Tartuffe is a famous play, a comedy by the sixteenth-century French writer, Jean-Baptiste Poquelin “Moli ère”. The story set in the Enlightenment era in Europe and is a satire about the religious beliefs of the people that often lead to hypocrisy and foolish judgements. Monkey, otherwise known, as The Journey to the West is sixteenth-century Chinese writer, Wu Cheng’en’s famed classical work. The book is a fantastical and fictionalized account of the Buddhist monk, Xuanzang’s, famed holy voyage to India in search of Buddha scriptures. Tripitaka is the character representing Xuanzang and the monkey, the pig, and the dragon are the disciples who undertake the pilgrimage with him. The book is about the path one has to undertake to reach enlightenment. Akin to Tartuffe, this story advocates the eastern ideology of a good or bad action that begets an equivalent reaction. Moreover, both the books moralize that it is impractical to place one’s trust on a judgement based on appearance. In this paper, we analyse the endings of both these stories to understand the authors’ intentions.
In Tartuffe, the titular character is a fraud, who has seduced the mind of the character, Orgon, with his wily preaching. Tartuffe has used his power over Orgon to capture his property, and although the latter remains unaware of such evil intentions, Orgon’s family, and friends have realized that Tartuffe is a charlatan, who uses religion to control minds. The entire play shows how Orgon’s well-wishers unsuccessfully attempt to dissuade him from falling into Tartuffe’s trap. Only at the end, when Orgon eavesdrops on Tartuffe attempting to seduce the wife, does he realize his follies. However, by then it is too late, as Orgon has already revealed his weaknesses to his devious mentor. This gives Tartuffe the ultimate power over Orgon, and he seizes Orgon’s property. However, Orgon regains his property and the love of his family and Tartuffe gets his comeuppance in a sudden twist that is definitely a deus ex machina. The king, who was absent throughout the play, emerges in the end to save the day. This surprise is illustrated within the play when Mariane says, “Who’d have dared to hope it” (80). Thus, the play attempts to show that justice always triumphs, that is, the bad get their deserved punishment. The ending shows that the play is not a realistic one. This is a surprise factor that changes its realistic tone, as most of the play resounds with references to human life that has similar fallacies, gullibility, and the uneven presence of both evil and good.
The Monkey is a story about the tenets Buddhism. Tripitaka and his disciples face many monsters attempting to kill them as well as some humans attempting to hinder their progress. This is an allegoric reference to the idea that life has many sufferings, which are caused by one’s desires. This shown by the Money’s response to his master’s query about the manner in which they could rest for the night, “That’s not the right thing to say, master We monks are supposed to eat the wind and drink the rain, and sleep under the moon and in the frost. Our home is wherever we are. So why ask where we're going to sleep?” (330). The story also shows that the good and bad deeds of living beings are reciprocated by awards and punishments. Monkey differs from Tartuffe in the aspect that the entire book is an allegory for Buddhist teachings and ideologies. This makes the book rife with dei ex machina. The king is replaced by the bodhisattva, Guanyin here. Every problem that a character faces is resolved by the bodhisattva and the justification for the problem is found in the character’s past—a sinful action committed by the character is punished by a problem. The plot device used in Monkey makes the story far more credible than Tartuffe’s, as unlike Tartuffe, which is a real-life inspired story, this is a fantasy. A refined reader finds the use of the plot device acceptable as the “nature” of the story. It is known that real life is cannot be simply divided into the good and bad elements, and that, there shall always be some complexity in human nature and the environment that cannot be justified due to the varied nature of perspective, that is, due to a Rashomon effect. Thus, Monkey cannot be viewed as a story to be believed blindly. However, as is the nature of such allegoric stories, they try to impart knowledge that can be useful for human existence on earth, and the reader must take home this learning. As far as the surprise element is concerned, this story’s end is surprising because the return journey is completely insignificant, and this is justified by the reward the onward journey has bestowed on the characters. This is again a deus ex machina; however, it can be anticipated, as the plot device has been used repeatedly throughout the story. Thus, the two moral lessons propounded by both the stories are that (a) good/evil deeds beget good/evil consequences and that (b) one must not judge a person by his or her appearance. This is shown by the fact that the monkey is mistaken as an incompetent being due to its appearance and Tartuffe is perceived as a pious man as he attempt to profess such a picture of himself to others.
Works Cited
Molière. Tartuffe. Ed. Steiner, Prudence L. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 2008. Print.
Cheng’en Wu. The journey to the West. Yu, Anthony C. Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Print.
