Farewell, Love

Wyatt’s “Farewell, Love” presents a quite pessimistic view of what love is. In each line the speaker characterizes love in a different way, each of which reveals an equally negative view. The text of the poem reads

Farewell, Love, and all thy laws forever,

Thy baited hooks shall tangle me no more;

Senec and Plato call me from thy lore

To perfect wealth my wit for to endeavor.

In blind error when I did persever,

Thy sharp repulse, that pricketh aye so sore,

Hath taught me to set in trifles no store,

And ‘scape forth since liberty is lever.

Therefore farewell, go trouble younger heart,

And in me claim no more authority;

With idle youth go use thy property,

And thereon spend thy many brittle darts.

For hitherto though I have lost all my time,

Me lusteth no longer rotten bows to climb.

In the first line the speaker rejects love by saying “farewell” to it forever. Not only does he say goodbye to Love, but the speaker also rejects Love’s “laws.” To suggest that Love has laws defies the idea of this abstraction as fanciful and pleasant. Instead, the reader is forced to see Love as having structure, boundaries, rules, and restrictions. The next line characterizes Love as a dangerous beast with hooks. The fact that the hooks “tangle” the speaker shows that, in his view, Love is confusing and easy to get caught up in. The next two lines suggest that to submit to Love is to be witless. Thus the speaker characterizes Love as something that should be reserved for uneducated idiots, and that those who sharpen their minds will not be dumb enough to fall prey to it. Lines five and six continue the speaker’s negative analysis by saying that Love repels, instead of embraces the speaker. No matter how hard the speaker “persevered” to obtain Love, it was always beyond his reach. Furthermore, the speaker suggests that Love’s rejection of him never ceased to be hurtful. In the next line the speaker says that Love is a trifle. According to the Oxford English dictionary a trifle is, “a false or idle tale told to deceive, cheat, or befool.” By describing Love as a trifle, the speaker asserts that it is almost evil because it aims to deceive and harm. Line eight continues by suggesting that to submit to love is to lose freedom. Thus, according to the speaker, Love makes people into slaves. The next four lines suggest that the speaker feels he is too old, and possibly too emotionally tired, to be bothered by love. He says that Love is for young people who still have the strength to sustain the troubles that Love inflicts. Furthermore, Love is given a weapon by the speaker to inflict pain on those who are struck by its’ arrows.

Wyatt’s poem definitely represents the most negative view of Love I have seen in awhile. What I think is most interesting about this poem, though, is that each line has within it a different evaluation of the danger and uselessness of Love.

Sonnet 61

Michael Drayton's sonnet number sixty-one, on first look, seems to be a sonnet about the ease with which love can be ended. However, a more careful reading of this sonnet reveals that it may in fact have the opposite meaning. One key word of this text, "vows," illuminates the speaker's true feelings about the difficulty of losing or ending a love affair.

Drayton begins his sonnet by having the speaker assert his joy at having the relationship end. The speaker then goes on to describe how easily the love affair will be done away with by saying, "Shake hands forever, cancel all our vows,/and when we meet again,/ Be it not seen in either of our brows/ That we one jot of former love retain." The word "vows" stands out as the key word of this poem and one which reveals the speaker's true feelings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a vow is "a solemn promise made to God..." A vow inherently cannot be broken because it is a promise to one’s maker. The fact that the speaker and his lover have made vows to each other reveals the seriousness of their relationship. Usually, a vow is considered to bind one person to another for eternity or until one of the persons in the relationship dies. So, even though the speaker may desire a simple end to his relationship, the existence of a vow between these two lovers suggests that an easy “canceling” of their promises will not be possible.

Later in the poem the idea that freeing himself will not be as easy as the speaker first suggests is confirmed when he says that Love is gasping his last breath, Passion’s pulse is failing, and Faith is near death. Although the speaker desires for the vows made in the relationship to be easily broken, it is simply impossible. In order for the separation of the lovers to occur, Love, Passion, and Faith, the sustaining matter of their connection must perish with the relationship.

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
(www.deadlysins.com)

In Canto 4 six counsellours are described. They are Idleness, Gluttony, Lechery, Avarice. Envie, and Wrath. According to the descriptions of each, they seem to reflect the seven deadly sins, minus one. I took the definitions of each of the deadly sins and listed them above. By comparing these definitions with the descriptions of the counselors it seems that pride is the sin that remains unmentioned. This made me think of your analysis of the story that you presented in class and in your blog about the possible critique that occurs of Elizabeth’s prideful decision not to marry through Spenser’s description of Lucifera. At first, I was confused by the seeming absence of Pride as one of Lucifera’s counselors. Now, however, if your assumption is right, Lucifera herself may be left as encompassing pride, and thus Pride is not one of her counselors. What do you think?

I also thought the passages describing the counselors were quite interesting, specifically in light of which animals were chosen for each counselor to be placed on. However, I am only going to discuss the first, Idleness or Sloth, who is placed on a slow and unattractive animal, the donkey. However, the donkey is often pointed to in the Bible as a common method of travel for biblical characters. Idleness carries a prayerbook with him, further illuminating the similarities between this character and a biblical one. Thus, Idleness not only rides on an animal that may exhibit similar behavior to him, but he also seems to make a mockery of the Bible by wearing a habit, carrying a prayerbook, and traveling on a donkey.

assigned blog pg 728 stanza 37 canto 1

“Then choosing out a few words most horrible
(let none them read), thereof did verses frame,
With which and other spelles like terrible,
He bade awake blacke Plutoes grisly Dame,
And cursed heaven, and spake reproachful shame
Of highest God, the lord of life and light
A bold bad man, that dared to call by name
Great Gorgon, prince of darkness and dead night,
At which Cocytus quakes and Styx is put to flight.”

I chose this stanza not just because it portrays a pivotal part of the story line of The Faerie Queen, but because I think it reveals one of the most interesting characteristics of this text, the existence of both allegory as well as mythical allusions.

On a literal level, this stanza tells about the cursing of the knight by the man whom they meet in the forest. Through a spell, the old man hopes to awaken spirits that will trouble the knight’s dreams. As he speaks this spell, he calls to Gorgon, the originator of all the “Gods,” and he also curses heaven and the Christian God who is referred to as “the Lord of light and life.” A word by word, or perhaps phrase by phrase, translation of this stanza would read as follows:

Then he chose out the most horrible words in existance
(which I won’t reproduce here)
And with these words and some other terrible spells
He tried to awaken Proserpine, the patron of witchcraftand cursed heaven and God, the lord of life and light.
He was a bold and bad man since he could call
Gorgon, the first and greatest of all gods (and the opposite of the lord of light and light)
Who is so powerful that the rivers tremble at his presence.

One thing I found interesting about this portion of the text is that Spenser not only points to both Christian images and Mythical representations, but that he also seems to affirm the existence of both. As a reader of this text, I expected any mythical mentioning to either be argued against or destroyed by the Christian God or another heavenly creature. Instead, mythical and evil creatures are given the power to influence and control outcomes in the story. I found it amazing that Spenser, in a single stanza affirmed the reality of a Christian God, but instead of placing Satan in the usual role of “prince of darkness” Gorgon was used in this role, creating an odd contrast between a supposedly all-powerful God, and the supposedly all powerful progenitor of God(s). Spenser succeeds in making this stanza a point of foreshadowing and conflict. An obvious conflict exists between good and evil, illuminated by the contrast between the “Lord of life and light” and the “Prince of darknesse and dead night.” This stanza is also the point at which mythical spirits are first called into the story. If the old man succeeds in calling forth the spirits, the rest of the story will undoubtedly be altered.

Spenser uses a few literary devises to strengthen the power of this particular stanza. This stanza is meant to affect the reader by fully demonstrating how powerful the spirits that are being called forth are and to make the scene seem ominous. First he invokes hyperbole by saying the old man utters “words most horrible.” Next, Spenser refers to Proserpine, not by name, but as “blacke Plutoes grisly Dame” Instead of calling Prosperpine by name, Spenser alludes to Pluto, the God of the underworld who captured Proserpine to live in the underworld with him. The image of “blacke Pluto” causes the reader to imagine an evil villain of the underworld. The word “grisly” calls forth an image, not of a person, but of a beast. To do so urges the reader to regard Proserpine as a dirtied and savage animal of the underworld, which as one might imagine, would be a quite frightening image for the eighteenth century reader to call to mind. Spenser also uses Metonymy when he says “He…cursed heaven.” While the man did not literally curse the heavens, clouds, sun, light, and air, he cursed all heavenly beings. So, as he calls to the underworld, he is portrayed as an even more despicable character because he commits a sacrilege by speaking against the Christian God. A final effective use of language is the personification of the rivers Styx and Cocytus which “shake” and are “put to flight.” This specific personification has an interesting effect because it makes the reader feel how truly powerful Gorgon is. Not only is he the Prince of darkness, but he is so powerful that he can cause inanimate objects to shiver in fear.

Everyman

Everyman reminded me of a church pageant play or a “fire and brimstone” sermon. I could imagine a zealous minister telling the story of Everyman to his congregation and urging them to repent before it’s “too late.” I’m still getting used to the personification of abstractions, because as I’m reading I have to remind myself the connotations associated with words like “good.” I think by personifying Knowledge and Good Deeds Everyman proves much more meaningful because the reader can feel directly connected to these characters.

I noticed Everyman seemed similar in some respects to children’s stories or Bible fables in that it is relatively simple. The moral of the story is much clearer than anything else we have read thus far this semester. Everyman urges the reader to live righteously on a daily basis. Because most (if not all) people will not be able to predict or determine when they will die, the Medieval audience of Everyman would be convicted to live in a way that would bring them to heaven.

I have read Everyman once before for another class and, unfortunately it was not any more enjoyable the second time around. The play seems drawn out to me. After the first few pages, I kind of get the point and feel over reading it. Reading this play the second time did help clarify some of the language that was difficult to understand the first time. But, I could definitely live without reading this play a third time.

Christ's Humanity--Pier's Plowman

I read through this text much more quickly than I navigated through The Canterbury Tales in Middle English. I can understand how comprehension of the 18th passus would be difficult without a thorough understanding of the crucifixion story. I think it would have been a good idea to take the actual Biblical text of the crucifixion and paired it with Langland’s dream version to see how the two were similar and different.

One particular characteristic of Langland’s dream vision that stood out to me was the personification of abstractions like Love, Mercy, and Truth. There are a few passages where I thought these personifications were particularly effective, and if not, they were at least interesting. Langland describes Christ’s crucifixion not only as a battle between heaven and hell or good and evil or God and Satan. He also describes it as a battle between Life and Death. I think this portrays the crucifixion as a war for a more basic instinct, Life. One particular sentence struck me. It reads, “If you are Christ and a King’s son, come down from the Cross!/ Then we’ll believe that Life loves you and will not let you die.” Instead of the traditional Bible story in which spectators ask Jesus to reveal his power and God’s power by freeing himself and preserving his life, Langland points to Life as an omnipotent savior.

Another interesting use of personification is found on page 361 when Righteousness argues to Peace that those who dwell in Hell will not be saved. He says, “…their pain will be perpetual and no prayer should help them…” while Peace argues, “Love who is my lover sent letters to tell me that my sister Mercy and I shall save mankind.” I thought it was interesting that Langland seems to frame spiritual conflicts around interactions between personified emotions or other abstractions. The conversations between Peace and Righteousness seem to remove the reader from seeing Salvation as a gift from God, and cause them to instead feel that the abstractions hold power over heaven and hell. Maybe this was just my reading though.