Write an alternate ending to Le Petit Prince analyzing other characters.
Il y avait un petit mouton dans une ferme. Le fermier le trouvai dans un champ, tout seul dans une boîte. Le mouton était triste. Son ami, le Petit Prince, mourus. Il ne savait pas pourquoi, mais aprés sa mort, il était dans un champ. Il n'était dans une boîte à la ferme, alors il pouvait errer la ferme. Il l'aimerait. Il était triste, mais libre. Il errait la ferme et il pensait beaucoup. Mon esprit est comme mon corps, il pensai. Il err beaucoup. Un jour, quand il était toute seule, il pleurait. Pourquoi est-ce que le Petit Prince est mort? l pensait. La ferme était très belle et le fermier était très génial. Le Petit Prince l'aimerais. Tout de coup, il étonnait un bruit dans un buisson. Il y a un renard. -Je suis désolé, je ne voulais pas vous faites peur! dit le renard. -D'accord. -Pourquoi est-ce que vous pleurez? il demand. -Mon ami est mourt, pleurai le mouton. -Dites-moi une histoire de ton ami, s'il vous plaît. -Il était très curieux. il demandait beaucoup de questions. Quand il posait les questions, j'ai appris les nouvelles choses chaque fois. -Ah, il était jeune, oui? demandai le renard. -Oui, un petit garcon. Il voulait un mouton et c'est pour cela que je suis née. J'étais dans une boîte parce qu'il le voulait. Si j'étais dans une boîte, je pourrais être parfait. Pas malade, pas vieulle, petite et parfait, dit le mouton. -Tu n'es pas dans une boîte maintenant. -Oui, j'ai échappé la boîte quand le Petit Prince est mort et le fermier m'a trouvé. -Vous aimez ça? -Oui, je suis libre d'errer et penser. C'est très tranquil. -Comment est-ce que le Petit Prince est mort? demandai le renard. -Je ne sais pas... -Ah, je connais un petit qui est mourt aussi. -Vraiment? Qu'est ce qui se passe? -Je pense que la vie était plus dure pour lui. -C'est horrible, dit le mouton. -C'était très triste, mais j'ai appris une chose importante. Avec mes yeux, j'ai vu la mort et la violence et l'haîne. Mais aussi j'ai vu l'innocence de coeur du petit, la beauté de son esprit et l'amour il avait pour tout le monde. Ces sentiments me faisaient hereux, mais je ne pouvais pas les voir avec mes yeux. Maintenant je sais que je dpos utiliser mon coeur pour voir ces choses. Comme j'ai dit au petit garçon, on ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux. -Quand j'ai echappé la boîte, je peux voir avec mon couer, dit le mouton. -Exactement, dit le renard. J'ai une question pour vous. Qui est le garçon qu'en vous parlez? -Je s'apelle le Petit Prince, le mouton a repondré à le renard. -Bien sûr. Je parle du même garçon. Oh.. je utiliserai mon coeur pour lui. -Moi aussi, petit mouton. Le renard quitta le mouton, un peu moins triste. Le mouton pensa de la secrète du renard. Il pouvait utiliser son couer pour voir toute la beauté dans le monde. Il était content.
How does Laurel Thatcher Ulrich implement primary sources in A Midwife's Tale?
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich uses Martha Ballard’s diary to create a narrative and analysis of not only her life, but life in general for Americans in the late 18th century. While the diary of Martha Ballard is the main primary source Ulrich uses, she implements many other primary sources to help tell her story and provide context. While the diary is perhaps dull and repetitive and the other outside sources appear ordinary and trivial, they come together in a way that changes the traditional viewpoint of women in the late 18th and early 19th century. Ulrich uses a variety of ordinary and seemingly unimportant sources to revolutionize the traditional historical take on gender roles and the role of women in early American society. Before analyzing the specific sources, it is important to address the context which makes the sources seem trivial or relatively unimportant. Ballard’s diary itself is the main example of this. If one were to read Ballard’s diary itself, without Ulrich’s context and analysis, it would seem very repetitive and trivial. Ballard used her diary to write about the weather and all of her daily activities, which often do not seem very important in the context of revolutionary America. For example, Ballard’s entry from September 4th, 1788 simply states, “Clear. I have been at home. Old Mr Smily here. Mrs Savage warpt a piece here.” (Ulrich 72). This was not uncommon; she described the weather and the people that visited her during the day. Alone, this does not seem like it provides very much insight into 18th century American society. Alone, many of the other sources act in the same way. Another example is the table on page 173 which pulls from many sources to compare maternal mortality rates during births in different locations and times. It doesn’t have any real importance to readers until it is used in tandem with Ballard’s diary and readers learn that Ballard had an infinitely better record when it came to maternal death compared to the majority male doctors covered in the table. This way, it makes the point that Ballard was an extremely effective midwife. Alone, readers would not be able to come to any conclusions from these sources. Ulrich had to use many sources to learn about the context of the medical field in late 18th century America. With these sources, she was able to paint a clear picture of the duties of typical doctors and midwives while also comparing Ballard’s actions with what was described in the other primary sources. An example of a primary medical source she used was Medical Papers Communicated to the Massachusetts Medical Society (Boston, 1790), referenced on page 40. The two sources alone do not make any new points about Ballard’s work or society at the time, but together, it is a different story. Ulrich noticed in Ballard’s diary that she started referring to a “canker rash” that was spreading rapidly that she had to treat. She used the medical papers to research that term and realized that it was a common name for strep, more specifically scarlet fever. The medical papers reported on the rapid spread of scarlet fever in the area, which matched Ballard’s records of the spread of the canker rash. She wrote about having to treat it many times, which is interesting, as she was a midwife and records did not usually report on midwives treating disease in the same manner as doctors. Scarlet fever was a dangerous disease, as Ballard reported that 15% of the patients she treated died. Therefore, Ballard was treating many dangerous diseases even though she was a midwife and not a doctor. The medical papers and the diary come together to prove that early American gender roles were not as ingrained as many historians think; women were treating dangerous diseases just like male doctors. Ballard wrote a few vague diary entries about the rape case involving Rebecca Foster and Judge North, and Ulrich focuses heavily on this topic. Many primary sources are used to provide insight on this event. Reading the diary by itself gives some descriptions, but readers would not be able to understand the entire case. Her first few diary entries from the days Foster first confided in her provide barely any information and make no actual references to the event itself. (Ulrich 115). Eventually, she and her husband were summoned to testify in the case, so Ballard provided more specific information that Foster gave her. Ulrich used other primary sources for both specific and general contexts of the situation. One of these sources is a letter from Henry Sewall to George Thatcher referenced on page 119. It is made obvious that Sewall was only interested in the legal proceedings and the rape accusation itself did not seem to bother him (Ulrich also notes that he never mentions the event in his own personal diary). The fact that two men discuss a rape case as something trivial and only legal does not seem very surprising considering the attitudes towards women during the time. If someone were to read this letter alone, it would not be surprising or make any new points about society at the time. When combined with Ballard’s diary, though, it becomes interesting. From the diary, readers know that Foster fully confided in Ballard. Foster’s accounts of the rape exclude physical exclude physical details, but are still very disturbing and concerning. According to Ballard, Foster said “she hoped they would not quite kill her, and that they could do nothing worse than they had unless they killed her”, “North had abused her worse than any other person in the world had”, and “she seemed exceedingly troubled when she related her trials”. Historians often describe the typical woman as silent and subservient, so many readers would assume, especially from reading letters such as the first between the two men, that cases of rape such as this were very common and not taken as seriously as they are now. From Ballard’s diary, we see that this is not true. Foster was extremely hurt and afraid from the event, and she was not silent. Women such as Ballard were not silent either; she testified for her. Therefore, the two sources together show that women were not as silent and subservient as historians want us to believe; they were perhaps just ignored. This point is proven further with Ulrich’s inclusion of another primary source; The Trial of Atticus Before Justice Beau For a Rape, published in Boston in 1771, referenced on page 120. Ulrich states that Dr. Obadiah Williams of Vassalboro was probably present as a magistrate for the case, and this pamphlet was found in his possession at his death. It is a satirical drama about a fictional rape case, making a commentary about the changing legal system at the time, especially surrounding rape. When used in the context of Foster’s case, it provides context as to why women had such difficulties pressing charges for rape and sexual assault. “The assumption of Atticus is that women were silly creatures, easily influenced by the rivalries of the men around them, and given to spite” (Ulrich 121). She goes on to describe that rape cases became a competition between the men involved instead of the women and the actual events that took place. This matches perfectly with the attitude in the letter between Sewall and Thatcher; he was interested in the legal proceedings of North and Wood instead of the fact that Foster had been raped. Reading the pamphlet itself would give readers an idea of both legal proceedings and attitude towards women at the time, but it lacks the depth it has when paired with both Ballard’s reports of Foster’s rape and the letter between Sewall and Thatcher. Together, the three sources show that rape was not treated as common for women, and they were not silent subservient creatures. They suffered immensely, and shared their experiences. They also testified against their abusers. Readers see that men were far more concerned with the legal procedures and tensions between the men involved in the case than they were with the actual rape and events that occurred. Readers also see that women’s testimonies were often ignored in court and dismissed as naïve and silly. Therefore, Ulrich brings these three primary sources together to show that women at the time did not fit into the submissive stereotype of gender roles often used in historical narratives of early America. Ulrich collects a multitude of primary sources that, alone, would not give readers any new ideas or conclusions about life in late 18th century America, especially for women. Reading Ballard’s diary alone would also not give readers these new ideas as they would be lacking historical context. This is why Ulrich brings all of the sources together and paints an entirely new picture of gender roles and women in late 18th century and early 19th century American society. Ulrich uses primary sources to show readers that women were already participating in “men’s work” and standing up for themselves long before historians lead us to believe.
How does poverty serve as a symbol of humanistic values in The Visit by Friedrich Dürrenmatt?
Poverty is one of the most important themes of The Visit, and serves as the foundation for the entire plot. If the town of Guellen had not fallen into deep poverty, Claire Zachanassian would have never had to visit the town and present the solution of wealth and prosperity to their problem (although, it is argued that Gullen would not have fallen into poverty if it weren’t for Claire financially corrupting the town, so her motives come into play here). Before Claire, the town of Guellen based their society on humanistic values that they held in the highest regard. These values slowly fade as the citizens of Guellen begin to gain wealth. Poverty serves as a symbol of these humanistic values because of the negative correlation between poverty and humanistic values. Gullen was obviously an extremely impoverished town. Its citizens were all struggling to get by and everything was closing down and being sold. Poverty was initially the cause of Guellen’s problems. Historically, many European economies were not doing well at this point in time due to the recent world wars. It is not obviously stated where The Visit took place (most likely Germany or Switzerland), but due to its obvious western European location it is safe to say that due to the historical context, the economy would be struggling. In the first scene, where the setting is exposed, the town’s impoverished state is made very clear by the dialogue of the citizens. They discuss the state of the town and things closing down and being sold. It sets the stage for what is to come. It is important to remember that Claire’s offer could not have been made (or would not nearly have had the same effect) if the town of Gullen were not impoverished in this way. In this beginning scene, the citizens discuss the impending visit of a former citizen, the powerful Claire Zachannasian. The second man introduces this with, “It’s about time the millionairess got here. They say she founded a hospital in Kalberstadt” (page 3).. She arrives and mostly converses with Ill, and it is obvious that they had a relationship in the past. Ill describes their seemingly close, friendly relationship by saying, “We were the best of friends- young and impetuous- after all, gentlemen, I was a young fellow forty-five years ago- and she, Clara, I can still see her shining through the dark on her way to meet me in Petersen’s barn or walking barefoot on moss and leaves through the woods of Konradsweil with her red hair streaming behind her…” (page 6). Durrenmatt uses Ill’s beautiful imagery and memories of Claire to characterize not only Claire but Ill himself as we see their relationship unfold. She eventually arrives and tells the citizens she has an offer for them that will rescue them from poverty. The citizens are all obviously very excited about this, until they learn what the offer entails. Claire makes her offer to save the town from poverty if Ill is killed. “I will give you a billion, and with that billion I will buy myself justice” (page 31). At this point in the play, the citizens do not accept as they would rather be in poverty than have the blood of a fellow citizen on their hands. The mayor says, “... we are still in Europe; we’re not savages yet. In the name of the town of Guellen I reject your offer. In the name of humanity. We would rather be poor than have blood on our hands” (page 35). This is because of the humanistic values they value so dearly. The implications of poverty then begin to change. The citizens start to realize that they could easily be saved from poverty from this simple offer. When wealth was in reach, poverty began to look much worse. The citizens were given the prospect of wealth and they soon realized they could not turn this down. Wealth was so close and they wanted it so badly. This is evident when the citizens start buying things on credit, going into Ill’s shop and making bigger purchases. Ill knows that these citizens can not usually afford to make purchases on credit, so he is extremely suspicious. When Ill asks about everyone’s new yellow shoes, the women say, “We bought them on credit, Mr. Ill,” (page 44). At this point their humanistic values started to decline as wealth and the prospect of it started to increase. This desire for wealth is simply human nature. Why would someone want to live in poverty when they could easily start being wealthy? As the play progresses, the citizens are more and more intrigued by wealth. Ill begins to realize his impending fate. He talks to many of the citizens, and none of them admit that they want to go through with Claire’s decision, but it is made very obvious. It is only the teacher, in a drunken stupor, that admits the flawed nature of the decision and proves the decrease of humanistic values in the citizens. He opens up with, “I’m telling it like an archangel, with a ringing voice. For I am a humanist, a friend of the ancient Greeks, an admirer of Plato… sit down. Humanity has to sit down. Absolutely- if even you won’t stand up for the truth,” (page 81). He warns Ill about the decision, but he does not try to help, because deep down he wants the wealth too. Ill can not successfully escape his fate. He is killed at the end of the play. The wealth was too tempting for the citizens. Once they had a taste, they could never go back, no matter what it entailed. This leads to the chorus, which basically described what has happened throughout the play and the aftermath. The citizens (chorus) state that poverty is the worst thing in the world and the cause of all of their problems. At the beginning of the play, most of the citizens would have most likely not said that poverty is the worst thing in the world. They were already in poverty, and surely they could’ve had it worse. After all, initially, they didn’t accept Claire’s offer because they believed that Ill’s life was more important. They valued their humanistic values more; they were all they had. Once the offer is introduced, the general opinion on poverty begins to change. It becomes more and more horrible once the citizens realize what they could have. Poverty then becomes a scapegoat of sorts; something to blame for what was really done by the fault of human nature. The initial humanistic values of the citizens of Gullen probably would not have existed if the town wasn’t impoverished. Value of human life is more important when everyone is poor and all they have is each other. As poverty decreases, so do the humanistic values in a positive correlation. Illl’s life decreases in value as the citizens realize and start utilizing the wealth they could easily receive. This leads to Ill’s obvious death. Poverty was the foundation of the morals of the citizens of Guellen. At surface level, poverty is bad and wealth is good. But, it is likely a poor person would say that poverty is not the worst thing in the world. Durrenmatt uses this story to juxtapose the ideals of the wealthy and poor. Wealthy people are likely to value their wealth. At all costs, they do not want to lose their money, so poverty may seem like a worse option. Impoverished people only have themselves; therefore, the value placed on human life is very high. Poverty is not the cause of the problems in The Visit, directly anyway. The problems were caused simply by human nature. Humans will want wealth if it is available to them. If the town of Gullen wasn’t poor originally, they most likely would have still wanted to become wealthier (just probably not quite to the extent they did in the play). Poverty changes the circumstances but the flaw of humanity exists no matter what the socioeconomic status of the town is. The impoverished citizens of Guellen place a high value on human life, placing great importance on their humanistic values. They are then given an offer to increase their wealth if they kill own of their own. Durrenmatt brilliantly breaks down humanity’s desire for wealth as struggling citizens are given an ultimatum. As their prospective wealth increases, they value that wealth and material instead of human life, so humanistic values decrease. Therefore, poverty serves as a symbol of humanistic values due to the negative correlation of the two ideas.