Tragic heroes in modern English literature

2

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I. SOCIAL A CULTURAL CONTEXT IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE TWENTY
CENTURE AS A BACKGROUND FOR A NEW TRAGIC HERO

1.1 Social and litery theories explaning place of the human being

1.2 The last generation as a new representatives of the tragic hero

CONCLUSION

CHAPTER II. THE TRAGIC HEROES OF ARTHUR MILLER BOOKS

2.1 The image of tragic hero in the works of Arthur Miller

2.2 E. Heminqway’s “Fiesta” as a new approach to the tragic hero

2.3 The tragic hero as representation problem in the works E. Heminqway
and Arthur Miller

CONCLUSION

GENERAL CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

Our work is devoted to the analysis of the novels by Arthur Miller and
E. Heminqway. The plots of there novel generally revolve around the
subject of tragedy of the main heroes and lay emphasis especially on its
tremendous importance.

The aim of our work is to reveal the tragedy of people in the novels by
A. Miller and E. Heminqway.

The hypothesis of our work is that the writers in their books represent
the tragic hero.

The aim has defined the next tasks:

– to research the Social and litery theories explaning place of the
human being;

– to investigate the last generation as a new representatives of the
tragic hero;

– to investigate the image of tragic hero in the works of Arthur Miller
and E. Heminqway’s “Fiesta” as a new approach to the tragic hero;

– to research the tragic hero as representation problem in the works E.
Heminqway and Arthur Miller.

Object of research in the given work is A. Miller and E. Heminqway.

Subject is the tragedy of the main heroes in A. Miller and E. Heminqway.

The practical value is that it can be useful for anybody who is
interested in life and work of the novels by A. Miller and E. Heminqway.

While making our research we used the works of such linguists as Vinokur
G.O., Suvorov S.P., Arnold I.V. and many others. During our work we used
the works on the translation theory of such linguists as Levitskaya
T.R., Fiterman A.M., Komissarov V.N., Alimov V.V., Shveytser A.D.,
Garbovskiy N.K., Dmitrieva L.F., Galperin I.R., Arnold I.V., Yakusheva
I.V., van Deik, Kolshanskiy and others. We used also the articles from
the the periodical editions.

Concerning the aim and the tasks we have used such method as a
descriptive one, the method of the experience, the contextual method and
the comparative method. These methods weren’t used as the isolated
methods, they were used in their complex to satisfy the aim and the task
in the best way.

CHAPTER I. SOCIAL A CULTURAL CONTEXT IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE TWENTY
CENTURE AS A BACKGROUND FO RENEW TRAGIC HERO

1.1. Social and litery theories explaning place of the human being

The term ‘Tragedy’ is used in a common parlance, and yet it cannot be
reduced to a formula, for it has so many shades that it actually defies
a logical analysis. An American critic has admirable summed up Tragedy
in a few words: “Courage and inevitable defeat.” Now-a-days we can never
think of a Tragedy without an unhappy ending. But the Greeks did.
Philoctetes by Sophocles, for example, has no unhappy ending. There is a
similarity between the ancient Greek Tragedy and a modern Tragedy. The
hero and certain other characters are caught in a difficult situation.

Tragedy is a form of art based on human suffering that offers its
audience pleasure. While most cultures have developed forms that provoke
this paradoxical response, tragedy refers to a specific tradition of
drama that has played a unique and important role historically in the
self-definition of Western civilization. That tradition has been
multiple and discontinuous, yet the term has often been used to invoke a
powerful effect of cultural identity and historical continuity “the
Greeks and the Elizabethans, in one cultural form; Hellenes and
Christians, in a common activity,” as Raymond Williams puts it.[3] From
its obscure origins in the theatres of Athens 2500 years ago, from which
there survives only a fraction of the work of Aeschylus, Sophocles and
Euripides, through its singular articulations in the works of
Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, Racine, or Schiller, to the more recent
naturalistic tragedy of Strindberg, Beckett’s modernist meditations on
death, loss and suffering, or Mueuller’s postmodernist reworkings of the
tragic canon, tragedy has remained an important site of cultural
experimentation, negotiation, struggle, and change.[4] A long line of
philosophers–which includes Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine,
Voltaire, Hume, Diderot, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,
Freud, Benjamin and Deleuze–have analysed, speculated upon and
criticised the tragic form.[5] In the wake of Aristotle’s Poetics (335
BCE), tragedy has been used to make genre distinctions, whether at the
scale of poetry in general, where the tragic divides against epic and
lyric, or at the scale of the drama, where tragedy is opposed to comedy.
In the modern era, tragedy has also been defined against drama,
melodrama, the tragicomic and epic theatre. The character and plot in
most of Tragedies are linked up. In Greek Tragedies fate played a very
important part, but after the Renaissance character became more and more
prominent. In some of Shakespearian Tragedies, despite the importance of
character, the motivation of action comes from the supernatural forces
or even external circumstances. In modern Tragedies, the hero is often
the victim of social forces.

The origins of tragedy are obscure, but the art form certainly developed
out of the poetic and religious traditions of ancient Greece. Its roots
may be traced more specifically to the chants and dances called
dithyrambs, which honoured the Greek god Dionysus (later known to the
Romans as Bacchus). These drunken, ecstatic performances were said to
have been created by the satyrs, half-goat beings who surrounded
Dionysus in his revelry.

Phrynichus, son of Polyphradmon and pupil of Thespis, was one of the
earliest of the Greek tragedians. “The honour of introducing Tragedy in
its later acceptation was reserved for a scholar of Thespis in 511 BCE,
Polyphradmon’s son, Phrynichus; he dropped the light and ludicrous cast
of the original drama and dismissing Bacchus and the Satyrs formed his
plays from the more grave and elevated events recorded in mythology and
history of his country”, and some of the ancients regarded him as the
real founder of tragedy.[7] He gained his first poetical victory in 511
BCE. However, P.W. Buckham asserts (quoting August Wilhelm von Schlegel)
that Aeschylus was the inventor of tragedy. “Aeschylus is to be
considered as the creator of Tragedy: in full panoply she sprung from
his head, like Pallas from the head of Jupiter. He clad her with
dignity, and gave her an appropriate stage; he was the inventor of
scenic pomp, and not only instructed the chorus in singing and dancing,
but appeared himself as an actor. He was the first that expanded the
dialogue, and set limits to the lyrical part of tragedy, which, however,
still occupies too much space in his pieces. Aristotle is very clear in
his Poetics that tragedy proceeded from the authors of the Dithyramb.[9]
There is some dissent to the dithyrambic origins of tragedy mostly based
in the differences between the shapes of their choruses and styles of
dancing. A common descent from pre-Hellenic fertility and burial rites
has been suggested. Nietzsche discussed the origins of Greek tragedy in
his early book, The Birth of Tragedy (1872).

Aristotle defined Tragedy as “a representation of an action, which is
serious; complete in itself, and of a certain length; it is expressed in
speech made beautiful in different ways in different parts of the play;
it is acted, not narrated; and by exciting pity and fear it gives a
healthy relief to such emotions.” [12, 121].

Tragedy must be spoudaious i.e. noble, serious, and elevated. The Greek
root for Tragedy is tragoidia, which means something serious, but not
necessarily a drama with an unhappy ending. Plato has called Homer’s
Odyssey a Tragedy, though it is not drama. Seriousness of subject is
what really matters.

Tragedy, F. L. Lucas maintains, had three different meanings in the
three periods of literary history. In ancient times, a Tragedy meant a
serious drama; in medieval times, a Tragedy meant a story with an
unhappy ending; and a modern Tragedy is a drama with an unhappy ending.

“Tragedy is an imitation of an action.” And ‘action’ again gives rise to
a lot of troubles. A novel or an Epic is narrated, while a drama, be it
a Tragedy or a Comedy, is acted. Can there be action without narration?
The answer is obvious. The Greek Dramaturgy did not allowed any act of
violence on the stage. Even a romantic playwright like Shakespeare had
some of the murders reported by messengers. Lucas rightly points out,
“Not everything permits itself to be acted. ‘Let not Medea slay her sons
before the audience’: things like that, at least, on the Greek stage
were relegated to a Messenger’s speech.”

With regard to “an action which is complete in itself,” the controversy
has been raging for a long time. What is actually meant by completeness?
An action having a beginning, a middle, and an end is said to be
complete. T. R. Henn defines ‘completeness’ as totality which Matthew
Arnold later called ‘architectonice’. Aristotle himself, in different
chapter of the Poetics, has saught to define ‘completeness’. If the play
begins abruptly, the reader or the audience may not understand what it
is about. Let not the reader ask “What happens then?” The work of art
should be rounded off. The Greek art, whether plastic or non-plastic,
always insisted on symmetry [12, 127]. Along with symmetry there is
frugality. The details are not extraneous. On the contrary, it is an
organic unity. If there are details, they are not ornamental, but
functional, Aristotle means by ‘completeness’ the organic unity.

The organic unity is linked up with the size of the work of art. If the
art has no appropriate limit or size, it loses its symmetry. “Whatever
is beautiful, whether it be a living creature or an object made up of
various parts, must necessarily not only have its parts properly
ordered, but also be of an appropriate size for beauty is banned up with
size and order.” If a thing is a thousand miles long, that will also not
be beautiful, for the whole thing cannot be taken in all at once, and
the unity of the art will be lost sight of Aristotle while speaking of
the Plot, again emphasis that the plot of a play, being but
representation of an action, must present it as an organic whole.
Aristotle says that the Tragedies “should center upon a single action,
whole and complete, and having a beginning, a middle and an end, so that
like a single complete organism the poem may produce a special kind of
pleasure.”

Aristotle emphasizes that the Tragedy should be “expressed in speech
made beautiful.” But in the modern age, Tragedies have become realistic,
and therefore, the language has become drab and colourless. Another part
of Aristotle’s definition of Tragedy is that it should be “acted, not
narrated.” This also is a bone of contention.

In modernist literature, the definition of tragedy has become less
precise. The most fundamental change has been the rejection of
Aristotle’s dictum that true tragedy can only depict those with power
and high status [13, 78]. Arthur Miller’s essay ‘Tragedy and the Common
Man’ exemplifies the modern belief that tragedy may also depict ordinary
people in domestic surroundings. British playwright Howard Barker has
argued strenuously for the rebirth of tragedy in the contemporary
theatre, most notably in his volume Arguments for a Theatre. “You emerge
from tragedy equipped against lies. After the musical, you’re anybody’s
fool,” he observes.[13]

Although the most important American playwrights – Eugene O’Neill,
Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller – wrote tragedies, the rarity of
tragedy in the American theater may be owing in part to a certain form
of idealism, often associated with Americans, that man is captain of his
fate, a notion exemplified in the plays of Clyde Fitch and George S.
Kaufmann. Arthur Miller, however, was a successful writer of American
tragic plays, among them The Crucible, All My Sons and Death of a
Salesman.

1.2. The last generation as a new representatives of the tragic hero

Tragic hero is the main character in a tragedy who makes an error in his
or her actions that leads to his or her downfall. Tragic heroes appear
in the dramatic works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Seneca,
Marlowe, Shakespeare, Webster, Marston, Corneille, Racine, Goethe,
Schiller, Kleist, Strindberg, and many other writers.

Some common traits characteristic of a tragic protagonist: [10, 117]

· The hero discovers his fate by his own actions, not by things
happening to him.

· The hero sees and understands his doom, and that his fate was revealed
by his own actions.

· The hero’s downfall is understood by Aristotle to arouse pity and
fear.

· The hero is physically or spiritually wounded by his experiences,
often resulting in his death.

· A tragic hero is often of noble birth, or rises to noble standing
(King Arthur, Okonkwo, the main character in Achebe’s novel, Things Fall
Apart.)

· The hero learns something from his/her mistake.

· The hero is faced with a serious decision.

· The suffering of the hero is meaningful.

· There may sometimes be supernatural involvement (in Shakespeare’s
Julius Caesar, Caesar is warned of his death via Calpurnia’s vision and
Brutus is warned of his impending death by the ghost of Caesar).

· The Shakespearean tragic hero dies at some point in the story, for
example Macbeth. Shakespeare’s characters illustrate that tragic heroes
are neither fully good nor fully evil. Through the development of the
plot a hero’s mistakes, rather than his quintessential goodness or evil,
lead to his tragic downfall.

· The hero of classical tragedies is almost universally male. Later
tragedies (like Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra) introduced the
female tragic hero. Portrayals of female tragic heroes are notable
because they are rare.

Famous tragic heroes

Macbeth is the main character in Shakespeare’s Macbeth (1607?). The
character was based upon accounts found in Holinshed’s Chronicles
(1587), a history of Britain. Macbeth is a Scottish noble and a valiant
military man. At the urging of his wife, he commits regicide and becomes
King of Scotland. He thereafter lives in anxiety and fear, unable to
rest or to trust his nobles. He leads a reign of terror until defeated
by the rightful heir to the throne in the final act.

Othello is a character in Shakespeare’s Othello (c.1601-1604). The
character’s origin is traced to the tale, “Un Capitano Moro” in Gli
Hecatommithi by Giovanni Battista Giraldi Cinthio. There, he is simply
referred to as the Moor.

Othello is a brave and competent soldier of advanced years and Moorish
background in the service of the Venetian Republic. He elopes with
Desdemona, the beautiful daughter of a respected Venetian senator. After
being deployed to Cyprus, Othello is manipulated by his ensign, Iago,
into believing Desdemona is an adultress. Othello murders her before
killing himself.

Othello was first mentioned in a Revels account of 1604 when the play
was performed on November 1 at Whitehall Palace with Richard Burbage
almost certainly Othello’s first interpreter. Modern notable performers
of the role include Paul Robeson, Orson Welles, Richard Burton, James
Earl Jones, and Laurence Olivier.

King Lear is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been
written between 1603 and 1606, and is considered one of his greatest
works. The play is based on the legend of Leir of Britain, a
mythological pre-Roman king. It has been widely adapted for stage and
screen, with the part of Lear being played by many of the world’s most
accomplished actors.

There are two distinct versions of the play: The True Chronicle of the
History of the Life and Death of King Lear and His Three Daughters,
which appeared in quarto in 1608, and The Tragedy of King Lear, which
appeared in the First Folio in 1623, a more theatrical version. The two
texts are commonly printed in a conflated version, although many modern
editors have argued that each version has its individual integrity.[1]

After the Restoration the play was often modified by theatre
practitioners who disliked its dark and depressing tone, but since the
19th century it has been regarded as one of Shakespeare’s supreme
achievements. The tragedy is particularly noted for its probing
observations on the nature of human suffering and kinship.

Oedipus (pronounced /??d??p?s/ in American English or /?i?d?p?s/ in
British English; Greek: ???????? Oidipous meaning “swollen-footed”) was
a mythical Greek king of Thebes. He fulfilled a prophecy that said he
would kill his father and marry his mother, and thus brought disaster on
his city and family. This legend has been retold in many versions, and
was used by Sigmund Freud to name the Oedipus complex.

Marcus Junius Brutus (85–42 BC) or Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus,
often referred to simply as Brutus, was a politician of the late Roman
Republic. He is best known in modern times for taking a leading role in
the assassination conspiracy against Julius Caesar in an attempt to take
control of the Republic.[1]

Prince Hamlet is the protagonist in Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet. He is
the Prince of Denmark, nephew to the usurping Claudius and son of the
previous King of Denmark, Old Hamlet. Throughout the play he struggles
with whether, and how, to avenge the murder of his father, and struggles
with his own sanity along the way. By the end of the tragedy, Hamlet has
caused the deaths of Claudius, Polonius, Laertes and his two childhood
friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. He is also indirectly involved in
the deaths of his love Ophelia (drowning) and of his mother Gertrude
(poisoned by mistake). Hamlet himself is the final character to die in
the play.

Antigone (pronounced /aen?t???ni/; Greek ????????) is the name of two
different women in Greek mythology. The name may be taken to mean
“unbending”, coming from “anti-” (against, opposed to) and “-gon /
-gony” (corner, bend, angle; ex: polygon), but has also been suggested
to mean “opposed to motherhood” or “in place of a mother” based from the
root gon?, “that which generates” (related: gonos, “-gony”; seed,
semen).

Romeo Montague is one of the fictional protagonists in William
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. He is the heir of the Montague family of
Verona, and falls in love and dies with Juliet Capulet, the daughter of
the Capulet house.

Juliet Capulet is one of the title characters in William Shakespeare’s
tragedy Romeo and Juliet. The story has a long history that precedes
Shakespeare himself. The heroine’s name was Giulietta in some earlier
versions. It had become Juliet by the time Arthur Brooke wrote his
narrative poem. Juliet is the beautiful daughter of a generous and very
wealthy family in Verona, headed by Lord and Lady Capulet. She was their
oldest child. She apparently had younger siblings at some point, but by
the time of the play, she was their only surviving child. Juliet is the
sole heir to the Capulets. As a child, she was cared for by her Nurse,
who is now her confidante, or Juliet’s caretaker. As the story occurs,
Juliet is approaching her fourteenth birthday (her sixteenth in Arthur
Brooke’s poem). She was born on “Lammas Eve at night,” so Juliet’s
birthday is July 31 (1.3.19). Her birthday is “a fortnight hence”,
putting the action of the play in mid-July (1.3.17).

Shakespeare’s Juliet was very young; her father states that she “hath
not seen the change of fourteen years” (1.2.9). In many cultures and
time periods, women did and do marry and bear children at such a young
age. However, in Shakespeare’s England, most women were at least 21
before they did so. Romeo and Juliet is a play about Italian families.
The average English playgoer in Shakespeare’s audience had never met an
Italian person, and it was commonly thought that they were quite exotic,
the Italian male passionate and emotional, and the Italian female
precocious and quite ready to become a mother by thirteen. Lady Capulet
had given birth to Juliet by the time she had reached Juliet’s age: “By
my count, I was your mother much upon these years that you are now a
maid” (1.3.74-75).

The play celebrates youth while pointing out its impulsiveness, passion,
and idealism; qualities which contribute to the tragedy. The adolescent
infatuation of the lovers becomes elevated to the status of sacred love.
The sacred lovers were reunited on the same deathbed. Their families had
both realized what they had done by separating the two unborn star
crossed lovers. The Capulets and Montagues were reunited and their
fighting discontinued. [21, 132].

In Greek mythology, Heracles or Herakles (pronounced /?h?r?kli?z/
HER-?-kleez) meaning “glory of Hera”, or “Glorious through Hera” Alcides
or Alcaeus (original name) (“??? + ?????, ???????)” was a divine hero,
the son of Zeus and Alcmene, foster son of Amphitryon and great-grandson
(and half-brother) of Perseus. He was the greatest of the Greek heroes,
a paragon of masculinity, the ancestor of royal clans who claimed to be
Heracleidae and a champion of the Olympian order against chthonic
monsters. In Rome and the modern West, he is known as Hercules, with
whom the later Roman Emperors, in particular Commodus and Maximian,
often identified themselves. The Romans adopted the Greek version of his
life and works essentially unchanged, but added anecdotal detail of
their own, some of it linking the hero with the geography of the Central
Mediterranean. Details of his cult were adapted to Rome as well.

Extraordinary strength, courage, ingenuity, and sexual prowess with both
males and females were among his characteristic attributes. Although he
was not as clever as the likes of Odysseus or Nestor, Heracles used his
wits on several occasions when his strength did not suffice, such as
when laboring for the king Augeas of Elis, wrestling the giant Antaeus,
or tricking Atlas into taking the sky back onto his shoulders. Together
with Hermes he was the patron and protector of gymnasia and palaestrae.
His iconographic attributes are the lion skin and the club. These
qualities did not prevent him from being regarded as a playful figure
who used games to relax from his labors and played a great deal with
children. By conquering dangerous archaic forces he is said to have
“made the world safe for mankind” and to be its benefactor. Heracles was
an extremely passionate and emotional individual, capable of doing both
great deeds for his friends (such as wrestling with Thanatos on behalf
of Prince Admetus, who had regaled Heracles with his hospitality, or
restoring his friend Tyndareus to the throne of Sparta after he was
overthrown) and being a terrible enemy who would wreak horrible
vengeance on those who crossed him, as Augeas, Neleus and Laomedon all
found out to their cost.

In Greek mythology, Achilles (Ancient Greek: ?????????) was a Greek hero
of the Trojan War, the central character and the greatest warrior of
Homer’s Iliad.

Achilles also has the attributes of being the most handsome of the
heroes assembled against Troy,[1] as well as the best.

Later legends (beginning with a poem by Statius in the first century AD)
state that Achillies was invulnerable in all of his body except for his
heel. Legend states that Achilles was semi-immortal, however his heel
was vulnerable. Since he died due to a poisoned arrow shot into his
heel, the “Achilles’ heel” has come to mean a person’s principal
weakness.

CONCLUSION

We came to a conclusion that the term ‘Tragedy’ is used in a common
parlance, and yet it cannot be reduced to a formula, for it has so many
shades that it actually defies a logical analysis. An American critic
has admirable summed up Tragedy in a few words: “Courage and inevitable
defeat.” Now-a-days we can never think of a Tragedy without an unhappy
ending. But the Greeks did. Philoctetes by Sophocles, for example, has
no unhappy ending. There is a similarity between the ancient Greek
Tragedy and a modern Tragedy. The hero and certain other characters are
caught in a difficult situation.

Tragedy is a form of art based on human suffering that offers its
audience pleasure. The origins of tragedy are obscure, but the art form
certainly developed out of the poetic and religious traditions of
ancient Greece. Its roots may be traced more specifically to the chants
and dances called dithyrambs, which honoured the Greek god Dionysus
(later known to the Romans as Bacchus). These drunken, ecstatic
performances were said to have been created by the satyrs, half-goat
beings who surrounded Dionysus in his revelry.

Tragic hero is the main character in a tragedy who makes an error in his
or her actions that leads to his or her downfall. Tragic heroes appear
in the dramatic works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Seneca,
Marlowe, Shakespeare, Webster, Marston, Corneille, Racine, Goethe,
Schiller, Kleist, Strindberg, and many other writers.

CHAPTER II. THE TRAGIC HEROES OF ARTHUR MILLER BOOKS

2.1 The image of tragic hero in the works of Arthur Miller

Act one begins with Reverend Parris praying over her daughter, Betty
Parris, who lies unconscious on her bed. Through conversations between
Reverend Parris and his niece Abigail Williams, and between several
girls, the audience learns that these girls, including Abigail and
Betty, were engaged in occultic activities in the forest lead by Tituba,
Parris’ slave from Barbados. Parris caught them and jumped from a bush
startling the girls. Betty fainted and had not recovered. During this
session, Abigail drank chicken blood to kill Elizabeth Proctor. She
tells the girls that she will kill anyone who mutters a word about what
happened. The townspeople do not know exactly what the girls were doing
but there are rumors of witchcraft.

John Proctor enters the room where Betty lies faint. Abigail is still in
there and she tries to seduce him. Proctor is a farmer who has had an
affair with Abigail a while ago, but now he wants to forget it [11,
127].

Reverend John Hale is summoned to look upon Betty and the research the
incident. He is an expert in occultic phenomena and he is eager to show
his knowledge. He questions Abigail who accuses Tituba as being a witch.
Tituba, afraid of being hanged, confesses faith in God and accuses Goody
Good and Goody Osborne of witchcraft. Abigail and Betty, who has woken
up, claim to have been bewitched and confess faith in God. They name
several other people whom they claim they saw with the Devil.

Act two begins eight days after the discussion at Parris’ house. Between
act one and act two, Deputy Governor Dansforth came to Salem to oversee
the court proceedings. Fourteen people have been arrested for
witchcraft, and there is talk of hanging. Elizabeth Proctor asks John to
go to the court and testify against Abigail and the other girls. John
doesn’t want to get involved. There is tension between Elizabeth and
John since Elizabeth has not forgiven John for the affair. Marry Warren
enters. She was in court testifying against the townspeople. She gives
Elizabeth a doll which she has made in court. In the middle of their
discussion, Hale enters to question John and Elizabeth, suspicious of
witchcraft. Later, Giles Corey and Francis Nurse enter to seek advice
after both their wives had been arrested. Next, the marshal arrives with
a warrant for Elizabeth’s arrest. Elizabeth was accused by Abigail for
stabbing Abigail with a needle through a doll. John Proctor protests but
Elizabeth is taken away in chains. Proctor demands Mary that she goes to
court and testify against the girls. He vows that he will fight the
proceedings, even if it means confessing his own adultery.

 Act three takes place in court. Francis Nurse, Giles Corey, and John
Proctor present their case against the girls to Deputy Governor
Dansforth and Judge Hathorne. Proctor presents a petition signed by 91
people testifying to the good character of their wives, and Dansforth
issues warrants for the questioning of all of them. Corey charges Putnam
on inciting his daughter to accuse Corey of witchcraft in order get his
land. Corey has a witness but will not name him for fear of getting the
man arrested. Corey is arrested because of contempt of the court.

 Proctor presents his case and a deposition by Mary Warren saying that
she never saw the devil or any spirits. Abigail says that Mary is lying
and she and the girls pretend to be bewitched by Mary. Proctor,
frustrated at the gullibility of the court, grabs Abigail by the hair
and exclaims to everyone that she is a whore confessing that he had an
affair with Abigail. Elizabeth is brought in to be questioned about
whether this is true. Elizabeth tells the court that John Proctor never
had an affair with Abigail in order to save his name, however, this
destroys Proctor’s testimony. Mary crumbles under the peer pressure and
returns to Abigail’s side, accusing Proctor of being a witch [11, 139].

The girls pretend to be bewitched by Proctor. Proctor accuses Danforth
of being afraid to reveal the truth. Dansforth acts more to keep the
reputation of the court rather than for justice. Reverend Hale now sees
the evil in the court and denounces the proceedings. Proctor is
arrested.

Act four begins in prison where Sarah Good and Tituba wait to be hanged.
They have gone insane and believe that Satan will take them both to
Barbados.

 There is rumors of an uprising in a nearby town due to similar witch
trials. The townspeople are afraid of a similar riot in Salem.

Hale and Parris are now terrified. They go to visit the innocent people
in the jail and beg them to make false confessions in order to save
their lives. Hale believes that the blood of the people who are being
hanged is on his hands. He asks Elizabeth, who is now pregnant, to tell
John to confess to save his life but Elizabeth will not. While Elizabeth
is talking to John, she tells him that she has forgiven him of his
affair and tells his that he can do as he will. John Proctor confesses
that he is a witch, but will not say the others are. After a few
moments, Proctor is fed up with the court, tears up his confession, and
goes out to be hanged with Rebecca Nurse. Hales pleads that Elizabeth
ask Proctor to confess, but she says, “He has his goodness now. God
forbid I take it from him!”

In The Crucible all the event flow naturally from one event to the next.
Everything happens naturally from the natures of the characters. The
fact that the story isn’t contrived, and even more that it is based on a
true story is interesting. The result is so unbelievable. The incident
begins with the girls dancing in the forest and snowballs into a huge
witch hunt. The plot was exciting. There was sufficient conflict to keep
my interest aroused. There are a lot of tension and suspense in the
story [14, 56]. It covers basic human instincts and qualities. It shows
the human necessity for survival, and the lengths at which a person will
go to save his life. There is the idea of honor and truth. Proctor tries
to keep his reputation but gives it up to reveal the truth. Through his
struggle he achieves righteousness. All these things keep the plot
moving. Proctor’s relationship with Elizabeth can be seen to grow and
mature. He continually grows more pure in Elizabeth’s sight until she is
able to forgive him in act four. Proctor’ character also improves. He
doesn’t want to get involved in the court proceedings in act two but
stands up for the truth in act four.

Each character has his own distinct quality. Most characters are
distinctly good or evil though few characters are really developed. The
reader is only able to see one side of each character. Even John
Proctor, the main character isn’t as developed as it could be. This is
probably due to the restrictions of time and narration of this
particular genre.

Parris – A minister in Salem who is more worried about his own
reputation than the town or the truth.

Betty – Parris’ daughter. She is faint in the beginning of the play and
later accuses various people for witchcraft.

Abigail – Parris’ niece and Proctor’s mistress. She is the leader of the
girls who accuses people of witchcraft during the trial.

Tituba – Parris’ slave from Barbados. She is the first accused with
being accused by Abigail.

Mrs. Putnam – Wife of Thomas Putnam. She first plants the idea of Betty
being bewitched.

Ruth – Daughter of the Putnams. She is one of Abigail’s friends who
accuses people at the trial.

Mercy Lewis – Putnams’ servant. She is also involved in the accusations
of the witches.

John Proctor – Main character. He is a good man, but has committed
adultery with Abigail.

Elizabeth Proctor – John Proctor’s wife. She is an upright woman who is
accused of being a witch. She couldn’t forgive Proctor for adultery
until just before he died.

Mary Warren – Proctor’s servant. She is one of Abigail’s friends and
plants evidence on Elizabeth.

Reverend Hale – Self proclaimed expert on witchcraft. He is a minister
who at first believes the girls accusations but eventually sees the evil
in the court.

Deputy Governor Dansforth – Deputy Governor of Massachusetts who
believes the testimony of the girls despite evidence to the contrary. He
works more to keep the reputation of the court than to seek justice.

Judge Hathorne – Judge presiding over the witch trials.

Rebecca Nurse – Respected, upright wife of Francis nurse. She is accused
of witchcraft.

Francis Nurse – Rebecca’s Husband. He had land disputes with the
Putnams.

Giles Corey – Old cranky villager who accidentally causes his wife to be
accused.

Sarah Good – She is an accused witch who becomes insane while awaiting
her hanging.

Susanna – One of Abigail’s friends who takes part in accusing the
villagers.

Cheever – He arrests the witches.

Herrick – Also arrests the witches. Is the jail keeping.

Hopkins – Messenger.

The play takes place in Salem, Massachusetts during the 17 century.
Since this story is based on a true story, the setting is real. The fact
that the story takes place during the 17 century is important. The
community needed to be superstitious and gullible in order for this
incident to actually happen. Also, the event needed to be in a Puritan
society to have such an aversion to witches. People in the twentieth and
even the nineteenth centuries would be too skeptical about the
supernatural to believe the girls [14. 78]. Also, they would be likely
to dismiss the act of dancing in the forest as just a little game.

Miller’s style is very simple. He uses simple sentences and words which
are easy to understand. He brings out the evil quality of Abigail and
the other girls and also the gullibility of the judges. His style is
easy to understand and should be in order to be successful as a play.
While using the simple style, Miller doesn’t take anything away from the
suspense in the plot. The dialogues of his character are like actual
speech. His words are used effectively and doesn’t include anything not
necessary for making a good play. Many clever figurative devices are
used. For example, Abigail says that John “sweated like a stallion.” The
writing is really that memorable since it was not really written as
prose or poetry. However, certain images as the one previously mentioned
are hard to forget.

The theme of the story was rising over adversity, and standing for the
truth even to death. This is the theme for many stories and is always an
exciting one. John, in the beginning, wanted to keep distant from the
trials. He did not want to have a part, whether good or bad. When
Elizabeth was arrested, he was forced to become part of it [3, 145]. He
went to court first to set his wife free but after watching the
proceedings, he saw that the evil was not only being done to his own
wife but many others like his wife. As a result, he worked even harder
to free the other innocent people, getting himself arrested. Despite
this drawback, he did not give up. He had the chance to free himself if
he testified against the others but he realized that this would be
wrong, and even though he wanted to free himself, he would not if it
meant bringing trouble upon others. He cleansed himself at the trial,
standing for what he knew was right and died a righteous person. Though
he stayed away from church, he became more pure than the common
Puritans, dying as a martyr like the original apostles. He learned what
truth meant through his suffering.

Through Proctor’s struggle, Miller displays the struggles within each of
our own hearts. Many times we have witnessed some wrong happening to
some other person and wished not to get involved. However, sometimes,
like Proctor, there might be something that forces us in. Would we be
quit after only saving our wife like Proctor could have done, or would
we go for the entire community as Proctor did?

The action of the play is set in August 1947, in the mid-west of the
U.S.A. The events depicted occur between Sunday morning and a little
after two o’clock the following morning.

Joe Keller, the chief character, is a man who loves his family above all
else, and has sacrificed everything, including his honour, in his
struggle to make the family prosperous. He is now sixty-one. He has lost
one son in the war, and is keen to see his remaining son, Chris, marry.
Chris wishes to marry Ann, the former fiancee of his brother, Larry.
Their mother, Kate, believes Larry still to be alive. It is this belief
which has enabled her, for three and a half years, to support Joe by
concealing her knowledge of a dreadful crime he has committed.

Arthur Miller, the playwright, found the idea for Joe’s crime in a true
story, which occurred during the second world war: a manufacturer
knowingly shipped out defective parts for tanks. These had suffered
mechanical failures which had led to the deaths of many soldiers. The
fault was discovered, and the manufacturer convicted. In All My Sons,
Miller examines the morality of the man who places his narrow
responsibility to his immediate family above his wider responsibility to
the men who rely on the integrity of his work.

Three and a half years before the events of the play, Larry Keller was
reported missing in action, while flying a mission off the coast of
China.

His father, Joe Keller, was head of a business which made aero engine
parts. When, one night, the production line began to turn out cracked
cylinder heads, the night foreman alerted Joe’s deputy manager, Steve
Deever as he arrived at work. Steve telephoned Joe at home, to ask what
to do. Worried by the lost production and not seeing the consequences of
his decision, Joe told Steve to weld over the cracks. He said that he
would take responsibility for this, but could not come in to work, as he
had influenza. Several weeks later twenty-one aeroplanes crashed on the
same day, killing the pilots.

Investigation revealed the fault in the cylinder heads, and Steve and
Joe were arrested and convicted. On appeal, Joe denied Steve’s (true)
version of events, convinced the court he knew nothing of what had
happened, and was released from prison. Before his last flight, Larry
wrote to his fiancee, Ann, Steve’s daughter. He had read of his father’s
and Steve’s arrest. Now he was planning suicide [6, 122].

Three and a half years later, Ann has told no-one of this letter. Kate
Keller knows her husband to be guilty of the deaths of the pilots and
has convinced herself that Larry is alive. She will not believe him
dead, as this involves the further belief that Joe has caused his own
son’s death, an intolerable thought. She expects Larry to return, and
keeps his room exactly as it was when he left home. She supports Joe’s
deception. In return she demands his support for her hope that Larry
will come back. Ann and her brother, George, have disowned their father,
believing him guilty. But George has gone at last to visit his father in
jail, and Steve has persuaded him of the true course of events.

The play opens on the following (Sunday) morning; by sheer coincidence,
Ann has come to visit the Kellers. For two years, Larry’s brother,
Chris, has written to her. Now he intends to propose to her, hence the
invitation. She is in love with him and has guessed his intention. On
the Saturday night there is a storm; a tree, planted as a memorial to
Larry, is snapped by the wind. Kate wakes from a dream of Larry and, in
the small hours, enters the garden to find the tree broken [4, 111].

Western drama originates in the Greek tragedies of Sophocles, Aeschylus
and Euripides, all of whom wrote in Athens in the 5th century B.C. In
these plays the tragic hero or protagonist ( = first or most important
actor) commits an offence, often unknowingly. He (occasionallly she)
must then learn his fault, suffer and perhaps die. In this way, the gods
are vindicated (shown to be just) and the moral order of the universe
restored. (This is a gross simplification of an enormous subject.)

These plays, and those of Shakespeare two thousand years later, are
about kings, dukes or great generals. Why? Because in their day, these
individuals were thought to embody or represent the whole people.
Nowadays, we do not see even kings in this way. When writers want to
show a person who represents a nation or class, they typically invent a
fictitious “ordinary” person, the Man in the Street or Joe Public. In
Joe Keller, Arthur Miller creates just such a representative type. Joe
is a very ordinary man, decent, hard-working and charitable, a man
no-one could dislike. But, like the protagonist of the ancient drama, he
has a flaw or weakness. This, in turn, causes him to act wrongly. He is
forced to accept responsibility – his suicide is necessary to restore
the moral order of the universe, and allow his beloved son, Chris, to
live, free from guilt.

The play has two narrative strands which finally meet. These are:

· Chris’s and Ann’s attempt to persuade Kate that Larry is dead, so they
can marry. Joe wishes to support them, but sees that he cannot;

· the attempt by George, then by Chris, to find out the truth of what
happened in Joe’s factory in the autumn of 1943.

A slip of Kate’s tongue tells George of Joe’s guilt, but he leaves
without persuading Chris. Chris and Ann insist on marrying and Joe
supports them. This drives Kate (who sees this as a betrayal) to tell
Chris the truth. Ann’s showing Larry’s letter to her convinces Kate that
Larry is dead. The letter also answers Joe’s repeated question about
what he must do, to atone for his crime. He cannot restore life to the
dead, but he can give life (free from a sense of moral surrender) back
to his living son, Chris.

Joe Keller is not a very bad man. He loves his family but does not see
the universal human “family” which has a higher claim on his duty. He
may think he has got away with his crime, but is troubled by the thought
of it. He relies on his wife, Kate, not to betray his guilt.

Chris Keller has been changed by his experience of war, where he has
seen men laying down their lives for their friends. He is angry that the
world has not been changed, that the selflessness of his fellow soldiers
counts for nothing. He feels guilty to make money out of a business
which does not value the men on whose labour it relies.

Kate Keller is a woman of enormous maternal love, which extends to her
neighbours’ children, notably George. Despite her instinctive warmth,
she is capable of supporting Joe in his deceit. To believe Larry is dead
would (for her) be to believe his death was a punishment of Joe’s crime
(an intolerable thought), so she must persuade herself that Larry still
lives. Joe sees this idea to be ridiculous, but must tolerate it to
secure Kate’s support for his own deception.

Ann Deever shares Chris’s high ideals but believes he should not feel
ashamed by his wealth. She disowns her father whom she believes to be
guilty. She has no wish to hurt Kate but will show her Larry’s letter if
she (Kate) remains opposed to Ann’s marrying Chris.

Dr. Jim Bayliss is a man who, in his youth, shared Chris’s ideals, but
has been forced to compromise to pay the bills. He is fair to his wife,
but she knows how frustrated Jim feels. Jim’s is the voice of
disillusioned experience. If any character speaks for the playwright
(Arthur Miller), it is Jim.

Sue Bayliss is an utterly cynical woman. Believing Joe has “pulled a
fast one”, she does not mind his awful crime, yet she dislikes Chris
because his idealism, which she calls “phoney”, makes Jim feel restless.
She is an embittered, rather grasping woman, whose ambitions are
material wealth and social acceptance. She does not at all understand
the moral values which her husband shares with Chris.

George Deever is a soul-mate of Chris. When younger, he greatly admired
him. In the war, like Chris, he has been decorated for bravery. He
follows Chris in accepting that Steve is guilty. Now he reproaches Chris
for (as he sees it) deceiving him. He is bitter because he has grown
cynical about the ideals for which he sacrificed his own opportunities
for happiness.

Lydia Lubey is a rather one-dimensional character: she is chiefly in the
play to show what George and Chris (so far) have gone without. She is
simple, warm and affectionate, rather a stereotype of femininity (she is
confused by electrical appliances). Her meeting with George is painful
to observe: she has the happy home life which he has forfeited [4, 76].
We understand why George declines her well-meant but tactless invitation
to see her babies.

Frank Lubey (unlike George, Larry, Chris and Jim) is a materialist. He
lacks culture, education and real intelligence, but has made money in
business, and has courted Lydia while the slightly younger men were
fighting in the war. His dabbling in quack astrology (horoscopes) lends
support to Kate’s wild belief that Larry is still alive.

Throughout literature works of tragedy have been significant, for
example, Hamlet or King Lear. Their plots were generally tragic, but the
themes introduced such as the tragic hero brought up deep ideas that
could be discussed and thought about extensively. One problem with
modern literature is that very few tragedies have been written. One of
the few authors that did write tragedies was Arthur Miller. He even
wrote an essay commenting on the lack of modern tragedies, believing
this to be because people thought they were “fit only for the very
highly placed, the kings or the kingly” . He believed that the “common
man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were.”
From this belief he wrote several tragedies that won him awards and
respect from his peers. One such tragedy was All My Sons, which was
about the lies and immorality of a man and the resulting actions and
consequences. The themes presented-dishonesty and immorality-intensify
the tragic mood of the play. These themes are developed due to the
actions of one man, Joe Keller, who could be a considered a tragic man.
These negative themes that are brought up by the actions of Joe Keller,
the tragic man, prove why this play is a modern tragedy.

The themes in All My Sons are mainly derived from the concept of morals,
the laws that man follows through our conscience. One of the themes that
branches out from this is morality, the principles about human life.
This theme is evident when related to the Keller family, where a
conflict between morality and the loss of it takes place. Joe Keller,
the father of the Keller family, was responsible for sending out faulty
cylinder heads during World War 2, which resulted in the deaths of 21
fighter pilots. He believed those deaths were justified, because he kept
his business, which in turn kept his family fed and healthy “You lay
forty years into a business and they knock you out in five minutes, what
could I do…Chris, I did it for you…For you, a business for you!” (All My
Sons, pg. 69,70). His wife, Kate Keller, supported him because if he was
responsible for those deaths then he could have been responsible for his
sons death, Larry Keller, a fighter pilot “Your brother’s alive,
darling, because if he’s dead, your father killed him.” (All My Sons,
pg. 68). Just like Joe, she did not see the full scope of his crime,
only caring about the family. Joe’s justification and Kate’s ignorance
of murder for the benefit of the family causes the loss of morality to
be evident in the Keller household.

The two children of the family, Chris and Larry Keller, have views on
morality that contrast those of their parents [2, 99]. Once Chris found
out about his fathers crimes, he demanded an explanation for his actions
“Then you did it. To the others…you killed twenty-one men…You killed
them, your murdered them!” (All My Sons, pg. 68,69).

He was disgusted that his father did this, and when his father tried to
justify it, he was shocked and furious:

For me!-I was dying every day and you were killing my boys and you did
it for me?…You’re not even an animal, no animal kills his own, what are
you?…I ought to tear the tongue out of your mouth.”

Chris’ views on morality began the conflict with his father, but once
Larry’s views were revealed, this conflict escalates “I read about
Dad…How could he have done that?…if I had him here now I could kill
him…I can’t bear to live any more.“ (All My Sons, pg. 83). Due to his
embarrassment of his father’s crime Larry committed suicide. The sons of
the Keller family had different views on morality from their parents,
holding them to a very high standard. These conflicting views between
the parents and children resulted in the suicide of Joe Keller. His
morals encompassed only his family, therefore when he realized his
actions resulted in the death of his son, he committed suicide not being
able to bear the moral crime he committed. This conflict resulted in
suicide, making this a tragic theme.

Another theme that branches from morals is honesty. This theme is
significant because it involves mostly every character from the play.
One character that is significant is Joe Keller. He lied to all his
friends, even to parts of his own family, stating that he was not
involved with the production of the faulty cylinder heads. The truth
about his crime was revealed when his wife did not go on with the lie
about being sick during the war “Well, sure…I meant except for that flu.
Well, it slipped my mind, don’t look at me that way.”(All My Sons, pg.
65). Only when Chris interrogated Joe did he reveal the truth about his
crime. He even lied to Herbert after telling him he would take the blame
for the faulty cylinder heads. When the time came to admit he was the
one that ordered the shipment of the faulty cylinder heads, he denied
involvement and resulted in Herbert going to jail. The loss in honesty
spread to other characters. Dr. Jim Bayliss was not fond of Chris, but
he never told him this. It was revealed to the audience because Sue,
Jim’s wife, told Ann, Chris’s fiancйe “My husband is unhappy with Chris
around…Every time he has a session with Chris he feels as though he’s
compromising by not giving up everything for research.”(All My Sons, pg.
44). The neighbours’ dishonesty was primarily directed at Joe, believing
he was responsible for the faulty cylinder heads, from Sue “Everybody
knows Joe pulled a fast one to get out of jail”(All My Sons, pg. 45) to
Jim “What’d Joe do, tell him?…Don’t be afraid, Kate, I know. I’ve always
known.”(All My Sons, pg. 74). This dishonesty encompassed most of the
characters in the play, making this theme tragic.

Joe is described as a bad character with no sense of morality or
honesty, but he once was a good and honest worker and was a very
friendly person. His flaw is tragic because it turned a good and honest
man into a killer. This is called a “tragic flaw”, present in the tragic
hero in tragedies. Miller believes that tragedy does not only befall a
hero, but the common man as well “I believe that the common man is as
apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kinds were”i. This
belief lead him to create the tragic man, and with the creation of the
tragic man came Joe Keller. He is seen as a polite man through his
personality, a man who likes to socialize and keep everyone on a
positive spirit “Without Frank the stars wouldn’t know when to come
out…Take it easy, Frank, you’re a married man.”(All My Sons, pg. 28).
This is true for the common man and hero as well, who by Aristotle’s
definition has good and bad characteristics. Joe had bad characteristics
as well, which ended up being his tragic flaw. Miller believed the
tragic flaw was “the flaw, or crack in the character and was really
nothing—and need be nothing—but his inherent unwillingness to remain
passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his
dignity”i. Joe’s unwillingness to let his company go bankrupt forced him
to decide whether his family’s wealth or the lives of fighter pilots was
more important to him. Unfortunately, he chose wrong, loving his family
so much he would do anything for them “Chris, I did it for you…For you,
a business for you!”(All My Sons, pg. 70). This was his tragic flaw
because due to his decision, his son committed suicide, which in turn
caused Joe to commit suicide realizing his guilt in the matter “Sure, he
was my son. But I think to him they were all my sons. And I guess they
were, I guess they were”(All My Sons, pg. 83). The tragic hero is meant
to create sympathy because of the lost potential. Due to Joe Keller’s
tragic decision with the faulty cylinder heads, he went from a polite
and friendly man into a disrespected man among his neighbours and his
own family.

Great tragedies have always focused on the tragic hero, like Hamlet in
“Hamlet”, Macbeth in “Macbeth” and Oedipus in “Oedipus Rex”. These plays
show that focusing the story on the tragic hero is not a bad idea,
giving good reason why Arthur Miller did this in All My Sons. Miller’s
purpose was to bring the beauty of tragedy to modern literature, proving
it wasn’t only meant for the upper classes of aristocracy. He succeeded,
making a modern tragedy partially based on the form of past
Shakespearean masterpieces, leaving the death of the tragic hero towards
the end of the play for example. The conflicts between the Keller family
and between all the characters brought up tragic themes. These themes,
in conjunction with the plot, made a tragic hero out of Joe Keller, or
in Miller’s case, a tragic man. This tragic man fits the play perfectly
with the themes associated with him. All My Sons can be considered a
modern tragedy because of the creation of the tragic man and how his
actions created several tragic themes. These actions resulted in his
death, which occurs to most tragic men and heroes in great tragedies

2.2 E. Heminqway’s “Fiesta” as a new approach to the tragic hero

Ernest Miller Heminqway (July 21, 1899 — July 2, 1961) was an American
writer and journalist. He was part of the 1920s expatriate community in
Paris, and one of the veterans of World War I later known as “the Lost
Generation.” He received the Pulitzer Prize in 1953 for The Old Man and
the Sea, and the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1954.

Heminqway’s distinctive writing style is characterized by economy and
understatement, and had a significant influence on the development of
twentieth-century fiction writing. His protagonists are typically
stoical men who exhibit an ideal described as “grace under pressure.”
Many of his works are now considered classics of American literature.

The Sun Also Rises (Later Fiesta) is the first major novel by Ernest
Heminqway. The Sun Also Rises (Later Fiesta). Published in 1926, the
plot centers on a group of expatriate Americans in Europe during the
1920s. The book’s title, selected by Heminqway (at the recommendation of
his publisher) is taken from Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun also ariseth,
and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”
Heminqway’s original title for the work was Fiesta, which was used in
the British, German and Spanish editions of the novel.

The novel explores the lives and values of the so-called “Lost
Generation,” chronicling the experiences of Jake Barnes and several
acquaintances on their pilgrimage to Pamplona for the annual fiesta and
bull fights. After serving in World War I, Jake is unable to consummate
a sexual relationship with Brett Ashley because of either psychological
or physical damage that leaves him impotent. However, he is still
attracted to and in love with her. The story follows Jake and his
various companions across France and Spain. Initially, Jake seeks peace
away from Brett by taking a fishing trip to Burguete, deep within the
Spanish hills, with companion Bill Gorton, another veteran of the war.
The fiesta in Pamplona is the setting for the eventual meeting of all
the characters, who play out their various desires and anxieties,
alongside a great deal of drinking.

Jake Barnes: The narrator of the story, Barnes is an American World War
I veteran who suffers from physical injuries and psychological damage
that renders him, which leads him to become unable to pursue a sexual
relationship with Brett. Having lost direction of his life as a result
of his experiences during the war, Barnes attempts to satisfy himself
through hard work, drinking, and bull fights.

Lady Ashley, or Brett: Brett is the object of lust for most of the male
characters of the book. Portrayed as elusive and promiscuous, Brett,
like Barnes, also lacks direction in life and finds emptiness in
activities that she would have normally enjoyed during pre-war times.
She is engaged to Michael.

Robert Cohn: His status as an outsider as a result of being Jewish has
caused Cohn to develop an inferiority complex. Despite attempts to be
civil and courteous, Cohn is the object of scorn from other characters.
The novel’s plot turns on his attempt to recover a brief affair he had
with Brett, leading him to tag along with the group of expatriates, much
to their collective vexation.

Michael Campbell, or Mike: A Scottish veteran of the war, Michael is
close friends with Jake and Bill, and engaged to Brett. Though he
attempts to hide his contempt for Cohn, his fiery temper usually
manifests itself during periods of heavy drinking. Also, he is bankrupt
as a result of his excessive borrowing.

Bill Gorton: An old friend of Barnes, Bill is also a veteran of the war
and is less cruel than Michael in his attitudes towards Cohn. Despite
also being a heavy drinker, Bill is often more light-hearted than the
rest of his peers.

Pedro Romero: The star bullfighter of the fiesta, Romero is introduced
to Jake and his friends, falls in love with Brett, and then they split
up when they recognize her inability to commit to a sustained
relationship. His autonomy, steadfastness, and commitment make him a
model for Jake, who possesses none of these qualities even though he
aspires to them. Furthermore, the younger Pedro Romero having been born
in 1905 represents the younger Civic Generation, often referred to as
the Greatest Generation. This served to further demonstrate the Lost
Generation’s feelings of insecurity and disillusionment compared to
their next-younger Generation.

The novel has heavy undercurrents of suppressed emotions and buried
values. Its weary and aimless expatriates serve as metaphors for
society’s lost optimism and innocence after the war. The topic of war is
rarely discussed explicitly by any of the characters, but its effects
are alluded to through the sexual impotence of Jake and his war wound,
and the behavior of the other characters, whom Carlos Baker described as
“floundering in an emulsion of ennui and alcohol.” The war is also
present as the tragedy that affects the way characters are able to deal
with themselves, and post-war society. The themes of the novel are cast
against the background of the Biblical quotation the book opens with:
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the
earth abideth forever” Ecclesiastes 1:4. .

The Sun Also Rises is considered one of Heminqway’s best novels
alongside A Farewell to Arms and For Whom the Bell Tolls.[citation
needed] It is considered ground-breaking in its economic use of language
for creating atmosphere and recording dialogue. Upon its publication,
many U.S. critics denounced its focus on aimless, promiscuous, and
generally licentious characters. On the other hand, it was extremely
popular with a young and international readership. Since then, the novel
has gained general recognition as a modernist masterpiece.

While most critics tend to take the characters seriously, some have
argued that the novel is satirical in its portrayal of love and romance.
It shows Jake and Cohn, the two male protagonists, vying for the
affections of Brett, who is clearly unworthy of the naive praise they
heap on her (Cohn openly, Jake implicitly). This could be true in the
sense that all of Heminqway’s writing “pokes fun at” humans, their
vulnerabilities and foibles. However, Heminqway is usually considered
too dismayed with the human condition to have been anything but serious,
and the situations of his characters so pathetic as to have moved well
beyond simple sarcasm.

In The Sun Also Rises, gender issues are dealt with very seriously by
critics, though there is little consensus among them. Some critics
charge that the depiction of Brett as a ‘liberated woman’ is intrinsic
to her divisiveness in relationships throughout the novel, and therefore
that Heminqway saw strong women as causing trouble, particularly for the
men who otherwise dominate the novel [21, 156]. The reading of Brett as
a ‘strong’ or ‘liberated woman’ is itself debatable, however, as she
seems unable to live outside a heterosexual relationship. Twice
divorced, she has a sexual relationship with almost every man she meets,
which suggests a neurotic and necessarily unsuccessful craving for
security rather than independence from men. In this reading, Brett is as
much a victim of the war and its destruction of social mores as are the
male characters. Other critics have argued that Brett signifies the
castration of Jake, meanwhile defenders suggest that Brett actually
becomes the main character by being the only person Jake is truly
interested in. Although the reasons vary significantly from critic to
critic, the majority of critical opinion still labels Brett’s character
as an expression of misogyny [16, 182].

Another point of criticism is Heminqway’s depiction of character Robert
Cohn, a Jewish man who is often the subject of mockery by his peers.
Though some critics have interpreted this as anti-Semitism on the part
of Heminqway, defenders of the book argue that Cohn is depicted in a
sympathetic manner, mocked not due to his religion but due to his
failure to serve during World War I. Interestingly, Heminqway is
reported to have said that Cohn was the “hero” of the book, and Harold
Loeb, the Jewish writer who served as a model for Cohn, defended
Heminqway from charges of anti-Semitism.

Rises Jake Barnes is the character who maintains the typical Code Hero
qualities; while Robert Cohn provides the antithesis of a Code Hero.

Jake Barnes, the narrator and main character of The Sun Also Rises, is
left impotent by an ambiguous accident during World War I. Jake’s wound
is the first of many code hero traits that he features. This physical
wound, however, transcends into an emotional one by preventing Jake from
ever consummating his love with Lady Brett Ashley. Emotional suffering
can take its toll on the Code Hero as it did with Jake Barnes. Despite
the deep love between Jake and Lady Brett, Jake is forced to keep the
relationship strictly platonic and stand watch as different men float in
and out of Lady Ashley’s life and bed. No one other than Jake and Brett
ever learn the complexity of their relationship because Jake’s hopeless
love for Brett and the agony it entails are restricted to scenes known
to themselves alone. Therefore, Jake suffers in silence because he has
learned to trust and rely only upon himself, which is conducive to the
Heminqway Code as well. Jake is an American who travels to Europe to
satiate his appetite for exotic landscapes and to escape his pain. Jake
tries to live his life to the fullest with drinking, partying, and
sporting with friends. With these pastimes, Jake hopes to hide from his
fault and get on with the life he has been made to suffer. Watching and
participating in sports help accentuate the Code Hero’s masculinity and
provide the sense of pride Jake has lost. This gain of pride is
essential in the Heminqway Code. Jake attends fishing trips with
friends, he visits Pamplona, Spain to witness the running of the bulls,
and he acts as a mediator between arguing friends. These characteristics
reveal his strong character built of courage and grace. Jake, as with
any Code Hero, is a man of action who spends more time achieving goals
than talking about them.

Jake’s friend, Robert Cohn violates everything a Heminqway Code Hero
represents. He is rich, gifted, and skillful and is ready to discuss his
emotions in detail. Robert refuses to admit defeat when Brett rejects
him repeatedly. Unlike Jake, when Cohn is hurt, he insists on
complaining to everyone instead of suffering in silence. Cohn does
nothing to assert his masculinity, either. He allows people, especially
women to ridicule him and knock down his self esteem. Cohn obviously can
not stand up for himself and does not take action when he should.
Consequently, Robert has no self control. When a matador sleeps with
Brett, whom Cohn is in love with, he takes out his jealousy by beating
him repeatedly. Although a man of action, Jake, the quintessential
Heminqway Hero, knows when to control himself, Robert Cohn does not.

On the whole, Jake Barnes strictly adheres to the qualities of the
typical Heminqway Code Hero. He relies solely on himself, utilizes his
assets, enjoys bullfights and other honorable activities. He is an
individual of action and speaks not of what he believes; rather he just
does what he believes to be right subtlety without any fanfare. Jake has
lived with disappointment and frustration all his life, yet he overcomes
it and uses the lesson to his advantage. On the other hand, Robert Cohn,
who has had the easy life is the perpetual loser. He allows people to
walk all over him and continually feels sorry for himself. Robert Cohn
is the false knight, who, in theory should be the victorious protagonist
but will always turn out to be a shallow person who lives on the fringes
of life. In the end, the person who does not possess the Code Hero
qualities can never discover himself, and therefore never truly be
happy.

2.3 The tragic hero as representation problem in the works E. Heminqway
and Arthur Miller

Tragedy is exceptional suffering in life leading the protagonist to
death. The hero suffers from a fault, a defect, an imbalance or a flaw
leading to his downfall. The tragic hero may perish and may be destroyed
but it is not possible to crush his soul easily. The novels of Ernest
Heminqway fulfill most of these domains of tragedy.

Tragedy usually focuses on figures of stature whose fall implicates
others such as family, an entire group, or even a whole society and
typically the tragic figure becomes isolated from his group or society.
Death, destruction, horror, sufferings are some of the major
characteristics of a tragic hero.The characters of “A Farewell to Arms”
are only innocent victims of a war for which they are not responsible.
They have nothing to do with its plans, slogans or objectives. However,
the setting of the novel is the war itself with all its horrors and
outcomes [13, 145]. The escape of the major characters Fredric Henry and
Catherine Barkley softens to some extent the burdens of this bloody war.
The escape represents a disgust at the failure of western civilization
to achieve its objectives.

The vision of war is one of suffering, and destruction. War represents
all the dark, diabolic powers and its quest is monomaniacal. Concerning
the philosophy of love and war, one can see that Catherine and Fredric
represent love and peace. Their escapism from war with all its vices and
darkness softens the agony and burdens of war.

Heminqway has a message for mankind that we must seek a world devoid of
wars. Life should continue within its continuum wheel for the welfare of
the humanity

Tragedy presents situations that emphasize vulnerability, situations in
which both physical and spiritual security and comforts are undermined,
and in which the characters are pressed to the utmost limits –
overwhelming odds, demonic forces within or without or even both.
Against this tragic protagonist are the powers whether human or divine
governed by fate or chance, fortune or accident, necessity or
circumstances, or any combination of these elements.

Tragedy testifies to suffering as an enduring, often-inexplicable force
in human life. In the suffering of the protagonist there is some human
cause. Tragic vision implies that suffering can call forth human
potentialities, it can clarify human capabilities, and that there is a
spiritual progress achieved through this suffering. In fact, tragedy
provides a complex vision of human heroism, a riddle mixed with glory
and jest, nobility and irony. Tragedy presents not only human weakness
and liability to suffering, but also its nobility and greatness. It is,
therefore, understandable why tragedy does not occur to puppets or to
people with little value.

According to Heminqway, the external forces of the war also doom Fredric
Henry in “A Farewell to Arms”, which have left him alone after the death
of Catherine. The philosophy is that the world breaks everyone
impartially, and death falls on the earth without mercy [13, 158].
However, death in war is violent and catastrophic and it comes suddenly
and unreasonably, it is not like one who dies on his deathbed. Heminqway
has been conscious of the doom and of the unavoidable death, yet his
works disclose a love for life. The world breaks everyone but those that
will not break it kills.

In this age few tragedies are written. It has often been held that the
lack is due to a paucity of heroes among us, or else that modern man has
had the blood drawn out of his organs of belief by the skepticism of
science, and the heroic attack on life cannot feed on an attitude of
reserve and circumspection. For one reason or another, we are often held
to be below tragedy-or tragedy above us. The inevitable conclusion is,
of course, that the tragic mode is archaic, fit only for the very highly
placed, the kings or the kingly, and where this admission is not made in
so many words it is most often implied.

I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its
highest sense as kings were. On the face of it this ought to be obvious
in the light of modern psychiatry, which bases its analysis upon classic
formulations, such as the Oedipus and Orestes complexes, for instance,
which were enacted by royal beings, but which apply to everyone in
similar emotional situations.

More simply, when the question of tragedy in art in not at issue, we
never hesitate to attribute to the well-placed and the exalted the very
same mental processes as the lowly. And finally, if the exaltation of
tragic action were truly a property of the high-bred character alone, it
is inconceivable that the mass Of mankind should cherish tragedy above
all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding it.

As a general rule, to which there may be exceptions unknown to me, I
think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of
a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one
thing–his sense of personal dignity. From Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to
Macbeth, the underlying struggles that of the individual attempting to
gain his “rightful” position in his society [17, 187].

Sometimes he is one who has been displaced from it, sometimes one who
seeks to attain it for the first time, but the fateful wound from which
the inevitable events spiral is the wound of indignity, and its dominant
force is indignation. Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a man’s total
compulsion to evaluate himself justly.

In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale
always reveals what has been called his tragic flaw,” a failing that is
not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a
weakness. The flaw, or crack in the character, is really nothing and
need be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the
face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of
his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot
without active retaliation, are “flawless.” Most of us are in that
category. But there are among us today, as there always have been, those
who act against the scheme of things that degrades them, and in the
process of action everything we have accepted out of fear or
insensitivity or ignorance is shaken before us and examined, and from
this total onslaught by an individual against the seemingly stable
cosmos surrounding us from this total examination of the “unchangeable”
environmentcomes the terror and the fear that is classically associated
with tragedy.

More important, from this total questioning of what has previously been
unquestioned, we learn [19, 165]. And such a process is not beyond the
common man. In revolutions around the world, these past thirty years, he
has demonstrated again and again this inner dynamic of all tragedy.

Insistence upon the rank of the tragic hero, or the so-called nobility
of his character, is really but a clinging to the outward forms of
tragedy. If rank or nobility of character was indispensable, then it
would follow that the problems of those with rank were the particular
problems of tragedy. But surely the right of one monarch to capture the
domain from another no longer raises our passions, nor are our concepts
of justice what they were to the mind of an Elizabethan king.

The quality in such plays that does shake us, however, derives from the
underlying fear of being displaced, the disaster inherent in being torn
away from our chosen image of what or who we are in this world. Among us
today this fear is as strong, and perhaps stronger, than it ever was. In
fact, it is the common man who knows this fear best.

Now, if it is true that tragedy is the consequence of a man’s total
compulsion to evaluate himself justly, his destruction in the attempt
posits a wrong or an evil in his environment. And this is precisely the
morality of tragedy and its lesson. The discovery of the moral law,
which is what the enlightenment of tragedy consists of, is not the
discovery of some abstract or metaphysical quantity.

The tragic night is a condition of life, a condition in which the human
personality is able to flower and realize itself. The wrong is the
condition which suppresses man, perverts the flowing out of his love and
creative instinct. Tragedy enlightens and it must, in that it points the
heroic finger at the enemy of man’s freedom. The thrust for freedom is
the quality in tragedy which exalts. The revolutionary questioning of
the stable environment is what terrifies. In no way is the common man
debarred from such thoughts or such actions.

Seen in this light, our lack of tragedy may be partially accounted for
by the turn which modern literature has taken toward the purely
psychiatric view of life, or the purely sociological. If all our
miseries, our indignities, are born and bred within our minds, then all
action, let alone the heroic action, is obviously impossible.

And if society alone is responsible for the cramping of our lives, then
the protagonist must needs be so pure and faultless as to force us to
deny his validity as a character [5, 83]. From neither of these views
can tragedy derive, simply because neither represents a balanced concept
of life. Above all else, tragedy requires the finest appreciation by the
writer of cause and effect.

No tragedy can therefore come about when its author fears to question
absolutely everything, when he regards any institution, habit or custom
as being either everlasting, immutable or inevitable. In the tragic view
the need of man to wholly realize himself is the only fixed star, and
whatever it is that hedges his nature and lowers it is ripe for attack
and examination. Which is not to say that tragedy must preach
revolution.

The Greeks could probe the very heavenly origin of their ways and return
to confirm the rightness of laws. And Job could face God in anger,
demanding his right and end in submission. But for a moment everything
is in suspension, nothing is accepted, and in this stretching and
tearing apart of the cosmos, in the very action of so doing, the
character gains “size,” the tragic stature which is spuriously attached
to the royal or the high born in our minds. The commonest of men may
take on that stature to the extent of his willingness to throw all he
has into the contest, the battle to secure his rightful place in his
world.

There is a misconception of tragedy with which I have been struck in
review after review, and in many conversations with writers and readers
alike. It is the idea that tragedy is of necessity allied to pessimism.
Even the dictionary says nothing more about the word than that it means
a story with a sad or unhappy ending. This impression is so firmly fixed
that I almost hesitate to claim that in truth tragedy implies more
optimism in its author than does comedy, and that its final result ought
to be the reinforcement of the onlooker’s brightest opinions of the
human animal.

For, if it is true to say that in essence the tragic hero is intent upon
claiming his whole due as a personality, and if this struggle must be
total and without reservation, then it automatically demonstrates the
indestructible will of man to achieve his humanity. The possibility of
victory must be there in tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is
finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly
have won. The pathetic is achieved when the protagonist is, by virtue of
his witlessness, his insensitivity or the very air he gives off,
incapable of grappling with a much superior force. Pathos truly is the
mode for the pessimist. But tragedy requires a nicer balance between
what is possible and what is impossible. And it is curious, although
edifying, that the plays we revere, century after century, are the
tragedies. In them, and in them alone, lies the belief–optimistic, if
you will, in the perfectibility of man. It is time, I think, that we who
are without kings, took up this bright thread of our history and
followed it to the only place it can possible lead in our time–the
heart and spirit of the average man.

CONCLUSION

Miller’s style is very simple. He uses simple sentences and words which
are easy to understand. He brings out the evil quality of Abigail and
the other girls and also the gullibility of the judges. His style is
easy to understand and should be in order to be successful as a play.
While using the simple style, Miller doesn’t take anything away from the
suspense in the plot. The dialogues of his character are like actual
speech. His words are used effectively and doesn’t include anything not
necessary for making a good play. Many clever figurative devices are
used. For example, Abigail says that John “sweated like a stallion.” The
writing is really that memorable since it was not really written as
prose or poetry. However, certain images as the one previously mentioned
are hard to forget.

The theme of the story was rising over adversity, and standing for the
truth even to death. This is the theme for many stories and is always an
exciting one. John, in the beginning, wanted to keep distant from the
trials. He did not want to have a part, whether good or bad. When
Elizabeth was arrested, he was forced to become part of it [3, 145]. He
went to court first to set his wife free but after watching the
proceedings, he saw that the evil was not only being done to his own
wife but many others like his wife. As a result, he worked even harder
to free the other innocent people, getting himself arrested.

The themes in All My Sons are mainly derived from the concept of morals,
the laws that man follows through our conscience. One of the themes that
branches out from this is morality, the principles about human life.
This theme is evident when related to the Keller family, where a
conflict between morality and the loss of it takes place. Joe Keller,
the father of the Keller family, was responsible for sending out faulty
cylinder heads during World War 2, which resulted in the deaths of 21
fighter pilots.

The Sun Also Rises (Later Fiesta) is the first major novel by Ernest
Heminqway. The novel explores the lives and values of the so-called
“Lost Generation,” chronicling the experiences of Jake Barnes and
several acquaintances on their pilgrimage to Pamplona for the annual
fiesta and bull fights. After serving in World War I, Jake is unable to
consummate a sexual relationship with Brett Ashley because of either
psychological or physical damage that leaves him impotent. However, he
is still attracted to and in love with her. The story follows Jake and
his various companions across France and Spain. Initially, Jake seeks
peace away from Brett by taking a fishing trip to Burguete, deep within
the Spanish hills, with companion Bill Gorton, another veteran of the
war. The fiesta in Pamplona is the setting for the eventual meeting of
all the characters, who play out their various desires and anxieties,
alongside a great deal of drinking.

GENERAL CONCLUSION

On the basis of above-stated we came to a conclusion, that the story
reminds its readers of an ugly blemish on human history. It reminds us
that man is not perfect, and that we can make mistakes. However, even
with these mistakes, we can cleanse ourselves and purify ourselves by
making what is wrong right. The sufferings become to the sufferer like a
crucible.

Miller’s plays often depict how families are destroyed by false values.
Especially his earliest efforts show his admiration for the classical
Greek dramatists. “When I began to write,” he said in an interview, “one
assumed inevitably that one was in the mainstream that began with
Aeschylus and went through about twenty-five hundred years of
playwriting.” (from The Cambridge Companion to Arthur Miller, ed. by
Christopher Bigsby, 1997)

Great tragedies have always focused on the tragic hero, like Hamlet in
“Hamlet”, Macbeth in “Macbeth” and Oedipus in “Oedipus Rex”. These plays
show that focusing the story on the tragic hero is not a bad idea,
giving good reason why Arthur Miller did this in All My Sons. Miller’s
purpose was to bring the beauty of tragedy to modern literature, proving
it wasn’t only meant for the upper classes of aristocracy. He succeeded,
making a modern tragedy partially based on the form of past
Shakespearean masterpieces, leaving the death of the tragic hero towards
the end of the play for example. The conflicts between the Keller family
and between all the characters brought up tragic themes. These themes,
in conjunction with the plot, made a tragic hero out of Joe Keller, or
in Miller’s case, a tragic man. This tragic man fits the play perfectly
with the themes associated with him. All My Sons can be considered a
modern tragedy because of the creation of the tragic man and how his
actions created several tragic themes. These actions resulted in his
death, which occurs to most tragic men and heroes in great tragedies

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Auwera J. van der. Pragmatic presupposition: Shared beliefs in a
theory of irrefutable meaning // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 11:
Presupposition. N.Y., 2003. P. 249-264.

2. Bower G.H., Black J.B., Turner T.J. Scripts in memory for texts //
Cognitive Psychology, 2002. Vol. 11. P. 177-220.

3. Barker L., Barker D. Communication. – New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs,
2003. – 480 p.

4. Bell D. The End of Ideology. – USA: Free Press, 2000. – 260 p.

5. Berlin В., Kay P. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and
Evolution. Berkeley: The Univ. of California Press, 2002. – 178 р.

6. Beugrande R.A. de, Dressler W.U. Introduction to Text Linguistics.
L., N.Y.: Longman, 2006. – 270 р.

7. Culture Shock. A Reader in Modern Cultural Anthropology. Ed. by P.K.
Bock. N.Y., 1970. 320 p.

8. Clark H.H., Marshall C.R. Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge //
Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge
University Press, 2001. P. 10-63.

9. Clark H.H. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996. 436 p.

10. Delia J.D., Grossberg L. Interpretation and Evidence // Western
Journal of Speech Communication. 1977. Vol. 41. P. 32-42.

11. Fine G.A. Rumours and Gossiping // Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
Volume 3. Discourse and Dialogue. Ed. T.A. van Dijk. London: Academic
Press, 2005. P. 223-237.

12. Flick U. Social Representations and the Social Construction of
Everyday Knowledge: Theoretical and methodological Queries // Social
Science Information, 1994. Vol. 33. P. 179-197.

13. Francis G., Hunston S. Analysing everyday conversation // Advances
in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London, 1992. P. 123-161.

14. Hirsсh E. D., Jr. Cultural Literacy. What Every American Needs To
Know. N.Y.: Random House, Inc., 2004. 254 p.

15. Kotthoff H. The Social Semiotics of Georgian Toast Performances:
Oral Genre As Cultural Activity // Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 24. № 4.
P. 353-380.

16. Levy D.M. Communicative goals and strategies: Between discourse and
syntax // Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York,
2002. P. 183-210.

17. Lewis D.K. Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge,
Massachusets: Harvard University Press, 2002. 214 p.

18. Schiffer S.R. Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 170 p.

19. Sinclair J. Priorities in discourse analysis // Advances in Spoken
Discourse Analysis. London; N.Y., 2002. P. 1-34.

20. Smith M. Social situation, social behavior, social group //
Psychological Review, 2004. Vol. 52. P. 224-229.

21. Tannen D. Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in
Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
240 p.

22. Weinreich P. The Operationalisation of Identity Theory in Racial and
Ethnic Relations // Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations, Cambridge
University Press, 2006. – P. 299-321.

23. Widdowson H.G. Teaching language as communication. – Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002. – 168 p.

24. Wierzbicka A. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor:
Karoma, 2005. 327 p.

25. Wierzbicka A. A Semantic Metalanguage for the Description and
Comparison of Illocutionary Meanings // Journal of Pragmatics. –
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 2006. – Vol. 10. – P. 67-107.

26. Wodak R. Disorders of discourse. London and New York: Longman, 1996.
200 p.

27. Wodak R. The Power of Political Jargon // Language, Power and
Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse / Ed. R. Wodak. –
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Co., 2005. – P. 137–164.

28. Wunderlich D. Methodological remarks on speech act theory // Speech
act theory and Pragmatics. – Dordrecht: D. Reidel publ.co., 2004. –
P.291-312.

29. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy Sets // Information and Control. Vol. 8. 2006. P.
338-353.

30. Ziff P. Semantic analysis. – N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2003. –
155 p.

Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter