Historical and Biographycal Approach

To evaluate my assignment, click here

TOPIC: Historical and Biographycal Approach

NAME: Ami Sojitra

SOURCE: The Renaissance Literature

SUBMITTED TO: DR.DILIP BARAD

                            Department of

English(MKBU)

Class: M. A. Semester 1

EMAIL-ID: amisojitra23@gmail.com

ROLL NO: 34

ENROLMENT NO: PG15101034

Historical & Biographical Approach in study Hamlet

Introduction:-

          “Hamlet is known as master piece of William Shakespeare. It was written in 1600-1601. Its become very famous in Elizabethan age. He has broken all the rules of play in Hamlet.”

                                          “Other work of human mind

                                          Equal “Hamlet”: none surpasses

                                         It. There is in it all

                                        The majesty of a manumit”.

While we study the plat we come to know if we look at the various way we find, the play has various quality and its always looks differs from other. We find that all the character of the play have their own tragic flow which derived their end.

          When we study any book as a student of literature, We should study with various approaches. Like;

·       TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

·       GENRE STUDY

·       HISTORICAL & BIOGRAPHICAL APPROACH

·       MORAL-` & PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH

·       PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH

·       MYTHOLOGICAL APPROACH

·       FEMINISM & GENDER STUDIES

·       CULTURAL STUDIES

·       FORMALIST APPROACH ETC.

These are the various ways to look at the way study it. Because when we give the title as “master work” it have to prove many quality and pass from many tests.

Here we will study about “HISTORICAL & BIOGRAPHICAL APPROACH” so let’s discuss about it in detail.

Historical & Biographical Approach :-

When we study Hamlet we study with historical and Biographical approach. We find that there also a history behind that play. Not only the Gesta Danorus” is source of he play But we should also know the issues of that time when Shakespeare has written the plat. It will doubtless surprise many students to know that Hamlet is considered by some commentators to be optical and auto bio-graphical in certain places.

          Queen Elizabeth was rule over in that time. In view of Queen’s advantaged age and poor health- hence the precious state of succeed of the British crown. Inspire Shakespeare to write Hamlet.

          There is some ground for thinking that Ophelia’s famous characterization of Hamlet may be intended to suggest the Earl of Essex. Elizabethan was also in love with some which of Elizabethan Era.

Essex, formerly Elizabeth’s favorite, who had incurred her seven displeasure and been tried for treason and executed:

          “The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s Eye, tongue,

                               Sword

          The expectancy and rose of The fair. State..

          The glass of fashion and The mould of form,

          The observation of all observers…”

Also something of Essex may be seen in Claudius’s observation in madness of Hamlet and his popularity with the masses;

          “How dangerous it is that this man goes loose!

          Yet must we not put the strong low in him

          He’s loved of the distracted multitude

          Who like not in their judgment but their eyes…

          And where is so, the offender’s scourge is weighed,

          But never the offence.”

          The other character of play is also someone we find n history. Because the another contemporary historical figure, the lord treasurer, Burghley, has been seen in character of Polonius. This character have also some characterized if that lord may be Shakespeare has heard somewhere about his patron, the young Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, express contempt for Elizabeth’s old lord Treasurer; indeed, this was the way many of the gallants of Southampton’s generation felt.

          Burghley possessed most of the short coming Shakespeare gave to Polonius; he was boring, medalling, and given to wise old adages and shrewd precepts for his son Cecil. Even he has described sppy system that kept him in termed about both friend and enemy. Polonius has also same characteristics as he has.

          Polonius is assigning Reynaldo’s to spy in Laertes in Paris. This side of character of Burghley’s was so well known that it might be dangerous for Shakespeare at portrays it on stage while the old man was alive, he was died in 1598. So Shakespeare has written about him or presented his character as Polonius in Hamlet.

          It was the time where if the person doesn’t know anything about play is playing or judges it. Shakespeare has also made satire and them in Hamlet. His opinion about the revival of the private theatre, which would employ little children and which would constituted a rival foe the adult companies of public theatre which is also not good for society. Shakespeare has also written about this.

          It is also reassemble to assume the Hamlet’s instructions to the players is satire on people which contains Shakespeare’s criticisms of contemporary acting, as Polonius’s description of the players abilities is his satire in dull people who profess preference for rigidity classified genre. Scholars have also pointed out Shakespeare’s have comment of other characters of the time.

          All the character have their own ability as described by Shakespeare:0

·       Rosencrantz and Guiblenstan – the boot licking courtiers,

·       Alerts and Fortinbras – men of action

·       Horatio – the “true Roman” friend

·       Ophelia – the “courtly love heroine

When we study the play we find the death of king Hamlet, war of prince of Norway. Even such a political issues were also described there. If we look at the historical way we might be expected to ask,

          “What do we need to

          Know about eleventh century

          Danish court life of about

          Elizabethan England to understand this play?”

This type of questions may be raised in our mind relevant to the traditional interpretive approach to any lathery work. But they are particularly germane to analysis of Hamlet.

                Even one more thing, most contemporary American students, Largely unacquainted with the convection let alone the subtleties, of monarchical succession. Wonder why Hamlet does not automatically succeed to the throne after the death of his father. He is not just elder son but he was only son. Such students need to know that in Hamlet’s day the Danish throne was elective one. The royal council, composed of most powerful nobles on the land, named the next king. The custom of the throne’s descending to the oldest son of the late monarch had not yet crystallized in to law.

                   J. Dover Wilson maintains that it is not necessary to know it for understanding Hamlet, because Shakespeare intended his audience to think of the entire situations-characters, customs, and plot- as English.Which he used to do in his most of the plays,even though they were set in other countries. Wilson’s theory is based upon the Elizabethan audience could have but little interest in peculiarities of Danish Government, whereas the problem of royal succession, usurpation, and potential revolution in a contemporary English context could be paramount concern. 

                  He thus asserts that Shakespeare’s audience convinced Hamlet to be  the lawful heir to his father and Claudius usurper and usurpation to be one of the main factors in the play. Important to both Hamlet and Claudius. Whereas one accepts Wilson’s theory or not, it is certain that Hamlet thought of Claudius as usurper, for he described him to Gertrude as;

                       ‘A couple of empire and the rule,

                     That from a shelf the precious diadem stole

                          And put it in his pocket’

                         And to Horatio as one said;

                       ‘That hath killed my king and whored my mother,

                       Hopped in between th’ election and my hopes …‘

                  This suggest the situation of Hamlet. Modern students are also likely to be confused by the charge against the Queen. In modern time it happens that lady can marry brother of her late husband in many civil and religion codes, it was so considered in Shakespeare’s day. Some dispensation or legal loophole must have accounted for the popular acceptance of Gertrude’s marriage to Claudius. That Hamlet considered the union incestuous, however, can’t be emphasized too much, for it this repugnant character of Gertrude’s sin, perhaps more than any other factor that plunges Hamlet in to the melancholy of which he was victim.

                  It is necessary to know that “melancholy” was to Elizabethan and to what extent it is important in understanding the play. A. C. Bradley tell us that:

                             “It meant to Elizabethans a condition of mind

                              Characterized by nervous instability, rapid and

                              Extreme change of feeling and mood, and the

                              Disposition to be for the time absorbed in dominant

                              Feeling or mood, whether joyous or depressed…..”

              If Hamlet’s action and speeches are examined closely, they seem to indicate symptoms of disease. He is by turns cynical, idealistic, hyperactive, lethargic, averse to evil, disgusted at his uncle’s drunkenness and his mother’s sensibility, and convinced that he is rotten with sin.

                Here we see realize that at least part of Hamlet’s problem is that he is victim of extreme melancholy. One additional fact about revenge may be noted. When Claudius ask Laertes to what length he would go to avenge his Father’s death, Laertes answer that he would ’cut throat I’ th’ church’. It is probably no accident that Laertes is so specific about the method by which he would willingly kill Hamlet. In Shakespeare’s day it was popularity believe that repentance had to be vocal to be effective. By cutting Hamlet’s throat presumably before he could confess his sin, Laertes would deprive Hamlet of his technical channel of grace. Thus Laertes would destroys both soul of Hamlet and his body and would risk his own soul, a horrifying illustration of the measure of his hatred. Claudius’s rejoinder:-

                         “No place indeed should sanctuaries;

                            Revenge should have no bounds”

             Indicates the disparate state of the king’s soul. He is condoning murder in church, traditionally a heaven of refuge, protection, and legal immunity for murder

CONCLUSION:-

Elizabethan audience were well acquainted with these connection. The concept is not only derive from other source but also from some live character or most Famous mentality of people of that time is also become source for write Hamlet for Shakespeare. As student of criticism while we look at Hamlet with Biographical and Historical approach we find these things.
To evaluate my assignment, click here

My Presentation

to evaluate my presentation click here
1) The Renaissance Literature
Fall of Dr. Faustus

Fall of Dr.faustus from amisojitra


to evaluate my presentation click here
2)Literary Theory and Criticism
CRITICAL RECEPTION ON LYRICAL BALLAD

CRITICAL RECEPTION ON LYRICAL BALLAD p 3 from amisojitra


to evaluate my presentation click here
3)The Neo-classical Literature
COMPARISON BETWEEN TOM JONES AND GREAT EXPECTATION

Comparison between tom jones and great expectation p 2 from amisojitra


to evaluate my presentation click here
4)Indian Writing In English
The movement of Independence and it's reflection on Indian Literature

Freedom fighting movement of india and it's effect on literature p 4 from amisojitra

social issues represented in works of Mulk Raj Anand

To evaluate my assignment click here

NAME: Ami Sojitra

COURSE: Indian writing in English

TOPIC: social issues represented in     works of Mulk Raj Anand

SUBMITTED TO: Department of English (MKBU)

ENROLMENT NO: PG15101034

Social issues represented in work of MULK RAJ ANAND

INTRODUCTION:-

             There are many Indian writers who have written about social issues of India. Mulk raj Anand, R. K. Narayan, Raja Rao etc. has written in English. Mulk Raj Anand is also one of the famous writer of Indian English Writing.  He has focus on the burning problems of pre-independent Indian society. Anand’s ‘Untouchable’  is a Sociological document that focuses attention through a sweeperboy, Bakha, on a number of customs, traditions, social-evils, etc. Indian society during 1930’s.

         The most Significant event in the history of Indian English fiction in the 1930’s was the appearance on the scene of its major trio: Mulk Raj Anand, R.K.Narayan and Raja Rao. The deal with the Indian social issues, in one way or another.

          Anand’s first three novels –

·         ‘Untouchable’ (1935),

·         ‘Coolie’ (1936) and

·         ‘Two Leaves and a Bud’ (1937)

 Deal with the Indian Social issues in Pre-independent India. Anand turns to the lot of class of the under-privileged, the down-trodden and the outcasts.

         Anand’s fiction has been shaped by what he calls, “The double burden on my shoulders, the AIPs of the European tradition and the Himalaya of my Indian past” 

        To his Indian past, Anand’s attitude is ambivalent. As M. K. Naik writes :- “On the one hand, he is indignantly critical of  dead wood of hoary Indian tradition – Its obscurantism, and fossilization; On the other, as his life-long interest in ancient Indian art and the intuitive understanding of the Indian peasant mind, in his writings indicate he is equally aware of its inner and enduring aspects as well”

       There is  no question that Mulk Raj Anand has fashioned with ‘Untouchable’ and ‘Coolie’, the novels that fluent the abuses of an exploited class an untouchable in ‘Untouchable’,  Munno in ‘Coolie’ is indeed the ‘Fiery voice’ of those people who form the untouchable caste and child-labor like Munno. The time 1930’s was the seed-time of modern Independent India - a packed decade indeed when Raja Rao wrote: ‘Kanthapura’ and Anand respond to the impact of events in India. He wrote for the poor and as a man of the people.

       In writing of the bottom dogs rather than of the choose and the sophisticated, he had ventured into field that had been largely ignored by the Indian writers.

·         Bankim Chandra’s novels were but romances,

·         Tagore was chiefly interested in the upper and middle classes, and

·         Sarat Chandra in the lower-middle classes; and

·         Munshi Pramchand chose his themes from the peasantry and humble folk of Uttar Pradesh.

 None of them cared to produce realistic and naturalistic fiction . K.R. Srinivasa Iyenger writer about the themes of Mulk Raj Anand :-

                              “It was Anand’s aim to stray lower still than ever Sarat

                               Chandra or Premchand, to show to the west that there

                              Was more in the Orient than could be inferred from Omar

                            Khayyam, Tagore or Kipling, and so he described a waif like

                             Munno in ‘Coolie’ and untouchable like Bakha, and indentured

                            Laborer like Gangu and set them right at the centre of the

                            Scheme of cruelty and exploitation that India held in its vicious grip”

   Thus, When Anand started writing fiction, he decided to prefer the familiar to the fancied, that he would avoid the romance and sophistication but explore the bylines of the outcastes and the peasants, the spays and the working people. To Anand it was no laborious exercise, rather it was merely the easier and more natural way; he was himself of the workers and he wrote in a brisk unselfconscious way about what he had seen at first hand in the years of his childhood, boyhood and youth.

‘Untouchable’ (1935)

There is no question that Mulk Raj Anand has fashioned with ‘Untouchable’, a novel that articulates the abuses of an exploited class. He is indeed the ‘Fiery Voice’ of those people who form the untouchable caste. Anand’s father was a subedar  in Army and Anand, as a child mixed freely with the children of the sweepers, attached to his father’s regiment, and such associations cutting across caste divisions, and continued during his boyhood and youth. These early playmates and friends became the heroes of his first novels. Recalling the occasion of writing the ‘Untouchable’, Anand Writes,

                 “One day I read an article by Gandhiji describing 

                  How he met Uka, a Sweeper boy, finding him with  

                 Torn clothes and hungry, he took him into his Ashram”

            At that time, living in Bloomsbury, England , Anand wrote to Gandhiji seeking an appointment and met Gandhiji at Sabarmati Ashram. Gandhiji read Anand’s draft-novel and  finally the novel was published in 1935.The novel depicts a day in the life of Bakha, a Sweeper-boy, and brings out the impact on him of the various events which take place, by giving us his ‘Stream of Consciousness’, in the manner of James Joyce and Virginia Woolf. He is eighteen year old son of Jamadar, Lakha who gets a pair of breeches from an English soldier, and tries to be in ‘fassun’. But as the day begins, his work of toilet-cleaning begins. He is steady and efficient in his work. His sister Sohini goes to village-well to fetch water; Kalinath, the village priest of the temple draws water to fill Sohini pail, and feels attracted to her beautiful body, and driving away the others suggests her to go to his house later in the day to clean the courtyard. When she goes to his house, he makes improper suggestions to her, and she starts screaming, he shouts ‘polluted, polluted’, and a crowd of people gather.

             Bakha reaches at that spot,  a caste Hindu whom he touched by chance, and finds Sohini standing with her face-downward, attacked by caste Hindus who sided with Kalinath. He get the situation, back with anger but remembering the thousands-year old slavery, controlled himself. Sending away Sohini, goes to collect food from door to door at that time people throw bread as he was a dog. When he returns home, he tells his father,

                                       “They think we are mere dirt because we clean their dirt”

          Once he  carries the child in his arms who was inured, but the child’s mother, instead of thanking Bakha rebukes and abuses him for having polluted her child :-

                                   “Oh ! you eater of your masters what have you done?

                                     Give me my child. You have defiled the house,

                                      besides wounding my son”

         Than Bakha meets col. Hutchinson, the Christian, missionary, who takes him home quite lovingly and teaches him about Jesus Christ. Then Bakha goes to the ‘Gole Maidan’ and hears the speech of Gandhiji, who talks about social reforms as solution to the menace of untouchability he was encouraged by the soothing words of Gandhi. M. K. Naik writes about the concluding part of the novel:-

                         “In the end it suggests three alternative solutions to his problem: - a

                         Missionary tries to persuade him to embrace Christianity; he listens to

                         Gandhiji who advocates social reform; and he also hears of mechanized

                         Sanitation, as the only answer possible.”

         ‘Untouchable’ is a sociological document which focus  on a number of customs, traditions, social evils etc. of Hindu Society during 1930’s.  The untouchables were not only poor, ill-fed, ill-clothed but also sick and diseased. Thus, Bakha’s mother died because of lack of treatment, and his father was asthmatic. They were also used to be subjected to great hardships by the callous caste Hindus.

        They could not draw water from the village-well. Sohini, Gulabo and other women had to wait for hours for a pitcher of water. They had to depend upon them for their daily food. According to custom, when Bakha or any other untouchable walked through the bazaar, he had to cry around ‘posh, posh, sweeper coming’. Ever the shadow of an untouchable should not fall on caste Hindu. A pinch of irony makes the theme more effective.

         M. K. Naik writes about it :- “ ’Untouchable’ is a scathing indictment of Hindu Society and irony is the weapon of this indictment”

The caste Hindu people keep themselves away even from the shadow of he untouchable, but of all persons, the priest Kali Nath treats Sohini like a Juice morsel of girlhood to be molested with impunity. It is also ironical that shunned by the caste-Hindus, Bakha gets help and sympathy from Muslims, Christians and sub-caste people like washer man’s son and Charat Singh.  In his preface to the book, E.M. Forester wrote:-

                                “The book seems to me indescribably clean….

                              It has gone straight to the heart of its subject and purified it”

 Coolie:-

            ‘Coolie’ is epical in sweep and panorama in purview, pictures the effects that the pervasive evil of class-system has on a poor hill-boy, Munno. The novel is remarkable for the largeness of its canvas, the multiplicity of its characters, and the variety of its episodes. ‘Coolie’ is odyssey of Munno, an orphaned village-boy live on Kangra hills, who sets out in a search of livelihood. His several roles including those of a domestic servant, a coolie, a factory-worker and a rickshaw-puller, take him to various places from Bombay to Simla, until swift tuberculosis brings his struggle to an untimely death

            ‘Coolie’ is visible India, that amalgamation of the horrible and the holy, the inhuman and the human, the sordid and the beautiful. The general effect is panoramic; good and evil being thrown together as in actual life. Munno as orphan was left to be brought up by his cruel uncle and aunt. Munno’s cruel aunt keeps beating, abusing and scolding because Munno causes financial burden upon the family. His uncle decides to send him to Shamnagar to appoint him as a domestic servant in Nathuram’s house. At Shamnagar, due to his impish curiosity and juvenile buoyant spirit often put him to trouble. Due to the class distinction Munno has no right to join in the merrymaking of little girl, Sheila and her friends. He cannot eat from a plate as his social superiors do. His sitting for toilet in the open, breaking crockery caused for him a lot of scolding and beating. Munoo comes to the conclusion:-

                    “There are two kinds of people in the world; the rich and the poor”

             His experiences as a coolie in the grain market, and vegetable market are most depressing and disappointing. The pictures of coolies lying huddled at night because they do not have enough accommodation and their hectic search for work during day time show the multitudes of unemployed had to undergo in those days. Escaping from Daulatpur Munoo reaches Bombay with the help of an elephant driver, with a piece of advice :-

                       “The bigger a city is, the more cruel it is to

                       The sons of Adam. You have to pay even for

                       The breath that you breathe”

 Bombay, far from Munno’s dreams proves nightmare. He is disillusioned at the first contact with reality. At the corner of a footpath Munno sees a Coolie lying huddled:-“pillowing his head on his arm, shrinking into himself, as if he were afraid to occupy too much space”

             The bodies of numberless lay strewn in tattered garbs, in a sleep which looked like death.

             At Bombay, the cotton factory where Munno comes to work is nothing but another version of hell where countless lads like him are condemned to subhuman existence. The coolies toil with their sweat and blood, while the converse the weather over a cup of tea. The cruelty of child labor is another evil in Bombay and other industrial towns, making little children work under abominable conditions for long hours for a paltry wages is an evil practise almost built-in a capitalist factory frame-work.

             In Bombay the labour exploitation is quite obvious. Munno gets a job after many effort under Jimmy Thomas (Chimta Sahib), From Bombay He is taken to Simla in a Motor-car by an Anglo-Indian lady Mrs Mainwaring. Anand is anxious to present his hero in the aristocratic set up to complete his social picture of suffering and exploitation.He finds in Simla that there are only two categories of people – ‘Sahib Log’ and the ‘Coolies’ the life of plenty and luxury, and the life of under-employment and over work. Soon, He develops tuberculosis, and after a brief treatment dies in a hospital.His fight for survival that illuminates, with raw immediacy, the grim fate of the masses in            Pre-independent and Partition India. Premila paul writes about it:-

                “But inspite of the tragic ending ‘Coolie’ is not

                  Pessimistic novel. The hope of humanity lies in

                People like prabha, Ratan, and Mohan”

 Anand is aware that poetic justice is not meted out in life. However, he is optimistic and has firm faith in human goodness. C. D. Narsimha is of the opinion the death has ceased to frighten the poor, they are past fright, it is the life that is threat, and death is a release.

 Conclusion:-

             The movement of freedom and before that our own people of india suffered from various issues which described by many Indian English writers like Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan, Raja Rao, etc.. They all have reflected situation of people and their problems especially Mulk Raj Anand has described issues related to lower class people and high class people, which shows the two divided groups in India. Untouchabilitu is issue described by Anand, Sati-practise is described by Raja rao and others.

                Thus, Mulk Raj Anand has show the real face of india in his works.
To evaluate my assignment click here

To evaluate my assignment click here

    TOPIC: COMPARISON BETWEEN         ROBINSON CRUSOE AND GULLIVER’S   TRAVELS

    NAME: AMI SOJITRA

    COURSE:THE NEO-CLASSICAL LITERATURE

    EMAIL-ID: amisojitra23@gmail.com

    ROLL NO.:34

    ENROLLMENT NO.:PG15101034

    SUBMITTED TO: SMT.S.B.GARDI DEPERTMENT OF ENGLISH(MKBU)

Comparison between “Robinson Crusoe” and “Gulliver’s Travels”

Introduction

                Neo-classical era is basically known as era in literature as writers and poets have written about advantages. Sea-journey, island staying etc,. Where hero goes on journey and do some adventures there. Even the politics is also appeared there. While we read neo-classified literature we find it was time of adventure, politics, new inventions. People discuss about it all in “coffee houses”.

                The very famous prose writes Jonathan Swift, Addison and steel, Daniel Defoe etc.. In their all works we can consider it as neo-classical literature.

 Jonathan Swift and Daniel Dafoe both have written such similar things because its reflect situation of that time because both of them are from Neo-classical but sometimes they were differs from each other, They described one thing with their own point of view and that make them different from each other.

Here we discuss it with the reference of two books,

                While we discuss both novels we final there were many similarities and many different things between both novels.

BOTH PROTAGONISTS GO ON JOURNEY:-

                Here we see both protagonists of novels go in journey for adventure. Gulliver has family and he go in Sea for journey because an that period. The English people have started to go to sea or any Island and when he comes back he told his story of adventure on that journey. Same described in Crusoe and Gulliver.

                The both heroes travel on such Island which are mysterical because the journey of Gulliver is nothing more than surprises because the people of,

·         Lilliput

·         Brobdingnag

·         Laputa

·         Balnibarbi

·         Luggnagg

·         Glubbdubdrib

·         Japan

·         Hounyhnhnms

All are totally different from our common people. Even when Crusoe go on that the people of that Island are quite different. So he made one boy (to whom he gave name as Friday) his servant. Than the journey was started.

EFFECT OF WAR:-

                Robinson Crusoe and “Gulliver’s Travels” both described war, gun powder, gun to those [people of Island. Which described the effect of war. It was the time when English people have started to go in journey and Island, there they establish their rule.

                In the second voyage of Brobdingnag, Gulliver also said about gun powder to the king, but the king said it was inhumiliat act to kill so many people like this. Even he was wondered:

                                       “how this little creature is harmful in his country”

                Robinson used a gun to impress or fear Friday. He kill a flying bird and after watering that. The boy was feared and surrender himself to the Crusoe. Here Crusoe don’t know the name of that man but so he gave him name as “Friday” and he teach him how to use gun.

                In both parts we can see that the people of Brobdingnag and that Island, both are totally innocence and also believe in humanity. During that era English people has spread knowledge of gun and industrialization. When Gulliver talk about chargeable and extensive war the king said,

                                                   “ You must be a quarrelsome

                                                    People, or live among very

                                                   Bad Neighbors, and that

                                    Your generals must needs

                                    Be richer than your kings.”

This shows that the king of Brobdingnag is a innocence when he give this statement as well as the Friday was also innocent because when he saw gun and with the use of that a man can kill anyone from far distance. This show the research and new invention of weapon in England is also reflected in literature

SO CALLED ‘CIVILIZATION’

                While we read literature we find that it was prime aim of literature to civilize people. The aim of religion is also to civilize people but it’s always happen the concept is ruined in the end.  

               

                                                “when one civilized

                                                  Society established

                                     one original culture of them was died

                                                 With birth of civilization”

In every literature we find that people want to made other civilized, teach them manner, the way to live life and at that time the original culture of those society were died.

                Here we find that sometimes, Swift and Dafoe stand opposite to each other. Because

                                                    “in the all voyages

                                                  Gulliver has surrender

                                                    Himself to the people

                             Of every Island while Crusoe has done opposite

                                                  He was used gun and

                                               On the name of civilization

                                  He has killed their original

                                 Culture and ruled there.”

We believe that society is always ruled by a king (a man) but when Swift write fourth voyage we find that the kingdom was should by Houyhnhnms. Which is not believe for us but as story run we find that kingdom was running smoothly.

                                       “Here Gulliver has Surrender himself to

                                        The houyhnhnms and Also he want to

                                                             Spent life there”

Here on the name of so called civilization. Actually the killed original face and give them mask of civilization or civilized people.

MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONSHIP:-

                The master-slave relationship is also appeared in neo-classical literature. We can see it also in “Gulliver’s Travels” and “Robinson Crusoe”. This relationship is without any emotion or feeling. The servant of slave is always afraid of his master and master is always ruled on him.

This master-slave relationship come in to existence when one try to rule over on others. When he become succeed in his aim this relationship established. We all know literature is aim this relationship established. We all know literature is reflection of society so whatever is going in society is always reflected in literature.

                The master-slave relationship is established between Friday and Crusoe when, he gave him name as “Friday” because Crusoe can’t understand his language and he establish master-slave relationship.

                         “When Crusoe gave Him name as “Friday”

                          He wearer a mask Of Friday and his

                         Original face was hiding behind Mask.”

                Here he became master of Friday, while in Gulliver’s Travels he travelled many Island but he was never tried to do like this.

According to Aristotle:-

                                       “Who is enable to live in

                                         Society or has no need

                                         Because he is sufficient

                                         For himself, must be either

                                         A beast or a god”   

Crusoe become creator for Dafoe, but while we see he was doing evil act because to kill any culture is something like evil act.

                We people or mankind are generally believe that animal are our slave and they are to serve us. If they will not than master hurt them. When we see the voyage of Houyhnhnm, our all this mentality broke down in one push.

                Gulliver tried to ride the horses or Houyhnhnm but there, he found. They are masters and ruled over humans. He described when he tried to ride Houyhnhnm.

                                             “This animal seeming to Receive my civilities with

                                               Disdain, shook his Head. And bent his

                                               Brown, softly raising Up his left fore-boot

                                               To remove my hands.”

                When he saw that he didn’t try much to rule over them. And surrender him. Even when he traveled to “Lilliput” an Island of tiny people, he was huge but he surrenders himself to the king to Lilliput.

                Gulliver represented Swift and his thought, he believe and his hatred for mankind as he described in Houyhnhnm’s Island. It was real face of mankind behind mask of civilization. He make Gulliver’s tell,

                “I expressed my uneasiness

                At his giving me, so often

                The appellation of yahoo,

                An odious animal. For which

                A had so utter and hatred”

                He hate the race not mankind because race is always greedy while individual is always inspired by other. If he was alone than he may a good mankind.

THE HERO-AS INDIVIDUAL AND WITH FAMILY:-

                Jonathan Swift and Daniel Defoe both has created such a hero who are very brave and able to adjust in every situations. In the beginning of both novels, both heroes are living with family but they both were inspired to go to see and prove their ability.

                In the beginning of Gulliver’s travels he said,

                                                               “My good Master Bates dying In two  years after, and I

                                                                Having few friends, my Business began to fail,

                                                                For my conscience would not Suffer me to imitate the bad

                                                                Practice of too many among My Brethren. Having therefore

                                                               Consulted with my Wife, and Some of my Acquaintance,

                                                               Determined to go to sea again. I was surgeon successively in

                                                                Two- ships…..

                This shows that he was failure in business in his early life. He used to go on journey with same ship as surgeon. He was not too much attached with his wife. When he come back from any journey  He cannot survive with family as they he habituated to live alone among various kind of people.

                Gulliver was looking like hero when he is on journey and also he is a good individual but his existence was changed when he is with family because there is nothing to wonder. And he always face problems. He is no more hero when he is with family.

Crusoe has go on journey to earn money. His father refused him for own business so he went on sea to find Island and earn money. This aim is appeared when he go on Island and meet one boy and he gave him name as “Friday” he was  not made him friend but his servant with use of guns. Here we can see h has civilized Friday. Crusoe become the king. The lord the master, the emperor etc.. he become the creator of the world, his own world. He creates a sovereign state.

                                       “Defoe deals with growth

                                         And development of Individual

                                          In solitude he tried to

                                        Create the Utopian environment

                                          In the absence of society”

                Here both hero deals with family in the beginning which symbolized Society. And at the end also they come back to home, again live with family. The aim of Crusoe was fulfilled. He earn money so he live happily with family but Gulliver cannot survive easily as he has experience of various Island and their people. When one man comes from different culture easily he cannot adjust himself in that society is described here.

CONCLUSION:-

                Daniel Defoe and Jonathan Swift both are writer of Neo-classical age when people were inspired to go in journey and adventures. Both has described different Island but somewhere they are similar and somewhere distinguish from each other.

                Satire in society and so called civilization is also described here. We can see reflection of English Society on that time is described by both JONATHAN Swift and Daniel Defoe. Thus both novels are stand on such position in the world of literature as historical, biographical
To evaluate my assignment click here

comparison between Drama And play

To evaluate my assignment click here]

TOPIC: Comparison between Drama and Play: Aristotle and Dryden

NAME: Ami Sojitra

SOURCE: Literary Theory and Criticism: Western

SUBMITTED TO: Department of English(MKBU)

EMAIL-ID: amisojitra23@gmail.com

ROLL NO: 34

ENROLMENT NO:PG15101034

ARISTOTLE AND DRYDEN

INTRODUCTION:

Play is one of old form of literature. In every literature we find play from the ancient time. We can see that Drama is form of Prose but in ancient time it was only for royal class people or we can say play was performed to entertain them so it was totally written in ornamental language and also not its cup of tea to everyone to understand it .There are some famous critics who has given the rules that how to write Play and also how to perform it. Aristotle and Plato are very famous name in every field and also they had given their contribution in literature.

                       Dryden is also very famous critic of English Literature. He is consider as FATHER OF ENGLISH CRITICISM. According to Dr. Johnson:

                                      “Dryden may be properly consider as

                                       The father of English criticism. As the

                                       Writer who first thought to determined

                                      Upon the principles and merits of

                                      composition”

Aristotle and Dryden both have defined Drama and Play as their own perspective and its depends on us how we look at both view and prefer which is totally depend on readers only. So now let’s discuss about Drama and Play as described by Aristotle and Dryden.

ARISTOTLE AND DRYDEN:

Aristotle has written about play on his time when there was not theater and even it was to entertain royal class family so the language of character is ornamental because he believe as a part of Literature Play have also ornamental language even dialogues are also in poetry form. So we can say that in ancient time it’s not cup of tea of lower class people to understand play. Even he has point out to avoid some scenes on stage like murder, war, death, ghost etc.

                     William Shakespeare has broken down most of the rules and give new form of play. The concept of theater(Shakespearean theater was established)which has made the play more and more interesting so lower class people can also watch and enjoy play. But still the language is in poetry form.

                     Ben Johnson has written dialogues in prose form so it’s become easy for people to understand play or drama. Dryden also talk about him when he said:

         “I admire Ben Johnson but I love Shakespeare”

Dryden has written essay, carry the title as OF DRAMATICK POESIE, AN ESSAY. Later on the title was corrected as English language was corrected and get the proper way. There is always comparison that modern or old drama which is best? He talk about every important part of drama.

APPROPRIATENESS OF RHYME IN DRAMA:

                    In the restoration period rhymed or Heroic Couplet was generally used as medium of expression for heroic tragedy, while the great Elizabethan dramatist has used blank verse for their plays. Dryden himself used rhyme for his drama ‘AURANGZEB’. However in the ESSAY he has expressed himself strongly in favor of rhyme through the mouth of Neander.

As he described;

·       Rhyme is not be allowed in serious play, though it may allowed in comedies.

·       Rhyme is unnatural in play, for a play is in dialogue, and no man without premeditation speaks in rhyme.

·       Drama is a ‘just’ representation of nature, and rhyme is unnatural, for nobody in nature express himself in rhyme. It is artificial and the art is too apparent, while true art consist in hiding art.

·       It is said that rhyme helps the poet to control his fancy. But one who was not the judgement to control his fancy in blank verse will not be able to control it in rhyme either. Artistic control is a matter of judgement and not of rhyme or verse.

Neander’s defence:

·       It is choice of words and the placing of them-natural words in order that makes the language natural, whenever it is verse or rhyme that is used.

·       Blank verse is no verse at all. It is simply poetic prose and so fit only for comedies. Rhymed verse alone, made natural or near to prose, it is suitable for tragedy. This would satisfy Aristotle’s dictum.

·       Rhyme is an aid to ‘judgement’. Men of ordinary judgement as even the best of poets are, require some help to write better. Rhyme helps the judgment and thus makes it easier to control the free fighters of their fancy.

At the end of the ESSAY, Dryden gives one more reason in favor of rhyme i.e. rhyme adds to the pleasure of poetry. The primary function of poetry is to give DELIGHT, and rhyme enable the poet to perform the function well.

FOUR CRITICS;

·     EUGENUS (Charles Sackville): He favors modern than ancient. He believe that modern literature is far better than old literature because in modern literature all the varieties appeared easily.

·     CRITIES(sir Robert Howard): He argues ancient is better than modern so we can say that he argues in favour of ancient because ancient is base of modern

·     LISINDEUS(sir Charles Sidley): He was inspired by French play so he took favour of French Drama he argues French Drama are superior than English Drama.

·     NEANDER(Thought to represent Dryden): He favors modern Drama but not disparage the ancients.

But they all agrees that:

                     ‘A play ought to be a just and lively image

                     Of human nature, representing its passion

                    And humors. The changes of fortune to which

                    It is subject, for the delight and instruction of

                    Mankind’

EXAMPLE:

        SHAKESPEARE HAS WRITTEN DIFFERENCE AND TO CONSIDERED THAT ALL IN GOOD LITERATURE. HE HAS CHANGED DEFINITION OF LITERATURE

The aim of that ESSAY is to vindicate the honour of our English writer from the censure of those and who gave more important to French than English. Because the king was highly inspired by French.

LIVE IMAGE AND STATUE IMAGE:-

The image of statue is look beautiful from distance but when we go near there is no life appear there and such live image always attract us. The image of play and drama described by Aristotle and Dryden are totally different from each other. Here we see that they both stand on one side but still opposite to each other.

               Aristotle has described the play and rules of Greek literature but in that time it was reliable for all literature which inspired from Greek literature. Aristotle said that the language of the literature should be ornamental and as we all know that in ancient time literature means poetry and it was written by scholar so the language was difficult for common people. The play was come in to existence lately so we can see the dialogues between two people are also in poetry form. Even he has given some rules like scene of murder, death, violence, three unities etc. can’t be avoid during stage play even this kind of act is always described by chorus.

             Dryden was in favor of modern literature because he believe that modern is better than ancient but he never ignore the contribution of ancient. As we all know that ancient is base of modern literature. As Mathew Arnold said that:-

                   A GOOD CRITIC SHOULD NOT BIASED BY HISTORICAL

Dryden describe it with best metaphor as THE DWARF STANDING ON THE SHOULDER OF GIANT. As he said that modern literature is like mirror which shows the real face of our time while ancient is like lamp which always eminent us. It always shows good things of that time because in ancient literature we find that good and ideal things were highlighted by writers or poets while in modern literature all kind of reflection of society is appear in literature.

                 He said that ancients are like honey bee because it goes to nature and collect nectar, but the Honey Kumbh is made up from two things:-

1) Honey which symbolize sweetness and ancient literature is also full of sweetness.

2) wax which gives light and the work of modern literature is to throw light on such issues of society because we used to say that literature is nothing but the reflection of society so it have to include all the realities of time.

Modern are like spider who sit and read in library and find out mistakes made by ancients and try to avoid it in their work and also draw attention of people towards their mistakes.

                  We can see the beauty on the concept of beauty but we can see it on concept of ugly. If we think about beauty than we think widely as black beauty, white beauty that is the way to look at beauty. He said that it’s depends upon readers that how they look towards any work though it is ancient or modern.

CONCLUSION:-

Dryden and Aristotle both of them have talk about play but one has said that what the drama should be while another has described that what the drama is. T. S. Eliot comments that:

                      “At the right moment Dryden become conscious

                       Of the necessity of the native element in

                        Literature”

Thus we can say that Dryden established the English fashion of criticizing as Shakespeare did the English fashion of dramatizing.
To evaluate my assignment click here]