Need Argumentative essay of minimum of 2000 words over sources below. Essay needs to be aim at the political and relgious undertones in the work. This does not have to be some doctorate level paper just a basic paper but has to be orginal. You can use material from the sources as quotes etc but be sure to cite. I just need the body and I will dress it up. MLA format
Reisman, Rosemary M. Canfield, “Magill’s Survey of World Literature.” (Book, 2009) [WorldCat.org]. Salem Press, Jan. 2009. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. <http://www.worldcat.org/title/magills-survey-of-world-literature/oclc/244068734>.
With Tartuffe, MoliÃ¨re moved further away from the simple structure derived from French farce. In this play, there is again a middle-aged man, Orgon, who can be tricked because of his obsession. Yet, although the trickster, Tartuffe, is a person outside the power structure, in this case he is a vicious hypocrite who must be stripped of his power over Orgon if poetic justice is to prevail. Therefore, there is another pair of tricksters â€” Orgonâ€™s wife Elmire and his servant Dorine â€” who must set things right and aid the usual young lovers.
The structure of this play is also unusual in that the title character does not appear until the third act. In the first two acts, the characters voice their opinions of Tartuffe, this mysterious, seemingly pious man whom Orgon, the head of a prosperous Parisian household, has taken into his home as an honored guest. Except for Madame Pernelle, Orgonâ€™s mother, the family members are unanimous in voicing their dislike of the man. Orgonâ€™s young wife, Elmire, her stepson Damis, her stepdaughter Mariane, and her brother ClÃ©ante, the raisonneur, as well as the impertinent servant Dorine, all see Tartuffe for the hypocrite that he is.
After this preparation has been made, Orgon enters, and MoliÃ¨re begins to substantiate the fact that he is indeed besotted by this stranger. In a hilarious dialogue, Dorine attempts to report on the family, only to be answered over and over again by Orgonâ€™s anxious inquiry, â€œAnd Tartuffe?â€ followed by a heartfelt â€œpoor fellow.â€ Since Tartuffeâ€™s activities involve gluttonous eating and a good deal of sleeping, Orgonâ€™s concern about the man is ridiculous. The fact that Orgonâ€™s infatuation could have serious results is soon made clear, when he reveals his plan to make Tartuffe a member of the family by giving him his daughter in marriage. It is at this point that Elmire and Dorine begin to formulate plans to deceive the deceiver by attacking his own weaknesses.
Tartuffeâ€™s susceptibility to lust is revealed as soon as he makes his long-awaited entrance in the third act, when he begs Dorine to cover her bosom, so as not to tempt him to sin. Elmireâ€™s plan seems foolproof: She will lead him to make his designs upon her explicit and then threaten to tell Orgon unless Tartuffe relinquishes his claims on Mariane. The plan fails, however, and Tartuffe plays upon Orgonâ€™s emotions so skillfully that he manages to get Damis disinherited and himself made Orgonâ€™s heir. Now both of Orgonâ€™s children are powerless, and, of course, the raisonneur is still being ignored. Somehow, Elmire and Dorine must expose Tartuffeâ€™s perfidy so that even Orgon cannot deny it. They do have an ally, Tartuffeâ€™s own weakness.
Actors, directors, and critics agree that the nature of that weakness is the central issue of Tartuffe. There is no doubt that Tartuffe is bent on having his way with Elmire. Yet even in the scenes where he attempts to seduce her, he can be seen as dominated by the desire for power. Whether his later arrogance is the result of his humiliation by Elmire or merely his true nature, Tartuffe viciously seeks to deprive his former patron of his property, his freedom, perhaps even of his life, and he is stopped only by the intervention of the godlike King, who MoliÃ¨re says cannot be deceived.
This graceful compliment was not only politic but also probably expressed Mohereâ€™s gratitude to Louis XIV, who had supported the playwright through his various attempts to stage this play. For some time, MoliÃ¨re had been suspect in the eyes of an influential group at court, which considered itself the guardian of public morals. This group managed to have two versions of Tartuffe suppressed, first in 1664, then in 1667. Only after Louis XIV obtained the opinion of a theologian who was too prominent to be refuted was the final version of Tartuffe presented. Within its first year, it was performed fifty-five times. It has continued to be one of MoliÃ¨reâ€™s most popular plays, and it is considered one of his greatest masterpieces.
Essay by: Rosemary M. Canfield Reisman
Sobczak, A. J., Janet Alice. Long, and Frank N. Magill. “Tartuffe.” Cyclopedia of Literary Characters. Pasadena, CA: Salem, 1998. 1-2. Print.
Tartuffe Tartuffe (tahr-TEWF), a religious hypocrite and impostor who uses religious cant and practices to impose on the credulity of a wealthy man who befriends him. To acquire money and cover deceit, he talks of his hair shirt and scourge, prayers, and distributing alms. He also disapproves of immodest dress. Before his first appearance, he is reported by some to be a good man of highest worth and by others to be a glutton, a winebibber, and a hypocrite. Deciding that he wants his patronâ€™s daughter as his wife, he uses his seeming piety to convince his host to break his daughterâ€™s marriage plans. He then endeavors to seduce his hostâ€™s wife by holding her hand, patting her knee, fingering her lace collar, and making declarations of love to her. When his conduct is reported to the husband by his wife and their son, the foolish man forgives Tartuffe and gives the hypocrite all his property. Another attempted seduction fails when the husband, hidden, overhears all that happens and orders Tartuffe out of the house. Tartuffe, boasting that the entire property is now his, has an eviction order served on his former patron. When a police officer arrives to carry out the eviction order, the tables are turned. Tartuffe is arrested at the order of the king, who declares him to be a notorious rogue.
Orgon Orgon (ohr-GOH[N]), a credulous, wealthy man taken in by Tartuffe, whom he befriends, invites into his home, and proposes as a husband for his daughter, who already is promised to another. Defending Tartuffe against the accusations of his family and servants, he refuses to believe charges that the scoundrel has attempted to seduce his wife. He then disowns his children and signs over all his property to Tartuffe. Only later, when he hides under the table, at the urging of his wife, and overhears Tartuffeâ€™s second attempt at seduction, is he convinced that he is harboring a hypocrite and scheming rascal. Orgon is saved from arrest and eviction when Tartuffe is taken away by police officers.
Elmire Elmire (ehl-MEER), Orgonâ€™s wife. Aware of the wickedness of Tartuffe, she is unable to reveal the hypocriteâ€™s true nature to her husband. When she finds herself the object of Tartuffeâ€™s wooing, she urges the son not to make the story public, for she believes a discreet and cold denial to be more effective than violent cries of deceit. Finally, by a planned deception of Tartuffe, she convinces her husband of that scoundrelâ€™s wickedness.
Dorine Dorine (doh-REEN), a maid, a shrewd, outspoken, and witty girl who takes an active part in exposing Tartuffe and assisting the lovers in their plot against him. Much of the humor of the play results from her impertinence. She objects straightforwardly to the forced marriage of Tartuffe to Mariane, and she prevents a misunderstanding between the true lovers.
Mariane Mariane (mah-ree-AHN), Orgonâ€™s daughter, regarded as a prude by her grandmother. Because she is in love with ValÃ¨re, she is unhappy over the marriage to Tartuffe proposed by her father. Because of her timidity, her only action at the time is to fall at Orgonâ€™s feet and implore him to change his mind.
Damis Damis (dah-MEE), Orgonâ€™s son, regarded as a fool by his grandmother. His temper and indiscretion lead him to upset carefully laid plans, as when he suddenly comes out of the closet in which he has listened to Tartuffeâ€™s wooing of Elmire and reports the story naÃ¯vely to his father. He is outwitted by Tartuffeâ€™s calm admission of the charge and his fatherâ€™s belief in Tartuffeâ€™s innocence, despite the confession.
ValÃ¨re ValÃ¨re (vah-LEHR), Marianeâ€™s betrothed. He quarrels with her, after hearing that Orgon intends to marry the young woman to Tartuffe, because she seems not to object to the proposal with sufficient force. In a comedy scene, the maid, running alternately between the lovers, reconciles the pair, and ValÃ¨re determines that they will be married. He loyally offers to help Orgon flee after the eviction order is served on him by the court.
Madame Pernelle Madame Pernelle (pehr-NEHL), Orgonâ€™s mother, an outspoken old woman. Like her son, she believes in the honesty and piety of Tartuffe, and she hopes that his attitude and teachings may reclaim her grandchildren and brother-in-law from their social frivolity. She defends Tartuffe even after Orgon turns against him. She admits her mistake only after the eviction order is delivered.
ClÃ©ante ClÃ©ante (klay-AH[N]T), Orgonâ€™s brother-in-law. He talks in pompous maxims and makes long, tiresome speeches of advice to Orgon and Tartuffe. Both disregard him.
M. Loyal M. Loyal (lwah-YAHL), a tipstaff of the court. He serves the eviction order on Orgon.
A police officer A police officer, brought in by Tartuffe to arrest Orgon. Instead, he arrests Tartuffe by order of the king.
Filipote Filipote (fee-lee-POHT), Madame Pernelleâ€™s servant
Hadda, Kenneth E. “Tartuffe.” Masterplots. Pasadena, CA: Salem, 2011. 1-3. Print.
Orgonâ€™s home is a happy one. Orgon is married to Elmire, a woman much younger than he, who adores him. His two children by a former marriage are fond of their stepmother, and she of them. Mariane, the daughter, is engaged to be married to ValÃ¨re, a very eligible young man, and Damis, the son, is in love with ValÃ¨reâ€™s sister.
Then Tartuffe comes to live in the household. Tartuffe is a penniless scoundrel whom the trusting Orgon found praying in church. Taken in by his words and his pretended religious fervor, Orgon has invited the hypocrite into his home. As a consequence, the family is soon thrown into chaos. Once established, Tartuffe proceeds to change their normal, happy mode of life to a very strict one. He sets up a rigid Puritan regimen for the family and persuades Orgon to force his daughter to break her engagement to ValÃ¨re in order to marry Tartuffe. He says that she needs a pious man to lead her in a righteous life.
ValÃ¨re is determined that Mariane will marry no one but himself, but unfortunately Mariane is too spineless to resist Tartuffe and her father. Confronted by her fatherâ€™s orders, she remains silent or remonstrates only weakly. As a result, Tartuffe is cordially hated by almost every member of the family, including Dorine, the saucy, outspoken servant, who does everything in her power to break the hold the hypocrite has secured over her master. Dorine hates not only Tartuffe but also his valet, Laurent, for the servant imitates the master in everything. In fact, the only person other than Orgon who likes and approves of Tartuffe is Orgonâ€™s mother, Madame Pernelle, who is the type of Puritan who wishes to withhold from others pleasures in which she herself would not indulge.
Madame Pernelle highly disapproves of Elmire, maintaining that in her love for clothes and amusements Orgonâ€™s wife is setting her family a bad example that Tartuffe is trying to correct. Actually, Elmire is merely full of the joy of living, a fact that her mother-in-law is unable to perceive. Orgon himself is little better. When he is informed that Elmire has fallen ill, his sole concern is for the health of Tartuffe. Tartuffe, however, is in fine health, stout and ruddy-cheeked. For his evening meal, he consumes two partridges, half a leg of mutton, and four flasks of wine. He then retires to his warm and comfortable bed and sleeps soundly until morning.
Tartuffeâ€™s romantic designs are not really on the daughter, Mariane, but on Elmire herself. One day, after Orgonâ€™s wife has recovered from her illness, Tartuffe appears before her. He compliments Elmire on her beauty and even goes so far as to lay his hand on her knee. Damis, Orgonâ€™s son, observes all that goes on between them from the cabinet where he is hidden. Furious, he reveals to his father what he has seen, but Orgon refuses to believe him. The wily Tartuffe has so completely captivated Orgon that Orgon orders his son to apologize to Tartuffe. When Damis refuses, Orgon, violently angry, drives the young man from the house and disowns him. To show his confidence in Tartuffeâ€™s honesty and piety, Orgon signs a deed of trust turning his estate over to Tartuffeâ€™s management and announces his daughterâ€™s betrothal to Tartuffe.
Elmire, embittered by the behavior of this impostor in her house, resolves to unmask him. She persuades Orgon to hide under a cloth-covered table to see and hear for himself the real Tartuffe. Then she entices Tartuffe, disarming him with the assurance that her foolish husband will suspect nothing. Emboldened, Tartuffe pours out his heart to her, leaving no doubt as to his intention of making her his mistress. Disillusioned and outraged when Tartuffe asserts that Orgon is a complete dupe, the husband emerges from his hiding place, denounces the hypocrite, and orders him from the house. Tartuffe defies him, reminding Orgon that according to the deed of trust, the house now belongs to Tartuffe.
Another matter makes Orgon even more uneasy than the possible loss of his property. He had been in possession of a box that was given to him by a friend, Argas, a political criminal now in exile. It contains important state secrets, the revelation of which would mean a charge of treason against Orgon and certain death for his friend. Orgon has foolishly entrusted the box to Tartuffe, and he fears the use the villain might make of its contents. Orgon informs his brother-in-law, ClÃ©ante, that he will have nothing further to do with pious men and that, in the future, he will shun them like the plague. ClÃ©ante, however, points out that such an extreme reaction is the sign of an unbalanced mind. He says that it is not fair to cast aspersions on religion itself simply because a treacherous vagabond is masquerading as a religious man.
The next day, Tartuffe follows through on his threat, using his legal right to Orgonâ€™s property to force Orgon and his family from their house. Madame Pernelle cannot believe Tartuffe guilty of such villainy, and she reminds her son that, in this world, virtue is often misjudged and persecuted. When the sheriffâ€™s officer arrives with the notice of eviction, however, even she finally believes that Tartuffe is a villain.
The crowning indignity comes when Tartuffe takes to the king the box containing the state secrets and orders are issued for Orgonâ€™s immediate arrest. Fortunately, before the king has a chance to examine the contents of the box, he recognizes Tartuffe as an impostor who has committed crimes in another city. Therefore, because of Orgonâ€™s loyal service in the army, the king annuls the deed that Orgon made turning his property over to Tartuffe and returns the box to Orgon unopened.
MoliÃ¨re wrote Tartuffe not to condemn organized religion or religious people but rather to condemn hypocrisy and to instruct audiences, through the use of humor, on the importance of moderation, common sense, and clear thinking in all areas of life. Although the play was originally condemned as an outright attack on religion and devout people, a proper reading suggests just the opposite. Religion is not the problem; rather, the misuse of religion for personal gain at the expense of innocent, unsuspecting people is MoliÃ¨reâ€™s concern. Works such as Tartuffe in fact help to protect and promote religion by exposing impostors for who they really are and demonstrating the real danger they pose to society when they go unchallenged.
The playâ€™s major emphasis is on the silly yet serious results of failing to act with common sense. The reactions of the various characters of the play to the hypocrite, Tartuffe, serve to remind the audience of the importance of clear thinking in a world where some people will take advantage of simple thinking and blind trust. The play reinforces the golden virtue of â€œmoderation in all things.â€ Excess, even in service of the most sacred faith, leads to ridiculous conclusions and potentially catastrophic actions.
The comic way in which the story unfolds, from seemingly harmless simple belief about religious doctrine to eventual trust in the absurd notion that Tartuffe should be in control of the familyâ€™s finances and estate, is a warning to all people to avoid letting others take advantage of them through their own lack of careful observation and scrutiny of human behavior. Orgon is unable to see the absurdity of the restrictions that Tartuffe places on his family. Ordinarily a reasonable and capable man, Orgon becomes so enamored of Tartuffeâ€™s manner and so dazzled by his rhetoric that he jeopardizes family, wealth, societal position, and eventually his own faith in the value of religion for the sake of appeasing the manipulative hypocrite. MoliÃ¨re clearly understood the dangers of false piety.
The play sets forth the theme of the importance of a well-ordered soul living in a well-ordered society under the virtue of reason. The comical yet serious unraveling of Orgonâ€™s professional and personal life at the hands of Tartuffe is the vehicle for the authorâ€™s implicit appeal for reason and order in personal interactions and societal institutions. As MoliÃ¨re shows, when individuals such as Orgon ignore common sense and become infatuated with charismatic figures, the results can be tragic. Orgonâ€™s relationship with Tartuffe leads directly to the breakdown of his relationship with his son, the growth of mistrust between Orgon and his wife, personal embarrassment, and financial problems. These troubles have adverse effects on everyone in Orgonâ€™s life and, by extension, on society as a whole. The dishonest intentions of one man wreak havoc on many lives. Through the comic manner in which he tells the story, the playwright reinforces the idea that Orgonâ€™s difficulties could have been avoided. Tartuffe and his kind have power only when ordinary citizens willfully give up their ability to think for themselves.
In the end, the audience sees Orgon as remorseful for foolishly placing his trust in Tartuffe; he is also angry. In his anger, he inappropriately asserts that religion has been the cause of all the calamity that he and his family have undergone. ClÃ©ante, however, reminds Orgon that the real problem is not religion but the misuse of religion by impostors. Through ClÃ©anteâ€™s final speech, MoliÃ¨re reinforces the validity of appropriate religious expression by the truly devout.
Essay by: â€œCritical Evaluationâ€ by Kenneth E. Hada
Mazzara, Richard A. “Moliere.” Critical Survey of Drama. 2nd ed. Pasadena (Calif.): Salem, 2003. 1-9. Print.
MoliÃ¨re possessed a brilliant imagination, constantly creating new characters and easily moving from one type of comedy to another. His imagination was, however, carefully controlled through reason, by which he avoided excess. Reality is the point of departure for his wildest creations, and his comedies owe their depth to his keen observation of humanity. When MoliÃ¨re began writing for the theater there was little comedy, except for Pierre Corneilleâ€™s first works, and what there was leaned heavily toward the extravagant. MoliÃ¨re soon realized that, more than any other genre, comedy required a basis in truth. Consequently, he was not particularly concerned with original subjects or careful plots, but rather with the portrayal of manners and the study of character.
Therefore, MoliÃ¨re made free use of any subject or plot that came his way, borrowing in whole or in part from earlier French works of any genre, or from Latin, Italian, and Spanish sources. Although he was capable of devising clever plots, he believed that simple ones were better if the audience was to concentrate on the substance of the play. As for denouements, any or none would do, once he had said what he intended.
MoliÃ¨re was thoroughly familiar with the milieus of his day and represented them all faithfully as settings for his characters and their foibles. What interested MoliÃ¨re more than sociological truth, however, was universal truth. His precious ladies, pedants, and nouveaux riches could be of any era. More important than a wealth of exterior detail was this portrayal of universal types. These were to replace the conventional figures â€” boastful captains, scheming parasites, sweet ingenues, young lovers, and the like â€” of traditional comedy. Despite their universality, however, MoliÃ¨reâ€™s characters were not created according to simple formulas. On the contrary, they are complex to an extreme, each possessing the general traits of the type observed and abstracted by MoliÃ¨re from reality, yet endowed with enough of the particulars to make each a real human being. There is no one stock servant in MoliÃ¨reâ€™s work, but a series of individualized servants. His Miser is a lover as well. The Hypocrite is also a lecher. MoliÃ¨reâ€™s dramatic universe is a very real one.
MoliÃ¨re made special use of those of his observations that could make the spectator laugh at humanity. Although the comedy almost always contains a serious meaning, its forms are extremely varied, and its tones range from the most farcical to the most subtle, all arranged with the utmost skill during the course of a single play. Thus, the spectator may remain unaware of how disagreeable a subject is until, the performance over, he reflects on it further. Especially telling is MoliÃ¨reâ€™s device of making certain characters repeat words and gestures that reveal the vice or passion that controls each. By this technique, the characters are reduced almost to the status of machines and thus inspire, not sympathy or pity, but ridicule.
MoliÃ¨re believed that human nature was basically good and sensible, and he opposed any artificial constraints placed on it. Such constraints came not from society, which is a collection of human natures whose discipline reasonable people accept; rather, they had their source in perverse individuals who conformed neither to human nature nor to society. MoliÃ¨re has been criticized for excessive optimism and conformism, but however conservative his solutions to the problems that he posed, there can be no doubt that he was forthright and courageous in posing them.
Very little is known of the personal life of MoliÃ¨re, born Jean-Baptiste Poquelin. He left no diary, no memoirs, no correspondence, no autobiography. The first biography, J.-L. Le Gallois Grimarestâ€™s Vie de Monsieur de MoliÃ¨re (1705), is interesting, but it was not published until thirty-two years after MoliÃ¨reâ€™s death, and is therefore considered questionable by most modern scholars. Anything written by his contemporaries was polemical in nature.
MoliÃ¨re was baptized January 15, 1622, on the rue Saint-HonorÃ©. He was of a good bourgeois family that had recently come to Paris from Beauvais. His father was a merchant and â€œupholsterer by appointment of the King,â€ having received the title from his brother. MoliÃ¨reâ€™s mother died in 1632, and his father soon remarried, only to become a widower again in 1636.
Between 1632 and 1639, MoliÃ¨re attended the CollÃ¨ge de Clermont, studied law in OrlÃ©ans, and became a lawyer. In addition, in 1637, his father arranged for his son to succeed him in his official charge. MoliÃ¨re was not much interested in the law, however, and his practice was not brisk, nor was he inclined to follow in his fatherâ€™s footsteps.
It is said that MoliÃ¨reâ€™s grandfather often took him to the HÃ´tel de Bourgogne to see French tragedy and Italian comedy. Around 1640, MoliÃ¨re probably met Tiberio Fiurelli, known as Scaramouche in the Italian theater, and became closely associated with the BÃ©jart family. Its members were involved in the arts, particularly theater, and were somewhat eccentric, but they lived in the fashionable Marais section of Paris and had some good connections. Their oldest daughter, Madeleine, known as an actress, was the sometime mistress of the Baron de ModÃ¨ne and mother of a child recognized by him. At a time when â€œactorâ€ and â€œoutlawâ€ were considered synonymous by many, MoliÃ¨re chose the life of the theater. He was giving up the security and respectability offered him, not only by the right to succeed his father, but also by the legal profession. At first, he chose not to write for the theater, instead pursuing a career as an actor.
The Illustre ThÃ©Ã¢tre was founded in 1643 by the BÃ©jarts and other actors, including MoliÃ¨re, not for profit at first but simply for their entertainment and that of the bourgeoisie of Paris. The troupe was under the protection of Gaston, the duke of OrlÃ©ans, brother of Louis XIII, who did not always remember to pay his actors. They rented and appointed a former tennis court as a theater, opened their doors in 1644, and were soon in serious financial difficulty. Marie HervÃ©, mother of the BÃ©jart girls, helped her children and MoliÃ¨re, who had by then taken this name and was head of the troupe. Despite all measures, matters grew worse. In 1645, MoliÃ¨re was sued by numerous creditors and experienced a brief sojourn in debtorsâ€™ prison. He had made many friends among Parisian men of letters and their noble patrons, however, and formulated his philosophy of the theater. He had not wasted his time.
On his release from prison, MoliÃ¨re decided to leave Paris to try his luck in another troupe. Madeleine soon joined him. At the behest of a number of dramatic authors, the duke of Ã‰pernon received MoliÃ¨re, Madeleine, and her brother and sister into his troupe. They toured the provinces under the direction of Charles Dufresne until 1650, when the duke withdrew his support and Dufresne left the troupe. MoliÃ¨re assumed leadership during this awkward time, but in 1652 the troupe found a new patron in the prince of Conti. Again, the intercession of men of letters in Paris had been instrumental. The prince was an enlightened man who enjoyed such company, and he came to prize MoliÃ¨reâ€™s intelligence and culture highly. Unfortunately, the princeâ€™s spiritual advisers persuaded him to lead a more austere life, and in 1657 he withdrew his patronage.
By this time, the troupe was doing well artistically and financially. It contained a number of artists who were or would become celebrated. A fine actor, MoliÃ¨re was an equally fine director. He was a hard taskmaster but earned his actorsâ€™ respect and affection, and the turnover in his troupe was always remarkably low.
The players decided that, after a lengthy sojourn in Rouen, they would spend the winter of 1658 in Paris, which they had revisited sporadically, maintaining numerous contacts. In Paris, they rented the Marais Theatre for eighteen months and were granted the protection of Philippe, duke of OrlÃ©ans, who paid them no more faithfully than had Gaston. On October 24, 1658, they played Corneilleâ€™s NicomÃ¨de (pr., pb. 1651; English translation, 1671) and then MoliÃ¨reâ€™s The Love-Tiff before Louis XIV. The king was so pleased with MoliÃ¨reâ€™s work that he accorded the troupe the use of the Petit