Page : 1
(Cover Page)
Department Of English
Name of Institution :................................................................................
MA (Final) Year
TERM
PAPER
ON
Critically analyse dramatic conflict as embodied in Shakespeare's tragedies with reference to Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Julius Caesar.
Submitted to:
Name of Teacher...........................
Lecturer/Assistant/Associate Professor
Department of English
Name of Institution.........................
Prepared by:
Name of the Student...................................
Class Roll :...............
Session :.................................
Department of English
Name of institution........................................
Page : 2
Department of English
Name of Institution..........................
Declaration
I hereby declare that the
concerned term paper entitled “Critically
analyse dramatic conflict as embodied in Shakespeares’ tragedies with reference
to Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Julius Caesar.” is a work of ………………..
a student of MA [Final] Year, Department of English, Govt Edward
College, Pabna. He/She
has completed his/her term paper under my supervision and submitted for the
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts [MA]
under National University,
Gazipur, Bangladesh.
Name of the Teacher.........................
& Signature: ................................
Page : 3
Abstract
The essential component in
deciding the activity of a play is the sensational clash which becomes out of
the exchange of contradicting powers in a plot. The restricting powers might be
thoughts, interests or wills. While showing the contention there must likewise
be a reason for restriction, or an objective inside the emotional activity of
the play. The genuine plot of catastrophe starts with the opening of a
contention and closures with its determination. The center of the catastrophe
comprises of the advancement and vacillations of the contention. The
significance of a catastrophe relies upon the way the producer starts, creates
and finishes up the contention, the way how he handles it. What is most
accounted in a disaster is the earnestness of activity, the bleakness of
climate, mental clash, anticipation, strain and the ability to move the crowd.
Disaster looks to stimulate the sentiments of "pity and fear". Be
that as it may, the sentiments of "pity and fear" don't issue out of
the scene of misery to be experienced by the awful legend. Or maybe it is
strife which breeds these sufferings, which stimulates "pity and
dread" in us. Insignificant enduring is not unfortunate, but rather just
the affliction that leaves struggle is lamentable.
Disaster displays predominantly
two sorts of contention outward and internal. Outward clash includes the battle
between two restricting gatherings or gatherings, in one of which the legend is
the main figure or between two personalities between two contradicting
interests or inclinations or thoughts or standards which quicken the
distinctive gatherings. In Julius Ceasar, the reason for Brutus and Cassius
crashes into that of Ceasar, Antony
and Octavius. It is in truth a conflict between two esteems: Republicanism with
Ceasarism. In this kind of contention, the colossal larger part of the
playwright personae fall into adversarial gatherings, and the legend is
vanquished and squashed toward the end. Outward clash may likewise lie between
a man and a power past that individual. This external clash is the most
primitive of a wide range of lamentable clash and is essentially found in the
Greek and present day tragedies. In Greek tragedies, the saint battles unequal
fights with destiny or fate which drives them steadily on to their fate. In
present day tragedies, the saint battles miserable fights with the general
public its deep rooted traditions, traditions and tenets. It is a contention
between the individual and his general public.
Notwithstanding, sad clash
contrasts from others in that “the victory always goes to necessity” and “the
hero is crushed”. The contention which
the saint faces is with the unavoidable energy of need which will undoubtedly
crush any resistance. Despite the fact that the disastrous saint is pulverized
and vanquished he rises as a successful character since “tragedy snatches a
spiritual victory out of a natural defeat”. It is in his energy and push to
oppose that the enormity of the disastrous legend lies. The enormity of soul is
the fundamental quality in him. Through his resistance and his exertion, the
sad producer hoists man and henceforth catastrophe accomplishes the height of a
legend through triumph in a contention. Both the soul of the saint and the
inescapable power are the "two types of brilliant" however "the
sublimity of the legend is better than the sublimity of the power which
overpowers him". Another sort of contention, and maybe the more vital than
the outward, is the inward clash the contention which goes ahead "inside
the brain of the legend, a contention no longer of power with drive, or even of
psyche with mind, however of feeling with feeling, of thought with
thought"
The Elizabethans, particularly
Shakespeare and a couple of others, utilize both the inward and the external
clash. Nonetheless it is the internal clash which offers importance to the
plays of Shakespeare. With the assistance of discourses, Shakespeare can show
the internal clash in a more agreeable manner than different screenwriters.
Neo-established dramatization joined the two types of contention. The
neo-classicist introduces the inward clash in an exceptionally encircled frame.
Present day catastrophe likewise utilizes the two types of contention.
From a tasteful perspective, we
can state that it is the contention which gives the intrigue and anticipation
in disaster. Without strife it is unrealistic to deliver a decent catastrophe.
It is with the assistance of contention that the writer can show the genuine
activity, the horrid climate, anticipation strain and mental misery. Thus,
strife, having the ability to move and capture the gathering of people,
additionally empowers to energize the twin feelings of catastrophe the twin
sentiments of "pity and fear". The emotional clash in Shakespeares'
tragedies with reference to Hamlet, King Lear, Othello and Julius Caeser will
be this term paper's principle subject.
Page 4
Table of Contents
Chapter - One
Chapter - One
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………... 2
Chapter – Two
2.1.1 Dramatic Conflicts in Hamlet………………………………………………………………….6
2.1.2 The Inner and Outer Hamlet…………………………………………………………………..8
2.1.4 Outward Conflict……………………………………………………………………………..11
2.1.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………13
2.2.1 Dramatic conflict in King Lear……………………………………………………………...14
2.2.2 Dramatic conflict in King Lear……………………………………………………………...16
2.3.1 Dramatic conflict of Othello………………………………………………………………….20
2.3.2 Internal conflict ……………………………………………………………………………...20
2.3.3 External conflict……………………………………………………………………………...21
2.3.4 Personal/Inner conflict……………………………………………………………………….23
2.3.5 Seven Conflicts In Othello…………………………………………………………………...23
2.4.1 Dramatic conflict of Julius Caesar…………………………………………………………...25
2.4.2 There are several kinds of conflicts…………………………………………………………..26
2.4.3 Conflicts are Interesting……………………………………………………………………...27
2.4.4 Main conflict in Julius Caesar………………………………………………………………..28
2.4.5 Conflict in Julius Caesar……………………………………………………………………...29
2.4.5 External Conflict in Julius Caesar……………………………………………………………30
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………….32
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………..33
Chapter - One
Introduction:
Irish dramatist George Bernard Shaw once said "No conflict, no drama”. Conflict is the premise of all great theater. Understudies of theater must know from the beginning that show without conflict is typically extremely dull, to be sure.
“Conflict generally occurs when a character cannot achieve an objective due to an obstacle. This obstacle may be internal or external – between characters or between characters and their environment. Conflict can be shown in a variety of ways, for example through physical, verbal or psychological means. Conflict can be embedded in the structure of the drama.” (Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, Drama Study Design, p.10)
As stage plays begin their life as unperformed literature, let us examine the nature of conflict from a literary perspective. Daily Writing Tips outlines seven types of narrative conflict:
1. Person vs. Fate/God
2. Person vs. Self
3. Person vs. Person
4. Person vs. Society
5. Person vs. Nature
6. Person vs. Supernatural
7. Person vs. Technology
Here, Mark Nichol argues every work of literature is based on at least one of the above conflicts. Stage plays should be no different.
The types of conflict listed above can be divided into internal and external conflict:
Internal Conflict
• Person vs. Self
External Conflict
• Person vs. Fate/God
• Person vs. Person
• Person vs. Society
• Person vs. Nature
• Person vs. Supernatural
• Person vs. Technology
Inner conflict usually sees troubled characters (often the plays’ protagonist) suffering from inner turmoil. Shakespeares’ Hamlet is a fine example. Literary and theatrical conventions of the day enabled the audience easy access to a characters’ thoughts. It is no accident literatures’ most famous soliloquy “To be, or not to be…” comes from this very play.
External conflict can be between two or more characters and can be non-verbal (psychological), verbal or physical. But some of the theatres’ greatest plays see characters either at odds with their environment or experiencing conflict with the world in which they live. These plays that present us with characters in conflict with society and/or nature often show us conflict on a grander scale than simply characters conflicting against each other.
Yet on its simplest level, external conflict is usually represented by a character whose objectives in the plot are impeded by the actions of another (opposing) character. This type of conflict clearly illustrates the needs and desires of different characters in a play, and without it the drama would be listless. Often (but not always) these characters are the plays’ protagonist and antagonist. Conflict in a theatrical performance often differs from tension in that it is normally a more permanent part of the structure of the play, as opposed to a brief moment of suspense that is more transient.
When students in a high school drama class are developing a performance, this usually requires the essential ingredient of conflict. This applies to student works created by both improvising and scripting. In certain circumstances, dramatic works are developed in the classroom that are snippets, workshop presentations etc created for a very specific purpose. These may not require conflict. But as a golden rule, students of theatre should always remember George Bernard Shaws’ famous quote “No conflict, no drama”.
Conflict in show is less a subject but rather more a reality. "Drama" is a Greek word, signifying "activity" and it is the activity of a play that constitutes the show. Conflict is at the focal point of all shows: without conflict there can be no dramatization. The intriguing thing about conflict in Shakespeares' plays is, not that it is his significant subject, but rather how he utilizes it to make a coordinated emotional content.
Conflict takes multitudinous structures in Shakespeares' plays: it is difficult to show them all. A few plays recount the tale of opponents in adoration or war; others of squabbles in families – sibling against sibling, parent against kid – or between families. There are worldwide conflicts (wars against remote individuals) and local conflicts (common wars). Be that as it may, conflict in Shakespeares' plays goes further than that: there is conflict between the eras; conflict between various theories and philosophies; class conflict; racial conflict; and at the core of everything, conflict amongst light and murkiness, great and shrewdness.
Conflict in Shakespeare is an outer thing as well as frequently a procedure inside one person. Macbeth and Hamlet are great cases of that. An inward show happens in the brains of both: there are decisions to be made and the conflict is between and among those decisions. The inquiry is dependably, what to do. As the activity of the play advances the internal conflict turns out to be more extreme. In the meantime the different conflicts in the activity proceed: for instance, the thanes moving against Macbeth in disobedience, and the plotting against Hamlets' life.
In the event that "conflict" is the thing that dramatization is then Shakespeare is the quintessential playwright. Show has come to signify "a play" or a plays' activity. So a plays' one most vital fixing is conflict and it is that that keeps the group of onlookers locked in. Shakespeare gives that on various levels in each play. Give us a chance to take one, King Lear, and perceive how conflict works in its content.
Lord Lear is frequently portrayed by analysts as Shakespeares' "most noteworthy" play. A few recommend that the play does not completely work in execution but rather that it is the staggering champ mentally and beautifully. They contend that in light of the fact that, not at all like different plays with a primary plot and at least one subplots, Lear has two noteworthy plots, and hence, neither can completely draw in the crowd, whose consideration and inclusion is divided. That might be so however, then again, in the meantime it is presumably Shakespeares' most coordinated play, with the characters, the activity, the thoughts and the symbolism all working in amicability as a solitary unit.
By and by, conflict is at the core of the show. In this play the different conflicts are brought together and multi-layered. At first glance King Lear is a residential, family story – the tale of two associated families. The focal conflict is generational – the conflict amongst Lear and his little girls in the one story and amongst Gloucester and his children in the other. So what we have here, past the individual, is the more all inclusive generational conflict – the more established versus the more youthful era.
In any case, it goes further. Lord Lear is a Renaissance play, composed when the medieval world and the new soul of humanism were in creative, religious, political, social and aesthetic conflict. The old world had turned out to be out-dated and the new soul was clearing through Europe.
Bradley talks about the Shakespearean legend as a man experiencing a conflict inside himself. Talking about this purpose of the legends' inner conflict, Bradley attests that, almost certainly, "the conflict might be imagined as lying between two gatherings or gatherings, in one of which the saint is the main figure. In any case, the issue does not end here." Bradley comments that if there is an outer conflict amongst people and gatherings there is likewise an inside conflict of powers in at the legends' spirit. In the light of the internal conflict of the Shakespearean legend Bradley deduces that "the kind of catastrophe in which the saint restricts to a threatening power a unified soul, is not the Shakespearean sort. The souls of the individuals who fight with the legend might be in this manner unified; they for the most part are; however generally speaking, the saint, however he seeks after his destined route, is at any rate sooner or later in the activity, and at times at many torn by an internal battle."
Two focuses to be finished up from Bradleys' investigation of the saints' interior conflict are:
1. That the unfriendly power against the legend remains for the most part unified.
2. That the Shakespearean legend endures in light of the fact that he stands up to an inner battle that is the reason he is isolated inside him.
\
The inquiry whether the antagonistic power against the saint stays unified or not brings up another issue: regardless of whether there is likewise a separated soul in some of these foes.
The sensational estimation of a play lies in showing a solid joint front of the antagonistic powers against the hero. They join themselves intentionally to exact a devastating on the legend. With this mission they give off an impression of being unified among themselves. By goodness of being less enthusiastic they are expeditious at choices: they embrace an obvious game-plan and seek after it till the end.
Chapter – Two
2.1.1 Dramatic Conflicts in Hamlet:
Hamlet is an appalling story managing Denmarks' sovereignty. All through Hamlet the peruser sees numerous cases of conflict; conflict is basic to any dramatization. From the time Hamlet sees the apparition to when Hamlet takes his final gasp, outward and inside conflicts have emerged commonly.
A standout amongst the most clear conflicts in Hamlet is the conflict amongst Hamlet and King Claudius. The conflict amongst Hamlet and King Claudius is interior and outer. There is pressure noticeable all around at whatever point Hamlet and King Claudius are in a similar scene or room. Ahead of schedule in the book, the peruser discovers that Claudius slaughtered Hamlets' dad. Claudius executed King Hamlet so Claudius could be above all else, and Claudius' arrangement succeeded so Claudius turned into the lord of Denmark. An apparition appears to Hamlet in act one, scene five. The phantom is King Claudius, and King Claudius says,
“A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark
Is by a forged process of my death
Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,
The serpent that did sting thy fathers’ life
Now wears his crown.” - (Shakespeare)
Now that Hamlet knows that Claudius killed his father, Hamlet seeks to avenge his fathers’ death. This starts the conflict between Hamlet and King Claudius. Not only did Claudius kill Hamlets’ father, but Claudius also married Hamlets’ mother, Gertrude. It is more difficult for Hamlet to kill King Claudius because his mother is married to Claudius. It might cause Gertrude grief because she would lose two husbands. Hamlet has internal conflict towards killing Claudius because he doesn’t want to cause Gertrude more pain over losing a husband, but Hamlet wants to avenge his fathers’ death (Hamlet).
Throughout the book, Hamlet is seen with a woman named Ophelia. Hamlets’ attitude towards Ophelia changes constantly. It is hard to tell if Hamlet loves Ophelia or if she is the cover for Hamlets’ madness. Hamlet is internally conflicted regarding his feelings for Ophelia. Hamlet will rebuke Ophelia and be cruel to her, but in later scenes he will say that he loves her (Delaney). In act three, scene one Hamlet tells Ophelia,
“I did love you once.”
Ophelia replies,
“Indeed, my lord, you made me believe so.”
A few lives down, Hamlet tells Ophelia,
“I loved you not.” - (Shakespeare)
This excerpt from Hamlet shows Hamlets’ internal conflict dealing with his love for Ophelia. There are also external conflicts between Hamlet and Ophelia. Hamlet tells Ophelia to go to a nunnery which is cruel to Ophelia (Smith).
Hamlet acts like a mad man so Claudius does not suspect that Hamlet knows about the murder. Hamlet is internally conflicted as to when he should try to kill King Claudius so he acts mad until he has a plan. Polonius tries to convince King Claudius that Hamlet is mad with his love for Ophelia. Claudius believes for a short time that Hamlet is mad for Ophelia, but after Hamlets’ play, Claudius realizes the real reason for Hamlets’ madness (Shakespeare).
“To be, or not to be” are the famous words of Hamlet. In this scene, Hamlet is contemplating suicide. This is internal conflict because Hamlet is deciding whether to kill himself of not. He was working up the courage to commit suicide but his mind was not fully committed to the idea (Shakespeare).
Hamlet tries to kill Claudius in act three, scene four to end their conflict. Hamlet goes to speak with his mother and believes King Claudius is hiding behind a tapestry. Hamlet stabs Polonius on accident because he thought it was the King. This is an example of an external conflict between Hamlet and Polonius. Hamlet is then internally conflicted because he does not immediately know what to do with Polonius’ body (Evans).
Hamlet is putting on a play for the King and Queen that mimics the murder of King Hamlet, Hamlets’ father. Hamlet hopes to get a reaction out of King Claudius. If Claudius reacts strongly to the play, the ghost was right about Claudius killing King Hamlet. Hamlets’ play made King Claudius have to get up and leave during the play. Hamlet then knew that the ghost was telling the truth, and Claudius did kill King Hamlet. The conflicts of Claudius and Hamlet intersect when they both realize what the other knows. Hamlet is satisfied to know Claudius is guilty of killing King Hamlet. Hamlet decides to kill Claudius to get revenge, but Hamlet finds Claudius praying in the church. Claudius praying in the church makes his murder more obvious because innocent people do not storm out of a play to go pray. Hamlet has internal conflict on whether or not to kill Claudius or wait till a later time. He believes that if you kill someone while they are praying, they will go to heaven. Hamlet does not want Claudius to go to heaven so he waits to kill Claudius at a different time. This is very cruel of Hamlet. Hamlet has a serious internal conflict; he either wants to kill Claudius in the church or kill Claudius later so Claudius will go to hell. Claudius and Hamlet have a major external conflict because Claudius is trying to escape Hamlet, and Hamlet is trying to kill Claudius (Shakespeare).
Claudius protects himself by sending Hamlet to England, but Hamlet finds his way back to Denmark. Hamlet is walking past a graveyard when he realized Ophelia is being prepared to be buried. Hamlet is internally conflicted because he loved Ophelia, but she is now dead. Laertes’ and Hamlet struggle in Ophelias’ grave which shows external conflict. Laertes’ is mad because his sister is dead, and Hamlet is mad because his love is died. Claudius concocts a new plan with Laertes. Laertes’ is mad at Hamlet now because he lost his father and sister from Hamlets’ actions. Laertes’ agrees with King Claudius to fence Hamlet with a poisoned sword. If Laertes’ does not scratch Hamlet with his poisoned sword, King Claudius will have poisoned Hamlets’ refreshing drink. Their actions are all external conflict plans (Shakespeare).
The whole fight scene at the end of Hamlet is external conflict. During Hamlets’ and Laertes’ duel, Hamlet hits Laertes’ first. King Claudius offers Hamlet a drink break, but Hamlet refuses to take a break. The drink that was ready for Hamlets’ drink break was poisoned. Gertrude drinks it instead and is poisoned. Hamlet realizes what is happening, and he gets stabbed by Laertes’ poisoned sword. After Hamlet is stabbed, Laertes’ gets cut by his own poisoned sword. Laertes’ has internal conflict because he gets stabbed by his own sword. Hamlet finally has a chance to kill King Claudius and stabs him with the poisoned sword. Hamlet also forces Claudius to drink from the poisoned drink. King Claudius died before Hamlet so Hamlet had his revenge on Claudius. Hamlet has internal conflict because he will either die in pain or drink the poisoned cup to die faster. Hamlet drinks the poisoned cup and die after he is successful to fulfill his revenge (Hamlet).
There are many purposes of outer conflict and inner conflict. The outside conflicts dwarf the interior conflicts, yet the inward conflicts are more essential to the story. Without the inside conflict, the outside conflicts would not bode well. From the time Hamlet sees the apparition to when Hamlet takes his final gasp, outward and inward conflicts are demonstrated ordinarily.
2.1.2 The Inner and Outer Hamlet:
The intrinsic idea of dramatization comprises of the back and forth — the push and repulsion — of conflict. Without conflict, a work of sensational writing experiences an absence of development or stream that enables the portrayal to crescendo and move the group of onlookers or peruser to a state activity. Weaving conflict easily all through show is important to make the work fascinating and ready to address the individual sitting on the less than desirable end of the emotional work. The idea that the peruser/gathering of people of a specific work of dramatization is inactive repudiates the very state of the human experience and its association with sensational works. Show reflects life and by reflecting life it reflects the battles, issues, and conditions of the peruser. In this manner, dramatization essentially works in conflict at different levels to a similar impact that the human experience reflects conflict at various levels. William Shakespeare accomplishes the vital components of conflict all through Hamlet by making an internal conflict concentrating on Hamlets' battle to retaliate for his dad while not having the capacity to go up against his effective oedipal complex and an outward conflict encompassing the authenticity of Hamlets' claim to the crown.
To this effect, Hamlets’ inner preoccupation lies chiefly with the relationship between his mother and uncle. The first line he utters is, “a little more kin and less than kind” (Shakespeare I.2.65). Hamlet struggles with the concept that his mother could betray his father. The betrayal of his father bothers Hamlet because he does not know how to deal with his repressed feelings about his mother and his own oedipal animosity towards his father. Also, the psychological shock of losing his father is augmented by a perceived betrayal to the sanctity of marriage and family ties. Kawsar Uddin summarizes “Freudian analyses of Hamlets” parental relationship stating, “Hamlet in his unconscious had an incestuous desire for his mother and had a murderous desire towards his father” (695). In the exchange that follows, where his mother, Gertrude, questions Hamlets’ grief his mental state and inner conflict are evident:
QUEEN GERTUDE If it be,
Why seems it so particular with thee?
HAMLET Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not “seems”.
‘Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected ‘havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly. These indeed “seem,”
For they are actions that a man might play.
But I have that within which passeth show,
These but the trappings and the suits of woe (I.2.74–85).
Hamlet expresses his true mental anguish to his mother and seems to be surprised at her nonchalance and lack of grief for her husband. The short timeframe for his Mothers’ marriage to his uncle demonstrates to Hamlet a lack of true love for his father that was new to him but it also bothers him because of desires that he cannot seem to understand.
Hamlets’ issues with his mother become a motivating internal conflict that moves the story along. Sandra Young expresses a reading of what she calls an Oedipal Hamlet in her essay “Recognising Hamlet.” Young argues, “Oedipus offers an explanation for this vigorous Hamlets’ indecision in the matter of avenging his fathers’ death — he can’t kill the usurping Claudius because he unconsciously identifies with him” (14). The idea that Hamlet at once hates his uncle for killing his father but at the same time is jealous in an oedipal form strikes at the heart at the inner conflict that Hamlet is suffering from the very beginning of the play. After the confrontation with his uncle and mother he states:
Fie on ‘t, ah fie! ‘Tis an unweeded garden
That grows to seed. Things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely. That it should come to this.
But two months dead — nay, not so much, not two.
So excellent a king, that was to this
Hyperion to a satyr. So loving to my mother
is it her face too roughly! (I.2.135–141).
He asserts that the garden (his family) is not being kept and growing wild. He does not express his discontent towards his mother but holds it inside allowing it to fester and push aside logical behavior. He again mentions his father and implies to his mother how little the king must have meant for her in order to replace him so quickly. This replacement returns us to the notion of the oedipal Hamlet who feels that his uncle has taken from him a birthright.
The birthright Hamlet question is not only his fathers’ place and but, also, the overthrow of his fathers’ position in regards to his mother. Taking ownership of the throne is at odds in Hamlets’ psyche with who he is removing from the throne (his uncle and not his father). It is this inner struggle represented by Hamlets’ postponement of his fathers’ vengeance that illuminates the audience into his inner struggle. Javed explains, “Hamlet could be a man of decisive action, capable of anything — except the avenging of acts, his conscience intuited, that were in keeping with his own repressed desires” (330). This internal oscillation between his hate for his uncle who killed his father but at the same time admiration for doing what he might have desired himself is hinted at in the text as he questions the ghost. When the ghost reveals the murderer, Hamlet questions, “O my prophetic soul! Mine uncle?” (I.5.41). Hamlet suddenly hesitates to believe — and later act — when a few moments before he was eagerly stating:
Haste, haste me to know it, that with wings as swift
As meditation or the thoughts of love
May weep to my revenge (I.5.29–31).
The give and take happening within Hamlets’ psyche is palpable. His uncle and mothers’ incestuous relationship is despicable to him, as we have discussed previously and, yet, when it comes to his uncle and carrying out his revenge Hamlet cannot bring himself to act. The psychological conflict moves the forces of Hamlet and this play along and provides a vehicle for the plot to take shape inwardly but as we will see further also outwardly.
2.1.4 Outward Conflict:
As we have seen up to now Shakespeare manages to generate inner conflict but he also masterfully creates outward conflict. Hamlet possess the necessary elements to establish the anguish within but also proves that Shakespeare comprehends the complexity of legal systems and the give and take of power and position. At the heart of the play the outer conflict revolves around the question of the crown and succession. Michael Taylor in “The Conflict in Hamlet” states, “The essential conflict in Hamlet, I believe, is that between man as a victim of fate and as controller of his own destiny” (150). The question of fate is intimately related to succession. Hamlet questions if he is required to take the crown on behalf of his murdered father and even attempts to escape this fate by accepting his uncles’ banishment. The following quotation establishes Hamlets’ reaction to the banishment:
HAMLET For England?
KING CLAUDIUS Ay, Hamlet.
HAMLET Good.
KING CLAUDIUS So is it, if thou knew’st our purposes.
HAMLET I see a cherub that sees them. But come, for England.
Farewell, dear mother (IV.3.46–51).
Hamlet battles with fate and rejects the notion that he is destined for the crown by gladly accepting the banishment. The fricative nature of Hamlets’ embrace of revenge as a means of justice is juxtaposed by his lack of action towards the usurper and creates the required tension to envelop Shakespeares’ work of drama in conflict.
The use of fate as a plot device further adds to the outward conflict in Hamlet. J.J. Lawlor in his essay “The Tragic Conflict in Hamlet” goes into detail about the function of fate in the play. Lawlor states, “in so far as the plays’ action is concerned, [fate is] nothing other than a limitation of the heros’ field of choice — a limitation wholly consonant with real experience, compelling the human agent, being such a man as he is, to make the choice that involves disaster” (102). In this case, Shakespeare limits Hamlets’ banishment. Hamlet is faced once more with the crown. He is faced with the conflict at hand, namely, succession. Andrew Hadfield argues that “it is not surprising that Shakespeares’ plays written just before and after the death of Elizabeth consider the problem of the succession and the question of the legitimacy of the ruler” (566). The question of legitimacy is the central outward conflict in Hamlet.
Hamlet does not see his uncle as the legitimate hair to the throne but does not outright argue the point by killing the man. King Claudius has consolidated power around his reign before Hamlet even enters the play. He has established legal tender by marrying the previous Kings’ wife and, by blood right, seems to have a legitimate claim to the throne as the previous Kings’ brother. Hadfield further explains, “Hamlet represents a nation ruled by a paranoid and unstable court, threatened by aggressive and powerful enemies, ruled by a murderous usurper, and haunted by a ghost from the past whose intervention, while legitimate, only brings destruction” (568). The nation under duress and amid political turmoil crowns a king which claims to the crown are, at best, questionable. Shakespeare emphasizes this outward conflict by pitting King Claudius and Hamlets’ claim.
King Claudius himself knows the fragility of his legal case for the crown because he demonstrates a willingness to move away from the subject of his brothers’ death. The ensuing excerpt demonstrates the Kings’ resolve:
Though yet of Hamlet our dear brothers’ death
The memory be green, and that it us befitted
To bear our hearts in grief and our whole kingdom
To be contracted in one brow of woe,
Yet so far hath discretion fought with nature
That we with wisest sorrow think on him
Together with remembrance of ourselves (I.1.1–7)
By having the court and kingdom quickly move on from the death and grieve of losing the older Hamlet, King Claudius can consolidate the claim to the crown and prove a powerful force against Hamlet. Hamlet, on the other hand, comes into the fray without evidence to prove that his uncle is indeed a usurper who stole the crown through illegal means. Hamlet arrives in Demark to find his uncle in possession of the Crown and his mother. The conflict demands resolution. Shakespeare asks the audience to dissect Hamlets’, the rightful heir to the crown, claim against King Claudius’ illegitimate claim.
The outward conflict surrounding the crown bears fruition in a manner that is ironic. Hadfield identifies the irony when he states, “The murder of Hamlet senior precipitates a chain of events which leaves Denmark not only deprived of its royal family, but in the same position, it would have been in had Fortinbras senior defeated Hamlet” (568). The conflict surrounding the crown provides the necessary crises to move the plot along and bring the audience towards a general understanding and resolution of the conflict. King Claudius underscore the state of the outward conflict when he says:
Now follows that you know. Young Fortinbras,
Holding a weak supposal of our worth
Or thinking by our late dear brothers’ death
Our state to be disjoint and out of frame (I.2.17–20).
The state of Denmarks’ royal family clearly has greater repercussions for the fate of the nation. The infighting between the family over the crown, revenge, and justice disarms the nation as a whole and serves to set up a conflict in which the stability a whole country suffers over the squabbles, justified or not, of the royal family. This outward conflict serves to define the play at large and pulls in its characters in order to provide the necessary elements to craft a drama out of Hamlet.
2.1.5 Conclusion:
In Hamlet Shakespeare deftly invents internal and external conflict into his dramatization. The major internal conflict is set apart by Hamlets' stifled wants and his refusal to trust the apparition of his dad and later to rapidly retaliate for him. Village, encountering an oedipal complex, on the double is hollowed against a subdued want for his mom and envy of his dad/uncle. The line after Queen Gertrude offers him a drink is telling. At the offer to drink something pleasurable Hamlet shouts, "I set out not drink yet, madam; before long" (V.2.236). He, who is distracted always by — what he describes — as the depraved idea of his moms' association with his uncle, harbors wants that he can't offer articulation to and that at last lead him to delay his retribution. In the mean time, the internal associates with the external and the fight for the crown of Denmark turns into the concentration of the outward conflict. Dedication to the crown and the implications of who fairly merits the crown can be felt when King Claudius tells Valtemand, "Goodbye, and let your scurry laud your obligation" (I.2.39). The political play for the crown gives crafted by show with the outward conflict the moves the plot along. Consequently, Shakespeare makes a show utilizing both internal and outward conflict to connect with groups of onlookers a great many generations.
2.2.1 Dramatic conflict in King Lear:
King Lear is a standout amongst the most complex plays composed by William Shakespeare, with its many characters, camouflages, and shocking results. The play depends on the story of King Leir of Britain, who as far as anyone knows led in the eighth century B.C., and whose life and reign are point by point in Geoffrey of Monmouths' twelfth century work, Historia Regum Britanniae, or History of the Kings of Britain. Run of the mill of most Shakespearean tragedies, old King Lear is conveyed to demolish, and in the end passing, by a lamentable blemish: his stupidity prodded on by his pride. Shakespeare looks at numerous general topics and beliefs, for example, the perils of absurdity and control, the results of ravenousness, and the mixed bliss of recovery and compromise. Likewise natural for his works, Shakespeare accepts the open door to do some ethical educating to the government about offering riches to poor people. Ruler Lear, while complex, likewise gives groups of onlookers a straightforward cautioning about what happens when we depend on our pride and sense of self, as opposed to our reason, to settle on our choices.
The epic catastrophe, King Lear, has regularly been viewed as Shakespeare's most prominent perfect work of art, if not the most distinguished accomplishment of any playwright in Western writing. Lord Lear is a play showing the defeats a man can acquire with the impact of a couple of off base choices and ways taken by the terrible legend. Shakespeare exhibits how inward conflicts can show into outer conflicts through this play.
The most persuasive author in English writing, William Shakespeare could showed the utilization of conflict inside this play through the characters of King Lear and Edmund. Shakespeare's utilization of outer and inward conflict helps manufacture the plot of the play by utilizing extremely intense conflicts between a character's psyche and a character against an outside power.
A noteworthy subject in King Lear is the conflict between the individuals who acknowledge the common request of society and the individuals who entrepreneurially plan to force their own particular esteems and request over what they see as the "torment of customs".Through a basic examination of the play, talk about the route in which Shakespeare presents and develops this topic through the dialect and activities of his characters.
One of William Shakespeares' finest tragedies King Lear is a play that investigates the conflict between the individuals who acknowledge normal request of society and the individuals who artfully plan to force their own esteems and request over what they see as the "torment of custom". Shakespeare presents and enlargers conflict all through the play in specific characters, for example, Cordelia, Lear, Goneril, Regan and amongst Gloucester and Edmund.
Lear is separating his kingdom among his three girls addressing them straightforwardly so they can portray to him how much each of them adores him. Lear asks his little girls from eldest to most youthful beginning off with Goneril being the eldest and Regan being the second tyke portraying how much love they have for their dad and when achieving Cordelia the most youthful tyke and Lears' most loved little girl speaks "Nothing my master". This is very hugeness in the opening scene of the play as it sets up the idea of conflict amongst Cordelia and Lear leaving Lear stunned and Cordelia being straightforward with herself.
All through the play conflict is passed on through father and child Gloucester and Edmund. The reason for this conflict is Gloucesters' disloyalty by his knave child Edmund making something beyond a power battle. Edmund makes a produced letter, dangerously composed by his half – sibling Edgar, doing with his made up arrangements to kill his dad Gloucester. The conflict amongst Gloucester and his inventing child add to King Lear by turning into a parallel between Lears' issues with his own girls. Lear winds up in a comparable circumstance with his two little girls Regan and Goneril, likewise plan to sell out their dad, keeping in mind the desire to benefit from his loss of energy. The likeness between Lears' little girls and Edmund holds a reason to improve the perusers' view of what conflicts the want for more power can make.
Shakespeare presents and broadens conflict all through the play. Regan and Goneril the shrewd sisters progress toward becoming into conflict between the individuals who acknowledge the regular request of society and the individuals who craftily plan to force their own esteems and request over what they see as the "torment of custom". Shakespeare described Goneril and Regan to not have the regard or respect to stay faithful to their spouses. Conflict serves actually in the plot as the reason for death for both Regan and Goneril. The conflict prompts Goneril harming Regan her sister to Goneril later on executes herself after she admits to killing her sister.
William Shakespeare construct the play in light of conflict as well as numerous different topics. Lord Lear's significant subject conflict between the individuals who acknowledge the characteristic request of society and the individuals who astutely plan to force their own esteems and request over what they see as the "torment of traditions" truly fitted into the play. Shakespeares' finest disaster King Lear investigates conflict all through and is a viable topic to comprehend the plot.
Ruler Lear, much to the like of Shakespeares' other deplorable plays, holds brutality and conflict as an indispensable and all around verbalized, topical enthusiasm of humankind delineated in the urgent story of King Lear and his emotional destruction. The ruthless slaughter, in both strict and allegorical terms, of the generation is central in exhibiting and elucidating the principle worries of the exemplary performance center piece. The sharp viciousness of the conflict is fluctuated between three straightforward structures: savagery starting with limited then onto the next; conflict inside a character and a verifiably compelling and estranged connection amongst man and nature. Savagery is bound all through the content and is entwined with numerous reoccurring ideas of the play, mirroring the essential idea of brutality and it's part in telling the massively dreary story of King Lear in both the principle plot and the sub plot. Brutality is very much exhibited in a few scenes all through the content, of which, will be viable in clarifying the handiness of the theoretical tradition of conflict in making a justifiable and heartless disaster. These scenes, and their demonstrations, will be Act 1, Scene 1 and Act 2, Scene 4
2.2.2 Dramatic conflict in King Lear:
The opening scene of King Lear was fuelled by conflict, both internal and external, whilst still only giving us a taste of what was to come. The verbal violence that unfolded in the first sequence set up the main characters’ personas and tendencies, as seen by a reader or theatre goer, with help from contrast, meter and majestic plurals scattered throughout. The script begins with the immediate establishment of the nature of The Earl of Gloucesters’ relationship with his bastard son Edmund. When Kent asks “Is not this your son, my lord?” Gloucester responds with embarrassment, “His breeding sir, hath been at my charge. I have so often blushed to acknowledge him that now I am grazed to ‘t,” the simple introduction to the main plot with the sub plot has allowed Shakespeare to bring the audience to the attention of tension filled conflict surrounding the relationships between Gloucester as his two sons Edmund and Edgar, who has not yet been mentioned. Edmund is portrayed as a well mannered, quiet young man which is quickly revealed as quite the contrary in the following scene.
Lear enters as a powerful, old man well supported by many Attendants and his fine use of Iambic Pentameter. Lears’ regulated meter reflects his high status and is an important factor in the conflict surrounding his relationships between surrounding characters, nature and his relationship with himself. Lear has come to the conclusion that he is much too old to be taking care of his country any longer and would like to part his responsibilities equally between his three daughters, Goneril, Regan and Cordelia. Lear just has one test for his children although, arguably, its’ only purpose was to fuel Lears’ ego. Lear plainly asks the three women, “Which of you shall we say doth love us most.” Lear referring to himself as “us” is an example of the majestic or royal plural used by people of very high societal status. The contrasting answers from the three children also set the scene for the continuing conflict following Lears’ decree. Goneril and Regan are similar in their answers and assumed similar in their personalities. Both Goneril and Regan lie about their love for Lear but as they flattered his large ego they escaped with their shares of the kingdom but Cordelia, on the other hand, is honest is her description of her love and is eager to set herself apart from her sisters. That leaves her disowned and banished by her father. The relationship between Cordelia and her family members is not only damaged but denied. Lears’[ status reflected by his language gives young Cordelia no choice but to accept his decision and part with her much loved father. The initial conflict of the text is, to the eye, conflict from man-man. This man-man conflict is in fact the result of a negative relationship between man and himself, and, man and nature. Lears’ inner disturbance as a fault of his rash and careless temper has allowed the balance of nature to be disrupted. During the time that King Lear was written, it would have been very unusual for a king to give away his power, especially to women. Lear positions himself as untouchable within his first few lines as constructed by his language which will, in the long run, do him a great disservice. The use of meter and majestic plural in Lears’ language allows Shakespeare to arrange the societal hierarchy in King Lear, at this point Nature is the only thing above Lear, and the longer that Lear chooses to ignore that, the more disastrous his downfall will be. The opening to the play has made a crucial contribution in introducing the nature of the characters and the current tension that could, quite possibly, grow into violent chaos as the tale progresses. The taste of conflict and tension in Act 1, Scene 1 was very useful in assisting the reader in understanding the basis of the two plots in King Lear, the conflict present in the beginning is entirely verbal but has stemmed from a conflict within, or, an action that has angered nature.
The events of Act 2, Scene 4 are an excellent example of how one form of violence influences or leads up to another. The violence present during the climatic scene is especially useful in the clarification of the potentially confusing plot leading up to this point. In the scene to it’s previous, Goneril and The Duke of Albany have avoided Lear upon hearing he was nearing their kingdom to visit. Lear is bitter and instead travels to Regan and The Duke of Cornwalls’ portion of the kingdom in Scene 4. Lear threatens Regan upon arrival reflecting his great anger towards Goneril at this time, “If thou shouldst not be glad (to see me), I would divorce me from thy mothers’ tomb” Lears’ emotion is clearly demonstrated by his violent attitude towards Regan after her sister Gonerils’ actions. Regan begins to attempt to convince Lear that it is rather his fault and that he that should apologise to Goneril, which only angers Lear further. The Fool helps Lear along his journey as the scene continues and keeps him company as they spend the night outside in the cold upon leaving Regans’ kingdom. Up until this point of the plot Lear has maintained his untouchable attitude and denies his inevitable madness. Lear loses everything, his children, his status, his kingdom and finally his sanity.
At line 280 of Act 2, Scene 4 Lear comes to the realisation that he is no longer the king he believes he is, and he indeed has nothing. Lear, before this point has mentioned nothing many times. It is a reoccurring motif of the extended reflection on society. Lear unleashes his wrath on Regan in a violent, verbal rampage, “I will have such revenges on you both/… What they are, yet I know not, but they shall be/ The terrors of the earth! You think I’ll weep./ No. I’ll not weep,’ it is important to note that Lear is still speaking in Iambic Pentameter. This is the last shred of status for him to cling onto. This is Lears’ biggest inner conflict. Immediately after Lear passionately states his feeling towards his daughters there is “Storm and Tempest,” this is a pathetic fallacy. Pathetic fallacy is used to match the weather to the plot, creating heightened drama and emotion. Pathetic fallacy in this scene has a large symbolic meaning as well. King Lear is set in a pre-Christian, Pagan society that believes in a strong connection between nature and fate. The storm would have had great significance to the characters but also, now reflects the relationship between man and nature. The careless actions of the characters in King Lear have caused great violence between man and nature. As the storm breaks out Lear says, “O Fool, I shall go mad,” this line has a much deeper meaning to it than what in seen upon first glance. Lear mentions the fool, his jester but, potentially, he could be addressing the madness within him. As the storm breaks out Lear finally realises what a “Fool” he has been. Act 1, Scene 1, the earlier scene, begins with metaphysical conflict between Lear and his daughters which is quickly turned into a conflict within Lear. The actions of all the characters of King Lear have upset nature and that is well portrayed by pathetic fallacy and symbolism within this scene. The violence and conflict included in the climatic scene of King Lear dramatises relationships and actions making them easily seen, understood and interpreted.
The drastic conflict in King Lear is undoubtably useful in assisting an audience to understand the complex enactment of Lears’ melodramatic downfall of large societal proportions. Both Act 1, Scene 1 and Act 2, Scene 4 are excellent examples of how conflict is used to clarify and highlight important events or ideas within a text. The interweaving of variable types of conflict is especially symbolic within the pagan context of the script. The physical conflict and internal disturbance is well expressed with help from set up of societal class, as well as the distrust between man and nature expressed with pathetic fallacy is key in the understanding of the underlying, metaphoric message of the classic Shakespearean play. King Lear is a fine example of conflict providing important clues on the entangled plot, enhancing and deepening the morals taken away by the informed and conscious audience.
One way in which conflict is presented in this excellent tragedy is through the storm that rages throughout Act III as Lear wanders around on the heath. This storm could symbolically represent a number of different aspects of conflict. Of course, primarily it could be argued to represent the conflict and inner turmoil that Lear himself is experiencing. Note how at the beginning of Act III scene 2, Lear appeals to the storm to become...
One way in which conflict is presented in this excellent tragedy is through the storm that rages throughout Act III as Lear wanders around on the heath. This storm could symbolically represent a number of different aspects of conflict. Of course, primarily it could be argued to represent the conflict and inner turmoil that Lear himself is experiencing. Note how at the beginning of Act III scene 2, Lear appeals to the storm to become stronger and destroy all in its path:
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!
You cataracts and hurricanes, spout
Till you have drenched our steeples, drowned the cocks!
.... Strike flat the thick rotundity o' the world!
Crack nature's moulds, all germens spill at once
That makes ingrateful man!
This clearly represents the inner conflict within Lear as he tries to reconcile the way that he has been treated with his increasing loss of control as madness sets in and his own guilt at the way that he exiled his one true daughter.
However, note too how it could be said to reflect the conflict that is tearing Lear's kingdom apart. The storm reflects the "division" that is evident in the kingdom that Kent alludes to when he talks to the Gentleman in Act III scene 1.
2.3.1 Dramatic conflict of Othello:
Othello is a play which contains many conflicts between the characters. The fundamental conflicts in "Othello" are amongst companions and enemies. Othellos' internal conflict, social and racial contrasts which prompt racial judgment and segregation, to express these conflicts; Shakespeare utilizes numerous systems, for example, monologues, sensational incongruity, symbolism anticipating and imagery. Among the primary characters there are many conflicts, however the principle explanation behind a large portion of the conflict if Iago and Shakespeare utilize the methods to demonstrate to us how Iago causes the conflicts.
This likewise dissects Othellos' pride, his unsure nature, his envy and his rash conduct. Conflict between the characters particularly Iago and Othello is mostly depicted using dialect gadgets, for example, symbolism and representations creature symbolism, sexual insinuation, incongruity and emotional incongruity, reiteration, traditional and religious references. These gadgets are utilized to give understanding into the characters connections, topical concerns and a wide assortment of options perusing.
The analogies and symbolism depict how Iago detested Othello and the conflict to interfere with them. Conflict is additionally introduced through the Binary Opposition, which enabled the gathering of people to see the change inside the characters or between characters starting with one extraordinary then onto the next. For instance, we can take after the individual conflict and disintegration through the Binary Opposition of affection and contempt and also sane and enthusiastic. This gives the gathering of people to perceive how Othello changes from a judicious to an unreasonable man.
Another case is the Binary Opposition of intelligence and stupidity which delineates the conflict amongst Iago and Othello. Different types of conflict engaged with this play are interior which incorporates abhor and personality, outside that comprises of race, sex, sexual orientation and marriage. Including there is in universal conflict with the Turks and Venice, racial conflict as Othello being the outcast, conflict inside marriage which includes Desdemona and Othello and additionally Iago and Emilia and obedient conflict inside the family with Desdemona and her dad.
2.3.2 Internal conflict :
Jealousy, Hate & Identity:
Why else do men hate each other? Ego & Envy. Othello picks Cassio for promotion instead of Iago which hints Iago is jealous of Cassio. Iago is the embodiment of pure evil, and enjoys having power over others, which also makes him jealous of Othello; his life, his position, his beautiful wife. It is also been said that Iago was a homosexual, and that he hates Othello because he couldn’t have Othello to himself. Iago frequently declares his “love” for Othello by stating that he is “bound to (Othello) forever’ by “heavens’ light”.
2.3.3 External conflict :
Racism:
Othello was “dark/swarthy” and other characters looked down on him for this. He was a black man from Northern Africa and his status in Venice is complicated as both an insider and outsider. However, even though he is from a foreign culture he is the commander of the Venetian military system which is where he gets his respects from. Iagos’ comments against Othello are racist and denigrating. “The old black ram is tupping your white ewe” refers to the eloping of Othello and Desdemona as both degrading and racist.
Iago also refers to Othello as a “Barbary Horse” in other words an “uncontrolled sexual beast”. Interpersonal conflict Iago vs. Othello The conflict between Iago an Othello is many between the two but only one person can see whats’ happening. Iago constantly manipulates, lies and plots to ensure that he can down-grade Othello, because of his hatred for Othello that he wasn’t granted the position of Othellos’ second in command. Until the end of the play, Othello trust Iago and therefore does not realize the conflict of which he is in.
Sex/Gender :
Shakespearean responders were controlled by the dominant patriarchy.
They believed that women were the cause of the mans’ degradation and fall from grace. A feminist reading of the play would see Shakespeares’ test as the misogynistic attitude of a society that defined women as seductively responsible for the corruption of mans’ higher reasoning faculties. Desdemona, Emilia and Bianca are all passive characters are either defined by their sexuality as passion as promiscuous prostitutes or as property through their social roles. All are controlled by men (either father or husband) and are never given independent status.
Some examples of conflict in Othello as supported by specific quotes:
Conflict is often created due to a lack of communication and Othello is no different. Iago, in fact, thrives on miscommunication, inferred meaning (entendres) and double meanings.
Iago is the first to show his displeasure after he has been passed over for promotion. When Roderigo suggests that Iago should "not follow him," Iago is quick to note that there will be consequences to Othello's decision:
I follow him to serve my turn upon him. I.i.42
Iago goes on to basically warn Roderigo because Iago himself admits:
“I am not what I am,” I.i.66
Iago knows how Roderigo wanted to court Desdemona and will manipulate him to create conflict and mistrust between Brabantio and Desdemona. As Iago says to Roderigo:
Let us be conjunctive in our revenge against him.."I.iii.365
Brabantio is immediately enraged by Roderigo when he is roused from sleep and Iago's use of coarse language - "you'll have your daughter cover'd with a Barbary horse"I.i.113- creates enough conflict to incense Brabantio against Othello,at this point.
The play itself is set up in Act I.i. and the conflict that can be expected is all but announced:
all the action stems from Iago manipulating other characters and wreaking havoc in their lives so that his own life may be what he feels is owed to him
Iago's schemes to subvert Othello's happiness by upsetting Desdemona's father are in vain and later, Iago sets Cassio up to get involved in a bar brawl. This serves a double purpose as Iago is able to discredit both Cassio and Othello; Othello obviously making a poor decision choosing Cassio.
“Cassio I love thee; / But never more be officer of mine.” II.iii.241
Cassio plays right into Iagos’ hands, as Iago counsels him to plead with Desdemona - thereby adding circumstantial evidence in Iagos’ plot to destroy Othello.
"I'll pour this pestilence into his ear.I.iii.345
The play intensifies and the relationship between Othello and Desdemona all but disintegrates as Othello demeans Desdemona and himself:
“I took you for that cunning whore of Venice / That married with Othello.” IV.ii.90
Iago is now so motivated as his plan comes together and he is still manipulating Roderigo who will attempt to kill Cassio. Even in Act V Othello still refers to "honest, honest Iago."V.ii.157.
When Othello is persuaded by Emilia,both realising they were duped over the handkerchief and that Iago is a liar and a fraud and Desdemona was pure, Othello wants to kill Iago. He is prevented from doing so and ultimately kills himself:
I kiss'd thee ere I kill'd thee.....killing myself...."V.ii.361
an ultimate resolution of the conflict.
2.3.4 Personal/Inner conflict :
Othello takes an emotional plunge from a valiant, respected military general, whose love for Desdemona runs deeps and true to a jealous husband who becomes emotionally distressed. Othello becomes metaphorically poisoned by Iago. The conflict arises from the insecurities that Othello faces, he so easily doubts the love of Desdemona as he could never truly grasp why she loved him. These insecurities as well as the self-ignorance lead Othello to his personal conflict.
At the end of the play Othello deludes himself into believing that Desdemona has been unfaithful to him to protect himself from the inner conflict and agony of doubt. However, at the very end Othello finally discovers the truth that comes to an understanding of how he has been used by the evil Iago and murdered his innocent wife. Othello finally redeems himself for his wrongdoings by taking his own life.
2.3.5 Seven Conflicts In Othello:
Conflict 1: Suspicion (Internal)
Suspicion is the state of mental uncertainty or suspecting something that may be wrong. Iago was in suspicion that Othello had slept with his wife, Emilia, which he wasn't sure of. This suspicion is one of the reasons Iago disliked Othello and wanted to sabotage his life.
Conflict 2: Deceit (External)
Deceit is the act of misleading others or having them believe something of a false sense. In opinion, Iago was the most deceitful character throughout the play. First he deceived Othello by having him believe he was very loyal and honest. Othello believed Iago was incapable of telling a lie when all along Iago lied about him being loyal and honest to Othello.
Conflict 3: Gender
Iago feels as if all women are the same and have no self worth. He talks down about women and his own wife in front of her to Desdemona. He believes that the only thing that women are good for is sex.
Conflict 4: Love (External)
Love is deep and affectionate feelings for someone and can be felt in many different ways. Many conflicts in the play branches off of love. Othello loved Iago to the fact that he believed any and everything he said. Othello's love for Iago blinded him of the lies and trickery he did. Brabantios’ love for Desdemona perceived him as racist toward Othello, because he thought that Desdemona could do better. Othello's love for Desdemona made him more passionate as normal when lies were being told about her. Roderigos’ love for Desdemona got him into a hole he could not get out of. Emilia's love for Iago made her betray Desdemona by stealing her handkerchief given to Desdemona by Othello, which stirred up more conflicts.
Conflict 5: Jealousy (Internal)
Jealousy is a feeling of insecurity, anxiety, and negative thoughts of something or someone. Roderigo is jealous of Othello, because Roderigo is in love with Desdemona, but she is in love and married to Othello. Iago is jealous of Cassio, because he has the position of Othello's lieutenant which Iago feels he deserves. Othello is also jealous of Cassio because he believes that Desdemona is having an affair with him.
Conflict 6: Betrayal (External)
Betrayal is violation of someone's trust. Iago and Roderigo were supposedly friends; Roderigo was sure that Iago would help him win over Desdemona, but instead he made him sell everything he had for his on selfish needs. In attempt to kill Cassio, Roderigo ended up getting killed by Iago. Emilia betrayed Desdemona by stealing her handkerchief and giving it to Iago .
Conflict 7: Identity (Internal)
Identity is a distinguishing personality. In the acts the characters have problems with their identity. Roderigo could not believe that Iago killed him at the end as he stated, ''. Emilia was surprised to find Iago was behind all of the trickery towards Othello. Othello was shocked to find out that Iago was lying to him the whole time, and Desdemona was really faithful, for he had killed her for no reason. Othello was remorseful for killing Desdemona for false accusations that he killed himself. Some characters were not cut out to be as they were insinuated.
2.4.1 Dramatic conflict of Julius Caesar:
There are many conflicts at work in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, yet I'll concentrate on what I take to be the three principle ones: the triumvirs versus the plotters, fellowship versus the necessities of the state, and individual aspiration versus popularity based administration.
The principal conflict, the triumvirs versus the schemers, is the most self-evident, as it appears as a common war in front of an audience, as opposed to as a conceptual idea skimming around in the ether. In the play, the triumvirs—Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus—connect with the plotters—most eminently Cassius and Brutus—in open fighting on the front line. They do as such to retaliate for Caesar's demise and convey the professional killers to equity (and furthermore, one can accept, to take control of the power vacuum left in the wake of Caesar's nonappearance).
The second conflict, companionship versus the requirements of the state, is somewhat more dynamic, as it spreads out inside the bounds of Brutus' mind. Brutus and Caesar are referred to have a solid relationship as dear companions; in any case, Brutus has additionally come to fear Caesar's unchecked aspiration and the conceivably imperious ramifications it could have for the eventual fate of Rome. Accordingly, Brutus must choose whether his fellowship with Caesar is pretty much vital than the wellbeing of the Roman state. At last, Rome wins.
The last conflict, individual desire versus majority rule administration, can be seen in many structures. To start with and most clearly, we can see it show in Caesar's want to manage Rome without any help and the schemers' want to stop him no matter what. Second, we can likewise observe it in Antony's eagerness to utilize a furious crowd to sling him to a higher position of energy, neglecting the way that the backstabbers were battling to secure Rome's illustrative government. This conflict is the most extensive of the play's pressures, and its lamentable result (individual aspiration appears to vanquish vote based system) still resounds today.
In Shakespeares' Julius Caesar, each demonstration gives a case or some likeness thereof of conflict. Conflicts propel the story and more often than not label the hero.
2.4.2 There are several kinds of conflicts:
Act I, Scene I---Man versus man
The tribunes oppose the workmen wasting a day celebrating the assassins. The theory is that Pompey was a popular figure before his death. Now, the Roman citizens welcome the assassin of the great Pompey with open arms.
Act II, Scene i-Man versus himself
Brutus had approximately thirty days to make his decision to join the conspirators. His life philosophy was stoicism; consequently, he made his decision based on logic and reasoning and trying to avoid any emotional influence. He was the only conspirator who killed Caesar for the good of Rome.
Brutus:
Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar
I have not slept.
Between the acting of a dreadful thing
And the first motion all the interim is
Like a phantasma or a hideous dream;
Act I, Scene iii-Man versus nature
This conflict stems from the stormy day and night before the Ides of March. As Cicero tells Casca, each man must decide for himself what the omens mean.
Cassius went through the streets with his bare chest offering himself to be struck by lightning if his purpose was not supported by the gods.
Casca walks with his sword drawn because of the terrible signs that he has seen or heard about which were quirks in nature:
• Nocturnal bird seen in the daytime
• The heavens spewing fire
• Men on fire but not burned
• A lion giving birth in the street
There are many more conflicts which move the dramas’ action forward and create havoc for the characters. Shakespeare knew that to entertain the audience with a serious factual play that he had to provide many action filled contradictory scenes.
Conflicts are what make a story interesting. In this lesson, we will take a look at some of the conflicts in William Shakespeare's tragic play 'Julius Caesar.'
2.4.3 Conflicts Are Interesting:
Time to kill Caesar. Anyone have any objections? No? OK, great. Caesar's dead. The end.
These sentences sum up how Shakespeare's Julius Caesar might have sounded without conflict. In a word, boring. Conflict is when there is opposition between a character and something else or within a character's own mind. The two types of conflict are internal conflict and external conflict. Internal conflict is when a character struggles with a decision in his or her own mind. External conflict is when a character struggles with society, other people or forces outside of his or her own mind.
Cassius' Conflicts:
One of the first examples of conflict from Julius Caesar is when the mastermind of the assassination plot tries to gather support for his cause. Cassius wants to kill Caesar, but he knows that he will be executed if he does not have support from other politicians. His first step to overcome this challenge is to recruit Brutus, a friend of Caesar's, to join the plan. Cassius does this by telling Brutus that the people of Rome love him even more than they love Caesar.
Initially, Brutus resists Cassius. 'Into what dangers would you lead me, Cassius, / That you would have me seek into myself / For that which is not in me?' Cassius continues to explain how dangerous it would be for Caesar to become king. Brutus finally agrees to consider what Cassius is saying. Because Cassius's conflict is with Brutus, this is an example of external conflict.
Cassius needs more people than Brutus on his side, so he goes after Casca next. In Act 1 Scene 3, strange omens occur, and Casca is deeply afraid. He believes that the gods are angry and are punishing the Romans for provoking them. Cassius uses this to his advantage and convinces Casca that Caesar is just as bad as the storm. Casca agrees to join the plot to murder Caesar, and Cassius's conflict with Casca comes to an end.
Cascas’ Conflict:
One of the reasons Cassius was able to convince Casca to join the plot to kill Caesar was because Casca was fearful of the storm and the omens he had seen. Cascas’ fear is an example of external conflict between man and nature. If the storm and the omens are seen as supernatural forces, then we could also say that the conflict was between man and the supernatural, or God. Casca explains this conflict: 'Either there is a civil strife in heaven, / Or else the world, too saucy with the gods, / Incenses them to send destruction.'
Brutus' Conflicts:
Brutus is the most conflicted character in the play. He is Caesar's friend and looks up to Caesar with admiration. But Brutus also loves Rome and says multiple times that his highest commitment is to Rome. His conflict arises because he must decide if murdering his friend for the sake of Rome is worth it.
2.4.4 Main conflict in Julius Caesar :
I think that's actually a very challenging question. As I see it, there's an easy answer, and a difficult answer.
The easy answer is that the conflict is whether or not the conspirators are going to successfully manage to kill Caesar. There are a whole series of moments where Shakespeare makes you wonder whether they will get away with it, from the first moment Cassius persuades Brutus that Caesar might pose something of a threat to Rome and should somehow be dealt with, through Brutus' agonisings in his orchard, through Portia's worrying before the scene of Caesar's death (worrying that the conspiracy might be discovered), right up to this moment in the murder scene:
POPILIUS:
I wish your enterprise today may thrive.
CASSIUS:
What enterprise, Popilius?
POPILIUS:
Fare you well.
BRUTUS:
What said Popilius Lena?
CASSIUS:
He wish'd today our enterprise might thrive.
I fear our purpose is discovered.
This conflict is obviously resolved in Act 3, Scene 1, when Caesar dies.
Yet I'd argue the conflict is more complex. The real question is - was it right for them to kill Caesar? And that question resounds throughout the play. Brutus changes his mind - initially he thinks it's a good idea, but he tells Cassius that he should "be sorry" for the deed. And Shakespeare never resolves it: at the end of the play there is no hint as to whether Brutus and Cassius have done Rome a service, or committed a horrible crime. It's an unresolved conflict of right against wrong.
2.4.5 Conflict in Julius Caesar:
Character vs Character:
1. Brutus (army) vs Antony (army)
Antony and Octavius join forces to get revenge on the other army for killing Caesar. They go to war
2. Caesar vs Conspirators
The conspirators think Caesar will be a tyrant
and is ambitious.
3. Cassius vs Brutus -minor
Brutus is not convinced by he should kill Caesar but Cassius is trying everything in his power to get him on their side.
Character vs Self:
1. Brutus vs himself
Doesn't want to be caught, thinks his time has come because he has seen Caesars ghost twice, feels guilty for killing Caesar, commits suicide
2. Cassius vs himself
Feels guilt, found himself, thinks they will lose the war, commits suicide
3. Portia vs herself
Battling grief because Brutus is not with her, commits suicide
4. Caesar vs himself
Unsure to take the throne and rule Rome
5. People of Rome vs themselves
Don't know who to believe, Antony or Brutus.
Character vs Society:
1. Brutus +Cassius vs People of Rome
Half the people support The conspirators decision, but the rest are after them
2.4.5 External Conflict in Julius Caesar:
External conflict helps make a story more interesting and also describes the action. In this lesson we will take a look external conflict in William Shakespeare's ''Julius Caesar''.
External Conflict is Action:
If you have ever watched an action film, you already know a little about conflict. Conflict is any sort of struggle between two forces or more forces. External conflict is a struggle between a person and outside forces. X-Men pits mutants against society and villains, Star Wars pits Jedi knights against the Empire, James Bond pits 007 against his enemies.
This kind of struggle can exist in plays and books too, like in Williams Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Let's take a look at some examples.
The Tribunes:
One of the first examples of conflict comes in the very first scene of Julius Caesar. Flavius and Murellus (two Roman officials who are also called tribunes) enter the scene of an unusually crowded street. The two men ask why the crowd has gathered. It is clear from the beginning that there is conflict brewing.
Flavius opens the play by saying 'Hence! Home, you idle creatures get you home!' This sets up an immediate conflict between the commoners and the officials. The men harass the people by asking what their jobs are and why they are not working in their shops. One man in particular responds to the harassment by making jokes and telling the officials that he can 'mend' their souls as well as their shoes.
The strife between the commoners and the officials is one of the first examples of external conflict in the play. While the situation is a single event, it also serves to mimic the general attitude toward authority during Caesar's time.
Cassius:
Another example of external conflict is Cassius's plot to kill Caesar. Cassius is the mastermind behind the plot to kill Caesar. While many people in the play are worried about Caesar coming to power, Cassius is the one who moves forward with a plan to assassinate him.
Cassius first speaks with Brutus and convinces him to think about what would happen if Caesar became king. This example shows that conflict is not always aggressive or violent. Cassius manipulates Brutus in a calm, friendly way. He plays on Brutus's love for Rome through convincing dialogue and entertaining stories about how weak Caesar is.
Cassius can not succeed in his plan with only Brutus's help. He must have more men on his side. So Cassius goes after another character named Casca. Casca is portrayed throughout the play as being dumb. At one point, Cassius even calls Casca 'dull.' While a storm is raging outside, Casca overreacts and draws his sword in self defense. Cassius sees this as way to gain support for his cause. Because he has to to overcome an obstacle involving people, this is an example of external conflict. Cassius convinces Casca that Caesar is just as dangerous as this storm, and that something must be done. Casca agrees and Cassius moves forward with his scheme.
Bibliography
Uddin, Kawsar. “Dilemma And Desire In Hamlet.” Language In India 14.12 (2014): 694–700. Communication & Mass Media Complete. Web. 20 June 2016.
Taylor, Michael. “The Conflict in Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly 1971: 147. JSTOR Journals. Web. 20 June 2016.
Hadfield, Andrew. “The Power and Rights of the Crown in “Hamlet” and “King Lear:” “The King: The Kings’ to Blame”. The Review of English Studies2003: 566. JSTOR Journals. Web. 21 June 2016.
Javed, Tabassum. “Perfect Idealism in Shakespeares’ Prince Hamlet.” Dialogue (Pakistan) 8.3 (2013): 327–333. Humanities Source. Web. 20 June 2016.
Lawlor, J. J. “The Tragic Conflict in Hamlet.” The Review of English Studies 1950: 97. JSTOR Journals. Web. 20 June 2016.
Shakespeare, William. “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.” Ed. Stephen Greenblatt, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine Eisaman Maus, and Andrew Gurr. The Norton Shakespeare: Essential Plays, the Sonnets. 1080–1168. New York: W.W. Norton, 2009.
Young, Sandra. “Recognising Hamlet.” Shakespeare In Southern Africa 26.(2014): 13–26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 June 2016.
Raphael, D.D.. The Paradox of Tragedy (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1980).
Williams, Raymond. Modern Tragedy. (London: Chatto and Windus. 1966.)
Appendixes
“Conflict generally occurs when a character cannot achieve an objective due to an obstacle. This obstacle may be internal or external – between characters or between characters and their environment. Conflict can be shown in a variety of ways, for example through physical, verbal or psychological means. Conflict can be embedded in the structure of the drama.” – Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, Drama Study Design, (p.10)
“He can save himself and Denmark by killing Claudius, but to kill Claudius is to act out his fathers’ wish and the disaster for Hamlet is that this course of action perfectly coincides with the solution of his own problem. Hamlet is torn between two courses of action, both equally painful.” - Tabassum Javed. “Perfect Idealism in Shakespeares’ (p.327).
“Hamlet in his unconscious had an incestuous desire for his mother and had a murderous desire towards his father”- Kawsar Uddin “Dilemma And Desire In Hamlet.” Language In India 14.12 (2014) : (p.695).
কোন মন্তব্য নেই:
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন