Wednesday 24 July 2019

What are the stylistic qualities of Russell’s writings? Discuss with reference to the Conquest of Happiness.

The Appeal of Russell’s Prose Style
The appeal of Russell to the modern reader is due, in no small measure, to the charm of his prose style. Russell writes in a style which is characterized by lucidity, clarity, elegance, and a grace of expression. It is a plain, unembellished style which the layman easily understands, and yet it is a style which abounds in all the literary graces.
Russell is one of the great prose-stylists of the twentieth century. Although a philosopher, he does not write in a distorted or obscure manner as most philosophers do. His style is characterized by intellectual brilliance, clarity and lucidity, a certain frivolity and gaiety, and a catholicity of temper. As a matter of fact, the phrase “intellectual brilliance” is itself very wide in its scope, and it includes most of the other qualities. After all clarity, wit, and catholicity of temper are different manifestations of intellectual brilliance. Russell is incapable of being dull in his writing just as he is incapable of being shallow. The Conquest of Happiness is Bertrand Russell’s recipe for good living. First published in 1930, it pre-dates the current obsession with self-help by decades. Leading the reader step by step through the causes of unhappiness and the personal choices, compromises and sacrifices that (may) lead to the final, affirmativeconclusion of "The Happy Man", this is popular philosophy, or even self-help, as it should be written. His expositions of all the ideas are illumined by clarity and a grace of expression. His writing exactly reflects his crystalline, scintillating mind. One reason for the popularity of Conquest of Happiness is certainly the simplicity and charm of Russell’s prose-style.
Clarity, Lucidity, Grace and Elegance
The most conspicuous characteristics of this style are clarity, lucidity, grace, and elegance. Even when Russell is dealing with ideas which are philosophical and technical, he succeeds in conveying them to the reader by the manner in which he expresses them. He takes great pains to make ideas clear to the reader, and yet his style is not at all forced or laborious. It is a sign of his intellectual brilliance that he writes effortlessly and spontaneously in a style that is singularly free from all kinds of obscurity and ambiguity. Such an effect is achieved by him by means of his method of logical reasoning and by his habit of offering homely examples to clarify ideas. Every thesis, every proposition, every theory, every suggestion that he offers in the course of his Conquest of Happiness is well-argued, well-reasoned, and supported with appropriate examples, illustrations, and analogies, most of which are drawn from either well-known facts of history or everyday life,
Ideas, Intelligible and Coherently Presented
A noteworthy feature of the style of Russell is a complete absence of digressions or any other form of superfluity. Russell is never prolix or diffuse. Nor does he create an impression of copiousness or over-abundance in the matter of expression. His statements are compact and well-knit, even when somewhat long.
An Unadorned but Effective Style
Russell’s style is free from embellishments and ornamental effects. It is a plain, unadorned style. It is rarely charged even with emotion, being mainly addressed to the intelligence or the intellect as distinguished from the heart or the feelings. And yet it is not uninteresting, dull, tedious or monotonous in its effect. As has been indicated above, it is an elegant style with a charm of its own.
Suited to Exposition and Argument
Russell has a style of writing which is admirably suited to exposition and argument. While reading through his writings, we do not get entangled or enmeshed in the intricacies of thought.
Examples and Illustrations
Russell’s intellectual brilliance is also seen in the abundance of examples and illustrations which he provides in the course of his writings, as also in the wealth of allusions that we find in them.
The Abundance of Condensed Statements and Generalisations
Russell’s intellectual brilliance shows itself also in his capacity for making condensed statements and generalisations which in most cases produce a striking effect.
Irony, Wit, and Gaiety
Although Russell has always something serious to say in his essays, yet he is not too grave or solemn a writer. His essays are interspersed with witty observations and comments. Irony and sarcasm are often employed by him as weapons of attack. However, his wit is generally dry, though occasionally also gay. (Wit is gay when an author really seems to enjoy his witty remark, but wit is dry when the author makes a witty remark somewhat scornfully or with a sense of great superiority.)
Catholicity of Temper
Russell is a liberal philosopher. He suffers from no prejudices and no pet aversions. He has no crotchets or fads. A philosopher who is never tired of preaching a scientific temper of mind could never be narrow-minded in any sense of the word. His mind was large enough to take in its sweep all issues pertaining to human welfare. He has expressed his opinions in the Conquest of Happiness on the causes of unhappiness and has also provided the ways through which we can win the happiness. And he has dealt with these matters in a style which reflects his catholic temper and his wide-ranging mind. He did not evolve a style according to any premeditated theory or doctrine. His style came to him naturally. In his case, as in the cases of other great writers, it can be said with confidence that the style is the man. His is a style which is rich in such devices as parallelisms, antitheses, contrasts, similes, metaphors, quotations, allusions, anecdotes, simple words and difficult words, short sentences and long ones. He attaches no undue importance to any particular ingredient of style, his only concern being clarity of expression. We cannot use a single formula for this style as we can, for instance, for Bacon’s style (concise and epigrammatic), for Carlyle’s style (erudite, cumbersome, and eccentric), or for Ruskin’s style (mellifluous, musical prose). This is a style in which a perfect synthesis has been achieved between its various ingredients. In its own way, it is a unique style, even as the man himself was unique.

Tuesday 23 July 2019

Satan speeches

(())))Satan's Speeches in Paradise Lost Book_I (())))
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰IntroductionπŸ‘ˆπŸ‘ˆ
Satan of Book-I Paradise Lost, is one of the glorious examples of political leadership and political oratory. His speeches are the key to his character and his art of oratory excels the best of Roman rhetoric. He is the leader of the rebel-angels in Heaven and the uncrowned monarch of Hell. By following his lead, the fallen angels are deprived of “happy fields, where joy forever dwells.” Satan has now the task of retaining their loyalty and does so by the sheer magic of his high-pitched oratory. There is a certain pathetic grandeur of injured merit in them which wins the hearts of his followers. Around the character of Satan, Milton has thrown a singularity of daring, a grandeur of sufferance and a ruined splendour, which constitute the very height of poetic sublimity.
Satan is the first to recover from the stupor into which all the rebel angels fall. Soon he notices his first lieutenant, Beelzebub, weltering by his side. He finds that his compeer is much changed. So he makes a cautious approach, for he is not sure whether his friend is in a mood to blame him or he still loves him.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰First Speech.
Satan’s speeches reveal pure Miltonic lyricism. His opening speech to Beelzebub is a magnificent set-piece. It reveals the character of Satan – a defiant rebel and a great leader. He encourages and sympathizes with his followers with bold words and sentiments.
Satan first takes pity on the change in his friend. Then he refers to their friendship of the hazardous enterprise in heaven and in their present misery. He is ashamed to admit the might of God. But he will not allow it to change his mind. He has nothing but contempt for God who insulted his merits. It is a sense of injured merit that makes him wage war against the tyrant of Heaven. As for the battle, it has been an equal match and the issue uncertain. It is not their want of merit but God’s new and secret weapon that won the war. There is an irony through Satan’s speech which continually reduces his stature even when apparently it seems to be building it up. Satan’s historical of “high disdain” and “sense of injured merit” have overtones of the ludicrous. It seems weak and childish.
A single victory does not permanently ensure God’s victory. For the present, they may have lost the field, but that does not mean they have lost everything.
What though the field be lost?
All is not lost-the unconquerable will.
And study of revenge, immoral hate,
And courage never to submit or yield.
And what is else not to be overcome?
He, who failed to conquer these things cannot be said to be victor at all. Defeat is complete only when the spirit and the will too are subjugated. The bow down before God is worse than defeat. So he is determined to wage eternal war by force or guile.
Satan’s question “what though the field be lost?” is “an exposure of himself and his inability to act in any other way other than what he enumerates.”
Though the speech is one of high rhetorics there is barrenness; no suggestion of action at all except to brood on revenge and hate. Revenge will be eternally “studied” and have sustained yet it is so grandly expressed that we are thrilled by the implied suggestion to wage ceaseless war against hopeless odds, this appears as admirable.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰Second Speech.
With his second speech, Satan sweeps off all doubts from his friend’s mind. “To be weak is miserable, doing or suffering.” If God attempts to turn evil into good, it must be the sacred duty of the fallen angels to foil his attempts and turn all good to evil. God has now withdrawn all his forces and is in a confounded state. They should not let this opportunity slip. It is imperative that all of them should assemble and consult how they may hereafter most offend their enemy, best repair their own loss.
The audacity and superb self-confidence of Satan are well brought out in these words. He seizes the opportunity to mobilize his forces once again, conscious of the crushing defeat that he and his followers have suffered. Satan is trying to infuse fresh courage into them. His speech shows a heroic quality.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰Third Speech.
After winning over Beelzebub and putting new courage in him, Satan asks him whether they are forced to exchange this mournful gloom for celestial light. Now that they have become avowed enemies of God, the farther they are from him the better. So he welcome the dismal horrors of the infernal world. For him Hell is as good a place as Heaven, for his mind remains unchanged by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
In Hell they are free from servitude. It is “better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.”
“Farthest from him is best” is a statement of heroic defiance and of moral alienation. Once again the appeal is to the law of nature and God’s monarchy is presented to be based on force not on reason.
The line “Receive thy new Possessor” is characteristic of the Satanic mind and its passion for over lordship.
Satan’s speech is “full of ringing phrases expressed with a deliberate sonority.” The brief elegiac note gives way to rhetorical assertions of self-confidence. Again irony underlies the rhetoric. The ringing line “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven” with its melodramatic tone scarcely conceals the mixture of pride and spite which it expresses.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰Fourth Speech.
Taking Beelzebub with him, he addresses other angels, with a resounding voice. He directly touches their ego by calling them, “Princes, Potentates, Warriors, the Flower of Heaven.” He ask them whether they are sleeping thus on account of physical exhaustion or in despair. He exhorts them to “wake, arise or be forever fallen.”
Initially, Satan sarcastically addresses his fallen angels and then he tries to revive their detached spirits. His speech is so commanding and fiery that his followers are roused out of their stupor.
πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰πŸ‘‰Fifth Speech.
Satan addresses the assembled angels. He is filled with pride to have so many comrades. It is impossible that these vast numbers are vanquished. They are all powerful and still there is every hope of regaining their native seat. God has conquered them by use of force, but such success is only a partial success. Hell cannot contain so many valiant spirits for long. Peace of course, is despaired and therefore ruled out. The only course open to them is war. “War open or understood.” Satan invites all of them to the great council.
Satan choked with emotion and tears, begins his speech, like a politician he indulges in rhetoric. Without distorting facts he turns them to a different light and gives his defeated host a margin of hope. Throughout, Satan resolves “to wage by force or guile eternal war.” Later he places an alternative before the infernal council “op’n war or covert guile.” But now one finds that the emphasis is on war not guile. Satan is determined to combat with God to save his own pride. Satan makes a warlike speech full of contradictions and absurdities when examined closely but admirable and impressive on the face of it ending with an appeal to continue conflict.
“War then war
Open or understood must be resolv’d

Lytton Strachey as a biographer

Lytton Strachey as a biographer
The biographer Lytton Strachey
Lytton Strachey as a biographer
The biographer Lytton Strachey belonged to the Bloomsbury Group. He inaugurated the new era of biographical writing at the close of World War I. In his preface, Strachey enunciated the two fold principle of selection and scrutiny which was to mark all his work.
Strachey proposed a briefness which excludes everything that is superfluous and nothing that is significant. The completion of this mission made Strachey the greatness of modern biographers.
Strachey has certainly revolutionized the art of writing a biography. Before him, the biographer used to neglect like a hagiographer the darker side of their heroes because they generally used to idealize their heroes by representing them as angels of virtue. Strachey was the first to realize that in order to give a complete and human portrait.
Strachey did not hesitate to include in his biographies the failings, jokes and whims of his heroes. He believed that a biographer must have a psychological insight into his character.
A biographer must neither suppress vital facts nor obscure those aspects of his character which help us visualize his true picture as he lived. Instead of giving abstractness, Strachey indeed gave a creature of flesh and blood.
Strachey has suggested that the biographies must be primarily a form of literary art capable of giving the pleasure. In biography, it is not so much the subject as the treatment of the subject that really matters.
Strachey suggested that the biographies of eminent men should not be immediately written after their death because their relatives and friends are naturally reluctant to disclose the relevant confidential details. Thus he was of the opinion that:
“First class biographies can only be written long after the hero’s death.”
Strachey had a gift of irony which has hardly been equaled in literature by anyone since the eighteenth century masters.
Strachey has made biography a literary medium. His biographical style has the appeal of a fine work of art.
Strachey has brought us face to face with men and women, who are nonetheless fallible human beings and not infallible saints or gods. We watch them live, think, and quarrel like us. Sometimes they behave meanly and foolishly and sometimes nobly and wisely.
Strachey’s objectives were to make biography an unmistakable channel for the truthful transmission of personality; to write it as the most authentic footnote to history; to make it a vivid and complete story; to make it a source of inner satisfaction to the reader. In most of his experiments in biography Strachey certainly succeeded in attaining them. Strachey’s achievement in biography was indeed a challenge to dullness and incompetence.
Charles Richard Sander says:
“Throughout his career Strachey protested against the lengthy, formless, badly written biographies produced by the Victorians. He insisted that the spirit of the biographer should be free and that he should write from a definite point of view, should select and include only the essential materials of a subject, should give to a work good structure and excellence of style.”
His intensely personal sketches shocked many critics but delighted many readers. M. Forster says:
“Strachey helped sweep away the ponderous Victorian approach to the writing to biography, replacing it with a witty and with impressionistic style that was widely imitated and studied at the University of Cambridge.”
Instead of using the conventional method of detailed chronological narration, Lytton Strachey carefully selected his tact to present “Eminent Victorians”.
These deliberations suffice to signify that Strachey is the greatest biographer of the Victorian age. Bloomsbury Group. He inaugurated the new era of biographical writing at the close of World War I. In his preface, Strachey enunciated the two fold principle of selection and scrutiny which was to mark all his work.
Strachey proposed a briefness which excludes everything that is superfluous and nothing that is significant. The completion of this mission made Strachey the greatness of modern biographers.
Strachey has certainly revolutionized the art of writing a biography. Before him, the biographer used to neglect like a hagiographer the darker side of their heroes because they generally used to idealize their heroes by representing them as angels of virtue. Strachey was the first to realize that in order to give a complete and human portrait.
Strachey did not hesitate to include in his biographies the failings, jokes and whims of his heroes. He believed that a biographer must have a psychological insight into his character.
A biographer must neither suppress vital facts nor obscure those aspects of his character which help us visualize his true picture as he lived. Instead of giving abstractness, Strachey indeed gave a creature of flesh and blood.
Strachey has suggested that the biographies must be primarily a form of literary art capable of giving the pleasure. In biography, it is not so much the subject as the treatment of the subject that really matters.
Strachey suggested that the biographies of eminent men should not be immediately written after their death because their relatives and friends are naturally reluctant to disclose the relevant confidential details. Thus he was of the opinion that:
“First class biographies can only be written long after the hero’s death.”
Strachey had a gift of irony which has hardly been equaled in literature by anyone since the eighteenth century masters.
Strachey has made biography a literary medium. His biographical style has the appeal of a fine work of art.
Strachey has brought us face to face with men and women, who are nonetheless fallible human beings and not infallible saints or gods. We watch them live, think, and quarrel like us. Sometimes they behave meanly and foolishly and sometimes nobly and wisely.
Strachey’s objectives were to make biography an unmistakable channel for the truthful transmission of personality; to write it as the most authentic footnote to history; to make it a vivid and complete story; to make it a source of inner satisfaction to the reader. In most of his experiments in biography Strachey certainly succeeded in attaining them. Strachey’s achievement in biography was indeed a challenge to dullness and incompetence.
Charles Richard Sander says:
“Throughout his career Strachey protested against the lengthy, formless, badly written biographies produced by the Victorians. He insisted that the spirit of the biographer should be free and that he should write from a definite point of view, should select and include only the essential materials of a subject, should give to a work good structure and excellence of style.”
His intensely personal sketches shocked many critics but delighted many readers. M. Forster says:
“Strachey helped sweep away the ponderous Victorian approach to the writing to biography, replacing it with a witty and with impressionistic style that was widely imitated and studied at the University of Cambridge.”
Instead of using the conventional method of detailed chronological narration, Lytton Strachey carefully selected his tact to present “Eminent Victorians”.
These deliberations suffice to signify that Strachey is the greatest biographer of the Victorian age.

George Eliot's Art of Characterization(((M.A English)))

George Eliot's Art of Characterization(((M.A English)))
Characterization: Its Importance
Success in characterization is the measure of a novelist’s greatness, and George Eliot is with the very greatest in this respect. Among the excellencies which distinguish the works of George Eliot, one is her power of characterization. She brings before us a variety of characters who not only bear the essential stamp of reality, but each one of whom is endowed with his or her individual traits of speech and manner, and his own moral quality. Says David Cecil, “It is in the treatment of character that George Eliot’s more active intellect gives her the most conspicuous advantage over the typical Victorians.”
Characters From “Humble and Rustic background:
George Eliot, like a lot of other women writers, depended largely upon her own experience. She kept close to that which she knew intimately—namely the experiences of her girlhood. It is to this experience and to her life in the English Midlands that she returns again and again for her material. Although in her later novels, George Eliot does draw characters belonging to the upper class, she derives her strength and recognition from the portrayal of, what Wordsworth calls, characters from “humble and rustic life.” Wordsworth influenced her profoundly. She echoes Wordsworth’s interest in rustic life and uses the dialect spoken by the humble rustics to make her portrayal of character more realistic.
Use of Personal Experience
George Eliot‘s full scale characters are all drawn from her family circle, close friends and acquaintances. This is clearly noticeable in her early novels. The male persons in the first novels, Scenes of Clerical Life are portraits of real people whom she had been acquainted with or heard about. She gives us the thoughts of the ordinary, humble, men and women she had known, and sets them against a very unromantic background. They are neither extraordinarily silly nor extraordinarily wicked, nor extraordinarily wise; their eyes are neither deep and liquid with sentiment, nor sparkling with suppressed witticisms; they have probably had no hair-breadth escapes or thrilling adventures; their brains are certainly not pregnant with genius, and their passions have not manifested themselves at all after the fashion of a volcano. They are simply men of complexions more or less muddy, whose conversation is more or less bold and disjointed. Yet these commonplace people, many of them, have a conscience, and have felt the sublime prompting to do the painful right; they have their unspoken sorrows and their sacred joys; their hearts have perhaps gone out towards their first born, and they have mourned over the irreclaimable dead.
Power of Psychological Portrayal
George Eliot looks into the minds of these common people and reveals their thinking, feeling, sufferings and frustrations. Their concern with “the sublime prompting to do the painful right” is illustrated by the story of Maggie Tulliver and is echoed in Romola, Dorothea, Felix Holt and in all her major characters. “The writer who could visualise for us the hedonistic Tito; the fine old puritan, Dr. Lyons; the erratic Gwendolen, the steadfast Mary Garth; the commonplace Fred Vincy and the brilliant Lydgate; the rough uncultured Bob Jakin and the polished scholar Casaubon dealing justice to each, fairly appraising their merits and no less keenly exposing their weaknesses, was a writer with no ordinary power of psychological portrayal. Nor is she a whit inferior in the subtlety of her method, as is evidenced by the delicate nuances in the characterization of Mary Garth and Rosamund Vincy, and Romola.”            —(Compton Rickett)
Realism
Such is her realism in the presentation of character, that after the publication of Scenes of Clerical Life in 1857, her readers of Warwickshire were astonished to find that the characters of the novel were people they had known and who were their neighbours. In the Sad Fortunes of Rev. Amos Barton, George Eliot reveals her sympathy for common people by making her hero, a man whose only noticeable quality is that he is superlatively middling. She has sketched the unheroic hero from her memory of the Rev. John Gwyther, Curate of Cheverels Colon between the years 1838-41. A host of minor characters have been portrayed masterly. George Eliot has characterised them realistically and “they are seen clearly, objectively, humorously and inspite of their moral and intellectual deficiencies, with respect and sympathy.” George Eliot reveals the individual traits of these spokesmen of the small community of Shepperton. Mrs. Hackit, whose character is based on fond recollections of her mother, is a shrewd and good hearted woman. She is a good farmer’s wife and manages the dairy, like Mrs. Evans, successfully. Mr. Hackit is a pleasant gentleman. He, like the author’s father, Robert Evans, is “A shrewd, substantial man, whose advice about crops is always worth listening to and who is too well off to want to borrow money.”
She had been greatly influenced and dominated by her father, and Adam Bede and Caleb Garth are strongly reminiscent of Robert Evans, the upright workman. He, like Adam Bede, was well-known for his trustworthiness, high character and extraordinary strength. He had an immense knowledge of plantations, timber and mines. Robert Evans’ excellencies had brought him to the notice of Sir Francis Newdigate and the relationship between her father and his employer is the source of the account of friendship between Adam Bede and Arthur Donnithorne. Regarding the character of Dinah Morris in Adam Bede George Eliot said: “The character of Dinah grew out of my recollections of my aunt who is a very small, black eyed woman, and (as I was told, for I never heard her preach) very vehement in her style of preaching.” This aunt, Mrs. Elizabeth Evans, was a Methodist preacher of great saintliness. Like Dinah Morris, she was known for her charity in Derbyshire. According to Gey Roslyn, “In the novel the descriptions of Dinah are descriptive also of Elizabeth, the heroine of fact, and the heroine of fiction are alike in walking, talking, dress, occupation and the fortunes of life.”
The Professions
George Eliot spent the first thirty years of her life in the Midlands where she had enough opportunity to study the mannerisms and life of the lower classes. We have it in her own words that she had lived among craftsmen, farmers, tradesmen, mechanics, farriers, butchers, gardeners and innkeepers, and as we glance over her principal characters, we are assured of the fact that her sympathies lay with them. Her characters are all modelled on the memories of her life in the Midlands. They belong to the various professions and occupations that George Eliot had been familiar with. Adam Bede is a carpenter, Dinah Morris works in a factory. Hetty Sorel is a pretty but vain dairymaid, Silas Marner is a linen weaver, Maggie Tulliver is the daughter of a miller, Felix Holt is a watchmaker, and Esther Lyon is a governess. She never-forgets the low and the humble. Romola is based on fifteenth century Florentine life, yet George Eliot has filled page after page with conversations of the commonfolk. According to Henry James, “She is unmistakably a painter of bourgeois life as Thackeray was a painter of life of drawing-rooms.”
Female Characters
When we glance over the whole range of George Eliot’s characters, we come to the conclusion that she was exceptional in the portrayal of female characters. One of her male characters, Tito, in Romola, has been called a woman in disguise, so profound was her understanding of the female mind and heart. The rendering of Hetty Sorel in Adam Bede is a triumph. Hetty Sorel is a beautiful, vain, dairymaid who hopes to gain a higher place in society by using her beauty. Says John Bennett, “George Eliot portrays with insight and convincing truth Hetty’s physical charms and her shallow, pleasure-loving, hurtless nature, without ill-will, but without any strength of purpose to withstand temptation.”
Dinah Morris is one person who penetrates through her surface beauty and perceives the weakness of Hetty’s character and realises that she is not equipped with necessary qualities to face the ordeals, of life. Realising the shallowness of the vain, pretty dairymaid she tries to prepare her for the possibility of pain and trouble in her Life. Leslie Stephen claims that Hetty is ‘thoroughly charming.’ George Eliot has been criticised for crucifying the pretty, vain dairy-maid. “It is almost as though Hetty’s very prettiness is scored up as a bad mark against her, comments Walter Allen. There have been biographical surmises that the plain looking George Eliot was punishing herself through the sins of the beautiful Hetty. In her novels there are heavy, ironical paragraphs describing the beauty of women like Hetty, and the havoc they caused in the lives of men. Hetty suffers because she yields to temptation. This is true not only of Hetty but also of Maggie Tulliver, Mrs. Transome and Gwendolen Harleth who also suffer for their moral transgressions. They all testify to the author’s firm belief in the disastrous effect of sin.
Minor Characters: Mrs. Poyser
Her minor characters are drawn from various walks of life in the Midlands. We meet farmers, clergymen, gardeners, school masters, carpenters, milk-maids and innkeepers. After reading Adam Bede we feel as if we know Mrs. Poyser, Martin Poyser, the Revered Irwine, Mrs. Irwine, his mother, Lisbeth Bede, the mother of Adam and Seth Bede, Bartle Massey, Mr. Cragg, and Joshua Rann intimately. Of George Eliot’s minor characters Mrs. Poyser stands out foremost. The most interesting characteristics of Mrs. Poyser are those which George Eliot’s mother also had. J.W. Cross remarks: “His (Robert Evans) second wife was a woman with an unusual amount of natural force; a shrewd practical person, with a dash of the Mrs. Poyser vein in her.” Mrs. Evans, like Mrs. Poyser, was a successful dairy women, housekeeper and mother. She was a devoted wife with a sharp tongue which subdued her husband, children and servants. Mrs. Poyser is the wittiest of all George Eliot’s characters. She pervades the novel Adam Bede and is well-known for her sharp tongue, but a kind heart. Says Charles S. Olcott, “Mrs. Poyser, whose practical common sense is revealed in a succession of lightning flashes of pithy aphorisms and quick repartee, has a place by the side of Sam Weller among the most delightfully humorous characters of our literature.”
George Eliot admitted that there was a great deal of herself in Maggie Tulliver, the central figure in The Mill On the Floss. Many of Marian’s own experiences and emotions have been woven into the character of Maggie. In Arbury Farm, Marian would follow Isaac, her brother who was three years older than her, adoringly, and was miserable when he was away from her. Maggie like her creator adores her brother Tom and craves for his love.
Mary was a sensitive, passionate child, like Maggie, and she thirsted for life, beauty and knowledge. The description of the childhood of Maggie is unique. Every characteristic of her own childhood appears also in Maggie, for example, her own love for music. Love for music is one of her strongest bonds with Philip Wakem. Says Walter Allen, “As a rendering of the growth of a girl from early childhood to young womanhood, a girl marked by intellectual distinction, a generously ardent nature and a strong capacity for feeling, Maggie has never been surpassed.”
Evolution of Character
The characters in George Eliot’s novels grow and develop as the story proceeds. They are round characters. We behold them at the end of the book different from what they were at the beginning. In certain cases they become more hardened and more debased than what they were before. One striking example of such character development is Tito Melema in Romola. The gradual downfall of Tito can very well be placed besides the debasement of Macbeth. We see in him the full representation of deterioration. He desires to get on in the world but falls a victim to the circumstances which are of his own making. Tito, who is a scholar, like Godfrey Cass (‘Silas Marner’) and Arthur Donnithorne (‘Adam Bede’), yields to his egotistic desires and commits base and cruel deeds.
George Eliot’s Clergy
George Eliot’s experience of painful conflicts from religious causes, accounts for her sympathetic delineation of clergymen. Her picture of clergy range from Savonorala, a Dominican friar, to Dinah Morris, a Methodist preacher. The Evangelical movement and the clash between old and new ways of worship had always interested George Eliot. As a novelist, George Eliot saw in the drama of Evangelicalism excellent material for a realistic portrayal of common life and this might have led her to write “Janet’s Repentance.” George Eliot portrays the Evangelical movement with all its good and bad, its hypocrisy and sincerity. Her admiration for saintly Evangelical characters can be seen in her early books. Mr. Tryan in ‘Janet’s Repentance’ and Dinah Morris in Adam Bede are such characters, portrayed realistically.
Her novels abound with simple-minded clergymen who unmoved by religious ‘dissent’, go about their parish duties and minister to the wants of the poor according to the tradition handed down by their ancestors. The clergy are not without their weaknesses as, for example, Mr. Irwine in Adam Bede, but despite such weaknesses they are treated with sympathy.
Mr. Farebrother in Middlemarch is a man of the world who plays for money, yet he has pity, tact and wisdom. “I don’t pretend to say that Farebrother is apostolic…….“ George Eliot contrasts the worldly, kindly Farebrother with the Evangelical Mr. Tyke, who is inhuman.
The Rustic Chorus
The novelist’s minor rustic characters, such as Mr. and Mrs. Hackit, Mrs. Patten, and Mrs. Poyser, Lisbeth Bede, Dolly, Mr. Winthrop, Macey, Mr. Craig, Bob Jakin, Britle Massey and a host of others, once met are difficult to forget. Through them George Eliot shows the upper class how the other half lives. Mrs. Poyser with her homely wit and genuine kindliness is masterly drawn. Her dialogues are scintillating with wisdom. To these minor characters of various professions she gives the realism which Lewes demanded in his article “Realism in Art: Recent German Fiction” in the Westminster Review in which he insisted: “the merchant must have an air of the counting house, and an ostler must smell of the stables.”
The rustic characters in the early novels, specially, can be compared in their eccentricities and grotesqueries to the rustic characters of Thomas Hardy. The chorus of lively rustic characters plays an important part in her novels. According to Barbara Hardy, they contribute to the intensification of theme and character. “Apart from playing their minor roles in the action, the chorus is also the narrator and is important for making tragic statements for the author. The chorus throws the ordinary hero into relief, the relief of the frame and the relief of contrast.”
The rustic chorus comments on the protagonist and very often the reader comes to understand the protagonist better through the conversation among the chorus. The chorus is also responsible for providing to the readers information about the characters and their family history. In Silas Marner, through the famous scene at the ‘Rainbow Inn’ one gathers a great deal about the Raveloe gentry. We learn that in Raveloe the right opinion is the community opinion and the community speaks in one voice. We learn that Raveloe is a surprisingly homogenous society with no wide range of rank or wealth and the gentry of Raveloe are scarcely less native than the rustics, their lives are almost as confined and sequestered” (Walter Allen). The tragedy of the hero becomes the tragedy of the whole community and this brings the protagonist and the community together in a common bond, as we also see in the case of the Rev. Amos Barton and Rev. Mr. Gilfil in the Scenes of Clerical Life.
In Adam Bede the community of Hayslope plays the part of the chorus. At the twenty-first birthday celebrations of Captain Donnithorne, Mr. Poyser keeps referring with apprehensive irritation to the Squire, and the rumours about the mysterious tenant. All this reaches a climax when old Squire approaches the Poysers with a proposal and is routed by Mrs. Poyser. At the same feast the Captain announces that Adam is being given the position of the manager of the woods. Adam makes a fine speech but of much greater interest are the opinions of those present:
“Some of the women whispered that he didn’t show himself thankful enough, and seemed to speak as proud as could be; but most of the men were of opinion that nobody could speak more straightforward, and that Adam was as fine a chap as need to be.”
In Mill on the Floss even the minor characters are sketched with the same firmness and strength as the major ones. The Tullivers, Gleggs, Pullets and Bob Jakin are all individualised and distinct. The Dodsons are based on George Eliot’s recollection of her mother’s family, the “Pearsons”. Mr. Evans with all his strength of character was submissive to his second wife, Christina Pearson. She came from a yeoman family and her social position was better than her husband’s. Mrs. Evans was a superior woman, both socially and financially, and Robert Evans held her in awe. Her family no doubt are the prototypes of “the emmet like Dodsons.” The Dodson sisters have been drawn with George Eliot’s characteristic shrewd observation and humour. Each sister has her own distinct appearance, behaviour, thinking and mode of talking.
Conclusion
The characters of George Eliot’s novels are real, living breathing human beings. They are warm, full of vitality, with human desires and weaknesses. George Eliot was writing before Freud, yet her novels are rich in psycho­logical analysis of character and motive. She not only penetrates to the inner depth of her characters but the characters are studied in relation to their environment. Her contribution to the English novel in the field of characterization is that she made it conscious of character on a deeper level.

Diglossia in Sociolinguistics

Diglossia in Sociolinguistics☺️πŸŒ·πŸŒΉπŸŒ»πŸ‘‡
In sociolinguistics, diglossia is a situation in which two distinct varieties of a language are spoken within the same speech community. Bilingual diglossia is a type of diglossia in which one language variety is used for writing and another for speech. When people are bidialectal, they can use two dialects of the same language, based on their surroundings or different contexts where they use one or the other language variety. The term diglossia (from the Greek for "speaking two languages") was first used in English by linguist Charles Ferguson in 1959.
Diction Vs. Diglossia
Diglossia is more involved than just switching between levels of diction in the same language, such as going from slang or texting shortcuts to writing up a formal paper for a class or report for a business. It's more than being able to use a language's vernacular. Diglossia, in a strict definition, is distinct in that the "high" version of a language isn't used for ordinary conversation and has no native speakers.
Examples include the differences between standard and Egyptian Arabic; Greek; and Haitian Creole.
"In the classic diglossic situation, two varieties of a language, such as standard French and Haitian creole French, exist alongside each other in a single society," explains author Robert Lane Greene. "Each variety has its own fixed functions—one a 'high,' prestigious variety, and one a 'low,' or colloquial, one. Using the wrong variety in the wrong situation would be socially inappropriate, almost on the level of delivering the BBC's nightly news in broad Scots." He continues the explanation:
"Children learn the low variety as a native language; in diglossic cultures, it is the language of home, the family, the streets and marketplaces, friendship, and solidarity. By contrast, the high variety is spoken by few or none as a first language. It must be taught in school. The high variety is used for public speaking, formal lectures and higher education, television broadcasts, sermons, liturgies, and writing. (Often the low variety has no written form.)" ("You Are What You Speak." Delacorte, 2011)
Author Ralph W. Fasold takes this last aspect a bit further, explaining that people are taught the high (H) level in school, studying its grammar and rules of usage, which they then apply to the low (L) level as well when speaking. However, he notes, "In many diglossic communities, if speakers are asked, they will tell you L has no grammar, and that L speech is the result of the failure to follow the rules of H grammar" ("Introduction to Sociolinguistics: The Sociolinguistics of Society," Basil Blackwell, 1984).
The high language also has more intense grammar—more inflections, tenses, and/or forms than the low version.
Neither is diglossia always as benign as a community just happening to have two languages, one for law and one for chatting personally. Autor Ronald Wardhaugh, in "An Introduction to Sociolinguistics," notes, "It is used to assert social position and to keep people in their place, particularly those at the lower end of the social hierarchy" (2006).
Different Definitions of Diglossia
Other definitions of diglossia don't require the social aspect to be present and just concentrate on the plurality, the different languages for different contexts. For example, Catalan (Barcelona) and Castillian (Spain as a whole) Spanish, don't have a social hierarchy to their usage but are regional. The versions of Spanish have enough overlap that they can be understood by speakers of each but are different languages. The same applies to Swiss German and standard German; they are regional.
In a bit wider definition of diglossia, it can also include social dialects, even if the languages are not completely separate, distinct languages. In the United States, speakers of dialects such as Ebonics (African American Vernacular English, AAVE), Chicano English (ChE), and Vietnamese English (VE) also function in a diglossic environment. Some people argue that Ebonics has its own grammar and appears related in lineage to Creole languages spoken by enslaved people of the Deep South (African languages melding with English), but others disagree, saying that it's not a separate language but just a dialect.
In this wider definition of diglossia, the two languages can also borrow words from each other.
🌷🌹🌲🌲🌲🌻🌻🌻

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

The Jew of Malta and Othello : Views on Religion and Criminality
In the Jew of Malta, there are three religions involved; they are Christianity, Jewish, and the Muslim Turks. The play begins with Barabbas, who is a Jewish merchant waiting for news about the arrival of his ships. After the confirmation that the ships had safely arrived at Malta from East, three men come to visit him with some news from the Maltese governor, Ferneze. The Turkish Sultan demands some tribute from Malta, which has accumulated for ten years. As a result, the governor orders all the Jews to give half of their estate to the governor to help him pay tribute to the Turks. All the three men accompanying Barabbas to the senate house are Jews. When Barabas considers and claims the action to be unfair, the governor confiscates all his ships in the Malta. Fernezes is a Christian and the religious language he uses against the Jews is not fair. He does not mention of Christians or Muslim Turks assisting him pay the tribute. As a result, Barabas declares revenge against the governor and all Christians. Barabas makes his decision about Christians basing his argument on the actions of only one Christian, Fernezes, and the Maltese governor (Eder, 2011).
The Othello play is displays some religious aspects and imagery. The play begins in the streets of Venice where two young men Roderigo and Lago shouts from outside the house of the Duke of Venice, Brabantio that his daughter, Desdemona had eloped with Othello, the Moor. Roderigo had failed in winning Desdemona hand in marriage and is accusing Othello of using witchcraft that is against the religion of Othello. Othello confesses that he won his wife in a clean and transparent way by sharing his adventure and true love with her. Othello had promoted Cassio in the workplace where Roderigo expected a promotion. The Duke of Venice, Brabantio is a Jew while Othello is a Christian, and he was very mad when he realized his daughter’s marriage to the Christian. After the case is presented to the officers of Venetian court and solved, Othello is set free to marry Desdemona. The religious imagery of the play is revealed when the Duke appoints Othello to the general in the defense against the Turks. He is a Jew, and he does not like the Muslim Turks. Othello is sent to Cyprus with his wife accompanying him in the next ship. The Christians, Muslim Turks, and Jews have enmity based on religious beliefs. Each of them receives religious teaching and morals to love and respect each other unfortunately, they do not observe the teachings (Shakespeare & Holste, 2002).
From the play the Jew of Malta, the governor also takes away, the Barabas house and converts it into a convent. This is a way of punishing the Jew for not cooperating in assisting the state in paying tribute to the Turks. Every Jew was supposed to give half of his estate to the governor, Fernezes, but Barabas refused. All his wealth was taken away and used by Christians which hurts him. To prove the religious conflict, he uses his daughter Abigal to revenge against the Maltese governor. According to (Kelsall, 2001) Abigail, is in a romantic relationship with Mathias, who is a friend to Lodowick, the Fernezes daughter. Coincidentally, Lodowick also had some interest in Abigail. With the help of Ithamore, the Turkish slave that Barabas bought from Fernezes, he creates a conflict between the two young men, and they end up killing each other. Ithamore is a Muslim Turk, who also hates Christians just like his boss Barabas. They are both criminals, and they work together in eliminating Christians from Malta. He makes them believe that his daughter is interested in them which is a lie. Abigal is very sad when he realizes that his father set a trap to kill Mathias. Barabas did not like the two Christians and did not want them anywhere close to his daughter, and hence he killed them. Barabas referred to Christians as thieves. This was an abusive language, whereas, he was a murderer. Barabas notes that he is just following Christian examples by quoting from the act in Catholic Christian teaching, “Faith is not to be kept with heretics”, where all the heretics are not Jews as McAdam, (2009) confirms. The Jew uses this to defend his evil actions against Christians.
Desdemona is accused of infidelity by Iago. Iago works to ensure divorce between Othello and his wife. He had been given some money by rich Rodinego to work for the divorce. Cassio got drunk after influence by Iago and Othello accused him of causing disturbance. Therefore, Desdemona, Othello’s wife promised Cassio that she would talk with her husband to ensure they reconciled and that he was not demoted. Iago, who is the husband to Emillia, a servant of Desdemona, accused Desdemona of infidelity. In the religious definition, infidelity was viewed as a severe offense in the Christian religious beliefs.As a result, Othello becomes very furious and orders Iago to kill Cassio. Othello goes ahead to kill his wife out of infidelity. The religious beliefs regarding infidelity does not allow the husbands to kill their wives. However, Othello goes ahead and does it. Therefore, the religious term infidel is revealed here. Othello, an African Christian does not follow on his Christian teachings and beliefs. He is unfaithful to his religious teachings. Therefore, in the act of redefining the religious term in the play, a Christian should follow the religious teachings and beliefs (Shakespeare, The tragedy of othello, the moor of venice, 2014). Othello is wrong and unreligious in the Christian faith by killing his wife and commanding Iago to kill Cassio. Killing is not taught in the Christian religion. Idolatry is also revealed where the Duke, believes that Othello used witchcraft to marry his daughter. Nevertheless, Desdemona confesses to love truly Othello.
An aspect of renegade is also revealed in the Jews of Malta. This refers to an act of moving from one religion to another that opposes it. After Abigal, Barabas daughter realized that his father caused the death of his love, Mathias, she joins convent where she becomes a Christian (Logan, 2013). The first time when she went to the convent in pretense to become a Christian, she wanted to get gold from his father’s house that was converted into the convent by the fernezes, the Maltese governor. She converted back to Jew after getting the gold. Abigal was serious for converting to Christianity for the second time after learning how evil her father was. Unfortunately, Barabas killed all the nuns and his daughter by poisoning them using rice porridge. Barabas had also confused the priests by promising them that he would convert to Christianity. Barabas did not to convert to Christianity but wanted to set a trap to the two priests. Due to greediness for money, the two priests started fighting for Barabas to join their church. Marlowe, Gill, & Rowland, The complete works / 4 The Jew of Malta., (2005) puts it clearly that the focus was not to preach the religious practices to Barabas but to benefit from his wealth. Unfortunately, they both lost their lives. Barabas kills the two Friars after inviting them into his house. Abigal had confessed of her father’s criminal offense to the two priests, Jacomo and Bernadine of killing Lodowick and Mathias before she died. Therefore, renegade, idolatry, and infidel are redefined as in the two plays as described (Marlowe & Ellis, 2003).
Malta, Venice, and Cyprus are figured as areas of religious identity, criminality, sexual and gender issues related to the two plays. Barabas commits all his crimes in Malta; he killed the nuns and his daughter in the convent that is located in Malta. Barabas is not happy with the Maltese governor and hence figure the place as an area of committing crimes for revenge. The two priests, Jacomo, and Bernadine, were also killed in Malta. When the prostitute whom Ithamore had fallen in love advised him to blackmail Barabas, she was also poisoned by Barabas. Barabas is a Jew, who is a criminal. By the end of the play, he also killed Ithamore after learning his plan with the prostitute to blackmail him of his gold. In the same way, all the religious conflicts take place in Malta. The Christians, Jews and Muslim Turks in Malta are enemies to each other. Towards the end of the play, Barabas wanted to kill Turkish sultan’s son Selim Calymath, who was sent to collect the tribute from the Malta governor. Fortunately, Fernezes stopped him.
In Venice, Othello is a male general who is sent to Cyprus to fight against Turks. The issue of gender and sexuality comes in. The duke selects a male defense general basing his argument on gender. The crimes also take place in Cyprus where Cassio and Desdemona are killed. All the crimes are based on religious rhetorical beliefs. Barabas kills his daughter for converting to Christianity, which is a rhetoric, religious belief. All the other nuns did not deserve to die. That was an issue between him and his daughter. According to Hall, (2009) the Duke is also seen to have some rhetoric, religious beliefs. He believes that Othello used witchcraft to win his daughter’s hand in marriage.
In conclusion, the two plays, The Jew of Malta and Othello involves religious beliefs and imagery. The characters like Barabas are Jews, and they hate Christians who have been revealed through the criminal acts of killing them. The governor is also not fair to Jews because, he takes the house of Barabas and convert it into a convent. Barabas defends his evil action from the fact that a Christian, Fernezes took away all his wealth. Infidel, Renegade and idolatry are religious terms redefined in the two plays. Malta, Venice, and Cyprus are viewed and defined by the characters with rhetoric, religious beliefs as the places for religious identity, sexuality and crime re-fashioning. The evils that revolve around the three areas are linked to rhetoric, religious beliefs. Barabas kills Christians as a result of rhetoric beliefs about Christianity. However, he is a criminal because he kills even Ithamore, a Muslim Turk, who was his servant. He also had intentions of killing Calymath, who is the son of Sultan; he comes to get tribute from Malta. However, Fernezes stops him from killing the innocent young man. Barabas is a criminal and a selfish man.

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

English Playwright and Poet, Christopher Marlowe’s Contribution to English Drama
Christopher Marlowe made momentous and revolutionary contributions to English drama. The first great English dramatist and the most important Elizabethan dramatist before William Shakespeare,   Marlowe worked on tragedy and advanced it considerably as a dramatic medium.
(a) He created genuine blank verse and firmly established it as the most appropriate medium of poetic drama.
(b) He founded English romantic tragedy.
(c) He wrote the first great English history play.
Literary historian describes Marlowe’s achievement in all worthy words. Truly so, Marlowe raised the subject matter of English drama to a higher level. He dealt with heroic subject that had a stirring effect on the imagination. His heroes were Tamburlaine, a world conqueror (Tamburlaine the Great); Faustus, a scholar seeking supreme knowledge (The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus); Barabas, dreaming of figures on the stage enlarged, in men’s minds, the bounds of the possible (The Jew of Malta).
These three plays were a paean to the infinity of military power, of knowledge, and of wealth. The subject Marlowe borrowed, the heroes he moulded, were no more than his mouthpiece, voicing his exorbitant dreams. Read More Elizabethan Literature Like him they sought the infinite and like him were never sated. Marlowe is regarded as a rebel and a pioneer. He raised the standard of revolt against the convention of writing plays in rhyme and against the “clown age” of popular comedy. He seized upon blank verse as the ideal medium for drama which was introduced into England by the Earl of Surrey. By revealing the possibilities for strength and variety of expression in blank verse, Marlowe helped to establish the verse form as the predominant form in English drama.
He was the founder of genuine romantic tragedy, as regards both plot and character. Before him, the characters in plays had too often been mere lifeless puppets. Marlowe informed his central characters and the whole of his dialogue with life and passion. He was an admirer of Machiavelli whose ideal, as understood by that age, was the superman was, having decided what his goal is to be, and presses on to it regardless of scruples of conscience.
In each of his dramas one forceful protagonist with a single overriding passion dominates. In fact, Each of Marlowe's important plays have as a central character a passionate man doomed to destruction by an inordinate desire for power. The plays are further characterized by beautiful, sonorous language and emotional vitality, which is, however, at times unrestrained to the point of bombast. Such is the here of both parts of Tamburlaine, who seeks to conquer the world, trampling humanity mercilessly beneath him in his resistless course. Such is Faustus, whose ideal is boundless and lawless knowledge for the sake of universal power; such in Barabas, The Jew of Malta, revelling first in his prodigious wealth and then in the very ecstasy of revenge on those who had deprived him of it; such are Mortimer, in Edward II, and Guise in the Massacre at Paris, both monsters of unscrupulous ambition and resolution.

"Love & Marriage" in "Pride & Prejudice"

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

Pride and Prejudice: Irony

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

*The ESL ACADEMY*  *RANASIRLITERATURE.BLOGSPOT.COM*  *_WhatsAp03056319464_ πŸ‘‡πŸ»πŸ‘ŒπŸ‘ŒπŸ‘ŒπŸ‘ŒπŸ’  *Prepared by Sir Rana*  ~  *IMPOR...