The Tamer Tamed Prologue and Epilogue: From Paranoid to Reparative (Two Entries)

From the Prologue

Ladies, to you, in whose defense and right (1)

Fletcher's brave muse prepared herself to fight

A battle without blood, 'twas well fought, too,

(The victory's yours though got with much ado)

...

Yet not to go too far

In promises from this our female war,

we do entreat the angry men would not

expect the mazes of a subtle plot,

Set speeches, high expressions; and what's worse,

In a true comedy, politic discourse.
The end we aim as is to make you sport; (15)

Fletcher's The Tamer Tamed opens with a prologue that sets the expectations of the entire play. Essentially the Prologue claims that this play is "for women" and offers some hope for any women who might have watched Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew and felt the injustices of how Katherina was treated. The prologue openly states that "The victory's yours" but by the end of the play it seems rather contrary to the reality. This prologue is like a movie trailer baiting us into another rom-com that ends up with Katherine Heigl's strong willed quirky character finding out that the douche bag Barstool host is actually a softy once you get to know him. Is this Fletcher cashing in on Shakespeare's play by openly recognizing the hardships of women and making them feel good about a new play that offers the new wife, Maria, the chance to put Petruchio in his place? To let women live out a fantasy of giving men a taste of their own medicine? The prologue seems to answer these questions and takes away from the proto-feminist framing the prologue set the play to be and managed to emulate up until the end.

From the Epilogue

The tamer's tamed, but so, as nor the men

Can find one just cause to complain of, when

They filthy do consider, in their lives

They should not reign as tyrants o'er their wives.

Nor can the women from this precedent

insult or triumph, it being aptly meant

To teach both sexes due equality

And, as they stand bound, to love mutually.

If this effect, arising form a cause

Well laid and grounded, may deserve applause,

We something more than hope our honest ends

Will keep the men, and the women, too, our friends.

Reader, she happily ran off to continue their marriage. 
The epilogue takes the decisive victory away from women in the line "To teach both sexes due equality". We should appreciate the fact that if both sexes learn to treat one enough with respect and recognized equality then everyone wins. By extension that means women wins! But it really is not the same. The epilogue claims that men "should not reign as tyrants o'er their wives" and follows it with "nor can the women from this precedent insult or triumph". A man should not be cruel and dictate his wife's life, but even if he does the wife should never use harsh language to express her dissatisfaction. This is the heart of the problem women have been facing that is just now starting to really be considered with the #MeToo movement. Women have been taught to not respond to men's anger. They have been trained to fear that their words, even in defense of themselves, will be met with violence. Here is Fletcher giving an example of that warning back in the 1600's!!

Fletcher seems to have some okay intentions here but they are clearly  influenced by the patriarchy. Had Maria just run off to be happy with her fellow widows (Byanca got a taste of freedom and more importantly, Fletcher redeems her a bit from Taming of the Shrew by allowing her the room to recognize how terrible Petruchio was to her sister), we would have gotten a longer lasting lesson of marital equality that would have done wonders for generations to come.

I will give Fletcher the benefit of the doubt because of his "domestic arrangement" to Francis Beaumont. It seems they  both were up against the patriarchy themselves. When considering that possibility I really pull back and see their own moves of tactical agency within their works. The two men handle female characters more realistically than some other writers of their time. Beaumont recognizes the sometimes overwhelming affections of a wife in Nell and showcases her desires beyond the domestic sphere. Fletcher gives Maria the chance to show off her incredible intelligence as she out matches wit against Petruchio. So even though they both seem to pull back on letting the women truly self actualize beyond their marriages, it says something about the fact that they gave them so much agency in their confines and granted them more than could have been expected.


At the end of the day, I am okay with their soft handed endings for the women. I can appreciate the gentle heart they allow the women to have. But I can also really get down with subverting that idea too.

Petruchio Sucks and Even his Friends are Tired of His Shit

Act IV Scene IV (Lines 11-24)

Hortensio : Say as he says, or we shall never go.

Katherina: Forward, I pray, since we have come so far,
And be it moon, or sun, or what you please;
And if you please to call it a rush-candle,
Henceforth I vow it shall be so for me.

Petruchio: I say it is the moon.

Katherina: I know it is the moon.

Petruchio: Nay, then you lie; it is the blessed sun.

Katherina: Then, God be bless'd, it is the blessed sun;
But sun it is not, when you say it is not;
And the moon changes even as your mind.
What you will have it nam'd, even that it is,
And so it shall be so for Katherine.

Hortensio: Petruchio, go thy ways, the field is won.

I am so upset that Hortensio's line are not in this clip because his subtle remarks really steal the scene, and just the look on his face (and Elizabeth Taylor's!) really sums up just how exasperating Petruchio is throughout Taming of the Shrew. This scene is the poster child example for gaslighting, which is psychological manipulation to make the subject question their own sanity. In this case Petruchio uses it against Katherina to get her to believe the sun is actually the mom because he desperately needs to assert his faux-thority over her. Of all the petty things Petruchio picks to be right about, he picks the celestial source of lighting. He picks an undeniable fact and I wonder if Shakespeare includes this bat-shit crazy moment to reflect the human error of accepting blatant lies because it is easier to agree than to disagree with crazy. Despite this, the audience should most relate to poor Hortensio who just wants to get to where they are going. He encourages Katherina to just agree with Petruchio so he will let their journey continue. This is the silent majority represented and in a way is expresses the tactical agency that everyone around Petruchio seems to need to survive him, including his friends.

P.S. I sent out a question on Twitter to the official Grey's Anatomy account to see if the semi-recent "You are the sun" speech made my Christina Yang was a reference to this. I did not receive an answer but I did get a few heart reacts which really sums up all you can hope to gain from Twitter.

Don Quixote: In Which I Did Not Notice the Subtitling Until AFTER I Made the Paradise Lost Entry Titles Modeled After Umbrella Chronicles

Chapter Two:

"There was nothing in the inn but some pieces of fish, called in Castile pollack, in Andalusia codfish, in some parts ling, and in others troutlets, for they had no other fish to offer him. "Provided there are many little trout", answered Don Quixote, "They will supply the place of one salmon thought, for it is the same to me whether I receive eight single reals one piece of eight. Moreover, those troutlets may turn out to be like unto veal. Which is better than beef, and kid, which is superior to goat. Be that as it may, let it come in quickly, for the toil and weight of arms cannot be sustained without the good government of the guts."

This scene is all apart of Don Quixote's mass delusion of granduer. He takes the most pathetic bit of fish, names it five times, then says it will be as impressive as any finer meal and his only request is that it "come in quickly". We should worry about the man who can attribute such importance to such a small thing, but we should also learn from this example a level of gratitude that most of us never reach.  Cervantes is going to beat poor Quixote up over and over again until he finally breaks his spirit for optimism towards the end. And while we might be witnessing a man unraveling from the pressures of society, maybe we should cut him a bit of slack. I wonder if Cervantes feels that Quixote is a bit of himself. What writer of fiction has not been made to feel trivial for their ideas? Is not the act of writing fiction a coping mechanism of its own kind?

Authors are repetitive when they want us to take notice of a moment. How is having your main character be repetitive any different? Is Cervantes really teaching a lesson, or subjecting himself to the repetitive negatively most writers have faced?

Either way, how can you NOT love this Hufflepuff of a knight? I want to strangle him in all his Derpy optimism.

P.S. About that title:
Well that is embarrassing. Now I have to reconsider Umbrella Chronicles titling and its potential literary reference of its own. I signed up for this though, the whole see-all-the-referential-stuff thing and divining its meaning. Hooray for literature degrees.

Place Holder For The Entry I Won My Way Out Of

I needed a quick break from thinking about how I put off doing all these entries over the course of MONTHS versus the majority in one day. This break included time to make a gin and tonic (my back up plan for being a failed literary scholar) and to grab a bag of trail mix.

To anyone reading this blog in the future as an example of a Common Place Book know two things: DO NOT PUT THIS SHIT OFF. It is not shit. It is actually really fun and I appreciate the ways it has made me think more critically about what I have been reading.
Two: Seriously, do not put this project off. Imagine just how much funnier MY blog would have been if I had taken the appropriate amount of time? So many missed opportunities for gifs.

I am really proud of my little team for annihilating that vocabulary game and earning us one less entry in this project. Why? Because I really did not enjoy Mankind so skipping a second entry there makes me really happy.

Cheers to gin and tonics and literary analysis.

Paradise Lost Book IV: In Which Satan's Imposter Syndrome Intensifies

Artificer of fraud; and was the first
That practisd falsehood under saintly shew,
Deep malice to conceale, couch't with revenge:
Yet not anough had practisd to deceive (121-124)


The word "Artificer" sticks out to me because of it rhymes with "Lucifer" and I feel that Milton was clever enough to make that connection purposefully here. There seems to be an unspoken slight here to God. According to Christianity, God is the creator of all. Giving the claim of creating fraud takes away a tiny bit of the power from the all creator, God. It is subversive because realistically most would not be so offended to see their "God" removed from the responsibility of something negative, however, from a jealous all-powerful ruler point of view, it might not go over so well. But the other thing Book IV of Paradise Lost does is create a lot of self doubt within Satan. This vulnerability is incredibly enduring. Milton manipulates his audience to relate to Satan, the quintessential evil of all history practically. In context of his disdain for the Crown, Milton creates a space to question the divinity of the monarch and their right to rule. He balances the right amount of power with self doubt for readers to feel bad for Satan, and this room for empathy teacher the readers to look for other opportunities to reconsider the positions in which they were dictated.

P.S.
I could not help but make another Umbrella Academy inspired title.

Paradise Lost Book I: In Which We Learn Satan is a Bad Boy

Here we may reign secure; and in my choice
to reign is worth ambition, though in hell:
better to reign in hell than serve in heaven (261-264)

Despite the title of this post I am not going to make an Umbrella Academy reference no matter how tempting it is. (Luther sucks, Five for Number One!)

The story trope of the son longing to take reign over his father is pretty old. For the Greeks it started prior to humankind with Kronos and Jupiter. For Milton is just so happens to be an allegory for his feelings towards the Crown. But let's focus on Satan here. He says, /in my choice/ to reign is worth ambition/ the syntax makes the reader question if the meaning a bit more than might be considered necessary. The hang up is how he says that he chooses to reign and he paid for that with ambition. This seems a bit awkward to say but Milton is using it to stress a point. We America's clearly think of being in charge as something you HAVE to aspire to and earn with a heck (hehe) of a lot of ambition. For Milton, he gets a monarch who needs nothing more than the right birth certificate. The pointed idea that it is "evil" to go against the divinely appointed leader/"God" comes across clearly when taking in the context. 

Milton's power move of re-imaging all the characters of the bible is unmatched. Anyone making that move today just looks like a knock off. Perhaps the most interesting move Milton's allegory of the Crown makes is wrapping it under the layer of religion. It pointedly judges but cleverly hides behind religion's big power of uncontested righteousness. To question God and religion is dangerous in any era, so it seems like the right way to hide your intentions. Ask the question: Did Satan win? Just do not ask the Christians or the Crown.

Francis Beaumont Misdirects Nell

The Knight of the Burning Pestle

Introduction Lines 50-51

Wife
By your leave, gentlemen, all, I'm something troublesome;
I'm a stranger here

Just how meta was Francis Beaumont being when he wrote The Knight of the Burning Pestle? First of all, he wrote a play that takes place during a play. He filled his play with social commentary relevant to the theater in his time. So it is safe to say that Beaumont understood nuance and specifically understood the nuances of a gendered theatrical field. Nell's line is a bit of a joke about how women were not allowed to act on stage, that is why she is "a stranger here" as she joins her husband on stage. The prior line shows that Beaumont did not have the intention of outwardly allowing a women on a stage, within a stage. Instead, having Nell say that she is "troublesome" foreshadows all of her behavior afterwards. She instructs her husband to interject when she has an idea, she offers up actors, and stops the children to fawn over them. She is domestically troublesome and the subtleties of placing a women in this role hold way more weight than the annoying George on stage. Nell's character seems to be reasons why a women should not be allowed on the stage. She will be distracted, she will be too motherly, she will make suggestions that have nothing to do with the plot, she will get her husband involved and that will be one more man to deal with.

Beaumont might not have been commenting on women being allowed on the stage or within a theater company. But I find it hard to believe that a man with the ability to layer so many ideas onto one another, was not making some kind of gendered statement when it came to placing a women on a stage in the manner that he did.

Don Quixote: Safety Blanket Armor

"The first thing he did was to refurbish some rusty armor that had belonged to his great grandfather and had lain moldering in a corner. He cleaned it and repaired it as best he could, but he found one great defect: instead of a complete helmet there was just the simple morion. This want be ingeniously remedied by making a kind of visor out of pasteboard, and when it was fitted to the morion, it looked like an entire helmet." pg. 59

The joke is on Don Quixote, literally. Step one in becoming a knight? Get some armor! This moment happens so early on that it is almost forgettable. If he did not have to stop to fix his helmet and the embarrassment it caused from time to time, we might forget he had to get his hands on the armor in the first place. We take this moment pretty straight forward; crazy guy decides he is a knight and gets dressed up for some LARPing. But I see it a little bit differently if I stop to think about what that moment might have meant to Quixote. The whole point is that Quixote longs for the romantic tales he grew up reading, he longs for it so much that he decides to life out his DnD character in real life. Would not someone looking for that level of escape elicit some help these days? Quixote is putting on more than just physical armor, he is putting on the armor that is going to protect him from all the naysayers. Like Linus' blanket in The Peanuts, or Tommy Pickle's trusty screwdriver in The Rugrats, Don Quixote is wearing his comfort. Considering that armor is a form of actual protection, it makes sense that Quixote extends the protection to his delusion.

In modern times we consider this level of fixation on any subject (unless it is making someone money...) a bad thing. Thinking back to any time outside of the modern era brings to mind tons of work and just not a very pleasant life. Did someone get so fixated on anything, other than survival, that they had time to inspire Cervantes' Don Quixote? Or did Cervantes project a desire for the situation (and as a writer) to tell his story? I am going to need to do some major research on this. But from a biographical standpoint, I really want to know what inspired this book beyond its seemingly didactic analysis.

Taming of the Name: Shakespeare (With a hint of Romeo and Juliet)

Taming of the Shrew
Act II Scene I

Petruchio
Good morrow, Kate- for that's your name, I hear. (128)

Katherina

Well have you heard, but something hard of hearing:
They call me Katherine that do talk of me.

Petruchio
You lie, in faith, for you are call'd plain Kate, (131)

Romeo and Juliet
Act II Scene II 991

Juliet
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose (991)
By any other name would smell as sweet. (992)

Taming of the Shrew is considered one of Shakespeare's earliest plays and the piece set us up for some interesting motifs that pop up in other places. This scene with Katherina and Petruchio seems like a mild annoyance at first. Petruchio refuses to call Katherina by her preferred name and makes a huge show of gaslighting to tell her that he is going to call her Kate. Katherina has not given up by this point so she is willing to argue a bit for the sake of her name. It seems so simple but this scene is important for acknowledging the power of personal identity. Petruchio is there to "tame" her but what he is really doing is forcing a women against her will to confirm to his wishes. By the end of the play Katherina is "tamed" and I do not believe this is Stockholm syndrome. She has just completely given up but I argue that Katherina would have played the long game. The tactical agency game, at least she would have played had Fletcher not killed her off for the sake of his sequel The Tamer Tamed.

Just to jump ahead for a moment, I wanted to mention Romeo and Juliet because of the whole name thing in Taming. Juliet makes a valid point when she comments on the essence of being. She says, /by any other nam would smell as sweet/ (992) which leads me to believe that Shakespeare has been thinking about the whole meaning of a name for a while. Is this an attempt to add to the discussion about taking away Katherina's name in Taming? We, sadly, do not get to find out. But it is fun to think about it.

Mankind wishes us well.

MANKIND
     Of the earth and of the clay we have our propagation;
By the providence of God thus be we derivate-
To whose mercy I recommend this whole congregation;
I hope unto his bliss ye be all predestinate. (Act I lines 186-189)

A morality play has the intention of teaching a lesson to the audience and it does not make many stretches for the imagination. Characters are named for who/what they represent and their intentions are straightforward.  The very first lines of the play's protagonist set the stage for the entire piece's intentions. For a little better understanding, I turned to the OED to clarify two words that I understood but wanted more depth.

From the OED:

Propagation: The production of offspring; the action or practice of causing a people, race, etc., to continue in being by procreation; reproduction; (also) the action of causing a plant, animal, etc., to produce offspring or multiply by natural processes.

Predestinate: Destined by divine will, foreordained; predestined to a specified fate or to do something.

These four lines are dripping in religious ideology. First we can examine the first line to mean two things, one: that man is made from clay and, two: Mankind is commenting on the ground around him that he will farm. Farming is a pretty similar idea of something being made from earth. So ideally we see an image of Mankind living in a way that reflects God who made man from the clay of earth. The word "propagation" does have connotations of reproduction or producing plants, animals or people. This is a very early call to the audience that the audience is being represented here, as they are all one in the same.

Mankind then, very kindly, wishes God's divinity to all. He calls all that he addresses a "congregation" which very much brings forth the idea of a group gathered for religious purposes. (Personally, I would have walked out at this point if I was in attendance. My heebie jeebies alarm would have been going off that I was about to be preached to) The word "Predestinate" is how Mankind wishes everyone to be, destined for divinity. These four lines ending with the idea of pre-destiny seems like foreshadowing. The audience sees and knows (because of Mercy) that Mankind is inherently good and his kind wishes for the audience (or crops if you want to hold onto the Christian imagery of being a shepherd of man) proves his forthcoming divinity with God.

There may even be a spark of hope for the Vices in the play with Mankind's words. If "congregation" is taken to simply mean a "gathering", then the vices can be considered as part of that congregation Mankind addresses. This way, the vices are redeemable. It could also be a warning that not everyone who congregates is redeemable despite intentions. That is the point the Vices eventually make by tricking the audience into "sinning" along in song later.

John Dryden's Octavia vs. Shakespeare's Octavia (two entries in one!)

All For Love Act III

Octavia                     I wonder not
       Your bonds are easy: you have long been practiced
       In that lascivious art. He's not the first
       For whom you spread your snares: let Caesar witness.

OED
Lascivious: Inclined to lust, lewd, wanton.

Antony and Cleopatra Act III.IV

Octavia              O my good lord,
Believe not all; or, if you must believe,
Stomach not all. A more unhappy lady,
If this division chance, ne'er stood between,
Praying for both parts:
The good gods me presently,
When I shall pray, 'O bless my lord and husband!'
Undo that prayer, by crying out as loud,
'O, bless my brother!' Husband win, win brother,
Prays, and destroys the prayer; no midway
'Twixt these extremes at all.

In Shakespeare's version, Octavia only has a few lines and her biggest concern is Antony fighting with her brother Caesar. She is torn between her loyalties with each man individually. Shakespeare's Octavia is a victim throughout the course of the play. Antony, who is legally her husband, has been off playing house with Cleopatra and multiple empires know about it. Yet somehow Octavia is still willing to keep her marriage to Antony. The gender roles here for Octavia and Antony are pretty clear, she must do his bidding with no question. While Octavia has very few lines in Antony and Cleopatra she offers a stark contrast to Cleopatra. Octavia is meek and well-tempered and described quit humbly. But Cleopatra is dripping in orientalism, she is the most decadent of decadence. The only similarity Octavia shares to Cleopatra is Antony. It is sad to say but Shakespeare's Octavia is simply a tool to showcase how terrible Cleopatra and Antony are, and it is a shame she was sidelined.

Dryden's All for Love takes Shakespeares's Octavia and gives her real biting feelings. Here we see Octavia address Cleopatra rather scathingly and not holding back. Dryden's Octavia gives a voice to wives with wandering husbands. And it also gives a voice to the inexplicable feelings one women has for another when they've been cheated on. Dryden is doing an amazing job of capturing that nuance here. Octavia, no matter how mad she is at her adulterous husband, will somehow always have just the tinniest bit less sharpness with him. As a women, I cannot to speak to the reasons why this seems to be the case; other than to say, familiarity is its own kind of twisted loyalty. Cleopatra will always be the "other women" for Octavia so when she speaks here she throws a punch, /your bonds are easy/, commenting on bonds of marriage and how easily Cleopatra breaks them. She continues, / you have long been practiced/ essentially slut shaming Cleopatra in a way our modern society recognizes as not cool. More slut shaming: /He's not the first/. Perhaps my favorite part of this little exchange, /spread your snares/. This little comparison of Cleopatra's vagina to a trap is such an amazing burn with so much complexity. It says so much about Octavia's feelings, but it also might reveal a bit of Dryden's feelings towards adultery. I give credit that Dryden's recognition of a scorned women is a much more realistic portrayal of any women through out both versions of the play. But I do feel that Dryden has used Octavia for his own purpose of forces his morals onto the audience.


Personally, I would like to see some redemption for Octavia in either incarnation. She is used by men within the plays and by the men penning the plays. She may get to live but there seems to be a fridge with her name on it in both stories.

Shakespeare's Sonnet 130

                           130
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun,
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damasked, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks,
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sounds.
I grant I never saw a goddess go:
My mistress when she walks treads on the ground.
     And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
     As any she belied with false compare.

Spring 2019 I took a Forms of Literature class that ended up just being pure poetry. I was tasked with explications and found the class to be relatively easy. I ended the semester with a 98 with only four grades. This sonnet from Shakespeare was feature in the last couple of weeks of class. Just myself and one other classmates made it in to our eight AM class, much to the joy of my professor. By this point the class was not interested in the work and often I had the joy of being the classmate to speak up because no one else was going to answer. I feel strongly that my high grade had a bit to do with not leaving my teacher hanging. Now I realize there was a lot more to learn about Sonnet 130 and I wish I knew the right questions to ask at the time.

What I did not learn about this poem when it was first introduced to me was that it is called a contra blazon. What I did pick up on and learn about the poem that first day was the warm and fuzzies.  It is a poem packed with imagery that sounds like nails on a chalk board, however, it is wrapped up so sweetly at the end that any duckling is going to feel like a swan if it was read to her. That is the beauty of this poem for me. We often forget the power of words and the importance of having a healthy relationship with reality can be for our self-image. It is a breathe of honesty that only the most scathing of poetry tends to give us. Somehow this sonnet skirts the lines of insulting by making a comparison to other poets blowing too much smoke and it really works.

Six months later and I am smack in the middle of learning about Petrarchan sonnets and getting blindsided with new terms like "Blazon" and "imitatio" and before my professor can even bring up Shakespeare, I remember Shakespeare's weird sonnet! So here is the skinny on why this Sonnet 130 is really cool: it is an excellent example for literature as a living, evolving history.
As British poets start feeling the need to express themselves they hear about this Italian poet Francesco Petrarcha. This guy is writing in a strict structure and meter while longing after some super unavailable girl, as far as we know, she is a member of proto-TLC singing "I don't want no scrub, a scrub is a guy that can't write no poems to me. Hangin' off the passenger side of his best friend's stead, tryin' to rhyme at me". Thomas Wyatt goes wild for this form and starts translating and tweaking (imitatio-ing) Petrarch's work to better express his own weird obsession with someone/thing. His versions (and others) are so similar that at first glance and readings, it is like you are just reading a poets attempt to figure out the right line. Nope, they're all just knocking each other off in lieu of making meaningful or respectful attempts at not being a scrub towards women.

Shakespeare is like, "Dude, you guys, these ladies are not all that great. That one has super wire-y hair and halitosis." Shakespeare knows a thing or two about rhyming and structure. Perhaps he even thinks he knows that most women just want some honesty (I am giving you so much credit right now Shakespeare. If there is a literary holiday party, you better invite me). Shakespeare lays down the truth of what some real women look like and says, /I think my love as rare / As any she belied with false compare/ (13-14) and we all swoon. A list of a "beloved's" features that are not weird similes to animals or creepy naked babies with arrows = the contra-blazon.

Shakespeare's Sonnet 129

                          129
Th' expense of spirit in a waste of shame (a)
is lust in action, and, till action, lust (b)
is perjured, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame, (a)
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust; (b)
Enjoyed no sooner but despised straight,(c)
Past reason hunted, and, no sooner had, (d)
Past reason hated as a swallowed bait (c)
On purpose laid to make the taker mad, (d)
Mad in pursuit, and in possession son, (e)
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme, (f)
A bliss in proof and proved a very woe, (e)
Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream. (f)
     All this the world well knows, yet none knows well (g)
     To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell. (g)

This sonnet's use of the feminine syllable to open and close with is catching. The words that get the use are, shame and hell. That pretty quickly sums up that the sonnet is wrapped in negative connotations. The content of the poem speaks very negatively about sex and the shame of lust. This sonnet feels like self-flagellation. Line two, /is lust in action, and till action, lust/ is the speaker saying that having sexual feelings is wrong compared to actual sex? The next two lines are some very harsh adjectives, 'murd'rous", "bloody", "savage", "extreme", "rude", "cruel" and all suggest that the speaker is ruminating over an event that has led them to feel very negatively towards their sexual feelings. Is this love scorned, gone cold, unrequited, or signs of a much darker event? Either way, Shakespeare forcing out two extra syllables to shake up the classic pattern feels very pointed. The rhyming couplet at the end is very cold /All this the world well knows, yet none knows well / To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell/. This is beyond bitter, it is a reality the speaker of the poem knows and seems to have let himself (allowed himself?) to be led astray. Is he more ashamed of his feelings or the fact that he got to that point when he knew "better"?

Protip: Do not look to Shakespeare for a pep talk on the birds and the bees if he is in a 129 mood.

Dryden's Epilogue: I Need to Eat

Poets, like disputants when reasons fail,
Have one sure refuge left, and that's to rail.
Fop, coxcomb, fool, are thundered through the pit,
And his is all their equipage of wit.
We wonder how the devil this difference grows
Betwixt our fools in verse, and yours i prose;
For, 'faith, the quarrel rightly understood,
'Tis civil war with their own flesh and blood.
The threadbare author hates the gaudy coat,
And swears at the gilt coach, but swears afoot;
For 'tis observed of every scribbling man,
He grows a fop as fast as e'er he can

The epilogue to Dryden's All for Love play (a knock off, of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra) does something very interesting. Clearly Dryden is aware that his play might not be original but he makes the plea that he is doing is best. Dryden defends himself (and seemingly other writers because he uses the plural "poets" but he could just be generalizing to throw some of the criticism off of himself) and his work here saying he has /one sure refuge left, and that's to rail/ (line 2). The word "rail" meaning to protest or to make a  complaint against something. It seems that Dryden feels deeply about the criticism he and his work was subjected to. And it seems that he dwells on this idea a lot because he says, /'tis civil war with their own flesh and blood/ (8). The next two lines speak to the inner turmoil even more, /The threadbare author hates the gaudy coat, / And swear at the gilt coach but swears afoot/ (9-10). This image of a poor writer in tattered clothes swearing at a passing carriage is pretty bleak. Dryden was lucky enough to be recognized in his time and be paid for his efforts, but this epilogue might shed some light on the situation. Critics of his era, and us now, may judge him for his lackluster Shakespeare attempts, but there is a possibility that Dryden did what he had to do for a meal. Did his direction of the theater really reflect his personal desires? This narrative of an artist being directed to direct is so present in our time (Korean musicians come to mind first) that maybe we should give him a bit of a break.

Still not a fan of his work, but I will not fault anyone for needing a hot meal and a gilt coach of their own.

Ben Jonson Part II: Sometimes We See A Heart

Marble weep, for thou do'st cover
A dead Beauty underneath thee,
Rich as Nature could bequeath thee:
Grant then, no rude Hand remove her.
All the Gazers on the Skies
Read not in fair Heavens Story,
Expresser Truth, or truer Glory.
Than They might in her bright Eyes.

Rare as Wonder was her Wit;
And like Nectar every flowing:
Till Time, strong by her bestowing,
Conquer'd hath both Life and it.
Life whose Grief was out of fashion;
In these Times few so have ru'd
Fate in a brother. To conclude,
For Wit, Feature, and true Passion,
Earth, though hast not such another.

This epigram of Ben Jonson's stands out for a couple of reasons that are different than most of his collection. While we know that Jonson sometimes wrote "nice" poems to some, this one offers more care than others. This poem is what is called an acrostic poem which is a bit like a word search if you look at it long enough. If you take the letter from the start of each line it spells out the name: MARGARET RATCLIFFE. A quick google provides an answer as to who Margaret was. It turns out she was a favorite lady in court for Queen Elizabeth I. It is said she died of heart ache following the loss of her brothers.

There does not seem to be much more information than that, which leads me to wonder Jonson's relation to her. Could she have been one of his financial backers? Or was she truly a "rare" "wonder" of "Wit" as he says? (line 9) The first line /Marble weep, for thou do'st Cover/ seems to reflect who Jonson seems to be if we judge him by his Epigrams. A stony man who has no capacity for tears only sharp insults and honeyed lies, is he instructing his own hand? Marble is a malleable material so maybe he is asking himself to be kind as he writes this poetic eulogy for the Queen's friend.  /Grant then, no rude Hand remove her/ (4), really does sound like Jonson agreeing to be kind in his words. This poem seems out of place amongst the sharps barbs and vague pointed messages to others. It really makes me wonder, who were you Margaret Ratcliffe that you were able to elicit such kind words from the prickly Ben Jonson?


https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/margaret-radcliffe-or-ratcliffe

Mimosas with Ben Jonson

II. To my Book.

It will be look'd for Book, when some but see
They Title, Epigrams, and nam'd of me,
Thou Shoul'd be bold, licentious, full of gall;
Wormwood, and sulphur, sharp, and tooth'd withall,
Become a petulant Thing, hurl Ink, and Wit
As Mad-men Stones: not caring whom they hit.
Deceive their Malice, who could wish it so.
And by the wiser Temper, let Men know
Thou art not Covetous of least Self-Fame,
Made from the hazard of another's Shame.
Much less, with leud, prophane, and beastly Phrase,
TO catch the Worlds loose Laughter, or vain Gaze.
He that departs with his own Honesty
For vulgar Praise, doth it too dearly buy.

Very early on in Ben Jonson's Epigrams he does a wonderful job describing the essence of an epigram. An epigram makes the point of fixating on a single moment and Jonson speaks clearly to the intent he wants each inclusion to be. He encourages his weird little poems to be insulting, to make anyone and everyone uncomfortable. It could be easily argued that the Epigrams are a childish indulgence of whining, and I would agree with that argument. Jonson takes aim at the pettiest of human interactions along with the poorly timed come back moments. No one is safe from his rhymed schemed wit, expect for his financial backers. Despite being the pettiest of petty original mean girls, I have to say that I'm into his style. Jonson is the kind of guy I want to go out to brunch with because I know he's going to spill the tea. Would I worry he'd write one about me? Of course I would be worried. Jonson's use of the epigram is the predecessor of vague-tweeting, he is the heart of every early 2000's "Truth Box" on MySpace pages. Jonson might not have been the classiest of fellows by spouting off his insults for everyone to hear and gossip over but we cannot escape the value of the day to day insights he contributed to history. Jonson shows that being petty and dreaming up the perfect comeback will never go out of style.