This semester I have had the chance to watch several of the REP's performances on campus. I couldn't help thinking of these performances as I watched "Shakespeare Behind Bars" and began thinking on what my Rumination should be about. Of the three plays that I've had a chance to watch on campus, one of the most recent plays, "Way To Heaven" seemed to stick out to me as I watched the movie. However, It wasn't the plot of the play that seemed to draw me to it while I was thinking. It was the way it was performed and the emotion the actors put into the play that made it stand out in my mind. The reason why I bring this particular play up in relation to "Shakespeare Behind Bars" is because one of the main characters of the play also seems to be seeking some form of absolution for the acts he is forced to commit against his will, just like how the criminals in this movie say they were forced to commit their own crimes. Unfortunately, there might be some spoilers for "Way To Heaven" so read at your own risk.
First I'd like to look a little bit at the inmates of "Shakespeare Behind Bars" before addressing the play I chose. Over the course of the one and a half hour movie, we get to see into the minds of a group of inmates that have a chance to make positive memories for themselves after committing an act terrible enough to remove them from society. We see into their minds, hear how they were abused and witness what has become of them since then. We watch them struggle with their pasts as they try to relate with the characters they are to portray in "The Tempest" and work together to put on a performance almost next to their fellow inmates. In the end, they all manage to work through their own problems, and though they might not have found complete forgiveness for themselves, they have found that acting will help them towards that goal.
"Way to Heaven" also has characters struggling with their emotions in front of and around the audience. Rather than being performed in front of the entire audience on a stage, the audience is practically in a circle around the stage, watching the actors move in front of and around them. The audience watches on in silence as a red cross official come to grips with and try to defend his report years ago with what he saw at was should have been a Nazi concentration camp. He shouts in front of everyone that he knew something was wrong with what he saw before him, but since there was no concrete proof for him to show his superiors there was no way he could write anything other than what was acted in front of him. He admonishes himself for not opening a door that might have revealed the truth to him, because if he was wrong he would have only made himself look like a fool.
Then we also have the leader of the Jews who was at the camp while he struggles with a horrible choice he has to make. He needs to pick 100 people to live and act in front of the that same official so as to make the fantasy of a happy town look real, while sacrificing everyone else who couldn't make the cut. He tries to defend each person as much as he can until he is forced to ultimately make the horrible choice. One of the key points is when he hands the 100 names to the Nazi commandant and intentionally leaves himself out of the 100. Even though this "error" is corrected, he still hates the choice he had to make to try and spare the few he could from walking up the "Way to Heaven" that would lead to death.
Finding forgiveness for yourself for the terrible choices you have to, or have had to make is often seen as a major theme in stories. I believe "Way to Heaven" and "Shakespeare Behind Bars" both show this internal struggle in some depth. Watching the results of such a struggle or the struggle as it happens are part of what makes movies and plays so interesting to see. We'll likely never see if the people affected in "Shakespeare Behind Bars" will all come to terms with or become absolved, but we did get a chance to see how far they've come along so far.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
The Importance of Names in Volpore.
In Ben Jonson's Volpone nearly all the characters have symbolic names, usually related to animals in some way. The meanings of most of the characters names are revealed early in the play and the title itself contains the translation of Volpore's name to English, that being fox. Besides Volpone, there is also Voltore the vulture, Corvino the crow, and Corbaccio the raven whom he has been conning since before the play, and continues to con over the course of it. The symbolism of those animals hasn't changed much in most cultures between the time Jonson wrote the play and today.
First lets look at Volpone, the fox that leads all of the other characters around in circles until the end of the play. Volpone, who should be a simple well to do Italian nobleman is revealed as a simple greedy trickster at the beginning. He does the things you would expect a fox to do if it were a human too. Pretends to be dying, disguising himself as other people, and even fakes his own death in the end. He tricks others for his own gain until eventually he is forced to reveal himself when his confidant decides to trick him back. The obvious moral being that the trickster will always have to pay for his tricks in the end.
Followed by the sneaky fox, we have the carrion birds, Corvino, Voltore, and Corbaccio. Each of them try to live up to their names as they attempt to take all of Volpone's estate, similar to how the living bird feasts on the long since dead. Unfortunately for them, they are too greedy and gullible to realize that the fox they're after isn't anywhere near dead at all. They are tricked into giving him gifts for good health, and, for Corvino at least, to offer him his wife for a night just to show the endless depths of their hunger for Volpone's wealth. In the end all they gain is their own misfortune just like Volpore.
When the play comes to its close, all the greed that each character had has turned against them as Volpore reveals the truth. Of the three birds, Corvino is humiliated just as he tried to humiliate his wife, Corbaccio loses all he owns for trying to give it to Volpore, and Voltore loses his job trying to manipulate a court of law to his benefit. Finally, Volpore himself is sent to jail just like a thief deserves. A fitting reprisal for all of them.
However, Jonson's play is also quite true to how things usually end up for schemer's in today's world. One example was Bernie Madof who has been in jail for the damage he has done to many people by trying to rob them of money. Similarly, even though he wasn't specifically after money, Osama Bin laden has also had his "justice" as the White house put it, even though he desired to end life rather than steal money. These are but two of many such examples of how a person's greed for one thing or another tends to eventually bite back. "You reap what you sow" indeed.
First lets look at Volpone, the fox that leads all of the other characters around in circles until the end of the play. Volpone, who should be a simple well to do Italian nobleman is revealed as a simple greedy trickster at the beginning. He does the things you would expect a fox to do if it were a human too. Pretends to be dying, disguising himself as other people, and even fakes his own death in the end. He tricks others for his own gain until eventually he is forced to reveal himself when his confidant decides to trick him back. The obvious moral being that the trickster will always have to pay for his tricks in the end.
Followed by the sneaky fox, we have the carrion birds, Corvino, Voltore, and Corbaccio. Each of them try to live up to their names as they attempt to take all of Volpone's estate, similar to how the living bird feasts on the long since dead. Unfortunately for them, they are too greedy and gullible to realize that the fox they're after isn't anywhere near dead at all. They are tricked into giving him gifts for good health, and, for Corvino at least, to offer him his wife for a night just to show the endless depths of their hunger for Volpone's wealth. In the end all they gain is their own misfortune just like Volpore.
When the play comes to its close, all the greed that each character had has turned against them as Volpore reveals the truth. Of the three birds, Corvino is humiliated just as he tried to humiliate his wife, Corbaccio loses all he owns for trying to give it to Volpore, and Voltore loses his job trying to manipulate a court of law to his benefit. Finally, Volpore himself is sent to jail just like a thief deserves. A fitting reprisal for all of them.
However, Jonson's play is also quite true to how things usually end up for schemer's in today's world. One example was Bernie Madof who has been in jail for the damage he has done to many people by trying to rob them of money. Similarly, even though he wasn't specifically after money, Osama Bin laden has also had his "justice" as the White house put it, even though he desired to end life rather than steal money. These are but two of many such examples of how a person's greed for one thing or another tends to eventually bite back. "You reap what you sow" indeed.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Two different ways to Solve Poverty, A look at More in Comparison to Swift.
In Sir Thomas More's Utopia we are given an interesting way to solve many of the problems that have afflicted nations in one way or another for thousands of years. Poverty, thievery, greed and corruption are just a few of the things More covers in his story. However, More isn't the only writer that had offered an interesting way to deal with a nations woes, especially poverty. Several Centuries after More, Jonathan Swift also tried to tackle the effects of poverty on England in his well known Satire, The Modest Proposal. In their works Swift and More both offer a solution that can combat this plague that affects all nations, big and small. After comparing how each of these works addresses the same problem of poverty, we can get a better look on how people of two different times thought poverty could be solved, though each one has their own moral dilemmas involved in them.
In Utopia, poverty plays an important as the cause of much of a nations problems, though there are other things that cause the poverty in the first place. According to the character Raphael, thievery comes about from poverty because "A man of courage is more likely to steal than to cringe"(532) and from there worse crimes like murder occur when the punishments to combat thievery far exceed the crime. Considering that thievery leads to more poverty if the stolen items are not returned, poverty begets more poverty making the problem worse than it was before. In order to combat poverty at the root, Raphael suggests that a thief should "make restitution to the owner" and be "sentenced to hard labor"(534) for his crime, which he based on what he learned from another nation. This seems like a reasonable way to solve a problem brought about by poverty.
However, it's not until later in the story that a more concrete way to solve poverty is truly given, and that solution is itself. Raphael first deals with the problems caused by poverty as he gives his explanations to the Cardinal. Once he begins telling the story of the Utopians is when he gives a truly concrete solution, which at first sounds like it would be an ideal society. All the land and possessions of the country belong to everyone living inside, no poverty because everyone can easily acquire the most basic things they need to live and have their daily lives mapped out for them by their leaders. The punishments for breaking the few laws Raphael says they have are either solved with some form of slavery, or death if they are so severe as to concern the society as a whole.
On the other hand, in Swift's "A Modest Proposal", he feels the best way to deal with poverty is to make sure the poor have an easy way to make money. His suggestion, gruesome as it may be, is to turn babies into the new hit source of food for England. His reasoning behind this is that doing so would "lessen the number of papists", give "tenants something valuable of their own", children would only need to be raised for 1 year, and preventing husbands from committing domestic violence. All for the loss of the lives of an uncountable number of children, the problems of parenthood and society would all be solved, doesn't it sound great? While Swift's proposal might sound too good to be true for the rich, it is a satire and should always be remembered as such.
So which way is the best way to deal with poverty in the world? Would making everything everyones to use and forcing them to follow the plans of their leader or suffer some form of punishment be best? Poverty would definitely be solved , by removing the need for currency. Of course the other option would be to sell children as a delicacy which makes it a very hard choice. Hopefully sometime in the future the governments of the world will pick one way or the other and make life better for everyone.
Swif's Modest Proposal can be found here and is where I got my information from, since I didn't have my previous copy of Norton that contained it on hand.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
In Utopia, poverty plays an important as the cause of much of a nations problems, though there are other things that cause the poverty in the first place. According to the character Raphael, thievery comes about from poverty because "A man of courage is more likely to steal than to cringe"(532) and from there worse crimes like murder occur when the punishments to combat thievery far exceed the crime. Considering that thievery leads to more poverty if the stolen items are not returned, poverty begets more poverty making the problem worse than it was before. In order to combat poverty at the root, Raphael suggests that a thief should "make restitution to the owner" and be "sentenced to hard labor"(534) for his crime, which he based on what he learned from another nation. This seems like a reasonable way to solve a problem brought about by poverty.
However, it's not until later in the story that a more concrete way to solve poverty is truly given, and that solution is itself. Raphael first deals with the problems caused by poverty as he gives his explanations to the Cardinal. Once he begins telling the story of the Utopians is when he gives a truly concrete solution, which at first sounds like it would be an ideal society. All the land and possessions of the country belong to everyone living inside, no poverty because everyone can easily acquire the most basic things they need to live and have their daily lives mapped out for them by their leaders. The punishments for breaking the few laws Raphael says they have are either solved with some form of slavery, or death if they are so severe as to concern the society as a whole.
On the other hand, in Swift's "A Modest Proposal", he feels the best way to deal with poverty is to make sure the poor have an easy way to make money. His suggestion, gruesome as it may be, is to turn babies into the new hit source of food for England. His reasoning behind this is that doing so would "lessen the number of papists", give "tenants something valuable of their own", children would only need to be raised for 1 year, and preventing husbands from committing domestic violence. All for the loss of the lives of an uncountable number of children, the problems of parenthood and society would all be solved, doesn't it sound great? While Swift's proposal might sound too good to be true for the rich, it is a satire and should always be remembered as such.
So which way is the best way to deal with poverty in the world? Would making everything everyones to use and forcing them to follow the plans of their leader or suffer some form of punishment be best? Poverty would definitely be solved , by removing the need for currency. Of course the other option would be to sell children as a delicacy which makes it a very hard choice. Hopefully sometime in the future the governments of the world will pick one way or the other and make life better for everyone.
Swif's Modest Proposal can be found here and is where I got my information from, since I didn't have my previous copy of Norton that contained it on hand.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Conspiracy, Revolution and then Gerrard
Remember Remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why the gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot.
-Nursery Rhyme
Many people probably find this rhyme familiar, whether they are from England or have had a chance to enjoy the movie V for Vendetta. Even though we are now focused more on prose than poetry, this rhyme is still a reminder of a conspiracy that threatened to bring a country to its knees because of a few peoples dislike for their king. The king, and the majority of nobles would have died if the plot had come to fruition. On the other hand, the same people that decried a conspiracy took it upon themselves to remove a king. King Charles's execution would herald a large change in England's government. In Gerrard Winstanley's "To the Parliment and Army" we see one person's response to King Charles's execution and the drastic changes that he hoped would come.
First, let us take a look at King Charles, son of King James and every bit as willing to get involved in running the nation as his father was not according to the introduction. Described as more prudent and inflexible than his father, Charles's religious beliefs and choice of Laud as Archbishop would start the Revolution that would end in his Execution. While he would eventually be canonized for how he held himself up-to his execution, before then his death would be celebrated by some, like Gerrard.
In Gerrard's letter "To the Parliament and Army" he can easily be seen as one that was opposed to King Charles's reign. His saying of things like "Wheresoever we spy out kingly power, no man I hope shall be troubled to declare it, nor afraid to cast it out"(page 1752) and constant comparison of kingship to sin, leave his opinions all over his writing. However, his anger doesn't seem to just stop at kings when he soon focuses the brunt of his letter on what he believes the Parliament must do.
What starts as a reasonable request to no longer have a king on the throne, quickly changes to a call for drastic change in England. The way in which he writes the second part of his letter also makes it sound like he has the backing of the other people of England and that his letter is more of an ultimatum. The best example of this is at the end of his third point and goes into his fourth point. He writes "take away the power of lords of manors and of tithing priests, and the intolerable oppression of judges... and your work will be honorable" and follows it with "If this freedom be denied to the common people to enjoy the common land; then parliament, army and judges will deny equity and reason....And if equity be denied, then there can be no law but club law"(1756). He essentially tells parliament to remove the power of nobles, judges and priests and also to give let the land be free to own or else all law is guaranteed to fall apart just because those things didn't happen.
While his desire to have the land be free to use is probably a good idea, the consequences for not doing so, as he writes seem a little unbelievable. For all established law to fall apart because of Parliament choosing to not do what he wants seems a little far fetched. When the conspiracy mentioned in the beginning is looked at again, Gerrard's letter begins to sound more like he would have liked if it had happened. He is essentially asking for the same power vacuum that the gunpowder treason would have created. Perhaps Gerrard should have thought through his reasons better before trying to order the Parliament to do anything.
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason why the gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot.
-Nursery Rhyme
Many people probably find this rhyme familiar, whether they are from England or have had a chance to enjoy the movie V for Vendetta. Even though we are now focused more on prose than poetry, this rhyme is still a reminder of a conspiracy that threatened to bring a country to its knees because of a few peoples dislike for their king. The king, and the majority of nobles would have died if the plot had come to fruition. On the other hand, the same people that decried a conspiracy took it upon themselves to remove a king. King Charles's execution would herald a large change in England's government. In Gerrard Winstanley's "To the Parliment and Army" we see one person's response to King Charles's execution and the drastic changes that he hoped would come.
First, let us take a look at King Charles, son of King James and every bit as willing to get involved in running the nation as his father was not according to the introduction. Described as more prudent and inflexible than his father, Charles's religious beliefs and choice of Laud as Archbishop would start the Revolution that would end in his Execution. While he would eventually be canonized for how he held himself up-to his execution, before then his death would be celebrated by some, like Gerrard.
In Gerrard's letter "To the Parliament and Army" he can easily be seen as one that was opposed to King Charles's reign. His saying of things like "Wheresoever we spy out kingly power, no man I hope shall be troubled to declare it, nor afraid to cast it out"(page 1752) and constant comparison of kingship to sin, leave his opinions all over his writing. However, his anger doesn't seem to just stop at kings when he soon focuses the brunt of his letter on what he believes the Parliament must do.
What starts as a reasonable request to no longer have a king on the throne, quickly changes to a call for drastic change in England. The way in which he writes the second part of his letter also makes it sound like he has the backing of the other people of England and that his letter is more of an ultimatum. The best example of this is at the end of his third point and goes into his fourth point. He writes "take away the power of lords of manors and of tithing priests, and the intolerable oppression of judges... and your work will be honorable" and follows it with "If this freedom be denied to the common people to enjoy the common land; then parliament, army and judges will deny equity and reason....And if equity be denied, then there can be no law but club law"(1756). He essentially tells parliament to remove the power of nobles, judges and priests and also to give let the land be free to own or else all law is guaranteed to fall apart just because those things didn't happen.
While his desire to have the land be free to use is probably a good idea, the consequences for not doing so, as he writes seem a little unbelievable. For all established law to fall apart because of Parliament choosing to not do what he wants seems a little far fetched. When the conspiracy mentioned in the beginning is looked at again, Gerrard's letter begins to sound more like he would have liked if it had happened. He is essentially asking for the same power vacuum that the gunpowder treason would have created. Perhaps Gerrard should have thought through his reasons better before trying to order the Parliament to do anything.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Rumination: The Gift's we are Born with and the Strength of Teamwork.
Unfortunately, I was added to this English class a little too late to write about Beowulf in the first week, So I thought I'd re-read it and write about my opinions about certain parts of it. As I'm sure you all know, in Beowulf, we follow the exploits of the titular character as he uses his supernatural strength to combat unholy beings like Grendal and a Dragon. He gains fame for himself, his people, and for his God as he uses the strength he was born with to combat and eventually defeats all three monsters he is faced with. Despite the great strength he has that is praised throughout the epic, an important fact remains is that Other people, both living and dead, were there to help him in his battles.
When Beowulf fought against Grendal, he had a group of warriors with him. While it is true that they could do nothing to harm Grendal himself, One of them still lost his life in Grendal's attack as he was eaten, and likely lulled Grendal into a false sense of security and pride in his demonic strength. One life was given to take the life of Grendal, and if that warrior hadn't given Beowulf a chance to see the strength and speed of Grendal, he might have underestimated his foe.
Later, in the his fight with Grendal's mother, Beowulf once again receives help, this time from a long forgotten sword of Giant from ancient times and the armor he was wearing. In the epic, it says "The son of Ecgtheow would have surely perished and the Geats lost their warrior under the wide earth had the strong links and locks of his war-gear not helped save him."(lines 1550-1552) The armor he wore, and thus the smith who forged it were given praise for the help they gave. As for the Gaint's sword, whose owner was likely long gone, also seems instrumental in Beowulf's victory with the lines "It was easy for the Lord, the Ruler of Heaven, to redress the balance" (1554-1555) as Beowulf found the sword and slew Grendal's mother.
The poem makes it seem as though without the work put into his armor, and the sword of the long-deceased giant just happening to be there, Beowulf would have stood little chance of defeating his foe.
"Next thing, they say, the noble son of Weohstan
saw the king in danger at his side
and displayed his inborn bravery and strength.
He left the head alone, but his fighting hand
was burned when he came to his kinsman's aid.
He lunged at the enemy lower down
so that his decorated sword sank into its belly
and the flames grew weaker. " (2694-2701)
The final example comes much further along in the epic as Beowulf and Wiglaf fought the dragon. Here in this part of the poem, the epic makes it clear that Beowulf would have lost and the dragon lived, despite his great strength, if Wiglaf hadn't managed to injure their foe. In the end, the dragon's final stroke still ended Beowulf's life.
The poem's depiction of Beowful's battles show how even with great strength gifted by god, one person can only do so much. The gift of making great armor and weapons, superhuman strength, and even the unholy powers that Beowulf's enemies had can only do so much if the being given that gift chooses to work by them-self. Grendal's Mother, Grendal, and the dragon all tried to cause havoc alone and lost when the combined strengths of metal smith's, god-given strength, and the bonds that tie people together are used against them. Perhaps Beowulf's story is more a tale of what humans can do when they work together with the gifts they are born with, than what one well gifted man can do alone, as it seems at first.
When Beowulf fought against Grendal, he had a group of warriors with him. While it is true that they could do nothing to harm Grendal himself, One of them still lost his life in Grendal's attack as he was eaten, and likely lulled Grendal into a false sense of security and pride in his demonic strength. One life was given to take the life of Grendal, and if that warrior hadn't given Beowulf a chance to see the strength and speed of Grendal, he might have underestimated his foe.
Later, in the his fight with Grendal's mother, Beowulf once again receives help, this time from a long forgotten sword of Giant from ancient times and the armor he was wearing. In the epic, it says "The son of Ecgtheow would have surely perished and the Geats lost their warrior under the wide earth had the strong links and locks of his war-gear not helped save him."(lines 1550-1552) The armor he wore, and thus the smith who forged it were given praise for the help they gave. As for the Gaint's sword, whose owner was likely long gone, also seems instrumental in Beowulf's victory with the lines "It was easy for the Lord, the Ruler of Heaven, to redress the balance" (1554-1555) as Beowulf found the sword and slew Grendal's mother.
The poem makes it seem as though without the work put into his armor, and the sword of the long-deceased giant just happening to be there, Beowulf would have stood little chance of defeating his foe.
"Next thing, they say, the noble son of Weohstan
saw the king in danger at his side
and displayed his inborn bravery and strength.
He left the head alone, but his fighting hand
was burned when he came to his kinsman's aid.
He lunged at the enemy lower down
so that his decorated sword sank into its belly
and the flames grew weaker. " (2694-2701)
The final example comes much further along in the epic as Beowulf and Wiglaf fought the dragon. Here in this part of the poem, the epic makes it clear that Beowulf would have lost and the dragon lived, despite his great strength, if Wiglaf hadn't managed to injure their foe. In the end, the dragon's final stroke still ended Beowulf's life.
The poem's depiction of Beowful's battles show how even with great strength gifted by god, one person can only do so much. The gift of making great armor and weapons, superhuman strength, and even the unholy powers that Beowulf's enemies had can only do so much if the being given that gift chooses to work by them-self. Grendal's Mother, Grendal, and the dragon all tried to cause havoc alone and lost when the combined strengths of metal smith's, god-given strength, and the bonds that tie people together are used against them. Perhaps Beowulf's story is more a tale of what humans can do when they work together with the gifts they are born with, than what one well gifted man can do alone, as it seems at first.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Rumination: Children of the mind and body, Shakespear's 1st, 3rd, 12th and 15th Sonnets.
Shakespeare and his sonnets, or at least all of the sonnets that are included in the Norton Anthology give there reader a chance to look into the mind of a man who left behind numerous pieces of his life in poetic form. Interestingly in this quote from the biography that precedes the sonnets, "Shakespeare himself apparently had no interest in preserving for posterity the sum of his writings"(page 1059), stands in contrast to the themes of the first of his sonnets. However, not only does it contrast the themes , but it's interesting that without even trying many of his works survive to this day.
The Norton Anthology states that the first 17 of Shakespeare's sonnets, of which only 4 are given, "celebrate the beauty of a young man and urges him to bear children"(page 1061). With lines like "Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother. For where is she so fair whose uneared womb Disdains the tillage of thy hunsbandry"(lines 4-6) in sonnet 3, the wish of the speaker that young man in these lines of poetry father children is obvious. He further warns the young man of the consequences of death in the final couplet by saying "But if thou live rememb'red not to be, Die single, and thine image dies with thee"(lines 13-14). The speaker's meaning appears quite clear initially, through all 4 of the sonnets, each seeming to echo and reinforce the necessity of fatherhood and giving the penalty for not pursing that goal.
However, the 15th sonnet appears to change things slightly, and after careful reading begs the reader to take another look at the previous sonnets. In the 15th sonnet, the speaker likens the world to a stage, and seems at first to be continuing on the same trend as his previous sonnets. However, upon more careful reading, the sonnet can just as easily be compared to a the life of an actual play, like the ones Shakespeare is famous for. Could not these first few sonnets relate to a child of the mind, like a play, as to a child of the body?
"That this huge stage presenteth nought but shows,
Whereon the stars in secret influence comment;
When I perceive that men as plants increase,
Cheered and checked even by the selfsame sky,
Vaunt in their youthful sap, at height decrease,
And wear heir brave state out of memory;
Then the conceit of this inconstant stay
Sets you most rich in youth before my sight
Where wasteful Time debateth with decay
to change your day of youth to sullied night
And all in war with time for love of you,
As he takes from you I ingraft you new."(lines 3-14).
A Stage performance has a "day of youth'(line 12), when they are watched by all, and are just a easily decayed into "sullied night" as fewer and fewer people come to watch it. Perhaps to Shakespeare, as the sonnets writer, the time a play is "most rich in youth"(line 10) is after the manuscript is finished and the debut performance is soon to come. These lines can create the possibility that the speaker is referring to two kinds of children simultaneously if read carefully enough. When the speaker says he will "ingraft you new"(line 14) he could just as easily be creating a new play to be performed as he could be trying to father a child. The "stars" that "secretly influence comment"(line 4) could be the desires of the people or the nobles and the effect they have on stories a playwright must make. Line 5 which follows seems to emphasize the fact that its the cheers of the people that determine how long a play will live, one that receives no cheers is essentially a stillborn child of the mind.
Even though the meaning of the 4 sonnets at the beginning in the anthology seem obvious, perhaps there is more to them than is seen at first glance. After re-reading the previous three sonnet with this new knowledge, the same argument could be made for parts of them, different ideas can be mated together to form a new one just as a child is born from two different parents. People can leave ideas behind for the world to remember them by just as easily as they can leave children to carry their legacy.
Is it possible that Shakespeare means more than just the obvious with these sonnets? What do you as readers think about this interpretation I have come up with, is it feasible or impossible? Let me know what you think.
The Norton Anthology states that the first 17 of Shakespeare's sonnets, of which only 4 are given, "celebrate the beauty of a young man and urges him to bear children"(page 1061). With lines like "Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother. For where is she so fair whose uneared womb Disdains the tillage of thy hunsbandry"(lines 4-6) in sonnet 3, the wish of the speaker that young man in these lines of poetry father children is obvious. He further warns the young man of the consequences of death in the final couplet by saying "But if thou live rememb'red not to be, Die single, and thine image dies with thee"(lines 13-14). The speaker's meaning appears quite clear initially, through all 4 of the sonnets, each seeming to echo and reinforce the necessity of fatherhood and giving the penalty for not pursing that goal.
However, the 15th sonnet appears to change things slightly, and after careful reading begs the reader to take another look at the previous sonnets. In the 15th sonnet, the speaker likens the world to a stage, and seems at first to be continuing on the same trend as his previous sonnets. However, upon more careful reading, the sonnet can just as easily be compared to a the life of an actual play, like the ones Shakespeare is famous for. Could not these first few sonnets relate to a child of the mind, like a play, as to a child of the body?
"That this huge stage presenteth nought but shows,
Whereon the stars in secret influence comment;
When I perceive that men as plants increase,
Cheered and checked even by the selfsame sky,
Vaunt in their youthful sap, at height decrease,
And wear heir brave state out of memory;
Then the conceit of this inconstant stay
Sets you most rich in youth before my sight
Where wasteful Time debateth with decay
to change your day of youth to sullied night
And all in war with time for love of you,
As he takes from you I ingraft you new."(lines 3-14).
A Stage performance has a "day of youth'(line 12), when they are watched by all, and are just a easily decayed into "sullied night" as fewer and fewer people come to watch it. Perhaps to Shakespeare, as the sonnets writer, the time a play is "most rich in youth"(line 10) is after the manuscript is finished and the debut performance is soon to come. These lines can create the possibility that the speaker is referring to two kinds of children simultaneously if read carefully enough. When the speaker says he will "ingraft you new"(line 14) he could just as easily be creating a new play to be performed as he could be trying to father a child. The "stars" that "secretly influence comment"(line 4) could be the desires of the people or the nobles and the effect they have on stories a playwright must make. Line 5 which follows seems to emphasize the fact that its the cheers of the people that determine how long a play will live, one that receives no cheers is essentially a stillborn child of the mind.
Even though the meaning of the 4 sonnets at the beginning in the anthology seem obvious, perhaps there is more to them than is seen at first glance. After re-reading the previous three sonnet with this new knowledge, the same argument could be made for parts of them, different ideas can be mated together to form a new one just as a child is born from two different parents. People can leave ideas behind for the world to remember them by just as easily as they can leave children to carry their legacy.
Is it possible that Shakespeare means more than just the obvious with these sonnets? What do you as readers think about this interpretation I have come up with, is it feasible or impossible? Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)