Discuss view of human nature communicate by moliere tartuffe

1. Discussion board: Watch Tartuffe Acts I, II and III (200 words)

Reading 1: Tartuffe, or the Imposter

Attached Files:

• Tartuffe Script.pdf (12.901 MB)- https://learn.dcollege.net/bbcswebdav/pid-4675207-dt-content-rid-22539053_1/xid-22539053_1

Richard Wilber’s verse translation is superb. Find a pdf version attached.
Magnify the text on your screen to make the reading easier.

Reading 2:Theater History Newsletter: Molière‎

This page has background on the play, the playwright, the era, etc. Good context for the play to those new to Molière‎.



Discussion Question:

Discuss the view of human nature communicated by Moliere’s Tartuffe. What ideas about human nature does Moliere ridicule, and which ones does he advocate? Support your conclusions with details from the play.

2. Weekly wiki (150 words).

Students will choose a short excerpt / quote from one of the readings of that week, type it in, then add a short (150 words or so) explanation for your choice. Was your selection important because it:

• is an example of beautiful or striking language?
• exemplifies a particular theme or character?
• makes the reader think about something in a new way?
• is typically “American” in some way (and in what way)?
• was just something that you liked?

Try not to use the same quote that someone else already has; if you must, make sure that what you say about it is original.

For example:

“My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.” Thomas Paine.

I chose this quote because I think it is a good example of Enlightenment thought which was very popular during the late 1700’s. Paine is rejecting formal ties to any specific country or any particular religion (humanist world view). He is focused on the here and now, not an afterlife, and this concern is evident in his writing about social and political systems that influenced the thinkers behind the American Revolution. The language is simple and straightforward.

3. Write responses for another student’s work. (75 words Each)

First (From 325 6A):

While reading Mme de Sevigne’s letter its easy to feel the informality that comes with a letter. The writing reads like a conversation. An exchange of news and gossip. I really enjoyed Mme de Sevigne’s build up of tension in the letter when she lists the red-herring like guesses of the new bride to be. That kind of excitement of being the first one to hear of some juicy news/gossip and letting it all out to the first ears you can find.

Within the second letter we read of Mme de Sevigne’s memories of her daughter. She misses her and writes of her dearly in her absence. The letter acts as a way to cope with the “two-hundred leagues’ of space between them. Mme de Sevigne asks her child not to see this writing as weakness but as a vehicle to convey her respect and tears for her child.

The overlap between Montaigne and Sevigne is quite thin. Both seem to show great respect for their personal relationships, but their writings couldn’t be more different. Sevigne writes personally, informally, and for the eyes of just one reader. Montaige speaks of philosophy and asks difficult questions to spark debate among an audience.

Second (From 325 6b):

I found a good example of Flaubert’s realism in the first letter of his that I read. In his letter to Sand he says “I do not know what to say to you unless it be that _I_ QUITE FRANKLY LIKE YOU.” I find this to be a very realistic sentence that someone might say to the person they admire, if they don’t want to be hyperbolic. Most authors of Flaubert’s time would have used allegory to express their love for someone but not Flaubert, he comes right out and says what’s on his mind.

As for Sand’s romanticism in her writing, here is an example which I think is quite beautiful and also realistic at the same time: “You were so good and so sympathetic to me at the first performance of Villemer that I no longer admire only your admirable talent, I love you with all my heart. ” Sand also is straightforward in her admiration for Flaubert just as Flaubert was in his admiration for Sand. Sand is perhaps a bit more straightforward in the fact that, she actually says she loves Flaubert not just that she likes him. Sand also compliments Flaubert and then goes on to say that she loves him with all her heart, which is probably the most straightforward example of love that I have ever seen in writing.

Third (From 325 6b)

While reading through these exchanges between such influential writers I couldn’t help but see incredible contrast between their two styles of writing. Sand writes with great hyperbole and illustrates emotions with great imagery. Abstract consciouses spaces are beautifully intertwined within her writings. Something incredibly distinguishing of a Romantic writer. Sand writes in such a poetic tone when telling Flaubert of when she is to visit “I sleep everywhere, in the ashes, or under a kitchen bench, like a stable dog. Everything shines with spotlessness at your house, so one is comfortable everywhere”.

Flaubert on the other hand has no need for such hyperbole. His statements are realistic and lack the allegorical feeling of Sand’s writing. Which isn’t a detriment, but a style that feels more conversational and real. Flaubert is incredibly cynical, and that shows in his writing. Why mask reality in such exaggerations when one can write of how it truly is? The everyday is the subject of such writings for the realis.

find the cost of your paper