Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin) was born in Paris on January 15, 1622
Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin) was born in Paris on January 15,
1622. His father was one of eight valets de chambre tapissiers who
tended the king's furniture and upholstery, so the young Poquelin
received every advantage a boy could wish for. He was educated at the
finest schools (the College de Clermont in Paris.) He had access to
the king's court. But even as a child, Molière found it infinitely
more pleasant to poke fun at the aristocracy than to associate with
them. As a young boy, he learned that he could cause quite a stir by
mimicking his mother's priest. His mother, a deeply religious woman,
might have broken the young satirist of this habit had she not died
before he was yet twelve-years-old. His father soon remarried, but in
less than three years, this wife also passed away. At the age of
fifteen, Jean-Baptiste was left alone with his father and was most
likely apprenticed to his trade.
Molière and his companions made their dramatic debut in a converted
tennis court. Although the company was brimming with enthusiasm, none
of them had much experience and when they began to charge admission,
the results proved disastrous. Over the course of the next two years,
the little company appeared in three different theatres in various
parts of Paris, and each time, they failed miserably. Several of the
original members dropped out of the company during this period.
Finally, the seven remaining actors decided to forget Paris and go on
a tour of the provinces. For the next twelve years, they would travel
from town to town, performing and honing their craft.
Over the course of the next thirteen years, Molière worked feverishly
to make his company the most respected dramatic troupe in Paris.
(Eventually, they were awarded the coveted title "Troupe of the
King.") He directed his own plays and often played the leading role
himself.
On February 17, 1673, Molière suffered a hemorrhage while playing the
role of the hypochondriac Argan in The Imaginary Invalid. A bit ironic
isn’t it. He had insisted on going through with the performance in
spite of the advice of his wife and friends saying, "There are fifty
poor workers who have only their daily wage to live on. What will
become of them if the performance does not take place?
In Tartuffe, Moliere creates a play that is interesting in so many ways. His comedy reflects a lot on the role of men and women within a family. During this time, it was common for the man to be the head of the household and women to be submissive to the men. Men held the power in the family and made all the decisions. In this play, a man's point of view is the only view that matters. All else do not serve an importance. His lack of trust and awareness for other people's feelings and needs has caused great conflict in his family. The actions taken by Orgon and his family members express how this play views marriage and relations between men and women. It is a extremely different view (in some cases) of marriage today in average American family.
A famous man by the name of Kahlil Gibran once said, “Beauty is not in the face; beauty is a light in the heart.” It just happens that Cyrano’s heart shined brighter than anyone I have ever known. Through insecurities and heartbreaks, Cyrano would never forget his pride or the feelings of his friends. He never lost his honor and would always bring light into any situation, even when he was near his death. Cyrano displayed many positive traits and values such as loyalty, devotion, selflessness, knowledge, and pride which all contributed to our sympathy towards him.
could not bring himself to kill a innocent little boy so he gave him to a
The Flawed Characters of Tartuffe To be perfect is to be inhuman. Human nature is complete with many flaws and imperfections, one of which is represented in the play "Tartuffe", by Moliere. “Tartuffe” was written specifically to show the reader a basic flaw in human nature. This flaw is shown through two characters, Madame Pernelle and Orgon.
Don Quixote, written around four hundred years ago, has endured the test of time to become one of the world’s finest examples of literature; one of the first true novels ever written. It’s uncommonness lies in the fact that it encompasses many different aspects of writing that spans the spectrum. From light-hearted, comical exchanges between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza to descriptions so strong that produce tangible images, the book remains steadfast in any reader’s mind.
all others. The way we started, grew as a society, and live now, are totally
Falstaff is often left out of the conversation or treated as an object when people discuss Shakespeare’s “Henriad.” The conversation has grown to include Falstaffian supporters and those who continue to objectify him. On the one hand, critics like Harry Berger, author of “The Prince’s Dog: Falstaff and the Perils of Speech-Prefixity,” argues that Falstaff’s concealed motives are only brought to light through the characters speech. On the other hand, critics like Robert Bell, author of “The Anatomy of Folly in Shakespeare’s “Henriad,” believes Falstaff to be a fool, but he believes him to be one of Shakespeare’s “Greatest Fools.” I find these critics to be in direct conversation with one another. They both attempt to consider Falstaff in the forefront of the text, along with Prince Harry; more specifically, how one interacts with the other through folly and speech. While I agree with some critics notions that Falstaff has flaws, I would argue that he is more than an object; he is pertinent to the success of the prince, and he must be considered as the subject; Falstaff is the catalyst through whom Prince Harry enjoys his indiscretions, sins, and follies without reprimand or any acceptance of responsibility. Falstaff and Prince Harry share the same mind, but this is only apparent through the folly and parody of Falstaff. Prince Harry is completely oblivious to the fact that he and Falstaff rest on either side of a double-headed coin allowing them to share a psychic link. I will show that Falstaff has knowledge of all of Prince Harry’s actions as well as his own downfall before it occurs through a close analysis of 1 Henry IV, act 1, scene 2.
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion that Rousseau’s argument, although flawed in its own ways, is superior to Hobbes in that it has an answer for the inequalities that may arise in a society by Hobbes’ princples.
In Moliere's comedy, Tartuffe, the main focus of the play is not of Tartuffe, but of Orgon's blind infatuation with Tartuffe. It just so happens that the title character is the villain rather than the hero. Orgon is Moliere's representation of how a man can be so blind in his devotion to a belief that he cannot make accurate judgment as to the sincerity of others who would use that belief to deceive him. Tartuffe easily achieves total power over Orgon's actions because of his gullibility. However, as the play progresses, Orgon's view of Tartuffe changes and results in Tartuffes removal.
The two topics of religion and hypocrisy in the play go hand in hand. The overall play is intended to ultimately bring to light religious hypocrisy, but not to necessarily demoralize it. The play aims to make fun of religious hypocrisy, while hinting that it’s problem or flaw is the way it slanders and makes one question the grandeur of pure religion. Tartuffe’s character portrayal is made up solely by his outspoken and unapologetic displays of religious devotion. Through his actions and displays of religious devotion he gains Orgon’s trust and manipulates him into overlooking his family's wellbeing and overall safety. He used Orgon's want and need to feel close to God himself against him, which left Orgon blinded by ignorance and own self
In Moliére’s Tartuffe (Moiré 1664), the reader is able to see a great contrast of Extreme and Moderate characters. Extreme characters being those who are seen as over the top, or very passionate people, and the moderate characters having a more calm and subtle approach to ideas. The extreme characters in this case would be Madam Pernelle, Orgon, Tartuffe, and Dorine. The moderate characters are seen as Cleante and Elmire.
A theme of the play Tartuffe is justice. Justice, or the lack of justice, can be seen in the relationship between father and son, father and daughter, and guest and host. Lacanian philosophy, which focuses on language and the conflict that the male feels due to a disintegration of oneness, can be used to look at injustice as it manifests itself in the male conflict within the play.
"I cannot improve on it, and assuredly never shall," said Molière of his satire The Misanthrope, {1} and the critic Nicholas Boileau-Despréaux concurred by accounting it one of Molière's best plays.{2} But the French public did not like it much, preferring the dramatist's more farcical The Doctor in Spite of Himself--a play that, according to tradition, was written two months after The Misanthrope's premiere to make up for the latter's lack of success.{3} In fact, The Misanthrope horrified Rousseau, who thought that its aim was, in Donald Frame's words, "to make virtue ridiculous by pandering to the shallow and vicious tastes of the man of the world."{4} Both he and Goethe after him regarded Alceste, the protagonist, as a tragic figure rather than a comic one.{5}
In the novel Madame Bovary by Gustave Flaubert, Flaubert uses the character of Emma to make love seem like a worthless concept. Emma, who wants to be loved, is loved by Charles, but she feels that he is not exciting enough and decides to pursue other romances. Flaubert uses infidelity as a way of dealing with ones emotions. Because she was not able to stay faithful to her husband, Emma deserves the consequences of her actions. Therefore, she does not deserve the reader’s sympathy.
Meursault’s boss offers him a position in a new office he plans to open in Paris. Meursault replies that it is all the same to him, and his boss becomes angry at his lack of ambition. Meursault muses that he used to have ambition as a student, but then realized that none of it really mattered. Meursault lives his life almost unconsciously, nearly sleepwalking through a ready-made structure that his society provides him.