Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhosle: The Great Hero

Shivaji Bhosle, the great Maratha Warrior, also known as Chhatrapati Shivaji Raje Bhosle was born on February 19, 1630, and died on April 3, 1680. He was the founder of Maratha empire in western India in 1664. He is considered a great hero in India, especially in the state of Maharashtra.

Shahaji (Shivaji's father) was a major player in the Deccan Wars. At that time, Shahaji was a regent for the young Nizam of Ahmednagar. However after sometimes, tired of the unsettled conditions, Shahaji maharaj left Nizamshah's service and joined the Mughal King Adilshah of Bijapur, who gave him a higher title of 'Sar Lashkar'.

Later on, the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan again attacked the Ahmednagar Kingdom of Nizamshah. At this decisive hour, Shahaji Raje returned to the military service of Nizamshah to help stiffen-up the defenses. In the meantime, an outstanding Maratha sardar Lakhuji Jadavrao was murdered on the order of the Nizamshah, and this was not acceptable to Shahaji Raje, and it prompted him to hoist the banner of independence and set up an independent kingdom.

It was during this disconcerted period only when Shivaji was born. His birth was in an independent country, as declared by his father, Shahaji Raje. Perhaps, that was the most important contributing reason for his life long desire for independence.

Shivaji was born in Shivneri Fort, Junnar, Pune and about 100 kilometres east of Mumbai. He was named Shiva, after the local Goddess Shivai, to whom his mother Jijabai had pleaded for a son. Jijabai had several other sons before Shivaji who did not survive.

Shahaji Raje,Shivaji's father, endeavored to build on the ruins of the Nizamshahi kingdom of Ahmednagar, but was defeated by a much larger joint force of the Mughals and Adilshah. He was enforced to leave the region around Pune. He was inducted by Adilshah of Bijapur and was offered distant land holdings, at present Bangalore, but he was allowed to keep his old land tenures and holdings in Pune.

Shivaji started his rise to power in what is now the state of Maharashtra in the coastal Deccan Given these circumstances, Shahaji appointed the young Shivaji under the care of his mother Jijabai to administer the Pune holdings. A small council of ministers was appointed to assist and train Shivaji in the administration which included Shamrao Nilkanth, Balkrishna Pant,Raghunath Ballal, Sonopant and Dadoji Konddeo Apart from these ministers, military commanders Kanhoji Jedhe and Baji Pasalkar were also appointed to train Shivaji in martial arts. In 1644, Shahaji had built Lal Mahal in Pune for his wife and his son Shivaji.

Shivaji started his career as an independent young prince of a small kingdom on a mission. Shivaji used the title of king only after Shahaji's death. His mother made an ineffaceable impression on him with her teachings, with her love for the homeland and its people. He learned much from his father's failed attempts at political independence, his exceptional military capabilities and achievements; his knowledge of Sanskrit, Hindu ethos, patronage of the arts, his war strategies and peacetime diplomacy. Shivaji was enthused and informed by his family's vision of independence and freedom.

Furthermore, his mother, having lost her father and brothers in a treacherous plot hatched by the regional king Nizamshah, was opposed to those rulers, due to their scorn and callousness toward the local population. Jijabai thus instilled in Shivaji a natural love for self-determination and an repugnance to external political domination. Her holiness and commitment to indigenous culture and her recounting of tales from the great Indian epics of Mahabharata and Ramayana molded Shivaji's character and helped him to be unequaled especially in his tolerant attitude towards other religions as well as in his fair and kind treatment of women and non-combatants.

Shahaji's vision, Jijabai's and Dadoji's teachings and motivation, and the able training by military commanders such as Pansambal and BajiPasalkar were the main influences which groomed Shivaji into a valiant and fearless military leader as well as a responsible administrator. Shivaji along with his friends took a blood oath to fight against the Mughal Empire. And young Shivaji, brisk and enthusiastic as he was, wasted no time in setting off on a path of freedom and glory.

At the tender age of 17 Shivaji carried out his first military action by attacking and capturing Torna Fort of the Bijapur kingdom, in 1645. By the year 1647,he had captured Kondana and Rajgad forts and had complete control of the Pune. By 1654 he had captured forts in the Western Ghats and along the Konkan coast. In a bid to incapacitate this move of the Marathas under Shivaji's able leadership, Adilshah had his father;Shahaji arrested by deceitful means, and he sent one army against Sambhaji, Shivaji's elder brother at Bangalore and another against Shivaji at Purandhar. However both Shivaji and Shambaji brothers defeated the invading armies securing the release of their father. Thereafter, Afzal Khan, a seasoned commander and a skillful warrior, was then sent to destroy Shivaji, in an effort to put down what was seen by Bijapur as a regional revolt.

Afzal Khan, after leaving Bijapur to confront Shivaji, first defiled the temples of goddess Bhavani in Tuljapur and Pandharpur. The intent was to get a disturbed and shaken Shivaji out in the open to face him in a pitched battle. Instead, Shivaji sent a letter saying he was not at all eager to face Afzal Khan and sought some type of understanding. Shivaji upon vigilantly weighing his options, strategically decided to confront and surprise Afzal Khan under the guise of diplomatic negotiations. A meeting was arranged between Afzal Khan and Shivaji at the foothills of Fort Pratapgad.

Shivaji, armed himself with a weapon called tiger claw and armor prior to the meeting. Afzal Khan attempted to stab Shivaji in the back with a dagger as they embraced at the onset of their meeting. Shivaji was unscathed due to the armor he wore under his clothes, and he counter attacked Afzal Khan with the tiger claw, spilled his blood and entrailed on the ground. Thereupon Afzal Khan's deputy, Krishnaji and his bodyguard Sayyed Banda attacked Shivaji with swords but Jiva, Shivaji's personal bodyguard fatally struck them down with a 'medieval weapon) Afzal Khan managed to trip up out of the tent to get help but was immediately slain by Shivaji's associate Sambhaji, before he could alert his commanders or raise an alarm.

To counter the loss at Pratapgad and to defeat the newly emerging Maratha power, another army, was sent against Shivaji, commanded by renowned Bijapur's general Rustemjaman. With cavalry of five thousand Marathas, Shivaji attacked them near Kolhapur in the year 1659. In a swift movement, Shivaji led a full frontal attack at the center of the enemy forces while other two portions of his cavalry attacked the flanks. This battle last for several hours and at the end Bijapuri forces were soundly defeated and Rustemjaman ignominiously fled the battlefield.

. This great and absolute victory made Shivaji a hero of Maratha folklore and a legendary figure among his people. The large amount of captured weapons, horses, armor and other materials helped to strengthen the embryonic and emerging Maratha army.

In 1660, Adil Shah, sent Siddi Johar to put down Shivaji once again. He ordered his large army north to Kolhapur, Maharashtra to face and defeat Shivaji once and for all. At that time Shivaji was camped at the fort Panhala with a small part of his army, near Kolhapur, on the borders of his dominion. Siddi Johar's army camped near Panhala, cutting off supply routes to the fort. Shivaji, decided to escape to a nearby fort Vishaalgad, where he could regroup his soldiers to fight a decisive battle.

Shivaji sent few misleading messages to Siddi Johar indicating that he was willing to negotiate and was looking for accommodation, understanding and mercy. With this news Adilshahi soldiers relaxed, and Shivaji escaped under the cover of a very stormy night.

In 1660, Aurangzeb sent his maternal uncle Shaista Khan, with a huge army to defeat Shivaji. He was an experienced commander who had defeated Shahaji in the same region in the year 1636. Within three years Shivaji had lost most of his invasions to a relentless attack by Shaista Khan and his army numbering over one lac. Shaista Khan, detained Pune and the nearby fort of Chakan. Although he held Pune for almost one year, he had little additional success. He had set up his residence at Lal Mahal, Shivaji's palace, in the city of Pune.

Shaista Khan kept the security in Pune very stiff. Shivaji planned a daring attack on Shaista Khan amidst that tight security. In April 1663, a wedding party had obtained special permission for a procession. Under the guise of this procession; Shivaji planned an attack using the wedding party as cover. The Marathas disguised themselves as the bridegroom's procession and entered the city of Pune. Shivaji, having spent much of his youth in Pune, knew his way around the city and his own palace of Lal Mahal.

After overpowering and slaying the palace guards, the Marathas broke into the mansion by breaking through a wall. Shivaji confronted Shaista Khan and severed Shaista Khan's fingers with his sword as he fled through an open window. Shaista Khan narrowly escaped death; lost not only his son but many of his guards and soldiers in the raid.

Within twenty-four hours of this courageous attack, Shaista Khan left Pune and headed North towards Agra. An angered Aurangzeb transferred him to distant Bengal as a punishment for bringing humiliation to the Mughals with his very personal and ignoble defeat in Pune.

In 1666, Aurangzeb on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday ceremony, summoned Shivaji to Agra, along with his six years old son Sambhaji, Aurangzeb's plan was to send Shivaji to Khandahar, to consolidate the Mughal empire's north-western frontier. However in the court, Aurangzeb made Shivaji stand behind military commanders of his court. Shivaji took offense to this seeming abuse and stormed out of court and was promptly placed under house arrest, under the watch of Fulad Khan of Agra.

From his spies, Shivaji came to know that Aurangzeb planned to shift him to Raja Vitthaldas's Haveli and then to possibly kill him or send him to fight in the Afghan frontier. As a result he planned his escape. The entire plan of escape is by far the unsurpassed example of analysis, planning and execution ever found in history. He pretended almost fatal sickness and requested to send most of his contingent back to Deccan. Thereafter, on his request, he was allowed to send daily shipments of sweets and gifts to saints and temples in Agra as offerings for getting well.

After several days and weeks of sending out boxes containing sweets, Shivaji hid himself in one of the boxes and managed to escape. Sambhaji, his six years old son had been smuggled out a couple of days earlier. Shivaji and his son fled to the Deccan disguised as holy men) Some people claim that after the escape, rumours of Sambhaji's death were intentionally spread by Shivaji himself in order to deceive the Mughals and to protect Sambhaji.

In January 1670, Shivaji launched a major, multi-pronged assault on Mughal garrisons in Maharashtra. Within six months he had regained most of his old territory and more. From 1670 to 1674 Shivaji extended his kingdom to include major portions of Maharashtra and far in to the south including parts of modern-day Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Shivaji was formally crowned Chhatrapati on June 6, 1674 at Raigad fort, and given the title Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. Pandit Gaga Bhatt, a renowned Brahmin from Varanasi, officially presided over the ceremony declaring that Shivaji's lineage was bonafide and recognized Kshatriya.

However on the 3rd April in the year 1680, Shivaji died at 12 noon at Raigad, after running a fever for three weeks. It is said that he died due to contracting a disease called as Bloody Flux. The funeral ceremony was arranged in Raigad in presence of his son Rajaram, and wife Soyarabai. After Shivaji's death, his elder son Sambhaji fought for control of the kingdom. After a brief struggle Sambhaji was crowned as the king.

View the original article here

How Ancient Greek Democracy Worked

It is not difficult to describe how ancient Greek democracy worked. Actually, it is different from our present-day form of democracy, but still pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Ancient Greek democracy found its origins in the city if Athens, Greece. Our current system of 'democracy', although different than the Athenian version, owes its existence to this form of governing. As the scholar, Marvin Perry, pointed out, "Athenian democracy embodied the principle of the legal state - a government based not on force but on laws debated, devised, altered, and obeyed by free citizens." In this brief article we will briefly outline the workings of Greek democracy, and what differs between it and the form of democracy which we enjoy today.

Prof. John Keane, of Westminster University, states in the video series, "In Search of Democracy", "Democracy means self governing through the assembly." (Part 2) This self governance manifested itself through six main institutions. Each part was integral in the operations of the whole system. Comprising the main institutions were the Assembly, the Council of 500, the People's Court, the Archons, the Council of the Areopagus, and finally, the Generals.

The 'how' of the ancient Greek democracy is quite simple. Basically, everything flowed interdependently through these six institutions. Legislation was introduced and passed by the will of the people. The law was enforced by the military and crime was judged and punished by the people themselves. As we shed some light on the individual institutions, themselves, we'll see the synergy upon which the ancient Greeks' democracy was built and the society was governed.

This early Greek democracy had as its foundation the idea of the Assembly, Ekklesia, in Greek. Historian, Christopher W. Blackwell, writes in "Athenian Democracy: A Brief Overview", the Assembly was "the regular gathering of male Athenian citizens to listen to, discuss, and vote on decrees that affected every aspect of Athenian life, both public and private... " Notice, the assembly consisted of male citizens only. While women enjoyed citizen status, they, as well as foreigners and slaves were denied a place among the assembly. Assembly members met frequently to propose, debate, and vote on legislation and other matters of the state. This was undoubtedly a lengthy process, as each member was permitted to speak and participate in an orderly fashion.

The Council of 500 (originally 400) consisted of 500 members, each serving a one year term. Each member of the council was taken from among the Assembly. The Council was responsible for managing the ports, the military installations, and other state property. Most importantly, they prepared the agenda for the Assembly. As we see, each component of ancient Greek democracy was vital to its smooth operation.

In Aristotle's Athenian Constitution, we read, "There was also to be a Council, consisting of four hundred and one members, elected by lot from among those who possessed the franchise. Both for this and for the other magistracies the lot was cast among those who were over thirty years of age; and no one might hold office twice until everyone else had had his turn, after which they were to cast the lot afresh." (Aristotle Part 4)

History tells us that these council members were paid. The inclination towards a career in professional politics was curbed by the imposed term limit of one year, and the opportunity to only serve two terms in one's lifetime. However, the pay was substantial enough to afford one a year of absence from his chief trade to tend to the affairs of the state.

The People's Court formed what essentially was the primary judicial arm of ancient Greek democracy. These were known as 'jury courts', consisting of the citizens, themselves. In such courts, the jurors would hear cases brought before them, and decide the fates of those on trial. Again, turning to Aristotle, we see that "There are three points in the constitution of Solon which appear to be its most democratic features: first and most important, the prohibition of loans on the security of the debtor's person; secondly, the right of every person who so willed to claim redress on behalf of any one to whom wrong was being done; thirdly, the institution of the appeal to the jurycourts; and it is to this last, they say, that the masses have owed their strength most of all, since, when the democracy is master of the voting-power, it is master of the constitution. Moreover, since the laws were not drawn up in simple and explicit terms (but like the one concerning inheritances and wards of state), disputes inevitably occurred, and the courts had to decide in every matter, whether public or private." (Aristotle Part 9)

Next in Greek democracy were the Archons. This was a group of nine men who were essentially the chief leaders of the city of Athens. They were highly educated and honored individuals, originally responsible for making various judgments regarding public, military and religious affairs.

The fifth vital piece of ancient Greek democracy was the Areopagus, or Council of the Areopagus. This was a council of men who had served as judges with jurisdiction over cases of murder and other serious crimes. The court was comprised of former Archons, and its members served for life. Citing the ancient writer, Demosthenes, we learn that "You are all of course aware that in the Areopagus, where the law both permits and enjoins the trial of homicide, first, every man who brings accusation of such a crime must make oath by invoking destruction upon himself, his kindred, and his household; secondly, that he must not treat this oath as an ordinary oath, but as one which no man swears for any other purpose; for he stands over the entrails of a boar, a ram, and a bull, and they must have been slaughtered by the necessary officers and on the days appointed, so that in respect both of the time and of the functionaries every requirement of solemnity has been satisfied. Even then the person who has sworn this tremendous oath does not gain immediate credence; and if any falsehood is brought home to him, he will carry away with him to his children and his kindred the stain of perjury-but gain nothing. If, on the other hand, he is believed to be laying a just charge, and if he proves the accused guilty of murder, even then he has no power over the convicted criminal; only the laws and the appointed officers have power over the man for punishment." (Dem. 23.67-69).

Lastly, were the generals. The generals were entrusted with the military welfare and affairs of the state. Again, Aristotle informs us, "Four year after the establishment of this system, in the archonship of Hermocreon, they first imposed upon the Council of Five Hundred the oath which they take to the present day. Next they began to elect the generals by tribes, one from each tribe, while the Polemarch was the commander of the whole army." (Aristotle Part 22)

As has been demonstrated, these six facets of ancient Greek democracy each contributed to the proper functioning of the whole. The Assembly, the Council of 500, the People's Court, the Archons, the Council of the Areopagus, and the Generals were the people, themselves. Most of the familiar trappings of politics were avoided because of the intentionally short term limits. The people performed the will of the people.

As has been shown, this early Greek democracy was an intensely participatory form of government, as opposed to our modern representative form of government. Today the United States has what is traditionally been labeled a democracy, when in fact, it is a Republic. The main difference between our government and theirs is the cyclical election of public officials who go to the various state offices and to Washington to represent their constituents. Our voices do count, but not in the direct, everyday inner workings of legislating, ruling and judging the citizenry.

Additionally, today's political figures are well paid, and most (if not all) pursue politics as a career. This differs greatly from the model of classical Greek democracy. It has also led to an endless string of scandals, too numerous to cite here. Public officials are not readily trusted by the governed masses under our system, and are

This cynicism has evolved into a general distrust of government and a desire by the citizens to be protected from the constant intrusions of 'Big Brother'. Our text affirms this sentiment, "We are concerned with protecting the individual from the state, which we often see as a threat to personal freedom and a hindrance to the pursuit of our personal lives... the Greeks were not concerned with erecting safeguards against the state; they did not view the state as an alien force, to be feared or to be protected against." (Perry 63)

Many of the original ideas from ancient Greek democracy have been preserved in our present Republic. Ours is a more refined system, perhaps. Our brand of democracy serves as a model of justice and freedom throughout the world in much the same way that the fledgling democracy of Greece once did. While far from perfect, the checks and balances in our system serve to balance the powers of government in very unique and ingenious ways.

Selected Works Cited:

Aristotle, "The Athenian Constitution," Translated by Sir Frederic G.Kenyon. 350 B.C.E. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.1.1.html

Demosthenes. Demosthenes with an English translation by A. T. Murray, Ph.D., LL.D. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1939.

Curtis Bradley is the father of three and a full time writer and entrepreneur, residing in Connecticut. He holds a B.S. Finance, Summa Cum Laude, from Sacred Heart University (Fairfield, CT). Curtis is an avid reader and enjoys learning immensely. Currently, he's reading through his list of the top books of all time and writing extensively.

View the original article here

Tragic Flaw (Hamartia) Of Hamlet

Undoubtedly, Shakespeare is a great literary figure of his age. His contribution to drama and other literary terms is excellent and unforgettable. It is useless to criticize against such person. Christopher Marlowe, one of the university wits, gave few dramas to the age but he enriched it with such literary term. His dramas are watched and read with great curiosity through out the world. His work has not paid him only reputation but also made his name immortal. He wrote a total of 37 plays in his lifetime, all of which can be categorized under tragedy, comedy, or history.

Before discussing the tragic flaw or hamartia of Hamlet, it is better to know something about the word 'hamartia' used by Aristotle in his work, ' The Poetics'. According to him, the tragic hero is not perfect, and misfortune falls on him by some fault of his own. Aristotle uses the Greek word, 'Hamartia'. Its root meaning is, ' missing the mark'. A.C. Bradley translates it, 'tragic flaw'. Aristotle uses it, 'error of judgment'. Hamartia is not moral imperfection but it is an error of judgment whether it is arising from ignorance of some material fact or from rashness and impulsiveness of temper or from some passion. The hero commits various errors in series which seem unknown to him. At last, they create very strange situation that leads the hero to his catastrophe.

Hamlet, a prince of Denmark, is a well educated and sympathetic person. He is morally a good person and mostly liked by all, despite it, he is not a saint or perfect man. Apart from it, he can not be called a villain because he does not perform such action that may prove him a villain. It is his love for his parents that becomes the cause of his catastrophe, but he is unknown to the errors that he commits in love. Aristotle talks about an intermediate person who commits errors unknowingly. He further talks about hastiness in action and light temperedness as the main weapons of hamartia, leading the hero to catastrophe. Hamlet does not seem light tempered, but it is very fit for Othello. Undoubtedly, Hamlet is a tragic hero; he commits errors which become the cause of his tragedy. If Othello had been on the place of Hamlet, there would not have been tragedy. It is the skill of the playwright that moves the hero in a way that he may face his tragedy by committing tragic flaws.

Hamlet commits a series of errors which become the cause of his tragedy. Jan Knott says that Hamlet is like a Swiss cheese with all the holes. In his character, irresolution is a dominant factor and it gives birth to delay. It occurs due to his childish mood. Indeed, a man possesses very strange disposition, and a man who is the owner of a childish nature never thinks to harm the others. It is same condition with Hamlet that arouses pity and fear among the audience.

Throughout the drama, Hamlet is found in grief. His grief is the hasty marriage of his mother to his uncle Claudius. It hides his love for his mother and reveals his pure immaturity. Although he is a prince, he does not enjoy his status but wants to move the country on the foot steps of his father. Besides, when he hears the cause of his father's murder, his grief becomes double and leaves the other business of the kingdom. His invading by his inner conflict lessens sympathy for others. He wants to take revenge of his father; he must come out of the grief and hit the enemy a mortal strike. Apart from it, he is not helpless or weak; he can do any thing, but, in advance, he checks the accountability of his action.

In this drama, the author stages a play within play. Hamlet wants to make sure whether his uncle Claudius is the murderer or not. His staging drama for this purpose was equal to make the enemy aware of his crime and plan. The enemy is clever; he takes swift steps to repel him or to contrive to harm his life. He is ascertained that Claudius is the real murderer of his father, it again jostles him into grief, and he thinks about his mother. Such step made the enemy stronger but him weaker. His soliloquy, wherein he calls women frail, creates doubt within him about his mother as accomplice in the murder. His grief continues, and he is unable to get rid of. When Hamlet watches the drama that is prepared by him, he becomes very emotional on the emotional speech of the player. In the second soliloquy, he calls himself rogue and peasant slave and a dull and muddy-mettled rascal who, like a John-a-dreams, can take no action. He is, indeed, besieged by self contempt. His becoming fiery and condemning himself means to resolute to take a measurable action to avenge of his father's death. This grief enhances his inner and external conflict.

Hamlet is not a successful lover. Shakespeare avoids falling him in the inferno of love, and it may be that he is childish. Hence his love is inclined to his mother that shows Oedipus complex. This love was perceived more apt for his tragedy. Undoubtedly, he loves Ophelia and she likes him, too. He, in haste or without any conformation, kills her father, and she loses her sense. It relied on him to support her, but he always thought about his mother. At last, she drowned to death in the river. When he comes back from the grip of the pirates, he sees the rite of her burying. There he repents on this accident. His participation aggravates the anger of Laertes, and his fire of revenge increases.

She was innocent and immature in love. It was Hamlet who raised her feelings of love, and she started moving on the unknown track of love. Hamlet did not completely introduce her to love. He left her in desert alone and dejected. When her father was murdered, it was a great threat to her life. If she had been fully fallen in love of Hamlet, she would not have committed suicide. Shakespearean tragedies mostly give importance to the love of heroine, but here, it is different because importance is given to the love of mother. If she had been alive and in sense, there would have been a great resistance in the tragedy of the hero. She might have supported Hamlet, and Claudius would have been failed in his conspiracy of duel between Hamlet and Laertes. Shakespeare does not let Hamlet taste maiden love.

His soliloquies delve out his inner conflict. He finds Claudius busy in worship, and it was the best chance for him to take revenge but he comes into dilemma. Here Shakespeare introduces his popular soliloquy 'To be or not to be'. It means that he should kill him or not. If he killed him in this condition, he would go direct to heaven. He decides not to kill him. It shows his religious belief and fear as that child feels in darkness. Besides, it shows his inability. It verifies his first step to procrastination. He declares that it is conscience that resists him from the action and that's why irresolution comes into his actions. He stages a drama to find the reaction and passion of the murderer. Claudius becomes suspicious and deputes Polonius as spy. When he was engaged in conversation with his mother, he hid himself behind the curtain to listen their secret. Hamlet felt somebody there and realized that it might be Claudius. Without any proof, he, in disgust, killed him. Claudius was in search of such hasty action. He got opportunity to contrive against him. He takes benefit from his flaw and sends him abroad with a cruel plan.

His fourth soliloquy, too, shows his irresolution. Here he watches efforts and bravery of Fortinbras, the prince of Norway, and then he compares him with himself. He attempts to revive his own desire for revenge against Claudius for the death of his father. Hamlet condemns himself lethargic because he does not think too precisely on an event, although he has cause, will, strength and means to get revenge. Apart from it, he has evidence that Claudius is the killer of his father. Hamlet finally decides that he must take action against Claudius in some form or fashion. Here he himself feels that he is the prey of procrastination that has happened due to irresolution.

His killing to Polonius is very strange. His soliloquies are proof of his delay in action. When he kills Polonius, he does not verify whether he is Claudius or some one else. It is his hastiness or childishness, and it appeals to the rule of Aristotle's concept of hamartia. Such immaturity stands the entire environment against him. He loses his love, makes enmity against Laertes and the king. He is alone and easy to be hunted by the enemies. Laertes is his mighty enemy who is under the spell of Claudius. He makes two plans to kill him. His first is to offer a poisonous cup before duel, if he avoided taking it, he would be the prey of poisonous sword of Laertes.

His mission was to take avenge of his father and to save his mother. He could not save his mother. His indecisive pursuit of revenge for his father's death confirms his major tragic flaw. In result, he is able to avenge for his father's death on his own death. He was a good person, and his devotion and struggle arouses pity and fear for him among the readers. Hamlet's irresolution is obvious in his actions after viewing the emotion of the actors, after his third soliloquy, in his fourth soliloquy, and in his indecisive pursuit of revenge for his father's death. Hamlet was able to avenge his father's death, but his own death due to his irresolution labels him as a tragic hero.

In result, it is obvious that Hamlet is not a fiery person. He looks lethargic into actions, although he has everything. His delay that inflicts his personality, but his death or tragedy restores his position. Even Fortinbras feels pity for him. It is really a great tragedy of a great tragic hero.

View the original article here

The Meaning of Tomb Paintings and Ornaments in Ancient Egypt

The tomb ornaments in the New Kingdom were gorgeous, and at first Egyptologist believed the paintings to be Egyptian dreams and fancies. But once the Amduat (book about the underworld), was found the real meaning to Ancient Egyptian tomb paintings was discovered.

During the Eighteenth Dynasty the walls of the burial chamber, the columns, the anteroom, and the shaft spot were decorated. But by the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasty the entire tomb was decorated.

The procedure of the painting even changed from simply paint to raised, then to sunk relief painting.

The Amduat clarified the nightly voyage the sun god Ra took to the underworld on his barque. It was very important that the dead pharaoh participated in this quest, to become one with Ra and live for ever.

At this point in time, only pharaohs were believed to be able to go on to the afterlife. Typical Egyptians did not have that privilege.

Tomb designs typically illustrated the pharaoh's journey with Ra. Hieroglyphs and images directly from the Amduat were decorated onto the walls of the kings' tombs.

The Amduat helped explain tomb ornaments by explaining the sun god's quest with the dead king. Specific phases of the twelve hours of night journey were painted around the pharaoh's tomb.

Each hour Ra and the spirit of the dead king would come across some kind of friend or opposing forces. The primary purpose for the quest was to supply the names of particular gods and opposings forces to the dead pharaoh, so he might utilize them for help or call upon their name to defeat them.

The very first hour of the quest, the sunlight god travel west. In hours 2 and three, the sun god would pass through a water globe called Waters of Osiris.

In hour four, Ra would reach Sokar, the sandy realm of the underworld hawk god. Throughout the fifth hour Ra might arrive at Osiris's tomb which was hidden beneath a lake of fire, and covered by a pyramid like mound, where Isis and Nephthys stood guard.

During the sixth hour, the ba of Ra united with the ba (soul) of Osiris. During this hour the sunshine god started his regrowth.

In the seventh hour, Apep, the enemy of the gods, laid in wait on a sandbank in the shape of a gigantic serpent. The snake would scoop the water of the underworld lake away from the boat to cease it from continuing on its journey.

Ancient Egyptians believed if the sunlight's cycle was ever stopped, it would be the end of the world. Thus Apep is defeated by Ra (some variations point out Isis and Seth assistance in this struggle) and his body is depicted on the royal tombs as being cut into pieces.

In the eighth hour, Ra opened the doors of the tomb and left Sokar. He then rowed promptly back into the water for the ninth hour.

In the tenth hour the regrowth process continued with Ra immerging in the waters till the eleventh hour. Ra's eyes were then totally regenerated (an indication of wellness). In the twelfth hour, Ra would rise in the east to prepare the new day's sunshine.

During the Eighteenth Dynasty tomb decorations altered. King Horemheb's tomb showed an additional book of the underworld was made use of, the Book of Gates.

Like the Amduat it displayed the night quest of the Ra on the solar barque. The difference was, the hours were not depicted. Instead an image of all the different gates the king had to go through were painted.

And at each gate Ra and the dead king would encounter a particular god or goddess.

The Book of Gates was meant for everyone, not merely royalty. The perspectives about Ancient Egyptians not having a soul had altered, and now they believed they were entitled to an afterlife.

In the Twentieth Dynasty, the Book of Caverns replaced the Amduat in tomb decorations. The Book of Caverns did not break out the twelve hours of Ra's journey, as an alternative it was a much more comprehensive about the afterlife and their idea of hell.

Check out about-ancient-egypt.com for more information on this amazing society.

View the original article here

Liberty - A Blessing?

How wonderful it would have been if Liberty was more of a universal phenomenon. Liberty to all celestial bodies to orbit, accelerate, and if wishes may command, to resign and join any other galaxy. How much magnificent could have been such varying sights of stars and sky. Unfortunately, such beauty has not been blessed to the heavenly beings. It is pity to find them busy orbiting and following the same old path since billion light years. I wonder why they don't exhaust crawling the most predictable path subjected to equations and phenomenon.

On the other side, however, I see a rare beauty in mankind, of being progressive, varying and evolving codes and patterns of lifestyle, values and laws. Its noteworthy that humans have evolved from apes, as many say. However, I wonder why the rest of the apes that still survive failed to evolve and why humans have stopped evolving any further in shape and structure. Its pity that humans in 21st century even has miserably failed to continue this legendary evolution.

Its 2 AM and its dark here. Sun rises at 5 21 AM today and I am sure there is no doubt in it. Its irony that such prediction and punctuality have never been wronged. On accounts of pretext, I see humans engulfed in dichotomy. At one point, mankind has made rules of all sorts and for every possible array of probabilities and on the other hand, they talk of freedom and liberty.

Oxford dictionary defines Liberty as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views. Whereas, the word 'oppressive' is consciously ignored by the zealous youth that bear the torch of our future. Mankind teach their children to obey and yet pass on the coin of free-will. Free-will subjected to time tested values, principles and established moralities? I wonder what use it would make to give choices to a child to chose between flavors of pizza, where he was insisting to have a Burger.

Liberty however, defined in dictionary, its boundaries clearly demarcated in literature and in the words of elderly wise people, is sure to spread the evil manifested propaganda. Liberty is the act of liberation and when our youth thinks of it, they imagine liberation from everything. Literally no rules, no boundaries and no stoppage from believing and doing what one considers fit or appealing.

It is very important to highlight and understand that the social bindings and religious restrictions are not a product of 'wish list'. It is more of a set of guidelines and instructions which if not followed and adhered shall result in an individual or massive disorder & illness. The rules and laws whether religious or worldly are not just rules which would result in reward or punishment. There is a whole lot of wisdom and understanding of thousand years that made them to survive.

Unfortunately, it is a general tendency of people that they tend to extract what favors them from a vaguely defined information and if the information is not vague, it is manipulated to look like one. Liberty, thus is not a slogan that liberates us from everything. It does have jurisdiction over few practices though, but it is not a godly freedom. Furthermore, argument of liberty is sometimes conceived as the free will of an individual that does not affect other individuals. Such argument is still misleading. It is very important that the literature which is a pr-requisite to understanding what liberty means, must be institutionalized in the public, especially youth. This phenomenon and desire of claiming liberty can not survive alone, otherwise, it will only result in chaos.

Naveed Chandio ANY ONE WHO HAPPENS TO READ IS HUMBLY REQUESTED TO COMMENT.... SO I MAY BETTER MYSELF.....

View the original article here

Prosperous Period of the Tang Dynasty

The Prosperous Period of the Tang dynasty (618-907) started with the first half of 7th century and ended in the middle period of 8th century, when the Tang Empire covered a vast territory with prosperous economy, enlightened politics and consolidated national defense, and it boasted the most powerful empire in the world, so the overseas Chinese are still called the Tang people by foreigners. The Tang dynasty is the most glorious period in ancient Chinese history, and then the extensive and profound Chinese civilization spread all over the world along the Silk Road (stretching from Chang'an (present Xi'an) to the Mediterranean coast), attracting the kings, envoys, merchants, monks and international students from all over the world to gather in Chang'an, all of whom marveled at the prosperous and bustling city.

As the history rolled on to the Prosperous Period of the Tang dynasty in China, the Americas and the Africa were still in sleeping state, the European was in the pioneering stage of the Frankfort Kingdom, the Roman Empire suffered invasions from the barbarian tribes and the Arab Empire was at war with Byzantium, Persia and India, however, the unprecedented achievements were made by the Tang Empire in economy, politics and culture during this period. Du Fu (the most well-known realist poet in Chinese history) depicted the prosperous screen of Kaiyuan Period in his poem Recalling the Past, which read, "Recalling the prosperous days in Kaiyuan Period, even a smaller county houses ten thousand households. The sweet rice and the white millets are filled with both pubic and private warehouse", fully reflecting the richness and prosperity of the Tang empire.

The agriculture industry developed rapidly during the Tang dynasty, the reasons for which are mainly as follows: fist of all, the structure of plough was greatly improved, and the working people invented the Curved Shaft Plough and scoop waterwheels (ancient Chinese irrigation tool), which greatly promoted agricultural productive force. Secondly, the new large-scaled water conservancy projects were built and the old ones were renovated successively under imperial order. Thirdly, the wastelands were cultivated, and the working people created great fortunes and contributed more to the national tax revenue. At the same time, great progress was also made in handcraft industry, and the silk fabrics from Yangzhou, Yizhou (present Chengdu) and Dingzhou were famous all over the world for their wide varieties and unique patterns, symbolizing the highest level in silk industry then. The porcelains from Xingzhou were as white as snow, while the ones from Yuezhou were as green as jade, and Tang San Cai (tri-colored glazed porcelain) was favored by people from both home and abroad for its bright color and attractive appearance. The paper-making industry in Xuanzhou and Yizhou were very famous all over China.

Chang'an and Luoyang were called the West Capital and the East Capital respectively in the Tang dynasty, functioning as the national economic and political centers and the cultural exchanging centers for the Tang Empire and the foreign countries, where a number of foreigners lived and traded with the Tang people, making them the most prosperous cities in the word then.

We provide more information for the visitors who are interested in the Tang Dynasty and the history of China, for more information, please visit my website.

View the original article here

The Greatest English Writer?

Shakespeare is such a great writer that no article, especially one as short as this, can hope to do him justice. So where do we begin? How about this: a famous passage from a lesser-known play:

This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England...

(Richard II, Act 2 Scene 1, lines 40 - 50)

Before saying anything about the lines above I suppose I ought to begin by defending the application of the term "great" to a writer such as Shakespeare. It is no longer considered to be politically correct to say that writers such as Shakespeare are "great". It is elitist. It will lay you open to the terrifying charge of "intellectual snobbery".

This applies not only to English Literature in general, and Shakespeare in particular, but also to all other branches of the arts. I teach Classical Studies at the Open University. The courses I have taught over the years have contained some of the greatest works of art ever to have been produced by the human brain. But the course materials never once mention this. The present-day "official" attitude towards the art of the past is to regard it as an invaluable repository of information about earlier historical periods, not as something which has a certain special intrinsic value. An Open University Classics course will tell you a huge amount about, say, the plays of Sophocles. What it will not do is even discuss whether the plays in question have any purely artistic merit. Such matters are now regarded simply as matters of individual taste.

I do not and cannot accept this. But I do acknowledge that if we're going to speak of "greatness" in art we need to be clear about what we actually mean. Here, then, is my criterion for greatness in art:

A work of art is "great" if, and only if, it is rich enough to allow the reader or listener or viewer to discover new things within it, or derive new experiences from it, every time they experience it. This doesn't mean that a work of art must be lengthy or complex. The tiny songs of Hugo Wolf, the lyrics of Sappho, Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience - they all fall into the category of great art because, small though they are, they never cease to surprise us, or to offer us new experiences every time we read or hear them.

If my criterion of greatness holds, then every single Shakespeare play falls into that category. And not one episode of any soap opera does. An episode of a soap opera is designed to be seen once and once only. Even diehard soap fans find it difficult to see any episode, no matter how enjoyable first time round, more than twice. But you can see, hear or read King Lear, As You Like It, or Richard II as many times as you want - you will never exhaust them.

The lines quoted about are, or were, some of the best-known lines in Shakespeare. Schoolchildren used to learn them by heart - not an exercise I would necessarily encourage. The phrase "this sceptred isle", like Blake's phrase "dark Satanic mills", has found its way into common usage. As usual, those who use the phrase have little idea of the context.

This is perhaps not entirely surprising. Richard II is a truly great play. It is (I think) the only one of the plays to be written entirely in verse. If you see a really good performance of this play, or if you spend some time with the text, you will not forget the experience in a hurry. But it has never been very popular. I believe that it has only been shown once on British television. A quick visit to Amazon shows me that there are only two versions of the play on DVD. One of them, fortunately, is the BBC Television Shakespeare version with Derek Jacobi in the title role. If you're interested, you needn't hesitate.

The lack of popularity arises from the fact that the motivations of some of the characters, especially the central character, are hard for modern audiences to understand, let alone empathize with. Why does Richard turn on Bollingbrook? Why does he abdicate when he doesn't have to? This is a historical play. Shakespeare can take some liberties but he cannot entirely re-write history. The play doesn't provide conclusive answers to these and other questions. What the play does is to bring the characters and episodes to life in a unique and wonderful way and leave the viewers or readers to judge them for themselves.

The lines quoted above are from a speech by John of Gaunt. They are spoken in praise of England. These lines might be judged as having some contemporary relevance in the Diamond Jubilee year of Richard's distant descendant Queen Elizabeth II. Events such as Royal Jubilees or Royal Weddings often evoke a certain emotional patriotism which Gaunt's lines seem to express so eloquently. But quotations from Gaunt's famous speech, like mine above, fail to present the whole picture. Gaunt's speech is not a paean of praise but a lament for an England which is passing. Note how the speech ends:

This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,

Dear for her reputation throughout the world,

Is now leased out - I die pronouncing it -

Like to a tenement or pelting farm.

England, bound in with the triumphant sea,

Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

Of watery Neptune, is now bound with shame,

With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds.

That England that was wont to conquer others,

Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

(Act 2, Scene 1, lines 57 - 66).

An England which is up for grabs, available to the highest bidder, an England in which money is all that really matters, a vain, selfish, self-serving leadership, influenced by corrupt counsel and acting in short-term self-interest, a leader who is so out-of-touch with reality that he might as well be physically blind...

Couldn't happen these days, could it?

Dr. Neil S. Hall
http://www.horshamhypnotherapy.co.uk/
The author is a practising hypnotherapist and an Associate Lecturer with the Open University (UK)

View the original article here