Sunday, 18 October 2015

Comparison between Arjuna and Eklavya

 "To evaluate my assignment, click here"

Name   :     Brijal N. Oza
Course:     M.A. English (Sem-1)
Paper no.:  4- Indian Writing in English
Topic    :      Comparison between Arjuna and
                     Eklavya in the Purpose
                     (Unit-4, The Purpose)
Roll no. :    27
Year       :   2015-2017
Enrollment no. :  PG15101027
Email ID :   brijaloza1994@gmail.com
Submitted to : Smt. S.B. Gardi Department of
                           English
              M. K. Bhavnagar University




v    Introduction of the play and playwright:
                                 -Play: “The Purpose”
                                  -Playwright: T.P. Kailasam

v    About Playwright- T.P. Kailasam:
                                 T.P. Kailasam is remembered as the ‘father of modern Kannada drama’, the man of genius whose plays revolutionize the Kannada stage.
                                 T.P. Kailasam’s full name is ‘Thyangaraja Paramashiva Kailasam’. Kailasam focused tradition on contemporary social problems, a deeply compassionate vision of the human struggle.
                                 He sought to educate the sympathies and challenge the prejudices of his audience, and humor was his main forte. While his Kannada are realistic and deal with contemporary life, his five English plays are based on the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.
 

v    About the Play: The Purpose
                                 The play ‘The Purpose’ is written by Kailasam. But the concept of the play is taken from the great epic “The Mahabharata”, which is written by ‘Maharishi Veda Vyas’.
                                 “The Purpose”, written over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts. The main characters are Eklavya, Arjuna and Drona. The central idea of that the aim of the learner finally determines his proficiency behind the mighty character of the play, with its own purpose hidden even from the great Bheeshma. 
                                 But here, Kailasam tries to break this myth of real Mahabharata. Here in the play, Kailasam tries to highlight something which in the original myth was neglected.
                                 In this play, we are discussed the comparison between the two characters, Arjuna and Eklavya.

v    Comparison Between ‘Arjuna’ and ‘Eklavya’ in the play:
                              In the play “The Purpose”, Kailasam puts two characters which are very powerful and effective characters in the play named- Arjuna and Eklavya. But, here Kailasam shows the Eklavya’s character very powerful in the play than the Arjuna’s character. Kailasam, in his play shows the strong comparison between the two great persons whose aim is to become best Archer in the world.
                              When we compare the character, we have to know about the character’s background like- who are they, what is their aim, why they want to become a great archer? So, let’s have look on the characters introduction:
                       Arjuna: When the play start, first image in our mind is about Arjuna is that- he is a very powerful man and humble person. Arjuna is a prince of ‘Hastinapur’. He is the third brother from the five Pandvas in the “Mahabharata”. He is known for his steadfastness and single mindedness in pursuing his goals.
                Eklavya: Eklavya is a Nishaada (non-Aryan) boy. In Mahabharata, there is no much important give the Eklavya’s character and therefore in the epic, we cannot get more information about the Eklavya. But somewhere, his character gives the long lasting effect in readers mind therefore reader knows him. Eklavya always speaks whatever he thinks to be sure.
When we compare with two characters that time we have to compare the “The Purpose” with “The Mahabharata”. Because these characters are taken from the Mahabharata.
                              While comparing between Arjuna and Eklavya, Arjuna is the Prince and Eklavya is a Nishaada boy or we can see that a simple boy. So, we think that prince is Arjuna so he is the protagonist of the play but, here Kailasam draws the Eklavya’s character as a protagonist or main character.
                              Arjuna and Eklavya, both are wanted to become a great archer of the world, so here we can see the similarity of their dream though the aim is same but their purpose is different because Arjuna has the personal purpose and Eklavya’s purpose is to save the animals. Therefore we can say that the purpose is differs from each other.
                       In the play, Dronacharya gives the instruction about the archery that what is most important in archery by his dialogue:
Drona: “It is a no less thing than         CONCENTRATION; an absolutely necessary element to one’s progress in any study. And the perfect archer, if he really CONCENTRATING can see nothing but his target; and this is CONCENTRATION.”
                                     When Drona gives the instruction, that time Arjuna and Eklavya both are listening carefully. Eklavya is listened carefully behind the tree the words of Drona: CON…CEN…TRA…TION…, because he want to learn the archery from the Great Dronaachaarya. In this play, Kailasam shows us that Arjuna is over confidence that he knows much more but in Mahabharata, Arjuna is humble. Here, Eklavya’s character portrays as he nothing knows about the archery and therefore he follows all the instruction of the Drona.
                       In the play and in the Mahabharata, the one thing is common that in the epic and in the play, Arjuna have the great Guru and Taataajee- Bhishma who gives the information about the archery, but Eklavya have not that. And therefore he cannot get the right information about the archery.
                              There is also one thing is common in the play and the epic is that, Eklavya have to go to the Aacharya for learning the archery and Arjuna have already Drona-Acharya. We can see in the dialogue by saying Eklavya:
Eklavya: “Will you kindly help me become the greatest archer in the world, sir?”
                       In this dialogue, Eklavya have to request for the learning archery, but Arjuna is nothing do like this. Because he is the prince of the Hastinapur. Eklavya face the many difficulties in his life but Arjuna have not, because he never faces the problem in the play as Kailasam shows us.
                              When Eklavya request for the archery, Drona ask him about his cast and that entire thing;
Drona: “What is your name? Who is your Father? Of what caste are you?”
When we compare by caste, Arjuna is a Kshatriya and Eklavya is a Nishaada. Here Kailasam shows the cast system in the play that we see also in the Mahabharata. And therefore Eklavya have to faces the difficulties.
                       When Eklavya expresses his view on nature, his purpose that why he wants learn archery? And about his caste that his caste’s peoples are not killed the innocent creature for their food. During this situation Arjuna practices of his archery but he makes mistake in it so, Eklavya point it out so Arjuna comes to talk with him about it.
Eklavya: “Paartha will never improve!”
Arjuna:  “How do you know that I will never                  improve?”
Eklavya: “Your Gurujee said that CON-CEN-
                TRA-TION is necessary to improve
                In archery! And you were not                             concentrating!”
Arjuna: “How do you know I was not
                Concentrating?”
Eklavya: “(smiling) if you had been
                Concentrating, you could not have
                Heard my words!
In this conversation, Arjuna is angry on Eklavya and therefore this conversation converted into fight between Eklavya and Arjuna. Here, we can notice that, Kailasam shows us the Eklavya’s intelligence and keen-hearing when Arjuna is poor in that intelligence.
                              After arguing, Arjuna insults Eklavya by this dialogue:
Arjuna: “(curtly to Eklavya) who are you?
                And what do you want here?”
Eklavya: “I am Nishaada. I came here to beg
                Of your Guru to help me become
                the greatest archer in the world.”
Arjuna: “(laughs outright; derisively) how
                Can you even for a moment think it possible for a NISHAADA to become what is almost impossible even for an ARYA?”
                       In this dialogue, we can see that Arjuna has ego for his cast and he thinks that he has rights to learn archery, and only Kshatriya can learn archery so he badly insults Eklavya.
                       But in Mahabharata, Arjuna is not insulted Eklavya, but here in Kailasam’s play- the main protagonist is Eklavya and therefore he describe the character of Eklavya superior than the Arjuna. Here, Arjuna’s character describe as an egoistic and self-centered in the play.
                              So, we can say after comparing this two characters’ that in Mahabharata, Arjuna was more powerful than Eklavya. He was the fast learner in the Mahabharata, because of it Eklavya’s character is not get high light in the Mahabharata.
                              In the Mahabharata, Arjuna was not insult Eklavya but T.P. Kialasam wants to high lights Eklavya’s character so he expresses like Arjuna insults Eklavya. In the Mahabharata, Guru Dronacharya takes the Guru Dakshina from Eklavya with intrigue but in the play Kailasam try to present antagonist as Arjuna. When Eklavya saw that Arjuna complaint to Dronacharya about his better archery so he wants to shut his mouth and because of it he compromise his intention of life and he gives his right ‘Thumb’ to Guru Dronacharya as a Guru Dakshina. So, we can say that Eklavya was better than Arjuna.
                              Arjuna never understands the situation of Eklavya because what he sees, it is posturized by Bheeshma and Guru Dronacharya. He just knows about his cast and his cast’s power and his responsibility for it, that’s why he don’t know the reality of life.
                              Arjuna is not wrong in his position but he is not trying to saw reality of life. The play “The Purpose” this title says about its story that purpose means intention. In the play, Eklavya wants learn archery, behind it his purpose is that he wants to save innocent creature, and Arjuna’s purpose was war because he was a prince and after some years, he became king so he has to do it. So, this is the purpose of Eklavya and Arjuna.
                              Their intention and their purpose are different so that’s why we can say that as a Nishaada boy Eklavya was not because he thinks about creatures and animals not about his personal intentions, and on the another side Arjuna was prince and he thinks about his personal intentions.

v    Conclusion:
                              At the end, we can say that in the comparison between Arjuna and Eklavya, Eklavya is the best archer in the world and he is the better than Arjuna. Because he was a Nishaada boy, so Guru Dronacharya denies him to teach him archery and therefore he learns archery by his own self. And when he saw that Arjuna complains his Gurujee about his better archery that time he compromise with his life and he gives his right “Thumb”. So, we can say that Eklavya is better than Arjuna.

                …..Thank You…..      
 



                 

                        
                      


                          

                      


  



                  



Six Parts of Tragedy

"To evaluate my assignment, click here"

Name       :  Brijal N. Oza
Course     :  M.A. English (Sem-1)
Paper no. : 3 – Literary Theory and Criticism
Topic        : Six Parts of Tragedy
                     (Unit-1, Poetics: Aristotle)
Roll no.   :  27
Year        :  2015-2017
Enrollment no.: PG15101027
Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi Department of
                           English
M.K. Bhavnagar University




v    Introduction:
                          The most brilliant student in Plato’s academy was Aristotle. Aristotle is known as “the father of Western Criticism”. He was a versatile genius.
                          Aristotle’s contribution to the history such as, logic, metaphysics, ethics, politics, literary criticism, astrology, mathematics and various branches of natural science and therefore his mind was opened to different branches of knowledge. Aristotle had this and unquenchable thirst of knowledge.
                          Aristotle’s analysis of tragedy is the most well-known section of the poetics. It remained influential for many centuries and was not seriously challenged until the 18th century. In this treatment of tragedy that the connection between the forgoing notion- imitations, action, character, morality and plot-emerge.
v    Definition of Tragedy:
            
                          Aristotle has given popular definition of tragedy. Here is Aristotle’s famous definition of what he calls the ‘essence’ of tragedy.
Tragedy then is, an imitation of an action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude; in the language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative, through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation- catharsis of these and similar emotions.
                     By means of language enriched with all kinds of ornament, each used separately in the different parts of the play. It represents men in action and does not use narrative and through pity and fear it effects relief to these and similar emotion.
                           According to Aristotle, tragedy should be more realistic. He says, Tragedy ‘show’ rather than ‘tells’.
                           Aristotle provides a definition of tragedy that we can break up into seven parts:
1.It involves mimesis ;
2.It is serious;
3.The action is complete and with magnitude;
4.It is made up of language with the “aesthetic ornaments” of rhyme and harmony;
5.These “aesthetic ornaments” are not used uniformly throughout, but are introduce in separate parts of the work, some bits are spoken in verse and other bits are sung;
6.It is performed rather than narrated;
7.It arouses the emotions of pity and fear and accomplishes a catharsis of these emotions.
                          The thinking of action is central to Aristotle’s view of tragedy because it underlines the other components and features, which include plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and song.
v    Formative Element of Tragedy:(Six Parts of Tragedy)
1)                   Plot -  (mythos)
2)                   Character -  (ethos)
3)                   Song -  (Melos)
4)                   Diction -  (lexis)
5)                   Thought -  (dianoia)
6)                   Spectacle -  (opsis)
                          These elements include the means of imitation (diction and song), the manner of imitation (spectacle), and the object of imitation (action as arranged in a plot, the character and thought of the actors).


1]: Plot: (Mythos)
                   According to Aristotle, “Plot is the soul of tragedy”. Plot is the ‘first principle’ and most important element among these six.
                   Aristotle defines, plot is an arrangement of incidents, incidents means action and tragedy is an imitation of action in both way ‘internal’ and ‘external’. therefore plot is the harmonious combination of incident and action in the story. For example: not the story itself but the way the incidents are presented to the audience, the structure of the play.
                   In tragedy, tragic effect is part of plot, not of character and therefore there can be tragedy without character but not without plot. Here there are two kinds of plots:
             1): Simple Plot
             2): Complex Plot
In this, plot may be simple or complex, but complex plot is better than simple plot. Because simple plot have only a “change of fortune” and complex plot have both “reversal of intention”, and “recognition” connected with the catastrophe.
                   This overall dramatic structure the plot is “the end at which tragedy aims”.

2]: Character: (Ethos)
                 In a perfect tragedy, character will support plot. Character reveals the individual motivation of the characters in the play, what they want or do not want, and how they react to certain situation.
Character should have some qualities:
         i.            Character should be good or fine,
     ii.            It should have fitness of character- (appropriate)
  iii.            It should be true to life- (likeness)
  iv.            It should have consistency- (true to themselves)
     v.            It should have necessary or probable
  vi.            It should be idealized
                          In first four qualities, we can say that, the character should be good but not too good or perfect, because what reveals character above all- through the dialogue or the actions- is ‘choice’. For example:
                   Hamlet- thinker
                   Othello- action, hero, proud and
                                   Jealous
                   Oedipus- moral of in anger
                   King Lear- misplaced love
                   Macbeth- ambition
Character depicted should be appropriate because they must be proving to type. By likeness, Aristotle suggests that character should be “like”. Main character’s life “like realistic” in the tragedy. The ‘like’ may well refer to the need for characters to be drawn in accordance with traditional portrayals and to be based on universal characteristics. In consistency- character’s personality and motivation are established the play.
                   Another quality is Necessary or Probable, it suggests that character must be logically constructed according to “the law of probability or necessity” that governs the actions of the play.

3]: Song: (Melos)
                   Song or lyrical elements is to be found in the tragedy. Song is a simply pleasurable accessory and therefore it is more important to the tragedy. Song is the musical component of tragedy; it is used to relieve the tension or tragic effect in the play.

4]: Diction: (Lexis)
                 Diction is the medium of language or expression by which characters reveals their thought and feeling in the play.
                   In modern sense, it means- “choice of words”. Diction- it does not mean that language should be common, simple, and suitable for the character. But “the expression of the meaning in words”, it means that language should be proper and appropriate to the plot, character and end of the tragedy. In the entire element Aristotle discuss the stylistic element of tragedy; he is particularly in metaphor;
                   “But the greatest thing by
                   Far is to have a command
                   To metaphor: …………
                   It is the mark of genius
                   For the make good metaphor
                   Implies an eye for resemblance.
There is lexis which means language and refers to the language the character use.
5]: Thought: (Dianonia)

                   Thought deals on a more universal level with reasoning and general truths. Thought is the intellectual element in a tragedy and it is an expressed through the speech of a character. Thought seems to denote the intellectual qualities of an agent but while character seems to denote the moral qualities of an agent.
                   So, thought is power of saying, filtering to occasion. Thought that is the faculty of saying what is possible and pertinent in given circumstances.

6]: Spectacle: (Opsis)
                          Spectacle is the pleasure of tragedy. Spectacle is the overall visual appearance of the stage and the actors. It is pleasurable accessories but not more important in tragedy than song. A Pretty spectacle can be arranged without a play, and usually matters of set and costume are not occupation of the poet anyway. The spectacle has indeed an emotional attraction of its own, but of all the parts, it is the least artistic and connected with the art of poetry. For example: If the play has “beautiful” costume and bad action with the bad story, there is something wrong with it, even though that beauty may save play it is “not a nice thing”.
                          Spectacle related with the stage performance and but he also says that those who on spectacle create a sense which is not of the terrible.
                           Although, Aristotle recognizes the emotional attraction of spectacle, he also argues that superior poets rely on the inner structure of the play rather than spectacle to arouse pity and fear; those who rely heavily on spectacle “create a sense, not of the terrible, but only of the monstrous”.

v    Conclusion:
                       In the conclusion, we can say that in “The Poetics” Aristotle has given the ideas about tragedy. All this has been the discussion of Aristotle’s concept of tragedy. In every kind of representational literature plot has its own important place, characters are bound to be there though they may be of the different types, it will have a definite central thought expressed in appropriate diction and technique; similarly, they have their own thought, way of presentation and spectacle.
                       We can also say that, Aristotle studied only Greek tragedy; therefore a theory of tragedy might have some limitation. Aristotle establishes scientific study of tragedy. Scott James says:
                “In giving this theory of tragedy,
                He has given as something very like
                A theory of fine art”.

                       ……Thank You……
                                    






 

                                                 




Characteristics of Neo-Classical Age


 "To my assignment, click here"evaluate  

Name       :   Brijal N. Oza
Course     :   M.A. English (Sem-1)
Paper no : 2- The Neo-Classical Literature
Topic       :  Characteristics of Neo-Classical Age
                     (Unit-5, The History of the Age)
Roll no.   :  27
Batch Year: 2015 – 2017
Enrollment no:  PG15101027
Submitted to: Smt. S.B. Gardi Department of
                          English



v     Introduction : History of the Age:
                 The revolution of 1688, which banished the last of the Stuart Kings and called William of Orange to the throne marks the end of the long struggle for political freedom in England. Therefore the Englishman spent his tremendous energy, which his forbears had largely spent in fighting for freedom.
       In order to bring about reforms, votes were necessary; and to get votes the, people of England must be approached with ideas, facts, arguments, information.
       So, the newspaper was born, and literature in its widest sense, including the book, the newspaper and the magazine became the chief instrument of a nation’s progress. This is the history of the “Neo-Classical Age”, now, we can see the social development of the age.

v     Social Development of the Age:
        
              In the half of the 18th century is remarkable for the rapid social development in England. Hitherto men had been more or less governed by the narrow, isolated standards of the middle ages, and when they differed they felt speedily to blows.
              Now, for the first time they set themselves to the task of learning the art of living together, while still holding different opinions. In a single generation nearly two thousands public coffeehouse, each a center of sociability, sprang up in London alone, and the number of private clubs in quite as astonishing.
              This is new social life had a marked effect in polishing men’s words and manners. Outwardly, men sought to refine their manners according to prevailing standards, and to be an elegant, to have “good form”, was a man’s first duty weather he entered society or wrote literature.
              One can hardly read a book or poem of the age without feeling this superficial elegance. Government still had its opposing ‘Tory’ and ‘Whig’ parties, and Anglicans and Dissenters, but the growing social life offset many antagonisms producing at least the outward impression of peace and unity. Nearly every writers of the age busied himself with religion as well as with party politics, the scientist Newton as sincerely as the churchman Barrows.
              In the latter half of the century the political and social form of cabinet government to parliament and the people had been established under premier of the first Tory cabinet, were replaced by the more enlightenment policies of pit.
              Religiously, all the churches of the England felt the quickening power of that tremendous spiritual revival known as Methodism, under the preaching of Wesley and Whitefield.

v     Characteristics of Neo-Classical Age:
                           There are many characteristics of Neo-Classical Age, which are given below:
1): An Age of Prose:
                     In every preceding age we have noted especially the poetical works, which constitute.
                     Now for the first time we must chronicle the triumph of English prose. A multitude of practical interests arising from the new social and political condition demanded expression, not simply in books, but more especially in pamphlets, magazines and newspaper.
                     Poetry was inadequate for such a task, and the development of prose, of the “unfettered word”, as Dante calls it – a development which astonish us by its rapidity and excellence.
                     Poetry itself became prosaic in this respect, that it was used not essays, for satire, for criticism and for exactly the same practical ends as was prose.
                     The poetry of the first half of the century, as typified in the work of the Pope, is polished and witty enough, but artificial; it lacks fire, fine feeling, enthusiasm, the glow of the Elizabethan Age and the moral earnestness of Puritanism.
                     In a word, it interest us as a study of life, rather than delights or inspires us by its appeal to the imagination. “The variety and excellence of prose works, and the development of a serviceable prose style, which had been begun by Dryden”, until it served to express clearly every human interest and emotion.
These are the chief literary glories of the 18th century.
2): Satire:
              In the literature of the preceding age we noted two marked tendencies:
·     The tendency to realism in subject-matter,
·     The tendency to polish and refinement of expression.
Both these tendencies were continued in the Augustan age, and are seen clearly in the poetry of Pope, who brought the couplet to perfection and in the prose of Addison.
                   A third tendency is shown in the prevalence of “Satire”, resulting from the unfortunate union of politics with literature. We have already noted the power of the press in this age, and the perpetual strife of political parties.
                   Satire is a literary work which searches out the faults of men or institution in order to hold them up to ridicule is at best a destructive kind of criticism. A satirist is like a laborer who house before the architect and buddies begin on a new and beautiful structure.

3): The Classic Age:
                         The period we are studying is known to us by various names. The name classic age is more often heard but in using it we should remember clearly these three different ways in which the word, “Classic” applied to literature.
                         The term “classic” refers, in general to writers of the highest rank in any nation. As used in our literature it was first applied to the works of the great Greek and Roman writers, like Homer and Virgil, and any English book which followed the simple and noble method of these writers was said to have a classic style.
                         The word “classic” acquired an entirely different meaning in the period we are studying, and we shall better understand this by reference to the preceding ages. The Elizabethan writers wrote in a natural style, without regard to rules and though they exaggerated and used too many words, their works are delightful because of their vigor and freshness and fine feeling.
                                                                In our study of the Elizabethan drama, we noted the good influence of the classic movement in insisting upon that beauty of form and definiteness of expression which characterize the dramas of Greece and Rome. The general tendency of literature was to look at life critically, to emphasize intellect rather than the content of a sentence. Writers strove to express all emotion and enthusiasm, and to use only precise and elegant methods of expression.
                           This is what is often meant by the “classicism” of the ages of Pope and Johnson. In a word, the classic movement had become pseudo-classic, i.e.: a false or shame classics; and the latter term is now often used to designate a considerable part of 18th century literature.
                           Now, here we are discussed some well-known writers or poets of this age.

v     Alexander Pope: (1688-1744)

                        Pope is a unique figure. In the first place, he was for a generation “the poet” of a great nation. In the narrow field of satiric and didactic verse Pope was the undisputed master. His influence completely dominated the poetry of his age and many foreign writers, as well as the majority of English poets, looked to him as their model.
                        It is useful to draw the various features of the works of this important poet:
A.   Both in subject and in style his poems are limited. They take people of his own social class and they deal with their common experience and their common interest.
B.    Within these limits his work, is powerful and an effective.
C.    Above all, he was a great artist. A study of his technique shows a meticulous sense of the exact word in the exact place.
D.   Pope’s use of the heroic couplet marks a great chance from that of Dryden.

Ø    Works of pope:
           
                   We may Pope’s works into three groups, like to the early, middle and later period of his life.
                   In the first, he wrote his ‘Pastorals’, ‘Windsor Forest’, ‘Messiah’, ‘Essay on Criticism’, and the ‘Rape of the Lock’. In the second, he wrote his translation of Homer, in the third he wrote the ‘Epistles’.
                   ‘The Rape of the Lock’ is a masterpiece of its kind, and comes nearer to being a “creation” than anything else that Pope has written.
v     Jonathan Swift: (1667-1745)

                               Jonathan Swift is the greatest English satirist. Swift’s method in hid works is to strike boldly with sarcasm and irony. It is only when we remember his life of struggle and disappointment and bitterness that we can appreciate the personal quality in his satire.
Ø    Works of Swift:
           
                   Taken together his works are a monstrous satire on humanity, and the spirit of that satire is shown clearly in a little incident of his first days in London.
                   Swift, who hated all shames, wrote, with a great shoe of learning his famous ‘Bickerstaff almanac’. As Swift rarely signed his name to any literary work, letting it stand or fall on its own merits his burlesque appeared over the pseudonym of Isaac Bickerstaff.

Ø    Character of Swift’s Satire:

                          This is joke that suggestive of all Swift’s satire. Against any case of hypocrisy or injustice he sets up a remedy of precisely the same kind.
                          Swift’s two greatest satires are: “Tale of a Tub”
                     “Gulliver’s Travels”.
We can see in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’, the satire grows more unbearable, This book, upon which Swift’s literary fame generally rests was not written from any literary motive, but rather as an outlet for the author’s own bitterness against fate and human society, It is still read with pleasure, as Robinson Crusoe is read, for the interesting adventures of the hero.
v     Samuel Johnson: (1709-1784)

                                      Here is a man who was certainly not the greatest writer of his age, perhaps not even a great writer at all, but who was nevertheless the dictator of English letters, and who still looms across the centuries of a magnificent literature as its most striking and original figure.
Ø    Johnson’s Work:
           
                   “A Book”, Johnson Swift says, “should help us either to enjoy life or to endure it”. The two things which belongs among the things ‘worthy to remembered’ are his dictionary and his lives of the poets though both these are valuable, not as literature, but rather as a study of literature.

So, at the end, we can say that the Neo-classical Age is the age of prose, satire and classic age and there were lots of changes and development in this age.
    
     Thank You