Author Archives: Kacie Nelson

Re: Bosola and Ferdinand: Concluding Thoughts

Leave a reply

Hi Nick!

I think that your point that Bosola is ultimately just a tool for Ferdinand’s reach was really key for me in understanding Bosola’s tragedy and his shift in character in the last act of the play. It seems to me that Bosola speaks much less in the final act than in the other three. In Act 5 scene two, he’s on stage for nearly a page of dialogue before speaking, and even then he only gets to speak in snippets. While he is still the featured character in this section he, ironically, takes on more of a spy position, hiding in the shadows while Julia tricks the Cardinal and genuinely rebelling against the authority of Ferdinand and the Cardinal. While Bosola seems to mourn the Duchess’s death and genuinely wishes for the safety of Antonio, he also seems to turn inward in this section, and I wonder how much of his change of heart is due to his dejection and/or vengeance (motivations that are, at the core, self-centered) rather than morality or sympathy.

Re: Reply to Raisa

Leave a reply

Hi Raisa!

I was also struck by some moments that struck me as particularly Donnean. I noticed specifically the scene in which the Duchess proposes to Antonio. She claims that he has “left me heartless; mine is in your bosom; / I hope twill multiply love there” (1.3.152-3). I thought that this moment felt like Donne, and to some extent Philips, in placing two “hearts,” or souls, together in order to make something new and more grand, along with taking a common refrain (you have my heart) making it extreme  (I no longer have a heart). Further, the Duchess makes comments that their love can ignore a gross world: “Do not think of them. / All discord without this circumference / Is only to be pitied, and not feared” (1.3.170-2). Their love, like Donne’s, elevates them above the world outside of their domesticity. We know that this is a tragic play, I wonder how to take this language coming from a seemingly empowered woman, or if the play’s tragedy is a larger critique of Donnean themes?

Sexuality and On the Wounds of Our Crucified Lord

Leave a reply

When reading Crashaw’s poem, I was struck immediately by his rhetorical questions “Are they mouths? or are they eyes?” (2). Is Christ delivering us salvation by the word of God or is he watching and judging us? In light of the Richard Rambuss reading, I’m wondering about the relationship that the speaker has with Christ. He paints Christ’s wounds as “full-bloomed lips” and claims that Christ’s blood falls as tears, suggesting that Christ is weeping over the loss of a friend or lover (5, 8). Thus, the sexualizing (although I’m not sure I would call it erotic) images  heighten the original tension of the poem. On one hand, Christ’s wounds are beautiful lips that “hast laid / Many a kiss” and granted peace (10-11). On the other, Christ has a “bloodshot eye” that sheds “many a cruel tear” (7,8) reminding us of the pain he suffered.  Christ is a figure that both saves and comforts us, but whom we also owe a great deal of debt.

Re: Catholic Sensibility?

Leave a reply

Hi Alexandra,

I agree with you that Donne’s poetry has a sort of opulence to it that is reminiscent of Catholicism and its remarkable art.  I wonder what to make of the fact that he makes a point to mock it in his poetry. His lovers become saint-like from decidedly unholy acts in “The Canonization”. He directly calls Catholicism a “mis-devotion” and fears that him and his lover will be dug up and brought to the “Bishop” and the “King” after their deaths. Formally, even, Donne continually blows up his central conceits and formal structures as he writes each new poem, essentially rejecting the Catholic emphasis on ritual. I wonder if part of this is an attempt to prove his renunciation of Catholicism as he joins the protestant church. Ultimately, however, it is fascinating just to see how he is able to play with, combine, and subvert so many different conventions (religious, social, literary) all at once.

RE: Difference Between Naked and Nude

Leave a reply

Hi Anais!

I really enjoyed reading your interpretation of Herrick’s poem. I read the poem as less focused on respecting Julia and more of creating an image of her from the male imagination. Particularly I noticed the metaphors of the cherry and the strawberry in cream. Both of these images suggest consumption. Thus, I read the poem with Julia, and her breasts in particular,  being an object for male enjoyment. I think that it is interesting to think about what I brought into my reading of the poem. I am certain that I read it expecting a certain amount of misogyny and I wonder if I would have had an interpretation closer to yours if I hadn’t begun with that bias.

Thanks!

Kacie

 

Re Part 2: Alas, Poor Antonio

Leave a reply

Hi Natalie and Rachel,

I also think that Antonio is a particularly interesting character. As we spoke about in class, his function in the play is not immediately apparent. I really like the reading of class in making Antonio’s declarations of love less threatening. I also think that its worth noting that Antonio is one of the most straightforward characters and thus does not engage in the  multiple layered language of the upper class characters. His declarations can be taken at face value, and do not attempt to create Greenblatt’s “friction.” In this way, I wonder if was easier to take Antonio’s declarations as homosocial bonding as opposed to homosexual because his dialogue (at least as I see it) never functions as the foreplay that others’ dialogue sometimes does.

RE: Quote On Greatness

1 Reply

Hi Tully!

I was also interested in the origins of the quote “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some / have greatness thrust upon ’em” (2.5.136-37). I have only ever heard this quote being used in the utmost sincerity, so it was interesting to learn that it’s original context was as a practical joke. These lines are an inflation of Malvolio’s dreams and desires, not something that Marie actually believes. The underlying humor of these lines are further emphasized when Malvolio repeats them to Olivia with pompous sincerity and (in the production at least) emphasis on the sexuality of the lines (3.4). All of this is to say that I was surprised that these lines were originally intended ironically, given how they now stand as inspiration for class mobility.

Protestant Plug

Leave a reply

I enjoyed the moments when Britomart first runs into Scudamore. He seems to question if there is truly a just God, asking “Or hast thou, Lord, of good mens cause no heed? / Or doth thy justice sleep and silent ly?” (3.11.78-79).  Britomart then comforts him by speaking about the virtues, but ends her speech with “For who nill bide the burden of distress, / Must not here thinke to live: for life is wretchedness” (3.11.124-125). Thus, Britomart seems to be the voice of Protestantism, of not questioning God but living up to his standards and submitting to his will as the only sanctity in an otherwise corrupt life. Does this connect Britomart’s chastity with holiness? Or is this a moment of Spenser talking to his audience and building his protestant epic?

A Female Audience?

Leave a reply

I also struggled (and continue to struggle) with not only interpreting, but following the poem. One way that I found it helpful to engage with the text is by utilizing our secondary source, the Hamilton article. For example, I found that Hamilton’s remarks that Virginia Woolf considered Spenser a feminist and that his first intended readership may have been female (4) to be an interesting lens through which to read parts of Book III. In particular, it appears that Spenser is catering to a female audience in the opening of the second Canto with his remarks that women were once powerful “till envious Men fearing their rules decay / Gan coyne streight laws to curb their liberty” (801). This line seems to almost critique patriarchy, yet in the previous Canto, Spenser spends a lot of time critiquing a woman for expressing sexuality, essentially curbing her liberty as much as the men in his poem. I am not sure how these moments are meant to relate to one another. Are they meant to be subversive in relation to one another? Or is this relationship hypocritical and / or paradoxical?

Shakespeare Sonnet #5

2 Replies

Raisa, Austin, and I chose this poem for it is seemingly unique in not directly referencing reproduction. We read the poem through Vendler’s categories of perception and philosophy. The speaker is particularly focused on “summer’s distillation” (9) and and “flower’s distilled” (13), calling to mind perfume. Yet, he seems to use sight and visualization as his main type of perception. He uses strong imagery in lines such as “sap checked with frost” (7) and “liquid prisoner pent in walls of glass” (10). This subtly forces the reader to continue think about physical beauty, even as the poem is ostensibly about essence. Similarly, Shakespeare questions the philosophy of reproduction in this poem by arguing that the poem itself is a way for this man to preserve his beauty, not reproduction. Shakespeare talks a lot in this poem of remembrance vs. forgetting, as well as preserving “substance” (14), and seems to use the poem in order to distill the man’s beauty and essence into 14 lines. Raisa and Austin, all yours!