For my last post I would like to offer a secondary source on the subject of Renaissance friendship (particularly as it relates to Shakespeare and his works): Sovereign Amity: Figures of Friendship in Shakespearian Contexts, by Laurie Shannon.
In this book, Shannon explores the idea of the friend as a "another self" within early modern friendships, where friends were likened to one soul split between two bodies. She explores this idea of friendship--along with the corresponding ideas of the second self and the shared soul--in regard to societal, historical, and literary contexts. Her argument throughout the book is that friendship was a model for political discourse, and writers of the early modern period explored the idea of sovereignty through their construction of friendship.
This books offers information at a variety of levels. First, Shannon does provide background information on Renaissance society and culture, as well (of course) as on ideas of friendship during the period. This gives a solid base of information from which to build one's topic/argument further. Second, Shannon ties together the culture of the early modern period with literature of the period, exploring (as mentioned above) how writers tinkered with the idea of friendship and love as a way of exploring political discourse and societal ideals. This, then, provides a good resource for those looking at how early modern English society and literature interacted, particular with regard to such love and friendship. Third, Shannon provides analyses of a variety of early modern English texts (mostly Shakespeare's), focusing on the importance and function of friendship within those works. This is a wonderful resource, then, for scholarship on this topic as it specifically relates to and is employed in specific Renaissance works.
Now, as far as I'm aware, Arden of Faversham is not treated in Shannon's book. However, much of what Shannon writes (with the exception of her readings of specific texts that are not Arden of Faversham) is applicable to many pieces of Renaissance literature, and thus I recommend it for anyone interested in the connection between Renaissance friendship and Renaissance literature.
Also, there several other books with a more narrow (but perhaps also more thorough) focus on the connection between friendship and culture in the early modern period (in one way or another). It may be worth looking at: Against Reproduction: Where Renaissance Texts Come From, by the wonderful Stephen Guy-Bray; Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama, by Jeffrey Masten, and The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England, by Valerie Traub.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Resource Post 10
Alright, I want to get one more quick post off before I head to class. One or two more will be posted after. This post will focus on "Alice Arden’s Freedom and the Suspended Moment of Arden of Faversham," written by Julie Schutzman and published in Studies in English Literature issue 36.2.
In this essay, Schutzman argues that Alice Arden displays a female autonomy within Arden of Faversham in that she manipulates the traditional social structures of both the domestic space of her marriage and the social space of the town in which the play takes place. This manipulation, she contends, presents a threat to the patriarchal order of these societal structures, and in this way she is able to achieve such autonomy. Of particular interest to my posted research topic is Schutzman’s discussion of Alice’s manipulation of Arden, wherein the states that “Arden chooses to remove his gaze from the scene of his wife’s adultery” (304). Schutzman argues that this shift makes Arden the surveyed rather than the surveyor in his marriage (a reversal of the traditional structure), but I plan to use this point to note that Arden’s decision to ignore his wife’s adultery and instead spend his time with Franklin allows, as Schutzman argues, the reversal of the social order which leads to his end.
This is a great article for those of you with feminist interests, as Schutzman pays close attention to the female agency that Alice achieves by challenging the patriarchy. This article is thus also good for those of you looking for articles relating to the treatment of women and the construction of the patriarchy in early modern England, since this essay explores Alice's interaction and engagement with these aspects of Renaissance English society. While the usefulness of this article is hit or miss for my topic, I feel that it would be incredibly useful for those of you who are looking for sources dealing with any of the issues that I have mentioned above.
In this essay, Schutzman argues that Alice Arden displays a female autonomy within Arden of Faversham in that she manipulates the traditional social structures of both the domestic space of her marriage and the social space of the town in which the play takes place. This manipulation, she contends, presents a threat to the patriarchal order of these societal structures, and in this way she is able to achieve such autonomy. Of particular interest to my posted research topic is Schutzman’s discussion of Alice’s manipulation of Arden, wherein the states that “Arden chooses to remove his gaze from the scene of his wife’s adultery” (304). Schutzman argues that this shift makes Arden the surveyed rather than the surveyor in his marriage (a reversal of the traditional structure), but I plan to use this point to note that Arden’s decision to ignore his wife’s adultery and instead spend his time with Franklin allows, as Schutzman argues, the reversal of the social order which leads to his end.
This is a great article for those of you with feminist interests, as Schutzman pays close attention to the female agency that Alice achieves by challenging the patriarchy. This article is thus also good for those of you looking for articles relating to the treatment of women and the construction of the patriarchy in early modern England, since this essay explores Alice's interaction and engagement with these aspects of Renaissance English society. While the usefulness of this article is hit or miss for my topic, I feel that it would be incredibly useful for those of you who are looking for sources dealing with any of the issues that I have mentioned above.
Resource Post 9
At this point, I have already listed the best secondary sources (that I could find) for my chosen research topic. In the 3-4 posts to follow, I will be giving slightly shorter analyses of the remaining secondary sources that I would like to talk about, since they become much less involved with the focus of this portion of my blog. However, this does not mean that those of you looking for resources on domestic violence/homosociality (especially in Arden of Faversham) should pay these next few sources no mind; you may find some of these sources more relevant to your own interests than they are to mine, and so I encourage you to at least look at them in more detail. Anyhow, today's post focuses on Alexander's Leggatt's essay, "Arden of Faversham" (creative and informative title, I know), published in Shakespeare Survey: An Annual Survey of Shakespearian Study and Production, volume 36.
Now I know what you're thinking: "Shakespeare Survey? I thought your topic deals with Arden of Faversham..." This is true. But Arden of Faversham was written by an anonymous author, and there are some who argue that Arden of Faversham was written by Shakespeare and that his authorship of the play was either lost or never made known. And besides, it doesn't make a difference to my topic whether Shakespeare wrote the play or not. So I thought I would take a look at Leggatt's article to see what it had to offer (since it's generic title made me think that it would be applicable to my subject matter. Anyhow, here's my analysis of the article:
In this essay, Leggatt examines the style in which the anonymous author of Arden of Faversham wrote the play. He compares the style of writing and writing conventions employed in the text to other, popular early modern English plays, such as Tambourline and Hamlet. Leggatt argues that, in writing Arden of Faversham, the author has allowed a greater degree of realism into the early modern theater than other plays of the time allowed.
There's more to it than this, I know, but I feel that I have summarized the gist of the article quite well. Of particular interest to my topic, Leggatt does examine the character Franklin on several occasions throughout the course of his essay, and in one instance he notes how Franklin tends to pull Arden away from the domestic problems that Arden faces throughout the play. He also notes how Arden and Mosby seem to have an intuitive, friendship-like connection with one another, as seen through their several interactions. More specifically, I plan to use Leggatt's observations as part of the foundation for my claim that it is Franklin and his connection to Arden that allow for Alice’s adultery and, later, Arden’s murder.
This article may admittedly not be ideal for all topics relating to Arden of Faversham. I know that I am taking several small pieces from the article for my own argument, but that's one thing I like about the essay. There is a lot of information in the article, and thus there is a lot that can be used for a variety of different topics. So do check it out, and I hope it'll be equally (if not more) useful for you.
Now I know what you're thinking: "Shakespeare Survey? I thought your topic deals with Arden of Faversham..." This is true. But Arden of Faversham was written by an anonymous author, and there are some who argue that Arden of Faversham was written by Shakespeare and that his authorship of the play was either lost or never made known. And besides, it doesn't make a difference to my topic whether Shakespeare wrote the play or not. So I thought I would take a look at Leggatt's article to see what it had to offer (since it's generic title made me think that it would be applicable to my subject matter. Anyhow, here's my analysis of the article:
In this essay, Leggatt examines the style in which the anonymous author of Arden of Faversham wrote the play. He compares the style of writing and writing conventions employed in the text to other, popular early modern English plays, such as Tambourline and Hamlet. Leggatt argues that, in writing Arden of Faversham, the author has allowed a greater degree of realism into the early modern theater than other plays of the time allowed.
There's more to it than this, I know, but I feel that I have summarized the gist of the article quite well. Of particular interest to my topic, Leggatt does examine the character Franklin on several occasions throughout the course of his essay, and in one instance he notes how Franklin tends to pull Arden away from the domestic problems that Arden faces throughout the play. He also notes how Arden and Mosby seem to have an intuitive, friendship-like connection with one another, as seen through their several interactions. More specifically, I plan to use Leggatt's observations as part of the foundation for my claim that it is Franklin and his connection to Arden that allow for Alice’s adultery and, later, Arden’s murder.
This article may admittedly not be ideal for all topics relating to Arden of Faversham. I know that I am taking several small pieces from the article for my own argument, but that's one thing I like about the essay. There is a lot of information in the article, and thus there is a lot that can be used for a variety of different topics. So do check it out, and I hope it'll be equally (if not more) useful for you.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Resource Post 8
I would like to turn again to secondary sources by looking at Randall Martin's essay, "Arden winketh at his wife’s lewdness, & why!’: A Patrilineal Crisis in Arden of Favrersham," published in Early Theater issue 4 (2001).
In this essay, Martin compares Arden’s behavior towards Alice with his behavior towards other characters, namely Mosby. He argues that the play fashions Arden into a man preoccupied with business; he is always hunting for ways to elevate his social status and reinforce his financial stability, particularly as a way of ensuring his familial line continues with the same status which he has attained by the beginning of the play. Martin argues that it is Arden’s preoccupation with business and his tolerance for the adultery which Alice is committing that allows Alice and Mosby’s murder plot to have power and to ultimately be successful.
Martin touches on a number of good points in this essay. From the very beginning of the play, we are able to see two things about Arden quite clearly. The first is that Arden is very concerned with his social status. He seems to revel in his own successes while viciously critiquing the successes of others, namely Mosby, whom I see as very much like Arden in his own rise to success (both came into prominence through work, not inheritance). The second is that Arden seems to simply ignore his wife's adulterous behavior, even though it is made quite clear (in my opinion) that Arden knows full well of Alice's adultery. Martin explores the connection between these two aspects in this essay, and he (as I mention above) argues that it is this obsession with his social status that facilitates and leads Arden to his eventual murder.
This essay is obviously wonderful for my own research, as I also aim to explore the connection between Arden's behavior and his eventual murder. Unlike Martin, however, my argument is that it is Arden's prioritization of the bond of male friendship over the need to address his wife's adulterous behavior that eventually ends with Arden's murder. Seeing as the connection between Martin's work and my own is so strong, I feel that I would be remiss not to use it in my research.
Now, in my experience, I have found that economy and social status are prominent concerns in the works of the early modern (and later, Restoration) English stage. Thus, even if your topic of interest is not what mine is (I should certainly hope that it is not...), this work would still be worth checking out in order to see how the anonymous author of the play interweaves this concern over economy and social status with another major concern of early modern English society: the power of women. There's a lot that might be taken from Martin's article, and I definitely recommend it to anyone whose subject matter is related to this topic.
In this essay, Martin compares Arden’s behavior towards Alice with his behavior towards other characters, namely Mosby. He argues that the play fashions Arden into a man preoccupied with business; he is always hunting for ways to elevate his social status and reinforce his financial stability, particularly as a way of ensuring his familial line continues with the same status which he has attained by the beginning of the play. Martin argues that it is Arden’s preoccupation with business and his tolerance for the adultery which Alice is committing that allows Alice and Mosby’s murder plot to have power and to ultimately be successful.
Martin touches on a number of good points in this essay. From the very beginning of the play, we are able to see two things about Arden quite clearly. The first is that Arden is very concerned with his social status. He seems to revel in his own successes while viciously critiquing the successes of others, namely Mosby, whom I see as very much like Arden in his own rise to success (both came into prominence through work, not inheritance). The second is that Arden seems to simply ignore his wife's adulterous behavior, even though it is made quite clear (in my opinion) that Arden knows full well of Alice's adultery. Martin explores the connection between these two aspects in this essay, and he (as I mention above) argues that it is this obsession with his social status that facilitates and leads Arden to his eventual murder.
This essay is obviously wonderful for my own research, as I also aim to explore the connection between Arden's behavior and his eventual murder. Unlike Martin, however, my argument is that it is Arden's prioritization of the bond of male friendship over the need to address his wife's adulterous behavior that eventually ends with Arden's murder. Seeing as the connection between Martin's work and my own is so strong, I feel that I would be remiss not to use it in my research.
Now, in my experience, I have found that economy and social status are prominent concerns in the works of the early modern (and later, Restoration) English stage. Thus, even if your topic of interest is not what mine is (I should certainly hope that it is not...), this work would still be worth checking out in order to see how the anonymous author of the play interweaves this concern over economy and social status with another major concern of early modern English society: the power of women. There's a lot that might be taken from Martin's article, and I definitely recommend it to anyone whose subject matter is related to this topic.
Resource Post 7
Today I would like to talk about another primary source related to to my research topic: Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland.
In these Chronicles, Holinshed undertakes the compilation and construction of a comprehensive history of the British isles. These entries date back as early as 1066 (the date of the Norman invasion of England by William I). Fairly straightforward, really, if also incredibly lengthy. However, if you are working with the history of Britain at all, it may be worth looking at Holinshed's Chronicles in order to get a (perhaps alternative) view regarding a good many historical events. I myself am using the Chronicles for its description of the murder of Arden of Faversham by his wife. The events of this murder are retold in several other places besides the Chronicles, but Holinshed's work provides the most well-known (and perhaps the most closely documented) account of the murder and the events leading up to and after it. I will be comparing this account with the account provided in the play Arden of Faversham, particularly noting how the character Franklin from the play is not named in Holinshed's Chronicles (since part of my argument is that Franklin's introduction to the play is significant in that he and Arden share the bond of male friendship, in the idealized early modern sense).
One thing that I noticed when looking for access to Holinshed's Chronicles is that it was incredibly hard to get a hold of a copy (or, more accurately, copies--the work has several volumes). As such, I would like point you towards a resource that will allow you full access to the entirety of the Chronicles from the comfort of your own living room: The Holinshed Project (click for link). Researchers from the University of Oxford have created this online version of both the 1577 and 1587 editions of the Chronicles, which is fully searchable and contains image links to EEBO (Early English Books Online--you must have an account to view these images). This is a wonderful resource for Holinshed's Chronicles, as it is very easy to navigate and is hosted by a trustworthy source (the day the University of Oxford becomes an unworthy source is a noteworthy day, indeed). Thus, if you're at all interested in Holinshed's Chronicles (or even if you're not but need to check it our for your own research), I would definitely recommend that you make use of U of Oxford's very helpful resource.
One more post, and then I'll see you all tomorrow.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Paradise Lost | On Adam and Eve as Complementary Figures; Are Adam, Eve, and Eden Perfect?
We take a break in our erratically-scheduled publishing of resource posts to bring you our regularly-scheduled weekly blog post (it's only one hour until midnight, I have a lot to talk about in this post, and I need to be sure that it gets published by the time the clock strikes 12:00).
It seems to me that Adam and Eve are often represented as complementary figures to one another. In Book 4, for instance, the poem reads, "For contemplation he [Adam] and valor formed, / For softness she [Eve] and sweet attractive grace" (4.297-298). Adam is made to be valorous and strong, whereas Eve is made to be soft and attractive--two very opposite characterizations. Adam is a thinker, and we see this through Adam's continued engagement in conversation with the angels telling Adam of creation and the heavens (in multiple places throughout Paradise Lost). Eve, conversely, is a doer, and we see this, for example, in Book 8; when the conversation between Adam and the angel turns towards "studious thoughts abstruse" (8.40), Eve excuses herself from the conversation to go tend to her plants in the garden (8.40-47). And finally, in Book 9, Adam expresses concern when Eve suggests that they tend Eden independently; he reminds her that Satan may try to tempt them, and he worries that, divided, they might be more easily assailable (9.251-256).
So here are my questions regarding this idea of Adam and Eve as complementary figures. When Satan sees Eve in Eden, he states that he is glad that Adam is not around, because he would rather avoid Adam's higher intellect (9.483) and his stronger build (9.484-485). Could we potentially assume that Satan, if he had found Adam alone instead of Eve, would have tailored his persuasions to take advantage of Adam's lack of beauty and grace or perhaps his lack of physical experience? Satan butters up Eve by referring to her beauty and pitching to her love and knowledge of plants when he tempts her. Perhaps if it had been Adam instead, Satan would have told him that the fruit from the forbidden tree would make him even more gorgeous than Eve, and/or tell him that the fruit was not any more special than the other fruits in the garden (Adam, after all, spends much less time tending to the plants than Eve does, and thus he would be less familiar with the gardens than Eve, who herself admits that she has yet to experience all the trees in the garden). Satan has shown that he is capable of great guile and persuasiveness. I think that he takes advantage of Eve's lack of Adam's knowledge, not that he finds Eve inherently weak. Thus, I think that Adam would have been just as easily tempted, since Satan would merely have changed his tactics and played to Adam's weaknesses (which are Eve's strengths).
Also, I have to wonder just how perfect Eden truly is. We are told that Adam and Eve's job is to cut back the overgrown plants in Eden, and that if they were to slack off, Eden would become overgrown. What kind of paradise is that? Heaven is described as a utopia, and it is never-changing, ever-stagnant (see Book 1; I mention this some in my earlier post on Paradise Lost). And if we think about it, wouldn't any paradise be stagnant? In a perfect world, nothing would have to be changed at all, ever. Yet in Eden, the plants grow, and they grow quickly. One or two days would be enough for the entire garden to become overgrown. What if, then, Eden is not perfect? What if Adam and Eve are not perfect? Surely a perfect creation would not have eaten from the forbidden tree, yet both Adam and Eve do. And if Adam and Eve are not perfect, can we let their decision to eat the fruit slide because they were innocent and perfect when they decided to do so? I think not, because I find them flawed. And I don't think whatever flaws they have is merely part of their perfection. Because doesn't that necessarily go against the idea of perfection?
Just some thoughts.
Another resource post on the way. Maybe. It's kind of late.
It seems to me that Adam and Eve are often represented as complementary figures to one another. In Book 4, for instance, the poem reads, "For contemplation he [Adam] and valor formed, / For softness she [Eve] and sweet attractive grace" (4.297-298). Adam is made to be valorous and strong, whereas Eve is made to be soft and attractive--two very opposite characterizations. Adam is a thinker, and we see this through Adam's continued engagement in conversation with the angels telling Adam of creation and the heavens (in multiple places throughout Paradise Lost). Eve, conversely, is a doer, and we see this, for example, in Book 8; when the conversation between Adam and the angel turns towards "studious thoughts abstruse" (8.40), Eve excuses herself from the conversation to go tend to her plants in the garden (8.40-47). And finally, in Book 9, Adam expresses concern when Eve suggests that they tend Eden independently; he reminds her that Satan may try to tempt them, and he worries that, divided, they might be more easily assailable (9.251-256).
So here are my questions regarding this idea of Adam and Eve as complementary figures. When Satan sees Eve in Eden, he states that he is glad that Adam is not around, because he would rather avoid Adam's higher intellect (9.483) and his stronger build (9.484-485). Could we potentially assume that Satan, if he had found Adam alone instead of Eve, would have tailored his persuasions to take advantage of Adam's lack of beauty and grace or perhaps his lack of physical experience? Satan butters up Eve by referring to her beauty and pitching to her love and knowledge of plants when he tempts her. Perhaps if it had been Adam instead, Satan would have told him that the fruit from the forbidden tree would make him even more gorgeous than Eve, and/or tell him that the fruit was not any more special than the other fruits in the garden (Adam, after all, spends much less time tending to the plants than Eve does, and thus he would be less familiar with the gardens than Eve, who herself admits that she has yet to experience all the trees in the garden). Satan has shown that he is capable of great guile and persuasiveness. I think that he takes advantage of Eve's lack of Adam's knowledge, not that he finds Eve inherently weak. Thus, I think that Adam would have been just as easily tempted, since Satan would merely have changed his tactics and played to Adam's weaknesses (which are Eve's strengths).
Also, I have to wonder just how perfect Eden truly is. We are told that Adam and Eve's job is to cut back the overgrown plants in Eden, and that if they were to slack off, Eden would become overgrown. What kind of paradise is that? Heaven is described as a utopia, and it is never-changing, ever-stagnant (see Book 1; I mention this some in my earlier post on Paradise Lost). And if we think about it, wouldn't any paradise be stagnant? In a perfect world, nothing would have to be changed at all, ever. Yet in Eden, the plants grow, and they grow quickly. One or two days would be enough for the entire garden to become overgrown. What if, then, Eden is not perfect? What if Adam and Eve are not perfect? Surely a perfect creation would not have eaten from the forbidden tree, yet both Adam and Eve do. And if Adam and Eve are not perfect, can we let their decision to eat the fruit slide because they were innocent and perfect when they decided to do so? I think not, because I find them flawed. And I don't think whatever flaws they have is merely part of their perfection. Because doesn't that necessarily go against the idea of perfection?
Just some thoughts.
Another resource post on the way. Maybe. It's kind of late.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Research Post 6
Welcome to post 6 of the resource potion of this blog. I would like to, with this post, begin moving into my list of more "specific" sources regarding my research topic on Arden of Faversham. That is, I want to start moving away from sources like Dolan, Fletcher, and Gowing, which discuss a broad spectrum of topics using a wide variety of both primary and secondary sources, and instead begin talking about journal and book articles talking about very focused aspects of Renaissance theater, particularly Arden of Faversham. The first source along these lines is: Staging the Renaissance, edited by David Scott Kastan and Peter Stallybrass.
I always like compilations of essays, especially those that are divided into essays on the early modern stage and essays on specific plays. And guess what? Staging the Renaissance is composed just like this! I enjoy these compilations the most because I (more often than not) can find an essay on the specific play I am researching (in this instance, Arden of Faversham) juxtaposed alongside essays on a variety of aspects of the early modern English theater and society. This makes it incredibly easy to be looking through one essay, such as Catherine Belsey's "Alice Arden's Crime," and think of something such as:
It's interesting that Belsey argues that Alice Arden's true crime, in the play, is her challenge to patriarchal authority, not so much the fact that she murders someone, especially given that Alice's character was likely played by a male (read: boy) actor. What implications arise from the challenge to the patriarchy being presented by a male actor?
I can then just flip over to Lisa Jardine's essay, "Boy Actors, Female Roles, and Elizabethan Erotocism," and see if there's anything discussed in the essay that I could use in my own work. In this case, unfortunately, there's not much, if anything, in Jardine's essay that I could see as beneficial to my research, but I am just demonstrating a point: that Staging the Renaissance is a resource that has a lot to offer for those of you who are looking for more information regarding early modern theater. And for those of you who are interested, you can find the table of contents, as well as some of the content itself, courtesy of Google Books here.
Anyhow, I wanted to talk a little more specifically about Belsey's article, since I actually am using her essay in my current research. So, first, here is a brief synopsis of what I saw to be the focus of the work. In this essay, Belsey argues that the true nature of Alice Arden’s crime in Arden of Faversham is not the murder of her husband but rather the challenge to marriage and patriarchal authority which she presents by committing such a murder. Belsey addresses this issue by attending to two contexts: the historical/societal, and the textual. In the first, she namely focuses on the murder as it is presented in Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland as well as the trends (or lack thereof) of violence by women in early modern England. In the second, she reads Arden of Faversham to demonstrate such facets of early English culture as they appear in the play.
Now, my plan for this article is to expose how the homosocial male bond, which was valued as greater than marriage (see research posts 3 and 4, on Montaigne and Bacon), ironically allows for Alice’s challenge through not only the murdering of her husband but also through the destruction of the homosocial male bond. Though Belsey does not consider the homosocial bond between Arden and Franklin (no one has, really, as far as I know), instead focusing on Alice, I still think my essay and hers will work well in conjunction with one another. Belsey argues that Alice challenges the patriarchy through her murder, and I would agree. I will simply show that part of this is that she is also destroying the privileged male-male bond, and also that the privileged male-male bond is what allows for Alice's crime to unfold in the way it does.
I hope to get at least one more resource post done before the end of the weekend (hopefully two!), as well as one regular, weekly post. So stay tuned (or whatever the equivalent is for the internet... stay online? Humor's not my strong point).
I always like compilations of essays, especially those that are divided into essays on the early modern stage and essays on specific plays. And guess what? Staging the Renaissance is composed just like this! I enjoy these compilations the most because I (more often than not) can find an essay on the specific play I am researching (in this instance, Arden of Faversham) juxtaposed alongside essays on a variety of aspects of the early modern English theater and society. This makes it incredibly easy to be looking through one essay, such as Catherine Belsey's "Alice Arden's Crime," and think of something such as:
It's interesting that Belsey argues that Alice Arden's true crime, in the play, is her challenge to patriarchal authority, not so much the fact that she murders someone, especially given that Alice's character was likely played by a male (read: boy) actor. What implications arise from the challenge to the patriarchy being presented by a male actor?
I can then just flip over to Lisa Jardine's essay, "Boy Actors, Female Roles, and Elizabethan Erotocism," and see if there's anything discussed in the essay that I could use in my own work. In this case, unfortunately, there's not much, if anything, in Jardine's essay that I could see as beneficial to my research, but I am just demonstrating a point: that Staging the Renaissance is a resource that has a lot to offer for those of you who are looking for more information regarding early modern theater. And for those of you who are interested, you can find the table of contents, as well as some of the content itself, courtesy of Google Books here.
Anyhow, I wanted to talk a little more specifically about Belsey's article, since I actually am using her essay in my current research. So, first, here is a brief synopsis of what I saw to be the focus of the work. In this essay, Belsey argues that the true nature of Alice Arden’s crime in Arden of Faversham is not the murder of her husband but rather the challenge to marriage and patriarchal authority which she presents by committing such a murder. Belsey addresses this issue by attending to two contexts: the historical/societal, and the textual. In the first, she namely focuses on the murder as it is presented in Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland as well as the trends (or lack thereof) of violence by women in early modern England. In the second, she reads Arden of Faversham to demonstrate such facets of early English culture as they appear in the play.
Now, my plan for this article is to expose how the homosocial male bond, which was valued as greater than marriage (see research posts 3 and 4, on Montaigne and Bacon), ironically allows for Alice’s challenge through not only the murdering of her husband but also through the destruction of the homosocial male bond. Though Belsey does not consider the homosocial bond between Arden and Franklin (no one has, really, as far as I know), instead focusing on Alice, I still think my essay and hers will work well in conjunction with one another. Belsey argues that Alice challenges the patriarchy through her murder, and I would agree. I will simply show that part of this is that she is also destroying the privileged male-male bond, and also that the privileged male-male bond is what allows for Alice's crime to unfold in the way it does.
I hope to get at least one more resource post done before the end of the weekend (hopefully two!), as well as one regular, weekly post. So stay tuned (or whatever the equivalent is for the internet... stay online? Humor's not my strong point).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)