English 2800 (JM13B)

“to you your father should be as a god”

 

A VVork vvorth the Reading. 

 

VVherein is contayned, fiue profitable and pithy Queftions, very expedient, afwell for 

Parents to perceiue howe to beftowe their Children in marriage, and to difpofe their 

goods at their death: as for all other Perfons to receiue great profit by the reft of the 

matters herein expreffed. 

 

Newly publifhed by Charles Gibbon. 

1591 

 

Whether the Election of the Parents is to be preferred before 

 the affection of their Children in Marriage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Speakers are Philogus and Tychicus, ”two louers of Learning”.] 

 

Phil.  There is olde Cleanthes an auncient Gentleman, who is adorned afwell with the affluencie of 

fortune, for great poffefsions, as with the excellencie of Nature, for good properties; he hath amongft many 

children but one daughter (yet a fifter to euery fonne,) this mayde is very defirous to marrie, and hath made 

her choyce of fuch a one, as is both of a goodly compofition of  bodie, and of a godly difpofition of minde. 

Yet as hee is proper and well difpofed, fo he is very poore, infomuch as her father by reafon of the bafeness 

of his linage, and barenes of his liuing, will not allow of her liking, but hath appoynted her another, which 

both by parentage and portion may counteruaile her calling and his contentment, yet nothing anfwerable to 

his daughters defire, becaufe for his yeares hee may rather bee her father than her husband, which as he 

cannot be the firft, fo he is fo farre from the latter that fhe will rather be martyred than married to him, now 

in this cafe whether is the affection of the childe to be preferred before the election of the father. (2,3) 

 

Tich. Thif is as eafie to anfwere as to afke: The ten commandements teach children to honour and fubmit 

themfelues to their parents, therfore if they contract & couple contrary to their contentation, they rather 

rebell than obay them….I coulde amplifie the matter very much, but thefe are fufficient to refolue you, that 

children cannot match without their Parents confent. (5) 

 

Phil. Alas, you doo not confider the innumerable inconueniences that bee incident to thofe parties which 

bee brought together more for lucre than loue, more for goods than good will, more by conftraint than 

confent, nay more than that, yuo doe little way the inequalitie of yeares, the contrarietie of natures 

betweene age and youth, is there no difference betweene the withered Beech and the florifhing Bay tree, no 

oppofition betweene froft and flowers, or is it pofsible that oxen vnequally yoked fhould draw well 

together? if you would conferr al thefe circumftances together with the accidents you fhall find that fuch an 

 

© Folger Shakespeare Library 2007 

husband, is an hell to a tender Virgine, and that fuch a marriage, is the beginning of al miferie, and no doubt 

he that beftows his daughter no better, fhall abridge her griefe, by following her to the graue. So that I 

conclude, feeing marriage is of great moment, not for a moneth but a whole life time, there is no reafon, but 

hee or fhee that entreth into that bond, fhould make their owne bargaine: becaufe it is they that muft abide 

by it. (6,7) 

 

Tich. You ftill continue your carnall pofitions, to confirme your crafed opinion, as though the prefcript 

rule of Gods book, where to be impugned by the naturall reafon of mans brayne. If a man may giue his 

goods to whome hee will, hee may as well beftow his Children where hee thinketh beft, for Children are the 

goods of the Parents. …you alleadge it is good reafon they fhould make their own bargaine, becaufe they 

muft abide it; as though parents would feeke the preiudice of their owne children, but what libertie of liking 

had Leah to Iaakob, who inftead of her fifter Rahel was brought to his bed, Gen. 29.23. This argueth that 

parents would difpofe their children at their pleafure. …it is the propertie of parents, not to deale frowardly 

but fatherly with their children, and to beftow them not as they defire, without difcrefion; but as is mof

expedient; with circumfpection… (7,8,9) 

 

Phil. I fay ftill, that the glory of God not the motions of men, his praife not their paractifes are to be 

preferred in euerie thing, as in this matter concerning marriage; we ought indeede to obay our earthly 

parents, yet we muft not difhonour oue eternall father, for we are taught by the Apoftle Peter to obay God 

more than man. Act 5.29. Wee ought to loue our wordly parents, yet we muft not offend our heavenly 

father: for, He that loueth father & mother more than me is not worthy of me, (faith Chrift) Mat. 10.37. we 

ought to feare our natural parents, that haue gouernment of our bodies, yet wee muft be more afraide of our 

celeftiall Father, which preferues both bodie and foule, and is able to caft them into hell fire Mat. 10.28. 

whereupon I ground my argument, that if Parents will profer and impofe vpon their children fuch a match 

as tendeth more to profite, than pietie, more to content their greedy defire for lucre, than their childrens 

godly choice for loue, as this man hath doon to his daughter, neyther they nor this mayde ought to depend 

on their Parents in this poynte… (13,14) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ASSIGNMENT:  A WORK WORTH THE READING 

 

 

For each of these, be prepared to explain your choices in the large-group discussion.  Discuss 

each point carefully with your partner before you underline or highlight. 

 

1.  Underline or highlight with RED the lines or phrases which describe the man that the young 

woman wants to marry. 

 

2.  Underline or highlight with GREEN the lines or phrases that describe the man her father wants 

her to marry. 

 

3.  Underline or highlight with YELLOW the line that poses the issue to be debated. 

 

4.  Underline or highlight with BLUE the one phrase that best sums up Tychius’ position. 

 

5.  Underline or highlight with PINK the one phrase that best sums up Philogus’ position. 

 

6.  Underline or highlight with PURPLE the arguments Tychius uses to support his position. 

 

7.  Underline or highlight with BROWN the arguments Philogus uses to support his position. 

 

8.  In the blank space below Philogus’ last words, divide the paper into two columns.  Title them 

“Philogus” and “Tychius,” and then list (briefly in your own words) the examples each uses to 

strengthen his arguments.

The Art of Courtly Love

Andreas Capellanus: The Art of Courtly Love, (btw. 1174-1186)

DE ARTE HONESTE AMANDI
[The Art of Courtly Love], Book Two: On the Rules of Love

  1. Marriage is no real excuse for not loving.
  2. He who is not jealous cannot love.
  3. No one can be bound by a double love.
  4. It is well known that love is always increasing or decreasing.
  5. That which a lover takes against his will of his beloved has no relish.
  6. Boys do not love until they arrive at the age of maturity.
  7. When one lover dies, a widowhood of two years is required of the survivor.
  8. No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons.
  9. No one can love unless he is impelled by the persuasion of love.
  10. Love is always a stranger in the home of avarice.
  11. It is not proper to love any woman whom one should be ashamed to seek to marry.
  12. A true lover does not desire to embrace in love anyone except his beloved.
  13. When made public love rarely endures.
  14. The easy attainment of love makes it of little value; difficulty of attainment makes it prized.
  15. Every lover regularly turns pale in the presence of his beloved.
  16. When a lover suddenly catches sight of his beloved his heart palpitates.
  17. A new love puts to flight an old one.
  18. Good character alone makes any man worthy of love.
  19. If love diminishes, it quickly fails and rarely revives.
  20. A man in love is always apprehensive.
  21. Real jealousy always increases the feeling of love.
  22. Jealousy, and therefore love, are increased when one suspects his beloved.
  23. He whom the thought of love vexes, eats and sleeps very little.
  24. Every act of a lover ends with in the thought of his beloved.
  25. A true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved.
  26. Love can deny nothing to love.
  27. A lover can never have enough of the solaces of his beloved.
  28. A slight presumption causes a lover to suspect his beloved.
  29. A man who is vexed by too much passion usually does not love.
  30. A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved.
  31. Nothing forbids one woman being loved by two men or one man by two women.

Courtly love and Chivalry

Chivalry

“Chivalry” comes from the French word chevalier, a “man on horseback.” The Age of Chivalry, as an historical concept, refers to the period in European history between the First Crusade (c. 1100) and the Reformation (c.1500). The concept of the chivalric knight is largely a literary version that grew out of the cycles of romance. Chivalry represents an ideal of conduct worthy of emulation, not a description of the typical warrior of the middle ages. The details of the concept differed among various European nations, but the common essentials are listed below.

The true knight exemplifies a model of true chivalry, displaying the following virtues:

Prowess in arms Chastity

Truthfulness Frankness

Loyalty to God, King, and country Temperance

Strength Honor

Generosity and Compassion to the less fortunate Service Courage

Courtesy and Gentility Piety

The Code of Knighthood:

To love God and be willing to spill blood for him

To possess justice and loyalty

To protect the poor and weak

To keep his flesh clean

To keep his spirit pure

To avoid lechery and other sins of the flesh

To strive for humility and avoid pride

To bear no false witness

To always protect a lady

To attend Mass

The Rules of Knighthood:

The knight cannot attack an unarmed or injured knight

The knight must allow an unhorsed opponent to remount before continuing the fight, or must himself dismount to continue the fight on foot

The knight must treat the defeated with honor

The knight must always play fair

The Conventions of Courtly Love

“Courtly Love” is conventionally associated with Chivalry. The ideas of “Courtly Love” were probably first expressed in the love lyrics of the 11th century Troubadours of southern France, there may also be ties to Arabic love literature. Courtly Love was eventually codified and defined in the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine by Andreas Capellanus (Andrew the Chaplain) in his Latin text The Art of Courtly Love (c.1174). Scholars still do not agree as to whether any individuals ever accepted Courtly Love as a serious way of life or it was merely a court game or pleasant literary convention. It seems that lovers were tried and judged under the rules of Courtly Love in Eleanor of Aquitaine’s court, but the seriousness of the trials is certainly in question. Some of the cases were more hypothetical proofs or examples of how a lover should behave than cases involving the actions of actual individuals.

Whether seriously accepted in every day life or not, the rules of Courtly Love have found expression in numerous medieval texts and lovers had expectations for proper action of the part of themselves and their beloved based on many of these ideas. Sometimes Courtly Love seems especially chivalric, but at times (Guinevere/Lancelot/Arthur) its short comings are made quite explicit. Andreas’s text often reads like a medieval seduction manual, but it also contains many commonplaces applied to love throughout medieval literature. A similar type of love is used in Renaissance sonnets and sonnet cycles. Women could be the lovers and men the beloveds, but that was more the exception that proves the rule.

Some of the Conventions are:

· The Lover is smitten through the eyes and the beloved’s image is imprinted in his heart/brain.

· Initially, he fears to make his love known to the lady.

· He suffers from love sickness, as a result he cannot eat or sleep and his health begins to fail.

· He writes highly emotional letters to his lady. (And he spends much time lamenting his lot.)

· A go-between delivers letters between he and his lady and pleads his case for him.

· The Lady holds herself aloof from his advances.

· Eventually, she assigns him difficult tasks so he may prove his love to her.

· Once he wins the lady, the lover is ennobled and possesses all virtues and accomplishments (or he believes this will happen).

· Absolute secrecy of their love must be maintained.

· The knight is a faithful champion of his lady.

· The Lady inspires the knight to achieve more than he could without her.

· Stories differ on how innocent their love play is and on how shamefully their actions may be interpreted.

· There may be set backs in his progress to achieve his lady’s love that cause him to lose faith in himself.

· With love interests of lower station the treatment of the lady may become increasingly less noble.

Canterbury Tales

Post your pilgrim below. Think about the following questions when you define your pilgrim:

1- who are they? What facts can we identify in their description?

2- How does the narrator view the pilgrim?

3 – How do they fit their social role?

4 – what techniques does the author use to question the narrator’s point of view?

5 – Can we find a modern equivalent for the pilgrim?

Parson

I think that the Parson is one of the few “true” portrayals we see. He is poor and rich at the same time – the ultimate Christian. In this portrait, the author and narrator both seem to concur that this is a good man. Yet, within the portrait we get a picture of a bad parson, as our pilgrim is defined in terms of what he is not. The narrator says “He was not hars to weak souls in temptation, / Not overbearing nor haugthy in his speech”(504 -5), using the word “not” repeatedly to emphasize what the Parson is. He is poor, humble and dedicated. He travels, “plodding his way on foot, his staff in hand” (483) through rain and thunder to visit those who need him. We get a few references to his flock, and I think he is truly a shepherd of his people. He is a good example, and when the narrator tells us that “I doubt there was a priest in any place / His better” (512 -3), I think we can believe him. The language is sincere and pious, and the voice of the Parson is simple, too, defining himself by his job and finding contentment there.

Class Portraits

The Knight

The Nun

Monk

Friar

Student

Lawyer

Franklin

Doctor

Wife of Bath

Parson (see above)

Miller

Reeve

Summoner

Pardoner

Medea Assignment (for those missing class)

This assignment is for those who missed class due to religious holidays.  It’s due 10/20 @9am.

In class, we have been talking about whether or not a case can be made in defense of Medea. It seems to me that Euripides goes to great lengths to make her a sympathetic character, although any accrued sympathy (for most people) vanishes the moment she slaughters her children.

In 300-500 words, using the text as evidence (a minimum of two quotations) explain how you might defend Medea or justify her rage.  Explain how Euripides validates her claim to an act of revenge, and finally, think about whether or not this evidence mitigates her actual vengeance for you.  If you say no, I’d like to know why you think her actions are so unforgivable.

As usual, MLA rules apply.  It’s in verse, so quote the line numbers, and / to indicate a line break.

Grades

Hello all,

I’m having an issue posting grades right now. I’ve sent a message to Luke Waltzer, and as soon as I hear back, your grades for the two assignments will be up. If you want to know your grades in the meantime, e-mail me at [email protected]

LG

Update: Some of you need to check the discussion settings on your blog.  Go into settings, and then discussion and make sure that you uncheck the box that requires an administrator to approve responses.

Assignment #4

The assignment is simple: Take one of the three creation myths we’ve encountered so far (Gilgamesh, Metamorphoses or “Genesis”) and explain which one you prefer and why. 300 words, max, and a minimum of one quotation.

WATCH YOUR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING!!! As you’re all doing such good creative work, I’m being picky on details when I grade.

Assignment #3

Your assignment for this week is to write a 300-500 page response to The Odyssey, Books 19 – 22.  The idea is to sit down as soon as you’ve finished reading, and articulate your thoughts.  My suggestions, if you’re looking for  a place to get started is to think about the following:

– how did you feel about the end? Did it feel appropriate or expected?  What surprised you about what you read?

– how does the resolution of Odysseus’s story tie into the themes we’re discussing in class?

– Can you see any symbolic value in the end of the text?

I’d like to reiterate that these are just ideas.  I’m interested in anything you have to say.
There is one requirement: I’d like you to select at least one quotation and explain its significance. Talk about the context, why you chose it, what it has to offer our collective understanding of The Odyssey.

Due: 9/21 by 5pm