Through out the entire play, I’ve gravitated towards Ford’s need to reinforce character’s actions with the material or physical. We spoke about this in class a bit, but blood was a constantly repeated, tears were. But also non-bodily physical expressions of emotion are used throughout, such as swords, and the letter- which appears in Act 5. The tangibility of these objects and substances counteract the invisibility or intangibility of love and incest, so I wonder if Ford implemented the physical material embodiments of their emotions, to balance out what can’t be seen or touched. There is almost a sense of evidentiary support or justification that Ford provides to the reader, through these objects, as if he is self aware or suspecting that readers/audience member might not believe the presence of incest or buy into their love.

1. The Qulligan text begins with a claim about marriage, that instead of it being an exchange between a man and a woman, it is an exchange between two men, using the woman as an object. Her feeings about her place in this structure are ignored, as it is ultimately a fixed structure. I had never thought of marriage from this view, but it makes complete sense, espeacially when Sedgewick calls it a homosocial connection. I found that especially interesting that a homosocial connection has exsisted and uncovered in each of our sections of study. This reveals more largely that sexuality is rooted in men and the transfer of power between men.

I was particularly struck by the repetition of the use of “poison” and “devil” throughout the first act. There seems to be an inherent fear of sin and how sin transports. The characters treat sin as a disease to be caught. More specifically I am interested in the many forms that sin and evil, that the text presumes, can occupy. They cite it as both a force, a spirit, a figure, and a physical embodiment. I assume that the  malleability of evil and sin was reinforced in order to impose fear, constrain freedoms and maintain  social order. In addition, the first act spends a lot of time focusing on the subject of the Duchess’ widowship. Ferdinand explicitly conveys this concern, while Antonio spend over three pages discussing it as well. I know that once a woman’s husband dies she is granted the freedom to remarry and own property (unsure about that one). I am interested in the lines that the male characters draw, to constrain the duchess’s  new found social and sexual flexibility.

I was struck by Carew’s explicitly sexual language and references, but even more by is pointed disapproval of the language we have grown accustomed to seeing in our course readings, when referring to sex. He blatantly explains that they aren’t trying to hide his “tall pine” as it is guided into “love’s channel.” In line 105 he asserts, “No wedlock bounds unwreathe our twisted loves, we seek no midnight arbor, no dark groves to hid our loves kisses,” and continues to repudiate the language that most authors during this period rely on, “Of husband, wife, lust, modest, chaste, or shame are vain and empty words, whose very sound was never heard in the Elysian ground” (108-110). Not only is he devaluing the use of these words, but claiming that there is no evidence in  classical mythology, which describes the “abode of the blessed spirits,” that these words are necessary in understanding the world of the Elysium. I found it controversial to entirely and blatantly challenge this vocabulary that has been regurgitated over and over in describing sex, marriage, and religion.

It was really intriguing reading such a well known piece of prose and realizing how little I actually knew about it, in its entirety. Reading “The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony,” provided so much more context to the “vows” that are traditionally recited at weddings. After reading it, I saw the recitation much less  vow’like, as I did previously, and more as contractual and instructional in nature. I was really surprised how much circumstantiation and justification that the prose provides, and how logistical/pragmatic the tone of the piece was despite its intention to be read aloud. More specifically, one element of “The Form of Solemnization of Matrimony” that I latched onto was the giving of the hands, despite the formality and pragmatism of the recitation. The giving of hands between a man and a woman seems like an intimate, emotional gesture but also stands as an example of  the two physically becoming one. This is an idea that I think is worthy of delving deeper in to, and makes me question if the text stands as supportive of unification of two under marriage, or supportive of two individuals agreeing upon a new state of identity.

Hi Natalie!

I was also struck by the use of borrowed language, but also how it often revealed itself as language slippage. More specifically the use of French and how miscommunication between two characters was represented throughout the play. I feel like the use of French is making a crack at the European aristocratic, and may be catering towards its audience member and their sense of humor. However I feel like this is more clearly communicated when watching the performance than when it sneaks its way into  moments in the written play. When two characters miscommunicate because of multiple definitions or different uses of the same word, it seems to o spark a long exchange between the two, and that they are unable to move on from it. It often leads to humour but I’m wondering what it’s saying now broadly about reading Shakespeare’s work and how we analyze it. Perhaps he is suggesting that even if you can’t reconcile that there is more than one way to read his writing style and word choice, appreciate that ambiguity.

I carried our discussion of space from class on Thursday, into our reading for today. In Canto three, Spenser places a lot of emphasis on Merlin’s home and the wall he intended on building. In a way he relies on his house and its location to convey characteristics about Merlin. I wonder what his purpose was, of relying so heavily upon description of space instead of direct characterization. It reminds me of how in Shakespeare’s sonnets there never was a direct speaker or adresses, placing the focus largely on the action and images created. As the Faeire Queene is, after all, a narrative used to describe virtues, maybe reliance on space is for the same function; so that they can be applied to everyone and importance can be placed on the message through action.

I’m interested in the shift from the pastoral ,to knights and ladies. Although Spenser relies on the same language we’ve become accustomed to from Shakespeare, such as fairness and darkness to define beauty, and nature and animals to represent sexuality; there seems to be an implied shift. I believe there is a shift from the private interiority, which defines sexuality and the choice to reproduce; to a greater social idea of sexuality and institutional interest in temptation and virute; as represented by the characters in the epic.