129

The main idea of this poem is the reprecussions that come as a result of men following their lusty instincts. It fairly blatantly implies that to follow these lusty instincts is to literally have sex with the object of their affection. Besides the obvious statement of "lust in action," there are many indications of this, some of which even the footnotes suggest- "a waste (waist) of shame," "swallowed bait," "laid," "had, having, and in quest to have," "bliss," and so on. However, the part I found most interesting was not the lines that describe these actions and their reprecussions, but instead, the ending couplet that poses the question as to why we let these things continue.

The final couplet proposes an interesting thought that can extend even beyond the topic of this sonnet into a broad generalization about human nature. But within the text of the sonnet, the last line and a half perhaps inverts what the rest of the sonnet has so far achieved. The first three quatrains of the sonnet essentially prescribe power to women. They are bait "laid to make the taker mad" and the lust that their beauty provokes is "perjured, murd'rous, bloody, full of blame." Simply stated, a woman's beauty has the power to possess a man's mind and body. However, in the final couplet, Shakespeare completely usurps women and places men back in power. Maybe the "heaven" that Shakespeare refers to is not that of sexual bliss, but rather what causes men to desire it. The "heaven" then, in essence, is manhood, or more literally, the male genitalia. In itself, describing it as "heaven" glorifies the idea of being male. Obviously a good portion of a man's decisions are influenced by an organ other than the brain, but it can be extended even further than this into everything that manhood encapsulates- testosterone, agression, control, power, and the like. He is making the point that although the world sees the problem at hand, they refuse to shun a man's manhood and deny him what is presumably his right as the supposed superior gender. Although it leads them into this aforementioned hell, it is, after all, their essence. The manlier the better, right? Maybe, maybe not. Its almost a tease, really. He begins to distribute power to women and then in the last two lines, snatches it right back. Perhaps, he like most men, cannot stand to lose control or perhaps he is trying to compensate for the lack of control in the first three quatrains by highlighting male dominance in the final couplet. Whatever his intent, he drastically changes the direction of the poem.

A second interpretation that I found in these lines is almost exactly the opposite. If the heaven is seen as women and their beauty and sexuality, then he is not only assigning them power, but praise as well. He is stating that although they make men mad and lead them into sin, the world and men can't help but love them. Even with this perspective he still drastically shifts the mood of the poem. In the quatrians, although he makes women powerful, he makes them evil. In contrast, in the final couplet, he is unable to treat them with disdain. Whichever gender is assigned the term "heaven" all depends on who the reader perceives as the guilty party in these sexual acts-the man for being unable to control his desires or the woman for provoking them.

One other interpretation that I took from these two lines relates more to the broad generalization being made about human nature. The words "heaven" and "hell" are what make this such an interesting ending. If we assume that "heaven" refers to women, sexual desire, and sex itself, and hell the consequences, its brings us back to a question that has been raised on some level in many of our previous readings. If God made women beautiful, if he made sex pleasurable, if he gave people genitals for uses other than urination, then why should we deny and be punished for lusting and acting on this lust? He is not even so much questioning why we don't "shun the heaven" but instead, is merely making an observation. He knows why, we all know why.

55

I found sonnet 55 to be full of contradiction. The first two quatrains focus heavily on destruction of stone and monuments while the last goes on to discuss the permanence of words on paper. This seemed very backwards to me. He states that "nor war's quick fire shall burn/ the living record of your memory" but in reality, fire is indeed incredibly capable of destroying this memory. I realize his idea of trying to immortalize his lover by writing about him but it seems to me that stone is much more indestructable than a poem. There are stones that are millions of years old and while the inscriptions on them may wear away and statues may fall, it still seems a much more solid idea than paper, especially since at that time it was not so easy to produce works in bulk. Obviously Shakespeare succeeded in preserving his love on paper but what about those who did not make such a lasting impression of literature?

The other point of interest that I saw in the poem was that of life and death and the fact that there can be life in death. In one line, the subject is perceived as dead and in the next, as living, all because of the poets wording. His poem starts off with destruction and loss of permanence and gradually works its way towards life and judgement day when the "sleeping" will wake. This transition enhances and illustrates what he tells us he is trying to do with his poem and that is to bring the dead to life. I think in a way, its arrogant of Shakespeare to essentially consider himself capable of giving life to something that God has put to rest.

sidney

One of the sonnets that I found most interesting was 28. Although someone could probably make the argument that even though he is rejecting the use of allegory here that he is still somehow using it, I like to think that he really is just writing about love. The line "I beg no subject to use eloquence" makes him seem almost bitter that people would use love as an allegorical device for something else. I get the impression that he wishes he didn't have this love to be his muse because it is causes him agony. I think he really is saying that hes not just using love to show off, but that he really feels strongly about it and is simply expressing those emotions. Its a breath of fresh air to not have to sift through a dozen layers of crap to find the actual intended meaning. Why don't poets ever just say what they mean?

The other sonnet I found intriguing was 47. He poses a very interesting question here as to whether or not we are born slaves to love or if we are the ones who torture ourselves by submitting to it. Why do we willingly allow ourselves the agony of being in love? Should we, as he seems to propose at the end, deny our feelings in order to protect ourselves from this agony? Or does denial even protect us? He seems to try really hard to let go of his feelings and move on but no matter how unrequited his love, it has such power over him that he just can't let it go. I think his sonnets were sincere and insightful and much more enjoyable than what we have read thus far.

Love, that doth reign and live within my thought

After reading Howard's poem, my first thought was to chose "reign" as the key word since the main image here is of Love reigning or having power over a man's soul. However, in re-reading and pondering, I decided that the point is not that love is powerful. We all know this to be true, either from our own experience or from the countless number of pop singers, poets, and Nicholas Sparks books which have told us so. Instead, I saw the point of interest being the question, why is love so powerful? So I chose a new word: "converteth." One of the main things that the poem portrays is that love is powerful because it has the ability to change us on many levels. It occurs in the text where the poet's feelings on love change so it is an obvious pivot point; but it does more than just tell the reader that the tone of the poem is changing-it tells the reader something about the nature of love. Throughout the poem, Love is providing constant changes within the man in whom it reigns. On a physical level, he states that "oft in my face he doth his banner rest," stating more or less that it makes him blush. But on a deeper level, we see constant evidence of its ability to continually convert emotions back and forth. He begins by describing Love in a mainly positive manner noting that it has been his ally and teacher and then continues on describing its descent and its converting grace to ire. What is so interesting about this however is that he displaces his feelings to this Love that lives within him stating that "for my lord's guilt thus faultless bide I pain." So he is converting his pain to something beyond himself, essentially refusing to acknowledge the suffering as his own. So not only is "converteth" used in terms of what love can do to a man and his emotions, it is also used because the poet is attempting to convert his feelings to something other than himself and therefore relinquish responsibility.

canto 12

Stanza 57
So she to Guyon offred it to tast;
Who taking it out of her tender hond,
The cup to ground did violently cast,
That all in peeces it was broken fond
And with the liquor stained all the lond
Whereat Excesses exceedingly was wroth
Yet no’te the same amend, ne yet withstond,
But suffered him to passé, all were she loth
Who nought regarding her displeasure forward goth

In this stanza, Guyon is being offered a cup of wine by a young lady who has just squeezed the fruits to make it. However, instead of accepting it, he takes it and throws it on the ground, seemingly in defiance of excess. The woman feels so awful that she allows him to pass through into the Bowre of Blisse.

There are a lot of things happening here. Spenser is literally promoting temperance on the surface but strongly suggesting otherwise on various other levels. What he describes as temperance is “moderation, self-control, and sometimes abstinence in regard to anger, sex, greed, ambition, and the whole spectrum of passions, desires, pleasures and material goods.” In this stanza, Guyon openly strikes down the cup of wine offered to him, essentially in defiance of excess. Yet oddly enough he is then allowed to pass forward into the “daintie Paradise” that is filled with pleasure. It’s as if Spenser is saying, hey, you did good by resisting the wine so go ahead and reward yourself by indulging in other pleasures.

One of the other major things to notice in this stanza and ones surrounding it are the sexual implications. He really sets up the sexual undertones for this stanza in the one before as he describes her squeezing the fruit in lines such as, “whose sappy liquor, that with fulnesse sweld.” Then, when Guyon enters in 57, the reader already has a pretty clear picture of what’s on his mind. The first line describes her as offering him a taste. Although it is of the wine, on a more figurative level, he is getting a taste of her and realizing that he can not restrain himself and wants the whole thing. The last two lines describe him being allowed entrance but what it really sounds like is that she lets him enter her. Here the cup of wine could be viewed not as a critique on temperance, but as Guyon casting aside the church and religious values and giving in to his sinful temptations. Women are painted here with so much sexuality that Spenser seems to be asking why God would create such beauty and the desire for it if he did not intend for men to fulfill those desires. It reminds me a lot of the Wife of Bath’s argument that if genitals were made for more than urination and sexual determination, then we should appreciate and use them for all of their functions, not just those two.

The words that he chooses in this stanza accentuate the ideas that he is attempting to convey. He presents a sharp contrast between male and female in the lines, “Who taking it out of her tender hond/The cup to the ground did violently cast.” The use of “tender” in the line brings about a very feminine and soft image but at the same time, whether intended by Spenser or not, it presents her as a piece of meat. So not only do we perceive her on a womanly level but on a level that portrays her as an object for man to take and do with what he pleases. The line following it depicts males, in this instance Guyon, as violent and powerful; a very drastic change from women in the previous line. Interestingly enough however, because the line describing Guyon appears under the one of the woman, it makes him seem subordinate. Although his actions indicate dominance, Spenser seems to dismantle this with the placement of the lines.

The line “Whereat Excesse exceedingly was wroth” employs incredible use of language. He describes excesse as exceeding and grinds the concept into his readers with the sound of the words. Not only does he put two extremely similar words back to back, but the alternating pattern of the sounds ex, s, ex, s, clearly makes his point. Also the “s” sound provokes very malevolent thoughts because it is reminiscent of snakes and villains who draw out their s’s. Although he emphasizes the idea of excess in this line, it’s almost in a comical way. “Excesse exceedingly” is quite a tongue twister and a bit ridiculous sounding. While he may be criticizing excess, he may also be criticizing those obsessed with moderation.

Finally, the second to last line, as mentioned earlier, offers a potential sexual undertone. Three words make this line seem like more than a woman allowing a man to pass through an entrance. First, he chooses “suffered” to mean “allowed,” which makes it seem as if he forced himself on her. Choosing “to passé” seems to imply that he literally passed through her chastity belt and personal wishes and into her. And finally, that she “loth” it implies that she was reluctant but that she had no choice. In just nine lines, he manages to expose an array of issues on numerous different levels using little else but language.

The Faerie Queene, Canto 4

Well I have to say I much prefer Everyman to the Faerie Queene. If I wanted to frustrate myself by trying to deciphering something I'd just pick up the paper and attempt the cryptoquote. I mean my goodness Edmund Spenser, just say what you want to say and be done with it. Everything has to be interpreted and worked through on all different levels of meaning just to figure out what the heck hes really trying to say. Now I know how helpless men feel when attempting to figure out women.

So about the text. I found the stanzas about the seven deadly sins intriguing. I think its interesting that pride is the leader and seemingly utmost of the sins. The fotenote states that this procession where Pride is queen was typical of medieval art but I wonder why exactly that was. Perhaps its because a prideful person is one who is very self assured and dominant and therefore desires leadership roles or perhaps its something biblical that I'm unaware of. I'm sure there is some deeper meaning that he is intending here, but like I said earlier, thats has not been my forte with this story. As for that and the rest of the sins, I really liked how he characterized them giving each of them a very human form. It wasn't just the sin but a human embodiment of it and that made it more real and it reminded me a lot of the victims in the movie Seven. He described the sins in such detail that you saw not only the sin but the very danger in possessing it at an extreme level. He also assosciates a lot of the sins with others. For example, he has Idlenesse riding on a slouthfull asse, and Wrath upon a Lion, presumably implying that many of these sins are often in combination. Spenser uses a lot of the alliterative technique here, especially in stanza 26 in which he uses an abundance of "L"s to create such a strong image of Lechery. Although I wasn't a fan of trying to read into all of the deeper meanings that he creates and recreates, I was very entertained by this procession of the sins and his eloquent manner of depicting them.

Everyman

In response to your post (Professor Lupton)...
I have to say I don't entirely agree with your assessment of Last Holiday's reflection on our society. Yes, there is no denying the fact that we are incredibly consumer driven and that we sure do love our stuff. And while there is certainly an element of consumerism in the film, it sounds like there is more to it than that. Granted, I have not seen the movie so perhaps I am entirely off, but from your post it sounds like she is living by experiencing and that money is just a means to an end. Although her endeavors are costly (and she chooses to make them so), she is accumulating little. What constitutes living to her is seeing the world and treating herself well, and unfortunately in our world, that requires money. However, I definitely see your point and I agree it makes an incredible and incredibly accurate statement about our society.

In terms of Everyman's response to dying, I think his sole reason for scrambling to rectify his relationship with God was his fear of eternal dammnation and not because he or society then was above materialism. Two thoughts came to mind after reading this story. The first was that Everyman is like a man on death row who becomes a Christian under an impending death sentence. It seems a decision purely motivated by fear, not by desire to be a good person and to have an actual relationship with God. My second thought was that Everyman is like a high schooler who has been warned by someone in the class period before him that the teacher is going to give a pop quiz and frantically tries to learn the information that he has neglected to study. Had he studied a little every day, he would have no reason to panic. Basically I don't see his dying actions as entirely honorable but rather as a desperate attempt to save himself.

Piers Plowman

For me, Langland's alliteration very distinctly defined the two opposing forces that seemed to be at odds in his dream. In lines 30 and 31 and again in line 59, his alliteration of "L" emphasizes the idea of the Lord through words such as light and life. Around these same lines, he employs words like drag down, dread, darkness, deep, and destroys to embody the notion of death and the devil. This collection of "L" words versus "D" words give the impression of two separate factions and allows the reader to clearly see the struggle and the forces behind it. I think the use of alliteration makes the passage a little easier to comprehend in general because ideas are clearly related through alliteration.

There were a few other things that grabbed my attention but are perhaps of little relevance. The fact that Faith is a male surprised me at first, mainly because today the name is feminine and although it often times implies strength, it does not seem to carry a very masculine connotation. Also, on page 332, the "truest form of pilgramige" seems almost like a primitive idea of communisim. Although there are still class distinctions, all of the classes are to work harmoniously and towards the same goal. However, like communism, this ideal is flawed and collapses.

Piers Plowman

For me, Langland's alliteration very distinctly defined the two opposing forces that seemed to be at odds in his dream. In lines 30 and 31 and again in line 59, his alliteration of "L" emphasizes the idea of the Lord through words such as light and life. Around these same lines, he employs words like drag down, dread, darkness, deep, and destroys to embody the notion of death and the devil. This collection of "L" words versus "D" words give the impression of two separate factions and allows the reader to clearly see the struggle and the forces behind it. I think the use of alliteration makes the passage a little easier to comprehend in general because ideas are clearly related through alliteration.

There were a few other things that grabbed my attention but are perhaps of little relevance. The fact that Faith is a male surprised me at first, mainly because today the name is feminine and although it often times implies strength, it does not seem to carry a very masculine connotation. Also, on page 332, the "truest form of pilgramige" seems almost like a primitive idea of communisim. Although there are still class distinctions, all of the classes are to work harmoniously and towards the same goal. However, like communism, this ideal is flawed and collapses.