Oedipus Complex in Sons and Lovers

 

It was Freud the modern psychologist who built up the theory of the Oedipus Complex based on the ancient myth of Oedipus Rex of Thebes. To explain his theory he says that a mother’s love for her son and a son’s love for his mother are fundamentally based upon the attraction between opposite sexes. D. H. Lawrence is a great novelist of human psychology. He has drawn many distinguishing characters in his novels. The relationship between Paul and his mother is an “Oedipus Complex” case in Sons and Lovers. 

William had been Mrs Morel’s favourite son. She had been lavishing all her love and affection upon him. She had been cherishing high ambitions about his future. Especially she had felt proud when he got a job in London on a decent salary. She felt a little disappointed when he fell in love with a superficial girl, Lily Western. William had loved his mother deeply too. That is why he kept writing loving letters to his mother when he went to London. Now, the love between William and Mrs Morel was not a case of ordinary love between a mother and her son.

After the death of her oldest son, Paul becomes the focus of her life. But Paul has a love relationship with Miriam. Mrs Morel does not tolerate the absorbing nature of Miriam. Mrs Morel thinks that she is becoming neglected by her son Paul because of his relationship with Miriam. She again and again tells that she cannot bear it at any cost. At that time, Paul tries to console his mother by telling her that he loves his mother, not Miriam. His home with his mother is the real centre of attraction. But his mother cannot understand it. Even she says that she can let another woman for her son but not Miriam because she leaves no room, but a bit of room for

Mrs Morel's love for Paul had an element of anguish in it because she always felt uneasy over the thought that Paul was wasting his time and energy over the wrong girl. Later, Mrs Morel wanted Paul to give up his friendship even with Clara because Clara was married. Paul had developed a sexual relationship with Miriam, but he could not discuss this matter with his mother. At the same time, he had developed a sexual relationship with Clara; he could not discuss the subject with his mother. It was another part of the "Oedipus Complex”.

There is another  "Oedipus Complex" touch in Paul's love relationship with his mother. His love for her even proved an obstacle in the way of his loving any other woman in a normal manner. When she felt ill, he again showed extraordinary devotion to her. During her illness, he had no peace of mind at all. Tears would flow from his eyes when he saw her suffering. He spoke to Clara about his mother's lingering illness. All day long he was very worried about his mother. It was a long pain which made him feel feverish. He often addressed his mother as "Pigeon" and "my little", as if she were his sweetheart and sweet lover.

Thus the days passed, the weeks, and the months. When his mother died, Paul felt that his life is empty and meaningless. It was with great effort that he was able to persuade himself that his mother was still alive. It was this feeling which saved him from despair and from suicide.

To sum up, we can say that the "Oedipus Complex" is a leading theme of this novel. Actually, the novelist has not invented this relationship; he has only described his own experience with his mother. Paul is D H. Lawrence himself; and Paul's mother is Lawrence's own mother. So we may say that the central theme of Sons and Lovers may best be described as the "Oedipus Complex”.

Robert Browning as an Optimistic Poet

 

Browning is a moralist and a religious teacher. His optimism is based on life's realities. Life is full of imperfection but in this very imperfection lies hope, according to Browning's philosophical views. Actually, the philosophy of Browning is the philosophy of a man looking at the world with more than a glimmer of hope in his eyes. He holds a very distinct place among the writers of the Victorian Age. He is an uncompromising foe of "Scientific Materialism". He preaches God and universality as the central truth of his philosophy of life.

As an optimist, he portrayed almost all kinds of people from different stages of society in his poems. He had gone so far as to study the relationship between Man and the entire world. His poems are full of courage and inspiration for those people of the world. We can prove Browning as an optimist more clearly from the following analysis.

Browning is a man with hope for the fate of humans. Actually, his hope is not for this world, but for the next world too. He believes that the soul of a human being is immortal. After death, there will be an action for Man by God named salvation in which he will be rewarded or punished for his deeds from his birth to his death. As, in his “The Last Ride Together”, he said-

We fall to rise, are baffled to fight better

Sleep to wake”

As we have already known that Browning has a strong belief in the immortality of the soul. According to him, only the human body dies, but the soul lives on in the infinite, the place of God. Again in “The Last Ride Together”, the speaker of the poem says that after death his and his beloved’s soul will enter and meet into eternity and will stay there eternally.

“The instant made eternity,

And Heaven just prove that I and she

Ride, ride together, forever ride?”

There is no doubt that Browning has firm faith in the divinity of God. His characters, especially the speakers are compressed with the belief in God. He addressed God and immortality as the central truth of his philosophy of life.

Besides, he does not mean that there is no suffering or evil in the world at all. Evil is actually a moral condition in the way of man’s improvement. It is a man who cannot be successful without an enemy. It is only awareness and failure that will help man in his advance toward perfection.

In his poems, Browning asks man to keep himself drowned in an imperishable struggle. Because success will come only through hard work. He puts stress on continuous human effort. He also believes that hard work with a definite goal is much better than a struggle that has no aim. Once a man has learned to struggle, there will be no goal that he cannot achieve.

“Andrea Del Sarto” is the kind of poem in which Browning lays emphasis on the role of human struggle. No man can achieve the peak of a hundred per cent perfection, but he should keep his struggle go on so that he may reach somewhere near perfection. As Andres says-

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,

Or what’s a heaven for?”

So, after the above discussion, we can conclude that Browning’s strong optimistic faith is very notable in the Victorian age. If we scan all the English poets, we may not find as many complete, conscious, magnificent men with a sense of optimism as Robert Browning.

Robert Browning as a writer of dramatic monologue

 

The poem which has a speaker and silent listener or listeners may be called Dramatic Monologue. The speaker reveals his thoughts in front of silent listeners. The listener remains silent all through the poem but infers his presence from what the speaker says. The speaker’s utterance is a response to an occasion or event of crucial importance in his life.

In Browning’s dramatic monologues, generally, we find there is a single speaker.  In the poem “My Last Duchess”, the Duke who is a sixteenth-century nobleman of Italy, is the speaker and the only silent listener is the emissary who has come to him to negotiate for his second marriage with a count’s daughter. Each of the dramatic monologues of Browning has an abrupt and arresting. The poem “My Last Duchess”, starts with a dramatic suddenness:

“That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall

                                              Looking as if she were alive:”

Browning’s dramatic monologues provide an understanding of the character of the speaker. For instance in “Porphyria’s Lover”, we find the psychological makeup of the speaker. He is afraid that the blissful moment of love will pass away. So he kills his beloved. Yet he suffers no sense of guilt, as he says in this poem:

“And all night long we have not stirred

And yet God has not said a word!”

The murder reminds us of the murder of the Duchess by the Duke in Browning’s “My Last Duchess”. The Duke says:

“This grew, I gave command

Then all the smiles stopped together”

Porphyria’s lover is not as cruel as Duke. He just wants to get his beloved permanently. In “Andrea Del Sarto”, we can see an uxorious husband whose love for his wife destroys his career as an artist. Similarly in “Fra Lippo Lippi”, we find a monk who is morally loose. Thus all those dramatic monologues successfully concentrate on the personality of the speaker.

Regarding Browning’s exceptionally brilliant use of blank verse, Arthur Symons rightly says that “He is perhaps the greatest master in our language” in heroic couplets. He maintains a balance between his style and content. The language and tone of “Porphyria’s  Lover”, are equally remarkable for their simplicity and naturalness. Porphyria has murdered his beloved. But he narrates the event so naturally that reader does not hate the crime, as he says in this poem:

“No pain felt she

I am quite sure she felt no pain”

Realistic and beautiful nature-picture is another striking feature of Browning’s dramatic monologues. These two are not taken from a single country. As he took his character from various ages and various countries. Similarly, he picked up his nature scenes and landscapes as background for human thought and emotion. For example, the description of the lace where the Grammarian is to buried heightens. The speaker says in the following ways in the poem:

“Here’s the top peak…..

Bury this man there?”

In light of our discussion, we can easily say that Robert Browing is very successful in handling the form of dramatic monologue in his poems. Almost all the elements of a successful dramatic monologue are presented in his poems. Robert Browning’s dramatic monologues are thoughtful, confessional, and self-revealing.

 

Arms and the Man: As a Anti-romantic Comedy

 

Arms and the Man is a famous play written by George Barnard Shaw that was first performed on April 21, 1984. This play uncovers the falseness of the war and deals with the two facades of human nature. It is regarded as an anti-romantic play because through this play Shaw has criticized the dreamlike worship of life. The play is also a comedy because in it Shaw has openly ridiculed the futility of romantic love and the idea of war. We can also call Shaw’s play a didactic play because the dramatist aims to show his readers the reality of love and war. 

Shaw brings up anti-romantic aspects in  Arms and the Man through situational irony. Raina, in the beginning, accepts the romantic idea of war and in her dreams manifests this idea in the character of Sergius, with whom she is in love. Her ideas of war and love both rests on physical appearance and fantasies. But Bluntschli enlightens her of this romantic concept of soldierly bravery, expressing it as merely an unprincipled form of stupidity. Eventually, Raina abandons her romantic ideas and is assured that a more practical perception is superior and changing her romantic feelings for Segius with a more profound love for Bluntschli. 

Shaw’s argument of romantic love is more complicated than it appears primarily. Love is not what Raina was thinking in the First Act, which is the uniting of her soul to Sergius’s and the concept that they could possibly live merrily together. Their association appears perfect, with her flawless virtuosity and his valour and glory. Shaw says this kind of love is based on misrepresenting how an individual acts besides fairy tales. 

In Arms and the Man, the characters and their conversations are either guided by romantic love or lack of it. During the early twentieth century, the societal traditions of love incorporated social courting, parental consent, and giving importance to the prestige and money of each partner. But the characters in the play go against the general standard and end up with a character that is well-suited to them. 

Characters gradually disillusion themselves with the characteristics of romantic love they have greatly admired throughout their lives and find that it is much more complicated. For example, At the beginning of the play, it seems that Raina is in love with Sergius, but when she became infatuated with Blunstshcli, she understands that her love for Sergius was shallow and not profound. Raina may also have fallen in love with Sergius because he was applauded as a hero and also because her mother Catherine and her father Petkoff encouraged the relationship to preserve the family’s prestige. 

On the other hand, Louka, even though she is engaged to Nicola, doesn’t seem to have ever been in love with him and exhibits that she is eager to make an effort to tie the knot into an upper rank. Romantic love doesn’t appear to be a concern in her judgments. The preliminaries of Louka’s relationship with Sergius are adulterous and go against the norms of courtship. The first meeting of Bluntschli and Raina is also unusual, as they meet covertly in her bedroom. And eventually, when they got engaged, Bluntschli, the practical and crafty soldier, astonished everyone by disclosing himself to be a lifelong romance.

Shaw does not completely reject the concept of romantic love. Rather, he only allows it when characters discard their preconceptions about romantic love. Blunstshcli casts aside much of his soldierly courageous behaviour before Raina when he first meets her in her bedroom. And Raina also confesses that she is not altogether a perfect individual, as she often does and utters things that oppose righteous and decent behaviour.

We cannot call the relationship of Louka and Sergius a proper romantic relationship. Their relationship is based on lust and ambitions together with the advancement of one’s social status. This is possibly not romantic love in the way Blunstshcli and Raina exhibit, and it is certainly not the kind of romantic love Raina manifests at the beginning of the play. Shaw appears to place a lot more importance on the way individuals behave, instead of their romanticized ideas about behaviour and conduct. 

Arms and the Man also talks about how war is fought. Shaw has taken the title of the play from Virgil’s “Aeneid” which extols war. Shaw used this title ironically to show how war should not be judged as romantic. 

Bluntschli is a Swiss mercenary who has employed himself for the Serbians together with other soldiers. Sergius is expected to exhibit the 'heart' of the Bulgarians' mission, with his courageous charge at the beginning of the play illustrating how firmly he wants to preserve his nation’s glory. But as the story of the play progresses it becomes clear that war is merely a piece of work for soldiers. Sergius whom we thought to be a brave hero was actually marshalling a foolish charge against the opponent. He does this only so that he gets promoted to a higher rank. Bluntschli also breaks up Raina’s fairy-tale idea of war and bravery when he manifests that the great soldiers are generally not recognized as such on the outside. 

To conclude, we can say that Shaw’s play Arms and the Man is an anti-romantic comedy because, with his creative intellect and humour, Shaw dismisses the idealistic concept of love and war and reveals what they really are.

 

Themes in the play Arms and the Man

The play discusses how war is made, how it is fought, and how parties sue for peace at the close of it. Indeed, the play’s title is a direct quote from Virgil’s Aeneid, the Roman epic that glorifies war. Shaw used this quote ironically, drawing attention to how war should not be seen as romantic.

The Serbo-Bulgarian War is not addressed directly in the text, although that is the historical template on which Shaw bases his production. Bluntschli is a Swiss mercenary who has hired himself to the Serb cause, along with soldiers from other nations. Sergius is supposed to represent the “heart” of the Bulgarian enterprise, with his gutsy charge at the start of the work demonstrating just how powerfully he wishes to defend his nation’s honour. What becomes clear as the play progresses, however, is that war is simply a job for soldiers, and nothing more. Sergius is not the hero he is initially thought to be. He romanticizes war to such an extent that he leads a foolish charge against the enemy and only does so to climb the ranks for recognition. Bluntschli also destroys Raina’s romantic idea of war and heroism when he proves that the best soldiers are often not identified as such on the outside.

For Shaw, war is simply a way for men to occupy themselves, perhaps in redrawing small parts of the national borders, while others on the domestic front, who are predominantly women, shape many more aspects of life. Though Catherine and Raina are ostensibly dependent upon the outcome of the war, in dealing with Bluntshli they are also active participants in some of its intrigues. In harbouring an enemy and ultimately marrying him, they add to the argument that war and its divisiveness can be meaningless.

The characters' interactions are primarily driven by romantic love or lack thereof. Social conventions of love during Shaw’s period included public and formal courting, parental approval, and consideration of each partner's social status and wealth. However, the characters in this play defy the norms and each end up with a person that is best suited to them.

Characters slowly disabuse themselves of the features of romantic love they have most cherished all their lives, and realize that it is far more complex. For example, Raina does appear to love Sergius at the beginning of the play, but when she falls in love with Blunstshcli, she realizes her love for Sergius was superficial. Perhaps Raina only felt this way because Sergius was lauded as a hero and because Catherine and Petkoff supported the union to maintain the family’s social status.

By contrast, Louka, though engaged to her fellow servant Nicola, does not appear to have ever been in love with him, and demonstrates that she is willing to work hard to marry into a higher rank. Romantic love does not seem to be a factor in her decisions. The beginnings of Louka’s relationship with Sergius are illicit and defy the social norms of courtship. Bluntschli’s introduction to Raina is also unconventional, as they meet secretly in her bedroom. And when they finally become engaged, Bluntschli, the pragmatic and calculating soldier, surprises everyone by revealing himself to be a lifelong romantic.

The social station of the characters in the play is one of the dynamics that becomes most pronounced by its end. Louka wants to be more than a servant, whereas Nicola seems content to remain one. Bluntschli appears to be middle class but reveals later that he is far wealthier than the noble Petkoffs. Petkoff and Catherine want Raina to reinforce the family’s position however she can, either by marrying the ostensibly bravest man in Bulgaria, Sergius or by adding greatly to the family’s coffers by joining with Bluntschli.

As in any marriage narrative of the nineteenth century, romantic love might be a part of the marriage calculation, as it certainly didn’t hurt to love one’s partner. But that is far from the point of marriage in this period. Characters want to unite noble families and improve financial situations. What romantic love tends to do in these situations, then, is cut across and destabilize what might be the otherwise orderly transfer of money between families.

Throughout the play, Shaw demonstrates that concepts like good versus bad, or courage versus cowardliness, have at least as much to do with the situations in which one finds oneself as they do with the innate qualities of that person. Bluntschli is innately a person for whom innate qualities don’t seem to matter. He is a man who makes his decisions based on the circumstances in which he finds himself. This view on life might be bewildering to an outsider, but it allows him to survive the war as a soldier, and eventually win Raina’s hand in marriage.

It would be tempting to say that Bluntschli achieves these successes because he is simply a better man, soldier, and lover than Sergius. But what makes Bluntschli better is his willingness to cast aside those categories in favour of a more fluid morality that allows for lying and misrepresentation to protect his life. Bluntschli is willing not just to overlook the mistakes Raina makes. He believes that that is a natural part of loving anyone, just as it’s natural for a soldier to want to survive a conflict rather than die in it.

In this sense, Bluntschli most strongly embodies Shaw’s understanding of circumstantial ethical decision-making. Raina does, too, in her admission to Bluntschli that she is not always perfectly honest. On the other side is Sergius, a man who purports to be good all the way to his core, but then admits to Louka that he contains “many persons” inside him, some of who behave admirably, and others who will do whatever it takes to satisfy their basest urges, as in philandering while his fiancée is off-stage.

Shaw’s discussion of romantic love is more complex than it seems initially. Love is most certainly not what Raina imagines in Act One, which is joining her soul to Sergius’s, and the idea that they might live happily together. Their union seems perfect, with her perfect virtuosity, and his bravery and nobleness. Shaw depicts that kind of love as being built on misrepresentation of how humans actually behave apart from fairy tales.

But Shaw does not abandon the idea of romantic love entirely. Instead, he seems to allow for it only when characters get rid of most of their presuppositions about what love could, or should, be. Bluntschli abandons much of the pretence of soldierly bravery in front of Raina when he hides in her room and is fearful and sleepy. And Raina admits that she is not a perfectly pure individual, as she occasionally does and says things that go against classically good and upright behaviour.

It’s slightly more difficult to place Sergius and Louka on this spectrum of romantic love. For them, a relationship is a network of lust and desire coupled with the improvement of one’s social standing. This is perhaps not romantic love in the way Bluntschli and Raina demonstrate, and it is surely not romantic love according to Raina’s conception at the start of the play. But it is nonetheless a foundation for a relationship in practice. Shaw seems to place far more emphasis on the way people really behave, rather than on their idealized notions about “correct” attitudes and conduct.

Arms and the Man satirizes Bulgarian and European attitudes toward modernization, technological development, and the centres of cultivation like Paris, London, and Moscow. Catherine brags that the family has installed an electric bell for the servants, even though Petkoff is much more comfortable continuing to yell for them at the top of his lungs. Raina, Catherine, and Petkoff brag that the family has a library in the estate, which is the only one in the region. Yet as the scene description finally notes in Act Three, this library is just a room with a few old volumes. Despite this reality, the Petkoffs truly believe they are at the vanguard of artistic and cultural life at the time.

John Donne as a Poet of Love

 

Donne is one of the greatest love poets in English literature. He expounds on no coherent system of the philosophy of love in his love poems. His primary concern is not thought but feeling. No scheme of thought, no interpretation of life became for him a complete and illuminating experience. The central theme of his poetry is his own intense personal mood, as a lover, a friend, and an analyst of his own experiences, worldly and religious. Donne’s love philosophy cannot unify these experiences. He used to record the reactions of his own restless and acute mind to the intense experiences of the moment. 

The love experiences as expressed in his poems were not based upon bookish conventions but on his own observations and beliefs. He experienced all phases of love -cynical strain, conjugal love strain and Platonic strain. His cynicism is always related to women’s unfaithfulness. He finds that no woman is capable of faith and virtue. For instance, in ‘Go, and Catch a Falling Star’ he gives argument after argument to prove that loyalty is very rare in women. One cannot find a faithful girl; if, after doing hard efforts, he finds her then it would have been changed until the person reaches her.

 In conjugal love strain, John Donne finds peace and harmony in love. He sees it as a passion instead of nasty work. Numerous poems by John Donne depict this strain. These poems are addressed to his wife. He sings that true love knows no decay. For instance, ‘Valediction: Of Weeping’ and ‘Valediction: Forbidden Mourning’ are about spiritual peace. As a love poet, John Donne has proved that love is part of life and that without it, life is barren and useless. Whenever he remembers his beloved, he attains peace and serenity. He cannot forget her or the moments that he has spent with her. He bids farewell to his wife cheerfully:

                                         “But think that we

                                          Are who turned aside to sleep;

                                          They who one another keep

                                          Alive never parted be.”  

            Platonic strain is the last but the most important love strain in Donne’s love poems. Love is love whether it is before marriage or after. There is always spirituality in it. Donne has improved this strain and written “Divine Poems”. To exemplify, In ‘The Sun Rising’ the poet considers love as the best thing on this planet. Similarly, in ‘Canonization’, he takes love as a holy passion. He sings:

                                    “Difference of sex no more we know

                                     Than our Guardian angels do.”

Hence, this strain is entirely the opposite of the cynical strain.

            Donne might talk about women but he never praised their beauty. He never said that he liked the hairs or lips of his beloved. He is a love devotee and talks about emotions, not physical appearances. For him, love is not just about sex. If he talks about any part of her beloved’s body then he merely describes its charm. Moreover, in his eyes, physical contact is not necessary for love. This very fact is evident from ‘Valediction: Forbidden Mourning’. It is desirous and spiritual.

Donne has not studied love but experienced it. He does not advise his reader but speaks the truth. He leaves everything to his reader to decide whether he is right or not. Donne’s greatness lies within the expression of feelings and his philosophy of love. In the end, we can say that Donne resembles Byron in cynicism, Browning in grotesqueness, Burns in purity and simplicity, and Keats in sensualism. But he adds to all these spiritual and metaphysical strains.

 

John Donne as a Metaphysical Poet

        

    Actually, the term metaphysics means something supernatural. The meaning of the term ‘metaphysical’ is 'what is beyond physical'. It is concerned with fundamental problems of life and death and soul even after death. The term metaphysical poetry means poetry dealing with metaphysical subjects. These subjects are - the nature of the universe, the movements of stars and planets and the whole relationship of man to God. Novel thought and expressions, conceit, wit, obscurity and learning are the main characteristics of Metaphysical poetry. 

          If we interpret the term ‘metaphysical’ in its strict philosophical sense, then, perhaps Donne cannot be regarded as a true metaphysical poet. He expounds on no coherent system of philosophy. His primary concern is not thought but feeling. No scheme of thought, no interpretation of life became for him a complete and illuminating experience. The central theme of his poetry is his own intense personal mood, as a lover, a friend, and an analyst of his own experiences, worldly and religious. Donne’s philosophy cannot unify these experiences. He used to record the reactions of his own restless and acute mind to the intense experiences of the moment. So he is not metaphysical in the sense in Dante, Goethe, Epicurus etc. are.   

Dryden used the term 'Metaphysical' for Donne's poetry when he said, 'Donne affects the metaphysics'. Later on, Dr Johnson called Donne and his followers 'the metaphysical poets'. In the days of Dr Johnson the term ‘Metaphysical’ was used for something abstract general reasoning. It was in this sense, perhaps, that the word came to be regarded as the equivalent of ‘fanciful, fantastic or imaginary’. Since then the word metaphysical has been used for Donne and his followers.

The Metaphysical poets were men of learning. Their poetry reveals their scholarship. From this point of view, Donne is a great metaphysical poet. To show his learning is his chief object. In his poetry, he has twisted his vast learning. Due to this, his poetry becomes very difficult to understand. In Donne's poetry, there is always an antithesis between natural and divine knowledge.

John Donne’s poetry is metaphysical because of the uniqueness of his poetry and his search for questions. Wit is dominant in his poetry, and it is vague and makes use of improbable conceits. The themes of his poems include paradoxes, fidelity, religion, Death and the Hereafter, both physical and spiritual Love, Interconnection between humanity, etc. 

Donne is one of the immortal image makers. He breaks away from the easy and familiar mythological imagery of the Elizabethans. He turns out the company of gods and goddesses and rejects the spoils of Greek and Latin poetry. He prefers directness and homeliness of expression to artificial grace. His images are drawn from his own interest. The flea to him becomes a marriage bed because it will bite the beloved after biting the poet and thus introduces his blood in her and hers in him:

                                      “This flea is you and I, and this

Our marriage bed, and marriage temple is”

Several examples of such images can be given from his songs, sonnets, hymns, elegies etc. These farfetched conceits make him a metaphysical poet.

Donne is quite dramatic in offering catchy opening lines. He almost catches the reader by his arms and gives him a jolt. This dramatic rhythm gives the illusion of talking in a state of excitement. Donne is original in his innovation of poetic rhythm. Ben Jonson called Donne “the first poet in the world for something.” His poetry is harsh, more than this it is obscure and puzzling.  That is why he is called “a very great and very puzzling poet”. He acts like a spokesman for one side, a troubled side, of human experience.

There is a “unification of sensibility” in metaphysical poetry. Donne’s poetry gives the impression that thought and argument are arising immediately out of passionate feelings. It is part of the dramatic realism of his style. A thought to Donne was an experience. His poems arise out of an emotional situation. Then he argues and reasons to make his attitude acceptable. And in this process, the conceits are used as instruments. In ‘Good Morrow’ Donne draws upon several spheres of knowledge- geography, philosophy, sea discoveries etc.- all to prove that the world of love is more important than the geographical world.

So we can say that Donne is a metaphysical poet because of the following qualities in his poetry; revolt against Elizabethan matter and manner, the blend of passion and thought, logic, analytical, scholasticism, simple language, and far-fetched conceits. He is indeed a great poet of his age- one of the greatest Jacobean poets of England, if not the greatest.

 

Themes of play The School for Scandal

 

Honour seems to be in short supply in School for Scandal: Lady Teazle is considering abandoning the ideas of integrity that she learned growing up in the country, Joseph is ready to betray his brother to secure a wealthy wife, and Charles is hopelessly in debt to moneylenders. Even Sir Oliver, whose Honour should be above question, is ready to assume a disguise to test his nephews’ true nature. By the conclusion of the play, however, it is clear that only the gossips lack true Honour. Lady Teazle realizes that she values her husband and has proven her worth. Charles, though foolish and intemperate with gambling and money, is Honourable. He pays off his debts and is willing to help a poor relationship without being asked. Sir Oliver’s deception unmasks Joseph’s hypocrisy. 

Sheridan asks his audience to question the morality of society in this play. Slandering one’s neighbours, acquaintances, and friends is entertainment. There is no real interest in the truth, and even less consideration is given to the damage that such gossip causes. In the early acts of School for Scandal, the subjects of such gossip are not known to the audience, who cannot determine the truth of Lady Sneerwell and Mrs Candour’s observations. By the last act, it becomes clear that these gossips need absolutely no element of truth to fuel their stories. The falling of the screen in Joseph’s library and the confrontation that took place immediately after are fresh in the audience members’ minds. The earlier scene serves as a nice contrast to the speculation and innuendo that engages the gossip.

 Trying to determine the truth occupies much of Sheridan’s play. Lady Sneerwell and Snake are engaged in deception and falsehood, and Joseph is willing to bend the truth to get what he wants. When Sir Oliver, disguised as old Stanley, approaches Joseph to ask for money, Joseph easily claims that he has no money. Joseph even blames his brother, Charles, stating that Charles’s free-spending has left Joseph without funds. Of course, the gossips have no interest in the truth. Their goal is to entertain one another with wild speculation. When compared to such exciting exaggerations as gossip’, reality and truth are simply uneventful.

 This is certainly a play about wealth. The poor in London was much too busy trying to find shelter and food to engage in such idle distractions as gossip or gaming. Wealth really sets the characters in this play apart from the rest of society. For instance, Sir Peter complains that his wife spends too much on silk dresses and fresh out-of-season flowers. Charles spends his money gaming and drinking with his friends, and the moneylenders are on their way to being wealthy thanks to idle young men such as him. Maria is the object of Joseph’s plotting only because she is wealthy, and Sir Oliver is primarily interested in the morals of his nephews only because he plans to leave them his wealth.

The School: A Comedy of Manners

 

The School for Scandal is an excellent example of a Comedy of Manners. It is a blatant attack on the superficiality of the upper class, pointing up their lack of morals and misplaced attention. In a Comedy of Manners, the characters are very clear and we know exactly who they are the moment they appear, not just by their appearance and actions, but by their names. Lady Sneerwell, Sir Benjamin Backbite, and Snake all carry their negative qualities in their names. The Surface brothers are all about what's on the surface -- Joseph appears moral but really isn't while Charles presents the opposite.

The School for Scandal is a brilliant parody of modern metropolitan society. It is one of the most entertaining satires on the lives of ladies and gentlemen who live in so-called modern society. Sheridan, in fact, is a close observer of the upper-class milieu of his time. He lived in Bath for a while, which was a very fashionable city at the time. Bath was, in reality, a gathering place for stylish English upper-class ladies and gentlemen. They used to go there to have a good time. And it's possible that Sheridan was thinking about all of these things when he wrote this play.

In his play The School for Scandal, Sheridan passionately criticizes the technique of scandal-mongering.  Lady Sneerwell is a scandal-representative and her circle, which includes both men and women from the upper crust of society, offers us a clear picture of their slanderous gossiping habits. These people are morally bankrupt because they do not spare their acquaintances and spread scandalous news and rumours about them. As we progress through the play, we discover that Lady Sneerwell engages in scandal-mongering to exact revenge on those who have previously made her a victim of this wickedness. However, the other members of her group engage in this behaviour only for pleasure.

Sheridan has effectively mocked the people for their hypocrisy. Joseph Surface is a model of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. When Lady Sneerwell views Joseph as a greedy man in the very first scene, we get a clear image of his true character. She describes him as a wicked fellow. In fact, Joseph is a source of amusement for the audience. Throughout the play, we enjoy his hypocritical character. When he is discovered by Lady Teazle while pleading with Maria for her favour, we are ecstatic.

A variety of love romances are depicted in the drama The School for Scandal. Lady Sneerwell falls in love with Charles, and she employs Joseph to help her realise her ambition. On the other hand, Maria adores Charles, but Joseph wants to marry Maria, so he works with Lady Sneerwell. But we all know Joseph isn't in love with Maria; he merely wants to usurp her vast fortune, and Maria is well aware of this. As a result, she despises Joseph and informs her guardian, bluntly, that she cannot marry him. As the play progresses, we watch Lady Sneerwell and Joseph go to great lengths to prevent Charles' marriage to Maria. Every attempt, however, proves to be a fruitless one. Furthermore, Joseph is involved with Lady Teazle because she wants to tame a lover for the purpose of fashion.

After a careful reading, we see that Sheridan created the character of Charles to paint a sarcastic portrait of the young men of the day, who are not only extravagant in their behaviour but also have little regard for their elders.

Sheridan doesn't spare even modern journalism in this drama. He mocks the news media. As the play begins several newspapers and periodicals contain gossip columns. "The Town and Country Magazine" is one of these publications. This publication features a particular section dedicated to malicious rumours. Mr Snake is portrayed by Sheridan as a poet and critic, and he is contemporary society's representative of journalists.

To summarize, Sheridan has satirized the lifestyle of his contemporary men and ladies hilariously in this play. This play is unquestionably Sheridan's masterpiece, with all of the hallmarks of a traditional comedy of manners.

Character Sketch of Oliver Twist

 

Oliver Twist is the central character of the novel. He is also a link among the three different worlds depicted in the novel—the workhouse, the crime world and the world of the genteel middle-class people. He is, as a matter of fact, more of a symbol than a fully individualized character. In the opening sentence of the Novel, Dickens describes him as an item of mortality. Till the end of the novel, nothing is specifically known about his parents. The name that he bears is given to him just by chance. All this suggests that Dickens wanted to make him an instrument of exposing the inhumanity and the cal1ousness of the workhouse and the underworld.

Oliver is symbolic of the principle of good. If we appreciate Oliver, it is for his propensity towards always being good, and if we sympathize with him, it is for his being a deprived and outcast child. In any case, we accept him less as a real child and more as a symbol.

It should be noted that Dickens has nowhere fully described Oliver’s appearance. In fact, except for Rose Maylie, Oliver is the only major character whose appearance is not well depicted. However, we come to understand that he is delicate and handsome. He always looks innocent and the chief expression on his face is that of melancholy. 

Oliver looks innocent because he is innocent. Unlike some other novels where external appearances are utterly deceptive, in Oliver’s case there is a remarkable correspondence between his inward nature and external appearance. Sikes is evil and he looks evil. The sinister nature of Fagin is adequately reflected on his face, and so is Oliver’s innocence. When he collapses outside Mrs Maylie’s house, he looks not only weak but also innocent. Rose is sure that a childlike Oliver could never commit a robbery. Mr Brownlow low also does not need a second thought to convince himself of Oliver’s innocence. Even the sceptical Mr Grimwig easily acknowledges his goodness.

Most of his life of Oliver is spent under the care of scoundrels like Mr Bumble, Mrs Mann, the inconsiderate Mrs Sowerberry, the rogue Noah Claypole, the devilish Fagin, and the odious Sikes. Anyone living under the shadow of the wicked characters would have either completely succumbed to or turned into a rogue himself, but Oliver survives. Despite all the efforts made by Monks to convert him into a thief, Oliver persists in his goodness. That is why it has been said that he represents goodness. Dickens has made him so good that on occasions he ceases to be a convincing character.

Oliver’s one positive characteristic is his courage. In chapter 2, we are told nature or inheritance had planted a good sturdy spirit in Oliver’s breast which enabled him to survive the cruel regime of Mrs Mann’s baby farm. In the same chapter, he approaches the board and makes his famous demand, “please, sir, I want some more”. He is indeed as much prompted by his own courage as by the fear of that domineering and bullying senior boy who had threatened that he would eat raw the boy sleeping next to him if he were not given an additional helping of gruel. Still, it must have taken tremendous courage to approach the members of the boards given their inevitable fury. Further evidence of his courage is seen in chapter 3 when he resists being apprenticed to Mr Gamfield, the Chimney sweep and in chapter 6 when he gives a sound thrashing to Noah Claypole. The charity boy is older than Oliver and enjoys the patronage and help of Mrs Sowerberry and Charlotte. But once when Oliver is provoked by the disparaging marks of Noah about his mother, nothing can suppress his wrath, not even Mr Bumble, who despite the properly waxed cane in his hand, is frightened by Oliver’s audacity. His flight from Mr Sowerberry in chapter 7 is another proof of his being courageous. But after he goes to London, he is almost swallowed by his circumstances and after “this everything seems done to him and for him, and almost nothing is done by him”.