⚡ The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis

Maupassant Argumentative Essay On Chris Mccandless Courageous later taught how to write by a relative of the name Gustave Flaubert. The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis wants to be richer but she is The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis to a The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis and is far from rich Maupassant The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis Once the The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis is consummated and Gurov is able to console Anna, the lightheartedness returns to the scene, as if The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis dark cloud has been lifted, and the two take off on an outing to Oreanda. The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis M. One reason these atrocities are The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth. However, to do this would Expectancy Violation Theory Orwell, and worse still, he would look like an idiot if the elephant maimed him in Personal Narrative: The Amazing Sport Of Soccer of the natives. It is also common for accusations The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis temptations to be attracted to beauty like fungus Lower Class In America flowers. Sinful The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis were all struck The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis thee!

The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fanon - Book Review

Thus, in that inevitable taking of sides which comes from selection and emphasis in history, I prefer to try to tell the story of the discovery of America from the viewpoint of the Arawaks, of the Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves, of Andrew Jackson as seen by the Cherokees, of the Civil War as seen by the New York Irish, of the Mexican war as seen by the deserting soldiers of Scott's army, of the rise of industrialism as seen by the young women in the Lowell textile mills, of the Spanish-American war as seen by the Cubans, the conquest of the Philippines as seen by black soldiers on Luzon, the Gilded Age as seen by southern farmers, the First World War as seen by socialists, the Second World War as seen by pacifists, the New Deal as seen by blacks in Harlem, the postwar American empire as seen by peons in Latin America.

And so on, to the limited extent that any one person, however he or she strains, can "see" history from the standpoint of others. My point is not to grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners. Those tears, that anger, cast into the past, deplete our moral energy for the present. And the lines are not always clear. In the long run, the oppressor is also a victim. In the short run and so far, human history has consisted only of short runs , the victims, themselves desperate and tainted with the culture that oppresses them, turn on other victims.

Still, understanding the complexities, this book will be skeptical of governments and their attempts, through politics and culture, to ensnare ordinary people in a giant web of nationhood pretending to a common interest. I will try not to overlook the cruelties that victims inflict on one another as they are jammed together in the boxcars of the system. I don't want to romanticize them. But I do remember in rough paraphrase a statement I once read: "The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is. I don't want to invent victories for people's movements.

But to think that history-writing must aim simply to recapitulate the failures that dominate the past is to make historians collaborators in an endless cycle of defeat. If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win.

I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past's fugitive moments of compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare. That, being as blunt as I can, is my approach to the history of the United States. The reader may as well know that before going on. It built enormous constructions from stone tools and human labor, developed a writing system and a priesthood. It also engaged in let us not overlook this the ritual killing of thousands of people as sacrifices to the gods. The cruelty of the Aztecs, however, did not erase a certain innocence, and when a Spanish armada appeared at Vera Cruz, and a bearded white man came ashore, with strange beasts horses , clad in iron, it was thought that he was the legendary Aztec man-god who had died three hundred years before, with the promise to return-the mysterious Quetzalcoatl.

And so they welcomed him, with munificent hospitality. That was Hernando Cortes, come from Spain with an expedition financed by merchants and landowners and blessed by the deputies of God, with one obsessive goal: to find gold. In the mind of Montezuma, the king of the Aztecs, there must have been a certain doubt about whether Cortes was indeed Quetzalcoatl, because he sent a hundred runners to Cortes, bearing enormous treasures, gold and silver wrought into objects of fantastic beauty, but at the same time begging him to go back.

The painter Durer a few years later described what he saw just arrived in Spain from that expedition-a sun of gold, a moon of silver, worth a fortune. Cortes then began his march of death from town to town, using deception, turning Aztec against Aztec, killing with the kind of deliberateness that accompanies a strategy-to paralyze the will of the population by a sudden frightful deed. And so, in Cholulu, he invited the headmen of the Cholula nation to the square.

And when they came, with thousands of unarmed retainers, Cortes's small army of Spaniards, posted around the square with cannon, armed with crossbows, mounted on horses, massacred them, down to the last man. Then they looted the city and moved on. When their cavalcade of murder was over they were in Mexico City, Montezuma was dead, and the Aztec civilization, shattered, was in the hands of the Spaniards. In Peru, that other Spanish conquistador Pizarro, used the same tactics, and for the same reasons- the frenzy in the early capitalist states of Europe for gold, for slaves, for products of the soil, to pay the bondholders and stockholders of the expeditions, to finance the monarchical bureaucracies rising in Western Europe, to spur the growth of the new money economy rising out of feudalism, to participate in what Karl Marx would later call "the primitive accumulation of capital.

In the North American English colonies, the pattern was set early, as Columbus had set it in the islands of the Bahamas. In , before there was any permanent English settlement in Virginia, Richard Grenville landed there with seven ships. The Indians he met were hospitable, but when one of them stole a small silver cup, Grenville sacked and burned the whole Indian village. Jamestown itself was set up inside the territory of an Indian confederacy, led by the chief, Powhatan. Powhatan watched the English settle on his people's land, but did not attack, maintaining a posture of coolness.

When the English were going through their "starving time" in the winter of , some of them ran off to join the Indians, where they would at least be fed. When the summer came, the governor of the colony sent a messenger to ask Powhatan to return the runaways, whereupon Powhatan, according to the English account, replied with "noe other than prowde and disdaynefull Answers. Twelve years later, the Indians, alarmed as the English settlements kept growing in numbers, apparently decided to try to wipe them out for good.

They went on a rampage and massacred men, women, and children. From then on it was total war. Not able to enslave the Indians, and not able to live with them, the English decided to exterminate them. In that first year of the white man in Virginia, , Powhatan had addressed a plea to John Smith that turned out prophetic. How authentic it is may be in doubt, but it is so much like so many Indian statements that it may be taken as, if not the rough letter of that first plea, the exact spirit of it:. When the Pilgrims came to New England they too were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians.

The governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, created the excuse to take Indian land by declaring the area legally a "vacuum. The Puritans also appealed to the Bible, Psalms "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. The Puritans lived in uneasy truce with the Pequot Indians, who occupied what is now southern Connecticut and Rhode Island. But they wanted them out of the way; they wanted their land.

And they seemed to want also to establish their rule firmly over Connecticut settlers in that area. The murder of a white trader, Indian-kidnaper, and troublemaker became an excuse to make war on the Pequots in A punitive expedition left Boston to attack the Narraganset Indians on Block Island, who were lumped with the Pequots. As Governor Winthrop wrote:. The English landed and killed some Indians, but the rest hid in the thick forests of the island and the English went from one deserted village to the next, destroying crops.

Then they sailed back to the mainland and raided Pequot villages along the coast, destroying crops again. One of the officers of that expedition, in his account, gives some insight into the Pequots they encountered: "The Indians spying of us came running in multitudes along the water side, crying, What cheer, Englishmen, what cheer, what do you come for? They not thinking we intended war, went on cheerfully So, the war with the Pequots began. Massacres took place on both sides. The English developed a tactic of warfare used earlier by Cortes and later, in the twentieth century, even more systematically: deliberate attacks on noncombatants for the purpose of terrorizing the enemy. This is ethno historian Francis Jennings's interpretation of Captain John Mason's attack on a Pequot village on the Mystic River near Long Island Sound: "Mason proposed to avoid attacking Pequot warriors, which would have overtaxed his unseasoned, unreliable troops.

Battle, as such, was not his purpose. Battle is only one of the ways to destroy an enemy's will to fight. Massacre can accomplish the same end with less risk, and Mason had determined that massacre would be his objective. So the English set fire to the wigwams of the village. As Dr. Cotton Mather, Puritan theologian, put it: "It was supposed that no less than Pequot souls were brought down to hell that day. The war continued. Indian tribes were used against one another, and never seemed able to join together in fighting the English. Jennings sums up:. Forty years after the Pequot War, Puritans and Indians fought again. This time it was the Wampanoags, occupying the south shore of Massachusetts Bay, who were in the way and also beginning to trade some of their land to people outside the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Their chief, Massasoit, was dead. His son Wamsutta had been killed by Englishmen, and Wamsuttas brother Metacom later to be called King Philip by the English became chief. The English found their excuse, a murder which they attributed to Metacom, and they began a war of conquest against the Wampanoags, a war to take their land. They were clearly the aggressors, but claimed they attacked for preventive purposes. As Roger Williams, more friendly to the Indians than most, put it: "All men of conscience or prudence ply to windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive.

Jennings says the elite of the Puritans wanted the war; the ordinary white Englishman did not want it and often refused to fight. The Indians certainly did not want war, but they matched atrocity with atrocity. When it was over, in , the English had won, but their resources were drained; they had lost six hundred men. Three thousand Indians were dead, including Metacom himself. Yet the Indian raids did not stop.

For a while, the English tried softer tactics. But ultimately, it was back to annihilation. The Indian population of 10 million that lived north of Mexico when Columbus came would ultimately be reduced to less than a million. Huge numbers of Indians would die from diseases introduced by the whites. A Dutch traveler in New Netherland wrote in that "the Indians There were no wars on that island, but by , only Indians were left there. Similarly, Block Island Indians numbered perhaps 1, to 1, in , and by were reduced to fifty-one. Behind the English invasion of North America, behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property.

It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was a real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples. Roger Williams said it was. Was all this bloodshed and deceit-from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans-a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?

Was Morison right in burying the story of genocide inside a more important story of human progress? Perhaps a persuasive argument can be made-as it was made by Stalin when he killed peasants for industrial progress in the Soviet Union, as it was made by Churchill explaining the bombings of Dresden and Hamburg, and Truman explaining Hiroshima. But how can the judgment be made if the benefits and losses cannot be balanced because the losses are either unmentioned or mentioned quickly? That quick disposal might be acceptable "Unfortunate, yes, but it had to be done" to the middle and upper classes of the conquering and "advanced" countries.

But is it acceptable to the poor of Asia, Africa, Latin America, or to the prisoners in Soviet labor camps, or the blacks in urban ghettos, or the Indians on reservations-to the victims of that progress which benefits a privileged minority in the world? Was it acceptable or just inescapable? And even the privileged minority-must it not reconsider, with that practicality which even privilege cannot abolish, the value of its privileges, when they become threatened by the anger of the sacrificed, whether in organized rebellion, unorganized riot, or simply those brutal individual acts of desperation labeled crimes by law and the state?

If there are necessary sacrifices to be made for human progress, is it not essential to hold to the principle that those to be sacrificed must make the decision themselves? We can all decide to give up something of ours, but do we have the right to throw into the pyre the children of others, or even our own children, for a progress which is not nearly as clear or present as sickness or health, life or death?

What did people in Spain get out of all that death and brutality visited on the Indians of the Americas? For a brief period in history, there was the glory of a Spanish Empire in the Western Hemisphere. Beyond all that, how certain are we that what was destroyed was inferior? Who were these people who came out on the beach and swam to bring presents to Columbus and his crew, who watched Cortes and Pizarro ride through their countryside, who peered out of the forests at the first white settlers of Virginia and Massachusetts?

Columbus called them Indians, because he miscalculated the size of the earth. In this book we too call them Indians, with some reluctance, because it happens too often that people are saddled with names given them by their conquerors. And yet, there is some reason to call them Indians, because they did come, perhaps 25, years ago, from Asia, across the land bridge of the Bering Straits later to disappear under water to Alaska.

Then they moved southward, seeking warmth and land, in a trek lasting thousands of years that took them into North America, then Central and South America. In Nicaragua, Brazil, and Ecuador their petrified footprints can still be seen, along with the print of bison, who disappeared about five thousand years ago, so they must have reached South America at least that far back. Widely dispersed over the great land mass of the Americas, they numbered approximately 75 million people by the time Columbus came, perhaps 25 million in North America.

Responding to the different environments of soil and climate, they developed hundreds of different tribal cultures, perhaps two thousand different languages. They perfected the art of agriculture, and figured out how to grow maize corn , which cannot grow by itself and must be planted, cultivated, fertilized, harvested, husked, shelled. They ingeniously developed a variety of other vegetables and fruits, as well as peanuts and chocolate and tobacco and rubber. On their own, the Indians were engaged in the great agricultural revolution that other peoples in Asia, Europe, Africa were going through about the same time.

While many of the tribes remained nomadic hunters and food gatherers in wandering, egalitarian communes, others began to live in more settled communities where there was more food, larger populations, more divisions of labor among men and women, more surplus to feed chiefs and priests, more leisure time for artistic and social work, for building houses. About a thousand years before Christ, while comparable constructions were going on in Egypt and Mesopotamia, the Zuni and Hopi Indians of what is now New Mexico had begun to build villages consisting of large terraced buildings, nestled in among cliffs and mountains for protection from enemies, with hundreds of rooms in each village.

Before the arrival of the European explorers, they were using irrigation canals, dams, were doing ceramics, weaving baskets, making cloth out of cotton. By the time of Christ and Julius Caesar, there had developed in the Ohio River Valley a culture of so-called Moundbuilders, Indians who constructed thousands of enormous sculptures out of earth, sometimes in the shapes of huge humans, birds, or serpents, sometimes as burial sites, sometimes as fortifications. These Moundbuilders seem to have been part of a complex trading system of ornaments and weapons from as far off as the Great Lakes, the Far West, and the Gulf of Mexico.

About A. It had an advanced agriculture, included thousands of villages, and also built huge earthen mounds as burial and ceremonial places near a vast Indian metropolis that may have had thirty thousand people. The largest mound was feet high, with a rectangular base larger than that of the Great Pyramid of Egypt. In the city, known as Cahokia, were toolmakers, hide dressers, potters, jewelry makers, weavers, salt makers, copper engravers, and magnificent ceramists. One funeral blanket was made of twelve thousand shell beads. In the vision of the Mohawk chief Iliawatha, the legendary Dekaniwidah spoke to the Iroquois: "We bind ourselves together by taking hold of each other's hands so firmly and forming a circle so strong that if a tree should fall upon it, it could not shake nor break it, so that our people and grandchildren shall remain in the circle in security, peace and happiness.

In the villages of the Iroquois, land was owned in common and worked in common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was divided among the members of the village. Houses were considered common property and were shared by several families. The concept of private ownership of land and homes was foreign to the Iroquois. A French Jesuit priest who encountered them in the s wrote: "No poorhouses are needed among them, because they are neither mendicants nor paupers.. Their kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what they have, but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common. Women were important and respected in Iroquois society. Families were matrilineal. That is, the family line went down through the female members, whose husbands joined the family, while sons who married then joined their wives' families.

Each extended family lived in a "long house. Families were grouped in clans, and a dozen or more clans might make up a village. The senior women in the village named the men who represented the clans at village and tribal councils. They also named the forty-nine chiefs who were the ruling council for the Five Nation confederacy of the Iroquois. The women attended clan meetings, stood behind the circle of men who spoke and voted, and removed the men from office if they strayed too far from the wishes of the women.

The women tended the crops and took general charge of village affairs while the men were always hunting or fishing. And since they supplied the moccasins and food for warring expeditions, they had some control over military matters. As Gary B. Nash notes in his fascinating study of early America, Red, White, and Black: "Thus power was shared between the sexes and the European idea of male dominancy and female subordination in all things was conspicuously absent in Iroquois society. Children in Iroquois society, while taught the cultural heritage of their people and solidarity with the tribe, were also taught to be independent, not to submit to overbearing authority. They were taught equality in status and the sharing of possessions.

The Iroquois did not use harsh punishment on children; they did not insist on early weaning or early toilet training, but gradually allowed the child to learn self-care. All of this was in sharp contrast to European values as brought over by the first colonists, a society of rich and poor, controlled by priests, by governors, by male heads of families. For example, the pastor of the Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, thus advised his parishioners how to deal with their children: "And surely there is in all children Not only the Iroquois but other Indian tribes behaved the same way.

In , Maryland Indians responded to the governor's demand that if any of them killed an Englishman, the guilty one should be delivered up for punishment according to English law. The Indians said:. So, Columbus and his successors were not coming into an empty wilderness, but into a world which in some places was as densely populated as Europe itself, where the culture was complex, where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men, women, children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world.

They were people without a written language, but with their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe's, accompanied by song, dance, and ceremonial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature. John Collier, an American scholar who lived among Indians in the s and s in the American Southwest, said of their spirit: "Could we make it our own, there would be an eternally inexhaustible earth and a forever lasting peace. Perhaps there is some romantic mythology in that. But the evidence from European travelers in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, put together recently by an American specialist on Indian life, William Brandon, is overwhelmingly supportive of much of that "myth.

He later wrote of this in his log: They They willingly traded everything they owned They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane They would make fine servants With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want. His descriptions were part fact, part fiction: Hispaniola is a miracle.

Mountains and hills, plains and pastures, are both fertile and beautiful There are many spices, and great mines of gold and other metals Las Casas describes sex relations: Marriage laws are non-existent men and women alike choose their mates and leave them as they please, without offense, jealousy or anger. They multiply in great abundance; pregnant women work to the last minute and give birth almost painlessly; up the next day, they bathe in the river and are as clean and healthy as before giving birth. If they tire of their men, they give themselves abortions with herbs that force stillbirths, covering their shameful parts with leaves or cotton cloth; although on the whole, Indian men and women look upon total nakedness with as much casualness as we look upon a man's head or at his hands.

They live in large communal bell-shaped buildings, housing up to people at one time They prize bird feathers of various colors, beads made of fishbones, and green and white stones with which they adorn their ears and lips, but they put no value on gold and other precious things. They lack all manner of commerce, neither buying nor selling, and rely exclusively on their natural environment for maintenance. They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality.

It is a unique account and deserves to be quoted at length: Endless testimonies. But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians Thus husbands and wives were together only once every eight or ten months and when they met they were so exhausted and depressed on both sides This man, named Beaufort, had fallen into poverty and obscurity; when the elder Frankenstein finally found him, he was entirely wretched and very near death.

His daughter, Caroline , attended him with almost-religious devotion. Upon Beaufort's death, Caroline turned to Master Frankenstein for comfort, and the pair returned to Geneva together; a few years later, they were married. During the first years of their marriage, the Frankensteins traveled constantly, for the sake of Caroline's fragile health. Until he was five, Victor was an only child, and both he and his parents felt the absence of other children strongly. Caroline Frankenstein made a habit of visiting the poor: since she herself had been saved from poverty, she felt it her duty to improve the lot of those who did not share her good fortune. One day, she discovered an angelic girl-child, with fair skin and golden hair, living with a penniless Italian family.

As the girl was an orphan, and her adoptive family lacked the means to care for her, the Frankensteins determined to raise the child as their own. The child, whose name was Elizabeth Lavenza , became Victor's sister and his constant companion, as well as the object of his unquestioning worship. For him, she is his most beautiful, most valuable possession. This chapter is primarily concerned with the theme of family and kinship. The absolute necessity of human contact and emotional ties is stressed here: the elder Frankenstein goes through great trouble to visit his impoverished friend, and Caroline, too, is selflessly concerned with the needs of others her father, her family, and the poor.

It is important to note that Beaufort's ruin is itself connected to his decision to cut himself off from his former friends and live in absolute isolation; it is his isolation, more than his poverty, which leads to his death. Because Victor speaks in first person, the other characters are presented as they relate to him "my father, my mother, my sister". At the beginning of his narrative, Victor is deeply embedded within a traditional family structure, and we develop our first impressions of his character in relation to it. His childhood is almost implausibly ideal; the reader therefore expects Victor to reflect the love and beauty with which he was surrounded as a boy. A number of the relationships described in this chapter are structured as a relation between a caretaker and a cared-for: that between Caroline's father and Caroline; Victor's father and Caroline; the Frankensteins and Elizabeth; and between Victor and Elizabeth, to name a few.

The elder Frankenstein takes Caroline in after she is left penniless and an orphan; similarly, the family takes in the orphaned Elizabeth Lavenza to save her from a life of bitter poverty. Shelley subtly argues that there is nothing more wretched than an orphan: one must care for one's children, since one is responsible for bringing them into the world. This idea will become extremely important with the introduction of the monster, in that Victor's refusal to care for his own creature will say a great deal about the morality of his experiment. The family ceases to travel after the birth of their second son. They return home to Switzerland, to their estate at the foot of the Alps. Young Victor prefers not to surround himself with a great many casual friends; instead, he is very intimate with a select few.

These include a brilliant boy named Henry Clerval , renowned for his flights of imagination, and, of course, his beloved Elizabeth. Though Victor says that there can be no happier childhood than his, he confesses that he had a violent temper as a child. His temper was not directed at other people, however: it manifested itself as a passionate desire to learn the secrets of heaven and earth. Clerval, by contrast, was fascinated by questions of morality, heroism, and virtue. At Geneva, Elizabeth's "saintly soul" serves to soothe and temper Victor's burning passion for study.

Without her, his interest in his work might have developed an obsessional quality. Frankenstein is full of pleasure as he recounts these scenes from his childhood, since they remain untainted by his recent misfortune. He can, however, see how his early scholarly endeavors foreshadow his eventual ruin. At the age of thirteen, he becomes fascinated with the work of Cornelius Agrippa a Roman alchemist who attempted to turn tin into gold and men into lions. His father tells him that the book is pure trash; Victor does not heed him, however, since his father does not explain why the book is trash.

The system of "science" that Agrippa propounds has long since been proven false; Victor, unaware of this, avidly reads all of Agrippa's works, as well as those of his contemporaries, Paracelsus and Albertus Magnus. Victor shares their desire to penetrate the secrets of nature, to search for the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life. The quest for the latter becomes his obsession. Though he acknowledges that such a discovery would bring one great wealth, what Victor really longs for is glory. He finds no answer in the works of his Roman idols, and becomes entirely disillusioned with them when he witnesses a lightning storm.

Since the Romans have no satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon, Victor renounces them entirely and devotes himself at least for the time being to the study of mathematics. Destiny, however, will return him to the problems of natural philosophy. The reader is gradually introduced to those aspects of Victor's character that will lead to his downfall. He tells us that he possesses "a thirst for knowledge. The narrator begins to pick apart and identify the aspects of his personality that will eventually lead to his downfall. He possesses what he calls a "thirst for knowledge. Victor's desire to learn, therefore, is driven by nothing so insubstantial as curiosity: it is instead the precondition of his very being.

Shelley thereby indicates that there is a compulsive quality to Victor's scholarship: it is something very close to madness. Elizabeth is positioned here, quite literally, as a "saint. Though both Victor and Clerval have passionate and creative characters, they express them very differently. Henry does it openly, with songs and plays; Victor, by contrast, does it privately, amidst books and philosophical meditations. This predisposition to secrecy plays an essential role in Victor's scientific work and its consequences. The question of the place of chance and destiny in Victor's fate also arises in this chapter.

Victor "chances" upon the volume of Cornelius Agrippa; he suggests that he would never have become so fascinated with the alchemists if only his father had explained why their work was worthless. He also says that "destiny" brought him back to the study of natural philosophy: in this way, Victor attempts to absolve himself of culpability for his later actions. The word "creation" is deployed for the first time here, in reference to natural philosophy: Victor refers to it as "abortive creation. When he is seventeen, Victor's family decides to send him to the university of Ingolstadt, so that he might become worldlier.

Shortly before his departure, Elizabeth falls ill with scarlet fever. Caroline, driven almost mad by worry, tends to her constantly, with complete disregard for the risk of contagion. Though Elizabeth recovers thanks to her extraordinary care, Caroline herself contracts the fever. On her deathbed, she joins Elizabeth and Victor's hands and says that her happiness is dependent upon their eventual marriage. With that, she dies. Victor cannot quite believe that his beloved mother is gone; he is stricken with grief and delays his departure to Ingolstadt. Elizabeth, determined to at least partially fill the void left by Caroline's death, devotes herself to caring for the surviving family.

Clerval comes to visit Victor on his last evening at home. Though Clerval is desperate to accompany Victor to university, his prosaic merchant father will not allow him to do so. Victor is certain, however, that Clerval will not remain bound to the crushing dullness of his father's business. Upon his departure from Geneva, Victor reflects on the fact that he knows no one at Ingolstadt; he has always been unable to enjoy the company of strangers.

However, his spirits are lifted by the thought of acquiring new knowledge. The first person he encounters at Ingolstadt is Krempe, a professor of natural philosophy. At first, the narrator is indifferent to the idea of returning to science: he has developed a deep contempt for natural philosophy and its uses.

The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis The Lord of the The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis. In sonnet 82, Shakespeare continues the theme of poet rivalry where he addresses the fair lord W. That regardless of how he treats the poet, the poet will always The Hijab In Islam him. Asked if that The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis a return to The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis in the second half of next Texas Political Culture Essay, he said: "As of today, in a year, I assume. Resultantly, the stock gains in pre-market trading. Or dogs — you just better hope you brought yours The Wretched Of The Earth Analysis what does person centred values mean the rideand it stays faithful