I Died for Beauty but Was Scarce by Emily Dickinson | Structure, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. “I Died for Beauty but Was Scarce” is an allegorical macabre poem written by Emily Dickinson that was published posthumously in 1890. The poem offers a discussion between two idealist persons, one died for beauty, and the other died for death. The speaker who died for beauty develops friendship and a rapport with the martyr who died for truth. However, soon their discussion ends as their voices and identities dissolve into oblivion. The poem offers a contrast of idealism against the stark reality of death, emphasizing that death is far more permanent than the ideals people die for.

The poem can also be interpreted as a discourse between truth and beauty that are laid beside one another in the graveyard of mind.

Structure of I Died for Beauty but was scarce:

The poem consists of 12 lines composed in three quatrains or stanzas. The poem follows a formal rhyming scheme of ABCB. Each of the four lines in all the quatrains follows a uniformly structured metrical scheme. Iambic tetrameter and iambic trimeter dominate the poem. The tetrameter lines (the first and third in each stanza) have eight syllables and four feet, and the trimeter lines (the second and fourth) have six syllables and three feet. This structure offers a stress pattern of 4-3-4-3.

Dickinson used strong imagery in this poem. “Moss had reached our lips” and “covered up – our names” offer an imagery of the decaying effect of death. The two dead people buried in the same tomb are metaphors or personifications for the ideals of truth and beauty. Dickinson also used symbolism. While the ideals of truth and beauty symbolize perfection, death symbolizes failure. Dickinson used enjambment in lines 1,2, and 3 but used dashes and question marks in the other lines of the poem.

Summary of I Dies for Beauty but was scarce:

Stanza 1 Lines 1-4

“I died for Beauty – but was scarce
Adjusted in the Tomb
When One who died for Truth was lain
In an adjoining Room –“

The poem begins with a paradoxical tone as a dead person is speaking. It appears as if the poem is about the afterlife. However, the dead person is beauty personified. Beauty is being adjusted in the tomb carefully and lovingly. However, once she is inside, she feels lonely and scarce. She noticed that she wasn’t alone, there was someone else. A man who died for Truth. He may be a martyr or a soldier who died in the war. And the speaker could be a lover or a beautiful woman. Now, after their death, they both are put in the same tomb.

Stanza 2 Lines 5-8

“He questioned softly "Why I failed"?
"For Beauty", I replied -
"And I - for Truth - Themself are One -
We Brethren, are", He said -”

In the second stanza, the poetess opens up her metaphors. is a discourse between the one who died for beauty and the one who died for truth. Sensing the presence of beauty beside his tomb, truth enquires about her cause of death. He addresses her slowly and genuinely, understanding that he is touching on a sore topic. He speaks softly to Her. Then “beauty” gives her reply, listening to which “truth” connects himself to the cause. He calls them “brethren” as both of them had given up their lives for the fundamentals they believed in.

Dickinson used the term ‘failed’ for ‘died’. If a person fails the suggestion is that they somehow didn't quite make the grade in life, or died too young, or in suspicious circumstances. The poem appears thoroughly romantic and gothic but doesn’t appear macabre.

Stanza 3 Lines 9-12

“And so, as Kinsmen, met a Night -
We talked between the Rooms -
Until the Moss had reached our lips -
And covered up - Our names -”

In the third stanza, the poetess continues to describe the delicate relationship between the two ideals, Truth and Beauty. They have met like kinsmen at night and talked between their rooms. Their deaths for noble causes make them spiritually akin, which enables their communication. Like a found relationship where people do not run out of things to speak, the two keep communicating. Ironically, the conversation here happens between two corpses. Both have paid the ultimate price - how heroic, how perfect - and are now entering a new phase of their lives: death.

But, this doesn’t go long for they are covered by moss. The decay ends their ability to speak. They are once again silenced by the natural cycle of life and death. The image of the moss covering the bodies’ mouths erases not only their names but their memories from the time.

Dickinson was an avid reader and she read Shakespeare and John Keats. Some scholars suggest that this particular poem ‘I Died for Beauty but Was Scarce’ is a direct response to the penultimate stanza from Shakespeare's The Phoenix and the Turtle:

“Truth may seem but cannot be;
Beauty brag but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.”

Some other scholars suggest that Emily’s poem could be inspired by the last two lines of Keats's Ode to a Grecian Urn:

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,- that is all

Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

In any case, Dickinson’s poem agrees with both Shakespeare and Keats and depicts the truth and beauty one in same, as a company in the afterlife.

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

That Long Silence by Shashi Deshpande | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. That Long Silence is a novel by Shashi Deshpande that was first published in 1989. That Long Silence is a prime example of literary fiction. As opposed to genre fiction, literary fiction refers to the realistic fiction of human characters, or more broadly, "all serious prose fiction outside the market genres", the genres being, for example, science fiction, fantasy, thrillers, or Westerns. Literary fiction often involves a concern with social commentary, political criticism, or reflection on human conditions. This novel is focused on the character Jaya, her relationships, and her thoughts, and thus not much on the plot. Nothing much happens in the course of the novel but the author reflects upon the current situation of Indian women facing societal suppression and their will to change their situation.

Shashi Deshpande is known for her stories that resonate with the struggles of modern Indian women. While she questions and attacks the patriarchal norms of society, unlike a radical feminist, she doesn’t attack men for these social anomalies. That Long Silence is not a story of a single woman, but it’s a story of many women whose dreams, emotions, and feelings are getting crushed by the norms of our society. In addition, the other major theme of the novel is the importance of communication, and the expression of feelings and love between a couple sans which, their relationship and family go to tatters.

Characters of That Long Silence:

Jaya is the protagonist of the novel, a married woman, mother of two kids, a son, and a daughter Rita. She belongs to a middle-class Indian joint family. As a child, she was a clever, curious, and bright student with a desire to become a writer. However, her grandmother encourages her to act more conventionally so she can get a husband when she grows up, explaining that civilized and cultured girls are skilled at cooking, cleaning, and household labor. In addition, she tells Jaya to learn to be more accommodating and to keep quiet when she disagrees so that she may develop good relationships with her in-laws after her marriage. The teachings of her grandmother and mother deeply influence her and eventually, she becomes a subservient young woman. Her father is a government servant and her mother is a housewife. Ravi, her elder brother is a settled married man. Mohan is Jaya’s husband. He works at a private firm. He is aware of his duties as a patriarchial man and husband in society but he is not comfortable with that. He is ambitious and wishes to attain and offer the best facilities for his family. Ramukaka is Jaya’s uncle, the elder brother of her father. Kamat is a widower living in the neighborhood of Jaya. His only son is settled abroad and Kamat lives alone. Jaya develops a friendly rapport with him though she keeps it a secret.

The Title and the Theme:

“If I were a man and cared to know the world I lived in, I almost think it would make me a shade uneasy–the weight of that long silence of one-half of the world.”

Shashi Deshpande used this statement by Elizabeth Robins, the famous actress, writer, novelist, and activist as an epigraph for her novel and the title comes from that statement. ‘That Long Silence’ refers to the forced suppression of expression by women in general because of societal and cultural discrepancies. It is a scathing critique of our social institutions like marriage and family, and the way they stifle the growth and free expression of the individual.

The novel traces Jaya’s passage through a plethora of self-doubts, fears, guilt, smothered anger, and silence toward articulation and affirmation. Jaya is caught in an emotional eddy, and endeavors to come to terms with her protean roles, while trying, albeit in vain, to rediscover her true self, which is but an ephemera-an unfulfilled wife, a disappointed mother, and a failed writer, Jaya, in fact rejects the patriarchal notion of a unitary self or identity. She realizes that her silence and suppression are not only harming her, but it is detrimental to her family and her husband too. The main theme of the novel is the lack of communication

Summary of That Long Silence:

The novel begins as Jaya and Mohan prepare to shift from their well-settled, comfortable house to their old house in Dadar, Bombay, where they had stayed immediately after getting married when their financial condition was not good. They shift into their old apartment because Mohan has been caught in some business malpractice and an inquiry is in progress. Here in a small old flat, Jaya gets out of touch with her daily schedule and becomes an introvert. She sits deep in contemplation, thinking of her childhood, and tries to analyze herself. Jaya finds that she is an unsatisfied woman. She is neither a good wife nor a good mother and she remembers how she failed as a writer. Jaya recalls her past days, her upbringing the environment in which she was brought up, and the preachings that were thrust upon her when she was growing up e.g. she has been taught that “a husband is like a sheltering tree.” Though Jaya is a modern educated woman, she wishes to be an ideal wife and mother like Sita, Parvati, and other mythical figures. However, she often fails at that.

She remembers her daughter Revati’s last birthday and how she and Revati felt Mohan loved his niece more than his own daughter. But she does not say anything to Mohan as he only dismisses it as her “writer’s imagination” and nothing more. She always wishes to proceed as per her husband’s wish.

Jaya feels that a woman’s identity is defined by others, in terms of her relationship with men, i.e. as a daughter, as a wife, as a mother, etc. The question “What a woman does” is never asked but “who she belong to” is always considered important. She doesn’t have an identity of her own. Even her name is not her own and it keeps changing. She has two names, JAYA and SUHASINI. Jaya which means victory, is the name given by her father when she was born, and Suhasini, the name given after her marriage means a “soft, smiling, placid, motherly woman”. Both the names symbolize the traits of her personality. The former symbolizes revolt and the latter submission. Jaya remembers how painstakingly her uncle Ramukaka prepared a family tree, mentioning all the members of their family. However, Jaya’s name was not on that list, nor was her sister’s. When Jaya asked her uncle why her name was not included in the family tree, she came to learn that she now belongs to her husband's family and not her father's. All these thoughts continue to make her feel depressed and she becomes more distant from her husband.

Mohan faces further disgrace when he is found guilty of counterfeiting at his job and fired. Jaya’s sister Kusum visits Jaya and discusses her own husband from whom she has recently separated. Jaya thinks that Kusum’s abusive husband and her own distant one have very different flaws but that they stem from the same cultural expectations of the way men should treat women. Next, Jaya meets wither her brother Ravi, who speaks harshly about Mohan. When Mohan learns about this, he is angry with Jaya.

Jaya fails to realize that Mohan seeks her support in this difficult period. Mohan tried to discuss his issues with Jaya, but she didn’t know what to say and how to console him. Because of her silence during all these years, she has forgotten to express her thoughts. On the other hand, Mohan thought, she was behaving like this because he had lost his job. Misunderstandings started to occupy the gaps made by Jaya’s silence. Neither of them has ever been comfortable talking about their feelings and fears with each other. Mohan has no idea how to ask for what he needs, and Jaya has no idea how to offer it. The situation becomes even direr when the couple’s son, Rahul, runs away from home. Eventually, Mohan left the house and did not return for several days. Jaya’s physical and mental condition was devastated. She had no clue how to manage without Mohan. During all those years, she was only a follower and she did not learn how to make decisions of her own. She begins to contemplate her past.

As a child, she was a very curious and brilliant student who aspired to be a writer. Her grandmother was quite unhappy with her inquisitive nature. In her view, girls must remain silent and submissive all the time. They don’t have any right to ask so many questions. Jaya’s father was very fond of her daughter and he used to support her always. He encouraged Jaya to follow her dreams of being a successful writer. But, after his sudden death, Jaya became alone and no one ever tried to understand her feelings and emotions. She started suppressing her desires to satisfy the criteria of our society. In the subsequent time, she got married to Mohan. Mohan was a good man, but he was also a man, and just like every other man in our society, he also never made the effort to understand Jaya’s heart and her feelings. He thought that whatever he would do or say, Jaya would follow him blindly. So, he never bothered to ask about her views from small to big decisions. They shifted to Bombay and there Jaya gave birth to her son Rahul and daughter Rati. Her world revolves around her family. Initially, they stayed at a small house in Dadar, Bombay because their financial condition was not so good. Gradually, Mohan continued to make progress in his career and soon they bought a new bigger, much comfortable house in a better locality. Kamat was a widower, Jaya's neighbor upstairs in Dadar. He was a lonely man whose only son was living abroad. As Mohan remained busy in his office and Jaya’s kids spent most of their time in school and studies, Jaya developed a rapport with Kamat. However, she kept it a secret. During her first pregnancy, Jaya suggested that Mohan should cook. Mohan didn’t like the idea because it is not a man’s job but since there was no other woman to help, he did. However, she confessed to Kamat that the sight of Mohan cooking made her uneasy because she thought it was unmanly. Jaya always wished to become a writer so in her free time she begins writing stories. She made a good start as a writer by creating a story that won first prize and was published in a magazine. But Mohan's reaction to the story was very disheartening. He assumed the story was about their personal lives. He was worried and pained to think that people he knew would think he was the kind of person the man in the story was. Jaya was hurt by this discouragement. However, Kamat appreciated her story. She decided to continue writing under a false name but most of her other stories were rejected. Kamat reviewed her stories and told her that the stories showed Jaya's anger and her strong passions. Jaya tried to remind him what she had actually learned from her husband in her first memorable argument with him, that a woman cannot be angry, that anger makes a woman unwomanly. Kamat told her that she should not use a fake name and should work harder. Jaya told him that she didn’t have time for serious work because of her domestic responsibilities. Kamat rebuked her and said, “I warn you – beware of your 'women are the victims' theory. It drags you down into a soft squishy swamp of self-pity. Take it seriously, woman. Don't hide behind a fake name. And work-, work if you want others to take you seriously.” However, she continued to hide behind her excuses. Jaya always respected Kamat who

showed much understanding and sympathy for Jaya. In fact, Jaya was more free and uninhibited with him than she was with her husband. But she was not confident enough to tell her husband about her friendship with Kamat. She kept it a secret as friendship between a married woman and another man is always viewed with suspicion and disapproval. One day, when she visited Kamat’s apartment, she found him dead on the floor. She panicked and left the apartment silently. Jaya couldn't even stay and pay tribute to her best friend in his death for fear of ruining her marriage. Now when Mohan has left, she realizes that she failed as a wife, a mother, and a friend. She feels as if she is a failure as an individual. Thinking about what has led to their separation, Jaya understands that she is partly to blame for withdrawing from her husband during his trying time. She recognizes that the long silence has stifled communication and openness in her family, making it difficult to support her husband and vice versa. Jaya remembers how Kamat always encouraged her to express herself and be truthful to herself.

Jaya sees a ray of hope when she receives a telegram from Mohan informing her that he will be home soon and his company is willing to take him back as he has been acquitted of the charges of corruption. Jaya is ready to accept Mohan back into her life, and she vows that never again will she let the long silence separate them emotionally from each other.

So this is it for today. We will keep discussing the history of Indian English literature. Please stay connected with the Discourse. Thanks and Regards!

An Essay of Dramatic Poesy by John Dryden | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. John Dryden was one of the most important authors, dramatists, poets, and literary critics of the Restoration Period. Dryden had a great influence such as Alexander Pope who greatly admired and often imitated him, and Samuel Johnson who considered him to have “refined the language, improved the sentiments, and tuned the numbers of English poetry.” Samuel Johnson termed John Dryden as the Father of English Criticism.

An Essay of Dramatic Poesy is a leisurely discussion between four contemporary writers. Dryden wrote it in a semi-dramatic manner and structured it as a dialogue between four friends on the river Thames. The group has taken refuge on a barge during a naval battle between the English and the Dutch fleets. The four gentlemen, Eugenius, Crites, Lisideius, and Neander (all aliases for actual Restoration critics and the last for Dryden himself), begin an ironic and witty conversation on the subject of poetry, which soon turns into a debate on the virtues of modern and ancient writers. Neander is the one who holds the views of Dryden. Unlike other characters, Neander does not diminish the arguments that are contrary to his views. Though he favors modern drama, he does not blame others.

Characters of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy:

The four characters of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy are Eugenius modeled on Sir Charles Sackville, an English poet, and courtier, Crites modeled on Sir Robert Howard, an English playwright, and politician, Lisideius modeled on Sir Charles Sedley, an English noble, dramatist, and politician, and Neander, modeled on Dryden himself. The four people discuss three topics:

(1) the relative merit of classical drama (upheld by Crites) vs. modern drama (championed by Eugenius);

(2) whether French drama, as Lisideius maintains, is better than English drama, and

(3) whether plays in rhyme are an improvement upon blank verse drama. Crites oppose this despite favoring the Ancients earlier while Neander suggests that rhyme in Dramas is certainly an improvement though he initially defended Elizabethans who introduced blank verse in dramas. 

In addition, the four also discuss the importance of maintaining the three unities of Time, Place, and Action from Aristotle’s Poetics. In the late 17th century, Shakespeare was severely criticized for his careless attitude towards the mixing of genres and neglect of the three Unities. It was Dryden who elevated Shakespeare to the height of his natural genius. Crites support Ben Johnson and Beaumont and Fletcher for their correctness and maintaining the three Unities. Dryden supports Shakespeare and defends him for mixing the genres and creating Tragicomedies. Dryden further says, “I am apt to believe the English language in them arrived at its highest perfection”. If Ben Jonson is a genius for correctness, Shakespeare excels in wit.

Summary of An Essay of Dramatic Poesy:

The narrative begins during a battle going on between England and the Netherlands. Four gentlemen, probably authors are traveling on a barge down the river Thames, seeking a vantage point from which they can hear the battle safely.

Through these four characters, Dryden defines drama as a just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind. The word ‘just’ suggests that literature imitates (and not merely reproduces) human actions. However, for Dryden, ‘poetic imitation’ is different from an exact, servile copy of reality, for, the imitation is not only ‘just’, but it is also ‘lively’.

Lisideus is the one who claims Drama is a just and lively imitation of human nature and the debate continues to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of French and English Drama, Ancient, and Modern Drama, and the importance of “Unity in French Drama”.

The sound of cannon fire initiates the discussion about the quality of English composition. Crites bemoans the fact that, even in the event of victory, they will be punished “in being subject to the reading and hearing of so many ill verses as he is sure will be made on that subject”. Lisideius seconds this objection, adding that some of these glory-hungry poets will be prepared “either way,” so “they can produce not only a panegyric upon the victory but, if need be, a funeral elegy for the duke”. Thus, Crites and Lisideius criticize the modern writers. However, Eugenius tries to defend the modern writers. Crites attacks Modern English dramatists and says that the Moderns are still imitating the Ancients and using their forms and subjects, relying on Aristotle and Horace, adding nothing new, and yet not following their good advice closely either, especially concerning the Unities of time, place and action. Crites praises Ben Jonson as the best in English drama, saying that he followed the Ancients "in all things" and offered nothing really new in terms of "serious thoughts".

Eugenius says that "the moderns have profited by the rules of the ancients" but moderns have "excelled them." He points first to some discrepancies in the applications of the Unities, mentioning that there seem to be four parts in Aristotle's method: the entrance, the intensifying of the plot, the counter-turn, and the catastrophe. But he points out that somewhere along the line, and by way of Horace, plays developed five acts (the Spanish only 3). As regards the action, Eugenius contends that they are transparent, everybody already knows what will happen; that the Romans borrowed from the Greeks; and that the deus ex machina convention is a weak escape. As far as the unity of place is concerned, he suggests that the Ancients were not the ones to insist on it so much as the French and that insistence has caused some artificial entrances and exits of characters. The unity of time is often ignored in both. As to the liveliness of language, Eugenius countersuits Crites by suggesting that even if we do not know all the contexts, good writing is always good, it is always discernible if done well. He goes on to say also that while the Ancients portrayed many emotions and actions, they neglected love, "which is the most frequent of all passions" and known to everyone. He mentions Shakespeare and Fletcher as offering "excellent scenes of passion."

Lisideius supports Crites and argues in favor of Ancient writers. He agrees with Eugenius that the Elizabethan drama was superior. Then they had their Jonson, Beaumont, and Fletcher. But English drama has decayed and declined since then. They live in an awful age full of bloodshed and violence, and poetry is an art of peace. Since France is relatively at peace, poetry flourishes in France and not in England. He mentions Corneille (1606-84) as the best French dramatist and the English have no dramatist equal to him.

Crites and Lisideius support French dramatists in the following ways:

a) They follow the Ancients and carefully observe the Unity of Time in their plays. In most French plays, the entire action is limited to one place and thus they follow the Unity of Place. French plays are never overloaded with sub-plots and hence the French follow the Unity of Action. English playwrights, on the other hand, continue to divert from one action to the other, and its due effects. Licideius says that no drama in the world is as absurd as the English tragic-comedy.

b) The French comedies are based on well-known Ancient stories. The French playwrights transform these stories for dramatic purposes and thus, in some way, they are superior even to the Ancients. The plots of French plays are a mixture of truth with fiction based on historical invention. Crites criticize English dramatists like Shakespeare, who do not modify and transform their stories for dramatic purposes. He says that English dramatists lack verisimilitude (likeness to reality) while the French plays have it.

c) The French dramatists keep their plots simple and do not burden it with subplots but the English burden their plays with actions and incidents which have no logical and natural connection with the main action so much so that an English play is a mere compilation. Hence the French plays are better written than the English ones.

d) The English plays concentrate on one major character while ignoring the others and thus, the greater part of the action is concerned with him. But in French plays, the other characters are not neglected. In French plays, such narrations are made by those who are in some way or the other connected with the main action.

e) They also criticize Engish drama for having too much bloodshed and gory.

Defense of The English Dramatists:

At this point, Neander (Dryden) intervenes in favor of English dramatists. He stresses on the definition of Drama suggested by Lisideius and says that English playwrights are best at "the lively imitation of nature" (i.e., human nature). French poesy is beautiful; it is beautiful like a "statue" but is not lively. He defends the English invention of tragi-comedy by suggesting that the use of mirth with tragedy provides "contraries" that "set each other off" and gives the audience relief from the heaviness of straight tragedy. He suggests that the use of well-ordered sub-plots makes the plays interesting and helps the main action. Neander says that English plays are more entertaining and instructive because they offer an element of surprise that the Ancients and the French do not. Neander says that the audience knows that nothing of the drama is real yet they feel like it is all real because drama imitates reality. So why should they think scenes of deaths or battles any less "real" than the rest? Neander suggests that it may be there are simply too many rules and often following them creates more absurdities than they prevent.

Crites continues to support Ancient Playwrights and presents the following arguments:

a) Ancients are obviously the best and that is why the Modern playwrights continue to imitate them. They use the foundation built by the Ancients.

b) The Ancients had a special genius for drama, and in their particular branch of poetry, they could reach perfection. Just as they excel in drama.

c) During the Greek and Roman periods, poetry was more honored than any other branch of knowledge. Poets were encouraged to excel in this field through frequent competitions, judges were appointed and the dramatists were rewarded according to their merits. But in modern times there is no such spirit of healthy rivalry and competition. Poets are neither suitably honored nor are they rewarded.

d) Ancients were a better observer of nature and faithfully represented nature in their work. Modern however are lousy. They do not observe and study Nature carefully and so they distort and disfigure nature in their plays.

e) Crites say that the Modern playwrights continue to follow the same rules of Dramatic composition set by the Ancients yet, they often disregard the Unities, of Time, Place, and Action.

Eugene counters these arguments in support of Modern playwrights. He agrees that the Moderns have learned much from the Ancients. But he adds that by their own labor, the Moderns have added to what they have gained from them.

a) The Moderns have perfected the division of plays and divided their plays not only into Acts but also into scenes.

b) Eugene counters the charge of the three Unities and says that even the Ancients’ observance of the three unities is not perfect. The Ancient critics, like Horace and Aristotle, did not make mention of the Unity of Place. Even the Ancients did not always observe the Unity of Time. Euripides, a great dramatist, no doubt, confines his action to one day, but, then, he commits many absurdities.

c) Eugene attacks Ancient writers and says Ancient dramas have too much narration at the cost of Action. Instead of providing the necessary information to the audience through dialogues the Ancients often do so through monologues. The result is, that their play becomes monotonous and tiresome.

d) He further attacks Ancient writers and says that there is no poetic justice in their plays. Instead of punishing vice and rewarding virtue, they have often shown a prosperous wickedness and an unhappy piety.

e) He attacks the themes of Ancient plays. The proper end of Tragedy is to arouse “admiration and concernment (pity)”. But their themes are lust, cruelty, murder, and bloodshed, which instead of arousing admiration and pity arouses “horror and terror”.

Thus, Dryden took no extreme position and was sensible enough to give the Ancients their respect. He mentions the achievement of the Ancients and the gratitude of the Moderns to them and then he presents the comparative merits and demerits of each more clearly.

Defense of Tragi-Comedy or Mixing the Genres:

Cites and Lisideius criticize Shakespeare for mixing the genres and creating Tragicomedies. Neander supports Shakespeare though. He vindicates tragi-comedy on the following grounds:

a) Tragedy and comedy are contrasting feelings when placed together appropriately, they offer a balance.

b) He says that the continued gravity of a tragedy may depress the spirit of the audience while a scene of mirth placed in between refreshes and energizes the audience. Comic scenes offer relief to the audience.

c) Comedy or mirth does not reduce the value of compassion and thus the serious effect that tragedy aims at is not disturbed by mingling of tragic and comic.

d) One can easily turn their eyes from an unpleasant thing to a pleasant one. Similarly, the audience faces no difficulty in moving from the tragic to the comic, rather it reinvigorates them.

e) The English dramatists have perfected a new way of writing which was not known to the Ancients. If Aristotle could see the works of Modern English writers, he might have appreciated them. He says that tastes change with time. The Ancients cannot be a model for all times and countries, “What pleased the Greeks would not satisfy an English audience”. Had Aristotle seen the English plays “He might have changed his mind”.

Thus, as an intelligent and shrewd critic, Dryden defends the Modern English authors especially Shakespeare, and supports liberal classicism.

Support for Rhymed Verses in Dramas:

Elizabethan dramas were known for the excellent use of Blank Verse which came into vogue right after Thomas Sackville used Blank Verse in Gorboduc. Dryden too followed the trend in his play ‘Aurangzebe’. However, the dramatists and authors of the Restoration period preferred rhymed Heroic couplets over Blank verse and Dryden also defends the use of Heroic couplets in playwrights.

Crites begin attacking modern playwrights on the issue of Rhyme violently on the following grounds:

a) Rhyme is unnatural in plays because a play is in dialogues and nobody speaks in rhyme.

b) Though nobody speaks in Blank Verse either, it is nearer to prose and according to Aristotle, tragedy should be written in a verse form which is nearer to prose.

c) Rhyme can be allowed in comedies but never in tragedies.

Neander then counters the attack and defends the use of Heroic couplets in dramas by saying-

a) The use of verse or rhyme doesn’t make a language natural. It appears natural only when the choice and the placing of the word are natural in a natural order which makes the language natural.

b) One can make use of hemistich, manipulation of pauses and stresses, and the change of meter to make Rhyme appear to imitate nature.

c) The Elizabethans achieved perfection in the use of blank verse but the Moderns cannot excel them, or achieve anything significant or better in the use of blank verse. Hence they must use rhyme, which suits the genius of their age, and should excel in that.

d) Rhyme is the noblest kind of verse while tragedy is a serious play representing nature exalted to its highest pitch. Thus, Rhyme suits tragedy better because both are the best in their sphere.

At the end of his essay, Dryden again says that Rhyme is more suited for dramas because rhyme adds to the pleasure of poetry. Rhyme helps the judgment and thus makes it easier to control the free flights of the fancy. The primary function of poetry is to give ‘delight’, and rhyme enables the poet to perform this function well.

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!

East of Eden by John Steinbeck | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. East of Eden is a novel written by John Steinbeck that was published in 1952. Steinbeck himself mentioned it as his magnum opus or ‘the big one.’ The novel is based on the biblical story of Cane and Abel set in California's Salinas Valley. The novel tells the story of two families the Trasks and the Hamiltons, both early inhabitants of California's Salinas Valley. The novel depicts ‘Original Sin’, Sibling Rivalry, and Fatherhood in a fictitious manner to explore the themes of Good and Evil, and the issue of Free Will, the will to choose good or evil. The concept of Timshel is a major thematic concern throughout the novel. A Hebrew verb, Timshel translates into "thou mayest", and expresses the notion that humans can choose good over evil. The title of the novel is also inspired by the Biblical story of the sons of Adam and Eve, Cain is a farmer, and Abel is a shepherd. God prefers Abel's sacrificial offering of a lamb over Cain's offering of grain. In a jealous rage, Cain murders his brother. Cain angrily replies to God's inquiry by saying, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain is exiled to wander in the East of Eden.

Characters of East of Eden:

Cyrus Trask is one of the villainous characters of the novel. He is the father of Adam and Charles Trask. He returns from civil war with syphilis which indicates his debauchery. He lies about his American Civil War record to garner himself an important job in Washington D.C. He is corrupt and leaves his sons an inheritance of $100,000. Adam Trask is a good-hearted, honest man, half-brother of Charles. Mrs. Trask was the first wife of Cyrus and the mother of Adam. She commits suicide after knowing about her husband’s debauchery. Alice Trask is the second wife and mother of Charles. She treats Adam as her own son after his biological mother dies. Charles Trask is the son of Cyrus and Alice. Cyrus favors his son Adam's gift of a puppy over Charles' gift of an expensive knife. In a jealous rage, Charles attempts to kill his brother. Cathy Ames (or Kate) is a teenage daughter of a middle-class family who hates her parents. She is nymphet with no conscience whatsoever. After murdering her parents by setting fire to their home, she becomes a prostitute and the mistress of Mr. Edwards. Adam Trask rescues Cathy when Edwards leaves her for dead, but after giving birth to twin sons, Cal and Aron, she shoots Adam when he attempts to stop her from leaving. Edwards leads a double life: he runs a New England prostitution ring but is married to a religious wife who believes that he runs a reputable business. Faye is the brothel owner whom Kate kills to take over her business. Samuel Hamilton is another patriarch who settles in Salinas along with Cyrus. He is an honest Irish immigrant. He is depicted in contrast to Cyrus Trask. He acts as a guide and model for Adam Trask. Liza Hamilton is Samuel Hamilton's wise wife and an excellent mother to the nine Hamilton children. Will Hamilton is one of Samuel and Liza Hamilton's nine children. Will sells the first automobiles in the Salinas Valley and becomes Cal Trask's business partner during the war. Abra Bacon is an ideal girl, daughter of a crooked Salinas politician who fell in love with Aron Trask during her childhood but she later realizes that he is only in love with a glorified image of her. She develops a relationship with Lee, the philosophical Chinese servant of Trasks whom she considers a father figure.

Summary of East of Eden:

The story of the novel is said to be partly inspired by Steinbeck’s own family history. The narrator of the novel is John Steinbeck, one of Samuel Hamilton’s grandsons. The narrator informs how his grandfather Samuel Hamilton and Lizy Hamilton settled on the Salinas Valley's most barren land, where they worked hard to raise their nine children. Samuel Hamilton is a warmhearted inventor and farmer who immigrated with his wife from Ireland in 1870. Because of Samuel’s good work ethic and Liza’s endearing nature, they become popular among the neighbors and they nurture familial friendship with the Trask family. Adam Trask and Charles Trask are two half-brothers who recently shifted from New England to Salinas Valley. Adam is married to Cathy Ames.

Adam and Charles are the son of Cyrus Trask who was a corrupt on-legged man. His wife, Adam’s mother, was a devout woman who committed suicide upon learning that Cyrus had infected her with syphilis. Cyrus remarried Alice who was a timid woman and took care of Adam and her son Charles equally. Cyrus on the other hand always preferred Adam over Charles because Adam was a good-hearted and soft-spoken boy with calm behavior while Charles was a jealous, angry, and difficult child. Adam presented a puppy to Cyrus on his birthday while Charles presented an expensive hunting knife. Cyrus ignored Charle’s gift and preferred the puppy given by Adam. Enraged, Charles savagely beats Adam. After that, Adam decides to enroll in the army and moves away while Cyrus decides to move to Washington D.C. to take a high-level job in the Office of the Secretary of War. He lied about his wartime record to get the job and continues to take bribes for the position. Charles stays at their farm and one day, he meets a farm accident that renders a dark brown permanent scar on his face. He realizes his mistake and longs for his brother Adam’s return.

On his return, Adam comes to know about the death of Cyrus who left a fortune of $100,000 for the two brothers. However, Charles informs him that their father was a corrupt man who lied about his war records and this money could be ill-gotten.

In a neighboring city, Cathy Ames is a young voluptuous nymphet who likes to see people in trouble because of her. She hates her parents and one day, she murders her parents by setting fire to their home. She pretends to be innocent and attracts the interest of Mr. Edwards, a dubious man who hideously runs a brothel. Cathy becomes his mistress. One day, Mr. Edwards attains enough proof that Cathy murdered her parents. He brutally beats Cathy who runs away. Cathy reaches to Adam and Charles’ farm where she falls unconscious. Adam takes care of her and gets interested in her. As she recuperates, Adam marries her and the new couple moves to Salinas Valley to raise their own family while Charles remains in Connecticut.

In Salinas Valley, Adam and Cathy make friends with the Hamilton family and they also employ a Chinese-American man named Lee as a cook and house helper. Adam is impressed by the work ethic of Samuel Hamilton who becomes his mentor and guide. Cathy gets pregnant though she doesn’t wish to be a mother. She tries to abort her child by using a knitting needle but fails.

Cathy gives birth to two sons whom Adam names Aaron and Caleb or Cal. Cathy begins feeling suffocated in the family as she wishes to lead a free libertine life of debauchery. She decides to leave her kids and husband. When Adam tries to stop her, she shoots him with a gun and runs away. She joins the brothel of Faye and sets her eyes on her brothel. She poisons Faye and murders her and then she takes control of her brothel. Unlike Faye, she is a cruel brothel owner who strictly controls her whores and makes them addicted to drugs. She becomes famous by the name Kate who forces her girls in the brothel to get engaged in sadomasochistic sexual practices and blackmails her customers.

Meanwhile, Adam takes care of his two sons Aaron and Cal. As they grow old, Adam notices that Aaron is a calm and composed boy much like him while Cal is a troubled kid who is a bit jealous of Aaron. Aaron and Cal make friends with Abra Bacon, the daughter of a rich, powerful, but corrupt politician of Salinas. Abra is an honest, devout, and ideal person. She falls in love with both Aaron and Cal. Lee, the philosophically motivated servant of Adam continues to help him raise the kids while he also helps the Hamilton family who are raising their own nine kids. Adam discusses the troubles of raising the kids with Lee who mentions the story of Cain and Abel from the Bible and teaches about the concept of Timshel to Adam. Adam is naturally inclined to favor Aaron more who resembles more like his mother Cathy. Cal realizes this and he continues to harbor ill feelings against Aaron. Adam fails to take notice of Cal succumbing to ill habits who as a teenager, begins to gamble, visits brothels, and drinks alcohol. Cal is also jealous of Aaron because he feels Abra loves him more. Aaron too falls in love with Abra who returns his love but soon learns that Aaron proposed to her only because of her glorified image for being the daughter of a rich politician who can help Aaron enter the ministry. She, thus begins to keep her distance from Aaron while she falls in love with Cal. Cal is happy about this change and he thinks of trying to win the love of his father who is suffering from debt because of failure in business.

Samuel Hamilton dies of old age but before his death, he reveals the whereabouts of Cathy to Adam. Adam decides to visit Cathy and learns that she has turned to Kate. Kate ridicules him and shows him the pictures of the customers who visit her brothel which includes people from the government and the church too. Adam returns empty-handed. The two brothers are facing a difficult time due to their father’s financial situation. Everyone makes fun of Adam’s dwindling fortune while the kids are mocked by their peers. After completing their school, Cal begins farming while Aaron decides to attend to become a priest. Like Charles, Cal is a reticent person who fails to gain the support and love of his father and begins wandering around aimlessly during the night. One night, he visits the brothel of Kate where he recognizes his mother whose photos he has seen at home. Kate is uninterested in recognizing him at first but then spitefully tells him that they are just alike.

Adam’s financial troubles continue to grow and Cal feels that he may win the love of his father if he could help him get out of the financial troubles. He meets Wil Hamilton, the successful businessman and son of Samuel Hamilton who is an automobile dealer. Together, they plan to sell beans grown in the Salinas Valley to nations in Europe for a considerable premium. Cal makes a good fortune in a relatively little time and gifts $15, 000 to his father so that he may pay his debts. Adam is astonished at seeing this huge amount. He asks how Cal got hold of it and Cal tells him about his business. Adam reacts violently when he learns that Cal took advantage of farmers during wartime to make money. However, like his father before him, Adam fails to see the love behind his son's gift. This breaks Cal’s heart who gets enraged by his father’s behavior. He goes to Aaron at his college and decides to take him to meet their mother at the brothel. Aaron believes that their mother was a pious lady who died. When he sees his mother as the madam of the most infamous and debauched brothel, he is shocked. He learns the true nature of his mother and in disgust, he runs away to join the Army during World War I. Kate didn’t feel anything when Cal met her alone but when she sees Aaron and observes how her truth psychologically tormented Aaron, she begins to repent and commits suicide.

Aaron gets killed in the war and when Lee informs Adam about Aaron’s death, he suffers a heart attack. Cal suggests Abra Bacon to run away with him but she insists that they must stay at Salinas and things will change in their favor. She persuades Aaron to return to his home to be with his ill father. Charles visits Adam on his deathbed. Lee requests Adam to forgive Charles, his only remaining son. Adam couldn’t speak much. He raises his hand in a gesture suggesting forgiveness and tells ‘Timshel,’ the Hebrew word for "thou mayest". Cal realizes that he is not predestined to live a life of evil, but has the free will to choose goodness and morality, he has the choice to break the cycle and conquer sin.

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

I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed- by Emily Dickinson | Structure, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. ‘I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed-’ is one of the few poems by Emily Dickinson that was published during her lifetime. The poem was first published in the Springfield Daily Republican on May 4, 1861, under the title The May-Wine. However, the title was chosen by the publisher as Emily never titled the poem and thus, it was reprinted in her posthumous poetry collection ‘Poems by Emily Dickinson,’ with the first line as the title.

It is a nature poem in which Emily appreciates the beauty of nature on a glorious summer day. The poem begins with a paradox as a liquor is tasted that was never brewed. The poet used the imagery of alcohol and drunkenness to express the enchanting powers of nature. Emily Dickinson wrote the poem in 1860 during the period of Temperance in the United States. The first line suggests the gist of the Temperance movement as both completely drunk and completely temperate ("a liquor never brewed").

Structure of ‘I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed’:

Like most of her other poems, Dickinson wrote ‘I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed’ in ballad meter with iambic lines that alternate four and three beats. The poem contains 16 lines composed in four stanzas of four lines each (the poem has four quatrains). A ballad is a kind of verse, sometimes narrative in nature, often set to music. The poetess used slant rhyme, dashes, and idiosyncratic capitalization. The slant rhyme is because of the use of words with similar but not identical sounds. In addition, the poetess constantly used the pronoun “I” to show how she connects to nature. An extended metaphor has been used to compare alcoholic intoxication to her fixation with nature. She compares ‘Air’, ‘Dew’, and ‘Drams’ in lines 5,6, and 11 respectively with liquor. Dram is a metaphor for the nectar that the birds and butterflies feed on. Dickinson used imagery to express her views on nature and time and her religious views.

Summary of ‘I Taste a Liquor Never Brewed’:

Stanza 1 Lines 1-4

“I taste a liquor never brewed –
From Tankards scooped in Pearl –
Not all the Frankfort Berries
Yield such an Alcohol!”

The poetess begins with a paradox and a metaphor. The poet talks about the exhilarating taste and effect of a liquor (that was never brewed), a paradox. It symbolizes that she is talking about something more powerful and intoxicating than actual liquor. She uses imagery in the second line to signify the purity of her liquor that was never brewed and expresses it as “Tankards scooped in Pearl.” She further clarifies that it is not some normal liquor as it cannot be produced by the ‘Frankfort Berries.’ The poet used Capitalization to stress some words and ideas.

Stanza 2 Lines 5-8

“Inebriate of air – am I –
And Debauchee of Dew –
Reeling – thro’ endless summer days –
From inns of molten Blue –“

The poetess clarifies the mystery regarding the ‘liquor’ that was never brewed. She uses imagery again in line 5, and line 6 again. ‘Inebriated of air’ suggests intoxicated by breathing in fresh air and ‘Debauchee of Dew’ suggests, turned on by the dew. In line 8, she mentions ‘inns of molten Blue’ the color of the sky. The poetess begins in first person (‘I’) and suggests her strong connection with the surroundings and nature. She uses strong imagery of nature. She is ‘inebriate’ and ‘debauchee’ of natural elements. A ‘Debauchee’ is someone who is addicted to alcohol, or sensual pleasures; therefore, she is so drunk, so deep in the effect of nature, that she is staggering and losing herself.

The metaphor 'Inebriate of Air' is to be exhilarated, excited, and overwhelmingly delighted by summer skies. The 'Debauchee of Air' is a fantasy, and it is a delightful image. It is, in fact, an image of delight embodied.

The poetess increases the grandeur of the surroundings by suggesting that she feels she is drinking in grand inns of ‘molten Blue’ during the endless summer days. In this stanza, the poetess doesn’t emphasize the drink like she did in the first stanza, rather she highlights the elements of nature.

Stanza 3 Lines 9-12

“When ‘Landlords’ turn the drunken Bee
Out of the Foxglove’s door –
When Butterflies – renounce their ‘drams’ –
I shall but drink the more!”

The poetess continues the imagery she developed in the second stanza and talks about the ‘Landlords’ of the ‘inns of molten Blue.’ In this stanza, the poetess offers equal importance to the drink and the natural elements. She compares herself with a ‘bee’ and ‘butterflies.’ A Foxglove’s door is again imagery suggesting a beautiful purple flower that attracts bees. Another imagery is ‘Drams’ in the 11^th line. Dram means a small drink of liquor and she compares it with the nectar that birds bees and butterflies feed on.

The innkeeper or the 'landlords' force the drunken bee away from the beautiful flower full of pollens. No one can possess the natural things forever. When the butterflies have had their fill of nectar, they will renounce it but the poetess will go on enjoying nature's abundance. It is the power of her creative imagination that will keep the scene alive in her mind even during the dying phase of summer.

Stanza 4 Lines 13-16

“Till Seraphs swing their snowy Hats –
And Saints – to windows run –
To see the little Tippler
Leaning against the – Sun!”

The fourth stanza seems to turn the poetess’ connection with nature to a spiritual level and hence, she uses various mystique figures including ‘Seraphs’, and ‘Saints.’ Dickinson was influenced by Emerson’s transcendentalism and this poem has been compared to Emerson's 'Bacchus'. However, unlike Emerson’s intense pathos in Bacchus, Dickinson applied a lighter, happier note. The poetess says that she will continue to cherish nature (liquor never brewed) until the seraphs (the highest ranks of the angels) and saints notice her, that is, she won’t stop drinking until she dies.

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

Tom Jones by Henry Fielding | Characters, Summary, Analysis

Hello and welcome to the Discourse. Tom Jones is a comic novel by Henry Fielding that was first published on 28 February 1749. The full title of the novel was “The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling”. W. Somerset Maugham mentioned Tom Jones as the earliest novel in his 1948 book Great Novelists and Their Novels and mentioned Tom Jones as one of the ten greatest novels of the world. English author and literary critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge mentioned Tom Jones as one of the three “most perfect plots ever planned". The other two mentioned by him were the Athenian Tragedy Oedipus Rex, and Ben Jonson's play The Alchemist. Tome Jones blends

romance, realism, picaresque, and social commentary comically. The story is about an orphan (or foundling) who, after he is cast out by the generous man who raised him, travels throughout the South of England having several adventures in love, friendship, and folly while meeting an array of vivid and memorably flawed characters. Eventually, after he is plotted against and thrown in prison, he learns his parentage and is reconciled with his family and his virtuous beloved.

Characters of Tom Jones:

Tom Jones is the eponymous hero of the novel. He is believed to be an illegitimate child of low birth but is brought up as a gentleman by Squire Allworthy who adopts him. He is handsome, generous, popular, and passionate. Bridget Allworthy is the sister of Squire Allworthy who marries Captain Blifil and gives birth to Master Blifil. After her death, it is revealed that she is the mother of Tom Jones. Mrs. Wilkins is a shrewd servant of Bridget Allworthy. Jenny Jones is a bright but poor young woman who confesses to be the illegitimate mother of Tom Jones though later on, it is revealed that she was paid to confess to being the mother of the child to protect the honor of Miss Bridget Allworthy. Dr. Blifil is a friend of Squire Allworthy who falls in love with Bridget but is already married. He proposes to Captain Blifil, his younger brother to marry Bridget. Captain Blifil is a greedy man who marries Bridget in the hope of acquiring Squire Allworthy’s property. Patridge is a school teacher who is falsely blamed for beating his wife and fathering Jenny Jone’s illegitimate child. Mrs. Patridge is a jealous woman, wife of Patridge, who attacks her husband when she thinks he is the father of Jenny Jones's child. She then accuses him of beating her, which helps to ruin his reputation. Square is a friend of Squire Allworthy and a philosopher. He helps Tom Jones and Master Blifil as an advisor. Thwackum is the appointed teacher of Tom Jones and Master Blifil. Black George of George Seagrim is a gamekeeper and father of Molly Seagrim who helps Tom Jones in sending messages to Sophia, his beloved. Master Blifil is a sneaky and underhanded child who is jealous of Tom Jones because his mother favors Tom more. Squire Western is a neighbor of Squire Allworthy and the father of Sophia. He is a keen hunter and is fond of Tom until he hears of the affection between him and Sophia. Sophia is an intelligent and beautiful young woman who is drawn to Tom's gentlemanly ways, though she believes him low-born. Lord Fellamar is a gentleman who falls for Sophia Western and attempts to rape her to win her hand. Mrs. Bellaston is a relative of Squrie Western with whom Sophia lives in London. Mrs. Miller is a rental homeowner in London where Tom and Patridge stay on rent.

Summary of Tom Jones:

The novel is divided into 18 parts or books. In the Preface, the narrator explains that the purpose of the novel is to explore human nature, and thus the story veers between several extremes, comedy and tragedy, low and high society, moral and base. The story begins as a well-respected and wealthy gentleman Squire Allworthy returns to his Somersetshire estate to find a child abandoned in his bed. He gives him to his unmarried sister Bridget to look after. Bridget takes the help of her servant Mrs. Wilkins to find out about the mother of the foundling, the abandoned child. Tom’s mother is identified as Jenny Jones, a young unmarried servant girl, and his father is presumed to be Partridge, who ran the school that Jenny attended. Jenny is sent away in disgrace, and Allworthy’s sister, Miss Bridget, helps to raise the boy. The poverty-stricken Partridge leaves of his own accord. The parish opposes Squire Allworthy from taking control of the child as a guardian but Allworthy decides to bring up the boy, whom he names Thomas, or Tom in his household. Bridget marries Captain Blifil and gives birth to a child named Master Blifil. Tom is brought up alongside Allworthy’s nephew Blifil, Bridget's son. They are educated by two men of differing outlooks, Thwackum and Square. Blifil is a miserable and jealous boy. Captain Blifil regards Tom Jones with jealousy since he wishes his son to inherit all of the Allworthy possessions. While meditating on money matters, Captain Blifil falls dead of an apoplexy.

After the captain dies, Tom and Blifil grow up together. Their tutors praise young Blifil for being a steady, virtuous boy, while Tom is a wild young rascal.

Tom grows into a vigorous and lusty yet honest and kind-hearted youth. Tom is an impetuous character who supports his friend, the poor gamekeeper Black George Seagrim, even when that support causes him trouble. Tom frequently steals apples and ducks to support the family of Black George. Tom tells all of his secrets to Blifil, who then relates these to Thwackum or Allworthy, thereby getting Tom into trouble.

Tom spends much time with Squire Western, one of the neighbors of Squire Allworthy. Squire Western is fond of Tom’s youthfulness and sportsmanship. Western’s young daughter Sophia falls deeply in love with Tom but he is interested in Black George’s young beautiful girl Molly Seagrim. He starts dating her and soon she becomes pregnant but Tom learns that Molly has other lovers and the child is likely not Tom’s and thus, he breaks up with her. He realizes that Sophia may not be as voluptuous as Molly but she is a virtuous girl and falls in love with her.

Meanwhile, Squire Allworthy falls ill and is convinced that he will die. Thus, he calls all his friends and relatives around his bed and declares his will which states that Blifil will inherit most of his estate, although Tom is also provided for. Thwackum and Square are upset that they are each promised only a thousand pounds.

Tom is not worried about the money but he is too emotionally attached to Allworthy and barely leaves his bedside. A lawyer named Dowling arrives and announces the sudden and unexpected death of Bridget Allworthy. Meanwhile, the doctor declares that Squire Allworthy’s health is improving and he will not die. Tom is exhilarated by this news and he decides to celebrate by drinking too much alcohol. Master Blifill is the legal heir of Allworthy now and he demeans Tom and calls him a ‘bastard.’ Tom gets angry and hits him while he is affected by alcohol. He runs away from the house and meets Molly again and despite breaking up with her, makes love to her.

Meanwhile,. Mrs. Western, the elder sister of Mr. Western arrives to stay at her brother’s house. Mrs. Western and Mr. Western do not like each other much and continue to fight consistently. However, they both love Sophia and wish the best for her. Mrs. Wilkins suggests that Sophia should be married to Master Blifil who is the legal heir of Squire Allworthy. Sophia, however, strongly opposes the proposal, and Squire Western grows violent with her when he realizes that Sophia wishes to marry Tom. Blifil conspires against Tom, and he is unjustly turned out of Allworthy’s house and away from Sophia. Further, because Tom is a bastard child, Squire Western refuses to support Tom's suit for Sophia.

Though Allworthy banishes Tom, he gives a fair amount of money to him to take care of himself but Black George steals all that money. Tom begins to wander about the countryside. In Bristol, he happens to meet up with Partridge, who becomes his loyal servant. Tom also rescues Mrs. Waters from being robbed, and they begin an affair at a local inn. Meanwhile, Sophia runs away from her house to avoid marrying Blifil. She makes a stop at the same inn and sees Tom having an affair with Mrs. Waters. She remains silent and doesn’t let Tom notice her but leaves her muff in Tom’s bed before leaving the inn. When Tom sees the muff, he recognizes it and frantically sets out in pursuit of Sophia.

Squire Western arrives at the inn in search of Sophia and meets one of his relatives Mr Fitzpatrick who came to the inn in search of his wife Harriet who is a cousin of Sophia. However, they find neither Sophia nor Harriet at the inn. Sophia and Harriet ride together in a stagecoach to London. In London, Sophia stays with one of her relatives Lady Bellaston. Tom and Patridge too reach London and start living in the house of Mrs. Miller and her daughters as paying guests. One of Mrs. Miller’s daughters is Nancy who falls in love with Nightingale, another tenant of Mrs. Miller’s house. Tom realizes that Nancy and Nightingale are having an affair and when Nancy gets pregnant, he convinces Nightingale to take up the responsibility and marry Nancy.

Tom finds out the whereabouts of Sophia but he has to deal with Lady Bellastone. Lady Bellastone begins an affair with Tom who pretends to love her while he keeps pursuing Sophia. When Sophia and Tom reconcile, he straightforwardly rejects Lady Bellastone and this angers her. She decides to do everything possible to stop Sophia from marrying Tom. Lord Fellamar, a prudish gentleman from London sees Sophia and falls in love with her. He finds out that Sophia’s father Squire Western is a rich man and thus, he decides to woo her but fails as Sophia already is in love with Tom. Lady Bellaston encourages Lord Fellamar to rape Sophia and thus enforce her to marry him. Lord Fellamar attempts to rape Sophia but Squire Western reaches the right moment and intervenes to rescue Sophia.

Meanwhile, Mr. Fitzpatrick also arrives in London in search of his wife Harriet. He mistakenly believes that Tom is having an affair with his wife and challenges him to a duel. Because Sophia refuses to marry either Fellamar or Blifil, the Squire and Aunt Western lock her in her room. Lady Bellaston plots with Fellamar to have Tom kidnapped and impressed onto a naval ship, but before their plans can succeed, Tom gets in a fight with Mr Fitzpatrick and wounds him. As a result, he is sent to jail. Partridge visits Tom in jail with the ghastly news that Mrs. Waters is Jenny Jones, Tom's mother. Tom is shocked by knowing this. He repents of his life of folly and vice and swears that he will hereafter pursue a path of virtue.

When Allworthy and Blifil learn all about Tom in jail, they visit London and start living in Mrs. Miller’s house to investigate Tom and Mr. Fitzpatrick’s fight. Allworthy is worried that if Mr. Fitzpatrick dies, Tom will be guilty of murder and will spend most of his life in Jail. Blifil, on the other hand, conspires against Tom and when he comes to know about Mrs Waters, he accuses Tom of incest too. In an attempt to get to the bottom of these accusations, Mr. Allworthy interrogates Mrs. Waters, the former Jenny Jones, who reveals that Tom is actually Miss Bridget’s son. Just before her death, Bridget confessed the truth of Tom’s parentage in a letter that Blifil intercepted. Allworthy further learns that Black George stole the money that Allworthy gave Tom for his support, and he also discovers that Blifil’s lawyer has been influencing witnesses to exaggerate the gravity of Tom’s crimes. Mrs. Waters also explains that Fitzpatrick is still alive, and has admitted to initiating the duel. Mr Fitzpatrick takes his charges back and Tom is released from jail. Allworthy now realizes that Blifil was continuously conspiring against Tom and decides never to speak to him again. Tom, however, takes pity on Blifil and provides him with an annuity.

Sophia is still angry at Tom for having an affair with Lady Bellaston. Mrs. Miller explains to Sophia the reasons for Tom's marriage proposal to Lady Bellaston, and Sophia is satisfied. Now that Tom is Allworthy's heir, Squire Western eagerly encourages the marriage between Tom and Sophia. Sophia chastises Tom for his lack of chastity but agrees to marry him. They live happily on Western's estate with two children and shower everyone around them with kindness and generosity.

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!