Dryden subtly hints his loyalty towards the King and his government while simultaneously berating the Whigs for supporting the Protestant Duke of Monmouth and the Earl of Shaftesbury. The classical episodes help accentuate the inanity of the Restoration period lending the text satirical distinction. “Godlike” David’s promiscuity is talked about in the beginning of the text, viz. “When Nature prompted, and no law deny’d/Promiscuous use of Concubine and Bride”. Here, Dryden subtly hints at Charles II’s debauchery and satirizes it by drawing citations from the Second Book of Samuel in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible.
Medieval Drama Short Paper Christopher Marlowe, an alleged atheist and play writer, presents a conflict of morality in his play, The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus. Morality plays were too familiar in Europe, where they presented biblical subjects and a moral lesson about good conduct. Religion and magic was a topic of significant importance during Elizabethan time, but also the topic of the emerging Renaissance world. The Renaissance, meaning “awakening,” movement originated in Europe and later spread all throughout. The Medieval world put a great significant importance on God, placing him in the middle, forgetting the natural world.
The Duke’s character in the play is often understood to represent an oblique comment on the new, unknown King. Richard Levin’s complaint, first lodged over twenty years ago, that such a critical approach (what he mockingly referred to as the "King James Version" of Measure for Measure) failed to produce compelling evidence of the play 's actual connection to James. However, there are some clear connections that are difficult to dismiss. Therefore, the first political aspect worth exploring is how Shakespeare’s character parallels the King at the time. From scholarly accounts of James’ courts it can be said that he used sermons and religious hierarchy to promote political ends.
Say One Thing, Mean Another (The Use of Satire in Canterbury Tales) “Filth and old age, I’m sure you will agree are powerful wardens upon chastity”(Chaucer). Chaucer, the father of English literature wrote a tale called Canterbury Tales where he told a story about a religious journey. This tale is made up of many different stories by characters that Chaucer made up to prove a point. Chaucer doesn 't agree with a lot of things that are going on in his society so Chaucer uses satire. Which is the use of humor, or irony to expose people 's stupidity.
According to Leavis, because of the collective opinion about Othello, it essence suffers. He says that “relevant discussion of its tragic significance” (p.136) is the result of extrinsic approach i.e. “character-analysis”. Leavis himself was liberal humanist and that’s why he accused Bradley of using extrinsic approach. In spite of the fact, that Bradley also proved his points by giving examples from the text.
Traditionalist were in high favor of religion. A modernist typically presents Christianity as a myth. Many modernists believed that by breaking tradition they could find new ways of doing things. In modernism, the search for meaning is more important than the actual meaning itself. “Everything is viewed as fragmented and broken; they have the attitude of ‘let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die’” says Mrs. Tanya Boler, an American Lit professor.
The influence of Puritan society was major on Hawthorne and in The Scarlet Letter he uncovered and discarded the Puritan dogmass.As Michael J. Colacurcio notes in “ Doctrine and Difference: Essays in the Literature of New England that : “The Scarlet Letter must be seen as Hawthorne’s way of testing the limits of Puritan theology as a way of making sense out of some deep and passionate forms of human experience” (Colacurcio 1997:192) However , Hawthorne presented Puritans as hypocritical as Jim Cullen in “American Dream” says : “The Puritans have had a consistently bad reputation that’s stands out like a Scarlet Letter in collective national memory.” ( Jim Cullen 2003:11). The Scarlet Letter contains valuable aspects about morality, truth
invoking a Muse which happens to belong to the Pantheon of Paganisn which lies in opposition to that of Christianity, Milton is trying to elevate both Christianity and his own poetry in terms of comparison with heretical religions and his contemporary poets. Milton invokes the very same Muse which inspired Moses, the chosen one, to do God’s bidding on the top of Mount Sinai. So, even while he is respecting his classical forebears, he elevates his own status by using the literary tradition used by them. For Milton, the Muse is the Holy Spirit, thus the inclusion of the Holy Trinity. “Favour’d of Heav’n so highly, to fall off, From thir Creator, and transgress his will For one restraint, Lords of the World besides?” This is a direct allusion of God’s command to not eat from the Tree of knowledge and the subsequent punishment for doing so.
The historical context of Shakespeare’s play The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is widely debated, with connections being made towards a variety of religious influences. However, due to the plays continuous’ references to the Protestant religion, the play’s message can be traced back to Martin Luther; a disgruntled monk with a desire for change. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet the use of Protestant principles and allusions of Martin Luther’s 95 theses directly influences the character development of Hamlet, and reinforces the rebellious Protestantism versus the Catholic corruption paradigm in the play. The first Protestant element in The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is introduced very early in the play, which is Prince Hamlet’s education at Wittenberg, the supposed birthplace of Protestantism. This element serves as a basis to Hamlet 's progressive connections to Martin Luther, and because of this allusion’s specific nature and timing, it should not be seen as random.
Perhaps more famous for his literary work, George Orwell should also be renowned as an astute political thinker. In his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language”, Orwell criticizes the current state of the English language, claiming modern English is full of “bad habits” According to him, such habits consist in the recurrent use of dying metaphors, pretentious diction and meaningless words. Orwell also maintains that the aforesaid habits are even more present in political language, which he characterizes as using too much “euphemism, question-begging, and sheer cloudy vagueness.” Though the essay was written post World War II - and current political language has surely matured and changed since then - Orwell’s essay offers a prudent analysis that is fairly relevant in today’s political scenario as well. One of the point’s Orwell writes about is how the use of euphemism in political speeches and writings serves the purpose of (at least attempting to) cushioning) the audience regarding injurious matters. He states the reason for the use of such euphemism is because “political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible” So when discussing arguments which might sound too brutal or too crass regarding pernicious policies, politicians, not wanting to alienate the public, choose to soften their sentences, thus using euphemisms and vagueness to do so.