Post 4

Looking back at Elizabeth's letter to the Duke of Anjou, I find it very difficult to believe that Elizabeth had any deep, personal, or emotional attachments to Anjou whatsoever.  The clip we watched in class on Wednesday romanticizes the pair's relationship to a level that we as an audience would want to believe the Queen loved Anjou. It is after all very nice to imagine that even a woman so distinguished in intelligence, character, and rank in society can find someone to love and cherish. However, the historical evidence, in the form of Elizabeth's letters to Anjou, seems to suggest to me that she speaks in an odd manner that straddles the line of being fake and slightly awkward. The stickiest part of her letter to the duke in late 1579 is her "confession" that she would rather spend her life with him than any other prince in the world. Using such strong language to  encourage the duke's affections invites readers of this letter to  believe that Elizabeth truly loves Anjou. However, it must be noted that Elizabeth never takes the time to write anything intimate or personal about the duke that she loves or admires. In fact, she says "I cannot recite them for their number nor dare to make mention of them for the length of time it would take me." I would think that had she truly felt the level of love she speaks of in this letter, the entire document would be more personal. In addition to this point, in one instance Elizabeth refuses to put in writing the debate over Anjou's public practice of Catholicism that exists between the two of them. She mentions previously the objections raised by the french ambassador about the duke hiding his practice of Catholicism, but is not willing to associate that issue with as something that she personally objects to. Obviously, Elizabeth is Protestant and though is may not be as zealous as her sister was about keeping company with her own faith she will not give her kingdom an opportunity to be over run by the Catholic church. These facts and speculations fuel my suspicion for her "loving and true" intentions towards Anjou. A number of things may be counted in much of her writings pertaining to the Duke of Anjou to further the theory that Elizabeth was a ruler and a monarch who knew how to play her cards without giving up her hand.

Post 4

While we marvel at Elizabeth's long and successful reign, we also continue to question why she never married. In our class discussions, we have wondered at a plethora of reasons she avoided marriage throughout her life. Elizabeth found her success as a monarch in her independence. The explanation for her actions seems simple to us now because it represents "the deliberate, rational response of an intelligent woman to the practical problems of being a female ruler." The Privy Council believed Elizabeth's refusal to marry to be a "token of God's displeasure." These thoughts indicate that her advisers hoped to use her as a pawn to secure the bloodline and an alliance. It baffles me that many of her advisers and subjects were personally offended that she refused to conform to the traditional role of a submissive wife. However, as Susan Doran recognizes, Elizabeth's marital negotiations "reveal [her] great strength as a ruler."  While she remained well-advised in all her decisions, she is perhaps most admirable for her refusal to be manipulated and defined by the standards of her age.

The Elizabethan Temper Tantrum

I was really fascinated by all the tantrums we say from Elizabeth in the film and the text (who just breaks people's fingers?). I know that rulers are people too, but how does God's appointed minister get away with flying off the handle in this manner. Do the temper tantrums get in the way of her masculine positioning, or does it reinforce it. To me, a temper tantrum is more weak and feeble, coming from a lack of self control. I certainly wouldn't want to find out that our male president was having public freak-outs. Then again, maybe the ability to express your anger is powerful and masculine. I can't picture Renaissance women having the freedom to have a tantrum. Still, I wonder if her advisers ever suggested that she calm down (or were they too afraid of getting their ears boxed).

Classical Images as Instruction

While in class we all decided that the pageants for Elizabeth in Norwich were boring to read (and probably boring for her to sit through), the use of Classical gods struck me as interesting. The people in Norwich seem to use the Olympian gods as a tool for chastising Elizabeth. She, of course, was undergoing her marriage negotiations with the Catholic Duke of Anjou at the time, of which the highly Protestant Norwich people did not approve. They make this clear many times, especially when the actors portraying all of the major gods presented gifts to her. The final two to speak were Diana and Cupid. Diana praises the queen for her virginity: "Whoever found a body and a mind / So free from stain, so perfect to be seen." She also refers to her as a friend, a fellow virgin abstaining from male contact. This seems to be a chastisement from the Norwich people. They praise her for being perfect as she is, without a male to compliment her. She is on the level of Diana and other virgins (although they praise her as being as beautiful as Venus), and she will lose this by marrying Anjou. However, one cannot truly chastise a queen - without an echoing of supporting whatever her actions may be, since she knows best. This happens when Cupid follows, saying that she would be able to win any man she desired. To be smart, they have to end with at least a little support, after all.

Post 4: Interpreting Emotion in Text

Did Elizabeth love the Duke of Anjou? As we established in class this week, there really is no way of knowing for sure. Today, evidence of this royal courtship exists in the form of letters and poems; but the written word can often be misleading. Taken at face value, these texts indicate that Elizabeth's love was not only genuine, but also strong and passionate. She claims that there is no other man in the world with whom she would rather spend the rest of her days! The sentiment is lovely; however, it is possible that Elizabeth simply wanted to produce a beautiful text. A Queen could not just jot her thoughts down on paper - lofty, flowery language was mandatory. After all, it is unlikely that this letter would be read by Elizabeth and the Duke's eyes alone. So, the question remains: is Elizabeth writing from the heart, or is she driven by social convention? I'll never know. For some unexplainable reason, I get the impression that Elizabeth truly was taken with the Duke of Anjou. Suave, royal, and 22 years her junior - what's not to like?

Post #4

I really enjoyed looking and the portraits on www.marileecody.com. I thought it was really cool that she included short bios and background information with each of the pictures to put them into context. I found myself spending a lot of time just looking at them, and all week I was going back to examine the Tudor Dynasty more in depth to try and glean a glimpse of what makes this family so extraordinary. My favorite image what that of Katharine of Aragon as a pretty young woman looking pensively downwards. I have always thought of Katharine as an older woman desperately clinging on to her faith and a husband who wants nothing more than to be rid of her. But this portrait of her really moved me and changed my entire opinion of her. I see her here as a young woman who was born and bred absolutely to be a Queen. It makes me so angry that Henry wanted to take away from her her sole purpose for living. Its amazing how an image can evoke such strong feelings.

Royal Expressions of Emotion: Formality and Love

I was struck by our conversation on Monday about the difficulty of parcing Elizabeth's personal letters to the Duke of Anjou.  Much of the conversation centered on whether or not Elizabeth came across as authentic in her passion for Anjou, or if the formal tone and style of the letters negated the emotional nature of the content.

Upon first reading the letters, I was unimpressed by Elizabeth's declarations of affection for Anjou. Her writing seemed to me that of someone playing a part rather than of a woman in love. However, after further considering the role of the Queen, both as a figure of state as as a human being, I believe my original thoughts on the subject may have been too critical.

While the letters do strike me as overly formal compared to the content expressed, this is perhaps something to be expected in correspondence between two members of royal blood. With the eyes of the people, especially those of the nobles, constantly piecing apart Elizabeth's every word or action, I don't think Elizabeth could afford to falter even for a moment in her attempts to maintain composure and dignity. The court would not have respected a Queen who fawns over a potential husband in an excessive manner- in fact, Elizabeth's older sister, Mary, was criticized and even ridiculed for her attachment to Philip, who was already her husband. I think in this instance, if Elizabeth was truly in love with Anjou, she was wise to mask her emotions in a veil of formality, although it makes determining the authenticity of those feelings difficult for those of us studying her today.

Bloodlines

Though I missed Kate's Monday talk because of work, her answer to a question during class Wednesday really struck me. As I was reading Morte Darthur, Arthur's basic indifference to Lancelot and Guenivere's affair seemed a a little odd. I believe he knew, but the fact that he did nothing to stop it or punish his wife or knight was definitely not a normal reaction of the time. It's possible that Arthur loved either his wife or the knight so much he just wanted to turn a blind eye or, as other posts have asserted, he didn't love her enough and didn't really care. Whatever the reason, one might expect the issue of children to be on his mind. As Kate pointed out, not only was it adultery, it was treason because it was a possibility that Lancelot could beget a child off the Queen. 

Kate's assertion that Arthur might be more interested in the brotherhood (family, bloodline) of knighthood fits why Arthur might not have been as concerned as the reader would expect. Arthur's relationship to bloodlines was muddled and convoluted at an early age, so it only makes sense that he would look elsewhere than biological reproduction to find loyalty and a chivalric lineage. On the other hand, his nephews and son/nephew are already carrying on his blood lineage in a way that was technically purer than any child Guenivere might conceive. Because of this, it is likely that Arthur felt as though his bloodline was secure and could focus on the chivalric brotherhood found with his knights rather than worry about his wife. 

Sidney: Suave, Slick, and Scathing (Post 3)

In true courtier fashion, Sir Philip Sidney's letter to Elizabeth comes wrapped in a pretty package. It both begins and ends with effusive praise, yet sandwiched between the syrupy-sweet compliments ("[you are] the ornament of your age, the comfort of the afflicted, the delight of your people, the most excellent fruit of all your progenitors," etc) he includes some serious reproaches. Sidney basically accuses Elizabeth of ignoring her body politic in favor of her body natural, and what's worse, doing so for something her body natural is ambivalent toward.

Sidney bends over backwards to avoid explicitly insulting Anjou (who is never actually mentioned by name), but somehow--very skillfully--he ends up doing just that. For instance, Sidney says "I will temper my speeches from any other irreverent disgracings of him in particular, though they be never so true," which of course is itself an irreverent disgracing! That's like saying "I won't tell you that I hate you, but..."

The letter also made me wonder just how close Sidney was to Elizabeth. He claims to know that the queen does not want to marry--"since to your person it can no ways be comfortable (you not desiring marriage)"--so does this mean that, at least before this letter, he was in the queen's utter confidence? Or was Elizabeth's intention to remain single common knowledge among her more intimate courtiers? Or was Sidney's statement mere conjecture? One has to wonder. Too bad there's not a response letter from Elizabeth that clears up that issue once and for all. 

Manly men... fainting?

For a bunch of what I assume would be manly men, there was a lot of swooning taking place in Le Morte Darthur. It seems as if as soon as one of them gets upset about something their fellow knights said or did, they are on the floor, unconscious. Looking back a hundred years or so to Chaucer, though, in The Knight's Tale specifically, I remembered how Arcita and Palamon faint like nobody's business when it comes to a girl they both love but have never spoken to (Yay for odd medieval conventions of courtly love! Which also come into play a little in Malory's work - Arthur's sudden love for Guenivere and her table). Nevertheless, looking forward a hundred and some odd years to Shakespeare, one does not see men fainting on stage (at least, not very often). Malory's work seems to serve as a bridge between medieval and Renaissance literature, especially when it comes to developing ideas of masculinity in the two eras. A modern audience sees Arthur and his knights as the epitome of knightly grandeur and manliness, or at least I know I do. So when Arthur fainted about five times because of emotional distress in the two sections we read, I found myself a little disenchanted with some of the myths surrounding him (even with my suspension of disbelief).

Post #3

I love Arthurian legends! Ever since I was a kid I've watched every movie, tv show, cartoon, history channel special, and read tons of adaptations of the King Arthur story. So reading Morte was a real treat for me.

It really filled in some gaps and corrected some falsities that the other sources had spawned for entertainment purposes. I never knew that the Lady of the Lake was killed or that Lancelot stole Arthur's wife (or maybe my young mind just didn't register that Lancelot's Gwenevere and Arthur's Gwenevere were the same person). It never occurred to me that Gawain was even part of the Arthurian legend. And Merlin was always shown as having a much larger part in everything in the other adaptations.

Over the summer my parents and I became absorbed in the BBC series Merlin. While its main concern was portraying the wizard in a younger, more appealing light and making Arthur look like a pompous ass, it did have a few episodes that focused on some of the more major events that the Morte presented. I was constantly comparing the series with the actual stories the entire time I was reading and was disheartened when I realized just how much they had changed them.

Question about an episode in Mrte D'arthur

I was really interested in the brief episode in the Morte in which Balin and the damosel came to the castle and the damosel had to bleed into a silver dish in order to help the lady get well. I thought it was an interesting episode, but I didn't really understand why it was included in the Morte. Of course, blood as tribute for passage, is present in many stories, the fact that the blood had to be from a princess in order to be effective was an interesting twist. Why does it have to be royal blood? What does this passage mean to the rest of the text?

Post #3

This week's reading of Morte Darthur stirred many good points of conversation. I particularly enjoyed Kate's reading of the stories, looking into the importance of the feminine roles. I had read a few parts of this book before this class, but never really read much into how much the women play a role in these stories without actually being involved in the plot throughout. It seems to me too odd to say there isn't a reason for their absence, yet their choices effect the story so much. For example: it troubles me that Arthur is never concerned about having children and even turns the other cheek for most of Guenivere and Lancelot's affair. In pondering why this could have been, I realize Kate might have the best reason. I believe she said that Arthur's reasoning for being interested in chivalric brotherhood, over blood ties has the greatest weight for why the stories never make mention of the King and Queen making plans to conceive a child. However, looking at how Queen Guenivere's stand point, I believe the Queen might also be exercising her right to choose how or if her line carries on. This is evident in the fact that she in unfaithful to her husband, the King. If she were to conceive with Lancelot, their child would probably have never held a noble position in life. However, he would have a father that would probably show him more affection than Arthur would. King Arthur blatantly chooses to show favor of his brotherhood of knights, rather than concentrating on carrying on his blood line. He's not worried about conceiving children. This might be too much of a psychoanalytical reading of Guenivere's character, but I believe it's possible that when Arthur doesn't immediately try to stop her affair with Lancelot she realizes he doesn't really love her. Lancelot, on the other hand, risks everything to love her. The huge gap that exists in this story from Arthur and Guenivere's non-existent children would be an interesting one to hear explained from the other side, the feminine side. If only...

Post 3: It's a Man's World

In Kate McClune's discussion of Morte Darthur, she differentiated the concept of blood loyalty and chivalric loyalty. I was particularly interested in her mention of where women would fit into this "masculine" system. Throughout history, the blood loyalties of women become confused as they move from the realm of their fathers to the realm of their husbands. Despite their questionable loyalties, the women in Morte Darthur play an important role in this system of loyalties. Although Igraine is mentioned only a few times, she plays a powerful role in exposing Arthur's true heritage. Guinevere tests her loyalty to Arthur and the chivalric loyalty between Lancelot and Arthur in the affair. Similarly, Igraine is torn in her loyalties to the Duke of Cornwall and Uther as her second husband. This situation is somewhat ironic because women were considered to be the irrational, immoral sex; however, it is the motives of men that often determine the loyalties of women.

Post 3

This week's reading really had the wheels turning in my head about the different ideas people have about love. Like another blogger mentioned about the idea of love at first sight, the odd fact that Arthur never needed to get to know Guenivere. The fact that Arthur proclaimed his love for her based purely on her appearance says a lot to me. I don't think he ever really and truly loved her in the first place. I think it probably boils down to more of an "I want what I can't have" concept instead. If he had truly loved her and been passionate about her he would have shown some jealousy when he found out about Guenivere and Lancelot don't you think? It just seems unbelievable to me that someone in love with a woman wouldn't show more emotion or act out of rage or anything when finding out she's been cheating. I mean, think about Othello and his reaction from a simple rumor about Desdemona cheating. It just seems to me the Arthur married Guenivere so no one else could have her instead of marrying her for love.

Response #3

Today, the concept of “Love at First Sight” seems to remain contained to reality television shows and Amanda Seyfried movies. But apparently, at one point in history, such an idea was widely accepted. Consider Arthur’s declaration of love for Guenivere, inspired by his knowledge that this woman was “the most valiant and fairest” in the land. The so-called “big questions” (How many children will we have? Cat person or dog person?) don’t even come into the picture for this pair; a single look is grounds for a marriage proposal. Arthur is certainly not the only literary figure to succumb to spontaneous “love”. In the medieval Welsh story The Mabinogion, the character of Pwyll comes upon a young woman named Rhiannon in the forest. Immediately, Rhiannon tells Pwyll that she loves him; of course, the two have never met. Nevertheless, they agree to marry in one year’s time. Keep in mind that Pwyll, a king, already has a wife at home. In typical medieval fashion, the author never reveals what comes of Pwyll’s existing marriage. Apparently, it does not matter. “Love at First Sight” is just too strong! Yet, as we discussed in class, the idea of love seems to have a much different meaning nowadays. Somehow, I cannot imagine that any of my peers would meet a man in the woods and immediately ask for his hand in marriage. But maybe we are simply not as charming as Guenivere or Rhiannon. 

Post #3

Wednesday’s class with Ms. McClure was very enlightening and brought up a lot of interesting sub-topics to the Arthurian legend. One I found really intriguing and that also relates back to something we have been discussing all semester, the body of the Queen, Specifically the body politic. In Morte D’Arthur, Arthur seems not to have any problem with the love affair happening between Lancelot and Guinevere. However, when Mordred and Agravaine formally accuse the Queen, Arthur is forced to react because the affair is treasonous and if Arthur is seen to accept his cuckold’s horns, he would have been viewed as an unworthy and weak King. This illustrates the point that the Queen’s body is not her own but belongs to the state, even before her husband. The affront Arthur is meaningless, it is the affront to the state that is high treason.

             Meanwhile, Arthur does things that do not portray him in a very positive light, (the killing of all first born sons and the illegitimate son, Bors, he fathers) but his deeds seem overlooked or passed over lightly in the text. It seems as though the King himself is allowed to be imperfect, immoral or even murderous but the only consequences he is faced with are from indiscretions committed by those around him. It seems to me that this goes back to the body politic as well. The fact that what actually brings Arthur down are the people around him, even though he has done plenty that should have been his own un-doing.

Pageants as a contract between Elizabeth and her subjects

In this week's readings about Elizabeth's coronation, the thing that struck me most about the pageants is that they subtlety allowed Elizabeth's new subjects to let Elizabeth know what they expected of her as a ruler while at the same time lauding her for possessing these qualities. The pageants position Elizabeth as a ruler who is judicious, merciful, and, most importantly, worthy of the position she into which she has descended. I saw this as an attempt to create a self fulfilling prophecy about what type of ruler she will be by saying hat she already possesses the attributes of a kind and merciful ruler by predetermining what kind of ruler she will be and not leaving room for such antics as persecution. In particular, the pageant with the trees that illustrated the causes of a flourishing and ruinous commonwealth seemed to me to send a message that the subjects know what works and what doesn't on the part of boh the ruler and the subjects. I think there is an interesting psychology behind the pageants and I would like to know more about how they were written and how subjects can get away with basically telling the ruler what is expected of them.

Post #2

Elizabeth's dedication to the realm that she might have never truly wanted to inherit is the most fascinating aspect about her to me. As we discussed the ways in which she ruled with a firm, but just, hand I wondered if Queen Elizabeth ever considered it might be unjust to be persistent in not marrying and leaving her precious country without a safe choice for an heir. In class on Wednesday we talked some about her representation as "mother" to the people. Also, we talked about her as being the mouth of God on earth. Is it not a mother's job to bear children, as it is God's will that his chosen line of people take the throne? If Elizabeth was God on earth, that what does her "choosing" James as an heir say about God's confidence in the English people to continue their line of monarchs uninterrupted?
This whole point might be a waste of my time to think about, but it truly intrigues me that she could be so capable of always seeing and thinking one step ahead of everyone else and still choose not to ensure the continuation of the Tudor line that put her on her throne in the first place. Surely she knew what kind of turmoil her country would be put under to have to seek a non-English heir. I truly believe that had she married her wits and intelligence would have been so that she could have kept her place as head of the realm, even with a husband and child. I realize she didn't want to jeopardize her power. but I have a strong feeling she could have found a way around that. Maybe it's foolish, but it seems unfair that Mary of Scotland would produce England's heir to the throne when they could have a had a seed from one of the most brilliant women ever to walk this planet.

Response #2

        As we established in class on Wednesday, we are all apart of an increasingly “Written World”. The globe has become too face-spaced for long, drawn-out speeches; in fact, we’d all prefer it if communication could be kept to a 140-character maximum. Interestingly enough, this fondness for print has resulted in a wide variety of new ways in which a ruler can upset his or her masses. Take, for example, the recent controversy over the first tweet sent out by the official Barack Obama Twitter account on September 11th: “The election is in 8 weeks. Sign up to volunteer.” Many Americans have expressed outrage over what they saw as an insensitive call for support on a sacred American day. I think it’s safe to say that Queen Elizabeth would not have had to deal with this kind of crap. In her time, a ruler communicated with his/her people in the form of live speeches. If an unfortunate slip of the tongue occurred, the mishap would probably not extend beyond those in attendance. Today, the President of the United States has over 19 million Twitter followers. Therefore, the ruler of the United States could potentially upset 19 million people instantaneously with less than 140 characters. The modern dependency on the written word (and that little Internet thing) has brought governing bodies closer to the public than ever before. While speeches are still an important part of a ruler’s appearance, they are no longer the only means by which those in power can speak directly to the nation. Written communication through social networking sites like Twitter allows the everyday man to feel closer to the powerful; but now, the powerful must be far more conscious of what they put on paper – or Twitter.

post #2

Leah Marcus’s From Oral to Print in the Speeches of Elizabeth I, really got me thinking about the impact a speech can make on an audience, and how that same speech loses some of its fundamental impact when translated to print. I believe this idea not only pertains to the speeches of Elizabeth, but can also be applied to any charismatic and moving speaker. The “metaphysic of presence” (pg.33) explains why people like, Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. were such effective speakers, not only in uplifting the audience in the moment their words were spoken, but after the speech is over. Their words drive the audience to make the speakers visions come to fruition, in those cases, Nazi Germany and The Civil Rights movement. It just goes to show how important, but also how potentially dangerous the spoken word can be for people.

  For example, reading King’s “I have a Dream” speech is something we all have done at some point during the course of our educations, it is moving in the printed form and stirs the imagination but once you see video or listen to a sound recording of the speech, you understand what truly makes it so special. It gives me goose bumps just thinking about it! But I didn’t feel that way until I was able to actually hear the speech. I assume the speeches of Elizabeth work this way too. A speech like the one she gave at Tillbury is a great example of “a dead body that needs to somehow be reanimated.” (pg 34)

 I think one way we can breathe new life into Elizabeth’s speeches is through immersion in the time period and through discussion; basically what we are doing in Ms. McElroy’s class this semester. I think it really helps to develop a clear understanding of Elizabeth’s life before and during her reign and all the adversity she faced in gaining her position. In understanding more about Elizabeth we get closer to attaining the same feelings her audience felt.

Post #2 The Objective Historical Truth

In our readings from Holinshed's Chronicles, I found myself captivated by the intrigue and drama of Elizabeth's accession to the throne. This made for an interesting consideration of what is considered to be the "multivocal view of British history." The best explanation for my interest came from the concept of melding many different genres which helped to "augment the narrative." We debated the concept of objective historical truth in class, but the concept of the "story" is crucial to helping modern readers "perceive and comprehend the past." The practice of empowering the reader to consider and debate the deeper meaning of these historical events represents the writers' efforts at objectivity. However, as Dr. Mc noted in her article, these methods are never truly impartial. I believe that the use of different genres has the effect of directing the reader to read and illustrate these events so they have a deeper understanding. Regardless of their arms for objectivity, the writers of the Chronicles hoped to glorify British history and its rulers, and they did so quite effectively. Thus the facts of the Chronicles are verifiable--Mary's suspicions and maltreatment of Elizabeth, Mary's death, Elizabeth's ascension--however the writers provide a dramatized version to engage their readers.

Post #2

With this weeks reading and discussion in mind, I cannot help but imagine that when Elizabeth came to the throne, the people were pleasantly surprised. She comes off pretty modest in all aspects and does not run around flaunting her assets. For example, the speech she delivered at Cambridge University would have probably surprised many because they did not realize she spoke Latin, as well as a few other languages. She was well rounded in many aspects and had all the qualities of a great ruler. Keeping in mind that all of this is going on during the sixteenth century, I cannot help but be amazed myself at her success considering how against a female ruler this society really was. I think that this amazement is in part because we have not yet had a female president here in the United States. After studying just this small amount about Elizabeth I, I cannot understand why the people of modern America are so opposed to electing a female to the presidency. It is obvious that if the people of England in the sixteenth century could have voted on there ruler, it definitely would have been a male, but at this time it is not in there hands. I think that makes a major difference. The English population was basically forced into having these female rulers and they saw the success of some of them, mainly Elizabeth. I'm not for a monarchy, but I cannot help but feel that if we did not have the right to vote we would not be so "behind the times" when it comes to having a female ruler. I think that if we were to experience a woman in the presidency, it might change many of the opinions people have about that idea. Of course there would always be the chance of proving their negative opinions to be right as well.


(sorry this was kind of a tangent)

Post #1

I’m going back to what we discussed in class on Wednesday on how Elizabeth compacts so much meaning into a short speech. As we talked about in her speech to Cecil she stated so many things in just three sentences. I liked how she basically admitted that she wanted him in her council and she knew that he is capable of doing the job she needed him to do but she wasn’t going to take no for an answer. She praises as the same time she commands. It’s as if before you know what you’re doing you’re agreeing to everything she says because she captivates you. It wouldn’t matter that she declared that you were going to do something whether you liked it or not because she just gave you the best compliment and I believe she really meant what she told people. She had faith in her people and truly believed in what they could do. She was very devoted to her kingdom and love that she had for them was obvious. 

Envisioning Elizabeth (Post 2)

The readings for today beg similar questions as the last post: how can we truly understand Elizabeth's speeches if we lack access to the very elements--tone, gesture, mood, etc--that determine their meaning? Even if we can presume to have her speeches verbatim (which, of course, we can't), we are still missing crucial parts of the story. Dramatic elements are ruefully absent.

The thing that struck me the most was probably the description of Elizabeth's voice: one author (sorry for being vague, but I don't remember the exact reading!) said that her voice was exceptionally shrill and high-pitched. This goes so against the notions of strength and powerful speaking that I associate with Elizabeth, encouraged, no doubt, by various film portrayals of her character. The reading also pointed out an obvious fact I'd never considered: that only a few dozen people could actually hear any given speech, no matter the total size of the audience. For instance, Elizabeth's famous speech at Tilbury would have only been heard by the front two rows of soldiers, say. That makes the whole idea of a speech very confusing--it is a speech for the people, yet most of the people can't even hear it. What, then? Is the messaged relayed to them, and then they relay that message to the next people, and so on? like a game of telephone? (And we all know the hilarious inaccuracy that a game of telephone results in). Elizabeth as a character is becoming more and more mysterious the more I read about her.

With this week's reading and discussion about story-telling and history going hand in hand, it made me think back to last week with Elizabeth and her speech at Tilbury. I know a few others were also brought to this thought process as well. When I initially read the speech I immediately pictured her being grave or stern in giving the speech. I imagined it being something that was depressing yet encouraging. In my opinion, Helen Mirren's version wasn't completely off target but there were many things that I would have done differently. In her performance, she laughed some and made a couple of jokes, I suppose to lighten the mood and I agree that this was inappropriate but only because of the expectations of that time period. Today, if that situation were to occur it wouldn't seem to be such an big deal. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the way the serious parts of the speech were delivered and I also liked that she wasn't afraid to get her hands dirty. I think as long as she was successful at inspiring the men she spoke to then she ultimately succeeded no matter how exactly she gave the speech. It's hard to decide whether Helen Mirren's performance accurately depicts the true giving of the speech and we will never really know how Elizabeth herself delivered it. The way that famous rulers and the speeches they have given are depicted by Hollywood movie directors is one of the biggest ways we use to interpret history. Sometimes this helps our understanding of what happened but other times it hinders it. In this case, regardless of the few points that I didn't like, I think that Helen Mirren's portrayal of Elizabeth I and her performance of her speech at Tilbury overall help us have a better idea of the real Elizabeth and her history.

Interpreting Elizabeth post 1

Following our discussion of history being an interpretation rather than a wholly accurate account of what happened, I became in the examination of Elizabeth I as a literary figure, particularly as Helen Mirren and the makers of Elizabeth I chose to interpret her speech at Tilbury. While I haven't seen any other production of this speech, her portrayal of Elizabeth didn't match the narrative that I created while reading the speech initially. In mind mind, Elizabeth was firm and entirely serious. In my interpretation, she was much more demonstrative of having the heart and stomach of a king. I didn't care much for Helen Mirren's delivery because she was so smiley and emotional. I thought it highlighted Elizabeth's femininity in a way that wasn't appropriate for the situation the way her humor and charm worked for other situations. Most importantly, the disparity between my interpretation and Elizabeth I's interpretation of the speech at Tilbury shows that history is something that we cannot not interpret. I think the way we interpret these texts and queenship will actually say more about us than the history and people by whom they were written.

Post #1

Through our discussions and readings from Hopkins, I have become particularly interested in the role of marriage as an indicator of social status and, often, morality. Hopkins mentions that the 16th century laws categorized women as "married or about to be married." It is interesting to consider that the patriarchal structure present in marriage provided the model for the ideal relationship between the masculine and paternal monarch and the submissive, feminine subject.
Wiesner also describes a household as the "smallest political unit." I find it particularly interesting that men could also be defined by the tradition of marriage. Wiesner indicates that unmarried men were suspect for not adhering to "their proper place in a gendered social order." These traditions remain true today as a successful marriage is still considered the most noble social accomplishment.

Hi everyone! Just checking in. To clarify, let's say that your post each week is due by Saturday morning. I'm enjoying the reading so far. Keep it up!
Dr. Mc

Post #1 - Narrative Shapes

During today's discussion, I was struck by how often the power of pre-formed narrative shapes shows itself. As we mentioned in class, most of the world's moviegoers can accurately predict the ending of a romantic comedy before the conflict is even introduced. But the narrative expectations of the human mind are not confined to works of fiction. With the subject of monarchy already on my mind, my thoughts turned immediately to the saga of Prince William and Kate Middleton. If tabloids and blogs are to be believed, the whole world is waiting on the edge of its seat for news of a royal baby. At first glance, this expectation does not seem unreasonable. The newlyweds are powerful, beautiful, and financially secure; why wouldn't they procreate immediately? But if we look to the root of this expectation, we will find that (yet again) predetermined narrative shapes are to blame. "First comes love. Then comes marriage. Then comes the baby in the baby carriage!" William and Kate's relationship has to follow this path because we just say it does. That's how these stories go. The traditional sequence of courtship, marriage, and childbirth has been drilled into the minds of human beings for centuries. What if William and Kate don't want to be parents - ever? Why do we expect that this must be their next step? Clearly, narrative shapes exert their influence in even such trivial matters as these.

Blog #1- Sarah Boykin

According to Levin and White, incorporating history and literature as way of interpreting events or persons of the past can be effective in attaining a more complete picture and mood of a period, now completely inaccessible to us in the present day.  White points out that all historians are actually storytellers first. It takes the kind of mind that is familiar with history and interpreting literature to be able to piece together facts that seem incongruous; yet woven together are  intricate stories. It is practically imperative to look at both the history and literature of a subject, especially when people begin to ask new questions about subject previously considered to be taboo, topics such as, feminism, sexuality and race. Looking through the lenses of both fields can help the researchers get the mood of era regarding a particular subject through plays, poetry and diaries alike.

          History and Literary sources are great ways of understanding the past but Levin and White do heavily caution against taking the stories created through the use of these mediums at face value. Because the story will change according to  the person who writes it; depending upon a number of factors including class, nationality, religious beliefs and bias for subject matter or schools of thought.  Basically,  a reasonable interpretation can be inferred through the use of historical documents and literature, however the conclusion is unique to the person making that interpretation. 

         The movies and historical fiction written about Elizabeth I is probably the best example of the discrepancies found between interpretations of the past. Most of the feature films about her life seem to point to Elizabeth’s secret feminism, but in reality she was not a feminist by any standard. Other questions, about her virginity, religion, relationship with Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots are also the objects of great speculation. Thanks to the invention of psychoanalysis, it is impossible not to see Elizabeth’s behavior in many circumstances anything other than the direct result in how she was raised; and yet no one can possibly know for sure what Elizabeth thought, felt or who she slept with (or didn’t).

          In conclusion, the readings from Levin and White were helpful to understand the benefits and drawbacks of using both an historical and literary vain when interpreting the past. It will be useful to keep in mind as the semester progresses because I know I can get carried away with my own imaginings about how Elizabeth must have felt or thought, particularly because hers is such an amazing story!

                                                                   -Sarah Boykin