Faith Field

Professor Geoffrey Emerson

EN-215-003

14 February 2024

Biography –

            Edmund Spenser was thought to be born in 1552 in London to middle-class parents. Still, he received an excellent education and began his career as a secretary. During this time, he published The Shepheardes Calender which was disliked by readers at the time because of the author’s use of archaic language similar to that of Chaucer’s literary work. Later in his life, Spenser lived in Ireland and was an advocate in favor of colonialism. He published pieces such as A View of the Present State of Ireland in which he described the horrific policies of English colonialism in Ireland. Upon returning to England, Spenser published The Faerie Queene, characterized by unique language usage and a distinctive metrical scheme. In 1599, Spenser died in Westminster. Edmund Spenser was extremely reformative in the world of English literature; his Protestantism and the Puritanism of people at the time influenced his work, which is considered some of the most significant of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign.

Summary –

            The first book of The Faerie Queene, canto one tells the tale of the Knight of the Red Crosse, called Holinesse. The knight has been sent on a mission by Gloriana, Queen of Faerie Land, to slay a dragon. The knight is accompanied by a lady, Una, and a dwarf. On their journey, the group lose their path and come across a cave. Una cautions the knight of a dangerous creature within, but he ignores her warning. The group enters the cave and the knight slays the creature, Errour, along with some help from a blinding light, and her blood spews. The creature’s offspring drink their mother’s blood and the children soon implode. Later on in the group’s journey, a man offers the travelers shelter. The man is secretly a sorcerer and sends some sprites to cause mischief. One sprite is disguised as Una and offers the knight a kiss; the knight is so enraged at her offer that he wishes to kill the lady. After denying Una’s advances, the knight awakes from his slumber and leaves his partners in adventure behind.

Analysis –

One of the most unique elements of Spencer’s The Faerie Queene is the archaic language used. This choice is heavily inspired by Geoffrey Chaucer, author of works such as The Canterbury Tales. Both works by Spenser and Chaucer contain complex language that serves as a helpful tool in both physical and emotional descriptions of characters. Spenser made an ambitious decision to utilize antiquated language, though he received much negative feedback from readers at the time. However, from a modern perspective, readers can appreciate the sophisticated language in the epic. The language engages readers and encourages them to make observations regarding symbolism. For example, much of the beginning of the story is dedicated to the description of the lady the knight travels with, Una. In this description, much white imagery is related. This helps the reader comprehend Una’s character without directly explaining the lady’s innocent and pure nature. While careful attention must be taken when reading Spenser’s work, a thorough analysis of word choice yields valuable insight into the characters’ personalities and motivations.

Towards the beginning of canto one of the first book, the knight seems challenged by Una’s warning not to enter the cave, promptly ignoring the lady to face the danger within. While it may appear as if the knight is offended by her caution, the knight would have made the decision to enter the cave regardless of whether or not Una would speak up about the danger. The knight has a desire to act with bravery and chivalry, as this mission from Gloriana is the opportunity to prove he is an important figure. To be gallant in this time is to take action even when unnecessary, as an honorable man will never back down from any task. The knight’s own desire to succeed in his mission is the sole reason he enters the cave. This important detail paints a picture of who the knight is: a man desperate to prove himself no matter the cost. The danger the knight faces inside the cave also has an important meaning.

Upon entering the cave, much symbolism can be observed. Once the knight attacks the creature within the cave, named Errour, a bright light blinds the creature, allowing the knight to deliver a fatal blow to her. Errour loathes the light; this represents how evil forces despise being exposed to the truth. The light, representative of truth, can destroy evil and misdirection. Another important detail is Errour’s children dying after drinking her blood. This can appear as followers of evil facing the negative effects of their allegiance. Spenser made sure to inform readers that The Faerie Queene is an allegory; perhaps the heavy symbolism in this epic reflects the political landscape that which Spenser was so involved. Spenser was known to be an avid colonialist who supported the brutal strategies of England to occupy Ireland. One possible interpretation of Errour and her offspring is individuals who resisted English rule working together. Those in favor of colonialism would have discouraged uprising; Spenser may have written this detail into his epic to intimidate those displeased with English rule in Ireland. Spenser might have used the symbol of Errour as a fear tactic to deter the Irish from meeting the same violent fate as others who rebelled against the English. Regardless of Spenser’s exact meaning behind Errour and her children, this detail in the epic is most definitely of significance.

Another interesting detail regarding the character of the knight is his reaction to the sprite pretending to be Una offering him a kiss. Readers need to examine the significance behind his desire to slay the lady for offering herself to him. Much description is dedicated to Una’s purity and innocence early in the epic. A possible reason for the knight’s rage could be society’s value of a woman’s innocent nature; the knight was not willing to compromise Una’s virtue and he was angry that she was offering him a kiss without reluctance. However, another reason for the knight’s desire to commit violence could be his own desire to succeed. Much discussion in this class has been centered around the idea that in early English literature, women are portrayed as evil and negative influences. For example, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain claims that a woman tricked him and was the reason that he compromised his values as a knight. The Knight of the Red Crosse may have a similar mindset. It has already been observed that the knight cares a great deal about his success in his first mission; the knight is angry that Una attempted to distract him from the task at hand. The knight’s desire to succeed is the reason he denies Una and continues on his quest without her to distract him.

Throughout Spenser’s The Faerie Queene, unique language choices give readers important details about characters. Symbolism gives readers insight into the horrific results of English colonialism. In addition, the Knight of the Red Crosse’s motivations are explored in this revolutionary poem. Though Spenser’s writing was not favored at the time of its publication, this epic allows for interesting analysis and therefore, is of importance in the literary world.

Works Cited

Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: Core Selections. Available from: University of Alabama, (10th Edition). W. W. Norton, 2021.

“Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” by Lanyer

Biography

     Aemelia Lanyer was born in 1569 to an Italian Family of court musicians. She was a mistress to Lord Hunsdon in her young adulthood and received an education from the Countess of Kent during this time. However, after becoming pregnant by Lord Hunsdon, Aemelia was married off to Alfonso Lanyer, a court musician. Aemelia lost her luxurious lifestyle and possibly resided with the Countess of Cumberland, her patron. Aemelia received encouragement in her writing and education from the Countess and her daughter, and she became the first woman in England to vie for patronage and the first woman to publish a large collection of poetry. This collection was titled “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” and was a strong feminist work.

Summary

     Lanyer’s “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” seeks to redefine Eve and her role in the fall. In it, Lanyer describes the trial of Pilate through the perspective of Pilate’s wife, drawing parallels between Pilate and Adam and between Pilate’s wife and Eve. She describes Eve as only offering the apple to Adam out of love as a gift and lies blame on Adam because he is the ruler of all. She also notes that Pilate and the other men killing Jesus would be a far graver sin than Eve sharing the apple and portrays Pilate’s wife as pleading him to not kill Jesus.

Analysis

     In “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women,” published as part of Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum in 1611, Aemelia Lanyer tells the story of Pilate and his wife at the trial of Jesus. Pilate’s wife pleads for Pilate to spare Jesus while reminding him the gravity of this sin would far outweigh Eve’s sin. Additionally, she retells the story of Adam and Eve, painting Adam as the true cause of the fall of man because of his great power and responsibility. Throughout the poem, Lanyer uses irony while dealing with the story of Adam and Eve and of Jesus’s trial to challenge the misogynistic standards of her time.

     Lanyer uses irony in her contrast of the responsibility and power given to Adam over Eve with the blame and shame placed on Eve. Lanyer writes, “Her fault though great, yet he was most to blame; / What weakness offered, strength might have refused, / Being lord of all, the greater was his shame.” (34-36). Here, Lanyer ostensibly accepts the claim that women are weak, but she proceeds to draw from this claim that men’s greater power therefore makes them more responsible. Through this, Lanyer highlights the incongruity of ideas: Women cannot be weak and lorded over while still maintaining full responsibility for their actions. Men must either relinquish their control over women, or men must take responsibility for women’s actions. Continuing with this idea, Lanyer describes Adam as the “perfectest man,” being designed and commanded by God, yet he still eats the apple, “bringing us all in danger and disgrace” (41-48). Lanyer fully inverts the structure she is rebelling against, blaming men for the fall of man in the same way women have been blamed. Lanyer clearly does not believe a single gender is to be blamed, given her rejection of the idea that a gender should be subjugated based on the story of Adam and Eve. By ironically positing this, however, Lanyer further points out the hypocrisy of blaming an entire gender and forces men to consider the opposite viewpoint. Lanyer’s use of irony powerfully challenges the common misogynistic conclusions drawn from the story of Adam and Eve.

     Lanyer extends this irony when contrasting responsibility versus blame in her parallel treatment of Pilate and Pilate’s wife. Pilate’s wife starts off by saying that because Eve came from Adam, any evil in her also came from Adam (65-67), and Lanyer further writes,  “If one of many worlds could lay a stain / Upon our sex, and work so great a fall / To wretched man by Satan’s subtle train, / What will so foul a fault amongst you all” (67-70). With the conditional clause “If one of many worlds could lay a stain,” Lanyer again affirms that this is not necessarily what she believes. Instead, she is using the same logic used by men to show that they can also be deemed the blameworthy and inferior sex. Lanyer also calls back to the relationship between responsibility and blame as Pilate’s wife says in regards to the execution of Jesus, “This sin of yours surmounts them all as far / As doth the sun another little star. / Then let us have our liberty again,” (79-81). Lanyer points out a contradiction in the treatment of women; if their responsibility over women is justified through Eve’s sin implicating all women, then what is to be said of a group of men killing Jesus? Men are responsible for the graver sin of killing Jesus, but Lanyer shows more directly this time that she does not genuinely believe this deserves subjugation. All she calls for is liberty for women, as men have shown they are as if not more blameworthy than women and undeserving of their responsibility. Lanyer more directly this time shows her support for neither gender being subjugated. She is ironical in the fact that she is using their logic of sin generalizing to a whole gender, but her plea to “let us have our liberty again” is entirely sincere. Lanyer again uses irony to invert the sexist standards of her time and make a genuine case for gender equality.

     Lanyer provides an alternative but equally valid commentary on the story of Adam and Eve and the trial of Jesus. She highlights Adam’s dominion over Eve and the world to show that his responsibility places more blame on him in the decision to eat the apple. She also contrasts the subjection of women for this sin with the liberty men still enjoy after killing Jesus. Lanyer does this not to suggest that men and women should switch power dynamics, but to show that each gender can be shown to be blameworthy. Ultimately, Lanyer calls for women and men to be equal by critiquing the generalizing commentaries made of the Bible.

Works Cited

Lanyer, Aemelia. “From Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature:                                   Core Selections. Available from: University of Alabama, (10th Edition), edited by
Stephen Grenblatt, W. W. Norton, 2021, 437-440.

Laurel Holcomb

ca. 800

Author’s Biography

             Beowulf is revered for its literary importance as a rare Old English epic poem. The original poem was likely written in the Mercian dialect, but surviving manuscripts were edited to a West-Saxon dialect.[1] A fire in the early 1700s unfortunately burned parts of Beowulf and might have destroyed other Old English epics now lost to history.[2] Thankfully, other small Old English epics and enough of Beowulf’s manuscript were preserved well enough to highlight what “Germanic oral epic must have been like when performed.”[3] Scholars have many theories on the origins of Beowulf’s plot, the date is was created, and the identity of its anonymous author. Based on evidence such as word choice, handwriting, and cultural references, we can presume that Beowulf was written in the 700s at the earliest by a solitary, Christian, English poet.

Summary of Text

Despite these likely national and religious characteristics of Beowulf’s author, the story follows two Germanic tribes and features pagan traditions. This epic poem centers on thane, Beowulf, who travels to the kingdom of the Danes after hearing of how badly Heorot Hall had been terrorized by a night monster. At Heorot, King Hrothgar’s court is greatly impressed with Beowulf’s chivalry and immediately invites him to dinner as a thane of most high regard. Beowulf quickly sets himself up as a superior, brave hero through his account of his harrowing journey across the sea. He also vows that unlike all other knights of Hrothgar’s court, he will successfully put an end to the night monster’s killing sprees. By this point, we know the monster to be an evil descendant of Cain named Grendel. That night, Beowulf makes good on his vow and his triumph is celebrated the following night at another court dinner. While there is peace for a short while, trouble soon stirs up again when Grendel’s mother (who is never named) comes to Heorot to avenge her son’s death. The court is blindsided and devastated by the deaths of dear friends. Beowulf then treks to the aquatic home of the monsters where after a long fight, he kills them both. Beowulf insisted he take on that fight alone and he returned to Heorot afterward with Grendel’s head and one of the monsters’ heirloom swords. Beowulf eventually returned to his own kingdom of the Geats where he soon ascended the throne. The story ends with one last fight between Beowulf and a dragon who’s stirred conflict in his kingdom. Note that this dragon guards an invaluable heap of treasure. Beowulf once again insists he take on the fight alone. While he kills the dragon, the dragon also kills him. Beowulf dies with the treasure and is buried with it, per his request.

Analysis of Text

One pattern I noticed in Beowulf was the double standard between the City World and the Green World. From the onset of Beowulf, readers are presented with the idea of Grendel and the monsters as evil and Beowulf and the kingdoms as good. Ironically, Beowulf uses Biblical references to support the claim of Grendel being evil, but Beowulf himself repeatedly acts in ways that the Bible calls evil. Beowulf’s errs in morality are implicitly justified by his membership in the City World, while the monsters’ errs are explicitly demonized in conjunction with their membership in the Green World. Regardless of whether he did it intentionally, I argue that the Beowulf poet’s invocation of Christian ideals of good and evil were negated by the hypocrisy seen throughout the text.

From the beginning of the story, the author uses vivid biblical references to introduce Grendel to readers as the epitome of evil personified. More than just a descendant of Cain, he describes the so-called “prowler” as a “powerful demon. . .a fiend out of hell. . .[a] God-cursed brute. . .[and a] dark death shadow.”[4] Later in the same chapter, the narrator laments how Hrothgar’s people use pagan practices to try to solve the issue of the night attacks.[5] He contrasts these “cursed” people with others, presumably like himself, who are blessed because “. . .after death [they] can approach the Lord and find friendship in the Father’s embrace.”[6] Through emphasizing Grendel’s evilness and explicitly distancing himself from the Dane Kingdom’s pagan traditions, the narrator is teeing up readers to condemn Grendel (and the Green World he comes from) and to respect the protagonist—who will soon be revealed as Beowulf. Up to this point, the good-vs-evil theme of the story is fair and logical. Cain was cursed in the Bible for the violent sin of killing his brother, so it makes sense that his descendants would be evil, cursed murderers too. Furthermore, the earliest suspected writing dates of Beowulf were during times when Christianity was sweeping across the Anglo-Saxon world; therefore, it makes sense that the author used ever-more popular Christianity to represent goodness to his audience.

These attempted divisions of good and evil weaken as the story progresses as characters undermine the idea that one world is fully good or fully evil. After Beowulf fatally attacks Grendel, Grendel’s Mother quickly attacks Heorot to avenge her son.[7] Readers are informed in the introduction of the text of the practice of avenging and revenge payments as something commonly done when one’s family member is killed.[8] Considering this, we can conclude that Grendel’s Mother was fully embodying her role as a good mother who cared about her son and who responded to his predicament exactly how the traditions of the time dictated she should. Despite this care—which one would hope to see in any parent towards their child—Grendel’s Mother is described in her fight scene with Beowulf as a “swamp-thing from hell, [a] tarn-hag in all her terrible strength.”[9] Much later in the story, when Beowulf is preparing to fight the dragon, he is described as “too proud to line up with a large army against the sky-plague.”[10] From there, the story goes on praise Beowulf as a warrior and king. After he finally does fight the dragon and die, Beowulf is buried with its treasure per his request despite how much the treasure could have benefitted his kingdom.[11] Per my aforementioned point, it makes sense that the Cain’s descendants would be evil and that the author would use a Christian warrior as his protagonist. If the story continued to make biblical differentiations between the Green World and the City, it would be easy to believe that the two worlds were accurate representations of evil and good, respectively. However, the contradictions in Beowulf’s character traits (good Christian king, yet prideful and greedy) make this hard to do.

The author clearly wants to use the Bible as both a tool for condemning the Green World’s evil and a tool for exalting Beowulf’s goodness. He fails to do this effectively by allowing Beowulf to stray from the Bible’s definition of good with so little pushback. I have almost read the Bible cover to cover, and I couldn’t count how many times pride and greed are condemned and warned against in scripture. Yet somehow, a nod to Beowulf’s pride is immediately followed by lines of how great a leader he is; then, the story ends with his greed for the treasure being honored.[12] The hypocrisy of these choices—promoting Beowulf as the antithesis of the Green World’s Bible-based evil despite his flagrant displays of two of the Seven Deadly Sins—makes the author’s characterization of both worlds less reputable. How is one to trust that the Green World is as malevolent as the author makes it out to be when his depiction of Beowulf’s goodness has such glaring contradictions? Literature can be a wonderful medium for making black and white points, especially those like the common theme of good vs evil. Beowulf would have been a better story if it either committed to displaying the City and the Green World in ways that accurately reflected biblical good and evil or if it made the characters from each world more three dimensional, thus forcing the reader to think about what truly constitutes good and evil. Unfortunately, the Beowulf we have available to us falls somewhere in between these two literary choices.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

Greenblatt, S. (2020). The Norton Anthology of English Literature Core Selections Ebook. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Unknown. (8th Century). Beowulf.

 

 

[1] Greenblatt, 31

[2] Greenblatt, 31

[3] Greenblatt, 31

[4] Beowulf, 86, 100, 121, 160

[5] Beowulf, 175

[6] Beowulf, 183

[7] Beowulf, 1276

[8] Greenblatt, 31

[9] Beowulf, 1518

[10] Beowulf, 2345

[11] Beowulf, 2799, 3160

[12] Beowulf, 3160

Rebecca (Sofia) Hernandez

 

Western Europe in the twelfth century produced works that influenced poetry and literature for centuries. One of the authors who influenced writing style and themes was a poet known as Marie de France, the first female poet of France. Although she was supposed to have been born in France, hence her name, she lived in England most of her life, and wrote her works in an Anglo-Norman dialect. Accounts state that she has heard her lais performed, and one of them was dedicated to a ‘noble king,’ probably King Henry II. Her exact identity is unknown, but she was assuredly a woman of noble birth, well-educated, speaking multiple languages and with a strong passion for writing. This points to the type of woman she was and the audience she was targeting. The most known about her, however, is inferred from the style of her writing and some allusions to her from other authors. 

Some of her works, infused with magical and romantic themes, include twelve poems of short lyrical verses called lais. One of these lais, Lanval, is about one of King Arthur’s knights. He is a noble, valiant man who has accomplished much and served his king well. Handsome, young, and intelligent, it is surprising that he has received no credit for his loyalty; instead of becoming bitter, Lanval copes with being neglected and honorably continues to carry out his duty. One day, by himself on a field, two beautiful women show him a tent decorated with such richness that  “no king exists beneath the sky / who could afford all, possibly” (de France, 91-92). A woman of unparalleled beauty inside reveals herself to be a fairy from another land. Seeing how his honor has been neglected, she has found him worthy of giving herself to him as well as plenty of material wealth. However, he must never tell anybody about them. He leaves with excessive money, which attracts attention and gets him invited to the king’s castle. There, he broods over his love and how he wants to return to her. Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife, approaches him and asks him to sleep with her because she finds him handsome. He revokes her rather harshly. Offended, she accuses him of being gay. Enraged, he tells her that he has a love so much greater in beauty than she that the queen could not even compare to her lowest handmaid. Weeping, Guinevere tells her husband that Lanval made a move on her and when she rejected him, he dishonored her. Lanval is imprisoned and sentenced to death unless this woman’s existence could be proved. Despairing, Lanval prepares for death; however, the two fairies from before reveal themselves. Although either would have been a good candidate for Lanval to excuse himself, he stays silent, and the original fairy comes and saves him. Together, they return to the land she came from, never to be seen again.

Despite being one of the first female authors with considerable influence, like in many works of literature of the time period, Lanval’s fairy lover is not given a name. By not giving her a name, it takes away from her identity and reduces her to an archetype, a possession — she is a thing to proudly show off and deeply cherish, the way one might care for a boast about a car. This leads to two conflicting points in the poem’s plot: a question of how much power the fairy truly holds and whether or not Lanval held any authentic love for his fairy lover. As to the first point, it would seem as if the fairy held every advantage imaginable. She is the embodiment of every good and pleasant thing the world can offer. She clearly holds a position of power even in her world, being superior to her handmaids. Her wealth is abundant and the richest man’s wealth on earth could not even compare to the fine things she possesses. Even her beauty places her above every human woman: she is the most beautiful creature any man can say they have seen. All of these things she offers to Lanval simply on the explanation that she has seen his good behavior go unrewarded and offers herself in place of human recognition. Lanval, in turn, is very willing to comply with her rule and only reveals his secret when he loses his head in a moment of anger and repulsion. He regrets his decision immediately but sees he cannot take it back. Imprisoned, the barons were ordered to overlook him for fear that he would not take care of himself sufficiently, and “might go mad, or die” (de France, 414). Yet, when taken from an objective viewpoint, it is hard to say how authentic his love for her is. Although her loss drives him to insanity, it is uncertain whether it is a wholesome grief over someone genuinely loved or a depraved depression over losing something that offered him so much. Out of everybody, she alone acknowledged his hard work, showered him with gifts, and has what is most emphasized — an extreme beauty that trumps every other creature on earth. If her wealth were not present to dazzle him, or if her beauty was not laid out for him to consume, it is difficult to say whether or not Lanval would still have loved her so deeply. Although there was one mention of them talking after having intercourse, there was no other comment about her personality or anything else beyond material worth about the fairy. 

A major clue that the fairy queen was ultimately not truly loved by Lanval was her lack of a name. No matter how suicidal Lanval became thinking he would never see her again, it does not prove a true love for her. His tears could be compared to a child losing a favorite toy. By not giving her a name, de France reduces the fairy to a collection of qualities, someone beautiful, rich, and powerful, but without a distinguishing identity. This is further emphasized by the way the other men and knights view her when they see her and her handmaids, looking “on delightedly” (de France, 477) at their beauty. While their beauty is used in their favor, it does not lend respect to them. The men are more in awe of their looks and wealth than anything else they have to reveal.

Surprisingly, at the appearance of the two handmaid fairies, Lanval does not take them as an out and use them to escape death, although their beauty is competent enough that they assure him “one of them surely your amie!” (de France, 523). Yet again, it cannot be supposed that it is true love that motivates this, the same way it is not assuredly love that makes him shed tears. Driven beyond himself, Lanval only speaks the truth, that they are not his love. It is clearly demonstrated in the beginning that his character is truthful and honorable. This claim to truthfulness may also be motivated by the fact that he knows the fairy may hear him, even if she does not join him. Still trying to please her, he stays true to her — but none of this is proof of an authentic love.

In the end, this story does little more for them than what it presents on the surface. The only power and respect that can be given to the fairy is what the reader can suppose about based on the story. Other than speculations about how much influence the fairies actually have, their motives and their true personalities are unknown and not even expressed through emotion or response to emotional distress. The audience knows Lanval’s character based on his nobility and sense of honor; we see how he values his king and position as a knight and know exactly what he thinks about Guinevere’s unwanted approach and his despair over the deprivation of his fairy. Of the fairy herself, nothing is concretely known except for material, external qualities. One could argue that this is actually all there is to the fairies’ personalities. Being as powerful and wise as they are, their personalities are erased to being like angels or other unworldly beings, with their priorities being fixed above impulsive emotional reactions or personal tastes. Yet if this were true, this actually takes away from the fairy’s dignity. For one, there would need to be a reasonable explanation for why she chose to give herself to Lanval if she is supposed to be devoid of depth. For another, the very fact that she considered giving her body to him in recompensation for his neglect makes her exactly how he seems to view her: a toy, a possession, a prized thing to admire and love and cherish, but ultimately use for his own pleasure. In all perspectives, although this fairy seems to hold every power, she is given none of it. She may be the hero of the story by saving Lanval from death, but like he was before her introduction, she is unrecognized and taken for granted. This reflects how many noblewomen were likely viewed in this day: as important figures, useful for arts and literature and entertainment, but nonetheless never truly valued. Whether de France is projecting her own views of women onto this or making an unconscious observation of the role women were given in her society, the truth stands that, like herself, the fairy goes unnamed and passes through the story without any credit given directly to her.

 

Biography

Summary

Analysis

“To the Reader” by Ben Jonson

Mr. Emerson

Ben Jonson:

Jonson was an influential seventeenth-century poet and playwright, and is regarded to be the second most influential playwright of his time, after Shakespeare. He was arrested and jailed for his first play The Isle of Dogs because it was considered to be disruptive and offensive to the authorities. But Jonson left his mark on the literary world in other ways as well he attracted a number of renowned playwrights and poets of the time who were open how they were influenced by Jonson; this group either calling themselves the “Sons of Ben,” or the “Tribe of Ben” included playwrights William Cavendish, and Thomas Killgrew, among others, and the poets Robert Herrick, Richard Lovelace, and Sir John Suckling. In 1616, Jonson published his poems in plays in a folio and is best known for his plays, but his epigrams and “On my First Sonne,” and “To Penshurst” were also widely read and influential.

 

Pray thee, take care, that tak’st my book in hand,

To read it well: that is, to understand.

 

Jonson’s epigram “To the Reader” is a deceptively complex poem. Only consisting of two lines, the poem attempts to prime the reader for the poetry that follows. The fact that Jonson spends time preparing his reader for his work could mean that he is either anxious about it, or that he thinks that it is too sophisticated for them. However, it is clear that he is interested in how readers receive, or understand, his work and the practice of reading more generally in his context.

 

The poem begins with a plea to the reader making it seem as though the voice of the poem is humbling himself before the reader. The next words introduce a subtle ambiguity. “take care” could continue the plea, but it could also turn the plea into a more aggressive warning to the reader. Even in the latter reading, the reader does have some sort of power since they are the ones that take his book in hand and presumably read it. This introduces a literary awareness of how powerful readership is in early modern English culture. Misunderstandings are capable of generating grievous consequences. Additionally, if Jonson is indeed anxious, the book itself could be the source of his misgivings. Taking the book in hand carries with it connotations that the reader bought the book and now the words are in a sense theirs to do with what they please. Jonson’s work is now out in the world and can be distorted by the whims of the public. While this is not an exhaustive analysis of this poem it does exemplify one important feature of early modern poetry: even a mere eighteen word poem can communicate complex cultural attitudes and relationships (here between authors and readers) and the language itself can shift right before our eyes. Perhaps, when Jonson instructs his readers to read well he is attempting to teach them with this simple poem, that language is more slippery than it initially appears.