beotothe18th

[beotothe18th]

3/17/17

Can an individual hold power over a community?

In part one of Gulliver's Travels, there is a distinct individual, Gulliver, and a distinct community, the Lilliputians. There is obvious power that gulliver maintains over them, his large size in comparison to their six-inch height grants him the ability to easily harm them if he so chose. His possessions, small to him but large to these people, are of immense value to them, such as the gold coins gulliver had on him. Between his size and access to resources, Gulliver is a valuable individual. However, despite these advantages gulliver has, and the numerous opportunities to exploit, control or harm the people of lilliput, Gulliver instead wants to gain their favor, at first to earn freedom from capture, and later to become a part of their group. We can see Gullivers acknowledgement of his and their power, saying "Once I was strongly bent upon resistance: for a while I had liberty, the whole strength of that empire could hardly subdue me, i might have easily with stones pelt the metropolis to pieces; but i soon rejected that project with horror, by remembering the oath i had made to the emperor, the favors I received from him, and the high title of Nardac he conferred upon me" (2527). Gullivers own morality and desire to be a part of a community afford that community more power. Though Gulliver most often sets himself apart from the lilliputians in his language, there is a moment where he groups himself with them when describing their wine, saying "but ours is esteemed the better sort" (2516). This casual usage of our demonstrates innate power the desire to be a part of a community has, and therefore, the power a community has over an individual.

Despite Gullivers attempts to become one of their people, he is eventually accused of breaking several laws, and a punishment is to be carried out, in which he would be blinded and killed. These accusations, and therefore the punishment that was decided from is because of another single individual within the lilliputian community, Skyresh Bolgolam. Skyresh has been Gulliver's enemy since his arrival and has no desire for Gulliver to remain a part of their community, as he overshadows his accomplishments. Though Gulliver has been good friends with the emperor, and many other lilliputians, as well as had saved their palace, Skyresh was able to find enough lilliputians who took issue with Gulliver in some way, and present to the emperor the crimes Gulliver had unknowingly committed, and therefore needed to be killed for. Skyresh is an individual within the lilliputian community that managed to hold a large amount of power over that community and over Gulliver.

Though Gulliver is the obvious member with more power, demonstrated by his size, he is not able to overcome the power of needing to be a community member. Skyresh already has security within his community, and is threatened by the presence of this new member, and therefore is able to gain the personal power to make a change.

[beotothe18th]

3/10/17

Behns play The Rover presents several characters whose actions and relationships may be taken as commentary on the new "cavalier" ideal.  Exemplified in the poem Delight in Disorder", the ideal is a push away from puritan ideas. There's a movement of liberation, sexuality and indulgence are coming into the sphere of acceptable behavior. The rover make commentary on both maybe positives and negatives of this movement, as well as how it may be shaping the relationships between men and women. The play presents several important female characters. Hellena, Angelica and Florinda, who are central to the story in their relationships with Willmore, the rover.

In Hellana, we see a soon to be nun taking her last days before pledging herself to god, to experience life so that she doesn't get curious down the line. Her and Willmore meet, and begin a relationship on even footing. She is a match for his wit, and their conversation leads them to an agreement that benefits them both, they are both seeking a short lived, no strings attached relationship for carnival. Hellena makes it clear,  she is only "inclined to console herself before she took Orders." (act 1, scene 2). Their whole encounter displays a certain equality between the power and sexuality of men and women. However, as the play develops, we see willmore break his promises to helena, and helena down the line marry willmore instead of becoming a nun. Willmore's repeatedly pursuing other women, and hellena being upset and asking he not do so, shows a level of hellena not really knowing what she wants (the monogamous, long term relationship they are to end up in later with their marriage), as well is one indication of willmore's exploitative tendencies when surrounded by this culture of indulgence.  The change over time characterises them in ways they would not be if just based on their initial meeting, and may be commentary on what people say they want is not really who they are.

Angellica, the opposite to Hellena, is a career prostitute, the best and most expensive. Her sole client has just died, and she is seeking business. This initial depiction of her makes her strong, self made woman, who has used the way she is treated and viewed by men because of her beauty to her advantage. When Willmore enters the scene, he puts down her picture, effectively her advertising. Angelica is insulted, asking how he dare do such a thing, to which Willmore replies "Rather, how durst you set it up, to tempt poor amorous Mortals with so much Excellence? which I find you have but too well consulted by the unmerciful price you set up don't" (act 2 scene 2). Willmore has made himself the victim over her, he's the one in the wrong, but has flipped the conversation to put her on the defensive. Willmore uses this flip in who has done wrong over the course of their conversation to be able to influence angelica to give him her services, as he has been wronged by her beauty that he desires, and the high price she demands that he cannot pay. Wilmore makes such an impression on Angelica, that she agrees to sleep with him only in exchange for his love. The initial wants of each party are not met, angelica's changed before their agreement. We again see a woman going from believing she wants a purely sexual relationship, this time for money rather than for the experience, and instead desire a relationship with more emotional meaning. This pattern being seen again could be commentary specifically on what women say they want in this period of cavalier ideal (sexual relationships)  giving way to what they truly want (romantic relationships).

Florinda's interactions with men in the play are not just with WIllmore. Florinda is the girlfriend of Belvile, and their relationship is a stable, monogamous one. However, Florinda is twice nearly raped by other men in the play. She is the victim of her beauty. A drunk willmore attempts to take advantage of her in a defenseless state, accusing her on leading him on when she had only been waiting for Belvile. Blunt and Frederick are prepared to rape her in revenge against women as a whole, and is only saved by her stating her relation to  as well as proving she may be a person of "worth" with a ring. Florinda's unfortunate situations demonstrate possibly commentary that just being a woman affords her no respect to men. Men in this cavalier society see women only as objects, rather than their persons, that comes secondary. This ties to the poem previously mentioned, within which a man expresses his desires for a woman, but only in her physical form, and for traits and appearances that aren't intentionally gaining male attention.

[beotothe18th]

3/3/17

In Paradise Lost, Satan is presented as the main character in an anti-hero fashion.

Satans takes on the task of journeying to the new world created by god on behalf of all those cast out of heaven down to hell who desire to take over this new paradise.  

In the introduction of Satan, taking place directly after his fall and the fall of others in their defeat when they turned against god, Satan makes a speech, firmly stating that though he lost he still stands behind the reasons he took to fighting in the first place, and does not regret his actions despite the fall to. His delivery is described at the end, “So spake th’ apostate angel, though in pain, / Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair.” (125-126 book 1). The emotional content of his speech is emphasised with this description of how he’s said it. It isn’t the traditional, unfounded evil anger that may be associated with him, but rather a sad and pained one. From the start, we are given an emotional Satan, one to whom the reader may be able to relate to and empathise with. Later, as Satan is reaching earth, he begins into an existential topic as to why he has acted the way he has, and who is really to blame for his dissent against god. “What could be less then to afford him praise, / The easiest recompence, and pay him thanks, / How due! yet all his good prov'd ill in me, / And wrought but malice; lifted up so high / I sdeind subjection, and thought one step highe” (46-50, book 4). In this section of Satans thoughts, we see him ask himself why he couldn't just love and praise god as he was supposed to, then attempt to answer it with that god gave him power and ambition, too much so. The section continues to question god's intent with creating him how he had, and why if this was how god had reated him he was punished for being himself. This could be commentary from Milton on how, if man were created by god, why would he make them tempted and prone to acts of defiance and sin? Is the human disposition to these things truly the fault of Eves eating the apple, or innate traits given in creation? This is somewhat further addressed in his representations of Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve are presented inside the garden of eden, where they are described as “Two of far nobler shape erect and tall, / Godlike erect, with native Honour clad / In naked Majestie seemd Lords of all, / And worthie seemd, for in thir looks Divine / The image of thir glorious Maker shon” (288-292, book 4). They are described with a sense of distance, this is their physical appearance and form, and they reflect that image of god, but they do not have the same emotional introduction as Satan has. Later, as Satan watches Adam and Eve after their discussion of not eating from the tree of knowledge, we see that they feel sexual desire for one another, and know no shame for acting on it. Humans in their perfect state here are still sexual beings, as well as they converse and argue. Milton's writing of Adam and Eve in this manner could be commentary on how humans are still humans, and though they were given concepts of shame and sin after eve ate from the tree, humans today are not dissimilar from their perfect predecessors. This comes back to the first point possibly made with Satan earlier in the book, humans haven't changed much from their original form, further supporting an argument for innate traits, that if god didn't like, why would he give them then punish man for it.

[beotothe18th]

2/24/17

Holy Sonnet 13 sets up a rhyming pattern which suddenly changes half way through, then returns to a couplet at the end. The sonnets ending rhymes follow a structure of A, B, B, A, A, B, B, A, C, D, D, C, E, E. The first part is contained between two A rhymes, ending on line 8. This part discusses the speakers reflection on the themselves  in the event of a world ending apocalypse, as well as thoughts on Jesus. Lines 9-12 are contained by the C rhyme, and the ending couplet seem to be the next idea, where the speaker is describing his conclusions on inner self and outer appearance.This structure makes groupings of two distinct parts of the sonnet, with an emphasised ending. Reading the sonnet though, there seems to be three ideas, but a split in the first two is not reflected in the structure. The speaker's self reflection and wondering about the end of the world seems separate from his thoughts on Jesus, yet they are contained within the first “A” portion of the sonnet. Is it possible that by grouping themselves with Jesus in the sonnets structure, that they are attempting to draw comparisons to between them, their deaths, or a desire to be grouped with him? It could also be their own insecurity about where the speaker will go after his death, then self reassurance when describing how Jesus died. It's possible it’s also representing the flow of thought. There's a smooth transition from their ideas about themselves to Jesus, and exists outside of time. It's just their thoughts in the moment, whereas the second part is a recounting of a definite time in the past, where the speaker told the “profane mistresses” about inner and outer beauty.

The sonnet overall seems to be addressing the human fear of death, and what happens to us in the afterlife with a christian religious context. There is a fear of sin and damnation. Earlier it was mentioned the possibility of his own insecurities regarding what will happen to their soul in the event of the end of the world, and that their descriptions of Jesus may be their self reassurance. The ideas that they presents to the women are also of a reassuring nature, that it is easy to tell who is good and who is evil, based on their looks. This idea is stated in the last two lines and is emphasised by the end rhyming couplet. “To wicked spirits are horrid shapes assign'd ; / This beauteous form assures a piteous mind.” (13-14). The poem ending this way brings attention to this idea, and leaves the reader on this thought, and suggests that this is the most important part of the sonnet to the speaker. With that thought, we can also wonder as to what the speaker looks like, or what the women here looked like, and whether this is something worrying to them, or reassuring. This could also be a push to have people, maybe specifically women, take care of their appearance as to retain a state of internal goodness.

[beotothe18th]

2/22/17

King Lear's depictions of community and individuality differ from those of previously read works. The world of king Lear centers mainly around our King, and all the characters are defined, mainly, by their relationships to him. There is little discussion to a world outside the nobility, it is contained within its own society, and their influence beyond that isn't really addressed in the play. We also see a lot of eventualities occur on a personal level. Much of King Lear's development, though influenced by outside factors of his community, takes place within his mind. His crisis, combine with his daughters stripping his remaining power by rejecting his company in their homes, affects the in ways of who has power, and the struggle over that. Character drives are large individual as well. Main characters, such as the two eldest daughters, have personal reasons for their actions against their father. Cordelia may come to defend her father and give him back some power and dignity, but she does this out of personal love and dislike of her sisters, rather than a benefit to the whole community. In Edmund we see a violent rejection of the community norms. As a bastard son he is unhappy with how the community defines him,and decides that through deceit framing his brother, he will win his father's approval over him, and take what to community deems his. This is a strictly personal act, and has no benefit to the larger community. In some minor characters, such as Kent, we see dedication to their place in a community, rather than actions for personal gain. Kent stays by Lear despite his decent into madness, and at the end, when he is asked if he would rule after the death of the king, he says “I have a journey, sir, shortly to go: / My master calls me, I must say no” (1339, line 32). Kent, even when offered great power, adheres to his community duties. There is also a lack of punishment for self interested acts in the play in some ways. Though a great deal of characters die, many of which aren't acting entirely out of self interest. This moral judgement of whether individual or community oriented actions often bleeds through stories, where here the play's message regarding the important and pressing dangers of passing power to the young remains the center. It’s possible the moral bleed through is there, represented by the deaths of even those community oriented members, making the self interested ones a danger to all of society. We can also see rebellion against community norms in Cordelia's actions at the beginning of the play. Her refusal to play her father's game contradicts that communities expectations, and is rather a display of her individual attitudes and thoughts. Her sisters worked within the community system to exploit it for their own gain. They all display individualism in some way.

[beotothe18th]

2/10/17

In the works Canterbury Tales as well as King Lear, we see the presence of differing ideas on community and individuality presented.

Canterbury Tales represents the whole of a community through a smaller grouping of individuals. In the general prologue, each character is introduced and named by their profession, and therefore place within the broader community. This way, we can know his place in the community before we know him. Their importance and place does not necessarily stem from a connection to one individual, though they are brought together by their relation to the person they are all making the pilgrimage to find, they are not defined by that relation like characters are in King Lear. Each character, though, is shown to have very individualistic drives, often countering their role in the community. Even in their stories, we can see conflicts between community role and individual desires and drives. For example, in the pardoner's tale, we are told of three characters who find a stash of treasure. These three make up a community, with the common goal to bring the treasure back. However, when one leaves to get them food to hold them over until night, he conspires to kill the two he left behind with poison and take the treasure for himself. The two left behind conspire to kill the one that has left for a larger share of the treasure. Their conspiracies in the end leave all three of them dead, and no one to benefit from the treasure. The pardoner's tale can be seen as representative of that direct conflict between community and individuality, as is seen with the majority of the characters introduced in the prolouge.

In King Lear, we find a smaller community, and one within which each character is defined through their relation to the King. Here we see a return to the idea of the king and his court, rather than a broader community as was seen in Canterbury Tales. Each person within the community is important because of their relationship to one individual, and your importance within the community relies on what type of relationship it is. However, we also see here individual drives among characters that lead them to actions contrary to their community role. Lears eldest daughters begin to conspire against their father for his place of power.

“GONERIL You see how full of changes his age is; the observation

We have made of it hath not been little: he always

Loved our sister most; with what poor judgement  he

Hath now cast her off appears to grossly.

REGAN Tis the infirmity of his age; yet he hath ever but

Slenderly known himself.” (290-295)

In this quote we can see the beginning of their plan to undermine their father by painting him as old and losing his mind. Their personal desires have overridden their role in King Lear's community as his daughters and family. We can see another example of this in Edmund, a bastard son who aims to undermine his legitimate brother, Edgar, and take what he would inherit simply because of who he was born to rather than himself. Edmund seeks to break community defined roles and rules in order to get what he feels is rightfully his. We can see the beginning of his conspiracy in his monologue, “Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land. / Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund as to the Legitimate.”(16-18 act 1.2) This quote summaries Edmund's individual desire to break the societal norms that put him at a “natural” disadvantage.

[beotothe18th]

Does Chaucer's work challenge or reinforce socioeconomic ideas of the time?

Chaucer's work through the general prologue and the Miller's tale contains some conflicting ideas regarding how socioeconomic classes function and are regarded. In the general prologue, he gives descriptions of each character in detail, where often he presents an individual by their role in their community, followed by conflicting individual traits. For example, the Justice of law, who well so wealthy and well known that “Al was fee symple to hym in effect;/  His purchasyng myghte nat been infect.”(321-322) The presented quote conveys the idea that he is above the law, specifically in his land purchases, a direct conflict with his moral place in society as one who holds others to the law. These instances where community role and personal traits come into conflict may be criticism of the class system Chaucer lives within. People are defined by their place and professions, their level of respect stems from it directly, yet so often they are the exact opposite of what society considers them. By pointing out the hypocrisy within the people, he could be pointing out the ridiculousness of the whole system.

In the Miller's tale, we can see both support as well as opposition to these ideas. The Miller's tale centers around the Carpenter, his young wife Alison, and two young men who pursue her, Nicholas and Absolon. The Carpenter is the lowest class, yet possibly the wealthiest individual in the story. Nicolas, though well educated, lives off of friends and family. Nicolas is staying with the carpenter while having an affair with Alison. The lines “A clerk hadde litherly biset his whyle, /  But if he koude a carpenter bigyle." (191-192) demonstrate Nicholas' view of the Carpenter. By Nicolas’, as well as society's views, the carpenter is not traditionally educated, therefore stupid, and not worth the same as, in this instance, a clerk. Nicolas proceeds to take advantage of the carpenter, using his place of power to convince the carpenter a flood was to come like it had in noah's time. This highlights a place of privilege for nicolas versus the carpenter, as in the bible it's clearly stated the world won't be destroyed in that way again, but the carpenter has no way of reading this for himself and must rely on other to convey those stories to him. Chaucer here may be attempting to highlight the power imbalance between classes, and the seemingly unfair system it upholds. The carpenters hard work earns him little regard within the community. At the end of the story, though the miller is of the same class as the carpenter, the carpenter comes out on the bottom, his arm is broken, and he is ridiculed both for his wife cheating on him and his gullible nature. “They seyde, "The man is wood, my leeve brother"; / And every wight gan laughen at this stryf”. (741-742) This quote shows the towns dismissal of how he has been tricked and betrayed by those more powerful, and though no one in particular comes out a victor in this story, the carpenter surely gets the worst ending. This story being told by the miller may be showing chaucer's own ingrained ideas on society, though he pokes fun at it, the story he tells reinforces some of the social class ideas. However, it also could be that he is aware of these societal ideas, and the presentation of this story through the miller is meant to highlight the strangeness of upholding them, even when they clearly disadvantage yourself.

Regardless, Chaucer's stories present these ideas to us, and whether or not it is meant to make commentary on them, he is aware there are class dynamics at play and wishes to show them to his audience.

[beotothe18th]

In a passage of Beowulf, lines 170-188, there is a narrator description of the actions among the Shieldings. In the first sentence, the passage is introducing the situation, describing Hrothgar's loss. He has been unable to defend his people and has taken to collecting advice from other prominent members of the Shieldings.

The narrator goes on to explain “Sometimes at pagan shrines they vowed / offerings to idols, swore oaths / that the killer of souls might come to their aid / and save the people. ” (175-180) It’s possible that by suggesting this wasn’t always the case, with the use of “sometimes” at the beginning, that he means to suggest they did this out of desperation when other means had run out. Also his description of “killer of souls” followed by “save the people” is a juxtaposition of the narrators perceived evil in these gods, and the good intentions the Shieldings mean to bring about.

These lines are directly followed by “That was their way, / their heathenish hope; deep in their hearts / they remembered hell. The Almighty Judge / of good deeds and bad, the Lord God, / Head of the Heavens and High King of the World, / was unknown to them.” (180-183) The narrator here describes their hopes as heathenish, but not the people themselves. He continues after, explaining that, though these people know deep down they must avoid hell, they don’t know God in a Christian way. The language here suggests that the narrator doesn’t approve of their actions, but is sympathetic to the people because they simply don’t know.

The passages continues, “Oh, cursed is he / who in time of trouble has to thrust his soul / in the fire's embrace, forfeiting help; / he has nowhere to turn.” (183-186)  Here, the one who has “thrust his soul in the fires embrace” is the Shieldings who have prayed to the pagan gods. “Forfeiting help” could be interpreted as either a continuation of the description of the Shieldings damnation, that they have forfeited the help of God, and “has nowhere to turn”. It could also be a second argument, that though these pagan idols aren’t God and they're damning themselves in praying to them, they cannot forfeit the help of said idols, they haven’t anywhere else to turn for help. In the next sentence, the narrator follows with “But blessed is he who after / death can approach the Lord / and find friendship in the Father's embrace.” (186-188) Here I find there's two things the narrator can be conveying. It is either that, if a Shielding turns away from the pagan gods and doesn’t pray to them for help, that even if they die for not praying, they will be rewarded by being accepted into heaven by God. It may also be that, in their ignorance, they may in death be forgiven for their sins.

Throughout this passage the language used shows us that the narrator is Christian while the Shieldings, and most other characters are not. Though he believes they may be punished for their actions by God, his tone is sympathetic. He knows they are unaware of God and know no better, and though their actions are evil, the people are not. Like I stated earlier, he does not describe the people as heathenish, just their hopes. This may be the narrator trying to connect with people who live under the same faith as the Shieldings, and introduce them to god, without telling them they’re evil and wrong. Instead, with the tone of the passage, it pities them and their ignorance, providing a more gentle education on Christianity through something relatable.

[beotothe18th]

One of my chose themes is Community vs. Individuality, a theme present throughout the first section of Beowulf. Though the story itself focuses on individuals, the hero Beowulf in particular, their motivations center around their community.

The first instance we see of this priority of community over individual is in beowulf's introduction. The watchman, who himself is never given a name, only an identification in relation to his king and kin, has rode up to beowulf and his men and demanded to know who they are and why’ve they come. Beowulf replies, “We are retainers from Hygelac’s band. Beowulf is my name.”(342-343) Though subtle, Beowulf identifies himself first as kin of Hygelac before giving his own personal name, and suggests the importance of identity here is not who he is as an individual but rather the group he comes from. Beowulf is of no importance without the connection to his community, and the history between these two communities.

Beowulf has also come to defend the Danes from Grendel, an evil entity who has repeatedly killed several of the Danes in midst of celebration at the mead hall they have built. Beowulf has come to try his hand at fighting Grendel. Though he may have some personal reasons as to why he wanted to come, like wanting the pride of winning as he is accused of by a jealous Unferf, his people also owe a debt to the Danes, as is described by Hrothgar. “There was a feud one time, begun by your father. With his own hands he had killed Heatholaf who was a Wulfing; so war was looming and his people, in fear of it, forced him to leave...Finally I healed the feud by paying” (459-470) The quote also continues to explain that Ecgtheow had sworn allegiance to the Danes afterward. Beowulf's attempt to defeat Grendel is then welcome to Hrothgar, as a debt from Beowulf's people to his own is owed. Beowulf and his men are both ready to die for this cause, to help the community that helped them.

His men especially expect fully to die, as is stated right before the fight with Grendel that “[n]one of them expected he would ever see his homeland again or get back to his native place and the people who reared him. They knew too well the way it was before, how often the Danes had fallen prey” (691-695) Though knowing their fight could very well be their last and that they would never return home, and regardless of the fact this fight didn’t protect their personal families and kin but rather an ally, they chose to travel with Beowulf and fight with him to help the Danes. Their motivations are to maintain a relationship between their groups, and priorities the well being of that relationship so that the Geats may receive help in return one day, even if it is generations down the line.

Prioritization of the well being of a community above the life and well being of a single individual can be seen in these examples as a prominent theme within this first section of Beowulf.