Though he became a non-conformist and member of an Independent church, and although he has been described both s a Baptist and as a Congregationalist, he himself preferred to be described simply as a Christian. He is remembered in the Church of England with a Lesser Festival on August 30, and on the liturgical calendar of the Episcopal Church (US) on August 29. Some other Churches of the Anglican Communion, such as the Anglican Church of Australia, honour him on the day of his death (August 31) together with St. Aidan of Lindisfarne.
The Pilgrim’s Progress: The Pilgrim’s Progress from is a Christian allegory written in two parts by John Bunyan , the first part was published in London in 1678 and the second n 1684. It is regarded as one of the most significant works of religious English literature. He conceived the work during his first period of imprisonment, and probably finished it during the second. The earliest edition in which the two parts combined in one volume came in 1728. A third part – falsely attributed to Bunyan appeared in 1693, and was reprinted as late as 1852. Its full title is The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World to That Which Is to Come.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Bunyan’s use of allegory: (to choose from 1 or 2 texts) (1) A tradition oing back to Coleridge asserts that The Pilgrim’s Progress is not a true allegory but rather a proto-novel expressive of early modern individualism. The work is radically individualistic, but it is also truly an allegory. Recent research has emphasized how closely related metaphor often is to metonymy and how intimately the two can interact to produce metaphtonymy. This interaction is just as important in allegory as in purely linguistic metaphor and metonymy. The Pilgrim’s Progress makes subtle use of conceptual metaphtonymy to express its individualism.
Although the degree of ndividualism these cognitive structures express is greater than anything in earlier allegorical tradition, the structures themselves are inherited from medieval allegories such as Everyman. This sharing of major cognitive Structure with earlier medieval allegories shows that The Pilgrim’s progress is truly an allegory. An area in which the interaction of metaphor and metonymy is particularly notable is that of blending. The occurrence of highly creative blending in at least some of its scenes is further evidence for the truly allegoric nature of The Pilgrim’s Progress. ) Bunyan’s use of allegory in The Pilgrim’s Progress is clearly evident. As previously noted, Bunyan chooses names for the various characters which Christian encounters on his journey that are laden with obvious allusions to Christian virtues and vices. The reader does not have to toil in order to decipher Bunyan’s allegorical meaning; the character named Evangelist is, obviously, an evangelist. Likewise, if a character is called Hopeful or Mr. Money-Love, it is obvious that they each embody the traits suggested by their respective names.
Oftentimes, Bunyan juxtaposes characters whose names appear to be polar opposites. For example, he couples Obstinate with Pliable. In doing so he further establishes the meaning of the names of his characters; the reader might view Obstinate’s pigheadedness in light of Pliable’s softness. As a result, the true nature of each character’s core is truly confirmed. Early modern political thought: Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan: In Leviathan, Hobbes set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and legitimate governments – originating social contract theory.
Leviathan was written uring the English Civil War; much of the book is occupied with demonstrating the necessity of a strong central authority to avoid the evil of discord and civil war. Beginning from a mechanistic understanding of human beings and the passions, Hobbes postulates what life would be like without government, a condition which he calls the state of nature. In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. This, Hobbes argues, would lead to a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes – from Latin).