⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Cult Of Domesticity Essay

Tuesday, August 24, 2021 11:56:42 PM

Cult Of Domesticity Essay

Mann writes. On the contrary he explicitly states that pity is Cult Of Domesticity Essay by undeserved misfortune. Both Cult Of Domesticity Essay live on Cult Of Domesticity Essay margins Cult Of Domesticity Essay societyas their knowledge of herbal medicines and power to heal certain ailments causes Cult Of Domesticity Essay and suspicion. Characters are generally but not always speaking animals or inanimate objects which symbolize human beings. Nobody can receive any moral teaching Cult Of Domesticity Essay his mind is not first Cult Of Domesticity Essay by the Cult Of Domesticity Essay to be taught. The Methodist denomination grew from Cult Of Domesticity Essay than one thousand members Essay On The Friar In Romeo And Juliet the end of the Cult Of Domesticity Essay century to constitute 34 percent of Cult Of Domesticity Essay American church membership by the midnineteenth century. Eighteenth century poet paid special attention Cult Of Domesticity Essay it. However, despite this, the separation of each apartment by brick walls as a separate entity on its own serves as a symbol of the widespread suspicion characteristic of the McCarthyian era.

Women in the 19th Century: Crash Course US History #16

Nel Noddings views her as "infantile, weak and mindless" Similarly, Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote a short essay entitled The Extinct Angel in which she described the angel in the house as being as dead as the dodo Gilman, The art historian Anthea Callen adapted the poem's title for her monograph on female artists, The Angel in the Studio: Women in the Arts and Crafts Movement — , published in More recently, the feminist folk-rock duo The Story used the title in their album The Angel in the House. The first of themes sung last of all. In green and undiscover'd ground, Yet near where many others sing, I have the very well-head found Whence gushes the Pierian Spring.

Nay, might I utter my conceit, 'Twere after all a vulgar song, For she's so simply, subtly sweet, My deepest rapture does her wrong. Yet is it now my chosen task To sing her worth as Maid and Wife; Nor happier post than this I ask, To live her laureate all my life. Man must be pleased; but him to please Is woman's pleasure; down the gulf Of his condoled necessities She casts her best, she flings herself. How often flings for nought! Mother, it's such a weary strain The way he has of treating me As if 'twas something fine to be A woman; and appearing not To notice any faults I've got!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article is about the popular Victorian poem. For the British comedy-drama, see Angel in the house. Palgrave Macmillan UK. Victorian Literature and Culture. SUNY Press. Categories : English poems poems Victorian poetry. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file. Download as PDF Printable version. The first part describes the subject matter of tragedy, i. The second part refers to its means, i.

The fourth part mentions the end, i. The six elements of tragedy in the order of importance are stated to be plot, character, thought, language, music and spectacle. Plot is said to be the combination of the incidents of the story. Character gives us qualities and reveals the moral purpose of the agents. Thought is the intellectual element shown in what the characters say when proving or disproving a point. Diction is the expression of thoughts in words. The next eight chapters deal with plot. The plot must be a complete whole and of a size to be comprehended as a whole. It must have unity; this unity does not consist in the unity of the hero, but in the unity of action. This can be attained by following the ideal thruth rather than the historical truth.

The principle of probability or necessity must be observed in construction. Episodic plots are condemned and the best are those having the elements of design and surprise. Plots without peripeteia are simple and with peripeteia are complex. Peripeteia, reversal of situation. Recognition or discovery Anagnorisis and catastrophe or the tragic incident are defined and explained. The quantitative parts of tragedy — prologue etc:-are defined. Then the characteristics of the ideal plot are described chapter It should be complex and excite pity and fear. The unhappy ending is the best, though not popular. Euripides is the most tragic of the poets. Chapter 14 instructs how to produce pity and fear by the plot. The character should be good, true to type, true to human nature, and be consistent or true to itself.

The principle of necessity or probability applies to character as to plot. As tragedy is an imitation of persons better than the ordinary men, the characters should be idealised. Chapter 16 describes various kinds of recognition, with examples. The next two chapters provide practical rules for the tragic poet. Chapter 19 deals with thought. The next three deal with diction. The elements of language, the different kinds of words and style are discussed at length. The greatest thing by far is to be master of metaphor. Chapter 23 and 24 deal with the epic. The epic too should have unity of action, as a drama.

The epic, like tragedy might be either simple or complex, a story of character or one of suffering. Its meter, proved by experience, is the hexameter. It also needs impersonality. Homer was superior to the others in this, that he was aware of the part to be played by the poet himself in the poem and was admirable in speaking through his characters. There is greater scope for the marvellous in the epic than in tragedy, because in it the agents are not visibly before one. Chapter 25 is devoted to certain contemporary controversies in criticism. Critics had discovered various faults in the works of the poets and severely condemned them. Aristotle tries to distinguish the real faults from those arising from faulty criticism and suggests methods of solving some of these problems.

Chapter 26 tries to evaluate the claims of epic and tragedy to be considered the higher form. The epic is said to be superior because it is free from the vulgarity of acting. Aristotle answers that vulgarity is the fault of the actors, not of tragedy. And tragedy can also be read and enjoyed. But tragedy is suoerior because it includes all the elements of the epic, and has in addition music and spectacle; it is vividly present to us; it is more concise and concentrated; and it has greater unity than the epic.

This is a brief summary of the Poetics. Now some of the important critical doctrines of the Poetics may be taken up for consideration. Of them, the most famous and crucial is the concept of poetry as a mode of imitation. This has resulted in different interpretations and critical controversies. But the crucial value of the concept has been admitted by all. Aristotle was neither the discoverer of this principle nor was he the first to apply the term to poetry and art. It was quite a common concept in Greek criticism and had already become old by the time of Plato.

It was the chief weapon in the armoury of Plato while attacking poetry and castigating the poets. In employing and reinterpreting this word. Aristotle appears to be accepting the challenge thrown by Plato in the Republic and answering charges. There is no direct mention of Plato in the text, nor is there by reference to his views. In the thenth book of the Republic, Plato ciondemns poetry for presenting a false picture of life and being quite useless. For Plato the only reality is the world of ideal forms. The world of everyday life is only an imperfect reflection of that invinsible world. But ppoetry is an imitation or copy of this reflection. Hence it is twice removed from reality.

The objects of the world and the products of useful arts through reflections and imitations of ideal forms serve certain real ends in life. Food is eaten and a cot is used for sleeping. But the poetic description of sweet dishes and a fine painting of a cot cannot serve any such purpose. Being twice removed from reality they do not give us a true knowledge of things and being only imitations have no pragmatic value.

Thus they have no place in the ideal kingdom. Plato had called poetry an imitation, Aristotle agrees with him. Not only does he admit it as true but insists that it is the distinguishing characteristic of poetry and fine art. According to him it is on account of this that Homer is entitled to be called a poet while Empedocles remains a philosopher although both have written in verse.

But imitation, Aristotle suggests, need not necessarily be literal copying, nor convey false information. There are a number of statements in the Poetics which clearly prove that imitation did not mean slavish copying or a photographic representation for Aristotle 1. Chap 24 2. A poem is a complete whole i. This is not found in life. Thus poetry presents to us not copies of the imperfect occureneces but the vision of the ideal forms of things.

All these are sufficient to prove that artistic imitation is not mere copying the facts of life and forms of nature. On the other hand, it is creation although its creation is a re-creation. In its process it adopts the same procedure that nature follows in its creative process. It is natural human activity and makes man superior to other animals because he is the most imitative creature in the world. Hence it is not possible to suppress it or ban it.

Thus by giving a totally different interpretation of the whole idea of artistic imitation. Aristotle not only defended the arts from the unjust condemnation of Plato but also put the theory on logical and solid foundations. The remaining portion of the Poetics may be described as an elaboration and explanation of his definition. Its importance to criticism is held to be equal to that of Greek tragedy to drama. Before setting out to criticise, it is necessary to have a close look at it. The first part deals with the subject matter of tragedy; the second and the third with its means, the last with its effect. Looked at from a different point of view, the first part distinguishes it from comedy whose subject matter is not of such serious significance.

The second distinguishes it from the lyric and the dithyramb. This and the next distinguish it from the epic which employs a single meter and is narrative in form. The last mentions the feelings that a work should arouse if it should be considered a tragedy. The first thing that strikes a modern reader of Aristotle is about the ending of a tragedy. Tragedy is expected to end in the death or misfortune of the hero. It is not because that Greek tragedies did not end in that manner nor was Aristotle unaware of the powerful appeal of such an end.

On the other hand, the ideal tragic hero according to Aristotle, is one who falls from happiness into misery Ch While defending Euripides, the most tragic certainly of the dramatists, from the critics who blamed him for giving many of his tragedies an unhappy ending. Aristotle appears to be going against the received opinion. Still, Aristotle did not include it in the definition, because a definition should be applicable to all the instances and not merely to the best ones. Many of the Greek tragedies from which Aristotle derived his definition dod not end in unhappiness e.

We may note that some of the tragedies of Racine have a similar end. Hence Aristotle was quite correct in not including it in his definition. Another aspect which strikes the reader is the total neglect of the tragic vision or view of life. Aristotle may have committed to include it because it differs from poet to poet, or that it belongs to the realms of philosopht and not poetry. But he has used in the definition a word which represents the Greek idea of it.

The same word is used by Milton in his prefactory lines to Samson Agonistes to characterise the tragic view of life. But Aristotle has not elaborated it in the Poetics. In Ch. He should not be a a good man passing from happiness ti misery, or b a bad man passing from misery to happiness, or c an extremely bad man falling from happiness to misery. Although there is general agreement about this description some critics have tries to point out exceptions to it. Smart argues that Christ, Orestes and Hamlet are completely blameless, yet their fate is tragic. Abercrombie says that even though Richard III and Macbeth are totally wicked, they are tragic heroes. In Greek these terms do not refer to only moral qualities but also to intellectual and physical ones.

Aristotle himself had such characters nefore him in Clytemnestra and Medea. Even in Richard and Macbeth the qualities that entile them to our pity and admiration are their valour and greatness and not their cruelty and treachery. The view that the tragic hero may be completely blameless arises out of the ambiguity of another word. The latter meaning is the result of its use in the New Testament. It is held that Aristotle thinks that the tragic suffering which results from this mistake is a just reward for it. Aristotle nowhere says this. On the contrary he explicitly states that pity is occasioned by undeserved misfortune. The Greek word used by Aristotle is Hamartia.

This false step does not necessarily proceed from a defect of character or even a miscalculation through no fault of his own a man may be in a position where he must make one of two errors, and he may be the more tragic for choosing the right one — as Orestes did in the Cheophori and Antigone in the play named after her L. By making the individual responsible for his actions it deepens the sense of waste. The hamartia is the tragic error; the peripeteia, its fatal working to a result the opposite of that intended; the amagnorsis.

The recognition of the truth. Finally, whatever may be the opinions of the critics the practice of the poets and the history of tragedy have, Aristotle himself said, vindicated and amply justified his views. Whatever the tragedian of whatever style and time has this hamartia, this human and not disgusting fault he has triumphed; wherever he has missed it, he has failed, in proportion to the breadth of his miss. Plot is the combination of incidents or things done in the story and is the most important of six. Tragedy is an imitation not of persons but of action. This action is represented by the plot.

So it is the action i. Further a tragedy is impossible without plot but there may be one without character. The tragedies of most of the moderns are said to be characterless. Therefore the first essential the life and soul of tragedy is the plot and the characters come second. We maintain that tragedy is primarily an imitation of action and that it is mainly for the sake of action that it imitates the personal agents. This view has led to a great deal of controversy. Once again this accusation is based upon a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of certain words, which Aristotle himself has taken care to define in the text. Plot is not the mere story but the structured story. Character does not refer only to the agents but it is what makes us ascribe certain moral qualities to the agents and gives us qualities.

Moreover Aristotle is discussing its relative importance in drama which is the representative of an action. When Aristotle says that there may be a tragedy without character all that he means is that there may be a play in which the moral qualities of the agents are not portrayed. Thus Aristotle is justified in making the plot the chief element in drama, because it is by virtue of the plot that the characters live and have their being. What ever might be the view of the previous centuries in this matter, twentieth century critical opinion has fully supported Aristotle. Character when opposed to plot is just character in so far as it is inactive and in accordance with his metaphysical principles. Aristotle is bound to give the preference to plot which is character in action and it is surely true that ost playgoers care a great deal more for an interesting plot even when the characters are common place, than for ingeniously or profoundly sketched characters who do nothing in particular.

Now it would be agreed that the most significant dramatic expression of moral and intellectual quality is in action. Aristotle says that tragedy is the imitation of an action with incidents arousing pity and fear where with to accomplish its catharsis of such emotions. The word is not explained in the present text and is believed to have been discussed in the second part which is lost. In this situation critics have engaged themselves in deciphering its meaning and discussing its adequacy to explain tragic pleasure. Pity and fear are elements in human nature and in some men they are present in a disquieting degree. With these latter the tragic experiment is a necessity; but it is also in a certain sense good for all.

It serves as a sort of medicine, producing a catharsis to lighten and relieve the soul of the accumulated emotion within it; and as the relief is wanted there is always harmless pleasure attending the process of relief. It is a sort of homeopathic treatment. It should be borne in mind that with reference to tragedy the word is used only metaphorically. Plaot argued that the emotional part of our nature which a strong man restrains within himself and a giver will wish to see starved in others is fed to satiety in Homer and tragedians. This paralyses the moral life of the citizens of the Republic. Tragedy then only exists in order to awaken pity and fear, but how can it be held innocent in so doing? The answer liest in the word catharsis.

Tragedy effects a catharsis of the feelings; of pity and fear, or more strictly of the tendencies to these feelings and it does so through pity and fear A. Milton explains it by stating that it is to temper and reduce them to just measure with a kind of delight, stirred up by reading or seeing those passions well imitated. The process is very well summarised by Humphrey House. A tragedy rouses the emotions from potentiallty to activity by worthy and adequate stimuli; it controls them by directing them to the right way and exercises them within the limit of the play as the emotions of the good man would be exercised. We go to a theatre for enjoyment not for treatment. Aristotle also did not look upon tragedy as a medicine.

He constantly speaks of tragic pleasure. Tragedy being an imitation and containing music and spectacle is a source of delight in its own right. But if any one should ask how pity and fear, the most disturbing and painful emotions in life and the characteristic feeling aroused by tragedy can become pleasurable the explanation is to be found in catharsis. Now we may consider the merits and defects of Aristotle as a critic and begin with the defects. The Poetics deals more with dramatics than with poetics. It is confined to the literature of only one country and even there does not deal with the whole of it. Only a few literary forms are considered and only one of them is discussed at length.

Opinions are given and concepts formulated without adequate explanation. Aristotle is more concerned with the general and abstract principles than with particular authors and poems. The tone thoughout is dry and arid and one notices the absence of that enthusiasm which must inspire the critic as well as the poetic. We are always aware in the Poetics of the presence of the genius of prose Courthope. This is clearly seen in the chapters on style where the discussion happens to be grammatical and literary.

Just as in considering the subject matter of tragedy he was nit concerned to recognise the dramatists as prophets, whose themes were the major problems of human destiny and gives no hint that Aeschylus had a sweep and grandeur infinitely greater than his fourth century successors, so in dealing with style he has no concern with personality or souls Hamilton Fyfe. The whole intention seems to be to analyse rather than to enjoy, to instruct rather than to illumine. But we should remember that the work we have before us is only lecture notes and not a treatise meant for publication.

Some of the defects might have vanished if Aristotle had written it out. Even in its sketchy and fragmentary form, its merits far outweigh its shortcomings. It is the earliest formal treatise on the art of poetry in European literature. He is the first man in history to expose certain principles, purely aesthetic, to which the artist in fact conforms. Plato confused the study of art with the study of morals. Aristotle removing this confusion created the study of aesthetics R. Scott James. Although confined to one literature no great harm is done. Because that literature was so rich and great. Much of what he says illustrates Greek thought and Greek literature, but much of what he says is the essence of right thinking about literature in general. In the prevailing atmosphere of the domination of ethics and distrust of the arts, it was Aristotle who found a honourale place for the products of imagination.

Further, imitation or artistic creation is a natural instinct of the human species and is not only a means of pleasure but also a mode of learning. Thus art, instead of presenting an illusion is a means of knowing a mode of discovery. It is an irony that this was missed by the most poetic of philosophers, Plato and was asserted by the least poetic, Aristotle. It is not merely abstract philosophical principles which interested Aristotle. The chief literary kinds are discerned and clearly defined. These forms are stated to have their origin in the personalities of the poets and the results of experimentation and evolution. Discussion of authors and works, even though not enough, is quite competent in the few instances when it is done.

The only sound plan that of taking actually accomplished works of art and endeavouring to ascertain how it is that they give the artistic pleasure is whit whatever falterings, pretty steadily pursued, says Saintsbury. Eliot is more positive about it : Everything that Aristotle says illuminates the literature which is the occasion for saying it. As for critical interpretation of authors and works, Aristotle might have done it in last work on the poets.

The Rhetoric is wholly devoted to the analysis of prose style. Some of the rules attributed to him like that of the three unities are not found in his work. That the empirical laws which he derived from the study of existing works were taken to be inviolable rules of literature is no fault of his. His influence on European criticism is unparalled. Literary works not existing when he wrote and literary forms not dreamt of by him have been tested and judged by his rules.

This is recommended as a good exercise even today and has been adopted by the Chicago school of American critics. More that the rules, more than the critical opinions and judgements, the temper exhibited and the procedure adopted by Aristotle has compelled admiration. No greater tribute can be paid to Aristotle than the fact that in his search for the perfect critic, the foremost poet and critic of the twentieth century found in him the great scientist and philosopher of classical antiquity; Aristotle is a person who has suffered from the adherence of persons who must be regarded less as his disciples than as his secretaries.

One must be frmly distrustful of accepting Aristotle in a canonical spirit: this is to lose the whole living force of him. He was primarily a man of not only remarkable but universal intelligence; and universal intelligence means that he could apply his intelligence to anything, The ordinary intelligence is good only for certain classes of objects; a brilliant man of science, if he is interested in poetry at all, may conceive grotesque judgements; like one poet because he reminds him of himself, or another because he expresses emotions which he admires; he may use art, in fact, as the outlet for the egotism which is suppressed in his own personality. But Aristotle had none of these impure desires to satisfy; in whatever sphere of interest, he looked solely and stead fastly at the Object: in his short and broken treatise he provides an eternal example — not of laws, or even or method, for there is no method except to be very intelligent, but of intelligence itself swiftly operation the analysis of sensation to the point of principle and definition.

Tragic and epic are the only forms of poetry of which much is said in the Poetics. There is a chapter on the history of comedy and its nature seems to have been discussed in the missing second book. The chief other matter contained in the book was the full account of Catharsis, which we should give so much to have; comedy was probably described as effecting the purgation of a tendency to laughter as a tragedy does of that to pity and fear. The Poetics is therefore far frombeing a theory in general, still less a theory of line art. No complete or even entirely consistent aesthetic theory can be elicited from it. Yet it contains perhaps a greater number of pregnant ideas on art than any other book. He certainly was not like Plato, acutely sensitive to the magic and music of words.

There are poems attributed to him and some of them are good. But in criticism his attitude of the scientist who while dissecting a frog is rightly blind to its exotic beauty. The soul of poetry and drama lies beyond the reach of his anatomical method but without any predecessor in the same field he successfully achieved almost all that criticism can achieve on inductive principles of observation, analysis, classification and generalistion.

The limited vision of his rather dogmatic commonsense he is the father of all academic dons — may seem often inadequate and sometimes irritating, but, as Saintsbury, a professor equally dogmatic and much more sensitive says in his history of criticism, although in literary criticism we have advanced at some points at farther positions, over most of the ground we are still engaged in consolidating the territory which Aristotle occupied. They would find it a pleasant and profitable recreation. Hamilton Fyfe Although historians of aesthetics are sometimes pleased to present their facts as though they represented a progress from cruder to more refined opinion, from ignorance to wisdom, there is no sound basis for the procedure.

Aristotle was at least as clearly and fully aware of the relevant facts and as adequate in his explanation as any later inquiries. The first definition names the purpose of poetry explicitly as teaching. At a much later point in the essay, when he is facing Platonic objections and is hence forced to reconcile the moral requirement with the fact that much fine poetry is immoral, Sidney says something different. But he prefers to raise the question how poetry, which is defined as something moral, can be in fact either moral or immoral.

Is the thesis about the morality of poetry a truism in the realm of poetics? Through poetry for Sidney is a more effective moral teacher than philosophy or history, the critic of poetry has to wait for the moral philosopher or the man of religion to tell him what is morally good and what is morally bad before he can proceed to judge a poem. Philip Sydney was born in He was the eldest son of a nobleman. His father was very close to Queen Elizabeth. He went to school at Shewsbury, learnt Latin and French. Later he joined Christ Church, Oxford, but left it without earning degree. He was involved in a battle near Zutphen where he died in action. Sidney was an incarnation of chivalrous ideal. He excelled in court for reasonableness, his sincereity, his sense of honour, his depth of thought and his poetic nature.

He had keen interest in French, Italian literature. However, it is indirectly suggested he had written it in Sidney replied to this at this leisure, as a book it was published in He offers general defence of poetry as the earliest form of literature as imitation of nature yet transcending nature. He says its contribution are better than history and philosophy. He provides examples a plenty. In second part Paragraphs he answers to various objections which might be raised. He names the various forms of poetry — the pastoral, the eligic, the comic, the satiric, the tragic, the lyric, and the heroical and points of merits and benefits and other pleasing aspects. He dismissed charges that poetry is merely rhyming and versing.

He asserts that poetry is the most fruitful repository knowledge. He insists that poetry corrupts the reader. He expresses view that Plato was not an adversary of poets but a patron of them. In the third and final part Paragraph Sidney examines the state of English poetry and drama. He finds fault for their violations of the unities and for mingling of comic with tragic plays. He condemns use of gaudy diction and extravagance in their use of metaphors.

However, he believes that the English language has great potentialities. From beginning to end he respects the percepts of the ancients and those of others which were practised in his time. As much is true of all his contemporaries. No sooner does one of them turn critic, than he adheres to the school of antiquity, careless whether or not his own work obeys the laws he accepts and recommends. Sidney points out why poetry deserves to be honoured, esteemed and valued highly. It is the first source of knowledge in all the languages.

We support from our native Marathi — lilacharitra a Mahanubhaviya epic or Padmavat in Urdu. It is poetry which serves as the first nurse to provide illumination for the minds, users of newly born language. It nourishes their minds for acquisition of other and more difficult forms of knowledge. In Greece, for example, the earliest writers were Musaeus, homer and Hesoid, all poets. The earliest philosophers appeared in the guise of poets. Thales, Empedocles gave expression of their philosophical ideas and theory in verse.

Pythagoras and Phocylides stated their moral counsels in verse. Even Plato was essentially a poet. The dialougues written by him show the Athenian citizens talking to one another in highly eloquent and poetical language. The historians borrowed from poetry their mode of writing. Herodotus and many who followed him later, derive from poetry their method of describing human behaviour and passions in moving manner. Neither philosophies nor historian could have achieved much popularity if they had not employed poetic methods and modes of writing. Poets found even in barbarous nations. In Turkey there are no writers except theologians and poets.

Even among Red Indians, who may be considered most barbarous and primitive and have not acquired art of writing, there are poets who make songs describing past deeds of their ancestors and the qualities of their Gods. The poet is a Prophet and a Maker. This is a heavenly title bestowed upon the poet. Poetry is considered as divine knowledge. The Psalms of King David in the old Testament constitutes a divine poem. The Greeks called the writer of poetry a poet. The Poet not tied to the things and objects existing in Nature. For instance, Astromer has solar system arithmetic and study things measurable. A grammarian concerns himself with the rules of speech.

Only the poet refuses to be tied to things, objects already existing in nature. Poet builds up another nature, either by making things better than natural things or by creating things which never existed in nature. All things and men created by poets are excellent in many respects. The imaginary things or persons created by poets are not unreal or unconvincing like castles which are built in the air. On the contrary, the creations of poet poses a permanent appeal. Poetry an Art of Invitation, intended to teach and to delight.

Three kinds of poetry; we find diine poetry in old Testament and Bible. Poetry which deals with philosophical matters which we find in Virgil and Lucretius. However this second type suffers from disadvantage. This poetry remains confined to the matters of actual facts and subjects. It is the third kind of poetry which is true poetry. These poets borrow nothing from what is happening or what has happened or what will happen.

There is no restrictions on choice of subject. The only restraint on them is that which may be imposed by their own good taste. The poetry written by these poets provides such delight that readers feel a strong desire to acquire the quality of goodness. That being so, it is foolish to criticise or condemn these poets. Some of these kinds are to be classified according to matter and some by the kind of meter in which they are written. A large majority of poets have clothed their poetic work in the metrical kind of writing; that is why it is called verse.

However, it is to be noted that verse or meter is only an ornament, an adornment. The distinctive mark of poetry is that it offers concrete pictures which afford delight as well as instruction. Poetry leads Human Beings to Virtuous Actions: Natural science, social science are forms of learning and are directed to the highest end which is knowledge of his own self by man considered as moral and social being. But these are subordinate compared to poetry. The final end of all earthly learning is virtuous action and poetry stands supreme. The claims of Philosophers, the Historian and the Lawyer: Philosopher claims that he can best tell difference between virtue and vice, how best to govern society and family.

Historian claims that moral philosopher teaches only abstractions, while he teaches people to follow the virtuous examples of those who lived in the past. As for lawyer, he is concerned only with limited task of enforcing justice. The merit if a poet: He is both the philosopher and the historian. He combines percepts and concrete, general notion and the particular example. He is superior in that he describes both virtue and vice. Passions of mankind are portrayed by poets and dramatists more convincingly and vividly than accounts and definitions. Historian cannot deviate from fact. This is his handicap. History deals with particular poetry deals with universal. Poet deals with facts on his own terms. Poetry depicts tyrants being subjected to indescribable misery, while history must show unjust and cruel men getting on well in life.

Thus poetry occupied higher position than history, because it encourages the reader to emulate the example of the just and good men and discourages them from following the example of the cruel and evil men. Nobody can receive any moral teaching if his mind is not first moved by the desire to be taught. Teaching has no value if it does not movea man to act upon the lesson. It is not only knowing that is important but acting upon the knowledge which one has acquired. The poet does not offer abstract and difficult definitions. The poet wins the mind of the readers from inert state or wickedness to virtue by offering to him all possible attractions. Its like a sugar coated pill. In short, poetry with its delightful teaching has the power to instil virtue among human beings.

The merits of various forms of poetry: Pastoral poetry serves a noble purpose by depicting the misery of people under cruel rulers and by depicting the blessedness which the lowest people can derie from goodness of those who occupy high positions. It is unfair to condemn elegiac poetry which arouses pity in us by lamenting the weakness of mankind and the wretchedness of the world. Satirical poetry serves excellent purpose by making men laugh at their own follies. Comedy enables us to perceive the ugliness of evil and therefore to appreciate the beauty of virtue. Tragedy moves human heart. Rhyme and Verse lend charm to poetry: A poet may write poetry without rhyme and verse and a man may write in verse without genuine poetry.

Rhyme and verse add charm and are an aid to memory. Some objections to poetry answered: One objection is that a man can better spend his time in pursuit of knowledge than reading poetry. Consumption among adults skyrocketed in the early nineteenth century, and alcoholism had become an endemic problem across the United States by the s. As alcoholism became an increasingly visible issue in towns and cities, most reformers escalated their efforts from advocating moderation in liquor consumption to full abstinence from all alcohol. Courtesy American Antiquarian Society.

Many reformers saw intemperance as the biggest impediment to maintaining order and morality in the young republic. Temperance reformers saw a direct correlation between alcohol and other forms of vice and, most importantly, felt that it endangered family life. In , evangelical ministers organized the American Temperance Society to help spread the crusade nationally. It supported lecture campaigns, produced temperance literature, and organized revivals specifically aimed at encouraging worshippers to give up the drink. It was so successful that within a decade, it established five thousand branches and grew to over a million members. In response to the perception that heavy drinking was associated with men who abused, abandoned, or neglected their family obligations, women formed a significant presence in societies dedicated to eradicating liquor.

Temperance became a hallmark of middle-class respectability among both men and women and developed into a crusade with a visible class character. Temperance, like many other reform efforts, was championed by the middle class and threatened to intrude on the private lives of lower-class workers, many of whom were Irish Catholics. Such intrusions by the Protestant middle class exacerbated class, ethnic, and religious tensions. In the s, Americans drank half of what they had in the s, and per capita consumption continued to decline over the next two decades.

Though middle-class reformers worked tirelessly to cure all manner of social problems through institutional salvation and voluntary benevolent work, they regularly participated in religious organizations founded explicitly to address the spiritual mission at the core of evangelical Protestantism. In fact, for many reformers, it was actually the experience of evangelizing among the poor and seeing firsthand the rampant social issues plaguing life in the slums that first inspired them to get involved in benevolent reform projects.

Modeling themselves on the British and Foreign Bible Society, formed in to spread Christian doctrine to the British working class, urban missionaries emphasized the importance of winning the world for Christ, one soul at a time. For example, the American Bible Society and the American Tract Society used the efficient new steam-powered printing press to distribute Bibles and evangelizing religious tracts throughout the United States.

Such evangelical missions extended well beyond the urban landscape, however. Stirred by nationalism and moral purpose, evangelicals labored to make sure the word of God reached far-flung settlers on the new American frontier. The American Bible Society distributed thousands of Bibles to frontier areas where churches and clergy were scarce, while the American Home Missionary Society provided substantial financial assistance to frontier congregations struggling to achieve self-sufficiency.

Missionaries worked to translate the Bible into Iroquois and other languages in order to more effectively evangelize Native American populations. As efficient printing technology and faster transportation facilitated new transatlantic and global connections, religious Americans also began to flex their missionary zeal on a global stage. For the optimistic, religiously motivated American, no problem seemed too great to solve. Difficulties arose, however, when the benevolent empire attempted to take up more explicitly political issues. The movement against Indian removal was the first major example of this. Missionary work had first brought the Cherokee Nation to the attention of northeastern evangelicals in the early nineteenth century.

Missionaries sent by the American Board and other groups sought to introduce Christianity and American cultural values to the Cherokee and celebrated when their efforts seemed to be met with success. Mission supporters were shocked, then, when the election of Andrew Jackson brought a new emphasis on the removal of Native Americans from the land east of the Mississippi River. The Indian Removal Act of was met with fierce opposition from within the affected Native American communities as well as from the benevolent empire.

Jeremiah Evarts, one of the leaders of the American Board, wrote a series of essays under the pen name William Penn urging Americans to oppose removal. This political shift was even more evident when American missionaries challenged Georgia state laws asserting sovereignty over Cherokee territory in the Supreme Court Case Worcester v. Anti-removal activism was also notable for the entry of ordinary American women into political discourse.

The first major petition campaign by American women focused on opposition to removal and was led anonymously by Catharine Beecher. Inspired by a meeting with Jeremiah Evarts, Beecher echoed his arguments from the William Penn letters in her appeal to American women. The divisions that the anti-removal campaign revealed became more dramatic with the next political cause of nineteenth century reformers: abolitionism. The revivalist doctrines of salvation, perfectionism, and disinterested benevolence led many evangelical reformers to believe that slavery was the most God-defying of all sins and the most terrible blight on the moral virtue of the United States. While white interest in and commitment to abolition had existed for several decades, organized antislavery advocacy had been largely restricted to models of gradual emancipation seen in several northern states following the American Revolution and conditional emancipation seen in colonization efforts to remove Black Americans to settlements in Africa.

The colonizationist movement of the early nineteenth century had drawn together a broad political spectrum of Americans with its promise of gradually ending slavery in the United States by removing the free Black population from North America. Baptists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Congregational revivalists like Arthur and Lewis Tappan and Theodore Dwight Weld, and radical Quakers including Lucretia Mott and John Greenleaf Whittier helped push the idea of immediate emancipation onto the center stage of northern reform agendas. The result would be national redemption and moral harmony. As a young man immersed in the reform culture of antebellum Massachusetts, Garrison had fought slavery in the s by advocating for both Black colonization and gradual abolition.

Fiery tracts penned by Black northerners David Walker and James Forten, however, convinced Garrison that colonization was an inherently racist project and that African Americans possessed a hard-won right to the fruits of American liberty. Then, in , Garrison presided as reformers from ten states came together to create the American Anti-Slavery Society. The Liberator, April 17, Masthead designed by Hammatt Billings in Metropolitan State University. In order to accomplish their goals, abolitionists employed every method of outreach and agitation.

At home in the North, abolitionists established hundreds of antislavery societies and worked with long-standing associations of Black activists to establish schools, churches, and voluntary associations. They blared their arguments from lyceum podiums and broadsides. Abolitionists used the U. Postal Service in to inundate southern enslavers with calls to emancipate their enslaved laborers in order to save their souls, and, in , they prepared thousands of petitions for Congress as part of the Great Petition Campaign. In the six years from to , abolitionist activities reached dizzying heights. In fact, abolitionists remained a small, marginalized group detested by most white Americans in both the North and the South. Immediatists were attacked as the harbingers of disunion, rabble-rousers who would stir up sectional tensions and thereby imperil the American experiment of self-government.

Particularly troubling to some observers was the public engagement of women as abolitionist speakers and activists. Fearful of disunion and outraged by the interracial nature of abolitionism, northern mobs smashed abolitionist printing presses and even killed a prominent antislavery newspaper editor named Elijah Lovejoy. In Congress, Whigs and Democrats joined forces in to pass an unprecedented restriction on freedom of political expression known as the gag rule, prohibiting all discussion of abolitionist petitions in the House of Representatives.

Two years later, mobs attacked the Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, throwing rocks through the windows and burning the newly constructed Pennsylvania Hall to the ground. In the face of such substantial external opposition, the abolitionist movement began to splinter. In , an ideological schism shook the foundations of organized antislavery. Moral suasionists, led most prominently by William Lloyd Garrison, felt that the U. Constitution was a fundamentally pro-slavery document, and that the present political system was irredeemable. They dedicated their efforts exclusively toward persuading the public to redeem the nation by reestablishing it on antislavery grounds. However, many abolitionists, reeling from the level of entrenched opposition met in the s, began to feel that moral suasion was no longer realistic.

Instead, they believed, abolition would have to be effected through existing political processes. So, in , political abolitionists formed the Liberty Party under the leadership of James G. This new abolitionist society was predicated on the belief that the U. Constitution was actually an antislavery document that could be used to abolish the stain of slavery through the national political system. This question came to a head when, in , Abby Kelly was elected to the business committee of the society. The elevation of women to full leadership roles was too much for some conservative members who saw this as evidence that the society had lost sight of its most important goal. These disputes became so bitter and acrimonious that former friends cut social ties and traded public insults.

Another significant shift stemmed from the disappointments of the s. Abolitionists in the s increasingly moved from agendas based on reform to agendas based on resistance. Moral suasionists continued to appeal to hearts and minds, and political abolitionists launched sustained campaigns to bring abolitionist agendas to the ballot box. Meanwhile the entrenched and violent opposition of both enslavers and the northern public encouraged abolitionists to find other avenues of fighting the slave power.

Increasingly, for example, abolitionists aided runaway enslaved people and established international antislavery networks to pressure the United States to abolish slavery. Frederick Douglass represented the intersection of these two trends. After escaping from slavery, Douglass came to the fore of the abolitionist movement as a naturally gifted orator and a powerful narrator of his experiences in slavery. His first autobiography, published in , was so widely read that it was reprinted in nine editions and translated into several languages.

His great success abroad contributed significantly to rousing morale among weary abolitionists at home. Frederick Douglass was perhaps the most famous African American abolitionist, fighting tirelessly not only for the end of slavery but for equal rights of all American citizens. This copy of a daguerreotype shows him as a young man, around the age of 29 and soon after his self-emancipation. Print, c. The model of resistance to the slave power only became more pronounced after , when a long-standing Fugitive Slave Act was given new teeth.

Though a legal mandate to return runaway enslaved people had existed in U. This law, coupled with growing concern over the possibility that slavery would be allowed in Kansas when it was admitted as a state, made the s a highly volatile and violent period of American antislavery. Reform took a backseat as armed mobs protected freedom-seeking enslaved people in the North and fortified abolitionists engaged in bloody skirmishes in the West. After two decades of immediatist agitation, the idealism of revivalist perfectionism had given way to a protracted battle for the moral soul of the country. For all of the problems that abolitionism faced, the movement was far from a failure.

The prominence of African Americans in abolitionist organizations offered a powerful, if imperfect, model of interracial coexistence. While immediatists always remained a minority, their efforts paved the way for the moderately antislavery Republican Party to gain traction in the years preceding the Civil War. It is hard to imagine that Abraham Lincoln could have become president in without the ground prepared by antislavery advocates and without the presence of radical abolitionists against whom he could be cast as a moderate alternative. Though it ultimately took a civil war to break the bonds of slavery in the United States, the evangelical moral compass of revivalist Protestantism provided motivation for the embattled abolitionists.

In the era of revivalism and reform, Americans understood the family and home as the hearthstones of civic virtue and moral influence. This increasingly confined middle-class white women to the domestic sphere, where they were responsible for educating children and maintaining household virtue. Yet women took the very ideology that defined their place in the home and managed to use it to fashion a public role for themselves. As a result, women actually became more visible and active in the public sphere than ever before. The influence of the Second Great Awakening, coupled with new educational opportunities available to girls and young women, enabled white middle-class women to leave their homes en masse, joining and forming societies dedicated to everything from literary interests to the antislavery movement.

In the early nineteenth century, the dominant understanding of gender claimed that women were the guardians of virtue and the spiritual heads of the home. Women were expected to be pious, pure, submissive, and domestic, and to pass these virtues on to their children. Additionally, women could not initiate divorce, make wills, sign contracts, or vote.

Is Cult Of Domesticity Essay thesis Cult Of Domesticity Essay the morality of poetry Cult Of Domesticity Essay truism in the realm David Bowie Research Paper poetics? But imitation, Aristotle suggests, need not necessarily be literal copying, nor convey false Cult Of Domesticity Essay. There are three excerpts, each Cult Of Domesticity Essay close Cult Of Domesticity Essay questions. Get in touch with us Cult Of Domesticity Essay - we usually reply in Cult Of Domesticity Essay business hours. Pythagoras and Phocylides stated their moral counsels in verse. Get Logics Influence On Solomon Taylor weekly advice from Cult Of Domesticity Essay, only available via Cult Of Domesticity Essay. A natural genious Cult Of Domesticity Essay poetry alone is not enough.