Only $35.99/year

LAST HERITAGE EVEREVEREVER

Terms in this set (84)

About an aristocratic russian family struggling to maintain their way of life. Set in early 20th century when Russia is coming out of feudalism. Until 1916 it was ruled by a tsar. One tsar frees the peasants from serfdom. this had mixed results - some moved to town and found better work, while others lost work and security. Anton is aware of the differences in wealth, the unrest in the country, the sense of imminent change, and the desperate need for continuing reform.

-Anton Chekhov
-1904
-Culture: Tsarist Russia
- The Cherry Orchard is distinctly influenced by Chekhov's wide reading in literature, philosophy, and the natural sciences, especially Darwin's Origin of the Species (first published only some forty years earlier) and Marxist and socialist philosophy (though Chekhov himself was not himself a member of any revolutionary movements)
- intended by Chekhov to be a comedy; Chekhov subtitled his play A Comedy in Four Acts
-Stanislavski, the plays director, viewed it as a drama; the debate as to whether it is a comedy or a drama still continues today
- What type of play is it?
- Naturalistic- actors perform their roles as if the did not know there was a audience; characters speak in everday language; the fourth wall
- Symbolic- narrative poem mourning the loss of beauty in the world; the cherry orchard means something different for each character: Lopákhin- money; Liubov- childhood, native place, way of life, beauty; Trofimov- the past, capitalism. also symbolism in the snapping of the string
- Political- communism(Trofimov) vs. capitalism(Lopakhin)
- Comedy or a Tragedy- farcical exits and entrances that involve slapstick, falls down the stairs comic misunderstanding, bathos (conflict of elevated and common space), eating a cucumber during serious speech;

sadness in loss of the orchard, ends with dim future for ll

final scene is tragic and comic at the same time.
- One of the main characters in the play The Cherry Orchard(1904)
- Owner of the estate and the cherry orchard, story revolves around her; around 50 years old
- How she views money: Money is not a precious thing to Liubov. She doesn't work for her money and perhaps has never truly understood that it's not an inexhaustible resource. Chekhov (who, let's remember, had two jobs) is critiquing the idleness of Russian aristocrats who, at the time he was writing, were meeting their economic comeuppance.
- How she views love: Liubov lives for love. It influences all her actions, including her way with money, as we discussed above. She freely gives money to everyone from the homeless to her worthless lover in Paris. In Act 3, Liubov confesses to Trofimov that she wants to return to her love. Trofimov is outraged. How can she return to someone who robbed her blind? She doesn't care about that. Human connections define and motivate Liubov, and she encourages them in others: in Anya and Trofimov, Varya and Lopakhin. Her emotional nature drives her decisions, and is part of what makes it impossible for her to let go of the past.
- How she views her past: Lubov holds the impossible hope that returning home can make her a child again. She'd like to wipe out everything shameful and unpleasant in her adult life. To start over. In some ways, as Liubov gives up the orchard and acknowledges the present, we're watching her grow up again.
- The meaning of the cherry orchard changes over the course of the play for her:
Act 1(at risk of being sold)- Nostalgia, Act 2(going to be sold)- Denial, Act 3(is being sold)- Agitation, Act 4- Resignation



fell in love with a parasite, her son died. she moved away with her lover, he left her, she tried to commit suicide, then tries to seduce her lover back to her.

for her the orchard is her childhood, her native place and way of life. beauty, nature, innocence. loss of the orchard would be loss of her family / elite culture.
June 28, 1919, ended the state of war between Germany and the allied powers

the losers had to turn over a bunch of stuff. they were left with no navy or territory.

guilt clause - Germany is responsible and must pay reparations.

The details of the Versailles Treaty had been debated and finalized at the Paris Peace Conference, which opened on January 18, 1919 - just over two months after the fighting on the Western Front ended. Although many diplomats from the Allied Powers participated, Germany was not invited to the conference. The "big three" who were the most influential in the debates were Prime Minister David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau of France, and President Woodrow Wilson of the United States.
On May 7, 1919, the Versailles Treaty was handed over to Germany with the express instructions that they had only three weeks in which to accept the Treaty. Considering that in many ways the Versailles Treaty was meant to punish Germany, Germany of course found much fault with the Versailles Treaty. Although Germany sent back a list of complaints over the Treaty, the Allied Powers ignored most of them.

The Versailles Treaty: A Very Long Document

The Versailles Treaty itself is very long and extensive document, made up of 440 Articles (plus Annexes) which have been divided into 15 parts. The first part of the Versailles Treaty established the League of Nations. Other parts included the terms of military limitations, prisoners of war, finances, access to ports and waterways, and reparations.
Versailles Treaty Terms Spark Controversy

The most controversial aspects of the Versailles Treaty were that Germany was to take full responsibility for the damage caused during World War I (known as the "war guilt" clause, Article 231), the major land concessions forced upon Germany (including the loss of all her colonies), the limitation of the German army to 100,000 men, and the extremely large sum in reparations Germany was to pay to the Allied Powers.
The terms of the Versailles Treaty were so seemingly hostile to Germany that German Chancellor Philipp Scheidemann resigned rather than sign it. However, Germany realized they had to sign it for they no longer had any military power left to resist.

Versailles Treaty Signed

On June 28, 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Germany's representatives Hermann Müller and Johannes Bell signed the Versailles Treaty in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles near Paris, France.
light acts as if it is a wave and a particle in different situations. Albert Einstein dealt with this concept. Light experiences the duality of both waves and particles

light made is seem like particles, suggest that light is waves. everything is particles was mechanist. thought this way was more rational and scientific.

Interface pattern suggests light is a wave.

At first, physicists were reluctant to accept the dual nature of light. After all, many of us humans like to have one right answer. But Einstein paved the way in 1905 by embracing wave-particle duality. We've already discussed the photoelectric effect, which led Einstein to describe light as a photon. Later that year, however, he added a twist to the story in a paper introducing special relativity. In this paper, Einstein treated light as a continuous field of waves -- an apparent contradiction to his description of light as a stream of particles. Yet that was part of his genius. He willingly accepted the strange nature of light and chose whichever attribute best addressed the problem he was trying to solve.

Light is a form of energy, and exists in two conceptual frameworks: light exhibits properties that have characteristics of discrete particles (eg. energy is carried away in "chunks") and characteristics of waves (eg. diffraction). This split is known as duality. It is important to understand that this is not an "either/or" situation. Duality means that the characteristics of both waves and particles are present at the same time. The same beam of light will behave as a particle and/or as a wave depending on the experiment. Furthermore, the particle framework (chunks) can have interactions which can be described in terms of wave characteristics and the wave framework can have interactions that can be described in terms of particle characteristics.
proposed by Einstein and states that two distinct events cannot occur at the same time to all observers if they are not in the same space

if one observer sees two events happen at the same time, like the lights turning on, all observers would also see them turn on at the same time.

but motion is relative, there is no absolute frame of reference. events aren't simultaneous for all observes because it depends on relative motion.

The first postulate of the theory of special relativity is not too hard to swallow: The laws of physics hold true for all frames of reference. The postulate is: The speed of light is measured as constant in all frames of reference.


There is no such thing as simultaneity between two events when viewed in different frames of reference. If you understand what we have talked about so far, this concept will be a breeze. First let's clarify what this concept is stating. If Meagan sees two events happen at the same time for her frame of reference, Garret, who is moving with respect to Meagan, will not see the events occur at the same time. Let's use another example. Imagine that Meagan is standing outside and notices that there are two identical cannons 100 yards apart and facing each other. All of the sudden, both cannons fire at the same time and the cannonballs smash into each other at exactly half their distance, 50 yards. This is no surprise since, the cannons are identical and they fire cannonballs at the same speed. Now, suppose that Garret was riding his skateboard super fast towards one of the cannons, and he was directly in the line of fire for both. Also suppose he was exactly half way between the two cannons when they fired. What would happen? The cannonball that Garret was moving towards would hit him first. It had less distance to travel since he was moving towards it.
Now, let's replace the cannons with light bulbs that turn on at the same time in Meagan's frame of reference. If Garret rides his skateboard in the same fashion as he did with the cannonballs, when he reaches the halfway mark, he sees the light bulb he is moving towards turn on first and then he sees the light bulb he is moving away from turn on last. See Fig 6 below for clarification.
In Fig 6, the bulb on the right turns on first. I have shown Garret to be moving in the same direction of the distance line between the bulbs, and he is looking towards the moon. As stated earlier, when the bulbs turn on in Meagan's frame of reference, Garret will see the bulb on the right turn on before the bulb on the left does. Since he is moving toward the bulb on the right, its light has a shorter distance to travel to reach him. Garret would argue with Meagan that the bulbs did not turn on at the same time, but in Meagan's perspective they did. Hopefully, you can see how different frames of reference will not allow events to be observed as simultaneous.
this is the elapsed time difference that two different observers see when examining the same events. Time does not pass equally for everyone because of the nature of spacetime.

In order to attempt to prove this theory of time dilation, two very accurate atomic clocks were synchronized and one was taken on a high-speed trip on an airplane. When the plane returned, the clock that took the plane ride was slower by exactly the amount Einstein's equations predicted. Thus, a moving clock runs more slowly when viewed by a frame of reference that is not in motion with it. Keep in mind that when the clock returned, it had recorded less time than the ground clock. Once re-united with the ground clock, the slow clock will again record time at the same rate as the ground clock (obviously, it will remain behind by the amount of time it slowed on the trip unless re-synchronized). It is only when the clock is in motion with respect to the other clock that the time dilation occurs. Take a look at Fig 4 and Fig 5 below.
Let's assume that the object under the sun in Fig 4 is a light clock on wheels. A light clock measures time by sending a beam of light from the bottom plate to the top plate where it is then reflected back to the bottom plate. A light clock seems to be the best measure of time since its speed remains constant regardless of motion. So in Fig 4, we walk up to the light clock and find that it takes 1 sec for the light to travel from the bottom to the top and back to the bottom again. Now look at Fig 5. In this example, the light clock is rolling to the right, but we are standing still. If we could see the light beam as the clock rolled past us, we would see the beam travel at angles to the plates. If you are confused, look at Fig 4 and you'll see that both the sent beam and received beam occur under the sun, thus the clock is not moving. Now look at fig 5, the sent beam occurs under the sun, but the reflected beam returns when the clock is under the lightning bolt, thus the clock is rolling to the right. What is this telling us? We know that the clock standing still sends and receives at 1-second intervals. We also know that the speed of light is constant. Regardless of where we are, we would measure the light beam in fig 4 and fig 5 to be the exact same speed. But Fig 5 looks like the light traveled farther because the arrows are longer. And guess what, it did. It took the light longer to make one complete send and receive cycle, but the speed of the light was unchanged. Because the light traveled farther and the speed was unchanged, this could only mean that the time it took was longer. Remember speed is distance / time, so the only way for the speed to be unchanged when the distance increases is for the time to also increase
Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is one of the towering achievements of 20th-century physics. Published in 1916, it explains that what we perceive as the force of gravity in fact arises from the curvature of space and time.
Einstein proposed that objects such as the sun and the Earth change this geometry. In the presence of matter and energy it can evolve, stretch and warp, forming ridges, mountains and valleys that cause bodies moving through it to zigzag and curve. So although Earth appears to be pulled towards the sun by gravity, there is no such force. It is simply the geometry of space-time around the sun telling Earth how to move. The general theory of relativity has far-reaching consequences. It not only explains the motion of the planets; it can also describe the history and expansion of the universe, the physics of black holes and the bending of light from distant stars and galaxies. Einstein's general theory of relativity has revealed that the universe is an extreme place. We now know it was hot and dense and has been expanding for the past 13.7 billion years. It is also populated with incredibly warped regions of space-time called black holes that trap anything falling within their clutches.

Involves: Gravity, The Equivalence Principle (gravity can be neglected in space), Gravity and Time (Gravity can alter time) , Gravity and Light (Gravity bends light as it travels through space), Concept of Field versus Force (Gravity is a field not a force), Weird Conclusions (Black Holes). Also consider the elevator example.
'The Dead' (written 1906-7, published in 1914) is a short story by Irish writer James Joyce (1882 - 1941), who is best known for his pioneering of Modernist literary techniques such as stream-of-consciousness. 'The Dead' has some evidence of this Modernist experimentation.' The Dead,' from James Joyce's collection Dubliners, is on its surface a relatively simple story--a man and his wife attend a holiday party--but over the course of that party, and in the hours that follow, we see a character struggling to accept his place as an aging man in a new world. Also, we see in the story Joyce's development of the important Modernist literary technique, stream-of-consciousness. 'The Dead', beyond being a moving story, explores several key themes and illustrates one important aspect of the Modernist literary technique:
Contemporary Irish politics: Ireland, like many countries, has a long history of struggle against foreign imperialism, and in particular against the imperialism of her neighbor to the east, Great Britain. In the tension between Gabriel and Ms. Ivors, we see that struggle reflected. Ms. Ivors interprets any affection for English culture as an act of betrayal, and tells Gabriel as much, whereas Gabriel believes his Irish heritage can blend harmoniously with 'Continental' traditions and fashions. The issue remains unresolved, but the important thing to notice is the difficulty these Irish citizens face in trying to establish their own cultural identity.
The pain of aging: While politics are important in this story, the most central human theme is the pain and difficulty of aging. The theme of aging is alluded to several times throughout the story, whenever Gabriel notices his disconnect from the younger generation, but is most evident at the story's conclusion, when Gabriel not only has his deepest appreciation of the swift passage of time, but also understands himself and his wife to have been passed up by time. Already, he senses, they've left the current moment and become part of history.
Stream-of-consciousness: Of all the literary techniques Joyce is known for, the most important is his pioneering of stream-of-consciousness, a method by which the author conveys to his reader not only a character's thoughts, but the development of those thoughts as they arise from the character's sensory perceptions, in real time. This story does not offer very prominent examples of stream-of-consciousness (for that, read Joyce's Ulysses), but at the end of the story, once Gretta is asleep, we see Gabriel's ruminations about aging and death develop out of the room's lighting, the snow on the window, etc. It is a subtle, effective use of this groundbreaking technique.
1939, set in 1895, beginning from POV or small boy. dad has ingenious strategy. sarty feels torn between his father and some other force. plantation home has order, symmetry, and balance but the loyalties are divided. he is torn between allegion to general concept of justice that he sees imbedded in justice and the hopes will help him choose between his fathers class of people and the privileged class. loyalty to "blood" or father?

do you sympathize with ab snopes? abused, burns barn, but the burning of the barn is his integrity because he was owned. he sabotages himeself for his dignity and by fighting the system.


Young Colonel Sartoris Snopes crouches on a keg in the back of the store that doubles for the town court. He cannot see the table where his father and his father's opponent, Mr. Harris, are seated. The justice of the peace asks Mr. Harris for proof that Mr. Snopes burned his barn. Mr. Harris describes the numerous times Snopes's hog broke through the fence and got into his cornfields. The final time, when Mr. Harris demanded a dollar for the animal's return, the black man who was sent to fetch the hog gave Mr. Harris an ominous warning that wood and hay are combustible. Later that night, fire claimed Mr. Harris's barn. While the judge claims that that by itself isn't proof, Mr. Harris has Sartoris called to testify before the court. The boy knows his father is expecting him to lie on his behalf. After doing so, the judge asks Mr. Harris whether he wants the child cross-examined, but Mr. Harris snarls to have the boy removed.
The judge dismisses the charges against Snopes but warns him to leave the county for good, and Snopes agrees to comply. Snopes and his two sons then leave the store and head to their wagon. A child in the crowd accuses them of being barn burners and strikes Sartoris, knocking him down. Snopes orders Sartoris into the wagon, which is laden with their possessions and where his two sisters, mother, and aunt are waiting. Snopes prevents his crying wife from cleaning Sartoris's bloodied face. That night, the family camps around the father's typically small fire. Snopes wakes Sartoris and takes him onto the dark road, where he accuses him of planning to inform the judge of his guilt in the arson case. Snopes strikes Sartoris on the head and tells him he must always remain loyal to his family.
The next day, the family arrives at its new home and begins unloading the wagon. Snopes takes Sartoris to the house of Major de Spain, the owner on whose land the family will work. Despite the servant's protests, Snopes tracks horse manure into the opulent house, leaving only when Miss Lula asks him to. He resentfully remarks that the home was built by slave labor. Two hours later, the servant drops off the rug that Snopes had soiled and instructs him to clean and return it. Snopes supervises as the two sisters reluctantly clean the carpet with lye, and he uses a jagged stone to work the surface of the expensive rug. After dinner, the family retires to their sleeping areas. Snopes forces Sartoris to fetch the mule and ride along with him to return the cleaned rug. At the house, Snopes flings the rug onto the floor after loudly kicking at the door several times.
The next morning, as Sartoris and Snopes prepare the mules for plowing, de Spain arrives on horseback to inform them that the rug was ruined from improper cleaning. In lieu of the hundred-dollar replacement fee, the major says Snopes will be charged twenty additional bushels of corn. Sartoris defends Snopes's actions, telling him that he did the best he could with the soiled carpet and that they will refuse to supply the extra crops. Snopes puts Sartoris back to work, and the following days are consumed with the constant labor of working their acreage. Sartoris hopes that Snopes will turn once and for all from his destructive impulses.
The next weekend, Snopes and his two sons head once again to a court appearance at the country store, where the well-dressed de Spain is in attendance. Sartoris attempts to defend Snopes, saying that he never burned the barn, but Snopes orders him back to the wagon. The judge mistakenly thinks the rug was burned in addition to being soiled and destroyed. He rules that Snopes must pay ten extra bushels of corn when the crop comes due, and court is adjourned. After a trip to the blacksmith's shop for wagon repairs, a light meal in front of the general store, and a trip to a corral where horses are displayed and sold, Snopes and his sons return home after sundown.
Despite his wife's protests, Snopes empties the kerosene from the lamp back into its five-gallon container and secures a lit candle stub in the neck of a bottle. Snopes orders Sartoris to fetch the oil. He obeys but fantasizes about running away. He tries to dissuade Snopes, but Snopes grabs Sartoris by the collar and orders his wife to restrain him. Sartoris escapes his mother's clutches and runs to the de Spain house, bursting in on the startled servant. Breathlessly, he blurts out the word Barn! Sartoris runs desperately down the road, moving aside as the major's horse comes thundering by him. Three shots ring out and Snope is killed, his plan to burn de Spain's barn thwarted. At midnight, Sartoris sits on a hill. Stiff and cold, he hears the whippoorwills and heads down the hill to the dark woods, not pausing to look back.
A ten-year-old boy and the story's protagonist. Small and wiry, with wild, gray eyes and uncombed brown hair, Sartoris wears patched and faded jeans that are too small for him. He has inherited his innocence and morality from his mother, but his father's influence has made Sartoris old beyond his years. He is forced to confront an ethical quandary that pits his loyalty to his family against the higher concepts of justice and morality.
Barn Burning" explores the coming of age of Sartoris Snopes, as he is forced to grapple with issues of right and wrong that require a maturity and insight beyond his years. "You're getting to be a man," Snopes tells his ten-year-old son after delivering a blow to the side of his head. In Sartoris's world, violence is a fundamental element of manhood, something he knows all too well from living with his father. Sartoris is impressionable, inarticulate, and subject to his father's potentially corrupting influence, but he is also infused with a sense of justice. Sartoris is in many ways a raw, unformed creature of nature, untouched by education, the refining influences of civilization, or the stability of a permanent home. The sight of the de Spain house gives him an instinctive feeling of peace and joy, but, as Faulkner notes, the child could not have translated such a reaction into words. Later, Sartoris reacts instinctively again when he prevents his father from burning de Spain's barn. He cannot articulate why he warns de Spain or ultimately runs away, but his actions suggest that Sartoris's core consists of goodness and morality rather than the corruption that his father attempts to teach him.
Sartoris's worldview and morality may exist beyond the adult world of precise language and articulation, but he displays an insight that is far more developed than many of the adults who surround him. He sees through his father's attempts to manipulate him by harping on the importance of family loyalty as a means of guaranteeing Sartoris's silence. Sartoris's brother, John, lacks Sartoris's insight, and he is an example of what young Sartoris could easily become. Snopes has successfully taught John his ideas of family loyalty, and John blindly follows Snopes's criminal lead. Sartoris, far from silently obeying, instigates the climactic end of Snopes's reign of terror. At the end of the story, Sartoris betrays the family "honor" and must persevere on his own. As his father warned, if Sartoris failed to support his family, support would not be offered to him. As frightening as the unknown future might be, Sartoris has decided that the kind of "support" his family can offer is something he can do without. His flight marks an end to the legacy of bitterness and shame that he stood to inherit.
written by Morrison and is her only published short story; declaiming words musically, in a heightened theatrical manner. the story is set in the 50s. relationship of a black and white girl who meet and an orphanages at age 8. they both still have moms and are the youngest girls.

"My mother danced all night and Roberta's was sick. That's why we were taken to St. Bonny's." Thus begins Twyla's narrative of her long-term, intermittent relationship with Roberta, another eight-year-old who shares her failing grades and "not real orphan" status at St. Bonaventure's, the shelter where they live for a few months.
The two girls become fast friends despite the discomfort occasioned by the situation, their problematic mothers (Roberta's is hyper-religious and unfriendly; Twyla's is pretty but childlike, an embarrassment to Twyla because of her casual clothing and behavior), and their racial differences (one is white, one African-American). They also share a defining moment, in which they watch bigger girls assault Maggie, a disabled woman who works in the institution's kitchen.
The girls meet by accident four more times; as young adults in a Howard Johnson's, where Twyla works and Roberta stops in with two young men on the way to the coast for "an appointment with Hendrix"; in a grocery store in Newburgh, the blue-collar town on the Hudson river where Twyla lives (Roberta lives in white-collar Annandale); at a picket line against a busing plan (Roberta is protesting the busing; Twyla ends up picketing for it); and finally in a diner on Christmas Eve. Each time they meet, they piece together what has happened in their lives, but also return to the defining moment of Maggie, arguing about what really happened and what role they played in the abuse.
two different races, who were roommates at an orphanage.

roberta lives in prosperous area, her hubby does computre stuff. she marches to protest integrating.

mirror images.

race remain ambiguous, experiment of racial codes and taking race away from two character for whom racial identity is crucial.

--somewhere between the racial binary
--binary opposition - night/day, dark/light
--race in US - lines drawn in law between black and white
--post modernism influenced by...

The story is a wonderful classroom tool for discussing stereotypes of embodied differences like race, class, and disability. While the characters and text are attentive to race and other issues of difference, it is impossible to tell which girl is white and which is African-American, much as readers try to decode various "clues" of detail and syntax to establish racial identity. The story dramatizes the social body's simultaneous construction on more than one axis (race, ability/disability, socioeconomic class) and how in our perceptions and representations, stigma in one category can easily slip into a position of stigma in another one (being disabled and being black, for example).

Twyla's realization that Maggie is, in some sense, her "dancing mother" exemplifies this awareness. The fact that in the world of St. Bonny's, in which all the children are disenfranchised, the lowest person in the hierarchy is Maggie, is a rich source for discussion as well. The title "Recitatif" emphasizes the story's brilliant exploration of the work of memory and the power of successive returns to the same traumatic events in the company of another person less committed to preserving a safe version of what happened.
woman Twyla describes as having legs like parenthesis; was a mute and never said anything; worked hard and never responded or reacted to anything the girls at the orphanage would say

reflective of Roberta's mom - anyone who is targeted, or considered less

Twyla's realization that Maggie is, in some sense, her "dancing mother" exemplifies this awareness. The fact that in the world of St. Bonny's, in which all the children are disenfranchised, the lowest person in the hierarchy is Maggie, is a rich source for discussion as well. The title "Recitatif" emphasizes the story's brilliant exploration of the work of memory and the power of successive returns to the same traumatic events in the company of another person less committed to preserving a safe version of what happened.

the mute and possibly deaf Maggie. Twyla and Roberta struggle years later to remember a scene in which Maggie, the childlike, elderly kitchen help, is brutalized by the shelter's older "gar girls," and the two main characters argue about whether or not they participated in the beating. Moreover, as they acknowledge that they never knew for certain whether Maggie was deaf as well as mute or whether she was black or white, they realize that their own ambivalent memories of her have been repressed and muted. Critics focusing on Twyla and Roberta either cursorily analyze Maggie's role or interpret it in metaphoric relation to the two main characters. In such readings, Maggie is most commonly associated with representations of silence and absence, or, as Twyla and Roberta observe, with their failed mothers. Interpreted as a negative aesthetic representation rather than a transformable subject, Maggie becomes twice muted—first in the text and then by the critics.
this meand "lightning war." It is a type of warfare where an attacking force of like tanks and all that move in and are immediately followed by air support. It forces a breakthrough into the enemy's line of defense through a series of short, fast, and powerful attacks. Once in the enemy's territory, they proceed to dislocate them using speed and surprise and ultimately encircle them. This is done by unbalancing the enemy by making it difficult for them to respond effectively to the continuously changing front

issue of space - hitler trying to estab space for the aryan race, the new order. hitler began to take over by using false pretet to camp. brit declares war when poland is invaded

Blitzkrieg means "lightning war". Blitzkrieg was first used by the Germans in World War Two and was a tactic based on speed and surprise and needed a military force to be based around light tank units supported by planes and infantry (foot soldiers). The tactic was developed in Germany by an army officer called Hans Guderian. He had written a military pamphlet called "Achtung Panzer" which got into the hands of Hitler. As a tactic it was used to devastating effect in the first years of World War Two and resulted in the British and French armies being pushed back in just a few weeks to the beaches of Dunkirk and the Russian army being devastated in the attack on Russia in June 1941.


Hitler had spent four years in World War One fighting a static war with neither side moving far for months on end. He was enthralled by Guderian's plan that was based purely on speed and movement. When Guderian told Hitler that he could reach the French coast in weeks if an attack on France was ordered, fellow officers openly laughed at him. The German High Command told Hitler that his "boast" was impossible. General Busch said to Guderian, "Well, I don't think that you'll cross the River Meuse in the first place." The River Meuse was considered France's first major line of defence and it was thought of as being impossible to cross in a battle situation.

Blitzkrieg was based on speed, co-ordination and movement. It was designed to hit hard and move on instantly. Its aim was to create panic amongst the civilian population. A civil population on the move can be absolute havoc for a defending army trying to get its forces to the war front. Doubt, confusion and rumour were sure to paralyse both the government and the defending military.

In 1940, Britain and France still had a World War One mentality. What tanks they had were poor compared to the German Panzers. British and French tactics were outdated and Britain still had the mentality that as an island we were safe as our navy would protect us. Nazi Germany, if it was to fulfill Hitler's wishes, had to have a modern military tactic if it was to conquer Europe and give to Germany the 'living space' that Hitler deemed was necessary for the Third Reich.

It was used to devastating effect in Poland, western Europe where the Allies were pushed back to the beaches of Dunkirk and in the attack on Russia - Operation Barbarossa.
In the summer and fall of 1940, German and British air forces clashed in the skies over the United Kingdom, and locked in the largest sustained bombing campaign to that date. A significant turning point of World War II, the Battle of Britain ended when Germany's Luftwaffe failed to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force despite months of targeting Britain's air bases, military posts and, ultimately, its civilian population. Britain's victory saved the country from a ground invasion and possible occupation by German forces while proving that air power alone could be used to win a major battle.

crucial in setting up invasion of britian. brithis behind Churchill


The Battle of Britain was a struggle between the German Luftwaffe (commanded by Hermaan Göring) and the British Royal Air force (headed by Sir Hugh Dowding's Fighter Command) which raged over Britain between July and October 1940. The battle, which was the first major military campaign in history to be fought entirely in the air, was the result of a German plan to win air superiority over Southern Britain and the English Channel by destroying the British air force and aircraft industry. Hitler saw victory in the battle as a prelude to the invasion of Britain (codenamed Operation Sealion).

In May 1940, German forces had overrun Belgium, the Netherlands and northern France using Blitzkrieg ('Lightening War') tactics. With the USA and the Soviet Union both still mired in hesitant isolationism, and the French ally toppled, Britain now stood alone against Nazi Germany. Yet as Hitler turned his attention to the British Isles in the summer of 1940, directing a force of over 1,350 bombers and 1,200 fighters first against shipping, airfields, and finally against towns, it became apparent that the Luftwaffe had the odds stacked against it.

The Luftwaffe's first disadvantage was that it was neither trained nor equipped for the long range operations which became part of the battle. Its tactics were based upon the concept of close air support for ground forces; they were therefore ill-suited to the circumstances of the new campaign. The technical differences between the fighter aircraft employed by two sides were negligible: the RAF's main fighter planes were the Spitfire and the Hurricane, whilst the Germans relied primarily on Messcherschmitt fighters and Junkers dive bombers. Yet to swing the odds in Britain's favour, the tactical advantage that German fighters had developed in earlier conflicts was negated once fighter aircraft were ordered to provide close escort to the German bomber formations. These formations had discovered to their own extreme cost that they were unable to defend themselves.

During the battle, the RAF enjoyed the advantage of defending against attacks launched from widely separated airfields, thus profiting from what strategists call 'interior lines'. This advantage was optimised by Britain's system of radar tracking and guidance. Furthermore, the added comfort of fighting over friendly territory meant that pilots who crash-landed or parachuted out of their aircrafts could return to battle. British fortunes were also helped by the fact that the Luftwaffe had never subscribed to a concept of strategic bombing. British anti-aircraft and civil-defence preparations were inadequate in the summer of 1940, yet the Luftwaffe was unable to wreak the devastating effects feared by many.

The climax of the battle came on 15 September, a day in which the Luftwaffe lost 56 planes and the RAF 28. During the twelve-week battle, 1,733 German aircraft had been destroyed, compared with 915 British fighters. On 17 September, Hitler recognised the growing futility of the campaign and postponed indefinitely the invasion of Britain. Yet this did not mean an end to the bombing terror. German tactics were changed again and the Luftwaffe resorted to indiscriminate bombing of larger cities, including London, Plymouth and Coventry.
this means "My Struggle." It was an autobiography written by Adolf Hitler. He published volume 1 in 1925 and volume 2 in 1926. This book outlines Hitler's political ideology and his future plans for Germany. The main thesis focused on a Jewish conspiracy to gain world leadership. The book also describes the process by which he came increasingly anti-Semitic and militaristic during his years in Vienna where he met a Jewish person for the first time. Hitler openly states that the future of Germany "has to lie in the acquisistion of land in the East at the expense of Russia. He ultimately blamed all of Germany's problems on the Jews and social democrats.

3. German social-scientific racism (See Mein Kampf) According to Nazi ideology, there were 3 kinds of peoples:
Creators of Culture (Aryans)
Bearers of culture (those who imitate the creations of superior races) Destroyers of Culture (mainly Jews)
Superior races must not be mixed with inferior or contamination of the national bloodstock will occur.
"Racial hygiene" was the method of keeping the races separate.
"Eugenics", a movement popular in US and Europe, was the "scientific" support for Nazism. Jews were not just inferior religiously, they were inferior genetically and so conversion to Christianity did not solve the problem of Jewishness (in contrast to Luther; Martin Luther hated Jews, but he hated them for their religion).
According to Hitler, Jews, though small in number, were greedily attempting to control civilization by controlling international finance and sponsoring communism. This was the way they were trying to destroy culture. They were a poisonous blight on world civilization not just by their religion, but by their blood.
In Germany there were strict Racial Hygiene Laws, Blood Purity Laws—no mixed marriages etc.
A great deal of pseudo-science was involved here, but it was not limited to Germany.
this means "the catastrophe." It is the other term used to describe the Holocaust, because the word Holocaust means "whole burnt offering" which is pretty messed up considering a lot of the Jews were burnt. Shoah occurred from 1933-1945. It was the mass murder of 6 million Jews led by Hitler. I'm assuming you all know a lot about the Holocaust so I'm not going to write everything about it

The Word "Holocaust" is from ancient Greek: olo-kaustoß "whole burnt" which was used in Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible. "Holocaust" first used in French then English translation of Bibles for a sacrifice brought to the ancient Israelite temple and burned up on an alter (e.g. in the scroll of Exodus 10.25)
Since the 1940s it has been used of the deliberate destruction of Jews by Hitler
The common Hebrew name for the Holocaust is Shoah.

2. The Word "Shoah" is from Hebrew: hawv—"catastrophe"
Some find the word "holocaust" problematic, even offensive—b/c it comes from a strictly religious ancient context and was used for offerings to God, offered by Jewish ancestors, out of devotion or love. It was not a negative word and it is grotesquely ironic to use it of Jewish flesh. They prefer the more accurate and negative word "shoah.


The Shoah is arguably the single most important historical event in the history of
Jews/Judaism; it casts its shadow over everything; 1/3 of population of Jews killed 17/18 million reduced to 11/12 million.
I have spoken in many churches and sometimes have had the question asked quite innocently but ignorantly, and in all seriousness, "Why don't the Jews just get over it? It was so long ago."
It was not so long ago and the Shoah still echoes through family life, over world politics, and over relations with other religions, especially Christianity.

2. The Shoah is frightful for all humanity not because Hitler was a monster. Hitler was not. To think of him as a monster is to set him apart as intrinsically different from our leaders, from our common humanity, and from ourselves. Hitler was persuasive, somewhat intelligent, and very charismatic. He was a man of a few ideas. He managed to get many highly skilled and intelligent persons, including academics and religious leaders to support his ideas, because they
were persuaded by his rhetoric. The Shoah absolutely required the cooperation and involvement of thousands of people.
race, military training, leadership, and religion, which focused on targeting the youth of German to follow the Nazi party and Hitler's ways. Dr. Bowley's lecture on April 17th
1. Race- National Socialist education is an education in the thinking of the German people, in understanding German traditions, in awakening the pure, uncorrupted, and honest people's consciousness, their sense of belonging to the people. Only a pure member of the German race can have such an understanding of his people, crowning it with the willingness to sacrifice all for the people.
2. Military training- Their bodies must be steeled, made hard and strong, so that the youth may become capable soldiers who are healthy, strong, trained, energetic, and able to bear hardships. Gymnastics, games, sports, hiking, swimming, and military exercises must all be learned by the youth. Parents can help here. They will train our youth in simplicity and cleanliness. They will train them, even when they are older, not to waste their spare time by dubious or even harmful activities such as card playing, drinking alcohol, and bad music, but rather to prepare their bodies for their future tasks.
3. Leadership- They must learn to obey so that they, having themselves learned to obey, can believe in and trust their own leadership and can grow to be leaders themselves. Thus the German youth belong in organizations where they will learn the nature of leadership in its most noble form, where they can learn to obey and — if they are called to it — also learn to lead. We parents want to exhibit such authority to our youth by strengthening family authority and establishing in our homes a healthy and natural obedience on the part of our children.
4. Religion- We want the German youth to again recognize the religious nature of life. They must realize that God wants the individual as well as the whole people, and that they lose contact with life when they lose contact with God! God and nation are the two foundations of the life of the individual and the community. We want no shallow and superficial piety, but rather a deep faith that God guides the world, that he controls it, and a consciousness of the relationship between God and each individual, and between God and the live of the people and the fatherland.
a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will; "existence precedes essence"; four fathers of existentialism are: Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, and Sartre. Honestly, if given this word on the test, talk about Sartre and Beauvoir and their contributing factors. Dr. Golden's lecture on April 21st

sarte and beauvior


they are obsessed with how to live one's life and believe that philosophical and psychological inquiry can help.
they believe there are certain questions that everyone must deal with (if they are to take human life seriously), and that these are special -- existential -- questions. Questions such as death, the meaning of human existence, the place of God in human existence, the meaning of value, interpersonal relationship, the place of self-reflective conscious knowledge of one's self in existing.
Note that the existentialists on this characterization don't pay much attention to "social" questions such as the politics of life and what "social" responsibility the society or state has. They focus almost exclusively on the individual.
By and large Existentialists believe that life is very difficult and that it doesn't have an "objective" or universally known value, but that the individual must create value by affiriming it and living it, not by talking about it.
Existential choices and values are primarily demonstrated in ACT not in words.
Given that one is focusing on individual existence and the "existential" struggles (that is, in making decisions that are meaningful in everyday life), they often find that literary characterizations rather than more abstract philosophical thinking, are the best ways to elucidate existential struggles.
They tend to take freedom of the will, the human power to do or not do, as absolutely obvious. Now and again there are arguments for free will in Existentialist literature, but even in these arguments, one gets the distinct sense that the arguments are not for themselves, but for "outsiders." Inside the movement, free will is axiomatic, it is intuitively obvious, it is the backdrop of all else that goes on.
There are certainly exceptions to each of these things, but this is sort of a placing of the existentialist-like positions.
metaphor for traditional view that essence determines one's existence; for the paper-cutter, essence- that is, the ensemble of both the production routines and the properties by which enable it to be both produced and defined- precedes existence. In other words, the paper-cutter was made to cut paper. The essence/ "reason for being" (cutting paper) was thought of before the paper-cutter machined existed. This is the opposite for humans, Sartre argues (argues for existence preceding essence in humans).

Sartre's primary idea is that people, as humans, are "condemned to be free".[42] This theory relies upon his position that there is no creator, and is illustrated using the example of the paper cutter. Sartre says that if one considered a paper cutter, one would assume that the creator would have had a plan for it: an essence. Sartre said that human beings have no essence before their existence because there is no Creator. Thus: "existence precedes essence".[43] This forms the basis for his assertion that since one cannot explain one's own actions and behaviour by referencing any specific human nature, they are necessarily fully responsible for those actions. "We are left alone, without excuse."

existence preceeds essence. metaphor for traditional view point of human meaning. he argues against traditional view pt. of essence preceding essence. he though purpose of being preceds its coming into being. the traditional take on human nature is that there is a God who decided somethings purpose and then gae it existence. essence b4 existence, we are 1st and foremost rational creatures. we actualize our authority and purpose

sartre reverses the traditional essentialism and say existence precedes essence, you choose and define your nature given the circumstances of your existence, you define your own ethics and nature.

aesthecic existentialist - humans decide what their own existence should be, not a cheery realization.
sartre reverses the traditional essentialism and say existence precedes essence, you choose and define your nature given the circumstances of your existence, you define your own ethics and nature.

aesthetic existentialist - humans decide what their own existence should be, not a cheery realization. reckoning with a sense of abandonment, forlorness, anguish, and despair. realizing we are all a blank canvas, our responsibility to respond to the era that we are in. emphasis on the fact of choice. fact that part of being thrown on the scene as humans and you are always given the choices.

2 choices: story of helping mom or going to fight in the war - boy follows his gut, feeling, determine feeling by the actions you actually take - this confirms your beliefs.

all humans wrestle with his responsbility and choice


Forlornness- Forlornness is the idea that "God does not exist and that we have to face all the consequences of this." There is no morality a priori. There is no absolute right or wrong. There is no ultimate judge. "There is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. [...] We have no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct." In other words, we have no excuses, and we are entirely responsible for our decisions.What are our values? The only way to determine them is to make a decision. At the end of the day, your ideals aren't what matter; what matters is what you actually did.
2. Anguish- We experience anguish in the face of our subjectivity, because by choosing what we are to do, we 'choose for everyone'. When you make a decision you are saying "this is how anyone ought to behave given these circumstances." Many people don't feel anguish, but this is because they are "fleeing from it." If you don't feel a sense of anxiety when you make decisions, it's because you are forgetting about your "total and deep responsibility" toward yourself and all of humanity.
3. Despair- Despair arises because we only have power to change things that are within our power to change—and there is a lot we cannot change. Reality is impartial and out of your control, except for small aspects of it here and there. We despair because we can never have full control of the future.
is an Islamic acronym that translates to "Islamic Resistance Movement" that was founded in 1987. It is Sunni Muslim organization with an associated military wing located in the Palestinian territories. HAMAS has governed the Gaza strip, and is considered a terrorist organization to Westerners, while Iran, Russia, Turkey, and China do not consider them so. (Easterners) This group has been in territorial conflict with the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) and promote in "intifada" (shaking off) as a movement of civil disobedience to the Israelite nation that they have been fighting over territory with. Although seen as a primary terrorist group, it is actually only a small amount of radical Muslims who perform these acts of terrorism such as cars bombings on the Jewish people, as a form of violent protest.

the Palestinian Sunni Islamic or Islamist[5] organization, with an associated military wing, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades,[6] located in the Palestinian territories.

Since June 2007 Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip, after it won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections[7] and then defeated the Fatah political organization in a series of violent clashes. Israel, the United States,[8] Canada,[9] the European Union,[10][11] Jordan,[12] Egypt[13] and Japan classify Hamas as a terrorist organization,[14] while Iran, Russia,[15] Turkey,[16] China[17][18][19][20] and many nations across the Arab world do not.

Based on the principles of Islamic fundamentalism gaining momentum throughout the Arab world in the 1980s, Hamas was founded in 1987 (during the First Intifada) as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.[21][22] Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[23][24] However, in July 2009, Khaled Meshal, Hamas's political bureau chief, said the organization was willing to cooperate with "a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders", provided that Palestinian refugees hold the right to return to Israel and that East Jerusalem be the new nation's capital.[25][26]

The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas affiliated military wing, has launched attacks on Israel, against both civilian and military targets.[27] Attacks on civilian targets have included rocket attacks and, from 1993 to 2006, suicide bombings.[28] Attacks on military targets have included small-arms fire and rocket and mortar attacks.[27][29][30]
Arabic for "catastrophe". Refers to the first Arab Israeli War. Within this war, approximately 711,000 to 726,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes. The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949, and is synonymous in the sense with what is known to Israelis as the War of Independence

The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة‎, an-Nakbah, lit. "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 726,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.[2] The term nakba also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949, and is synonymous in that sense with what is known to Israelis as the War of Independence (Hebrew: מלחמת העצמאות or מלחמת הקוממיות, Milkhemet Ha'atzma'ut, a term which covers those two events).[3][4][5][6]

On May 14, 1948, Israel declared itself a new, independent state, and was soon thereafter attacked by assembled forces of the Arab world determined to destroy this proud, determined newcomer to the region -- or so the legend has been perpetuated for some 65 years, propelled by the best-selling 1958 Leon Uris novel, Exodus, said to have originated as a PR effort to glamorize Israel and sanitize its dishonorable establishment. This was soon followed in 1960 by the Otto Preminger film that spread the myth to a much larger audience and simplified it further into essentially a cowboys and Indians tale.

Whether deliberate or inadvertent, the widespread appeal of this film may well reflect its close correspondence with America's own ethnic cleansing of our indigenous population and its whitewashed reversal of heroes and villains, where Zionism and Manifest Destiny are companion ideologies, and Israeli "settlers" match American "pioneers."
Refers to June 1967 War. The war was fought between June 5 and 10, 1967, by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt (known at the time as the United Arab Republic), Jordan, and Syria. The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise strikes against Egyptian airfields in response to the mobilization of Egyptian forces on the Israeli border.


The Six-Day War took place in June 1967. The Six-Day War was fought between June 5th and June 10th. The Israelis defended the war as a preventative military effort to counter what the Israelis saw as an impending attack by Arab nations that surrounded Israel. The Six-Day War was initiated by General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli's Defence Minister.

The war was against Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Israel believed that it was only a matter of time before the three Arab states co-ordinated a massive attack on Israel. After the 1956 Suez Crisis, the United Nations had established a presence in the Middle East, especially at sensitive border areas. The United Nations was only there with the agreement of the nations that acted as a host to it. By May 1967, the Egyptians had made it clear that the United Nations was no longer wanted in the Suez region. Gamal Nasser, leader of Egypt, ordered a concentration of Egyptian military forces in the sensitive Suez zone. This was a highly provocative act and the Israelis only viewed it one way - that Egypt was preparing to attack. The Egyptians had also enforced a naval blockade which closed off the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping.

Rather than wait to be attacked, the Israelis launched a hugely successful military campaign against its perceived enemies. The air forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq were all but destroyed on June 5th. By June 7th, many Egyptian tanks had been destroyed in the Sinai Desert and Israeli forces reached the Suez Canal. On the same day, the whole of the west bank of the Jordan River had been cleared of Jordanian forces. The Golan Heights were captured from Syria and Israeli forces moved 30 miles into Syria itself.

The war was a disaster for the Arab world and temporarily weakened the man who was seen as the leader of the Arabs - Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The war was a military disaster for the Arabs but it was also a massive blow to the Arabs morale. Here were four of the strongest Arab nations systematically defeated by just one nation.

The success of the campaign must have surprised the Israelis. However, it also gave them a major problem that was to prove a major problem for the Israeli government for decades. By capturing the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Israelis had captured for themselves areas of great strategic value. However, the West Bank also contained over 600,000 Arabs who now came under Israeli administration. Their plight led many young Arabs into joining the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), a group that the Israelis deemed a terrorist organisation. Israeli domestic policies became a lot more complicated after the military successes of June 1967.
The 13 year-old (later 16-year-old) daughter of Lord and Lady Croom, Thomasina is a precocious young genius. She comes to understand chaos theory and theorizes the second law of thermodynamics, before either is officially recognized and established in mathematical and scientific communities. Stoppard apparently based the character on Ada Lovelace (Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace), daughter of Lord Byron. Ada was an English mathematician who conceptualized how Charles Cabbage's analytical engine could be used.

1809 - Thomasina gets lesson from tutor. sees a hole in Newton's physics that progresses throughout the play. puzzled by how you cant unstir. this point to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. entropy - measure of the disorder of a system. natural course takes eent to a more disordered state.


Thomasina speaks the very first line of the play, a line that tells us from the start that Arcadia may be set in Regency England, but it's no Jane Austen novel:

THOMASINA: Septimus, what is carnal embrace? (1.1)

First, while this question begins the play on a humorous and slightly shocking note, it also neatly demonstrates that Thomasina is embarked on the transition from childhood to adulthood, in the limbo of adolescence. She's obviously picked up the term "carnal embrace," which shows some exposure to sexual knowledge, from somewhere, but she doesn't know enough to know what it means, so she has to ask. She can ask this question only because she's on this border: if she knew more, she wouldn't need to ask the question, and if she knew less, she wouldn't know there was a question to ask.

And sex isn't the only thing Thomasina has questions about. There's also Newtonian physics:

THOMASINA: When you stir your rice pudding, Septimus, the spoonful of jam spreads itself round making red trails like the picture of a meteor in my astronomical atlas. But if you stir backward, the jam will not come together again. Indeed, the pudding does not notice and continues to turn pink just as before. Do you think this is odd? (1.1)

This passage gives us an idea of how Thomasina thinks: she puts abstract ideas in the context of familiar objects (the laws of physics as rice pudding) and she's able to make connections between the very small and the very large (pudding and meteors). In the scientific context as well as the sexual one, her almost-but-not-quite knowledge means that she asks questions neither a child nor an adult would think to ask.

The play uses Thomasina's questions about sex and physics to portray her in that stage between ignorance and knowledge, innocence and experience. How does she go about gaining knowledge? How does her in-the-middle-ness - her remaining childhood imagination and innocence - help her to see more than the adults around her?

Geometry Stinks, But Not For The Reasons You Think It Does

The more knowledge Thomasina gains, the more she hates its limitations. Geometry is a particular target of her wrath:

THOMASINA: Each week I plot your equations dot for dot, xs against ys in all manner of algebraical relation, and every week they draw themselves as commonplace geometry, as if the world of forms were nothing but arcs and angles. God's truth, Septimus, if there is an equation for a curve like a bell, there must be an equation for one like a bluebell, and if a bluebell, why not a rose? (1.3)

While Septimus is content to have two worlds - geometry and nature - divided up like girls and boys at a middle school dance, Thomasina wants the two mixed. What drives Thomasina's assertion that an equation "must" exist? Is she pulling a Bernard and saying that she just knows, or is she using the powers of reason? And does that borderline position discussed above affect how she's thinking about these questions? How?

Waltzing: It's All Innocent, Right?

While the sixteen-year-old Thomasina who appears later in the play is still interested in "the action of bodies in heat" (2.7; we'll leave it as an exercise for the reader whether that's a question of sex or science), it's waltzing that's first and foremost in her mind. Her concern with learning the latest dance craze develops her character's borderline status between innocence and experience in a new direction.

When Thomasina comes downstairs late at night to claim her promised waltz lesson from Septimus, she's surprised that her tutor doesn't immediately understand that her kiss means "teach me to waltz now" - as opposed to "I want to have sex with you." She tells him, "Do not act the innocent! Tomorrow I will be seventeen!" (2.7). Her words are unintentionally funny: she's thinking about dancing in the vertical, while his thoughts are more of the horizontal variety. Yet he's the one being accused of "acting the innocent." It's a funny turn of phrase - but it also suggests that innocence is more complicated than it seems.

Things only get more complicated when there's more kissing, instigated by Septimus this time, and Thomasina invites Septimus up to her room. This all happens so quickly, and so close to the end of the play, that it's uncertain what Thomasina's motives are. Has she been harboring a secret crush on Septimus? Is she hoping he'll be an adequate stand-in for her Byron fantasy? Thomasina's abrupt death, and the end of the play, mean that we'll never know - and that, as a character, Thomasina is forever poised on that boundary between innocence and experience.
Thomasina's tutor and the academic colleague and friend of Lord Byron (an unseen but important character in the play). While teaching Thomasina he works on his own research, and has affairs with the older women of the house. When she is older, he begins to fall in love with her, and after her death it is implied that he becomes the "hermit of Sidley Park", working on the young girl's theories until his own death.


From the very beginning of the play, we know that Septimus isn't your ordinary tutor.

THOMASINA: Septimus, what is carnal embrace?
SEPTIMUS: Carnal embrace is the practice of throwing one's arms around a side of beef. (1.1)

Septimus's response is absurdly literal: as he goes on to explain, "carnal" really does refer to meat. His answer tells us a lot about him right off the bat. First, he has a sense of humor that tends towards the ridiculous, but is grounded in his academic knowledge. Second, even though he's supposed to be teaching Thomasina, he's not above messing with her. And third, as the conversation develops and Septimus gives an answer that's another kind of literal (we won't quote the whole passage here - it's in "Quotes"), we learn that he doesn't have much in the way of prudish sexual hang-ups. By establishing the character of Septimus so clearly right from the beginning, Stoppard also tells us a lot about the kind of play this is going to be - one with a weird sense of humor, plenty of wordplay, and some sexy talk.

Since we've already gotten to know Septimus through how he talks to Thomasina, we're primed to appreciate his mockery of Mr. Chater, who's less his match in verbal wit than Thomasina is. Witness how Septimus neatly derails Chater from his adultery-avenging rampage:

CHATER: I have heard of your admiration, sir! You insulted my wife in the gazebo yesterday evening!SEPTIMUS: You are mistaken. I made love to your wife in the gazebo. She asked me to meet her there, I have her note somewhere, I dare say I could find it for you, and if someone is putting it about that I did not turn up, by God, sir, it is a slander. (1.1)

Does Septimus really believe that Chater's worried that Septimus might have stood Mrs. Chater up for an appointment to have sex with her? Hardly. But by purposely misunderstanding Chater - just as he did with Thomasina's question that opened the play - Septimus breaks the expected story. When Chater rushes into the schoolroom demanding satisfaction from Septimus, he's acting out a part in his own imagined narrative, in which the next step would be that Septimus will either deny the whole thing or agree to a duel. When Septimus admits of his tryst with Mrs. Chater, behaving as if he thinks the real sin would have been standing her up, he departs from the available options in Chater's Choose Your Own Adventure story. By going completely off script in his response to Chater, Septimus gains the upper hand over him, at least temporarily.

Of course, Chater soon gets a sharp kick in the pants from Captain Brice, and the duel does get scheduled. Septimus's decision to sleep in the boathouse rather than risk a bullet may seem cowardly, but only if you buy the idea that a duel cleanses your honor. From a more pragmatic viewpoint, Septimus's refusal to pay his debt with a gunfight shows just how smart he is.

Septimus may be less smart when it comes to Thomasina. He totally misses what she's trying to do with the iterated algorithm thingamagum:

THOMASINA: No marks?! Did you not like my rabbit equation?
SEPTIMUS: I saw no resemblance to a rabbit.
THOMASINA: It eats its own progeny.
SEPTIMUS: (Pause) I did not see that. (2.7)

Here, Septimus's tendency to take things literally blinds him to Thomasina's inventive projects: she says "rabbit," and he thinks, "picture with two long ears, fluffy tail," not "equation that devours its young." His disconnect here suggests that Thomasina's strength is the imagination that Septimus lacks - while he thinks outside the box in managing his love affairs, he's not so good at applying that originality to mathematics. Septimus's failure illustrates the play's larger suggestion that cleverness will only get you so far in both poetry and mathematics: to make really great achievements, you need genius. Septimus's lack of genius in this regard might give us a clue to figuring out what it is that geniuses do differently.

While Septimus doesn't seem to change much over the course of the play, the ending does suggest that he's learned a few things from his time in Arcadia. For one, he gives Thomasina's essay an A grade "in blind faith" (2.7), showing that he takes her ideas seriously even if he doesn't understand them - a far cry from his dismissive tone earlier in the play. Smooching Thomasina may be another example of a change, or perhaps just another case of Lady Croom substitution syndrome. His refusal to join Thomasina in her room, however, may show that he thinks more of her than Mrs. Chater - or just that he's avoiding doing something very, very stupid. Since we know that Thomasina dies soon after the end of the play, their maybe-sort-of romance is left unresolved - and open to interpretation. (Click over to "What's Up with the Ending?" for more on the play's conclusion.)
A graduate student of mathematics, Valentine is Chloe's older brother. After poring over several old documents, he comes to acknowledge Thomasina's genius.


Valentine is the voice of modern science in the play. As a mathematician, he explains to Hannah (and, by extension, to the audience) exactly what's going on with fractals and grouse and Thomasina's rabbit equations. And he not only knows math, he's more excited about it than a tween girl at a Twilight release party:

VALENTINE: The future is disorder. A door like this has cracked open five or six times since we got up on our hind legs. It's the best possible time to be alive, when almost everything you thought you knew is wrong. (1.4)

Look, Ma, no first-person singular pronouns! The lack of any kind of "I" in this passage suggests that Valentine more interested in the march of knowledge itself than in being its drum major. He's happy to be wrong, because that means that progress can be made - in stark contrast to Bernard, who fears being wrong like Superman fears kryptonite. This, not surprisingly, leads to conflict between the two:

VALENTINE: Well, it's all trivial anyway. [...] The questions you're asking don't matter, you see. It's like arguing who got there first with the calculus. The English say Newton, the Germans say Leibnitz. But it doesn't matter. Personalities. What matters is the calculus. Scientific progress. Knowledge. (2.5)

Valentine's insistence that personalities don't matter is the polar opposite of Bernard's point of view, which is that they're the only thing that does. This debate could be as simple as the scientific point of view vs. the humanistic one, but there's also something deeper here: conflicting views of history.

Valentine sees history like a kid making a rock pile. You find a new rock of knowledge, add it to the pile - clunk - and voilà, you have more knowledge. It doesn't matter that one rock came from a forest and the other from a parking lot, just that they're both in the pile now. Bernard, on the other hand, sees history like a story: imagine a kid writing a power ballad about the day she found this shiny green rock, and the trouble she went to in order to add it to her pile, and how happy she is that now the rock is hers.

So what does it matter for Valentine that he thinks of history the way he does? Well, for starters, it means he has a lot of trouble believing that Thomasina was doing anything important. If the good stuff is like a pile of rocks, the fact that Thomasina's discoveries didn't have any effect - she didn't add a new rock to the pile - means that, to him, they don't matter. For all his enthusiasm for Knowledge, Valentine seems to have a fairly narrow definition of what Knowledge might mean.

And as we all know, character development involves someone seeing the error of their ways and gaining an open mind and learning the true meaning of Christmas. So does Valentine cast off his Scrooge-like ways and make a big donation to the Tiny Tim Memorial Orphanage and Math Tutoring Center? Well, at the very least he does soften towards Thomasina. By the end of the play he admits that she was on to something:

VALENTINE: She didn't have the maths, not remotely. She saw what things meant, way ahead, like seeing a picture. (93)

While Valentine sticks to his assertion that she simply didn't have the tools to make anything big out of her ideas, he does realize that the inspiration was in itself meaningful. Does that mean that Valentine is going to give up math and take up literary criticism? Probably not, but perhaps he won't be so hasty to dismiss those who think outside the box - and through him, the play suggests that we don't need to side with either Valentine or Bernard. There's some wiggle room between their approaches.
is a field of study in mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including meteorology, physics, engineering, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

determinist chaos

Arcadia is influenced most by chaos theory or what is also called nonlinear dynamics. Chaos theory is often heralded as one of the greatest scientific advancements in the physical sciences after relativity and quantum mechanics. Stoppard's main source of chaos theory information came form James Gleick's book Chaos: Making a New Science. Chaos theory itself focuses the characteristic or knowable behaviors of nonlinear systems. Nonlinear dynamics are processes that are "chaotic" but not random. As David Peak and Michael Frame have pointed out, "Chaos is irregular output from a deterministic source. The future of chaotic behaviors is completely determined by its past. Chaos is not chance or randomness." Therefore, chaos systems are random, but have some degree of predictability that may bear some statistical long-term results.

The iteration, like that formulated by Thomasina, is central to chaos theory. Iteration is the repetition of a computation of a mathematical algorithm. Thomasina begins her iteration, but it remains impossible for her to complete. It is not until Valentine and Hannah discover her primer and diagrams that Thomasina's theory and algorithm can be completed. With Thomasina's set and completed algorithm, Valentine is able to create a fractal, which is the result of iteration. A fractal is the plotted set that results from calculating an algorithm thousands of time into a computer and then plotting the points it produces. In modern times, fractals are used to describe objects in nature—just as Thomasina uses one or attempts to create a fractal to describe the leaf off of Septimus's apple. Small sections of fractal images, blown up, represent the whole of the image. Thomasina is determined to find the fractal because she realizes there are pictures and equations to be had in natural forms.

Thomasina doesn't believe that God's imagination or the physical world doesn't extend beyond arcs and angles, simple geometric shapes. Gleick's describes this same principle in his work: "Clouds are not sphere Mountains are not cones. Lightning does not travel in a straight line." Iterations are central to nonlinear dynamics because the iteration can be described as a process that continues and changes; like life itself, the iteration changes and transforms randomly. Thomasina's observations do not end with the plotting of nature by use of algorithm and iteration. Thomasina also links her discoveries with thermodynamics, inspired by Mr. Noakes's steam engine. Thomasina plots a diagram of heat exchange that reveals the inevitability and non-reversible nature of life itself. Thomasina intuitively understands the inevitable end of life and heat. The consequence of the sensitivity to an algorithm or initial system is irreversibility. Speculation about the future of any chaotic system is limited, besides the knowledge that the system must eventually end. As Valentine suggests, he cannot go back to the original equation once it is set. The randomness of a chaotic system makes this nearly impossible. For instance, the randomness of heat energy and in the human system, as Chloe suggests, sexual energy is impossible to predict. One can never know how the system (or person) will react to its (his or her) environment.