Saturday 8 May 2021
Thursday 6 May 2021
Tuesday 4 May 2021
The home and the world themes
Important themes
Tradition vs modernism
As the title suggests, a major theme is the relationship of the home with the outside world. Nikhil enjoys the modern, western goods and clothing and lavishes Bimala with them. However, Bimala, in the Hindu tradition, never goes outside of the house complex. Her world is a clash of western and traditional Indian life. She enjoys the modern things that Nikhil brings to her, but when Sandip comes and speaks of nationalism with such fire, she sees these things as a threat to her way of life. Bimala's struggle is with identity. She is part of the country, but only knows the home and her home is a mix of cultures. She is torn between supporting the ideal of a country that she knows she should love, or working toward ensuring that her home, her whole world, is free from strife and supporting her husband like a traditional Indian woman should. Bimala is forced to try to understand how her traditional life can mix with a modern world and not be undermined. This theme ties in with the nationalism theme because it is another way that Tagore is warning against the possibility that nationalism can do more harm than good.
Sandip vs. Nikhil
Nikhil and Sandip have extremely different views for the growth of the nation. Nikhil demonstrates these beliefs in marrying Bimala, a woman considered "unattractive" as a result of her dark skin color. In the novel, Nikhil talks about disliking an intensely patriotic nation, "Use force? But for what? Can force prevail against Truth?" (45). On the other hand, Sandip has contrasting views for the growth of the nation believing in power and force, "My country does not become mine simply because it is the country of my birth. It becomes mine on the day when I am able to win it by force". (45) The contradicting views of Nikhil and Sandip set up the story and construct a dilemma for Bimala. Unfortunately for Nikhil, he has already tried to show Bimala the outside world, and stir some sort of emotion within her since the beginning of the novel, and failed. Sandip possesses great oratory skill that wins Bimala over simply because of his passion and ferocity, something that her husband may lack.
Illusions
The constant forming of illusions in the novel grows to be a major recurring theme. Sandip tends to create illusions that almost always have negative effects on his followers and on the nation of Bengal. He builds an illusion of his beliefs that sucks the people of Bengal into a sort of cult. His illusion is complete sovereignty, free of all other worlds, and an endless supply of wealth and self enjoyment. This illusion, as many are, is a fake and a lie. It ultimately sells these people a front row ticket to watch their nation fall into complete chaos and civil war between people with different beliefs. He constructs an illusion for Bimala to believe, saying she is the future, women are the future, they are the chosen path to salvation. Bimala builds an illusion that she is to blame for this war, it is solely her doing. That she has done all wrong and no right. She refuses to accept that she too was a victim of "Bande Mataram". "I now fear nothing-neither myself, nor anybody else. I have passed through fire. What was inflammable has been burnt to ashes; what is left is deathless. I have dedicated myself to the feet of him, who has received all my sin into the depths of his own pain." (199) The biggest of all is Sandip's mask of caring and passion, while he hides his own selfishness and desire for the world.
Truth
In more than one way, this novel is a comparison of different views of truth. Which reality is truer is up to the reader's interpretation. Nikhil maintains an idealistic view of the world while Sandip takes a radical, nature-worshiping view. He feels Nikhil's view of the world is inferior to the real, raw world in which he lives as a radical leader. Bimala as well must compare truths. Through her interactions with Sandip, she is introduced to the truth of "shakti" (female power), yet her life with Nikhil is centred on the truth of conjugality. Each of these instances is a comparison of truth as being something simply objective to being something with a more spiritual or moral dimension. While the story ends in tragedy, both views of truth are important players in the story's outcome, and it is left to the reader to ponder with which he or she agrees or disagrees.
Love and union
From the first page of the novel, the love and union between Nikhil and Bimala is illustrated as something sacred. Nikhil proved throughout the story that he was undeniably devoted to his wife. He proved this first by marrying a woman who hailed from a poor family, along with accepting her darker skin. He made great effort to not only educate her, but also for her to understand her place in the world and not just her place in the captivity of their house. He shows his love by giving her freedom. Bimala also adores her husband, but in a less material manner. This is demonstrated in Bimala's daily ritual of "taking the dust", an Indian ritual of reverence not usually performed by a wife to her husband.
Due to Bimala's extreme devotion to Nikhil, in the beginning of the novel, the union between the two of them is seen as one that cannot be broken. However, as, the story progresses, Bimala is slowly overcome by her feelings for Sandip. She eventually realises that she has found in Sandip what she longed for in Nikhil, fierce ambition and even violent defence of one's ideals. Her deep desire for Sandip led her to completely break her sacred union with Nikhil, going as far as to steal money from her household funds. Sandip shows his love for Bimala through idolisation. This idolisation comes about due to her freedom, though.
The tale clearly presents the theme of love and union time and time again, going from Nikhil and Bimala's marriage, through the love triangle created by Sandip, and once again returning to Bimala's love for Nikhil at the very end. This story tests the boundaries of the union of marriage. It stretches and twists it to the point where a 9-year marriage is nearly destroyed simply because of a raw temptation. In addition to the idea of romantic love, there is a sense of love of one's own country depicted throughout the novel. Questions such as, is it best to love one's country through action, perhaps even violence, or by passive tolerance, are posed in the arguments of Nikhil and Sandip. While love and worship seem parallel in marriage, Nikhil believes these feelings cannot apply to one's country. "To worship my country as a god is to bring a curse upon it". (29)
The role of women
Throughout the novel, as stated earlier, a strong sense of devotion is seen in the relationship between Bimala and Nikhil. It is key to notice that an indirect evaluation of the role of women is seen in this novel also, in a very subtle manner. In the society described, Bimala, like most women, blindly worships her husband. This can be seen when Bimala is described, "taking the dust of my husband's feet without waking him". When she is caught doing this act of reverence, her reaction is, "That had nothing to do with merit. It was a woman's heart, which must worship in order to love." (18). This scene shows the average woman in this society who believes love will happen and worship is a given in a marriage. She blindly respects her husband without understanding or having a grasp of who he is.
Another one of the many scenes that alludes to a woman's place in this society is when Nikhil and Sandip argue and Bimala is asked her opinion, which she finds unusual, in addition to "Never before had I [Bimala] had an opportunity of being present at a discussion between my husband and his men friends" (38). This line shows how there is a strong disconnect and there is no place, usually, for a woman in real world conversations. To further prove this, in Nikhil's story, the role of a woman is seen clearly, "Up till now Bimala was my home-made Bimala, the product of the confined space and the daily routine of small duties" (42). These indirect references and descriptions are quite frequent throughout the novel and clearly allows the reader to get a sense of what women were subject to and their overall role in the society.
Religion versus nationalism
One major theme in the novel is the importance of religion on the one hand and nationalism on the other. In this novel, religion can be seen as the more "spiritual view" while nationalism can be seen more as the "worldly view." Nikhil's main perspective in life is by the moral and intangible, while Sandip is more concerned about the tangible things, which to him is reality. Sandip believes that this outlook on life, living in a way where one may follow his or her passions and seek immediate gratification, is what gives strength and portrays reality, which is linked to his strong belief in nationalism. From Sandip's point of view, "when reality has to meet the unreal, deception is its principal weapon; for its enemies always try to shame Reality by calling it gross, and so it needs must hide itself, or else put on some disguise" (Tagore 55). To Sandip, reality consists of being "gross", "true", "flesh", "passion", "hunger, unashamed and cruel" (Tagore 55). On the other hand, Nikhil's view is more concerned with controlling one's passions and living life in a moral way. He believes that it is, "a part of human nature to try and rise superior to itself", rather than living recklessly by acting on instinct and fleshly desires (Tagore 57). Nikhil argues that a person must learn to control his or her passions and "recognize the truth of restraint" and that "by pressing what we want to see right into our eyes we only injure them: we do not see" (Tagore 60). All these moral precepts tie in with his faith. Nikhil also speaks from a more religious perspective when he speaks of how "all at once my heart was full with the thought that my Eternal Love was steadfastly waiting for me through the ages, behind the veil of material things" (Tagore 66). This shows that Nikhil does not live morally just for the sake of trying to be good, but that it is grounded in his religious views. Sandip reiterates the fact that in their country, they have both "religion and also our nationalism" and that "the result is that both of them suffer" (Tagore 80).
Thursday 29 April 2021
Monday 26 April 2021
Wednesday 23 December 2020
Pamela some important points
1.1 Gender and the character of ‘Pamela’
There’s a power imbalance between the two sexes in the 18th century and it’s reflected in Pamela and Mr. B’s relationship in the novel. Due to their different social classes in society, Mr. B and Pamela starts out having a completely unfair power imbalance; not only is Mr. B a man, but he is also a very wealthy man of authority and Pamela is a poor subordinate servant. Mr. B encapsulates men’s role in society as patriarchal and authoritarian and Pamela epitomises 18th century notions of femininity with her submissiveness and compliance.
In the novel, Pamela is viewed as the epitome of virtuous and christian femininity with her dedication to chastity, docility and humility. She’s emotionally fragile, hysterical and faints under stressful circumstances. People in the novel regularly praise her for conforming to the ideals of femininity with phrases like “you’re an ornament to your sex” and “called me an exemplar of all my sex”. But Pamela isn’t all passive and compliant, because she does courageously stand up Mr. B’s ill-treatment of her and is therefore quite complex.
Curiously, many of the same gender stereotypes we assign to men and women today also dominated the understanding of masculinity and femininity all the way back in the mid 18th century.
“You are so pretty, that, go where you will, you can never be free from the designs of some of our sex”
Mr. B describes men uncontrollable sexual thirst the same way the male gender is still sometimes stereotyped as sexually aggressive and fundamentally unable to control their urges. “Boys will be boys” kind of talk. Mrs. Jervis says to Pamela that she should “stay out of the way of men” if she doesn’t want to become a victim of rape or sexual harassment. This echoes the way many still blames the victim in sexual assault cases today.
Women are also accused of being vain, gossipy and obsessed with fashion. Pamela herself has a very low opinion of women;
“For well I know, sir, that nothing much excites the envy of my own sex, as seeing a person set above them in appearance, and in dress”
The novel also reveals the sexual double standards that are present today as well as back then. Men are free to call on prostitutes or relieve their urges by having a mistress without too much damage being done to their reputation. But the same cannot be said for women. As Pamela says:
“If he can stoop to like such a poor girl as me, what can it be for? He may, perhaps, think I may be good enough for his harlot; and those things don’t disgrace men, that ruin poor women” (p. 40)
1.2 Religion and morals
Samuel Richardson was a very moralistic and conservative writer. He was very inspired by the religious puritan ideal of innocence and virtue. He denounces the idea of sexual and materialistic “self-indulgence” and thinks it is the root of all evil. Pamela exemplifies the ideal puritan woman; she refuses any sexual relationship with Mr. B.
“I can so contentedly return to my poverty again, and think it less disgrace to be obliged to live upon rye-bread and water, as I used to do, than to be a harlot to the greatest man in the world”
Pamela also declines to receive any pecuniary gifts continually offered by Mr.B and his servants.
“Bread and water I can live upon, Mrs Jervis, with content. Water I shall get any where; there is nourishment in water, Mrs Jervis: and if I can’t get me bread, I will live like a bird in winter upon hips and haws, and at other times upon pig-nuts and potatoes, or turnips, or any thing. So what occasion have I for these things [money]?(p. 87-88)
And despite being delighted at receiving fine clothing and luxury items by the wealthy Mr. B upon his mothers death, Pamela rejects the fine clothing when going to her father’s poor village house in fear of being considered vain and out of place;
“But since I am to be turned away, you know, I cannot wear them at my poor father’s; for I should bring all the little village upon my back: and so I resolve not to have them” (p. 86)
Pamela’s purity and good behaviour is essentially “rewarded” with her being married to a noble man and the story having a happy ending.
Also throughout the entire novel, Samuel Richardson makes it clear that Pamela knows her place in society. She’s born lower-class and she embraces her family’s poverty. She’s by no means ashamed of it or repulsed by poverty like other haughty snobbish 18th century people were.
In the end, this is a moralistic conduct novel (as there were many of in the 18th century). Samuel Richardson is saying; this is how young girls should conduct themselves, if you resolve to be pure, innocent, religious and humble like Pamela, everything will end well for you.
1.3 Class
The marriage between the poor servant Pamela and the wealthy nobleman Mr. B caused quite an uproar in 18th century english society. It was scandalous that a servant should marry her master, someone so above her own class. But a lower-class girl marrying a higher-class man is a plotline found in surprisingly many romance-novels, and there’s a reason for it. In the 18th and 19th centuries, a woman’s social ranking was determined by either her father or husband’s place in the social hierarchy. To quote Mr. B himself:
“the difference is, a man ennobles the woman he takes, be she who she will; and adopts her into his own rank, be it what it will: but a woman, though ever so nobly born, debases herself by a mean marriage, and descends from her own rank, to that of him she stoops to marry” – Mr. B
This is probably linked to the legal doctrine of “coverture” which purports that a woman’s legal existence is ‘suspended’ during marriage and is ‘consolidated’ into that of her husband and the wife loses almost all the privileges she’d have as a single woman (to own property, keep salary, sign contracts etc). It may also be linked to why women has historically assumed her husband’s last name instead of keeping her own.
But the problematic thing about this, is that while the gender difference of ‘man and woman’ in an 18th century relationship is unequal (due to men being considered superior), the class distinction creates even more of a power imbalance. Pamela should not only listen and obey her husband because he’s male, but also because he’s higher-born than her. After their marriage, Pamela willingly continues to address her husband as “master”. Some of Mr. B’s friends even jokes that all wives should call their husband’s ‘master’.
Pamela herself, in the first few pages of the book, acknowledges that the class distinction between her and Mr. B should make their relationship implausible. She was also apprehensive about sharing her fear of Mr. B’s sexual advances with others, as they might consider her vain;
“But I say nothing yet of your cautions, or of my own uneasiness, to Mrs Jervis; not that I mistrust her, but for fear that she should think me presumptuous and vain, and conceited, to have any fears about the matter, from the great distance between such a gentleman and so poor a girl” – Pamela.
But it also seems that Pamela expects a sort of ‘respect’ from her master. Pamela is astonished to discover the motives of Mr. B to be completely antithetical to that of a gentleman. After all, an ideal gentleman would preserve her virtue, not ruin it.
Someone writing an analysis on Pamela on the website ‘Gradesaver’ encapsulates it perfectly, I think:
“If this hedging suggests latent class snobbery on Richardson’s part, however, the novelist does not fail to insist that those who receive privileges under the system bear responsibilities also, and correspondingly those on the lower rungs of the ladder are entitled to claim rights of their superiors. Thus, in the early part of the novel, Pamela emphasizes that Mr. B., in harassing her, violates his duty to protect the social inferiors under his care;” (source: http://www.gradesaver.com/pamela-or-virtue-rewarded/study-guide/themes)
So, Mr. B’s sexual advances towards her shows a lack of respect for her class; he doesn’t consider the reputation she’d lose nor her right to bodily integrity.
“I said, ‘I won’t stay’”
‘You won’t, hussy! Do you know whom you speak to?’
“I lost all fear and all respect, and said “Yes, I do, sir, too well! Well may I forget that I am your servant, when you forget what belongs to a master’”
The quote reveals Mr. B’s sense of entitlement; how dare Pamela refuse his advances and talk back to him when he is her superior. Richardson’s negative portrayal of the immoral, pompous and entitled Mr. B suggests that he might’ve drawn some from the real world of 18th century society. In another scene, Mr. B actually blames Pamela’s cheekiness as the reason he’s been ‘rougher’ with her. In response, another servant insists that Pamela should know her place. This conversation puts the blame on the victim, not the perpetrator.
“Do you hear, Mrs Jervis?” said he, “do you hear hear the pertness of the creature? I had a good deal of this sort before in the summer-house, and yesterday too, which made me rougher with her than perhaps I had otherwise been”
“‘Pamela, don’t be pert to his honour,’ said Mrs Jervis; ‘you should know your distance; you see his honour was only in jest’
Pamela believes in the puritan idea that ‘humility’ is a virtue. These religious ideals also intertwines with her class – as lower-class persons should ideally ‘embrace’ and acknowledge their social class and their place the hierarchy. Pamela does this by discarding her late Lady B’s fine clothing and by continually being “humble” and excusing herself in the presence of ladies and gentlemen. In the same vein, higher-class people should acknowledge their place in society and act accordingly. When Pamela marries, she feels it acceptable to finally wear her late Lady B’s fancy clothes without too much guilt.
The book also describes the condescending and disrespectful attitude upper-class eighteenth century individuals often harboured towards the lower-class – especially the supercilious and downright abusive way employers treated their servants.
“Why, Creature,’ said she, flying into a passion, ‘dost thou think thyself above it? Insolence!’ continued she, ‘this moment, when I bid you, know your duty, and give me a glass of wine; or-‘“
Lady Davers’s mean treatment of servants even stretched as far back as her childhood, which means her sense of superiority must’ve been internalised very early on.
“‘Lady Davers’ added she, ‘when a maiden, was always passionate, but very good when her anger was over. She would make nothing of slapping her maids about, and begging their pardons afterwards, if they took it patiently; otherwise she used to say, The creatures were even with her’”
But to be fair, her brother, Mr. B did speak about her in a disapproving way whilst explaining his sister’s supercilious tendencies.
Mr. B is complex in terms of how he engages with his own class and class differences in 18th century society. On one hand, he looks past class differences when he marries his waiting-maid but is at the same time very aware of his social status and exploits it to seduce and abduct female servants in his household. After all, Pamela isn’t the first girl he has sexually pursued, a former servant of his became pregnant and died in childbirth – which Pamela apparently think she deserved because she forfeited her virtue (actually, throughout the book, Pamela is quite a judgemental person – but I digress). Like aforementioned, Mr. B thinks people of high birth are often spoiled and arrogant in behaviour because of lack of discipline, he himself acts this way “he was very urgent with me to go ashore, or to go the voyage: I could have thrown him overboard in my mind; for being impetuous in my temper, spoiled, you know, my dear, by my mother, and not used to controul, I thought it very strange, that wind or tide, or any thing else, should be preferred me and my money:”
1.4 Marriage Life in the 18th century
Curiously, Mr. B chose a maidservant – a lower-class person – to be his wife, specifically because he knew she would be obedient as opposed to someone of high-birth. A woman of of fortune and privilege, he says, would’ve been raised without being subject to control or discipline, and therefore would’ve been too headstrong and independent to be a decent wife.
“We people of fortune, or such as are born to large expectations of both sexes are generally educated wrong” (…) “We are usually headstrong in our wills, and being unaccustomed to controul from our parents, know not how to bear it” (…) (p.499) “(…) a wife is looked for: birth, and fortune, are the first motives, affection the last (if it be at all consulted): and two people thus educated, thus been headstrong torments to every one who had share in their education, as well as to those to whom their owe their being, are brought together; and what can be expected, but that they should join heartily in matrimony to plague one another?”(…) “Neither of them having ever been subject to controul, or even to a contradiction, the man cannot bear it from one, whose new relation to him, and whose vow of obedience, he thinks, should oblige her to yield her will entirely to his.”
Mr. B does not, like other high-born men, want to marry someone who is “accustomed to have her will in everything”. He abhors the idea of men having to “compromise” with their wives, which is today, I think, conversely thought of as being one the key standards of a happy and balanced marriage.
His wife should “have shewn no reluctance, uneasiness, or doubt, to oblige me, even at half a word” and always show a high opinion of her husband whether he deserved it or not and “draw a kind veil over my faults”.
After hearing his lecture, Pamela decides to scribble down 34 rules he expects a wife to follow. It’s very interesting to read and, I think, differs a lot from how married people interact and engage with each-other today and showcases staggeringly and frustratingly unequal gender relations that women had to deal with in the 18th century. Pamela comments on all these rules though, in her journal, and some of them she agrees with more than others. I’m happy Samuel Richardson also included Pamela’s own independent thoughts on those rules.
Citation
1]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Salman Rushdie novel midnights children we see movie and here I want to share my point of view about this movie screening. Midnigh...
-
To evaluate my assignment click here SMT S.B.Gardi Department of English M.K.Bhavnagar University. Name :- Goswami Mahir Pari...
-
About drama long Day's journey in to the night from Goswami Mahirpari Work Citation Sufian, Abu. “O'Neill's Long ...
