The literature of Romanticism versus the Victorian era initially becomes a problematic subject to accept. As a Victorian poet, Gerard Manley Hopkins attacks the conception of religion by questioning the existence of God. Hopkins’ sonnets reflect this issue of an oppress religion and educates people towards the conspiracy of a change era through his magnificent poems. Hopkins stands true to the new and improve era of Victorian by conciliating the absences of divinity. Although others may have disagree that G.M.
In conclusion, Shakespeare’s use of celestial imagery during the speech Romeo makes to Juliet displays Romeo’s inner universe of which he is the heart; the center that controls the other parts of the body or in this case celestial bodies. In his selfish nature, he exposes his ignorance towards his need to possess power over Juliet, too arrogant to even realize his own objectification of her. Ultimately, Romeo indirectly offers Juliet an ultimatum, her voice, her vulnerability and her freedom in exchange for not his vows of love, but of lust. Unlike Romeo’s definition of love, true love is when a person realizes that someone else 's happiness deserves to be greater than their own. It’s when someone morphs you into a better person, without forcing you to give up any part of yourself.
To borrow the words of Tucker, “… Baudelaire 's intention was not to rhapsodize his mistresses as his forebears had done” (888). “Une Charogne” is an intricate anti-Petrarchan piece; Baudelaire not only mocks Petrarchan ideals of beauty, but he attacks the blason by making it his own and using the uncanny to highlight its flaws in dehumanizing women and reducing them to body parts and flesh. Baudelaire reminds readers that the reason his poem is unsettling is not only because it is about an aestheticized carcass, but because the conventions he borrows to describe the carcass, the very same ones used to describe women, are questionable and troubling. He uses Petrarchan conventions to implode its own system. By taking the blason to the extreme, he highlights its problems and showcases its true
The ridicule of love is a prominent theme throughout the play, most obvious though Phoebe’s interactions with love. She is the reason for Silvius’ borderline obsession, and frequently reasons why she does not want to be with him. Phoebe ridicules Silvius, an individual who oozes traditional pastoral views on love, which includes passionately longing for the person he believes to be his one true love, for having these very ideals. She ridicules the fact that Silvius stated that her “eyes can wound” because she believed that “there is no force in eyes that can do hurt” (3.5.16, 25-26). Here, Phoebe debunks every stereotypical view on love that was shown in the pastoral age, where lovers loved each other to painful lengths, where the mental pain of not being able to be with one another transformed into physical pain.
The definition is concise, but probably not very clear. It’s not easy to define what “absolute perfection” is, especially because of the free will. The passion between Romeo and Juliet is misinterpreted by the two young lovers as love. And all the readers in all these centuries have been interpreting a dramatic idea of love not based on reality but on impulsive feelings as “The ideal Love” . Romeo’s longing for ideal love is the primary driving force behind most of his actions, that reveal themselves as impulsive and stupid.
Dalloway, Sir William Bradshaw craves power and seeks it as he persuades Septimus that he is not mad, viewing him as more of a science experiment rather than a patient to cure. His rejection of the prospect of “madness” and desire to move Septimus away from Reisza reveals he cares little for Reisza and Septimus’s marriage, instead favoring his own personal gain. However, his title as doctor and posh car allow him to coerce Reisza into agreeing to send Septimus away, despite Septimus 's own objections. Again, this creates a paradox of power as status is abused to gain authority, which in turn, leads to more power and an increased status. Likewise, throughout Their Eyes Were Watching God, wealth allows Joe, Janie’s husband and mayor of their contemporary town, to coerce others into adhering to his command.
Socratic Dialogue in “The Decay of Lying” In Oscar Wilde’s 1889 essay, “The Decay of Lying,” Wilde makes an inflammatory and risky statement with his choice of form and style. The use of Socratic dialogue was a throwback to Plato’s time when art was truly valued and appreciated and social issues were not discussed by long, uneventful, and rather boring novels. Wilde speaks on a profound subject through this form because of his distaste with realism and his motivation to steer the focus of literature toward the Greek ideal. Oscar Wilde’s choice of dialogue is an appropriation of an earlier generation and a spectacle for his current time that started progressive conversations and added new subjects to the social agenda. Wilde deeply cared about
Naturally, if the speaker of the poem was completely in love with a woman and tormented by this feeling, but refused to tell her anything, it would traditionally be looked at as obsessive to a certain extent. However, in the context of the Middle Ages, the act of sacrificing one’s own happiness for something bigger was thought of as a heroic act. This is reinforced when he concludes with, “She can retain me, if that’s what she wants. Cercamon says: a man will hardly belong in court if he despairs of love” (Medieval 2, pg. 2).
When the friar says this, he is warning Romeo that what he is viewing as all good may turn out to be all bad. Romeo is also impulsive. Since Romeo is a dreamer, he allows his emotions to directly influence his decisions and that makes him impulsive. Once Romeo feels something, he usually acts upon the feeling without thinking of the consequences. This is seen when the day after Romeo and Juliet meet he wants to be married to her.
Then he uses kairos, or correct timing, in his speech. He allows Brutus to speak before him, which gives him the opportunity to rebut Brutus’s argument. Antony’s entire argument hinges on providing examples to contradicting Brutus’s initial claim that Caesar was ambitious. If we think of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech, and the repeated emphasis in that speech on one phrase. Antony does the same thing with the phrase "For Brutus is an honorable man, / So are they all, all honorable men" or "But Brutus says he was ambitious, / And Brutus is an honorable man."
Commencing his speech, Eryximachus presents a view that love is not only a human response, but also one that is found throughout nature. Next, he introduces his own opinions about nature and love: “I’ve noticed as a result of practicing medicine professionally… that Love is a great and awesome god who pervades every aspect of the lives of men” (186a-186b). The introduction of his opinion prevents Eryximachus from taking a neutral stance on love. Rather than analyze love through an impartial lens, he presents skewed views on love. To promote his belief was the goal of his
I have been convinced that Hesiod is indeed a man that was influenced by the kingdom of darkness of the spiritual realm. Everything he writes is inspired by the governor of such kingdom or his workers, and I know I might be mocked at this, but truth is truth whether it is believed or not. It is indeed easier to believe he is a mere poet that writes myths and metaphors using the word “gods” in order to explain his worldview. Nevertheless, reasoning in this manner is ignoring the spiritual structures in his works that influence the mind of our spirits to deceive humanity from the truth. His view of mankind’s past and future is basically about no hope or significance for human beings.
From both these readings one can conclude that both of these men had great intentions. In my humble opinion one can’t contrast the conclusions, as the conclusion in both these scenarios is justice, there’s no denying that. But the reader can contrast the way both MLK and Socrates used just obedience to arrive at the conclusion of justice. Socrates seems to be more of an individualistic character, as he had no one group behind him that he was fighting for. He uses his words and his honesty to achieve his justice, he takes every advantage of this one true opportunity he has before the council to voice his opinion.