History of Old Regime

Introduction Europe, before the Second World War, was torn up by the governing classes and the interconnection between bourgeoisie and proletariat. Land ownership and agriculture became the determining factors in the amount of power a class had and this was the key issue that would allow any change. Those who had the power did not want to let go of it or the attributes that allowed possessing the said authority.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on History of Old Regime specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The separation from the Old Regime came at an extremely slow pace in Europe, in comparison to Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. The movement towards the republic was the key goal of the people, demanding their rights and freedoms acknowledged but the direction was being constantly halted by economic domination of the ruling class in agriculture and â€Å"traditional manufacture† (Mayer, 11). The Old Regime was being supported by those who owned most land and in turn, they greatly influenced the government and the policies that were put in place. Bourgeoisie is thought of as the part of the nation that moved the progress, as they had the most influence on all the aspects of social life. Background Mayer has always raised controversy whenever she stands to speak about the history of revolutions that took place in many regions. She compares the state of affairs in Europe and close by nations through uncovering the reasons that delayed liberalism and greatly influenced the onset of the World War. This book raises various issues that reflect disparities among various scholars and philosophers but also created a different perspective as to the change in politics and the fall of Old Order. Perspectives of Arno Mayer on the Industrial Revolution in Europe She explains that Europe was well prepared to participate in the First World War even though most of its enemies were not aware of these plans . Physical and ideological adjustments had already taken place long before there were rumors of an inevitable war. In addition, civilization had already taken place in most parts of Europe even before anyone though that there was going to be a war. But even with the increase of tensions, the governing classes were not going to let go of their dominance and power in society. The way out was to adjust the already existing policies to the new ones, â€Å"the old elites excelled at selectively ingesting, adapting, and assimilating new ideas and practices without seriously endangering their traditional status, temperament, and outlook† (Mayer, 13).Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More It is interesting that no global changes would be sufficient enough to deprive the land owners and those in control of their power. Their selfish ways were indifferent to people’s rights and the condit ion that Europe and nation were in. She added that the old regime was the greatest beneficiary of natural resources in Europe including land, minerals and power. In addition, Mayer confirms that people in the middle class were on bad terms with one another and this became a self destruction tool used to fight them. They were not well aware and exposed to politics and this became a major blow in their operations. They could not fight the nobles since their ideologies were based on issues of human rights like good working conditions and improved salaries. The old order was being supported by both the government and the bourgeoisie. This ensured that those who were in power continued to get more wealth and barricade their evils with money and influencing regimes. The working class had little ability to overthrow the regime because all authority concentrated in the minority of the governing class. All manufacturing and industry was tightly controlled and there was little possibility to change either working conditions or the positions of those in charge. The much wanted increase in literacy, reduction of poverty and disease was the want of many and the government was constantly bombarded with the message but nothing was being done. This is a well realized fact because there was no material gain for those with all the rule. On the contrary, resources would have to be spent to better the lives of the working class and this was not the goal. It took longer to achieve and implement changes as people were divided regarding the intervention of the state in business activities although most of them preferred that there should be limited interference.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on History of Old Regime specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More This explains why liberalism (conservative) is adhered to by many European parties that consider their ideologies as liberal. The few that still follow social liberali sm are puppets of the old order that was not willing to shed their ideologies. Mayer argues that the proletariats were willing to enter coalitions and form governments that would listen to the people and all parties including those in opposition. In addition, she stated that the new order was very determined to revolutionize Europe through their numbers and not war equipment, strategies or economic influences. They believed that the power of a state belongs to the common man who toils and works to ensure the economy survives thus it should offer opportunities for individual growth. The clear separation between classes is not a surprise, as a similar picture can be observed today. But presently, there are regulations that would prevent total domination of the ruling class. The unstable condition on the nation, due to violent conflict was another great influence on both the morality and physical state of the countries. The war was fought both on the streets and countryside where peasa nts, religious leaders, workers and members of different unions. She explores the events that led to the evaporation of feudal leadership that was replaced by Darwinism. The proletariat wanted a regime that would offer liberty, fraternity and equality to everybody regardless of their economic. On the other hand, the bourgeoisie was very much committed in preserving their culture and failed to realize that their opponents were determined to liberate Europe even if it meant death. It is easy to understand that when people become oppressed so much that they have nothing to lose, they will resort to any means necessary to change the order of things. The limitations of the time and human rights were a major determinant in the ways these changes were taking place.Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Mayer argues that the proletariats were disorganized and illiterate and this contributed to their defeat. However, they never gave up and continued to work to ensure the old order is replaced even though this was going to cost them money and even life. The beginning of the 18th century saw the bourgeoisie restore the old order and almost everything lost was recovered. However, there existed antagonism between these groups leading to political wars over the following two centuries. This period was marked by conflicts between the proletariat and bourgeoisie with each group wanting to compel the government to consider its pleas. It is interesting to note that â€Å"The conventional wisdom is still that Europe broke out of its ancient regime and approached or crossed the threshold of modernity well before 1914† (Mayer 5) but it is a major setback in understanding the historical development of power separation in Europe. Communism was gaining ground in many nations and there were fears that this was going to erupt into a massive demonstration that would affect the old order in all European states. This necessitated the need to form alliances that would help to fight enemy troops. The need for an established order which allowed for greater control was the goal and it would not be overthrown easily. The labor force was a significant driver of the industrial revolution witnessed in Europe since they were exposed to political activism courtesy of their involvement in worker’s union that advocated for their rights. Conclusion There is no denying that Europe was very much influenced by those in power and that there is a close connection between the state the nation was in, the World War and what followed. The fact that the masses are demanding a change does not mean that those with power will listen and change their policies to suit the majority. Even though these issues are historically significant and are considered a part of the past, this sort of proble m still exists today. The shift from class separation to liberalism was a major change in Europe that has led to the modern world. It would be wise to use this as an example, to prevent group domination over people’s rights and equality. Works Cited Mayer, Arno. The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War (Second  Edition) (Verso World History Series). London: Verso, 2010. Print. This essay on History of Old Regime was written and submitted by user Drake Hooper to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

From Julius Caesar to Hamlet Essay Essays

From Julius Caesar to Hamlet Essay Essays From Julius Caesar to Hamlet Essay Essay From Julius Caesar to Hamlet Essay Essay Essay Topic: Julius Caesar The comparing between Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Hamlet in footings of how implied. or latent elements and subjects in one were transmitted and developed in the other can take to unveiling the transmutations Shakespeare was imagining with the authorship of Hamlet. In the Introduction to the 1987 Oxford University Press edition of Hamlet. G. R. Hibbard stated that â€Å"Hamlet was written after. but non long after. Julius Caesar. which can be dated with unusual truth as holding been compose in the late summer of 1599† ( 4 ) . From the statements that Hibbard gives to back up his statement ( that there are two allusions in the text of Hamlet to Julius Caesar ) we can see the strong connexions between the two dramas. : In a manner. both Julius Caesar and Hamlet represent thresholds in the development of Shakespeare’s dramatic art. However. Hamlet moves in a different way. If Julius Caesar is set in a distant yesteryear and can merely suggest to the humanist subjects in Shakespeare’s universe. Hamlet shifts the tone of Shakespeare’s plays to a more private and Elizabethan centre of involvement. This paper argues that the subjects and motives that were simply suggested or hinted to or implied in Julius Caesar and which were intricately developed in Hamlet are important in finding the specificity of Shakespeare’s subsequently historical calamities. The analysis of devices. motives and subjects in the two dramas will exemplify this statement. The device of foreground processing is employed in Julius Caesar in the first act as a warning mark to Caesar from the Soothsayer. It is a clear and unmistakable portents of Julius Caesar’s decease. particularly given the drama’s historical foundation. This device is used in this drama merely to trip the struggle – the decease of Caesar will bring forth the existent play. Because of its deficiency of ambiguity and its limited dramatic span. the prefiguration in Julius Caesar does non hold the same impact as it does in Hamlet. In Hamlet. the device of boding becomes a trigger for the play’s declaration and besides represents the dramatic subtext which drives the whole concatenation of events towards the tragic terminal. In Act 1 Scene 1. we witness the phantom of the shade of Hamlet’s male parent. This episode is marked by the usage of particular imagination and allusions. Horatio gives the decisive statement in placing the shade with tthe murdered male monarch. The shade figure is clearly employed in this first act as a agency of foreshadow ing non merely the struggle of the narrative but besides its declaration: â€Å"This bodes some unusual eruption to our state† ( The Calamity of Hamlet 148 ) . The image of Fortinbras is another baleful motive by which Shakespear alludes to the ulterior developments in the drama. Furthermore. the reader is given a preliminary account of the Medieval codification of award. by which the king’s boy has to revenge his father’s decease. The narrative of Fortinbras and his male parent analogues and motivates the complex relationship between Hamlet and his ain male parent. Duty is presented as a important motive. which determines the hero’s actions and even consciousness. Another component which is merely suggested in Julius Caesar is the characters’ ambivalency – no character is basically â€Å"evil† or â€Å"bad† . Brutus. before make up ones minding to fall in the plotters. reprobate this act: They are the cabal. O confederacy Shamest 1000 to demo thy unsafe forehead by dark. When immoralities are most free? O. so by twenty-four hours Where wilt 1000 happen a cavern dark enough/ To dissemble thy monstrous countenance? Seek none. confederacy ; † ( Julius Caesar. Act 2 Scene 1 ) . Brutus is hence shown to hold a moral scruples. a scruples dramatically and fatally opposing his actions. The paradox of a baronial man’s evil actions might happen its account through an analysis of Hamlet’s monologue at the terminal of the first act. Hamlet’s monologue and corruptness in the forth scene points to a specific image thought Shakespeare had about the human head and behaviour: it appears that the seeds of immorality can be ingrained in the most baronial of liquors or. conversely. that goodness can be the host of immorality. This characteristic is presented in fatalistic and deterministic footings and becomes another motive for the tragic declaration: So. oft it opportunities in peculiar work forces That for some barbarous mole of nature in them As. in their birth – wherein they are non guilty [ †¦ ] Oft interrupting down the pickets and garrisons of ground Or by some wont that excessively much o’er-leavens [ †¦ ] Shall in the general animadversion take corruptness From that peculiar mistake ( The Calamity of Hamlet. 181 ) The concatenation of events taking to the fatal stoping is therefore linked to the pronouncement of â€Å"blind fate† . By highlighting the ambivalency of human nature. Shakespeare gives a more complex position on his characters’ motivational resorts and transcends the restrictions of a completely â€Å"good† or a wholly â€Å"evil† theoretical account. In another scene. the King admits to his holding murdered Hamlet’s male parent. He is presented as holding stabs of guilt – â€Å"May one be pardoned and retain th’offence? † ( The Calamity of Hamlet. 273 ) : O. my offense is rank. it smells to heaven. It has the cardinal eldest expletive upon’t – A brother’s slaying. Pray can I non. ( The Calamity of Hamlet. 272 ) . Cluadius’ inquiries show the character in a new. humanising visible radiation. which eliminates the image of the stereotypic scoundrel. Many of the elements that are merely latent. or implied. in Julius Caesar. are to be to the full found in Hamlet’s monologues. The motive of Brutus’ self-destruction. for case. which is non to the full developed in the drama. becomes one of the subjects of contemplation in Hamlet’s monologues. Hamlet’s considerations on self-destruction. on the other manus. lucubrate much on this subject. There are several acceptions which are discussed in the protagonist’s monologues and they are testimony to Shakespeare’s penetration of the human head: For who would bear the whips and contempts of clip. [ †¦ ] To grunt and sudate under a weary life. But that the apprehension of something after decease. The undiscovered state. from whose bourn No traveller returns. puzzles the will. ( The Calamity of Hamlet. 240-241 ) Furthermore. in another transition. Hamlet gives another reading of his ain reluctance to perpetrate self-destruction. which is presented in visible radiation of the protagonist’s fright of God and societal position: The oppressor’s incorrect. the proud man’s contumely. The stabs of disprized love. the law’s hold. The crust of office. and the spurns That patient virtue of the unworthy takes. † ( The Calamity of Hamlet. 240 ) . Closely linked to this subject. there is the impression of the amour propre of being which is merely implied in Julius Caesar through the foreground processing of the emperors’ rise and autumn and in the analogues drawn in this regard among Julius Caesar. Mark Anthony and Brutus. However. this subject is non to the full problematized in the drama – likely because it does non come in understanding with the historical and philosophical repertory of Ancient Rome. In Hamlet. nevertheless. this subject becomes prevailing and one of the character’s privileged objects of contemplation. The â€Å"What is a man† monologue intimations to the vanitas vanitatum of Renaissance and humanist doctrine of the finiteness of adult male and of the ultimate insignificance of all earthly ownerships. Furthermore. Hamlet’s monologue incorporates another one of the humanist concerns. which was that of the perfectibility of man’s spirit and fate through God-given linguistic communication and idea: What is a adult male If his head good and market of his clip Be but to kip and feed? A animal. no more ( The Calamity of Hamlet. 298 ) . To reason. this paper has illustrated the ways in which subjects and motives which were latent in Julius Caesar are given prominence in Hamlet. particularly through the protagonist’s monologues. In a manner. it is the really displacement from the predomination of the oratorical address and its dialogic character in Julius Caesar to the primacy of the monologue and its monological quality in Hamlet that provides the key for understanding the grounds behind the elaboration of devices and subjects from one drama to the other. With Hamlet. Shakespeare’s historical calamities become more intimate and. at the same clip. more openly philosophical and cosmopolitan.