3. Sonnets 28-32 of Astrophil and Stella begin with an interesting twist: the first sonnet, while chronicling the love of Astrophil for Stella, also call upon the elements. Earth is represented in the line "I list not dig so deepe for brasen fame." Digging is typically associated with dirt, therefore with earth. Water is seen in, "The raines of Love I love, though never slake." Air is found when Astrophil says that, "...in pure simplicitie, / Breathe out..." Fire is shown as well, this time in "...flames that burne within my heart." Sidney suggests that there is a fifth element: the element of love, or of the heavens. Quintessence, although now usually used with an entirely different meaning, originally referred to the fifth, most powerful element. This element was supposedly composing all heavenly bodies. This makes sense if applied to Stella, who is "star" and represents the heavens. The idea of "changelings" is brought to light early on, which can also go with the element theme, particularly if the fifth element is looked at more as love. Changelings could refer to people touched by love; although they have not physically changed, they are different from before the love. Internal changes take place when one falls in love, which could be what Sidney was getting at. The second sonnet and third sonnet compare love to war, an interesting and debatable analogy. In the second sonnet speaks of "weak Lords, neighbord by mighty kings" and "chiefe cities," and of "frontiers" and "conquerings." These ideas all suggest a battlefield-type love, probably reflecting the way Astrophil feels that his love for Stella has been. In the third sonnet this suggestion is furthered with each two lines containing warring peoples. The Turkish contrast the Christians, reminiscent of the Crusades. The Poles are compared to the Russians, and the French are shown with the Dutch. "How Holland hearts, now so good townes be lost, / Trust in the shade of pleasing Orange tree," puts Holland against Orange, and Ulster is later shown against the Scottish. Although these comparisons may seem strange or irrelevant at first, further exploration shows that each of these pairs were at one point enemies. It's interesting to note that through sonnet 32 there has been no mention of Stella's personality. All of the descriptions throughout Astrophil's praise is physical. Whether this is meant to hint at a lust-induced relationship or just an oversight on Sidney's part, I'm not sure. Sonnet 29 emphasizes this, though, by using body parts throughout. "...her lips his heralds arre: / Her breasts his tents, legs his triumphall carre: / Her flesh his food, her skin his armour brave," demonstrates a great physical attraction, even need, but speaks much more strongly of lust than of love.
4. In this poems, Astrophil seems to take a slightly more negative stance on love. While it's true that before he was quite open about his unrequited love, sonnets 28-32 take the gloom to another level. Before, although he was lamenting his unreturned love, he still seemed to have hope. It seems that his hope is waning and he contemplates the battle-like conditions of love and the way he truly needs Stella but may never have her. He mourns his lack of luck, complaining about the men who waste the love they're given while he cannot even attain love to waste. Maybe it's just that as I'm reading I'm becoming more aware of the melancholy nature of the sonnets, but these sonnets really emphasized the sadness and evoke pity. Sonnet 28 specifically shows Astrophil's lament as he employs the four elements, and possibly a fifth element, to his love of Stella. Sonnet 29 begins the war analogy, also bemoaning Stella's other man. The sonnet claims that the other man does love her, but it also raises the question of whether Astrophil is feeling love or intense lust. Sonnet 30 continues the battle analogy with the comparisons between the countries or empires. Sonnet 31 makes a connection to the skies, seemingly speaking to the moon. "With how sad steps, O Moone, thou climb'st the skies, / How silently, and with how wanne a face," seems to show Astrophil identifying with the "sad" moon. This is an interesting connection, considering Stella is representative of the heavens. Is Astrophil growing closer to her, or is he just using the moon as a metaphor? Sonnet 32 once again shows Astrophil's deep longing for Stella, and the section closes with him blatantly lusting after her.
5. I'm still not absolutely sure whether Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella seriously or mockingly, but I'm starting to find myself siding more and more with the sarcastic argument. Throughout the last five sonnets, Astrophil's lust has been made completely unambiguous. He mentions her body parts numerous times, but never mentions a non-physical characteristic to suggest he truly loves her personality. His "love" seems very shallow, very surface-level. This leads me to conclude that he in fact lusts Stella, which would also lead to the conclusion that Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella to be mocking. If this is the case, the sonnets were written to make fun of romanticism and the unrealistic ideals that go along with it. As previously mentioned, I'm still not entirely sure that I'm choosing this side, but for the moment it seems the stronger option.
6. Sidney sticks with the Petrarchan style and still uses his italicized and upper-cased words. However, the word choice of the formatted words is more confusing in this section, with words like "Stella," "Nature," and "Love," appearing as usual, but also all of the countries and empires and "Morpheus," "Sleepe," and "Indes," appearing as well. I'm beginning to conclude that he uses different formatting for words he wants to emphasize, and that they do not necessarily have a direct connection. I would have thought that "Moone" would have been italicized but it was not.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Astrophil and Stella 3
3. In sonnets 23-27, Astrophil yet again struggles with his wits. They see the "dull pensivenesse" in his "long setled eyes," they recognize the "fumes of melancholy" and the "idle paines, and missing ayme, do guess." However, Astrophil is still confident in his love. His devotion to Stella is unwavering: "...all [his] thoughts hath neither stop nor start, / But only Stella's eyes and Stella's hart." Astrophil also recognizes his own flaws again, this time even more self-depricatingly. He acknowledges that "Wealth breeding want, more blist, more wretched grow." However, he asserts that he is victim to such terrible character flaws, particularly when later in the poem he admits that "Yet pride I thinke doth not my soule possesse, / Which lookes too oft in his unflattring glasse: / But one worse fault, Ambition, I confesse, / That makes me oft my best friends overpasse." Personally, I think that Astrophil does not mean this to tear himself down; rather, he is trying to show that he can see things clearly. He admits that his reason is clouded by love, but he is still able to discern things such as character flaws. If taken in a romantic light, this could be meant to show that he is capable of seeing flaws of Stella, but that she possesses none. Astrophil also speaks of a misalignment between understanding what love is and truly feeling love. "And knowing, love, and loving, lay apart / As sacred things..." can be used to demonstrate this idea. Just because one knows what love is does not mean that one has felt true love. Likewise, just because one has felt love does not mean he or she understands it. Because of this tendency to naivety, "...that rich foole, who by blind Fortune's lot / The richest gemme of Love and life enjoyes, / And can with foule abuse such beauties blot." Astrophil comes across as bitter here, angry that those in possession of love are so capable of destroying it. A question also arose in my mind while reading this passage: does "rich foole" refer to Lord Rich, who married Penelope Devereux? If the sonnets are truly autobiographical, this certainly may be the case. Astrophil also defends Stella's virtue, saying that the "wisest scholler" once said that "Vertue, if it once met with our eyes, / Strange flames of Love it in our soules would raise," and he claims that "It is most true, for since I her did see, / Vertue's great beautie in that face I prove, / And find th'effect, for I do burne in love."
4. At this point, Stella's majestic unearthly goodness has yet to depreciate. She is still held in the ultimate regard by Astrophil. These five sonnets once again contain his worship and outlandish cries of love for the woman. Sonnet 23 has Astrophil pining over the disagreement between his wits and his heart, only to side with his heart once again. Sonnet 24 is Astrophil's cry of unjustness, lamenting the abuse so many fools inflict upon their love and the sometimes non-parallel ideas of knowing love and experiencing love. In sonnet 25, Astrophil speaks of the scholar who suggested that when one meets a virtuous woman, he or she erupts into a burning, frenzied love, an incident that Astrophil claims to know much about. He asserts that he has undergone this occurrence in meeting Stella, once again holding her on an extremely lofty pedestal. Sonnet 26 was the most confusing to me, but I think that it was talking about astrology and how Astrophil views cynics as fools. He appears to hold much regard for the heavens and astrology in general. Although I don't see exactly how this fits in with the rest of the sonnets, I think it could have to do with the idea of Stella being "heavenly" and also with astrology and fate. Shakespeare's time, also Sidney's time, dealt heavily with the idea of fate, so this could tie in. Sonnet 27 is where Astrophil admits his flaws, particularly his ambition. In doing so, as I previously mentioned, I believe he is trying to show that he still has reason and logic. He can still see flaws, albeit none in Stella.
5. I am still unable to determine whether Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella to be sarcastic or taken seriously. The two ideas seem to be branching off from each other as the poems continue, yet I cannot decide which path I will take. If he means everything quite literally, meant to demonstrate the perils of love and loss, these five sonnets are once again quite sentimental and sweet. Astrophil is pining for his unrequited love. He defends her, he praises her, and he even becomes angry at the unlucky fortune he has had in not being allowed to love her freely, while plenty of fools love and take advantage of their love every day. However, if he means it sarcastically, it is only becoming more humorous. Astrophil is a bit over-the-top for me, so I can see quite clearly how he could be interpreted as an idiot, for lack of better term. He claims to be burning in love, but to me it sounds more like lust. He pines and blames people who take advantage of love, while really he could be trying to move on. His every thought is of "Stella's eyes and Stella's hart," which in itself is ridiculous. Obviously this is hyperbole, or he is a very sick man. I also fail to believe that Stella has absolutely no flaws; why can he not admit them? He admits his own quite freely, so I would think that it would not be such a stretch to admit that she does not return his love, or that she is at times unkind, or maybe even that she can be selfish or naive or impatient.
6. Once again, SIdney utilizes Petrarchan Sonnet structure throughout his sonnets. He still uses what I would consider perfect rhyme, although I still hold that in today's language and pronunciation it would be slant rhyme at best. The capitalizing and italicizing continues, although its meaning still escapes me. I've noticed that the selected words are not capitalized and/or italicized every time they appear; sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are both capitalized and italicized, sometimes only one, and sometimes neither. Nature and Stella are the most commonly formatted words... I'm not sure if this has significance?
4. At this point, Stella's majestic unearthly goodness has yet to depreciate. She is still held in the ultimate regard by Astrophil. These five sonnets once again contain his worship and outlandish cries of love for the woman. Sonnet 23 has Astrophil pining over the disagreement between his wits and his heart, only to side with his heart once again. Sonnet 24 is Astrophil's cry of unjustness, lamenting the abuse so many fools inflict upon their love and the sometimes non-parallel ideas of knowing love and experiencing love. In sonnet 25, Astrophil speaks of the scholar who suggested that when one meets a virtuous woman, he or she erupts into a burning, frenzied love, an incident that Astrophil claims to know much about. He asserts that he has undergone this occurrence in meeting Stella, once again holding her on an extremely lofty pedestal. Sonnet 26 was the most confusing to me, but I think that it was talking about astrology and how Astrophil views cynics as fools. He appears to hold much regard for the heavens and astrology in general. Although I don't see exactly how this fits in with the rest of the sonnets, I think it could have to do with the idea of Stella being "heavenly" and also with astrology and fate. Shakespeare's time, also Sidney's time, dealt heavily with the idea of fate, so this could tie in. Sonnet 27 is where Astrophil admits his flaws, particularly his ambition. In doing so, as I previously mentioned, I believe he is trying to show that he still has reason and logic. He can still see flaws, albeit none in Stella.
5. I am still unable to determine whether Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella to be sarcastic or taken seriously. The two ideas seem to be branching off from each other as the poems continue, yet I cannot decide which path I will take. If he means everything quite literally, meant to demonstrate the perils of love and loss, these five sonnets are once again quite sentimental and sweet. Astrophil is pining for his unrequited love. He defends her, he praises her, and he even becomes angry at the unlucky fortune he has had in not being allowed to love her freely, while plenty of fools love and take advantage of their love every day. However, if he means it sarcastically, it is only becoming more humorous. Astrophil is a bit over-the-top for me, so I can see quite clearly how he could be interpreted as an idiot, for lack of better term. He claims to be burning in love, but to me it sounds more like lust. He pines and blames people who take advantage of love, while really he could be trying to move on. His every thought is of "Stella's eyes and Stella's hart," which in itself is ridiculous. Obviously this is hyperbole, or he is a very sick man. I also fail to believe that Stella has absolutely no flaws; why can he not admit them? He admits his own quite freely, so I would think that it would not be such a stretch to admit that she does not return his love, or that she is at times unkind, or maybe even that she can be selfish or naive or impatient.
6. Once again, SIdney utilizes Petrarchan Sonnet structure throughout his sonnets. He still uses what I would consider perfect rhyme, although I still hold that in today's language and pronunciation it would be slant rhyme at best. The capitalizing and italicizing continues, although its meaning still escapes me. I've noticed that the selected words are not capitalized and/or italicized every time they appear; sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are both capitalized and italicized, sometimes only one, and sometimes neither. Nature and Stella are the most commonly formatted words... I'm not sure if this has significance?
Astrophil and Stella 2
3. Sonnets 18-22 begin with Astrophil lamenting about the recklessness he exhibited throughout his youth, squandering all of the gifts given to him by heaven while "no good excuse can show." While likely once a virtuous man, he is now "unable quite to pay even Nature's rent." In his older and wiser state, he is shamed by his prior actions, and regrets his impertinent spending. Because of this waste, he is no longer worthy of the love of Stella. The lines "My wit doth strive those passions to defend, / Which for reward spoile it with vaine annoyes," demonstrate Astrophil's battle between reason and heart. His wit, or logic, says that he is being foolish to long so deeply for something (or someone) that he cannot have. It defends his actions in his youth, perhaps implying that mistakes and foolish temerity are a standard experience of youth. His heart, though, is angry with his previous carelessness. He yearns to make Stella his own, and can "lose no more for Stella's sake," yet it is beyond his control. The use of financial words is intriguing, especially in its frequency in sonnet 18. "Checkes," "audite," "banckrout," "lent," "rent," "ow," "wealth," and "spent," are all used throughout the first sonnet. This applies to the idea of Astrophil spending his gifts in his younger days. An interesting visual is drawn in sonnet 19, with Astrophil asserting that, "On Cupid's bow how are my heart-strings bent," then mentioning a wracke, a torture device. He again shows his undying love for Stella, claiming that his "verie inke turnes straight to Stella's name." The conflict is still there, as his "words... avise themselves that they are vainely spent." Although he loves her greatly, his reason is putting up a great battle. Stella, meaning a celestial body, is compared to the heavens, as Astrophil says that, "...unto me, who fare like him that both / Lookes to the skies, and in a ditch doth fall?" The more Astrophil gazes upon Stella, the farther he falls away from obtaining her. Sonnet 20 induces very unusual imagery, with Cupid sending a "bloudie bullet" into Astrophil, causing him his distress. Throughout the rest of the first five sonnets, Stella is still held in extremely high regard. After all, "Hath this world ought so faire as Stella is?" Astrophil is clearly in over his head, but I can't help to wonder if Sidney is being sincere or sarcastic.
4. Throughout the first five poems there is not a great deal of change. The tone stays relatively the same: Astrophil worships Stella throughout all five, expounding on his unstoppable and unlimited love for her. The first sonnet explains his dilemma, namely the state of his moral affairs and how they are lower than expectations hold. The second documents his agony, his longing for the wondrous Stella. The third gives the idea that his love is not his fault; rather, Cupid shot him while he was helpless, and therefore Cupid is to blame. The fourth sonnet tell of Astrophil's struggle to find reason and logic to dismiss his love, but the failure of his attempt. The last sonnet, number 22, possibly gives an example of Stella's beauty, even claiming that, "The Sunne which others burn'd, did her but kisse." Throughout all five sonnets Astrophil paints Stella to be an immaculate vision, a stunning and flawless being worthy of the heavens. It will be interesting to see if this will change over time. For the time being, there are no flaws with Stella, just Astrophil's self-proclaimed shortcomings.
5. As we mentioned in class, it is interesting to debate whether Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella to be sincere or mocking. On one hand, he could be writing a semi-autobiographical account of his relationship with Penelope Devereux. The struggles faced by Astrophil could represent his own internal battles; he could be genuinely using the sonnets to release his feelings or to document his experiences. If taken this way, the sonnets are touching and draw sympathy. They are extremely romantic and show a great love and passion. However, the sonnets could also be taken to be highly sarcastic. Sidney could be using Astrophil to emphasize the ludicrousness of romanticism, the overplayed nature of "love" as portrayed in writings and plays. He could be attempting to scorn Astrophil's unrequited love and quite unnecessary and unwanted passions. If this is truly the purpose of the work, the piece takes on entirely new meaning. Every phrase uttered by Astrophil becomes humorous. It is true that his adoration is almost obsessive; if viewed in a mocking tone, this can be interpreted as pointing out the ridiculousness of men in lust who view themselves as being in love. Most of the research I've found has pointed to Sidney being authentic in his writing of Astrophil and Stella. I am not sold either way yet, though.
6. Sidney utilizes the Petrarchan style of sonnet, consisting of ABBA-ABBA-CDCD-EE format. He follows the octave-sestet pattern quite strictly, and his rhymes never deviate from what I've seen. He generally uses perfect rhyme, although in today's pronunciation most of the rhymes might be considered slant rhymes. It has been said that Sidney was greatly influenced by Petrarch's work, and I can see how that could be deduced. His use of thematic words is interesting; as I pointed out, sonnet 18 uses financial words frequently. Sidney randomly capitalizes and italicizes words. I have yet to find a reason for this, my only guess is that the chosen words refer indirectly to Stella. Overall I like his structure, although the poetry itself is sometimes difficult to read and interpret.
4. Throughout the first five poems there is not a great deal of change. The tone stays relatively the same: Astrophil worships Stella throughout all five, expounding on his unstoppable and unlimited love for her. The first sonnet explains his dilemma, namely the state of his moral affairs and how they are lower than expectations hold. The second documents his agony, his longing for the wondrous Stella. The third gives the idea that his love is not his fault; rather, Cupid shot him while he was helpless, and therefore Cupid is to blame. The fourth sonnet tell of Astrophil's struggle to find reason and logic to dismiss his love, but the failure of his attempt. The last sonnet, number 22, possibly gives an example of Stella's beauty, even claiming that, "The Sunne which others burn'd, did her but kisse." Throughout all five sonnets Astrophil paints Stella to be an immaculate vision, a stunning and flawless being worthy of the heavens. It will be interesting to see if this will change over time. For the time being, there are no flaws with Stella, just Astrophil's self-proclaimed shortcomings.
5. As we mentioned in class, it is interesting to debate whether Sidney meant Astrophil and Stella to be sincere or mocking. On one hand, he could be writing a semi-autobiographical account of his relationship with Penelope Devereux. The struggles faced by Astrophil could represent his own internal battles; he could be genuinely using the sonnets to release his feelings or to document his experiences. If taken this way, the sonnets are touching and draw sympathy. They are extremely romantic and show a great love and passion. However, the sonnets could also be taken to be highly sarcastic. Sidney could be using Astrophil to emphasize the ludicrousness of romanticism, the overplayed nature of "love" as portrayed in writings and plays. He could be attempting to scorn Astrophil's unrequited love and quite unnecessary and unwanted passions. If this is truly the purpose of the work, the piece takes on entirely new meaning. Every phrase uttered by Astrophil becomes humorous. It is true that his adoration is almost obsessive; if viewed in a mocking tone, this can be interpreted as pointing out the ridiculousness of men in lust who view themselves as being in love. Most of the research I've found has pointed to Sidney being authentic in his writing of Astrophil and Stella. I am not sold either way yet, though.
6. Sidney utilizes the Petrarchan style of sonnet, consisting of ABBA-ABBA-CDCD-EE format. He follows the octave-sestet pattern quite strictly, and his rhymes never deviate from what I've seen. He generally uses perfect rhyme, although in today's pronunciation most of the rhymes might be considered slant rhymes. It has been said that Sidney was greatly influenced by Petrarch's work, and I can see how that could be deduced. His use of thematic words is interesting; as I pointed out, sonnet 18 uses financial words frequently. Sidney randomly capitalizes and italicizes words. I have yet to find a reason for this, my only guess is that the chosen words refer indirectly to Stella. Overall I like his structure, although the poetry itself is sometimes difficult to read and interpret.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Astrophil and Stella 1
1. Astrophil and Stella was written by SIr Philip Sidney (b. 11554, d. 1586), a man born into affluence. He was named after his godfather, King Philip II of Spain. After schooling and travel, he settled as a courtier in England. He spent time as an ambassador to the German Emporer and the King of Orange. When he returned to England he served on Queen Elizabeth I's court. He was banished from the Queen's court for some time after making his disapproval of her marriage to a Catholic known. Astrophil and Stella was written around 1576, when SIdney was involved in or had just come out of a relationship with Penelope Devereux. Penelope married another man, Lord Rich, in 1781, and Sidney later married another woman, Frances Walsingham. Sidney died at the young age of 32 from a bullet wound, his death causing much sorrow throughout England.
2. Astrophil and Stella has been compared heavily to Petrarch's Canzoniere. Written in the Elizabethan era but the sonnets are generally in Petrarchan structure. The sonnets are said to be about a man deeply in love with a married woman. He struggles both with himself and her coldness throughout the work. It is rumored that the poem is based on Sidney and Penelope Devereux's relationship; supposed to be married, Penelope instead married Lord Rich, much to the dismay of Sir Philip (Phil) Sidney. Some critics believe that Sidney intended to demonstrate the mortality of men and the tendency many have to let their emotions get the better of them. Others believe it is an analysis of human desire. Paradoxes play a large role in the sonnets, particularly with Sidney's internal struggle of lust vs. Protestant upbringing, and Stella's unavailability even if he were to make a move. Another theory is that the 108 sonnets of Astrophil and Stella represent the 108 suitors in The Odyssey. The suitors each agreed to attempt to hit a stone in order to win the hand of Penelope, each knowing that he would fail. This is applicable to Astrophil, who knows that Stella is unattainable yet cannot stop his longing.
Sidney uses a wide variety of rhyme schemes, although all 108 of the sonnets are in Petrarchan format. The couplet, interestingly, quite often contains a paradox that highlights Astrophil's yearning for Stella. The sonnets are accompanied by 11 songs, varying in composition style.
2. Astrophil and Stella has been compared heavily to Petrarch's Canzoniere. Written in the Elizabethan era but the sonnets are generally in Petrarchan structure. The sonnets are said to be about a man deeply in love with a married woman. He struggles both with himself and her coldness throughout the work. It is rumored that the poem is based on Sidney and Penelope Devereux's relationship; supposed to be married, Penelope instead married Lord Rich, much to the dismay of Sir Philip (Phil) Sidney. Some critics believe that Sidney intended to demonstrate the mortality of men and the tendency many have to let their emotions get the better of them. Others believe it is an analysis of human desire. Paradoxes play a large role in the sonnets, particularly with Sidney's internal struggle of lust vs. Protestant upbringing, and Stella's unavailability even if he were to make a move. Another theory is that the 108 sonnets of Astrophil and Stella represent the 108 suitors in The Odyssey. The suitors each agreed to attempt to hit a stone in order to win the hand of Penelope, each knowing that he would fail. This is applicable to Astrophil, who knows that Stella is unattainable yet cannot stop his longing.
Sidney uses a wide variety of rhyme schemes, although all 108 of the sonnets are in Petrarchan format. The couplet, interestingly, quite often contains a paradox that highlights Astrophil's yearning for Stella. The sonnets are accompanied by 11 songs, varying in composition style.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
4 Agamemnon
1. Lorn: desolate, forsaken.
-Merriam-Webster Online
Lines 1861-1865: "Thereafter, the lorn exile homeward stole
And clung a suppliant to the heart divine,
And for himself won this immunity-
Not with his own blood to defile the land
That gave him birth..."
2. Agamemnon cries out for help soon after Cassandra enters the palace, leading the Chorus to rightfully fear the worst. More shouts continue as the Chorus bickers over how to act, and then the shouts stop and Clytemnestra is standing over the bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra. Clytemnestra justifies the murder by pointing out that he had killed their daughter and deserved to be killed as well. The Chorus is extremely shaken, mourning the king and blaming Helen of Troy for all of the troubles of late. Clytemnestra insists that by taking her husband's life she has ended the curse on their family. All of a sudden Aegisthus shows up and takes credit for the murder, claiming that he was leading Clytemnestra toward the act of violence unbeknownst to anyone. The Chorus tells Aegisthus that he will be killed, and they trade insults. Clytemnestra intercedes, arguing that what was meant to happen has happened. The Chorus accepts this but says that Orestes will take vengeance upon his return.
3. This section particularly emphasizes Clytemnestra's strength as a woman. She shows no remorse for killing her husband; rather, she sees her actions as completely justified and will not be persuaded otherwise. She rebukes the Chorus for saying that she was wrong to kill Agamemnon and in the end makes them see her side. However, at the end of the play, there is a feeling of moral uncertainty. While Clytemnestra first appeared to be a grieved mother seeking revenge, with the surfacing of her lover, Aegisthus, questions arise. Did she kill her husband solely because of his heartlessness toward her daughter, or did she have other intentions? Was she acting as a woman insane with bereavement or an adulteress seeking more power? Moreover, will the Chorus's prediction of Orestes's return be proven true? Will he revenge his father and kill his mother and Aegisthus? Clytemnestra seems pretty full of herself at the end of the play. Will the gods see this as hubris and end her life just as they did to her husband? If she isn't careful, it seems that this is where the next part of the play will be heading.
I think it's very strange that the Chorus is so full of threats but never follows through. When Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon and Cassandra, they tell her that she will be banished. She talks them out of it quite easily. Then, when Aegisthus takes credit, they say that he will be killed. Once again they are subdued. If the Chorus represents the elders of Argos, it is unthinkable to me that they should be so weak. Perhaps Clytemnestra's power intimidates them: she has a very domineering personality and it is said earlier in the play that she ruled better than her husband had. Either way, I found the Chorus to be a very interesting aspect of the play.
4. In the final moments of the play is Clytemnestra demonstrating hubris? If so, will she be smote for it? She seems very confident and sure of herself, but perhaps a bit too much so.
Is there a reason for the Chorus's easy obedience to their queen, even after she does something that seems so horrid to them? Why do they not stand up for themselves and for Argos?
Is Clytemnestra meant to be a sympathetic character? Are we meant to approve of her actions, or to be disgusted by them? Was Aeschylus suggesting that she was right to murder Agamemnon? Or was he trying to set her up to be a monster?
-Merriam-Webster Online
Lines 1861-1865: "Thereafter, the lorn exile homeward stole
And clung a suppliant to the heart divine,
And for himself won this immunity-
Not with his own blood to defile the land
That gave him birth..."
2. Agamemnon cries out for help soon after Cassandra enters the palace, leading the Chorus to rightfully fear the worst. More shouts continue as the Chorus bickers over how to act, and then the shouts stop and Clytemnestra is standing over the bodies of Agamemnon and Cassandra. Clytemnestra justifies the murder by pointing out that he had killed their daughter and deserved to be killed as well. The Chorus is extremely shaken, mourning the king and blaming Helen of Troy for all of the troubles of late. Clytemnestra insists that by taking her husband's life she has ended the curse on their family. All of a sudden Aegisthus shows up and takes credit for the murder, claiming that he was leading Clytemnestra toward the act of violence unbeknownst to anyone. The Chorus tells Aegisthus that he will be killed, and they trade insults. Clytemnestra intercedes, arguing that what was meant to happen has happened. The Chorus accepts this but says that Orestes will take vengeance upon his return.
3. This section particularly emphasizes Clytemnestra's strength as a woman. She shows no remorse for killing her husband; rather, she sees her actions as completely justified and will not be persuaded otherwise. She rebukes the Chorus for saying that she was wrong to kill Agamemnon and in the end makes them see her side. However, at the end of the play, there is a feeling of moral uncertainty. While Clytemnestra first appeared to be a grieved mother seeking revenge, with the surfacing of her lover, Aegisthus, questions arise. Did she kill her husband solely because of his heartlessness toward her daughter, or did she have other intentions? Was she acting as a woman insane with bereavement or an adulteress seeking more power? Moreover, will the Chorus's prediction of Orestes's return be proven true? Will he revenge his father and kill his mother and Aegisthus? Clytemnestra seems pretty full of herself at the end of the play. Will the gods see this as hubris and end her life just as they did to her husband? If she isn't careful, it seems that this is where the next part of the play will be heading.
I think it's very strange that the Chorus is so full of threats but never follows through. When Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon and Cassandra, they tell her that she will be banished. She talks them out of it quite easily. Then, when Aegisthus takes credit, they say that he will be killed. Once again they are subdued. If the Chorus represents the elders of Argos, it is unthinkable to me that they should be so weak. Perhaps Clytemnestra's power intimidates them: she has a very domineering personality and it is said earlier in the play that she ruled better than her husband had. Either way, I found the Chorus to be a very interesting aspect of the play.
4. In the final moments of the play is Clytemnestra demonstrating hubris? If so, will she be smote for it? She seems very confident and sure of herself, but perhaps a bit too much so.
Is there a reason for the Chorus's easy obedience to their queen, even after she does something that seems so horrid to them? Why do they not stand up for themselves and for Argos?
Is Clytemnestra meant to be a sympathetic character? Are we meant to approve of her actions, or to be disgusted by them? Was Aeschylus suggesting that she was right to murder Agamemnon? Or was he trying to set her up to be a monster?
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
2 Agamemnon
1. Rapine: : pillage, plunder
-Merriam-Webster Online
Lines 636-642: "But at Fate's judgement-seat the robber stands
Condemned of rapine, and his prey is torn
Forth from his hands, and by his deed is reaped
A bloody harvest of his home and land
Gone down to death, and for his guilt and lust
His father's race pays double in the dust."
2. The Herald enters, ecstatic to be back in his homeland, Argos. A touching greeting takes place between the Chorus and the Herald. He then announces the return of Agamemnon and goes on passionately about how the warriors have suffered greatly. Clytemnestra reminds the Chorus that she told them the war was over, even persisting in her argument when they did not believe her. She then asks the Herald to tell Agamemnon to hurry home as she misses him greatly. The Chorus asks the Herald what has become of Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother and Helen's real husband, but the Herald is unsure of his fate. After the Herald leaves the Chorus once again mentions Helen, this time relating her to death. Agamemnon arrives grandly in a chariot with Cassandra. Clytemnestra comes forward and (sarcastically) greets her husband very enthusiastically, comparing him to the gods. Agamemnon seems to fail to see her irony and is abashed by her praise, telling her he isn't worthy.
3. The uncertain fate of Menelaus raises the question of Hubris and the gods' response to such pride. The Greeks defeated the Trojans, even though the gods did not want them to go to war. They had their victory, but the gods surely did not want them to go unpunished. It is not known whether Menelaus returns home or not; however, the fact that he had difficulty in doing so, either way, suggests that the gods were angry. As angry as the gods might be at Menelaus, they must be infinitely more furious toward Agamemnon. Not only did he go to war, but he slaughtered his daughter in order to do so. The gods did not tell him he was free to fight, they told him to sacrifice his daughter because he should have known that they would never ask him to do such a thing in seriousness. However, Agamemnon killed his daughter in spite of this and sailed off to battle. This act made it seem that Agamemnon viewed himself as superior to the gods, which would have angered them greatly. From Greek legend it is known that Hubris does not get a free pass - ever. If Agamemnon's pride was not so bloated and his ego so large, he would realize that he is in grave danger. However, because he is elated with the victory and the glory of war, he assumes safety. We will have to see if he is a fool for doing so.
4. Did Aeschylus intend to write Agamemnon as a naive character, simply not realizing his mistake in disobeying the gods, or was he supposed to be arrogant?
Was Clytemnestra genuinely overjoyed to see her husband and praising him sincerely, or was she, as I suspect, sarcastically greeting him? If the latter, did he miss the sarcasm entirely or did he pick up on it? Either possibility could greatly alter the play.
Why is the Chorus so hesitant in believing Clytemnestra? Has she been proven to be a liar previously? Is it because she is a woman?
-Merriam-Webster Online
Lines 636-642: "But at Fate's judgement-seat the robber stands
Condemned of rapine, and his prey is torn
Forth from his hands, and by his deed is reaped
A bloody harvest of his home and land
Gone down to death, and for his guilt and lust
His father's race pays double in the dust."
2. The Herald enters, ecstatic to be back in his homeland, Argos. A touching greeting takes place between the Chorus and the Herald. He then announces the return of Agamemnon and goes on passionately about how the warriors have suffered greatly. Clytemnestra reminds the Chorus that she told them the war was over, even persisting in her argument when they did not believe her. She then asks the Herald to tell Agamemnon to hurry home as she misses him greatly. The Chorus asks the Herald what has become of Menelaus, Agamemnon's brother and Helen's real husband, but the Herald is unsure of his fate. After the Herald leaves the Chorus once again mentions Helen, this time relating her to death. Agamemnon arrives grandly in a chariot with Cassandra. Clytemnestra comes forward and (sarcastically) greets her husband very enthusiastically, comparing him to the gods. Agamemnon seems to fail to see her irony and is abashed by her praise, telling her he isn't worthy.
3. The uncertain fate of Menelaus raises the question of Hubris and the gods' response to such pride. The Greeks defeated the Trojans, even though the gods did not want them to go to war. They had their victory, but the gods surely did not want them to go unpunished. It is not known whether Menelaus returns home or not; however, the fact that he had difficulty in doing so, either way, suggests that the gods were angry. As angry as the gods might be at Menelaus, they must be infinitely more furious toward Agamemnon. Not only did he go to war, but he slaughtered his daughter in order to do so. The gods did not tell him he was free to fight, they told him to sacrifice his daughter because he should have known that they would never ask him to do such a thing in seriousness. However, Agamemnon killed his daughter in spite of this and sailed off to battle. This act made it seem that Agamemnon viewed himself as superior to the gods, which would have angered them greatly. From Greek legend it is known that Hubris does not get a free pass - ever. If Agamemnon's pride was not so bloated and his ego so large, he would realize that he is in grave danger. However, because he is elated with the victory and the glory of war, he assumes safety. We will have to see if he is a fool for doing so.
4. Did Aeschylus intend to write Agamemnon as a naive character, simply not realizing his mistake in disobeying the gods, or was he supposed to be arrogant?
Was Clytemnestra genuinely overjoyed to see her husband and praising him sincerely, or was she, as I suspect, sarcastically greeting him? If the latter, did he miss the sarcasm entirely or did he pick up on it? Either possibility could greatly alter the play.
Why is the Chorus so hesitant in believing Clytemnestra? Has she been proven to be a liar previously? Is it because she is a woman?
3 Agamemnon
1. Bower: 1 : an attractive dwelling or retreat
2 : a lady's private apartment in a medieval hall or castle
3 : a shelter (as in a garden) made with tree boughs or vines twined together : arbor
-Merriam-Webster Online
Lines 1000-1002: "And he who followed spake of ill on ill,
Keening Lost, lost all lost! thro' hall and bower."
2. Clytemnestra praises Agamemnon highly, going so far as to lay a purple carpet down for him to walk on. Agamemnon humbly refuses, saying that he is afraid of the gods and is a mere mortal. Clytemnestra doesn't let it go, though, and eventually Agamemnon enters on the carpet. Cassandra remains outside, even when Clytemnestra tells her to come in. She then cries to the gods, much to the confusion of the Chorus. Cassandra explains that Apollo cursed her with the gift of prophecy but the curse of nobody believing her. She then states that she, along with Agamemnon, is fated to die by a woman. The Chorus doesn't understand her implication, and she goes to enter the hall.
3. Agamemnon's feigned modesty both amused and angered me. After arriving loudly and arrogantly at his palace, declaring victory and honor, it is no secret that he regards himself very highly. However, in a show of the "goodness" of his character, he refuses to walk on the purple carpet that his wife laid down for him. Although Clytemnestra did so in a sarcastic manner, the fact that he fancies himself so humble makes me laugh. When he claims that he is humble before the gods, I wonder how anyone took him seriously. He is the one who killed his own beloved daughter to spite them and go to war against their wishes. Clearly he has no respect for the deities. Eventually, Agamemnon caves in and walks on the carpets, showing a lack of willpower as well. His wife, a woman, could control him quite easily. What kind of King must he have been? Did he allow his pride to get in the way of nation-wide matters as well?
Cassandra uses many animals to describe Clytemnestra. Around lines 1408-1416, she makes a comparison both to a "coward lion, crouching in the lair" and a "dog-like" nature. In line 1420 she compares the Queen to "the double snake." Again in line 1448, Cassandra calls Clytemnestra a "lioness." Clytemnestra is also compared to both a spider and a snake at various points in the story. Why so many animal references? Obviously they're symbolic, with the snake being deceitful and untrustworthy, the spider spinning a web of lies, and the lioness representing her power as Queen. "Dog-like" is likely because of the lowliness of dogs in comparison to humans. It's ironic, though, because in modern times dogs are seen as extremely loyal. Clytemnestra, however, slays her own husband. Loyal? I think not.
4. I assume Clytemnestra had planned to murder Agamemnon for awhile. Did she know that he would be bringing home a concubine? Was Cassandra's murder also in her plan, or was it spur of the moment?
Why does the Chorus not believe Cassandra after she explains her curse? Is it that thorough, or are they naive? It would seem to me that if she tells them she can see the future but nobody will believe her, they would believe whatever she predicts. Obviously I would not have done well in the Chorus, though.
Are the multiple animals supposed to represent the many faces of Clytemnestra? Most characters in the story are only compared to one animal, but she is compared to many. Is this to show her complexities? Are we supposed to understand her more than any other character?
2 : a lady's private apartment in a medieval hall or castle
3 : a shelter (as in a garden) made with tree boughs or vines twined together : arbor
-Merriam-Webster Online
Lines 1000-1002: "And he who followed spake of ill on ill,
Keening Lost, lost all lost! thro' hall and bower."
2. Clytemnestra praises Agamemnon highly, going so far as to lay a purple carpet down for him to walk on. Agamemnon humbly refuses, saying that he is afraid of the gods and is a mere mortal. Clytemnestra doesn't let it go, though, and eventually Agamemnon enters on the carpet. Cassandra remains outside, even when Clytemnestra tells her to come in. She then cries to the gods, much to the confusion of the Chorus. Cassandra explains that Apollo cursed her with the gift of prophecy but the curse of nobody believing her. She then states that she, along with Agamemnon, is fated to die by a woman. The Chorus doesn't understand her implication, and she goes to enter the hall.
3. Agamemnon's feigned modesty both amused and angered me. After arriving loudly and arrogantly at his palace, declaring victory and honor, it is no secret that he regards himself very highly. However, in a show of the "goodness" of his character, he refuses to walk on the purple carpet that his wife laid down for him. Although Clytemnestra did so in a sarcastic manner, the fact that he fancies himself so humble makes me laugh. When he claims that he is humble before the gods, I wonder how anyone took him seriously. He is the one who killed his own beloved daughter to spite them and go to war against their wishes. Clearly he has no respect for the deities. Eventually, Agamemnon caves in and walks on the carpets, showing a lack of willpower as well. His wife, a woman, could control him quite easily. What kind of King must he have been? Did he allow his pride to get in the way of nation-wide matters as well?
Cassandra uses many animals to describe Clytemnestra. Around lines 1408-1416, she makes a comparison both to a "coward lion, crouching in the lair" and a "dog-like" nature. In line 1420 she compares the Queen to "the double snake." Again in line 1448, Cassandra calls Clytemnestra a "lioness." Clytemnestra is also compared to both a spider and a snake at various points in the story. Why so many animal references? Obviously they're symbolic, with the snake being deceitful and untrustworthy, the spider spinning a web of lies, and the lioness representing her power as Queen. "Dog-like" is likely because of the lowliness of dogs in comparison to humans. It's ironic, though, because in modern times dogs are seen as extremely loyal. Clytemnestra, however, slays her own husband. Loyal? I think not.
4. I assume Clytemnestra had planned to murder Agamemnon for awhile. Did she know that he would be bringing home a concubine? Was Cassandra's murder also in her plan, or was it spur of the moment?
Why does the Chorus not believe Cassandra after she explains her curse? Is it that thorough, or are they naive? It would seem to me that if she tells them she can see the future but nobody will believe her, they would believe whatever she predicts. Obviously I would not have done well in the Chorus, though.
Are the multiple animals supposed to represent the many faces of Clytemnestra? Most characters in the story are only compared to one animal, but she is compared to many. Is this to show her complexities? Are we supposed to understand her more than any other character?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)