jane also begins to notice some mysterious happenings around Thornfield, including the master’s constant absence from home and the demonic laugh that Jane hears emanating from the third-story attic.

After much waiting, Jane finally meets her employer, Edward Rochester, a brooding, detached man who seems to have a dark past. Although Mr. Rochester is not handsome in the traditional sense, Jane feels an immediate attraction to him based on their intellectual communion. One night, Jane saves Mr. Rochester from a fire in his bedroom, which he blames on Grace Poole, a seamstress with a propensity for gin. Because Grace continues to work at Thornfield, Jane decides that Mr. Rochester has withheld some important information about the incident.

As the months go by, Jane finds herself falling more and more in love with Mr. Rochester, even after he tells her of his lustful liaison with Adèle’s mother. However, Jane becomes convinced that Mr. Rochester would never return her affection when he brings the beautiful Blanche Ingram to visit at Thornfield. Though Rochester flirts with the idea of marrying Miss Ingram, he is aware of her financial ambitions for marriage. During Miss Ingram’s visit, an old acquaintance of Rochester's, Richard Mason, also visits Thornfield and is severely injured from an attack - apparently by Grace - in the middle of the night in the attic. Jane, baffled by the circumstances, tends to him, and Rochester confesses to her that he made an error in the past that he hopes to overturn by marrying Miss Ingram. He says that he has another governess position for Jane lined up elsewhere.

Jane returns to Gateshead for a few weeks to see the dying Mrs. Reed. Mrs. Reed still resents Jane and refuses to apologize for mistreating her as a child; she also admits that she lied to Jane’s uncle, John Eyre, and told him that she had died during the typhus outbreak at Lowood. When Jane returns to Thornfield, Rochester tells her that he knows Miss Ingram’s true motivations for marriage, and he asks Jane to marry him. Jane accepts, but a month later, Mason and a solicitor, Mr. Briggs, interrupt the wedding ceremony by revealing that Rochester already has a wife: Mason's sister, Bertha, who is kept in the attic in Thornfield under the care of Grace Poole. Rochester confesses his past misdeeds to Jane. In his youth he needed to marry the wealthy Bertha for money, but was unaware of her family's history of madness. Despite his best efforts to help her, Bertha eventually descended into a state of complete madness that only her imprisonment could control. Jane still loves Mr. Rochester, but she cannot allow herself to become his mistress: she leaves Thornfield.

Penniless and devastated by Mr. Rochester’s revelations, Jane is reduced to begging for food and sleeping outdoors. Fortunately, the Rivers siblings, St. John (pronounced “Sinjin”), Diana, and Mary, take her into their home at Moor House and help her to regain her strength. Jane becomes close friends with the family, and quickly develops a great affection for the ladies. Although the stoically religious St. John is difficult to approach, he finds Jane a position working as a teacher at a school in Morton. One day, Jane learns that she has inherited a vast fortune of 20,000 pounds from her uncle, John Eyre. Even more surprising, Jane discovers that the Rivers siblings are actually her cousins. Jane immediately decides to share her newfound wealth with her relatives.

St. John is going to go on missionary work in India and repeatedly asks Jane to accompany him as his wife. She refuses, since it would mean compromising her capacity for passion in a loveless marriage. Instead, she is drawn to thoughts of Mr. Rochester and, one day, after experiencing a mystical connection with him, seeks him out at Thornfield. She discovers that the estate has been burned down by Bertha, who died in the fire, and that Mr. Rochester, who lost his eyesight and one of his hands in the fire, lives at the nearby estate of Ferndean. He is overjoyed when she locates him, and relates his side of the mystical connection that Jane had. He and Jane soon marry. At the end of the novel, Jane informs the readers that she and Mr. Rochester have been married for ten years, and Mr. Rochester regained sight in one of his eyes in time to see the birth of his first son.

Oedipus Rex

Oedipus Rex

Oedipus Rex is a very rich and complex play. It can be interpret in different ways, such as Irony of fate, Pride and arrogance leads to disaster and ruin, wisdom comes through sufferings, an honest search for the truth, limitations of man’s powers, innocent always suffers, humility and reverence for the gods, Moderation is best but not extremity, blindness, knowledge, nothingness and etc.
The first theme of the play may be defined as ‘Irony Of Fate’. In the fate of Jocasta, Laius and Oedipus two events (immutable) were ordained that the son would kill his father and marry his own mother. ‘Irony Of Fate’ works in such a way that all the efforts of these characters to avoid and stop such a horrible and cruel fate could not work and just the opposite occurs. Sophocles wants to make us realize that life is full of complexities and uncertainties. We deceive ourselves when we say or even think that we can overcome it or control it, these are all human judgments. We cannot introduce changes in life. We have to suffer the things, which have already been written in our fates. We have to accept life as it comes to us; complete submission of ours is necessarily necessary on our behalf. The notion that we can overcome it, is a weak human judgment which leads to pride and ultimately to disaster, ruin and doom, which is another theme of the play. Oedipus’ personality was flawed by excessive pride and arrogance. His pride is very clear in his conversation with Teiresias. He asks Teiresias, where were you when a monster Sphinx was prevailing over the city of Thebes and Thebans were asking for help; why couldn’t you solve the riddle and freed the Thebans from the clutches of that monster Sphinx. The solution of the riddle brought disaster with itself for Oedipus. Oedipus’s overcame of Sphinx and solution of riddle, are symbols of practical wisdom or acquired wisdom, while true wisdom comes through sufferings. At first King Oedipus, like King Lear refuses to learn the lesson or to pass through that process which leads to the light of wisdom but after, life forced him and thrusted him to pass through that process which is aching and tragic. Oedipus’ murder of his father and marriage with his own mother are acts of gods or fate but his act of blinding himself is a process of free will. Now Oedipus is having insight and is far much better, humble than that of the Oedipus who was a rash one. His tragedy has sublimates his life after this refinement, he will completely be able to understand the complexities of life.
Another striking theme for the play may be “ An honest search for the Truth”. We have seen in the play that all the time Oedipus is searching for the truth. Sometimes it is much better to leave the search for truth, as it may be devastating as in case of Oedipus. Most of the time people don’t have the power to face the reality but Oedipus is an exceptional case. He was investigating and searching for the murderer of Laius while he himself was a murderer. Had he been left the search for truth, there would have been not tragedy at all, but the truth was doomed to come out. For the health of the city, it has to be brought back again. We can feel that Oedipus is innocent one. Whatsoever has happened and committed by him, that was all preordained. His act of murder of his father and marry with his own mother was according to the wish of god Apollo. It was all predestined, but we should not forget that he was all ignorant of the facts. According to Greek legend, no deed is shameful which the gods direct. Inspite all of his ignorance and innocence Oedipus has to suffer the tragedy of his life or simply we can say innocents are always subjected to suffer.
While reading Oedipus Rex, we feel a notion, which comes in our mind again and again that man is limited in his powers. He cannot do whatsoever he likes to do. He has to remain with in a limit. This world is guided by gods and divine laws to maintain order and balance in it. As Jocasta and Laius tried to thwart their fates by giving orders of Oedipus’ death and Oedipus’ departure from Corinth to avoid the fatal and cruel happenings of killing his father and marrying his mother, but they could not succeed. They were common human beings, but they tried to become super human beings or gods. Life’s precariousness, for good fortune is transient, no one is perfect other wise he would be by definition, a god. Man cannot grasp the purpose of gods. Divine aims are inscrutable many often over-whelmed the innocents in sufferings. Man with his limitations and kindness must accept the universe as moral and wisely guided by the gods. So we can say it is for a man in his greatness to accept his limitations.
When Jocasta finds Oedipus worried about the oracle, she says, oracles are nothing to believe in. she says that she had a son, and there was an oracle about him that he would kill his father and marry his mother. We (Jocasta & Laius) let him died on the mount Grthaeron – Laius has murdered by some highwaymen but not by our son, and now I am your wife not his (the dead one). It shows as she is mocking the oracle as well as gods. At the next moment when she prays for the peace of mind of her husband, a messenger from Corinth comes and tells about the death of King Polybus, at the same time he tells Oedipus about his natural parenthood that he is not the son of King Polybus and Queen Merope, as they only have brought him up. This information brings disaster in the lives of both Jocasta and Oedipus. It appears as gods have punished Jocasta for her mocking behavior towards them and making fun of them. It shows that humility and reverence for gods is very necessary, which can be another interpretation of the play.
Another important theme is the difference between appearance and reality. As Oedipus gives reasons on apparent facts and there is harshness intrusting to the realities.
In a nutshell we can say that life is indeed wonderful, but it can be brutally cruel. Arrogance and pride lead to disaster. But even the highest moral greatness and brilliant intellect cannot prevail. If there is cruelty in the universe, this is not entirely due to accident or chance but is divinely guided. The best principle of life is to practice moderation, self-distrust, reverence and humility. There is retribution for sin and guilt but there is suffering for innocents. Evil is indeed always inexplicable. Life is full of uncertainty, but the man must maintain a heroic stance throughout because the universe is rational and ordered. The central lesson is of wisdom through sufferings. Man’s fate to maintain dignity, proportion humility and self-discipline despite the complexities of life and the inevitable suffering of man.
Character and fate In Oedipus rex
‘Oracles only predict the future or compel the king to act in certain manner’

Greek tragedy is generally believed to be tragedy of fate, in contrast with Shakespearean tragedy, which is regarded as tragedy of character. Whether or not this is true of other Greek tragedies, it is inapplicable to “Oedipus Rex”. At the most we can say that both character and fate or god, play a part in the tragedy of Oedipus. Oedipus is certainly the victim of adverse chances and in this sense fate plays a part in his tragedy.
King Laius was told by the oracles that his son by Jocasta would kill him and would marry his mother. King Laius and Queen Jocasta took the extreme step of ordering the death of their own child, in order to escape the fate which had been foretold by the oracles, but in vain. In the same way when Oedipus learnt about the prophecies made by the oracle, he too did his utmost to avert his terrible fate. He fled from Corinth, determined, never again to set eyes on his supposed father and mother as long as they lived. On his way, he killed his real father quite unknowingly. He reached Thebes where people were in the grip of frightful monster. He killed the Sphinx and the people of Thebes made him their king in reward. The queen went with the throne. Thus, in complete ignorance of the identity of both his parents, he killed his father and married his mother. He performed these disastrous acts not only unknowingly and unintentionally, but also as a direct result of his efforts to escape the cruel fate, which the oracle at Delphi had communicated to him.
It is evident, then, the occurrences which bring about the tragedy in the life of Laius, Oedipus and Jocasta are the work of that mysterious supernatural power which may be called fate or destiny or be given the name Apollo. This supernatural power had pre-determined certain catastrophic events in the life of these people. These human beings take whatever measures they can think of, to avert those events and yet things turn out exactly as they had been foretold by the oracles.
As Aristotle expressed the view that tragic hero is a man highly esteemed and prosperous who falls into misfortune because of some hamartia. Now, there can be no doubt at all about the essential goodness of Oedipus. From the opening scene of play, we get the feeling that Oedipus is an ideal king. He is an able ruler, a father of his people, a great administrator and an outstanding intellectual. His chief care is not for himself but for the people of the estate.
Poor children! You may by sure I know
All that you longed for in your coming here.
I know that you are deathly sick; and yet,
Sick as you are, not one is as sick as I
Each of you suffers in himself alone
His anguish, not another’s; but my spirit
Groans for the city, for myself, for you.

Oedipus is not, however, a perfect man or even a perfect king. He does suffer from hamartia which makes him liable to incur the wrath of gods. He is a hot-tempered, rash, hasty in forming judgments, arbitrary even confident and excessively proud of his genius. He is a relentless seeker of truth. All this shows that Oedipus is not a man of flawless character. His pride in his own wisdom is one of his glaring faults. No seer or prophet found the solution of the riddle; this is Oedipus’ boast.
When that hellcat the Sphinx was performing here,
What help were you to these people?
-----------------------------------------------
But I came by,
Oedipus, the simple man, who knows nothing--
I thought it for myself, no birds helped me!

Pride and self-confidence induce him to feel almost superior to gods. These defects constitute a tragic flaw in his character, which has been given the name of hamartia.
The connection between these defects of character in Oedipus and the sad fate he meets, is quite evident. It may be said that if he had not been hot tempered, he might not have got entangled in a fight on the road and thus have not been guilty of murdering his father. Similarly if he had been a little more cautious, he might have hesitated to marry a woman old enough to be his mother. After all there was no compulsion either in the fight that he picked up during his journey or in the act of his marriage with Jocasta. Thus both these crimes may be attributed to his own defects of character, though he did so quite unknowingly. But at the same time it has to be recognized that the pronouncement of the oracles were after all inescapable. What was foretold by the oracles must inevitably happen.
If Oedipus is the innocent victim of a doom which he can not avoid, he would appear to be a mere puppet. The whole tragedy in that case becomes a tragedy of destiny which denies human freedom. But such a view would be unsound. Sophocles does not want to regard “Oedipus Rex” as a puppet; there are certain reasons to believe that Oedipus had been portrayed as a free agent, though some of his actions are fate bound. For example his condemnation of Teiresias and Creon, his conversation with Jocasta leading him to reveal the facts of his life to her and to his learning from her the circumstances of the death of Laius, his pursuing his investigating despite the efforts of Jocasta and the shepherd to stop him and so on.
Oedipus is a relentless seeker of truth. He was determined to solve the problem of his parentage and to discover the truth. The real tragedy lies in this discovery. If he had not discovered the truth, there would hardly have been any tragedy. The intermediate cause of his ruin is therefore not fate or gods nor oracle said that he must discover the truth. The cause of tragedy lies in his own weakness. His self-blinding and self-banishment are equally free acts of choice which is also a major tragedy.
So to sum up, we can say that in the most tragic events of Oedipus life- father’s murder and marriage with his own mother, the role of fate cannot be denied. But the discovery of truth is the result of the compulsions of his own nature. The real tragedy lies in it. But the parricide and incest were pre-ordained and for these fate is responsible.
The Role of Chorus

In Sophocles’ drama “Oedipus Rex” the Chorus is used as a technique to intensify emotions and accentuate events in the drama.
As translator Paul Roche expressing in his introduction to this drama,
The Chorus is used to connect happenings between the players and the audience. The Chorus which is a group of Theban elders, comments on experience in a tragic drama and its progressions, thus intensifying emotions stirred up in the audience/readers.
Roche claims that the choruses are,
Swift, energetic and moving but they are not easy.
Chorus is also used to speed up the play. It helps the writer to convey the audience, the message that cannot be dramatized e.g. the fight between the gods.
It is also a kind of prediction. It is just like guide for the hero as well and, we find that Greek society depends much on poetical style, chorus helps to fulfill the requirement. According to Aristotle,
The main function of the poetry is to harmonize the feelings and passion of man, which chorus satisfied them fully.
It is also said that chorus is a “Neutral commentator” infact, in almost all the plays, the chorus has a very definite stance, start and identity. In this sense they are vital dramatic tool for the dramatist, switching their sympathies between the principal actors and their viewpoint from that of the characters to that of the audiences. They thus mediate the dramatic experience, focus the audience’s response and introduce a symbolic and ritualistic element.
Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex was perhaps the finest addition to the long dynasty of Greek tragedies most notably the way in which the tragic protagonist act out their defiance of the limits subscribed by the gods for man, while the chorus expresses the fears, hopes and judgment of the polity, the average citizen. According to Aristotle’s theory of tragedy,
The function of the chorus is to comment on the action and sometimes to narrate events.
The major role in Oedipus of the chorus as previously outlined is that of commentary. The chorus clarifies the situation to the audience in a way that enables the audience to fully comprehend the native and general ebb and flow of the plot. For example when at the end of the play, when Creon’s final words have been uttered, the chorus comments on the fate of Oedipus by saying,
From hence the lesson learn ye, to reckon no man happy till ye witness the closing day.”
Here we can see the role of commenting on the action in giving the subsequent verdict of history. The chorus comments on the plot lucidly, enabling us to reach a greater understanding of the play and the philosophical values it subscribed to. Thus it could be argued that it increases our satisfaction and feeling that we have learnt something above and beyond the mere narrative plot.
In addition to this the chorus also has a significant past to play in the expression of the fear and hopes of the populace. An example of this fear shown on the first entrance of the chorus, before the horrific reality as yet known:
I faint for fear, through all my soul, I quiver in suspense, In brooding dread, what doom of present growth, Or as the months roll on, thy hand will work:”
Before the audience would have come to see the play, in the past and the present, they would have known something of what is arguably the most infamous tales in history. The emphasis on the development of not only the conscious but also the subconscious irony in Oedipus adds to its effect on the audience. The chorus through echoing the thoughts of the populace, as demonstrated here, is of paramount importance in its development.
Another role that chorus was given by Sophocles was to heighten the tragic nature, the tension and the overall effect of the play. Throughout many areas in the play we can see the chorus emphasizing certain points that bear real significance in the play. The previous example certain many references to this by emphasizing the futility of the resistance to the omnipotent gods, the chorus heightens the tragic credentials of the play. By also concentrating the plot on a single interest it also again confirms to the theoretical nature of the Greek tragedies.
The chorus intrinsic as the hightener and emphasizes of the tragedy also extends into the other realm of tragic theory. The chorus has a great importance in the structure of Greek tragedy. Infact a Greek tragedy is constructed with reference to the chorus. The ‘Prologue’ is the one, which proceeds the first entry of the chorus, next to it, comes the paradose, which is the song by the chorus as it enters the stage. The action of the play itself is separated by past or episodes or by the songs of the chorus.
It must be understood that from the time of the first entry upto the conclusion of the play the chorus never left the place. Even between the conversation of Queen and King, chorus was there. The chorus never takes a hand in the play but short of this; it contributes to the action of the play in several ways. The Sophoclian chorus is generally a past and paved of the play. This is especially true in Oedipus Rex. As a critic observes: “The chorus in Sophocles play is blended so artistically with the other portions that it adds to the beauty of the whole, without impairing the tragic interest”.
The chorus also helps to add continuity to the plot. When in between individual scenes, an actor needed to change costume, the brief interlude provided by the chorus would help to insure the fluency of the action. By entering and commenting lucidly upon the action and offering new insights the play becomes arguably less erratic and less disjointed.
Another role that has been given to the audience is to question the characters. This help to reveal more about them, and possibly pose the same question that we would want to ask the characters. When the messenger burst onto the stage with the news that “our sacred Queen Jocastas dead,” the immediate reaction of audience is to want to know more. The action of the chorus by posing the obvious question of “How & Why?” increases the rate of movement, as facilitates the plausibility of the plot by allowing Oedipus to offstage mutilating himself.
Anyhow Sophocles proves most successful to plant chorus in the play with some intervals.
The scheme and introduction of the chorus is quite upto the mark and the mood of the chorus also changes with the change in the play. We find the chorus much stronger until the play reaches the peak and as soon as truth about real parentage of Oedipus is exposed, the play comes to a faster end and the chorus at the last concludes the story of the play. Had there been no chorus, the whole plot will never be organized and it would be rather a clumsy package of various episodes.
To sum up we can say, this is only the chorus, which keeps the play light, strong and helps the viewers/readers in maintaining the interest from beginning to the end.