Don Quixote and Joseph Andrews

In the midst of gaudy French Romance novels and harsh English satires stands an epic tale from a century earlier that comes from the country of Spain, which was in constant war with the Moors who had occupied it many centuries before.  Though it is a satire, it stood the test of time and is still well known to this day.  The piece of literature that I’m referring to is none other than Miguel de Cervantes’ The Life and Achievements of the Renowned Don Quixote.  From this work came one of many inspirations for Henry Fielding to write Joseph Andrews, which we will compare with Don Quixote in this essay.

Unlike his contemporaries, Don Quixote chooses to devote “himself to the neglected Profession of Knight-Errantry, to redress the Wrongs and Injuries” (Cervantes, 349).  In other words, he takes the life of the medieval knight, which he has only read about in books, and applies it in a quest to find his so-called princess Dulcinea.  However, due to chivalry being outdated by the 17^th century, Don Quixote’s actions often contradict with reality, therefore causing more harm than good to those around him.  A good example of this lies in how he dealt with the boy being abused by the rich farmer, who swore “by the Order of Knighthood, which has been conferred upon him” (Cervantes, 345).  Unfortunately, the farmer never lived up to his promise, and continued to abuse the boy shortly after Don Quixote left.

In comparison, Joseph Andrews is a poor boy employed by a rich man to work as his wife’s footman.  But shortly after her husband unexpectedly dies, the lady begins to try to seduce Joseph, and often calls him to her chambers.  Despite this, he resists her advancements because he is concerned for “the Chastity of his Family” (Fielding, 33), or his preference to not have sex before marriage.  This puts him at odds with the lady, who subsequently fires him, and leads him on a search for his true love Fanny.  Along the way, he comes across many challenges, such as the chambermaid at the inn he is forced to stay at due to being mugged by thieves, whom she considered “the handsomest Creature she had ever seen” (Fielding, 68) and tried to seduce him as well, though it ultimately backfires.

So when we take both Joseph Andrews and Don Quixote into consideration, there are many things these two heroes share in common.  For instance, both have highly romantic ideals, which are contrary to the beliefs of their contemporaries, which becomes a major source of conflict in their stories.  They also have an ideal woman who they are searching for, and the focal point of their journeys.  But there are also very strong differences that separate them.  While Don Quixote is seeing his world through a distorted lens and believing in his own world to the point of madness, Joseph Andrews sees what’s truly going on but uses his beliefs to counter them instead of ignoring them.  There is also a difference in the kinds of companions they have, with Joseph having a humanly priest who ends up playing a major role in finding Fanny, and a field worker who mostly ends up taking the brunt for Don Quixote’s mistakes with no reward.             

Mary Astell's Thoughts on Men

According to Mary Astell, who argues for the education of women in her piece Some Reflections upon Marriage, says that men are part of the problem.  Is it that men are too proud to respect women, or don’t give women much regard in general? She does mention that men are “too humane, too wise to venture” (Astell, 2285-6), which might imply the latter of the question.  However, men are certainly fond of their wisdom and superiority, and don’t want to “waste their time and debase their good sense” (Astell, 2285), indicating a sense of pride on their part.  To prove which part of the question is right, we’ll look at Astell’s thoughts on men in her piece, and see if we can find the answer there.

In argument for the former half of the question, Astell describes men and their contempt to leave women as they are, and not further their education.  The reason for this, she says, is that “man has too much bravery, he is too just and too good to assault a defenseless enemy, and if he did inveigh against the women it was only do them service” (Astell, 2286).  Here, Astell claims that because men have presumptions about women being weak, they wouldn’t dare assault or interfere in their affairs, unless they believed it was necessary to do so for the women’s own good.  Now this statement reeks of a superiority complex on the men’s part, and reflects their pride and lack of understanding women in general.

As for the latter, Astell makes the point that men are the cause for creating foolish women who let their expectations get ahead of themselves in regards to marriage, only to find it not as pleasing as they had hoped.  In marriage, women are treated like slaves, and left in the dark, according to Astell, because men wish to not to educate them.  Ironically, they are the perfect type to teach women, because they have “all the advantages of nature”, but sadly “are so far from acquitting themselves as they ought, from living according to that reason and excellent understanding they so much boast of” (Astell, 2288).  Therefore, it can be expected that “a woman who is reckoned silly enough in herself, at least comparatively, and whom men take care to make yet more so” (Astell, 2288) won’t get an education because men don’t practice what they preach.

So when we compare the two sides of the same question, we come up with two similar results.  On one hand, men are too proud to educate women, because they consider themselves superior and feel no need to interfere in their lives.  But on the other end, men simply don’t care about women, because despite their great wisdom, they don’t practice it in real life, and end up not giving women the education they need to be better wives.  When we look at the evidence in the piece itself, it becomes apparent that the answer to the question above is both.  Men don’t give much regard to the “soulless” women who aren’t worth their time, and they see themselves as better than women out of pride.            

The Repression of Love and Its Resolution in Donne's "The Canonization"

Is there a resolution of the conflict presented in John Donne’s poem “The Canonization”? Well, I believe so.  To prove it, I will look at the religious and romantic aspects of the poem.  I will also look at the powerful symbols Donne uses to support his claim.  Then lastly, there is the riddle of the phoenix, which may prove the answer to this question.

First, religion is one of the main themes of this poem.  Hence, the title and the various symbols related to religion, such as God, saints, churches, and so on.  But what they have to do with the conflict that the poem presents, which is the repression of love, is simply that love is elevated to an almost religious stature.  In other words, the narrator and his love interest are “canonized for love” (Donne, 1593).  Here, Donne compares the ritual of love to the process of canonization, which is the making of saints, and proclaims that love is so sacred that it is even recognized religiously.

Not only is love recognized religiously, but romantically as well.  The main romantic image is the taper, or candle.  In the poem, Donne says, “We are tapers too, and at our own cost die” (Donne, 1593).  From this passage, we can distinguish two things.  First, the idea that love is like a candle, because the lovers’ lives are brief and they use themselves up to be together.  Second, the thought of dying is seen as experiencing an orgasm.  Originally a French concept, it claims that when you experience it, a little bit of yourself is lost every time.  This is why it is known as the little death.  What this has to do with love is that it’s so strong, that you almost feel like you’re dying.   

Apart from the various associations to religion and romance, there are other more powerful symbols that Donne uses to support his claim on the conflict at hand in the poem.  For example, he refers to sonnets as rooms.  A play on the word ‘stanza’, he turns a simple structure into a strong proclamation of love, hence the line “And if no piece of chronicle we prove,/We’ll build in sonnets pretty rooms;/As well a well wrought urn becomes/The greatest ashes, as half-acre tombs” (Donne, 1593).  In this passage, Donne is saying that the metaphorical rooms and the urn’s ashes will represent love, and stand the test of time for all to see.

Then finally, there is the riddle of the phoenix, whose mysterious ability to reincarnate is somehow connected to love.  In the poem, the narrator compares him and his lover to the phoenix by saying that “The phoenix riddle hath more wit/By us; we two being one, are it” (Donne, 1593).  How this compares to love, however, is that like the phoenix, which is a symbol of perfection, love is also perfect, when considering the lovers as one person.

So in conclusion, the resolution of the poem’s conflict is that love is sacred in a religious and romantic sense.  It is saintly, and it is brief.  Love is also so powerful that it will stand the test of time in the form of poetry, or in the ashes from a metaphorical urn.  Then finally, love is a reincarnating idea that is forever perfect like the mysterious phoenix.  Therefore, love has no right to be repressed. 

Hamlet and the Prince of Denmark: A review of the movie Hamlet

Hamlet the play and Hamlet the movie are two representations of the same corrupted world that we live in, whether it’s politics or business. They have the same themes and characters, but different settings and circumstances when it comes to presenting a story that has outlived its original creator, and been told numerous times throughout the centuries.  In this tragic drama, most of the participants are “fishmongers” (Shakespeare, 43) who will use any means to get what they want, either through manipulation or cold-blooded murder.  Then there are those who seek revenge, and those who do nothing but watch and obey.

To start things off, we will look at the distinct times these two similar stories take place.  For instance, the play is set in Denmark during the late Middle Ages, where a kings’ status affects an entire country of people, and the court was where “that monster, Custom…that to the use of actions fair and good/he likewise gives a frock or livery/that aptly is put on” (Shakespeare, 83) away from the prying eyes of the public.  This is similar to the way business works in the movie, which takes place in New York City in the year 2000, but with the media always watching the key players, and reporting any scandal they can dig up to the masses, whose opinions are more important than ever to keep a company running, whose effect on everyone isn't as severe as the ruler of a country.

It is due to this difference in times that affects how we perceive the characters through the way they speak.  In the play, the Elizabethan English is hardly unusual for that was common speech in those times.  But when you take that dialogue and apply it to modern times, where no one speaks like that in real life, it becomes hard to take the movie seriously.  Then there are the monologues, which are typically spoken out loud by the characters to a hidden audience that lies beyond the stage.  In the movie, the monologues are either spoken out loud, spoken in the character’s heads, or in the videos that Hamlet makes in order to create the illusion of realism despite an overly unrealistic script. 

As for the characters themselves, their importance still matters to the situations at hand, though their actions slightly differ between the play and the movie.  Take Hamlet for example: in the play, he’s a melancholic, suicidal, and impulsively passionate prince who always questions his actions due to the conflict of truth.  He acts mostly the same in the movie, only a little more dramatic and has a minor hobby of film-making, which gives him some character, much like Ophelia’s liking for photography.  Ophelia also openly expresses her inner emotions more in the movie through the way she behaves instead of words, like the tears she shed upon being equipped with a listening device while in the play, she just rigidly does what she’s told.  Then there is Queen Gertrude, whose love for her brother-in-law/second husband is questionable.  Her behavior around Claudius is more passionate in the movie than in the play where none of it is visible, which leads us to assume that Gertrude’s love is out of duty, and not romantic interest.

Then lastly, there are the circumstances that cause the story to move forward.  Such a circumstance is best exemplified in the play that Hamlet directs, using the traveling theater troupe, to see his uncle’s reaction upon the scene that reenacts the murder of his brother.  But in the movie, it is a film that Hamlet created himself without any outside help that is slightly surrealist in its use of different clips and illustrations to suit its theme, whereas the play was based on an existing story that happened to have similar aspects to what was actually going on.  There is also the minor change of the vessel that Hamlet heads to England in, which in the play is a boat and in the movie a plane.  But how he got off the plane isn’t explained at all in the movie whereas in the play it is explained through dialogue that he never got on the boat in the first place.

So therefore, the differences between these two mediums are attributed to their settings.  The culture and political structures are vastly different, so it makes connecting an old story to the present day difficult.  But it was neatly pulled off in the fitting circumstances and adaptable characters, which shows the timelessness of the classic tale at hand.  However, the speech and importance of the situations didn’t fit, for they were dated and seemed over-dramatic from a modern perspective.   

              

 

   

Sidney's Suggestions About Love

In Astrophil and Stella, is Sir Philip Sidney trying to say that love is deadly in general, or particularly from a woman like Stella? This question came to me after reading Sonnet 7 particularly, and I never got to address it in class.  So to answer this question myself, I will focus on evidence in the text as well as the love life of Philip Sidney in comparison it to the sonnets themselves.

The first thing we notice when we read Sonnet 7 of Astrophil and Stella is that this woman who the narrator is describing has black eyes.  This is unusual because in most sonnets that were written at the time, the woman usually has blue eyes.  The reason why her eyes are black, according to the narrator, is because “She even in black doth make all beauties flow? /Both so and thus, she minding Love should be/Placed ever there, gave him this mourning weed, /To honor all their deaths, who for her bleed” (Sidney 681).  In other words, she is so beautiful that even her gaze is lethal, because it conveys love directly to the man's heart, which overwhelms him to the point of dying. 

           This would imply that Sidney thinks that love is dangerous, but when we look at his love life, an interesting fact comes up.  During the time that Sidney was writing Astrophil and Stella, he was courting a woman named Penelope Devereux.  However, she ended up marrying someone else and he married Frances Walsingham instead, who he had one daughter with before his death three years later (Jokinen).  In Astrophil and Stella, he describes a woman who he’s deeply in love with, and wants her to notice him, even though her beauty is deadly.  When we compare the two, we find many similarities.  For instance, both situations involve a courtship, and the woman who is the subject of this courting has a similar affect on men, whether fictional or not.

Therefore, Sidney is suggesting that love isn’t deadly in general, but it is particularly from a woman like Stella.  Stella, who represents Penelope in the poem, is the object of the narrator’s affection, and he loves her so deeply that he cannot express it in words.  However, he decides to write a sonnet in hopes that she will notice him, and goes onto to describe her.  Though her eyes are black, her beauty outshines others, and it is fatal for men.  This is why she’s always mourning, because she can never get close to anyone freely.       

Works Cited:

Jokinen, Anniina. "Life of Sir Philip Sidney (1554-1586)." Luminarium.
        7 Apr 2007. 2

Significance of Names in Sir Gawain

-->

That’s an interesting question, isn’t it? What is the significance of names in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and why does the setting matter as well? To answer this, we have to look at the definitions of these names and their relations to the story.  Also, taking a closer look at the settings will help us understand the circumstances behind the tale that is told.

First, we’ll consider Sir Gawain, since he’s the main character.  His name means ‘white hawk of battle’.  In polytheistic religions, the hawk was typically a messenger to the solar gods of each pantheon, representing healing, prophecy, and resurrection.  However, in Christian mythology, this bird was considered to be evil, as to them it represented death, violence, and those who prey on the weak (Tucker,  "ChristStory Hawk Page").  Here, we are reminded of the pagan elements that are prominent in Sir Gawain, and our title character is a prime example. Despite his pureness in spirit and Christian affiliation, Gawain is a fierce warrior and tends to prey on ‘weak’ women.

As for the Green Knight, his name is based on his status in medieval society the color he wears.  For centuries, the color green had been associated with nature and its fertility then it later became associated with fairies, mischievous nature spirits, and evil.  It was for this reason that green became disliked in Christian England (Algora, “The Mythic Forest, the Green Man and the Spirit of Nature”, quoted by Varner, “The Mythology of the Green Man”), and that’s why the Green Knights attire is so startling to everyone in King Arthur’s court.  But because of his position as a knight, the Green Knight exhibits the same Chivalry and follows the same knightly code that the other knights at Camelot do.  So essentially, the Green Knight is a cross between Pagan nature and Christian courtesy.

Now let’s switch topics and talk about settings.  First, we’ve got Camelot.  It is commonly known as the court of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, a place of joy and virtue.  Because of the great men that presided over it and the power it held over England, Camelot is a living representation of the “Golden Age of Chivalry” (Joe, Timeless Myths). 

Then there’s the Green Chapel, which is in essence a Pagan place of worship.  Coming back to the significance of the color green, it represents the earth and therefore worships nature.  However, from a Christian perspective, it is seen as a haven of evil due to its association with nature, which at the time was considered a separate entity for its emphasis on pleasure and consumption of man (Algora, “The Mythic Forest, the Green Man and the Spirit of Nature”, quoted by Varner, “The Mythology of the Green Man”).  This is why Gawain absolutely refuses to enter it, for fear of it consuming him like nature supposedly does to men.

Sources:

Joe, Jimmy.  “Camelot” Timeless Myths (Arthurian Legends). n.d. Feb 4, 2000.

Tucker, Suzetta. "ChristStory Hawk Page." ChristStory Christian Bestiary. 16 Feb. 2013).

Varner, Gary R.  “The Mythology of the Green Man” authorsden.com.  authorsden.com.