father of modern essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

51 Francis Bacon: Essays

Introduction.

by Mary Larivee and Rithvik Saravanan

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the English philosopher, was instrumental in the development of the Scientific Revolution in the late 18th century even though he had passed away centuries before.  The “Scientific Revolution” was an important movement that emphasized Europe’s shift toward modernized science in fields such as mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and chemistry (Grant). It was an extension of the Renaissance period, which then led to the Enlightenment which brought advances across all areas of human endeavor. Francis Bacon, in particular, is remembered today primarily for the “scientific method” as a way of establishing what is true from what is false perception (a method that still lies at the heart of modern science). Bacon’s primary focus in his writings revolved around the practice of inductive reasoning, which he believed to be a complement to practical observation (Grant). Most people before this period followed the Aristotelian methodology for scientific arguments. This idea maintained that “if sufficiently clever men discussed a subject long enough, the truth would eventually be discovered” (“History – Francis Bacon.”). However irrational this sounds, the Scientific Revolution helped replace this outdated system of thinking with Bacon’s scientific method. Bacon argued that any proper argument required “evidence from the real world” (“History – Francis Bacon.”). His revolutionary ideas about empirical information helped propel him toward political and societal importance and fame.

Literary Context

Francis Bacon had a passion for metaphors, analogies, and vivid imagery. He was a rhetorical writer and his essays highlight his wisdom and incisive mind. His first book was released in 1597 followed by later editions with added essays that were released in 1612 and 1625. Each essay that Bacon wrote reveals his knowledge of Latin and draws on ancient Roman wisdom through axioms and proverbs. Additionally, Bacon uses wit as a way of getting his point across to his audience and this indeed causes the reader to reflect on his or her own beliefs and values. A key aspect of Bacon’s literature is its “terseness and epigrammatic force” (De). By managing to pack all of his thoughts and ideas into quick, brief statements, Bacon deepens the reach and impact of his work. His writing deviated from the typical Ciceronian style of the time, which was characterized by “melodious language, clarity, and forcefulness of presentation” (“Ciceronian.”). His statements are meaningful particularly because they are straight and to the point. The brevity of his ideas also facilitates the communication of his arguments, which is significant because, at the time, a solid, meaningful education was hard to come by. As such, Bacon’s work helped spread the notions that would eventually bear fruit with the discoveries of the Scientific Revolution.

Historical Context

Francis Bacon’s Essays cover a wide variety of topics and styles, ranging from individual to societal issues and from commonplace to existential. Another important aspect of the appeal of Bacon’s essays are that they weigh the argument at hand with multiple points of view. Bacon’s essays were received at the time with great praise, adoration, and reverence (Potter). He was noted for borrowing ideas from the works of historical writers such as Aristotle (Harmon), and, as such, he represents a continuation of this philosophical school of thought. Another important impact of the Scientific Revolution and Bacon’s literature is that it allowed common people of the era to question old, traditional beliefs. They began to consider everything with reason, which led to a greater sense of self as well as moral and ethical standards. By having the opportunity to judge for themselves, the people were able to advance society a step closer to a form of democracy.

Francis Bacon Essays is a collection of eight of the famous philosopher’s many essays. Each dissertation contains words of wisdom that have proven to be enlightening for many generations that followed. From “Truth” to “Of Superstition” and “Marriage and Single Life”, Bacon covers a wide range of intriguing topics in order to challenge the human mind to think deeply; as he himself writes: “Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider” (Bacon). The philosopher not only provides a framework for the genre of the modern essay but also provides his readers a code to live by.

Works Cited

“Ciceronian.” Dictionary.com , n.d., www.dictionary.com/browse/ciceronian. 23 Oct. 2020.

De, Ardhendu. “Rhetorical Devices as Used by Francis Bacon in His Essays.” A.D.’s English Literature: Notes and Guide , 07 Apr. 2011, ardhendude.blogspot.com/2011/04/rhetorical-devices-used-by-francis.html. Accessed 23 Oct. 2020.

Grant, Edward. The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional, and Intellectual Contexts . Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Harmon, William. The Oxford Book of American Light Verse. Oxford University Press, 1979.

“History – Francis Bacon.” History , British Broadcasting Corporation, 2014, www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bacon_francis.shtml. Accessed 24 Oct. 2020.

Potter, Vincent G. Readings in Epistemology: from Aquinas, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant. Fordham University Press, 1993.

Discussion Questions

• Why do you think Francis Bacon chose to enlighten and inspire his readers as opposed to other writers of his time who focused more on classic folklore tales?
• Why do you think Francis Bacon choose the topics that he did? Who or what do you think had a major influence on his writings?
• What are the goals and intentions behind Bacon’s use of rhetorical questioning?
• What are some common themes and ideas from Francis Bacon’s Essays that can be applied to general situations and contemporary society?
• From the ideas presented in this reading, how do you think Francis Bacon’s work affected government policies throughout history, including modern day governmental standards?

Further Resources

• Detailed biography of Franics Bacon’s life
• Analytical article of Francis Bacon’s impact on the Scientific Revolution
• List of Francis Bacon’s most significant accomplishments
• Compilation of Francis Bacon’s literature
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Francis Bacon
• Discussion video of Francis Bacon’s “Of Studies”

Reading: From Essayes

I. of truth..

What is truth? said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer. Certainly there be that delight in giddiness; and count it a bondage to fix a belief; affecting free-will in thinking, as well as in acting. And though the sects of philosophers of that kind be gone, yet there remain certain discoursive wits, which are of the same veins, though there be not so much blood in them as was in those of the ancients. But it is not only the difficulty and labour which men take in finding out of truth, nor again, that when it is found, it imposeth upon men’s thoughts, that doth bring lies in favour, but a natural though corrupt love of the lie itself. One of the later schools of the Grecians examineth the matter, and is at a stand to think what should be in it, that men should love lies; where neither they make for pleasure, as with poet; nor for advantage, as with the mer chant, but for the lie’s sake. But I cannot tell: this same truth is a naked and open daylight, that doth not show the masks, and mummeries, and triumphs of the world, half so stately and daintily as candlelights. Truth may perhaps come to the price of a pearl, that showeth best by day, but it will not rise to the price of a diamond or carbuncle, that showeth best in varied lights. A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure. Doth any man doubt, that if there were taken out of men’s minds, vain opinions, flattering hopes, false valuations, imaginations as one would, and the like, but it would leave the minds of a number of men, poor shrunken things, full of melancholy and indisposition, and unpleasing to themselves? One of the fathers, in great severity, called poesy “vinum dæmonum,”; because it filleth the imagination, and yet it is but with the shadow of a lie. But it is not the lie that passeth through the mind, but the lie that sinketh in, and settleth in it, that doth the hurt, such as we spake of before. But howsoever these things are thus in men’s depraved judgments and affections, yet truth, which only doth judge itself, teacheth, that the inquiry of truth, which is the love-making, or wooing of it, the knowledge of truth, which is the presence of it, and the belief of truth, which is the enjoying of it, is the sovereign good of human nature. The first creature of God, in the works of the days, was the light of the sense: the last was the light of reason; and his Sabbath work ever since, is the illumination of his Spirit. First, he breathed light upon the face of the matter, or chaos; then he breathed light into the face of man; and still he breatheth and inspireth light into the face of his chosen. The poet that beautified the sect, that was otherwise inferior to the rest, saith yet excellently well: “It is a pleasure to stand upon the shore, and to see ships tossed upon the sea: a pleasure to stand in the window of a castle, and to see a battle, and the adventures thereof below: but no pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth, (a hill not to be commanded, and where the air is always clear and serene,) and to see the errors, and wanderings, and mists, and tempests in the vale below:” so always that this prospect be with pity, and not with swelling or pride. Certainly, it is heaven upon earth, to have a man’s mind move in charity, rest in providence, and turn upon the poles of truth.

To pass from theological and philosophical truth, to the truth of civil business; it will be acknowledged even by those that practise it not, that clean and round dealing is the honour of man’s nature, and that mixture of falsehood is like alloy in coin of gold and silver, which may make the metal work the better, but it embaseth it. For these winding and crooked courses are the goings of the serpent; which goeth basely upon the belly, and not upon the feet. There is no vice that doth so cover a man with shame as to be found false and perfidious; and therefore Montaigne saith prettily, when he inquired the reason, why the word of the lie should be such a disgrace, and such an odious charge, saith he, “If it be well weighed, to say that a man lieth, is as much as to say, that he is brave towards God, and a coward towards men. For a lie faces God, and shrinks from man.” Surely the wickedness of falsehood and breach of faith cannot possibly be so highly expressed, as in that it shall be the last peal to call the judgments of God upon the generations of men: it being foretold, that when “Christ cometh,” he shall not “find faith upon the earth.”

VIII. OF MARRIAGE AND SINGLE LIFE.

He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief. Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men; which, both in affection and means, have married and endowed the public. Yet it were great reason that those that have children should have greatest care of future times, unto which they know they must transmit their dearest pledges. Some there are, who, though they lead a single life, yet their thoughts do end with themselves, and account future times impertinences; nay, there are some other that account wife and children but as bills of charges; nay more, there are some foolish rich covetous men, that take a pride in having no children, because they may be thought so much the richer; for, perhaps, they have heard some talk, “Such an one’s a great rich man” and another except to it. “Yea, but he hath a great charge of children;” as if it were an abatement to his riches: but the most ordinary cause of a single life is liberty, especially in certain self-pleasing and humorous minds, which are so sensible of every restraint, as they will go near to think heir girdles and garters to be bonds and shackles. Unmarried men are best friends, best masters, best servants; but not always best subjects; for they are light to run away; and almost all fugitives are of that condition. A single life doth well with churchmen, for charity will hardly water the ground where it must first fill a pool. It is indifferent for judges and magistrates; for if they be facile and corrupt, you shall have a servant five times worse than a wife. For soldiers, I find the generals commonly, in their hortatives, put men in mind of their wives and children; and I think the despising of marriage among the Turks maketh the vulgar soldier more base. Certainly wife and children are a kind of discipline of humanity; and single men, though they may be many times more charitable, because their means are less exhaust, yet, on the other side, they are more cruel and hardhearted, (good to make severe inquisitors,) because their tenderness is not so oft called upon. Grave natures, led by custom, and therefore constant, are commonly loving husbands, as was said of Ulysses, “vetulam suam prætulit immortalitati.” Chaste women are often proud and froward, as presuming upon the merit of their chastity. It is one of the best bonds, both of chastity and obedience, in the wife, if she think her husband wise; which she will never do if she find him jealous. Wives are young men’s mistresses, companions for middle age, and old men’s nurses; so as a man may have a quarrel to marry when he will: but yet he was reputed one of the wise men, that made answer to the question when a man should marry:—”A young man not yet, an elder man not at all.” It is often seen, that bad husbands have very good wives; whether it be that it raiseth the price of their husband’s kindness when it comes, or that the wives take a pride in their patience; but this never fails, if the bad husbands were of their own choosing, against their friends consent, for then they will be sure to make good their own folly.

XI. OF GREAT PLACE.

Men in great place are thrice servants; servants of the sovereign or state, servants of fame, and servants of business; so as they have no freedom, neither in their persons, nor in their actions, nor in their times. It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty; or to seek power over others, and to lose power over a man’s self. The rising unto place is laborious, and by pains men come to greater pains; and it is sometimes base, and by indignities men come to dignities. The standing is slippery, and the regress is either a downfall, or at least an eclipse, which is a melancholy thing: “Cum non sis qui fueris, non esse cur velis vivere.” Nay, retire men cannot when they would, neither will they when it were reason; but are impatient of privateness even in age and sickness, which require the shadow: like old townsmen, that will be still sitting at their street door, though thereby they offer age to scorn. Certainly great persons had need to borrow other men’s opinions to think themselves happy; for if they judge by their own feeling, they cannot find it: but if they think with themselves what other men think of them, and that other men would fain be as they are, then they are happy as it were by report, when, perhaps, they find the contrary within; for they are the first that find their own griefs, though they be the last that find their own faults. Certainly men in great fortunes are strangers to themselves, and while they are in the puzzle of business they have no time to tend their health either of body or mind: “Illi mors gravis incubat, qui notus nimis omnibus, ignotus moritur sibi.” In place there is license to do good and evil; whereof the latter is a curse: for in evil the best condition is not to will; the second not to can. But power to do good is the true and lawful end of aspiring; for good thoughts (though God accept them,) yet towards men are little better than good dreams, except they be put in act; and that cannot be without power and place, as the vantage and commanding ground. Merit and good works is the end of man’s motion; and conscience of the same is the accomplishment of man’s rest; for if a man can be partaker of God’s theatre, he shall likewise be partaker of God’s rest: “Et conversus Deus, ut aspiceret opera, quaæ fecerunt manus suæ, vidit quod omnia essent bona nimis;” and then the sabbath. In the discharge of the place set before thee the best examples; for imitation is a globe of precepts; and after a time set before thine own example; and examine thyself strictly whether thou didst not best at first. Neglect not also the examples of those that have carried themselves ill in the same place; not to set off thyself by taxing their memory, but to direct thyself what to avoid. Reform, therefore, without bravery or scandal of former times and persons; but yet set it down to thyself, as well to create good precedents as to follow them. Reduce things to the first institution, and observe wherein and how they have degenerated; but yet ask counsel of both times; of the ancienter time what is best; and of the latter time what is fittest. Seek to make thy course regular, that men may know be forehand what they may expect; but be not too positive and peremptory; and express thyself well when thou digressest from thy lure. Preserve the right of thy place, but stir not questions of jurisdiction; and rather assume thy right in silence, and “de facto,” than voice it with claims and challenges. Preserve likewise the rights of inferior places; and think it more honour to direct in chief than to be busy in all. Embrace and invite helps and advices touching the execution of thy place; and do not drive away such as bring thee information as meddlers, but accept of them in good part. The vices of authority are chiefly four; delays, corruption, roughness, and facility. For delays give easy access: keep times appointed; go through with that which is in hand, and interlace not business but of necessity. For corruption, do not only bind thine own hands or thy servant’s hands from taking, but bind the hands of suitors also from offering; for integrity used doth the one; but integrity professed, and with a manifest detestation of bribery, doth the other; and avoid not only the fault, but the suspicion. Whosoever is found variable, and changeth manifestly without manifest cause, giveth suspicion of corruption; therefore, always when thou changest thine opinion or course, profess it plainly, and declare it, together with the reasons that move thee to change, and do not think to steal it. A servant or a favourite, if he be inward, and no other apparent cause of esteem, is commonly thought but a by-way to close corruption. For roughness, it is a needless cause of discontent; severity breedeth fear, but roughness breedeth hate. Even reproofs from authority ought to be grave, and not taunting. As for facility, it is worse than bribery; for bribes come but now and then; but if importunity or idle respects lead a man, he shall never be without; as Solomon saith, “To respect persons is not good, for such a man will transgress for a piece of bread.” It is most true that was anciently spoken, “A place showeth the man; and it showeth some to the better and some to the worse;” “omnium consensu capax imperii, nisi imperasset,” saith Tacitus of Galba; but of Vespasian he saith, “solus imperantium, Vespasianus mutatus in melius;” though the one was meant of sufficiency, the other of manners and affection. It is an assured sign of a worthy and generous spirit, whom honour amends; for honour is, or should be, the place of virtue; and as in nature things move violently to their place and calmly in their place, so virtue in ambition is violent, in authority settled and calm. All rising to great place is by a winding stair; and if there be factions, it is good to side a man’s self whilst he is in the rising, and to balance himself when he is placed. Use the memory of thy predecessor fairly and tenderly; for if thou dost not, it is a debt will sure be paid when thou art gone. If thou have colleagues, respect them; and rather call them when they looked not for it, than exclude them when they have reason to look to be called. Be not too sensible or too remembering of thy place in conversation and private answers to suitors; but let it rather be said, “When he sits in place he is another man.”

XVII. OF SUPERSTITION.

It were better to have no opinion of God at all than such an opinion as is unworthy of him; for the one is unbelief, the other is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity. Plutarch saith well to that purpose: “Surely,” saith he, “I had rather a great deal men should say there was no such man at all as Plutarch, than that they should say that there was one Plutarch, that would eat his children as soon as they were born:” as the poets speak of Saturn: and, as the contumely is greater towards God, so the danger is greater towards men. Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation: all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men: therefore atheism did never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking no further, and we see the times inclined to atheism (as the time of Augustus Cæsar) were civil times: but superstition hath been the confusion of many states, and bringeth in a new “primum mobile,” that ravisheth all the spheres of government. The master of superstition is the people, and in all superstition wise men follow fools; and arguments are fitted to practice, in a reversed order. It was gravely said, by some of the prelates in the council of Trent, where the doctrine of the schoolmen bare great sway, that the schoolmen were like astronomers, which did feign eccentrics and epicycles, and such engines of orbs to save phenomena, though they knew there were no such things; and, in like manner, that the schoolmen had framed a number of subtle and intricate axioms and theorems, to save the practice of the church. The causes of superstition are, pleasing and sensual rites and ceremonies; excess of outward and pharisaical holiness; over great reverence of traditions, which cannot but load the church; the stratagems of prelates for their own ambition and lucre; the favouring too much of good intentions, which openeth the gate to conceits and novelties; the taking an aim at divine matters by human, which cannot but breed mixture of imaginations; and, lastly, barbarous times, especially joined with calamities and disasters. Superstition, without a veil, is a deformed thing: for as it addeth deformity to an ape to be so like a man, so the similitude of superstition to religion makes it the more deformed: and, as wholesome meat corrupteth to little worms, so good forms and  orders corrupt into a number of petty observances. There is a superstition in avoiding superstition, when men think to do best if they go furthest from the superstition formerly received; therefore care would be had that (as it fareth in ill purgings) the good be not taken away with the bad, which commonly is done when the people is the reformer.

XXXIII. OF PLANTATIONS.

Plantations are amongst ancient, primitive, and heroical works. When the world was young, it begat more children; but now it is old, it begets fewer; for I may justly account new plantations to be the children of former kingdoms. I like a plantation in a pure soil; that is, where people are not displanted to the end to plant in others; for else it is rather an extirpation than a plantation. Planting of countries is like planting of woods; for you must make account to lose almost twenty years profit, and expect your recompense in the end: for the principal thing that hath been the destruction of most plantations, hath been the base and hasty drawing of profit in the first years. It is true, speedy profit is not to be neglected, as far as may stand with the good of the plantation, but no further. It is a shameful and unblessed thing to take the scum of people and wicked condemned men, to be the people with whom you plant; and not only so, but it spoileth the plantation; for they will ever live like rogues, and not fall to work, but be lazy, and do mischief, and spend victuals, and be quickly weary, and then certify over to their country to the discredit of the plantation. The people wherewith you plant ought to be gardeners, ploughmen, labourers, smiths, carpenters, joiners, fishermen, fowlers, with some few apothecaries, surgeons, cooks, and bakers. In a country of plantation, first look about what kind of victual the country yields of itself to hand; as chestnuts, walnuts, pineapples, olives, dates, plums, cherries, wild honey, and the like, and make use of them. Then consider what victual, or esculent things there are which grow speedily and within the year: as parsnips, carrots, turnips, onions, radish, artichokes of Jerusalem, maize, and the like: for wheat, barley, and oats, they ask too much labour; but with pease and beans you may begin, both because they ask less labour, and because they serve for meat as well as for bread; and of rice likewise cometh a great increase, and it is a kind of meat. Above all, there ought to be brought store biscuit, oatmeal, flour, meal, and the like, in the beginning, till bread may be had. For beasts, or birds, take chiefly such as are least subject to diseases, and multiply fastest; as swine, goats, cocks, hens, turkeys, geese, house-doves, and the like. The victual in plantations ought to be expended almost as in a besieged town; that is, with certain allowance: and let the main part of the ground employed to gardens or corn, be to a common stock; and to be laid in, and stored up, and then delivered out in proportion; besides some spots of ground that any particular person will manure for his own private use. Consider, likewise, what commodities the soil where the plantation is doth naturally yield, that they may some way help to defray the charge of the plantation; so it be not, as was said, to the untimely prejudice of the main business, as it hath fared with tobacco in Virginia. Wood commonly aboundeth but too much: and therefore timber is fit to be one. If there be iron ore, and streams whereupon to set the mills, iron is a brave commodity where wood aboundeth. Making of bay-salt, if the climate be proper for it, would be put in experience: growing silk likewise, if any be, is a likely commodity: pitch and tar, where store of firs and pines are, will not fail; so drugs and sweet woods, where they are, cannot but yield great profit; soap-ashes likewise, and other things that may be thought of; but moil not too much under ground, for the hope of mines is very uncertain and useth to make the planters lazy in other things. For government, let it be in the hands of one, assisted with some counsel; and let them have commission to exercise martial laws, with some limitation; and, above all, let men make that profit of being in the wilderness, as they have God always, and his service before their eyes; let not the government of the plantation depend upon too many counsellors and undertakers in the country that planteth, but upon a temperate number; and let those be rather noblemen and gentle men, than merchants; for they look ever to the present gain: let there be freedoms from custom, till the plantation be of strength; and not only freedom from custom, but freedom to carry their commodities where they may make their best of them, except there be some special cause of caution. Cram not in people, by sending too fast, company after company; but rather hearken how they waste, and send supplies proportionably; but so as the number may live well in the plantation, and not by surcharge be in penury. It hath been a great endangering to the health of some plantations, that they have built along the sea and rivers in marish and unwholesome grounds: therefore, though you begin there, to avoid carriage and other like discommodities, yet build still rather upwards from the stream, than along. It concerneth likewise the health of the plantation that they have good store of salt with them, that they may use it in their victuals when it shall be necessary. If you plant where savages are, do not only entertain them with trifles and gingles, but use them justly and graciously, with sufficient guard nevertheless; and do not win their favour by helping them to invade their enemies, but for their defence it is not amiss: and send oft of them over to the country that plants, that they may see a better condition than their own, and commend it when they return. When the plantation grows to strength, then  it is time to plant with women as well as with men; that the plantation may spread into generations, and not be ever pieced from without. It is the sinfullest thing in the world to forsake or destitute a plantation once in forwardness; for, besides the dishonour, it is the guiltiness of blood of many commiserable persons.

XLVII. OF NEGOTIATING.

It is generally better to deal by speech than by letter; and by the mediation of a third than by a man’s self. Letters are good when a man would draw an answer by letter back again; or when it may serve for a man’s justification afterwards to produce his own letter; or where it may be danger to be interrupted, or heard by pieces. To deal in person is good, when a man’s face breedeth regard, as commonly with inferiors; or in tender cases, where a man’s eye upon the countenance of him with whom he speaketh, may give him a direction how far to go; and generally, where a man will reserve to himself liberty either to disavow or to expound. In choice of instruments, it is better to choose men of a plainer sort, that are like to do that that is committed to them, and to report back again faithfully the success, than those that are cunning to contrive out of ether men’s business somewhat to grace themselves, and will help the matter in report, for satisfaction sake. Use also such persons as affect the business wherein they are employed, for that quickeneth much; and such as are fit for the matter, as bold men for expostulation, fair-spoken men for persuasion, crafty men for inquiry and observation, froward and absurd men for business that doth not well bear out itself. Use also such as have been lucky and prevailed before in things wherein you have employed them; for that breeds confidence, and they will strive to maintain their prescription. It is better to sound a person with whom one deals afar off, than to fall upon the point at first; except you mean to surprise him by some short question. It is better dealing with men in appetite, than with those that are where they would be. If a man deal with another upon conditions, the start of first performance is all; which a man can reasonably demand, except either the nature of the thing be such, which must go before: or else a man can persuade the other party, that he shall still need him in some other thing; or else that he be counted the honester man. All practice is to discover, or to work. Men discover themselves in trust, in passion, at unawares; and of necessity, when they would have somewhat done, and cannot find an apt pretext, if you would work any man, you must either know his nature and fashions, and so lead him; or his ends, and so persuade him; or his weakness and disadvantages, and so awe him; or these that have interest in him, and so govern him. In dealing with cunning persons, we must ever consider their ends, to interpret their speeches; and it is good to say little to them, and that which they least look for. In all negotiations of difficulty, a man may not look to sow and reap at once; but must prepare business, and so ripen it by degrees.

XXXVII. OF MASQUES AND TRIUMPHS.

These things are but toys to come amongst such serious observations; but yet, since princes will have such things, it is better they should be graced with elegancy, than daubed with cost. Dancing to song, is a thing of great state and pleasure. I understand it that the song be inquire, placed aloft, and accompanied by some broken music; and the ditty fitted to the device. Acting in song, especially in dialogues, hath an extreme good grace; I say acting, not dancing, (for that is a mean and vulgar thing;) and the voices of the dialogue would be strong and manly, (a base and a tenor, no treble,) and the ditty high and tragical, not nice or dainty. Several quires placed one over against another, and taking the voice by catches anthem-wise, give great pleasure. Turning dances into figure is a childish curiosity; and generally let it be noted, that those things which  I here set down are such as do naturally take the sense, and not respect petty wonderments. It is true, the alterations of scenes, so it be quietly and without noise, are things of great beauty and pleasure; for they feed and relieve the eye before it be full of the same object. Let the scenes abound with light, especially coloured and varied; and let the masquers, or any other that are to come down from the scene, have some motions upon the scene it self before their coining down; for it draws the eye strangely, and makes it with great pleasure to desire to see that it cannot perfectly discern. Let the songs be loud and cheerful, and not chirpings or pulings: let the music likewise be sharp and loud, and well placed. The colours that show best by candle-light, are white, carnation, and a kind of sea-water green and ouches, or spangs, as they are of no great cost, so they are of most glory. As for rich embroidery, it is lost and not discerned. Let the suits of the masquers be graceful, and such as become the person when the vizards are off; not after examples of known attires; Turks, soldiers, mariners, and the like. Let anti-masques not be long; they have been commonly of fools, satyrs, baboons, wild men antics, beasts, spirits, witches, Ethiopes, pigmies turquets, nymphs, rustics, Cupids, statues moving and the like. As for angels, it is not comical enough to put them in anti-masques; and any thing that is hideous, as devils, giants, is, on the other side as unfit; but chiefly, let the music of them be recreative, and with some strange changes. Some sweet odours suddenly coming forth, without any drops falling, are, in such a company as there is steam and heat, things of great pleasure and refreshment. Double masques, one of men another of ladies, addeth state and variety; but all is nothing except the room be kept clean and neat.

For jousts, and tourneys, and barriers, the glories of them are chiefly in the chariots, wherein the challengers make their entry; especially if they be drawn with strange beasts; as lions, bears camels, and the like; or in the devices of their entrance, or in bravery of their liveries, or in the goodly furniture of their horses and armour. But enough of these toys.

L. OF STUDIES.

Studies serve for delight, for ornament and for ability. Their chief use for delight, is in privateness and retiring; for ornament, is in discourse; and for ability, is in the judgment and disposition of business; for expert men can execute, and perhaps judge of particulars, one by one: but the general counsels, and the plots and marshalling of affairs come best from those that are learned. To spend too much time in studies, is sloth; to use them too much for ornament, is affectation; to make judgment wholly by their rules, is the humour of a scholar: they perfect nature, and are perfected by experience: for natural abilities are like natural plants, that need pruning by study; and studies themselves do give forth directions too much at large, except they be bounded in by experience. Crafty men contemn studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them; for they teach not their own use; but that is a wisdom without them, and above them, won by observation. Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention. Some books also may be read by deputy, and extracts made of them by others; but that would be only in the less important arguments, and the meaner sort of books; else distilled books are, like common distilled waters, flashy things. Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man; and, therefore, if a man write little, he had need have a great memory; if he confer little, he had need have a present wit: and if he read little, he had need have much cunning, to seem to know that he doth not. Histories make men wise; poets witty; the mathematics subtile; natural philosophy deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend “Abeunt studia in mores;” nay, there is no stond or impediment in the wit, but may be wrought out by fit studies: like as diseases of the body may have appropriate exercises; bowling is good for the stone and reins, shooting for the lungs and breast, gentle walking for the stomach, riding for the head, and the like; so, if a man’s wit be wandering, let him study the mathematics; for in demonstrations, if his wit be called away never so little, he must begin again; if his wit be no apt to distinguish or find differences, let him study the schoolmen, for they are “Cymini sectores;” if he be not apt to beat over matters, and to call upon one thing to prove and illustrate another, let him study the lawyer’s cases: so every defect of the mind may have a special receipt.

Source Text:

Bacon, Francis. Bacon’s Essays and Wisdom of the Ancients . Little, Brown, and Company, 1884, is licensed under no known copyright.

An Open Companion to Early British Literature Copyright © 2019 by Allegra Villarreal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Gondwana University and Other Exam News

Father of English Essay – Francis Bacon!

Last updated on February 14th, 2023 at 01:27 am

The “father of the English essay” is often considered to be Francis Bacon. He was an English philosopher, statesman, and writer who lived in the 16th and 17th centuries. Bacon is best known for his essays, which are considered to be some of the earliest examples of the form in English literature. In his essays, Bacon explored a wide range of topics, including love, death, truth, anger, friendship, and more. He was known for his concise, direct writing style and his ability to convey complex ideas in simple, easy-to-understand language. Through his essays, Bacon helped establish the essay as a literary form, and he remains an important figure in the history of English literature.

Table of Contents

Francis Bacon

During the transition from the Renaissance to the early modern era, Sir Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was one of the most influential people in natural philosophy and the study of scientific methods.  Bacon is regarded as the father of English essay. He introduced this genre into the English language and literature by importing it from French writer Michel de Montaigne. No less important than the innovative act of importing this form was his own personal contribution to its enrichment and development. He is additionally referred to as the Father of Modern English Prose. In addition to these two very outstanding accomplishments, Bacon was a diligent classical scholar with an encyclopedic breadth of knowledge. He was a distinguished empirical scientist, a distinguished lawyer, and a significant statesman. He was a member of parliament and a superb orator. Bacon’s intellect was not entirely lofty and magnificent despite his diversity.

Francis Bacon – Notable Work & Contributions

Francis Bacon is widely considered the father of the English essay. He was a prolific writer and his essays, which were first published in 1597, are considered to be some of the earliest examples of the form in English literature. Bacon’s essays are characterized by their conciseness, directness, and their ability to convey complex ideas in simple language. He explored a wide range of topics in his essays, including love, death, truth, anger, friendship, and more.

Bacon’s essays helped establish the essay as a literary form, and his writing style and approach to essay writing influenced subsequent generations of writers. He is often credited with popularizing the essay as a form of writing and making it accessible to a wider audience.

Bacon’s essays remain widely read and studied to this day, and his contributions to the development of the English essay continue to be recognized and celebrated. He remains an important figure in the history of English literature and his essays are considered to be classic examples of the form.

Major Works-

Francis Bacon was a prolific writer and produced a number of important works in a variety of fields. Some of his major works include:

• Essays: Bacon’s essays were first published in 1597 and are considered some of the earliest examples of the essay form in English literature. He wrote about a wide range of topics, including love, death, truth, anger, friendship, and more.
• The Advancement of Learning: This work was published in 1605 and is considered one of Bacon’s most important philosophical works. In it, he outlines his views on the importance of learning and the role of science in the advancement of knowledge.
• Novum Organum: This work was published in 1620 and is considered one of Bacon’s most important scientific works. It lays the foundation for the scientific method and argues for the importance of observation and experimentation in the pursuit of knowledge.
• The New Atlantis: This work was published in 1627 and is considered one of Bacon’s most important works of fiction. It is a utopian novel that explores Bacon’s vision of a perfect society based on the principles of science and reason.
• The History of the Reign of King Henry VII: This work was published in 1622 and is considered one of Bacon’s most important works of history. It is a comprehensive history of the reign of King Henry VII and is noted for its balanced and impartial approach to its subject.

These work, which are still read and studied worldwide, show Bacon’s enormous intellectual range and his enduring influence on philosophy, science, and literature.

Check the latest updates below-

Francis Bacon as Father of English Essay

Francis Bacon is regarded as the “Father of English Essay” for several reasons:

• Pioneering work: Bacon wrote some of the earliest examples of the essay form in English literature, and his essays helped establish the essay as a recognized literary genre.
• Writing style: Bacon’s essays are characterized by their conciseness, directness, and clear expression of complex ideas. He was known for his ability to convey his thoughts in simple and easily understandable language.
• Range of topics: Bacon wrote about a wide range of topics in his essays, from love and death to truth and anger. This broad scope helped to popularize the essay as a form of writing that could be used to address a variety of subjects.
• Influence: Bacon’s essays had a profound impact on subsequent generations of writers, who were inspired by his writing style and approach to essay writing. His work continues to be widely read and studied to this day, and his contributions to the development of the English essay are widely recognized.
• Legacy: Bacon’s essays remain classic examples of the essay form, and he remains an important figure in the history of English literature. His contributions to the development of the essay have been widely celebrated, and he is regarded as the “Father of the English Essay” for his pioneering work in this field.

FAQs on the Father of English Essay

Francis Bacon is widely considered to be the “Father of the English Essay.”

Bacon’s prose is distinguished by its brevity, vividness, and terseness. Concreteness, vividness, clarity, control, and force are all present in plenty. His essays are advice pieces written in short, oppositional, and epigrammatic phrases. His essays were dubbed “separated meditations” by him.

Bacon’s essays are known for their conciseness, directness, and their ability to convey complex ideas in simple language.

Bacon wrote about a wide range of topics in his essays, including love, death, truth, anger, friendship, and more.

Bacon is considered the “Father of the English Essay” because he wrote some of the earliest examples of the essay form in English literature and helped establish the essay as a recognized literary genre. He was known for his concise and direct writing style and his ability to convey complex ideas in simple language. His contributions to the development of the English essay continue to be widely recognized and celebrated.

By Gauri Malik

Related post, who is the father of yellow revolution- learn about the contributions of sam pitroda here, who is the father of nutrition: antoine laurent de lavoisier learn about his contributions here, father of ashtanga yoga – learn about sri k. pattabhi jois here, leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Unlocking Opportunities: BSSC Inter-Level Vacancy, Salary, and Job Profile

Exploring the geographical marvels and hill stations of maharashtra, यूपीएससी जीएस पेपर 4 पाठ्यक्रम के मुख्य पहलुओं का अनावरण, आईएएस मुख्य पाठ्यक्रम हिंदी में और यूपीएससी जीएस 3 पाठ्यक्रम हिंदी में जानें.

Francis Bacon is an Essayist

Francis Bacon is widely considered as the father of modern essay . Through his essays he implemented the way of systematic thinking and the nature of social interactions. Human characters, nature and intentions are highly reflected through his essays. Bacon introduced a new form of composition into English Literature through his essays.

Bacon’s Point of view

Bacon was a man of logic. His essays are mainly developed in logical and systematical basement. The essays are written in verity of points of view. Through these points of view he covers many familiar topics such as truth, love, death, marriage, education, religion, child-rearing, evil and good, health and many more. All the topics are mainly developed on the stages of human nature and psychology. Actually these are analysis of human character .

Bacon’s style

Bacon states all the essays in to the point. Aphorism is the salient feature of Bacon’s essay . Aphorism is the terse expression of universal truth. This use of terse expression and epigrammatic shortness of sentences reflect the depth of Author’s personal experience. So it can be said that Bacon blended his personal experiences in his prose . Epigram is another prominent element of Bacon’s essay . Epigram is a brief, pointed and often witty statement which apparently self-contradictory. One of the chief characteristics of Bacon’s prose is epigram . As Bacon’s essays are argumentative in nature, his style becomes antithetical. There are number of quotations and allusions in his essays. Figure of speeches which Bacon used in essays are clearly state his ideas. Flexibility, wit and fun are also important styles of his essays.

Theme of Bacon’s essay

Bacon’s essays are developed in various themes. Every theme has a great variety from another theme . Essays often examine some abstract theme such as love, friendship, truth, anger etc. The essays are developed in the range from human to haven, from society to soul, from envy to triumph. In “Of Studies” we see Bacon emphasis on reading. Here Bacon explains reason and purpose of study. At the same time he suggests the mode of selecting right books for study. In “Of Truth” he suggest to manage truth in life. Like these in “Of Marriage and Single Life” he showed the importance of marriage. On Anger Bacon enlisted different causes of anger then offer solution.

Bacon and his thinking

Francis Bacon is mainly considered as the famous English essayist though he borrowed from another writers like Montaigne, Seneca, Aristotle.

In many aspects we can see Bacon changed his essays with the spirit and manners of Seneca. For him his essays are dispersed meditation and receptacle for detached thoughts. Influence of Machiavelli is mainly focused in Bacon’s Essays. Bacon’s Essays are highly practical and developed on the theme civil and moral . Utilitarianism is obvious in Bacon’s essays. He shrewdly instructed the way of leading perfect life. Bacon borrowed the form of essay from Montaigne, the great essayist of France. Both Montaigne and Bacon share the form of essay but not the spirit. Montaigne is mainly personal and familiar but on the other hand Bacon is formal, curt and impersonal. Montaigne appeals the heart but Bacon is to the head. Though they are different in thinking they are successful in their own field.

It is obvious to us that Bacon’s essays are mainly noteworthy. To English literature his essays are priceless acquisitions. The essays are classics of English prose . Thus, Bacon is a great essayist.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions

Poets and Writers

Short stories, literary essays, india today english lit 1, francis bacon, the father of english essays—his prose style, introduction: .

Bacon is regarded as the father of English essays. The great title is attributed to him on the ground of his great contribution to English essay. But the term father gives the sense of the originator also. In this sense this title seems unjustified, because there was essay even before Bacon. But the form was different. It was a sort of lecture given by a great scholar to display his learning. Under the impression the readers are fools. Bacon gave a new direction to English essay. He made the essay a form to discuss topics of day to day life. It was the period of Renaissance. Therefore, Bacon wrote essays on the problems related to his contemporary society. It is his universality that his thoughts are of great importance even in this computer age.

Bacon's Contribution to the English Essay: 

Bacon's contribution to English essay can never be overvalued. Bacon has dedicated his essays to the Duke of Buckingham. There is a long list of Bacon's essays. The most important of these are: Of Truth, Of Death, Of Unity in Religion, Of Revenge, Of Adversity, Of Simulation and Dissimulation. Of Parents and Children, Of Marriage and Single Life, Of Envy, Of Love, Of Great Place, Of Boldness, Of Goodness and Goodness of Nature, Of Nobility, Of Seditions and Troubles, Of Atheism , Of Superstition, Of Travel, Of Empire, Of Counsel, Of Delays, Of Cunning, Of Wisdom for a Man's Self, Of Innovations, Of Dispatch, Of Seeming Wise, Of Friendship, Of Expense, Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and Estates, Of Regiment of Health, Of Suspicion, Of Discourse, Of Plantations, Of Riches, Of Prophecies, Of Ambition, Of Mosques and Triumphs, Of Nature in Men, Of Custom and Education, Of Fortune, Of Usury, Of Youth and Age, Of Beauty, Of Deformity, Of Building, Of Gardens, Of Negotiating, Of Followers and Friends, Of Suitors, Of Studies, Of Faction, Of Ceremonies and Respects. Of Praise, Of Vain - glory, Of Honour and Reputation, Of Judicature, Of Anger, Of Vicissitude of Things, Of Fame. Bacon's essays seem to justify what Pope says regarding him.

Great Ideas of Practical Wisdom: 

Bacon was a utilitarian. His essays are full of great ideas of practical wisdom. For example, throughout the essay of Studies, Bacon shows his practical wisdom and comprehensiveness. Generally people give importance to either technical knowledge or practical experience but Bacon recognizes importance to both and advises to consult an experienced man if the work is at a small scale, and technically trained or learned man for managing a work at a large scale . Generally people think studies are always useful but Bacon advises to avoid excess of studies. He recognises importance of natural talent, training and practical experience. Generally people think all books are equally important but Bacon advises to study books according to their importance. He recognises importance of original texts and notes. Generally people think that reading is the only way of learning but Bacon advises to give importance to conference and writing also. Bacon shows how different subjects affect our mind also. 

Clarity of Thought and Expression: 

Bacon's belief in clarity of thought and expression is well exposed in this essay when he adopts the device of classification. He classifies purposes of studies in three parts: 

“Studies serve for delight, for ornament, and for ability.”

He brings to light not only advantages of studiers but also its disadvantages that appear when studies are used in excess. Too much study for delight develops idleness; for ornamentation develops artificiality: to take decision wholly by their rules is a bookish approach becomes the whim of a learned man. Studies mature natural talent that is perfected by practical knowledge. Natural talent too requires pruning or trimming. Books express confusing or contradictory ideas that should be limited by experience. Wicked people oppose studies, common or foolish people admire them while wise people use them. 

“Crafty men condemn studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them.” 

In the same way he classifies followers into two parts: 

1. Followers fit to be disliked 

2. Followers to be liked 

Aphoristic Style: 

Bacon is known for the use of aphoristic style. Of Revenge is an illustration of the compact style of Bacon. Most of the sentences are terse and have that aphoristic quality about them that he is famous for. This essay is a fine illustration of Bacon's style which was unmatchable for pith and pregnancy in the conveyance of his special kind of thought. He in this essay, as elsewhere, has structured out at once a short, crisp, and firmly knit sentence of a type unfamiliar in English pregnant with rich meaning.

Proverbial Style: 

Bacon's proverbial style enables him to make proverbial statements. Here are a few examples of the proverbial style of Bacon taken from Of Revenge: 

1. “For, as for the wrong, it does but offend the law; but the revenge of that kind putteth the law out of office.” 

2. “Therefore, they do but trifle with themselves that labour in past masters.” 

3. “But base and crafty towards are like the arrow that flieth in the dark.”  

4. “This is certain, that a man that studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green, which otherwise would heal and do well.” 

Bacon's great wisdom enables him to express thoughts of universal importance. When he expresses these thoughts in aphoristic style so many sentences of the novel seem proverbial. It encourages him to make proverbial statements. The essay, ‘Of Studies’ for example opens with a proverbial statement: 

If anybody talks about studies, he refers to this statement necessarily. The essay is full of such statements that express a general thought which is true to all. 

“To spend too much time in studies is sloth. 

For natural abilities are like natural plants, that need pruning by study; 

They perfect nature, and are perfected by experienced. 

Crafty men condemn studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them. 

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.” 

Poetic Style: 

Bacon's prose style so often becomes poetic. It is full of poetic imagery. So often he makes use of myth making and sensuous word pictures. The essay Of Followers and Friends opens with the image of a bird. 

“Costly followers are not to be liked; lest while a man maketh his train longer, he maketh his wings shorter.” 

Bacon borrows his images from common life. Bacon uses game imagery and nature imagery. 

“For lookers - on many times see more than gamesters; and the vale best discovereth the hill.” 

Bacon cites the imagery of a hill to confirm the former imagery of players. It suggests a paradox that sometimes, the players fail in knowing their faults but the spectators who remain watching their movements closely, mark the error. Image of a hill does not require any proof for it is a general truth that: 

“The vale best discovereth the hill.” 

Bacon uses water imagery for notes and guides: 

“Some books also may be read by deputy, and extracts made of arguments, and the meaner sort of books; else distilled books are, like common distilled waters, flashy things.” 

For and Against Arguments: 

It is Bacon's style that he introduces arguments for and against the subject. His arguments are always logical. For example, he points out advantages and disadvantages of treating people equally or differently. 

“It is a matter of practical wisdom that man of same rank must be treated equally. If one man is given preference, he becomes rude and others feel dissatisfied. But the case is somewhat different with an able man. He must be treated with respect. It makes the able man respectful to the master and inspires others to improve their ability.”

Bacon is a practical philosopher who does not believe in imposing his thoughts on others. He gives arguments for and against the subject and leaves it to the reader to conclude according to his requirement. For example, he points out advantages as well as disadvantages of studies and its three purposes. 

“Studies provide amusement; help in improving effectiveness of speech; and improve skill and perfection; their main purpose of giving amusement is when we are alone or taking rest. They give effectiveness to conversation or discussion. They make perfect in deciding or managing things. According to Bacon experienced man perform well in special parts. But suggestions of universal importance, details and management of business are done best by trained persons. But his discussion does not end here for incoming lines he warns against the disadvantages of making excessive use of studies. Bacon points out disadvantages of studies if done unwisely. Too much study for delight develops idleness; for ornamentation develops artificiality; to take decision wholly by their rules is a bookish approach becomes the whim of a learned man. Studies mature natural talent that is perfected by practical knowledge. Natural talent too requires pruning or trimming. Books express confusing or contradictory ideas that should be limited by experience. Wicked people oppose studies, common or foolish people admire them while wise people use them. How to use studies is a more important art that is attained by practical experience. Likewise on the one hand suggests reading of books and on the others pleads for natural talent. He points out advantages as well as disadvantages of experienced man. He suggests to read some books with the help of notes or extracts made by others.”

Use of References, Quotations and Latinism: 

As regards its style, this essay shows the usual qualities that are associated with Bacon. Bacon is fond of allusions, quotations, Latin phrases and expressions, and figures of speech. We have here a reference to Ulysses, a well-known hero of Greek mythology. There is a reference to the cruelty and hard - heartedness of Inquisitors who used to be employed to inflict punishment on heretics. There is a quotation from an ancient Greek philosopher, Thales who said, in reply to the question when a man should marry: “A young man not yet, an elder man not at all.” 

Thus, Bacon is rightly called the father of English essay. His contribution to the development of English essay is great. He gave a new style to English essay.

Saurabh Gupta

You may like these posts, social plugin, popular posts.

Joseph Addison’s Female Orators—Summary and Critical Analysis

Bacon’s Essay Of Regiment of Health: A Critical Study

Walt Whitman’s Poem On the Beach at Night—Summary and Critical Analysis

Joseph Addison’s Essay Popular Superstitions—Summary and Critical Analysis

• Charles Dickens
• Francis Bacon
• Jack London
• Jane Austen
• John Galsworthy
• Joseph Addison
• Walt Whitman
• William Shakespeare
• William Somerset Maugham
• O Captain! My Captain!
• Ode on A Grecian Urn
• On the Beach at Night
• Oliver Twist
• Pride and Prejudice
• The Family Reunion
• The Tempest
• Female Orators
• Popular Superstitions
• To Build A Fire
• Charles Dickens 4
• English Novels 7
• English Plays 12
• English Poetry 5
• English Short Stories 9
• Female Orators 1
• Francis Bacon 3
• Jack London 3
• Jane Austen 3
• John Galsworthy 5
• John Keats 2
• Joseph Addison 4
• Literary Essays 7
• O Captain! My Captain! 1
• Ode on A Grecian Urn 2
• Of Regiment of Health 1
• Of Studies 1
• Oliver Twist 4
• On the Beach at Night 1
• Poets and Writers 32
• Popular Superstitions 1
• Pride and Prejudice 2
• Salvatore 3
• T S Eliot 2
• The Family Reunion 2
• The Tempest 4
• To Build A Fire 3
• Walt Whitman 3
• William Shakespeare 8
• William Somerset Maugham 3

Most Recent

Footer Copyright

Contact form.

You are here

Geoffrey chaucer: the father of modern english.

Touted as the father of modern English by his contemporaries and later (even modern) critics, Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400) remains one of the essential medieval writers that still has prevalence in our literary culture today. Most well known as a poet, Chaucer worked as a bureaucrat, courtier, and diplomat, which exposed him to the courtly style of life that he explores, questions, and mocks in his works. Most notably, Chaucer wrote in his vernacular English, as opposed to Latin or French, and also translated many important Continental works, such as Boccacio's The Decameron and Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy into English . The popularity of Chaucer's works written in the London dialect of Middle English gave rise to this dialect's prominence and eventual status as modern English's predecessor.

In his lifetime, Chaucer's best known and most well-received work was Troilus and Criseyde , a story of two star-crossed lovers in Troy that fall upon misfortune through the insufficiency of language to convey their love for one another. Modern audiences, however, know Chaucer best for his unfinished poem The Canterbury Tales , which chronicles a group of pilgrims journeying to Canterbury Cathedral. The pilgrims agree to entertain themselves along the journey by telling each other tales; each agrees to tell two tales on both legs of the journey. Unfortunately, Chaucer completed only 24 tales before his untimely death. The 24 Tales with which we are left, however, are exemplary in their discussion of genre, authorship, reader-response, and concern with dissemination of written material. Within each of the tales, Chaucer explores a variety of issues and constructs the tales in ways that are influenced by various Continental authors, specifically Dante, Boccacio, and French romantic poets. Although other English poets from the medieval period are integral to the study of English literature, Chaucer stands as a beacon of cross-cultural literary identity, and his works and translations are an integral moment in the rise of the English literary tradition.

If reusing this resource please attribute as follows: Geoffrey Chaucer: The Father of Modern English? at http://writersinspire.org/content/geoffrey-chaucer-father-modern-english by Colleen Curran, licensed as Creative Commons BY-NC-SA (2.0 UK).

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Montaigne on Trial

By Adam Gopnik

French writers of the airier, belletristic kind used to enjoy pointing out that Michel de Montaigne, the man who invented the essay, was born Michel Eyquem, in Bordeaux in 1533, and that the family name and estate survive to this day in the name of Château d’Yquem, the greatest of all French sweet wines. The connection feels improbable—as though there were a Falstaff Ale that really dates to Shakespeare’s Stratford—but also apt. Montaigne’s essays can seem like the Yquem of writing: sweet but smart, honeyed but a little acid. And, with wine and writer alike, we often know more about them than we know of them—in the wine’s case because it costs too much money to drink as much as we might desire, in the writer’s because it costs too much time to read as much as we might want.

“ Que sais-je ?” “What do I know?” was Montaigne’s beloved motto, meaning: What do I really know? And what do we really know about him now? We may vaguely know that he was the first essayist, that he retreated from the world into a tower on the family estate to think and reflect, and that he wrote about cannibals (for them) and about cruelty (against it). He was considered by Claude Lévi-Strauss, no less, to be the first social scientist, and a pioneer of relativism—he thought that those cannibals were just as virtuous as the Europeans they offended, that customs vary equably from place to place. Though some of his aphorisms have stuck, both funny (Doctors “are lucky: the sun shines on their successes and the earth hides their failures”) and profound (“We are, I know not how, double in ourselves, so that what we believe we disbelieve, and cannot rid ourselves of what we condemn”), he is not really an aphorist. He is, we think, a philosopher, and somehow accounted the father of modern liberalism, though he was aristocratic in self-presentation. We think of him, above all, as we do of Thomas More: a nice guy, an ideal intellect. S. N. Behrman, the American playwright and diarist, began but never finished a heroic play about Montaigne called “The Many Men,” which might have sealed him as the man for all seasons before the other guy got there.

Philippe Desan, in “Montaigne: A Life” (Princeton; translated from the French by Steven Rendall and Lisa Neal), his immense new biography, dryly insists that our “Château d’Yquem” Montaigne, Montaigne the befuddled philosopher and sweet-sharp humanist, is an invention, untrue to the original. Our Montaigne was invented only in the early nineteenth century. The Eyquem family, in their day, made no wine at all. They made their fortune in salted fish—and Desan’s project is to give us a salty rather than a sweet Montaigne, to take the Château d’Yquem out of his life and put the herring back in. Montaigne, to Desan’s dauntingly erudite but sometimes jaundiced eye, was an arriviste rather than an aristocrat, who withdrew into that tower out of fear as much as out of wisdom, having ridden political waves and been knocked down by them in a time, in France, of unimaginable massacre and counter-massacre between Protestants and Catholics. His motto was safety first, not solitude forever. That new form, the essay, is made as much from things that Montaigne prudently chose not to look at or evasively pretended not to know as from an avid, honest appetite for experience. We confuse him with the truly engagé Enlightenment and Romantic writers who came long afterward, as they came to confuse his briny Bordeaux with their winey one.

The idea of a salty rather than a sweet Montaigne follows the contemporary academic rule that all sweet things must be salted—all funny writers shown to be secretly sad, all philosophical reflection shown to be power politics of another kind. Desan has many crudely reductive theories—the most insistent being that Montaigne wrote essays about the world right now because he was covering up the truth that in the past his family were merchants, not lords—but he is a master of the micro-history of sixteenth-century Bordeaux. He lists all the other recipients of the royal necklace that Montaigne was proud to receive in midlife, signifying his elevation to the knightly Order of St. Michael, and no one, we feel assured, will have to go back and inspect those records again. At the same time, Desan suffers some from the curse of the archives, which is to believe that the archives are the place where art is born, instead of where it goes to be buried. The point of the necklaces, for him, is to show that Montaigne rose from a background of bribes and payoffs; he doesn’t see that we care about the necklaces only because one hung on Montaigne.

He establishes convincingly, though, that the Eyquem family had long been in trade—and was quite possibly Jewish in origin on Montaigne’s mother’s side—and that Montaigne’s persistent tone of lordly amusement was self-consciously willed rather than inherited. The family imported herring and woad in large enough quantities to buy an existing estate and win a kind of ersatz ennoblement. That act of ennoblement fooled nobody—the old aristocrats knew the difference and so did your bourgeois neighbors—but it gave you license to start acting aristocratic, which, if continued long enough, began to blend seamlessly with the real thing. “Most of these new nobles preferred to stress their way of living in retirement on their lands, free from any visible commercial activity,” Desan writes. “Family history is usually not mentioned, to the advantage of the present and everyday preoccupations.” The merchant Eyquems, under Michel’s father, Pierre, became noble “Montaignes,” able to use a single name in signature. The son’s retreat to the château and the tower was, on this slightly cynical view, simply another way of advertising and so accelerating the family’s elevation.

But, we learn, the Montaignes, father and son, being the virtuous bourgeois they really were, played an active role in that parlement that the family had bought its way into. Here we begin to enter a more fertile vineyard of implication. The bureaucracies of justice and politics in which Montaigne found himself are, as Desan describes them, instantly familiar to anyone who knows the equivalent in contemporary France. They combined, then as now, a wild bureaucratic adherence to punctilio and procedure with entanglements of cohort and clan that could shortcut the procedure in a moment. Montaigne had to learn to master this system while recognizing its essential mutability or, if you prefer, hypocrisy. The forms had to be followed, even when there was no doubt that the fix was in.

This sense of doubleness—that what is presented as moral logic is usually mere self-sustained ritual—became essential to Montaigne’s view of the world. (Lawyers to this day seem particularly sensitive to the play between form and fact, which makes them good novelists.) “There is but little relation between our actions that are in perpetual mutation and the fixed and immutable laws,” a chagrined Montaigne wrote later. “I believe it were better to have none at all than so infinite a number as we have.” His most emphatic—if perhaps apocryphal—remark on the subject is still applicable. He is reputed to have said that, having seen the law at work, if someone accused him of stealing the towers of Notre-Dame cathedral he would flee the country rather than stand trial.

Montaigne was witnessing the beginning of the parallel paper universe of the French bureaucratic state, where euphemism allows interest, and sometimes evil, to take its course. But in his time these daily tediums were laid over the violently shifting tectonic plates of religious warfare. The struggles between Catholic and Protestant in mid-sixteenth-century France killed more than a million people, either directly or by disease. By the time the wars swept through Bordeaux, the issues had long since been swamped by simple tribalism, of the kind that has afflicted Christianity since the Arian controversy. It was a question not of two sides warring over beliefs but of two sides for whom the war had become the beliefs.

As the battles between those faithful to Henry of Navarre and those opposed to him went on in ever more intricate and absurd factional dances, Montaigne’s place within them was as treacherous as everyone else’s. Smart people got killed, and often. It was dangerous not only because your side might lose but because there were so many factions to keep track of. Early on, he wrote, cautiously, that it was a mistake to look to the fortunes of war for proof of the rightness of either side’s cause: “Our belief hath other sufficient foundations, and need not be authorized by events.” But events were in the saddle.

Link copied

The first stirrings of Montaigne’s deflecting, double-sided literary style appear in his 1571 eulogy for his closest friend, the philosopher Étienne de La Boétie. Though the eulogy is modelled on classical stoic death scenes reaching back to Plato’s Phaedo, its originality lies in Montaigne’s honest reporting of the comic absurdities of his friend’s passing, and of his own emotional ambivalence at his death. La Boétie, suffering from some kind of ill-defined infection, is shown to be less than admirably resigned. The delirium of his final hours led him to believe that he was back in court, declaiming: “The whole chamber”—that is, his bedroom—“was filled with cries and tears, which did not, however, interrupt in the slightest the series of his speeches, which were rather long.” La Boétie implored Montaigne to guarantee his “place”—meaning, presumably, his social position—to which Montaigne replied, in a black, punning moment out of a Samuel Beckett play, that “since he breathed and spoke, and had a body, he consequently had his place.”

Montaigne’s friendship with La Boétie helped convince him that religious belief is purely customary—that what we believe is what we are told to believe, but that our beliefs are still a duty to our social hierarchy. “Voluntary servitude” is the course that La Boétie recommends: obedience to the state or Church, with the inner understanding that this is a course we’ve chosen from social prudence, not from personal conviction. “We are Christians by the same title as we are either Périgordins or Germans” was Montaigne’s most forceful statement on this point.

Desan scolds both Montaigne and his friend—there is a lot of scolding of subject by author in this book—for thereby recommending or even inventing “the cornerstone of modern liberalism: individual freedom detached from any political or social action.” To say this, though, is surely to underestimate the originality of the position, or its audacity in its time. The assertion of individual freedom is a form of political action. As subsequent generations of intellectuals caught in violent irrational wars or under repressive governments have also learned, learning not to think foolishly is the first step toward sanity. (Live not by the lie, Solzhenitsyn urged his countrymen. Montaigne’s is the same idea, in a warmer climate with better wine.) Your mind belongs to you . Recognizing that everything is customary was not customary. Your body and your allegiance may indeed be given, prudently, to the state. But no one can make your mind follow suit: only a fool fools himself. The first step in dealing with the madness of the political world is not to let it make you crazy. “God keep me from being an honest man, according to the description I daily see made of honor,” Montaigne wrote.

Desan also scolds Montaigne, vis-à-vis La Boétie, on a literary point, complaining that Montaigne, having first been inspired to literary effort by a friend, allows the idea of friendship to dissipate in his later essays, which entail no friend but the reader. The essay becomes an impersonal form of intimacy, betraying a fear of passionate commitment and political engagement. But each written form creates its own reader. A sonnet is addressed to an indifferent object of passion; even if the actual lover warms up, the sonneteer can’t become too easily complacent—a dark lady suddenly sunny produces no one’s idea of a poem. So, too, an essay is always addressed to an intimate unknown. E. B. White, a modern Montaigne, who got there through Thoreau, was deeply attached to his wife, Katharine. But she makes few if any appearances in his essays (though she’s there, hypochondriacally, all over his letters). He wasn’t neglecting her—it’s just that if the essays were even implicitly addressed to a particular intimate they would become too specific. The illusion of confiding in the reader alone is what essayists play on. You’re my best friend, Montaigne, like every subsequent essayist of his type, implies to his readers. By dramatizing an isolation that can be cured only by an unknown reader, the confidences come to belong to all.

Montaigne made several attempts at his essais —the French word means, simply, “tries,” in the sense of experimental effort, though the English word “sketches” comes closer—and the bulk of the work of writing was done in the seven years following La Boétie’s death. Far from being rendered in elegant isolation, we now know, the essays were written while Montaigne took part in Bordeaux politics, travelled to Italy (where the book was briefly confiscated by Church authorities, and he was subjected to a withering examination and a warning), and, eventually, became the mayor of Bordeaux. When Montaigne tells us that his library is where “I pass the greatest part of my live days and wear out most hours of the days,” he was being poetical. The pieces were, it now seems, far more often dictated on the run than written in that tower, dictation being the era’s more aristocratic, less artisanal method of composition. (They still occasionally bear dictation’s marks of run-on breathlessness.)

Montaigne’s “Essais,” in any of their stages—they went through three editions in his lifetime—are one of those classic books that benefit from being read irresponsibly. Sit down to read them thoroughly step by step, even in the great contemporary English translation, of 1603, by John Florio (whose renderings I’ve mostly been using), and you will be disappointed, since the “argument” of the essays is often less than fully baked, and the constant flow of classical tags and quotations is tedious. Open more or less at random, though, and dip in, and you will be stunned by the sudden epiphanies, the utterly modern sentences: “Super-celestial opinions and under-terrestrial manners are things that amongst us I have ever seen to be of singular accord,” he writes, giving as an example a philosopher who always pisses as he runs.

Montaigne accepts, as no other writer had, that our inner lives are double, that all emotions are mixed, and that all conclusions are inconclusive. “In sadness there is some alloy of pleasure,” he writes in the essay called, tellingly, “We Taste Nothing Purely.” “There is some shadow of delicacy and quaintness which smileth and fawneth upon us, even in the lap of melancholy. . . . Painters are of opinion that the motions and wrinkles in the face which serve to weep serve also to laugh. Verily, before one or other be determined to express which, behold the pictures success; you are in doubt toward which one inclineth. And the extremity of laughing intermingles itself with tears.” Having two emotions at once is better than having one emotion repeatedly.

By giving life to this truth, Montaigne animates for the first time an inner human whose contradictions are identical with his conscience. “If I speak diversely of myself, it is because I look diversely upon myself,” he writes, in “On the Inconstancy of Our Actions.” In the writer’s soul, he maintained,

all contrarieties are found . . . according to some turn or removing, and in some fashion or other. Shame-faced, bashful, insolent, chaste, luxurious, peevish, prattling, silent, fond, doting, laborious, nice, delicate, ingenious, slow, dull, forward, humorous, debonair, wise, ignorant, false in words, true speaking, both liberal, covetous, and prodigal. All these I perceive in some measure or other to be in mine, according as I stir or turn myself. . . . We are all framed of flaps and patches, and of so shapeless and diverse a contexture, that every piece and every moment playeth his part.

Lists are the giveaways of writing. What we list is what we love, as with Homer and his ships, or Whitman and his Manhattan trades, or Twain and steamboats. That beautiful and startlingly modern list of mixed emotions suggests a delectation of diversities—he likes not knowing what he feels or who he is, enjoys having “wise” and “ignorant,” insulated by nothing but a comma, anchored together in one soul’s harbor. They bang hulls inside our heads.

Although those epigrammatic sentences can be arresting—“Nothing is so firmly believed as that which a man knoweth least”—Montaigne doesn’t think epigrammatically. What makes him astonishing is a sort of “show all work” ethic that forced thought as it really is, mixed in motive and meanings, onto the page. He seems wise, more than smart or shrewd—wise without being smart or shrewd. He can be embarrassing, as he was often thought to be in his time, in a way that recalls less a polished columnist than a great diarist, like James Boswell or Kenneth Tynan, incapable of being guarded, the way shrewder people are. When he writes about the joys of having sex with cripples, we feel uneasy, nervous, and then enlightened. Whatever he’s telling, he’s telling it, as Howard Cosell used to say, like it is.

Desan, writing only about the French Montaigne, avoids the question that, for an English speaker, is essential: the great question of Montaigne’s relationship to Shakespeare. Although Florio’s 1603 effort was the first English rendering of Montaigne’s essays to appear in book form, they had certainly been circulating in manuscript before that. In an introduction to a new edition of the Florio, Stephen Greenblatt tantalizes us with the suggestion that the relation exists, and shows how richly it can be teased out—and then responsibly retreats from too much assertion with too little positive evidence, willing to mark it down to the common spirit of the time.

Well, essayists can go where scholars dare not tread—a key lesson to take from Montaigne—and this essayist finds it impossible to imagine that Shakespeare had not absorbed Montaigne fully, and decisively, right around 1600. It is evident not in the ideas alone but in a delighted placement of opposites in close relation, even more apparent in Shakespeare’s prose than in his verse. Writing shows its influences by the contagion of rhythm and pacing more often than by exact imitation of ideas. We know that Updike read Nabokov in the nineteen-sixties by the sudden license Updike claims to unsubdue his prose, to make his sentences self-consciously exclamatory, rather than by an onset of chess playing or butterfly collecting. Hamlet says:

What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so. And the balancing of opposites, the rhythm of assertion and counter-assertion, the sudden questioning turns, all of it seems irresistibly like Florio’s Montaigne, notably in the springy, self-surprised beat:

How often do we pester our spirits with anger or sadness by such shadows and entangle ourselves into fantastical passions which alter both our mind and body? What astonished, flearing, and confused mumps and mows doth this dotage stir up in our visages! What skippings and agitations of members and voice!

It’s not merely in the steady (and modern) use of exclamation points but in the sudden turns and reversals, without the mucilage of extended argument—the turn-on-a-dime movements, the interjections, the tone of a man talking to himself and being startled by what his self says back. The alteration in the inner lives of Shakespeare’s characters around 1600, as evident in “As You Like It” as in “Hamlet,” bears his mark—as in Jaques’s speech on the seven ages of man, which very much resembles Montaigne’s insistence that life-living is role-playing. (“We must play our parts duly, but as the part of a borrowed personage.”)

Indeed, the Frenchman Jaques, even more than Hamlet, and from the same year, is Montaignean man. In this case, a specific relation seems to exist between Montaigne’s great essay “On Cruelty” and the scene in “As You Like It” where Jaques is reported brooding on the death of a deer. Montaigne’s point is that when it comes to cruelty we should subordinate all other “reasoning”—stoic, of degree and dependency—to the essential fact of the stag’s suffering. We can reason our way past another creature’s pain, but, as we do so, such “reason” becomes the indicted evil. Jaques feels the same way. “We are mere usurpers, tyrants, and what’s worse / To fright the animals and kill them up,” he says, while “weeping and commenting upon the sobbing deer.” We are meant to find Jaques’s double occupation of weeping and commenting, feeling and keeping track of his feelings, mildly comic—Shakespeare being always convinced, in his English way, that the French are hypersensitive and overintellectual. But Jaques is not a ridiculous figure. He is conscience speaking through contradiction.

It was in the midst of all this that Montaigne was elevated to mayor of Bordeaux—an achievement, Desan shows, that was rather like getting appointed police commissioner under Tammany Hall. He wasn’t much of a mayor, although it was under his administration that the first protection and “control” of Bordeaux’s cru bourgeois was attempted, wine having crept up to become the city’s most important export, more important even than the salt fish that the family fortune had been built on. (It was a sign of the middle-class affluence that sped along in spite of the wars of faith.) His one attempted intervention in the religious conflict led to his being arrested and held in the Bastille, for a few hours, by extremist Catholics in Paris. He was released only after convincing the jailers of his Catholic bona fides. Fanaticism always seems foolish until it locks you up.

After his mayoralty, combining, as it did, the trivial and the terrifying, Montaigne moved away from political action, and Desan, in the end, is hard on his politics. “Montaigne’s humanism, as it was conceptualized starting in 1585, implies a renunciation of politics,” he declares, and elsewhere he sees in Montaigne a sort of false dawn of liberalism. Montaigne’s retreat was only a rich man’s way of getting off the highway before history ran him over. “Montaigne is supposed to be the best proof of . . . the victory of private judgment over systems or schools of thought,” Desan writes. “Modern liberal thought discerns in Montaigne the starting point of its history . . . but let us make no mistake: most of the strictly philosophical readings of Montaigne are the expression of a form of (unconscious) ideological appropriation that aims to place the universal subject on a pedestal, to the detriment of its purely historical and political dimension.”

This view is deaf to the overtones of Montaigne’s self-removal. To be against violence, frightened of fanaticism, acutely conscious of the customary nature of our most devout attachments—without this foundation in realism, political action always pivots toward puritanical self-righteousness. It is not that Montaigne is placed on a pedestal; it’s that we look up at him only to find that he is already down here with us. His houses are built on sand, rock being too hard for people, who are bound to fall. His moral heroism lies in his resilience in retreat, which allows him to remind us of our capacity to persevere. His essays insist that an honest relation to experience is the first principle of action. As a practical matter, this has been most actively inspirational at times of greatest stress. The German author Stefan Zweig, in flight from Nazism, turned first of all to Montaigne, writing, “Montaigne helps us answer this one question: ‘How to stay free? How to preserve our inborn clear-mindedness in front of all the threats and dangers of fanaticism, how to preserve the humanity of our hearts among the upsurge of bestiality?’ ”

Montaigne is present now in the things he feels and the way he sounds, and that is like a complete human being. He’s funny, he’s touching, he’s strange, he’s inconclusive. Ironic self-mockery, muted egotism, a knowledge of one’s own absurdity that doesn’t diminish the importance of one’s witness, a determinedly anti-heroic stance that remains clearly ethical—all these effects and sounds of the essayist are first heard here. We imitate the sound without even knowing its source. Good critics and scholars can teach us how to listen. Only writers show us how to speak—even when they tell us that it is best to whisper.

Montaigne’s writing has not been taken out of his time. It exists outside of his time. He is not plucked out to become a false father; he is heard, long past his time, as a true friend. He is an emotional, not a contractual, liberal. He didn’t give a damn about democracy, or free speech, or even property rights. Equality before the law he saw as impossible—not even aristocrats could get it. But he had a rich foundational impulse toward the emotions that make a decent relation between man and state possible. Here was a far-reaching skepticism about authority (either the ancients’ or the actual), a compassion toward suffering, a hatred of cruelty that we now imagine as human instinct, though all experience shows us that it must be inculcated. Montaigne, having no access to the abstract concepts that were later laid on this foundation, gives us deeper access to them, because he was the one who laid it. The liberalism that came after humanism may be what keeps his memory alive and draws us to him. The humanism that has to exist before liberalism can even begin is what Montaigne is there to show us still. ♦

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Jane Kramer

By John Jeremiah Sullivan

By Anthony Lane

• Privacy Policy

Bacon's Contribution To The Development Of English Prose

Question : Essay-type  

Evaluate Bacon's contribution to the development of English Prose.

Introduction

Bacon's Admiration for His Unique Writing-style

Bacon's writing has been admired for various reasons. Some admire his dazzling power of rhetoric, others his grace, yet others find him too stiff and rigid. But all admit that he is one of the greatest writers of English Prose of his age. His essays have become a classic of the English language.

In Bacon we find a style which is distinct and at the same time characteristic of his age. Bacon's contribution to the modern English Prose is clearly brought out by a consideration of the prose of the country during the age. It was Bacon who for the first time set the model of a style consistently simple, clear and suited to everyday uses. His larger and more sustained work suffer from the faults of his contemporaries and predecessors. But his essays are, conspicuously free from such faults. His sentences are short and lucid. His style is remarkable for its simplicity and clarity. There is no obscurity in him. His prose is light and graceful. His prose is dealt with the metaphysical subjects as truth, death, religion, etc.

According to the learned critic, his style has clarity, it has eloquence, and it is interesting. His luxuriant imagination makes his style picturesque and vivid. Bacon's language is free from prolixity, turgidity, circumlocution, conceit and such other vices which made the language obscure and incomprehensible. These were rare qualities at that time, and they fully entitle him to the rank of the father of modern English Prose.

Related Question

👉 All Related Posts

Post a Comment

Top post ad, below post ad.

• Terms and Conditions

Bottom Article Ad

Join our channel.

• Graduate 86
• Higher Secondary 129
• Post Graduate 41
• Project Work 2
• Secondary 76

Search This Blog

Recent updates, popular updates.

A Doll's House As A Problem Play

Footer Copyright

Copyright (c) 2021 EASY ENGLISH POINT All Rights Reserved

Contact form

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Literature › Literary Criticism of John Dryden

Literary Criticism of John Dryden

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on November 17, 2017 • ( 4 )

John Dryden (1631–1700) occupies a seminal place in English critical history. Samuel Johnson called him “the father of English criticism,” and affirmed of his Essay of Dramatic Poesy (1668) that “modern English prose begins here.” Dryden’s critical work was extensive, treating of various genres such as epic, tragedy, comedy and dramatic theory, satire, the relative virtues of ancient and modern writers, as well as the nature of poetry and translation. In addition to the Essay , he wrote numerous prefaces, reviews, and prologues, which together set the stage for later poetic and critical developments embodied in writers such as Pope , Johnson, Matthew Arnold , and T. S. Eliot .

Dryden was also a consummate poet, dramatist, and translator. His poetic output reflects his shifting religious and political allegiances. Born into a middle-class family just prior to the outbreak of the English Civil War between King Charles I and Parliament, he initially supported the latter, whose leaders, headed by Oliver Cromwell, were Puritans. Indeed, his poem Heroic Stanzas (1659) celebrated the achievements of Cromwell who, after the execution of Charles I by the victorious parliamentarians, ruled England as Lord Protector (1653–1658). However, with the restoration of the dead king’s son, Charles II , to the throne in 1660, Dryden switched sides, celebrating the new monarchy in his poem Astrea Redux ( Justice Restored ). Dryden was appointed poet-laureate in 1668 and thereafter produced several major poems, including the mock-heroic  Mac Flecknoe   (1682), and a political satire Absalom and Achitophel (1681). In addition, he produced two poems that mirror his move from Anglicanism to Catholicism: Religio Laici (1682) defends the Anglican Church while The Hind and the Panther , just five years later, opposes Anglicanism. Dryden’s renowned dramas include the comedy Marriage a la Mode (1671) and the tragedies Aureng-Zebe (1675) and All for Love, or the World Well Lost (1677). His translations include Fables, Ancient and Modern (1700), which includes renderings of Ovid, Boccaccio, and Chaucer.

Dryden’s Essay of Dramatic Poesy is written as a debate on drama conducted by four speakers, Eugenius , Crites , Lisideius , and Neander. These personae have conventionally been identified with four of Dryden’s contemporaries. Eugenius (meaning “well-born”) may be Charles Sackville , who was Lord Buckhurst, a patron of Dryden and a poet himself. Crites (Greek for “judge” or “critic”) perhaps represents Sir Robert Howard, Dryden’s brother-in-law. Lisideius refers to Sir Charles Sedley , and Neander (“new man”) is Dryden himself. The Essay , as Dryden himself was to point out in a later defense of it, was occasioned by a public dispute with Sir Robert Howard (Crites) over the use of rhyme in drama. In a note to the reader prefacing the Essay , he suggests that the chief purpose of his text is “to vindicate the honour of our English writers, from the censure of those who unjustly prefer the French” (27). Yet the scope of the  Essay extends far beyond these two topics, effectively ranging over a number of crucial debates concerning the nature and composition of drama.

The first of these debates is that between ancients and moderns, a debate that had intermittently surfaced for centuries in literature and criticism, and which acquired a new and topical intensity in European letters after the Renaissance, in the late seventeenth century. Traditionalists such as Jonathan Swift , in his controversial Battle of the Books (1704), bemoaned the modern “corruption” of religion and learning, and saw in the ancients the archetypal standards of literature. The moderns, inspired by various forms of progress through the Renaissance, sought to adapt or even abandon classical ideals in favor of the requirements of a changed world and a modern audience. Dryden’s Essay is an important intervention in this debate, perhaps marking a distinction between Renaissance and neoclassical values. Like Torquato Tasso and Pierre Corneille , he attempted to strike a compromise between the claims of ancient authority and the exigencies of the modern writer.

In Dryden’s text, this compromise subsumes a number of debates: one of these concerns the classical “unities” of time, place, and action; another focuses on the rigid classical distinction between various genres, such as tragedy and comedy; there was also the issue of classical decorum and propriety, as well as the use of rhyme in drama. All of these elements underlie the nature of drama. In addition, Dryden undertakes an influential assessment of the English dramatic tradition, comparing writers within this tradition itself as well as with their counterparts in French drama.

Dryden’s Essay is skillfully wrought in terms of its own dramatic structure, its setting up of certain expectations (the authority of classical precepts), its climaxing in the reversal of these, and its denouement in the comparative assessment of French and English drama. What starts out, through the voice of Crites, as promising to lull the reader into complacent subordination to classical values ends up by deploying those very values against the ancients themselves and by undermining or redefining those values.

Lisideius offers the following definition of a play: “ A just and lively image of human nature, representing its passions and humours, and the changes of fortune to which it is subject, for the delight and instruction of mankind ” (36). Even a casual glance at the definition shows it to be very different from Aristotle’s: the latter had defined tragedy not as the representation of “human nature” but as the imitation of a serious and complete action; moreover, while Aristotle had indeed cited a reversal in fortune as a component of tragedy, he had said nothing about “passions and humours”; and, while he accorded to literature in general a moral and intellectual function, he had said nothing about “delighting” the audience. The definition of drama used in Dryden’s Essay embodies a history of progressive divergence from classical models; indeed, it is a definition already weighted in favor of modern drama, and it is a little surprising that Crites agrees to abide by it at all. Crites, described in Dryden’s text as “a person of sharp judgment, and somewhat too delicate a taste in wit” (29), is, after all, the voice of classical conservatism.

Crites notes that poetry is now held in lower esteem, in an atmosphere of “few good poets, and so many severe judges” (37–38). His essential argument is that the ancients were “faithful imitators and wise observers of that Nature which is so torn and ill represented in our plays; they have handed down to us a perfect resemblance of her; which we, like ill copiers, neglecting to look on, have rendered monstrous, and disfigured.” He reminds his companions that all the rules for drama – concerning the plot, the ornaments, descriptions, and narrations – were formulated by Aristotle, Horace, or their predecessors. As for us modern writers, he remarks, “we have added nothing of our own, except we have the confidence to say our wit is better” (38).

The most fundamental of these classical rules are the three unities, of time, place, and action. Crites claims that the ancients observed these rules in most of their plays (38–39). The unity of action, Crites urges, stipulates that the “poet is to aim at one great and complete action,” to which all other things in the play “are to be subservient.” The reason behind this, he explains, is that if there were two major actions, this would destroy the unity of the play (41). Crites cites a further reason from Corneille: the unity of action “leaves the mind of the audience in a full repose”; but such a unity must be engineered by the subordinate actions which will “hold the audience in a delightful suspense of what will be” (41). Most modern plays, says Crites, fail to endure the test imposed by these unities, and we must therefore acknowledge the superiority of the ancient authors (43).

This, then, is the presentation of classical authority in Dryden’s text. It is Eugenius who first defends the moderns, saying that they have not restricted themselves to “dull imitation” of the ancients; they did not “draw after their lines, but those of Nature; and having the life before us, besides the experience of all they knew, it is no wonder if we hit some airs and features which they have missed” (44). This is an interesting and important argument which seems to have been subsequently overlooked by Alexander Pope , who in other respects followed Dryden’s prescriptions for following the rules of “nature.” In his Essay on Criticism , Pope had urged that to copy nature is to copy the ancient writers. Dryden, through the mouth of his persona Eugenius, completely topples this complacent equation: Eugenius effectively turns against Crites the latter’s own observation that the arts and sciences have made huge advances since the time of Aristotle. Not only do we have the collective experience and wisdom of the ancients to draw upon, but also we have our own experience of the world, a world understood far better in scientific terms than in ages past: “if natural causes be more known now than in the time of Aristotle . . . it follows that poesy and other arts may, with the same pains, arrive still nearer to perfection” (44).

Turning to the unities, Eugenius points out (after Corneille) that by the time of Horace, the division of a play into five acts was firmly established, but this distinction was unknown to the Greeks. Indeed, the Greeks did not even confine themselves to a regular number of acts (44–46). Again, their plots were usually based on “some tale derived from Thebes or Troy,” a plot “worn so threadbare . . . that before it came upon the stage, it was already known to all the audience.” Since the pleasure in novelty was thereby dissolved, asserts Eugenius, “one main end of Dramatic Poesy in its definition, which was to cause delight, was of consequence destroyed” (47). These are strong words, threatening to undermine a long tradition of reverence for the classics. But Eugenius has hardly finished: not only do the ancients fail to fulfill one of the essential obligations of drama, that of delighting; they also fall short in the other requirement, that of instructing. Eugenius berates the narrow characterization by Greek and Roman dramatists, as well as their imperfect linking of scenes. He cites instances of their own violation of the unities. Even more acerbic is his observation, following Corneille, that when the classical authors such as Euripides and Terence do observe the unities, they are forced into absurdities (48–49). As for the unity of place, he points out, this is nowhere to be found in Aristotle or Horace; it was made a precept of the stage in our own age by the French dramatists (48). Moreover, instead of “punishing vice and rewarding virtue,” the ancients “have often shown a prosperous wickedness, and an unhappy piety” (50).

Eugenius also berates the ancients for not dealing sufficiently with love, but rather with “lust, cruelty, revenge, ambition . . . which were more capable of raising horror than compassion in an audience” (54). Hence, in Dryden’s text, not only is Aristotle’s definition of tragedy violently displaced by a formulation that will accommodate modern poets, but also the ancient philosopher’s definition itself is made to appear starkly unrealistic and problematic for ancient dramatists, who persistently violated its essential features.

The next point of debate is the relative quality of French and English writers; it is Lisideius who extols the virtues of the French while Neander (Dryden himself) undertakes to defend his compatriots. Lisideius argues that the current French theatre surpasses all Europe, observing the unities of time, place, and action, and is not strewn with the cumbrous underplots that litter the English stage. Moreover, the French provide variety of emotion without sinking to the absurd genre of tragicomedy, which is a uniquely English invention (56–57). Lisideius also points out that the French are proficient at proportioning the time devoted to dialogue and action on the one hand, and narration on the other. There are certain actions, such as duels, battles, and deathscenes, that “can never be imitated to a just height”; they cannot be represented with decorum or with credibility and thus must be narrated rather than acted out on stage (62–63).

Neander’s response takes us by surprise. He does not at all refute the claims made by Lisideius. He concedes that “the French contrive their plots more regularly, and observe the laws of comedy, and decorum of the stage . . . with more exactness than the English” (67). Neander effectively argues that the very “faults” of the English are actually virtues, virtues that take English drama far beyond the pale of its classical heritage. What Neander or Dryden takes as a valid presupposition is that a play should present a “lively imitation of Nature” (68). The beauties of French drama, he points out, are “the beauties of a statue, but not of a man, because not animated with the soul of Poesy, which is imitation of humour and passions” (68).

Indeed, in justifying the genre of tragicomedy, Neander states that the contrast between mirth and compassion will throw the important scenes into sharper relief (69). He urges that it is “to the honour of our nation, that we have invented, increased, and perfected a more pleasant way of writing for the stage, than was ever known to the ancients or moderns of any nation, which is tragi-comedy” (70). This exaltation of tragicomedy effectively overturns nearly all of the ancient prescriptions concerning purity of genre, decorum, and unity of plot. Neander poignantly repeats Corneille’s observation that anyone with actual experience of the stage will see how constraining the classical rules are (76).

Neander now undertakes a brief assessment of the recent English dramatic tradition. Of all modern and perhaps ancient poets, he says, Shakespeare “had the largest and most comprehensive soul.” He was “naturally learn’d,” not through books but by the reading of nature and all her images: “he looked inwards, and found her there” (79–80). Again, the implication is that, in order to express nature, Shakespeare did not need to look outwards, toward the classics, but rather into his own humanity. Beaumont and Fletcher had both the precedent of Shakespeare’s wit and natural gifts which they improved by study; what they excelled at was expressing “the conversation of gentlemen,” and the representation of the passions, especially of love (80–81). Ben Jonson he regards as the “most learned and judicious writer which any theatre ever had,” and his peculiar gift was the representation of humors (81–82). Neander defines “humour” as “some extravagant habit, passion, or affection” which defines the individuality of a person (84–85). In an important statement he affirms that “Shakespeare was the Homer, or father of our dramatic poets; Johnson was the Vergil, the pattern of elaborate writing” (82). What Neander – or Dryden – effectively does here is to stake out an independent tradition for English drama, with new archetypes displacing those of the classical tradition.

The final debate concerns the use of rhyme in drama. Crites argues that “rhyme is unnatural in a play” (91). Following Aristotle, Crites insists that the most natural verse form for the stage is blank verse, since ordinary speech follows an iambic pattern (91). Neander’s reply is ambivalent (Dryden himself was later to change his mind on this issue): he does not deny that blank verse may be used; but he asserts that “in serious plays, where the subject and characters are great . . . rhyme is there as natural and more effectual than blank verse” (94). Moreover, in everyday life, people do not speak in blank verse, any more than they do in rhyme. He also observes that rhyme and accent are a modern substitute for the use of quantity as syllabic measure in classical verse (96–97).

Underlying Neander’s argument in favor of rhyme is an observation fundamental to the very nature of drama. He insists that, while all drama represents nature, a distinction should be made between comedy, “which is the imitation of common persons and ordinary speaking,” and tragedy, which “is indeed the representation of Nature, but ’tis Nature wrought up to an higher pitch. The plot, the characters, the wit, the passions, the descriptions, are all exalted above the level of common converse, as high as the imagination of the poet can carry them, with proportion to verisimility” (100–101). And while the use of verse and rhyme helps the poet control an otherwise “lawless imagination,” it is nonetheless a great help to his “luxuriant fancy” (107). This concluding argument, which suggests that the poet use “imagination” to transcend nature, underlines Neander’s (and Dryden’s) departure from classical convention. If Dryden is neoclassical, it is in the sense that he acknowledges the classics as having furnished archetypes for drama; but modern writers are at liberty to create their own archetypes and their own literary traditions. Again, he might be called classical in view of the unquestioned persistence of certain presuppositions that are shared by all four speakers in this text: that the unity of a play, however conceived, is a paramount requirement; that a play present, through its use of plot and characterization, events and actions which are probable and express truth or at least a resemblance to truth; that the laws of “nature” be followed, if not through imitation of the ancients, then through looking inward at our own profoundest constitution; and finally, that every aspect of a play be contrived with the projected response of the audience in mind. But given Dryden’s equal emphasis on the poet’s wit, invention, and imagination, his text might be viewed as expressing a status of transition between neoclassicism and Romanticism.

Dryden’s other essays and prefaces would seem to confirm the foregoing comments, and reveal important insights into his vision of the poet’s craft. In his 1666 preface to Annus Mirabilis , he states that the “composition of all poems is, or ought to be, of wit; and wit . . . is no other than the faculty of imagination in the writer” (14). He subsequently offers a more comprehensive definition: “the first happiness of the poet’s imagination is properly invention, or finding of the thought; the second is fancy, or the variation, deriving, or moulding, of that thought, as the judgment represents it proper to the subject; the third is elocution, or the art of clothing or adorning that thought, so found and varied, in apt, significant, and sounding words: the quickness of the imagination is seen in the invention, the fertility in the fancy, and the accuracy in the expression” (15). Again, the emphasis here is on wit, imagination, and invention rather than exclusively on the classical precept of imitation.

In fact, Dryden was later to write “Defence of An Essay on Dramatic Poesy ,” defending his earlier text against Sir Robert Howard ’s attack on Dryden’s advocacy of rhyme in drama. Here, Dryden’s defense of rhyme undergoes a shift of emphasis, revealing further his modification of classical prescriptions. He now argues that what most commends rhyme is the delight it produces: “for delight is the chief, if not the only, end of poesy: instruction can be admitted but in the second place, for poesy only instructs as it delights” (113). And Dryden states: “I confess my chief endeavours are to delight the age in which I live” (116). We have come a long way from Aristotle, and even from Sidney, who both regarded poetry as having primarily a moral or ethical purpose. To suggest that poetry’s chief or only aim is to delight is to take a large step toward the later modern notion of literary autonomy. Dryden goes on to suggest that while a poet’s task is to “imitate well,” he must also “affect the soul, and excite the passions” as well as cause “admiration” or wonder. To this end, “bare imitation will not serve.” Imitation must be “heightened with all the arts and ornaments of poesy” (113).

If, in such statements, Dryden appears to anticipate certain Romantic predispositions, these comments are counterbalanced by other positions which are deeply entrenched in a classical heritage. Later in the “Defence” he insists that “they cannot be good poets, who are not accustomed to argue well . . . for moral truth is the mistress of the poet as much as of the philosopher; Poesy must resemble natural truth, but it must be ethical. Indeed, the poet dresses truth, and adorns nature, but does not alter them” (121). Hence, notwithstanding the importance that he attaches to wit and imagination, Dryden still regards poetry as essentially a rational activity, with an ethical and epistemological responsibility. If the poet rises above nature and truth, this is merely by way of ornamentation; it does not displace or remold the truths of nature, but merely heightens them. Dryden states that imagination “is supposed to participate of Reason,” and that when imagination creates fictions, reason allows itself to be temporarily deceived but will never be persuaded “of those things which are most remote from probability . . . Fancy and Reason go hand in hand; the first cannot leave the last behind” (127–128). These formulations differ from subsequent Romantic views of the primacy of imagination over reason. Imagination can indeed outrun reason, but only within the limits of classical probability. Dryden’s entire poetic and critical enterprise might be summed up in his own words: he views all poetry, both ancient and modern, as based on “the imitation of Nature.” Where he differs from the classics is the means with which he undertakes this poetic project (123). Following intimations in Plato’s Timaeus and Aristotle’s Poetics , he suggests in his Parallel of Poetry and Painting  (1695) that what the poet (and painter) should imitate are not individual instances of nature but the archetypal ideas behind natural forms. While adhering to this classical position, he also suggests that, in imitating nature, modern writers should “vary the customs, according to the time and the country where the scene of the action lies; for this is still to imitate Nature, which is always the same, though in a different dress” ( Essays , II, 139). This stance effectively embodies both Dryden’s classicism and the nature of his departure from its strict boundaries.

Share this:

Categories: Literature

Tags: Absalom and Achitophel , Alexander Pope , All for Love , An Essay of Dramatic Poesy , An Essay on Criticism , Annus Mirabilis , Astræa Redux , Aureng-Zebe , Charles Sackville , Crites , Eugenius , Heroic Stanzas on the Death of Oliver Cromwell , John Dryden , Jonathan Swift , Lisideius , Literary Criticism , Literary Theory , Mac Flecknoe , Marriage a la Mode , Matthew Arnold , Neander , Parallel of Poetry and Painting , Pierre Corneille , Poetics , Poetry , Religio Laici , Sir Charles Sedley , Sir Robert Howard , The Battle of the Books , The Hind and the Panther , Timaeus , Torquato Tasso , TS Eliot

Related Articles

• Literary Criticism of Alexander Pope – Literary Theory and Criticism Notes
• Literary Criticism of Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux – Literary Theory and Criticism Notes
• Literary Criticism of Joseph Addison – Literary Theory and Criticism Notes
• Tragedy: An Introduction – Literary Theory and Criticism Notes

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Biographies

René Descartes: The Father of Modern Philosophy

(1822-1884)

Who Was Gregor Mendel?

Gregor Mendel, known as the "father of modern genetics," was born in Austria in 1822. A monk, Mendel discovered the basic principles of heredity through experiments in his monastery's garden. His experiments showed that the inheritance of certain traits in pea plants follows particular patterns, subsequently becoming the foundation of modern genetics and leading to the study of heredity.

Gregor Johann Mendel was born Johann Mendel on July 20, 1822, to Anton and Rosine Mendel, on his family’s farm, in what was then Heinzendorf, Austria. He spent his early youth in that rural setting, until age 11, when a local schoolmaster who was impressed with his aptitude for learning recommended that he be sent to secondary school in Troppau to continue his education. The move was a financial strain on his family, and often a difficult experience for Mendel, but he excelled in his studies, and in 1840, he graduated from the school with honors.

Following his graduation, Mendel enrolled in a two-year program at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olmütz. There, he again distinguished himself academically, particularly in the subjects of physics and math, and tutored in his spare time to make ends meet. Despite suffering from deep bouts of depression that, more than once, caused him to temporarily abandon his studies, Mendel graduated from the program in 1843.

That same year, against the wishes of his father, who expected him to take over the family farm, Mendel began studying to be a monk: He joined the Augustinian order at the St. Thomas Monastery in Brno, and was given the name Gregor. At that time, the monastery was a cultural center for the region, and Mendel was immediately exposed to the research and teaching of its members, and also gained access to the monastery’s extensive library and experimental facilities.

In 1849, when his work in the community in Brno exhausted him to the point of illness, Mendel was sent to fill a temporary teaching position in Znaim. However, he failed a teaching-certification exam the following year, and in 1851, he was sent to the University of Vienna, at the monastery’s expense, to continue his studies in the sciences. While there, Mendel studied mathematics and physics under Christian Doppler, after whom the Doppler effect of wave frequency is named; he studied botany under Franz Unger, who had begun using a microscope in his studies, and who was a proponent of a pre-Darwinian version of evolutionary theory.

In 1853, upon completing his studies at the University of Vienna, Mendel returned to the monastery in Brno and was given a teaching position at a secondary school, where he would stay for more than a decade. It was during this time that he began the experiments for which he is best known.

Experiments and Theories

Around 1854, Mendel began to research the transmission of hereditary traits in plant hybrids. At the time of Mendel’s studies, it was a generally accepted fact that the hereditary traits of the offspring of any species were merely the diluted blending of whatever traits were present in the “parents.” It was also commonly accepted that, over generations, a hybrid would revert to its original form, the implication of which suggested that a hybrid could not create new forms. However, the results of such studies were often skewed by the relatively short period of time during which the experiments were conducted, whereas Mendel’s research continued over as many as eight years (between 1856 and 1863), and involved tens of thousands of individual plants.

Mendel chose to use peas for his experiments due to their many distinct varieties, and because offspring could be quickly and easily produced. He cross-fertilized pea plants that had clearly opposite characteristics—tall with short, smooth with wrinkled, those containing green seeds with those containing yellow seeds, etc.—and, after analyzing his results, reached two of his most important conclusions: the Law of Segregation, which established that there are dominant and recessive traits passed on randomly from parents to offspring (and provided an alternative to blending inheritance, the dominant theory of the time), and the Law of Independent Assortment, which established that traits were passed on independently of other traits from parent to offspring. He also proposed that this heredity followed basic statistical laws. Though Mendel’s experiments had been conducted with pea plants, he put forth the theory that all living things had such traits.

In 1865, Mendel delivered two lectures on his findings to the Natural Science Society in Brno, who published the results of his studies in their journal the following year, under the title Experiments on Plant Hybrids . Mendel did little to promote his work, however, and the few references to his work from that time period indicated that much of it had been misunderstood. It was generally thought that Mendel had shown only what was already commonly known at the time—that hybrids eventually revert to their original form. The importance of variability and its evolutionary implications were largely overlooked. Furthermore, Mendel's findings were not viewed as being generally applicable, even by Mendel himself, who surmised that they only applied to certain species or types of traits. Of course, his system eventually proved to be of general application and is one of the foundational principles of biology.

Later Life, Death and Legacy

In 1868, Mendel was elected abbot of the school where he had been teaching for the previous 14 years, and both his resulting administrative duties and his gradually failing eyesight kept him from continuing any extensive scientific work. He traveled little during this time and was further isolated from his contemporaries as the result of his public opposition to an 1874 taxation law that increased the tax on the monasteries to cover Church expenses.

Gregor Mendel died on January 6, 1884, at the age of 61. He was laid to rest in the monastery’s burial plot and his funeral was well attended. His work, however, was still largely unknown.

It was not until decades later, when Mendel’s research informed the work of several noted geneticists, botanists and biologists conducting research on heredity, that its significance was more fully appreciated, and his studies began to be referred to as Mendel’s Laws. Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg each independently duplicated Mendel's experiments and results in 1900, finding out after the fact, allegedly, that both the data and the general theory had been published in 1866 by Mendel. Questions arose about the validity of the claims that the trio of botanists were not aware of Mendel's previous results, but they soon did credit Mendel with priority. Even then, however, his work was often marginalized by Darwinians, who claimed that his findings were irrelevant to a theory of evolution. As genetic theory continued to develop, the relevance of Mendel’s work fell in and out of favor, but his research and theories are considered fundamental to any understanding of the field, and he is thus considered the "father of modern genetics."

QUICK FACTS

• Name: Gregor Mendel
• Birth Year: 1822
• Birth date: July 20, 1822
• Birth City: Heinzendorf
• Birth Country: Austria
• Gender: Male
• Best Known For: Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk who discovered the basic principles of heredity through experiments in his garden. Mendel's observations became the foundation of modern genetics and the study of heredity, and he is widely considered a pioneer in the field of genetics.
• Science and Medicine
• Astrological Sign: Cancer
• University of Vienna
• University of Olmütz
• Nacionalities
• Death Year: 1884
• Death date: January 6, 1884
• Death City: Brno
• Death Country: Austria

CITATION INFORMATION

• Article Title: Gregor Mendel Biography
• Author: Biography.com Editors
• Website Name: The Biography.com website
• Url: https://www.biography.com/scientists/gregor-mendel
• Access Date:
• Publisher: A&E; Television Networks
• Last Updated: May 21, 2021
• Original Published Date: April 2, 2014
• My scientific studies have afforded me great gratification; and I am convinced that it will not be long before the whole world acknowledges the results of my work.

Famous Scientists

Jane Goodall

Marie Curie

Howard Carter, King Tut's Tomb, and a Deadly Curse

Benjamin Banneker

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Daniel Hale Williams

Patricia Bath

Mae Jemison

George Washington Carver

Albert Einstein’s Role in the Atomic Bomb

Jean Tatlock: The Woman Oppenheimer Loved

Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics Analytical Essay

Introduction, politics and ethics, reference list.

The contemporary political world owes a lot of its stature to defining and perception of Nicolo Machiavelli in his works, and The Prince gives a particularly vindictive view with respect to the societal norms and ethics. This view, therefore, evoked (and still does draw) criticisms, giving the author a distasteful appeal to the realists who are more inclined to morality and ethical practices in leadership and governance (Baron 1988, 78).

During his time, the society placed ethics and morality above everything, and politics were not an exception. For anything to be recognized and accepted as a means of achieving leadership and thus governance, it had to be in keeping to what was widely accepted as being morally upright and acceptable. Machiavelli’s approach was different in that it separated the two (Baron 1988, 35).

His separation of politics from ethics not only embodied his ideas to what is practiced today, but also set his approach on a path that, even though challenged by realists, gets sufficient support from philosophies widely experienced in the world. According to his views, power and the authority that comes with it is the ultimate drive behind politics.

This power centers around one person. The lengths that individuals have to go in their quest to achieve it or for those that already have it to retain it do not necessarily have to conform to set ethical statutes, unless such a move would result in achieving or retaining power (Hooker 2010, 13).

Contemporary politics are centered on power. In fact, it is viewed as ‘the tool’ to achieving it. Politicians go out of their way in their pursuit of power.

They are ready to do whatever it takes to wrest it from their opponents, irrespective of the murk they would have to endure, or the effects of whatever approach applied. This is a complete contrast to what was realistically viewed and accepted as the norm- power inheritance (Mansfield 1995, 67).

He eludes fortune to a lady that is the subject of attention to draw a line between what was and what should be- Ideally, the lady was courted and pleaded with before accepting a hand in marriage. For Machiavelli, the ideal prince went against morals –he got what he wanted forcefully (Hooker 2010, 35).

By this, he sought to express the principle behind politics being independent or indifferent to virtues and societal norms in pursuant of power. He goes ahead and recognizes popes Alexander VI and Julius II who retained power through warfare success, despite the society’s negative views about them.

The prince, therefore, is portrayed as a villain by ignoring the-seek- (and beg) until- you- find an approach to woo Lady Fortune and instead takes her by force as noted by Hooker (2010, 45). This makes him one of the greatest men to ever live.

Harsh as his ideas may have been, Machiavelli is without a doubt the father of modern politics, since his ideologies form the stem of politics as we know it today. The Prince represents the power seekers of the day, who go beyond societal norms, to claim it. As long as they achieve what they desire, the end justifies the means. According to Mansfield (1995, 12), he was a go-getter in all his undertakings and never shied away from his goals.

Baron, Houghton.1988. In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism . Oxford: Wiley.

Hooker, Richard. 2010. The Renaissance Reader: The Prince .Web.

Mansfield, Hitoler. 1995. Machiavelli and the Idea of Progress: History and the Idea of Progress. Cornell: Cornell University Press.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, October 11). Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavelli-father-of-modern-politics/

"Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics." IvyPanda , 11 Oct. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/machiavelli-father-of-modern-politics/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics'. 11 October.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics." October 11, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavelli-father-of-modern-politics/.

1. IvyPanda . "Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics." October 11, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavelli-father-of-modern-politics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Machiavelli: Father of Modern Politics." October 11, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/machiavelli-father-of-modern-politics/.

• House of Sand and Fog: Gender and Patriarchal Values
• How Did Women Change Their Stature in Society: Women’s Suffrage
• The Prince Niccolo Machiavelli
• The “Grand” Migration in Chinese History
• Offensive Jokes Based on Stereotypes
• Prowess and Fortune in Machiavelli's "The Prince"
• Mixed Monarchies in Machiavelli's "The Prince"
• Literature: Border Town by Shen Congwen and Love in a Fallen City by Eileen Chang
• Niccolo Machiavelli's Virtue and Fortuna
• Niccolo Machiavelli: Events Determination by Fortune
• William Bradford's personality
• Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution
• “Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times” by Morris Rossabi
• Socrates: His Life, Philosophy, & Death
• T. Roosevelt as a Rough Rider

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Albert Einstein: The Father of Modern Physics

• Updated on  
• Nov 30, 2023

Science is a vast field in which thousands of scientists contributed to exploring and discovering new theories. One of the most renowned and influential scientists is Albert Einstein . He was a German theoretical physicist popularly known as the “ Father of Modern Physics ”. Albert Einstein was born on 14 March 1879 and devoted his life to studying physics. He is famous for the theory of relativity which explains the effect of speed on mass, time, and space. He included the speed of light in the formula of the theory of relativity. Stay tuned and read this article to get a sample essay on Albert Einstein and learn more about his life and contributions to the field of physics!

Table of Contents

• 1 Short Essay on Albert Einstein in 100 Words
• 2 Essay on Albert Einstein in 150 Words
• 3 Essay on Albert Einstein in 300 Words

Also Read: Greatest Scientist of All Times

Short Essay on Albert Einstein in 100 Words

Albert Einstein is the greatest scientist in the world. His theories are still studied in all the academic institutions. He laid the foundation of Modern physics through his famous discoveries. Albert Einstein was born on 14 March 1879 in Ulm. His family ran a shop there and his father Herman Einstein wanted him to run a business but he was strongly inclined and fascinated by the science.

His family shifted from Munich to Milan in 1890, where Einstein received Technical High School Education. At school, he used to have fights with the authority because of the teaching pattern. He believed that due to strict rules and teaching patterns, students could not think creatively and their growth could have been improved. Due to this behavior, he left the academic institutions without the completion of his degree many times. 

Check out the latest updates on board examinations of various states

Also Read: Greatest Inventors & Inventions  

Essay on Albert Einstein in 150 Words

Albert Einstein was an intelligent person. At the age of 12 he started learning Calculus on his own and in no less than 2 years he mastered the concepts of Integral and Differential Calculus. Post completion of his degree in engineering, he got a job in the Swiss Patent Office in 1902. He worked there as a patent clerk and devoted most of his time to theoretical physics. Along with work he also finished his Postdoctoral degree and became a professor at the University of Zurich . 

In 1905, Albert Einstein published 4 papers that had a revolutionary impact on the history of physics, that are Brownian motion, special relativity, photoelectric effect, and equivalence of mass and energy. The famous theory of relativity is referred to as the E=mc 2 equation.

His theory of relativity was used in making the atomic bomb that was dropped on Japan. However, Albert Einstein was against violence and war. He proposed a new theory of relativity which neglects the relativity rules formulated by Isaac Newton.

According to the new Einstein theory of relativity, light and time are not constant. He proposed that time travel can be done if we follow the speed of light. Although, no spacecraft has been designed to date which can travel with the speed of light.

Also Read: How to Become a Physicist in India?

Essay on Albert Einstein in 300 Words

Albert Einstein, the famous and most influential scientist of the 19th century revolutionized the understanding of space, time, energy, and mass. His equation of relativity E=mc 2 equation has a great impact on the development of nuclear science .

He was born in Ulm and devoted his entire life to studying and exploring science. During his childhood, he faced some difficulty in understanding languages and it is believed that he suffered from dyslexia.  

He developed a strong inclination toward science after his father gifted him a compass whose magnetic needle pointed toward the North.

When he was in college, he used to oppose the way of teaching and was suspended from the institute many times. He believed that strict rules and regulations restrict the thinking ability of the students which kills creativity.

In 1905, he completed his PhD degree from the University of Zurich. Initially, he worked as a Patent clerk in Bern Switzerland, and later became a professor.

He made several discoveries and published 4 papers in the journal Annalen der Physik. His papers marked a revolution in Modern Physics. In 1921, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for photoelectric effect. 

His most famous work is the Theory of Relativity. This theory explains about the connection between space and time and how gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. It has applications in the fields of particle physics, cosmology, and astronomy.

In 1515, Albert Einstein proposed the General theory of relativity which is a complete version of the theory of relativity he made some modifications, and this theory has its proof through the results obtained from many experiments. 

Brownian motion is also one of the discoveries made by Albert Einstein which tells about the random motion of particles in the fluid. 

Albert Einstein was one of the four signatories who were against World War II. He was against Nazis and opposed Hitler in Germany. Due to this, he had to emigrate to the United States in 1933. 

He died on 18 April 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey, and worked till his last time. His discoveries have a great impact on the world today. The theories he proposed is still taught in academic institution and he is remembered as the greatest scientist of all time. 

Relevant Blogs

Ans: Albert Einstein, the famous physicist who gave the famous theory of relativity, and the photoelectric effect won the Nobel Prize in 1921 for Physics. He was awarded the prize, especially for the photoelectric effect. Einstein had inspired the entire world to think creatively and follow the lead to discover something new.

Ans: Albert Einstein was a German theoretical physicist who was born on 14 March 1879 in Ulm, Germany . He proposed the famous theory of relativity and the theory of photoelectric effect. Einstein started working as a patent clerk and initially after completing PhD became a Professor at the University of Zurich. In 1921, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics. 

Ans: 10 facts about Albert Einstein: -Albert Einstein was born in 1879 in Germany but lived in Italy, Switzerland and Czechia. Later he moved to the US due to World War II . -He built a strong inclination towards science after receiving a compass as a gift from his father. -In his childhood, he faced difficulty with understanding languages.  -Albert Einstein suffered from dyslexia but overcame it and made some of the famous discoveries in science.  -At the age of 16, he wrote his first scholarly paper that explained magnetism. -He published 4 papers in 1905. -Einstein won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921. -In 1933, he shifted to the US, in Princeton, New Jersey because of the World War II condition. -Hitler was against Einstein, and the Nazis seized power in Germany. -Albert Einstein worked till his last breath and died at the age of 76 on 18 April 1955.

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Kajal Thareja

Hi, I am Kajal, a pharmacy graduate, currently pursuing management and is an experienced content writer. I have 2-years of writing experience in Ed-tech (digital marketing) company. I am passionate towards writing blogs and am on the path of discovering true potential professionally in the field of content marketing. I am engaged in writing creative content for students which is simple yet creative and engaging and leaves an impact on the reader's mind.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Freud’s Theory of the Oedipus Complex by Sigmund Freud

This essay about the Oedipus complex offers a comprehensive overview of one of Freud’s most notable psychological theories. It outlines the theory’s basis in the psychosexual stages of development, specifically the phallic stage, and discusses how it proposes that children develop unconscious desires towards their opposite-sex parent. The essay also examines how resolving or failing to resolve these feelings supposedly influences one’s moral development and adult personality. Furthermore, it addresses the evolution of the theory, including criticisms regarding its empirical support and its reinforcement of gender stereotypes. The complex’s lesser emphasis in modern psychological teachings is noted, highlighting its shift from a developmental cornerstone to a subject of historical and cultural significance in understanding human behavior.

How it works

The Oedipus complex is one of those concepts that sounds more like something out of a Greek tragedy than a modern psychology textbook. Indeed, it gets its name from the infamous character Oedipus, who unwittingly killed his father and married his mother, fulfilling a dreadful prophecy. Introduced by Sigmund Freud in the early 20th century, this theory has seeped into both the lexicon and the lore of psychology, offering a dramatic narrative about human development. Freud suggested that during the phallic stage—typically around ages three to six years—children develop unconscious desires that are decidedly adult in nature, particularly sexual desires towards their opposite-sex parent and hostile feelings toward their same-sex parent.

According to Freud, successfully navigating this complex is crucial for healthy psychosexual development. The child, gripped by these forbidden desires and rivalries, eventually represses them and identifies with the same-sex parent, a process that lays the foundation for the development of the superego, or the moral component of the psyche. Freud argued that this resolution was essential for cultivating a mature adult identity.

However, Freud’s theory primarily focused on boys, with the Oedipus complex describing their experiences. For girls, Freud’s colleague Carl Jung suggested the term “Electra complex,” although Freud himself did not emphasize gender differences in his theory. This has led to some debate among psychoanalysts and has prompted a reevaluation of how these dynamics are understood in the context of modern gender studies.

Critics of Freud have been vocal and numerous, pointing out that his theory places excessive emphasis on sexual motivations in children and is supported by scant empirical evidence. Moreover, it’s argued that Freud’s theories, including the Oedipus complex, reflect a patriarchal view that may not hold up under the scrutiny of contemporary gender and sexuality studies. Feminist critics, in particular, have taken issue with the passive roles Freudian theory often assigns to women in both family dynamics and psychological development.

Yet, despite the controversy, the Oedipus complex remains a staple of psychoanalytic theory and a point of reference in discussions about human behavior, particularly in the realms of literature and film. It serves as a dramatic metaphor for exploring themes of desire, conflict, and identity. In these more creative domains, the Oedipus complex helps dissect characters’ motivations, conflicts, and resolutions, whether or not it holds up as a scientific truth.

In contemporary psychology, the Oedipus complex isn’t typically treated as a literal phenomenon. Rather, it’s seen through the lens of history, an artifact of psychoanalytic thought that reflects the nascent stages of the field. Today’s psychologists are more likely to focus on a wider range of factors influencing development, from genetic to social, recognizing the complex interplay that shapes human behavior over the simplistic causal relationships suggested by Freud.

This broader perspective doesn’t nullify Freud’s contributions but situates them within a larger, more nuanced context. It reminds us that while the Oedipus complex offers a compelling narrative about human development, real life—and real psychology—is rarely so cut and dried. Psychological development is influenced by a myriad of factors, and while the drama of Oedipus can provide insight into the conflicts inherent in growing up, it’s just one piece of the puzzle.

Understanding the Oedipus complex today means recognizing its role in the evolution of psychological thought. It’s a testament to how ideas in psychology can stir debates and prompt deeper inquiries into the nature of human development. As we continue to explore and challenge the foundations of psychological theory, concepts like the Oedipus complex serve as milestones marking our progress in understanding the complex tapestry of human behavior.

In conclusion, while the Oedipus complex might not dominate psychological discussions as it once did, its impact on both psychology and culture is undeniable. It serves as a reminder of our perpetual journey toward understanding the human mind—a journey that is as fraught with complexity and controversy as the Greek tragedies from which this theory draws its name. As we move forward, it is with a view that every theory, every idea brings us closer to unraveling the mysteries of the psyche, enriching our approach to mental health and human behavior.

Cite this page

Freud's Theory Of The Oedipus Complex By Sigmund Freud. (2024, May 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/freuds-theory-of-the-oedipus-complex-by-sigmund-freud/

"Freud's Theory Of The Oedipus Complex By Sigmund Freud." PapersOwl.com , 1 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/freuds-theory-of-the-oedipus-complex-by-sigmund-freud/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Freud's Theory Of The Oedipus Complex By Sigmund Freud . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/freuds-theory-of-the-oedipus-complex-by-sigmund-freud/ [Accessed: 5 May. 2024]

"Freud's Theory Of The Oedipus Complex By Sigmund Freud." PapersOwl.com, May 01, 2024. Accessed May 5, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/freuds-theory-of-the-oedipus-complex-by-sigmund-freud/

"Freud's Theory Of The Oedipus Complex By Sigmund Freud," PapersOwl.com , 01-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/freuds-theory-of-the-oedipus-complex-by-sigmund-freud/. [Accessed: 5-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Freud's Theory Of The Oedipus Complex By Sigmund Freud . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/freuds-theory-of-the-oedipus-complex-by-sigmund-freud/ [Accessed: 5-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers