Past papers of waiting for Godot 2012 to 2018

Past papers of waiting for Godot 2012 to 2018

TO JOIN OUR ONLINE ACADEMY

VISIT THE LINKS BELOW

MA ENGLISH LITERATURE ONLINE ACADEMY BY ASMA SHEIKH

YOU TUBE CHANNEL

Q : Waiting for GODOT exposes the eternal loneliness,  bafflement and ennui suffered by man. Comment

2012 annual

Q : Waiting for godot shows the individual as the product of linguistic forces, a tissue of TEXTUALITIES. COMMENT.

2012 supply

Q : Bring out significance of the TITLE of waiting FOR GODOT

2013 Annual

Q: Waiting for goDOT voices the infinite hope and despair of man about the future of humanity. Do you agree?

2013 supply

Q: Repeated question 2013 supply

2014 annual

Q: Repeated QUESTION 2012 supply

 2014 SUPPLY

Q : Discuss waiting for godot it as representative of 20th century issues of anxiety and despair.

2015 annual

Q: Waiting for Godot is the greatest 20th century play aiming to question the religion. Do you agree? Substantiate your answer with appropriate textual quotations.

2015 supply

Q : Bring out the various ways in which language has been exploited waiting for Godot

2016 annual

Q : How does waiting for godot treat the concept of time.

2016 supply

Q : How far Would you agree that waiting for godot highlights the concept of KIERKEGAARD's philosophy of existentialism?

2017 annual

Q : What  is the SIGNIFICANCE of little games the characters play in waiting for GODOT? Elaborate Your ANSWER citing examples from the PLAY.

2018 annual

Mourning becomes Electra past papers 2003 to 2019supply

Mourning becomes Electra past papers till 2019 supply

Mourning becomes electra is a play about revenge and passion. Discuss. 

(2019supply)

2019 Annual : 
Write a detailed note on Mourning Becomes Electra by O Neill as a Modern Tragedy.

2018

Mourning Becomes Electra by O'Neil is a play

about wounded egos.Elucidate?

2017
Ezra's is far more the figure for the law

in his symbolic form than in his person?

2016
Ezra's is far more the figure for the law

in his symbolic form than in his person?

YEAR 2015

"Mourning Becomes Electra" can be called a modern tragedy. Elucidate.

YEAR 2014



Silence speaks out volumes and drives people mad in Mourning Becomes Electra 

by O'Neil. Discuss the statement with due textual support.

YEAR 2013

"O'Neil's Placing a Greek theme in the middle of the last century has written the most modern
 of all his plays." Discuss the play Mourning Becomes Electra in the light of this statement.

YEAR 2012

When O'Neil received the Noble Prize for literature in 1936, the official statement honored him as a writer who 'has been successful in interpreting universal human experiences in terms of the drama'. Amplify this statement by referring closely to the play "Mourning Becomes Electra".

YEAR 2011

A harrowing domestic tragedy, the play offers a clear insight into human psyche." Discuss with close reference to the play Mourning Becomes Electra.

YEAR 2010

O'Neil's Mourning Becomes Electra is a tragic melodrama of heroic proportions. Elaborate.

YEAR 2009

.

Discuss O'Neil as a pioneer in the use of myths on the modern stage with close reference to the play Mourning Becomes Electra.

YEAR 2008



Discuss in detail the symbolic significance of the Mannon Houre in 'Mourning Becomes Electra'

YEAR 2007

Discuss 'Mourning Becomes Electra' as a tragedy in modern sense.

YEAR 2006

Discuss the mother and daughter's relationship in Mourning Becomes Electra by Eugene O'Neil

YEAR 2005



In Mourning Becomes Electra pat is synonymous with fate. Elaborate the statement.

YEAR 2004

Mourning Becomes Electra is concerned with the fated family of the mannons. Discuss.

YEAR 2003

What devices does O'Neill employ in The Mourning Become Electra (Homecoming) to express his sense of unreal behind what we call reality?

Overall Presentation and techniques to attempt the paper

Overall Presentation of the paper:

First of all you need to be cautious of your overall paper presentations. Here are the few things you need to consider:

1. Draw a line on the right and left of of the page with a cut marker
2. Keep your paper neat and clean
3. Giver Proper important headings
4. Fill all the page don't leave any space
5. Stay on the topic will answering the question
6. After finishing the question draw a line at the end of the answer
7. Don't leave extra space at the end of the page.
8. Answer only the number of the question asked don't attempt extra question. But if do attempt extra question, then do not write the word "EXTA QUESTION" with it.

All high achievers and board toppers follow the rules. So, if you want to get higher marks, follow the rules.
Required Material for Effective Paper Presentation

Putting first things first, you need the followings to attempt your paper effectively.

-- A large transparent scale.
-- A blue cut marker
-- A small scale
-- A good blue pen
-- A pencil, an eraser and a sharpener.

Now, it's time how to use the above effectively to win the game:

1. Using large transparent scale

To draw a line, on both sides of the papers, so that your margins are clear and all of your page gives a better look as your writings will be well margined.
2. Use of cut marker

The use of a cut marker effectively is the most important step, as it's the key to get more marks. There are following uses of the cut marker in the exam.

Use the cut marker for headings, question numbers and parts.

-- Main heading on the first two lines should be "Subjective type" at the center of the page.
-- Then give Subheading as "Short Questions" at the center of the page
-- The third heading should be Question number, and it should also written in the center of the page
-- Underline the subheading if you are not writing it with cut marker
Always write question number and part number in the middle of the line.

Use Cut Marker it to write important points, such as dates, names, important words, so that even if the checker doesn't check your paper with full attention, he knows on the first glimpse that you have written every thing and all points necessary to get full marks.

Also write important sentences or Phrases with the cut marker, in all subjects, normally there is one sentence in the question that is most important, and that the checker wants to check. For example, in physics, a very important short question is related to the momentum is why gun recoils when a bullet is fired. You can write the answer normally with a ball point, but the "To conserve Momentum" is the most important phrase in the answer, so write it with the cut marker. Because it's the phrase the checker wants to check whereas the rest of it is not that important.
3. Draw a short line after writing each answer.

And also leave one line after each answer, so that you may have the space available even if you missed anything, and you may write it once you remember. But do not leaver two or more empty lines, as leaving too many empty spaces is considered to be a bad thing in board examinations.
4. USE of A small scale

Small scale is very effective for drawing small lines after each answer so that checker knows that you have completed the answer.
5. Good Pen / Ball point:

It is better to purchase pen/ball points at least a week before the examinations, as the new pens are harder to write, so use the pens for a two to three days so that they can get smoother.
6. Use a pencil, an eraser and a sharpener.

You can draw diagram with a pencil, but if you are good at drawing with a ball point then it's preferable in order to get more marks. However, it is very important to label the diagrams preferably with a cut marker.

7. Order of the Questions:

-- First attempt the question in which you are good at, as at the start of the paper the checker will know that you are good student.

You need to keep that impression for at least three questions,

-- So your best answer should be the second question.

-- Then attempt the question in which you are perfect at, as the checker knows that your 2nd and 3rd questions are even better than the first one. So the impression gets better. Hence he will feel comfortable to give you better marks. It is also important not to attempt the least good question at the end, but mix it in between the good questions, may be at number 7 or 8
-- Your last attempted question should also be good one, as most of the checker know that the last questions are normally the ones that you don't know the answers. So use these tricks cleverly.

-- And then attempt the question in which you are least good at.

Also

Practice attempting the paper by Giving test at colleges and academies.
-- Make a habit of reading the paper after solving it.
-- Before going for exam ready all the stuff required.
-- Practice the designing of the paper before the final exam.

Thanks....

Philip Larkin Poetry, sTheme

Philip Larkin Poetry, sTheme
🌹🌷🌷🙋‍♂️👇🌿☘️🍁🍁🍁🍁
PHILIP LARKIN's poetry has a variety of themes: such as religion, melancholy, pessimism, realism, isolation, love, nature, social chaos, alienation, boredom, death, time and sex etc. Some critics have pointed out the narrowness of his range of themes, while his admirers have expressed their praise for his distinctive treatment of these themes but his limited work has unlimited depth. There are many themes in his poetry which are as follow:
i. Religion is the most prominent and dominant theme of his poetry. Larkin has composed his poetry in the context of his temperament and of his personal views on life, religion, and religious dogmas. He shares his thoughts about God, religion and the existing scenario of religious beliefs of different classes of society in one of his poems, ‘Church Going’ in a realistic manner. His poem ‘Church Going’ chronicles the account of that time, when people had become suspicious of the existence of God and religion. Larkin’s sarcasm is seen from the very first line of the poem:
“Once I am sure there's nothing going on.”
The description of the church would be familiar to anyone who has visited a small parish church in Britain. The layout is typical of the architecture prevalent in the Church of England, with a central aisle flanked by wooden pews with cushioned kneelers and prayer books placed on small shelves on the backs of the pews. An altar rail separates the sanctuary on the east end from the rest of the church. Behind the altar rail, one sees a pulpit on the left, a lectern on the right, and in the centre a large altar or communion table. Large Bibles are normally kept open to the day's reading from both pulpit and lectern. Although the narrator himself is not an active member of the Church, he nonetheless mounts the lectern and reads the lesson, even closing with the words "Here endeth the lesson," (which would not be in the Bible itself -- suggesting the narrator recalls them from memory) precisely as a lay reader would during a service. He then returns to his persona as a non-religious tourist, dropping a sixpence (roughly equivalent to a quarter in U.S. terms) into the collection box and signing the visitor book. The narrator resolves this contradiction with an understanding that the value of churches and religion lies in what he calls their seriousness, or their long tradition of being a place concerned with the great and meaningful issues of life and death, as opposed to the ordinary and every day. The narrator finally understands his own reason for seeking out churches and the purpose of the churches he seeks in the final two stanzas:

“It pleases me to stand in silence here; / A serious house on serious earth it is, ... / And that much never can be obsolete, / Since someone will forever be surprising / A hunger in himself to be more serious, / And gravitating with it to this ground, / Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in ...”
ii. Melancholy which means "a deep feeling of sadness that lasts for a long time and often cannot be explained". Melancholy embraces all his themes. This is also the most prominent and dominant theme of his poetry. It is because of his incurable pessimistic attitude. ERIC HOMBERGER, in 'The Art of the Real ', describes him as:
"The saddest heart in the post-war supermarket".
LARKIN's attitude in his poem "Ambulances" is pessimistic with an atmosphere of pathos and melancholy hovering over it. The poem shows the hollowness and emptiness of a modern man who has no time to show love and sympathy for a sick man, he says:
"And since the solving emptiness / That lays just under all we do."
That modern man is devoid of sympathy, he only pays lip service to the sick man, but no practical solution.
iii. The element of Chaos which means "a state of complete confusion and lack order" and Destruction is distinct in LARKIN's poetry, as his poem MCMXIV(1914).It illuminates the poet's impression of the post-war world. LARKIN fails to come out of the horrors of war. His poetry revolves around the disastrous and chaotic effects of war. He minutely observes the chaotic social, political, economic and theological system. He discusses the chaotic situation in which people were forced to migrate to villages in search of shelter. LARKIN sympathises with the lost generation and criticizes at the craze for war.
iv. His poem, "Church Going" shows Nihilism which means ''a philosophical doctrine that suggests the lack of belief in one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life'' and Pessimism which means ''a state of mind in which one anticipates undesirable outcomes or believes that the evil or hardships in life outweigh the good or luxuries.'' ANDREW MOTION says that:
"Larkin has often been regarded as a hopeless, inflexible pessimist"
Church Going deals with contemporary agnosticism. The narrator in this poem is very sceptical about churches. LARKIN's dilemma is not whether to believe in God or not, but what a man can replace with God. Though the 'Church' is the symbol of faith, peace and purity yet in the modern age people have lost faith in Church. He says:
"Who will be the last, the very / Last to seek this place for what It was."
And further, he says that:
"Shall we avoid them as unlucky places? "
As for as the nihilism is concerned, LARKIN talks about the negation of life and shows his disgust with the modern civilization

Writing Style of Eugene O’Neill

Writing Style of Eugene O’Neill

Eugene O’Neill Revolutionized the American theatre with his style. When O’Neill’s plays were first staged in the early 20th century they were unlike any other plays seen before. This uniqueness can be contributed to O’Neill’s style. However, O’Neill’s style is nearly impossible to define. As written in the Kennedy Center’s Arts Edge’s online magazine:

It is impossible to put one “label” on Eugene O’Neill’s style of dramatization. At different times, and sometimes within the same framework, he is a naturalist, a romanticist, an impressionist, a symbolist, an expressionist, often bordering on the surreal. He is an empiricist, a psychoanalyst, and a mystagogue. (Biographical)

This quotation is a perfect example of why it is so hard to label O’Neill’s style. Nevertheless there are certainly aspects in all of his writing that make it distinguishable from other playwrights. A few of these characteristics are his use of extensive stage directions, evocative titles and Greek-styled structure. These three unique traits are a few aspects of style that often identify an O’Neill play.

Eugene O’Neill is famous for his multi-page long, incredibly specific stage directions. An example of this is the beginning of Long Day’s Journey Into Night which starts off with a three page length section of stage directions. This is noticeably different from other playwrights, as stage directions usually are a page at max. The reason for the length is the extreme detail that O’Neill goes into. O’Neill basically describes two different categories in his stage directions: set and characters, both to equally great extent.

Of the three pages of stage directions that make up the beginning of Long Day’s Journey Into Night, half of it describes the set. O’Neill goes into great depth, naming every work on the book shelf, giving a specific time and day and describing the different rooms of the house, even going as far to describe specific rooms as appearing “rarely used.” The extreme detail in the description of the set accomplishes two tasks. One, it ensures that O’Neill’s sets will be set up exactly as he pictured and two, it begins to tell part of the story before the characters even speak their lines. O’Neill is able to show great amounts of information about his play just through the set alone. This is a unique aspect of his style.

The other part of O’Neill’s stage directions focus on the individual characters. This occurs in all of O’Neill’s work but there is not a finer example than in Mourning Becomes Electra when O’Neill describes Christine Mannon; it reads:

Christine Mannon is a tall striking-looking woman of forty, but she appears younger… she moves with an animal grace. Her face is unusual, handsome rather than beautiful. One is struck by the strange impression it gives in repose of being not living flesh but a wonderfully life-like pale mask, in which only the deep-set eyes, of a dark violet blue, are alive.

Obviously this description goes into great detail about the character. Similar to O’Neill’s description of the set, this character description has two purposes. One, to ensure that the character is exactly as O’Neill pictures when writing the piece and two, it reveals information about the character before she even speaks. For example, the fact that Christine’s face looks like a “life-like” mask would indicate to many readers that she is hiding behind a fake front, covering up the truth. O’Neill so effectively uses stage directions that they become nearly as significant to the writing as the dialogue itself. This is a unique aspect of his style.

Another trait of O’Neill’s style is his use of dense, evocative play titles. His titles seem to always have two lairs: one of face value and one of a deeper meaning. Take for example Long Day’s Journey Into Night, a good guess might be that this play takes place in one day, starting in the morning and progressing into night, but nobody will be able to understand the true meaning of the title without reading or seeing the play. After reading it becomes obvious that the title holds a much deeper meaning than it appears to. It’s apparent that the journey from day into night symbolizes the journey from life to death. In the play, “night” also symbolizes a time of chaos and exhaustion. As the day progresses the Tyrone’s problems become deeper and darker (for example, Mary’s morphine addiction). After reading the play its clear that the title holds a stronger meaning than just an indication of time.

Similarly, both titles, Mourning Becomes Electra and Desire Under the Elms follow a similar pattern. The title Mourning Becomes Electra may have no real meaning to a reader at all prior to reading the play. It is unclear whether Electra is a person or something else; the reader may only gather that they play has to do with mourning. However after reading the play, the genius of the title is exposed. The title is a reference to the Electra complex which plays a huge role in the play. Before reading Desire Under the Elms it is clear that the play deals with desire. Only after reading, once again, is the true genius of the title revealed. This title works in so many ways. Desire under the elms could refer to the brother’s desire to go to California, Eben’s desire for the farm itself, the lustful desire between Eben and Abbie or anything in-between. This artistic craftsmanship of perfect titles is a defining characteristic of O’Neill’s writing.

Another aspect is how O’Neill follows the structure of a Greek tragedy in many of his plays. An example of this is his use of a “chorus” of people in Mourning Becomes Electra. O’Neill states in the stage directions that the people lingering around the Mannon mansion take the role of a rumor spreading chorus. They spread rumors with unknown origins and unidentified means of acquiring these details. This element of spreading unknown information further relates them to a Greek chorus.

Another way that O’Neill relates his plays to a Greek tragedy is he actually draws influence from ancient Greek tragedies. Mourning Becomes Electra as well as Desire Under the Elms draw much of their plot from ancient Greek stories (Specific comparison of O’Neill’s work to Greek tragedy can be found on the THEMES page). Finally, O’Neill relates his plays to Greek tragedies by using common themes. The official Eugene O’Neill website states, “[O’Neill drew] on Greek themes of incest, infanticide, and fateful retribution (Eugene).” The use of Greek tragedy as a plot influence and structure design is a characteristic of O’Neill’s style that sets his style apart from others.

Eugene O’Neill is a playwright who was so masterful and revolutionary in his style that it is impossible to define it with just three characteristics. However there are consistent traits such as extensive stage directions, evocative titles and Greek-styled structure that separate him from other playwrights. Nonetheless, O’Neill’s style can not be labeled specifically, because of its many facets and his great versatility.

Importance of Economic Concerns in Pride and Prejudice

Importance of Economic Concerns in Pride and Prejudice
Economic concerns are set up right from the opening sentence of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice as the foil for love.  The novel is a lengthy discourse upon the old adage that “money doesn’t buy happiness”, and throughout the textual dance between these two elements, the author presents the [perhaps rather bleak] theme that happiness in marriage is possible only when love, affection, and mutual respect are all present and influential, and yet tempered with sound financial resources and decisions. “The danger of losing it all” must be removed far enough for love to blossom, and yet must not be the sole reason for the match. My essay will explore this theme through studies of the five major matrimonial arrangements in the novel.
Due to economic misfortune, the marriage between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet cannot be described as a happy one.  Exasperated cries such as “Oh, Mr. Bennet!” are heard throughout the story as his wife fails repeatedly to anticipate his mind, whereupon Mr. Bennet invariably chooses to isolate himself from her shrewish voice in his library. Their relationship is significantly dysfunctional.
Mr. Bennet is motivated mostly by a desire to enjoy his life as comfortable as possible, and take nearly nobody seriously. Mrs. Bennet on the other hand is perpetually troubled by the looming threat of being reduced to her pittance of an inheritance to support her family, thanks to the “cruel entail” of the Bennet estate upon a male heir. This riles her fragile nerves, and inclines her to the sort of behaviour that Mrs. Bennet calls “silly”, such as gossip, match-making, and behaving like a snob-nosed bitch. Mrs. Bennet’s emotional despair at her financial affairs is what drives them apart. She has little recourse but to gossip about the prospects of eligible rich men marrying her daughters, as we are to understand Mr. Bennet has been unable or unwilling to save for his family. His happiness and that of Mrs. Bennet and their daughters would therefore always be greatly impaired due to his failure to properly address these economic concerns.
A character that has far too much regard for economic concerns and far too little regard for emotion is Charlotte Lucas, whom marries the ill-mannered Mr. Collins for the “worldly advantage” and security he can offer her. She admits to the reader that she finds Mr. Collins “neither agreeable nor sensible”, and his society “irksome” rather than pleasing, just like everybody else does. However, she still marries him without hesitation asking only “a preservative from want.” Her own happiness is not even a factor in her calculations; she sees it as something external to the entire institute of marriage, saying “happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance.” Elizabeth and the reader pity her since they know that happiness consists principally in not marrying Mr. Collins, a giant douche. After Charlotte marries she finds the only way she can bear her life with Mr. Collins is by furnishing a room for her own comforts, and by subtly manipulating him into spending time in the garden or the study, away from her.
As for Mr. Collins, he married in a manner that becomes his financial position, but his happiness too also depends on matters outside of marriage. He endlessly priorities the iron will [whim?] of Lady Catherine de Bourgh over any mutual attachment with either his cousin Elizabeth or Charlotte Lucas, and in general seems honored to be her loyal terrier for the rest of his life.
The married lives of Mr. and Mrs. Collins shows exactly how happiness is unobtainable in marriage without both love and sound economic reasoning in the right proportions.
The embarrassing put-up marriage between Wickham and Lydia comes as a result of her having no regard at all for financial concerns, and being swept up entirely in her emotions.
Not realising that the scandal of an elopement will make her sisters utter ineligible as wives for rich men in high society, thus causing the ruin of the whole family, Lydia’s affair causes more grief to her mother than anyone else, shocking her and leaving her confined to her bed with misery. Swept up in girlish raptures of emotion Lydia fails to understand Wickham’s motives as Lizzy does, in that “handsome young men must have something to live on, as well as the plain”, and that he was only happy to marry her firstly for the money he thought he was marrying into, and later for the money he was promised by Darcy.
Since Lydia continues to naively overlook Wickham’s vices she, and the family too, appear to be perfectly happy once the financial problems of her marriage are solved, and the scandal is thus disguised.
Quite shortly, the romance and marriage between Mr. Bingley and Jane Bennet is the purest in the story, and is possible only because of Bingley’s fortune.
Having all his financial matters well in hand, and fully able to provide for a future wife and maintain his current life of impulsive self-serving luxury, Bingley is able to court Jane freely without complication other than his interfering sisters. In this respect he proves true the opening line from the novel, “A single man in possession of good fortune must be in want of a wife”, for his fortune being assured, they have leave to both be simply happy making each other happy.
The eventual marriage between Darcy and Elizabeth is almost identical to that of Jane and Bingley’s in terms of happiness and inexhaustible financial means; Darcy is indeed even richer than Bingley, and anybody who gets to know this pair well can see they are far richer in personality too. However in their courtship period Darcy and Elizabeth are unable to make each other happy. They firstly have no love for each other on account of Wickham’s poisonous tales of Darcy causing a prejudice, and Darcy’s pride in his superiority in wealth and class.
Their relationship builds and after some time Darcy hastily proposes to Elizabeth, but at the same time pointing out the glaring deficiencies in her financial and social position and his magnanimity in condescending to propose in spite of them. He, the careful steward of his father’s great legacy, is most likely still of the mindset that in marriages between two highly wealthy families, such as would be the case between for example his and the Bingleys or de Bourghs, it is important for the lady to be equally distinguished and accomplished and bring her own financial and class benefits to the match. Not surprisingly, his proposal is rejected in this form since Elizabeth can see that she would not be happy to be regarded as an inferior.
Not until he voluntarily entreats with the despicable Wickham and even bribes him with his own [precious] fortune, does Elizabeth truly credit Darcy with having learned that his unashamed pride in his high financial position was a character flaw, and then resolve to be happy with him in marriage. His aid in first clearing Lydia’s scandal with Wickham, and then confessing to meddling in Bingley’s attempts to court Jane Bennet, resolves both his own reservations about lowering himself to become involved with the comparatively poor Bennet family, and Elizabeth’s distaste for his pride.
After resolving both their personal and financial conflicts, they like Bingley and Jane are nothing but happy.
To conclude we can say that various marriages of characters in Pride and Prejudice explore the idea that it is essential for us to be sensible of our financial position when searching for a husband or wife, and that love and economics are equally important.
Mr. and Mrs. Bennet can no longer be happy with their dwindling wealth. In the case of the Collinses, they wed for reasons of social expectation and provision of a respectable income, and cannot make each other happy. In the case of Lydia and Wickham they are happy, but only when the truth of Wickhams financial indiscretions are concealed.
But the happy ending to the story comes when Darcy and Bingley finally overcome the economic disparities between their families and accept their brides the very happy Miss Bennets for richer or for poorer.

Machiavellian Impact on 'The Jew of Malta' and 'Doctor Faustus'

Machiavellian Impact on 'The Jew of Malta' and 'Doctor Faustus'

Introduction

Niccolò Machiavelli was born in Florence on 3rd May 1469 to parents who were of the old Florentine nobility. When he was young, Florence flourished under the rule of Lorenzo de’ Medici. However, after the reign of the Medici collapsed in 1494, Florence gained freedom under the government of a Republic and Machiavelli started working officially in the public service as an ‘Italian statesman and political philosopher.’ The Medici returned to power in the year 1512 but they were driven out of Florence once more in 1527. When the Medici returned to power, Machiavelli lost his job in the public service and started to write. His literary activity began to have increasing influence over other people and it is during this period of heightened literary activity that Machiavelli wrote his best known work, De Principatibus, also known as About Principalities or The Prince.

The Prince, published in 1532, was dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici. It is a political handbook the purpose of which is to offer advice on how governments should run their countries and functions as an attempt by Machiavelli to regain his office after his dismissal. In hoping to impress Lorenzo with his evident proficiency of political issues, Machiavelli wanted to persuade the Medici government that he shared similar political beliefs while giving insights on how governments should have the ambition to acquire and remain in power efficiently. Despite all this, Machiavelli was never returned to his official position in the Medici government and died on 22 June 1527, several weeks after the Medici were removed again from power.

The term “Machiavellian” originated from ideas found in The Prince. The definition of being Machiavellian has evolved from what was traditionally derived from The Prince, to its present day psychological description. Conventionally, to label one as ‘Machiavellian’ is to say that one’s ambition to achieve a goal empowers him to do anything because the ends justify whatever means necessary. Machiavelli, addressing specifically to Lorenzo, thinks that rulers should be ambitious and take any means necessary to obtain and ‘lay the [necessary] foundations for future power’ in Italy. He also intended this in hopes of unifying the various separated Italian states. However, it is important to note Machiavelli states that while a leader is better to be feared than loved, a leader should never be hated and hence cruelty is not advisable because the leader will ‘always need of the goodwill of the natives.’

The modern definition of being Machiavellian is slightly different. One’s psychological state is called Machiavellian as he ‘[manipulates] others for personal advantage, often to the detriment of the people being thus exploited.’ In relation, what an Elizabethan audience would have known is a combination of both the conventional and the contemporary Machiavellian definitions – a person who is strategic, ambitious for power and hence unscrupulous and manipulative. From these stemmed the term “Machiavellian Man” to sum up the previously mentioned characteristics.

Christopher Marlowe (1564 – 1593), having only been born several decades after Machiavelli’s death, was a poet and playwright [8] who was influenced tremendously by Machiavelli’s ideas in The Prince. [9] While Machiavellian traits are most obviously shown in Marlowe’s play, The Jew of Malta, another play that displays this is Doctor Faustus. This essay will further explore and contrast the presence of Machiavellianism in the various characters as well as the prologue and epilogue of Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta.

Machiavellianism in Doctor Faustus

Machiavellianism exists in both its traditional and modern forms in Doctor Faustus. The traditional definition primarily lies in the play’s protagonist, Doctor Faustus himself. Faustus embodies Machiavelli’s ambition to acquire power and knowledge at any expense as shown in The Prince. In Faustus’s pursuit to ‘try thy brains to gain a deity,’ (DF I.65) he proves how the ends justify the means by ‘[bequeathing] his soul to Lucifer’ (DF I.75) in exchange for twenty four years of magic and knowledge and, to a limited extent, is reflected in The Prince where Machiavelli encourages the attaining of knowledge and emphasizes on how ‘knowledge is useful’ in ruling over other people. This clearly shows that he fits the form of the ideal prince as intended by Machiavelli because Faustus willingly makes a drastic sacrifice for power while being unconcerned about the costs until his very end.

In limited relation to Machiavellianism, it is possible that Marlowe wrote Doctor Faustus as a dark Morality play with the intention of warning people about the dangers of being overly ambitious and achieving something by any means necessary as Marlowe cautions against ‘practicing more than heavenly power permits.’ (DF Epi.8) This is shown again as Marlowe also suggests several links between Icarus from Greek Mythology and Faustus, about how both had ‘waxen wings [that] did mount above his reach / and melting heavens conspired his overthrow’ (DF Pro.21-22) and flew too high – figuratively for Faustus’s case – which eventually led to Faustus’s ‘hellish fall.’ (DF Epi.4)

One interesting way to explore Machiavellianism in Doctor Faustus is to look at the devils instead of the protagonist. The devils are shown to bully Faustus into submission and away from repentance by manipulating him with their cunning. In this manner, the devils become the Machiavellian Man instead. This all begins directly after Faustus writes on the scroll with his blood and the words ‘Homo, fuge!’ (Human, fly!) appears on his arm. Mephistopheles distracts Faustus on pondering why the words are asking him to “fly” by ‘fetching him somewhat to delight his mind.’ (DF V.91) Mephistopheles then brings in other devils who give crowns and rich apparel to Faustus to tempt him by ‘showing thee what magic can perform’ and essentially securing the deed to Faustus’s soul. This act of deception carries on throughout the entire play whenever Faustus’s good and evil angels appear to debate on his own morality as seen again when Lucifer instructs Faustus to ‘talk not of paradise nor creation / talk of the devil, and nothing else’ (DF VII.105-106) before presenting him a show of the Seven Deadly Sins to draw his mind away from redemption. These examples show how the devils strategically conjure up sights and images to distract Faustus and manipulate his soul into their hands.

Lastly, the devils also bully Faustus by not being fully honest. The devils promise to ‘give [him] whatsoever [he] asks and to tell [him] whatsoever [he] demands.’ (DF IV.96-97) Despite their promise, when Faustus asks Mephistopheles who made the world, Mephistopheles refuses to answer to Faustus’s demanding because it is ‘against [their] kingdom.’ (DF VII.71-72) Lucifer censors the knowledge that his devils can reveal to Faustus to protect his kingdom and at the same time, contain Faustus’s bid for freedom to acquire more knowledge.

Moreover, the devils cheat Faustus by merely giving him ‘freshman truisms’ to his questions – answers that are universally known and can be found out without having to sell one’s soul. This is partially due to Faustus himself because as shown from the beginning of the play, it is clear to a careful reader that Faustus is not as clever as he this he is. Faustus refuses to take heed of the advice from the Good angel or the old man to repent and instead foolishly chooses to hear only the Evil angel. Therefore, these show that Lucifer toys with Faustus and convinces him to sell over his soul by making him believe that he really has knowledge and magical powers. Through this, Lucifer can be seen to be a true Machiavellian devil, or merely as sly as the serpent in the Garden of Eden who tempts Eve (Faustus) with an apple (universal knowledge).

Machiavellianism in The Jew of Malta

The first indication of Machiavellianism in this play begins is encountered in the prologue as it is delivered by a character by the name of Machevil, presumably a manifestation of the spirit of Machiavelli. The narrator proves this by saying that ‘albeit the world think Machevil is dead,’ (JOM Pro.1) but his soul has come to ‘view this land and frolic with his friends’ (JOM Pro.4) and how ‘[he] is Machevil.’ (JOM Pro.7) This is Marlowe’s intention to link this play to Machiavellian ideas and give the audience an inkling of what is to come.

While the prologue may appear insignificant, it actually gives an intriguing insight of Machiavellianism during Marlowe’s time. Marlowe’s Machevil, by acting as a caricature of Machiavelli, is a reflection of what the Elizabethan society understands about the Italian political writer. This is crucial because Machevil embodies the grossly distorted misreading of The Prince that was then familiar in Europe. Elizabethan Englishmen perceived that, albeit stereotypically, the Italian courts are ‘places of decadence, corruption, degradation and spiritual bankruptcy.’ This is reflected initially in the prologue where Machevil dismisses religion as a ‘childish toy’ and believes that ‘there is no sin but ignorance.’ (JOM Pro.14-15) This idea of irreligion is echoes later on in the play mainly by Barabas. Marlowe’s purpose of using Machevil as the narrator is to remind the audience about their perception of being Machiavellian – decadent, corrupted and atheist, so it is easier for them to identify Barabas as a Machiavellian Man (this will be further elaborated on later).

One important thing to note is that Marlowe was very aware of this misunderstanding. He deliberately distorts Machiavelli’s motives in The Prince despite ‘sharing some basic philosophical premises.’ This may be due to Marlowe being notoriously known for his unconformity and rebelliousness against any kind of restriction whatsoever as he was reputedly homosexual and atheist – he has been said to argue ‘that the Bible is historically wrong.’ Moreover, Machiavelli was also often accused of atheism by his opponents as The Prince can be interpreted to be how power is granted not by God but by Man’s will to acquire it. Marlowe may have shared sentiments with Machiavelli and could possibly be using Machevil to voice his own opinions, in a subtle manner, about how he thinks that certain aspects of Christianity is hypocritical as Machevil says that ‘admired I am of those that hate me most.’ (JOM Pro.9)

Other than the prologue, the overall theme of deception and manipulation in this play, as shown by the characters’ actions and dialogue, points towards Machiavellianism too. Barabas is the most obvious character as Machevil first introduces Barabas as the protagonist of the play, a Jew, whose ‘money was not got without my means’ (JOM Pro.32) and suggests that Barabas is a Machiavellian Man because ‘he favours [Machevil].'(JOM Pro.35) Barabas goes on to show how he marries both traditional and conventional Machiavellian characteristics. Barabas is seen to be irreligious, scheming and willing to do anything in order to achieve whatever his goal is. Firstly, Barabas is shown to be sacrilegious as he criticizes Christians. Barabas says that he ‘can see no fruits in all their faith / But malice, falsehood and excessive pride’ (JOM I.i.114-115) and that while ‘some Jews are wicked, [but] all Christians are.’ Moreover, after Barabas’s gold and house were confiscated and he wants Abigall to retrieve his secret stash, he tells Abigall that he has hidden it under a ‘board [that is] marked thus’ and ‘makes the sign of the cross.’ (JOM I.ii.353) This is a reference to the Christian crucifix and how it is corrupted by hiding Barabas’s gold.

Another remarkable thing to note is the name “Barabas.” Protestant England would have known that the name is a reference to Barabbas, the Jew who was often blamed for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In accordance to the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Pontius Pilate was required to let the crowd choose, between Barabbas and Jesus, who to let free and who to crucify. The largely Jewish crowd chose Barabbas. Hence, Pilate had no choice but to authorise Christ’s crucifixion. (Matthew 27:20, 21; Luke 23:18; Mark 15:15) Marlowe possibly makes an allusion to this when Friar Jacomo ask what has Barabas done and ‘has he crucified a child?’ (JOM III.vi.49)

Furthermore, it is plausible that Marlowe wants to point out how Barabas’s unfair treatment in the hands of Ferneze and Barabas’s protests show the hypocrisy of certain aspects of Christianity. Firstly, Ferneze dictates that the money to pay the Turks must come from the wealth of the Jews, so he confiscates half of their wealth each but takes away everything Barabas has just because he protested. At this moment, Barabas points out ‘is theft the ground of your religion?’ (JOM I.ii.96) This proves Ferneze and Christians in general to be hypocrites as they are prejudiced against Jews despite the Bible stating ‘love thy neighbour as thyself.’ (Leviticus 19:18) The most outrageous instance of this is after Barabas fell into his own trap and is begging ‘help, help me, Christians, help!’ (JOM V.v.64) but Ferneze just pitilessly stands by and watches Barabas die without any Christian mercy or forgiveness and instead says that ‘[he’ll] see [Barabas’s] treachery repaid.’ (JOM V.v.74)

In addition, Barabas does not exhibit the “Christian” values of worshipping God, renouncing violence and material goods and forgiveness. He evidently does not worship God and instead values gold as one of his highest priorities, which is revealed when he gets his gold from Abigall and he shouts in ecstasy ‘O girl, O gold, O beauty, O my bliss!’ (JOM II.i.53) Besides, Barabas neither renounces violence nor forgives others for their sins as shown in his scheming. Instead, Barabas commits more violence and murder just because he does not forgive those who have sinned against him. However, we also have to keep in mind that Barabas is similar to the heroes of revenge tragedies because he kills other people because they have treated him unfairly and hence we ought to pity him as well.

Firstly, Barabas seeks revenge against Ferneze for confiscating his wealth and he sets about the elaborate task of initially promising Abigall to Lodowick, the son of Ferneze, then tells Mathias, Abigall’s lover, that he ‘intends [his] daughter to be thine.’ (JOM II.iii.257) Barabas deceives and manipulates both Mathias and Lodowick to kill each other by sending out letters inviting each other to a fatal duel. Secondly, after Abigall dissembles herself and becomes a nun, Barabas got so enraged with her that he decided to poison some rice and sent it to the nuns with the intention of killing them all despite having a daughter with them. Thirdly, after Abigall confesses Barabas’s evil deeds to the friars before she dies and the friars approach Barabas to make him repent, Barabas lies to Jacomo and Barnardine that he regrets what he has done and wants to donate his wealth ‘to some religious house / So [he] may be baptised and live therein.’ (JOM IV.i.79-80) In doing so, Barabas turns Jacomo and Barnardine against each other in attempt to gain all of his wealth. Barabas then kills Barnardine and frames Jacomo, resulting in his own “innocence.” While Barabas never intends to rule Malta, as shown when he was given the post of Governor of Malta but decides to exchange it with Ferneze for gold, these three examples go to show how Barabas fits the mould of a Machiavellian Man as he manipulates other characters and create situations, mainly in order to take revenge, and he does this at any cost no matter how drastic it is.

Finally, one often overlooked character who is a Machiavellian Man would be Ferneze himself. While Barabas and Machevil flamboyantly follow the modern definition of Machiavellianism, Ferneze is actually closer to the spirit of Machiavelli’s other writings such as The Art of War. Ferneze follows guardedly what Machiavelli stated in his seventh book in The Art of War, that ‘no enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution’ whereas Barabas makes the mistake of fully revealing his plan of betraying Calymath to Ferneze. This is shown when Barabas vividly describes his plan to Ferneze but Ferneze only replies cautiously with an ‘O, excellent!’ (JOM V.v.42) Thus, Barabas ‘violates some of Machiavelli’s fundamental principles of statecraft while Ferneze acts upon them by appearing not to do so’ and hence deceiving Barabas and therefore, Ferneze can be considered a true Machiavellian Man in the traditional sense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope this paper demonstrates the varying definitions and readings of Machiavellian ideas and through Doctor Faustus and The Jew of Malta, their impact on Marlowe’s character creation and purpose of doing so. More importantly, this paper has given a suggestion that while there are 2 descriptions of Machiavellianism, there is no clear demarcation between either of them and that these plays have a higher purpose of revealing ‘some contradictions inherent in the way society seeks to define and police its margins’ instead of merely dramatising Machiavellian ideas.

Analysis: My Last Duchess (Robert Browning)

Analysis: My Last Duchess (Robert Browning)

Robert Browning’s My Last Duchess is a dramatic monologue uttered by the Duke of Ferrari which highlights the jealous and sadistic nature of his character and the mysteriousness which surrounds his late wife’s demise.

The poem starts with him drawing the attention of the person whom he is talking to, who is, as one later finds out, a messenger from the Count’s family whose daughter’s hand the duke seeks in marriage; to the portrait of his late wife on the wall. The duke praises the work of the painter, Fra Pandolf, who had spent a whole day slaving over the painting to make it look so lifelike. He instructs the messenger to sit down, and goes on to describe how anyone who has ever seen that picturesque expression on his lady’s painted face, has never failed to ask him, as he has always been present for no one dares to draw the curtain from the painting except him, the reason behind the lively expression. He then thinks about his late wife, remembering that it wasn’t just his company which made her blush. He wonders that maybe it was the painter complimenting her that brought forth such a response from her, as she thought that such attentions were all just formalities and politeness. He continues on scorning the easily pleased nature of the duchess: she found something to praise in whatever she saw. Finding the fact disdainful that things so simple and unworthy as the sunset or a small offering of fruit some officer made her could make her as happy as his gift to her, his hand in marriage and a nine hundred year old name, did, he admits to the messenger that he did not approve of such unreservedness. He goes on to say that no one could really fault the duchess for her flighty nature, but even if he had the power of speech required to make his expectations from her clear, and had she been willing to do as he told, even then he could not think of sinking down to her level by telling her what displeases him. He hints at the fact that the duchess seemed to smile at everyone in the same way that she smiled at him, implying that perhaps she was unfaithful and treacherous. Such was the exasperation and disgust of the duke at his wife’s flirtatious habits that he suggests that her death was caused at his orders. He again directs the attention of both the messenger and the reader towards the painting and repeats himself from earlier saying that the portrait is so accurate that it looks like as if she’s standing there, alive.

He then instructs the messenger to stand and come with him to the party which has assembled below, reminding him haughtily that the magnificence of the count is enough guarantee that anything he asks for in dowry will not be refused, but claims at the same time that it is only the hand of his fair daughter that he seeks. While going out he points out a bronze bust showing the sea god, Neptune taming a wild sea horse.

The main feature of this poem is Browning’s artistic use of the dramatic monologue. Even though it is the duke who is talking about the character of the duchess to the messenger, one can glean lots of facts about his own character through the manner in which he speaks, and the way in which he describes his wife. This, coupled with the use of enjambment, the technique of inserting line breaks, and caesurae, emphasize the flow of the duke’s speech. It is not just a monologue in name; even written on paper this poem is so overflowing with different ideas that it seems like the duke’s thoughts were running into each other as he voiced his opinion about his late wife. Apart from this, symbolism is also used in a couple of places. First, the portrait hanging on the wall which is covered by a curtain which ‘none but the duke could draw’ is symbolic of how the controlling nature of the duke is satisfied when, if not in life then after death, only he has any say in who should look upon his late wife. Also, the bust of Neptune that he points out to the messenger on his way out, symbolizes how he tamed his free-spirited wife, much like Neptune tames the wild spirit of the sea horse.

Thus Browning, in a colorful and impressive monologue portrays a character that is as vile and maniacal as the language is flowery. The duke is shown to be a control-freak, an over imaginative psychopath who finds fault in the innocence of his wife’s youth, and condemns her to death. His controlling nature is evident from the start, in the way he dictates the emissary’s actions telling him when to sit and when to rise and how proud he is of the fact that no one is allowed to draw the curtain hiding his wife’s portrait but he. He has, in his imagination, reduced his once alive and lovely wife, to a mere possession, and refers to her painting as ‘a piece’ of wonder. One sees that it is not only his wife who thus dehumanized: when he talks about the painter, he praises his hands; reducing his person effectively to a mere tool that is used for painting. Then as he continues on, one can’t help but sense the intense jealousy which resides in the duke’s heart, as he scorns on how easily pleased his lady was of anything beautiful and pleasant. He cannot stand her blushing for, and smiling at everything and everybody who pleases her. He is full of self-importance, a trait that is tarnished and brought into question when his wife does not share his arrogance and haughty attitude. Such is his arrogance that having a normal conversation with his wife or telling her what he expects from her is considered by him to be below his standards. He chooses not to talk to her about her faults, which are naught but a liveliness of nature, a happy disposition, and a yearning for life, but rather ends that which he cannot control.

In this short poem, Browning weaves a compelling tale of mystery, murder and intrigue which in equal parts disgusts and delights the reader. One is appalled at the cruelty and madness of the duke, yet is amazed at the beauty and majesty of the language used, which is in no way below the level of Shakespeare. I enjoyed the poem immensely as it was a thrilling yarn which had me captivated throughout.

A Short Analysis of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 40: ‘Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all’

A Short Analysis of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 40: ‘Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all’❤️😍🍀🦋🙋‍♀️🙋‍♂️👇

A summary and paraphrase of Shakespeare’s 40th sonnet

Of all Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Sonnet 40 is perhaps the most relentlessly focused on ‘love’: the word itself recurs ten times in the sonnet’s fourteen lines, including twice in the poem’s opening line: ‘Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all’. In the following analysis, we’re going to examine how Shakespeare’s relationship with the Fair Youth has changed by the 40th sonnet in the sequence.

Take all my loves, my love, yea take them all;
What hast thou then more than thou hadst before?
No love, my love, that thou mayst true love call;
All mine was thine, before thou hadst this more.
Then, if for my love, thou my love receivest,
I cannot blame thee, for my love thou usest;
But yet be blam’d, if thou thy self deceivest
By wilful taste of what thyself refusest.
I do forgive thy robbery, gentle thief,
Although thou steal thee all my poverty:
And yet, love knows it is a greater grief
To bear love’s wrong, than hate’s known injury.
Lascivious grace, in whom all ill well shows,
Kill me with spites yet we must not be foes.

The best way to summarise a Shakespeare sonnet is, perhaps, to paraphrase it. But first, a brief summary of the poem’s background: it would appear that Shakespeare has a mistress, and that the Fair Youth has gone to bed with
her. What we have, then, is a bizarre love triangle involving Shakespeare, the Fair Youth, and Shakespeare’s mistress who has been unfaithful to Shakespeare by lying with the Youth. (Later in the Sonnets, it will emerge that this mistress is the figure known as the ‘Dark Lady’.) So, to a paraphrase of the sonnet’s meaning:

‘Take everyone I love – no, go on, really, take them. But by going with them, what do you have that you didn’t already have? No love that can be called true, that’s for sure. All my love was yours, until you went with my mistress. Then if, in exchange for my love, you received the affections of my mistress, I can’t say I blame you, for you used my lover; however, if you’ve tricked yourself into thinking that by sleeping with my mistress you are tasting what you are refusing to enjoy. I forgive you for stealing from me the little I possess (i.e. my mistress), even though it’s much harder to bear the wrong done to you by the one you love, than it is to bear the harm done by an enemy. Even when doing wrong you somehow make evil look good, so kill me with your bad behaviour, I don’t mind – we must not become enemies.’

That (we hope) makes the poem’s meaning a little clearer, though the following lines remain something of a challenge for the literary critic:

But yet be blam’d, if thou thy self deceivest
By wilful taste of what thyself refusest.

Is this an oblique reference to the idea of the Fair Youth, who is not having sex with Shakespeare but is having it off with Shakespeare’s mistress, ‘tasting’ Shakespeare on the Dark Lady? Is it too much to say there’s a faint penile pun in ‘wilful’ – i.e. not just ‘full of Will’ (Shakespeare), but full of willy? Perhaps.

In short, Sonnet 40 is a rather long-drawn-out (some would say laboured) play on the double meaning of the phrase ‘my love’. Or rather, not so much double meaning as triple: 1) ‘my love’ as a term of endearment towards the Fair Youth; 2) ‘my love’ as a quality or feeling (e.g. ‘my love for you’); and 3) ‘my love’ as in my lover (who is not you). The first two of these senses is played upon in the sonnet’s opening line: ‘Take all my loves, my love’, i.e. ‘Take all of my lovers, m’dear…’ The third sense is present when Shakespeare says, in line 5, ‘Then, if for my love, thou my love receivest’, i.e. ‘if in exchange for my love for you you received my lover’. How much one enjoys this stuff depends greatly on how much one appreciates frequent punning in a supposedly sincere love poem, we suppose.

🎄🎄🎄☘️☘️☘️☘️☘️🌲🌲🌲🌲🌲

Pride and Prejudice: Irony

Pride and Prejudice: Irony
One of the most prominent features of the literary style of Jane Austen is her frequent use of irony. In Pride and Prejudice she investigates social relationships in the limited society of a country with an ironic and often humorous eye.
General Irony
Irony in the themes of ‘pride’ and ‘prejudice’:-  The title of the novel, which refers to those failings of the main characters that initially prevent them from accepting each other, contains a strain of hidden irony. Jane Austen subtly introduces an inversion in the thematic foibles (‘pride’ and ‘prejudice’) and the characters they belong to. This very inversion is another example of Austen's use of irony. It is Darcy who is supposed to have the pride and Elizabeth who is supposed to have the prejudice. But in her misunderstandings with Darcy, she accuses him of excessive pride, while he accuses her of prejudice.
Irony in the very first line: -  The reader is invited to laugh at the ironies of human perception and expectations from the very first line of the novel: “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” Read ironically, this sentence is turned on its head to mean: “Everyone who knows a single rich man will pursue him with ambitions to be his wife.” This is irony, which allows the author to communicate more than the literal or expected meanings of her language.
Mr. Bennet’s irony
Mr. Bennet’s intentional irony: -  Mr. Bennet, the intelligent, detached father of the Bennet sisters is an interesting study in the novel’s use of irony. His own sense of irony is very well defined, and he enjoys laughing at his wife’s and his family’s follies.
His ironical comments at the expense of his wife range from the gently mocking: “You mistake me, my dear. I have a high respect for your nerves… They are my old friends. I have heard you mention them with consideration these twenty years at least” and the subtle and indirect: “Now, Kitty, you may cough as much as you choose” to the harsh and direct:“ This is a parade which does one good; it gives such an elegance to misfortune! Another day I will do the same; I will sit in my library, in my night cap and powdering gown, and give as much trouble as I can, - or, perhaps, I may defer it, till Kitty runs away”.
But Mr. Bennet's conscious use of irony serves no useful purpose. It neither serves to shame his wife, who fails to detect the vein of sarcasm underlying all his comments, nor does it educate his younger daughters or make them see how improper their behaviour is.
Mr. Bennet’s unintentional irony: -  This is why the plot of the novel seems to show, through Mr. Bennet, the limitations of sitting back and observing irony as a response to human experience. Trapped in a bad marriage, Mr. Bennet makes life endurable for himself by assuming the pose of an ironic passive spectator of life, who has long ago abandoned his roles as a husband and a father. And this ironic detachment on the part of Mr. Bennet is closely linked to his abdication from responsibility.
His most spectacular abandonment of duty comes in connection with Lydia’s proposal to go to Brighton. “Lydia will never be easy till she has exposed herself in some public place” says Mr. Bennet, “and we can never expect her to do it with so little expense or inconvenience to her family as under the present circumstances.” His statement, seen in retrospect, is even more ironic than he meant it to be. Lydia did, in fact, end up exposing her family. And the expense and inconvenience, which he claimed would be little, turns out to be enormous.
Elizabeth's irony
Elizabeth’s intentional use of irony: -  On the other hand, Elizabeth’s playful irony is for her both a defense against others whose faults she can perceive, and a weapon which she uses to condemn them for these faults.
In the war against stupidity, she uses irony to skewer the negative traits she is quick to find in people. She targets Mr. Collins’ self-importance and his sycophantic behaviour towards Lady Catherine De Bourgh: “They…were indebted to Mr. Collins for the knowledge of what carriages went along, and how often especially Miss De Bourgh drove by in her phaeton, which he never failed coming to inform them of, though it happened almost every day.” Mr. Collins, of course, was too blinded by his self-importance and his infatuation with Lady Catherine’s power and wealth to see that Elizabeth was really not at all indebted to him, and in fact her irritation and contempt of him increased with this behaviour.
Similarly, she criticizes the contrast between Wickham’s duplicity and Darcy’s honesty to Jane: “There certainly was some great mismanagement in the education of those two young men. One has got all the goodness, and the other all the appearance of it.”
She does not even spare Bingley, accusing him of over-compliance in his reliance on Darcy: “Elizabeth longed to observe that Mr. Bingley had been a most delightful friend; so easily guided that his worth was invaluable”.
She criticizes Mr. Darcy’s lack of social graces to his face: “I have always seen a great similarity in the turn of our minds. We are both of an unsocial, taciturn disposition, unwilling to speak, unless we expect to say something that will amaze the whole room”. And she does not spare him in Bingley’s drawing room when she says to him: "I am perfectly convinced by it that Mr. Darcy has no defect. He owns it himself without disguise." The irony, of course, is that by accusing him of owning that he has no defect, she is actually accusing him of a grave defect: arrogance.
Elizabeth response at Charlotte’s marriage – unintentionally ironic: -  Yet, Elizabeth’s own behaviour towards Wickham is unknowingly tinged with irony. Perhaps the worst instance of Elizabeth’s stubborn belief in Wickham’s character is her serene acceptance of his defection to the moneyed Miss King. Ironically enough, just a few months ago, she had expressed shock at Charlotte’s decision to marry Mr. Collins for very similar reasons, and in fact, had partially estranged herself from Charlotte because of what she thought were Charlotte’s mercenary and shallow motives.
In her letter to Mrs. Gardiner, she says of Wickham: “handsome young men must have something to live on, as well as the plain”. Contrast this to her very different response when Charlotte herself said much the same thing to her: “[Elizabeth] could not have supposed it possible that when called into action, [Charlotte] would have sacrificed every better feeling to worldly advantage. Charlotte, the wife of Mr. Collins, was a most humiliating picture! – And to the pang of a friend disgracing herself and sunk in her esteem….” This seeming inconsistency on her part reeks of hypocrisy, but the truth is that Elizabeth is simply less clear-sighted in the case of Wickham than she is with Charlotte.
The irony of the difference in her response to Charlotte’s engagement and her own subsequent leniency towards materialism is further underlined by the reaction that the first sight of Pemberley arouses in her ("at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!"). Later, she tells Jane “…I hardly knew when it began. But I believe I must date it from my first seeing his beautiful grounds at Pemberley.” People have differed on how ironically this statement by Elizabeth, supposedly dating the beginning of her love for Darcy, should be taken. But however ironically she meant it herself, it cannot be denied that her regard for Darcy received a great impetus when she saw his beautiful house.
Darcy’s irony
Darcy is not as humourless and sober as he appears on the surface. He may not laugh, but in his own way he is as attuned to irony and incongruity as Elizabeth is. Their conversation shows that his wit can be as ready as Elizabeth’s. For example, when Miss Bingley accuses Elizabeth of being ‘one of those young ladies who seek to recommend themselves to the other sex, by undervaluing their own,' Mr. Darcy’s ironic response that “there is meanness in all the arts which ladies sometimes condescend to employ for captivation”indicates that he sees through Miss Bingley’s own attempt to “recommend” herself to him by “undervaluing” Elizabeth.
Mrs. Bennet’s irony
Mrs. Bennet is a minefield of unintentional irony. Her ill-natured, materialistic and narrow-minded view of the world is revealed in her foolish comments, such as the one she made about Bingley to Elizabeth on her return from Hunsford "Well, my comfort is, I am sure Jane will die of a broken heart, and then he will be sorry for what he has done.''
Other such comments abound. But in the final resolution of Mrs. Bennet’s deepest wishes for her daughters’ marriages, there lies still more irony. Even though it is the business of her life to get them married, she has only succeeded in ruining their prospects. If her daughters’ futures were left entirely up to her, her improper management of them would have ended up making them ineligible for any respectable suitors. In fact, it is Mr. Darcy who moves behind the scenes and secretly arranges the marriage of all the three Bennet girls. Thus Darcy, who she despises, and who in turn despises her, is the one who is ultimately responsible for her exultation at the end. This, then, is the greatest irony of all.
Jane Austen’s irony in the social context
Finally, the author’s most devastating use of irony in the book is in her attacks on community and on society, such as on the Meryton society. She uses irony as a social tool to direct the reader's gaze to some of the human imperfections that threaten the virtues of her culture.
Independent of any character, she uses irony in the narrative parts for some of her sharpest judgments. Through the Meryton community’s reaction to Lydia’s marriage with Wickham: (“the good-natured wishes for her well-doing, which had proceeded before, from all the spiteful old ladies of Meryton, lost but little of their spirit in this change of circumstances, because with such an husband, her misery was considered certain.”), Austen attacks society’s practice of taking pleasure in others’ ills, and the mean-spirited gossip-mongers that inhabit society.
Austen also pokes fun at society’s practice of suddenly becoming enamoured with a man because of his wealth without knowing his true nature. For instance, upon Darcy's entrance to a dance in chapter 3, Austen writes that “the report was in general circulation within five minutes...of his having ten thousand a year.” She adds that “the ladies declared that he was much handsomer than Mr. Bingley” – obviously his wealth recommended his countenance to them. That they retract their approval so fast when they realize that he pays no attention to them is no less ironic.
A striking feature of the irony in Pride and Prejudice is that it is mixed with unmistakable strains of cynicism. This ‘black’ irony is very much in evidence throughout the book. For example, in the following statements
Elizabeth on Bingley: “Is not general incivility the very essence of love?”
Mr. Collins to Elizabeth: “Your portion is unhappily so small that it will in all likelihood undo the efforts of your loveliness and amiable qualifications.”
Charlotte Lucas on marriage: “If a woman conceals her affection … from the object of it, she may lose the opportunity of fixing him. … In nine cases out of ten, a woman had better show more affection than she feels.”
The cynicism of all this is striking – especially the suggestions that human attachments spring largely from selfish motives, and that women who do not feign affection for men are likely to be left on the shelf.
Thus, irony is employed by Jane Austen in Pride and Prejudice as the lens through which society and human nature are viewed. She uses irony not only to create humour and make her books more enjoyable, but also to make veiled, bitter observations about the world around her. And this is why this novel is as relevant in our times as it was in hers, perhaps more – for in her hands irony is an extremely effective device for moral evaluation that exposes those defects in her society which still prevail in ours today.

"Love & Marriage" in "Pride & Prejudice"

"Love & Marriage" in "Pride & Prejudice"
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." Jane Austen stated the main subject of the novel is stated in the first sentence. In this statement, Jane has cleverly done three things: she has declared that the main subject of the novel will be courtship and marriage; she has established the humorous tone of the novel by taking a simple subject to elaborate and to speak intelligently of, and she has prepared the reader for a chase in the novel of either a husband in reach of a wife, or a woman in pursuit of a husband. All the five marriages in the novel contrast each other to reveal Jane's opinions and thoughts on the subject of marriage.
The marriage between Darcy and Elizabeth reveals the characteristics, which constitutes a successful marriage. One of these characteristics is that the feeling cannot be brought on by appearances, and must gradually develop between the two people as they get to know one another. In the beginning Elizabeth and Darcy were distant from each other because of their prejudice. The series of events, which they both experienced, gave them the opportunity to understand one another and the time to reconcile their feelings for each other. Thus, their mutual understanding is the foundation of their relationship and will lead them to a peaceful and lasting marriage. This relationship between Elizabeth and Darcy reveals the importance of getting to know one's partner before marrying. At the end, Elizabeth feels the pure sincerity of Darcy.
"She began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man, who in disposition and talents would most suit to her". So, Elizabeth and Darcy's marriage is marriage of dissimilarity and long understanding and we know that long understanding always helps in judging positive and negative points of each other. In this way their marriage is a successful marriage.
The marriage between Jane and Bingley is also an example of successful marriage. Jane Austen, through Elizabeth, expresses her opinion of this in the novel "really, believed all his (Bingley) expectations of felicity, to be rationally founded, because they had for basis the excellent understanding, and super excellent disposition of Jane, and a general similarity of feeling and taste between her and himself."
However, unlike Darcy and Elizabeth, there is a plan in their relationships. The flow in that both characters are too gullible and too good-hearted to ever act strongly against external forces that may attempt to separate them.
Mr. Bennet says: "You (Jane and Bingley) are each of you so complying, that nothing will ever be resolved on; so easy, that every servant will cheat you; and so generous, that you will always exceed your income." So, their marriage is in between success and failure.
Obviously, Lydia and Wickham's marriage is an example of bad marriage. Their marriage was based on appearances, good looks, and sensual or sexual pleasures and youthful vivacity. Once each other can no longer see these qualities, the once strong relationship will solemnly fade away. As in the novel, Lydia and Wickham's marriage gradually disintegrates. Lydia becomes a regular visitor at her two elder sisters’ home and "her husband was gone to enjoy himself in London or Bath." Through their relationship Jane Austen shows that hasty marriage based on superficial qualities quickly looks and leads to unhappiness.
Marriage of Mr. Bennet and Mrs. Bennet was similar to that of Lydia and Wickham. Mr. Bennt had married a woman he found sexually attractive without realizing she was an unintelligent woman. Mrs. Bennet's favouritism towards Lydia and her comments on how she was once as energetic as Lydia reveals this similarity. Mr. Bennet's comment on Wickham being his favourite son-in-law reinforces this parallelism. The effect of the relationships was that Mr. Bennet would isolate himself from his family, he found refuge in his library or in mocking his wife. Mr. Bennet's self-realization at the end of the novel in which he discovers that his lack of attention towards his family had lead his family to develop the way they are, was too late to save his family. He is Jane Austen's example of a weak father. Austen says about Mrs. Bennet: "she was a woman of mean understanding, little information and uncertain temperament, the business of her life was to get her daughters marry. Therefore, her solace was visiting and views."
About their marriage: “Her father captivating by youth and beauty and that appearance of good humour, with youth and beauty generally gave, had married a woman whose weak understanding and illiberal mind had very early in their marriage put an end to all real affection for her. Respect, esteem and confidence had vanished forever and all his veins of domestic happiness were over thrown."
In these two later relationships, Austen shows that it is necessary to use good judgment to select a spouse; otherwise the two people will lose respect for each other.
The last example of a marriage is of a different nature them the ones mentioned above. The marriage between Mr. Collins and Charlotte is based on economics rather them on love or appearance. It was a common practice during Austen's time for women to marry a husband to save her from spinsterhood or to gain financial security. However, Jane Austen dramatizes this form of women inequality and shows that women who submits them to this type of marriage will have to suffer in tormenting silence as Charlotte does.
"When Mr. Collins said anything of which his wife might reasonably be ashamed, which certainly was not unseldom, she (Elizabeth) would involuntarily turned her eye on Charlotte. Once or twice she could discern a faint blush; but in general Charlotte wisely did not hear."
In Pride and Prejudice Jane has denounced the elements of Marriage and society that she found distasteful. These five marriages contribute that a happy and strong marriage takes time to build and must be based on mutual feeling, understanding, and respect. Hasty marriages acting on impulse and based on superficial qualities will not survive and will lead to inevitable unhappiness. In this novel, “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage."

English Playwright and Poet, Christopher Marlowe’s Contribution to English Drama

English Playwright and Poet, Christopher Marlowe’s Contribution to English Drama

Christopher Marlowe made momentous and revolutionary contributions to English drama. The first great English dramatist and the most important Elizabethan dramatist before William Shakespeare,   Marlowe worked on tragedy and advanced it considerably as a dramatic medium.

(a) He created genuine blank verse and firmly established it as the most appropriate medium of poetic drama.
(b) He founded English romantic tragedy.
(c) He wrote the first great English history play.

Literary historian describes Marlowe’s achievement in all worthy words. Truly so, Marlowe raised the subject matter of English drama to a higher level. He dealt with heroic subject that had a stirring effect on the imagination. His heroes were Tamburlaine, a world conqueror (Tamburlaine the Great); Faustus, a scholar seeking supreme knowledge (The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus); Barabas, dreaming of figures on the stage enlarged, in men’s minds, the bounds of the possible (The Jew of Malta).

These three plays were a paean to the infinity of military power, of knowledge, and of wealth. The subject Marlowe borrowed, the heroes he moulded, were no more than his mouthpiece, voicing his exorbitant dreams. Read More Elizabethan Literature Like him they sought the infinite and like him were never sated. Marlowe is regarded as a rebel and a pioneer. He raised the standard of revolt against the convention of writing plays in rhyme and against the “clown age” of popular comedy. He seized upon blank verse as the ideal medium for drama which was introduced into England by the Earl of Surrey. By revealing the possibilities for strength and variety of expression in blank verse, Marlowe helped to establish the verse form as the predominant form in English drama.

He was the founder of genuine romantic tragedy, as regards both plot and character. Before him, the characters in plays had too often been mere lifeless puppets. Marlowe informed his central characters and the whole of his dialogue with life and passion. He was an admirer of Machiavelli whose ideal, as understood by that age, was the superman was, having decided what his goal is to be, and presses on to it regardless of scruples of conscience.

In each of his dramas one forceful protagonist with a single overriding passion dominates. In fact, Each of Marlowe's important plays have as a central character a passionate man doomed to destruction by an inordinate desire for power. The plays are further characterized by beautiful, sonorous language and emotional vitality, which is, however, at times unrestrained to the point of bombast. Such is the here of both parts of Tamburlaine, who seeks to conquer the world, trampling humanity mercilessly beneath him in his resistless course. Such is Faustus, whose ideal is boundless and lawless knowledge for the sake of universal power; such in Barabas, The Jew of Malta, revelling first in his prodigious wealth and then in the very ecstasy of revenge on those who had deprived him of it; such are Mortimer, in Edward II, and Guise in the Massacre at Paris, both monsters of unscrupulous ambition and resolution.

The Jew of Malta and Othello : Views on Religion and Criminality UOS PU KU

The Jew of Malta and Othello : Views on Religion and Criminality

In the Jew of Malta, there are three religions involved; they are Christianity, Jewish, and the Muslim Turks. The play begins with Barabbas, who is a Jewish merchant waiting for news about the arrival of his ships. After the confirmation that the ships had safely arrived at Malta from East, three men come to visit him with some news from the Maltese governor, Ferneze. The Turkish Sultan demands some tribute from Malta, which has accumulated for ten years. As a result, the governor orders all the Jews to give half of their estate to the governor to help him pay tribute to the Turks. All the three men accompanying Barabbas to the senate house are Jews. When Barabas considers and claims the action to be unfair, the governor confiscates all his ships in the Malta. Fernezes is a Christian and the religious language he uses against the Jews is not fair. He does not mention of Christians or Muslim Turks assisting him pay the tribute. As a result, Barabas declares revenge against the governor and all Christians. Barabas makes his decision about Christians basing his argument on the actions of only one Christian, Fernezes, and the Maltese governor (Eder, 2011).

The Othello play is displays some religious aspects and imagery. The play begins in the streets of Venice where two young men Roderigo and Lago shouts from outside the house of the Duke of Venice, Brabantio that his daughter, Desdemona had eloped with Othello, the Moor. Roderigo had failed in winning Desdemona hand in marriage and is accusing Othello of using witchcraft that is against the religion of Othello. Othello confesses that he won his wife in a clean and transparent way by sharing his adventure and true love with her. Othello had promoted Cassio in the workplace where Roderigo expected a promotion. The Duke of Venice, Brabantio is a Jew while Othello is a Christian, and he was very mad when he realized his daughter’s marriage to the Christian. After the case is presented to the officers of Venetian court and solved, Othello is set free to marry Desdemona. The religious imagery of the play is revealed when the Duke appoints Othello to the general in the defense against the Turks. He is a Jew, and he does not like the Muslim Turks. Othello is sent to Cyprus with his wife accompanying him in the next ship. The Christians, Muslim Turks, and Jews have enmity based on religious beliefs. Each of them receives religious teaching and morals to love and respect each other unfortunately, they do not observe the teachings (Shakespeare & Holste, 2002).

From the play the Jew of Malta, the governor also takes away, the Barabas house and converts it into a convent. This is a way of punishing the Jew for not cooperating in assisting the state in paying tribute to the Turks. Every Jew was supposed to give half of his estate to the governor, Fernezes, but Barabas refused. All his wealth was taken away and used by Christians which hurts him. To prove the religious conflict, he uses his daughter Abigal to revenge against the Maltese governor. According to (Kelsall, 2001) Abigail, is in a romantic relationship with Mathias, who is a friend to Lodowick, the Fernezes daughter. Coincidentally, Lodowick also had some interest in Abigail. With the help of Ithamore, the Turkish slave that Barabas bought from Fernezes, he creates a conflict between the two young men, and they end up killing each other. Ithamore is a Muslim Turk, who also hates Christians just like his boss Barabas. They are both criminals, and they work together in eliminating Christians from Malta. He makes them believe that his daughter is interested in them which is a lie. Abigal is very sad when he realizes that his father set a trap to kill Mathias. Barabas did not like the two Christians and did not want them anywhere close to his daughter, and hence he killed them. Barabas referred to Christians as thieves. This was an abusive language, whereas, he was a murderer. Barabas notes that he is just following Christian examples by quoting from the act in Catholic Christian teaching, “Faith is not to be kept with heretics”, where all the heretics are not Jews as McAdam, (2009) confirms. The Jew uses this to defend his evil actions against Christians.

Desdemona is accused of infidelity by Iago. Iago works to ensure divorce between Othello and his wife. He had been given some money by rich Rodinego to work for the divorce. Cassio got drunk after influence by Iago and Othello accused him of causing disturbance. Therefore, Desdemona, Othello’s wife promised Cassio that she would talk with her husband to ensure they reconciled and that he was not demoted. Iago, who is the husband to Emillia, a servant of Desdemona, accused Desdemona of infidelity. In the religious definition, infidelity was viewed as a severe offense in the Christian religious beliefs.As a result, Othello becomes very furious and orders Iago to kill Cassio. Othello goes ahead to kill his wife out of infidelity. The religious beliefs regarding infidelity does not allow the husbands to kill their wives. However, Othello goes ahead and does it. Therefore, the religious term infidel is revealed here. Othello, an African Christian does not follow on his Christian teachings and beliefs. He is unfaithful to his religious teachings. Therefore, in the act of redefining the religious term in the play, a Christian should follow the religious teachings and beliefs (Shakespeare, The tragedy of othello, the moor of venice, 2014). Othello is wrong and unreligious in the Christian faith by killing his wife and commanding Iago to kill Cassio. Killing is not taught in the Christian religion. Idolatry is also revealed where the Duke, believes that Othello used witchcraft to marry his daughter. Nevertheless, Desdemona confesses to love truly Othello.

An aspect of renegade is also revealed in the Jews of Malta. This refers to an act of moving from one religion to another that opposes it. After Abigal, Barabas daughter realized that his father caused the death of his love, Mathias, she joins convent where she becomes a Christian (Logan, 2013). The first time when she went to the convent in pretense to become a Christian, she wanted to get gold from his father’s house that was converted into the convent by the fernezes, the Maltese governor. She converted back to Jew after getting the gold. Abigal was serious for converting to Christianity for the second time after learning how evil her father was. Unfortunately, Barabas killed all the nuns and his daughter by poisoning them using rice porridge. Barabas had also confused the priests by promising them that he would convert to Christianity. Barabas did not to convert to Christianity but wanted to set a trap to the two priests. Due to greediness for money, the two priests started fighting for Barabas to join their church. Marlowe, Gill, & Rowland, The complete works / 4 The Jew of Malta., (2005) puts it clearly that the focus was not to preach the religious practices to Barabas but to benefit from his wealth. Unfortunately, they both lost their lives. Barabas kills the two Friars after inviting them into his house. Abigal had confessed of her father’s criminal offense to the two priests, Jacomo and Bernadine of killing Lodowick and Mathias before she died. Therefore, renegade, idolatry, and infidel are redefined as in the two plays as described (Marlowe & Ellis, 2003).

Malta, Venice, and Cyprus are figured as areas of religious identity, criminality, sexual and gender issues related to the two plays. Barabas commits all his crimes in Malta; he killed the nuns and his daughter in the convent that is located in Malta. Barabas is not happy with the Maltese governor and hence figure the place as an area of committing crimes for revenge. The two priests, Jacomo, and Bernadine, were also killed in Malta. When the prostitute whom Ithamore had fallen in love advised him to blackmail Barabas, she was also poisoned by Barabas. Barabas is a Jew, who is a criminal. By the end of the play, he also killed Ithamore after learning his plan with the prostitute to blackmail him of his gold. In the same way, all the religious conflicts take place in Malta. The Christians, Jews and Muslim Turks in Malta are enemies to each other. Towards the end of the play, Barabas wanted to kill Turkish sultan’s son Selim Calymath, who was sent to collect the tribute from the Malta governor. Fortunately, Fernezes stopped him.

In Venice, Othello is a male general who is sent to Cyprus to fight against Turks. The issue of gender and sexuality comes in. The duke selects a male defense general basing his argument on gender. The crimes also take place in Cyprus where Cassio and Desdemona are killed. All the crimes are based on religious rhetorical beliefs. Barabas kills his daughter for converting to Christianity, which is a rhetoric, religious belief. All the other nuns did not deserve to die. That was an issue between him and his daughter. According to Hall, (2009) the Duke is also seen to have some rhetoric, religious beliefs. He believes that Othello used witchcraft to win his daughter’s hand in marriage.

In conclusion, the two plays, The Jew of Malta and Othello involves religious beliefs and imagery. The characters like Barabas are Jews, and they hate Christians who have been revealed through the criminal acts of killing them. The governor is also not fair to Jews because, he takes the house of Barabas and convert it into a convent. Barabas defends his evil action from the fact that a Christian, Fernezes took away all his wealth. Infidel, Renegade and idolatry are religious terms redefined in the two plays. Malta, Venice, and Cyprus are viewed and defined by the characters with rhetoric, religious beliefs as the places for religious identity, sexuality and crime re-fashioning. The evils that revolve around the three areas are linked to rhetoric, religious beliefs. Barabas kills Christians as a result of rhetoric beliefs about Christianity. However, he is a criminal because he kills even Ithamore, a Muslim Turk, who was his servant. He also had intentions of killing Calymath, who is the son of Sultan; he comes to get tribute from Malta. However, Fernezes stops him from killing the innocent young man. Barabas is a criminal and a selfish man.