Difference between Sentimental and Anti-sentimental Comedy

    What is satire? 

            The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize, people’s stupidity or vices, novel etc.

       Satire is a genre of literature and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcoming are held.

      What is satire comedy?

       Satire comedy is a type of humor that makes fun or ridicules. This is done with the intent of shaming an individual or society into improvement. Irony and sarcam are very common in satire.

       This comedy ridicules political policies or philosophical erom the accepted social order. It is comedy of common man. There is comedy of comedy of common man. There is laughter in our own mistakes.

      Ridicule 

            The subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision. It should failure a fair amount of satiric ridicule.

       When you ridicule someone, you mock or make fun of them. They become the object of your ridicule or mockery. Your bad behavior might bring ridicule on your parents, who raised you to know better.

As the function of comedy is, in poetry, to expose to ridicule the “vicious” or ‘foolish’.

      Anti-sentimental comedy

            Ant-sentimental comedy is comedy of manners less the vulgarity and profanity!

      Wit

1 Wit is a form of intelligent humor, the ability to say or write things that are clever and usually funny.

2 A wit is a person skilled at making clever and funny remarks.

      Disguise

1 Give someone or oneself, a different appearance in order to conceal one’s identity.

2 A disguise can be anything which conceals or change a person’s physical appearance, including wig, glasses, makeup, costume or other ways. Camouflage is type disguise for people, animals and objects. Hats, glasses change in their type or wig, plastic surgery, and makeup are also used.

               One of the primary functions of comic satire is to expose false appearances. And this is why disguise is so important to dramatic comedy.

               We notice the prevalence of images of disguise of thing not being what they seen, in all of these situations.

              Anti-sentimental comedy is also called as the comedy of manners.  

Comedy of manners

             The comedy of manners was originated in the new comedy of the Greek Menander and developed by the Roman dramatists Plautus and Terence in the third and second centuries B.C. This type of comedy is high polished in Restoration comedy. Here, we can standards and decorum.

             Comedy of manner, amusing, cerebrate form of dramatic comedy that design and often dried the manner and affection of a contemporary society. A comedy of manner is anxious with social control and the questions of whether or not character meets certain social standards. Often the covering social standards is morally atomic but critical , the plot of such a comedy , usually concerned with an dirty love affair or similarly odious matter , is subordinate to the play’s frail atmosphere , witty dialogue, and bitter commentary on human frailty.

             The comedy of manner , which was usually written by sophisticated authors for member of their own coterie social class , has historically thrived in periods and societies that combined material fortune and moral compass such was the case in ancient Greece when Menander in angulated new comedy, the initiator of comedy manners . Meander’s smooth style, elaborate plots, and stock character were imitated by the roman poets Plautus and Terence, whose comedies were widely known and copied during the renaissance. 

The Rivals

             Sheridan’s purpose in writing ‘The Rivals’ was to entertain the audience making them laugh and not by make them shed tears. ‘The Rival’ was written as a pure and simple comedy. Though there are certainly a few sentimental scenes in this play yet they are regarded as a apology of sentimentality. The scene between Falkland and Julia are satire on the sentimental comedy which was in fashion in those days and against with Sheridan revolted.

             A brief examination of these would clearly reveal that Sheridan’s intention was to prod fun at the sentimental comedy of the time. We find both Falkland and Julia campy. The true character of Falkland is indicate to us by Absolute‘s description of him as the “most teasing, captious, incorrigible lover”. Falkland own description of of his state of mind about his beloved. Julia also makes him appear absurd. He says that every hour is a demand for him to feel afraid on Julia’s account. It rains, he feels afraid let some stream should have freeze her. If the wind is sharp, he feels afraid let a boorish blow should skeptically affect her health. The heat of the noon and evening may expose her health. All this is funny and certainly not to be taken seriously. Sheridan is here banter the excessive solicitude and concern which an over sentimental lover like Falkland experience when separated from his beloved. Sheridan seems to be pleading for mental calmness even in the case of a burning lover.

            Sheridan continues to portray Falkland in the same critical manner. When acres appear and is questioned by absolute regarding Julia is activities in the boonies, Acers replied that Julia’s has been enjoying herself thoroughly and been having a cheery time now, a normal lover would feel hugely happy to learn this. We expect the same reaction from Falkland because he had assured absolute that he would feel happy “beyond measure” if he were positive that Julia was flourishing and affable. But his actual reaction is quite different and greatly gladdens us by its crap.

            In one interview again shows him a ridiculous light. He subjects to a test in order to convince himself of the frankness of love. The author’s dimension to which an over sentimental lover can go and the author expects us to laugh at this kind of lover.

            Even Julia suffers from an extreme sentimentally and she is made to appear absurd and ridicules for that reason. The manner in which she described her lover to Lydia shows the kind of mentality that she has. In the two interviews with Faukland Julia is again over flowing with emotion. We smile at the way she behaves; we are diverted by her balance of emotion, we bogus at the subject edition to her lover and her repeated pursuit to make up with him.

           The manner in which the other characters have been interpreted is also data of the anti sentimental character of the play. Captain absolute is a practical man and though he accepts the name and status of Ensign Beverley, he would not like to forfeit the rich class which Lydia will bring him. Mrs.Malaprop is current, practical woman whose attitude to marriage is business like Sir Anthony is a practical worldly man. Bob acre is a country peasant with no romantic or sentimental vanity but toward the end of the play he shows that he is more practical than anybody else.

    Sentimental Comedy

    Definition of Dictionary

Expressive of or appealing to sentiment, especially the tender emotions and feelings, as love, pity or nostalgia: a sentimental song.

         Sentimental comedy is a kind of comedy that achieved some popularity with respectable middle class audience in the 18^th century. In contrast with the fine doubt of English restoration comedy, it showed virtue repaid by calm happiness; it plots, usually involving unbelievably good middle class couple, emphasized pathos, rather than humor.  Pioneered by Richard steel in the funeral and more fully in the conscious covers, it flourished in middle century with the French comedies larmoyante and in such plays on hug key’s false delicacy.  The pious moralizing of this tradition, which survived into 19^th century melodrama, was opposed in the 1770s by Sheridan and goldsmith, who attempted a partial return to the comedy of manners.

         A sentimental comedy is comedy that simply address itself to the beholder ‘s’ love of goodness rather than humor. It shows the morality of its situations and the virtue of character.

         Sentimental comedy, a dramatic genre of the 18^th century, denoting plays in which middle class protagonist beautifully overcomes a series of moral experience. Such comedy aimed at creates tears rather than laughter. Sentimental comedies reflected contemporary philosophical conception of human as inbredly good but capable of being plumb awry through bad example. By an appeal to his noble sentiments, a man could be reformed and set back on the path of virtue. Although the plays accommodated character whose natures seemed overly virtuous, and whose trials too easily confirm, they were still accepted by audience as truthful representation of human, condition. Sentimental comedy had its roots in early 18^th century tragedy, which had tone of morality similar to that of sentimental comedy but had sub line character and subject matter than sentimental comedy.

What does sentimental mean?

Sentimental is a thought, view or attitude particularly one based essentially on emotion Instead of reason. The term may also refer to the expression of deep and sensitive feeling particularly in art and literature.

Sentimental is an expression of feeble emotion, memories, special events, music and many other significant things can make a person sentimental.

             The sentimental comedy did not last long. The sentimental soon decline into sentimentality. This change gradually patent itself in the beginning of sensibility to replace with and immortality in the comedy. In this sentimental comedy of colley Cibber and Steele there was habitual morality and sentimentality in place of shameful of the restoration comedy. This dramatist dealt with the problems of, action, family and marriage in a tone that will no longer shock manners and by virtue of tears they contributed to the elucidation of souls. This dramatist aimed at instruction some moral lessons by cure anguish innocent virtue to happiness and converting cheat into good character. Thus these comedies lost the true spirit of comedy. There are no animation and innocent glee created by wit and fun. Instead, these plays served the false morality of the middle class. 

            The culture of sentiment and sensibility in eighteen century Europe is a phenomenon of such proportion that it is often viewed as epoch defining. It can be also defined as over inelegance of emotion and pathos and sympathy. It is depends upon individual. We can also see that it has relation with pathos. in Greek it means passion, or suffering or deep feeling but in modern criticism it is applied in a much more limited way to a scene or passage that is designed to evoke the feeling or tenderness, pity or sympathetic sorrow from the audience.

The Purpose-plot

                      Kailasam tried to underline something which in original myth was made change in original myth and the reason being behind it. To know about the plot of the play, is very important to understand the play and both the character deeply. Let’s see Arjun and Eklavya’s character. How it’s play the role in the play.

   Arjun     

            In the very begging of the play the sun is that in the mid-ground. Arjun is practicing with how. The some itself accent Arjun’s aim of life. He has the aim to become word’s number one archer. He is gentle, too. It can be seen when Arjun's supine’s himself before Bheeshma. Arjuna called his aim as “own longing”. In the very young aim, his aim was personal. When Bheeshma, guide him to love his guru he receive it immediately. So, he goes to Dronachanya to learn himself. He excuses for his mistake.

       Then he understand about drone wanted to keep him understand that why he makes poor betterment. Arjun’s was so conceited that he didn’t that Eklavya also wanted to become the best archer of the world.

   Eklavya

             The central character of the play is Eklavya. He is become the best archer of the world. He always speaks whatever he thinks to be true. He had great honor. He really likes the approach of guru Dronacharay but he also appreciates Arjun’s as a novice. It is in play like this.

       He was to interest in archery that he thought that he must not miss a word of drone. This shows his lover for his aim. He was very good share proficiency. He already knows that because of his caste, may be drone will not teach him but he thinks that because of his aim he would have to risk for it. Here, he knows very well that his aim is very noble. He thinks that his aim cannot be noble than Arjuna. He is very hard-working.

       We can see here, he really tries hard to satisfy Dronachanya to teach him. He is just child when he speaks all these. We can see his child like manner of when Arjuna explaining something to patriarch.

       The similarity between both the character is that both want to though the aim is same, the purpose for it is different Arjun’s has the personal purpose and Eklavya purpose is to save the animals. In their childhood, Eklavya tells Arjuna face to face that Arjuna cannot improve it will continue his archery like he is doing at that time. Arjuna couldn’t bear that.   

       This show that the Eklavya is very bitter observed. He follows each and every advice of drone. Ha always keeps mother’s advice in mind. So, when Arjuna tells him about his caste. He never looses his disposition in a small matter. When Arjuna tells him that he doesn’t like him. He says that it his fear. In the play, it is written like this. When Guru tells him that the all required elements for the archer are complete now.

       Arjun’s has rapid nature Eklavya even given his thumb to Drona but at the end repents because it becomes reform in purpose. He did all that in love with Guru.

       It is very important to know the difference between Eklavya and Arjuna. Their purposes were different. Arjun’s purpose was self-centered. He wanted become the greatest archer of the world.

       Eklavya wanted to save other’s likes. In the purpose “Eklavyas’s “imitation has been described well as, a modern person than Mahabharata. Being a son of “Nishdha” he suffers a lot. He belongs to Bhal community. He is son of vyatraj harinyadhany. His father was a soldier in the army of king Magadha. so Eklavya poor  animals from cruel animals and he desire to learn archer . His purpose is not self centered but to help others. Arjuna was a selfish archer. His purpose was to become the greatest archer of world. Kailasam has given more significance to Eklavyas’s character and has given him priority.

       According to kailasam Eklavya is considered an important character than Arjuna because without Eklavya‘s sacrifice of his have been succeed Eklavya‘s character is considered important in ‘the purpose ‘here Arjuna a has been criticized being a selfish person and self centered. But in Mahabharata Arjuna has been given more importance. In the purpose when Eklavya indicate his desire to learn archery from guru Drone, guru Drone becomes affect. Dronacharya also asked Eklavya about his purpose behind learning archery. Eklavya replied that he wants save poor animal. How Dronacharya is absolutely impressed know Eklavyas’s acute case to learn archery. Now Dronacharya has been satisfy by Eklavya Arjun's reminds Dronacharya about his promise Arjun's that he would be great archer of world so now  Guru Drone oppose to Eklavya that he will not teach him archery. Arjuna was a Brahmin a high caste, archer from a royal family. Dronacharya cannot teach a lower cast boy. It was believed in society during that time. Guru Drone has no right to choose his apprentice. Arjun's archery and Dronachanya could not do anything. He had to agree with Arjun’s and it is considered one of the important reasons of unfair with Eklavya. If Guru Drone had been agreed than Eklavya could have achieved archery from Guru Drone.  Here Arjun's should not have raised questions about Eklavya and his promise because he was a student and Guru Drone was his teacher.

       Eklavyas’s character has been pictured estimable by T.P.Kailasam. He has all necessary qualities to learn archery but here power or caste plays vital role. Even though he learns the skill himself sacrifice his thumb. Suffering goes on as being the boy of lower caste. He commence upon an appointment of self study in the presence of a adobe image of Drone. He achieved a level of skill superior to that of Arjuna, drones favorite and most fulfill pupil. After his betrayal of Eklavya that he is form lower caste gets worried and demands that Eklavya turn over his right thumb as Gurudrakshina. The loyal Eklavya maim himself, thereby diminishing his abilities as in archer.Drona was the Brahmin teacher selected by the royal family of Hasthinapura to teach the young kaurava and pandva princes. The soldierly skill that the princes reeded to learn. One these skills includes archery. Dron was an agent of the kingdom of Hasthinapura and was not free to accept students on his will Eklavya was deeply hurt by Drone’s disapproval. So Eklavya made a statue of Drona. Accepted the statue of drone as his guru and practiced in front of the statue every single day. Here we can see Eklavya as inferior and marginalized hero. It raises serious question about caste-system and about its systice. If gives us view that how the marginalized association were treated by the control Aryan people .he had capacity to eclipse Arjuna. The Aryan hero. But the abominating Aryan intrigue and neutralized the challenge by asking Eklavya to contribute thumb of his right hand according to rule of morality if, a Nishdha boy becomes a better archer than the nigh born pupil. it goes against the rule of morality on track dispatch in the forest the dog was barking and his mouth was shut by the pointer shot by Eklavya . We can find immoderate adore to the Brahmins even if they do not deserve it. Out altitude towards Dronachanya was negative how shameless he was his comity. We feel proud of Eklavya in response to his merciless demand the behavior of Eklavya was every treatable may refuse to train him and demand his thumb. How Eklavya is expected to behave towards his Brahmin teacher .Eklavya lost his ability as an archer .Arjuna becomes thus great archer .here we find one generally feels jealous towards someone who is superior to us. Eklavya was made dupe to serve satisfied of the dominated caste placing. Non-Aryan Eklavya as a representative of the confront tribes. T.P. kailasam wants the readers to look at Gurudraona again how he presents and if he had solicit to train Eklavya than he would have trained him and taught him archery but he does not do so in this play T.P. kailasam an attitude towards guru drone was negative according to kailasam at the end becomes unorthodox but here one questioned is raised if Eklavya was a true archer and true ‘shisya’ he should not have apologize. According to kailasam Arjuna wants his fame but Eklavya even does not think of his captivating by helping others. He does not think like that. Here his dignity and huge are clown according to kailasam Eklavya has abide a lot because of caste system society Brahmins. He is a reference of Eklavya in Mahabharata after his sacrifice he eludes. He has not been given more importance he needs. So according to kailasam Eklavya is excellent to Arjun’s. He has proffered Eklavya to, Arjuna. Because after Dronacharya’s disapproval he struggled a lot and achieved the skill on his own. The title of the purpose highlights the purpose of Eklavyas’s life. In this command kailasam makes his own imagination. He naturally makes his Eklavya observe from a distance the skill in archery and then practice in his place with the image of his guru in his mind when Drone is miserable caught in a mental conflict on Arjun's seniors change Eklavya though, placed in between dual devotion towards his teacher on one side and, his fawns on the other realizes Drone’s awkward position and purposefully sacrifices his right thumb as Gurudrakshina. In handling theme of the purpose kailasam lays on emphasis on the power of abduction its capacity of deliberation and a single reason efforts on and a single reason efforts on the one hand and the purpose of doing a thing on the other. Among the three kinds of people whose purposes are different, Eklavya belongs to the third category whose “one aim is in his labor that others might earn the collection his pains without the least advantage to himself.  one has to question the probabiility of Eklavya’ s joining the kaurava in view of the fact that Eklavyas’s sacrifice  of his right thumb has already supply him almost unfit for archery .

       The purpose serves as a goes example in this regard, the playwright goes to the other extaine in between kailasam adopts the modern concept of commonwealth and socialism is trail in the ancient humane kingdom, which idea is like “the king is like a common man and the common man like a king and the hero of the play is portray as one who is espoused to truth, justice and service to humanity like Eklavya’’.     

       Here, we can take example of Karan also. Karan and Eklavya are similar character. We can find many similarities between both of them Karan had to suffer a lot in his life. Because kunti does not accept her child. She gets pregnant before her marriage. He was the child Karan was found by adhiratha, a charioteer of king Dhritrashtra of Hasthinapura. Adhiratha and his wife radha raised the boys as their own san of Radha.

       Here, kailasam tried to give justice to Eklavyas’s original myth. Thus, this is the plot. We can see how both characters are played their vital role. How, the play begins and it’s leads us to climax. We can also see how the Eklavya‘s character is portrayed means different perspective.              

Symbolic Significance of Good / Bad Angel and Old man in Doctor Faustus

Good Angel:

       A spirit that urges Faustus to be sorry for this agreement with Lucifer and return to god along with the old man and the bad angel, the good angel represents in many ways, Faustus conscience and divided will between good and evil.

Bad Angel

       A spirit that serves as the same to the good angel and provides Faustus with reason not to repent for sins against god. The evil angel represents the evil half of Faustus’s conscience.

Old Man:

       An cryptic figure who appears in the final scne.the old man urges Faustus to repent and to ask god for mercy. he seems to replace the good and evil angels, who in the first scene, try to influence Faustus’s behavior.

Good and Bad Angel:

       Have you ever seen those characters is induce to do something really bad suddenly a little red stud holding a pitchfork appears on one shoulder and a composed looking figure with wings and a band clothes in white appears on the others.

       Well, if we seen that then we think much know about the drill with the good and bad angel. They appears every time. Faustus begins deliberately the state of his mortal soul. The good angels goal is to convince Faustus to abandon his sins and return to god, while the bad angel tries to get the scholar ti continue in his hunt of magic and so remain loyal to the devil.

       But we can see the good and bad angel are actually a literacy device called allegory that means they are personification of abstract concept in a concrete form. Here the good angel represent Faustus desire to repent and the bad angel, his desire to keep right on sinning. As they battle back, so Faustus battles within himself. In short it just might be in his head. We can also see Faustus remain really divided throughout the whole play. On the one hand, he was demanded to hell the minute. He even contemplated becoming the devils servant. This is what the bad angel wants him to believe.

       But on the other hand, might be there was a such thing as conscience, so bad about our sins that god is willing to forgive us for them? That is what the good angel among other character, keeps trying to convince Faustus of.

       In the end, the good angel wins. but if the bad angel is really just a part of personification of Faustus mind, then one half of Faustus’s divided mind has triumphed over the other?

       The angels appear at Faustus shoulder early on in the play. The good angel imploring him to repent and serve god. The evil angel urging him to follow his lust for power and serve Lucifer. The two symbolize his divided will, part of which wants to do good and part of which is sunk in sin.

Old Man:

       Like the good and bad angel, the old man is an allegorical character, which means that he is a physical representation of an abstract concept.

       If we can think, what concept does the old man represent? We get the answer that, consider his word to Faustus: he pray him to stop violation, bag him that his soul is still “amiable” or good. He claims to see an angel faltering over Faustus’s head waiting to pour ‘a vial full of precious grace’ into that soul. Then he assures Faustus that all of his words are spoken in “tender love” might be say to Faustus, if he were around to give the guy talking to. So it is possible that the old man represent Christ. But that was just one theory.

       He might also represent faith, like the Christian definition of faith involves the belief in god’s address, and that god will save the soul of believers against their sins, which is exactly the old man tries to convince Faustus. Too bad the old man totally fails. 
       The most answering way of describing the part played by the good and evil angel in doctor Faustus is that they are external, visible embodiment's of the two impulses that are at war within Faustus’s mind their first appearance is at the beginning in which Faustus actually hint his pact with Mephistopheles. It is likely, that in any setting of the play they will have appeared Faustus emphasizing their role in physical terms.

       Such figure were familiar from morality plays and, as in doctor Faustus, they usually spoke selection, each putting one side of argument. Here it is the role of the evil angel to tempt Faustus with the power he is promised by the devil but the good angel reminds him of the dangers of his behavior. When they appear, at the beginning of the another scene, they continue in these roles, with the evil angel supporting Faustus decision.

(1) Debate For Faustus soul:

       The angel make only one further appearance , in the same scene, at the point where Faustus realize that there are some questions that Mephistopheles will not answer and that he has reached the limits of what he can gain from his devilish bargain.

Evil angel – tool late

Good angel – never too late, if Faustus can repent

Evil angel – repent and they shall never raise the skin.

Faustus – Ah Christ my savior, seek to save, distressed Faustus’s soul.

           On this chance, by contrast angel has the last word and Faustus appear to be enervating to such an extent that Mephistopheles to remind Faustus of his bargain.

(2) The Old Man:

       After seven scene, the good and evil angel disappear from the play and their function is taken over by the old man, who appear only in might be scene 12 and 13. This represent a very important ruse in the play, for Faustus is not being appealed to by non-human beings but who has lived his life according to Christian guide.

(3) Warnings and messages:

       The old man brings Faustus a number of warnings and messages: that the Christian way is still open to him if he represents:

·        The sweet path…….

            That shall conduct thee to celestial rest.

·                         He reminds Faustus of the soul nature of his sins:

‘thy most live and loathsome filthiness.

The stench where of corrupts the inward soul’

·                        By contrast he also reminds Faustus of the repurchase power of christ’s blood:

‘mercy, Faustus, of thy savior sweet’

Whose blood alone must wash away thy quilt’

‘I see an angel lovers o’er thy head, And with a vial full of precious grace,

Offers to pour the same into thy soul’

·                More than once he uses the word ‘sweet;, to refer both God’s grace and to Faustus himself, whom he also addresses contrast to the foulness of Faustus’ sins: and, when applied to himself, it confirm that the old man preserve his faith in Faustus as a soul who might yet be redeemed.

(4) The old man’s Faith:

           When old man reappear and witnesses Faustus’s speech to Helen beginning, ‘ I will be Paris and for love of thee’. He is conscious that Faustus has turned his back on sorrow. And then he is attacked by a number of devils, whom he defies by his turn towards god, emphasizing the strength that he gains from his faith:

        Ambitious fiends, see how the heaven smiles

        At your repulse, and laughs your state to scorn. 
(5) Faith and Choice:

        This attack is the outcome of Faustus request to Mephistopheles, Made as proof of his determination not to repent:

   ‘Torment, sweet friends, that base crooked age

    That burst dissuade me from thy Lucifier,

    With greatest torment that our hell affords’

        Mephistopheles reply is extremely interesting, because it emphasizes his weakness when he brush a truly believing Christian”

    ‘His faith is great, I cannot touch his soul,

     But what I may afflict his bodywith

     I will attempt – which is but little worth’  

    Significance of the good and evil Angel: Two Angel and Tragic conflict

            It should be noted that there is hardly any external action in the play.  We find that the real action presented in the play is the spiritual conflict within the soul of the hero-a conflict, we may be sure, between law and desire, religion and faithlessness, or between curiously and conscience. Hence, Ellis fermos rightly remarks that “the scene is set in no spot upon the physical earth but in the limitless section of the mind and battle is fought, not for kingdoms or crowns, but upon the question of man’s ultimate chance. Before him lies the possibility of escape to spiritual freedom or a doom of slavery to bitter powers. Thus, and in such terms is staged the greatest conflict that drama has ever undertaken to present”. And in the light of this remark Faustus may stand as the symbol of man in general with the strange combination of virtue and evil angels also appear in the play with their own symbolic significance personifying the two aspect of Faustus’s character.

       The former stands for order, virtue or goodness and the latter represent, the baser spirit of Faustus, his willful passion and the other, his curiosity for ‘unlawful things’. So, Harold Asborne has rightly observed:

“The good and evil angels are really externalizations of the two aspects of Faustus’s own character on the other, that aspiration to the novel and romantic that led to his downfall.” It may be noted that Marlowe is quite original in the use of his angel and they differ a lot from those abstract figures in the morality plays. 
Significance of old man:

       The old man repents Christian faith with obedience to laws of god and its need for prayer and attrition that can assure eternal joy and bliss. The old man also repents another moral aspect: that is one who has firm faith in god can boldly face the temptation and agony presented by the forces of evil and can ascend to heaven while the fiend sink back into hell.

    Battles between Good and Evil:
            The story Dr.Faustus represents the constant battle between good and evil. Every day, we are faced having to choose between the two, even if there seems like there is no solution. First, in the story Dr.Faustus represents those that choose to lean to a lower level in order to get what they want. The good angel and the bad angel are the morals that pull the Faustus’s soul apart, forcing him to make a decision that can effect his future.  The story Dr.Faustus is a great example of how one wrong decision can cause a boundless burn. 
            In Dr.Faustus, there is a battle of good versus evil going on Faust is a man who is frantic for powder and control. He wants to do anything he wants to control. That is where Mephistopheles, a blood-sucking devil appears, preying on Fausust and his confusing soul. Mephistopheles was in heaven, and was kicked out. His soul is burning and so he with him. Misery does love company. Faustus wants power when he states “ I change thee wait upon me whilst I live. To do whatever Faustus shall command.” While Faustus demands his powder Mephistopheles is miserable in hell. He wants Faustus soul, and the two make a trade.
            The good angel trying to convince Faustus to his absurdity, because the bible is what he should be reading, rather than the magic book. What it seems like the angels have gotten to Faust, the devils appear it is an insult to the bad angel to hear Christ’s name in this presence. While the good angel are telling him to repent, the bad angel are giving bad angel are giving him a taste of pure hell. Lucifer n the mean time, worked his magic and Faust signs the dotted line.  
            We believe that the story implies a moral that seduction often lead to a disaster. We all have to do what is right and not allow our gloom to take over. When we are doing is wrong, the best thing to do is not take the dark road, even if it is surrounded by colorful decorations.
            After all looks can be gull and conniving. We all have to take control and do what we feel is right. We cannot allow the devil to take over soul and destroy us.           

Dryden's view on tragic comedy

Dryden’s View on Tragic-Comedy:

The name of Tragic Comedy: 

       Defended by Steele in England and Voltaire in France, combination of tears with smiles. The most historically significant new genre to develop was the genre series or the drame, advocated by Diderot, Beaumarchais and Mercier. All three saw these genre as “between” or combining elements of tragedy and comedy according to Mercier, the “pathos” of tragedy and the “simple portrayals of life” of comedy. Mercier’s combination of two different kinds of feature part of the emotional effect of tragedy with the subject matter of comedy to produce the drama makes it clear that new genre is not to be confused with tragicomedy, which is less disconnected, more universal union of tragedy and comedy. Beaumarchais and Mercier define the drame as realistic dealing with ordinary life, and delightfully combine tears and smiles.

       If in this last respect the drama is obviously consonant to sentimental comedy, in the first two it looks forward to the plays of smile Augier and Damas fils in the nineteenth century and ultimately to Ibsen, most of whose earlier prose plays are drama, though in ‘The wild Duck’ he produced one of the earliest of modern tragicomedies. The defense of such genre as sentimental comedy and the drama indicates the increasing failure of critical obstruction between tragedy and comedy. The new genre also make tragicomedy progressively difficult to identify and define.

       The debate over tragicomedy curtail in the nineteenth century in part because the neoclassical bidding that sustenance opposition to it lost their force and in part because its importance as the mixed genre was taken over by the drama, the romantic drama and later melodrama. Romantic drama satisfied the taste for idealism, heroism, marvel, and the supernatural, all of which had been features of tragicomedy during the seventeenth century. Melodrama entertained its audiences with the anxiety and complication of tragicomic plots. The DRAMa took over such prestige as tragicomedy had demented as the most complete kind of drama and that particularly well suited to modern audience.

       Though the term tragicomedy was no longer much bicker about, romantic critics such as Coleridge and F.W.J Schelling appreciate plays that mixed the tragic and the comic. Coleridge commentary on the effects of intermingle laughter and tears in The Tempest, and Schelling observed that “the mingling of opposites, that is above all of the tragic and the comic itself, is the basic principle of modern drama”. Victor Hugo in his preface to Cromwell, the public declaration of French Romantic drama against neoclassical rules, argue that Shakespeare’s plays represent the ultimate aesthetic accomplishment of the modern Christian era: his drama exceptionally “with the same breath models the grotesque and the sublime the horrible and the silly tragedy and comedy”. The preface focuses on the grotesque a term that Hugo uses rather.   

       John Dryden’s present essay “An essay on dramatic poesy” gives an explicit account of neoclassical theory of art in general. He fortify the classical drama abide on the line of Aristotle saying it is a limitation of life, and reflects human nature clearly. He also discusses the three unities; rules that require a play take place in one place, during one day action or plot.

       The easy is written in the form of dialogue involve to four gentlemen: eugenius, critics, lisideius and nender. Nender seems to speak for Dryden himself. Eugenius takes the side of the modern English dramatist by criticizing the frailty of the classical playwright, who did not themselves observe the unity of place. But critics defended the ancient and pointed out that they draw the principle of dramatic art articulated by Aristotle and Horace. Critics opposed to rhyme in plays and argues that through the moderns exceed in science; the ancient age was the true age of poetry. Lesideius defends the French playwrights and storm the English trend to mix genres’. He defines a play as a just and lively image of human and the change of destiny to which it is subject for the delight and drill of mankind.

       Nender favors the moderns, regard the ancient, critical to firm rules of dramas and he favors rhyme if it is in proper place like in grand subject matter. Nender a spokesperson of Dryden argues that tragic comedy is the best form for a play; because it is the closet life in which emotions are heightened by both glee and sadness. He also finds subplots as an essential part to improve a play. He finds the French drama, with its single action.

       Nender favors the violation of the unities because it deeds to the variety of the English plays. The unities have a narrowing and breakdown effect on the French plays, which are often, abandon in to craziness from which the English plays are free. The violation of unities helps the English play Wright to present a mere, just and lively image of human nature.

       In his similarity of French and English drama, nender define the best proof of the Elizabeth playwrights. He acclaimed Shakespeare’s  ancient and moderns. Nender to the end for the authority of the Elizabeth with close examination of a play by Johnson which Nender believes a perfect confirmation that the English were capable of following classical rules. In this way, Dryden duty to the neoclassical tradition is displayed.

       Dryden affliction against the critics, who attack the use of rhyme both in tragedy and comedy. Since nobody speaks in rhyme in real life, he supports the use of blank verse in drama and says that the use of rhyme is serious play is acceptable than the blank verse.       

       Dryden’s comparison of the English and the French drama in the “Essay of dramatic Poesy” with his view of tragicomedy:

       Lisideius argues that French drama is choice to English drama, based on the defect of library production since Shakespeare’s time: “we have been so long together bad Englishmen, that we had not leisure to be good poets. The muses, who ever follow peace, went to plant in another country”. Lisideius acclaimed the reformation of the French theater under Richelieu and Corneille, and celebrate the close byalty to the classical break of comedy and tragedy. For lisideius “no theater in the world has anything so absurd as the English tragicomedy…in two hours and half, we run through all the fits of bedlam”. The grounding of French drama in history, its associates “truth with probable  fiction”, makes it a higher achievement than the English Nender represents Dryden own view, which favor the modern and the English, but does not deject the ancient. He respects lisideius argument that the French “contrive their plots more regularly” but he favors English drama for their more animate and complicated qualities. He criticizes the French stage, nothing that “those beauties of the French poesy are such as will raise perfection higher where it is, but are not sufficient to give it where it is not: they are indeed the beauties of a state, but of a man.”

       A towering literacy figure of the 17th century, john Dryden is typically calculates among British restoration rather than among renaissance writers. His prolific and affecting work, however, continued to develop. Literacy course begun in the renaissance proper. For example, he contributed both to the practice and the theory of neoclassical drama, and he translated both remain and Greek writers into English.

       Even before he entered king’s college, Cambridge, at the age of 19, Dryden begun his literary career with the publication of an ELEGY. In a collection of verse commemorating the death of Henry, lord Hastings. After Dryden took his Cambridge B.A. in 1654, little is known of him until 1659, in that year, however, he contributed a feeble collection of verse to a co active endanger with EDMUND WALLER and Thomas Spratt. Dryden’s verses, “heroique stanzas to the glorious memory of Cromwell”, appeared with his colleague eulogies in three poems upon the death of his late highness Oliver lord protector of England. Though this work may well have been a clever venture by three young poets trying to make their way, Dryden’s contribution would become for him a persisting complexity.

       When he become the British poet famed under king Charles 2 , his praise of the king’s most hated enemy. Successfully he also published a work in celebration of Charles second return to England in 1660, Astrea Redux. Astrea was the roman goddess of justice who had lived on earth during the olden age. Thus the work’s title embraces a high tribute to the restored monarch.

        “An essay on dramatic poesy” in it he developed his theoretical views about drama and discussed in that context the thinking of other European theorists about drama and its relation to nature. The work takes the form of a discussion whose contribution represents various viewpoints on such subjects as the modern or of the English and the French theater. Dryden himself participates in the guise of nender. While estimating the work of the ancient, Dryden champions the work of moderns as superiors and thinks that, as compared with freer wheeling British dramatist, the French mistake observing Neo Aristotelian rules such as the UNITIES of time, place and action as the end rather than the means of dramatic performance. In that context, Dryden defends the cause of TRAGICOMEDY and finds in the English theater the fullest development of the neoclassical theatrical tradition. Dryden later confines a similar discourse on heroic poetry. The great English editor Dr.Samuel Johnson considered Dryden among the world’s greatest writers, one to whom English language, and the “correction” of the nation’s “sentiments” with respect to English poetry Johnson said that Dryden “found it brick and left it marble”.

       Dryden’s skeptical and ironical physique of mind regularly appears in his prose writings and his poetry. Dryden sharpened his satirical pen poem MACFLECKNOE, a work in which he excoriates the vapid critic and dull comic playwright, Thomas Shadwell, however he does exercise his talent for SATIRE to greater effect that in his political poem Absalom and architopal. The earl of Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley cooper, had put political pressure on king Charles II to name his illegitimate, protestant son, the duke of Monmouth, heir to the throne perceiving a parallel between that circumstances and the biblical situation between king David and his rebellious son Absalom, who yielded to Mephistopheles encouragement to rebel against his father, Dryden exploits that likeness to wonderful satire effect.