Critical Evaluation of dryden’s essay “Dramatic poesy”

Critical evaluation of Dryden’s easy “Dramatic poesy “

v Introduction

           John Dryden (1631-1700) was poet, dramatist, critic of restoration era. He wrote his most important work during 1668 nammed dramatic poesie (dramatic poesy).with the help of this easy he recognized as father of English literary criticism.  Easy of dramatic poesy elaborate and one of the attractive and lively of his work. eassy is based on literary debate with dramatic touch as well as conversation between four friends.

·       Evaluation of the easy :

        As I earlier say that easy is written in the form of diolouge which is between Eugenius (Charles Sackville),crites (sir Robert howard)lisideius (sir Charles sedley).all of them has their own point of view regarding drama. Eugenius favors the moderns over the ancients, crites argues in favour of the ancients, Lisideius argues that French drama is superior in English drama,neander, Dryden himself favors the moderns but he does not forget to respects the ancient.

                     The dialogue between them begins with crites complain regarding two type of “bad poet”. The first one is poets who “perpetually” pay as grasp tightly and a certain type of funny metaphysical. And the second is uses smoothness and easiness to  cover his need imagination. The suggest that no one can better than the ancients or previous generation of English writer he belives in

                               “old is gold”

kind of thing. In respons to crites argument eugeninvs  respons that. He might be rejecting everything recent just because it is recent and then  they four decides to limits their argument to discussion of “dramatic poesy” who is superior ancient or moderns? In addition to their discussion john  Dryden defines drama.

‘just’ and ‘lively’ image of human nature, representing its passions and instrument of mankind.

              Drama represents human nature in  ‘its as it is form’ but actions or act are more ‘lively’ literature imitates but not recreates. Human action. She admits that poetic imitation defers from copy at reality. For the imitation its

                    “liveliness” is necessary. It must

                                    “true to life”

·       Ancient Vs Modern :-

               in john Dryden’s easy on “dramatic poesy” crites stands for ancient and for on the contrary eugenius stands for modern. Crites defining ancient by saying that moderns are still depended on ancients like Aristotle and Horace. Because moderns are still imitating form, and subject of ancient. Modern donate follow the. Unity of time, place and action violations of three unities.

o  Unity of time : it suggest that all the action should be portrayed within a ‘single’ revolution of sun but moderns attempt to use long periods of time.

o  Unity of place:- it terns of place setting shown be the same from beginning to end, the English try to have all kind of place. Even far off countries shown within a single day.

o  Unity of action:- it requires that the play “clim at one great and complete action” but English have all kinds of sub-plots which destroy the unity of the action.

·       Dryden' view regarding unities are below:

             Perhaps, French plays, are regular but not as lively. At does- pleasant and delights as that of English.

Every thing depends on the ‘genius’ of or skill of playwright. He gives reference of ben-jonson ‘the silent woman’ at shows greater art and skills then French.

It the play is full of liveliness than there is no harm in introducing ‘sub-plot’.

              In response to crities,eugenius favors modern. He acknowledges that the moderns have learned from ancients so I can say that there is no chance of error because they learned from ancient. Modern have not strictly follow then.

Excellence of moderns defects of ancients:-

Ancient did not aware about division during time with the help of chorous which was supposed to devide a play.

              The modern have perfected this division $ divited their plays not only in to acts but also in to secne.

Plot of ancients is coneerned with lacks of originality. Tragedy is based on famous short story. So, the pleasure of tragedy vanished. Plot of comedies also lack of ‘ originality ‘ or liveliness.

In the characterization they imitates nature. they only depicts eye or hand. So,they are inferior to the moderns.

Ancients does not strictly follow unities time, place and action. Terence was most regular among ancients dramatist, but even though does not faithfully observes the unities. no doubt they have the maintained better than the moderns. it shows the continuity of their scenes.

As their plot are narrow and charlatans are few, even their whole acts are often shorter then individuals scenes in the well wrought modern plays.

Instead of provider needed in formation through dialogue they used monologue and mush narration. So sometime audiences are getting bored and tire some.

Ancient of teach us moral lesson, punishing vices and rewarding virtue rat he than to delight the audience or instruct audience.

He also saw defect in the themes of ancient time. Tragedy end with admiration and concernment arouse in the mind of audience. But their themes do not provides admiration or pity because their themes are lust, cruelty murder, and blood shed. It arouses horror and terror.

Lovers never speak out and reveal that’s going on their mind and heart to spectacle.ancient fail in depiction of true soul so, we can say that it doesnot touch audience heart.

Crites does not agree with eugenius but he admits that moderns made of writing is different. Time changes so we can say that obviously idea and value chive changes. That’s why ancient and modern differs from each other with passage of time change in cultural values there as nothing about good or bad but ancients were more hearty and modern are talkative.

·       Lisideius’s view:-

Hisideius stands for the superiority of French drama. He agreed with eugenics English drama woo superior. He gives bariovs reasons of superiority of English drama. Most important reason behind is they maintain the unity of action and with out adding confusing sub-plot.

                 An English tragic-axmic is two plays, instead of remaining one play. For in is two actions are carried on together. Because of this double action rise another fault many of the characters are remain unknown at the end hisidelus, no drama in the world is so absurd as the English tragic-comedy and duel; thus, in two hours and a hay, we run though all the fit of bedlam. We play who have variety but it dose not portrayed in such a ridiculous manner. According to aristotal’s  tragedy pity and fear arouse. But mirth or comparisons are very different from pity and fear. Introduction tragedy and comedy in one. It spoils the very and ambition of tragedy. English are guilty of this folly but French are not.

               French do not burden with too much plot but on the other side English burden their plays with actins and connected with prominent as not ‘one play’ but ‘all in one’. The French play Wright strictly follows to one action and the live attention towards their diction and verse.

                    Another, reason behind the superiority of French play is play Wright devote themselves to one single passion and they portray very well. But English play Wright hurried from one passion to another and that way they in represent well any of them. In other words, their even the great Ben Jonson him safe has guilt of this ridiculous and unnatural mistune tragedy and comedy. In his sone of the tragedies like ‘Sejanus’ and ‘cat line’, there are some element of frail and hence there is boss in tragic intensity.

Telling about the characters of French play only one character is in center and others are woven around that main character. But Hisideius view is different and does not agree. Hisideius says that there is no doubt that in their plays. Center character is more important because most to the part of the action is concerned with that character. But in French plays, the other characters are also important and their action are perform vital rove in the play. For example plays of Corneille, there is not single one character who dose not have some in action, and who is not essential for working out of the plot. In the plays of ancient there is allays some introductory character who does take any part in the action , but in French plays the narration are made by who are in some way are the related with main action so, in this way French are superior on skilled than the ancient one.

             Narrations of French drama well arranged and skill full than the English. There is two kinds of narration, the first one is narration of events which happened be you’re the opening of the action of the play and other is narration of the things happening during the course of the play, act but behind the curtain. The second kind of narration considered as a beautiful and artistic. In this way French neglected the sconce of bloodshed, violence and murder on the stage.

Most of the English plays represents death on the stage. The audience connect help laughing when it sees a man dying on the stage. Here my point of view is that the

            ‘livery’ image is shattered of English  play Wright all passion can be lively represented on the stage, only it the actor has the necessary skill, but there are many action which dying is one of them.

         Their ways that gives reasons that French is batter than ancient.

neander favor the moderns but does not show negativity.he vevours English drama but he also things critically. he says that according to definition of play, English are best. He also gives reason for considering English best English are best at lively imagination of nature? (human nature). He criticize French posey and says that  ‘it is beautiful like a statue. My view is that it is not like man so, how can we say that human nature is involve in French poesy.so, It is life less. He further says that French writers are imitating the English. Dryden saw fault of regularity which is complimented and looks like uncivilized or uncultured.

                     He defends English tragic-comedy by saying that laughter or mirth gives relief from heaviness of straight tragedy. I am agree with dryden’s because after long duration of seriousness it is necessary of something light. Dryden also says that the use of sub-plot is helpful in understanding of the prominent action. But at the same time it also become complicated so it is difficult to understand. dryden examines that if the sub-plot are well organized than it make the play more interesting. further he says that French and ancients plays are not entertaining and interesting because they do not offer element of surprise. But English plays provides surprise. Dryden’s view about rules is that some rules are creates absurdities than they are privent.

                      At the end of the discussion of essay Dryden and crites discussed about the proper use of rhyme and verse. Crites want to eliminate the use of rhyme because for him its sounds artificial. Neander’s view is different he says that rhyme and verse are on the same ground.     

·       Views on rhyme & verse

Rhyme verse versus blank verse controversy. Elizabethan dramatized had used blank verse for their play on the other land restorations used rhymed verse or heroic couplet as weapon of expression of tragedy.

·       Rhyme verse : critic’s view

He belived that rhyme is only allwed in comedies not in a serious play.

Rhyme is not tobe allowed in serious plays, thought it may be allowed in comedies.

Rhyme is unnatural in a play, for a play is in dialogues, and on man without premeditation speaks in rhyme.

Blank verse is also unnatural for on man speaks in verse either, but it is nearer to which is nearer to prose – “Aristotle , ‘tis best to write tragedy in that kind of verse which is the least such, or which is nearest prose: and this amongst the ancients was the Lambique, and with us is blank verse.”

Drama is a ‘just’ representation of nature, and rhyme is unnatural, for nobody in nature expresses himself in rhyme. It is artificial and the art is too apparent, while ture art consists in hiding art.

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

·       Neander’s defence:

It is the choice of words and the placing of them – natural words in a natural order – that makes the language natural, whether it is verse or rhyme that is used.

Rhyme itself may be made to look natural by the use of run on lines, and variety, and variety resulting from the use of hemistich, manipulation of pauses and stresses, and the change of matter.

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

Rhyme is justified by its universal use among all the civilized nation of the world.

The great Elizabethan achieved perfection in the use of blank verse and they, the moderns, cannot excel; them, or achieve anything significant or better in the use of blank verse. Hence they must perforce use rhyme, which suits the genius of our age.

Tragedy is a serious play representing nature exalted to its highest pitch; rhyme being the noblest kind of verse is suited to it, and to comedy.

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

At the end of ‘essay’ , Dryden gives one more reason in favour  of rhyme i.e. rhyme adds to the pleasure of poetry. The primary function of poetry is to give ‘delight’. And rhyme enables the poet to perform this function well.

Comment upon Dryen’s compearative criticism of Shakespeare, Ben Johnson, Beaumont and Fletcher in ‘An easy of Dramatic Poesy’.

John Fletcher (1579-1625), English poet and playwright. Although he wrote many works alone and with several different dramatists, he is best known for his collaborations with fellow plau wright Beaumont. Francis Beaumont (1584-1616), English poet and playwright, best known for the tragicomedies he wrote together with john Fletcher. From about 1606, to 1614, the two collaborated on several plays (the exact number is disputed) that were very popular with audiences of the time.

Most scholars acknowledge the Fletcher`s real talent lay in comedy, especially in the genre of tragicomedy. His style of tragicomedy at its best manges to generate considerable power through the sheer variety of the emotions it arouses. Fletcher is noted as a master of plot contrivance and character manipulation and of exaggerated speech used for dramatic effect. The customary 10 syllable line of Elizabethan dramatic blank verse overflows, in Fletcher’s hands, into lines of 11 and sometimes 12 syllables, and he frequently employs run-on lines to achieve his goal. but for all the appearance of wild abundance and headlong extravagance in his use of languge, his is a highly mannered style.

Fletcher’s works strongly influenced his successor. His heroes, preoccupied with the themes of love or honor both, are the immediate forebears of the protagonists of the plays of the restoration period. Fletcher’s particular technical abilities served him well in handlng plots of comic intrigue, and his delight in verbal display found its proper aim in the banter with which the sophisticated young men and women in his comedies match their forces in the game of love.

The team of beumont and Fletcher probably collaborated on about ten plays. By the time Beaumont retired in 1614, these collaborations had helped establish both men in the ranks of the best dramatists. The production dates of nearly all of these works are uncertain. The two playwrights coauthored popular work such as philaster, the maid’s tragedy, and a king and no king. Other collaborations include the coxcomb, the captain, and cupid’s revenge.

Beaumont and Fletcher’s collaborative efforts are characterized by ingenious plots, diversified characters, and realistic dialogue. Their comedies, witty and sophisticated, foreshadow the licentious comedies of the restoration. Most of the duo’s major plays consist chiefly of a series of incidents, rather than sustained development of character and action. Their plays remained incredibly popular until the closing of the theaters under the puritan commonwealth in 1642. Restoration dramatist john Dryden, in his essay of dramatic poesy, explained the favorable public response to the plays vy citing their universal appeal. He made following observation on Beaumont and Fletcher.

“Beaumont and Fletcher of whom I am next to speak, had with the advantages of Shakespeare’s wit, which was precedent, great natural gifts, improved by study. Beaumont especially being so accurate a judge of playes, that ben Johnson while he lived submitted all his writings to his censure, and ‘tis thought, us’d his judgment in correcting, if not contriving all his plot. What value he had for him, appears by the verses he writ to him; and therefore I need speak no farther of it. The first play which brought Fletcher and him in esteem was their philaster: for before that, they had written two or three very unsuccessfully: as the like is reported of ben Johnson, before he writ every man in his humour. Their plots were generally more regular then Shakespeare’s plot.

Conclusion

            By summing up critical evaluation of essay we can say that Dryden four speaker in this essay different views. Benjonson  points out that they are symbolic figure representing the different ideas popular in the day. The essay significantly is the “first regular and valuable treatise on the art of writing. 

Psychological perspective in Hamlet.

             Psychological perspective in Hamlet.

v Introduction:-

                        ‘Hemlet’ considered as renowned tragedy of shakespere. it is a revenge play but but it deals with the many perspectives. One the major perspective is psychological approach. Psychological approach focused personality, behavior and ways of thinking. So, here we are concerned with psychological approach in Shakespeare’s play with reference of Sigmund frued and ernest jones essay.

Psychological criticism in hamlet.

Shakeperare’s tragedy one can viewed through the eyes of different psychological. if we look upon hamlet’s character and his action towards claudious and his mother gertude, it is some extent evident that the protagonist hamlet suffers frome an odepus complex that lat him towards finale conclusion in a play rather than just the simple revenge upon his fathers murderer. Before we look how odepus complex applied in hamlet. Eanest jones ,who explains his reasoning through Sigmund frud’s odepus complex theory. in present century my psychologist disapprove of frued’s theories but literary analyst still rely on his theories to explain much of hamlets reasoning. 

Odepus comlex-

 That are described child’s attraction respective mother and  jealousy toward his father.

·       Definition:- The odipal complex is a term used by Sigmund Freud in his theory of psychosexual stages of development to describe a boy’s feeling of desire for his mother and jealousy and anger towards his father. Essentially, a boy feels like he is in completion with his father for possession of his mother. He views his father as a rival for her attentions and affections.

This idea developed further into the freud’s theory of the mind and what the difference the conscious mind and unconscious mind is. By 1899 freud had published the interpretation of dreams in which it not only lays out the principles of psychoanalytic theory, it also suggest the importance of dreams. As that is, in ferud’s mind, dreams are the way the brain works to understand the minds unconscious offering. From this, the idea that there is a unconscious mind which we repress, comes the thought of repressing thoughts and ideas in which we would not normally act.

Could someone act without really knowing why they are acting this way? Is it possible to harbor feelings that one isn’t truly aware of? It is here the Shakespeare’s play hamlet comes to question were hamlet’s actions conscious in that he wanted to kill Claudius for his betrayal, or were they unconscious, full of instinct and wishes towards his mother Gertrude? The odepius complex is in hamlet, that is for sure, but where didi it come from? Was it just a term used by freud that he pulled out of nothing? The answer is no. Oedipus was actually a Greek myth, and finale of the myth itself is what gave freud the idea to term this ”complex” after Oedipus. Oedipus, a greek king, killed his father and married his mother. Sounds fitting then to term “Oedipus complex” something that involves familial relations. How does the Oedipus complex work though? In simple terms, the young boy starts to harbor sexual feelings for his mother and jealousy towards the father for being with the mother. For example, did you ever look at your mom and dad and start identifying the difference between them and finding that your more attracted towards your mom? May be try to push “dady” away so you can be with her? A Freudian would identify this as an oedipal case. Further more, the Oedipus complex main antagonist in Freudian theory is the development of the super ego whose job is to basically police desires that would otherwise unacceptable to society. So what if the super ego never fully develops and the Oedipus complex is able to carry out its desires and thoughts? This would lead to the subconscious mind acting in place of the conscious mind and things that, at face value, seem to propose a true idea are actually hidden intentions in the bodies instincts and desires.

Has it occurred to you that while reading hamlet, he offers different thoughts as to why he cant kill Claudius? Especially when he had the opportunity right there before him in which he could have gotten away with it. Why did not he do it then? Was it really because he is a coward, or because the ghost wasn’t real and then even when he has the chance to kill caludius as he kneels to pray. All of these are very plausible, but that doesn’t change that fact that hamlet is still able to harbor and Oedipus complex. Furthermore, some people would argue that due to hamlet’s intelligence, he is unable to act quickly for he views the different outcomes that are possible from a single event, Jones would go on to argue that there are at least there objections to this; general psychological consideration and objectives evidence found in the play. From the play, one van garner that hamlet was indeed a man of actions and not indecisions. His killing of polonius, the death of guiildenstern and Rosencrantz, his scorn towards his enemies and Ophelia, all of these are facets of a character who is able to act, even if he is quite intelligent. To exemplify further, in the quote, “unhand me, gentleman by heaven, I will make a ghost of him that lets me;/ I say, away!” hamlet shows a clear train of thought in what he wants nor is there anything to show he isn’t fit to the tasks at hand. Goethe says hamlet is “ A lovely, pure noble and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve which forms a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it cannot bear and must not cast away and I wholeheartedly disagree with this just as jones. There is no difficulty in the task. To kill Claudius, that is what hamlet must do. Where does the difficulty lie, if not within his own subconscious. Besides Goethe, other critics rose up to say that once again, the gravity of the task is what held hamlet back. Their argument being that had he killed hamlet outright then the nation would not support his actions. This being easily refutable by Claudius not punishing hamlet in his killing of Polonius.

Yet must not we put the strong law him; he ‘s loved of the distracted multitude, who like not in their judgment, but in their eyes” by this quote, already has the argument that the people would be against hamlet for killing polonius been struck away. Furthermore into Jones’s essay on Hamlet, he argues on historical criticism of Shakespeare. It is common knowledge that he named his son hamlet, and that the date of his father’s death is September, 1601 Jones’s argues that this death of his father would awaken “repressed” memories would, in turn be written into the play in the form of the character of hamlet. This view of hamlet by Jones gives a new light to the issue. In the heart of his argument towards hamlet having an Oedipus complex. Jones has linked the crime towards his mother and the crime towards his father as both having a significant impact on hamlet, but only the first has a true impact on him. As aforementioned, the Oedipus complex is repressed in individuals so in hamlet, he must either come to realize that he wants to kill his uncle, his mother’s husband who he abhors, and that this is the true reason he wants to, or that he must answer the call of duty and seek vengeance.

In the end, hamlet does neither throughout the play due to having to repress his innate, sub conscious reason and thus by repressing this one, he is also repressing the more obvious one which is to kill him for betraying his brother. In final closings of this knowing that the Oedipus complex is a repression of feeling towards the mother, looking at hamlet in this view gives the ideas that he does have this complex. During the play scene, hamlet can be seen as almost telling his mother off for her betrayal of him by his preferring to be beside Ophelia. It challenges her for being able to sleep with other men. Going so far as to say that hamlet not only envies Claudius for being with his mother, but for Claudius having the gall to carry out the murder and take his mom for himself. In the end, this great tragedy written by hamlet can be taken for its face value; that of a tragic hero fated to die at the end, or it can be seen as the story of a man who has repressed his feelings towards his mother and thus is unable to act throughout the play due to these repressed feelings keeping him from action for if he does act, he would be admitting to himself his jealousy of Claudius and his sexual feelings towards his own mother. Hamlet is neither the man described by other critics, that of one who’s task is too large for him to accomplish, or one who’s afraid of the people’s reactions. He is a man, like any other, who is tasked with killing the man who has killed his father and taken his mother. The difference lies in his inability to act due the repressions of feeling that he has towards his mother. Hamlet is a man with an Oedipus complex ever since William Shakespeare wrote hamlet, the question on everyone’s mind has been “ why did’nt hamlet kill Claudius when he had the chance? Some people believe that fear of punishment keeps hamlet from acting. Others believe that hamlet refuses to kill Claudius during prayer because that would send Claudius to a “heavenly” afterlife. Although at first glance these interpretations may seem valid, they are taken out of context. For example, hamlet has no qualms about sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths. As far as hamlet not killing Claudius during prayer, there are times when Claudius is alone in which hamlet could have killed him. If Claudius is alone long enough to be able to kill king hamlet without witnesses, surely hamlet himself could have found Claudius alone at some time. Its not fear that fear that keeps hamlet from acting. Hamlet delays killing Claudius because Claudius represents hamlet’s innermost desires to sleep with his mother Gertrude. And by killing Claudius jamlet would be killing a part of himself

Hamlet has the perfect opportunity to kill Claudius in act 3 scene 3. Why doesn’t he ? one interpretation is that hamlet fears that killing Claudius will automatically send Claudius to heaven without punishment hamlet himself remarks:

And now I will do’t. and so ‘a goes to  heaven; And so I ma revenged. That would be sanned:

A villain kill my father, and for that I his sole son

Do this same villain to heaven.

Hamlet may believe he is delaying he is delaying from fear of sending Claudius to a “heavenly” afterlife however, there are times when hamlet could have killed Claudius when he was not at prayer. According to lesser Claudius is not always well attended. In act iv. Scene 1 Claudius and the queen are able to confer privately simply by dismissing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. There are no attendants about. If Claudius and Gertrude are able to be alone, even for a few minutes, surely hamlet colud have seized an opportunity to kill Claudius, simply by having the queen sent away. There is another reason why hamlet delays killing Claudius, and hamlet himself is not even aware of it.

Sigmund freud, the father of modern psychology, was first to attribute hamlet’s delay to his oedipal complex. Freud’s discovery of the oedipal complex is based on Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex. In this drama, Oedipus unknowingly murders his fathers sleeps with his mother. Through his research freud discovered that all men unconsciously desire to sleep with their mother. Freud also discovered that the human mind is composed of three distinct personalities- the id ego, and the superego.

According to booker:-the relationship between the oedipal drama and Freud’s tripartite model is quite clear and quite direct. The infantile mind is essentially the source of the id; the authority of the father, which triggers the oedipal crises, becomes the principal source of the superego by limiting the id based desire for the mother according to freud’s model of the human mind, hamlet’s oedipal desire to sleep with Gertrude stems from his id, and his desire to avenge his father’s death stems from his superego. What does this have to do with hamlet’s delay in killing Claudius ? in his the interpretations of dreams, freud remarks:

Hamlet is able to do anything- except take vengeance on the man who did away with his father and took that father’s place with his mother, the man who shows him the repressed wishes of his own childhood realized.

Thus the loathing, which should drive him on to revenge, is replaced in him by self reproaches, by scruples of conscience, which remind him that he himself is literally no better than the sinner whom he is to punish.

Claudius represents hamlet’s id the part of hamlet that desires to sleep with Gertrude. King hamlet, however, represents hamlet’s superego,. The part of Claudius, hamlet’s id is gaining strength. This is what makes it impossible for hamlet to kill Claudius. The strength of his id is stronger than his superego, especially since his superego is dead. The strength of hamlet’s id is quite apparent in the scene between hamlet and Gertrude in act 3 scene 4 hamlet is berating Gertrude for her sexual behavior and the “ rank sweat of an enseamed bed “ at this moment king hamlet appears as a ghost. At this point, hamlet’s desire to sleep with Gertrude is at its strongest when hamlet’s desires are about to become conscious, king hamlet appears to prevent the desire from being realized. Hamlet remarks to the ghost, this revealing his guilty conscience of both his desire and delay:

Do you not come to tardy son to childe,

That lapsed in time and passion lets go by

Th’important acting of your dread command

O. say !

 Hamlet, replies to his father’s ghost

        Do not forget! That visitation

        Is but whet thy almost blunted purpose.

It symbolize that. Hamlet’s superego has gained and control of his id , thus enabling hamlet to get on with the business of avenging the ghost’s death.

      One thing which is noticeable that hamlet killed claudious  because gertude has now died. Because grtude is the medium of hamlet’s desire, now gertude is died so, his deep desire towards his also gone with her. we can say that desire is out of lust.

One thing is also noticeable just because of his attraction to his mother his internal mind does not allow him to harm his mother. so his ghost told him that  ‘don’t harm your mother’.  

ü Conclusion

                Hamlet himself does not that why he delays in killing his father’s murderer. That’s why any kind of interpretation can be possible. So earnest jones interpreted hamlet in a psychological approach.

Thank you……………….

Henry Fielding ‘s Tom jones as Realistic Novel.

            Henry Fielding ‘s Tom jones as

              Realistic Novel.

v   Introduction:

  Henry Fielding was a novelist and dramatist of 1728 to 54 centuries. His is genre is satire and picaresque. He was well known for his rich early humour and satirical prowess and as the author of the novel ‘ tom jones ‘Tom jones is satirical as well as realistic novel. In this novel vitality ,hilarity and char, reflects both the comic vision of life. Henry fielding main concerns society. So, to show socitey realism is best medium of henry.  Before we take in to consideration how writer uses realism in his novel, I am defining realism through some definition.

Realism or Realistic :

 ‘An inclination towards literal truth and    pragmatism ‘         ‘The representation in art or literature of objects, actions , or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.’

 ‘Interest in or concern for the actual or react as distinguished from the abstract, speculative etc.’

·       Realism in tom jones :

 Tom is the protagonist of the novel. The Novel starts with the protagonist and ends with the protagonist. the title and name of protagonist ‘ Tom ‘ is common

Name. it shows that he is from middle class and his birth place was not mention,so we can say that he is iligal child. it can be happen in real world.Novel is about how tom engage in to different affairs and his struggle. the novel shows evill side of the society.the novel was innovaton in its clear description and characterization, which offered more authentic representation of the people and situation than the text of that time so we can say that novel is reflection of Henry’s time. the purpose of the novelist is to present human nature to the reader, is expertly managed by him. those who criticize the novel are as blind to the realities of human behavior as they are to  great literature.

Henry fielding wanted tom jons to be a realistic hero-a man with appetities, strength, failings and felings whose translation in to virtue took time and struggle rather than being accepted as fact.

Tom as a unheroic hero :

Tom is the hero and protagonist of novel. His name ´Tom’ Suggest that he is a comman person.so obviously we can say that this novel as well as tom’s character is “ True to life “

Whatever novelist portrayed it may be happen in real world. Talking about tom’s character as a realistic hero we can say that :a bastard raised by the phillantrophic all worthy.he is illegimate son of bridget all worthy tom and even though he does not know that tom is really his nephew, he treats him as he were his own.tom is a realistic hero, he is imperfect and “ mortal “ hero. With the help of his character fielding gives voice to his philosophy of virtue. his affairs with molly seargrin, mr,waters, and lady bellaston should reflect badly on his character. It shows novelist doesn’t potrayed as ideal on but real one. Rather keeping with the romantic genre, fielding seems to admire. Tom ‘s adherence to the principles of gallantry which requires that a man return the interest of women. Tom is lustful guy and his motives are vicious. He is pretender also so, it shows the guys of the present time.tom also  treats women with atmost respect.tom uses his charm to please the people and especially womens. so, his handsome face and speech win the love and affection through out countryside.

 Tom’s actions constantly indicates the impulsive nature of youth and stem from a carpe diem philosophy.his desire for unrestrained ex-prssion of his feelings, immediate gratification of his needs , and immeditat corrective corrective action for the injustice he sees- all these reflects the spontaneity and idealism typically present now rather than on analysis. thus while he is madly in love with Sophia, he can spontaneously go to bed with molly seagrim, mrs. Waters or lady bellaston.there is no contradiction in these actions since he is concerned with the eternally present now rather than with an unrealized and unplanned future.his plan of action never extends beyond a day or two and, even when he decides that the solution to his problem is to go to sea or join the army, he can just easily changed the plan in moment.            

                                  

Ø Reality presents in human nature

Writer explains human nature:through which he doesnot intended to make any judgements on human natures but instead wants to present it to dish would be offered on a menu. Fielding did not want to creat a necessarily moral text that ignored the truth of how people are.he belived human nature has capacity for good and evill , AND WANTED TO EXPLORE THOSE CONtradictions . further, it is important to note that fielding was not advocating or merely presenting their actions as steps on the root of greater wisdom. Indeed each of them major characters already mentioned undergoes a learning process, and redemption is offered to anyone who seeks it. Molly seagrim is a passionate and by having his child. Tom laugh’s when he discovers. She is having an affair with square, and when he learns he is not the father of her child. Molly finally settles withpartridge at the end of the novel, and so end up with some one to love and support her.

                 Mrs waters, or jenny jones, is accused of being tom’s mother, after which time she leaves the area an ultimately end uo living unmarried with captain waters. She is not only carries on a further affair with northerton, but also quickly strikes up dalliance with tom. However, she does have a capacity for honesty and gratitude, and so we are to be happy when she finally settles into a legal marriage with parson supple.

        Lady bellaston, the demireo, preys on younger men and has an unsavory reputation about the town.tom makes numerious impetuous decisions and moral errors in the course of the story, but he also exhibits many positive qualities which balance out his vices. Fielding’s perpose behind this is development of his character, tom in particular, is illustrated by a comment from the dedication :

   “I belive, it is much easier to make good   men wise ,than to make bad men good “

In other words we can say that with the help of tom’s character writer expresses his belief that even good men falter, but from folly, not necessarily from evil.

·       Hypocrsy  reflects realism :

  All the weaknesses of mankind, fielding viewed hypocrisy as the most pernicious and damaging. When referring to master blifil in book 3, the narrator makes a thoughtful observation on the meanace of his duplicatious ways :

                     “A treacherous friend is the most dangerous enemy….both religion and virtue have received more real discredit from hypocrites, than the wittiest profligates or infidels could ever cast upon them “

               The novel seeks to helight hypocrisy across the social spectrum through the lens of humor.goody seagrim condemns molly for falling pregnant, yet it is revealed that she gave birth within a week of her own marriage. Further, we discover later that she “shared in the profits of iniquity with her daughter” after molly is viciously attacked in the church yard after attending church in a fine dress. they are driven by envy, but disguise it in moral tones to

 To justify their ire. Fielding also explores the double standereds of the medical profession. Doctors frequently misdiagnose condition as fatal – it happens to tom, allworthy and mr. Fitzpatrick- in order to increase their earnings. The most ridiculous of this situations occurs when captain blifil is found dead of an apoplexy. Two physicians have been called , but the patient is already dead. the physicians then both attend on mrs. Blifil : “ the case of the lady was in the other extreme from that of her husband; for, as he was past all the assistance of  physic, so in reality she required none”

 The arrangement suits both parties, however, as the physicians are earning a fee, and mrs.blifil is seen to be mourning her husband with the appropriate level of gref.

Squir western changes his attitude to tom depending upon how he perceives the young man’s circumstances. initially,tom is a great friend of the squire, and his frequently welcomed in the western household.as a young man, tom’s valiant efforts to save sophia’s bird endear him to the squire, who proclaims :

              I shall love the boy…the longest day I have to live ’’

However, this sentiment soon changes when he discovers that Sophia’s love for tom is an obstacle towards her making a profitable match with blifil.the squire roundly condemns tom and resolves to keep them apart.he keeps this resolves to keep them apart.he keeps this resolves until tom’s parentage-and therefore his rightful inheritance- is revealed. The  squire is then keen for the wedding between tom and Sophia to happen immediately, and crudely suggest that a grand child should be born nine months to the day. Overall, the man professes true sentiment but is driven solely by greed in the development of his opinion.

 Fielding illustrate the dangers of double standards through even the best of characters. Allworthy resolves to favor blifil not because he is not favored by others.

·       Conclusion

             While we summing up we can say that tom jones is the realistic in nature. Because the subject and characters are real. So we sympathies with particular situation and familiar with the them.

                      Thank you………………..