Bio: The “Golden Speech” was a speech delivered by Queen Elizabeth I on November 30th, 1601. This speech was delivered to the House of Commons after the speaker of the House of Commons, Sir John Croke, applauded Elizabeth’s decision to revoke obnoxious patents and thanked her profusely for the opportunities she had given to her people. The speech starts out as a thanks to the speaker for his kind words but evolves into a speech about the love that Elizabeth holds for her people and for her country. One of the many reasons this speech is so well remembered is not just because of the contents of the speech but the significance behind it. Less than two years later Elizabeth would pass and would be succeeded by James I, a mediocre ruler who signaled the downfall of the English monarchy. Making the “Golden Speech” not only one of Elizabeth’s last speeches, but a speech that left an impression on the people, one that no ruler after was able to fill proceeding her. However, it is important to note that though the decision to open these patents to everyone benefited the people, it benefited Elizabeth as well. She was liable to get a large subsidy to her treasury, not to mention she was under intense pressure from parliament. Now armed with a basic understanding of the historical context and significance of this speech, it is time for a deeper analysis of the speech itself.

Analysis: To begin, it starts off with Elizabeth thanking the speaker for his kind words, which she accepts with “no less joy than your loves can have desire to offer”. Meaning that Elizabeth accepts these compliments as happily as they could have been given to her. After this begins the self-indulgent part of the speech, where Elizabeth comments on the love between her and her people. During this she claims that there is no love that could “countervail (their) loves” and that she values the bond between her people more “than any treasures or riches”. The words are kind, however; in politics, reasoning typically extends far, far beyond this. Elizabeth was under intense pressure from parliament to release these patents to the public. One reason she could have been so deeply talking about the love she has for her people could be because in doing so it made her seem and feel that she had control. When in reality, it was a decision that she had extraordinarily little control over, and Elizabeth wanted to make the best out of the situation. There is a shift in tone after the first paragraph where Elizabeth goes from discussing the love between her people to discussing herself. When she describes herself, she speaks as if it really is her final speech, as if she knows her reign is ending. She speaks in past tense, saying that she was never “greedy” or set on obtaining “worldly goods” but instead, her priority was always her “subjects’ good”. However, one thing that is important to note here is the past tense. She is not saying that she will never be greedy but that she never was. In a way this speech, the opening of the patents to the people, she is treating it all as if it is a going away present, her final gift and word to her people. After this, Elizabeth asks the speaker, and all others who are present to stand up because she plans to deliver a longer speech. Then Elizabeth speaks of her gratitude towards her people while also saying something interesting. Elizabeth says that she appreciates the kind words she was given, but more so, she is thankful for the opportunity she was given to be a queen over “so thankful a people”. Then Elizabeth says that she thanks the Lower House, because if she had not received “knowledge” from them she would have “fallen into the lapse of an error”. This “error” that Elizabeth speaks of would have been not opening the patents to the public and the knowledge that she was given by the House of Commons was more so a plea, reprimanding the use of the patents and insisting they be open to the people. After this another tone shift occurs, where now Elizabeth focuses on discussing her support for her people. Elizabeth begins discussing how during her time as their queen she never willfully wrote anything into power if she did not believe it “was both good and beneficial to the subject”. As well as being “exceedingly grateful” for those would fight for the people, even if it meant an argument, because, as she states again, “above all earthly treasures I esteem my people’s love”. This was a long section of the speech where her tone and intent with her words remain relatively similar. In this part of the speech Elizabeth washes her hands of any past actions that may have not been beneficial to the public by claiming she always had the intention of helping her people, as well as ensuring that the concerns of the public are heard and appreciated even when they are not listened to. Then after another part of her speech where Elizabeth talks about how people sugar coat topics for her, so she responds more pleasantly, one of the final tone shifts occurs, turning the topics to religion and pride. Elizabeth begins with religion, saying that as she ruled, she always kept in mind her “Last Judgment Day” and therefore has always kept her people’s needs in her heart, prioritizing them. Expanding on this, Elizabeth goes as far to say that if under her rule any of the grants she passed were harmful, or if the people who were under her authority abused their power, that “God will not lay their culps and offenses to my charge”. Here Elizabeth assures her people of the soundness of her rule by relying on her fear of God and the repercussions she would incur from being a poor ruler. Additionally, Elizabeth asks that the faults that did occur under her rule not be seen as her fault, but unfortunate events that happened along the way, caused by other people. Now for a summary of the end of the speech. Elizabeth hits on her gender and though it may be viewed as a weakness God still gave her a heart that “never feared any foreign or home enemy”. Elizabeth asks her people to not “attribute anything unto” herself, but rather God, and that all her achievements be given up to the “Lord”. Lastly, finishing her speech, Queen Elizabeth I asks those around her to “depart into their countries” to find anyone grateful for her so they may come and “kiss (her) hand). In conclusion, in this speech, Elizabeth highlights her love for her people and her appreciation for being able to rule them, as well as her fealty to God. However, underneath the surface, is the speech of a dying queen, whose power is waning both politically and physically, who wants to admonish whatever sins she might possess and bathe in the appreciation of the public one last time.  

 

Works Cited

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

BIOGRAPHY 

Aemilia Lanyer was the first Englishwoman to produce significant poetic works and attempt to assert herself as a professional poet through publication. After her father’s death when Aemilia was seven years old, she left home to live with Susan Bertie, who believed in equal education for women and gave Aemilia a humanist education, which emphasizes human potential for good, common human need, and rational problem solving. 

Lanyer secured her financial luxuries and artistic patronage by becoming the mistress of Lord Hunsdon, a well-known supporter of the arts (notably, Shakespeare’s play company). After becoming pregnant with Lord Hudson’s child, Aemilia was married off to Alfonso Lanyer. 

In 1611 Lanyer became the first woman in England to publish a book of poetry, titled Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum. Her poems were often considered radical and are full of Proto-feminist themes. Her poem “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” is a part of the enormous literary collection known as the “dispute of women” or querelle des femmes: an early-modern debate that arose to reject misogynistic literature. 

 

SUMMARY 

“Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” begins as a plea to Pontius Pilate as he judges whether he’ll allow Christ to be sent to the cross. The poem’s speaker begs for Pilate to show compassion and turn away from his cruelty, pleading “Do not in innocent blood inbrue thy hands;”. The poem is structured as a letter that Pontius Pilate’s wife has sent to him, “to beg her Savior’s life”. 

The third stanza of this poem transitions the work from an appeal to Pilate’s better judgment to a defense of Eve’s mistake which resulted in her and Adam’s banishment from the Garden of Eden in Genesis. The speaker insists that Eve’s crime was not committed out of any malice or ill intent, but rather out of her own ignorance and innocence: “she, poor soul, by cunning was deceived;/No hurt therein her harmless heart intended”. 

The speaker also emphasizes Satan and Adam’s roles in Eve’s sin. In the lines, “Although the serpent’s craft had her abused, /God’s holy word ought all his actions frame” Satan actively took advantage of Eve’s naiveté to orchestrate humanity’s downfall, while Adam allowed himself to be swayed by Eve despite his greater experience and knowledge. 

The final line of the ninth stanza transitions the piece back into an address to Pilate. The last three stanzas accuse Pilate of a sin far greater than that of Eve’s. The speaker concludes the poem by facing Pilate with an ultimatum, either have mercy and pardon Christ or fall into cruelty a become guilty of perhaps the greatest of humanity’s sins. 

ANALYSIS 

Allusion and Apostrophe 

The entirety of Lanyer’s “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” operates as a reference, or allusion, to Christian scripture. The two biblical scriptures that this poem draws from most are the stories of Christ’s crucifixion and humanity’s fall from the Garden of Eden. The poem initially begins as an apostrophe to Pontius Pilate just before he allows Jesus to be crucified. The speaker structures the beginning of this poem as a plea to Pilate’s better humanity. The use of anaphora gives the poem a feeling of almost hopelessness or futility; anyone who’s familiar with the story of Pontius Pilate knows that his final decision is not one of mercy, therefore, it’s as if the poem’s speaker is making this plea in vain. 

Lanyer makes another allusion to the biblical story of when Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and were therefore banished from the Garden of Eden. She uses this allusion as a persuasive strategy for both her address to Pilate and to the reader.  

When addressing Pilate, Lanyer contrasts Eve’s infamous sin with that of Adam and the one that Pilate is about to face. She writes, “Her sin was small to what you do commit; /All mortal sins that do for vengeance cry /Are not to be compared unto it.” She insists that, while Eve’s sin was committed out of her lack of wisdom, Pilate’s potential sin would be a malicious act of cruelty against his better judgment.  

Lanyer creates a connection between Pilate’s sin and Adam’s; both men in positions of authority with superior wisdom at their disposal who nevertheless chose to sin. She makes the point that if Eve’s crime of ignorance is enough grounds to condemn all women, then Adam’s sin despite his access to greater knowledge is an even greater atrocity. 

Antithesis 

“Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” also utilizes antithesis to enhance this message. For instance, the poem’s speaker may explore Pilate’s two opposing solutions to his dilemma; one being the path of cruelty and the other of righteousness; lines thirteen and fourteen state, “Condemn not him that must thy Savior be; /But view his holy life, his good desert.” The speaker also contrasts Adam and Eve’s strengths and weaknesses in this way to emphasize the opportunity that Adam had to reject Eve’s offer and stay on the path of righteousness, stating that “What weakness offered, strength might have refused.” 

Alliteration 

Alliteration also makes various appearances in Lanyer’s work. This alliteration creates several effects in “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women”, but most notably, it invokes imagery in the reader’s mind. In lines twenty-three and fifty-five, the poem’s speaker emphasizes the letter ‘s’ when recounting the trickery of the snake in the Garden of Eden. “The subtle serpent that our sex betrayed… No subtle serpent’s falsehood did betray him.” The speaker’s repetition of the letter ‘s’ creates a sinister hissing effect, which invokes images of a hissing snake in the reader’s mind. 

Enjambments and End Stops 

“Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” makes regular use of enjambments and end stops to control the flow of the piece. In some cases, a single sentence will continue for more than a stanza, and in others, a sentence will only span a single line. Lanyer places end stops to separate the distinct themes and ideas within the poem, similar to how paragraphs organize the ideas in a work of prose. 

Querelle des Femmes 

Overall, the purpose of “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” is an argumentative piece, the argument being in support of women’s liberation from the misogynistic culture that Lanyer inhabited. Such a culture partially justified its institutional sexism by claiming that women’s manipulative nature and moral weakness demanded their subjugation, often using Eve’s original sin as biblical evidence.  

Lanyer begins her argument by disguising it, hiding it in an address to Pontius Pilate. However, as the address continues, it becomes clear that Lanyer is not only speaking to Pilate but also to the reader through him. Her choice to first conceal the true messages of this work displays her literary expertise in navigating the politics of her culture while maintaining the integrity of her beliefs. When Lanyer insists that Adam’s crime should be seen as more severe than, if not equal to Eve’s she is arguing that men have no moral high ground to stand on. And when men lose their alleged moral superiority, they lose the right to subjugate women. 

Lanyer’s proto-feminist arguments in this piece firmly situate “Eve’s Apology in Defense of Women” in the early-modern literary conversation surrounding the nature of women and their place in society. This poem expertly contradicts the negative stereotypes surrounding women at their biblical source, therefore crippling the entire patriarchal argument. Lanyer writes, “Your fault being greater, why should you disdain /Our being your equals, free from tyranny? /If one weak woman simply did offend, /This sin of yours hath no excuse nor end.” 

 

Works Cited 

 

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

Name:

Brooke Dixon

Bio:

William Shakespeare: the name feared by all young students, revered by cardigan-wearing English teachers, and an obstacle to young thespians everywhere. Yet, in 1564, he was just a baby born into a middle-class family of glove makers in a town that no one really cared about called Stratford-on-Avon. The great bard himself only attended grammar school up until he was fifteen before marrying Anne Hathaway only three years later and was quickly expecting his first-born child. When he was around twenty-one years old and Anne was twenty-nine, the couple had twins, but Shakespeare left his family in Stratford-on-Avon to begin his theatre career in London circa 1592. While in London and throughout his career, Shakespeare wrote plays, poems, and sonnets ranging from tragedy to comedy (Shakespeare Birthplace Trust). Everyone has heard of Romeo and Juliet, but depending on personal preference, the comedy Shakespeare wrote in 1601 could be considered one of his best. What You Will, or Twelfth Night as it is better known, has earned its spot beside the other comedic greats such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream and can be compared to tragedies like Macbeth.

Summary:

Twelfth Night is a comedy set in Illyria, that follows twins Sebastian and Viola after their shipwrecks. Both presume the other to have died at sea. Viola, knowing she cannot get anywhere as a woman, disguises herself as a eunuch. She dons the name Cesario and goes to Duke Orsino’s house where she discovers the love-struck Duke and ends up involved in his attempts to woo Lady Olivia. Cesario (Viola) becomes Orsino’s page to try to convince Olivia to love Orsino; however, Olivia ends up falling in love with Cesario instead while Viola falls in love with Orsino. Olivia’s household also contains other characters such as Malvolio (the steward who is also in love with Olivia), Maria (the maid), Sir Toby Belch (her uncle), and Sir Andrew (Sir Toby’s friend who just so happens to also be in love with Olivia). Throughout the play, all of Olivia’s potential suitors attempt to win her love with often embarrassing shenanigans, but Cesario tries on Orsino’s behalf.                   

Sebastian, also believing his sister to be dead, is rescued by Antonio, who begrudgingly agrees to take him into Illyria. Antonio is often depicted to be in love with Sebastian because he is willing to risk his life to help his new companion. Once Sebastian and Antonio arrive at the heart of the action, Olivia mistakes Sebastian for Cesario and marries him. Sebastian ends up in a fight with Sir Toby and Sir Andrew while Orsino arrives with Cesario, angry at his servant for betraying him and marrying Olivia. Cesario is, of course, confused by these accusations and claims that he only ever loved Orsino, but the confusion is somewhat rectified when Sebastian enters the stage and the twins reveal their true selves. The play ends with Sebastian marrying Olivia, Orsino marrying Viola, and Maria marrying Sir Toby, a seemingly happy ending for everyone except for Malvolio, who gets made a fool of by Maria and the others in Olivia’s household, and Antonio, who loses his companion.

https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1Y93uQ-kYAfF_vz63UaTXu6elXI3rj-4_GxNxVIWZIew/edit?usp=sharing

Analysis:

Shakespeare’s writing is always complex and multifaceted; one could even argue this complexity is what makes a Shakespearean play Shakespearean and Twelfth Night is no exception. Twelfth Night is also no exception to the trend of literary works having commentary on gender roles and women. Most notably, Viola, the play’s main protagonist, immediately decides to present herself to Illyria as a eunuch instead of being a female. In the second scene of the whole play, a woman has already come to the conclusion that being a woman is going to get her nowhere in this society. Shakespeare also comments on typical gender roles by reversing the way men and women are typically played. Women are often ditzy and head over heels in love and that’s all they can think about while men are just…there. In this, Orsino is the over-dramatic lover, pining about how “If music be the food of love, play on. Give me excess of it that, surfeiting, the appetite may sicken and so die,” and Olivia has no interest in him and rejects his advances (Shakespeare 1.1 1-3).

On the other hand, Shakespeare also keeps some gender roles consistent. For example, Viola has decided she wants to marry Orsino “three days” after knowing him (Shakespeare 1.4 3). Orsino’s quest for Olivia could be likened to that of a hunt, which, of course, is a very manly thing to do. Furthermore, Viola as Cesario is a trusted friend and confidant of Orsino, but when her true nature is revealed, Orsino is impressed by her intelligence and skill saying that she is “So much against the mettle of your sex” (Shakespeare 5.1 318). Maria also only wins the respect of Sir Toby and the other members of Olivia’s household by showcasing her intelligence and resolve with the prank pulled on Malvolio. In short, Shakespeare plays with gender roles in a way that only Shakespeare can and comments on the absurdity and double standards of what society held, and still holds, dear.

Just like in modern society, commentary on gender often goes right with commentary on sexuality and Twelfth Night is no different. The most well-known example of this is seen in the character Antonio, who rescues Sebastian and takes care of him. Although it is never directly stated that Antonio has romantic feelings for Sebastian, he does take care of him and then proceeds to risk his life for him by escorting him into Illyria. Although people would disagree and claim the feelings are solely platonic, when you consider that taking care of someone while they are seriously injured and risking your life for them is a trope that occurs in almost any romantic piece ever, his feelings and actions could very well be interpreted as romantic. Furthermore, Olivia almost immediately falls in love with Cesario, who is actually a woman, and Orsino is very quick to marry someone he believed to be a man for the majority of the piece. Although not as obvious as the commentary on gender, Shakespeare’s commentary on sexuality is not something to be ignored when reading Twelfth Night, especially through a modern lens.

It seems ridiculous that debates and prejudices that were held centuries ago can still be prevalent in society today, but they are. According to the Pew Research Center, American women still make almost twenty percent less than men. One of the most used arguments for this discrepancy is that women with children are less productive in the workplace: an idea that has its roots from the centuries old gender role of women being the ones to raise the family. Just like Viola, women in America, and the world, can’t get as far in life simply due to their gender. Additionally, if Twelfth Night was published now, “Karen’s” everywhere would rise and bash the production for its LGBTQ+ themes and ban their children from watching it because it is “not appropriate.” Although this may seem like an extreme opinion, as of August 2023, twenty-three of the fifty US states had introduced some form of a “Don’t Say Gay” law (Pen America). Twelfth Night has cross-dressing and barely hidden homoromantic themes and, based on that statistic alone, almost half of America would not support it and that is a problem. People are entitled to believe whatever they believe, but when they force their opinions onto others and not allow any dissenting viewpoints, the “free society” all Americans so cherish turns more into a censorship dystopia.

People in Shakespeare’s day could just go watch a play and laugh about it and then go about their days (granted they also did not accept these issues just like now), but now any little thing that remotely comments on society or even tries to advocate for something that people disagree with will be trashed and dragged through the mud. Just like this comedy is absurd, this societal standpoint is absurd, as well. Comedy can be used as a tool to open people up to a difficult discussion—a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down—and that’s exactly what Shakespeare does in Twelfth Night. The play is hilarious, and people can laugh at Malvolio when he is made a fool of, empathize with Orsino when his love is unrequited, and essentially see themselves as the characters in the show. Like all great literature, Twelfth Night can guide people to address issues that they are too scared to address as themselves and while no miracle of social change came from this piece, and Shakespeare’s intentions could’ve simply been to write a funny story, the questions it raises about sexuality and gender roles is not something to be ignored.

Margaret Wilson

Biography:

Sir Thomas Wyatt was a diplomat, ambassador, and lyric poet during the time of cultural, economic, political, and artistic rebirth within Europe, known as the Renaissance. The fight for power, sexual curiosity, and lavish standards of the Renaissance courts surely played into Wyatt’s success as an author. As a courtier to the ruthless Henry VIII, Wyatt’s life was risky, competitive, hazardous, and unpredictable. He was said to have had a “special relationship” with Henry VIII’s second wife, Anne Boleyn. He was, inevitably, imprisoned within the Tower of London on accusations of adultery with her. Somehow he was spared this time along with the second time he was imprisoned on accounts of treason years later. Amid this career, it makes sense that many of Wyatt’s poems include a longing for steadfastness and escape from the corruption and deceitfulness of the English court. He served on diplomatic missions to France and the Low Countries and was also an ambassador to Spain, which all significantly impacted his writing, infusing it with the spirit of Continental Renaissance poetry and of its creator and master of the Italian Sonnet, Francesco Petrarch. Wyatt brought the Italian Sonnet to England and used much subject matter from Petrarch’s sonnets, but incorporated a significantly different rhyme scheme. 

Summary:

“Whoso List to Hunt” by Sir Thomas Wyatt is a sonnet that uses an extended metaphor to unveil the relationship between love and desire, however, it is not a romantic poem. The poem depicts a hunter in a devoted hunt for a specific hind, or deer, which serves as a metaphor for the poet’s romantic pursuit of a woman he deems impossible for him or any other man to catch (English). The speaker was once engaged in the hunt for this woman and even though he wishes to continue, he has since abandoned the cause as he became mentally and physically exhausted in the process. After declaring defeat, the speaker cannot stop thinking about the woman but expresses he is willing to reveal the location of the hind, or woman, to others who desire her even though attempting to hunt her is a lost cause. He compares trying to catch this woman to catching air in a net. He has done his best to catch her but is always “of them that farthest come behind”, declaring that he always remains with those who come last no matter how vigorous the pursuit. In the final lines of the poem, Wyatt describes “letters” in diamond around the women’s neck that says “Noli me tangere” which is Latin for “Do not touch me” followed by “for Caesar’s I am”. This displays how precious and sacred the deer is and that it belongs to a man as powerful as Caesar, the Roman emperor, and cannot be caught by a simple poet, like himself (LitCharts). 

Analysis:

“Whoso List to Hunt” by Sir Thomas Wyatt is an adaptation of Petrarch’s Sonnet 190 that also utilizes the theme of unrequited love. Wyatt adapts Petrarch’s form and uses it to cunningly convey his own message and leave it up to interpretation by the reader (The). The entire poem utilizes an extended metaphor symbolizing unreciprocated love. Throughout the poem, Wyatt writes as if he, or the speaker, is a hunter pursuing a hind that symbolizes the woman he is chasing after. He begins the poem by declaring defeat yet he continues to pursue her. The speaker talks of his exhaustion and weariness from the hunt he underwent with extreme devotion even though he implies to have known all along it was pointless. Although he faced much frustration and despair in chasing this woman, the speaker seems to find joy in engaging in this vigorous pursuit of his love. Why would he continue to pursue this woman that is seemingly impossible to obtain and obviously not returning the love he offers? This suggests that the speaker is conveying that the most pleasurable love is found in the thrill of chasing the one who refuses to be loved (LitCharts). This also makes me think that he is, in a way, bragging about the adversity and pain he is willing to suffer for the woman he loves. However, as I continue to analyze the poem, it begins to suggest that his pursuit is the result of an obsession rather than a love interest. “Touch me not” written in diamond letters around her neck shows how precious and sacred she is, but is she sacred and precious to him? Or has his immense “love” for her developed from an obsessive fixation that he yearns to obtain (Also, the diamond’s around her neck seem a little like a collar that would go on a dog which implies how he views her as wild, unpredictable and as an animal that belongs to someone, and this is the first time she is described in the poem and, ofcourse, it is revolving around her relation to a man – misogyny smh…). Speaking of misogyny and gender roles, a hunt is a rather violent, wild, and deadly pursuit, which obviously does not seem like a safe place to be for a woman. This puts into perspective the gender stereotypes of the time this poem was written. Women were dehumanized or alluded to as animals and men were socially conditioned to think or talk about women in this objectifying way that implies women have no agency and are not smart enough to look after themselves, similar to that of a wild animal being seen as a second-class citizen. Wyatt does not challenge gender roles, but he reinforces them as he depicts that men are supposed to hunt and women should flee, categorizing women as the worth of mere property to be obtained and owned by a deserving man (Tavini). However, the woman in this poem refuses to be caught and avoids the man with such skills and expertise that he has to concede his hunt which contrasts the speaker’s perspective on a woman’s role in love. Later in the poem, it is called to question if the woman is exercising her freedom in refusing to be caught or if she just already belongs to someone and must reside with them eternally. In this sense, she must never allow herself to be caught by another man because that would be a betrayal to her current “owner”, which does indeed fall into the speaker’s perspective of a woman’s role within a relationship, but it is just an emotional failure for him. “For Caesar’s I am” is also transcribed around the woman’s neck, which implies that she already belongs to a man as powerful as Caesar, the Roman emperor, which deems her powerless. It is said that the man being referenced is Henry VIII, and if you know anything about English history, one might say he was a powerful man you would not want to cross. The woman that belonged to him was Ann Boleyn, whom Wyatt was imprisoned on accusations of adultery with. With this being said, the speaker reveals that the woman’s skill and agility which were previously presumed as the reason she is unable to be caught are not an act of freedom, but actually go hand in hand with the speaker’s role for her as a woman. Women are the pursued and men are the pursuers; However, this woman has already been pursued by a powerful man, leaving her unable to be caught by any other admirers and suggesting that women can never truly be free but they are simply always restricted to an agency that is not their own (LitCharts).

Works Cited:

“English Literature.” StudySmarter UK,www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/english- literature/poets/whoso-list-to-hunt/. Accessed 14 Feb. 2024. 

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

LitCharts. “Whoso List to Hunt Summary & Analysis by Sir Thomas Wyatt.” LitCharts, www.litcharts.com/poetry/sir-thomas-wyatt/whoso-list-to-hunt-i-know-where-is-an-hind. Accessed 14 Feb. 2024. 

Tavini, Gabriella. “Whoso List to Hunt by Sir Thomas Wyatt || A-Level Poetry  Analysis.” YouTube, YouTube, 5 Dec. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX0FaYgMl00. 

“The Renaissance Period Of English Literature.” ukessays.com. 11 2018. UKEssays. 02 2024 <https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-literature/the-renaissance-period-of-english-literature-english-literature-essay.php?vref=1>.

Name

Bio

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.