Eyesenck’s Personality Theory Model: Sanguine Personality

Eyesenck’s Personality Theory Model: Sanguine Personality Introduction Eysenck’s Personality Theory Model Eysencks personality of theory divided into two categories which are extraversion and introversion personality types. Extraversion type of personality person is usually relax and confident on their own while introversion type of personality person is often a quite person; focus on inner feelings and their emotional will be more negative and not stable as compared to extraversion type of person. Extrovert people are more likely to be out-going person, they like to social and attend event to meet with new people and make new friends. In contrast, introvert people keep things to their own and seldom share to people, they also less likely towards social things because of their shy personality. In this world, different types of people having different own personality, by understanding people’s personality is a key to unlock elusive human qualities. All humans are different, everyone has their own value, principles, special strengths, weakness and qualities in handling things in their life; different types of people will think and action in different ways. For instance, Eysenck’s categorize people into 4 types of human personality, which are choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic. However, choleric and sanguine personality were fall under extraversion category while melancholic and phlegmatic were fall under introversion category. Features of Sanguine Personality Referred to Eyesenck’s Personality Theory Model, sanguine personality is playing a role as the extrovert, talker and optimist. They are emotionally stable compared to people who have melancholic and choleric personality. The characteristics of sanguine personality are sociable, outgoing, lively, easygoing, talkative, responsive, leadership and carefree. Sociable People who have sanguine personality are sociablen; they are supportive in engaging themselves in outside activities and talk to others. Sanguine people have a lot of friends and also have wide social relationship which may have friends that are from different fields or places. Besides, they can make new friends easily and adapt to the situation even in a new environment or with strangers. Outgoing People who having sanguine personality is an outgoing person; they are active in joining or participating outside activities. Sanguine people don’t like to stay at home and things that are boring. They like to join or see thing that are challenges and new and they are type of person who enjoy going out or hang out with friends and comfortable in social situation. Lively People who having sanguine personality is a lively person; they are active at most of the time and having positive energy in whatever things that they do. Besides, they bring fun and joy to people surrounded them and people will feeling comfortable and relax when with sanguine people as they less likely having negative thought compared to melancholic personality. This may one of the features of sanguine that attracted people to talk and make friends with them. Easygoing People who having sanguine personality is an easygoing person; they forgive and forgot mistake or bad thing that people done on them. They don’t hold grudges and usually behave in a relaxed and tolerate approach or manner. They have even-tempered and able to control their own emotional compared to melancholic and choleric personality. They seldom mad at people and don’t like to make things become complicated. For instance, if sanguine people commit a mistake they will readily apologize to the person. Talkative Sanguine playing roles as the talker and storyteller, they are talkative and like to repeat stories to their friends. They can talk anything with their friends; such as gossip or discuss things that from general problems until privacy with their friends without feeling tired or bored. They eager to express their own opinion or idea, wish people paid attention on them. Sometimes, due to the talkative personality they are likely to dominate the whole conversation when in a group activities. Responsive Sanguine people are responsive; they give quick and readily response to people. They are open to suggestions; accept people comment and improvement themselves from it. Besides, sanguine people usually are the type of active students in the class; they like to ask and also give response to their teacher questions. If sanguine friends are facing problems, they will response to it and always be there to listen and to give opinion or advice to their friends. Leadership Sanguine people tend to have strong leadership; they have the ability to guide a group of people and give direction to the members about actions that should taken in order to achieve a certain task. Sanguine people like to express their own opinion and ideas in group activities and sometimes they will be the dominant person throughout the whole conversation with their friends or activities. In a group, sanguine will act as opinion leader and they have the power to influence or swing people’s perception and action. Carefree People who having sanguine personality is a carefree person, they are relaxed and less worried. For instance, sanguine people behaving in a happy-go-lucky attitude, when everyone was stressing and rushing for group assignment, sanguine may be one of the most relaxed people among the group members. They are less likely to take thing seriously, free from care and they always enjoy their time in a happy and joy mood. Communication Style The communication style of sanguine personality is talkative. People who having sanguine personality are like to talk, they can talk anything from general problems until privacy without feeling tired or bored. Sanguine people talk in confident and relaxed manners; they talk things in more casual way and always share a lot of things with their friends. They like to repeat stories, always response to people questions and give comment or opinion. Their communication style will attract people attention and people will feel comfortable when communicate and interact with sanguine people. However, due to the talkative personality, sanguine people always talk and rush for conclusion. Sometimes, they didn’t give opportunity for others people to speak or express their opinion. Responsive: â€Å"My friend, I am here listening to your problems.† Carefree: â€Å"It is okay, don’t worry so much and everything will be alright.† Each personality has their pros and cons. The strengths of sanguine personality are they are an easygoing and sociable person. In contrast, the weaknesses of sanguine personality are they have a strong leadership and talkative. Strengths: Sanguine is an easygoing person, they do not hold grudges. They forgive and forgot people mistake. They have even-temper and able to control their emotion, which make people like to make friends with them. It is because sanguine people will not mad at people easily or for a long time. People will feel relax and comfortable when with sanguine people because of their easygoing personality. For instance, even thought if a person has done something bad to sanguine people, sanguine people will readily forgive the person if they apologize or admit the fault. Besides, sanguine people do not mind share their things to their friends such as foods or ideas. They are also open in accepting people judgement, if people commented something bad about them they will not keep it in heart for a long time but will takes it as opportunity for self-improvement. Sanguine is a sociable person, by having this characteristic it will help them easy to get along with others and also help to encourage effective relationship with outsider. Sanguine people will be having a lot of advantages in their life by having sociable personality such as in workplace, school and others. Sanguine person is likely to engage themselves in outside activities, they are active in joining any events which can helps them to extend their social relationship and make new friends. When they go out and know more friends, they actually can learn extra knowledge from other persons and also enhance interaction with other people. This could be a good opportunity for their education or business to go further, the chances that they get might be a good turning point for their life. For example, sanguine person looking for a job after graduation, they might will get job more easily than their friends as they have knew different friends that worked in different fields, it is way ea sier to approach someone when good relationship is established. Weaknesses: By having strong leadership personality it might be one of the weaknesses of sanguine people. People who are having strong leadership is usually self-centred, they want people to paid attention on them and wish to be dominant in group activities. They are eager to express their ideas and opinion, they hope whatever they said can be heard or followed by members. However, this personality will cause distancing between sanguine people and their friends. It is because to some extend leader having the power to instruct members to do something, for those people who are not obedience they will surely don’t like these type of person. Sometimes, sanguine person are assertive, they might over confident on their own and like to showing off and self-promoting. They are likely to take the full responsibilities as a leader when there is any job distributed among the members, due to the strong leadership personality Another weakness of sanguine personality is talkative. Sanguine people are likely to repeat or talk about the same things to their friends without feeling bored or tired. Due to talkative personality, sometimes people that friend with sanguine people may feel they are annoying For example, when sanguine people found that they are not satisfy with what they had they will keep asking and finding until they found out the satisfy answer or result. They need response and attention from others. They talk in a casual or fun way people will think that they are not taking things seriously. Due to the talkative personality, people will feel that they are exaggerating as sanguine people will give excessive information or overselling ideas when communicating to other people. Recommendations There are several ways to overcome the weaknesses of sanguine personality. First, sanguine person should learn to listen to others people words before they speak or express their view or ideas. In doing this, they can give opportunities for other people to express their ideas and sometimes the ideas given by people may be useful in their group activities instead of dominate the whole conversation. Second, they should learn to self-effacing which is to tone down their strong approach, avoid exaggerating and overselling own idea as it may help to gain more trust from friends toward them. Third, in whatever thing that sanguine people do they should always put themselves in other people shoes, should consider about other people interest and care more about other people feeling. Besides, it is always important to consider the seriousness of the situation first but not behaving in a carefree attitude at all the time. References Coon, D Mitterner, J.O. (2010). Introduction to psychology: Gateway to mind and behaviour, 12th ed. California: Thomas Wadsworth. Pastorino, E.E. Portillo, S.M.D. (2012). What is psychology. 2nd ed. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Delamater, J.D. Myers, D.J. (2010). Social psychology. 7th ed. CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

History of the Ferrari :: American America History

History of the Ferrari Ferrari, when most people think of this word they think of two things: speed and sport. Ferrari is one of the most distinguished cars in history. It has won more races than almost any other cars racing. It is also just delicate a machine as it is the fast and furious sports car. Ferrari has come a great distance since its begins in the stock races onto the modern road. It has been compared with such great cars as the Bugatti and Alfa Romeo. In my report I will tell you the beginning and the future of this famous sports car. The Maker The man who made Ferrari, and made the name, was Enzo Ferrari. Born in Modena February 18, 1898. Forced to leave school when his father died he got work as a turning instructor in the Modena Fire Brigades' workshop. He served in WW I as a mechanic and later found work as a test driver in 1918 in Turin. He later moved to CMN to become a race car driver and tester. His racing debut came in the 1919 Parma-Berceto race and he entered the Targa Florio that same year. In 1920, he moved to Alfa Romeo establishing a relationship that lasted two decades and a career that took him from test driver to race driver to sales assistant and finally to the post of Director of the Alfa Racing Division until November 1939. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/www.ferrari.it/storia/enzoferr.e/enzoferr.html) In 1929 he joined with Alfa Romeo. He made the name Scuderia Ferrari. His goal was to organize racing for Alfa. He fully took over in 1933 and in 1940 completely separated from Alfa. The workshop was bombed out in 1944 and rebuilt in 1946 the year in which it started designing and building the very first Ferrari. In 1963 Enzo Ferrari built his Istituto Professionale per l'Industria e l'Artigianato, a training school in Maranello. In 1972 he built the Fiorano test track. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/www.ferrari.it/storia/enzoferr.e/enzoferr.html) He received numerous awards for his automotive genius, such as Italian award of Cavaliere and the Gold Medal from the Italian School of Art and Culture. After his many accomplishments and his numerous racing wins, he died on August 14 1988. The Early Years Now I will tell you of the early years of this car. The first Ferrari's were stock and racing cars, the Ferrari became a "street car" in about 1950, and were made in Maranello during WW II with the soul purpose was to race and win. History of the Ferrari :: American America History History of the Ferrari Ferrari, when most people think of this word they think of two things: speed and sport. Ferrari is one of the most distinguished cars in history. It has won more races than almost any other cars racing. It is also just delicate a machine as it is the fast and furious sports car. Ferrari has come a great distance since its begins in the stock races onto the modern road. It has been compared with such great cars as the Bugatti and Alfa Romeo. In my report I will tell you the beginning and the future of this famous sports car. The Maker The man who made Ferrari, and made the name, was Enzo Ferrari. Born in Modena February 18, 1898. Forced to leave school when his father died he got work as a turning instructor in the Modena Fire Brigades' workshop. He served in WW I as a mechanic and later found work as a test driver in 1918 in Turin. He later moved to CMN to become a race car driver and tester. His racing debut came in the 1919 Parma-Berceto race and he entered the Targa Florio that same year. In 1920, he moved to Alfa Romeo establishing a relationship that lasted two decades and a career that took him from test driver to race driver to sales assistant and finally to the post of Director of the Alfa Racing Division until November 1939. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/www.ferrari.it/storia/enzoferr.e/enzoferr.html) In 1929 he joined with Alfa Romeo. He made the name Scuderia Ferrari. His goal was to organize racing for Alfa. He fully took over in 1933 and in 1940 completely separated from Alfa. The workshop was bombed out in 1944 and rebuilt in 1946 the year in which it started designing and building the very first Ferrari. In 1963 Enzo Ferrari built his Istituto Professionale per l'Industria e l'Artigianato, a training school in Maranello. In 1972 he built the Fiorano test track. (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/www.ferrari.it/storia/enzoferr.e/enzoferr.html) He received numerous awards for his automotive genius, such as Italian award of Cavaliere and the Gold Medal from the Italian School of Art and Culture. After his many accomplishments and his numerous racing wins, he died on August 14 1988. The Early Years Now I will tell you of the early years of this car. The first Ferrari's were stock and racing cars, the Ferrari became a "street car" in about 1950, and were made in Maranello during WW II with the soul purpose was to race and win.

Compare and Contrast the Ways in Which Shakespeare and Webster Present Hamlet and Bosola as Tragic Heroes. Essay

Bosola from Webster’s The Duchess of Malfi and Hamlet from Shakespeare’s Hamlet, both present elements of Aristotle’s model of the tragic hero; through both of the characters, Shakespeare and Webster use the features of the tragic hero to engage Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences in an exploration of issues linked to the Renaissance, religion and philosophy. This essay will explore how the playwrights present the tragic flaws in their heroes’ character and how they face struggles due to their inner conflict and may exhibit villainous behavior but are not complete tyrants. Greek philosopher Aristotle recorded his ideas about tragedy dramas and the ‘tragic hero’ in his noted book of literary theory titled Poetics (335 BCE), the book was rediscovered during the Renaissance and became commonly used as a playwriting manual. Aristotle stated that the tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness but although they are seen as pre-emin ently great, they are not perfect. The tragic hero’s downfall will come down to being mainly of their own doing through the result of free choice rather than accident or villainy or some other malevolent fate. Aristotle characterised the tragic hero as displaying hamartia which is usually translated as tragic flaw. There is also some increase in awareness and a sense of discovery upon the part of the tragic hero. Hamlet’s biggest flaw in character is that he over philosophises and delays killing Claudius up until it is too late for his family and himself. After he decides Claudius is guilty of murdering his father, he still relents from taking his revenge, he says â€Å"Haste me to know ‘t, that I, with wings as swift/ As meditation or the thought of love/ May sweep to my revenge.† (Act I, scene V). This quote displays Hamlet’s deep desire for revenge, the words are powerful and using words such as ‘swift’ gives the impression that he will not delay in taking action sugge sting that he is ready, however the juxtaposing simile embedded within the quote is soft and suggests Hamlet’s cogitating over thoughts of love possibly his love for Ophelia, ‘meditation’ also implies that he dwells in deep thought. Hamlet procrastinates a lot throughout the play; Smith says that â€Å"due to his brooding and introspective nature, he often wrangles with language to help him understand a reality where he has little control. Hamlet’s famous â€Å"to be or not to be† soliloquy questions the righteousness of life over death in moral terms and discusses the many possible reasons for either living or dying†, this does however  show the audience Hamlet’s humanity, Shakespeare can also use his character to engage with the prevalent philosophical ideas during the Renaissance period; Judkins states that â€Å"the Renaissance embraces a series of religious, economic, and political changes which ripple into areas of science, literature, and philosophy†, at a time of change and new ideas many writers such as Shakespeare would have been interested in the ideas explored during the Renaissance and so create characters to reflect it. One example of Hamlet’s dilemma ref lecting the debates in Elizabethan society, is linked to morality and law; Hamlet finds himself torn between his desire for revenge but also his philosophizing over the futility of life; J. J. Lawlor argues that â€Å"the avenger delays, not from despair or indecision which are finally rejected in favour of the duty of revenge, but†¦ because there is a scruple about revenge itself†. Hence, Hamlet’s scrupling reflects a man trapped in changing times between the Medieval Age when bloody revenge was accepted and the Tudor era of legal reformation where private revenge was outlawed. Bosola also shows internal conflict which could imply that he fits Aristotle’s model of the tragic hero, however it is shown more through his asides rather than soliloquies as shown in Hamlet. Bosola is very bitter towards the system and the way the country is ruled, with those above him abusing their power; but still he continues to carry out his ways, due to his greed ‘poisoning’ his morals, it can be said he is plagued by his own melancholy and will only debate the consequences afterwards. Boas suggests that â€Å"the tragic hero is made to feel him-self caught in a situation over which he has little control but in which he must make some decision, however futile. But the unhappy out-come always emerges from his decision. He must choose and cannot choose we ll†, so although Bosola chooses to avenge the duchess he kills her, her children, Antonio and himself in the process. It could also be said that Bosola fails to redeem himself because his actions are driven by revenge, after he kills the Cardinal and Ferdinand he says, â€Å"Now my revenge is perfect. Sink, thou main cause/ Of my undoing! The last part of my life/ Hath done me best service† (Act V, Scene, V). Like Shakespeare, Webster’s presentation of inner conflict in his protagonist also seems to suggest that the path of private retribution is complex and will lead to destruction. Bosola does also come to terms with his fate; â€Å"existential nihilists claim that, to be honest, one must face the absurdity  of existence, that he/she will eventually die† (Unknown Author). Bosola states that people are merely the â€Å"stars tennis balls† (Act V, Scene IV) that a person’s fate is already mapped out and everything is inevitable so Bosola feels like a victim of circumstance. John F Buckingham states that perhaps there is also an â€Å"etymological significance in Webster’s adjustment of the source name, ‘Bozola’ to a new spelling that references the word ‘Bossola’; Italian for a mariner‘s compass, pointing up the irony that Bosola‘s own final journey is directionless, away from justice†. It could be said that Hamlet also comes to terms with his fate and carries it upon his shoulders like a burden. â€Å"The time is out of joint: O cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right!† (Act I, Scene V), here it could be said that Hamlet indisputably feels that he was born to avenge his father’s death, thus he vows to dedicate his life to vengeance. In the final scene Hamlet realizes that a person should be ready to accept the undeniable fact that death will come; Hamlet says to Horatio, â€Å"There’s special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all† (Act V, Scene II). Both Hamlet and Bosola show villainous behaviour, but it can be argued that they aren’t in fact completely evil. Hamlet soon finds himself acting upon passion and is â€Å"at least at crucial moments of his experience, passion’s slave, as in his castigation of Ophelia and, more tragically, in his murder of her father† (Allan). Hamlet is not a bad person yet the pressure and intensity of his vengeance tears away at him; he finds himself acting sometimes rashly and uncertainly, and in the case of Polonius’ murder, he does not initially show any signs of remorse as he looks down on him calling him a â€Å"wretched, rash, intruding fool† (Act III, Scene IV), which suggests he is almost saying it is Polonius’ fault for getting involved and does not take responsibility. Hamlet’s actions are caused by his desire to avenge his father the old king Hamlet who was murdered by his brother Claudius and so it could be argued that had Hamlet not known that Claudius murdered his father, he would not have carried out the murders and would therefore not be villainous, as Hamlet was loved by the people and was known to be a smart scholar who went to university. Shakespeare uses Ophelia to reflect these views when she says, â€Å"O what a noble mind is here o’erthrown† (Act III, Scene I). Hamlet did not intend on  hurting his loved ones in the beginning and should not be seen as ‘evil’ as his aims were to only avenge his father. Allan comments that, â€Å"violence of word and deed do not come naturally to [Hamlet’s] reflective and moral temperament†. On the other hand, critic Augustus Schlegel argues that â€Å"[Hamlet] has a natural inclination for crooked ways; he is a hypocrite towards himself; his far-fetched scruples are often mere pretexts to cover up his want of determination†, this suggests that Hamlet is just as Machiavellian as Claudius but this reading would be too simple, and doe s not consider the impact of Hamlet’s humanity which is evident in his delay and conflicting thoughts. Bosola however is more entangled in Machiavellian scheming, serving the Duchess’ brothers, the Cardinal and Ferdinand, and so it could be said that he is not in fact a villain but instead just a working man. Bosola refers to himself as their â€Å"creature† (Act I, Scene I) with its connotations of unthinking, loyalty and inhumanity, Bosola carries out their deeds for his own material gain seemingly regardless of his morals most likely due to his bitterness and discontent with social structure and other existing conditions. Bosola is a key part of the plot and acts as a spy and a murderer but although it was his choice to have this way of life, in the end he stands for his beliefs. Bosola has already been to prison which implies he is criminal, but during his asides, it is evident that he is not an evil assailant but a man doing a job, â€Å"For the good deed you have done me, I must do all the ill man can invent†. He recognizes the consequences of his actions and feels remorse, for example, when Bosola is ordered to kill the Duchess, he cannot face her as his true self due to his sympathy towards her and so he disguises himself; C. G. Thayer states that â€Å"having caused the Duchess so much agony already, [Bosola] cannot now bear to have her recognize him as he comes to supervise her murder, or, more simply, that he is ashamed to appear in his own shape†. This idea of the counterfeit shape links to Machiavellian ideas but also links to his own sense of morality and feeling towards the Duchess and Antonio and his shame for how he is ruining their family and lives. Bosola cannot be seen to be a villain completely as at the end of play he plans to kill the Cardinal for making him kill all those people and for committing crimes, hoping to help save Antonio, and although he kills Antonio accidently, he did change his ways and tried to help, this is an excellent example of how Bosola resembles the tragic hero  figure. In conclusion it is clear that Hamlet fits the model of the tragic hero and it is evident that Bosola also fits the characteristics of a tragic hero. Smith describes Hamlet as â€Å"the quintessential tragic hero. Not only does he begin with the noblest motivations but by the end, his situation is so dire that the only plausible final act should be his death†. If we consider Bosola as the malcontent of the play, the audience can see he tends to view things cynically, and makes numerous critical comments on the nature of Renaissance society. Bell states that â€Å"Bosola also acts as a choric figure at regular intervals during the play and he often makes judgements on the other characters and the series of events†. However despite these more seemingly malcontent traits, it is evident that he can also be seen as a figure resembling the tragic hero. Hamlet and Bosola both display a tragic flaw in character, both display villainous behavior yet it is clear that they both have a sense of morality, neither character realize the right thing to do until the end of both plays and so fail to attain happiness. Shakespeare and W ebster both use the traits of the tragic hero to engage in and explore topics which were being challenged and revamped by the discoveries of the Renaissance period. Bibliography Allan, Phillip. Hamlet: Phillip Allan Literature Guide for A-Level. Hodder Education: Oxford shire, 2011. Bell, Millicent. Hamlet, Revenge! The Hudson Review, Vol. 51, No. 2 (Summer, 1998), pp. 310-328. Boas, George. The Evolution of the Tragic Hero. The Carleton Drama Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, Greek Tragedy (1955 – 1956), pp. 5-21. Buckingham, John F. The Dangerous Edge of Things: John Webster’s Bosola in Context & Performance, 2011. Judkins, David. Life in Renaissance England [Online] available at: Lawlor, J.J. The Tragic Conflict in Hamlet. The Review of English Studies. R.E.S New Series, Vol 1, No. 2, 1950. Schelegel, Augustus William. Criticisms on Shakespeare’s Tragedies: Hamlet. Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature. London, 1846. Hamlet. Ed. Cyrus Hoy. Norton and Company: New York, 1992, pp. 155-7. Shakespeare, William. â€Å"Hamlet†. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Smith, Nicole. Shakespeare’s Hamlet as a Tragic Hero [Online] av ailable at: Thayer, C. G. The Ambiguity of Bosola. Studies in Philology, Vol. 54, No.2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 162-171. (Unknown Author) Nihilism [Online] available at: Webster, John. â€Å"The Duchess of Malfi†. London: Methuen drama, 2001.

Repressed Memory and Play - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1854 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/09/20 Category Psychology Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? Equus  is a play in which present and past collide and intertwine in spectacular and thematically significant ways. Psychoanalysis (a process of evaluating mental health that was developed by Sigmund Freud) drives the plot forward, as the psychiatrist Martin Dysart succeeds in drawing out of Alan Strang a series of repressed memories. His intention is to achieve abreaction, which is the discharge of the emotional energy attached to a repressed idea. Theatrically, the past events in the plot of  Equus  are strikingly represented, diverging from analytical and expository dialogue; rather than related verbally, these memories are acted out in flashback. By staging the past rather than revealing it through exposition (analysis usually being a process of  verbalization), Shaffer takes great advantage of the visual power of the theatre. In the staging of Alan’s memories, he allows himself a more lyrical tone, a more ritualistic style than that employed in the real istic dialogues between Dysart and the other characters in the play. In his book  Peter Shaffer, critic C. J. Gianakaris observed: ‘‘What will be best remembered about  Equus  is its brilliant dramatising of man’s attempt to reconcile the personal and the metaphysical aspects of his universe. ’’ As Gianakaris wrote, with the ‘‘immeasurable help’’ of director John Dexter, Shaffer ‘‘strikingly fused realism with mimetic ritual,’’ achieving a ‘‘daring stylisation’’ which is crucial to the success of the play. Ultimately, the abstract scenes in  Equus  powerfully reveal the relationship between sex and religion— the two most significant, and closely intertwined, themes in the play. Both sex and religion are crucial factors in Alan’s childhood development: in both arenas, Alan transfers ‘‘normal’’ social views of sex and wo rship onto his pagan, equine religion. The play hints at the sexual undertones in many events in Alan’s childhood. Frank Strang’s comment that Christianity ‘‘is just bad sex’’ implies connections between sexual desire and religious ecstasy which run through the play. Frank observes of Alan: A boy spends night after night having this stuff read into him: an innocent man tortured to death—thorns driven into his head—nails into his hands—a spear jammed through his ribs. It can mark anyone for life, that kind of thing. I’m not joking. The boy was absolutely fascinated by all that. He was always mooning over religious pictures. I mean real kinky ones, if you receive my meaning. Alan’s ride with the Horseman is also given sexual meaning; it is a pleasure he clearly attempts to duplicate on his naked, midnight rides with  Equus. (Alan has essentially ritualized a masturbatory act into a religious practice. ) At the play’s climax, Alan is confused when he finds himself sexually aroused by Jill Mason. He feels great shame as a result both of his ‘‘infidelity’’ in the presence of  Equus  and his impotence with Jill. Sex is a major catalyst, both in Alan’s development and in the violent blinding of the horses. The thematic connection between sexual identity and religious practice is cemented in the details of the play’s staging. Equus  is a play of thematic complexity and depth, and Shaffer’s writing of dialogue is, by and large, up to the task of expressing this complexity (although some critics have disagreed on this point). The true novelty and genius of  Equus, however, may rest in the manner in which Shaffer utilizes theatrical techniques to enact powerfully the psychological and religious dimensions of the play. Past and present collide in theatrical spectacle, as the dialogue of Alan’s sessions with Dysart is gi ven a larger, visual dimension, powerfully underscoring the play’s psychological themes. Gianakaris comments: The flexibility of the stage design permits striking variations in the way the action is presented. Straightforward realism alternates with imaginative stylised scenes of mime. Dysart’s is the cool, detached world of science where clinical evidence determines one’s actions. His dealings with others are consequently portrayed realistically, with narrated interjections. But Alan Strang’s ritual worship is especially well suited to abstract staging. The most stunning moments of reenactment (the abreaction) are the extended scenes which conclude each act of  Equus. The first act ends with Alan riding horseback to the point of orgasm, with images culled from passages in the Book of Job from the Old Testament . The second act contains an equally dramatic nude scene of attempted interE course (between Alan and Jill), the blinding of the horses, a nd words from the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. The themes of religion and sex are repeatedly linked In the first case, having hypnotized Alan through a game he calls ‘‘Blink,’’ Dysart encourages his patient not merely to talk about his ritualistic worship of  Equus  but to act out the process as well. Dysart’s prompts provide an important encouragement, but gradually the voice of the doctor fades out and the theatrical reenactment subsumes the dramatic action. With a hum from the chorus, the actors depicting horses slowly rotate a turntable, on which Alan and his mount are fixed in a bright spotlight. Alan’s ‘‘ride’’ becomes more and more frenzied, and as the choral humming increases in volume, Alan shouts powerfully: WEE!. . . WAA!. . . WONDERFUL!. . . I’m stiff! Stiff in the wind! My mane, stiff in the wind! My flanks! My hooves! Mane on my legs, on my flanks, like whips! Raw! Raw! I†™m raw! Raw! Feel me on you! On you! On you! On you! I want to be in you! I want to BE you forever and ever! —Equus, I love you! Now! — Bear me away! Make us One Person! Alan rides ever more frantically, chanting ritualistically ‘‘One Person! ’’ and then, simply, ‘‘HA-HA! ’’ With Alan’s body twisting like a flame, the chorus gradually brings the turning square to a stop. Alan drops off the horse, kisses his hoof and cries up to him: ‘‘AMEN! ’’ The act concludes completely within the framework of this reenactment without returning to Dysart for commentary or further dialogue between doctor and patient. The conclusion of the play is given a similarly startling theatrical dimension. Dysart has prompted Alan through the process of reenactment, even taking on the voice of  Equus  himself as he says: ‘‘The Lord thy God is a Jealous God! He sees you. ’’ B ut as in the first act abreaction, Dysart gradually retreats to the background as the reenactment of Alan’s repressed memory takes over the stage: ALAN: Thou— God— Seest— NOTHING! (He stabs out Nugget’s eyes. The horse stamps in agony. A great screaming begins to fill the theater, growing ever louder. ALAN dashes at the other two horses and blinds them too, stabbing over the rails. Their metal hooves join in the stamping. Relentlessly, as this happens, three more horses appear in cones of light: not naturalistic animals like the first three but dreadful creatures out of nightmare. Their eyes flare—their nostrils flare—their mouths flare, they are archetypal images—judging, punishing, pitiless. They do not halt at the rail but invade the square. As they trample at him, the boy leaps desperately at them, jumping high and naked in the dark, slashing at their heads with arms upraised, and shouting ‘‘Nothing! ’ savagely with each blow. The screams increase. ) The scale of the reenactment—an exceptional bit of theatricality—suggests the monumental importance of the blinding, both as it originally occurred and in its retelling. Building upon the tremendous sense of release Alan will feel from this abreaction, Dysart hopes he will be able to cure the boy of his mental anguish. John Weightman wrote in Encounter that the stabbing out of the horses’ eyes ‘‘gives another fine frenzy when the scene is re-enacted as psychodrama. ’ Through such reenactments there is an important mirroring of revelation in the play; the audience makes important discoveries just as Dysart is making them. Past and present are folded into one another as theatrical representation takes the place of expository dialogue. During the flashback scenes, the lights turn warm in color and intensity, investing the remembered action with a great deal of theatricality. The staging of the eve nts allows the audience a glimpse into Alan’s mind; he views the world with a passionate sense of wonder few people possess. The purposefully non-realistic depiction of the horses, for instance, allows the animals to ‘‘evoke the essence of horses as we recognize them in daily life’’ but also, crucially, gives them ‘‘the regal bearing of transcendent beings as Alan perceived them,’’ noted Gianakaris. Shaffer notes that in the depiction of the horses, ‘‘great care must also be taken that the masks are put on before the audience with very precise timing—the actors watching each other so that the masking has an exact and ceremonial effect. ’ While audiences marveled at the theatrical power of  Equus, critics have differed in their assessments of Shaffer’s writing and his success at integrating a variety of complex themes and theatrical styles. Reviewing the play in the Manchester  Guardian , Michael Billington judgedEquus  superior to Shaffer’s earlier work because in this play, ‘‘the intellectual argument and the poetic imagery are virtually indivisible. ’’ While some critics have found considerable merit in the unity of the work, others argue that the real strength of  Equus  lies only in its theatricality. Henry Hewes commented in the Saturday Review that ‘‘the play’s statement is less impressive than is Shaffer’s skillful theatrical fabrication, which deftly finds layers of comic relief as he inexorably drills deeper into the hard rock of tragedy. ’’  America’s  Catherine Hughes similarly focused on the staging, arguing that ‘‘on the level of theatricality . . . Equus  is stunning. . . . Although Shaffer’s philosophizing is too shallow, sometimes to the point of glibness, to be entirely convincing, one in the end forgives it in the wake of the playâ₠¬â„¢s brilliantly rendered imagery. ’ A few critics have argued against even the theatrical power of the concluding scene, although such harsh criticism is rare. J. W. Lambert, for one, commented in  Drama  that ‘‘Mr. Shaffer has not made [Alan’s] course of action seem inevitable. The act of gouging out the horses eyes, when it comes, seems if not arbitrary then hardly less perverse than it would have done had we been given no reasons for it at all. And after all the purpose of the play’s exposition is to offer us some reason for the irrational. ’’ Shaffer has observed that theatre ‘‘is, or has to be, an ecstatic and alarming experience. And a beautiful one. That doesn’t mean it’s one continuous shout-out; it also must have great spaces of tranquillity and lyricism in it. ’’ The powerful scenes of abreaction in  Equus  lend the play both lyricism and ecstasy. Further, they offer a glimp se into Alan’s mind, which is crucial given the philosophical importance lent to the passionate instinct with which the boy has led his life. While  Equus  is cleverly constructed from top to bottom, the enduring power of the play may still rest in the skill with which Shaffer and director John Dexter chose to depict the memories repressed deep within the subconscious of its primary character. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Repressed Memory and Play" essay for you Create order