Criticism of the American Dream in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. In a third-world country, a common man often leads a laborious life, struggling for his bread and butter, facing the consequences of the pandemic alone, and dying an incongruous death from frustration and failure. To an American citizen, such a life is difficult to imagine. He is a citizen of the land of plenty and wealth. He is the one who can proudly reject the government-aided vaccination for Corona of his suspicion of the government and vaccination in general. While in a third-world country, like Pakistan, people face a dearth of medicines and vaccines, where Polio is still an endemic, even during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-vaccine activism in the USA accelerated, amplified, and formed an alliance with political groups and even extremists.

Arthur Miller’s "Death of a Salesman" offers a similar scenario of the land of the plenty and hence, offers a challenge to the American dream, shattering it, and showing the face of reality in the shards of the broken dream. He challenged the common belief that to be an American is to enjoy a life of excess, equality, and ecstasy. No American should die an unlamented death.

The idea of the American Dream oozes from the "Declaration of Independence" which says, 'We believe that all men are born with these inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'

This idea, this dream is based on the genuine and determining ground of belief that in America, there can be no exploitation, no partialism, and thus, all things are possible to all men, regardless of birth or wealth; if you work hard enough you will achieve anything.

However, Arthur Miller artistically describes how people have been misguided and have misunderstood the idea of the American Dream in his play Death of a Salesman. He offers moving destruction of the whole farce around the American Dream.

The tragedy of Willy Loman, says Arthur Miller, is:

“Willy gave his life, or sold it, in order to justify the waste of it…”

Willy represents a common man in America, it is a tragedy of every low man in America. Death of a Salesman is a social tragedy. A Social Tragedy is a modern genre of tragedy that depicts the conflicts between the protagonist as an individual and society as a whole. The protagonist becomes a victim of society’s ill-treatment. The salesman Willy Loman is the victim of social injustice and this social injustice causes his tragedy. But he had his own flaws too. He was the one who mistook the meaning of the American Dream and lead his life following the falsehood around the American Dream. Willy believes in the American falsehood that “Success is obtained by being well-liked”. His dream ends up in a nightmare. Like the American Dream, the idea of Capitalism has also been tarnished and mutilated in America and the play equally challenges the wrong perception of Capitalism too.

To Willy, American Dream means becoming rich overnight. For him, the success of merit is money, big houses, costly cars, immoral affairs, and other material things. Willy gives two hoots to nobility, truth, honesty, and other virtues. Willy is not only a victim of this fraud based on the American Dream, but he also traps his sons Biff and Happy in the same fraud. For Willy, instead of hard work and courage, there is salesmanship. He considers salesmanship a trick to fraud. For Willy, it is the ability to sell a commodity irrespective of its intrinsic values or uselessness. For a salesman, the goal is to earn a profit, he doesn’t care for the trust of the buyer.

Willy is the victim of this falsehood which makes him spiritually hollow. He is unable to understand the difference between good and bad. When Linda complains about Biff’s bad behavior towards girls, he scolds Linda and asks if she wants her son to be a worm like Bernard. Bernard for Willy is liked but not well-liked.

Miller offers the characters of Charley and Bernard to show that despite all the fraud and falsehood surrounding the American Dream, not everyone is fooled by that. Charley is a man of virtues and hardship, he teaches his son the same, and despite being ‘liked but not well-liked’ they attain success. Charley and Bernard attain material success too though that wasn’t their main goal because material success cannot be a goal, it is the consequence, the end result of gaining success at being a good human.

Willy, on the other hand, ceases to be a man and spiritually, he is hollow. When Charley objects to Biff stealing from a nearby construction site, Willy totally ignores it, rather encourages Biff by claiming that his sons are a couple of “fearless characters.” His downfall isn’t sudden. Willy had high hopes for Biff but stealing became a habit of Biff that caused his downfall. Charley realizes that Willy isn’t an evil man at heart, he is a victim of the falsehood around the glorious idea of the American Dream. He tries to offer reason to Willy again and again but Willy isn’t ready to listen as his dream is so dear to him that he becomes blind to the truth. Charley continues to help him and Willy recognizes that even though they dislike one another, Charley is the only friend he has. Charley fails to save Willy and his downfall reflects the total breakdown of the concept of salesmanship which has been an integral part of the capitalist setup of America.

Willy feels that being “Well-liked” is not only the key to success, but he believes that life’s all problems can be solved by looking 'well-liked'. He fails to understand that in the real world, good looks don’t matter, what matters is your worth, skills, and wealth you have. Money can let you buy anything. The dollar rules the real world and overshadows every other human feeling. Willy had the skills, he worked for his company for more than 36 years. He introduced the business to many new cities and made the firm successful. He believes he is a vital man for the company. However, he fails to understand that in a capitalist setup, a man is vital only till he can raise profit for the firm. As soon as you appear weak in your skills at making a profit, you get fired. This fact falls on Willy in a brutal manner. When he gets old, weak, and ill, he asks for a settled desk job on humanitarian grounds. But Howard, his boss rejects his plea. Rather he fires him for a minute mistake as he says,

“I cannot take blood from a stone.”

Willy realizes that forget being vital, he isn’t even a man for the firm at all. For the capitalist boss, no moral or legal binding obligates him to help Willy with the work he did in past. For him, Willy is commercially useless in present and thus, is trash to be thrown.

“Death of a Salesman” offers an alert to American society. Through this story, Miller essentially says that a man is not a machine and that society needs to respect human values as should an individual. Willy’s suicide is the death of the American Dream. Arthur explains this through Biff, the elder son of Willy who says at his father’s funeral,

“He had the wrong dream. All, all wrong.”

Charley, though realizes that the American Dream in itself isn’t wrong, the wrong is in how Willy or a common American man perceives it. Charley says that a salesman must dream and that for a salesman there is no rock bottom in life. His younger son Happy understands the situation at a deeper level. He realizes that though tragic, his father was no evil man. He knows his father always tried to do something for his boys and never wished to depend on them. He commits suicide as it will bring twenty thousand dollars of insurance which will help Biff to make a good fortune. Happy is the younger son who never got the same attention and affection from Willy that Biff easily got. Yet, apart from Linda and Charley, he is the only one who understands his father and respects him for what he was. He decides to stay in the town, settle and work hard. He rejects the farce and false around the American Dream while embracing it in a true sense as he says,

“Willy Loman did not die in vain. He had a good dream. It’s only dream you can have-to come out number-one man.”

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American Literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

Beyond the Horizon by Eugene O’Neill | Summary and Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Eugene O’Neill was a popular American playwright who won the Nobel prize for literature in 1936. Apart from that, he won three Pulitzer prizes for his dramas Beyond the Horizon (1920), Anna Christie (1922), and Strange Interlude in 1928. Heis autobiographical drama Lond Day’s Journey into Night was published posthumously in 1956 and it won the Pulitzer prize in 1957. Thus, Eugene O’Neill is the only such author who won four Pulitzer prizes and a Nobel prize for literature. Eugene was born on October 16, 1888, and he died on November 27, 1953, at the age of 65. He attended Princeton University for his graduation but was thrown out after the first year for throwing a beer bottle into the window of a professor, allegedly Woodrow Wilson, who later became the President of the United States.

O’Neill enjoyed marine life and he spent many years at the sea during which he suffered alcoholism, depression, and dereliction, yet, his love for the sea didn’t cease. Many of his plays include sea life as a theme. In 1912, he suffered a contagious attack of Tuberculosis and was sent to a sanatorium when he decided to invest his time in writing. He wrote some of his plays during his time in the sanatorium. In 1916, he went to Provincetown town for his summer vacation where he met Susan Keating Glaspell. Eugene read one of his plays titled Bound East for Cardiff for Susan Glaspell and she liked his writing style. Later on, many of Eugene O’Niel’s early plays were performed by the Provincetown town players.

His first published play was Beyond the Horizon which was first performed on Broadway in 1920. The play got a huge success and was declared the winner of the Pulitzer prize for the drama of 1922. Eugene O’Neill was deeply influenced by Swedish playwright, novelist, and poet Johan August Strindberg and he mentioned this influence during his Nobel prize acceptance speech. His other important works include Emperor Jones (1920), The Hairy Ape (1922), Desire Under the Alms (1924), and The Iceman Cometh (1939). While most of his plays and dramas depict the themes involving characters on the fringes of society struggling to maintain their dignity and aspirations and thus involve tragic pessimism, he wrote some comedies too and one such was Ah Wilderness which was first performed in 1933. It differs from a typical O'Neill play in its happy ending for the central character, and depiction of a happy family in turn of century America.

Beyond the Horizon Plot Summary and Analysis

Beyond the Horizon was Eugene’s first published play that he copyrighted in 1918. It was first performed in 1920 on Broadway and the drama won Eugene’s first Pulitzer prize in 1922. Before this, many of Eugene’s One Act plays have been performed but Beyond The Horizon was his first full-length play. The main theme of the play is the necessity of the dream or vision for the sustainability and success of a man.

In this play, Euegene depicts the progressive disillusion of Mayo’s family with clear realistic details. The play begins at a farm in Spring and then shifts to Summer three years in the future. Again the play moves to late Fall, five years later. While the play focuses on the Mayo family, the main characters are the two young brothers Robert Mayo and Andrew Mayo. Both are different in nature and temperament. Robert Mayo is a sea-lover who dreams of exploring and journeying ‘Beyond The Horizon.’ Andrew Mayo is a homely guy who is in love with a girl in the neighborhood. Andrew wishes to marry the girl whose name is Ruth and settle there with his parents. However, when Andrew proposes to Ruth, she rejects him and shows interest in Robert instead. Andrew is heartbroken but he is happy for his brother. The two brothers discuss the matter and decide to exchange their dreams. Robert, who wished to explore far places, suddenly throws himself into the new dream of marital happiness with Ruth. Andrew, on the other hand, could not bear the burden of seeing the girl he loved with anyone else. So he decides to take the sea route in place of Robert.

As the two brothers exchange their dream, Robert is expected to settle with Ruth and remain at their home with his parents, while Andrew tries to seek a new life and purpose Beyond The Horizon.

Five years later, they realize that both brothers are failures. The two brothers are forced to suffer the consequences of betraying their respective dreams. Robert, who gave up his dream of being a sea explorer finds himself depressed and unsatisfied at home. He turns alcoholic and the romance between him and Ruth evaporates. He dies on the farm in disillusionment. Andrew, who took the sea route, finds it difficult to cope with the sea challenges and decides to give up the life of a seaman. He tries to settle with a South American business venture but that too fails and he suffers penury. Ruth, who initially was happy having married the man she desired, realizes that she made a huge mistake and committed a wrong choice. Her romantic dreams are soon shattered as she faces the stark realities of farm life.

As Robert continues his quest for beauty and poetry in life, he realizes that he cannot sail beyond the horizon on any ship because beyond the horizon can only be achieved through death. As he realizes that the happiness that lies beyond the horizon is unattainable for living people, he prefers death.

Robert’s death explains the need for the dream for the sustainability and success of a person. His struggles and suffering at the farm make him realize the purpose of his life, which he couldn’t achieve as he gave up his dream. Like in other stories of Euegene O’Neill, happiness through love is an illusion in this drama while suffering not only offers salvation but results in peace.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of American literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

George Etherege | The Man of Mode Or Sir Fopling Flutter and Other Works

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Theaters were banned during the Interregnum under the reign of Oliver Cromwell as the Protector. Charles II returned as the King in 1660 and one of his first moves after becoming the king was to reopen the theaters and grant a letter patent to the theater owners and managers to handle the theatres again. During the same time, George Etherege began his career as a playwright. His first play to be performed was The Comical Revenge, or Love in the Tub. The Comical Revenge was performed at the Duke’s Theatre in 1664. Lord Buckhurst was among the audience and he was impressed by Etherege’s comic work. The Comical Revenge was written in partly rhymed heroic verse like a tragedy but it was a comedy with certain new and fresh scenes and perspectives. Lord Buckhurst, who later became the Earl of Dorset, became a friend of George Etherege. While Etherege enjoyed substantial success with his very first drama, he was not sure of his skills as a dramatist and he took four more years to present his second drama, She Would If She Could, in 1668. Meanwhile, he gained a reputation as a poet and became a poetic Beau. He became friends with Lord Rochester and Charles Sidley. Soon he gained further fame and became closer to the king and was announced as one of the king’s wits. George Etherege was very friendly and genteel in behavior and often his colleagues and collaborators used to call him ‘genteel George’ and ‘easy Etherege.’ "She Would If She Could" was again a comedy full of action, wit, and spirit. However, it was considered frivolous, immoral, and vulgar by the then-English public. The play takes the audience into a dreamy fantasy world where the only serious work of life is to flirt. While the comedy made many laugh, some people were agitated. Etherege himself was leading an unprincipled and frivolous lifestyle along with the Earl of Rochester. It was a comedy with no incongruous romantic verse and hence attained unity of tone in the play. Etherege wasn’t very serious about his career as a playwright and he took eight more years to present his third play which was titled The Man of Mode in the year 1676. The subtitle of the play was Sir Fopling Flutter.

The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter became an instant hit and proved to be the best comedy of George Etherege. It is still considered the best comedy of the restoration period before the works of William Congreve began to appear. One of the major reasons for the success of this play was the fact that many of the characters of the play were based on real-life people of that time. The subtitle of the play, Sir Fopling Flutter is one of the main characters of the play and this character was based on Beau Hewit, the reigning exquisite. The hero of the drama is Dorimant and this character was based on the earl of Rochester. Another character in the play is Medley who was based on George Etherege himself. That is, Etherege caricatured himself too along with some of his friends in this play. There is a minor character of a drunken shoemaker in the drama which was also based on a real-life shoemaker in London at that time. John Wilmot, the earl of Rochester, and George Etherege were very close friends. Both lived their life in excesses as libertines. Etherege and Wilmot both had a daughter by the unmarried actress Elizabeth Barry. The play got successful and famous because of its wit and charm.

Summary of The Man of Mode or Sir Fopling Flutter

The drama is based on the theme of the restoration of order in love and marriage. The two main characters are Dorimant and Harriet around whom the story revolves. They are deeply in love. However, before Dorimant meets Harriet and falls in love with her, he is already flirting with a lady Mrs. Loveit. Dorimant is trying to get rid of Mrs. Loveit but he is not clear about his intentions and keeps fooling her. Mrs. Loveit is deeply in love with Dorimant but her unrequited love only brings her scorn and ridicule. Having long since lost interest in her, Dorimant continues to lead her on, giving her hope but leaving her in despair. On the other hand, Harriet’s mother Mrs. Woodwille also doesn’t like Dorimant as he has got bad fame. She is totally against Harriet meeting Dorimant ever and opposes her. Mrs. Woodville arranges Harriet’s marriage to Bellaire. Bellaire on the other hand doesn’t want to marry Harriet as he is in love with Emilia. However, his father threatens him of disinheriting him from his fortunes if he doesn’t marry Harriet. Bellaire and Harriet meet and they pretend to like each other while both of them confess to each other that they wish to marry someone else.

Bellaire comes to know that his father is in love with Emilia and wishes to marry her. His father doesn’t know that Bellaire and Emilia are in love. As Bellaire's father pressurizes Emilia, Bellaire and Emilia elope and secretly marry against their parent’s wishes. Harriet and Dorimant help them through their battle of wits and in the end, everybody accepts the marriage of Bellaire and Emilia. The wits and tricks of Harriet and Dorimant remind the audience of Shakespeare’s Beatrice and Benedict in Much Ado About Nothing, from 1598.

Mrs. Loveit offers an element of tragedy to the play as she is defenseless against the cruel acts and words of Dorimant. In the end, she loses any hope of being with Dorimant as he succeeds in gaining Harriet’s love. Mrs. Loveit says, "There's nothing but falsehood and impertinence in this world. All men are villains or fools," as she leaves the stage. Everyone offers good wishes to the new couple of Bellaire and Emilia as Bellaire’s father accepts their marriage. Dorimant proposes to Harriet who happily accepts him while her mother is now in no mood of resisting their love. The drama ends as all the characters, except Mrs. Loveit are happy in life and in love. Sir Fopling Flutter is also the main character whom Dorimant uses to fool Mrs. Loveit by establishing that she is flirting with Sir Fopling Flutter so that he may accuse her of disloyalty and get rid of her. Etherege presented Sir Fopling Flutter as a comedy character with eccentric mannerisms. It was one of the first dramas depicting comedy of manner. The Man of Mode is the drama in which George Etherege pioneered comedy of intrigue and comedy of manner. William Congreve further mastered this art in his dramas.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

Thomas Rymer | Reflections on Aristotle’s Treatise on Poesie and Other Important Works

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Thomas Rymer was an English poet, critic, and Historian of the Restoration age. He was a new-classicist, that is, he was a strong critic of contemporary and current dramas and poetry while he supported and worked for the revival of the many styles and spirit of classic antiquity inspired directly by the classical period. Thomas Rymer was strongly criticized by Thomas Babington Macauley in the 19^th century. Macauley ridiculed Rymer and termed him the ‘worst critic that ever lived.’ However, Rymer had his influence during the 18^th century, the age of Enlightenment.

Thomas Rymer began as a translator and the first major work that he translated was Rene Rapin’s Aristotle’s Treatise on Poesie. This translation was first printed in 1674. Rene Rapin was a French writer who also promoted neo-classicism. He wrote an essay on Aristotle’s Poesie and while writing the essay, Rapin added his own ideas too while supporting Aristotle. Rymer, being a neo-classicist himself, found Rene Rapin’s essay worthy and inspiring and translated it. Rymer too, not only translated Rapin’s original essay, he added a few ideas of his own. Rymer added a preface in defence of the classic rules for unity in drama. Aristotle never used that term, nor did Rene Rapin or other scholars who studied and analyzed Aristotle’s original work. Thomas Rymer coined the term Poetic Justice and used it in his translation. Thomas Rymer not only translated Rymer’s essay on Aristotle’s Poesie, but he also imbibed it and tried to emulate it in his own dramas and criticism of other dramatists.

In his translation, Rymer says that according to Aristotle, characters should behave “either as idolized types or as an average representation of their class.” What it means is that if a dramatist is presenting a villainous character in a play, or novel, then the character must represent and exhibit the characteristics of an idolized villain. If the character is that of a hero, then the character must have all the traits of an idolized hero. Or, the character should represent the average character of his class. That is, if the dramatist or writer is presenting a middle-class man, then the representation should be as close to reality as it can be, that is, the character should have all the major traits of a middle-class man. Such characterization avoids confusion, juxtaposition, and contradictions in the minds of the audience or readers.

In 1678, Rymer again expressed his ideas on drama in the form of a printed letter he wrote to Fleetwood Shepheard which was titled The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider'd. Fleetwood Shepheard was a close friend of Mathew Prior. One of the most talked about contributions of Rymer to the theory and ideas of Aristotle’s Poesie is the term, Poetic Justice. The idea of poetical justice is that in a drama, novel, poem, or story, ultimately virtue is rewarded and misdeeds or vices are punished. In his letter, The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider’d Rymer coined the term poetical justice while talking about the drama Rollo Duke of Normandy by John Fletcher, Philip Massinger, Ben Jonson, and George Chapman. In this letter, he heavily criticized the plays by Jacobean playwrights Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. Rymer’s complaint against Fletcher and Beaumont was that they didn’t adhere to the principles of classical tragedy. He mentions how these playwrights reduced the importance of poetic justice in their dramas.

In 1680, Ovid’s Epistles was translated by various artists. The preface of this translation was written by John Dryden and Thomas Rymer contributed Penelope to Ulysses. In 1692, Rymer translated the sixth elegy of the third book of Ovid's Tristia for Dryden's Poetical Miscellanies.

In 1693, Thomas Rymer again published his views on dramas in his letter titled A Short View of Tragedy. In this letter, Rymer scathingly criticized William Shakespeare, and Ben Jonson, the two of the most celebrated dramatists of the Jacobean age. In this letter, Rymer suggests that all modern dramas (Restoration period) should be rejected and we should return to the Greek tragedy of Aeschylus. In this work, he strongly criticized Shakespeare’s famous tragedy titled Othello. Rymer said that it is “a bloody farce without salt or saviour.” According to him, Shakespeare hugely deviated from the Greek principles of tragedy in Othello.

In the same year, another renowned critic of the Restoration period John Dennis wrote an epigram on Thomas Rymer strongly rebutting his criticism of dramas of the Restoration period including those of Ben Jonson and Shakespeare. The title of this epigram was The Impartial Critik.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the history of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

The Crucible by Arthur Miller | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. During the 1950s American people suffered the issue of McCarthyism which is defined as the practice of making false or unfounded accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to anarchism, communism, and socialism, and especially when done in a public and attention-grabbing manner. In 1953, Arthur Miller wrote a drama titled The Crucible which was based on Salem Witch Trials that happened in Massachusetts Bay Colony during 1692-93. The Crucible was partially fictionalized as Arthur Miller presented it as an allegory for McCarthyism and compared the two ills as equally devastating.

The initial British settlers in America were Puritans who were strictly religious and superstitious. They considered material and physical wants, especially sexual desires, as the Devil's work and a threat to society. The Puritans had no tolerance for inappropriate or unacceptable behavior and punished individuals publicly and severely if they transgressed. The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused. Thirty people were found guilty, 19 of whom were executed by hanging (14 women and five men). One other man, Giles Corey, was pressed to death after refusing to enter a plea, and at least five people died in jail. Miller dramatized that unfortunate incident and presented it to explain the atrocious effects of McCarthyism.

Characters of The Crucible:

John Proctor is an honest hardworking farmer of Salem who is married to Elizabeth Proctor. Elizabeth is a voice of reason and adheres to justice and moral principles. She is a character of unimpeachable honesty but she is too strict and cold and this causes issues in her married life with John. Abigail Williams is a seventeen-year-old niece of Reverend Samuel Parris who used to work as a housemaid at Proctor’s home. She seduces John and when Elizabeth comes to know about their affair, she fires Abigail. Abigail is a liar, malicious, vengeful girl who charges Elizabeth of witchcraft to take her place as John’s wife. Reverend Parris is a selfish weak, paranoid, greedy, and suspicious demagogue. Betty Parris is a teenage girl of Reverend Parris who mysteriously falls ill. Parris confers that it is a mysterious illness to hide the fact that his daughter and niece were actually performing witchcraft in the woods at late night. He calls Reverend John Hale from Beverly to investigate the supernatural cause of his daughter’s illness. Rebecca Nurse is an honest, noble, and reputed citizen of Salem who is charged with witchcraft because she was the midwife of Mrs. Putnam who gave birth to seven stillborn babies. Francis Nurse is her husband. Thomas Putnam is the wealthiest landowner of Salem. He is a greedy landlord who pushes his own daughter to charge witchcraft against some people to grab their land. Deputy Governor Danforth is in charge of the Salem witchcraft trials. He is a practical man who thinks less of justice and more of the reputation of his court. Giles Corey is an irascible old man of Salem. Tituba is Reverend Parris’ slave girl from Barbados. Marry Warren is another girl who accompanies Abigail in woods. Ruth Putnam is Putnam’s daughter who accompanied Betty and got ill.

Summary of The Crucible

The Crucible is a four-act play. The play begins in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 as Reverend Parris examines his daughter Betty Parris who is unconscious as she is ill. Last night, Reverend Parris caught her dancing with Abigail, his niece, Tituba, his slave girl, and some other girls in the woods. At the same time, Mr. Putnam and his wife visit him and inform him that their daughter Ruth is also ill. They worry about this mysterious illness by some unnatural cause. Ruth was with Abigail as Mrs. Putnam sent her to talk to Tituba who knows how to talk to the dead. Mrs. Putnam wished to know who killed her seven children who were born dead. As they leave, Reverend Parris tells Abigail that he cannot admit that his daughter and niece were found pursuing witchcraft like heathens in the woods. Abigail says that she will take the charge of dancing and accept punishment but won’t admit to witchcraft. Reverend Parris agrees.

Abigail meets with other girls and threatens them to not to disclose that they were casting spells in the woods. She threatens girls with violence if they reveal that she drank blood and cast a spell to kill Elizabeth Proctor. One of the girls is Marry Waren who is a servant at Proctor’s home. John Proctor comes to find her and sends her home. Abigail talks to him privately and proposes to him but John sternly refuses her. It is revealed that Abigail used to be the housemaid before Marry and she seduced John. When Elizabeth found it, she fired Abigail. John accepted his fault and felt guilty. Abigail becomes angry with Proctor because he refuses to acknowledge any feelings for her.

As Betty wakes up, she hears people singing psalms from outside. As she is feeling guilty about last night’s activities, she cries and shrieks. Rebecca Nurse visits her and calms her down. Rebecca is a sane intelligent person. As she hears Reverend Parris of talking about some unnatural cause for Betty’s illness, she warns him that blaming witchcraft for her illness will cause havoc to society. Reverend Parris decides to call Reverend Hale from Beverly. Mr. Putnam asks Rebecca to visit Ruth who is also ill. Mrs. Putnam is jealous of Rebecca as all her children are healthy while Mrs. Putnam’s seven children died during birth. Putnam, Proctor, and Giles Corey argue over their salaries with Parris. Parris says that he fears some people are trying to drive him out of the town. He denies any mismanagement in their salaries. Proctor and Putnam then start arguing over property rights over a piece of land.

Reverend Hale arrives and investigates Betty. He comes to know that Betty along with Abigail, Tituba, Ruth, and some other girls were dancing in the woods at late night and Tituba conjured spirits. He questions Tituba who admits to seeing the Devil. Abigail also admits to witchcraft but says that she now repents her fault. As Betty wakes up, she tells the names of all the other girls who were with them. Reverend Hale handles the situation with calmness as he doesn’t believe that Betty or Ruth’s cause of illness is supernatural. Meanwhile, when Giles Corey meets Reverend Hale, he asks about the supernatural cause of the girls’ illness. Hale says that he is still investigating. Giles jokingly says that isn’t it because his wife reads some strange books? Reverend Hale asks if his wife has sold her soul to the Devil, to which Giles laughs away.

Eight days later, Marry Warren returns to the Proctor’s home as she was serving in the court. She gives a puppet to Elizabeth that she sewed for her as a gift. She tells John that some girls were accusing Elizabeth of witchcraft but she protected her and the court dismissed the charge.

Reverend Hale visits Proctor’s house and asks him about his poor attendance in the Church. Proctor says that Reverend Parris hardly talks about God. Hale asks him about the Ten Commandments. Proctor spells nine commandments successfully but he fails to speak the commandment forbidding adultery as he feels guilty of his own act with Abigail. At the same time, Marshal Herrick arrives to search Proctor’s house. He informs that Abigail is feeling a needle stab whenever she tries to eat something and she has accused Elizabeth of trying to kill her through witchcraft. As he searches the house, he finds the puppet that Marry gave to Elizabeth. A needle is found stored in that puppet. Herrick arrests Elizabeth and takes her away. Hale questions Marry Warren and she says that Abigail saw her sewing the puppet and storing the needle in it and she framed lies on that.

In the court, Ruth claims witchcraft charges on Rebecca Nurse, and Giles Corey’s wife Martha is also accused of the same. The court convicts Martha Corey and Rebecca Nurse as Putnam pressurize Deputy Governor Danforth. Giles Corey tries to defend his wife and tells the court he has proof that Putnam is accusing his neighbors of witchcraft in order to gain their land. Judge Danforth asks Giles the name of the witnesses from whom he got that information. Giles fears that like him and his wife, those people will also be convicted of false charges and thus he refuses to name them. Judge Danforth accuses him of contempt of Court and punishes him to be pressed with a heavy stone till his death.

Danforth informs John Proctor that Elizabeth is pregnant. John seeks Marry’s help to rescue his pregnant wife. Marry Waren visits the court and says that she lied and pretended to see the spirits and falsely accused others of witchcraft. She reveals that Abigail indulged in witchcraft, drank blood, and cast a spell to kill Elizabeth. Abigail and the other girls deny the charges by Marry and they accuse her of sending her spirit to attack them. Proctor then finds no other way but to accept his adultery in court. He denounces Abigail and calls her a greedy lying whore. He tells the court about his affair with Abigail and how Elizabeth fired her to save her married life. He accuses Abigail of lying to get Elizabeth executed to remove the only thorn in her path to become John’s wife. Judge Danforth then calls Elizabeth from the jail and questions her about affair of John with Abigail. Elizabeth doesn’t know that Proctor has already accepted the adultery charges and she doesn’t want him to face any difficulties. Thus, she denies any knowledge of such an affair and claims that her husband is completely honest. John Proctor condemns her of lying to save him as he realizes that now there is no hope for him to save Elizabeth. Abigail sees the weakness and starts attacking Marry Warren, accusing her that she is sending her spirits to kill Abigail. Marry Warren gets weak as she realizes that Elizabeth cannot be protected. She recants her confession of lying about witchcraft and claims that John is the Devil’s man.

Proctor is jailed and announced to be punished to death. Rebecca and Elizabeth also face the death penalty. Reverend Hale visits the jail to convince the prisoners to accept the charges and confess to avoid death but all of them refuse to confess. The day before he is scheduled to be hanged, Proctor decides to write a confession letter and save himself but he destroys the letter before posting it. He is hanged till death. Elizabeth’s execution has been delayed as she is pregnant.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the History of American literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

A Satyre Against Reason and Mankind by John Wilmot

John Wilmot was a courtier of King Charles II during the Restoration period. He was a witty entertainer and learned poet who charmed the monarch. It was the period when the whole of England was reacting against Puritan austerity and spiritualism. John Wilmot emerged on the lines of Cavalier poets, supporting the monarch and satirizing the clergy. He indulged himself in excesses, being a womanizer, alcoholic, and addicted to immoral behavior, he became famous as a rake and died at the young age of 33. He was a well-learned poet who wrote some good works. His contemporary poet Andrew Marvell described him as the ‘best English satirist.’ In 1674, he wrote a poem titled A Satyre Against Reason and Mankind which became his most popular and successful work. In this poem, he offers support for his rakish behavior while satirizing the logical lifestyle in particular and the whole of mankind in particular. He expresses himself as a natural being, an animal dependent on his instincts, and suggests that the five senses a human possesses are superior to the sixth sense that man devises as reason or logic. While trying to satirize reason, the poet uses his own reasoning and suggests that his reason is natural and thus, is better than the false reason humans devise to declare what is good or bad. Wilmont says that ability to use reason or logic makes men compare themselves to God, thus, relying upon logic is actually blasphemous. He also stresses that as mankind gives up their natural instincts in favor of reason, they become baser and tend to exploit each other for no understandable reason. When animals prey on each other it is justifiable because it is out of necessity for food, but there is no way to vindicate men for attacking one another. A Satyre Against Reason and Mankind is not a monologue as Wilmont introduces an adversary to the poet who is a clergyman and like the Anglican Christians of that period, believes that moral certainty could be reached with the aid of reason.

It is a lengthy poem with 22 lines arranged in stanzas of varying lengths. The general format is rhyming couplets while the lines depart from rhyming couplets at some points. The poem strongly appears to support the ideas of Hobbes and Montaigne and other materialistic and libertine philosophers like Lucretius and Epicurus.

Summary of A Satyre Against Reason and Mankind

The poem begins as

Were I—who to my cost already am

One of those strange, prodigious creatures, man—

A spirit free to choose for my own share

What sort of flesh and blood I pleased to wear,

I'd be a dog, a monkey, or a bear,

Or anything but that vain animal,

Who is so proud of being rational.

This sets the poet’s position who believes that animals live a superior life to humans and suggests that mankind is the worst, and the reason for this is the too much pride in humans for being rational. Man believes that his rational faculty is superior to the natural instincts that he can understand through his five senses and depends on his power of logic to guide his actions. He ignores "light of nature, sense, behind" and instead "Pathless and dangerous wand'ring ways" takes. He stumbles from one thought to the next and finally falls "Into Doubt's boundless sea where, like to drown, / Books bear him up awhile," keeping man afloat through "bladders of Philosophy."

However, the poet claims that actions based on instincts are swifter and better while when man indulges himself in reasoning, he losses precious time as he is mortal. The poet says that man tries to evade the fact that he has to die and uses reason as a tool against his mortal being, "In hopes still to o'ertake the escaping light." However, death is inevitable and it occurs more grotesquely, “Then old age and experience, hand in hand, Lead him to death, make him to understand, After a search so painful, and so long, That all his life he has been in the wrong.”

In this third stanza, the poet chides himself too. John Wilmont was a wit, a jester, and a public performer. He says that as the ability to reason filled men with pride, it "drew him in, as cheats their bubbles catch,” which makes him curious to find knowledge and that wisdom ruins his happiness. His ability to think makes him witty and that ensues a "frivolous pretense / Of pleasing others, at his own expense," as wits are like whores. Being a wit himself, the poet expected a similar fate as a whore. The crowd enjoys a wit’s performance and claps for him, but that isn’t the affection for the wit. It's like men enjoy whores in bed but won’t commit to them. While a wit provides momentary pleasure, once that pleasure has subsided, what remains is hatred. Thus, the poet criticizes reason as a false sense created to overrule the less delicate five senses; it is a sense created out of–and to serve–pride. He compares a wise man and a wit as examples of futility and wasted life. He explains that a wit or a performer is clapped by a crowd, "'Tis not that they're beloved, but fortunate, / And therefore what they fear, at heart they hate." He emphasizes fear at many other points in the poem and makes a point that while it is believed that reason can make you free of reason, the reality is just different, your ability to reason promotes fear.

In the fifth stanza, the poet introduces his adversary, a clergyman who opposes his idea and tries to defend reason, making it a debate. " 'What rage torments in your degenerate mind, / To make you rail at reason, and mankind.'" The clergyman claims that reason dignifies man and makes him better than beasts. He asks the poet to remember that man was made in God’s image, was given an eternal soul, and “this fair frame in shining reason dressed /To dignify his nature above beast.” He says that God gifted man with rational faculty to "take a flight beyond material sense" and "Dive into mysteries, then soaring pierce / The flaming limits of the universe." The poet then argues that he is willing to relent if his adversary can name a single person worthy of being called “reasonable.” He then offers many examples of such people who according to the poet, represents false reason and says "This supernatural gift that makes a mite / Think he's an image of the infinite."

The poet then claims that such a belief that reason is the supreme gift is an artificial argument to substantiate a man’s pride that tempts him to feel like God. "A whimsical philosopher / Before the spacious world his tub prefer," the poet attacks the popular idea of Diogenes that one practices virtue by resisting all pleasure. The poet says that for this false notion, many retire from life simply to think, but that thought should be "given for action's government," and to cease action results in impertinence. Thus "Our sphere of action is life's happiness, / And he that thinks beyond thinks like an ass."

In the next stanza, the poet suggests that his own reason for considering his natural five senses superior to reason is right and vows to obey it, as it is distinguished from false reasoning by sense, giving "us rules of good and ill" and boundaries for "desires, with a reforming will / To keep 'em more in vigour, not to kill."

In the next stanza, the speaker again attacks those who consider themselves reasonable and wise. He says that wise men attain reason "By surest means." Here, the poet attacks a contemporary adversary politician Sir Thomas Meres, who was a prominent Whig Party member. The poet compares him to a dog and suggests that a hound may be more reasonable than him who considers himself wise. The poet again describes the superiority of beasts over mankind and says that a beast kills only for practical reasons, while, a man lacks any reason for the various atrocities he commits. Man betrays his fellow man through fear.

Not through necessity, but wantonness.

For hunger or for love they [beasts] bite, or tear,

Whilest wretched man is still in arms for fear.

For fear he arms, and is of arms afraid:

From fear, to fear, successively betrayed.

Base fear, the source whence his best passions came.

His boasted honour, and his dear-bought fame

At the end of the poem, the poet offers a chance for himself to be proven wrong, but only if a just man can be found. This idea of a “just man” doesn’t suggest that the poet believes that mankind can improve, but rather it is him supporting his own argument because he knows that this man does not exist, nor can ever exist. The ending lines are "If such there are, yet grant me this at least, / Man differs more from man than man from beast." The poet suggests that a just man cannot exist, and if it ever appears, then it will be observed that he, the just man differs from the current mankind more than he differs from the beast. Again, the poet claims that a “just man” will be more like an animal rather than mankind having pride in their reason.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the History of English Literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.

William Dampier | A New Voyage Round the World

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. William Dampier was an English explorer, navigator, and naturalist. Like his predecessors Sir Walter Raleigh and Samuel Purchas, he was a pirate supported by the British crown and Royal Navy. He became famous as the first person ever to circumnavigate the world three times. In 1697, he wrote and published A New Voyage Round the World which was his autobiography in which he described his journeys around the world. He described his exploration of Australia in this book and impressed the Admiralty. After the success of A New Voyage Round the World, he gained the command of a British Royal Navy ship and made further voyages to Australia while making some important discoveries in Western Australia. He was a naturalist who liked to explore the flora and fauna of the new lands. He was amongst the first Britishers to use the terms like barbecue, avocado, and chopsticks. He names many plants that were not known to English people before.

In 1704, an English naval person Alexander Selkirk became a castaway after being marooned by his captain, initially at his request, on an uninhabited island in the South Pacific Ocean. He was under the command of William Dampier. He was rescued by William Dampier in 1709 after he had spent 5 years on that uninhabited island alone. By the time he was rescued, Selkirk had become adept at hunting and making use of the resources that he found on the island. He was the crew member of William Dampier and later became the inspiration for Daniel Dafoe’s fictional character Robinson Crusoe in his novel The Life and Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe which was published in 1719. Dafoe was inspired by A New Voyage Round the World written by William Dampier. Dampier also inspired Jonathan Swift who wrote Gulliver’s Travels in 1726. Swift mentioned Dampier in his book as a mariner comparable to Lemuel Gulliver. Swift parodied Dampier’s ‘A New Voyage Round the World’ at many places in his satirical novel.

William Dampier was a keen observer and he used to note down the new species of plants and animals that he observed on the new lands he explored. Charles Darwin also made use of his book A New Voyage Round the World and quoted Dampier's observations on the behavior of turtle doves in the Galapagos Islands as "Dampier also, in the same year (1684), says that a man in a morning's walk might kill six or seven dozen of these doves."

Along with A New Voyage, Dampier wrote some other books in which he continued describing his new voyages.

So this is it for today. We will continue to discuss the History of English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards.