For Friday: Contextual Documents for A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Amazons and the Virgin Queen (readings):
· Christine de Pizan, 201-205
· Knox, The First Blast, 211-214
· Elizabeth I, Tilbury Speeches, 214-216
· Elizabeth I, Speech, 233-236
Answer TWO of the following:
1. What did the idea of Amazons signify in Elizabethan England? Why does Christine de Pizan write a defense of them and Elizabeth somewhat model herself on them? Why might Amazons be a large point of contention at this time in English (and perhaps, European) history?
2. How does John Knox attempt to scientifically and scholarly define the weakness and inferiority of women? Why would these arguments be considered authoritative or compelling in Shakespeare’s day? Is there any sense that Shakespeare is responding to these commonly-held ideas in A Midsummer Night's Dream?
3. How does Elizabeth, either in her famous Tilbury Address, or in her Speech to Parliament on Marriage and Succession, respond to the attacks on women by Knox and others? How did she find a way to speak and act as a leader without denying her identity as a woman?
4. Since all of these works concern feminist ideas (or anti-feminist ideas), how might they help us read A Midsummer Night’s Dream as a play concerned with early feminism? After reading these works, why might we pay more attention to the women in the play who are largely silent (Hippolyta), or are made silent (Titania, the lovers)?
1. I think it is because Amazons display that woman can be equal to men in battle and leadership. I think that this fierce cultural models what women think they have to be to be taken seriously in a “man’s” world. (Maybe not quite as extreme, though). They give validation to the ideals and values of feminists I think.
ReplyDeleteAnna Talkington
4.It gives us an idea about how women were viewed and viewed themselves. Because this moment in feminism takes place around the time Shakespeare is writing, it is very interesting that the woman are the ones who truly suffer in the play and in the last scene remain silent. Perhaps it comments on how much woman should be allowed to express their opinions at this time. Also, maybe the hardships they endure through the course pf the play symbolism the hardships borne while trying to gain respect as equals in the eyes of men.
Yes, I find it interesting that Shakespeare, while not a feminist in the modern sense, is still very sympathetic--or at least, aware--of the arguments between Knox and Elizabeth, and certainly seems to be on Elizabeth's side. This might be as simply as she was his patron, so he flattered her...though if so, he could have flattered her more obviously. The silence of women seems a chilling nod to Knox's beliefs, which though laughed away by Act V, can disturb if read closely.
Delete-Rocky Moore
ReplyDelete3. There is a long passage on page 235 where she asks a whole group of questions that is meant for her audience and they weren't asked to where she wanted an answer but more in a rhetorical fashion with much more emphasis on her words alone. "Was I not born in this realm? Were my parents born in any foreign country? Is there any cause I should alienate myself from being careful over this country? Is not my kingdom here? Whom have I oppressed? Whom have I enriched to other's harm? What turmoil have I made in this commonwealth that I should be suspected to have no regard to the same? How have I governed since my reign? I will be tried by envy itself. I need not use many words, for my deeds do try me". She makes solid points here and demands attention to herself and these questions being raised without negating the fact that she is a woman.
4. Honestly I think men of the time were afraid of what women are capable of especially when reading the first part about the Amazon women and how they ultimately barely lost to a great leader and mythical legend-Hercules. The excuses men make especially that by Knox about women by nature being weak etc, doesn't justify anything except for the fact that it makes men look like they're afraid of women. It even makes it look like a sad case for men when they barley give lines to Hippolyta and Titania's role is diminished and made into a joke almost. When you look at the role of women now in American households during this generation, women have started to take over as the dominant ones. They were always capable of this but obviously the men wanted to control this if they could and they did just that. Doesn't work like that anymore, women are necessary for society.
Yes, great points--Elizabeth is clear to ask what makes her less than any other man who would be king? In almost every sense, she is more--especially in her defiance of the men who would rule her and tell her how to rule. In the play, women are all put in their place more or less, or at least married off (even the Amazon); Elizabeth could laugh at this, but she certainly wasn't going to follow in their example.
DeleteAshley Bean
ReplyDelete1. Women were so much lower than men in that time, it was a known fact. Women accepted it because they were told so by men. The fact that these Amazonian women are just as strong as men gives women hope. They can be as strong and make a difference like these women. Queen Elizabeth wanted to show that she isn't going to just hide behind her people, that she would get up front like an Amazon, that she will take care of business herself.
2. Knox uses religious appeal to support his argument. He claims that letting a woman rule is insulting to God even. He tries to support it by stating that childbirth was God's curse to women. He says they are weak and feeble, and I relate that to the play because the women were strong on their own. Titania was tough and definitely stood up for her values and said no to Oberon when he wanted the child. But as soon as men came into the picture, all of these once strong women become feeble and silent. Titania tries desperately to please Oberon in her sing song verse, while the other women are just confused and silent.
Right, Elizabeth knew she had ancient examples to follow, and didn't need a Knox or whomever to tell her what women could and couldn't do. Knox uses "ancient doctors" to support his argument, but so does Pizan--the very sources most men have actively tried to suppress!
DeleteElyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2: Knox does a superb job of bashing women in this essay. He states that women are not cut out for political positions, since "their sight in civil regiment is blindness; their strength, weakness; their counsel, foolishness; and judgment, frenzy." He goes on to say that women are naturally weak, impatient, foolish, feeble, and cruel, and that they should be under the rule of men. This was a popular view in Shakespeare's day, as men did all the important work and left women to cook and clean at home. Shakespeare plays with this in Midsummer Night's Dream; the women can fend for themselves until the men show up, after which they become silent, submissive puppets. The audience probably loved this at the time, since they most likely were glad to see the women "put in their place."
Question 4: The women who are silent of their own accord are the women to be proud of. They hold their tongues and think before they speak. They do not make fools of themselves over the men, but wisely observe and come to decisions before they try to say anything. The women who are MADE silent have been turned into fools, allowing themselves to be put in submission by men. They are turned into nervous gigglers and eager, humble slaves to their masters, which is exactly what people thought women were supposed to be at this time in history.
Yes, it seems like this play, under the guise of a comedy (and it IS quite funny) still has a sobering message about female roles in the Elizabethan world. And yet, the reality was that a Queen ruled them all, so perhaps this was a tribute to Elizabeth herself, as a way of showing everything she feared about marriage and men? Hard to say for sure, but the silence and the women turned into 'fools' is hard to ignore, though a performance can certainly gloss over these aspects.
Delete1.) The Amazon women are known as these incredibly capable warriors that are feared by all armies. I believe this comparison is to show that women are capable, it is sort of a feminist act. Although I believe women are equal to men, I don't believe that war is their thing.
ReplyDelete4.) I believe that Shakespeare shows that women as the sufferers because they are usually so mistreated. He tends to be an activist for feminism in his works. This is one of the reasons he is considered a romantic.
Deryk Ronk
Shakespeare isn't a Romantic--the Romantic writers are from the period c.1790-1830, which is hundreds of years after Shakespeare's death. He also can't be called a feminist, exactly, though he might have been sympathetic to women--esp. since his Queen is a woman, and he needed her patronage while she was alive (interestingly, he has less laudable heroines once she dies and James becomes king). And even if you don't think war is for women, ancient writers disagreed with you--the Amazons prove that they were quite capable warriors, and many Celtic tribes had women fighting alongside men in the ancient world. So whatever our beliefs, history shows a different story--which Pizan is keen to point out.
DeleteDevin Martinez
ReplyDelete1. In most cases throughout history, general consensus among society is that women are the lesser sex when compared to men. The story of the Amazonians contradicts this notion in every way offering a view into a society in which women are very capable of not only running a sound government but also being a conquering nation as well. Elizabeth models her reign after some of these characteristics and gains validity not only with her countrymen but perhaps to give her that little extra bit of self confidence required to be in charge. Not that she struggled with confidence but that these ideas gave her a platform to stand upon.
3. Elizabeth responds to her critics and naysayers such as Knox and others during her Tilbury Address by offering her father as an example or rather a contradiction to what Knox says. She believes and tries to exemplify the notion that all is as God wills it. She acknowledges the fact that she is a woman but uses Knox's own words to describe her passion and bravery. She's going to ignore those her speak against her by continuing to be successful in her reign. She says in her speech that, "I will be tried by envy itself. I need not to use many words. for my deeds do try me." To me this is her saying these guys are just jealous of what she is accomplishing and rather than speak out back at them, she will let her accomplishments speak for her.
Yes, the presence of the Amazons suggests that history did an elaborate cover-up to bolster the supremacy of men. Pizan wants to correct history and show how powerful they truly were, giving the lie to people like Knox who claim that ALL ancient writers supported men over women. Not so, and Elizabeth is happy to challenge him point by point in her works--and her person.
Delete2. Knox uses religion and twists it around to fit what he is saying. He uses the idea that women were created by God to be subservient to men to express the notion that women are unfit to rule. He even goes so far as to call it unnatural. He then goes on to say that women are weak, blind, and essentially crazy. They let their emotions completely control them which makes them unstable in positions of power. Basically, he just throws insults and name calls and all sorts of things to make it look like a woman's place is beneath her husband, or all men in general.
ReplyDelete3. She responds by comparing herself to her father. She is her father's daughter, so the pleasing qualities that he possessed as a leader had been passed down to her. She never claims to not be a woman, in fact she uses the negative statements that Knox offered up in a way that makes them be a good thing. She takes every metaphor or insult he threw at her, and twisted it to make herself seem like a great ruler. She describes herself as brave and as the type of leader her country needed.
Good responses...Knox felt that women were unnatural, whereas men were natural and personified order and logic. To prove this, he uses works of ancient literature--all conveniently written by men (even the Bible, you can argue, was written by men, since no women had a hand in writing it down). Elizabeth was audacious enough to claim that she could write her own history as a woman with a "king's heart," which was literally true, since she is her father's daughter.
Delete2. Knox manipulates religion for his own fancy in this essay. He refers to child birth as the woman’s curse, placed by God. Knox even resorts to bashing women in general with terms such as weak, foolish, cruel, etc. I suppose this view was commonplace at this time, for the most part. However, from reading other Shakespearian work, I don’t feel that Shakespeare indulged in these beliefs. I feel like he may have been mocking these beliefs and viewers of the play at that time, didn’t pick up on it.
ReplyDelete3. Elizabeth manipulates the words of the men who oppose her. The body of a woman may be weak and feeble; however, she had the guts and brains of a king. She was the daughter of a great king, who passed down his bravery and resilience. She was a brave bold ruler; her speeches even made it seem that a woman was better suited to rule a kingdom than a man.
Good responses...where do we see Shakespeare possibly responding to Knox's ideas in the play? Could certain characters even be lampooning him? Are the men all versions of Knox? Would this have pleased Elizabeth?
DeleteAimee Elmore
ReplyDelete1.) The Amazon’s signify independent women. Women who have survived without the leadership of men. Men in Elizabeth’s time thought women were only there to have kids. The men did all the work and the women stayed at home. Pizan defense them because well one she is a women and she is independent like they are. Also because she believed women shouldn’t be labeled like they are.
2.) Elizabeth says “I know I have the body, but of a weak and feeble women; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England, too.” She is saying just because I am a women doesn’t mean I can’t rule. She has a heart of England she won’t let it down. She goes on to say “think foul scorn that Parma or Spain or any prince of Europe should dare to invade the borders of y realm, to which rather an dishonor should grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general…” she is saying that she will fight for England. She won’t let it fall.
Good responses--though where do we see Pizan showing admiration for the Amazons in her writing? How do we know that she, as a woman, finds them an important piece of female history that women should know about--and learn from? Do you think Elizabeth, reading this (or works like it), tried to emulate them?
DeleteShelby Pletcher
ReplyDelete2) Knox makes the argument that women are so far on the end of the spectrum of subservient that they are a lower class it seems. And he backs up these arguments with Biblical values that he stretches and spreads to fit around his mold. Sadly, these arguments, while void of any real structure, weren't very unheard of in Shakespeare's day. Alongside the Biblical argument, many men believed, including Knox, that women were just by default too emotional for handle any real obligation. This belief system left women voiceless and powerless in Shakespeare's day. I believe Shakespeare responds to these arguments in A Midsummer Night's Dream through many different characters. As we discussed in class, as I read or watch this play, I get a strong sense of mockery towards the men in this play and an underlying empathetic undertone for the women. I definitely believe Shakespeare purposely suggested these themes to his audience.
4) The women left silent in this play I believe were left silent to prove a point. This was the mark women in this day, to be left silent or made to be a fool. It's such a brilliant depiction of what women were viewed as an expected to be. I think that's what made Shakespeare's works so relatable and what made them stand the test of time. His works consistently go against the grain of the idealized version of romance, especially in the eye of the common man.
Great responses: even though this might not be a feminist play exactly, the men are ridiculed, and some of this might be at the expense of writers like Knox, who would be well-known to the public.
ReplyDelete2.He describes them as a monstrous body with no head. He cites God’s order in creation as well as them being designed with less muscle and strength. This would be compelling in shakespeare’s day because they were given as authoritative from The Bible. Knox was a leading protestant reformer and his words carried weight. Midsummer Night’s Dream seems to cast even male characters as emotionally unstable, feeble minded, and easily persuaded. Perhaps Titania while under the spell that put her in love with Bottom is a caricature of a women who has no head as Knox referred to.
ReplyDelete3.She finds it humorous for the foot to demand something of the head. She reminds everyone of her position as the Queen. She also gave a brief resume of her service to England as well as her leadership. She still affirms her identity as a woman saying that she hopes to marry and have children.