The Tragedies of Hamlet and King Lear

1596 Words 7 Pages

Both 'King Lear' and 'Hamlet' can be described as a tragedy because

Shakespeare used Aristotle’s definition of tragedy to construct these
plays. In a tragedy the main character suffers as a result of their fatal
flaw.
King Lear fits Aristotle's definition of a tragic hero. Aristotle stated a
tragedy must be a play where the hero suffers as a result of their
fatal flaw, has overbearing pride or presumption, has a dramatic
episode of emotions, realises there mistakes but it is too late.
King Lear proposes to retire from the cares of his kingdom which is of
significant importance. His fatal flaw and King Lear’s harmatia is his
vanity which makes the audiences feel pity and fear when he falls
victim to flattery and is ruthlessly betrayed by those he should have
been able to trust the most
Hamlet’s fatal flaw is it’s his ability to over think. When the ghost of
his father appears to him and charges him with the demanding task
of avenging his most foul murder, Hamlet accepts the challenge. As
the play progresses, however, Hamlet finds it difficult to execute such
a murderous task. In order to delay killing Claudius, Hamlet plans to
act crazy, which forces Claudius to send him to England. He also
devises the “mouse-trap” scene, (Act 3 Scene 2), where he asked a
troupe of actors to play a scene similar to how Claudius murdered his
brother (King Hamlet). Hamlet’s inability to act and to avenge his
father’s death leads him, as well as many others to their graves.
Shakespeare's plays were written during the Elizabethan England
because he had to impress the Queen. It took place on the edge of
the Renaissance where ordinary people became liberated which was
a huge step in the intelligence of mankind. The Renaissance was
when people begun to question traditional customs and morals which
is reflected in Shakespeare's plays. Both plays show the prosperity
and success of the monarch which is also related to nature/pagan
Gods.

In 'Hamlet' this is less prominent as Hamlet is not the king; however

in 'King Lear' we can see a direct link between the fall of the kingdom
and the fall of Lear. This fall of the kingdom was a result of the
division of land between Lear’s daughter and the awaiting invasion
from France.
It could be argued that Hamlet can be accused of being the architect
of his own tragedy. In Hamlet's second soliloquy he recognises this
weakness and is ashamed with his delay in punishing his father's
death when he describes himself as a coward and claims he is
'pigeon-livered' (Act 2 Scene 2 line 577-80). Hamlet's soliloquy in Act
four Scene 4 gives the audience an insight into Hamlet’s confused
and tormented thoughts. He realises that his inaction is weak,

“Some craven scruple

Of thinking too precisely on th'event
A thought which quartered hath but one part wisdom,
And ever three parts coward.”
(Act Four, Scene four, line 32-46)

In this soliloquy, Hamlet implies that although his thinking is better

than
'bestial oblivion' (Act 4 Scene 4, line 40), he feels like he can not be
considered a man because as a man he would have been fearless
and taken revenge on their father's death.

Many people are more sympathetic with King Lear then with Hamlet
as it seems
Lear did not fully deserve his punishment .
However, like Hamlet, Lear can be seen as an architect of his
tragedy. This is because he wanted to release himself from the
responsibilities of being King, whilst retaining the status, title, power
and authority. He gives his daughters an opportunity to win the
throne which lead Goneril and Ragan who do not truly love him to
gain power, of the kingdom. When he hands over his power he still
asks to keep the title and one hundred knights.

“Only shall we retain

The name, and all th' additions to a king”
(Act 1 Scene 1 Line 140)

This show the Kings motive was to pass on all of the hard work of
ruling a kingdom to his daughters to enable him to live in comfort and
enjoyment. By handing over his power he is crafting his own destiny
as if he kept his kingdom his tragedy would not have been created.
This leads to his downfall as the kingdom has been passed to the
daughters who cared more about power than they cared about their
father.

Both 'King Lear' and ‘Hamlet' are tragedies and the main characters
can be described as tragic heroes. Aristotle’s defines a tragic hero as
a character with noble importance but not without imperfections. A
fatal flaw (harmatia) of the hero enables ordinary people to identify
with the hero. The hero's downfall is triggered by their tragic flaw.
However, the misfortune is not entirely deserved and the punishment
exceeds the crime. Aristotle suggests that the function of a tragedy is
to stimulate the emotions of disappointment through the realisation of
their mistakes/errors and fear through a catharsis which will cleanse
the audience of the 'unhealthy' feelings of shame and fear.

The tragic hero must be sacrificed in order for the natural order to be
restored. Through
Aristotle's definition of a tragic hero it can be suggested that King
Lear and Hamlet, although it is their flaws that create the tragedy,
have no control over their destiny as they have to be sacrificed in
order for the natural order to be restored. We can clearly see that
both King Lear and Hamlet are tragic heroes for different reasons.
King Lear inspired his own downfall because he banishes the only
daughter that truly loved him. He can not see the motives behind
Regan and Goneril's professions of love and the consequences that
follow are a result of his blindness. On the other hand, Hamlet's flaw
is not wilful ignorant bliss but his harmatia is his ability to over think.
He had multiple opportunities to retaliate his father's death , but he
kept making excuses and frequently becomes frustrated with the task
he has been asked to do and with himself. An example of this is
when Hamlet says;

'The time is out of joint; O cursed spite

That ever I was born to set it right.'
(Act 1 Scene 5, line 188)

As he keeps delaying the revenge, it never actually takes place.

Claudius plotting to kill Hamlet does not make him a tragic hero
though.

Lear and Hamlet are critically flawed and towards the end of both
plays the characters can be accused of madness. King Lear truly
goes mad. Whereas it can be argued that Hamlet only pretended to
be mad, and uses ‘devious madness' to deceive his family and
friends.
Taking this into consideration, this means that Hamlet and Lear can
not be architects for their tragedies as they were not in control of their
actions. In the anagnorisis, described by Aristotle, it suggests that the
character of Lear has moments where he is not in lane of reason
which suggests that Lear's madness is not constant. This would
imply that his madness was only used as a dramatic device.

They cannot be architects of their own tragedy as their downfalls

were due to circumstances they were put into. Hamlet's tragedy
occurred as he was asked by his father's ghost to avenge his death
by killing his uncle. Hamlet was unable to deal with this situation- it
led to his breakdown; therefore it was not his fault. Therefore he can
not be an architect of his tragedy. Lear's tragedy occurred due to
Goneril and Regan not loving him whereas Cordelia does love him
and being more concerned about money and power.

This led to the tragedy as they refused to take care of him, eventually
making him go mad therefore his daughters can be seen as the
architects instead of Lear.

Although Lear and Hamlet may not be architects of their own

tragedies, some people suggest that they could be held responsible
for their tragedies.
Both Lear and Hamlet can be seen as architects of their own
tragedies as they both, through their own faults, created their
downfalls. Lear is inclined to express his identity through his position
as King, whereas Hamlet’s predisposition is being too thoughtful.
These are not flaws within themselves however in certain situations
the results are potentially tragic.

Hamlet's harmatia of having to over thinking everything and being too

thoughtful is the reason for his downfall at the end of the play. If he
had acted sooner then he could have killed Claudius
Before Claudius's numerous attempts to kill Hamlet . Throughout the
play there are many examples of Hamlet stalling his revenge, he
makes many soliloquies which come to represent his indecisiveness.
The soliloquy in Act three is important as it highlights Hamlets flaw
showing Hamlet to be extremely analytical and reflective. He makes
it sound as it is too much for him and his emotions and feelings show
that he is confused;

'Take arms against the sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them.’

This shows the reason for his delay in action against the new king
because he does not feel that he has the strength to carry out the
actions and he feels it would be impossible to set the world right not
to.

Lear's flaw is clear from the first scene of the play, as he asks his
daughters 'which of you shall we say doth love us most? ’ From this
question we can see his insecurity and his fear of feeling worthless.
He appears vain and self satisfying as he wants to unburden himself
of all his responsibilities of being King whilst maintaining the power
and status, 'only we shall retain the name and all additions of being
king'. The test shows his values are empty and he priorities the
appearance of love over actual devotion. This is evident by the way
that he asks his daughters the question, 'which of you doth say you
love us most' instead of asking 'which of you doth love us most'. This
shows he values public and fake, displays of love over real love. This
is the reason behind the tragedy because if Lear had not demanded
fake display of love, he would not have banished Cordelia and
therefore he would have retained his power.

King Lear and Hamlet are embodiments of Shakespeare's

imagination and therefore they can not be described as architects of
their own tragedy. They have no control over their lives as
Shakespeare shapes their plots into the tragedies he wants to
compose. Shakespeare alternatively created his plays on his
thoughts on how others would want the plot. This means that King
Lear and Hamlet are not plays entirely from Shakespeare's
imagination; instead they are plays written in the way Shakespeare
interpreted as being most likely to be popular. Consequently,
Shakespeare can not be seen as the architect of their tragedies,
Elizabethan England is responsible for the creation of the tragedies.

Traditionally, as Lear and Hamlet are characters from plays they

cannot be architects of their tragedies. However, the way that they
have been created with such dominant and apparent flaws believe
that they are architects of their tragedies. This is because they both
allow themselves to be manipulated by their emotions and react in
contrasting ways. The emotions cause Hamlet to think too much,
whereas they cause Lear to ignore the potential consequences of his
action and not to think at all.
Hamlet and Macbeth Compared as Aristotelian
Tragedies
1741 Words 7 Pages
Aristotle’s Poetics is often considered the blueprint to a successful
tragedy; his outline has been used for hundreds of years. Aristotle
defines a tragedy as “an imitation of an action that is serious,
complete, and of a certain magnitude… in the form of an action, not
of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of
these emotions” (House 82). Aristotle believed that the most
important part of a strong tragedy was the plot, and from that, the
other elements such as character, diction, etc. would emerge.
Aristotle states, “the principle of tragedy – the soul, if you like – is the
plot, and second to that the characters” (Whalley 27). Shakespeare’s
Macbeth and Hamlet essentially mirror this definition. While it is true
that both plays do not always follow every detail of Aristotle’s rules,
they hold true in so many ways that the relation between the works
and theory cannot be ignored.
Aristotle asserts that tragedy is “an imitation of an action that serious,
complete, and of a certain magnitude” (House, 82) and continues by
insisting, “the most tragic situations arise between friends or between
blood-relations, that is between those in whom are found the
affections and loyalties which characterize the good” (House, 84).
Hamlet is the perfect example of this. The play opens, focuses, and
ends almost entirely based upon the actions, or reactions, of
Hamlet’s quest to avenge his father’s murder. To start, the Ghost of
old Hamlet reveals the truth about his death to his son when he says,
“But know, thou noble youth the serpent that did sting thy father’s life
Now wears his crown” (Hamlet I.v.38-30). It quickly dawns upon
Hamlet that he would be able to avenge his father’s death by killing
his uncle and taking the crown back for himself. In this situation,
Shakespeare effectively copies Aristotle’s theory of tragedy and
applies it to Hamlet quite skillfully.
Hamlet tackles the tragedy within a family, but Macbeth is written as
a tragedy that occurs between friends and associates. While
extremely ambitious to be king, at the opening of the play Macbeth is
a loyal servant to King Duncan of Scotland. However, upon hearing a
prophecy from the three witches that predicts his rise to the throne,
an insatiable sense of ambition to succeed and wield power
overwhelms the good nature of Macbeth. Aristotle describes this part
of tragedy as, “the action is human, the energy is human… the action
is plotted and prepared by the maker” (Whalley, 23). This is evident
when Macbeth utters to himself, “Let not light see my black and deep
desires” making known his intentions to murder the king (Macbeth
I.iii.52-53). His action is a premeditated response and is aggravated
by his all too human emotions, ambitions and greed.
After the action element of the story, the character is the next central
component in a successful Aristotelian tragedy. According to
Aristotle, the character must be true to life and natural; a character is
supposed to be a perfectly related to the audience while remaining
believable enough to hold their role in a production (House, 91).
Hamlet is a wealthy and privileged prince; however, he deals with the
problems similar to most common people. He is confused, emotional,
obsessive, and paranoid about the circumstances surrounding the
death of his father the king. He lacks faith in himself and does not
have a clue regarding how he should handle the situation. His
inability to act on his father’s misfortune has Hamlet consistently put
off the avenging assassination of Claudius. Hamlet’s despair and
misery becomes all too clear when he cries out, “The time is out of
joint. O cursed spite, that I was ever born to set it right” (Hamlet
I.v.190-191). The audience can relate to this feeling of hopelessness
and strong desire to avoid any form of confrontation thereby
satisfying Aristotle’s blueprint.
Aristotle also describes the tragic character as a person “of a certain
kind or quality; that, if part of the horror is seeing a man broken, it
must be a strong man” (Whalley, 25). In the beginning of Macbeth,
our overly ambitious Scottish lord is returning from suppressing a
revolt against King Duncan where he fights particularly ferociously to
protect his leader. Once Macbeth’s ambitions take over, however, his
moral strength and decision-making abilities find themselves
weakened. Macbeth is unable to act upon his ambition until the very
night of the murder of Duncan. Even after the murder Macbeth’s guilt
is affirmed when he states, “Upon my head they placed a fruitless
crown And put a barren scepter in my gripe, Thence to be wrenched
with an unlineal hand, No son of mine succeeding” (Macbeth III.i.61-
64). He becomes gripped in a ceaseless internal conflict once he is
king, never able to find peace, and constantly brooding over his
murderous decisions.
Aristotle also believed that for a tragedy to be effective, it must
convey pity and fear. He defines pity as a feeling that is aroused by
“unmerited misfortune” (House, 84). Hamlet most certainly suffers
this unmerited misfortune. He has done nothing to bring about his
father’s death, yet must cope with the murder of someone he held
close to his heart. At the same time, he must wrap his mind around
his newlywed mother and uncle, which is only aggravated by the fact
that Claudius is the murderer of old Hamlet. All of these
circumstances, and the other bouts of misfortune that pop up along
the way, draw pity from the audience. The fear of the impending evil
is also prevalent in the play. As the plot progresses, it becomes clear
that Claudius is plotting to kill Hamlet, and that Hamlet is plotting do
avenge his father through a murder of his own.
Macbeth receives pity from the audience in a different way. The pity
Macbeth finds himself essentially swimming in can be most easily
explained by a word translated from Aristotle’s Poetics, “Hamartia”
(House, 93). Hamartia is a specific error or flaw, which a character
makes/commits or continually exhibits. Many scholars have agreed, “
‘Hamartia’ means an error which is derived from an ignorance of
some material fact or circumstance” (House, 94). Macbeth, in spite of
his horrible murders, is a pitiable man. His fatal error is that he chose
to trust the witches, when in reality their intentions were purely
manipulative. Macbeth was the victim of the witches’ trick, falling for
their promises of glory, finding himself being sucked in to a lust for
power. Once he begins to trust the witches’ prophecy and witnesses
it materialize, Macbeth becomes more courageous in crime than he
has ever been in virtuous deed, leaving the audience to merely sigh
and shake their heads as the watch a great man descend into moral
squalor.
Hamlet’s plot is what Aristotle considers complex and necessary in a
well-written tragedy. It is accompanied by “Recognition”, which is “a
change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate
between the persons destined by the poet for good or bad fortune”
(House, 95). The “Recognition” occurs when the play within the play
of what Hamlet believes happened to his father, is staged for
Claudius. Claudius becomes so upset by the performance that he
runs from the room in distress. This action proves to Hamlet that his
suspicions were justified and his uncle is without a doubt responsible
for King Hamlet’s death. Hamlet later finds Claudius in a church
praying and is tempted to rashly lash out and kill him, but decides
against it because he fears the usurping king will go to heaven since
he is praying. From this, the audience is able to infer that Hamlet will
attempt to kill his uncle later in the play, but must wait for Hamlet to
realize the perfect moment to strike.
Aristotle also describes a complex plot as a “Peripety” (House, 96). A
“Peripety” contains the idea of the “boomerang or recoil effect of
one’s own actions” (House, 97). This is visible in Macbeth by the guilt
and self-reproach he carries with him after the murders. Macbeth’s
internal suffering also plays a role with this, as he is so distraught
and consumed with his pain from past deeds and worry over
retaining power that he fails to enjoy the privileges of royal power.
Dread, suspicion, fatigue and sleeplessness plagued him despite his
sovereignty, Macbeth is forced to reap the horrors of his own actions,
he is never at peace, and is always delirious, enraged and brutal.
Macbeth cannot enjoy the material and mortal pleasures of being a
king despite all of the sacrifice that it took on his part.
There are some aspects of Poetics that Shakespeare does not
comply with, for Aristotle states that in a great tragedy, there should
be unity of time, place and action. By this he means the action of the
play should take place in the amount of time it takes to perform it, it
should occur in one setting, and there should be one main plot or
action. Both plays span over a significant period of time. Also, neither
play occurs in only one setting: Hamlet’s settings range from
Iverness to a plain in Denmark while Macbeth has various settings as
well, ranging from the palace to the cave of the Weird Sisters.
Another divergence from Aristotle’s Poetics is that there are several
plots taking place simultaneously. For instance, as Hamlet is
struggling with the death of his father, Ophelia is slowly going mad
because Hamlet is not returning her love and constantly scorns her.
The same is true in Macbeth, which has subplots abound. Once
Macbeth has decided to kill Duncan, he goes through a period of
constant questioning and insecurity. Lady Macbeth’s over-seeing of
the murder also adds to the slew of side-stories in the play.
Macbeth’s lack of sleep makes him a ruthless murderer; Lady
Macbeth begins to sleepwalk and unintentionally reveals to her
doctor and nurses why she and her husband are delving deeper into
madness.
William Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth are both celebrated and
popular tragedies that adhere to the majority of the guidelines set by
Aristotle in Poetics. The multiple relations between the two
masterpieces show that Shakespeare was indeed an extremely
talented playwright who knew not only how to relate characters to the
audience, but also how to spin a tale in such a way as to keep all
those who watch engaged until the final scene.

Works Cited

House, Humphry. (1978). Aristotle’s Poetics: A Course in Eight

Lectures. Great Britain: Greenwood Press.
The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. G. Blakemore Evans, et al. 2nd ed.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997.
Whalley, George. (1997). Aristotle’s Poetics. Canada: McGill-Queens
University Press.
Shakespeare's Macbeth does not Follow
Aristotle's Standards for a Tragedy
1581 Words 7 Pages
Macbeth does not Follow Aristotle's Standards for a Tragedy

There have been many great tragic authors throughout history:

Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles from ancient Greece; Corneille
and Hugo from France; Grillparzer and Schiller from Germany; and
Marlowe, Webster, and Shakespeare from England. From this long
list of men, Shakespeare is the most commonly known. Many
Shakespearean critics agree that Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet are
great tragedies. Many critics also claim that Macbeth is a tragedy, but
if one follows Aristotle's standards for a tragedy, Macbeth would not
be a tragedy

To really determine if Macbeth is a tragedy according to Aristotle,

one must first look at his guidelines. The majority of Aristotle's
standards relate to the downfall of the central character. To set the
character up for a downfall, Aristotle thought he or she should be of
the middle class. This was because he felt the poor had nothing to
lose. He also felt the downfall should be caused by a fatal flaw.
Another characteristic Aristotle believed was important, was a conflict
between the central character and a close friend or relative.
According to him, the main character should also have an
enlightenment at the moment of his or her downfall. Aristotle also
believed that the feelings of pity and fear should be felt by the
audience during the play. He thought that these feelings would lead
to a catharsis, or release of emotions. Although most of Aristotle's
characteristics of a tragedy had to do with the downfall, he had two
that did not. First, he thought the central character should not be
totally good or evil. This was based on the belief that the ruin of a
totally good character would be too painful, and the ruin of a totally
bad character would not cause any negative emotion. Secondly, he
felt that a true tragedy did not need to show murder, suicide, or any
sort of violent scenes.

Although Macbeth as a whole is not a tragedy according to Aristotle's

standards, parts of the Shakespearean play are. The first, and most
obvious, aspect of the play that fits Aristotle's characteristics, is that
Macbeth is of the elite class. Already in Act I scene ii, Shakespeare
makes this known to the reader by Duncan's words,"And with this
former title (Thane of Cawdor) greet Macbeth". Along with his new
title, Macbeth already had the title of Thane of Glamis. During
Duncan's and Ross' conversation in Act I scene ii, they described
Macbeth with words such a "noble" and "brave". This emphasizes
Macbeth's reputation as a great soldier, which in turn strengthens his
social position. The second characteristic that follows Aristotle's
guidelines is Macbeth's downfall. During the play, two downfalls
occur: that of Macbeth's sanity and physical being. Macbeth's sanity
first started to become shaky while killing Duncan. This is seen
during his hallucination when he said, "Is this a dagger which I see
before me/ The handle toward my hand? Come let me clutch
thee.../... Art thou not, fatal vision sensible..." (s.1.33-4,36). "...'Sleep
no more!/ Macbeth does murder sleep'"(2.2.34-5), or his insomnia is
also a sign of his diminishing sanity. The downfall of Macbeth's
physical being is his death, which is brought on by Macduff's sword.
Thirdly, Aristotle believed that the tragic hero's downfall had to be
brought on by a fatal flaw. Macbeth had two fatal flaws: greed for
power and the need to feel like a man. Through his murdering of
Duncan, Macbeth's greediness is brought out. The only reason he
killed the King was for personal power, not public interest. Macbeth's
greed for power is also shown through his many acts of senseless
murders, mainly those of Macduff's family. Macbeth's second fatal
flaw, his need to feel manly, is first seen when Lady Macbeth pries
on his manliness in order to get him to kill Duncan. The last guideline
of a tragic downfall is the need of conflict between friends or family
members. After the weird sisters told Macbeth his fortune, he was in
conflict with Banquo, his best friend. This was because the weird
sisters told Macbeth and Banquo that "[Banquo] shalt get kings..."
(1.3.67). This made Macbeth angry because he wanted all the power
for himself and later for his family. That is why Macbeth had Banquo
killed. In the play, Macbeth also had a conflict with Duncan and his
sons. Shakespeare never said that Duncan and Macbeth were
related, but according to Holinshed's Chronicles, they were cousins.

Although Macbeth does follow a few of Aristotle's guidelines, most of

them are not followed. According to Aristotle, a play was not a
tragedy unless the main character was not totally good or evil. The
reader never really knows if Macbeth has any good in him. The first
time Macbeth is in the play, he is said to be a great soldier. This does
not say much. Yes, it implies that he killed many enemies, but in the
process did he murder innocent women and children? Did he steal
food and gold from villages he passed on the way, curse old men, or
rape young women? None of this is really known. What the reader
sees is a Thane who says, "If it were done when 'tis done, then
'twere/ well/ It were done quickly" (1.7.1-2). So, already in Act I
Macbeth planned on killing the King. This is not the actions or
thinking of a loyal and good man. Furthermore, Macbeth is plotting to
murder the man who had made him rich and who had totally trusted
him. Macbeth is also very greedy. He does not care who he must kill
to keep his power. He killed the two drunken guards, his best friend
Banquo, and Macduff's innocent wife and son. When learning of
Lady Macbeth's death, Macbeth replied,"She should have died
hereafter..." (5.5.17). This is not a replay of a grief stricken husband,
rather an insensitive, indifferent stranger. Due to all of this, it is
clearly seen that Macbeth is all evil.

Aristotle also felt that a true tragedy did not have violent scenes in it.
Shakespeare did not leave out very many acts of violence. The first
murder by Macbeth is shown in great detail, Macbeth even said,
"And on thy blade and dudgeon gouts of blood," (2.1.46). The next
murder scene that Shakespeare shows is that of Banquo. The three
murderers all jumped on him and he began to yell. Then
Shakespeare adds a stage note that Banquo is dead. Some may
argue that this is not a true murder scene because it is at night and
therefore in the dark. But, no theater during Shakespeare's time
would have been dark enough to conceal the violent scene. The
most violent murder scene of all is that of Macduff's family. The
murder takes place on stage, and the stabbing of the little son is
shown while his mother watched his painful death, and finally died
herself. These murders make Macbeth seem more like an action
movie than a tragic play.

The main reason Macbeth is not a tragedy is because the main

character, Macbeth, does not create sympathy in the reader.
Following Aristotle's guideline, this is a very important aspect of a
tragic play. According to Aristotle, the downfall of the main character
should be pitied and his or her death grieved over. This does not
happen in Macbeth because Macbeth's death is rejoiced over. The
main reason is Macbeth is totally evil, therefore it is viewed as the
death of the "bad guy". When Duncan and Macbeth first met in battle,
Macbeth said, "Of all these men else I have avoided thee./ But get
thee back! My soul is too much charged/ With blood of thine already"
(5.8.4-6). Some may see this as Macbeth's conscience coming
through, but him saying this because he is a coward better fits his
character. Macduff also gave Macbeth a chance to redeem himself
when he said, "Then yield thee, coward,/ And live..."(5.8.23-4), but
Macbeth flatly refused this because he was a weak and his greed for
power never stopped. Because the reader does not grieve over the
death of Macbeth, the last, and a very important guideline of
Aristotle's tragic plays is not followed. This is the release of negative
emotion. The reader rejoices in Macbeth's death because the good
king, Malcolm, is restored. The first thing Malcolm said as the new
King was, "We shall not spend a large expense of time/ Before we
reckon with your several loves,/ And us even with you" (5.8.60-2).
Macbeth never showed any gratitude towards those who helped him
keep is power. He did not even thank is wife for the plan that made
him king. Due to Malcolm's final speech, the reader is left with
positive, not negative feelings.

Overall Macbeth is not a tragedy according the Aristotle's standards.

Macbeth's downfall does follow the guidelines: he has something to
lose, he has a downfall, and he has conflicts with his friends and
relatives during his downfall. But, the heart of the play, which is the
emotions created, just do not follow Aristotle's standards. The reader
should feel pity, and grieve. Yet, there is no reason to feel this way
because Macbeth is all evil, and in the end, the "good guy" is
restored to power. Shakespeare put forth good effort in trying to
make Macbeth a tragedy, but he came up too short.

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William. “Macbeth.” The Complete Works of

Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Longman, 1997.
Compare the Sucesses and Failures of
Patriarchy in Colonialism
2312 Words 10 Pages
Compare The Successes And Failures Of Patriarchy In Colonialism,
In “The Tempest”, “Translations” And “Things Fall Apart”.

In “The Tempest”, “Translations” and “Things Fall Apart”, the theme

of patriarchy is evident in various aspects. For instance, there is
patriarchy present when Prospero controls and dominates Caliban
and Miranda in “The Tempest”. Likewise, in “Translations”, the theme
of patriarchy is also present with Hugh’s dominance over Manus and
Manus’s dominance of Sarah. In “Things Fall Apart”, patriarchy is
also apparent, primarily seen with Okonkwo controlling his wives and
children. Writers bring out the theme of patriarchy in different
settings, due to colonisation, such as the colonisation of the Irish and
Igbo tribe. This influences the success and failure of patriarchy as the
characters will have to act in accordance to their environment and
the conditions in which colonisation takes place. Prospero and
Okonkwo represent the patriarchal period of the time, whereas Hugh
represents old traditions.

The way in which both authoritarian figures dominate the lower

classes are similar. They strongly adhere to the Great Chain of
Beings, in which it categorised a strict religious hierarchical order,
which saw women below men and beasts below women, thus in both
cases men having complete dominance. Prospero exercises his
control through Caliban, with his coarse use of language and his
ability to make him complete domesticated duties, such as when
Prospero tells Miranda that one of his tasks is to ‘fetch in the wood’.
Hugh employs exactly the same technique, by making Manus
complete domesticated duties, such as ‘get him food – get him a
drink’. Both dominant figures subjugate others, in order to increase
their social standing. Prospero uses Caliban and this is seen through
the use of language and power he exerts over him. Aristotle says that
‘Humanity is divided in two, those who have the right to command
and those who are born to obey’. ‘Monster’ is Caliban’s most frequent
sobriquet and Prospero dehumanises him by calling him a ‘beast’,
‘hag-seed’ and ‘subhuman’. Caliban becomes the epitome of
monstrousness, a non-human symbol of human iniquity, who is
viewed by the Jacobean audience as ‘a foil or negation of Western
cultures and values’ (Chinua Achebe). Prospero insults Caliban
throughout the play and the most common instance is when Caliban
is first introduced. Act One Scene Two presents Prospero in his true
light, in which we see his totalitarian dominance, such as, ‘For this,
be sure, tonight thou shalt have cramps, side-stitches that shall pen
thy breath up. Urchins shall, forth at vast of night that they may work,
all exercise on thee. Thou shalt be pinched as thick as honeycomb,
each pinch more stinging than bees that made em’. Prospero is
threatening Caliban with cramps and horrible pains in his sides that
will keep him from breathing. He will send goblins out at night to work
their nasty deeds on him and that he will be pricked all over, and it’ll
sting like bees. Prospero constantly uses pronouns to refer to
Caliban, and Prospero debases Caliban by the use of language,
which is a well-known ploy of people who wish to subjugate others.
Thus, Loreto Todd states that; ‘if Prospero describes Caliban using
non-human metaphors such as “hag-seed” and “litter”, it is a short
step to treating him as sub-human’.

Likewise, when Hugh in “Translations” first comes on stage ‘he

removes his hat and coat and hands them and his stick to Manus, as
if to a footman’, similar to Prospero’s control of Caliban. Hugh also
uses direct imperatives to make Manus complete domesticated
duties, as does Prospero to Caliban, such as ‘fetch in our wood, and
serves in office’. He orders Manus, who ‘works as an unpaid
assistant’ and ‘his clothes are shabby’, to ‘get him food – get him a
drink’. This is further intensified when Hugh tells Manus to fetch him
‘a bowl of tea, strong tea’ with no sense of respect. A post-colonial
audience would not expect Hugh to treat Manus as he does, treating
him as badly as Prospero treats Caliban, which may show his desire
to become a successful patriarch. There are two distinctive
differences, in which we have to take into account context and
situation. Prospero in “The Tempest” is the coloniser of the Island
and he is seen by every inhabitant as vastly superior, however, Hugh
in “Translation” is not the coloniser, he is the one being colonised,
thus his ability to become a successful patriarch is harder. Hugh is
presented in light of a failing patriarch, such as the way in which he
represents a static, inward-looking, self-satisfied way of life, whose
response to modern outside influences is to ignore them. Compared
to Hugh, Prospero controls the characters in the play and remains in
firm control of the island. In addition, he is a learned scholar who has
powerful magical abilities and uses his knowledge to keep control of
the island and is feared and revered.

Prospero in “The Tempest” doesn’t allow anyone to become more

dominant than him, compared to Hugh who doesn’t have a choice,
as he isn’t the coloniser. Hugh’s attitude towards Owen is one which
is more positive and kind then that compared to Manus. Any request
or interjection by Owen is seen positively by Hugh, such as when
Owen asks his father if he is ‘interrupting’ and if he can ‘bring them
in’, Hugh replies ‘certainly’. The change in attitude puts Hugh in a
bad position, because if he wants to be a successful patriarch, he
needs to assume control over Owen and the English. Prospero may
favour Ariel more than Caliban, but Ariel wouldn’t dare to usurp him
or challenge him, because of fear of Prospero’s power. Whereas, the
introduction of the Irish doesn’t seem to affect Hugh in any way, he
remains his usual self and doesn’t possess any desire to become a
dominant figure. He still gets continuously drunk and he is
preoccupied with his own importance, so much that he shows no
interest in major figures such as William Wordsworth. He clearly
doesn’t think much of the English and at first; he doesn’t see them as
a threat. He doesn’t bother to sustain himself and this is seen
through his lack of apt control and careless remarks and this is seen
when he takes the post in a new school, only thinking about the
money. Although he works harder to sustain himself which is clearly
seen through his dominance over Manus, he doesn’t bother with the
English. Thus, a post-colonial audience would see Hugh as a failure
of a patriarch because of his lack of priorities and ignorance and
since Ireland at the time was going through a process of colonialism
in which the English colonised Ireland, one would expect Hugh to
challenge their authority. Ireland became a part of an extended
United Kingdom, ruled directly by Westminster and in 1821 the first
genealogically useful census was taken. The introduction of the
English forces caused a change in the social hierarchy and Vaughn
adds that the ‘English descriptions of the Irish were almost always
defamatory’, so an Irish authoritarian figure would have to work hard
to sustain his status. However, Hugh doesn’t and it can be inferred
that the reason he subjugated Manus was to increase his social
standing only within his community.

Compared to Hugh, Prospero would have been favoured by the

Jacobean audience and would have seen him as a successful
patriarch; however, a post-colonial reception would view him as bad-
tempered, totalitarian figure and would respond with trepidation. In
addition, Prospero’s control over Caliban can be justified when we
look at Caliban’s origins. Caliban is an anagram for ‘canibal’ and it
could drive from ‘Cariban’, in reference to the Carib Indian. Despite
the Renaissance period’s advance in intellect and discovery, ‘there
was very little willingness to accept the legitimacy of structures of
belief, patterns of behaviour, social organisation other than one’s
own’, (Michael de Montaigne). A Jacobean audience would have
viewed Caliban as a cannibal since ‘Caliban represented bestial
vices that must be eradicated’ (Montaigne). However, a post-colonial
reception would see Caliban as a righteous revolutionist who
symbolises the exploitation of European imperialism and Montaigne
says that ‘he personifies noble rebels who symbolise the exploitation
of European imperialism’.

Another prominent theme is the domination of women and this is

present throughout all three texts. In “The Tempest”, Prospero’s
domination of Miranda is a clear example of male superiority. He
uses his magic to gain full control over her, by putting her to sleep
and controlling her every move. Likewise, in “Translations”, Manus
controls Sarah, and he achieves this through dominance of sex, age
and education. In “Things Fall Apart”, Okonkwo refers to women as
‘weaker’ and he has the power of dominance by masculinity and
status. The magic Prospero utilises becomes a symbol of success in
the “The Tempest”. Prospero’s use of magic is a way of making his
superiority dramatically effective and the use of demi-puppets that
have been his agents were considered in certain contemporary
circles of thought to be creatures above man in the hierarchy of
nature, between men and angels. The hierarchical order in both
plays consisted of women being at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
In “The Tempest” and “Translations” there are instances of men
dominating women, where the men’s aim is to use them to become
higher up in the social status. Prospero uses Miranda for his benefit,
to restore his kingship and through her marriage to Ferdinand, and
Manus uses Sarah to assert dominance. In Act One Scene Two,
Miranda begs Prospero to ‘allay’ the storm, despite not knowing
anything about the people on board. ‘If by your art, my dearest father,
you have put the wild waters in this roar, allay them’. Miranda is
begging Prospero to put an end to the storm, which he caused with
his magical powers. He reassures Miranda that ‘there’s no harm
done’ and he does this by raising his arms. By raising his arms, he is
seen as a very powerful magician and his magic robes, staff and
books on magic, reinforce it. Vaughan adds that ‘magic is his
technology, a means to the end of getting what he wants’. In addition,
Prospero also commands Miranda to sleep because he doesn’t want
her to hear the disgusting behaviour that’s about to take place. He
thus puts her into a trance, ‘thou art inclined to sleep’, 'tis a good
dullness, and give it way. I know thou canst not choose’ and
Prospero thus uses his magic to control her body (Bach 392). A post-
colonial reception would have been horrified by Prospero’s complete
control and dominance over Miranda, his control in putting her to
sleep, whereas a Jacobean reception would have been content, due
to their strict adherence to the Great Chain of Beings, which detailed
men as superior to women and were to do anything to keep them in
line. Hence, we can therefore conclude that Prospero, in light of his
magic and dominance of Miranda is a successful patriarch and
although a post-colonial reception would have grown an aversion to
his control, they would perhaps be content in finding out his true
agenda.

Likewise, in “Translations”, we can also see male dominance and a

prominent example is that of Manus and Sarah. Friel presents to us
the many different types of patriarchy present in Ireland. In Act One,
Sarah is described as ‘sitting on a low stool, her head down, very
tense, and clutching a slate on her knees’. Friel has used bodily
gestures and poses to characterise his dramatis personae, to
intimate their social status and power in the Irish community. We are
introduced to Sarah as a woman whose ‘speech defect is so bad that
all her life she has been considered locally dumb and she has
accepted this: when she wishes to communicate, she grunts and
makes unintelligible nasal sounds’. Manus is a male who is older
than Sarah and he has the ability to speak and the ability to teach
Irish, English, Greek and Latin. In Act 1, Manus is seen as a
somewhat fatherly figure to Sarah, 'coaxing her gently ‘into her first
words. Many interpret Sarah as a metaphor for Ireland, we see
Manus as a deeply patriotic person who wishes to develop his
country and help it express itself despite the prejudices it faces.
Compared to Sarah, Manus has power over Sarah because of
factors such as age, sex, education and social class. The relationship
between Manus and Sarah is thus, Sarah regards the superiority of
Manus over herself as natural and does not object to it. In a larger
context one can see the issue about Irish people. The members of
the Irish community, Baile Beag, feel inferior to the English
colonisers, mainly because they speak English, but they cannot.

In “Things Fall Apart”, Okonkwo is one of the highest figure heads of

the Igbo tribe and it is up to him to decide his wives and children’s
future. The domination of women is most apparent as he has
complete control and dominance, compared to both Hugh and
Prospero who allows women certain freedoms. When one of his
wives behave out of line, he responds by beating them harshly and
he is so feared and revered that no one dares to confront him to
prevent the beatings. Okonkwo ‘gave her a sound beating and left
her and her only daughter weeping’. Neither of the other wives dared
to interfere beyond an occasional and tentative, ‘it is enough
Okonkwo’, pleaded from a reasonable distance. He is similar to both
Prospero and Hugh, in the sense that he uses direct imperatives to
instruct those subordinate to him to complete domesticated duties.
This is seen throughout the play, such as when Okonkwo orders one
of his wives to ‘get me a pot’ and ‘to leave the child alone’. Okonkwo
expects food every day by each of his wives, in his own personally
built hut, in which one must be granted permission to enter. Any
request asked that is responded without Okonkwo’s content is met
with harsh consequences, such as ‘I said a little. Are you deaf?’ Then
he proceeds with his usual punishment of beatings. A feminist
reading would see Okonkwo as a male dominator who asserts his
control over women to sustain his social standing and they would
have been horrified with the beatings, direct language and control. A
post-colonial reception would have reacted in a similar way; they
would see him as acting God and would be horrified and his act of
committing suicide is the final act in which we see his true self. One
may say that he was a successful patriarch and he killed himself
rather than being culturally changed because of his alliance to his
tribe; however, another reception would see him as a coward for not
defending his culture. In addition, we could say that he reflected his
father’s attitude and despite his efforts to be seen as a completely
different person, his final act resembled his father.

Patriarchy is brought out in the three texts in different contexts. In

“The Tempest” patriarchy starts with Prospero being usurped and
ends with his return to power. On-the-other-hand, patriarchy starts in
“Things Fall Apart” with Okonkwo working hard and coming to power
and ends with his subsequent death. Moreover, in “Translations”,
patriarchy starts with characters dominating each other. However,
the introduction of the English forces introduces another level of
patriarchy. It is clear that patriarchy is a dominant theme in both
texts, and it beautifies the flow of each story in a unique approach.
Despite all the similarities and differences between characters, the
success and failures comes down solely to the audience viewing it.

1. However, a Jacobean audience may sympathise with Prospero as

he was an archetypal father and authoritative figure.

2. Comments that it is ‘right to be masculine and violent’

3. ‘then they came to the tree, from which O was dangling, and they
stopped dead.

4. Prospero’s chauvinistic treatment of Miranda

Bibliography

• Chinua Achebe

• Loreto Tod

• Michael de Montaigne – on cannibals

• Bach - 392

• The Tempest Arden Shakespeare Vaughn

• Translations Brian Friel

• Things Fall Apart Chinua Achebe

• Vaughn
Exploration Of Post-Colonialism From
Different Readings
1981 Words 8 Pages
Readings allow responders to create meaning of the text and
compose within their own and others context. Exploration of
"Feminist", “Freudian”, and “Marxist" readings, allows the readers to
view certain concepts and explore themes from various different
perspectives. All these readings encompass certain thematic
concerns, from which a certain degree of parallelism from each
perspective can be established, as well as differing concepts and
issues.

The feminist reading explores ways in which texts may depict the
place of women within society. In particular, it draws upon the
oppression of women, and the different, conflicting perspectives
regarding their roles, behaviour and function within a society.
Exploring cultural and personal identity, which determines ways in
which these may shape an individual relationship with others, is
known as a "Freudian" reading. It states that the experiences an
individual has incurred as a minor or in the past can ultimately shape
their perceptions regarding life. This occurs particularly if they have
left it without a sense of closure. These two readings are in stark
contrast to the "Marxist" reading. The Marxist reading mainly focuses
on the struggle of classes though history. This reading states that
people think and behave in response to surrounding factors.
Dominant groups in society, because, of their power and control,
influences and dictates the beliefs and values of the majority.

Though post-colonialism is categorised as a reading itself, exploring

it from different readings, thus, different perspectives, may
sometimes generate diverse ways of thinking and representation of
one reading within another. This offers provocative insights into the
world of different readings and its correlation to Post-colonialism.

FEMINIST READING

The feminist reading undermines the degrading perspective of

misogynists In typical patriarchal societies. The roles, behaviour and
function of women within society are denigrated in certain texts
merely due to the prejudiced mentality of males underpinned by
society’s preconceived notions. The three main aspects explored in
Feminist reading and texts are the oppression of women, the
empowerment of women, and the adoption of a misogynist
perspective to undermine the oppression of women.

Oppression of women and the demonization of misogynists

Women are mistreated despite their credibility to nurture, share

genuine love, and give a new life.
"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females
begins when the doctor says, "It's a girl." ~Shirley Chisholm. The
quote demonstrates the stereotypes associated with females, and
through the use of hyperbole "begins when the doctor says, "It's a
girl"", the degradation and oppression is clearly reflected. Women
were considered to be nurturers and dependent entities as they
relied solely on their husband's income. They were forced to comply
with society's sexist rules and beliefs and values regarding women
being housewives, despite the urge within them to establish
themselves as strong entities. This is reflected through many
historical events. In many patriarchal societies, women were not
considered part of the society as they did not contribute in any way
whatsoever. For example : In India, if a baby girl was born, it would
be sacrificed to the gods by boiling it in warm milk as they were
considered inauspicious and infernal. This exhibits the extent to
which females were oppressed in history.

Most feminist authors demonize the misogynists in their texts to

illustrate the oppression and their degrading perspectives regarding
the roles of women within society. Some indirectly refer to the devil,
Satan, to demonize the entity, or provide attributes to that of a devil.

Empowerment of Women

An author may choose to empower women in certain texts. This may

be a depiction of the roles of women within society. By portraying
women as being empowered, the composer's intensions are purely
to emphasise on the point regarding the roles of women, and their
ability to undertake similar tasks to that of a male. Some texts
like…… display the destruction and alteration of the degrading
perspectives and prejudiced mentality of misogynists through the
empowerment of women as a symbol of the destruction of
discrimination against women. Feminist authors achieve this through
comparing and contrasting characters, and their beliefs and values in
the beginning of a text, and their altered beliefs and values at the end
of a text. This may apply to, in the feminist context, the alteration of
the beliefs and values of misogynists.

To show the equality between man and women, most feminist texts
explore the juxtaposition of a society governed by a man to that of
woman. This is effective in the sense that it may portray the
weaknesses and strengths of both society, or it may empower the
society governed by a women, but degrade the society ruled a man,
consequently depicting the female as being superior to a misogynist
male. This may be implemented through the labelling of the society
governed by the misogynist as being corrupted, violent, and
sometimes atrocious. In most cases, feminist authors often juxtapose
the way in which each gender governs the system, thereby providing
an unbiased perspective of the prowess of both men and women,
and the unity between them. This brings to the fore how feminists
authors may often exhibit the alteration of the beliefs and values of a
misogynist in their texts. Also, it reflects their beliefs and values
regarding the oppression of women and their feministic mindsets.

Often women being empowered and being portrayed as a figure of a

leader may sometimes intimidate men. This may be typified by a
feeling of insecurity and inferiority. Some composers characterise
leaders who are women as having a façade of appearing to be
sober, easily oppressed, and fragile, but later on contrast this to them
as being strong, determined, and entities who are not subservient
and easily oppressed when in possession of the ultimate power.
"Women are not the weak, frail little flowers that they are advertised.
There has never been anything invented yet, including war, that a
man would enter into, that a woman wouldn't, too. ~Will Rogers".
This quote, a paradox, illustrates the equality between a man and a
woman, as well as contrasts the stereotypical image of women to
that of a strong entity.

Feminism and Post-colonialism.

Post-colonialism and the oppression of women

The oppression of women in colonial texts Is referred to as "Third-

world feminism". In post-colonial texts, women are generally
demeaned by the colonisers themselves. The colonisers monopolise
the system, thereby exploiting it, consequently disparaging the
oppressed colonised masses. Most colonial authors use bombastic
characterisation to achieve this. For instance, in the "Heart of
darkness", Conrad describes the colonised Africans as a "group of
black limbs thumping, dark, "black" hands clapping" Women are also
included in these oppressed masses.

It is evident that most male colonisers viewed woman as sexual

objects, therefore deriding their dignity and respect. Most expressed
them as an extension to their sexual, intimate fantasies, rather than
actual, genuine love. In the "Heart of darkness", Conrad's
characterisation of Marlow is a depiction of an archetypal colonist
entity. Marlow refers to his "black mistress" as "The wild forest itself,
with glazing eyes", but contrasts this to his intended, whom he refers
to as "soft, sophisticated, careful", thereby providing her with human
emotions and qualities such as "floating, mourning, fidelity". Most
may argue that Conrad was a racist author, but maybe he wanted to
highlight the oppression of colonised women?
Post-colonial texts and the empowerment of women

Freudian Reading

The "Freudian" reading or Psychoanalytic literary criticism assesses

and judges the behaviours of certain characters in a text. It endorses
the fact that literature intertwines with the psyche. The theory states
that a certain character's behavioural patterns and attributes are
shaped and re-shaped by the experiences they have encountered as
a child, or in the past. Subsequently, these experiences are
sometimes deeply engraved into the entities minds. It may occur
particularly if the character has left it without a sense of closure. For
instance, a horrific accident encountered by a child may have had a
profound impact upon his or her mentality if they have not been able
to express their distress or shock. Hence, these experiences may
have positive and negative impacts upon a character or group of
characters' psyche. Particularly, in relation of Post-colonialism, the
author often may demonstrate the mental disintegration of children or
the oppressed masses as a consequence of the dehumanization and
degradation imposed upon them. In the post-colonialism context, the
impact is often considered negative.

The two main aspects of Freudian reading are, the experiences

incurred as a child, and the experiences encountered in the past.
Both these aspects delve into the world of Psychology, thereby
assessing the impacts and as mentioned before, judging the way a
character behaves.

An experience a child encounters can ultimately shape their

understanding and attitude towards life in general. It can also alter
familial bonds, and sometimes destruct, alter or give rise to certain
attributes that they possess or did not know they possessed. The
Freudian reading questions identity and relationships to an extent.
The stolen generation depicts how an experience a child encounters
can re-shape their perspective of their own identity. The British
colonised Australia, hence, oppressing the Indigenous masses, and
legally depriving Aboriginal children off familial connections and their
true, cultural and personal identity. As a result, this has affected their
view regarding aboriginality. These children were raised in special
camps, were assigned number and their true identity were hidden.
Consequently, as they started to mature, they started to question
their nationality and notice how their skin colour differed from that of
a European or their white husbands or wives. This imposed
questions upon them regarding their true identity, who they were?
Why were they brown?

An experience a child or teenager encounters in the past can

ultimately re-shape their beliefs and values, as well as their entire
mindset. An example of this is reflected in Mark Twain's picaresque
novel, "The adventures of Huckleberry Finn". It explores the
denigration of African Americans and issues regarding brutally
enslaving them. This intertwine with the study of physical journeys
and assess how the experiences incurred or encountered as a child
may often completely alter and destruct society’s preconceived
notions. Huckleberry, through partaking on the physical journey and
the experiences it incurs is able to discard his racist bias regarding
the enslavement of Africans. Jim (An African American), who
accompanies him on his journey, is a major catalyst for this.

Despite society’s prevailing theology and prejudiced mentality Huck

is able to make the correct decisions as well as alter some of the
preconceived notions. For instance, in the fog incident, a fog
separates Huckleberry and Jim, but Huck upon returning to the raft
notices Jim asleep and decides to enact a trick. He pretends that he
has not been away from the raft. But, Jim, after noticing the dirt and
leaves on his feet rebukes him for playing such a foul trick on him as
he was worried about Huck’s wellbeing. This particular event
challenges Huck’s morality and reinforces an urge within him to
apologise to the “nigger”, Jim, as he believes that Africans also
possess the same emotions as Europeans, “It was fifteen minutes
before I could go and work myself humble to a nigger”.

Another scene which exhibits the alteration of some of Huckleberry’s

beliefs and values is during his monologue, in which his morality
challenges his western mindset, but due to the experiences he has
incurred he is able to discard his racist bias and aid Jim attain
freedom, even though he thinks that this will propel him towards “hell”
for doing so. By the end of the novel, Huck’s mindset and attitude
towards Jim (African slave) is completely altered and so are his
preconceived notions. Therefore, it is evident that the experiences a
child encounters can have a profound impact upon his or her psyche
and ultimately re-shape their beliefs and values.

Freudian Reading and Post-colonialism

MARXIST READING
The Marxist reading, or Marxist literary criticism, assess the social
and class distinction within society through the medium of literature.
It evaluates the role of the government, and other factors within
society which influence and dictate the beliefs of the majority. This
particular reading can be referred to as an approach to literature
which mainly focuses on the culture, race, class and power of
society. It is through this reading, that conflict between different
classes can be clearly established, as well as deciphering the source
of these conflicts. The two main aspects of Marxist reading are:
social distinction, power
Much ado about nothing
Social distinction within a text can be extensively reflected through
the way the characters interact with each other, and their status. This
is explored in William Shakespeare’s play, “Much ado About
Nothing”. In the play, language is used as means to acceptance.
The Insider

To kill a Mockingbird.
The Accord Duality: Underlying Oppression
and Continual Colonialism
2193 Words 9 Pages
Since the formation of Canada in 1867 much of the dealings have
been based off of two distinct language groups: the Francophone
and the Anglophone. Despite the colonization of Canada centuries
before and the nation to nation agreements preceding, and
proceeding after, the formation of Canada the First Nations people
have been a part of the Canadian periphery. The conduction of the
Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord are examples of
the First Nation people’s continual placement in the hinterland of
Canadian political and legal action. This conduct of business
impeded upon the original agreements of “nation-to-nation”
agreements that were created for the, supposed, benefits of both
states. Regardless of these previous stipulations the Canadian
government, both provincial and federal, left the First Nations people
in the dark, unacknowledged, without their own devices of legal and
political process. Thus, the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown
Accords were direct attacks from the Canadian government upon the
First Nation People’s treaties and their rights and freedoms as
dictated in the Constitution of Canada.
Both accords, Meech Lake and Charlottetown, were direct disregards
to the past relationships between Canada and the First Nations
people, thus to understand the effects of these accords it is important
to understand the pretext preceding the new constitutional
arrangement under the Trudeau administration. Canada is a country
that is based upon colonialism through the countries of France and
England. For centuries there has been a strict recognition of this
duality rather than an all-encompassing view of Canada as three
separate nations living harmoniously. Just because the First Nations
people appeared to be nomadic and lacking religion in lifestyle did
not delegitimize their attachment to land or the makings of a civilized
culture, but under the context of European thought these stipulations
were enough to depose the First Nations of their lands, although this
is a direct defiance to international law; Canada, being a colony
under Great Britain’s rule was a municipal extension, thus not holding
the power to actually enter into nation-to-nation agreements until
1931 under the Statute of Westminster, yet the law was abused and
unacknowledged. Despite this abuse of the law, the First Nations
were recognized as a nation having the right to self-determination
and self-governance along with other stipulations (Venne, 2011, pp.
43-46). Throughout history these inherent rights for the First Nations
have been disregarded: in 1982, with the new Constitution of
Canada, it seemed that would change, but to no avail.
In 1982, under the Trudeau administration, a new constitution was
being formed. Preceding this new Canadian constitution the
discussion around land claims was underway since the powers of
Canada could not just disregard the First Nations as they had in the
past since it was evident that they would not disappear. A few
clauses were put in place for the First Nation People such as
affirming existing aboriginal titles and committing to conducting
further discussion upon the topic. Despite this clause little discussion
occurred and caused a wave of disparagement through the First
Nations community (Johnston, 1993, p. 44). The constitution that
Trudeau had attempted to pass failed to be ratified due to Quebec’s
unwillingness to agree, thus the Meech Lake Accord was born in
1987 under the relatively recently elected Mulroney administration.
The swiftness of the Meech Lake Accord’s discussion and finalization
to be voted upon was another blow to the First Nation Peoples.
Preceding the creation of the Meech Lake Accord the Canadian
Government had four high profile meetings spanning five years
where the various First Nation groups, the premiers of all the
provincial governments, and the Prime Minister’s administration
would conduct a discussion regarding the rights of First Nations and
self-governance; nothing really became of these discussions, just
further frustrations on both sides. In the span of just one day of
consultation between the premiers of the provinces and the federal
government an agreement had been reached referring Quebec’s
qualms with the previous constitutional agreement (Peach, 2011, pp.
4-9). The most infuriating aspect of the agreement was not the
apparent ability to conduct agreements in a concise and effective
manner it were the stipulations that were put in the Meech Lake
Accord for Quebec’s benefit that caused an outcry in the First Nation
Peoples.
A report conducted in 1968, known as the Hawthorne Report,
outlined that aboriginal people should be equal citizens plus. This is
the same ideal that the Quebec provincial government was trying to
achieve: be recognized in Canada, but with additional rights. The
Hawthorne Report was quickly counteracted by the infamous Just
Society speech given by Trudeau (Dickason, 2011, pp. 355-358).
Unlike the First Nations, Quebec, seen as an important part of
Canada’s “dual” society, had made demands and actions were
quickly taken to integrate them as Quebec saw was needed. The
First Nations of Canada and Quebec both wanted to be recognized,
explicitly, by the Canadian government. The harm created was that
Quebec was labelled as a “distinct society” in a highly ambiguous
manner that would overlap in the courts, thus being possibly
damaging to the interpretation upon the First Nations. In this regard,
the authors of the Accord at Meech Lake were oblivious to the
repercussions it would have on First Nations society (Chamberlain,
1988, p. 12).
The Distinct Society Clause within the Meech Lake Accord had three
major aspects that made it offensive. Firstly, the clause was an act of
power: one group defining another. Being aware of one’s distinction
is an important aspect of knowledge-of-self, but outside of self a
group defining another only leads to a cycle of condescension.
Secondly, the clause impeded upon the constitutional tolerance for
allowing effective expression of aboriginal sovereignty. The treaties
conducted in previous years had already defined the First Nations,
but that was a nation-to-nation agreement. The Meech Lake Accord
was created under no Aboriginal input, thus the accord was
fundamentally contrary to the long term interests of the First Nation
Peoples. Lastly, the clause would create a disparity between the
possible discussions of Aboriginal self-governance in Canada. In
1871Canada made a commitment to recognize Aboriginal
sovereignty, but this Accord impeded upon all previously agreed
upon rights, understandings, and commitments (Chamberlain, 1988,
pp. 12-16).
The act of recognizing the First Nations and the government’s
commitments is not a new one, referring to the Quebec Act, Union
Act, Confederation, and the new constitutional agreement, but in one
day this changed (Smith, pp. 272-273). Political values of tolerance,
accommodation, and a celebration of difference were not
represented within the Accord. The Accord thus failed to uphold on of
the roles of the Canadian constitution: the expression of social vision.
The accord lacking ethnic pluralism thus combatted everything the
multiculturalist society of Canada was attempting to uphold (Whyte,
1988, p. 268). These egregious terms and effects combined together
led to the political shape of Canada being stirred by one of the most
famous advocates against the Meech Lake Accord: Elijah Harper.
It would be erroneous to state that Harper was the only advocate
against the Meech Lake accord, but he is most famously recognized
for doing so; the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Committee on
National Issues, and the Native Council of Canada all, also, opposed
the amendments the accord would introduce. It must be noted that
even before the deadline of June 23rd, 1990 support for the accord
was faltering. Concerns for First Nations well-being became
prevalent and reform began to be sought after as early as 1988.
Harper, at the time, was an MLA in the province of Manitoba and
member of the Red Sucker Lake First Nations. The Meech Lake
Accord had a specific deadline to be ratified by or the accord would
be dead. The deadline was not met due to Harper disallowing its
motion through the Manitoba government. A few days before the
deadline of the accords ratification, Newfoundland assisted in
quashing the ratification of the Meech Lake Accord (Peach, 2011).
The other provinces disapproval was based a few facts ranging from
injustices for the Canadian public to the ideals of what right do eleven
men have to change the constitution (Alacantara, 2013, p. 37). This
defeat of the Meech Lake Accord further exacerbated the First
Nations attempts at separating from the colonialist regime of Canada
that has dominated the narrative of history for centuries.
The Francophone and Anglophones, as previously mentioned,
colonized the America’s. The Meech Lake Accord was just another
extension of this colonialist regime that has been imbedded within
Canada. This is one of the strongest underlying issues that were tied
to the “distinct society” definition placed upon Quebec: besides the
ambiguous nature of the definition and the narrow mindedness
surrounding the entire accord this further entrenched the separation
between “Canada” and the First Nations people. There is a clause
within constitution of Canada, section 37.2 and 37.3 stating that
representatives from the First Nation cultures would be invited if the
agendas contained issues that would directly affect them, thus the
Meech Lake Accord further supported a colonialist agenda excluding
the First Nations from national politics and legal proceedings
(Canada, Constitution of Canada, 1982). From the quashing of
Meech Lake the Charlottetown Accord was birthed as a rebuttal in
one last attempt to ratify the Canadian Constitution.
The summer after the failed Meech Lake Accord was one of vast
political strife attributed to the events that occurred at Oka Crisis. The
First Nations militancy solidified their frustrations with the
government’s political processes due to the First Nations people
being relatively passive in the past in the forms of physical violence.
Besides the Oka Crisis, in the wake of the previously failed accord
three main questions surrounding Indigenous rights were left
unanswered: would First Nations People’s inherent right to self-
governance leave them outside of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms? Would this system of government be exempt from a
democratic test? Finally, would the provinces be adversely affected
by this new form of government within Canada? It was in the heat of
this political aftermath that the Charlottetown Accord came to be. The
Charlottetown Accord was brought into being in 1992 with some
reforms in an attempt to appease Quebec, the Western Provinces,
and the Aboriginal people of Canada in one grand package
(Johnston, 1993, pp. 43-45). Yet this new “grand package” still left
something to be desired in regards to Aboriginal rights in Canada.
Little had changed from the Meech Lake Accord to the Charlottetown
Accord and, at this point, the public in Canada began to doubt
whether or not the Canadian government could adequately deal with
the First Nation Peoples and their qualms with past actions. The
Meech Lake Accord was strongly opposed by First Nations for a
number of reasons, one being the distinct society clause; in the
Charlottetown Accord it was not removed, but merely evolved into a
more ambiguous term that was described as a “hedged recognition
of Quebec being defined as a distinct society (Johnston, 1993, p.
43).” Despite these supposed limitations the Charlottetown Accord
still impeded upon the First Nations rights as dictated in the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms simply by not allowing representatives to
discuss the situation at hand.
Unlike the Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord did
included reference to the First Nations people with an amendment to
section 2 of the Constitution;
The Aboriginal peoples of Canada, being the first peoples to govern
this land, have the right to
promote their languages, cultures and traditions and to ensure the
integrity of their societies, and their
governments constitute one of three orders of government in Canada
(Charlottetown Accord, 1992, p. 1).
The Canadian governments attempts to be well intentioned was a
dubious proposition; ironically, within the section 2 amendment
stating the First Nations were a governing body, the First Nations had
no representation during the proceedings of the accords discussion.
Although with this new amendment to section 2 the Charlottetown
Accord remained flawed due to the ambiguous wording such as
“Aboriginal groups should retain the right to make representations to
the federal government respecting candidates to fill vacancies on the
Supreme Court (Charlottetown Accord, 1992, p. 6). This type of
ambiguity would only impede on First Nation and Canadian relations:
words like “should” in amendments will only lead to a continual cycle
of political and legal disparity.
The Charlottetown Accord was then voted upon by bands across
Canada, but something peculiar happened: reserves that may have
hand thousands of people had less than a hundred people voting
whether “yes” or “no” towards the Charlottetown Accord. Little public
support was sported for the bill; Chief Strator of the Crowfoot people
was the only chief to voice public opinion in support of the accord.
The surprisingly low amount of votes accounts for the elders of tribes
boycotting the accord, staying in silence, since the package did not
honour Canada’s previous sacred binding arrangements as outlined
in the numbered treaties (Venne, 2011, p. 43). Although there were
the four national Aboriginal organizations present during the
negotiations, the chiefs of the tribes across Canada were excluded,
thus solidifying their stance to boycott the accord since four
Indigenous people cannot decide for them all: if the accord was
conducted as the treaties were, nation-to-nation, the accord may
have turned out entirely differently (Murphy, 2008, p. 208).
Much of the strife felt by the First Nations people has been kept
secret from much of the Canadian public; the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown Accords are two examples of work being conducted
behind closed doors, and when Elijah Harper stood up against the
Meech Lake Accord it was the first time for many Canadians to see
some of the First Nation peoples’ struggles and how they actually felt
about the Canadian government and their conduction of business
over time: people finally understood, to some degree, that Canada
made up three nations where distinction is important for a definition
of self, but not for one group to define another and leave the
ambiguity to overlap and destroy a cultures rights. The Meech Lake
and Charlottetown Accords may have been well intentioned and the
authors just ignorant to all those peripheral groups in Canada and the
effects it would cause on those people, but this seems unlikely.
Through the egregious terms, the lack of respect to the treaties and
charter of rights and freedoms, and the disregard of adequate First
Nations representation the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords
were documents that were ultra vires and were thus defeated.

Works Cited

Alacantara, C. (2013). Ideas, Executive Federalism and Institutional

Change. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 27-48.
Canada. (1982). Constitution of Canada, 1982. Retrieved 2013, from
Solon:
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
Canada. (1992). Charlottetown Accord. Charlottetown: Canada.
Chamberlain, J. E. (1988). Aboriginal Rights and the Meech Lake
Accord. In Competing Constitutional Visions (pp. 11-19). Toronto:
Carswell Co. Ltd.
Dickason, D. L. (2011). Visions of the Heart. Don Mills: Oxford
University Press.
Johnston, R. (1993). An Inverted Logroll: The Charlottetown Accord
and the Referendum. Political Science and Politics, 43-48.
Murphy, M. A. (2008). Representing Indigenous Self-Determination.
University of Toronto Law Journal, 58(2), 185-216.
Peach, I. (2011). The Power of a Single Feather. Review of
Constitutional Studies, 1-19.
Smith, J. (n.d.). Political Vision and the 1987 Constitutional Accord.
Venne, S. (2011). Treaty Indigenous PEoples and the Charlottetown
Accord: The Message in the Breeze. Constitutional Forum, 43-46.
Whyte, J. D. (1988). The 1987 Constitutional Accord and Ethnic
Accomodation. In Competing Constitutional Visions (pp. 263-270).
Toronto: Carswell Co. Ltd.
The Scarlet Letter" of Hester Prynne and
Arthur Dimmesdale
1916 Words 8 Pages
The Scarlet Letter is a classic novel written by Nathaniel Hawthorne
which entangles the lives of two characters Hester Prynne and Arthur
Dimmesdale together through an unpardonable sin-adultery. With
two different lifestyles, this act of adultery affects each of them
differently. Hester is an average female citizen who is married to a
Roger Chillingworth from Europe while Dimmesdale is a Puritan
minister from England (61). Along the course of time after the act of
adultery had happened, Hester could not hide the fact that she was
bearing a child that was not of her husband, but from another man.
She never reveals that this man is in fact Arthur Dimmesdale, and so
only she receives the punishment of prison. Although it is Hester who
receives the condemnation and punishment from the townspeople
and officials, Dimmesdale is also punished by his conscience as he
lives his life with the secret burden hanging between him and Hester.
Chapter 5 of the book, “Hester at Her Needle” gives Hester’s account
on her days after she is released from prison. It is a very sunny day
which is usually supposed to represent a happy setting with a bright
future ahead. However Hester automatically thinks that the sunlight is
specifically there to reveal the scarlet letter that is sewn onto the
chest of her dress. The steps that she takes out of the prison
represent the steps that she will take to her new life that is full of
loneliness and scorn. Her future is very grim-being cut off from the
townspeople as well as from a normal life. Hawthorne goes on to
describe here that “To-morrow would bring its own trial with it; so
would the next day, and so would the next; each its own trial, and yet
the very same that was now so unutterably grievous to be borne”
(71). Each day after this day would be filled with its own conflict and
Hester would be there to endure them. Hester cannot continue to live
life alongside with the rest of society any longer and so she decides
to go live in a cabin that is near the edge of the town. This cabin was
far enough to be out of the way of the people, but still close enough
to be considered a part of the society there (73). This shows that
Hester knew to stay away from society, but there remained a small
longing to be able to dwell with it still.
Hester was out of prison now, but the real prison she was contained
in was the prison of being marked forever with the scarlet letter. It
was like a mark branded right on her chest shouting out to everyone
who she encounters that she is an adulteress. The “chain that bound
her here was of iron links, and galling to her inmost soul, but never
could be broken” (72) would never leave her, always keeping her
close to the reminder of what she has done. Now, Hester with no
husband to support her had to find ways of supporting her baby
daughter and herself. She used her art of embroidery in order to feed
herself and her baby. “Her needle-work was seen on the ruff of the
Governor; military men wore it on their scarfs, and the minister on his
band; it decked the baby’s little cap; it was shut up, to be mildewed
and moulder away, in the coffins of the dead” (75). Hester had made
embroideries for almost everyone except for those who were to be
wed- being that it would be frowned upon by society. In a strange
way, Hester was accepted in society through her skillful needlework,
but it was obvious to her that the people would not accept her, when
the would throw words of insult or condemnation her way while
fixating their eyes on the crimson scarlet letter sewn on her dress
(76-77).
Chapter 11 of the book, “The Interior of a heart” goes on a bit of a
different tangent as the chapter zooms into the perspective of
Dimmesdale. Dimmesdale, being the partner to Hester of the crime
committed is still not known to society as this, but is known as their
lovely minister who can do no wrong in their sight. The chapter starts
out with the description of the relationship between Dimmesdale and
Roger Chillingworth. Chillingworth is appearing as Dimmesdale’s
friend on the surface level, but deep inside, Hawthorne relays that
Chillingworth plans a great revenge on both Dimmesdale and Hester.
Chillingworth wants to “make himself the one trusted friend, to who
should be confided all the fear, the remorse, the agony, the
ineffectual repentance, the backward rush of sinful thoughts” (122),
He would like to be there as Dimmesdale tells him about his inner
turmoil and fears but only to be “expelled in vain” (122) as
Chillingworth was planning a dark revenge upon him. Now through all
this, Dimmesdale caught the slightest hint that Chillingworth was not
all that “calm, gentle, passionless as he appeared” (122), because of
the appearance in which the physician (Chillingworth) had.
Everything about him had bothered Dimmesdale, but “as a matter of
principle, continued his habits of social familiarity…” (123).
Dimmesdale decides not to dwell on this any longer and continue a
relationship based on familiarity.
Throughout the whole chapter, there is an ongoing theme of guilt and
a longing for confession of what he had done with Hester.
Dimmesdale is known as a great preacher and gave sermons which
were full of heart and true conviction that it pierced the hearts of
those who listened. “They deemed the young clergyman a miracle of
holiness. They fancied him the mouth-piece of Heaven’s messages
of wisdom, and rebuke, and love” (125). He is even described to
surpass the elder ministers in that area who had studied their whole
lives books and books about theology or had lived a very saintly life
(124). There is a certain passage that describes why Dimmesdale
was able to give messages that really pierced the hearts of his
listeners: “But this very burden it was, that gave him sympathies so
intimate with the sinful brotherhood of mankind; so that his heart
vibrated in unison with theirs, and received their pain into itself, and
sent its own throb of pain and through a thousand other hearts, in
gushes of sad, persuasive eloquence” (124-125). Dimmesdale was
able to be on the same level as them and thus he could really relate
with all those who also had a sin panging at their hearts. He felt pain
coming from that one burden of his past a pain that he could preach
with a voice that spoke to the people of the town.
The respect that he received from the townspeople turned into a
greater guilt in his soul when he thought about how he was
committing another sin by lying and being a hypocrite: “The minister
well knew-subtle, but remorseful hypocrite that he was!” “…but had
gained only one other sin, and a self-acknowledged shame, without
the momentary relief of being self-deceived” (126). Dimmesdale also
had a great longing to confess what he had done: “He longed to
speak out, from his own pulpit, at full height of his voice, and tell the
people what he was” (125). He wanted so much to just tell the people
that he was the man who Hester was keeping the name a secret.
Through all this, the guilt and the agony builds up inside of him until
he decides that because he is too fearful to say what he actually is,
he goes into physical punishment upon himself as well as mental
punishments. Whipping himself with a “bloody scourge” (126),
fasting, meditating all night and going through his sins visually over
and over again was a kind of justification for his soul.
Both Hester and Dimmesdale are affected greatly by the sin of
adultery in which they had committed with each other. Hester must
deal with society’s harsh glances and words which induces a fire of
pain in her heart. She is banished from society making her forever
alone with only her illegitimate daughter at her side. Although
Dimmesdale is accepted greatly still by society, it is because of
society that Dimmesdale must suffer. He cannot freely say what he
had done nor freely accept the consequences. In secret turmoil,
Dimmesdale is alone through his sufferings from guilt and deceit. Not
being able to tell anyone was also a part of his misery that he truly
desired to let go of.
Through these two chapters, one can also see that the characters
Hester and Dimmesdale become alone. Through their inner conflict,
it is difficult to mingle with society once again. “The spot never grew
callous; it seemed, on the contrary, to grow more sensitive with daily
torture” (77). Through the daily torture of sideway glances and
ridicule, Hester would never be able to escape from her past. Her
whole life is now revolving on this one act of sin, causing her to never
heal and constantly have a soft spot that will always hurt. Because of
this, she cannot bring herself to be free from it and is constantly
chained and always alone. Dimmesdale has more of an inner
struggle as he cannot struggle on the outside or his cover of being
the town’s “Holiest” minister would be destroyed and thus his whole
life would meet the same fate. He is alone in his struggle with no one
to talk to and is alone when he secretly punishes himself both
physically and mentally. Without resolving anything, living life was
difficult and painful.
In the introduction to The Scarlet Letter, the author Nina Baym
states: “But Hawthorne’s words guide us to the perception that he
was writing about what goes on inside people, ‘the truth of the human
heart,’ rather than what goes on outside and around them” (xv). The
environments in which Hester and Dimmesdale reside in are crucial
in theses two chapters. Hester decides not to flee completely from
the town, but to stay in a small cottage near the edge of the town.
Hester is now still in the town, but away from society. She begins to
be able to come into society a little bit through her beautiful
embroidery skills, but through these events she becomes very hurt
as the unforgiving citizens shoot her judgmental glances along with
hurtful words from the children there. If on the flip side the
townspeople were accepting and forgiving of Hester, her life would
be different. She would be able to heal from the act that was done in
her past and be able to move on with her life. The only thing that was
stopping this was the people who were not willing to accept her back
into society. There is one example in which Hester will enter a church
for the Sabbath but to her own disappointment, she would end up
being the focus of the sermon: “If she entered a church, trusting to
share the Sabbath smile of the Universal Father, it was often her
mishap to find herself the text of the discourse” (77). Dimmesdale as
well, was greatly affected by the environment and by what was going
on around him. Dimmesdale was accepted by society, but because
he was greatly praised for being a “miracle of holiness” (125) he
became greatly burdened and guilty. He was in a dilemma of wanting
to tell all the townspeople about what he had done, yet he could not
due to the fear that was inside of him. This pushed him to
punishments in which he inflicted upon himself and always thinking
about the incident pushed him to his limits mentally-seeing visions of
his dead parents and Hester as they point a condemning finger at
him along with judgmental looks in their eyes (127).

Works Cited
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. New York: Penguin, 1986.

Baym, Nina. Introduction. The Scarlet Letter. By Nathaniel

Hawthorne. New York: Penguin,
1986. vii-xxix.