Neo-Classicist Dialogue

            One of the most interesting things about the play, Volpone, is not just the actions of the characters; it is the dialogue itself. Rather, how the characters relate certain things in dialogue to each other. During the time of Ben Jonson, it was common to allude to Classical figures. This is done several times throughout the play, and to a Classics major, this is quite intriguing.

            A common figure or figures to refer to in writing during this period was the gods. Several times throughout the play, the characters mention different characters from mythology and always using their Roman names. Venus (Aphrodite) and Apollo are mentioned more than once; Mercury (Hermes), Mercurius (Mercury’s son), Jove (Jupiter or Zeus), Hercules (Heracles) and Mars (Ares) are all mentioned as well. What is different than other writings is the constant comparison or mention of other figures from the past, using historical figures, which are as real to us as the ancient gods, and the mention of creatures of the past. On page 1384, a phoenix is mentioned as well as a basilisk being mentioned on page 1418.

            Plenty of historical characters were referenced throughout the play; many of whom anyone would recognize such as Cleopatra, Nestor (a commander of Greeks in the Trojan War) and Emperor Hadrian. Many others of the characters one would have to look up or search for if one did not study Classics; the comparison of Celia to Lucretia from the story of Tarquin and Lucretia, Aeson (father of Jason), and Lollia Paulina (the third wife of Emperor Caligula).

            Another aspect that the play draws on was objects that were used in ancient mythologies. On page 1409, when asked “Is he spun?” meaning to ask if he was dead referenced the three Fates. One spun the thread, one measured out the lifespan and the last cut the thread when the person in question was destined to die; the only threads that could not be cut were the threads of deities. The previous page mentioned a girdle which is in reference to the girdle of Venus, which, when worn, made the wearer irresistible to all who laid eyes upon them since Venus was the goddess of love and beauty.

            In the beginning of the play, when Jonson wrote “salt” and the note provided that it was once used in the Classical period to mean “satirical wit”, that is not entirely true. It did indeed mean wit, but it was not necessarily a satirical wit. One of the prime examples from antiquity is the poem from Catullus in which he is comparing his lover, Lesbia, to Quintia, one of, in not the, most beautiful woman in Rome. He says that he does not deny that Quintia is beautiful but “there is not one grain of salt in so great a body”; meaning that even though she is pretty, Quintia is not intelligent but Lesbia is both. Thus, it can mean just “wit” or “intelligence”, it does not have to subscribe to any type of wit.

            It is fascinating while reading through something written between the 16^th and 17^th centuries and to pick up on the references to people and objects from thousands of years prior. At the present time, if any author wrote to allude to any such references, a modern audience would not have a grasp on the significance of the comparisons. This is the beauty of the writings during this era that was lost through time.  

Letter: Gay Marriage in Delaware

Here is a letter to the Residents of Delaware about the recent bill passed in the steps to legalizing civil unions in Delaware.

Sorry about the quality - I had to take the picture with my phone and the page kept curling. Just lemme know if you can't read it XD

Historature, or History & Literature

           During the reading of the section from “The Moderate, No. 28”, it is interesting to not only follow the well-written prose but witness how the legal system may have worked in the past in England. Analyzing this section of writing will explore not only the language but the history contained within it. This section is all about the trial of King Charles I or England on the first day where he appears in court to discuss the charges against him.

            The words used in this section are interesting; such as using the word “oyez”, which is the French word for “hear ye” even though they are in England. The phrase that “oyez made thrice” is an interesting way to say that someone called for attention of the public three times. This was the most interesting piece of the language usage in the writing. The format of speech was also intriguing as the person’s name would appear followed by a period and quote of what they said.

            The prose that describes the actions of the several different people was another interesting aspect. When the King entered to discuss the accusations of the trial, no one removed their hats, which is usually an indication of a higher status, when one removes their hat for another. It was indicated in the writing that when the King knocked the head off his cane, placing it in his pocket was conceived as “ominous”, which seems like an odd observation. Perhaps it was some sort of superstition in England’s past.

            It was pointed out that as the King was accused of being “a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy of the commonwealth”. Then the King asked for them to explain why he was there as he was the lawful King and what authority they had in calling him there. It is interesting to read this in analyzing how the Kings of England may have acted in the past and how they handled their rule. Reading through the paragraphs stated by the King, it seems that the Kings always thought they had ultimate power and that they were led by God.

            It is evident that the country of England is heavily religious. God is often mentioned throughout the writing by both parties. The King tells the accusers that they must answer to God for their sin in accusing their lawful king. At the end of the trial, Mr. Peters quotes the Bible to make a point.

            This writing is interesting for a literary standpoint but it is similarly intriguing due to the historical content. Since this is a document from Parliament, one has to wonder whether this is a verbatim account or if it was creatively enhanced later to make the document more well written and educated. It would be worth looking into the history of the document to see if it in had been changed in any way from its original composition. As with any other piece of writing, the content may have been changed throughout time.    

Wit, the Movie ~ Creative Engagement -Donne

(Sorry for the late post!)

            Wit is a movie that was recently released by HBO from the early 2000s. We follow the main character, Vivian Bearing, as she goes through eight weeks of intensive treatment for stage-four ovarian cancer. As we know from the clip we watched from class, Vivian is a literature professor in seventeenth century poetry, specializing in the Holy Sonnets of John Donne. She spends the entire time in the hospital reciting many different poems by Donne, as she has no books with her because after her periods of treatment, she is sent back home.

            Not only is this movie about John Donne and the witty, albeit frightening, professor, but human compassion. Constantly there are interesting flashbacks throughout the movie, as we saw in the first clip, of memories she has in her past of literature and studying John Donne. One clip she goes back and watches herself yell at a football player who’d fallen asleep in the front row. She had given no mercy to her students; she told the student to either excuse himself or come prepared for class. Reflecting upon the scene she says “I didn’t say, ‘You are so young. You are nineteen years old; you wouldn’t know a sonnet from a steak sandwich.’”

            The movie is full of interesting and biting lines from both her and another character, Jason, a Fellowship doctor who was one of Vivian’s former students. He rather poetically described how cancer cells survived and spread. At one point, my second favorite line after the line above, he says “…Donne. He makes Shakespeare look like a Hallmark card.” I would have never thought to put it like that.

            I love poetry, and I do not have a disdain for sonnets as I have seen other students have, but I will admit I had never heard of nor read John Donne before I took this class. Honestly, the repetition of the poems in the movie made me mull over the sonnets quite a lot more than I thought I would have originally. It gave them new meaning when they were repeated over and over out loud; and the point that the punctuation made all of the difference made me think more on how much certain texts may have changed over time and lost their meaning.

            As for the second clip we watched for class, which our professor described as “poetically disturbing”, there is much more that needs to be seen and said about it. If you watch the movie, the most intense scene happens right before that ending part in which Vivian recites her sonnet. It was quite fitting how she recited it after what happened. Now, I don’t want to give more away than I already have, but I do want to say that if you have any interest in literature and witty movies, this is a good one. Yes, it’s tragic, but it holds a lot of deeper meaning; I was struck when it ended, breathing “wow”. I don’t do that often. I felt inspired. I felt as if I needed to read more Donne. I felt as if I didn’t really know the meaning of life and death. I felt very, very small. It was an amazing feeling; it felt as if it was an epiphany moment. It’s a powerful movie. And if you only skimmed my rumination-length creative engagement (which is posted later than I intended) then all I have to say is: watch Wit. It’s worthwhile to do so.   

How do I read this?!: Change in Punctuation of Original Texts vs. Norton

            The punctuation in the 1633 original copies of the John Donne varies greatly from the punctuation that is seen in the Norton Anthology used for the British Literature class used today. Not only does this detract from the poem’s flow but it also takes away a lot of its original pronunciation. The change in the punctuation, and some capitalization, may have also affected how one may interpret the poem; it could have lost its meaning even though the poem itself has transcended time.

            The punctuation that differs throughout the two versions of the collection of poems causes the reader to pronounce the words differently, take different breaths during the reading, and some of the meaning is lost when something is a comma rather than a semicolon or an exclamation point. For example, in the poem “The Flea”, the original uses the word “suck’d” indicating that we pronounce it as one word, whereas it is spelled out as “sucked” in the Norton Anthology. The Norton Anthology also does this with “pamper’d”, making it “pampered” and “w’are” changing it to “we are” in its version. Although the “e” in the word is not quite pronounced in modern English, there is a difference between “suck’d” and “sucked” when read aloud by the reader.

            It seems that the Norton Anthology takes out many commas it seems to have deemed unnecessary as well. The original “And in this flea, our two bloods mingled bee;” changed to “And in this flea our two bloods mingled be” and “Purpled thy naile, in blood of innocence?” becomes “Purpled thy nail in blood of innocence?” This happens several times throughout this one poem, causing the reader to read it differently than Donne may have originally intended the poem to be read. This is a recurring practice throughout the Norton Anthology on several of the poems authored by Donne; “And whisper to their soules, to goe,” becomes “And whisper to their souls to go” in “A Valediction: Forbidden Mourning”. It seems as though the Norton Anthology wants the reader to say the lines all in one breath and then take a rest as the end of the line, rather than pausing in the line itself. The line seems to be illustrating that the “virtuous men” from the first line are talking to their souls in the original version. The Norton Anthology takes that meaning away by not including the commas in their original positions and makes it seems passive.

            Even the title of this poem changes in the Norton Anthology. “A Valediction forbidden mourning” can be read quite differently than the title “A Valediction: Forbidden Mourning”; it cuts off the flow of the title, making it a separate piece rather than part of a whole. The lack of commas in the sonnet “Death, be not proud” makes it more of a rushed poem in the Norton Anthology rather than the contemplative poem it seems to be in the original collection of poems. The lack of capitalization of the word “Fate” is also troublesome, as the Fates are often invoked in poetry, just as Muses or gods are; the change between “Fate” and “fate” means something different entirely and it loses the meaning in the poem without its capitalization.

            There is a lot to be said about the original punctuation in poetry. It should not be changed; it changes the meaning of the poem. Whether the reader is a modern English speaker should not sway publishers to change the meaning of the poem by taking it out of its original context. If it is required that a modern version of the text be read, it should also be required that a text from the original publishing date of the poem be read as well. This would not only enrich the reading of the modern text, but perhaps give a new understanding and deeper meaning of the text by reading it as it was originally intended.    

(Week #5/Rumination #3)

P.S. Wit is on Amazon.com for $6.99. I was so fascinated with the clips we watched, I bought it XD

Week #4 / Rumination #2 / Puns in Shakespeare's Sonnets and Writings

            Shakespeare has been a must read in schools for what seems like forever. The problem with his writings (discussed among some) is first off, whether or not he actually wrote all of what is claimed to be his and second, whether or not the students reading Shakespeare truly understand his language or meaning within what he wrote. Shakespeare’s sonnets are so commonly used for high school and college curriculum alike but do not always properly explain or explore his underlying meanings.

            Shakespeare has a tendency to use puns, words with double meaning or clever word play, within his works often and usually the puns are of a sexual nature. For example, the word “lies” in Sonnet 138 implies lies of an dishonest nature, but also of “lies (has sex) with other men” and later he uses “lie” again about how they “lie” to each other but it could also mean that they are sleeping with one another. In Sonnet 55, Shakespeare personifies Time as “sluttish”, which in Elizabethan times would mean a grubby, unkempt woman (http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/55detail.html).

            Many of Shakespeare’s Sonnets contain puns, which are sexual more often than not, but some of his poems use words such as “fare” which could mean either the look of the said person the poem is being written about or a fare such as a price that one needs to pay back to another. However, Shakespeare was not only known for his puns within his Sonnets but he also gave several puns within his plays:

The opening lines of Richard III states “Now is the winter or our discontent / Made glorious summer by this sun of York…” and Richard III was the son of the Duke of York.

Act I Scene IV of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo asks for a torch and states that he’ll carry it although it’s heavy – which is in reference to his heavy heart. In the same scene, Romeo refers to his soul being of lead.

Act I Scene II of Hamlet, Claudius addresses Hamlet as his cousin and his son – Hamlet is upset that he’s married his mother and says “A little more than kid, a little less than kind” implying that they were already related but now they were closer to before and just under the meanings of being “kindred”.

In Much Ado About Nothing, Beatrice is speaking of the count Claudio, saying he is as “civil as an orange, and something of that jealous complexion”; a note indicates that there is a bitter orange one can obtain from Spain – so not only is his complexion of the same as his behavior but Shakespeare seemed to have meant that his demeanor was bitter.

(http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/lessons/642/Shakesperean_Puns.pdf)

            Puns are often used in poetry and stories to keep the reader engaged, but also to keep them guessing. Sometimes words can have double meanings; Shakespeare tends to make the puns within his Sonnets of a somewhat sexual nature, but this gives the reader another way to look at and analyze the poem, trying to understand the true meaning and get a glimpse into the life of the poet himself.

Creative Engagement; Write A Response Sonnet: Response to Pamphilia to Amphilanthus (Sonnet 16)

Here is my response sonnet to Sonnet 16 of Pamphilia to Amphilanthus. I tried to keep close to the exact rhyme scheme she had: a-b-a-b-b-a-b-a-c-c-d-e-e-b (or at least that is what I believe the rhyme scheme is when I read it; I may have read a word with the wrong enunciation). Also, on a side note, when I went online to get a better understanding of the poem, it was listed as Sonnet 14 elsewhere but 16 in my book.

Sonnet 16:

Am I thus conquered? Have I lost the powers

That to withstand, which joys to ruin me?

Must I be still while it my strength devours

And captive leads me prisoner, bound, unfree?

Love first shall leave men's fancies to them free, 

Desire shall quench Love's flames, spring hate sweet showers

Love shall lose all his darts, have sight and see

His shame and wishings hinder happy hours

Why should we not Love's purblind charms resist?

Must we be servile, doing what he list?

No, seek some host to harbor thee: I fly

Thy babish tricks, and freedom do profess.

But O my hurt makes my lost heart confess

I love, and must: So farewell liberty 

 

Response:

Thou art conquered - losing the powers

to withstand, be still and give in.

It devours you not but empowers

And holds you not; the prison is within.

Let yourself love and surrender before I wear thin,

Quench your Desire with Love, you need not spring showers.

Love shall aim golden arrows and win;

No shame to be found within our happy hours.

Resist not the charms of Love's infatuation,

Let Love sway you to your elation,

Flee not away but welcome Love;

Love tricks you not and freedom you keep -

Find your heart hurt no more nor weep

Love me, be found, let Love in

Although I know what I meant when I wrote the response poem, I'd like to leave the interpretation open to the readers to see if/what they comment on it. Hope you enjoyed it ^_^