Psychological Growth in Gulliver's Travels.

Name : Vishva Gajjar

Roll No. : 45

Stream : M.A.

Main Subject : English

Semester : 1

Paper no. 2 – The Neo-Classical Literature

Assignment topic :     Discuss the Psychological growth in Gulliver’s Travels.

Mentor : Medam Heenaba Zala

Department of English

Bhavnagar University

Batch : 2018-2020

Introduction:

Jonathan Swift (30 November 1667 – 19 October 1745) was an Anglo-Irish satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer (first for the Whigs, then for the Tories), poet and cleric who became Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin.

Swift is remembered for works such as A Tale of a Tub (1704), An Argument Against Abolishing Christianity (1712), Gulliver's Travels(1726), and A Modest Proposal (1729). He is regarded by the Encyclopaedia Britannica as the foremost prose satirist in the English language, and is less well known for his poetry.   

Although, it is a travel fiction, very popular in those day. Swift uses it to laugh at the stupid ways of people in politics at that time. It is at once a delightful, fantastic story of adventure for children, a political allegory and serious controversies and on the morals of the age. The book is written in the form of a travelogue.

Hence, Gulliver’s Travels is considered to be the most famous example of Jonathan Swift’s satirical works. The hero and narrator of the story is Lemuel Gulliver, an English Physician who opts to travel as a ship’s surgeon.

Introduction of Novel:

The book is mainly divided into four parts, each dealing with Gulliver’s experience in a different fantasy land. They are as below:

1.   Lilliput

2.   Brobdingnag

3.   Laputa

4.   Houyhnhnms

♦ Overview of Voyages:

1.     Lilliput:

A voyage to Lilliput, deals with Gulliver’s experience on the land of dwarfs, who were no more than six inches tall. It is on one level an absorbing tale of the adventures of the giant Gulliver among the Lilliputians and on another level rich in allegorical references to the politics on land of England. It’s all about a scathing satire on the moral pettiness of humans as seen in the behaviour of the Lilliputians. On this land people are filled with the sense of their own importance and cannot view themselves with objectivity. Their pride and boastfulness are revealed as ridiculous when perceived from Gulliver’s Travels.

2.     Brobdingnag:

On this voyage the situation of Gulliver is totally opposite then the first one. Here Gulliver is now marooned and dwarfed in the land of giants who are over forty feet tall. Here, Swift satirizes the physical grossness of the human and the ugliness of the human body. The malignancy of humans as a political animal portrayed in the person of Gulliver. On this land he is little more than an insect and at his best, an amusing toy. Gulliver ends up in a miniature box which is picked up by a giant eagle and dropped into the ocean. This signals his departure from Brobdingnag and the beginning of his third voyage to Laputa.

3.     Laputa:

During this voyage he is floating on air. At this voyage he also travelled to other four islands which are Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. The representation of these four islands is a satire on the scientist and philosopher of the age. Here, we find hierarchy structure in Laputa, because the floating island represents the distance between the government and the people. The is concerned for the people, but he never tries to go at their place and meet them. Here, Gulliver is neglected by king often when he suggests him to stay in contact with his people. Through the people of Laputa, Swift ridicules the experiment of the royal society and allied institutions of the time. After a long journey to Japan, Gulliver returns to England before setting out on his final voyage to the land of the Houyhnhnms.

4.       Houyhnhnms:

This experience of Gulliver narrates that the this was the land of the Houyhnhnms or horses and the Yahoos. These horses are creature governed solely by reason, free from any emotion or passion. While the Yahoos who physically resemble human beings are ruled by ‘animals’ instincts. The human is placed between the two extremes of rationality and animality. Gulliver is repulsed at being identified with the Yahoos on the land of Houyhnhnms. In conversation with the master horse (whose language Gulliver has learnt) he explains the customs practiced in England, including the wearing of clothes by Humans (who are resemble as Yahoos), the government of the people, the legal system, and the uses of money as instruments of purchase. The master horse doesn’t believe when Gulliver says him that in England horses are trained by a man to ride over it. Many of the concepts cannot be translated into the Houyhnhnm’s language as their vocabulary and range of experience were limited. At some extent Gulliver whimsies to be a one of the Houyhnhnms and he grows content living with his Houyhnhnm master and hopes to be as like them as possible, but he has to leave the island after all he is a Yahoo to the Houyhnhnms.

♦ Psychological Growth of Gulliver in the Novel:

          When we come to this point, in novel Gulliver visits four different islands and meets different people and also has different atmosphere. In movie we find that Gulliver returns to home after nine years; he could not even recognize his wife and son. His mental condition seems to be ill. He is even sent to the mental asylum for psychological treatment. Gulliver himself could not accept his arrival to England because for the past nine years he spent his life on four different fantasy lands. He is still in the illusion of that voyages and behaves weirdly.

          In novel we find that Gulliver returns home (England) after each voyage for two months and spends time with his family. In novel we don’t find psychological illness which is represented in the movie version.

          In his first voyage (Lilliput) we find that Swift satires on people and politics or politicians that how human beings live? What point of view they carry to move? Here, Gulliver is a giant and Lilliputians are like toy size.

1.     Moral Pettiness:

People mostly do wrong things on the name of religion, ideals and morals or morality. They merely hurt each other, doing nothing else.

2.       Grandeur and Self-Importance:

‘Humans’ always stays busy in highlighting themselves to others instead of doing worth full deeds. He/she always concentrates on his own reputation, importance, appearance, status etc. Basically, they become self-centred.

3.       Pride, Vanity and Boastfulness:

Human beings are usually found with these three qualities: Pride, Vanity and Boastfulness. They boast for their life-style, status etc. This thing is generally happening in upper class people, but they forgot that no one has higher authority than the Nature. They are always seen with fake pride and vanity.

          In his second voyage (Brobdingnag) Swift satires on physical grossness and ugliness of human kind. Here, Gulliver is an amusing toy in Giant’s world. Swift also satires on malignancy as political animal. It develops the sense which represents the ‘mud of politics’ and ‘wore power of chair’; which leads to disaster.

          If we compare the first two voyages, we will find ‘rule of reverse situation’. It means on Lilliput, Gulliver is giant and in power position whereas in second voyage- Brobdingnag we find him among giants and he is treated as toy for amusement by farmer, his wife, queen, dwarf etc. Here, he felt bad upon himself. He realizes the place he had in Lilliputians. It suggest that:

“ One always stays below to another,

And he could ever find the higher

Authority to him; basically there is no

Highest authority.”

          Moving on to the third voyage (Laputa- Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrid and Japan). With these voyages’ Swift satires on magicians, scientists and on social hierarchy (into a political context). He also satires on the philosophers of the age.

          Here, Gulliver finds social structural hierarchy in Laputa, when he was on the floating island (Laputa) with King, he finds that king is concerned for his people who live below him, but he never tries to go there and meet them personally to know their problems.

          It suggests the best thought for anarch. While a King on his “Chair” he must concentrates to his people and their need. There is always gape remain between a King and his people, but to remove that gape always in king’s hand. Basically Swift tries to convey that,

“Authority always stands for bellow’s wellbeing.”

          But, instead to think over it authority always misused by “Authority”.

          Now let’s come to the final voyage (Houyhnhnms). Here, Swift satires on human nature and their fake wishes for money and all. Moreover we find here that the authority is horses (Houyhnhnms) not Yahoos (resemble as Mankind, but wild like animal).

          Conversation between Gulliver and Houyhnhnm-Master, we find that they do not have knowledge of custom practices, legal system, social hierarchy, wearing cloths and all, money as the instruments of purchase, etc. Seemingly they are far from ideals and morals (seems practical). They have lack of emotions and feelings. They two have good conversation upon matrimonial matters. In Houyhnhnms there is no casticism and classicism which being an error to coupling. It is just a shake of creating new generation. Generally, we do not find this sense in Human Kind. Even they are also greedy as human kind (but in other manners)

          At one point (in movie version) Gulliver throw the precious stone which was with him. Because, he thought he would never return to his home-land and in this world of Houyhnhnms it has no values at all.

          When, Gulliver returns to his Home-Land, he tries to put his experience front of all other. Very firstly he was rejected and mocked by those people as he was in illusion or not in his sane. Later, his tells was acceptable by all.

          We find that Gulliver’s returning to home also brought the knowledge for well human being. His Psychology developed, because he could find the problems in his people, government and as a human in his own.

          That’s true that if one wants to capture whole picture; one need to get rid out the picture first and then only he can see that whole picture clearly.

          When Gulliver spends his most time out of his world; he was able to find other different worlds. So that he could find what should be reformed and what should be changed? This helped him to find himself somewhere better place. It proved betterment to him.

Conclusion :-

          Swift seems to indicate to us that the nature of human is complex and defies definition unlike that of the Yahoos and the Houyhnhnms.

          The book for all its harsh satire and anger, instructs humans to see themselves with humility and honesty.

          The imagery of size is used in Gulliver’s Travels to draw attention to misplaced human pride and the fact that power and self-importance depend entirely on circumstances and are not inherent in human nature.

Evaluation Link For Above Topic
 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/10/rubric-for-evaluation-of-written.html

Character of Eklavya from 'The Purpose'

Name : Vishva Gajjar

Roll No. : 45

Stream : M.A.

Main Subject : English

Semester : 1

Paper no. 4 – Indian Writing in English

Assignment topic :     Discuss the Character of Eklavya (in reference to other Characters) from ‘The Purpose’.

Mentor : Medam Heenaba Zala

Department of English

Bhavnagar University

Batch : 2018-2020

Introduction :

            The play “The Purpose” is written by very famous and well-known playwright T.P.Kailasam. His full name is Thyagaraja Paramasiva Kailasam.  He was playwright and prominent writer of Kannada Literature comedy earned him the title: the father of humorous plays” and later he was also called as “One and only Kailasam for Kannada”.

About Author :-

T.P.Kailasam is remembered as the father of Modern Kannada drama, the man of genius whose plays revolutionized the kannada stage. Kailasam focused on contemporary social problems, a deeply compassionate vision of the human struggle, an almost Shakespearian power to evoke sympathetic laughter and an amazing grasp of the living language of men, combined with the gift of using it artistically for dramatic purpose.

About Play “The Purpose” :-

            ‘The Purpose’ is a Myth; which is taken from “Mahabharata”. It contains a story of ‘Archery’ which took place in forest. Arjuna was a small boy who goes to guru Drona’s ashram for learning archery with pandvas and their cousin brothers Kauravas. Guru Dronacharya was best in archery. Bhishma knows that so he sent his grand children to learn archery from him. Arjuna was the favourite student of Guru Drona. In ‘Mahabharata’ Arjuna was shown fast learner, whereas in ‘Purpose’ by T.P.Kailasam Arjuna represented slow learning than the Eklavya. In; Purpose’ Eklavya is the protagonist.

‘Purpose’ – the title suggests its meaning that the aim of teaching archery but only to the royal children for Guru Drona, Purpose of learning archery for Arjuna and for Eklavya.

For Arjuna to learn Archery was to become great Archer in his era; whereas to Eklavya; his purpose after learning the Archery was symbol of selflessness. He wanted to learn Archery because he wanted to become saviour of innocent animals. Here, in ‘Purpose’, Kailasam represents that the Arjuna is completely personal and to Eklavya it was totally opposite to Arjuna.

The difference in the same incidence between Mahabharata and Purpose:-

            Usually when we see in Mahabharata, we find that character of Arjuna is highlighted. Moreover, readers find that unjust is done with Eklavya. After guru Drona’s Propound for ‘Thumb’ to Eklavya as Guru Dakshina Story moves to Arjuna’s training of archery and did not capture the pain of an lost Thumb (to an Archer his most precious weapon is his Thumb).

Whereas in “The Purpose” Kailasam focus on the Eklavya and his after condition. He represents Eklavya as the protagonist of the play and depicts him as a “Tragic Hero”. Here, the readers somehow satisfied with Kailasam’s idea to focus on Eklavya.

After sacrifices thumb Eklavya regret that it was not his authority to smutch a major weapon from innocents’ saviour. He was the only who could save those animals with his archery skill without hurting them, but now he won’t be able to do so.

Character overview of Drona:-

            AS we discussed before that Drona was a great Archer. He had first promised to Bhisma that he would never teach Archery to any other child except Pandvas and Kauravas (Royal Children) and the second promise he done to Bhisma and Arjuna both that he would make Arjuna the greatest archer of the era. So, after knowing that the Eklavya is more allegeable and desirable guy to be a great archer than the Arjuna. Although, shake of his two promises he resisted Eklavya to become his guru (teacher).

Character of Arjuna :-

            Arjuna is the third child among five Pandvas. He was the favourite child to Bhishma, Guru Drona and Lord Shree Krishna too. In “The Purpose” we find Arjuna is selfish at some extent (we do not find the same in “Mahabharata”. The character of Arjuna was highly glorified among all other characters in Mahabharata.). He also feels jealous fromEklavya after acknowledge that he can be more powerful and greater archer than him. He also threatened Guru Drona that if he will break his promise then he will tell this to Bhishma, so better to send Eklavya away. Here, we find the very ideal character of Mahabharata juxtaposes and depicted as cheaper character in “Purpose”. My verdict leads me there were we can say Kailasam’s sympathy to Eklavya pushes him to represent Arjuna cheaper than him or may be the Ved Vyas had biases towards Pandvas and depicted Eklavya at inferior state.

Character – Sketch of Eklavya :-

Eklavya is the protagonist of the play “The Purpose”. He is a Nishada boy. He always speaks whatever is the truth. He has great esteem. He really likes the technique of Guru Dronacharya but he also recognized Arjuna as his companion. In Mahabharat he is not powerful character, but in this play he is powerful character drawn by T.P.Kailasam.

            Once he was talking with his mother about archery that he wants to become best archer in the world, that time his mother told him that Guru Dronacharya was the best teacher for Archery if he accepts you as a student then this way you can became best archer. At that time he decided that he will learn archery from Guru Dronacharya and try to convince him to teach him archery, but guru Dronacharya denies him because he a teacher of Pandvas and Kauravas. He tells him that “I am a teacher of Princes so I can’t teach you”

            When Eklavya enters into the ashram, he expresses his feelings with these words; “(Looking all around him) this does look like exactly the place mother spoke of :”A wide vast grassy play ground with bejewelled and beautifully dressed handsome young princes at bow sword and mace exercises… being taught their lessons by a tall and noble looking Brahamana” is how She described it! And it all fits in every bit!”

            He was so interested in the archery that he thought that he must not miss a word of Drona. This shows his love for him. He loves Gur Dronacharya and he has respect for him this thing we can see in the dialogues that are spoken by Eklavya in this play. During this entire situation Eklavya was not noticed by any one ‘he just shares his feeling with his own self. He tries to prepare himself because now he was going to present himself to Guru Drona. He already knows that because of his cast, may be Drona will not teach him but he thinks that because of his aim to become a great archer who wants to help others he would have to dare for him.

            He has very good capturing ability which is seemed here when he listened Guru Drona preaches to Arjuna before giving him training that to become a great archer is in one’s hand only. One should be strong and stabile at his aim and this way one can achieve his goal. Here, Eklavya knows very well that his aim is very noble. At sometimes he also becomes negative like his aim cannot be noble than Arjuna; he is very hard-working. Although he goes to Guru Drona,

I have tried hard ever do hard, Sir, to learn by myself… But it Does seem not possible, Sir, to Learn all by one’s own self!”

With the help of above lines, we can say that he is really tries hard to convince Drona to teach him. His manner of expressing is like child explaining something to elders.

            When he denies to teach, Eklavya leaves and decided to create a statue of guru Drona and he would learn the archery with the inspiration of the statue; than he becomes successful and being to be a scholar in archery. When guru Drona saw that Eklavya could shut up the mouth of a barking wild dog with his bow very skilfully; by aiming them at correct place to knit the mouth of that dog to save Pandvas. It shows his skill in Archery. Everyone was socked, ‘Who did this?’ Guru Drona asked! Eklavya came and exclaimed positively that he did this. Guru Drona asked him who taught him this he replied, “From you Gurujee!” Drona asked with praise “How?” He never taught him. Then Eklavya led them to the statue of Guru Drona which he made and worshiped. Arjuna was upset with this. Guru Drona seems self-centred here when he thinks about promise and reputation for shake of these; he propounds for his ‘Right hand Thumb’ as a Guru-Dakshina. So, that Eklavya can never do archery. To save his promise and reputation he did not realize that he has become mean for this. Because to beg for Guru-Dakshina is only for whom who has actually taught to his student and at last that student offers the Guru-Dakshina to his guru. Here, Eklavya took Drona’s statue as a teacher but seemingly Drona was not there to teach him, he rejected him. So, he had no right to ask for Guru-Dakshina.

Comparison between Eklavya and Arjuna :-

The similarity between both the characters is that both want to become the world’s best archer. Though, the aim is same, the purpose is different. Arjuna has the personal purpose and Eklavya has purpose to save innocent animals. The name or the title of the play “The Purpose”; which given by playwright appropriately, with the centre of the story.

Contrast between Arjuna and Eklavya :-

            Now, let’s talk about contrast or difference between these two characters Eklavya and Arjuna; that these both the characters have their own aspects and different point of views about the purpose of learning archery. In their childhood, Eklavya tells Arjuna face to face that Arjuna cannot improve it and will continue his archery like he is doing at that time. This shows that Eklavya is self-learner and fast learner, whereas Arjuna comparatively slow learner. Eklavya never loses his temper in small matters whereas Arjuna has hasty nature.

            After Eklavya lost his thumb he feels very depressed and expresses his feelings with these words:

“Will you all please leave me tomy own self?”

“You know it will never be farewell between us, Gurujee.”

“Gods! My fawns in distress! And I too helpless myself to help them.”

Comparison of Eklavya and Karna :-

            I took this character of Karna because he has so many similarities with Eklavya’s Character. Let’s see.

            Karna had a same question as Eklavya had (Karna was a character from Mahabharata). Basically, Karna was Kunti-Putra (Son of Kunti by Lord Sun) So he was Kshatriya, but he was brought up by a sut-couple and so that he known as Sut-Putra. He also wanted to learn from ‘Shree Parshuram’. But, because of his cast Parshuram could not teach him. Here, Karna speaks lie to Parshuram and get knowledge. When Parshuram comes to know that he is kshatriya, he got angry but instead cursed him that “on suitable time (needy time), you would forget your all learning skills”.

            Here, the similarity between Eklavya and Arjuna is only that they both are deserving and could not get justice because of casteism. Eklavya speaks truth and loses his thumb (most needy weapon for Archery) whereas Karna speaks lie and also loses his skills at last.

Conclusion: -

            So, we can say that here in this play Kailasam tried to give justice to Eklavya’s character which is not there is in original myth. Here he tries to destroy or break the real myth of Mahabharata. This the typical style of T.P.Kaisasam that he breaks the old rules in his all works either it is a play or any other work.

Evaluation Link for above Topic

 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/10/rubric-for-evaluation-of-written.html

               

Plato's Objections to Poetry and Aristotatle's Defense to Poetry

Name : Vishva Gajjar

Roll No. : 45

Stream : M.A.

Main Subject : English

Semester : 1

Paper no. 3 – Literary Criticism

Assignment topic :     Discuss the Plato’s

Objections to Poetry and Aristotatle’s Defense to Poetry.

Mentor : Dr. Dilip P. Barad Sir

Department of English

Bhavnagar University

Batch : 2018-2020

Introduction: -

            Here, we will discuss the objection of Plato to poetry and defence of Aristotle to poetry. The debate is quite logical. Let’s have a glance upon it.

Plato’s Objection to Poetry: -

             Plato’s theory of Mimesis or imitation: The arts deal with illusion or they are imitation of an imitation. Twice removed from reality. As a moralist Plato disapproves of Poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based on falsehood.

            Philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea/truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion. He believed that truth of philosophy was more important than the pleasure of poetry.

Plato was the most distinguished disciple of Socrates. The 4^th BC to which he belonged was as age of inquiry and such Plato’s chief interest was Philosophical investigation which from the subject of his great works in form of Dialogue. He was not a professed critic of Literature and his critical observations are not found in any single book.

He was the First Systemic Critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and dialogues are full of his gifted dramatic quality. His Dialogues are the classic works of the world literature having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements.

According to Plato all arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in The Republic that ‘ideas are the ultimate reality’. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of that idea. Carpenter’s chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus, chair is once removed from reality. But painter’s chair is imitation of carpenter’s chair. So, it is twice removed from reality. Thus artist/poet take man away from reality rather than towards it. Thus, artist deals in illusion.

Plato’s three main objections to poetry are that poetry is not ethical, philosophical and pragmatic, in other words. He objected to poetry from the point of view of Education, from Philosophical point of view and from moral point of view.

According to Plato, poetry is not ethical because it promotes undesirable passions, it is not philosophical and  does not provides true knowledge, and it is not pragmatic because it is inferior to the practical arts and therefore has no educational value. Plato then makes a challenge to poets to defend themselves against his criticism. Ironically it was Plato’s most famous student, Aristotle, who was the first theorist to defend literature and poetry in his writing Poetics.

Plato felt that poetry, like all forms of art, appeals to the inferior part of the soul, the irrational, emotional cowardly part. The reader of poetry is seduced into feeling undesirable emotions. To Plato, an appreciation of poetry is incompatible with an appreciation of reason, justice and the search for truth. He suggests that poetry causes needless lamentation and ecstasies at the imaginary events of sorrow and happiness.

To him Drama is the most dangerous form of literature because the author is imitating things that he / she does not understand. Plato seemingly feels that no words are strong enough to condemn drama.

Plato is, above all, a moralist. Plato’s question in Book 10 is the intellectual status of literature. He states that, the good poet cannot compose well unless he knows his subject, and he who does not have this knowledge can never be a poet. His point is that in order to copy or imitate correctly, one must have knowledge of the original. Plato says that imitation is twice removed from the truth. Stories that are untrue have, no value, as no untrue story should be told in the city. He states that nothing can be learned from imitative poetry.

Plato’s commentary on poetry in Republic is overwhelming negative. Plato’s main concern about poetry is that children’s minds are too impressionable to be reading false tales and misrepresentation of the truth. He is essentially saying that children cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality and this compromises their ability to discern right from wrong. Plato reasons that literature that portrays the gods as behaving in immoral ways should be kept away from children, so that they will not be influence to act the same way.

Another objection is that it is often viewed as portraying either male dominance or female exploitation. Plato does not views may be deemed narrow-minded by today’s society, but one must remember that Plato lived over 2000 years ago. He probably wrote Republic with the best intentions for the people of his time. While his views on censorship and poetry may even seem outlandish today, Plato’s goal was to state what he judged to be the guidelines for a better human existence.

1.     Plato’s objection to Poetry from the point of view of Education :

·        In the ‘The Republic’ Book 2- He condemns poetry as fostering evil habits and vices in children. Homer’s epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not example of sound or ideal morality. They were lusty, cunning and cruel – war mongers. Even Gods were no better. Thus, he objected on the ground that poetry does not cultivate good habits among children.

2.     Objection from Philosophical point of view:

·        According to Plato, Philosophy is far better than the poetry because Philosophy deals with ‘idea’ and Poetry is twice removed from ‘Original Idea’.

·        Plato says: “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearance only … the imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior offspring.”

3.    Objection from the moral point of view:

·        Plato verdicts that, “Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men emotional, sentimental and sorrowful.

·        “Soul of man has higher principles of reason (which is the essence of its being) as well as lower constituted of baser impulses and emotions. Whatever encourages and strengthens and the rational principal is good, and emotional is bad.” – In his same book – ‘Republic.’

These are Plato’s principles charges on poetry and objection to it. Before we pass on any judgment, we should not forget to keep in view the time in which he lived. During his time:

1.     Political instability.

2.     Education was in sorry state. Homer was part of studies- misrepresented.

3.     Women were regarded inferior – slavery.

4.     Best time of Greek literature was over corruption and degeneration in literature.

5.     Confusion prevailed in all sphere of life-intellect, moral, political and education.

·        Example:  philosophers and thinkers like Socrates were imprisoned, forced to drink wine and kill him.

·        Now, let’s move to Aristotle; who defence poetry in very generous way.

Plato confused the study of ‘aesthetic’ with the study of ‘moral’. Aristotle removed that confusion and created the study of aesthetics.

Plato was great poet, a mystic and philosopher. Aristotle- the most distinguished disciple of Plato was critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The master was an inspired genius every way greater than the disciple except in logic, analysis and common sense.

He is known for his critical treatise: 1) The poetics and 2) The Rhetoric, dealing with art of poetry and art of speaking.

For centuries during Roman age in Europe and after renaissance, Aristotle was honoured as a law-giver and legislator. Even today his critical theories remain largely relevant, and for this he certainly deserves our admiration and esteem.

But he was never a law-giver in literature. The poetics is not merely commentary or judgement on the poetic art. Its conclusion is firmly rooted in the Greek literature and is actually illustrated form it. He was a codifier; he derived and discussed the principles of literature as manifest in the plays and poetry existing in his own day.

His main concern appears to be tragedy, which in his day was considered to be the most developed form of poetry. In his observations on the nature and function of poetry, he has replied the charges of Plato against poetry, wherein he partly agrees and partly disagrees with his teacher.

The nature of poetry:

poetic inspiration:

Theory of Inspiration:

·        Aristotle agrees with Plato in calling the poet an imitator and creative art, imitation. He imitates one of the three objects – things as they were /are, things as they are said / thought to be or things as they ought to be. In other words, his imitation what is past or present, what is commonly believed and what is ideal. Aristotle believes that there is natural pleasure in imitation which is in-born instinct in men. It is this pleasure in imitation that enables the child to learn his earliest lessons in speech and conduct from those around him, because there is a pleasure in doing so. In grown up child – a poet, there is another instinct, helping him to make him a poet – the instinct for harmony and rhythm.

·        He does not agree with his teacher in ‘poet’s imitation is twice removed from reality and hence unreal/illusion of truth. To Prove his point, he compares poetry with history. The poet and the historian differ not by their medium, but the true difference is that the historian relates ‘what has happened? the poet, what may/ought to have happened? – the ideal. Poetry, therefore, is more philosophical and higher thing than the history, which expresses the particular, while poetry tends to express the universal. Therefore, the picture of poetry please all times.

·        Aristotle does not agree with Plato in function of poetry to make people weaker and emotional/too sentimental. For him, Catharsis is ennobling and humble human being.

·        So far as moral nature of poetry is concerned, Aristotle believed that the end of poetry is to please; however, teaching may be given. Such pleasing is superior to the other pleasure because it teaches civic morality. So, all good literature gives pleasure which is not divorced from moral lessons.

Conclusion: -

Plato judge’s poetry now from the educational standpoint, from the philosophical standpoint and the ethical one. But he does not care to consider it from its own standpoint. He does not define its aims. He forgets that everything should be judges in terms of its own aims and objective its own critic of merit and demerit. We cannot fairly maintain that music is bad because it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we cannot say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy of ethics. If poetry, philosophy and ethics had identical function, how could they be different subjects? To denounce poetry because it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly absurd.

Evaluation Link for above Topic

 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/10/rubric-for-evaluation-of-written.html

Seven Deadly Sins in Doctor Faustus

Name : Vishva Gajjar

Roll No. : 45

Stream : M.A.

Main Subject : English

Semester : 1

Paper no. 1 – Renaissance Literature

Assignment topic : Seven Deadly Sins in

Doctor Faustus

Mentor : Dr. Dilip P. Barad Sir

Department of English

Bhavnagar University

Batch : 2018-2020

Introduction of Writer:

               

Christopher Marlowe also known as Kit Marlowe was born on26 February 1564 and died on 30 May 1593, was an English playwright, poet and translator of the Elizabethan era. Marlowe was the foremost Elizabethan tragedian of his day. He greatly influenced William Shakespeare, who was born in the same year as Marlowe and who rose to become the pre-eminent Elizabethan playwright after Marlowe's mysterious early death. Marlowe's plays are known for the use of blank verse and their overreaching protagonists.

            Some of his works are as under:

·        Tamburlane

·        The Jew of Malta

·        Doctor Faustus

·        Edward 2

·        The Massacre at Paris

Overview of Play:

Faustus is the protagonist and tragic hero of Marlowe’s play. He is a contradictory character, capable of tremendous eloquence and possessing awesome ambition, almost wilful blindness and a willingness to waste powers that he has gained at great cost. When we first see Faustus, he is just preparing to embark on his career as a magician. Before practicing magic, he imagines piling up wealth from the four corners of the globe, reshaping the map of Europe (both politically and physically), and gaining access to every scrap of knowledge about the universe. He is an arrogant, self-aggrandizing man, but his ambitions are so grand that we cannot help being impressed, and we even feel sympathetic toward him. He represents the spirit of the Renaissance, with its rejection of the medieval, God-centred universe, and its embrace of human possibility.

But Faustus also possesses an obtuseness that becomes apparent during his bargaining sessions with Mephastophilis. Having decided that a pact with the devil is the only way to fulfil his ambitions, Faustus then blinds himself happily to what such a pact actually means. Sometimes he tells himself that hell is not so bad and that one needs only “fortitude”; at other times, even while conversing with Mephastophilis, he remarks to the disbelieving demon that he does not actually believe hell exists. Meanwhile, despite his lack of concern about the prospect of eternal damnation, -Faustus is also beset with doubts from the beginning, setting a pattern for the play in which he repeatedly approaches repentance only to pull back at the last moment. Why he fails to repent is unclear: -sometimes it seems a matter of pride and continuing ambition, sometimes a conviction that God will not hear his plea. Other times, it seems that Mephastophilis simply bullies him away from repenting.

Bullying Faustus is less difficult than it might seem, because Marlowe, after setting his protagonist up as a grandly tragic figure of sweeping visions and immense ambitions, spends the middle scenes revealing Faustus’s true, petty nature. Once Faustus gains his long-desired powers, he does not know what to do with them. Marlowe suggests that this uncertainty stems, in part, from the fact that desire for knowledge leads inexorably toward God, whom Faustus has renounced. But, more generally, absolute power corrupts Faustus: once he can do everything, he no longer wants to do anything. Instead, he traipses around Europe, playing tricks on yokels and performing conjuring acts to impress various heads of state. He uses his incredible gifts for what is essentially trifling entertainment. The fields of possibility narrow gradually, as he visits ever more minor nobles and performs ever more unimportant magic tricks, until the Faustus of the first few scenes is entirely swallowed up in mediocrity. Only in the final scene is Faustus rescued from mediocrity, as the knowledge of his impending doom restores his earlier gift of powerful rhetoric, and he regains his sweeping sense of vision. Now, however, the vision that he sees is of hell looming up to swallow him. Marlowe uses much of his finest poetry to describe Faustus’s final hours, during which Faustus’s desire for repentance finally wins out, although too late. Still, Faustus is restored to his earlier grandeur in his closing speech, with its hurried rush from idea to idea and its despairing, Renaissance-renouncing last line, “I’ll burn my books!” He becomes once again a tragic hero, a great man undone because his ambitions have butted up against the law of God.

Seven Deadly Sins:

        He does nothing to protect Germany or the poor. Instead he commits many mortal and venal sins:

1.     Pride : (the mother of all sins: believing too much in our own abilities interferes with us recognising the grace of God).Faustus casts aside the doctrines available to him, scorning them for being too easy or simplistic for him. He therefore is unsatisfied with being mortal, i.e., subject to the laws of nature and God. He believes God will not give him the answers he deserves while he is on earth, so turns to Lucifer instead.

2.     Covetousness : (the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual). Faustus requests that Mephistopheles brings him ‘money, possessions and sensual delights’ every day, temporal satisfactions that are nothing in comparison to what is promised by God in Heaven.

3.     Envy : (the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation) Faustus envies the Emperor, the Pope, Lucifer and even God for having power and status beyond him. He summons Mephistopheles so that he can use him to have a power he hopes will exceed the power of them all.

4.     Anger :  (when love is overcome by fury) Faustus is so furious at Benvolio’s mockery of him that he indulges in a petty act of spite by conjuring a pair of antlers to appear on the man’s head. When he cannot face the truth the Old Man offers him – that forgiveness is his if he asks God for it – he becomes angry and asks Mephistopheles to call demons to torture the Old Man to his death.

5.     Gluttony : (an excessive desire to consume more than that which one requires) At the end of his twenty-fourth year, with death close, Faustus is ‘swilling and revelling with his students’ in a feast with ‘food and wine enough for an army’.

6.     Lust : (an excessive craving for the pleasures of the body) The Old Man pleads with Faustus with love to repent and call on God’s mercy. Faustus, prizing flesh over spirit, wastes his remaining time on lechery rather than heed his advice. He instructs Mephistopheles instead to summon Helen of Troy for his lover. She is simply a likeness conjured by the demon but Faustus tells her ‘rivals for your love can burn down Wittenberg in their longing to have you home’. Where is his promise to protect Germany now?

7.     Sloth : (the avoidance of physical or spiritual work) The slothful person, like Faustus, is unwilling to do what God wants because of the effort it takes to do it. He summons Mephistopheles and signs the contract with Lucifer so he can have knowledge, possessions and experiences on-tap without any effort on his part.

 He performs pranks, not blessings. He uses his incredible gifts for what is essentially trifling entertainment e.g. antlers, cherries, summoning visions of past heroes and heroines. ‘This genius who can conjure wonders on request’ becomes a conjuror not a do-gooder who performs ‘pranks and jokes, making monkeys of his enemies.’ He ridicules the Pope and the clergy with jests and wicked tricks.

 He succumbs to despair and presumption. By despair, Faustus ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is a sin because causes a person to lose faith in the promise of God’s goodness, justice and mercy.

 Faustus presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), and presumes upon God’s almighty power and mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit) – ‘What can God do to me anyway, with Mephistopheles at my shoulder? I’m safe.’

 The Seven Deadly Sins that Mephistopheles's devil friends conjure to amuse Faustus are an allegory in the purest sense of the term.

An allegory is an abstract concept that appears in a material, concrete form. And in this case, the seven deadly sins (which separate a person from God forever if they're not repented) appear as actual people.

 In front of Faustus, Pride, Covetousness (Greed), Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Sloth, and Lechery (Lust) march in the weirdest parade that ever paraded. They describe their parentage—that is, where and whom they came from—and defining characteristics.

 Medieval drama had a long tradition of representing the Seven Deadly Sins as people, so when Doctor Faustus was first performed, the Sins would probably have come onstage in immediately recognizable costumes. The audience would have known exactly what was going on And even we modern folks are in on the joke. The things the Sins tell Faustus about themselves are exactly what we'd expect: Gluttony, the sin of overindulgence in food and drink, complains that his parents left him "only" enough money for thirty meals and ten snacks a day, while Sloth, the sin of laziness, doesn't even have enough energy to describe himself (okay, that's pretty funny, Marlowe).

 In the medieval tradition of allegory, a character's relationship with the Sins tells us which side he's on—God's, or the devil's. Three guesses where Faustus falls. He just laughs about them, which tells us not only that he's on the side of the devil, but also that he's there because he doesn't take sin as seriously as he should. Not cool, dude.

Conclusion:

                This way we can know about the play and the character of Doctor Faustus.

Evaluation Link for above Topic
 http://dilipbarad.blogspot.com/2015/10/rubric-for-evaluation-of-written.html