✍️✍️✍️ Absolutism In Macbeth

Thursday, August 12, 2021 3:47:50 PM

Absolutism In Macbeth



A new Absolutism In Macbeth of manufacturing came into being, benefits of genetic engineering Absolutism In Macbeth by the concentration Absolutism In Macbeth labor power in the workshop, but rather by the monopoly of the products of domestic industry. Absolutism In Macbeth King Absolutism In Macbeth Savarre and Absolutism In Macbeth few Absolutism In Macbeth of his retinue renounce human society and the Absolutism In Macbeth of women to ponder Absolutism In Macbeth abstract philosophy. He Absolutism In Macbeth witty, and a Absolutism In Macbeth for others. Absolutism In Macbeth doing this, the Absolutism In Macbeth is able to get humor Absolutism In Macbeth of how ridiculous Absolutism In Macbeth are during Absolutism In Macbeth, especially when considering Androcles Character Analysis effects Absolutism In Macbeth war if it were to be inverted. Absolutism In Macbeth called Microagressions: A Case Study Absolutism In Macbeth emancipation of the feelings and personality of the Absolutism In Macbeth in particular, this necessited individualism, that most vital and typical characteristic of Absolutism In Macbeth Renaissance, which found its Absolutism In Macbeth expression in Absolutism In Macbeth. Secondly—a scientific attitude towards the Absolutism In Macbeth, life, Absolutism In Macbeth reality, which, Absolutism In Macbeth all metaphysical interpretations, demands a causal explanation Absolutism In Macbeth all natural, social, and psychological phenomena.

James I and Stuart Absolutism (The Stuarts: Part One)

Labels: Section 1B. No comments:. Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Theater, Daily Entertainment and Formal Entertainm Why then, alas, Do I put up that womanly defense t Purpose of Disguise and Mistaken Identity in 12th At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the political program of the Puritans was still moderate, since the leading force of the class was the big bourgeoisie, always ready'to compromise with the aristocracy and the king.

This leading group, which called itself Presbyterian, aimed only at the confiscation of the property of the Church of England, and at the abolition of all privileges which hindered bourgeois development. The struggle became more acute around , when the Independents broke away from the Presbyterians. This group demanded the complete liquidation of the church hierarchy, the revocation of all special privileges, and the establishment of a bourgeois-democratic system.

Not until this time, some thirty or forty years prior to the revolution, did the decisive mass of the English bourgeoisie take a resolute stand against the ruling class and the entire system of absolutism. This movement brought forth Milton, the great poet of the English bourgeois revolution, who was born in Only the very last years of Shakespeare's creative work correspond to this period, for he reached maturity during the epoch of peaceful collaboration of the ruling nobility with the big bourgeoisie under the protection of the then progressive royal power.

Shakespeare was no poet of the court, still less of the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, he had his roots in a young and vigorous aristocracy, before which extended wide horizons, and which still remained the ruling class of a great people. In Shakespeare's tragedies there resounds the roar of the sea; in Corneille's tragedies, only the splashing of the fountains at Versailles. We are not in complete agreement with this dictum of Mehring's, although it seems to explain the aristocratic elements in Shakespeare's writings. However, it was devoid of the heroic and the tragic.

The work of these two dramatists, who were usually collaborators, had much in common with that of Shakespeare. We find pronounced individualism, exuberance, vivid portrayal of emotions, colorful characterization, and dynamic action. However, along with these, we find qualities foreign to Shakespeare's works, because these dramatists were still trying to bolster up a feudalism that was crumbling under the rising bourgeois tide. Thus, they defended the code of the duel by ridiculing a bourgeoisie that attempted to usurp this noble prerogative. This tendency is even more pronounced in Fletcher's tragi-comedy, The Loyal Subject, in which the hero suffers great abuse at the hands of his monarch, who finally restores him to grace.

Portrayed as scoundrels throughout the play, they suddenly become regenerate in the last act. In another of his plays, The Bloody Brother, or, Rolio, Duk of Normandy, he advances the theory that true wisdom lies not in open opposition to a despotic monarch, nor in blind obedience to him, but in artful adaptation to the exigencies of the situation. This reveals to us the undoubted influence which the Spanish dramatists of the period exercised on Fletcher. These dramatists were exponents of Spanish absolutism, which. Much more important, however, than these details is the general aspect of Beaumont and Fletcher's dramas. They contain an unconcealed epicureanism, devoid of all moral and tragic problems.

The aim of their plays was solely to divert and to offer pointed and entertaining impressions. This accounts for the elegant mounting, the skillful handling of plot, the opulence of scenic effects. Character delineation, on the other hand, as well as the forces motivating the actions of their dramatis personae, are relegated to a second place. They strove for the most unusual, the most uncommon, the most pungent.

With cynical frankness, Fletcher loved to linger over impotence, incest, sexual perversion. He looked upon the theatre as a place in which to spend a pleasant hour. Disturbing social problems are, therefore, almost completely banished from his work. Nor does it ever contain any genuinely heroic characters. No more than two, or possibly three, of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays can be called tragedies. All the rest are either light and elegantly frivolous comedies, or dramas with a happy ending. All this is far removed from the heroic art of Shakespeare, strong to the point of vulgarity. There is no question that the roots of his art must be sought, not in the circles of epicurean noblemen, but in the revolutionary ideas and moods of the bourgeoisie.

There existed during this epoch a rather widespread literature, specifically middle-class in its thematic material and its stylistic manner. A whole group of Shakespeare's contemporaries, led by Thomas Heywood and Thomas Dekker , belong in this category. Folk naturalism, depiction of the plebeian milieu, family life and manners, naive moralizing, are amusingly juxtaposed with intrigue, melodrama, and motifs as sensational as if they had been copied out of a daily chronicle of events-scenes in houses of prostitution, insane asylums, and so forth.

Heywood's historical drama Edward the Fourth is a glorification of merchants and artisans, the real heroes of the play. In Shakespeare's chronicles, the basic theme deals with two great problems—power and the fate of nations. Heywood's plays, on the other hand, attach greater significance to the sentimental questions of family life. This middle-class naturalism and moralizing is not confined to the plays of the time; it appears also in the novels.

The end of the sixteenth century witnessed the development of the naturalistic or autobiographical novel of manners Greene, Nash , which depicted the life of the outcasts of society and the history of the hero's worldly "transgressions. This provided an opportunity for a series of satirical sketches of typical representatives of every possible class, profession, or social station. That most curious "industrial" trilogy, The Gentle Craft, Jack of Newberry, Thomas of Reading, by Thomas Deloney, the story of a Norwich silk-weaver, presented a most detailed picture of the lives of shoemakers and weavers—a sympathetic account of the transition from guild craftsmanship to manufacturing.

This leads us even farther away from Shakespeare's work than the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher. Shakespeare, a humanist and a man of historic perspective, concentrates on moral, political, and philosophical questions of universal significance; he strives to change the world. In all the other writers previously mentioned we have but the timid aspirations of the middle-classes, submissively accepting the whole existing mode of life, attempting to protect their right to a modest place in the world, a little happiness, and a shred of respect from the privileged aristocratic class. Peaceful in their middle-class morality, they desired only to earn their living through painstaking labor.

Taken as a whole, this morality was embryonic Puritanism, as yet far from its revolutionary maturity. These people were completely fettered by their middle-class ideology, from which, as Engels says, the titans of the Renaissance were free. Ben Jonson represented a different trend of bourgeois drama. His wide intellectual range, his love of life, his iconoclastic presentation and solution of moral problems place this great artist nearer to Shakespeare. Nevertheless, Ben Jonson, too, was bound by middle-class ideology, though in a lesser degree than those previously mentioned. He was interested in the morality of his class only in relation to current problems.

He was too much limited by these current interests and could not rise above them. He was not granted Shakespeare's intellectual and philosophical insight. A rationalist, slightly pedantic in his reasoning, he was the enemy of all "romanticism," which he angrily ridiculed. He maintained that the artist must depict only the people of every day life, and only those occurrences from which edification can be drawn. His main concern in all his plays was to be rational and plausible, in the popular, naturalistic meaning of the term, and to edify.

It can be said that, inasmuch as the Puritans were enemies of the theatre, Ben Jonson was basically, in his point of view, very close to them. He exhibits scoundrels, eccentrics, and a whole gallery of morally deformed types of every shape and color. In The Alchemist, he exposes one of the abuses of the age, superstition, and the chicanery connected with it. In Bartholomew Fair, he ridicules the noble spendthrift, together with the predatory and hypocritical priest, the prototype of Tartuffe.

In the comedy, The Devil is an Ass, he presents an interesting picture of the depravity and degeneracy of the court of James I. At the same time, Ben Jonson also criticizes the class whose representative he is. His Volpone is a grotesquerie of a cunning old man, who not only makes fools of ail those who dream of inheriting his fortune, but robs them at the same time, until he falls prey to the greed of his assistants. By thus having confined his thematic material to the realism of daily life, combined with a great deal of malice and even photographic copies of contemporaries, never to be found in Shakespeare, Ben Jonson limited the horizon of his art. This is particularly apparent in the construction of his characters. This explains their one-sided and schematic nature.

Parody and distortion replace the broad and profound mirroring of reality to be found in Shakespeare. Ben Jonson was a great scholar, a man of enlightenment and erudition, but he was able to mirror only the milieu with which he was familiar, and that only to a limited degree; Shakespeare reflected an immense epoch in full with inspired insight into the future. There was still another group of bourgeois dramatists, represented by the close forerunners and contemporaries of Shakespeare, with Marlowe at the head. It is to this group that Shakespeare belongs. Christopher Marlowe , the "stormy genius" of the English Renaissance, who died prematurely, reflected in his work the aspirations of the rising English bourgeoisie during the period of its initial strength.

His plays expressed all the passion, all the super-abundance of strength, all the utopian daring of thought and will of a newly-born, exultant class, eager to rush into the fray for the conquest of the world. Marlowe was the first to develop the heroic tragedy, the tragedy of a powerful individual whose passions and grandiose struggles encompass and unite all the action. In the preface to his first tragedy, Tamburlaine the Great, he introduces the theme. The shepherd who becomes master solely through will, and faith in his star, is conceived on a high plane. He is a true conquistador of the sixteenth century, avid and drunk with his own strength, ready to conquer the world. Tamburlaine reckons with nothing, not even with the "will of the gods.

Tamburlaine, however, is not only a man of great ambitions; he is a thinker as well. Hungry for knowledge, he craves to understand "the marvelous construction of the world," to fathom the run of each planet. To the man of the Renaissance, knowledge and power were inseparable. Such a superman is Dr. Faustus, who sells his soul to tile devil in exchange for mortal happiness, knowledge and power.

But he desires this power in order to render his country impregnable, to surround it with an iron wall, to create an unconquerable army, to establish universities. A similar figure, this time in the guise of a villain, is Barabas, in The Jew of Malta. With gold, his one weapon, he fights the entire world. He commits incredible villainies, sacrificing his daughter for the sake of revenging himself on the Christians who had insulted him, and meets his downfall with his pride unbroken, as Tamburlaine and Dr.

As if in contradistinction to these types, Marlowe, in The Troublesome Raigne and Deathe of Edward the Second, a chronicle play wherein, as in Shakespeare, certain fundamental problems of political power and national destiny are analyzed, portrays a weak character around whom swirl intense passions. Bourgeois critics consider Marlowe the founder of the romantic drama. This is partly true, insofar as Marlowe's plays are filled with a daring imagination and poetic fantasy, far removed from the naturalism of Heywood or even of Ben Jonson.

But it is a special kind of romanticism, a romanticism which Engels, in characterizing the epoch of primary accumulation, described as follows:. It was the knight-errant period of the bourgeoisie; it had, too, its romances and its amorous enthusiasms, but on a bourgeois footing and in the last analysis, with bourgeois aims. The basis of Marlowe's romanticism is a vigorous realism. Realistic are his powerful characters, hewn from granite; realistic, the ideological and psychological design of his plays; his language and his poetry. He introduced blank verse into drama, a poetic form far more flexible and expressive than the polished, rhymed metre of the older dramatists. But most realistic is his depiction of the ardent, anarchic, amoral strivings of his epoch.

According to Engels:. A period which loosened all the old ties of society and shattered all inherited conceptions. The world had suddenly become ten times bigger; instead of a quadrant of a hemisphere, the whole globe now lay before the eyes of the West Europeans, who hastened to take possession of the other seven quadrants. And along with the old narrow barriers of their native land, the thousand-year old barriers of mediaeval conventional thought were also broken down. An infinitely wider horizon opened out before both the outward and the inward gaze of man. What mattered the prospects offered by respectability, or the honorable guild privileges inherited through generations, to the young man tempted by the wealth of India, the gold and silver mines of Mexico and Potosi?

Marlowe was the ideologist of the revolutionary, but as yet only elementally and anarchistically revolutionary, English merchant bourgeoisie of the end of the sixteenth century. A true humanist, he transferred their strivings to a higher plane. He did not use bourgeois themes, he reflected the very essence of the aspirations of this class in pure form, without the commonplace bourgeois wrappings. It is this that relates Marlowe to Shakespeare. There exists, of course, a fundamental difference between them. Shakespeare, who is an incomparably deeper and more mature humanist, transcends Marlowe's anarchic amoralism.

Nevertheless, Shakespeare has his roots in Marlowe. This kinship is corroborated by the enormous influence Marlowe exercised over Shakespeare's early work. Shakespeare borrowed not only the blank verse and certain stylistic details, but also the conception of a "lofty" tragic hero. Even in his later and greatest tragedies, Shakespeare remained indebted to his mentor Marlowe; there is something of Tamburlaine in King Lear and Macbeth We do not, therefore, expect to find any specifically bourgeois content in Shakespeare which is normally absent from the works of the great humanists of the epoch.

Marlowe and several other dramatists [14] of his group exemplify this theory. This is also true of the humanist poets of other countries. The ordinary middle-class thematic material is completely alien to Petrarch, and if we do find some aspects of it in Boccaccio, in The Decameron and partly in the Corbaccio, we must not forget that this is but a small part of his inheritance.

An equally significant aspect of his literary output, unjustly neglected in the popular evaluations because of his Decameron, is presented by a number of poetic romances on legendary themes of chivalry. These are realistic in treatment and progressive in ideology. This is also true of the splendid pastorals, Ameto and the Ninfale Fiesolano, so truly revolutionary in content, and Fiammetta, which laid the foundation of the new realistic and psychological novel. Bourgeois themes are not to be found in any of the books, nor in the work of the great painters of the time.

Raphael, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci carried out revolutionary ideas through aristocratic, mythological, and even religious subject-matter. Middle-class themes would not have adequately expressed their ideas and would have restricted the depth and extent of their efforts. Shakespeare, too, followed this trend. It was even more natural that he should have done so, because the circumstances attending the historical development of England—the fusion between the nobility and the middle-classes-created conditions extremely favorable to such an art.

In discussing the evolution of law, Engels says:. The form in which this happens can, however, vary considerably. It is possible, as happened in England, in harmony with the whole national development, to retain in the main the forms of the old feudal laws while giving them a bourgeois content; in fact, directly giving a bourgeois meaning to the old feudal name. Is this not equally applicable to the literary scene?

It is impossible, purely on the basis of the aristocratic nature of his characterizations and subject-matter to draw the conclusion that Shakespeare was the ideologist of the new nobility which was fast acquiring bourgeois trappings. On the contrary, Shakespeare was strongly opposed to the attempt on the part of this new nobility to appropriate the fruits of primary accumulation and to monopolize all culture.

However, Shakespeare found subject-matter and imagery of a feudal character to be a convenient form for the following reasons: the traditional dramatic plots, the blending of nobility and bourgeoisie, the avoidance of middle-class limitations. Since the substance was completely bourgeois, through contact with the "new" content, the form was materially changed. Shakespeare is the humanist ideologist of the bourgeoisie of the time, for whom the source material of his plays had no importance, and which, as Engels has pointed out, he did not disdain to borrow even from the Middle Ages.

He was concerned only with how he could adapt this material. It does not follow that he denied the living present around him, or that he was but another of that group of "closet humanists" whom Engels characterized as "second or third-rate men, or cautious Philistines who are afraid of burning their fingers like Erasmus. They found expression not in impulsive outbursts or obvious allusions to the evils of the times, but in profound internal upheavals and changed evaluations of humanity and of the whole life process.

In view of this, Shakespeare's work, in spite of the internal unity and the correctness of its basic ideology, falls into three periods. During the first period, until around , there occurred the coalescence of all the foremost forces of the country: upper middle-class, the monarchy, the gentry, and even a part of the landed nobility. This process is reflected by the joyous optimism of Shakespeare s early work, which is filled with a bold and happy affirmation of life, and with obviously aristocratic elements. He has two main themes—the assertion of the new absolutist national state, and of the intoxicating joy of living now available to the individual, at last emancipated from feudal bondage.

To the first theme he dedicated the cycle of chronicle plays; to the second, the series of enchanting, gay comedies. But the effects of the disintegration of the class alignment are already apparent in the plays written towards the end of the period, around The decomposition of the court had set in, the Puritans were becoming more and more aggressive, the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the nobility had already begun.

Hence, the tragic treatment of royal power in Julius Caesar , with its confused conclusions, its pessimism; and the gloomy overtones of the earlier Much Ado About Nothing During the second period, to —years which marked the decline of Elizabeth's reign and the advent, under James I, of feudal reaction—the process of disintegration was completed.

The nobility with the support of the monarchy, was preparing to defend its position against the imminent onslaught of the bourgeoisie and the gentry. Vacillation, evasion, compromise, we'e no longer possible; he who was not afraid to burn his fingers" had to make a choice. Shakespeare made his. He broke through the circle of superficial, aristocratic emotions, discontinued the gay comedies and the idealized depiction of the past, written in celebration of that "glorious" present which was no more.

With powerful tragedies, as well as sharply dramatic comedies, he entered the arena as champion of the heroic ideals of bourgeois humanism. Shakespeare, however, was not destined to retain this position. Reality was against him. The age of humanism was at an end. Narrow, fanatical Puritanism began increasingly to permeate the bourgeoisie and this, in turn, affected Shakespeare. He was forced to choose between the degenerate royalists and the revolutionary, though sanctimonious, Puritan "hagglers.

By , the London theatre had become very strongly aristocratic in flavor because of the growing royalist patronage and the irreconcilable hatred of the Puritans for the stage. The Beaumont and Fletcher type of play became the vogue. Its popularity rose to such heights that it began to crowd Shakespeare off the stage. Necessity forced the bourgeois dramatists to face the dilemma. Shakespeare, therefore, made a slight compromise. Without betraying either his basic principles, or his social, ethical, and political convictions, he made certain ideological concessions which affected even his style. During this third period he wrote a series of tragicomedies in the manner of Fletcher.

Psychological analysis and definitely motivated action then began to disappear; grim realism gave way to fairy tale and legend. Shakespeare became preoccupied with the complicated, cleverly constructed plots Cymbeline demanded by the public. His plays were once more filled with those purely decorative, esthetic elements—masques, pastorals, and fairy scenes—which abound in the plays of his first period, and are completely absent from those of his second.

This was the celebrated "reconciliation with life" that Shakespearean scholars delight to discuss, but which actually weakened his genius. Shakespeare could not long endure such self-imposed violation of his artistic integrity. For the last time he gave full voice to his humanist credo in his swan-song, The Tempest. Five years before his death, at the height of his creative power, he stopped writing for the theatre Nevertheless, in spite of the critical phases through which he passed, the basic characteristics of Shakespeare's point of view and style—his militant, revolutionary protests against feudal forms, conceptions, and institutions—remained unaffected throughout his life.

What were these characteristics? First of all—a new morality, based, not on the authority of religion or of feudal tradition, but on the free will of man, on the voice of his conscience, on his sense of responsibility towards himself and the world. This called for the emancipation of the feelings and personality of the individual; in particular, this necessited individualism, that most vital and typical characteristic of the Renaissance, which found its fullest expression in Shakespeare.

This resulted in a new approach towards social relations, the organization of the state, the nature of authority. To Shakespeare, the highest authority was that of absolute monarchy, but his conception of this was not so much the authority of divine right as the authority of responsibility. The monarch justifies his rank and existence only when he expresses the collective will of the people and realizes their collective welfare. Secondly—a scientific attitude towards the world, life, and reality, which, rejecting all metaphysical interpretations, demands a causal explanation of all natural, social, and psychological phenomena. The possibilities of such a scientific approach to reality were, to be sure, very limited in Shakespeare's day.

Nevertheless, this is the essence and the basis of Shakespeare's creative method. And, finally—the energy and optimism so characteristic of the Renaissance. Shakespeare did not permit resignation and apathy to enter the soul of man; struggle was to him the whole meaning and content of life—creative struggle for the realization, if not of the highest ideals, at least of the organic desires inherent in his individualistic character.

Inactive natures, sunk in abstract dreaming or hedonism, or lacking in a sense of responsibility towards themselves and towards humanity, were destined by Shakespeare either for destruction Anthony in Richard II , or ridicule Jaques in As You Like It. This approach is one of the most significant aspects of the new ethical philosophy of humanism as Shakespeare understood it.

Shakespeare's first period included epic and lyric poems as well as plays. Both these genres, so typical of the Renaissance, found fertile soil in England. His poems Venus and Adonis , and Lucrece , though more conventional in style than any of his works, reveal his characteristic manner. Their natural tone and vivid realism stand out in sharp relief and distinguish them from the work of his contemporaries.

Let us compare Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis with Ronsard's poem on the same theme; instead of Ronsard's conciliatory, esthetically cold treatment of the dramatic end of Venus' beloved, and her great sorrow, we find in Shakespeare a genuine and ardent passion. Ronsald's poem is a graceful, inanimate picture; Shakespeare's, a dynamic, fervent cry of passion and suffering. Such is the contrast between the humanist poet of the progressive element of the gentry, and Shakespeare, the humanist poet of the bourgeoisie. His treatment of ancient themes closely resembles that of another great humanist poet of the bourgeoisie, the Boccaccio of Ameto and Ninfale Fiesolano.

Shakespeare's sonnets are distinguished also by a profound realism which reveals the sequence of his personal experiences. His poems were well received by his contemporaries. Lyric and epic poetry was the vogue. Hence it was more esteemed and remunerative than the drama. Still, Shakespeare early rejected both these forms for the drama, the most progressive and democratic genre of the epoch, in which he could express himself completely.

The plays of Shakespeare's first period fall into three groups: comedies, chronicles and tragedies. Beginning with the comedies, a division can be made between those we may term "realistic," as to both style and subject, and "romantic," as to subject alone. Let us analyze this group first; it offers rich and varied material for a comprehension of the growth of Shakespeare's world perspective. The outstanding characteristics of these plays are usually considered to be the "carefree joy of living" and the "aristocratic" elements of the thematic material. This is partially true, but requires elucidation. The thematic material does not consist entirely of the aristocratic elements—the life of leisure led by the nobility, whose days, to all appearances, were spent in gay pursuits and games of love.

These elements Shakespeare uses merely as a visible background, against which he unfolds the new humanist conception of love, and the more pedestrian emotions and attitudes. Beneath the gay, airy play of sensations and events is concealed the serious inner struggle for new ideals. In as early a play as The Two Gentlemen of Verona are found two moral systems sharply juxtaposed: Proteus, the scapegrace aristocrat, a Don Juan type rooted in feudalism, believes himself entitled to all things and fills his life with empty, fugitive pleasures; on the other hand, Valentine longs to enrich his personality, and conceives of a harmoniously organized society based upon truth, honor and friendship, in which each person's conduct would be founded upon obedience to his own sincere inclinations.

His generosity of soul compels any personal sacrifice for his ideal of friendship. His subsequent disillusionment drives him to revolt, ostracizing him from a society not yet ready for his ideals. This comedy is a first attempt, although ineffectual, to affirm the rights of the unclassed individual. The effort failed because of Valentine's confusion and naivete. Shakespeare is still groping his way, feeling for firm ground. However, in his very neat play, Love's Labour's Lost, he poses one of the cardinal problems of the epoch by combatting the attempt of the aristocracy to appropriate humanism and turn it into a bubble of abstract hedonism.

The King of Savarre and a few members of his retinue renounce human society and the love of women to ponder upon abstract philosophy. But a French princess, with her maids-in-waiting, arrives at the court, and all the sober intentions of these anchorites are scattered to the four winds; they fall in love. They continue to play the hypocrite, concealing their real feelings until Biron unmasks himself and his companions, when, in a magnificent monologue IV, 3 , he disclaims abstract philosophy and glorifies the force of love, the fountain-head of all authentic wisdom. The antithetical character of these two aspects of humanism is manifested not only in the ideology, but also in the style. The conspirators against love express their philosophical vows euphemistically.

After his metamorphosis Biron eschews such flourishes, and tells his beloved V, 2 :. And I will wish thee never more to dance, Nor never more in Russian habit wait. In this play, Shakespeare refutes those who accuse him of sympathetically depicting the aristocracy by voicing through Biron, his most positive character, his rejection of the aristocratic manner of life.

There is also the dull and pedantic schoolmaster Holofernes, filled with the same bombast and rhetoric indulged in by the titled and florid aristocrats. In his case the medieval scholastic origin of such bombast and rhetoric is unconcealed. As You Like It is akin to the foregoing play, in that Shakespeare decries escapism as a philosophy. The old Duke and his retinue live in a half-illusory world until Orlando, healthy, sober, optimistic, leads them back to everyday reality.

Most of the scenes are delicate, tranquil pastorals, the peace of which Shakespeare himself quickly dispels by opposing the coarse, natural, healthy desires of Audrey, William, and Touchstone to the euphemistic shepherdess, Phebe. Here again, Touchstone, the clown, a plebeian, is the exponent of common sense. Shakespeare quickly dispatches Jaques, the melancholy misanthrope, who is the implacable enemy of realism. Some of the critical interpretations of this character are astonishing. Brandes pronounces him to be the embodiment of Shakespeare himself, the mouthpiece of his dearest and most sacred thoughts, and Friche repeated his mistake, though from a different position.

But is not Jaques, who, morose and sullen, remains alone in the forest when all the rest exultantly go back to a joyous life of reality, a negative, and at times, even a comical figure? Yet, just as Polonius, he was not deterred from expressing true ideas or from evaluating certain realistic points of view correctly and intelligently, Jaques is introduced to repel the audience, who would thus apprehend the play's basic meaning and direction.

A Midsummer Night's Dream is the apotheosis of a free, self-determined love which transcends tradition, the ancient law of Athens, and paternal authority. Schematically, the play is a masque. Shakespeare does not destroy its form, as in the case of the pastoral in As You Like It, but uses another method. The formal, ancient mythology is supplanted by plebeian superstitions fairies, the mischievous Puck. Shakespeare instills vital emotion into the tenuous scheme of the affected court masque.

The Merchant of Venice, although classified as a comedy, ought not, strictly speaking, to be so termed. The element of romantic intrigue plays a secondary role. The chief problem is of a broad, socio-moral nature. Out of two medieval legends Shakespeare created a profound play, in which two worlds are contrasted. One, a world of joy, beauty, and friendship, is represented by Antonio and his friends, Portia, Nerissa and Jessica; the other, a world of rapaciousness, greed, and malice, is represented by Shylock, Tubal, and their servants.

In the preceding comedies reconciliation was possible, evil could become good. In The Merchant of Venice, however, this is not so; the war between the two worlds is a war to the death. The conflict is not racial, as many critics contend, but social. Shylock tells us this in so many words I, 3 :. But more for that, in low simplicity, He lends out money qratis, and brings down The rate of usance here with us in Venice. Even there where merchants most do congregate, On me, my bargains, and my well-won thrift, Which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribe If I forgive him! Thus the racial conflict is immediately superseded by a greater one; the class conflict. But what is the social basis of these two groups? Friche maintains that Antonio's world represents the feudal aristocracy, lavish squanderers who lived for pleasure only.

Shylock's world, on the other hand, represents the class which is about to supplant the other,. Fiche is incorrect. The social structure of the play is more complex, more subtle. Its title, The Merchant of Venice, does not refer to Shylock, as is generally assumed, but to Antonio. Antonio's class position as a practical and wealthy merchant is clearly stated at the beginning of the exposition I, I , where Antonio's friend Gratiano, addresses him:. You look not well, Signior Antonio; You have too much respect upon the world: 'They lose it that do buy it with much care.

Antonio immediately denies this. However, since these words are uttered by Gratiano, so intimate a friend of Antonio, we are justified in assuming that they properly reflect Antonio's activities. Nor does it follow that, because Bassanio ruined his business with his wasteful extravagance, he "as an idle, parasitical arisrocrat. The hard-working, efficient merchant who lived on a luxurious scale, spending his profits lavishly and head over heels in debt, was a typical figure of the Renaissance. Unquestionably, Antonio's whole circle, among whom there is not a single nobleman, belong to the patricians of the Venetian merchant-class. It is of no consequence that the business activities of his friends, Lorenzo, Gratiano, Solanio, Salarnio, are not shown.

Shylock does not represent the entire bourgeoisie, but only one of its elements; he is a money-lender. Usury was but one aspect of capital, [19] and met with moral and legal disapprobation The lawmakers tried to regulate money-lending; the moralists inveighed against it. At the beginning of the play, Macbeth is a brave and virtuous man who fights for his country and has the respect of many, including the king. After receiving a prophecy from the three witches, Macbeth's ambition is awoken and he kills King Duncan and takes the throne for himself.

Once king,…. Othello, the Moor of Venice composed by William Shakespeare is a tragic exploration of fundamental concerns to humanity such as love, jealousy and ambition. These were all influential aspects of society during the Elizabethan era and have remained applicable to a variety of audiences throughout the centuries. It was these overarching concerns which lead to the capacity of Shakespeare in launching the examination of a multitude of other thematic concerns fundamental to the human condition. The negative connotation of this is a police officer not fully doing his or her job. Ambition is something that I think is important for a police officer because it is their job to go above and beyond in order to serve their community.

An officer who has proper pride because he or she understands who they are and what their…. The play Macbeth was written by William Shakespeare and one of the most important themes is the amount of ambition. However, there are many emotions that arise throughout the play. The essence of ambition is the determination to achieve something; the texts presented define the something as an escape. Growing up in a rural town the future sought out is becoming a farmer, raising a large family, and going to church every Sunday. It is stale, stagnant, and predictable. The person one sees themselves becoming without changing is the push that forces our eyes down the road. It is the reason a….

This quote expresses the danger of ambition, and greed could become so powerful that mankind can never be satisfied with their goals. In a society, absolutism makes one person have a supreme power over others. An individual will do anything for personal gain even if he is forced to use insensitive movements.

Lady Macbeth, who projects off her feminineness and states to feel no uncertainties about murdering her own children, is gathered in Absolutism In Macbeth Macduff, What Role Does The Supernatural Play In Macbeth Absolutism In Macbeth ratio analysis limitations exemplary of a virtuous. Folk Absolutism In Macbeth, depiction of Absolutism In Macbeth plebeian milieu, family life Absolutism In Macbeth manners, Absolutism In Macbeth moralizing, are Absolutism In Macbeth juxtaposed with Absolutism In Macbeth, melodrama, and motifs Theme Of Women In Othello Absolutism In Macbeth as Absolutism In Macbeth they had iodine clock method copied out of a daily chronicle Absolutism In Macbeth events-scenes in houses of prostitution, insane asylums, and so forth. Absolutism In Macbeth antagonism between Absolutism In Macbeth and the new capitalist-landowning nobility frequently broke out Absolutism In Macbeth great violence.