Choose a Play
Play: A Matter of Husbands (by Ferenc Molnar)
Summary
This one-act play features an Earnest Young Woman confronting a Famous Actress (Sara), accusing the actress of having an affair with her husband, Alfred (a lawyer). The Young Woman presents evidence like flowers sent by Alfred and a love letter she found. The Famous Actress initially denies everything but then cleverly twists the narrative. She convinces the naive Young Woman that Alfred isn't actually in love with the Actress; rather, he is merely pretending to have an affair to make his own wife jealous and win back her affection, a ploy supposedly common among theatre-associated men. The Earnest Young Woman, completely fooled, realizes her "mistake," apologizes profusely, and leaves relieved. The ironic twist comes immediately after she exits: the Famous Actress calls out to Alfred, who emerges from her personal bedroom (boudoir), revealing that the affair was real all along, and the actress masterfully deceived the wife. The play satirizes naivety, marital infidelity, and the deceptive nature of appearances, especially in the world of theatre.
Questions & Answers
75 Words:
Why is the play 'A Matter of Husbands' a play of split personality? [2]
The play shows a 'split personality' mostly in the Famous Actress. She acts one way (kind, helpful) to the Earnest Young Woman, but her real actions are different (she's having an affair and hiding the husband). It's like she has two sides: the innocent role she plays and the deceptive person she really is. This difference makes it seem like a 'split'.
Sketch the character of Famous Actress.
The Famous Actress is young, beautiful, and well-known. She's a very skilled actress in life, not just on stage. She is clever, cunning, and very good at lying convincingly. She easily fools the Earnest Young Woman by making up a story to hide her affair with Alfred. She seems nice but is actually deceptive.
Briefly describe your impression of the Famous Actress.
My impression is the Famous Actress is smart and a great actor, but also quite dishonest and manipulative. She uses her skills to easily fool the trusting Earnest Young Woman. While her cleverness is notable, her actions – having an affair and lying so smoothly – show she can be ruthless and doesn't seem to care much about others' feelings.
Sketch the character of Alfred.
Alfred is the husband of the Earnest Young Woman. He is a lawyer. In the play, he is having an affair with the Famous Actress, sending her flowers and a love letter. He seems cowardly because he hides in the Actress's bedroom while his wife confronts her. He only appears at the very end when called. His actions start the play's main problem.
How can you say that Famous Actress succeeds at fooling Earnest Young Woman?
We know the Famous Actress succeeds because the Earnest Young Woman completely believes her fake story. The wife changes from being angry and sad to being happy and relieved. She apologizes to the Actress, kisses her thankfully, and leaves thinking her husband (Alfred) was just playing a trick to win her love back, exactly as the Actress told her.
Shed light on the difference between an ordinary woman and an actress.
In this play, the ordinary woman (Earnest Young Woman) is shown as simple, naive, and quick to believe things. She shows her true feelings openly. The Actress (Famous Actress), however, is presented as worldly, cunning, and able to control her emotions and act a part. She can easily hide the truth and manipulate situations, using her skills like she would on stage.
Why is the play 'A Matter of Husbands' a play of split personality?
The play seems like it's about 'split personality' because the Famous Actress shows two different faces. To the Earnest Young Woman, she acts innocent and helpful, denying the affair. But secretly, she is having the affair and hiding Alfred. This contrast between how she acts and what she is really doing makes her character seem split.
What, according to The Earnest Young Woman, are the indications that her husband has fallen in love with Famous Actress?
The Earnest Young Woman believes her husband (Alfred) is in love with the Famous Actress because she found proof. He sends flowers regularly to the Actress's dressing room (she checked with the florist). She also found a love letter from Alfred to the Actress on his desk, filled with loving words and "ten thousand kisses."
What explanation related to the love letter helped the Famous Actress to convince the Earnest Young Woman?
The Famous Actress convinced the wife about the letter by saying it was fake. She claimed Alfred wrote it on purpose and left it for his wife to find, just to make her jealous. She said husbands often use this trick with actresses to get their wives' attention back. This clever lie made the Earnest Young Woman believe the letter wasn't real.
What role does the 'letter' have in the play 'A Matter of Husbands'?
The letter is very important. First, it's the Earnest Young Woman's main proof that her husband (Alfred) is having an affair. But then, the Famous Actress cleverly uses the letter as part of her lie. She claims Alfred faked it to make his wife jealous. So the letter changes from proof of truth to a tool for deception.
What favour does Earnest Young Woman ask from the Famous Actress?
The Earnest Young Woman asks the Famous Actress one simple, desperate favour: "Give me back my husband!" She believes the Actress has stolen Alfred's love and directly pleads with her to end the relationship and let him come back to her, showing how upset and straightforward she is.
How does Famous Actress try to convince Earnest Young Woman?
In Ferenc Molnar's 'A Matter of Husbands', the Famous Actress uses several clever steps to convince the very upset Earnest Young Woman that there is no affair.
First, she acts surprised and strongly denies knowing about any flowers or the love letter the wife mentions. Then, instead of just denying, she creates a whole new story. She suggests that the wife's husband, Alfred, is actually playing a "little comedy." She explains (falsely) that many men pretend to have affairs with famous actresses to make their wives jealous and win back their affection. She uses the wife's own proof - the letter and flowers - as evidence of this trick, saying Alfred planned for his wife to find them. She acts very sympathetic and understanding, making the wife feel foolish but also relieved.
By denying, creating a believable fake story, using the wife's evidence against her, and acting kindly, the Famous Actress completely fools the Earnest Young Woman.
First, she acts surprised and strongly denies knowing about any flowers or the love letter the wife mentions. Then, instead of just denying, she creates a whole new story. She suggests that the wife's husband, Alfred, is actually playing a "little comedy." She explains (falsely) that many men pretend to have affairs with famous actresses to make their wives jealous and win back their affection. She uses the wife's own proof - the letter and flowers - as evidence of this trick, saying Alfred planned for his wife to find them. She acts very sympathetic and understanding, making the wife feel foolish but also relieved.
By denying, creating a believable fake story, using the wife's evidence against her, and acting kindly, the Famous Actress completely fools the Earnest Young Woman.
150 Words / Long Answer:
According to famous actress, men associated with theatre use the theatre actresses to make their estranged wives jealous so as to woo them back. Do you agree with her argument? Why? Why not?
In Ferenc Molnar's 'A Matter of Husbands', the Famous Actress claims that men often use famous actresses like her to make their wives jealous. She says they pretend to have an affair just to get their wives' love back. I do not agree with this argument as a real fact presented by the play itself.
This explanation seems like a very clever lie created by the Actress in that moment. She invents it to fool the Earnest Young Woman and hide her actual affair with Alfred. The play gives us no reason to believe this is a common trick used by many men. Instead, it shows the Actress's quick thinking and ability to deceive. The fact that Alfred is physically hiding in her bedroom is strong proof that the affair is real, not just a game.
Therefore, the Actress's argument isn't meant to be taken as truth about men in general; it's just a perfect example of her cunning and manipulation to protect herself.
This explanation seems like a very clever lie created by the Actress in that moment. She invents it to fool the Earnest Young Woman and hide her actual affair with Alfred. The play gives us no reason to believe this is a common trick used by many men. Instead, it shows the Actress's quick thinking and ability to deceive. The fact that Alfred is physically hiding in her bedroom is strong proof that the affair is real, not just a game.
Therefore, the Actress's argument isn't meant to be taken as truth about men in general; it's just a perfect example of her cunning and manipulation to protect herself.
Play: Facing Death (by August Strindberg)
Summary
Monsieur Durand, a former railroad worker, widower, and pensioner, is financially ruined. He lives with his three daughters, Adele (27), Annette (24), and Therese (24), in a house they've turned into a lodge. The relationship with his daughters, who largely blame him for their poverty, is strained. They face mounting debts to the baker, butcher, and grocer. Durand plans a desperate act to secure his daughters' future. He intends to commit suicide and set the house on fire so his daughters can collect 5000 francs from the fire insurance. Throughout the play, tensions rise: daughters misbehave, Durand reveals secrets about his past (being born in France, fighting against it, how inheritances were lost partly due to his late wife's actions), and confronts their hatred, which was fueled by their mother. He tries to eat rat poison out of hunger but survives. In the end, after ensuring his daughter Therese can marry her love (Antonio, a guest) and asking Adele to care for her sisters, he reveals his plan regarding the insurance, drinks poison, and the house is seen burning. The play depicts a father's tragic, heroic sacrifice driven by love and despair in the face of financial ruin and familial resentment.
Questions & Answers
75 Words:
State the relationship between the father and the children.
The relationship between the father (Monsieur Durand) and his children (especially Therese and Annette) is very bad. The daughters blame him for their poverty and are often rude and unkind to him. They don't respect him. However, Durand still loves them deeply and worries about their future. He plans to sacrifice his life for their well-being, showing his hidden love.
Critically examine the relationship between Monsieur Duran and his wife.
The relationship between Monsieur Durand and his late wife was very poor. He reveals she was careless, wasted their inheritance (paternal and maternal) on things like lottery tickets, and blamed him for their problems. She even taught their daughters to hate him. He claims she lied often, even on her deathbed. He endured this silently to protect her image for the children.
Discuss "Facing Death" as a modern tragedy.
"Facing Death" is a modern tragedy because it deals with a common man (Monsieur Durand) facing realistic problems like financial ruin and family conflict, not a king facing fate. His downfall comes from social and economic pressures. The ending is unhappy – his suicide. It shows the harsh realities of life for ordinary people, fitting the style of modern tragedy.
Why did Monsieur Durand sell his life insurance?
Monsieur Durand had already sold his life insurance policy before the play begins. He did this likely because he was desperately poor (bankrupt) and needed money to pay off debts or simply to survive day-to-day. This past action prevents him from using life insurance money to help his daughters after his death.
What are the different things that one can vision from the dining room?
From the open door of the dining room, one can see outside: churchyard cypress trees, Lake Leman (Lake Geneva), the Savoy Alps (mountains), and the French town of Evian across the lake. This view provides a specific setting in French Switzerland and contrasts the beauty outside with the unhappy situation inside the house.
State the relationship between the father and the children
The relationship is strained and unhappy. The children (daughters) resent their father (Durand), blaming him for their poverty and showing him little respect. They are often rude. The father, despite this, secretly cares deeply for them and plans to sacrifice himself for their financial future, showing a one-sided, tragic love.
How does Monsieur Duran die?
Monsieur Durand dies by committing suicide at the end of the play. He drinks poison after setting his house on fire. He does this deliberately so that his daughters can collect money from the fire insurance policy, hoping it will give them a better future after his death.
What are the different things that one can view from the dining room?
From the dining room, one can see a view outside the open door. This view includes cypress trees from a churchyard, the large lake called Lake Leman, the Savoy Alps mountains in the distance, and the French town of Evian. This shows the house is located near the lake in Switzerland, facing France.
150 Words / Long Answer:
Do you think it was the right step that Monsieur Durand took at the end of the play? Why, why not? Justify your opinion.
Whether Monsieur Durand's final step – suicide and arson (setting fire) – was "right" is very complex. From his point of view, it was the only way left to help his daughters.
He was completely bankrupt, unable to even buy bread, and his daughters faced a terrible future. He believed the fire insurance money (5000 francs) was their only hope. He saw his sacrifice as an act of desperate fatherly love, trying to provide for them after his death when he failed in life. He endured years of hardship and blame, and perhaps saw this as his final duty. However, suicide is a tragic choice, leaving his daughters alone with the trauma. Also, insurance fraud (arson) is illegal and morally wrong. While we understand his desperation, destroying himself and committing a crime are extreme actions.
So, while his motive was love and desperation, the action itself – suicide and arson – is tragic and ethically questionable. It wasn't "right" in a moral sense, but understandable given his extreme despair.
He was completely bankrupt, unable to even buy bread, and his daughters faced a terrible future. He believed the fire insurance money (5000 francs) was their only hope. He saw his sacrifice as an act of desperate fatherly love, trying to provide for them after his death when he failed in life. He endured years of hardship and blame, and perhaps saw this as his final duty. However, suicide is a tragic choice, leaving his daughters alone with the trauma. Also, insurance fraud (arson) is illegal and morally wrong. While we understand his desperation, destroying himself and committing a crime are extreme actions.
So, while his motive was love and desperation, the action itself – suicide and arson – is tragic and ethically questionable. It wasn't "right" in a moral sense, but understandable given his extreme despair.
Do you think money is the chief determinant of maintaining relationship between characters in the play 'Facing Death'? Why, why not? Give reasons to support your answer.
Yes, in August Strindberg's "Facing Death," money (or the lack of it) seems to be the main thing determining relationships between the characters. The family's deep poverty has ruined their connections.
The daughters, especially Therese and Annette, openly resent their father, Monsieur Durand, because he cannot provide for them and has wasted their inheritance. Their rudeness and lack of respect stem directly from their financial hardship. Their attitude changes completely for a moment when Durand hints he might get money; Therese suddenly becomes kind and apologetic. Even the relationship with the lodger, Antonio, ends partly because Durand can no longer afford to keep the house running. The constant worry about bills and lack of food creates tension and bitterness, overshadowing any feelings of love or respect.
While other issues exist (like the mother's past influence), the constant pressure of poverty is shown as the primary force driving the characters' negative interactions and behaviour.
The daughters, especially Therese and Annette, openly resent their father, Monsieur Durand, because he cannot provide for them and has wasted their inheritance. Their rudeness and lack of respect stem directly from their financial hardship. Their attitude changes completely for a moment when Durand hints he might get money; Therese suddenly becomes kind and apologetic. Even the relationship with the lodger, Antonio, ends partly because Durand can no longer afford to keep the house running. The constant worry about bills and lack of food creates tension and bitterness, overshadowing any feelings of love or respect.
While other issues exist (like the mother's past influence), the constant pressure of poverty is shown as the primary force driving the characters' negative interactions and behaviour.
Discuss 'Facing Death' as a modern tragedy.
August Strindberg's "Facing Death" fits the definition of a modern tragedy very well. Unlike classical tragedies about kings and fate, it focuses on an ordinary man, Monsieur Durand, struggling with realistic, contemporary problems.
The tragedy comes not from gods or fate, but from social and economic pressures. Durand is bankrupt, a former railway worker facing debts and unable to support his family. His conflict is with poverty and the breakdown of his family relationships, which are shown realistically and without romanticism (naturalism). His daughters resent him, adding to his misery. His final, desperate act is suicide, driven by a desire to provide for his children through insurance fraud – a very modern, grim kind of sacrifice. The play ends unhappily, focusing on the bleak reality of a common person's downfall due to circumstances and character flaws.
This focus on a common protagonist, realistic problems, social environment, and an unhappy, non-heroic ending makes "Facing Death" a clear example of modern tragedy.
The tragedy comes not from gods or fate, but from social and economic pressures. Durand is bankrupt, a former railway worker facing debts and unable to support his family. His conflict is with poverty and the breakdown of his family relationships, which are shown realistically and without romanticism (naturalism). His daughters resent him, adding to his misery. His final, desperate act is suicide, driven by a desire to provide for his children through insurance fraud – a very modern, grim kind of sacrifice. The play ends unhappily, focusing on the bleak reality of a common person's downfall due to circumstances and character flaws.
This focus on a common protagonist, realistic problems, social environment, and an unhappy, non-heroic ending makes "Facing Death" a clear example of modern tragedy.
Discuss the play as a play of a financially bankrupt father who sacrifices his life for his daughter's secured future.
"Facing Death" centrally portrays the story of Monsieur Durand, a financially bankrupt father who makes the ultimate sacrifice – his own life – in a desperate attempt to secure his daughters' future.
The play establishes Durand's complete financial ruin early on; the family cannot even afford bread, and bills are piling up. His daughters face a bleak future with no prospects or dowries. Feeling responsible and seeing no other way out, Durand forms a plan. He ensures the fire insurance is paid up, knowing it will pay 5000 francs if the house burns. He then deliberately sets the house on fire and drinks poison, committing suicide. His goal is purely for his daughters to receive the insurance money after his death, hoping it will save them from poverty and allow them to live better lives, perhaps enabling Therese to marry Antonio.
It's a tragic, selfless act born of desperation, highlighting the extreme lengths a loving, albeit failed, father might go to provide for his children when trapped by bankruptcy.
The play establishes Durand's complete financial ruin early on; the family cannot even afford bread, and bills are piling up. His daughters face a bleak future with no prospects or dowries. Feeling responsible and seeing no other way out, Durand forms a plan. He ensures the fire insurance is paid up, knowing it will pay 5000 francs if the house burns. He then deliberately sets the house on fire and drinks poison, committing suicide. His goal is purely for his daughters to receive the insurance money after his death, hoping it will save them from poverty and allow them to live better lives, perhaps enabling Therese to marry Antonio.
It's a tragic, selfless act born of desperation, highlighting the extreme lengths a loving, albeit failed, father might go to provide for his children when trapped by bankruptcy.
How can you say that 'Facing Death' is a modern tragedy?
"Facing Death" is a modern tragedy because it shifts away from ancient tragic themes of fate and noble heroes. Instead, it presents an ordinary man, Monsieur Durand, as the central figure. His suffering doesn't come from gods but from realistic, modern problems: financial bankruptcy, social pressure, and difficult family relationships. The play uses realism and naturalism to show the harshness of his situation. His final act, suicide combined with insurance fraud, is a grim, unheroic solution driven by desperation, not noble destiny. The unhappy ending focuses on the bleak downfall of a common individual crushed by his circumstances.
This focus on an ordinary protagonist, realistic social/economic problems, and a bleak, non-redemptive ending are key features that define it as a modern tragedy.
This focus on an ordinary protagonist, realistic social/economic problems, and a bleak, non-redemptive ending are key features that define it as a modern tragedy.
Describe the sacrifice made by Monsieur Duran to ensure the well being of his three daughters?
Monsieur Durand makes the ultimate sacrifice for his three daughters by taking his own life in a carefully planned way. Facing complete bankruptcy and knowing his daughters have no future prospects, he decides to use the fire insurance on their house. He secretly plans to burn down the house and then commit suicide by drinking poison. He believes that after his death, his daughters will receive 5000 francs from the insurance payout. He hopes this money will secure their well-being, perhaps allowing Therese to marry and Adele to care for Annette. He endures their unkindness and hides his plan (except from Adele) to make his sacrifice effective.
What do you think would have happened if Mr. Durand had not committed suicide ? What life options would you see in front of Mr. Durand?
If Monsieur Durand had not committed suicide, his and his daughters' lives would likely have become even harder. They were already bankrupt, facing eviction, and unable to buy food.
Without the insurance money, their options were grim. They might have become homeless. The daughters, as Durand feared and their mother apparently threatened, might have been forced into prostitution or other desperate acts to survive. Durand himself had few choices; perhaps seeking charity, trying to find manual labour despite his age and poor health, or relying completely on Adele. It's unlikely Antonio would have stayed to marry Therese without any money. Their situation was a dead end, and without Durand's drastic action, extreme poverty and social decline seemed almost certain.
His suicide, while tragic, was seen by him as the only way to provide any option other than utter destitution for his daughters.
Without the insurance money, their options were grim. They might have become homeless. The daughters, as Durand feared and their mother apparently threatened, might have been forced into prostitution or other desperate acts to survive. Durand himself had few choices; perhaps seeking charity, trying to find manual labour despite his age and poor health, or relying completely on Adele. It's unlikely Antonio would have stayed to marry Therese without any money. Their situation was a dead end, and without Durand's drastic action, extreme poverty and social decline seemed almost certain.
His suicide, while tragic, was seen by him as the only way to provide any option other than utter destitution for his daughters.
Sketch the character of Monsieur Durand.
Monsieur Durand is the tragic central character of "Facing Death." He is an ordinary man, a former railway worker and now a widower running a failing boarding house. He is financially ruined and deeply troubled by his inability to provide for his three daughters. He appears worn down by years of hardship and the lack of respect from his children. Despite their cruelty, he shows deep, hidden love and concern for their future, revealing his past secrets only to justify his final sacrifice. He endures suffering silently (like his wife's blame and his daughters' unkindness). He is ultimately desperate enough to commit suicide and arson in a misguided attempt to secure their financial well-being, making him a complex figure of failure, love, and tragic sacrifice.
Play: The Bull (by Bhimnidhi Tiwari)
Summary
Set in Nepal in 1854 B.S. (Ashwin), this one-act play satirizes the feudal system during the reign of King Ranabahadur Shah, who was obsessed with bulls. The play opens with two panicked cowherds, Gore and Jitman, rushing to Laxminarayan (a legal officer and the king's bull doctor) to report the death of the king's favorite bull, Male. All three fear the king's severe punishment, possibly death. Laxminarayan, remembering past punishment (lips burned, mustache non-existent on one side), advises caution. He instructs the cowherds not to say the bull is dead, but ill. Laxminarayan goes to the palace and informs the king the bull is sick, describing symptoms and praising the bull's past glory. The king decides to see the bull himself. At the cowshed in Thulo Gauchar, Laxminarayan tells Gore and Jitman to pretend to care for the dead bull (massaging feet, fanning) when the king arrives. The king observes the motionless bull and declares it dead himself. To save themselves, Jitman and Gore erupt in exaggerated displays of grief, claiming the bull was dearer than family, impressing the king who rewards them with tips (400 & 500 rupees) and tells them to be quiet. Laxminarayan also feigns agony. The king orders Laxminarayan to handle the burial and rites. Gore and Jitman are immensely relieved to be alive. The play powerfully critiques the dehumanization under feudalism, where servants live in terror and an animal's life is valued over human well-being, forcing people into sycophancy and deception for survival.
Questions & Answers
75 Words:
How does the play make a satire on the feudal system?
The play makes satire by showing how absurd the feudal system was. The king cares more about his bull than people. Servants like Gore, Jitman, and Laxminarayan live in extreme fear of harsh punishment for the bull's death. They must pretend and flatter (chakari) ridiculously just to survive. This exaggeration makes fun of the cruel and silly priorities of the system.
What does the play 'The Bull' tell us about contemporary Nepali society?
The play "The Bull" doesn't describe contemporary (modern) Nepali society. It shows Nepali society in the late 18th century. At that time, there was a powerful king (feudal system), common people lived in fear, had few rights, and women had low status (polygamy). People used flattery (chakari) to please rulers. It depicts a past society, not today's Nepal.
How does Laxminarayan outsmart Ranabahadur?
Laxminarayan outsmarts the king with cleverness and lies. Instead of saying the bull is dead, he reports it's very sick. He praises the king and the bull. He tells the cowherds to pretend to care for the dead bull (massaging feet, fanning). By doing this, he makes the king believe everything possible was done, avoids blame, and saves himself and the cowherds from punishment.
Why have Gore and Jitman come to see Laxminarayan?
Gore and Jitman, the cowherds, came terrified to Laxminarayan (the bull doctor and court officer) because the king's favourite bull, Male, had died. They knew the king would be furious and might punish them severely, possibly even kill them. They needed Laxminarayan's help and advice on how to report the death and survive.
What, according to cowherds, is the reason behind the death of Male?
According to the cowherds, the bull Male died because he wasn't eating enough grass (his natural food). Instead, he was given rich food like fine rice and split gram soup, which he couldn't digest properly. This improper diet, despite being meant as good care, made him sick and eventually led to his death.
Why does Ranabahadur want to see the bull himself?
Ranabahadur Shah wanted to see the bull himself because he loved it dearly and was very concerned after Laxminarayan reported it was seriously ill. He didn't fully trust the report or the suggestion to move the bull to a hill. He wanted to check the bull's condition personally before deciding what to do next.
Shed light on the practice of chakari as portrayed in the play?
Chakari (flattery and excessive service to please superiors) is shown clearly in the play. Laxminarayan uses polite language and praise with the king. He and the cowherds pretend to care for the dead bull (massaging, fanning) to impress the king. Gore and Jitman cry fake tears and express exaggerated loyalty to the bull to avoid punishment. This shows chakari was needed for survival.
150 Words / Long Answer:
Is 'The Bull' a satire against the feudal system of the Rana period? How? Justify your answer.
Yes, Bhimnidhi Tiwari's "The Bull" is definitely a strong satire against the feudal system prevalent in Nepal during the late 18th century (Shah period, similar in nature to the later Rana period). Satire uses humor, exaggeration, or irony to criticize foolishness or wrongdoing.
The play shows the absurdity of the system through extreme exaggeration. The king, Ranabahadur Shah, cares immensely more for his bull, Male, than for his human subjects. The servants – Laxminarayan, Gore, and Jitman – live in absolute terror of the king's anger over the bull's death, fearing execution or shaving (a great humiliation). Their desperate attempts to hide the truth, the elaborate pretence of caring for the dead bull (massaging its feet, fanning it), and their fake, exaggerated crying to please the king highlight the system's irrationality and cruelty. The massive rewards given for this fake grief further satirize the ruler's vanity and the system's flawed values.
Through these exaggerated situations, Tiwari criticizes the dehumanizing power of feudal lords and the climate of fear they created.
The play shows the absurdity of the system through extreme exaggeration. The king, Ranabahadur Shah, cares immensely more for his bull, Male, than for his human subjects. The servants – Laxminarayan, Gore, and Jitman – live in absolute terror of the king's anger over the bull's death, fearing execution or shaving (a great humiliation). Their desperate attempts to hide the truth, the elaborate pretence of caring for the dead bull (massaging its feet, fanning it), and their fake, exaggerated crying to please the king highlight the system's irrationality and cruelty. The massive rewards given for this fake grief further satirize the ruler's vanity and the system's flawed values.
Through these exaggerated situations, Tiwari criticizes the dehumanizing power of feudal lords and the climate of fear they created.
Discuss the late eighteenth century Nepali society as depicted in the play.
Bhimnidhi Tiwari's "The Bull" paints a picture of late eighteenth-century Nepali society under the Shah dynasty as deeply feudal and hierarchical. Power was concentrated in the hands of the king (Ranabahadur Shah), who ruled with absolute authority and inspired great fear among his subjects.
Common people, like the cowherds Gore and Jitman, had very low status and few rights. Their lives depended entirely on the king's mood. They lived in poverty (sleeping on straw while the bull had luxuries) and faced severe punishment for minor mistakes or even perceived disrespect, like Laxminarayan's burnt lips. The practice of chakari (flattery to gain favour) was essential for survival. The play also hints at the low status of women through Laxminarayan's casual mention of having seven wives. Overall, it depicts a society where common humans were dehumanized, living in constant anxiety under a powerful, unpredictable ruler whose priorities heavily favoured status and pets over people.
Common people, like the cowherds Gore and Jitman, had very low status and few rights. Their lives depended entirely on the king's mood. They lived in poverty (sleeping on straw while the bull had luxuries) and faced severe punishment for minor mistakes or even perceived disrespect, like Laxminarayan's burnt lips. The practice of chakari (flattery to gain favour) was essential for survival. The play also hints at the low status of women through Laxminarayan's casual mention of having seven wives. Overall, it depicts a society where common humans were dehumanized, living in constant anxiety under a powerful, unpredictable ruler whose priorities heavily favoured status and pets over people.
Is 'The Bull' a satire against the feudal system of the Rana period? How? Justify your answer.
Yes, "The Bull" acts as a powerful satire against the feudal system, representative of the autocratic rule found in Nepal's history, including the Shah period depicted and systems similar to the later Rana period. Satire criticizes society's flaws, often using exaggeration.
The play achieves this by showing the extreme and illogical situation where a bull's life and comfort are valued far above human lives and dignity. The king Ranabahadur Shah's obsession with his bull, Male, is exaggerated. The intense fear of the servants (Laxminarayan, Gore, Jitman) is palpable – they fear death or humiliation over a dead animal. Their elaborate plan to deceive the king, involving fanning a dead bull and fake crying, is absurd. The king rewarding this fake grief with large sums of money further highlights the ridiculous values of the feudal ruler.
By presenting these extreme scenarios, Tiwari makes the audience see the injustice, cruelty, and sheer foolishness of the feudal system.
The play achieves this by showing the extreme and illogical situation where a bull's life and comfort are valued far above human lives and dignity. The king Ranabahadur Shah's obsession with his bull, Male, is exaggerated. The intense fear of the servants (Laxminarayan, Gore, Jitman) is palpable – they fear death or humiliation over a dead animal. Their elaborate plan to deceive the king, involving fanning a dead bull and fake crying, is absurd. The king rewarding this fake grief with large sums of money further highlights the ridiculous values of the feudal ruler.
By presenting these extreme scenarios, Tiwari makes the audience see the injustice, cruelty, and sheer foolishness of the feudal system.
"The play depicts the social picture where the King's pet gets extra care and the people are neglected." Explain the social satire with reference to this example.
This statement correctly identifies a key element of social satire in Bhimnidhi Tiwari's "The Bull." The play sharply criticizes the feudal society by showing the huge difference in treatment between the King's pet bull, Male, and his human subjects.
The bull receives extra care: it eats fine rice and special soup (even if it can't digest it), sleeps on a mattress with a quilt and mosquito net, has a personal doctor (Laxminarayan), and its death causes extreme panic among the caretakers. The king himself comes to check on it. In stark contrast, the people are neglected and live in fear. The cowherds mention sleeping on straw in winter. Laxminarayan was punished harshly just for speaking loudly. Gore and Jitman fear for their lives over the bull's death. This contrast is the satire: it highlights how inhumane and absurd a society is when an animal gets royal treatment while people live in poverty and fear. It mocks the priorities of the ruling class.
The bull receives extra care: it eats fine rice and special soup (even if it can't digest it), sleeps on a mattress with a quilt and mosquito net, has a personal doctor (Laxminarayan), and its death causes extreme panic among the caretakers. The king himself comes to check on it. In stark contrast, the people are neglected and live in fear. The cowherds mention sleeping on straw in winter. Laxminarayan was punished harshly just for speaking loudly. Gore and Jitman fear for their lives over the bull's death. This contrast is the satire: it highlights how inhumane and absurd a society is when an animal gets royal treatment while people live in poverty and fear. It mocks the priorities of the ruling class.
Why did Rana Bahadur Shah award Gore and Jitman, while he punished the bull doctor?
Ranabahadur Shah reacted differently based on what pleased his feudal ego and sense of importance, not on fairness or logic. He had punished Laxminarayan (the bull doctor) in the past for perceived disrespect (speaking loudly) and threatened him again if the bull died under his care – punishing failure or lack of reverence.
However, he awarded Gore and Jitman with large tips (400 and 500 rupees) after the bull died because their reaction, although fake, deeply flattered him. Their intense (pretend) crying, claims of being orphaned, and dramatic statements that the bull was more important than their own families showed extreme loyalty and devotion to the king's prized possession. This exaggerated grief pleased the king's vanity. He wasn't rewarding their caretaking skill (the bull died!), but their performance of absolute devotion to his interests, which was highly valued in the feudal system.
However, he awarded Gore and Jitman with large tips (400 and 500 rupees) after the bull died because their reaction, although fake, deeply flattered him. Their intense (pretend) crying, claims of being orphaned, and dramatic statements that the bull was more important than their own families showed extreme loyalty and devotion to the king's prized possession. This exaggerated grief pleased the king's vanity. He wasn't rewarding their caretaking skill (the bull died!), but their performance of absolute devotion to his interests, which was highly valued in the feudal system.