The Life Of John C Calhoun History Essay

The Life Of John C Calhoun History Essay Throughout his lifetime, John Caldwell Calhoun achieved many different titles. He had experience as a statesman, a political philosopher, a secretary of war, a secretary of state, a member of the Senate, a member of Congress, the leading champion of Southern rights, and even Vice President of the United States (USGenWeb 1). No matter what position he held, his views and dreams for the South stayed consistent. During his career as vice president, he constantly pushed Jackson to help keep the South alive (Bartlett 26). Calhoun spent much of his life promoting growth of the South. John Calhoun was born on a South Carolina farm in 1782. His father, Patrick Calhoun, was a very religious man who treated his son very badly. He was a judge, owned countless slaves, and had also served in the South Carolina legislature (Capers 4). John, however, graduated from Yale in 1804 and studied law at Tapping Reeves in Litchfield, CN (Capers 9-11). In 1811, John married a distant cousin and had 9 children. Calhouns marriage brought him great fortune. As a result, Calhoun built a plantation called Fort Hill in 1825 (Bartlett 39). As time went by, Calhoun began involving himself with political philosophy, ideas, and business more often. He was later referred to as a thinking machine, always speaking in a very fast, serious manner (Niven 49). In 1808, John Calhoun was elected to the State legislature of South Carolina, beginning his career in politics. Two years later, he was elected to the Unites States House of Representatives. Henry Clay selected Calhoun to be the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He, among others, strongly encouraged the War of 1812. Calhoun urged the House to build a strong army. Even after the war, his efforts towards achieving a stronger military continued (Niven 98). Over time, however, it seems as though the level of importance of a strong military in Calhouns mind decreased significantly. In 1846, John Calhoun refused to vote in favor of the declaration of war against Mexico. Eventually, the idea of peace entered Calhouns mind as right and therefore determined war as, in his words, a positive evil (Cralle 277). In 1817, Calhoun went into James Monroes Cabinet as a nationalist. In Monroes Cabinet, he was the secretary of state until 1825 (Capers 61). Calhoun later served as vice president to John Quinsy Adams from 1825 to 1829. He was later elected vice president again under Andrew Jackson (USGenWeb 1). Both of his terms as vice president to the Unites States is what he is best known as. During the time of Calhouns term as vice president to Andrew Jackson, the Nullification Crisis surfaced. This time period is directly linked to the Tariff of Abominations along with the resulting chaos that that followed (Bartlett 102). Calhoun wished to run for president after Jacksons term was over, but during Jacksons first term, he and Calhoun had many conflicts. Jackson was furious when he discovered that Calhoun had criticized his invasion of Florida in 1818. Also, John C. Calhoun had his thoughts and beliefs concerning the Tariff of Abominations expressed in The South Carolina Exposition and Protest. This was later referred to as Calhouns Exposition. Although Calhoun had written this document anonymously, the author of the document was still clear to many. In this document, Calhoun warned that if the Tariff of Abominations was not rejected, South Carolina would break away. It was also stated by Calhoun that if it was decided that a Federal document was unconstitutional, any st ate held the right to nullify the document. This idea was later named Calhouns Doctrine of nullification. Calhoun made a clear attempt to convince others that the Tariff of Abominations was a direct attack on the South (Niven 180-181). In 1832, Calhoun resigned as vice president and soon after got elected into the senate. He used this opportunity to defend South Carolina. In that same year, South Carolina announced that the Tariff of Abominations was null in void in that state. When the other Southern states did not follow South Carolinas example as originally planned, Henry Clay proposed a compromise designed to lower the tariffs over a long period of time (USGenWeb 1). While in the Senate during the 1830s, Calhoun began attacking abolitionists and demanding that revolts against slavery in the North be stopped. He also did not want abolitionist petitions to be acknowledged by Congress (Bartlett 210). John Calhoun defended both slavery and the South with all of his might. Calhoun was soon after known to be the most popular slavery defender by many people (Bartlett 235). Although he made his plans of being chosen to run in the presidential election in the letters he had written to his friends, few people expected Calhoun to carry out the attitude of a candidate (Bartlett 237). The closer it got to the presidential race, the more Calhoun would go out of his way to not only impress the people, but also to gain their respect. In one of his attempts, he became a member of the Irish Immigrant Society of New York. He did this as a way of expressing the pride that he felt for his heritage and his father who had been an Irish immigrant himself (Bartlett 238). This proved to win the attention of many working class citizens of New York. Calhoun declared his candidacy in 1843 but later withdrew from the race. Instead, he took on the role as secretary of state under John Tyler who only had one year before his term was completed (Niven 264). Congress had adopted Texas into the Union by 1844. As a direct result, the slavery area of the United States grew. This helped maintain the sectional balance within the Union (USGenWeb 1). By the following year, Calhoun had rejoined the Senate. During his time in the Senate, Calhoun had opposed the Wilmot Proviso after first opposing the war versus Mexico. The Wilmot Proviso had been created to prevent slavery from occurring within any territory taken from Mexico during the war. Calhoun knew that a war between America and Mexico was a bad idea. He feared that if a war was declared with Mexico, America would enter under the wrong circumstances (Bartlett 341). While in the Senate, Calhoun was successful in limiting the frequency of discussions held in Congress regarding slavery. Maintaining the same attitude towards slavery, when the Compromise of 1850 idea was introduced, Calhoun not only voted against it, but made it publicly known that he saw it as disgraceful (Niven 293). The Compromise of 1850 stated that Southerners rights to bring their slaves into other Union territories were not guaranteed. When the Compromise of 1850 was adopted, Calhoun was no longer alive. Calhoun appeared in Congress for the last time on the seventh of March. On that particular day, he listened to the sectional peace appeal made by Daniel Webster and approved. In the last month of his life, Calhoun had countless discussions with his fellow Southerners. He made his growing fear for the future of the South very clear. Nothing short of the terms I propose can settle it finally and permanently. Indeed, it is difficult to see how two peoples so different and hostile can exist together (Capers 252). On the night before his death, Calhoun said to his friends, If I had my health and strength to devote one more hour to my country in the Senate, I could do no more than in my whole life (Capers 253). Calhouns dedication to the Union was undeniably sincere. The countless efforts put forward, and the measures taken by Calhoun to support and protect the South are without a doubt deserving of respect. In Washington D.C, John Caldwell Calhoun was pronounced dead on March 31, 1850.

Hatshepsuts Reign

The Role of Hatshepsut as a female pharaoh throughout the 18th Dynasty in Egyptian society was vital for the ultimate construction of Egypt as a major imperial power and the overall greatness of Egypt. Hatshepsut’s reign from 1503 BCE to 1482 BCE was one of the most prosperous periods for ancient Egyptian society, the role of Hatshepsut saw a time of great prosperity for the economy and architecture furthermore it was a time of advancement in the arts and of great peace. The great reign of Hatshepsut lasted for twenty-two years, and paved the way for Thutmosis III, who was able to engage in the repossession of the throne. The effective transition from the reign of Hatshepsut to Thutmosis enabled Thutmosis to initiate campaigns of conquest in the East of Egypt, which inturn lead to the establishment of a successful Egyptian Empire. Hatshepsut contributed significantly to the construction of great monuments, temples statues and also other architectural masterpieces, these offerings to Egyptian society again contributed to the greatness of not only ancient Egypt itself but also to the greatness of Hatshepsut and her success as a female pharaoh. Historian David Bediz elaborates that although other female rulers both preceded and followed her, Hatshepsut’s long and prosperous rule made her one of the greatest female rulers of all time; â€Å"She ruled the most powerful, advanced civilisation in the world, successfully for twenty years†¦. Her success stands for all eternity. † The architecture of Hatshepsut was quite unique in a sense that she left her own mark on traditional Egyptian architecture. Historian Naville was quoted â€Å"The works of art from her reign, display the imprint of an individual novel taste, which must be none other than that of the divine being who occupied the Horus-throne† (Naville, 1906) Hatshepsut brought stability to the nation. But by far her defining achievement was her temple at Der-el Bahri known rightfully as the â€Å"sublime of sublimes† (Monet, 1968: p. 23). The construction of the temple took place between 1498 BC to 1483 BC. The following inscription from Der-el Bahri exemplifies her achievement â€Å"When you rest in your building where your beauties are worshipped, Amun Ra, the Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, give Hatshepsut life, duration and happiness. For she has made this building fine, great, pure† (Der el Bahri inscription in www. touregypt. net 18/5/04). Her temple would become her defining achievement that in term characterised Hatshepsut’s reign. Hatshepsut’s architectural achievements were the defining characteristic of her reign and therefore were her most important contribution to the greatness of Egypt. Additionally, by Hatshepsut investing money into the beautification of her country, it allowed for a politically stable environment which in term would eventually help Thutmosis III. Although Architecture was Hatshepsut’s defining achievement without a flourishing economy it would not have been possible. Hatshepsut’s reign was phenomenal in the sense that her contribution to the economy by endeavours in trade and foreign relations. This contributed to Egypt becoming a wealthy nation with unrivalled economic power. Her consolidation and injections into the economy would inevitably become the foundation that allowed Thutmosis III to undertake military campaigns of large scale. Naville reiterates the proposed ideas â€Å"her government must have been at once strong and enlightened, for when her nephew Thutmosis III succeeded her, the country was sufficiently powerful and rich to allow him to venture on a succession of war of conquests† (Naville, 1906,). Under Queen Hatshepsut’s reign, trade with foreign countries was expanded, not only with the African lands to the south, but also with the Levant and the islands of the sea. The Queen decided to strengthen the relationships with friendly nations and let hostile Asiatic nations be punished for their ignorance and arrogance. Relations with Byblos flourished again and the turquoise mines of Sinai were reopened. Furthermore Timber from the land of Negau was imported and envoys to the southern land negotiated the trade of metals and precious commodities such as panther and elephants skins with the inhabitants of the Libyan coast. As quoted by Redforde upon Hatshepsut’s trade bolstering â€Å"Hatshepsut was not blind to the need of bolstering Egypt’s economy. Running a close second to the building program were the economic measures, taken by the Queen. Trade with foreign countries was furthered†(Redforde,1967:p. 87). Under Hatshepsut, the state owned the majority of land. The following extract quoted by Spalinger epitomises her reorganisation of Egypt â€Å"From persons who controlled and worked parcels of property the state collected taxes in the form of cattle, grain, wine and other goods the land yielded. Adding to Egypt vast internal revenues was tribute paid from outside. †(Spalinger, 1978) The expedition to Punt characterised Hatshepsut’s reign and personified her internal glory policy. Queen Hatshepsut sent five Phoenician styled ships on a trade expedition that would distill luxuries unparalleled upon Egypt. An inscription from Der el Bahri gives insight on the expedition â€Å"The loading of the ships heavily with marvels of the country of Punt, all godly fragrant wood’s of God’s Land, myrrh resin, with fresh myrrh trees, with ebony and pure ivory†¦ with green gold of Euni, with cinnamon wood, incense, eye cosmetics, with apes, monkeys, dogs and with skins of the southern panther, with natives and their children†(Der el Bahri inscription in Williams, 1994). Hatshepsut’s contribution to the Egyptian economy was so important that it allowed the rest of the Pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty unrivalled and unlimited economic power. Hatshepsut’s internal development and building programs bought political stability to Egypt and thus allowed way for Thutmosis III’s conquests this and unrivalled economic prowess. Although Hatshepsut prioritized internal development and economic endeavours she was proud of the state of readiness of her army Hatshepsut’s military exploits, although miniscule compared to that of former and future pharaohs who pursued an expansionistic militaristic imperialism policy, contributed to the greatness of Egypt. A naive perspective of Hatshepsut’s reign would express that she undertook no military campaigns and exercised no military prowess but as quoted by Reforde â€Å"clearly that the belief that Hatshepsut undertook no foreign wars is simply untrue† (Redforde, 1967). Although Hatshepsut didn’t pursue an expansionistic militaristic imperialism policy and expand Egypt’s boarders there were two probable reasons for this; she was a women and thus found it rather inconvenient to lead an army of men in the field and secondly the world situation did not call for the use of exceptional military force during her lifetime. Furthermore it could be said that military prowess was not a reflection of political ability and so being that Hatshepsut’s reign brought olitical stability rather the extension of boarders The military had an important role in Hatshepsut’s designs for rebuilding Egypt, she rigidly maintained that â€Å"my troops which were unequipped are well paid since I appeared as King† (Hatshepsut in Redforde,1967). Hatshepsut in her reign undertook at least four campaigns and of one she led in person, although two were lead by her nominal ruler Thutmosis III under her name. Hatshepsut’s four campaigns consi sted of a campaign against Nubia, a mopping up operation in Palestine and Syria and the capture of Gaza and an additional campaign against Nubia both lead by Thutmosis III. Spalinger addresses this matter â€Å"Thutmosis III in the latter of Hatshepsut’s reign lead two campaigns under her name†(Spalinger, 1978). The Nubian campaign that Hatshepsut undertook was a success proving her military prowess and capable leadership, the following graffito depicts her campaign â€Å"I followed the good god, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt Makare, may she live! I saw when she overthrew the Nubian bowmen and when their chiefs were brought to him as living captives, I saw when he razed Nubia, I being in her majesty’s following† (graffito in Arkell,1961). At the time of Hatshepsut the Egyptian army was a well organised and highly professional force, this then allowed Thutmosis III able soldiers for his campaigns. Therefore Hatshepsut’s reign is perceived as peaceful, conservative and isolationist and is often criticized but her reign embodies all the elements of a successful military ruler whose main focus was upon internal development. The construction of Egypt as a major imperial power was due to Hatshepsut’s contributions to the greatness of Egypt. Under her reign architecture and the economy flourished. Which allowed for a politically stable environment and unparalleled economic strength from which Thutmosis III used as his launching pad for his conquests. Her military prowess although never forcefully exerted was present. Her reign allowed the best imperialist expansion policy Egypt had under Thutmosis. Therefore Hatshepsut’s reign had the most important contributions to Egyptian greatness than any other of the 18th Dynasty rulers, this mostly is own to her remarkable internal development policies of trade and commerce.

Philosopher’s Argument from Contingency

The Argument from Contingency in the world of Philosophy falls from asking the question â€Å"is the Universe Contingent?†Ã‚   But how can we say that the universe does appear to be contingent?In layman’s term, contingent means when a particular thing exists for the basic reason of chance and possibilities. Some things are created and formulated by people for the necessity’s sake. It can or can not exist.However in philosophy, contingent things are being categorize exclusively from the creation of people, planet, galaxy and the universe as a whole where humans can not possibly create them. Contingent things are caused to exist by something or someone else. Something must have produced them. The argument from contingency is used by some philosophers as an attempt to discuss and prove the existence of God.In philosophy, the argument of contingency is correlated to the existence of God and whether the existence of the universe is caused by God. There are three premi ses in this argument.First premise says that everything exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. Relating to the first premise, the universe then has an explanation of its existence and that reason is God. Therefore the explanation of the universe’s existence is God which means God exists (William 2007).Philosophy also started from the journey of seeking whether the existence of the Universe had a beginning or a caused. In Aquinas attempt to explain the existence of God, he formulated the Quinque viae or five proofs for the existence of God.The basic premise of these five arguments is that something caused the universe to exist. One of the arguments created that will be discussed on this paper is the argument from contingency. In this argument, it simply says that the world must have a beginning and God is the first cause so He therefore exists. Ordinary people who have weak foundation and curiosity when it comes to faith may just easily believe in this kind of conclusion.However thinkers and believers will definitely see flaws from this argument which allotted some philosophers to discuss and dig deeper the concept of this argument. In the end, it was concluded by some philosophers that the argument from contingency is invalid proof for God’s existence.To better understand the Argument from Contingency of Aquinas, it is important to critically discuss it. Aquinas observed that in nature there are things whose existence is contingent, it can or can not exist. Since it is possible for such things not to exist, there must be some time at which such things did not in fact exist.Thus, on probabilistic grounds, there must have been a time when nothing existed. If that is so, there would exist nothing that could bring anything into existence. Thus contingent beings are insufficient to account for the existence of contingent beings, meaning there must exist a Necessary Being for which it is impossible not to exist, and from which the existence of all contingent beings is derived (Argument from Contingency†).In general, the first cause in this argument should not require a cause since the chain of cause and effects can not be of infinite length. Therefore, there must be a cause which is God that doesn’t necessarily have to be an effect.Hume treatment on the argument from the contingency is reflected on his â€Å"Dialogue Concerning Natural Religion, Part IX† through the dialogue of Demea and Cleanthes. Hume contended that when we speak of cause we mean an explanation for an event. If that is so, surely at best it remains an assumption that every event must have a cause; for no one has ever provided explanations for every event that has occurred (Tobin 2000).  Hume claimed that even if it can be proved that a necessary being existed, it still fell short of showing that God as traditionally conceived and described existed. All it shows is that there is a necessary being of some sort. Why, Hume asked, couldn’t the universe itself be the necessary being that the argument seeks to demonstrate? (â€Å"An Argument for the Contingency of the Universe†).The idea of Kant about the caused or the existence of God can be explored too. Kant pointed out that the principle of there being a cause for every event applies, especially the existence of the universe, is only known to us through the world of our sense experience. People are not even sure whether the rational way of humans’ thinking actually has reached the origins of causes and explanations. What we assume to be the first cause may just as well be due to our ignorance of the cause and explanation for it (Tobin 2000).In other words, even great thinkers can not be sure whether their sense of experience and reason already reach the idea of the caused. For Kant and Hume, the argument from Contingency is obviously invalid to prove the existence of God.Philosop her Samuel Clarke also had a version related to argument from Contingency of Aquinas. There are three premises in Samuel Clarke’s version of the cosmological argument.Clarke states that every being that exists or ever did exist is either a dependent being or a self- existent being. Like the argument from contingency, Clarke also believes that not every being can be a dependent being. Therefore, there must exist a self existent being that may or may have a cause. God exists according to Clarke but He exists as an independent being that has no cause.F.C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell’s debate on the existence of a ‘cause’ is one of the most famous and substantial argument from contingency in the contemporary world.Their debate about God’s existence in 1948 is the most enduring version and analysis about the existence of God. Copleston argues on behalf of the existence of God by reviewing and reweaving Aquinas’ argument of contingency.Russell o n the other hand gave three principal objections to the argument of contingency namely: the unreality of modality, the unreality of causation and the unreality of the world as a totality (Koons, 2000).F.C. Copleston starts out by saying that all beings and circumstances are contingent. These contingent beings must have a beginning and this beginning exists and is necessary for the existence of all other contingent beings. Copleston says, â€Å"Something does exist; therefore, there must be something which accounts for this fact, a being which is outside the series of contingent beings.†It means that contingent beings do not have a reason to exist without some beginning.   This leads to the concept of God being there who exist for the universe’s existence. In the debate, he also says that He is His own sufficient reason; and he is not a cause for Himself.Only contingent beings needs a cause but God as not contingent doesn’t need a cause. Copleston also conclude d that the existence of God is the only rational explanation to the people’s moral order of thinking. Thus, a person who loves goodness and who acknowledges moral rightness loves and acknowledges God (â€Å"A Debate on the Argument from Contingency 1948†).Bertrand Russell on the other hand, opposes Copleston on his view of the existence of God. He states that he does not agree with the suggestion of the word contingent and said it is a useless word unless it will be deeply analyzed.So the concept of a necessary being is even more senseless to him. He also does not think that the word universe has any in depth meaning of its own. Russell’s strongly claims that there is no overall cause for the things of this world just like the whole human race cannot have one mother.Russell’s overall claim as oppose to the argument from contingency is that â€Å"there is no overall cause for the things of this world. He claims that there is no overall reason or cause for the existence of the universe. The world exists in its own sake and its just there and no particular meaning or purpose of its own. In answering Copleston idea of moral code imposed to human beings, Russell said that the human judgment of right and wrong is just brought about by experience.Classic and contemporary philosophers gave different point of views on the Aquinas’s argument from contingency but until now despite the liberation of thoughts, no great thinker can fully prove the existence of God.One, either believer or non believer, will always ask the question if God exists where did God came from. This is the Kant’s idea that something beyond the universe can not be fully grasp by any kind of human thinking. As long as God does not revealed Himself personally and literally in this world, there will always be agnostic and sceptics about His existence.Works Cited Page:Craig, William. Subject 2007: Argument from Contingency. Reasonable Faithwith William Lane Craig .http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5847Tobin Paul 2000, Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways. The Rejection of  Pascal's Wager, A Skeptics Guide to Chistianityhttp://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/aquinas.html#2wayâ€Å"An Argument for the Contingency of the Universe† 2007. Undetached Rabbit  Parts. Western Michigan University. 2007http://wmuphilosophy.blogspot.com/â€Å"Argument from Contingency†. Encyclopedia.http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Argument- from-contingency#The_argument_from_contingencyTeuberr, Andreas 2008. â€Å"Four of Aquinas' Five Ways and Samuel Clarke'sVersion†. Cosmological Argument. Brandeis University. The President and Fellows of Harvard College.http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/philcosmo.htmlKoons, Robert 2000. Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the  Cosmological Argument. University of Texas.http://www.arn.org/docs/koons/rk_defeasible.htmâ€Å"A Debate on the Argument from Contingency of Fat her F.C. Copleston andBertrand Russell† 1948. Third Program of the British Broadcasting Corporation.http://www.catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/philosophy/conting.htm

Everyman Is A Morality Play - 1720 Words

Everyman is a morality play that was written in the late fifteenth-century, by an unknown author. It is unknown who originally wrote the play. It has been said that maybe Monks and Priests of that time wrote these types of plays. Therefore, it is believed that the play was probably written by multiple people. Morality plays were written to show people how they should act in the eyes of God and how the way they live their lives will affect them after death. Everyman seeks to persuade the audience that the only way to get into heaven when they pass, is to be a good person and to do good deeds for others. The author of Everyman wants the audience to understand that the way they live their lives is how they will be judged by death. The play†¦show more content†¦Everyman has a very clear moral message. People choosing goods over good deeds. Foneska (2007) states that the character of Everyman is a universal representation of the human race and is obsessed with his physical appea rance and money. Everyman is a sinner who has turned his back on God. (pg.1) Ryan (1995) says that Everyman sets out to show that charity is the highest of all virtues, and that caring for the sick and poor by the people who have riches was the ticket to salvation and eternal life (1995). Everyman is obsessed with becoming richer and gaining more material things. God has become fed up with mankind and decides to send Death to teach them a lesson: â€Å"GOD: I perceive, her in my majesty, How that all creatures be to me unkind, Living without dread in worldly prosperity: Of ghostly sight the people be so blind, Drowned in sin, they know me not for their God: In worldly riches is all their mind, They fear not my righteousness, the sharp rod. My law that I showed, when I for them died, They forget clean, and shedding of my blood red; I hanged between two, it cannot be denied; To get them life I suffered to be dead; I healed their feet, with thorns hurt was my head. I could do no more than I did, truly; And now I see the people do clean forsake me: They use the seven deadly† (lines 25-35) God summons Death and tells him to prepare Everyman for his death. DEATH:Show MoreRelatedThe Morality Play Everyman 1383 Words   |  6 PagesThe morality play â€Å"Everyman† is a play during the medieval period that represent all mankind while dramatizing evil characters and good characters. The play upholds Christian virtues as the characters are presented with abstract qualities. The play starts with God talking to Death to convey a message to Everyman a pilgrimage he must take because of the sins that everyman has commented. God is upset with everyman because of unkind acts, plentiful sins, and worldly riches that man has commented whileRead MoreEveryman as a Morality Play1112 Words   |  5 Pagesfind the stimulus which leads to the rebirth of drama. Such was the popularity that most of the performances had to be taken to the streets. The Catholic Church started the Dramatized form of familiarizing the stories of the Bible through the Miracle Plays where all the miracles that were in the Bible were acted out Especially in the Mass, were developed as part of the elaborate ceremonial of great religious feasts such like Easter. The Authorities were quick to appreciate the instructional value ofRead MoreEveryman As A Morality Play1413 Words   |  6 Pagesâ€Å"Everyman† is regarded as a morality play that was written in late 15th century. According to Michael A. Babcock, author of the story of Western culture, â€Å"Morality plays can be explained in best ways because of allegories figure out efforts made between seven virtues and seven vices contained in heart of man†. The play is a picture of what Christians should do or how they should spend their lives to save their souls from being convicted by death (Yaw Adu-Gyamfi P.265). The understanding of deathRead MoreEveryman As A Medieval Morality Play1684 Words   |  7 PagesEveryman is a example of a medieval morality play.1 The play is a work portraying how God in heaven sends death to call forth every creature to present i tself before him to answer for every action in this world. It shows the audience and readers what goes on in life and ending of it all through death. From the very beginning, the play classically shows that it deals with human experiences with the focus on morals. Everyman is a Christian play written to promote Christianity as a religion. At theRead More English Morality Play Everyman Essay2045 Words   |  9 PagesIn the English morality play â€Å"Everyman†, whose author is unknown, characters of the play try to find what Everyman really values in his life. When Everyman realizes that he has not been living a life focused on God. Instead, Everyman has been focusing more on worldly issues and riches than he should have. Once the play goes on further, Everyman is then approached by a character, whose name is Death. At that time, Everyman notices that he is about to die. However, he also realizes that all the earthlyRead MoreEveryman Is An English Morality Play By An Unknown Author1493 Words   |  6 Pagesas â€Å"The Summoning of Everyman†, â€Å"Everyman† was writing sometime during the late 1400s. â€Å"Everyman† is an English morality play by an unknown author. This play first appeared in England in the 16th century. â€Å"Everyman† can be considered as a play of transience because it shows a protagonist who is during the whole play. It also illustrates the way Christians are expected to live and the endeavors that should be made in order for their lives to be saved. The morality play â€Å"Everyman† is about a man whoRead MoreEveryman Is A Late Eighteenth Century Morality Play1614 Words   |  7 Pages â€Å"Everyman is a late fifteenth-century morality play† (Adu-Gyamfi Schmidt, 2011, p. 265). It is also an allegory play, which is â€Å"a description†¦in which the literal events (persons, places, and things) consistently point to a parallel sequence of ideas, values, or other recognizable abstra ctions† (Kennedy Gioia, 2012, p. 696). This is otherwise known as an allusion. â€Å"This allusion is perceived as the writer’s compassion for everybody who experiences universals fear of death, pain and ageingRead MoreWilliam Shakespeare s Everyman As An English Morality Play1277 Words   |  6 Pagesâ€Å"Everyman† is an English morality play whose author is unknown. It dates back to the 16th century and was first seen in England. The play depicts a man who is caught up in a secular world and is more concerned with worldly riches than nurturing his spiritual life. He seems content until Death is sent to tell him his life is over and he must now give an account to God of how he lived his life. The author uses allegory characters to describe moral qualities and abstractions in Everyman’s life. (AllegoryRead MoreEnglish Research Paper1622 Words   |  7 Pagesâ€Å"Death in Everyman† Research Paper ENG102_D27: Literature Fall D 2010 Peggy Jean English, ID#3591339 APA Format Title: â€Å"Death in Everyman† Thesis Statement: The message of death in Everyman is associated with the search of the reasoning of life. Outline: Paragraph 1: Introduction and Thesis Statement Paragraphs 2-13: Explains the play, its characters, the author’s interpretation of the play, and the author’s perception of death and the treatment of death. Paragraph 14: Conclusion Read MorePerspective on Death in the Play Everyman Essays1344 Words   |  6 PagesThe play Everyman may have been written many years ago, but its lessons are still relevant today. Generally, the facts of death are very traumatizing and in fact unthinkable. This leads the modern day Everyman to ignore its significance, dying without acknowledging or reflecting on their lives here on earth. It is based on this fact that this paper aims to show the position of the author of the play â€Å"Everyman† regarding death. History of the Play Like many other morality- allegorical plays, Everyman