Edward Taylor the Water Poet and Sir John Denham, by William Dobson (c. 1664)

Sir John Denham (1615-69)

Denham (on the right) was one of the most highly esteemed writers of the mid-seventeenth century and long after, along with Abraham Cowley and Edmund Waller.  The "long eighteenth century" especially prized these poets, though they are not read much now.  Denham's topographical Cooper's Hill (first edition, 1642) was widely read well into the nineteenth century for its focus on nature and national identity. Its intricate prosody, great use of the "heroic" couplet for special effects, and its framing of the outdoors in artistic space were immensely influential.  John Dryden championed this passage on the Thames:

O could I flow like thee, and make thy stream
My great example, as it is my theme!
Though deep, yet clear, though gentle, yet not dull,
Strong without rage, without o'er-flowing full.  (189-92)

The sound echoes the sense, as Alexander Pope would have it in An Essay on Criticism (1711). Denham's vowels, consonants, and meter are mimetic of the ever-flowing Thames, "the harmony of things." He made the water and the poetry a double-sided entity to explain the greatness of the river and, not inconsequentially, the perfect Augustan poetic style, showing rather than telling exactly
what couplets are supposed to do.

Samuel Johnson, in The Life of Denham, qualifies his praise: "The lines are in themselves not perfect, for most of the words are to be understood simply on one side of the comparison, and metaphorically on the other; and if there be any language which does not express intellectual operations by material images, into that language they cannot be translated. But so much meaning is comprised in so few words; the particulars of resemblance are so perspicaciously collected, and every mode of excellence separated from its adjacent fault by so nice a line of limitations; the different parts of the sentence are so accurately adjusted; and the flow of the last couplet is so smooth and sweet--that the passage however celebrated has not been praised above its merit. It has beauty peculiar to itself, and must be numbered among those felicities which cannot be produced at will by wit and labour, but must arise unexpectedly in some hour propitious to poetry."

Both passages are from Seventeenth-Century British Poetry 1603-1660, ed. Rumrich and Chaplin (New York: Norton, 2006), 483, 739.

Tayla on the Great Plague of 1665

The Great Plague, 1665-1666 (Tayla Skidgel)

The most devastating outbreak of bubonic plague to ravage London rose in April 1665 and fell by February 1666. Black rats that had stowed away on cargo ships arriving from foreign countries carried the fleas that hosted the deadly Yersinia pestis bacteria. Once on land, the rats gravitated to poor city regions with filthy, overcrowded streets. After the rats succumbed to the disease, the infested fleas found new human hosts. Generally, the poor were left to fend for themselves while the more affluent citizens escaped to the country. Victims of the plague endured treacherous pain and odds. The disease caused lymph nodes in the neck, armpits, and groin to swell and turn black; symptoms included vomiting, headache, and fever. Within two weeks of infection, sufferers had a thirty-percent chance of dying. At the height of the plague in September, over seven thousand Londoners died in one week alone. Modern estimates suggest that the disease took over 100,000 lives inside and outside of the city’s walls. In concurrence with the devastating loss of life, London experienced profound economic and social repercussions. All intercountry trade was halted and countless jobs were lost. King Charles II and Parliament were forced to flee to Oxford while the Lord Mayor of London and his alderman stayed in the city to uphold the King’s official edicts to contain the disease. The homes of the infected were locked, marked, and guarded by watchmen. Searchers scoured the city for the dead, collected the bodies in wagonloads, and buried them in communal pits each night. Public funeral services were strictly prohibited. Countless remedies were pursued to counteract the plague: thousands of cats and dogs were killed as suspected hosts; fires were lit to cleanse the air; and sores were bled to rid the body of sickness. Contemporary studies suggest that a combination of factors led to the eventual end of the outbreak. Both rats and humans may have developed a stronger immunity to the disease as the cold winter months and improved quarantine measures discouraged fleas and their rodent hosts. While the Great Fire of 1666 did not eradicate the plague, the destruction brought on by the fire did—ironically—provide Londoners with a chance to thwart future epidemics. Streets were rebuilt with wider passages to avoid overcrowding and sewage systems were modified to promote cleanliness.

Main source: http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/plague.html

Supplemental source: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/great-plague/

Picture source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/famouspeople/samuel_pepys/

Tara on the Great Fire of London, 1666

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/greatfire.jpg

The Great Fire of London (Tara Olivero)

What came to be known as the Great Fire of London started in the early hours of September 2, 1666, in Pudding Lane near London Bridge, at the house of a baker named Thomas Farynor. His family fled when they discovered the flames; the fire soon spread towards warehouses housing flammable goods near the Thames. The mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth, received news of the fire but didn’t take it seriously, and flames continued to spread north but were luckily stopped from spreading south across the river by an open space on the London Bridge. The most viable solution to fighting a fire of this size was to destroy the buildings in its path as the fire moved north, but the mayor wavered because of his concerns over the cost of rebuilding. Samuel Pepys, a diarist of the time period and a clerk of the Royal Navy, recommended to King Charles II that the buildings should indeed be pulled down; unfortunately, the strong wind allowed the fire to jump gaps of up to twenty houses, so bringing down single buildings didn’t help much. Londoners began to panic and started to flee as the fire continued to move through different neighborhoods of the City of London, towards the wealthy Cheapside and even towards St. Paul’s Cathedral, built in the Middle Ages. Pepys then suggested that widespread demolishment of the houses in the fire’s path might be more efficient to widen the gap and stop the fire from jumping so far from house-to-house, so the Navy began using gunpowder to demolish huge blocks of buildings in the fire’s future path. The demolition plans widened the break between flames when the fire reached a brick wall and a now-slowing wind began blowing the fire back south towards the river. The fire that began on a Sunday wasn’t fully extinguished until Thursday. With an official death toll of four, over 1/6th of the population of London was left homeless and 373 acres of the City were destroyed. The one positive effect of the fire is that many of the plague-infested rats were destroyed, slightly slowing the spread of the disease. Who was at fault for the fire was highly contested; it was blamed on foreigners at first and on Roman Catholics during the Popish Plot a decade later, though most now agree it was a result of the original baker or his maid not properly raking the ashes in their oven.

Main Resources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/great_fire_01.shtml; http://www.pepys.info/fire.html;http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/great-fire-of-london.asp

Examples for L322, Spring 2019

Charles II by John Michael Wright

Charles II (1630-85)

Charles II was king of England between 1660-85.  He is important as a monarch because his personality and governing style helped define the era of the Restoration, when the monarchy was reintroduced to England after an eighteen-year absence.  Several events occurred that had an important impact on Great Britain and influenced the founders of the United States of America in some ways.  The Restoration (1660) obviously reintroduced the monarchy after eighteen years of a Commonwealth and Protectorate.  In the same year, the king founded the Royal Society, which encouraged the spread of scientific knowledge and empiricism. In 1665, the last great outbreak of bubonic plague ravaged London. The Great Fire of 1666 destroyed most of what was left of medieval London, including St. Paul's Cathedral.  There were two wars with the Dutch (1667, 1672), and an enormous constitutional crisis in 1678 known as the Popish Plot, which involved the possible succession of his Catholic brother, James II.  Charles loved drama and supported the reopening of the theatres at the Restoration.  He was famously libertinish, with four titled mistresses and several illegitimate children. He tried to be an absolute ruler and closed Parliament in 1681, but this kind of governing style did not work.  He was indeed succeeded by his brother James on his death in 1685.

Main source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/charles_ii_king.shtml

-----------------------------------------------------

Stanzas from Dryden's poem, photo from St. John's College, Cambridge, U.K.

Annus Mirabilis

The Latin phrase means "year of wonders," but in the present context, it refers to an important poem by John Dryden (1631-1700), the most important English poet and playwright in the second half of the seventeenth century.  It was published in 1667, and at first seems to be about the Great Fire of London, which destroyed four-fifths of the old city, spread by heat and tinder, since most of London was still made of wood. But the poem is mostly about the war with the Dutch, ruminates on history and events and is certainly occasional.  It's a public utterance about something of public concern. Though much Restoration and eighteenth-century poetry is in "heroic" couplets, Annus Mirabilis is in pentameter quatrains rhyming abab. Clearly Dryden thought this form was better for telling a story. The website I consulted mentions the above stanzas as important because they give a message of hope after such a disaster.  I would add that the poet uses simple language, almost colloquial, to get this message across.  It is not a short poem, and must have been interesting to its original audience.

Sources:  the poem itself:   https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dryden/john/annus_mirabilis/poem.html

the site Historic UK on the fire:  http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryMagazine/DestinationsUK/Survivors-of-the-Great-Fire-of-London/

the St. John's College page on the poem: http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/john-dryden-annus-mirabilis-1666

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

King Charles II being presented with the symbol of hospitality, the pineapple that had just been grown in his hothouse, the first in England. In the background is a formal garden c1675-80 – Oil on Canvas, artist unknown courtesy Royal Collection © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

The Restoration


The term Restoration usually refers to two things in English history. A dictionary definition would tell us that it is the year the monarchy was restored in England, 1660. But it is more than this. Mainly it signifies a very definite period from 1660 to about 1680, centering on the king at the time, Charles II, and several important events like the Plague of 1665 and the Fire of 1666. It was a definite culture and perspective shift after nearly twenty years of Puritan rule by Oliver Cromwell and Parliament, who were victors in the English Civil War and who executed Charles's father Charles I in 1649 and abolished the monarchy. Morals were different, and it was allegedly a more licentious time. The king was open about his mistresses and had an aristocratic attitude toward marriage and relationships. The Puritans in this way were probably more like us. They didn't like adultery and hypocrisy and were in favor of companionate marriage, where men and women were more equal and tried to be faithful and godly. Plays were very frank about these same matters, making fun of old Puritans but also the new Restoration types.  Comedies tended to be satirical and critical of society. The Earl of Rochester wrote obscene verse that commented on the court and broke literary conventions.  Yet there were other developments.  Aphra Behn, the first professional woman writer in England, wrote plays and competed in a male-dominated arena.  Mary Astell was an important feminist who argued that women should avoid marriage because it was bad for them, and that they should empower themselves through education. The Royal Society was founded in 1660, which helped spread the new science. During this time there were important discoveries like cells, germs, and the circulation of the blood.

source:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/restoration-england

Second Exam L220 Summer (1) 2017

Second Exam: The Merchant of Venice and Antony and Cleopatra

Due Friday, 23 June, 9 a.m. via email: stapletm@ipfw.edu

4-5 pp. 

Shakespeare seemed to have loved women, and infused their roles in his plays with as much vigor and subtlety as he believed the boys playing their parts could manage credibly in their impersonations of femininity. This was at odds with early modern culture, which promulgated misogyny and stereotyping that any twenty-first century woman would ruefully recognize. However, some commentators believe that Shakespeare could not escape the limitations in which his society was so deeply dyed.  Based on your reading of Portia and Cleopatra, and to a lesser extent Charmian and Nerissa (and Viola and Rosalind if you like), what do you think? 

Here are some passages to get you started.  Feel free to incorporate others.

If it be love indeed, tell me how much (Ant. 1.1)

Excellent falsehood!
Why did he marry Fulvia, and not love her? (Ant. 1.1)

She is cunning past man's thought (Ant. 1.2).

I am quickly ill and well,
So Antony loves (Ant. 1.3)

As well a woman with an eunuch play'd
As with a woman (Ant. 2.5).

These hands do lack nobility, that they strike
A meaner than myself; since I myself
Have given myself the cause (Ant. 2.5)

Show me, my women, like a queen: go fetch
My best attires: I am again for Cydnus,
To meet Mark Antony (Ant. 5.2)

My resolution's placed, and I have nothing
Of woman in me: now from head to foot
I am marble-constant; now the fleeting moon
No planet is of mine. (Ant. 5.2)


The crow doth sing as sweetly as the lark,
When neither is attended, and I think
The nightingale, if she should sing by day,
When every goose is cackling, would be thought
No better a musician than the wren.
How many things by season season'd are
To their right praise and true perfection! (MV 5.1)

There's something tells me, but it is not love,
I would not lose you; and you know yourself,
Hate counsels not in such a quality.
But lest you should not understand me well,--
And yet a maiden hath no tongue but thought,--
I would detain you here some month or two
Before you venture for me. (MV 3.2)

You see me, Lord Bassanio, where I stand,
Such as I am: though for myself alone
I would not be ambitious in my wish,
To wish myself much better; yet, for you
I would be trebled twenty times myself;
A thousand times more fair, ten thousand times more rich;
That only to stand high in your account,
I might in virtue, beauties, livings, friends,
Exceed account; but the full sum of me
Is sum of something, which, to term in gross,
Is an unlesson'd girl, unschool'd, unpractised;
Happy in this, she is not yet so old
But she may learn; happier than this,
She is not bred so dull but she can learn;
Happiest of all is that her gentle spirit
Commits itself to yours to be directed,
As from her lord, her governor, her king. (MV 3.2)

writing for 12 June: Antony and Cleopatra

Antony and Cleopatra, Act 1.  In your assigned scene, find two seemingly disparate lines and explain how they actually work together.

Zeke, 1.1

At the beginning of the play Antony swoons over Cleopatra and attempts to explain how much she means to him after she says, “If it be love indeed, tell me how much” (AC 1.1.15).  While seemingly unconnected, Antony’s response to a summon from Caesar shows not only how he tries to grant her earlier request but also reveals his true feelings about Cleopatra.  Complaining about the messenger, Antony says, “Let Rome in Tiber melt and the wide arch / Of the ranged empire fall.  Here is my place”  (AC 1.1.36-37).  He uses the intrusion as an attempt to further pronounce his affection for the queen, explaining that the empire is of no consequence compared to her. 

His dialogue also bares similarity to the Cleopatra’s earlier line.  In both instances, the person tries getting what they want verbally.  This alludes to future circumstances in the play where characters say one thing and then do something else.  For example, Antony agrees to marry another even though he has just professed his feelings for Cleopatra.  This also brings up speculation as to whether Antony actually loves her as much as he says he does.  If he truly did, he would have heard from Caesar’s messenger immediately when Cleopatra asked him to.  As the old saying goes, actions speak louder than words.  However, instead he chose to complain about the intrusion and sidestep her request by flattering her.  In this way, he is actually looking out for his own self-interests and not Cleopatra’s. 

Abbey 1.2

This scene starts out with Cleopatra’s two attendants, Charmin and Iras, asking a fortune-teller to reveal their futures. They are told they have the same fortune. Charming is furious and tells the fortune-teller off. Then Cleopatra comes into the room complaining that Antony, her lover, is now going to Rome again and not coming home. She sends a follower after him, but then changes her mind. He is coming back first so she runs to hide from him. A messenger then appears to give Anthony a message about loosing the battle, and says he has another message, however he doesn't really want to give that message. Anthony tells him to and he tells him that Anthony’s wife, Fulvia, is dead. The follower that Cleopatra sent after Anthony arrives and tries to comfort him. However Anthony things that his wondering mind, and commitment to Cleopatra is the reason his wife is dead. Anthony then leaves and returns to Rome.

            The first line, or rather lines I choose was:

            “Our worser thoughts heavens mend. Alexas! (to SOOTHSAYER ) Come, his

            fortune, his fortune! Oh, let him marry a woman that cannot go, sweet Isis, I

            beseech thee, and let her die too, and give him a worse, and let worse follow

            worse, till the worst of all follow him laughing to his grave, fifty-fold a cuckold!

            Good Isis, hear me this prayer, though thou deny me a matter of more weight,     

            good Isis, I beseech thee!” (1.2.64-71)

            The second line I choose was:

            “Fulvia thy wife is dead.”  (1.2.131)

            The reason I choose these two lines is because while they may seem unrelated they come together quite nicely. The first set of lines is spoken by Charmin. She is very mad that her and Iras have the same fortunes. She then wishes that Fortune-teller will marry someone he can not satisfy, she will cheat on him, and then she dies. Iras does responds, and agrees, saying that he will get the fortune he deserves. I related it to the second line because moments after this all happens Anthony gets the news that his wife is dead. Here is Charmin and Iras, who are Cleopatra’s attendants wishing death to a man’s wife. Then moments later Cleopatra’s lover gets the news his wife is dead. To me this seems like Shakespeare is setting this up for something, either that or it was complete coincidence… But one will never know. Also they are wishing a cheating spouse on a man, saying it is the worse thing a spouse can do, when they know that their mistress is sleeping with a married man and he is a cheater. It all seems condescending when they know what is happening with Anthony and Cleopatra.

Laura 1.3

In 1.3, Cleopatra is looking for Antony and asks her attendant Alexas to find him. In instructing Alexas to retrieve Antony, she says “I did not send you. If you find him sad,/ Say I am dancing; if in mirth, report/ That I am sudden sick” (1.3.4-6). Cleopatra gives Alexas opposing states of being to report to Antony, but this is in line with her volatile and manipulative nature. Her instructions seem contradictory, but ultimately whatever Alexas tells Antony, it is intended to direct his attention back to Cleopatra, and perhaps also to create trouble. She cannot be satisfied by an even-keeled relationship with Antony. Rather, she seems to thrive off of creating disharmony between the two of them and provoking Antony’s anger. Her other attendant Charmian recognizes this, and advises Cleopatra that the way she treats Antony is probably not the best strategy for getting him to love her in return. She suggests that Cleopatra instead submit to Antony on every front, always letting him have his way. Cleopatra disagrees: “Thou teachest like a fool the way to lose him” (1.3.10). Cleopatra believes that an overly-theatrical game of cat-and-mouse is the best way to keep Antony’s affection. She demonstrates her tactic when Antony enters the scene and she suddenly becomes standoffish, telling him to stand farther away, insisting he’s betrayed her, and calling him a liar. She taunts him when he says that he must go, telling him that his love is fickle and that he has forgotten her. Though Antony seems to become angry with her, the scene resolves with Cleopatra acknowledging the game she’s been playing and asking Antony’s forgiveness, and she wishes him victory. Despite Charmian’s warning, Cleopatra’s method seems to work, at least for now—Antony takes his leave, but says that even as he goes, his heart remains with Cleopatra.

Kayla 1.4

“Our great competitor: from Alexandria/This is the news: he fishes, drinks, and wastes

The lamps of night in revel; is not more man-like/Than Cleopatra;”- Octavius

            “Let his shames quickly/Drive him to Rome: 'tis time we twain”. –Octavius

            Both of these lines, spoken by Octavius Caesar to Lepidus, are referencing to Antony. Caesar is upset and annoyed that Antony is currently spending his time living by Cleopatra’s side living in a luxurious and wasteful lifestyle. He condemns Antony, but at the same time with the second line he hopes that news of war will spur Antony into action and he will return home where Octavius hopes that he can train Antony to be a better soldier and leader.  This is preceding of course the events that will ultimately lead to a war between Octavius and Cleopatra, where Antony will ultimately side with Cleopatra against his fellow kinsman. Shakespeare’s take on these events truly is interesting, as it makes Octavius and Antony’s relationship seem all the more personal and tragic. However the depiction of Cleopatra in all of this seems a bit stereotypical and depicts her as a jealous seductive woman. She is charismatic and intimidating but at the same time seems childish and overtly manipulative. That’s not to say that Cleopatra herself was not manipulative considering her history, but Shakespeare portrayal makes her seem more like a vixen versus a cunning ruler. Nevertheless this act is foreshadowing the final conflict of this play.

Isabelle 1.5

In Shakespeare’s play, Antony and Cleopatra, in act one scene five, Cleopatra contradicts herself, more specifically about Antony. The statesman has just left her as civil war is about to break out in Rome. He has also just found out that his wife Flavia is dead. Cleopatra expresses her distress at his departure to her eunuch Mardian and Charmian. Then the messenger Alexas arrives and gives Cleopatra a pearl with a message from Antony. Cleopatra is so troubled that she has sent nearly twenty messengers herself to Antony, on a daily basis, and says she will do so even if it means she sends everyone from Egypt, leaving no population. It all seems so over the top and deep or at least desperate love.

However, from one of the quotations I chose, I believe it is more desperate than anything. Cleopatra refers to her previous affairs with Caesar and Pompey, those of similar statute to Antony. Within the same scene, she tells Alexas not to compare Antony to Caesar. This is contradictory in that Cleopatra mentioned him herself, asking if she loved Caesar like this, begging for a comparison. Cleopatra is the only one allowed to say anything about Caesar as she does not like what her attendants have to say on the matter. With or without Cleopatra trying to look at Caesar and Antony side by side, there are definite similarities. It seems as if Cleopatra may not be over Caesar.

In the first quote, “Broad-fronted Caesar, / When thou wast here above the ground, I was / A morsel for a monarch. And great Pompey / Would stand and make his eyes grow in my brow. / There would he anchor his aspect, and die / With looking on his life. (1.1.31-36),” Cleopatra refers to previous affairs almost fondly. She recalls aspects of how they looked and how she was fit to be with a king. This belief is not lost in her romance with Antony, who has a lot of political stout and later becomes one of the three to rule part of the kingdom.

Though Cleopatra again names Caesar, she threatens to hurt anyone that dares compare him to Antony. “By Isis, I will give thee bloody teeth / If thou with Caesar paragon again / My man of men. (1.1.73-75).” Despite the pugnaciousness of this claim, she is greatly exaggerating and this is just a continuation of her complaints. Cleopatra mentions Caesar in comparison with Antony more than once in this scene but threatens to hurt anyone else that does so. Even though they are no longer lovers, Cleopatra is very possessive of Caesar similar to how she is reluctant to let Antony leave. Cleopatra may not be willing to let others see what Caesar and Antony have in common, but it is happening whether she likes it or not.

Writing for 6 June

 

 

Everybody: one of the great speeches in Shakespeare: "The quality of mercy" (MV 4.1).  What does it mean, and how could it be construed as ironic, given the play as a whole?