"Ode to a Nightingale" was the second of the five great odes of 1819 and its themes are reflected in its twin ode, "Ode on a Grecian Urn." One of his deeper poems, the relentless song of the Nightingale pierces Keats' sorrow at the loss of his brother, how the inevitability of death and decay blemish the beauty and happier side of nature and life. As in this poem, Keats tries to escape his pain through his poetry, "on the viewless wings of poesy" ('Ode to a Nightingale'). This poem captures something many of us will have felt at some time, the concept of not wanting a perfect moment to end, "now more than ever it seems rich to die...to cease upon the midnight with no pain" ('Ode to a Nightingale'). Keats comes back to reality as the bird vanishes up the valley, taking it's intoxicating song with it.

It almost seems as if Keats is trying to rationalize (beautifully) his cheated life. He feels as though poetry has in a way fulfilled his life and can make death more bearable. The same thoughts Keats deals with can be compared to the thoughts of the genius Hamlet, who was unsure of when it was right to die. The poem's ending is most fitting. He's confronted with the choice to “wake or sleep” ('Ode to a Nightingale'), a phrase which shows he's reluctant to continue with his daily life after hearing the most beautiful sound he could ever hear. This concludes his rationalization as he can now accept his death with peace.

"Ode on a Grecian Urn" was the third of the five great odes of 1819. During Keats' time it was not unusual to make a work of art, painting or sculpture a subject of a poem. Taken literally, the poem "Ode to a Grecian Urn" is a poem about a vase, but Keats has switched the traditional understanding of physical, tangible objects and transformed them into metaphors for abstract concepts, such as truth and time. An urn is primarily used to preserve the ashes of the dead. The theme of the Ode has to do with the relationship between imagination and actuality, and the supremacy and immortality of a work of art if compared to our ordinary life. With the masterful use of figurative language, Keats has created a melodic poem which serves the purpose he gives it.

Keats wrote the scenes about the musician and the passionate youth to express their eternal value. We can see that from the sentence “Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter” ('Ode on a Grecian Urn'). Since the unheard music will last forever and is never affected by time, it is worth more than presently heard music. Also, the passionate youth will always keep his passion and admiration to the girl. Keats used those wonderful images to correspond to the last stanza “Beauty is truth, truth beauty” ('Ode on a Grecian Urn'). It is easy to understand now why he admired the urn for its eternal value. Also, Since Keats' brother died of tuberculosis, there is the possibility of Keats' own imminent death to the same disease, “Who are these coming to the sacrifice” ('Ode on a Grecian Urn')? That is why the poems move on from the endless love between the young couple to the ritual part.

Keats' own imminent death caused him to create a complex rationalization to secure his place in life through his own physical and intellectual art. Evan Boland writes that Keats “read voraciously, to dream of greatness, and even to imagine a place for himself in the fast-moving literature of the time” (Boland 95). Keats had always dreamed of placing himself in the eternal memories of literary greatness. His dreams must have only been intensified when he learned of own imminent death. Humble beginnings as a “son of a lively stable keeper” (Boland 95) must also have inspired him to achieve greatness. Keats was an extraordinary man that was able, in a way, to overcome death for an eternal moment and secure his memories using his own artistic genius.

Ambition is a quality that no man lacks, as all men have their ambitions. Once the Thane of Glamis, Macbeth was hooked to his ambitious desire for power. Macbeth's ambitions were at first questioned by himself, after telling his wife that they're not going to kill King Duncan she accuses him of cowardice, and he pleads, "Prithee, peace: / I dare do all that may become a man; / Who dares do more is none" (1.7.46-48). His belief at this time is that a real man wouldn't commit murder. The “dares do more” refers to crossing the line between an honorable kill and an act of sin. In Lady Macbeth's eyes if Macbeth did not kill Duncan than he would not be a man to her anymore, she believes that “When you durst do it, then you were a man” (1.7.47-49). Lady Macbeth also believes he would be denying all urges for greater wealth and prosperity that man should have if he doesn't kill the king. Leaving behind all perspectives of right or wrong, Lady Macbeth wonders why he is not taking the opportunity to be king when he can easily do so. In reality, Macbeth is contemplating the murder of Macbeth because he has morals, qualities that are also considered manly.

Macbeth's journey takes a dark turn when his once high morals begin to decay. After Macbeth was persuaded to kill the king by his wife, his view on what makes a man changed. When Macbeth tries to convince the murderers of all the terrible deeds Banquo has brought upon them, they reply by stating "We are men, my liege" (3.1.102-107). They would not kill unjustified, which is what Macbeth initially believed about killing the king when he identified murder with sin. However, Macbeth replies sarcastically in anger:

Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men,

As hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels,

curs,

Shoughs, water-rugs and demi-wolves, are clept

All by the name of dogs. (3.1.102-107)

He compares them to “hounds and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels,” and not true men. Macbeth believes they pretend to act as men, and that the only way they can become real men is if they kill Banquo. This is one of the first significant events where Macbeth changes his view on what defines a man after have murdering Duncan. Macbeth ends up convincing the murderers “That it was he [Banquo] in the times past which held you” (3.1.76). The “held you” refers to the times Banquo held back or made poor the murderers.

High morals are usually directly related to the patriotic behaviors shown in the play. When the news of the death of his son reaches Siward, he is strangely unmoved. However, pleased in the knowledge that his son died an honorable man, fighting for his cause, he is happy knowing that his sons wounds were on his chest, that his son was not killed running away, “But like a man he died” (5.8.39-43). Though the boy had not reached physical masculinity, that he was still one of the “unrough youths” (5.2.10), he had proven his manliness through his courage in battle. When Ross tells Siward that his son had marks on the front of his body, his father is proud and brags about his death, "Why then, God's solider be he” (5.8.l46). The boy's father seems to have no grief over his son's death, but instead rejoices that his son “Protest[s] their [his] first of manhood.” This simply means that his son had adequately proven himself worthy to be called a true man.

When it is generally thought that honor, patriotism, and courage are attributes associated with men, the barrier between genders is broken in Macbeth. Especially in terms of violence, women such as Lady Macbeth are capable of murderous and violent actions. Her only barricade is her gender, to do what men do, she must essentially become a man:

Come, you spirits

That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,

And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full

Of direst cruelty! (1.5.40-43)

Lady Macbeth is a man trapped in a woman's body. Her masculine nature seeps through her murderous intentions. If the spirits "unsex" her, she won't be bothered by a woman's kindess or remorse. She will be a cruel killer of “direst cruelty,” like a man. Lady Macbeth begins to lose her sanity the night of Duncun's murder and cannot relate to her feelings or guilty conscience. She admits that "she could kill her only child just as easy” (1.7.72-74). All perception of right and wrong lost, Lady Macbeth sinks afterwards into guilt, and eventually commits suicide. Also questioning the barrier separating men from women are the wyrd sisters. Banquo challenges the witches, "you should be women, / And yet your beards forbid me to interpret / That you are so" (1.3.45-47). This gender confusion further symbolizes the confusion Lady Macbeth has in awakening her masculine side.

By the end of the play Macbeth pays dearly for his masculine ways, with death. Ultimately beginning and ending on the battlefield, Macbeth has always agreed that violence and combat was a sure way of proving masculinity. Macduff believed this too, but also thought there was more to a real man than only thoughtless violence. When Macduff realizes that his wife and children have been murdered, he breaks down and begins to weep. Malcolm tells him to “Dispute it like a man” (4.3.259), wanting Macduff to keep his emotions in check. Malcolm affirms his belief that real men don't cry when he says this, but Macduff believes differently, as when he states “I shall do so, / but I must also feel it as a man” (4.3.260). Macduff then promises to convert these emotions into a “manly” revenge against Macbeth. The end of Macbeth reveals there is much more to masculinity than meets physical appearance, that it is only something earned through one's courageous actions and sincere emotions.

New measures of success and achievement subordinated previously strong morals and lifestyles. Increasing factory production, wealth, and income became priorities over religion, education, and politics. Industrialism had, as Hays puts it, “provided for every American an opportunity to participate in great economic achievements and to enjoy a higher standard of living; but it also demanded drastic changes in their lives (3).” Hays accurately realized that when the individual fought industrialism, he also adapted to it, thus creating the revolutionary changes to American society.

The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914 is part of a chronological series of books covering American history from beginning to end. The book itself is organized into four broad topics, along with a separate section on the political happenings of the era. The first topic covers organizational revolution, which studies how the individual is forced to join with each other to cope with a new, impersonal economic environment that threatened an old way of life. Hays use the farmers' battle against high costs and low yields as an example of organizational revolution. Farmers first organized themselves into The Patrons of Husbandry to lead the agrarian protest movement.

The second topic covers reform as a search for individual values. Hays brings attention to both physical values and moral values. Wealth and production permeated the minds of American business owners and resulted in the new urban middle class. Hays uses an excerpt from E.L. Godkin's published in the Nation to describe the reaction felt against the new wealthy class, in which Godkin describes them as a “gaudy stream of bespangled, belaced, and beruffled barbarians (25).” New moral obligations resulted in humanitarian reform, as the Americans of the early 20th century felt guilt for the “necessary element” of society, also known as the urban poor.

The third topic describes the response to the city. Hays explains that industrial unrest and economic hardship further separated agriculture from labor. The farmer ceased to trust the city worker, a potential enemy to a lower tariff. From within the city workers could find factory jobs earning a static wage. The last topic gives the reaction of less developed and more developed areas. Existing cities expanded. People from less developed areas or suburbs could now have jobs in a city without living in the city. The invention of the automobile greatly accelerated this work lifestyle.

Hays's book accurately and in detail describes the variety of ways in which the people of the United States responded to the drastic innovations of industrialism. A variety of books and articles are cited to create plausible explanations. Each chapter covers a topic in thorough detail by further subdividing each chapter into specific sub-categories. Hays achieved his purpose of viewing the populace-progressive era with a full understanding of cause and effect, and not oversimplifying the forces that led to full integration with an industrial society. With an aim to expose these forces, Hays succeeded.

It is conclusive to say that American society interpreted the changes, adjusted to them, and created new ways of living patterns of behavior out of them. However, there are a few factors in which Hays could have delved deeper to further explain the social and cultural changes occurring. The labor movement along with the role of women are either missing or too short a section to provide valid support of his purpose. Both had strong effects on the new industrial society, from building worker-business relationships to the dramatic cultural and political changes brought about by women activists. Hays also takes on the viewpoint of the individual rather than the viewpoint of big business, creating an almost one-sided view on how the individual felt and influenced the full burden of change.

This book is best geared towards the student wanting to greater his or her knowledge of the many changes taking place during the late 19th century and early 20th century. This book had specifically mentioned events discussed in the classroom. One that came to mind was the beginnings of Andrew Carnegie, a farsighted entrepreneur whose steel company helped industrialize railroad transportation. Further in the book, Carnegie is mentioned again when one of his steel plants brought a bloody clash between strikers and Pinkerton detectives, events already familiar from AP history. Overall, Hays's book provides vital views on the individual's effect on industrialism, but is to be used in conjunction with other material for a fair, all-sided view of the industrial era and the changes it brought to the American lifestyle.

An example of this is when Don Quixote and Sancho encounter two monks and a carriage carrying a lady and her attendants. Don Quixote thinks that the two monks are enchanters who have captured a princess and attacks them, ignoring Sancho's and the monks' protests. He knocks one monk off his mule.

Sancho, believing he is rightly taking spoils from Don Quixote's battle, begins to rob the monk of his clothes. The monks' servants beat Sancho, and the two monks ride off. This shows how much Sancho gets caught up in Don Quixote's madness, since in reality there was no “spoils” to be won from the fallen monk. On the other hand, Sancho often chastises Don Quixote for his reliance on fantasy. Sancho effectively acts as Don Quixote's foil. Sancho also has a quick sense of humor to counter the solemn nature of Don Quixote. Sancho also only deceives and lies only when it suits him, and tells the truth and sticks to reality when the odds are against him. An example of this is when Sancho and Don Quixote leave an inn, the innkeeper demands that he pay for his stay.

Surprised that he has stayed in an inn and not a castle, Don Quixote refuses to pay on the grounds that knights-errant never pay for lodging. He rides off, slinging insults at the innkeeper. Several rogues at the inn capture Sancho, who also refuses to pay. Sancho finally gets away and feels proud for not having paid. It is in this way that Sancho twists reality to fit his own needs.

Living in both Don Quixote's world and the world of his contemporaries, Sancho is able to create his own niche between them. He embodies the good and the bad aspects of both the current era and the bygone days of chivalry.

But it turns out that the innkeeper has stolen Sancho's saddlebags anyway. Through Sancho, Cervantes critiques the ill-conceived equation of class and worth. Though Sancho acts ignorant and foolish, he nonetheless proves himself a just ruler, better than the aristocratic Duke. By the time Sancho returns home for the last time, he has gained confidence in himself and in his ability to solve problems.

One character trait of Don Quixote is that he frequently muddles fantasy with reality. While on the trail with his faithful squire, Sancho, Don Quixote mistakes a field of windmills for massive giants. Caught up in his own reality, and also dragging Sancho with him, Don Quixote attacks the windmills on his nag, who he believes to be a great horse of chivalry. As the windmills are not actually giants, the blade knocks Don Quixote right off his horse. Afterwards, Don Quixote reasons that a wizard must have transformed the giants into windmills at the last second, in order to fool him.

This is a reoccurring scene, when Don Quixote justifies his fantasies with even more ridiculous implications. Don Quixote is also extremely intelligent. He cogently and concisely talks about literature, soldiering, and government, among other topics. He is very well learned in the ways of poetry and books pertaining to his favorite subject, knights and chivalry. Don Quixote also has a habit of correcting errors in the particular ways in which some people speak. In one instance he interrupted and man so many times that he refused to finish the story that he was reciting. At other times he would correct Sancho himself, who usually claimed stories were told in “such a way” that words and events were repeated for clarity.

The intelligent nature of Don Quixote makes him out to appear sane at times. Don Quixote is a coy character, and brings up the idea that he really does know what is going on around him and that he merely chooses to ignore the world and the consequences of his disastrous actions. At a few points it is hinted at that Don Quixote may know more than he admits. Therefore, when Don Quixote suddenly declares himself sane at the end of the novel, it is under suspicion that he has at least partly feigned this madness.

On the other hand, we can read Don Quixote's character as a warning that even the most intelligent and otherwise practically minded person can fall victim to his own foolishness. Don Quixote's adventures also serve as a warning that an outmoded set of values can both produce positive and negative outcomes. Don Quixote followed his morals so fiercely that he refused to let the environment surrounding him stand in the way of his own reality, and not the actual reality.

To answer the question of madness, the full definition of insanity must be explored. Insanity includes losing touch with reality, lacking the ability to determine right from wrong, or having no concept for the consequences of one's actions. Hamlet proves his sanity when he shows a clear understanding of his situation, believes that he is in the wrong no matter what he does, and realizes the consequences of his actions.

As the play progresses, Hamlet appears to slip into a state of madness. The facts that label Hamlet as a madman are true, but it is the way they are interpreted that will decide if Hamlet's madness is sincere. One main indicator of an unstable mind is the constant mood swings that plague Hamlet throughout the play. When Hamlet first hears of his father's murder he begins to speak “wild and whirling words” (Shakespeare Act I, Scene v).

Furthermore, Hamlet acts very erratically towards Ophelia from then on. He professes to be the only one who truly loves her during the fight with Laertes in Ophelia's grave, but he tells her that he never loved her when she returns his letters and gifts. In one scenario, Hamlet himself tells Laertes that he killed Polonius in a "fit of madness" (Shakespeare Act V, Scene ii). It is Hamlet alone who sees his father's ghost in his mother's chamber. Every other time the ghost appeared someone else has seen it. During this scene he finally shows his evident madness because his mother does not see the ghost.

While there are many arguments for the madness of Hamlet, there are also facts throughout the play that point to the evident sanity of Hamlet. The most obvious of clues to Hamlet's sanity come from Hamlet himself. Hamlet tells Horatio that he is going to "feign madness," and that if Horatio notices any strange behavior from Hamlet, it is because he is putting on an act (Shakespeare Act I, Scene v).

Hamlet tells his mother that he is not mad, "but mad in craft" (Shakespeare Act III, Scene iv). Perhaps the greatest indicator of sanity is that Hamlet's madness only manifests itself when he is in the presence of certain characters. When Hamlet is around Polonius, Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, he behaves irrationally. When Hamlet is around Horatio, Bernardo, Francisco, The Players and the Gravediggers, he behaves rationally.

The only questionable quality Horatio notes about Hamlet is his inability to “control his wild and whirling moods,” but unstable emotions could very well be a byproduct from Hamlet's traumatizing situation (Kermode 1139). Even the antagonist Claudius confesses that Hamlet's "actions although strange, do not appear to stem from madness" (Shakespeare Act III, Scene i).

Now that the facts concerning the two points of view of Hamlet's madness have been revealed, it is possible to compare the facts for contradictions. The facts gone over in the second paragraph point to the alternate conclusion that Hamlet merely uses his “madness” to his political and social advantage throughout the play. Hamlet hides behind madness because he knows that he will not be seen as committing crimes against the crown, such as mutiny, or conspiracy to kill the king.

This plan works because the king knows that the people of Denmark love Hamlet. If Hamlet is killed while in a brief period of madness, Claudius himself will be up for questioning and his country will turn on him. The deliberate ambiguity which Hamlet puts into his actions can not be described as mad behavior. He is challenging characters such as Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius but challenging them cleverly enough as to not be held responsible from the interpretations that they take.

If Hamlet was truly mad, then he would have had the actions of a mad man. His actions were not mad but of a man far beyond his time, because as he states in the play "time is out of joint" (Shakespeare Act I, Scene v). If he was mad, Hamlet's actions would have been unpredictable and inefficient at achieving revenge. A mad man can not think logically, but Hamlet does the very opposite and analyzes every single action that he does, or does not make. If Hamlet was truly mad then he would display blundering action, not careful hesitation, perhaps by immediately killing the king or taking up his own desires to kill himself.

He makes the world believe he is mad so that he may have the chances that only a mad man could gain, such as challenging authority, killing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Killing Laertes, and finally in the end, getting his revenge of killing Claudius. As stated by Kermode, “Hamlet's problem is a problem of action...” (Kermode 1139). Hamlet does not become insane, but rather becomes saner throughout his plan; he learns about diplomacy, becomes aware of the consequences, and finally, taking the actions that only a true genius could ever wish for, the total annihilation of all that was wrong when he starts his revenge.

Hamlet's methods and intentions were not of a madman, but an overstressed genius far beyond his time. Hamlet craftily employs his technique of madness to avoid the consequences of activities he would have certainly been convicted of had he been acting sane. Hamlet may have also acted mad in retaliation to an acquired social hatred of women.

Andrews reveals this idea when he states “the madness that Hamlet assumes... is the individual symptom of a deeper social malaise” (Andrews 244). No matter the cause of feigned madness, it is in this fashion Hamlet is able to escape punishment for the very act he seeks revenge for, murder. Hamlets methods and intentions contradict the idea of madness and reveal a much smarter Hamlet character than originally perceived.

Don Quixote symbolizes the irrational imagination shared by the universal human spirit. Don Quixote cannot, for instance, identify with the priest's rational perspective and objectives, and Don Quixote's belief in enchantment appears ridiculous to the priest. Toward the end of the Second Part, however, there seems to be a compromise between two incompatible systems of morality, allowing Don Quixote's imaginary world and the commonplace world to infiltrate each other.

Don Quixote also symbolizes great honor in his chivalric endeavors. Don Quixote's obsession with his honor leads him to do battle foolishly with those who never mean him offense. Dorothea's concern for her personal honor leads her to pursue her lover with satisfactory results. In these examples, we see that characters who are primarily concerned with socially prescribed codes of honor such as Don Quixote meet with difficulty, while those who set out merely to protect their own personal honor, such as Dorothea, meet with success.

Don Quixote also revitalizes the concept of romantic love. Though many people in Don Quixote's world seem to have given up on romantic love, Don Quixote and a few other characters hold this ideal to the fullest. Camacho's wedding is a situation in which romantic love rises above all else. Even in the case of Sancho and his wife, romantic love prevails as a significant part of commitment, which we see in Teresa's desire to honor her husband at court. Don Quixote pushes romantic love to the extreme as he idolizes a woman he has never even seen.

This view is that no matter how many chances humanity gets, humanity will always revert back to old sinful ways, even when the potential of goodness is present. This says a lot about humanity, particularly that humanity will always destroy itself and its surroundings (nature even?), even when given a second chance.

All that remains for Dr. Heidegger are the “dead subjects” from past experiments, possibly including his own wife. These events may refer to the precious nature of the one life humanity gets to live, the one that is sometimes destroyed by our “experiments.” Even so, the drive of curiosity mixed with the ignorance of our past will lead to humanities ultimate destruction.

Each character brings about an honest representation of life during the fifteenth century. Every character stands out as a real person, including Margaret Paston, a wife and mother who fought the family and land battles. Her husband, John Paston I, who was tough, hardheaded, and was sent to Prison three times yet never yielding to his enemies. While the book boasts a large cast of interesting characters, the Paston family really comes alive through the author's use of the family's own words and the three generations of Paston letters. Virgoe also excels at weaving explanatory material, diagrams, and artwork among the letters to make their contents more meaningful to the readers.

The letters are presented for the most part in chronological order, starting with the birth of William Paston I in 1379 and ending with the death John Paston III in 1504. Their contents reveal clearly the joys and trials of the Paston family as they dealt with marriages, lawsuits, disease, and other relationships and concerns in many cases not unlike those we encounter in our own lives today. The wry humor of Margaret Paston is conveyed in a letter she wrote to her husband John after becoming pregnant for the first time. She explains that she has “grown so slim that I cannot be girt into any girdle I have except one (41).” It is Margaret's playful attitude that makes the later somewhat depressing circumstances bearable throughout the correspondence of the letters, such as when she explains her concerns on the shortage of money while in the same paragraph passing on some mischievous gossip about her neighbor.

During the bloody Wars of the Roses, the Pastons were fortunate to pick the winning side, and their power and influence grew for a generation. But glory could not last forever, and ruin eventually did come. Succeeding generations of Pastons spent their fortune more quickly than they could replenish it. Facing bankruptcy, Edward Paston sold off the family home outside London, including furniture, works of art, and documents that chronicled his family's rise to influence hundreds of years earlier. It is these documents that constitute the reconstruction of the Paston timeline, and also the history of English society as it emerged from the Middle Ages into the early-modern period.

The book is very readable and can be thoroughly enjoyed by either the casual layman reader or medieval historian. It is non-fiction, but through the letters and the context the book reads like a non-fiction novel. The letters vividly convey an impression of the diversity of peoples and customs of Eastern England. The book accomplishes this with the help of many excerpts and diagrams meant to aid in the understandings of medieval life. In one case a diagram shows the structure of the fifteenth century government in England, with the King at the top and the Constables of Townships at the bottom. Another excerpt details on fifteenth-century fashions.

Virgoe describes that by the time of the Paston letters, “cloaks were shortening yet again and waists becoming tighter, creating an emphasis on the buttocks and loins (42).” Long hair was also coming back into fashion around this time. Facts such as these were supplemented with art and pictures relating to the fashions of the fifteenth century. The integration of explanatory material, diagrams, and art is very effective in broadening the overall immersion into the Paston's time period.

Virgoe does an efficient job at interpreting the Paston family letters as each account is explained with little to no bias. The emotions and feelings of the characters are self-explanatory, and Virgoe simply summarizes them for each set of letters. In conclusion, I believe that like any other lineage, the Paston lineage had its highs and lows, and ultimately can relate to modern families in more ways than would be expected. As in medieval times, families now deal with marriage, love, religion, adolescence, and plain stress in everyday life.

Through reading the accounts of Paston life, I feel as though there are more similarities than differences in lifestyles of old and of now. The Pastion family's story is real and unaltered, revealing the humane aspects of life that are often forgotten while shifting through the pages of a history book. The lives and desires of ordinary people with problems to overcome, tragedies to suffer, and that elusive, brief moment of happiness.