Study Of Ben Jonson The Alchemist English Literature Essay

Study Of Ben Jonson The Alchemist English Literature Essay The play starts in a mansion in London which is in absence of its master, Lovewit, who has departed to Kent to be safe from the Plague. The housekeeper, Jeremy, acting out as a captain Face, with the aid of two of his friends, Subtle, a charlatan, performing as an alchemist and Dol also in the role of a lady while in reality a prostitute; has turned the house into a domain of their conceit. The tripartite change their identities and play and act out roles in order to make benefit and earn money by deceiving some foolish clients who believe Subtle is a doctor in power of the art of alchemy and thus able to transmute metal into gold. As a result humorous and entertaining consequences start happening, while at the same time Jonson mocks many social classes of 17th century London such as the Puritans whose greed of money is even more excessive or nobilities like Kastril, and his widowed sister who came to the house in search of a husband and, on the other hand, Lovewit the master of the house who marries this woman because of her money. As soon as the play starts the audience understands the chaotic situation. The master of the house, the supposedly real practitioner of power, is absent, and like a typical Renaissance and Jacobean drama with the absence of power, chaos has turned up. The chaos is shown through the shifting and altering of identities mostly practiced by Face, Subtle, and Dol who are in pretention; the hierarchical boundaries are broken down and servants are in the place of masters, masters in the place of clients, and we have Dol Common for a great lady (IV.i.90) Therefore since identities are understood through appearance, realities are subverted and identities are performed and thus through performed identities deception, con, and fraud has turned up. But the reader may ask what the significance of performed identities is? In other words why individuals try to act out their subjectivity? According to Lacans theories people act out their identities and pretend to be the persons who the other characters desire them to be. That is to say in Lacans study of the subjection of the infant, in the mirror stage the child grasps herself in the mirror as an independent subject who is divided and separated from the Other whom up to now for her was her mother. She understands that she is separated from her mother and from the world so this separation hints her about her lacks. She realizes that in order to construct his subjectivity she is in need of the Other or the others to define her and as a result she feels the desire to define herself according to the Others desires. Thus, she would not be a complete subject, if she does not know anything about the desire of the Other. In The Alchemist, as Ann Barton discusses in her book Ben Jonson, Dramatist, people of all classes and temperaments make their way to Subtles consulting rooms because they think that somehow he can make their lives better, because they have become dissatisfied with what they are (Barton 138). Contrary to Shakespearean characters, Jonsons characters themselves yearn to be changed since they are not content with the paltry dimensions of their habitual lives and selves (ibid 138). To put in Lacanian terms they are totally lead by their own desires. It is their desire-which here is pictured by Jonson as ugly, material desire and greed for money and gold-that not only guides them towards Subtle but also creates Subtle. In fact as Lacan discusses about the role of desire in the realm of language and subjection [w]e are born into language-the language through which the desires of others are articulated and through which we are forced to articulate our own desire (Homer 44). According to Lac an we want to be objects of the Others desires and our identities are shaped by the Others desires just as the alchemists identity is created out of the other naÃÆ' ¯ve characters desires. As long as there are dupes like Dapper, Mammon, Drugger, Tribulation, and Ananias with their illusory hunger of turning metal into gold, inevitably individuals like Subtle are created as well. Not only the three cheaters are in lack of the fools to be identified, but also the fools are in need of the frauds: as was mentioned earlier they themselves are ready and eager to be deceived since they are against the rationalities of reality and are in search of the dreams of their unconsciousness and this desire is fulfilled only through false identities of a non-existent alchemist, a fake captain and a Queen of Faery. As a result since their aspirations are restricted by the very limitations of intellect and social position from which they want to escape. This is why they need Face and Subtle, masters of illusion who can liberate and objectify their inchoate feelings of restriction and discontent. (Barton 138). Their greed of gold can be labeled as their desire that revealed their lack and therefore their need towards Subtle and his colleagues in order to be defined as a winner of gambles (Dapper), as a savior (Mammon), and as devoted Puritans (Tribulation, and Ananias). In this chaotic world that is pictured in the house the people yearn for an ideal status brought by alchemy; in fact alchemy can be considered as the real desire, as the lack that individuals feel in order to identify themselves and as the Other whom individuals yearn to be. Alchemy is the art that brings order and unity and simultaneously the complete pleasures and contentment of what Lacan terms as the Real Stage in which persons were born into and in which they were united with the mother, and a perfect happy, unified world was experienced by the infant. But the point stressed by Lacan is that human beings can never return to this ideal stage so that it is an illusory condition for subjects and is created only by peoples desires and can only happen in peoples dreams. The desire for such a world is shown through idealistic ambitions of Epicure Mammon, who wants to change the world into a utopia by turning everything into gold. With the power of alchemy he wants to enrich his friends, free England from the plague, restore the aged to youth, and cure all diseases, comming of all causes (Barton 140). Besides, by turning any metal into pure gold he is set to remove any separation and differentiation among objects i.e. no lead and silver and all metals to be changed to the highest and noblest of metals. What he is yearning to accomplish is out of the capability of human being; an idealistic condition which Lacan calls the Real Stage, and which can never be achieved, just as the world Mammon describes is out of reach and just as turning metal into gold is. MAMMON. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ He that has once the flower of the sun, The perfect ruby, which we call elixir, Not only can do that, but by its virtue Can confer honour, love, respect, long life, Give safety, valour: yea, and victory, To whom he will. In eight-and-twenty days, Ill make an old man, of fourscore, a child. (II.i.38) Apart from appearance, Subtle uses the Others language. It is not hard to find out that in this play changed identities are followed by changed language. Language is a device, an instrument that shapes identities. The person in power is Subtle, the alchemist, and it is his ability in words that equips him with power. He manages in what way to handle the situation and in what way to fool the clients according to their greedy ambitions. It is the power of his words that makes his clients to believe that he really is an alchemist. Although Face is the one who provides them the place to perform, when it comes to the domains of language he is not that much powerful as Subtle is. To give an example, in the first scene during their quarrel, Subtle burst out saying that it was he who taught Face the art of language: SUBTLE . à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦have I taen thee out of dung, So poor, so wretched, when no living thing Would keep thee company, but a spider, or worse? Raised thee from brooms, and dust, and watring pots? Sublimed thee, and exalted thee, and fixed thee Ithe third region, called our state of grace? Wrought thee to spirit, to quintessence, with pains Would twice have won me the philosophers work? Put thee in words, and fashion? Made thee fit For more than ordinary fellowships? Given thee thy oaths, thy quarrelling dimensions? Thy rules, to cheat at horse-race, cockpit, cards, Dice, or whatever gallant tincture else? Made thee a second, in mine own great art? (I. i. 17) In fact it is in language that Subtle is created as a different subject, i.e. an alchemist. This reflects in one way or another Lacans theory that Language is not so much to be seen as our means of expression but as the medium through which and in which our very identity is structuredà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. Language creates us as it creates the world around us. This is not to suggest that things do not exist, but rather that it is only through language that materiality becomes meaningful (Halstead 197). To put it in other words, identities are created in language, and through language individuals are shaped just as Subtle, creates the identity of an alchemist by talking like an alchemist. On the other hand, Jeremy and Dol build up a Captain and a Lady through the shift of language. For instance a shift of language is vivid in Dols speech, the first extract is taken from Act I in which Dol is quarrelling with her two colleagues: DOL. And you, sir, with your menstrue, gather it up. Sdeath, you abominable pair of stinkards, Leave off your barking, and grow one again, Or, by the light that shines, Ill cut your throats. Ill not b e made a prey unto the marshal For neer a snarling dog-bolt oyou both. (I.i.19) And this quotation is uttered when she is playing her role as a lady in front of Mammon: DOL. Sir, although We may be said to want the gilt and trappings, The dress of honour; yet we strive to keep The seeds, and the materials. (IV.i.91) Another example that can be look at as the role of language in construction of identity is Surlys transformation into a Spaniard; first of all let us begin with the fact that he is the only character who does not believe in Subtles words and his promise of alchemy from the very beginning. He rudely questions and devalues the promises of the supposed alchemist Faith, I have a humour, I would not willingly be gulled. Your stone Cannot transmute me (II.i.39). Just as Barton says Surly is a man impatient with pretence, someone who declines to be taken in. A rationalist from the start, he believes neither in Mammons grandiose visions nor in the promises of Subtle. He identifies Dol Common quite accurately as a whore, at first sight, although Mammon tries to persuade him that he actually knows her ladyships noble brother, and has the whole, dignified family history lodged somewhere in the back of his mind. As Subtle and Mammon fill the air with brightly coloured alchemical terms, Surlys observations are caustic. He cannot resist trying to expose the charlatans for what they are (Barton 146). In scene three of Act IV, it is Surly who appears in a fake disguise, like a Spaniard, and this time Subtle and Face are totally deceived since Surlys language has completely changed to Spanish. Another language brings another identity; Subtle and Face do not doubt him and later when they understand that they have been fooled they get shocked. Surleys knowledge of the Spanish language enables him to discover about Subtle and Faces charlatanism. Taking him as a Spanish man, Subtle and Face speak in English in front of him revealing their true identity and their real intentions, while Surly is listening to them. They do not understand what Surly is saying in Spanish and their lack of understanding in this language disarms them and their power is taken away and so their plan is revealed. SURLY. Entiendo. SUBTLE. Do you intend it? So do we, dear Don. Have you brought pistolets? or portagues? My solemn Don? Dost thou feel any? FACE, {he feels his pockets) Full. SUBTLE. You shall be emptied, Don; pumped, and drawn Dry, as they say. FACE . Milked, in troth, sweet Don. SUBTLE. See all the monsters; the great lion of all, Don. SURLY. Con licencia, sepuede ver a esta senora? SUBTLE. What talks he now? F ACE . Othe senora. (IV.iii.101) The two rascals make fun of the Spanish man whom they regard is out of the realm of language and thus unable to recognize their words, which ironically is vice versa. To sum up, the notion of language is highlighted in this play in its comical way to show that language is not separated from peoples subjectivity and that as Lacan mentions individuals are constructed within language. So that language gives power and it is the power of language that helps Subtle and his colleagues to abuse other characters. Since the play is about the power of alchemy and turning base metal into gold, metaphorically we can assume that the real alchemy is that of the language that makes identities out of bodies, that the elixir of language can be more powerful than that of the Philosophers Stone.

My Revenge :: essays research papers

It was a beautiful sunny day at the beach and everyone was having fun, a lot of kids were swimming others were making sand castles and others were sunbaking. But suddenly everyone else didn’t matter, the only thing that mattered was the model that was having pictures of herself taken to be put on the front cover of a fashion magazine. I was amazed by her beauty so I thought I would go and have a little chat with her, you know get to know her better. By the way my name is Eric and I work part time as a lifeguard in the summer. My real job is martial arts teacher but I love swimming so I got my lifeguard degree and I started working part time at the beach in the summer holidays. As I was approaching her I saw another guy walk toward her and started talking to her I thought I was too late but then I saw that the girl was trying to get away from him but he wouldn’t leave her alone. I walked over there and I asked if there was a problem and the guy said no but she said that the Josh (guy’s name) was hassling her and that she told him to leave but he wouldn’t listen to her. And I asked if she wanted me to kick him out and she said she wouldn’t want me to get hurt (how sweet). I told her that he wouldn’t be able to hurt me and said I could try. As I approached Josh I saw that he was quite taller than me and that was nicely build. When I was near him he said â€Å"did the bitch call you and told you to make me leave?† And I said that I didn’t want any troublemakers on the beach and I told him to leave. He said he wouldn’t leave and he tried to punch me, but I was expecting that so I blocked and I dropped him. He got up and came charging at me but I moved and I kicked him so hard on the shin that he did a flip in the air and then fell. When he got up I told him to leave but instead he punched me in the stomach and then kicked my testicles. When I got up I was so pissed that even the crowd that had crowded on top of me made way.

Specialization in Undergraduates

Brady Brajavich Specialization: does it belong in higher education? Some say yes, because it creates much more intelligent individuals in their respective fields. Others say no, because without the liberal arts, individuals will lack the necessary skills to succeed in today’s work environment. Both sides have well supported arguments, and often when one begins to think they’ve made a decision on which they agree with, they are swayed the other way. After reading, â€Å"Should Undergraduates Specialize? † by Patrick Allit, and, â€Å"Liberal Arts: A Practical View. by Mark Jackson, I have formed my opinion and what I feel like is a suitable answer to the question above. I believe that students should have a choice. If they feel like they’re ready to dive into what they know they want to do, let them. But if the student feels like they aren’t one hundred percent sure, they should be able to take a wide variety of courses that allow them to eventually choose a major to specialize. Patrick Allitt is the author of the essay, â€Å"Should Undergraduates Specialize? † In this essay he compares and contrasts his own experiences in college with those of his college-bound daughter.By comparing the two, he provides evidence to his belief that having the option to specialize as an undergraduate will benefit students. This is shown in his conclusion, â€Å"Students with the right frame of mind thrive on studying diverse subjects until they’re ready, sometimes at age twenty or older, to make a stronger commitment. But let’s get rid of the idea that liberal arts is for everyone. America’s commitment to equality and to universal education is noble and invigorating. But it shouldn’t mean that one size fits all† (Allitt 7).Here Patrick is summarizing his essay, and essentially says that liberal arts may benefit some students, but there is a certain percentage that would prefer to get busy with their ma jor and specialize. Mark Jackson, a graduate from the University of Cincinnati, thinks that all students should take some liberal arts courses to supplement their professional education, but not because they are forced too, but because they want to. Jackson wrote his essay on why he thinks students, â€Å"†¦question the reasoning behind a liberal arts education† (Jackson 233).Jackson stands behind the belief that educating students on why a liberal arts education is important is just as vital as actually teaching them the liberal arts. He says that, â€Å"If educators really want to increase the number of liberal arts courses that each student takes, they must first increase the popularity of such studies† (235). In other words, no student wants to take a class that they don’t see a point for taking. He backs his statements up by using personal experiences. Jackson explains how he had an argument with his high school counselor because he didn’t want to take a third year of Spanish. I was an A student in Spanish II, but I hated every minute of the class†¦ I told him that I took two years of a foreign language so that I would be accepted to college, but that I did not want to take a third year† (234). In response to his argument, his counselor would reply that he needed to be a â€Å"well-rounded student†, which is exactly why Jackson is so adamant in his reasoning. In relation to that response, Jackson wraps up the essay by saying, â€Å"It is difficult to persuade some college students that becoming a better person is an important goal of higher education.Many students want a college education so that they can make more money and have more power† (235). To finish, he reiterates his point; if students don’t see a point in the taking the course, they won’t want to sign up for it. In the two preceding essays, the two authors give their arguments on where they think specialization belongs in t he education system. Allitt states that having a choice on whether or not to specialize as an undergraduate, and not deal with the liberal arts can be a benefit to students.Jackson believes that students should want to take liberal arts courses, and that if educators want students to do so, they have to do a better job of explaining why they are important and making the courses more attractive. A point of common ground for the two authors, based on the previous statements, is that specialization is important. Without it students will be at a disadvantage. There isn’t an exact point of disagreement between Allit and Jackson. They both outline the pros and cons throughout their essays. That being said, there are differences.Allit is more in favor of specialization, â€Å"The early specialization†¦enabled us to learn one discipline really well, to become far more deeply engaged with it than was possible for our American counterparts† (Allitt 6), but at the same time, understands why a liberal education can be beneficial, â€Å"Its (specialization) great and equal drawback was that it forced some students to choose too soon, before they were ready† (6). Jackson thinks that students should want to take liberal courses to complement their vocational studies. Towards the end of his essay, Jackson ays that, â€Å"Students who want to make the most of their college years should pursue a major course of study while choosing electives or a few minor courses of study from the liberal arts† (Jackson 235). I believe that students should have an option to specialize. Being able to dive right in as an undergrad can be hugely beneficial, and allow a student to separate themself from the rest of the competition. The liberal arts can do the same thing. Specializing brings depth of knowledge and a different, higher level of understanding, while the liberal arts allow students to increase the width of their knowledge. The irony of the emphasis bein g placed on careers is that nothing is more valuable for anyone who has had a professional or vocational education than to be able to deal with abstractions or complexities, or to feel comfortable with subtleties of thought or language, or to think sequentially† (Cousins 31). Jackson used this quote in his essay and I absolutely love it. If I had to back up my opinion with any one statement, this would be it. Vocational education is useless without being able to think abstractly and think on the go, while being able to think abstractly and on the go is useless without a vocational education.Personally, I’d take Jackson’s advice: go right into professional studies, but take classes I felt would make me a more attractive hire. I say that because the reason why I’m in college is so I can get a good-paying job to support myself and one day a family. In order for me to do that, I’m going to have to do all I can to distinguish myself from the group. The u niversity has the intention to do that, but it’s damn near impossible for them to know what is best for each individual student. All of my academic career, I’ve been told that I was being prepared for college, and I was, but now I want to put those tools into practice.Being told what classes to take, and what classes will make me a better student isn’t letting me use what I’ve learned, and is suppressing my ability to make my own decisions. In essence, we’re big kids now. We should have to and want to make the big kid decision on whether or not taking a GEO 106 class will benefit us. Guidance is always welcome, and without the help and suggestions from our advisors we’d be lost, especially as freshman, but that doesn’t mean I should have to take a class that won’t help me achieve my life goals. But some students don’t have the know-how or motivation to take necessary liberal classes, so the university has to force studen ts to take them. † My roommate made this point to me while we were talking about my essay, and I imagine there are many others that feel the same way. My response is this, if a student has yet to take responsibility of his or her own academic career, are they really deserving of a degree? If they can’t make their own decisions on something as simple as which supplementary classes to take, how are they going to function once they hit the real world?Or rather when the real world hits them? Another fantastic argument brought to my attention was: how are students that choose to not specialize right off the bat going to keep up with the ones that do? At this point in every student’s life, we need to stop thinking of us as a whole. We are individuals, and just because Rafiki doesn’t know what to do with his life doesn’t mean the rest of us should suffer. I firmly believe that college marks the beginning of adulthood and the toned-down real world, which me ans that we all as students need to take more responsibility for our own lives.Specialization: does it belong in higher education? I say yes†¦ as long as it is balanced with proper liberal courses. Specialization can give a student essential skills and an intense education that can help them get the edge on someone else competing for the same job, and the liberal arts only increases one’s attractiveness. For all those naysayers out there, I just ask you respect what I have to say, to take my views into consideration, and, as the noble Andre 3000 once said, â€Å"Lend me some suga. I am your neighbor. †

William Shakespeare s The Prince And Julius Caesar

Texts are a reflection of its contextual values; it is evident that aspects of human nature remain constant irrespective of context. Texts ruminative of this include Tim Parks’ translation of Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ (1532) and William Shakespeare’s historical tragedy ‘Julius Caesar’ (1599). The values and attitudes of these two texts anticipated responders and influenced purpose, form and content such as the darker aspects of humanism, the changeless nature of man, and the fickle nature of people. Machiavelli’s text ‘The Prince’ mirrors the darker aspects of humanism – man is essentially corrupt, self-serving and deceptive . His intended responders were a select of people in power and of educated elite, in particular Lorenzo de†¦show more content†¦Machiavelli suggests that the most supreme approach to change the degenerate individual into a decent individual is through the good law, although even the best law is pointless. Machiavelli characterizes man as being self-serving and not willing to act in the best interest of the state, â€Å"and when the prince is in danger they turn against him†. Machiavelli strengthens the prince’s need to be feared by stating, â€Å"Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared†. To acquire honour, Machiavelli suggests that a prince must be readily willing to deceive the citizens. These treacherous measures would bring the prince honour and trust among the citizen, suggesting that man’s nature is changeless, which is exemplified in Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’ through the character of Mark Antony. Mark Antony in ‘Julius Caesar’ abandoned Caesar as soon as he is killed and to seek his own glory. Being a true friend of Caesar, Mark Antony promises Caesar’s soul that he would seek revenge against the conspirators for his brutal murder, â€Å"And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge, with Ate by his side come hot from hell...That this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial.†. Shakespeare utilizes dramatic irony when Brutus takes Antony’s promise of not saying anything against the conspirators in front of the crowd for the audience know