In Act III, Scene II, lines 1-167 of playwright John Dryden’s Marriage A-la-Mode (1673), Dryden reveals the true strength and wit of his character Doralice through juxtaposition of Doralice with the character Palamede in circumstances that put their strength and wit to the test. Palamede, an engaged man, had arranged to have a tryst with Doralice, a woman married to his old friend Rhodophil. The two met in a secluded grotto under the rouse of prayer. Thinking no one would come to this grotto, Doralice playfully hid from Palamede. However, Rhodophil had the same idea and entered the grotto with Melantha—his own mistress and Palamede’s fiancé—shortly after Doralice hid and Palamede began to search. As Palamede looked for Doralice, he encountered …show more content…
He foolishly mentioned coming to the grotto in such a manner “that you could not trace us”, with “you” referring to Rhodophil (3.2.101). Palamede struggled to keep a calm facade in the face of conflict and pressure, but luckily Rhodophil had not caught on to the truth; he was too busy constructing lies about the reasons of his own whereabouts to question Palamede’s suspicious comments. Suddenly, Doralice called out for Palamede from within the grotto, unaware of her husband’s and Melantha’s presence. DOR. Palamede, Palamede. [Within. RHO. I should know that voice? who’s within there, that calls you? PALA. Faith I can’t imagine; I believe the place is haunted (3.2106-10).
Palamede, yet again, attempted to cover up the truth, insisting that the sound came from, of all things, some supernatural entity. Rhodophil—even after hearing his own wife’s voice calling Palamede’s name—still had not caught on. Doralice stumbled out into the open while looking for Palamede. Upon finding him, she found Rhodophil and Melantha as well. Neither Rhodophil nor Doralice expected to see their spouse in the grotto. RHO. Doralice! I am thunder-struck to see you here. PALA. So am I! quite thunder-struck. Was it you that call’d me within? (I must be impudent.) RHO. How came you hither,
…show more content…
To tie that loose end up, Doralice committed to her feigned devotion and jealousy. The consequences of Rhodophil discovering her tryst with Palamede loomed over her head; the exposure of the affair could have brought Rhodophil and Doralice’s relationship to a halt, ruining her reputation in the process. Even so, she did not let her fears keep her from making the situation work to her advantage, unlike Palamede, who lost control and almost told Melantha and Rhodophil that he met Doralice in the grotto with a scandalous intention. Discovery of the affair could have caused a rift between Palamede and Rhodophil. If Melantha found out about Palamede’s infidelity, she could have informed Palamede’s father and called off their wedding. Palamede did not care for Melantha, but he had to marry her to receive his father’s inheritance. His lack of finesse in this stressful and awkward situation could have cost him, but Doralice used her wit and strength to negate all the mistakes Palamede
The starting of the story kept me in suspense: the starting sentence, “No one can accuse Philippa and me of having married in haste” (Fox 1). This clearly brought up the theme of love and marriage. The selection of words by the narrator told that the speaker did not regret his marriage. The defensive tone of the narrator made me to think that perhaps people had criticized his marriage.
In song and story the young man is seen departing adventurously in search of a woman; he slays the dragon, he battles giants; she is locked in a tower, a palace, a garden, a cave, she is chained to a rock, a captive, sound asleep: she waits. (Heckel, par. 3)
“In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.” - John Steinbeck. Curley throughout the story, whenever he came in, there was always a negative vibe going on. Events he’s in, usually goes downhill for him or some other major character, he’s always bringing out bad events in the story, from when he wants to kill people, from when he wants to hurt people, Curley is someone who brings bad events to him, and the characters around him. Curley’s actions throughout the story has proved him to be a belligerent, unemotional, and cocky character.
Clara becomes married, recognizing that she will keep the freedom she had before marriage, while Pechorin is immediate in rejecting commitment because of his fear that it will stifle his independence. After being married to Esteban Trueba, Clara is unmoved and remains distant, putting the diamond jewels her new husband gave her ?in a shoe box, and quickly [forgetting] where she put it?(Allende, 95). She knows that being married to Esteban is her destiny and is not excited by her role as a married woman. During their honeymoon, Esteban realizes that Clara does not in fact belong to him and she would not trade her ?world of apparitions? simply for him (Allende, 96). He tries many times to win her over with presents of jewelry and candy and expressing his affection but Clara?s manner towards her marriage does not change, while her otherworldly magic and knowledge increases and develops. Over the course of time Allende shows how Esteban grows dependent Clara, eventually ?hound[ing] her? for attention (Allende, 180). On the contrary, Lermontov demonstrates Pechorin?s mascul...
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "dramatic irony (literature)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. .
Germaine Greer's task in her ingenious new book, "Shakespeare's Wife," is to expose the construction of this fantasy, tracing its evolution from early biographers like Thomas de Quincey through the work of respected modern scholars like Stephen Greenblatt. "The Shakespeare wallahs," she writes, "have succeeded in creating a Bard in their own likeness, that is to say, incapable of relating to women."
Lately, it would be difficult to find a person who speaks in the elaborate way that nearly all of Shakespeare’s characters do; we do not describe “fortune” as “outrageous” or describe our obstacles as “slings and arrows,” neither in an outward soliloquy or even in our heads. Lately, people do not declare their goals in the grandiose fashion that members of royal family of Thebes proclaim their opposing intentions: Antigone’s to honor her brother and Kreon’s to uphold his decree. Lately, people do not all speak in one unified dialect, especially not one that belongs specifically to the British upper class; Jack and Algernon’s dialogue is virtually identical, excepting content. Unlike the indistinguishably grandiose, elaborate, fancy way characters speak in Shakespeare’s plays, Antigone, The Importance of Being Earnest, and other plays written before the turn of the twentieth century, more recently written plays contain dialogue that is more unique to its speaker. This unique dialogue indicates a change in the sort of characters which drama focuses on which came with a newly developed openness to those who are different from us. Moving away from recounting tales of nobility, royalty or deities brought the lives of a common, heterogeneous populace to the stage and, with these everyday stories, more varied speech patterns.
The play “A Raisin in the Sun” was written by Lorraine Hansberry marking her first ever written play. Lorraine Hansberry was the first African American woman to write a play that was to be produced on Broadway. Although a brilliant writer, Hansberry’s opportunities of writing were cut short when she died at the age of thirty-five from cancer. Lorraine lived from 1930 to 1965, dying on the day that Broadway closed her second play, “The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window”. “The Sign in Sidney Brustein’s Window” was written in 1964, only 5 years later than “A Raisin in the Sun” which was written in 1959. Later in 1959, “A Raisin in the Sun” won the New York Drama Critics Circle Award, becoming the first
Richard’s disdain for humane beliefs and customs (such as religion, marriage, and family) shows when he treats them as nothing more than empty forms – this further labels him as a demon of indiscipline and rebellion. He sees virtues as contrary to his power-thirsty nature and aim, which emphasizes his pathological shamelessness and lack of hremorse. With his charisma, he woos Lady Anne in order to disempower her, revealing his disregard towards the seriousnesss of murder and respect for women: “What though I killed her husband and her father?” (I.i.156). Richard shows his disrespect towards love and marriage as he becomes her husband “ not so much for love / [but] for another secret close intent” (I.i.159-160) to benefit himself. In Act IV, Richard “prays” with ...
Written during a time of peace immediately following the conclusion of the War of the Roses between the Yorks and the Lancasters, William Shakespeare’s play Richard III showcases a multi-faceted master of linguistic eloquence, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, a character who simultaneously manages to be droll, revolting, deadly, yet fascinating. Richard's villainy works in a keen, detestable manner, manifesting itself in his specific use or, rather, abuse of rhetoric. He spends a substantial amount of time directly interacting and therefore breaking the fourth wall and orating to the audience in order to forge a relationship with them, to make members not only his confidants of murderous intentions, but also his accomplices and powerless, unwilling cohorts to his wrongdoings. Through the reader’s exploration of stylistic and rhetorical stratagem in the opening and final soliloquies delivered by Richard, readers are able to identify numerous devices which provide for a dramatic effect that make evident the psychological deterioration and progression of Richard as a character and villain.
Although not as advanced in its stagecraft as many of Shakespeare's other plays, the intricate web of metaphor and poetry in Richard II makes it perhaps the most meaningful and intense of the historical plays. Richard is not the sniveling villain a lesser playwright might have made him, but a philosopher and a poet whose ideas of majesty have been c...
Charles Chesnutt was an African American author who was born on June 20, 1850. Chesnutt was well known for his short stories about the issues of social and racial identity in post- reconstruction south. Chesnutt’s well-known example of his collection of short stories “The Wife of his Youth: And other Stories of the Color Line” examines issues of discrimination that permeate within the African American community. His most anthologized short story “The Wife of his Youth” explores the issue racial passing. The character Mr. Ryder attempts to assimilate into the white majority in a post- reconstruction American society. Mr. Ryder’s hopes to assimilate becomes an obsession. His opportunity for assimilation arrives through a widow name of Mrs. Molly Dixon,
The short stories “Souls Belated” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” have in common ‘Marriage’ as main theme. However, the marriage is treated quite differently in both short stories. In "Souls Belated", Lydia chooses to take control of her destiny, to deviate from conventions and to choose what is good for her. She is the strongest character of the couple. Whereas, in "The Yellow Wallpaper", the name of the main character who is also the narrator of the story is not known. She is identified as being John’s wife. This woman, contrary to Lydia in "Souls Belated" is completely locked up in her marriage. This essay will first describe and compare the characters of Lydia and John's wife in the context of marriage, and then it will look at how marriage is described, treated and experienced by couples in these two short stories.
is unfolded, the reader sees a wife in love with the husband who was wise enough to earn her love (and consequently her fortune!). Beware, gentle reader! Do not fall under the spell of Portia the control freak! The following scenerios must be proof that this woman is not to be trusted!
Wilde’s view on marriage is known through the characters. For example, Lane insinuates that marriage is boring by stating that the wine is better in the hous...