Saturday, 24 October 2015

My presentations semester 1

Paper 1; The  Renaissance  Literature
Topic   :  Character  of  Satan

To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here




Character of Satan in Paradise Lost from tejasviajoshi

To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here


Paper  2 ;  The  Neo  classical  literature
Topic    :  Change  of  Gulliver  in  four  voyages.


To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here







Change in Gulliver Character of four Voyages. from tejasviajoshi


To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here


Paper  3  :  Literary  Theory  and  Criticism
Topic   :   Introduction  of  Mimetic  theory  and  Pragmatic  theory


To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here





Introduction to Mimetic Theory and Pragmatic Theory from tejasviajoshi


To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here


Paper  4  :  Indian  writing  in  English
Topic     :   Perspectivism  in  The  Purpose

To  evaluate my  presentations. Click  here






Sri Aurobindo's view of Indian Culture by Michel Danino

To evaluate my assignment, click here" - 


Name: Joshi Tejasvi A
Paper no: 04
Roll no: 24
Sem: 01
Assignment Topic:
Sri Aurobindo’s view of Indian culture by Michel Danino
Submitted To:
Department of English












Introduction of Aurobindo
Sri Aurobindo was born in Calcutta on 15 August 1872. At the age of seven he was taken to England for education and he also passed the final examination for the Indian civil service. Returning to India in 1993 he worked for next three year in Baroda as a professor in Baroda College. He was the first political leader In INDIA to openly put forward, in journal Bande Mataram, the ideal of complete independence for the country.
          The first thing we see that the principle, the essential intention of Indian culture was extraordinarily high, ambitious and noble, the highest indeed that the human spirit can conceive.
Sri Aurobindo Foundation for Indian Culture
Carry out authentic research to rediscover the truth and genius of Indian culture in its depth and fullness.
Re-awaken the capacity that enabled India to excel in every aspect of life, and apply it dynamically to contemporary life and all its activities.
Create new forms of philosophy, literature, art, science and critical knowledge, based on a synthesis of the East and the West.
Look at existing problems of the world in the light of Indian Spiritually and Psychology.
   Introduction about Michel Danino
          Michel Danino born in 1956 at Honfleur (France) into a Jewish family recently emigrated from Morocco, from the age of fifteen Michel Danino was drown to India, some of her great yogis, and soon to Sri Aurobindo and mother and their view of evolution which gives a new meaning to our existence on this earth.
  Sri Aurobindo’s view of Indian culture by Michel Daino
          In this view Michel said individual that all I knew was that I could find nothing in France or in the west that could give a full meaning to my life, nothing- in its science, its philosophies , even its culture- that could convince me that life is worth leaving. The first few pages I read by and about Sri Aurobindo put an end to that quest- and were, of course, the beginning of another. Sri Aurobindo always saw behind the appearances of the moment, however disheartening they may be. He saw India’s ancient strength, the causes of her decay, the certainly of her rebirth. For sixty years, from his student days in Cambridge to his passing in 1950, his will for the fulfilment of India’s destiny never wavered. He fought for it, suffered for it, poured all his energies towards it. Sixty years is a long time in a man’s life.
We meet piles of garbage and are struck by a stench emanating from the foundations. This is the experience of a number of westerners, though few of them would be ready to put it as bluntly. Western society today believes only in “expansion,” “efficiency,” “competitiveness”- and seeks to transform its members into unthinking cogs in a huge Machine. We will certainly find some   remarkable individuals here and there, but the mass is left to live in their hearts becomes a little too acute. Or, if it is not depression, it is a bottomless pit of degradation. Western civilisation, if it can be given this noble name, was built on cynical greed, with a thin veneer of culture to give it a respectable appearance. Anyone who finds this statement excessive should study the way “leading” western nations spend their time selling weapons of death to everyone, then sending peace missions to extinguish the wars they started, and more bombers in case the peace missions are turned down. Not to speak of the countless dictators and terrorists they constantly create, only to fight them in the name of “human Rights” once they are found inconvenient. Or, again, look at those giant corporate houses which think nothing of laying the earth waste as long as they can make a few more dollars. No one knows where the whole machine is heading, nor does anyone care- although many, especially among the ordinary people, vaguely and anxiously sense that things cannot go on much longer. Such unhealthy foundations are sure to decay before long, and the sings of impending disintegration are not lacking, whether in the economic or the social fields.
Europe boasts of her science and its marvels. But to the braggart intellect of Europe the India is bound to reply, “I am not interested in what you know, I am interested in what you are. With all your discoveries and inventions, what have you become? Your enlightenment is great but what are these strange creatures that move about in the electric light you have installed and imagine that they are human?” is it a great gain for the human intellect to have grown more acute and discerning, if the human soul dwindles? Man in Europe is descending steadily from the human level and approximating to the ant and the hornet. The process is not complete but it is progressing apace, and if nothing stops the debacle, we may hope to see its culmination in this twentieth century after all our superstitions were better than this enlightenment, our social abuses less murderous to the hopes of the race than this social perfection.
Ninety years later, what was then behind the veil is now out in the open. We have almost reaches the “culmination” of the West’s failure. It has failed in spite of all its achievements because it has ignored what we “are,” scoffed at what we are expected to “become.” And that is precisely, for Sri Aurobindo, the heart of Indian civilization, its constant concern through ages, in art or science or yoga, in every activity of life. “The laboratory of the soul has been India,” he said. Indian culture is simply the culture of man’s inner richness. It is a realization that the entire universe is divine, tree, bird, man and star-and our mother Earth, whom the West has for two thousand years regarded as a chunk of inanimate matter created to serve our ever-expanding greed.
While fighting for India’s independence, Sri Aurobindo reminded his countrymen: This great and ancient nation was once the fountain of human light, the apex of human civilisation, the exemplar of courage and humanity, the perfection of good Government and settled society, the mother of all religions, the teacher of all wisdom and philosophy. It has suffered much at the hands of inferior civilisations and more savage peoples; it has gone down into the shadow of night and tasted often of the bitterness of death. Its pride has been trampled into the dust and its glory has departed. Hunger and misery and despair have become the masters of this fair soil, these noble hills, these ancient rivers, these cities whose life story goes back into prehistoric night. All our calamities have been but a discipline of suffering; because for the great mission before us prosperity was not sufficient, adversity had also its training; to taste the glory of power and beneficence and joy was not sufficient, the knowledge of weakness and torture and humiliation was also needed.
One hopes that the lesson of weakness and humiliation is coming to its end. It has lasted long enough. But, for Sri Aurobindo, it can only end if we get rid of a central misconception, a fatal misconception. When we speak of the “laboratory of the soul,” of India’s wisdom and spirituality, a widespread tendency is to think that all this is fine for those confined to ashrams, or perhaps for old age, but of little practical use to build a nation. Sri Aurobindo frankly disagrees. To him, inner growth can never contradict outer growth, but can alone put it on a sound foundation. Referring to India’s extraordinarily creative past, which certainly never neglected material life and achievements, he observed:
Without this opulent vitality and opulent intellectuality India could never have done so much as she did with her spiritual tendencies. It is a great error to suppose that spirituality flourishes best in an impoverished soil with the life half-killed and the intellect discouraged and intimidated. When in 1920, Sri Aurobindo was asked to resume politics, while spelling out his reasons for turning down the request, he also said: I have always laid a dominant stress on the spiritual life, but my idea of spirituality has nothing to do with ascetic withdrawal or contempt or disgust of secular things. There is to me nothing secular, all human activity is for me a thing to be included in a complete spiritual life.
With half-veiled causticity, Sri Aurobindo explained:
People care nothing about the spiritual basis of life which is India’s real mission and the only possible source of her greatness, or give to it only a slight, secondary or incidental value, a something that has to be stuck on as a sentiment or a bit of colouring matter. Our whole principle is different.
We are sometimes asked what on earth we mean by spirituality in art and poetry or in political and social life-a confession of ignorance strange enough in any Indian mouth at this stage of our national history. We have here really an echo of the  European idea that religion and spirituality on the one side and intellectual activity and practical life on the other are two entirely different things and have each to be pursued on its own entirely separate lines and in obedience to its own entirely separate principles. True spirituality rejects no new light, no added means or materials of our human self-development. It means simply to keep our centre, our essential way of being, and our inborn nature and assimilate to it all we receive, and evolve out of it all we do and create. India can, if she will, give a new and decisive turn to the problems over which all mankind is labouring and stumbling, for the clue to their solutions is there in her ancient knowledge. Whether she will rise or not to the height of her opportunity in the renaissance which is coming upon her, is the question of her destiny.
To achieve India’s “renaissance,” Sri Aurobindo boldly and repeatedly called on his countrymen to develop the Kshatriya spirit, almost lost after centuries of subjection: the Kshatriya of old must again take his rightful position in our social polity to discharge the first and foremost duty of defending its interests. The brain is important without the right arm of strength. What India needs especially as this moment is the aggressive virtues, the spirit of soaring idealism, bold creation, fearless resistance, courageous attack; of the passive tama sic spirit of inertia we have already too much. We need to cultivate another training and temperament, another habit of mind.
And how do we cultivate that other training and temperament? We can cultivate it on the individual or on the collective level. Individually, that is yoga; it means opening ourselves to a wider consciousness and a greater power; it means allowing them to fashion anew our hardly human nature. And of course, it means discarding the misconception that yoga is good only for escaping from this world. Recently, a young Indian friend asked me, “But what is the benefit of yoga?” overlooking the rather mercantile aspect in his question, I tried to explain that the “benefit” is all that ordinary life cannot provide-all that the ancient Rishis were after: true mastery, true power, true expansion, and a true understanding of the world, which is so tragically lacking today. I don’t think my young friend was convinced it was really worth all the trouble which is why Sri Aurobindo never expected too many people to sincerely practise his exacting integral yoga. That brings us to the slower but crucial collective level. Sri Aurobindo always laid great stress on education. He himself had the best European education while in Cambridge, and, between 1897 and 1906, was a professor in the Baroda state college, then in the Bengal National College. So he knew the question in depth. And he had hopes in the young. Our call is to young India. It is the young who must be the builders of the new world- not those who accept the competitive individualism, the capitalism or the materialistic communism of the west as India’s future ideal, not those who are enslaved to old religious formulas and cannot believe in the acceptance and transformation of life by the spirit, but all who are free in mind and heart to accept a completer truth and labour for a greater ideal.
Sri Aurobindo never tired of calling for what he termed “a national education.” He gave this brief definition for it:
The education which starting with the past and making full use of the present builds up a great nation. Whatever wishes to cut off nation from its past is no friend of our national growth. Whatever fails to take advantage of the present is losing us the battle of life. We must therefore save for India that entire she has stored up of knowledge, character and noble thought in her immemorial past. We must acquire for her the best knowledge that Europe can give her and assimilate it to her own peculiar type of national temperament. We must introduce the best methods of teaching humanity has developed, whether modern or ancient. And all these we must harmonise into a system which will be impregnated with the spirit of self-reliance so as to build up men and not machines.
Sri Aurobindo had little love for British education in India, which he called a “mercenary and soulless education,” and for its debilitating influence on the “the innate possibilities” of the Indian brain. “In India,” he said, “the students generally have great capacities, but the system of education represses and destroys these capacities.” As in every field, he wanted India to carve out her own path courageously: the greatest knowledge and the greatest riches man can posses are by inheritance; she has that for which all mankind is waiting. The full soul rich with the inheritance of the past, the widening gains of the present, and the large potentiality of the future, can come only by a system of national education. It cannot by any extension or imitation or imitation of the system of the existing universities with its radically false principles, its vicious and mechanical methods, its dead-alive routine tradition and its narrow and sightless spirit. Only a new spirit and a new body born from the heart of the nation and full of the light and hope of its resurgence can create it. Sri Aurobindo also insisted on mastery of one’s mother-tongue, on the teaching of Sanskrit, which he certainly did not regard as a “dead language,” on artistic values based on the old spirit of Indian art, all of which he saw as essential to the integral development of the child’s personality. In short, nothing whether Indian or Western was rejected, but all had to be integrated in the Indian spirit.

This is clearly not the line Indian education has taken. If we see today that nothing even of the Mahabharata or the Ramayana is taught to an Indian child, we can measure the abyss to be bridged. That the greatest epics of mankind should be thrown away on the absurd and erroneous pretext that they are “religious” is beyond the comprehension of an impartial observer. A German or French or English child will be taught something of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, because they are regarded as the root of European culture, and somehow present in the European consciousness. He will not be asked to worship Zeus or Athena, but will be shown how the Ancients saw and experienced the world and the human being. But Indian epics, a hundred times richer and vaster in human experience, a thousand times more present in the Indian consciousness, will not be taught to an Indian child. Not to speak of other important texts such as the beautiful Tamil epics, Shilappadikaram and Manimekhalai. Even the Panchatantra and countless other highly educational collections of Indian stories-even folk stories-are ruled out. Certainly some aberration worked upon the minds of those who devised Indian education after independence. Or perhaps they devised nothing but were content with dusting off Macaulay’s brainchild. It is painful to see that the teaching of Sanskrit is almost systematically discouraged in India; it is painful to see that the deepest knowledge of the human being, that of yogic science, is discarded in favour of shallow Western psychology or psychoanalysis; it is painful to see that the average Indian student never even hears the name of Sri Aurobindo, who did so much for his country; and that, generally, Western intellectualism at its worst is the only food given to a nation whom Sri Aurobindo described as once the “deepest-toughed.” 

Aristotle Poetics

 "To evaluate my assignment, click here


Name:-Joshi Tejasvi A
Paper No:-03
Aristotle Poetics
Roll No:-24
Sem:-01
Assignment topic:-Aristotle Poetics
Submitted to
Department of English












Q: Aristotle’s Poetics
Introduction
        Plato was a great poet, a mystic and a philosopher.  Aristotle- the most distinguished disciple of Plato- was a critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The master was an inspired genius every way greater than the disciple except in logic, analysis and common sense. He is known for his critical treatise: (1) The poetics and (2) The Rhetoric, dealing with art of poetry and art of speaking, resp.
       For centuries during Roman age in Europe and after renaissance, Aristotle was honoured as a law-giver and legislator. Even today, his critical theories remain largely relevant, and for this, he certainly deserves our admiration and esteem.
  Aristotle’s poetics
      Aristotle’s main concern appears to be tragedy, which in his day was considered to be the most developed from of poetry. Another part of poetics deals with comedy, but it is unfortunately lost. In his observation on the nature and function of poetry, he has replied the charges of Plato against poetry, wherein he partly agrees and partly disagrees with his teacher.
How does Aristotle differentiate various forms of art?
     A poem should be judged on how it is written rather than what it is written about. While there are several different types of poems, all are forms of imitation. What determines one type of a poem from another is how the subject of the poem is presented to the audience. In fact, music is a form of imitation as well, but uses harmony and rhythm as opposed to language and voice.  
     Classification of various art forms: tragedy, comedy and epic: medium and manner of imitation decides type of poetry.
Object
       David Daiches writes explaining the classification of poetry according to the aspect of life and the kinds of characters that are represented or imitated. “We can classify poetry according to the kinds of people it represents- they are either better than they are in real life, or worse, or the same. Tragedy deals with men on a heroic scale, men better than they are in everyday life, where as human nature, with characters ‘worse’ than they are in real life.”
Medium
     The types of literature, says Aristotle, can, again, be distinguished according to the medium of representation. The deference of medium between a poet and a painter is clear; one uses words with their denotative, the other uses forms and colours. Likewise tragedy writer may make use of one kind of metre, and the comedy writer of another.
 Manner
        The third difference in artistic imitation is defined by Aristotle as ‘manner’, meaning the narrative form of a work takes while the other two elements remain constant. Using the three differences: the medium, the objects, and the manner which he has defined up to this point, he them uses them to compare and contrast different artists based on how they have utilized these imitative qualities fragment in their works. Due to this classification, certain areas lay claim to the creation of tragedy, comedy, or both because of the way in which their native poets have demonstrated various forms of the three differences.       
       The kind of literature can be distinguished and determined also according to the techniques they employ. David Daiches: “the poet can tell a story in narrative form and partly through the speeches of the characters, or it can all be done in third person narrative, or the story can be presented dramatically, with no use of third person narrative at all”.
·         Action comprises of all human activities including deeds, thoughts and feelings. So, Soliloquies, Chorus etc is also action.  In book v serves to distinguish the boundaries between tragic, comic and epic poetry. Comedy is considered to be a “lower form” of tragedy, and is not accompanied by the same degree of history due to its previous lack of seriousness. Although there are differences between epic and tragic poetry, tragic poetry contains all the same elements as epic, but tragic holds elements that epic poetry does not. The writer of ‘Tragedy’ seeks to imitate the serious side of life just as a writer of ‘Comedy’ seeks to imitate only the shallow and superficial side.
·         Tragedy as “an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude,” written as action rather than as narrative, and which “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions, because tragedy is an imitation of action and because the emotionally powerful reversal and recognition scenes are part of the plot, Aristotle assigns this the “first principle” of tragedy. 
·         The tragic section presented on the stage in a drama should be complete or self contained with a beginning, middle and an end. A beginning is that before which the audience or the reader does not need to be told anything to understand the story. If something more is required to understand the story than the beginning gives, it is unsatisfactory. From it follow the middle. In their turn the events from the middle lead to the end. Thus the story becomes a compact & self sufficient one. It must not leave the impression that even after the end the action continues or that before the action starts certain things remain to be known.
·         It must have close-knit unit with nothing that is superfluous or unnecessary. Every episode, every character and a dialogue in the play must carry step the action that is set into motion to its logical denouement. It must give the impression of wholeness at the end. Its manner of imitation should be action, not narration as in epic, for it is meant to be a dramatic representation, not a mere story-telling. The acceptable sense of the statement that a story must have a beginning would seem to be that the story must start more or less where its antecedents may be taken for granted, that is, where they are generic rather than specifically relevant.
             One may add-for it is an idea which readily follows that these stories have the advantage of getting off to a fast start. A comic poet of Aristotle’s time complained:
             “Your tragedian is altogether the most fortunate of poets.” First his plot is familiar to the audience before a line is uttered-he need only give a reminder. If I just say “Oedipus.” They know all the rest: his father was Louis, his mother. Jocasta, fragment the names of his sons and daughters. What he has done and what will happen to him...Us comic playwrights have no such resources.    
·         The plot should be unified, meaning that every elements of the plot should tie in to the rest of the plot, leaving no loose ends. This kind of unity allows tragedy to express universal themes powerfully, which makes it superior to history, which can only talk about particular events. Episodic plots are bad because there is no necessarily to the sequence of events. The best kind of plot contains suprises, but surprises that, in retrospect, fit logically into the sequence of events. The best kinds of surprises are brought about by peripeteia, or reversal of fortune and discovery. A good plot progresses like a knot that is tied up with increasingly greater complexity until the moment of peripeteia, at which point the knot is gradually untied until it reaches a completely unknotted conclusion.
For a tragedy to arouse pity and fear, we must observe a hero who is relatively noble going from happiness to misery as a result of error on the part of the hero. Our pity and fear is aroused most when it is family members who harm one another rather than enemies or strangers. In the best kind of plot one character narrowly avoids killing a family member unwittingly thanks to discovery that reveals the family connection. Since both the character of the hero and the plot must have logical consistency, Aristotle concludes that the untying of the plot must follow as a necessary consequence of the plot and not from stage artifice, like dues ex Machina.
Aristotle discusses thought and diction and then moves on to address epic poetry. Whereas tragedy consists of actions presented in a dramatic form, epic poetry consists of verse presented in a narrative form. Tragedy and epic poetry have many common qualities most notably the unity of plot and similar subject matter. However, epic poetry can be longer than tragedy, and because it is not performed, it can deal with more fantastic action with a much wider scope. By contrast, tragedy can be more focused and takes advantage of the devices of music and spectacle epic poetry and tragedy are also written in deferent meters. After defending poetry against changes that it deals with improbable or impossible events. The poet is superior to the historian because the poet talks about universal truths while the historian simply regurgitates events of the past.
Conclusion

 Closing his defence of poetry, Aristotle considers which art is higher: epic poetry or tragedy specifically, he claims that tragedy is the higher form. Thus, Aristotle concludes that since tragedy is superior to epic poetry in these respects and fulfils its specific function better. Tragedy is the higher art and also weighing tragedy against epic poetry and determining that tragedy is on the while superior.

.          

Individualism in Robinson Crusoe

 "To evaluate my assignment, click here




Name: Joshi Tejasvi A
Paper no:-02
Roll no: 24
Sem: o1
Assignment Topic:
Individualism in Robinson Crusoe
Submitted to:
Department of English












Introduction about the writer
        Daniel Defoe was born in 1660, in London, and was originally Christened Daniel foe changing his name around the age of thirty-five to sound more aristocratic. Like his character Robinson Crusoe, Defoe was a third child.
Robinson Crusoe was based on the true story of a Shipwrecked seaman named Alexander Selkirk and was passed off as history, while Moll Flanders included dark prison scenes drawn from Defoe’s own experiences in New gate and interviews with prisoners. His focus on the actual condition of everyday life and avoidance of the courtly and the heroic made Defoe a revolutionary in English literature and helped define the new genre of the novel. Daniel Defoe wrote 100 best Novel. No 2 is Robinson Crusoe. Defoe died in London on April 24, 1731 of a fatal “lethargy” an unclear diagnosis that may refer to a stroke. 
Individualism in Robinson Crusoe
Robinson Crusoe is both the narrator and main character of the tale. Crusoe narrates in both the first and third person, presenting what he observes. Crusoe occasionally describes his feelings, but only when they are overwhelming. Usually he favours a more factual narrative style focused on actions and events.
Stylistically, Defoe was a great innovator. Dispensing with the ornate style associated with the upper classes, Defoe used the simple, direct, fact-based style of the middle classes, which became the new standard for the English novel. With Robinson Crusoe’s theme of solitary human existence, Defoe paved the way for the central modern theme of alienation and isolation.
Defoe deals with the growth and development of individual in solitude. Crusoe becomes ‘everyman’ and readers see the solitude of a human soul. Crusoe becomes the king, the lord, the master, the emperor etc. Crusoe becomes the creator of the world. Defoe believes in religious, political and social freedom of every individual. The novel is the narrative of spiritual and emotional growth within the ‘self.’ Crusoe realizes that he is self-dependent. By living in island Crusoe has to stop wandering. He acquires a sense of place and a sense of self. Crusoe becomes the human representative. The novel helps readers to develop an optimistic outlook towards an unfortunate situation.
The story was to begin with the shipwreck and to end with the rescue: Emile’s book would be less instructive if it ended in the way it actually does with a return to civilisation. Defoe himself gives two main explanations for Crusoe’s solitude. At times Crusoe feels he is being punished for irreligion, at others for his filial disobedience in leaving home in the father adventures he even accuses himself of having ‘killed his father.’ But Crusoe as a man isolated from God. When he was going to the Island than the hero, alone on his Island, deprived of all assistance from his fellows, and nevertheless able to look after himself, is obviously a figure that will enthral readers of all ages. The book’s consequent entertainment value renders palatable its moral and philosophical merits which are Rousseau’s main concern. It actually does with a return to civilisation. Defoe of course, would have been surprised at this canonization of his story. His surprise would have been increased by Rousseau’s other references where Crusoe becomes a sort of John the Baptist, who in his solitude made straight the ways of the final incarnation of the extravagancies of romantic individualism. For Crusoe is after all a ‘solitaire malgrelui’, as Paul Nourrison points out in his Jean-Jacques Rousseau ET Robinson Crusoe. He is an involuntary and unappreciative prisoner of the beauties of nature.
He finds himself on a desert Island, but he has no intention of letting it remain as such Rousseau wanted to flee the complication and corruptions of the town, to take refuge in a solitary pastoral retreat: Defoe’s solution of the dilemma is much more deeply representative of our culture. For the main processes by which man secures food, clothing, and shelter are only likely to become interesting when they have become alien to his common, everyday experience. Defoe’s interest in part of the ideology of a new and vast historical process, the dignity of labour is ultimately the creed of the religion of capitalism. In this religion Marx figures as the arch-schismatic who-like all heretics-became so by taking one part of the creed too seriously and trying to apply it universally and inconveniently.
Defoe’s readers, perhaps, from their own ordinary experiences of solitude, may suspect as much, even if in a less dramatic form. But as they read Robinson Crusoe they forget that isolation can be painful or boring, that it tends in their own lives towards apathetic animosity and mental derangement. Instead, they rejoice to find that isolation can be the beginning of a new realisation of the potentialities of the individual. Their inertias are cheered by a vicarious participation in Crusoe’s twenty-three years of lonely and triumphant struggle. They imagine themselves to be sharing each representative step in his conquest of the environment, and perform with him a heartening recapitulation of humanity’s success story. To all who feel isolated, those who get tired of their Job-and who at times does not-the story has a deep appeal and sends our critical faculties asleep.  Inspired by the theme, and blinded, perhaps, by our wishes and dreams, we forget the subtle ways by which a consolatory unreality has been made to appear real.
Crusoe is not actually a primitive or a proletarian or even a professional man, but a capitalist. He owns freehold, an estate which is rich, though unimproved. It is not a desert Island in the geographical sense; it is merely barren of owners a or competitors, and, above all, the very event which brings him there, the shipwreck, which is supposed to be a retributive disaster, is in fact a miraculous present rendered particularly felicitous by the death of all the other passengers.
The possession of this original stock, which Defoe’s imitators usually retain, on a more lavish and less utilitarian scale, is a major practical unreality overlooked by many of his admirers of the classic idyll of individual enterprise. Yet it alone is enough to controvert the myth’s wishful affirmation of a flagrant economic naivety- the idea that anyone has ever attained comfort and security entirely by his own efforts. This version imposes a severe strain on the credulity of its readers; at least on that of anyone who does not live in philanthropy. But even if we grant the possibility of an isolated man reaching a high technological level unaided, there remain other more drastic difficulties in interpreting Robinson Crusoe as a myth of autarkic individual enterprise-difficulties based on the fact that the Island is, after all, an Island, and that whatever happens there is exceptional and does not seem to happen anywhere else on the Island there is-with one exception to which we shall return-only real wealth. The perplexities of money and the price mechanism do not exit. There, as perhaps nowhere else, a direct relation between production and consumption. That is one obvious reason why we should did not go to the Island, and once there, doesn’t want to stay. The fact that he was forced to be a model of industry does not mean that he likes work.
         In Brazil, he had soon tired even of the tasks of a sugar plantation owner, and it was his quest of the more spectacular rewards of the slave trade which took him to the island. It is only on his Island that Crusoe shows the regulated diligence combined with accurate planning and stocktaking which is so important in modern economic organisation. Defoe knew this theoretically; he dealt with such matters in his economic manuals. But he himself had not been able to carry out his economic ideals into practice. They were realised only on Crusoe’s ‘island of despair’ which is actually a utopia, though of a new and peculiar kind. The new utopia is the answer, not to the easy and expansive yearnings of the heart for individual happiness and social harmony, nor even to Crusoe’s acquisitive instincts, it is the answer only to a very rigorous conception of what kind of life Defoe feels is good for other people. If we leave the Island, we find a very different picture, the other adventure of Robinson Crusoe, and the lives of Defoe’s other heroes and heroines do not point in the direction of the dignity of labour. Defoe knew very well that the normal social conditions of his time caused very different adjustments to the environment. Moll Flanders, Roxana, and colonel Jacque satisfy their needs in ways which no one would propose for imitation. Indeed their exploits demonstrate quite another type of political economy, and point the moral that- to those outside Crusoe’s Island and without his heaven- bestowed capital – ‘La propriete,c’est le vol,’
      The Economic Individualism in Crusoe
Daniel Defoe Robinson Crusoe takes an important place in the history of the English novel, because it was the first time that a continuous prose narrative had been written with the specific aim of creating the illusion of day-to-day living. Crusoe struggles with practical problems. Crusoe is, after all, a British urban citizen suddenly thrust into the wilderness. We can observe that Defoe portray in Robinson Crusoe diverse elements of the individualism firstly, Robinson Crusoe is an illustration of homo economics, that is, economic man that symbolizes the new outlook of individualism in its economic aspect. The story begins Robinson Crusoe is going to his Brazilian plantation, however his ship was wrecked and he was the only survivor in an Island. And in this Island, he regards the Island primarily as a property to be developed for his own use.
Defoe, then, is a realist about the individual and his economic environment. He has no illusions about the dignity of the labours of most people in the England of his day. He expressed their lot in a moving passage which William Morris used as epigraph to his lecture on ‘The art of the people’ The key to the basic motivation of his characters and the hypothesis that best explains their history both apply to Crusoe for he is only a special case of economic man. Homo economics is, of course a fiction. There has long been a conflict about the utility of the abstraction. Briefly, the classical political economists found in the idea of Robinson Crusoe, the solitary individual on a desert island, a splendid example for their system-building. On the other hand, their critics who, like Marx, were concerned to prove that economics can be a guide to reality only when it is a historical and social science, have denied the relevance of Robinson Crusoe to any realistic economic thinking.
The protestant ethic involves a through systematization of behaviour according to rational norms of personal profit is very similar, and so is Tawny’s picture of the acquisitive society composed of individuals pursuing their individual interests without any recognition of social or moral solidarity. But these theoretical formulations had long before been anticipated by literary realization. Crusoe treats his personal relationships in terms of their commodity value. The Moorish boy, Xury, for example, helps him to escape from slavery and on another occasion offers to prove his devotion by sacrificing his own life.
Defoe’s view of the individual was too completely dominated by the rational pursuit of material self-interest to allow any scope either for natural instinct or for higher emotional needs. Even when Crusoe return to civilisation, sex is strictly subordinated to business. Only after his financial position has been fully secured by a further voyage does he marry, and that not either to my disadvantage or dissatisfaction. It is therefore no accident that love plays a very miner part in Crusoe’s own life, and is eliminated from the scene of his greatest triumphs. One could illustrate the ideology of homo economics at much greater length from Robinson Crusoe. Everything is measured from the rational, a social, and anti-traditional standards of individual self-interest, and some of the results are not pleasant the need to obscure the regrettable social and psychological corollaries of the rise of economic individualism must explain much of the very general disinclination to see the darker side of Defoe’s hero.
              To conclude, the elements of the individualism, showing in Crusoe, Defoe represents exactly the kind of attitudes, which were eventually to make Britain the richest country in the world and lead it to establish a vast empire, and illustrates the attitudes of a eighteenth century British Citizen. Indeed, Crusoe is one of the classics of world literature, which portrays that prudence rather than heroism is the key to hero’s actions. He is, in fact, the first significant example in English literature of the prudential hero, or, to it another way, the economic individualistic hero.
             “Robinson Crusoe” was the great early document of radical individualism, the story of an ordinary person’s practical and psychic survival in profound isolation. The novelistic enterprise associated with individualism. The search of or meaning in realistic narrative-went on to become the culture’s dominant literary mode for the next three centuries. “New economy by reimagining the social order as a collection of self-reliant individuals with a direct relationship with God, but by 1700, as the British economy thrived, it was becoming less clean that individuals needed God at all. It’s true that, as any impatient child reader can tell you, many pages of ‘Robinson Crusoe’ are devoted to its hero’s spiritual journey. Robinson finds God on the Island, and he turns to him repeatedly in moments of crisis, praying for deliverance and ecstatically thanking him for providing the means of it. And yet, as soon as each crisis has passed, he reverts to his practical self and forgets about God; by the end of Robinson Crusoe’s vacillations and forgetfulness is to see the genre of spiritual autobiography unravelling into realist fiction.” The mode of the book is a “true” story, and in the details Defoe makes us experience the sweat and isolation, the grinding solitude of existence. The images are so vivid that they have stayed with us for centuries since, from “Gilliganls Island” to “lost.” Could we survive on our own? Crusoe says no-in fact he never would have survived if not for God, and never could have made it off the Island were it not for the mishaps with a mutinous crew that finally finds him. Modern sensibilities find something familiar in Crusoe, because no matter the circumstances, everyone knows loneliness, even if great crowds. The piety of the castaway may have been expected in his day, but Crusoe learns more, such as the inscrutable ways of God, which find renewal even in certain destruction.                    
Crusoe’s merits are combined with a stolid and inhibited self-sufficiency which is disastrous both for the individual and for society. That is Crusoe’s hubris- a defect not unlike Rousseau’s ‘hypertrophie du moi’ there is, even on Crusoe’s own showing, very little content or peace in this way of life. The bitterness of isolation as the primordial fact repeatedly moves Defoe to a great fervour of communication. One of the passages seems a particularly moving commentary on the isolation which the pursuit of individual self-interest creates in the human spirit.         


 "To evaluate my assignment, click here


Paper 01: The Renaissance Literature

 "To evaluate my assignment, click here" -


Name: Joshi Tejasvi A
Paper:-1The Renaissance Literature
Unit:-1 Hamlet
Assignment Topic:
Cultural Studies Approach in Hamlet
Roll no: 24
Sem: 01
Submitted to:-Maharaja Krishnakumarsignji University, Bhavnagar.
Department of English









Hamlet has remained Shakespeare’s best known, most-imitated, and most-analyzed play. The character of Hamlet played a critical role in Sigmund Freud’s explanation of the Oedipus complex and thus influenced modern psychology.
Introduction
             Cultural Studies is avowedly and even radically interdisciplinary and can sometimes be seen as ant disciplinary. As cultural studies scholar to by Miller has written, “Cultural Studies is a tendency across disciplines, rather than a discipline itself.” The field of Cultural Studies encompasses a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives and practices.
Cultural Studies approach
            There are various approaches in Hamlet like Textual, Genre Study, Historical and Biographical, Moral and Philosophical, Psychological, Mythological and Archetypal, Feminism and Gender, Cultural Studies in practice and Formalist Approach etc. Let us discuss cultural studies Approach.  Cultural studies are quite a new approach to read new literature. It is always find mistake of culture. What we do in our everyday life is a culture. We can notice in Hamlet there are two marginalization characters in the cultural and new historical emphases of the power and relationship of the cultural study in practice. For example are noticed in critics assume “oppositional” role in term of power structures. We know that true reality to Hamlet in his life his friend also his favour but in power position has King Claudius so Claudius is taking privately with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet’s fellow students from students from Writtenberg. In response to Claudius’s plan to send Hamlet to England so now see to this context in two characters Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in cultural context and practice to Hamlet and also that if read out to context is both an excellent set of metaphors and a adding up the Elizabethan concept of the role and power of kingship:
           The singular and peculiar life is bound with all the strength and armor of the mind to keep itself from noyance, http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.pngbut much more that spirit upon whose weal depends and rests the lives of many....Each small annexment, petty consequence, Attends the boisterous ruin. Never alone did the King sigh but with a general groan. In this lines he explain that taken alone, the passage is a thoughtful and imagistic ally successful passage, worthy of a wise and accomplished statesman. It wants us to have a lance at ones Marginalized characters we are not given enough important and those who should have been given reorganisations in their life. But how many readers and viewers of the play would rank this passage among the best known lines of the play with Hamlet’s soliloquies “To be or not to be that is the question...” or with the king’s effort to pray, or even with the aphorisms addressed by Polonius to his son Laertes? We venture to say that the passage, intrinsically good if one looks at it alone, is simply not well known.

     
         Attention to the contact and to the speaker gives the answer. Guildenstern had just agreed that he and Rosencrantz would do the king’s bidding. The agreement is only a reaffirmation of what they had told the king when he first received them at court. Both speeches are wholly in character, for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are among the jellyfish of Shakespeare’s characters. Easy it is to forget which of the two speaks which lines indeed easy it is to forget most of their lines altogether. The two are distinctly plot-driven empty of personality, sycophantic in a snivelling way, eager to curry favour with power even if it means spying on their erstwhile friend. Weakly they admit, without Mack skill at denial, that they “were sent for.” Even less successfully they try to plan on Hamlet’s metaphorical “pipe”, to know his “stops”, when they are forced to admit that they could not even handle the literal musical instrument that Hamlet shows instrument that Hamlet shows them. Still later these nonentities meet their destined “non-beingness,” as it were, when Hamlet, who can play the pipe so much more efficiently, substitutes their names in the death warrant intended for him.
        If ever we wished to study two characters that are if marginalized, and then let us look upon Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
        The meanings of their names hardly match what seems to be the essence of their characters. Murray j. Levith, for example, has written that “Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are from the Datch-German: literally “garland of roses” and “golden star”. Although of religious origin, both names together sound singsong and odd to English ears. Their jangling gives them lightness, and blurs the individuality of the characters they label”.
       Lightness to be sure Harley Granville- Barker once wrote in an offhand way of the reaction these two roles call up for actors commenting on solanio and salarino from The Merchant of Venice, he noted that their roles are “Cursed by actors as the two worse bores in the whole Shakespearean canon; not excepting, even those other twin brethren in nonentity, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. 
       Harold Jenkins reports as historical person bearing these names: “These splendidly resounding names, by contrast with the unlocalized classical ones, are evidently chosen as particularly Danish both were common among the most influential Danish familiar, and they are often found together”.
       The personalities and general vacuity of Shakespeare’s two incompetents approaches.  So let us look elsewhere for what these two characters tell us. Let us review what they do, and what is done to them. Simply, they have been students at Wittenberg.
      They return to Denmark, apparently at the direct request of Claudius. They try to pray from hamlet some of his inner thoughts, especially of ambition and frustration about the crown. Hamlet foils them. They crumble before them own questioning. As toned above, Claudius later sends them on an embassy with Hamlet, carrying a letter to the king of England that would have Hamlet summarily executed. Though, they may not have known the contents of that grand commission. Hamlet’s suspicion of them is enough for him to contemplate their future and to “trust them is enough for him to contemplate their future and to “trust them as adders fanged”
      Clearly Hamlet makes reference in the lines just noted to the “mighty opposites” represented by himself and Claudius clearly too the ones of “baser nature” who “made love to this employment” do not matter much in this struggle between powerful antagonists. They are pawns for Claudius first, for Hamlet second. It is almost as if Hamlet had tried before the sea voyage to warn them of their insignificant state, he calls Rosencrantz a sponge, provoking.
             So they are pawns, or sponge, or monkey food: the massage of power keeps coming through. Thus, they do not merit a pang of conscience. True there may be some room for believing that at first they intended only good for their erstwhile school fellow. But their fate, however, is to displease mightily the prince, who will undermine them and “hoist with own petard.”
           Claudius was aware of power, clearly, when he observed of Hamlet’s apparent madness that “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go’ with equal truth Rosencrantz and Guildenstern might have observed that power in great ones also must not unwatched go. With equal Rosencrantz and Guildenstern might have observed that power in great ones also must not unwatched go.
            To say, then, that the mighty struggle between powerful antagonists is the stuff of this play is hardly original. But our emphasis in the present reading is that one can gain a further insight into the play, and indeed into Shakespeare’s culture, by thinking not about kings and princes but about the lesser persons caught up in the massive oppositions.  
           Whether they “are” at all may be the ultimate question of this modern play. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern both are died, Stoppard has given the contemporary audience a play that examines existential question in the context of a whole world that may have no meaning at all. Although is it not our intention to examine that play in great detail, suffice it to note that the essence of marginalization is here in this view, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are archetypal human beings, caught up on a ship- spaceship earth for the twentieth or the twenty first century that leads now here, except to death, a death for persons who are a heady dead. If these two characters were marginalized in Hamlet, they are even more so in stop-part’s handing.
           And if the philosophical view of stopped goes too far for some consider a much more mundane phenomenon of the later twentieth century-and times to come, we expect. We allude to the Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, the little people, who have been caught up in the corporate downsizing and mergers in recent decades-the effects on these workers when multinational companies move factories and offices around the world like pawns on a chessboard.  
         Whether in Shakespeare’s version or stopper’s, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no more than what Rosencrantz called a “small annexment”, a “petty consequences”, mere nothings for the “ massy wheel” of kings.
      
Conclusion
Thus,  cultural studies seeks to understand how meaning is generated, contested, and produced from the social, political and economic spheres within a particular social formation or conjuncture.
        
       

http://img2.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gifhttp://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png
http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.pnghttp://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png

http://img1.blogblog.com/img/icon18_wrench_allbkg.png