Eve's Agency in The Fall in "Paradise Lost"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise_Lost

I found Milton's depiction of The Fall intriguing and unlike what I had always pictured in my head. It seems to me that Milton gave Eve much more agency than I expected and gave Adam much less. The way that I've always heard this story told is that the serpent easily convinced Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge and Eve shared that fruit with Adam unknowingly; I have always been under the impression that Adam did not know what Eve had done until after he had eaten the fruit she brought him. I was surprised at the portrayal of Eve as questioning and reluctant because she tends to be looked upon as a naive woman who fell for Satan's trickery. I perceive Eve's questioning not as a commitment to her relationship with God, but as another way in which she demonstrates her humanness; I perceive her as being more concerned with her own death- which has been threatened by God for eating from the Tree of Knowledge- and not so concerned with upsetting God. Milton illustrates Eve in much the same way that he does the character of Sin, except that Sin is outwardly grotesque and Eve is inwardly so because of her selfish desires to be like God, as Satan suggests she will be if she eats the forbidden fruit. This even links back to Satan himself, who was the beloved Lucifer prior to his thinking that he could be like God. At first I found the similarities between Satan, Sin, and Eve (human nature) a surprising revelation but then I realized that it makes sense; Eve's likeness to Satan and Sin alludes to the fact that human nature becomes innately sinful from this point on. Milton writes Paradise Lost without any consideration of time therefore including information from humanity after The Fall which makes this portrayal accurate and cunning on Milton's part.

The Parallels between Sin and Eve in "Paradise Lost"

We discussed briefly in class the relationship between the allegorical character Sin and Eve, but I want to further elaborate on the similarities between these two characters and discuss the reasoning behind Milton's personification of Sin as a woman of power.

For starters, Sin is characterized in Book 2 as a monstrous "woman to the waist, and fair,/ But ended foul in many a scaly fold/ Voluminous and vast, a serpent armed/ With mortal sting" (650-653). She serves as yet another embodiment of female sexuality as disgusting. Likewise, Eve is credited by society as being the cause for female sexuality becoming dirty- many people say that Eve's decision to eat of the Tree of Knowledge is the reason why women have to deal with menstruation, the pain of childbirth, and why sex became a pastime instead of a means to repopulate. These consequences and aspects of the female body are often viewed as revolting.

Both female characters are granted power by God accompanied by the free will to make their own decisions. Eve is granted the entire Garden of Eden and influence over her counterpart, Adam, in exchange for refusing to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Her amount of free will is described in Book 4 when the narrator tells us of Eve's creation; she tells Adam, "Till I espied thee, fair indeed and tall,/...Less winning soft, less amiably mild,/ Than that smooth wat'ry image; back I turned" (478-480).  The narrator continues to describe how Eve had to be coaxed into giving Adam her hand and submitting, proving that Eve was independent and had her own agenda prior to being explained her situation. While there are some who believe that Satan is responsible for The Fall, I think it is important to note that Eve had the capability to make her own decision but failed to follow God's command. Sin, also, was given power and instructions by God and she also failed of her own free will. Sin tells Satan in Book 2, "The key of this infernal pit by due,/ And by command of Heav'n's all-powerful King/ I keep, by him forbidden to unlock/ These adamantine gates" (850-853). This coincides with the instruction that God gave Eve. Almost immediately, Sin expresses her freedom of choice by stating: "But what owe I to his commands above" (856). Again, the female character refuse to obey the commands of the greater male-oriented power in their lives.

The story of Eve is a well-known one, but Milton's decision to orient Sin as a woman- a woman pregnant with hounds and scaly as a snake- and give that woman power is a curious one. I think it is plausible that Milton was playing with gender; a female Sin juxtaposes nicely with the male Satan and God. However, I also think that the depiction of the grotesque figure as womanly was also influenced by Milton's personal experiences in the society in which he lived as well as the other writers he mimicked his work after.

The Disconnect of Language and Behavior in "The Roaring Girl"

http://www.tech.org/~cleary/roar.html

Throughout past pieces of literature read in this class, we have seen that the language used to refer to women is grotesque, rude, and degrading.  This language is used as a tool to defend and protect each play's respective patriarchal society through its belittling of female characters- a tactic that seemingly uplifts the male characters (and the patriarchy), regardless of how blatantly evil those men are.  In The Roaring Girl, however, we see a different result from the same tactic: Moll Cutpurse is revered throughout the play as a heroine, sexually desired by the men around her, even though they use foul language when discussing her.  An excellent example of this hypocrisy comes from Laxton in Act 2 Scene 1: he joins in a condemning conversation of Moll in the marketplace while continuously stating his admiration and attraction to her on the side.  When Goshawk says, "[Moll] 'Tis the maddest, fantastical'st girl!" (2.1.211), Laxton replies, "She slips from one company to another like a fat eel/ between a Dutchman's fingers" (213-214), a response that seemingly agrees with Goshawk's negative opinion of Moll by it's calling attention to Moll's instability in gender. In response to a comment made by Mrs. Gallipot, Laxton states, "[Moll] might first cuckold the hus-/ band and then make him do as much for the wife" (218-219), again commenting on Moll's ability to fool both men and women.  This negative language ("fat eel," "cuckold") is something familiar in early modern literature in regard to women as sexual beings, but the hypocrisy which accompanies these statements is not.  In one aside, Laxton lays out his plan to win Moll as a lover: "Heart, I would give but too much money to/ be nibbling with that wench... I'll lay/ hard siege to her. Money is that aqua fortis that eats into/ many a maidenhead" (2.1.193-194, 200-202).  This demonstrates that although the majority of the community believe Moll is an unnatural being because of her cross-dressing tendencies, she is also viewed as exotic, which makes her the perfect image of sexual desire.

I believe it is important to note the way in which Moll is dealt with by male characters, such as Laxton, because it simultaneously represents the threat that men feel by Moll (sparking negative language and ill behavior) and the admiration they feel for her (resulting in a sexual attraction for the woman). In this way, the play does an excellent job of illustrating the double-standards in early modern society; while the play focuses particularly on the unequal treatment of the sexes in the realm of sexuality, I think it also opens the door for the audience to question other areas in which men and women were viewed as opposites.

"The Witch of Edmonton"

The language used to discuss women was what I found interesting in The Witch of Edmonton. The women in the play are continuously referred to by their fellow male characters with degrading terms and titles, providing the reader with a strong sense of the status women had in early modern society. The use of unfavorable language towards women in the play establishes the different gender roles that were prevalent during this time period and also distinguishes the relationship between women and the maternal-and sexualized- female as evil while Frank Thorney is only punished for murdering, not for marrying two women and thus committing adultery.

http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2007/10/witch-of-edmonton.html

One particular passage that stood out to me regarding degrading language and female gender roles occurs in Act 1 Scene 1 in the conversation between Winnifride and Sir Arthur. The two are discussing the affair they engaged in prior to Win's relationship with Frank Thorney; Sir Arthur is trying to convince Win to set up a meeting time for them to continue the affair, and she attempts to put an end to the entire relationship with him. She states, "I will change my life/ From a loose whore to a repentant wife" (191-192). This line caused a mixture of feelings in me. On the one hand, I applauded Win for putting her foot down and taking control of her own life; it is obvious that she genuinely cares for Frank Thorney and is fully content with having his child and spending the rest of her life with him, and I found myself cheering her on throughout this conversation with Sir Arthur because she refused to let him continue to take advantage of her, ultimately ruining her happiness. On the other hand, however, I struggled with the fact that Win referred to herself as a whore, making the positive opposite of a whore being "a repentant wife".  This use of language to set up a good and bad type of woman was unsettling, but it clearly exemplifies what the ideal woman is in early modern society. By negatively referring to herself as a whore, Win demonstrates that her affair with Sir Arthur was an extremely foul act; this, in turn, suggests that Winnifride as a sexual being is considered foul.

The scene continues with Sir Arthur reacting to this rejection by Winnifride. In response to the above line, he states, "Wilt though turn monster now? Art not ashamed/ After so many months to be honest at last?" (193-194). This line further troubled me because it seems to shame Win not just for being a sexual being (with the man that is shaming her) but also for taking control of her own life and not giving Arthur what he wants from her. The text does not say how long the two engaged in an affair, but it is made clear that both parties were active participants in it, with little to no complaints up until this particular conversation. Sir Arthur enjoyed her being a "loose whore" because he was being sexually satisfied by her behavior, but the moment she tells him no, he calls her a monster and suggests that she should be ashamed to try and live an honest life after the things she has done with him during their affair. Again, the language used demonstrates what her place is thought to be in this society.

This type of rude language towards women- from both male and female characters- is used throughout the play, and just as the above example demonstrates the desired roles of both men and women of this time, so do other examples throughout the play. It is important to note that evil is imposed on the women in The Witch of Edmonton by the use of language; not even Mother Elizabeth Sawyer is evil without the forced title of witch that the male characters give her. In her defense, she states, "I am none. None but base curs so bark at me. I am none. Or would I were! If every poor old woman be trod on thus by slaves...she, to be revenged, had need turn witch" (4.1.76-79).  She takes the name they give her simply because it is forced on her by those around her, again serving as another woman in the play who is kept- or put- in her place.

"Arden of Feversham"

This piece was one of the more interesting works we've read in this class, in my opinion.  The fact that the play was based on a true story was fascinating, especially when compared to the Holinshed Chronicles, which were written during the same time period as the crime; the play's events lined up almost exactly with the Chronicles.  I began thinking about the title of the play in relation to the crime after our class discussion and how the title, "Arden of Feversham", belittles the main character, mastermind, and only developed female character in the play: Alice.  I came up with a modernistic theory that maybe the play is named after Arden because he was a white, "middle-class" man, whereas Alice is only his wife.  It reminded me much of the way in which white-victim crimes are relayed to the public in the media almost instantaneously, whereas crimes with African American or Hispanic victims are rarely publicized.  Class systems were just starting to really develop during this time period, but we discussed the fact that Arden was a landowner- fairly well-known in Feversham and at least somewhat powerful in the community.  Another theory I thought might explain the lack of Alice's mentioning in the play's title was the fact that Alice, as a woman, was not her own person; rather, she would have been considered an extension of Arden.  In fact, Arden mentions in the play that Alice's behavior is a reflection on himself: "I had cause to speak,/ When all the knights and gentlemen of Kent/ Make common table talk of her and [Mosby]" (1.1.343-345).  Alice is Arden's property.  There is language in the play that favors Arden and condemns Alice, even though both individuals are guilty of some level of evil (Arden taking land from those who need it and Alice plotting Arden's death); I found it interesting that the text works to victimize Arden when he has also committed sin.  I see a correlation between Arden and Alice and Adam and Eve that is unsettling: regardless of a man's mistake, he is fully capable of placing the blame on the woman involved.

A Monster of a Man in "The Duchess of Malfi"

Most undergraduate students studying monsters of Renaissance Literature would focus on the reference John Webster makes to werewolves; the doctor says that people with Ferdinand's condition usually "imagine/ Themselves to be transformed into wolves;/ Steal forth to churchyards in the dead of night,/ And dig dead bodies up" (5.2.9-12). I, on the other hand, would like to focus on the more realistic monster that I see in the character of Bosola. We mentioned him briefly in our class discussion, but I want to dive further into an analysis of his character and the way in which he seems to redeem himself towards the end of the play.

One thing that we mentioned in class was the fact that Bosola will do anything for money or for a higher status among the Duke and his brother, the Cardinal. This includes murder, as we see more than once throughout the course of the play; Bosola murders the Duchess, Cariola, and Antonio for mere favor. Then, as he comes to the realization that he is in fact a sinful (and somewhat vengeful) human being, he kills an unnamed servant, the Cardinal, and the Duke Ferdinand. He uses words as a tool to twist and confuse the thoughts of his victims; he is a slippery character. This slipperiness is made evident in the play with lines like "There are many ways that conduct to seeming/ Honor, and some of them very dirty ones", which was spoken by Bosola himself (5.2.291-292). It is peculiar that he recognizes that he has only gained honor by committing dishonorable deeds, but he continues to do so. This type of language is perhaps strongest in Act 4 Scene 2, when Bosola has a type of revelation regarding his behavior; he calls Ferdinand and the Cardinal "like the plague" and says that they have "hearts [like] rotten graves,/ Rotten, and rotting  others", followed by him saying, "I stand like one/ That long hath ta'en a sweet and golden dream./ I am angry with myself, now that I wake" (296-301).  

There is no doubt that Bosola is a monster- he is able to kill others for his own personal gain without flinching- but I think his most interesting character trait and perhaps what makes him most evil is that he recognizes that his behavior is wrong and still doesn't stop his own hand from murdering others. In the end and after his revelation, he still uses murder as a means to eliminate those that have abused him for so long: Ferdinand and the Cardinal. I would have never thought that Bosola was the play's protagonist, but after reading the play and seeing how Bosola's conscience is constantly being checked, I would argue that he is the protagonist, although he is mostly evil in his doings. 

Dealing with Duessa of "The Faerie Queene"

One of the most evil characters in the cantos that we've read in The Faerie Queen is Duessa, a woman whose name literally means "duplicity" and "falsity".  The amount of evil in which Duessa lives her everyday life appears to be more than that of other characters we've been introduced to; I think this has to do with the lengthened role of Duessa, where as other evil characters appear only for a short time in the text.  In every scene that Duessa is involved in the epic, she is doing something misleading, something that leads our protagonist closer and closer to danger.  It is because of this evidence of pure evil that I find it curious that when Duessa is captured by Arthur after defeating the giant, she is released with minimal harm and zero assurance that she will put an end to her evil ways.

In Stanza 49 Canto 8, the narrator tells the reader that "when they had the witch disrobed quight,/ And all her filthy feature open showne,/ They let her goe at will, and wander wayes unknowne" (7-9).  I don't understand why they would strip Duessa down to her bare nakedness and then allow her to escape.  I find the act of fully exposing her to be demeaning and revealing of her true character, but it is clear that Duessa is capable of recreating herself and committing all her crimes again to another unsuspecting individual; why would either of the knights give her another chance when they know just how evil she is?  In this bit of Canto 8, the evil is shamed but still released.  Why?

I've thought about this question and this particular scene for a while; many explanations have crossed my mind, but two stood out to me among the others.  The first is the idea that the good knights have forgiven Duessa for her sins, thus acting as a God-like figure (the biblical verse regarding the pure to cast the first stone comes to mind here), and the second possible explanation is that Duessa's release serves as a reminder to the reader that there will always be evil in the world, regardless of whether one evil individual is caught or not.  Both of these explanations require a biblical/religious reading of the text, but this is the most prominent reading for me; I find that both options illustrate a respective ideal that should be remembered by the reader.

The Anti-Christ in "The Jew of Malta"

We discussed in class the many ways in which Barabas serves as the anti-Christ in Christopher Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta", but what particularly stood out to me was the many ways Barabas is similar to Christ.  It seems to me that although Barabas outwardly opposes Christianity, he has more in common with Christ than he (or any Christian) would care to admit.  There are multiple instances of this Christ-like behavior throughout the play, but I find the most peculiar instance of it happens early in the play: Barabas is sacrificed by the Christians for the good of Malta.

The above instance occurs in the second scene of Act 1 and has a strong resemblance to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  The Christians are reminded of their "ten years' tribute" by Calymath and immediately decide to tax the Jews in order to accumulate the money they owe; Barabas refuses the tax and therefore is robbed of all his goods.  Ferneze states, "No, Jew, we take particularly thine/ To save the ruin of a multitude;/ And better one want for a common good/ Than many perish for a private man" (1.2.97-100).  Between the two options, Barabas is chosen to be sacrificed; likewise, Jesus was chosen over another option.  The Bible tells us that Jesus was meant to be sacrificed for everyone's sins, that His blood was spilled in order to cleanse the rest of us; Ferneze's statement mirrors that idea, claiming that taking Barabas's money and goods (his life) will release the rest of Malta from ruin.

It is curious to me that Marlowe would compare the Jew, Jesus Christ, to a Jew, Barabas, because one is thought to have saved mankind while the other is an evil figure, full of vengeance and hatred for Christianity.  If he made this comparison intentionally, then I must ask whether he did it to make the audience uncomfortable or if he did it to insinuate that not all Jews are evil figures, or if his point was to prove that there is a bit of evil in everything good?  So many questions are raised by Marlowe's depiction of Barabas as out Savior.  This relationship was curious to me and makes me reflect on other stereotypes surrounding me in today's society.  How many good things are linked with evil?  How many good people are stamped with an "evil" label?

The Curious Old Man of "Doctor Faustus"

I found the entire length of Doctor Faustus to be curious, from the plot of the drama to the characters involved with our damned protagonist.  There was, however, one character that I found to be stranger than the rest: the old man that enters- and exits- the play in Scene 12.  He did not strike me as strange in the same sense that Doctor Faustus or Mephastophilis did, with sensitive personalities and various points of view on the issue of Heaven versus Hell; instead, I found the old man curious in his entrance to the play, demeanor and persistence, which turns to acceptance of Faustus' "hopeless soul" (1.12.52).

Faustus is nearing the end of his contract with Lucifer and is entertaining his fellow scholars with the appearance of Helen of Greece.  As soon as the men leave, satisfied by "the pride of Nature's works/ And only paragon of excellence," the old man enters the room with Faustus (21-22).  The visit from the old man does not seem to startle Faustus and the two immediately engage in conversation.  The old man address Faustus without an introduction, stating upon entering that he wishes "To guide thy steps unto the way of life,/ By which sweet path thou may'st attain the goal/ That shall conduct thee to celestial rest" (27-29).  My initial reaction to this was to question the old man: Who is he to come in and beg Doctor Faustus to repent of his sins? Is he a town elder? Is he a stranger to Faustus? Why does he care so much about the doctor's life after death?

Even more curious than the old man's way of speaking to Doctor Faustus was Faustus' replies to the old man's pleas: "Where are thou, Faustus? Wretch, what has thou done!/ Damned art thou, Faustus, damned; despair and die!/ Hell calls for right, and with a roaring voice" (38-40).  We discussed in class that Faustus is pompous and enjoys referring to himself in the third person, but here I read the text as if Faustus has come out of character and the voice that speaks back to the old man is some other's voice.  The two exchange words, the old man calm and pleading, Faustus seemingly mad; and then just as quickly as the whole scene began, it ends with Faustus suddenly calm, saying "Ah my sweet friend, I feel thy words.../ Leave me awhile to ponder on my sins" (48-50).  The old man seems defeated and I had to back away from the text, dumbfounded.

The discussion we held in class regarding the Good and Evil Angels came rushing back to me.  I recalled that many of us had found the part of the two angels to be minuscule, even childish.

That's when it hit me: the conversation I had just read between the old man and Doctor Faustus was the coming to life of what had previously been perceived to have been the psychology of our protagonist- this mysterious old man was the physical embodiment of the Good Angel and Faustus was the embodiment of the Evil Angel.  Where the majority of the class believed that Marlowe's literary intelligence fell short with the introduction of the two cartoonish aspects, I realized that he had created an incredible thematic element that brought the intangible aspects of Heaven and Hell to life.