This past week, I went and saw a unique movie, mother! and read From Death’s Duel by John Donne. Both the movie and the literary piece left me questioning life, death, and the evil nature of humanity. In mother!, the director gives the audience a grotesque plot that describes humankind’s relationship with Mother-Earth. The main characters represent God and Earth. The God character is a creator and a poet, and Mother-Earth is his wife. The couple opens their home to strangers in need, but the strangers 
turn out to be dear fans of the poet. By the end of the movie, strangers flood the home and ruin everything pure about the perfect paradise the couple live in in hopes of pleasing the poet. The crazed mob even murders the wife’s new-born baby. The strangers had no intention of hurting the baby but show no remorse when the hellish mentality that results from the instinctive nature of humans allows the baby’s neck to be snapped. In mother!, the infant was born into the chaos and brutality of the strangers, and he was immediately murdered by actions that the mob believed were justified, for they believed it followed the teachings of the poet. The crowd then feasts on the baby which the strangers hoped would be seen as a respectful gesture due to their selfish flaw in thinking, but the mother is mortified at the sight of her baby being eaten. The plot of mother! alludes to people being born on this Earth and then ruining everything pure about this world in order to please a greater creator. John Donne also sees the horrible nature of humans and uses it as fuel for his works. Donne allows people to see that damnation is a part of life that starts even in the womb ,and he makes the claim that, “in the womb we are taught cruelty, by being fed with blood, and may be damned, though we were never born” (1423). Donne implements the idea that simply being in the womb allows a human to be evil. We start our lives with the potential to kill our mothers, and if the mother and child make it through labor, both the mother and the child are still doomed to die. After the child is in the womb (which Donne considers a tomb) he will be birthed into a world of evil and hate where the only way out is death, and if you live a life aimed to pleasing God your death can lead to an ultimate life in heaven. From Death’s Duel and mother! both discuss humanity and it’s drive to please a greater being in order to reap a reward. Though these works have many similarities, the main difference is the debate between nature verses nurture. As you read From Death’s Duel there is no question that the nature of a human is evil. From the moment of conception, humanity feasts on the blood of another and lives solely to die, but in mother!, the evil ways of humanity is a result of nurture and group mentality. The wife’s baby was born into the world as a pure child, but when introduced to the crowd of strangers, the baby’s innocence was ruined and the destruction of innocence led to the baby’s premature death. My question to the reader: do you believe we as humans were born evil and can do nothing to combat our instincts, or do you believe the choices we make and the lifestyles we are taught after birth determine whether we are evil and corrupt or pure and innocent.
Month: September 2017
Julian of Norwich
I really enjoyed reading the excerpts from Julian of Norwich’s A Book of Showings. Julian describes her visions briefly before she expounds upon their meaning “as to [her] sight.” (415) The use of phrases such as “as to my sight” is one way that Julian navigates the difficult position of writing as a woman in the fourteenth century. I personally found it really funny that she basically says some version of IMO after spending paragraphs discussing the deep theological meanings of her visions. It is as if she is saying “but that’s just my opinion” after every profound point she makes. It is a very effective way of countering any backlash from men higher up in the church.
Since she can not rely on directly stating her authority on such theological matters to make her argument, Julian has to appeal to her audience in other ways. One way is by making clear logical statements and comparisons. For example, she compares Jesus and the love he has for everyone as the love a mother has for her children (420). This example sets up a metaphor that is woven throughout most of our selections in the book. Jesus’ crucifixion is compared to a mother who dies giving birth, then Jesus is compared to a mother protecting her children when they need it (421).
Julian also writes about an incredibly optimistic outlook on the human condition. She writes that Jesus told her “all shall be well.” (418) Julian comes to believe that the visions sent to her were to show her “that Love is our Lord’s meaning.” (424) The sheer optimism of her views is shown in that even sin is beneficial to us because we come to see the love of God better through sin and suffering.
One last thing. I found it very interesting how Julian describes all of creation as a hazelnut, a spherical object. The idea of a spherical earth was not unheard of in the late middle ages, but I think it is still interesting that she believed in some way that the earth of all of creation was spherical.
Culture and difference
Readings for Wednesday and Friday allowed me to think about Swift’s ideas on cultural difference that was prevalent in Gulliver’s encounter.
First, I was surprised to see Gulliver’s respect shown to the Liliputians, considering Europeans acknowledgment of their superiority over group of people who weren’t Protestant or who wasn’t European during this time period. However, Gulliver’s astonishment of Liliputians’ rather civilized society, compared to their littleness, can be a haughty remark about the different culture that he first encounters because it meant that he didn’t expect them to be a sophisticated society. Then, part 2 of the book describes Gulliver’s encounter with Brobdingnag. He feared their monstrous figure at first because of a presumption that large meant harmful. Swift reverses the notion by portraying their kindness, especially with Glumdalclitch’s lavish care and generosity towards Gulliver. I could see that Swift was open-minded and were rational like how Gulliver constantly referred himself as of rational creature because he accepts his prejudices and doesn’t show hostility towards Liliputians or the people of Brobdingnag but respects the differences.
The depiction of farmer’s enslavement of Gulliver as an entertainer to their fellow people reminded me of whites making comedy out of blacks. This certainly shows Swift’s understanding of the power exploiting the weak, vulnerable people. Gulliver’s constant mentioning about the similarities of his appearance to the Liliputians and the Brobdingnagians to him portrays the arrogance in superiority that humans don’t acknowledge. Obviously, Swift hated human’s irrational actions.
Lastly, Swift used the term ‘race’ or Chinese to describe the Brobdingagians’ actions. Surprisingly, Count de Buffon, a French naturalist, first used the term ‘race’ in the book Histoire Naturelle, published in 1749, to suggest innate differences among groups of people. The term might not be used in the same concept to rationalize hierarchy, but considering that Gulliver’s Travel was published in 1726, Swift was ahead of his time. Additionally, Swift was fully aware of the attires of Chinese as he described Brobdingagians’ attires.
It seemed to me that Swift wasn’t misanthropic, but philanthropic in the sense that he understood the limitation of human’s intellect and morality, and thus accepted the fact that humans are different and start on a different level of playing field instead of equal level. Humans, therefore, need assistance to live harmoniously with each other.
Gulliver’s Travels
I really enjoyed reading the first four chapters of Gulliver’s Travels because of three main points that Swift illustrated that stood out to me: the simplicity of power, the heels, and the eggs.
Firstly, I thought it was remarkable that in order to gain power within the Lilliput people, one only had to be able to perform acrobats better on a rope than his/her competitor. Just from that part I could deduce how satirical Swift was. Swift is comparing the Lilliput’s that might not have any experience or knowledge coming into power with the English people who may hold political positions with no experience or knowledge about issues.
Secondly, the notion about who wore the different types of heels was a great way to illustrate the divisions within the protestant church in England. Swift made sure to point out that it was hard to be in the middle of the two by mentioning the king’s son who wears one high heel and one low heel. Swift told the audience that the king’s son was not comfortable with wearing both as he could not walk, suggesting that the ability to traverse the divisions within England’s protestant church was not easy.
Thirdly, the direction in which to crack an egg is satirized by Swift, who notes that Blefescu, a country with Big-Endians, is enemies with Lilliputians because they are Little-Endians. Swift writes that the Big-Endians were even planning on going to war with the Lilliputians because of the conflict with what side of an egg to crack first. This is wildly absurd and illustrates well the satire that Swift employs.
After reading the first four chapters of part one, I could not help myself to ponder what issues current-day could be as trivial as the side in which to crack an egg. I am not sure which ones could be as specific and as universal, but I am sure the simplicity and the insignificance of the issue could be something we might not be fully aware of yet.
Gulliver’s Travels, chapters 1-4
I was pleasantly surprised to discover how entertaining this story was and how well it flowed. I knew it wouldn’t be in the same old English as Chaucer and Spencer, however the modern language was aided with great amounts of imagery which made for an encompassing literary experience. Within this novel, Swift creates multiple journeys for our main character through which he is able discover abroad and reflect upon situations domestically in England. In doing so, he is able to satirize many events and express his personal opinions masked by fiction.
Swift does a wonderful job of creating the main character of “Captain Gulliver,” giving him enough of a background for us to understand his immediate situation of waking up in the kingdom of Lilliput. From there, I love how he presents the story through Gulliver’s perspective, which broadens as he learns more and more about where he is.
While I know that this literary work is presented as a satire, it is worked into the novel so you don’t always immediately recognize it. Our “Norton Anthology” book leaves foot notes at the bottom of each page when a satirical reference is made. Personally, I was surprised to see how much material he pulled directly from history or his life.
Until reaching chapter four, in which the war over cracked eggs was discussed, there was little sarcasm or exaggerating which screamed satire. As with the “Butter Battle Book,” this piece literature seems to simply present a fictional story line and adventurous plot. While small children and those who are unaware of a deeper meaning may just enjoy the fantasy and excitement, there is a very prevalent underlying meaning to nearly everything. Swift then goes a step further to present those particular things in a light that reflects his personal opinions about them.
For example, the description of the Lilliput emperor is said to satirically idealize George I, whom was seen as “gross” to most British (p 2499.) The constant plea for liberty for Gulliver’s freedom with the contrasting threat of starvation or rebellion suggest the Irish situation while under England (p 2501.) Satirical references span from religion, government/monarchy, wars, and even executions…and this was only chapters one through four!
The first section of this book captivated me through its easy to read structure and whimsical plot line. This literary work has left me wanting to read more and I am excited to see what all develops within the next chapters!
Gulliver’s Travels – Part Two
Part 2 Chapters 1, 2, 3, & 6
In this story, Jonathan Swift has a goal set to satirize many things going on around him that he isn’t in favor of. He does this by using Gulliver as his spokesperson, and he sends Gulliver on many adventures in which he uses certain situations to call out certain things that Swift stands against in his daily life. In these four chapters, Gulliver is going on a journey but a storm hits and he and his crew get lost at sea. About a year later, they spot land and paddle to shore when they see that massive giants live on the island. The crew begins paddling back to the boat, but Gulliver is left stranded on the island. He then goes on to meet many giants, and he is paraded around to do shows for giants for a profit. Gulliver is then bought by the Queen, who brings Gulliver to the King.
The King asks many questions about the government of Gulliver’s home country, in hopes to learn something useful in leading his own country. Gulliver goes on to tell the King all about his country and their government with pride and patriotism, to which the King responds with laughter, mocking the way of life there. This is satirizing the priorities of the government, and the King is calling out the corruption of Gulliver’s government and his people. He calls out Gulliver’s people for basically being power-hungry and bloodthirsty. The King decides that Gulliver’s people are absolutely terrible people who are corrupt and evil in their ways, only prioritizing monetary possessions and power.
Gulliver also meets a “little person” that works for the Queen — who is 30 feet tall — and loves to pick on Gulliver. The Queen’s dwarf makes fun of Gulliver because he finally meets someone shorter than him. Because Gulliver is so small, he faces many challenges to survive. Cats, dogs, rats, and babies can kill him with ease, all of which are laughable to the giants because they are such small problems that the giants have no realization of in their daily lives.
Later on in the story, Gulliver sees his Master’s wife breastfeeding her child. Gulliver is disgusted by the sight of her, and he goes on to say that even the women in his country “appear so beautiful to us, only because they are of our own size, and their defects not to be seen but through a magnifying glass, where we find by experiment that the smoothest and whitest skins look rough and course and ill colored” (2537). I believe that Gulliver’s sexualization of women and his response to seeing his mistress breastfeeding is meant to satirize how men view women at the time and the fact that men need to change their perspective of women in general.
Swift uses extremely creative circumstances to shed light on topics he is passionate about, and he does a fantastic job of criticizing certain things subtly through his work.
The Faerie Queene books 1 & 11
While reading the Faerie Queene, by Edmund Spenser, I was intrigued by the symbolism throughout the first book. When describing the “lovely Ladie” (Una) with which our Red Cross Knight is riding with, Spenser repeats how her horse is “more white then snow” (1.1.4). Spenser then takes this symbolism one step further and proclaims that Una was “much whiter” than her horse (1.1.4). The color white is a common symbol of purity and innocence– therefore it is to be believed that our fair lady is the purest and most innocent lady in all the land. Spenser almost transcends her into being an almost angelic character, which correlates with her being an allegory for the Protestant Church, which Spenser thought to be the “one true church”.
I was also intrigued at the characterization of the monster “Errour”. Errour is described as a half serpent, half woman– disgusting and foul. I was quite fascinated by this illustration, due to the fact that it is mentioned several times how she is a mother to many other “monsters” or “impes”, and how it would be different if the monster was a man. By making our villain a woman, it implicates the already set prenotions that women are not only evil, but are to be feared, a thing below men (who will always prevail). I am now also aware of the biblical reference this makes: Eve and the serpent in the garden of eden. This can refer to the downfall of man even more so, due to the fact that it was a woman who made the first error on Earth, by giving into the temptations proposed by the serpent. Even more striking to me was that the Red Cross Knight’s description was very holy and contained numerous references to the Bible, and therefore it is to be inferred that Spenser is pitting the holiness of the church against the wicked ways of women during the battle between the Knight and Errour.
While The Faerie Queene does emulate characteristics found in The Canterbury Tales (Spenser’s favorite author being Chaucer), such as the syntax and style in which the book is organized, there are distinct differences. The Faerie Queene is less direct when personifying its allegory and symbolism, while The Canterbury Tales uses each pilgrim to represent their status or class in life (ironic and serious). Furthermore, The Faerie Queene is a more fantastical tale, using classic magical qualities in order to tell its stories, rather than stating its meaning in a more blunt story. I thought it interesting that Chaucer and Spenser would use their characters to portray people found in everyday life, which in turn I believe makes this story that much more compelling.
Why Did Spenser Choose to Write a Medieval Allegory?
One question I had after doing the reading for class last Wednesday was, why did Spenser choose to construct a pastoral and chivalrous allegory, written in a diction imitating middle English, in a time of an advancing rhetorical culture? I think Spenser intentionally sets his epic in an era before kiss-up courtiers to reminisce simpler times, and express his opinion through allegory to avoid the danger of violating the strict sanctions on freedom of speech.
The Elizabethan era marked a time of an amorous court and considerable political maneuvering; I believe much of Chaucer’s pastoral writing influenced Spenser’s perception of the past, creating a “grass is greener on the other side” effect. Spenser’s reminiscence may also be responsible for many of the personifications in his stories, such as knights representing Holiness, Temperance, and Chastity, most of which the courts were lacking in his time. Chaucer’s was also a time before Catholicism and Protestantism competed for worshipers in England, and the lack of Catholicism would have appealed to Spenser, who spent a lot of time debasing the Roman Catholic Church.
Queen Elizabeth was an extremely tough ruler, who effectively repressed literary works that were considered scandalous. An allegory was an essential form of writing for Spenser to convey his opinions about his time, because though certain aspects of his stories represented a dangerous concept (such as his veiled criticisms of the queen), they were not blatant enough to be punishable.
Geoffrey Chaucer, Canterbury Tales Intro & General Prologue
The Canterbury Tales were written sometime between 1386 and 1400 by Geoffrey Chaucer. Chaucer came from a family that ascended from the merchant class to aristocracy within three generations. Although he wrote poetry he was never known for it. Instead, he was known for his official job in the courts. It is possible the poem is unfinished because the tales are supposed to recall the accounts of pilgrims coming to and leaving Canterbury, which would add up to ten, but there’s only twenty-four stories. During this timeframe, literature is expanding from just religious works to including more popular works. The Canterbury Tales entails one broad frame tale, with smaller tales that branch out from it. It is written in the English vernacular in iambic pentameter with many rhymed couplets. The story begins as any story typically does: by describing the setting. The April showers have signaled the beginning or spring in England as many make their pilgrimage to the city of Canterbury. Then the poem continues into the first story, the story of the knight. The knight is exactly what a knight should be: he is humble, noble, and honorable. The narrator describes him as very experienced at war and that he has remained loyal to his lord’s over the years. Next, Chaucer transitions into describing the squire. He is the son of the knight yet these two characters contrast each other in many ways. While the knight seems stern and traditional, his son is youthful and spends his time singing and dancing. Then there’s the Yemen, who carries around many weapons since he is an independent commoner who works as a knight’s servant. After the Yemen Chaucer introduces the Prioresse. Through vivid descriptions there is a sense that she is more concerned with what society thinks of her and how she appears rather than her religious duties as a nun. She is very idealistic and wears a broach that reads ‘love conquers all.’ Unlike the Prioresse, the monk does not care what society thinks of him as he spends most of his time hunting. The theme of corruption in the church continues as the Friar uses the church to his benefit, using people’s money to spoil himself. Then there is the merchant who sits a little too high on his horse than he should, especially considering he’s in debt. Also, low on money is the clerk, who is a philosophy student at Oxford. While the clerk is very arrogant, the Sergeant of the Law is very humble and quiet. All these characters are described very well in a way that allows readers very easily to understand the true nature of each character.
Intro to the 16th Century and Intro and Selections from the Faerie Queene
An interesting thing about the 16th century to me is the amount of religious turmoil there was. Since Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Catholic church would not let him, he started Protestantism in England. His decision placed England in religious uncertainty since, for the first time, the king was the head of the church and state. If the change in religion was not already confusing for the English people, Mary Tudor or “bloody Mary” came to power after Henry and began earning her nickname by killing the Protestants since she was Catholic. This ushered in a new era of religious turmoil mixed with persecution of the people. Eventually Elizabeth came to the throne, however, and made Protestantism acceptable and encouraged once more.
After all of the turmoil and tension which England had undergone, Elizabeth needed to solidify her crown and help stable her kingdom. I was impressed by her confident approach to this since she stated, “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king”. Since women reigning as queens was relatively uncommon, I think it was brilliant of her to encourage people to look past her “body natural” and instead look at her “body politic”. I believe her encouragement for people to focus on her idea of kingship, instead of on her gender, enabled her to have a broader range of support.
This support carried over into the literature of the time since authors like Edmund Spenser dedicated their works to her. For instance, in Edmund Spenser’s “Faerie Queene”, the Faerie Queene represents Queen Elizabeth. He depicted the Catholic church, on the other hand, as a demonic villain. I think it is ironic how Spenser was openly against the Catholic church in the “Faerie Queene” since the previous queen of England was a staunch Catholic who persecuted Protestants. This again shows how much religious turmoil there was in England at that time.
I like that the “Faerie Queene” is both a moral allegory and a historical allegory since it was relevant to the readers at that time and also enabled them to learn from the characters. An example of the complexity of the allegory is shown through the knights, since their allegorical characteristics are coupled with normal human behaviors. By making characters relatable to the readers, it pulls readers in more and allows them to learn from the character’s mistakes since they are similar to the readers.