Importance of being Ernest

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. Writing this blog for text ' Importance of being Ernest' . For that I'm answering, Which of the female character is the most attractive to you among Lady Augusta Bracknell, Gwendolen Fairfax, Cecily Cardew and Miss Prism? Give your reasons for she being the most attractive among all.

Jack Worthing

A young gentleman from the country, in love with Gwendolen Fairfax.

Algernon Moncrieff

A young gentleman from London, the nephew of Lady Bracknell, in love with Cecily Cardew.

Gwendolen Fairfax

A young lady, loved by Jack Worthing.

Lady Bracknell

A society lady, Gwendolen’s mother.

Cecily Cardew

A young lady, the ward of Jack Worthing.

Miss Prism

Cecily’s governess

The Reverend Canon Chasuble

The priest of Jack’s parish

Lane

Algernon’s butler

Merriman

Jack's servant

Jack and Algernon are wealthy gentlemen. Jack (known to Algernon as Ernest) lives a respectable life in the country providing an example to his young ward Cecily. Algernon lives in luxury in London and has invented an imaginary invalid friend (Bunbury) whom he visits in the country whenever an unappealing social engagement presents itself. Jack has also invented a character - a wayward younger brother called Ernest whom he uses as pretext for going up to London and enjoying himself.

Jack wants to marry Algernon’s cousin Gwendolen, but must first convince her mother, Lady Bracknell, of the respectability of his parents. For Jack, having been abandoned in a handbag at Victoria station, this is quite a difficult task.

Algernon visits Jack’s house in the country and introduces himself to Cecily as Ernest, knowing that Cecily is already fascinated by tales of Ernest's wickedness. He further wins her over and they become engaged.  Shortly after, Jack arrives home announcing Ernest’s death. This sets off a series of farcical events. Cecily and Gwendolen have a genteel stand-off over which of them has a prior claim on ‘Ernest’. Jack and Algernon vie to be christened Ernest. Eventually, Jack discovers that his parents were Lady Bracknell’s sister and brother-in-law and that he is, in fact, Algernon’s older brother, called Ernest. The two sets of lovers are thus free to marry.

During these events the characters of  Canon Chasuble and Cecily’s governess Miss Prism have also fallen in love, and in the best tradition of the well-made play the story ends with all the loose ends tied up and everyone set to live happily ever after.

Talking about Miss Prism we have to start with the information where she works – she is the governess of Cecily. She is educating Cecily to have no imagination or sensationalism in her life. She was working on her family since very early ages, and that is why she is very honorable there.

Also, as you see, nothing is going on without love line. So, Miss Prism being unmarried, falls in love with Chasuble, though the fact that he is a priest prohibits her from telling him about her feelings directly.

As a governess and a person, Miss Prism is an endless source of pedantic talking, stereotypes, and clichés. She approves Jack because of his rightness and always says what a bad person is his “brother.” Her puritan points of view cause nothing more than laughter sometimes.

If not paying attention to her bad sides, her rigidity, she seems to have soft sides too. Once she even wrote a manuscript, but it was not approved. So, maybe exactly where she wanted to write something very personal and to open herself from another side? Because what can be another reason to abandon manuscripts of such a right person?

This woman is a symbol of Victorian moral righteousness. She plays a role of the ideal woman. Unfortunately, not a great amount of people need ideal stuff. She becomes the source of Jack's revelation about his parents.

This woman is kind of an example of the person you’d better not to be. Think for yourself, but do you want to be forever alone just because you have some prejudices which only you understand? Miss Prism was that kind of people we can now call “oh I will not do that because what people will think about me?” Yes, don’t do that, act the way only you want.

Miss Prism is also intellectual, but in a literary way. She is a creative writer and a parody of "a woman with a past." She clearly had dreams of becoming a sensational romantic novelist, but, alas, she must make a living, so she is instead the jailer of Cecily and the guardian of her education and virtue. She, like the minister, makes constant moral judgments. Her favorite line, even to dead Ernest, is "As a man sows, so shall he reap." Repeating this often allows Wilde to show how meaningless and clichéd religion and values have become. As an instrument of the aristocracy, Miss Prism educates Cecily to conform to the dry, meaningless intellectual pursuits designed to keep the status quo. But, like Chasuble, beneath her surface she has a hedonistic streak; often her language slips when she ventures outside her Victorian appearance. She persists in inviting Chasuble to discuss marriage, pursues him diligently, and falls into his arms at the end.

Miss Prism is an appropriate character to uncover Jack's true history because she also is not what she seems. Wilde uses her to show what happens when dreams cannot be pursued in a society of strict social structure and stringent moral guidelines. Both she and Chasuble — with their lack of social opportunities — become servants to the system, promoting its continuation.

The Love-Sick Girl

For all of her bluster and stern judgment on Ernest Worthing's character, Miss Prism turns out to be just as sentimental and romantic as the rest of the cast. Her interactions with Dr. Chasuble reveal a different, slightly softer side of her personality.

In Act II, Miss Prism tries to uphold her strict educational standards when Dr. Chasuble enters but is soon swayed into neglecting her duties for a stroll with the man she's in love with. She does leave her pupil with instructions to study political economy in her absence. In her instructions, we see that even this softer side of Miss Prism still has some iron in it. She says, in a somewhat allegorical way, ''The chapter on the fall of the Rupee you can omit… Even these metallic problems have their melodramatic side.''

And indeed, the metallic Miss Prism does have a melodramatic side that continues to surface just below her stern exterior. It's especially evident in her relationship with Dr. Chasuble, but when her involvement in Jack's original story is revealed in Act IV, we realize she's just as hopeless as the rest of the cast.

The Governess

We first meet Miss Prism in Act II of The Importance of Being Earnest. She is employed by Jack Worthing as a governess, a type of private teacher, to his ward Cecily Cardew.

You've probably heard of a governess before and have a pretty clear picture in your head of what they are like. Stern might be the adjective that comes to mind, or straight-laced. It would be wrong to say that all governesses are strict disciplinarians and morally incorruptible, but most fictional representations of them seem to want us to believe they are.

Miss Prism is no different. When she first appears, she is nagging Cecily to return to her studies. The fact that she is pushing Cecily to work on her German might be a coincidence, but Oscar Wilde wasn't one for coincidences. German, a language and culture with a reputation for sternness, implies a similar hardness in Miss Prism's character.

As the scene continues and the conversation turns to the unfortunate Mr. Ernest Worthing, Miss Prism's morality and stiffness become more apparent. ''I am not in favor of this modern mania for turning bad people into good people at a moment's notice. As a man sows so let him reap,'' she says. It's a phrase and judgment she will repeat several times throughout the play.

When Algernon, pretending to be Ernest, is presented with a large bill and turns to Jack for financial help, Miss Prism opposes Jack paying the debt. ''There can be little good in any young man who eats so much, and so often,'' she proclaims. She even goes as far as saying, ''this proposed incarceration might be most salutary. It is to be regretted that it is only for twenty days.'' Pretty harsh, don't you think?

This harsh personality is important. Miss Prism is the only major character with it. Unlike Jack, Algernon, Cecily, and Gwendolen, who are all quite whimsical in their approach to life, Miss Prism seems to have her head on straight. The audience can identify with her more easily because of this, and she creates a contrast to amplify the sentimentality and absurdity of the other characters.

From this introduction, it is easy to assume that Miss Prism is indeed one of those strict, morally incorruptible governesses. However, that façade cracks somewhat when Dr. Chasuble appears.

Pamela or Virtue Rewarded

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani . Writing this blog for the Pamela or virtue rewarded. 

The question is: Is Pamela a reliable narrator? If Yes, then Why? If No, then Why

first publication of Richardson’s Pamelai.it is surprising to see how emotionally charged the Pamela-debate still is. Its central question, whether Pamela’s narration is reliable, is still able to initiate a heated discussion. The reason for this is that Pamela’s story is far more than the narration of the experience of a servant-girl. It always was and obviously still is a matter of politics and political correctness, almost comparable to the alleged sexual affairs of President Clinton.

In Pamela’s case, however, we do not ask whether he really did it. Nobody wants to spare Mr B. the embarrassment of being guilty of sexual harassment. Mr B.,clearly, is not the point of interest. Instead, we ask whether Pamela is really telling the truth about herself. This aspect of her reliability turns out to be the most important one. What is at stake is Pamela’s virtue, and this is the fate she shares with Mr Clinton. Both have been elected to hold a powerful public position, with the difference that Pamela has not been elected by the people but by her author Samuel Richardson. I want to argue that Pamela’s problems apart from Mr B., i.e. our doubts about her reliability and in turn about her virtue and vice versa, start with the intentions her author had in mind while allowing her to tell her story. It is precisely the tension between her intended public position as an example of virtue and the fact that her story is told in letters written and copied almost exclusively by herself that we start to doubt whether she really is the virtuous and therefore reliable person she has to claim to be.

There can be no doubt that Samuel Richardson intended Pamela to be an example of virtue, a role-model for every woman’s behaviour, an instrument to teach proper conduct. In his preface he solemnly declares that he hopes “to incalculate religion and morality” with his book. In order to achieve this he “paint VICE in its proper colours, to make it deservedly odious; and . . . set VIRTUE in its proper amiable light, to make it look lovely”.Both male and female readers are expected to draw their lessons from a story presented according to these principles. Since our “practicle example” of virtue in this case is Pamela The following description applies to her: she is regarded as “worthy to be followed in the most critical and affecting cases, by the virgin, the bride, and the wife”. In short, Pamela is a didactic representation of virtue.

This virtue is presented to us in the story of Pamela’s resistance against the sexual advances Mr B. makes to her after his mother’s death. Her unwillingness to comply with his desire – with or without payment – is motivated by her determination that she “will die a thousand deaths, rather than be dishonest in any way” . She is “resolved to be virtuous”  and remains virtuous through all the temptations Mr B. creates for her. In the end he is not only convinced that she means what she says but is also ashamed of his own behaviour.

Pamela’s exemplary virtue succeeds in converting Mr B. to a virtuous life and exerts the same influence over her growing audience in the novel.

As such an exemplary role-model of virtue Pamela has to be – at least consciously – a reliable narrator for, as Michael McKeon notes, in Richardson’s Pamela “questions of virtue cannot be unravelled from questions of truth.”

the narrator who is deliberately unreliable clearly forfeits her claim to virtuous behaviour. Consequently, Richardson cannot give the subtitle Virtue Rewarded to Pamela and present her as an unreliable narrator at the same time. And indeed,on the level of the narration itself Pamela is treated and presented as both an extremely virtuous girl and a reliable narrator.

First of all the “editor” of Pamela’s letters assures his readers in the preface that “the following Letters . . . have their foundation in Truth” . When He interrupts Pamela’s narration in order to report her abduction to Mr B.’s

Lincolnshire estate and events that happened without Pamela’s knowledge he does neither contradict her version of the story nor expresses doubts about her virtuous behaviour, quite the contrary. The reader learns that Mr B. intends “to prosecute his base designs upon the the innocent virgin”. We also read that all Bedfordshire servants “greatly loved and honoured the fair damsel.” The editor confirms that Mr B. does not only plan to take Pamela’s virtue but also misrepresents her character in a letter to and a conversation with her father. His summary of Pamela’s situation is that “thus every way was the poor virgin beset.” 

Not only the editor but also the other characters in the novel share this evaluation. Mrs Jervis is convinced that Pamela “was one of the most virtuous

and industrious creatures she ever knew.” She “never saw any thing

but innocence in her.”  Lady Davers remarks that “every body gave . . .

[Pamela] a very good character, and loved [her]”. Mr Jonathan, the butler,is “sure that I will sooner believe any body in fault than you [Pamela]” and his colleague Mr Longman is convinced that “every body must be good to her” since she is “so mild and meek to every one of us in the house” .After Pamela’s victory over Mr B. the whole neighbourhood is full of praise for her. Pamela is regarded as “an honour to our sex, and as a pattern for all the

young ladies in the country.” 

But then Richardson’s intention to create such a pattern for every lady in thecountry in the form of an epistolary novel causes several problems. He knows that a story that intends to promote virtue has to be entertaining in order to be read, that is in order to be able to exert influence. Therefore he wants to “divert and entertain” and to “instruct and improve” at the same time. The story is supposed to be “equally delightful and profitable”. He also wishes to do this “in so probable, so natural, so lively a manner, as shall engage the passions of every sensible reader, and attach their regard to the story” . It becomes obvious that Richardson hopes to achieve extremely conflicting ends.

Much of the literary criticism written about Pamela proves that the epistolary form is a very suitable means to engage the passions of the reader and enable him to relate to the story. But a didactic novel that is almost completely told in –supposedly entertaining – letters written by the virtuous heroine herself puts the narrator in an extremely difficult position and creates numerous disadvantages regarding the intended lesson of the narration by making it almost impossible for her to maintain her virtuous image.

First of all it should be noted that Pamela is convinced that she is a reliable narrator. In her opinion her letters and journal entries contain all her “private thoughts . . . and all the secrets of my heart.” What she records on paper is her “heart at the time; and this is not deceitful." When Mr B. accuses her of having encouraged Mr Williams to love her by discouraging him explicitly in her letters Pamela claims that she “know[s] nothing . . . of the practices of artful women! I have no art!” Again and again she assures that “I have only writ the truth” .But then everybody knows that a letter writer’s judgement concerning her own reliability is not necessarily correct. Samuel Johnson’s contradictory statements about the possibilities of the letter illustrate the difficult situation of Pamela.

“In a Man’s Letters”, he writes in his own correspondence, “his soul lies naked

. . . Nothing is inverted, nothing distorted.” This attitude belongs to a tradition

which recognizes the letter “as the true voice of feeling . . . as a means of conveying authentic personality and experience.”4 At the same time, however, the letter was seen as a means of deceit and pretence. Accordingly, Dr Johnson states in his ‘Life Of Pope’ that “there is, indeed, no transaction which offers stronger temptations to fallacy and sophistication than epistolary intercourse.”5 The reason for this is that the letter is a “calm and deliberate performance, in the cool of leisure,in the stillness of solitude” and Johnson cannot imagine that a “man sits downt o depreciate by design his own character.”6 The reader might, therefore, be the victim of a fallacy when he believes in Pamela’s assurances of reliability.Obviously, we have to decide whether to trust Pamela’s narration or not.

Richardson may be said to have compounded his own difficulties by

confining his narrative of his heroine’s triumph almost solely to that

heroine’s voice, thereby violating an implicit rule of feminine behavior that the Lady’s Magazine would later spell out for its readers in one

of its numerous essays ‘On Modesty’: ‘take care you do not make

yourself the heroine of your own story. 

Video that how can you consider unreliable narrator

A Tale of a Tub

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. Writing the blog for text 'A Tale of a Tub'. 

'A Tale of a Tub' was the first big work written by Jonathan Swift. It is arguably his most difficult satire, and perhaps his most masterly. The Tale is a prose parody which is divided into sections of "digression" and a "tale" of three brothers, each representing one of the main branches of western Christianity. Composed between 1694 and 1697, it was eventually published in 1704.

'A Tale' was long regarded as a satire on religion itself, and has famously been attacked for that, starting with William Wotton. The "tale" presents a consistent satire of religious excess, while the digressions are a series of parodies of contemporary writing in literature, politics, theology, Biblical exegesis, and medicine. The overarching parody is of enthusiasm, pride, and credulity. At the time it was written, politics and religion were still linked very closely in England, and the religious and political aspects of the satire can often hardly be separated.

"The work made Swift notorious, and was widely misunderstood, especially by Queen Anne herself who mistook its purpose for profanity." "It effectively disbarred its author from proper preferment within the church," but is considered one of Swift's best allegories, even by himself. It was enormously popular, but Swift believed it damaged his prospect of advancement in the Church of England.

The Three Coats

The three brothers' coats are the central symbol of A Tale of a Tub. (Tubs, despite the title, figure only incidentally in the work.) Outwardly plain and simple, the coats are the brothers' sole inheritance from their father, who promises that they will last for a lifetime if cared for properly. In his will, he warns them against altering the coats in any way. These coats represent the practices of Christianity as originally revealed and commanded by God and as stipulated in the Bible (the father's will). Like the early Church written about in the New Testament, the brothers initially do a good job of sticking to the rules laid down by the will. It isn't long, however, before they are finding ways to excuse themselves from following the will too scrupulously when it conflicts with their immediate desires. This behavior is dramatized as a gradual altering of the coats in spite of the father's express wish to the contrary.

The individual alterations represent the different ways in which Christianity, in Swift's view, deviated from the practices and beliefs given in the Bible. The "flame-colored satin" that makes up the coats' lining, for instance, represents the concept of purgatory, regarded in the Catholic tradition as a place of purification for souls not yet worthy of heaven but not condemned to hell. To Swift, an Anglican living in post-Reformation England, this was a false doctrine that lacked any demonstrable basis in Scripture. The "Indian figures" embroidered on the coats are the statues and stained-glass images present in many Catholic churches, which Swift (like many other Protestants) saw as incompatible with the Bible's warnings against graven images. By the time the brothers finally realize the error of their ways, their coats (i.e., their practice of Christianity) have become barely recognizable.

Midway through the main narrative, however, Martin and Jack undergo a change of heart when a breach erupts between them and Peter (who claims to be the oldest). By showing how the brothers react to this disagreement, Swift praises or criticizes the three main Christian traditions represented in the England of his day. In the pre-Reformation era, the brothers were all prone to the same extravagances, adorning their coats with lace, fringe, and many other ornaments. Peter, who represents Catholicism, sticks to those extravagances and even multiplies them; he deliberately avoids consulting the will to see whether he is going astray. Martin, named after Martin Luther, represents the moderate Protestant tradition. He carefully and diligently strips away the forbidden ornaments from his coat while taking care not to harm the underlying fabric. Where something cannot be removed without damaging the original coat, he reluctantly lets it remain.

Jack, in contrast, rips away every shred of embroidery and fringe, tearing up the original underlying fabric in the process. His brand of reform, which Swift identifies with the Dissenters, is aggressive, destructive, and haphazard. Ultimately, Swift condemns Jack as motivated more by his hatred of Peter (i.e., resentment of the Catholic Church) than by a concern to live a moral life. He is a reactionary anti-Catholic rather than a Christian in his own right. However and significantly, Jack's extremes end up closely resembling Peter's as the rags worn by the one man come to look like the fringed finery worn by the other. Thus, both are satirized.

The Father's Will

The father's will represents the Bible, which Swift regards as Christianity's fundamental instruction manual. Swift's paramount claim in A Tale of a Tub is that the Bible should be consulted for basic, immutable guidance on all Church matters. Practices prohibited by the Bible cannot and should not be embraced by the Church, while practices required by the Bible cannot simply be set aside. In their youth, the three brothers exemplify this kind of Christianity. The more closely the brothers adhere to the prescriptions of the will, the happier they seem to be and the more peaceful their consciences are.

All three brothers start off faithfully following the will, but they are gradually corrupted by outside influences. They stray from its obvious intent and, increasingly, from its directly stated rules, becoming ridiculous and superficial in the process. This behavior is provoked by a desire to fit in with the rest of the world, as illustrated in the middle of Chapter 2. There, the brothers realize that they will have to get creative if they want to give the appearance of following their father's wishes while actually ignoring them. They use Latinate terms to add an aura of respectability to their dubious behavior: failing to find permission to change their coats "totidem verbis" ("in so many words"), they start looking "totidem syllabis" ("in so many syllables"). Finally, they declare that their father's will allows them to add shoulder knots "totidem literis" ("in so many letters") because it contains the letters S, H, O, U, L, D, E, and R.

Peter, the most scholarly of the brothers, undergoes great intellectual contortions to avoid the document's clear restrictions. In addition to the "totidem literis" episode above, he declares that certain premises must be added to the will or else "multa absurda sequerentur" ("many absurdities will follow"). (He never specifies what those absurdities might be.) All of Peter's interpretive practices, along with the terms used to describe them, ultimately derive from a Catholic tradition that Swift views as legalistic, insincere, and self-serving.

The consequence of following this interpretive tradition is that both the clergy (Peter) and the congregants (Martin and Jack) grow further and further removed from the actual will. As early as Chapter 2, the brothers have agreed to "lock up" the will "in a strong-box, brought out of Greece or Italy," which symbolizes the use of Greek or Latin texts rather than vernacular translations. Here, Swift recalls and criticizes the Catholic Church's long history of forbidding vernacular Bibles, thereby preventing many adherents from reading Scripture for themselves. By the time the brothers go their separate ways in Chapter 4, Peter has begun to interpose himself as the will's sole interpreter, deciding its meaning on behalf of the others and pronouncing his decisions ex cathedra (with papal authority; literally, "from the chair").

Clearly, Peter (i.e., the Catholic Church) is not cast in a good light in A Tale of a Tub. That's not to say, however, that Swift viewed all reforms as equally salutary. Martin (moderate Protestantism) and Jack (Dissent) successfully obtain their own copy of the will, which gives them the all-important ability to read it for themselves and judge how well they are following it. In itself, Swift implies, vernacular access to the Bible is a good thing, but a person can still go overboard in relying on Scripture. To this end, Swift ridicules Jack in Chapter 11 for using his father's will as an umbrella, a nightcap, and a bandage—the implication being that the Bible should not be viewed as a universal guide to mundane matters, such as diet and health care. Swift's stance seems to be that the Bible is the ultimate authority on Church doctrine and discipline but that it is foolish to see it as a substitute for all earthly wisdom.

Romantic poets-The Rime of ancient Mariner

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. Writing this blog for thinking activity romantic poets. I'm going to discuss 'The Time of the Ancient Mariner'. 

Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” is about a man on a voyage by ship, who in one impulsive and heinous act, changes the course of his life – and death.  The Mariner faces an inner struggle over the crime he has committed, and must understand his actions and perform his penance.  He must also learn to abandon his negative views and openly accept all of Gods’ creatures.  The voyage now becomes a journey of learning important lessons in accountability, acceptance, forgiveness, and repentance.

After the Mariner kills the Albatross, it is hung around his neck so he can understand the seriousness of his act, but he is incapable of realizing the full implications at this time.  The bird was of no danger to the Mariner or the men on the ship, and in fact, was a spiritual guide to safeguard the crew on their excursion.  The murder was committed on a whim, with no forethought about the act or the repercussions. The Mariner gives no explanation to the Wedding Guest as to why he killed the bird because he has none.  In his essay “The Sad Wisdom of the Mariner,” A.M. Buchan writes “The shooting is an act, unpremeditated and unmeant, that nevertheless must be accounted for….” meaning that the Mariner must accept accountability for his actions so he can begin to atone for his sins . 

The ship and its crew face difficulties as it comes to a halt on the sea.  The Mariner is angry at his fate instead of remorseful for his crime, and he curses the sea and the creatures in it.  He has not learned to cherish all of Gods’ creations and he will pay a price for this.  A ship approaches and he is dumbfounded to come face to face with Death and Life-In-Death. With a roll of the dice, Death wins the lives of the crew and, Life-In-Death wins the life of the Mariner.  One by one the men on the ship die, leaving the Mariner alone and frightened.  He grieves only for himself, at first, saying

“Alone on a wide sea! And never a saint took pity on My soul in agony” 

For seven days and seven nights he is forced to spend time in solitary, reflecting on the events that have occurred, the eyes of the dead sailors fixed on him with blame.  He states “But oh! More horrible than that Is the curse in a dead man’s eye!” indicating he has begun to understand and accept his responsibility for their deaths . Once this acceptance begins, his solitude is no longer a punishment, but an opportunity for him to realize the exquisiteness of the universe.  As he watches the water snakes he begins to perceive them differently, and suddenly their beauty becomes apparent to him for the first time. 

They are no longer beastly creatures to be condemned, but are creatures of God’s universe to be appreciated and loved.  This new insight releases him from his invisible chains and he is able to offer a blessing for the water snakes.  The albatross falls from his neck, into the sea, and “He is on the verge of learning that mysterious and omnipotent spirits govern his destiny”.

 The Mariner has begun to broaden his views and acknowledge the spiritual wonder and joys of the universe.  He has learned to release his negative views, and by doing so, has set free the spirits of his dead shipmates.  Their spirits rise, aiding the Mariner in his journey home, and guiding him to the Hermit. 

Even though the albatross is no longer hung from his neck, and the ship is back on course home, the Mariner has not found absolution.  The Polar Spirits confirm this when they remark “The man hath penance done, And penance more will do” .  The Mariner has learned another lesson, forgiveness must be asked for, and it must also be earned.

It is the Hermit that he seeks in order to ask exculpation for his transgressions.  Though the Albatross is no longer hung around his neck, the Mariner still has the image of its blood in his mind.  He pursues the Hermit because “He’ll shrieve my soul, he’ll wash away The Albatross’s blood” .  He feels that if he can have the opportunity to ask for exoneration, he can be released from the inner turmoil he is experiencing. 

The Hermit asks the Mariner “What manner of man art thou?,” giving him the opportunity to admit his sins and ask for his penance.  Once he spills his story to the Hermit, a feeling of freedom overcomes him.  It is this feeling he will spend endless days and nights seeking.  He is forced to spend eternity repeating his story, searching for the person capable of forgiving his sins, though no one can.

The question then is “has the Mariner found redemption?”  The answer would be no, he has not.  Redemption brings peace and the Mariner has not found this peace. The crime was senseless, which makes it much more difficult for anyone to understand or forgive, even the Hermit.  He has been given a permanent penance to perform, wandering the earth and telling his story.  

While he may experience a brief period of serenity after each story telling, the guilt inevitably returns and he must go through the cycle again.  Lessons have been learned, but the Mariner will pay the price of his sin for eternity.