While studying culture, this study implies any novel, drama film, or implied characters in the accompanying work that may have been wronged or criticized.Cultural studies equitably study such characters and situations. Cultural study of all valuvalues and it comes to a different conclusion.
Study of “To his coy mistress. This poem To his coy mistress is written by Andrew Marvell.Who also son of a clergy man .His most of the poem focasis more on “love and God”.This poem to his coy mistress is also about love and shyness of the beloved.
Andrew Marvell ‘s in this poem tells the reader a good deal about the speaker of the poem,much of which is already clear comments in this volume,using traditional approches.we know that the speaker is knowledgeable about poem and convention of love poetry,such as the courtly love conventions of medieval Europe,and about Biblical passages.
In this poem poet start with the coyness of beloved saying that if both the lover had enough time then beloved coyness was no crime but hence the beloved is so shy that her shyness is like a crime because they have very less left and if they had enough time they could think over how to pass their long loves day.Also in this paragraph use of traditional and culture type of writing like a man was center an historical reality ignore in them.Our culture very silence in reality,and Marvell showing the richness of the class in this poem.
The speaker knows all of these things well enough to parody or at least to echo them,for in making his proposition to the coy lady,he hardly expects to be taken seriously in his detailing.He knows that he is echoing the conventions only in order to sati rise them and to make light of the real proposal at hand.He knows that she knows,for she comes from the same cultural milieu that he does.
In other words,the speaker like Marvell is a highly educated person ,one who is well read,one whose natural flow of associated images moves lightly over details and allusion that reflect who he is and he expect his hearer or reader to respond in a kind of harmonic vibration.He thinks in terms of precious stones,of exotic and distant places,of a milieu where eating,drinking ,and making merry seem to be an achievable way of life.
Beyond what we know of the speaker from his own words, we are justified in speculating that his coy lady is like the implied reader,equally well educated,and therefor knowledgeable of the conventions he uses in parody.He seems to assume that she understands the parodic nature of his comments, for by taking her in on the jests he appeals to her intellect thus trying to throw her off guard against his very physical requests. After all if the two of them can be on the same plane in their thoughts and allusions,their smiles and jests than perhaps they can shortly be together on a different and literal plane literally bedded.Thus might appear to be the culture and the era of the speaker,his lady and his implied reader.
“To his coy mistress”: A new historicism reading
New historisicism is a literary theory based on the idea that literature should be studied and interpted within the context of both history of the auther and the history of the critic.
The execution of charles I in 1649 was an unprecedented event in English history ,and, like the rest of the English nation , Marvell would have been actutely conscious of its political and spiritual implications. According to the contemporary doctrine of “divine right”, the monarch was appointed not by the people,but by the divine ordiance of his birthright,thus any trespass against the king was a sin against God.
The beauty shall no more be found
Nor,in thy marble vault,shall sound
My echoing song then worms shall try
That long preserved virginity,
And your quaint honor turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust.
The speaker creates an image of chaos and disorder .Worms will violate his beloved and his “lust” will become “ashes”. Yet Marvell's intention is not simply to vilify the speaker’s aggressive disregard for social mores,his defiant ranting,the poem suggests ,is also that of a sympathetically powerless subject. The speaker’s “vegetable love” .while lush and abundant can not aspire to become “vaster than empires”, his own future evades his control,as its only certainty is death.
Despite his apparent sexual bravado with his “mistress” , the speaker demonstrates an acute consciousness of his own dismpowement throughout the poem.
The poem concludes with an ominous and thickly symbolic challenges to the “sun” itself a common pun for the “son” of the monarch in contemporary literature .Perhaps here Marvell is speaking directly of the “son” Charles 2 ,who became his father’s successor with the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.as the speaker and his beloved provoke this celestial object,emblematic of the monarch’s ostensible divinity,”carpediem” becomes as much a cry of lustas one of insurrection.
With this poem,Marvell portrays his subject as a dangerous “subject”, and in doing so evokes the discord of the political moment.Yet he also casts compassionately his speaker’s rallying challenges to all forms of authority one that perhaps anticipates Marvell’s own lyrics that critiqued the Restoration government.As a poet employed by Cromwell,Marvell was aware of his own position more broadly as a dependent “subject”. In a broader sense ,the poem in its systematic rejection of authority creates a possible outlet for Marvell’s own fantasy of autonomy .If Marvell was able to be a perennially loyal subject,”To his coy mistress” celebrates a more subversive figure who , despite being governed by the sun,has no qualms about exerting himself against this all powerful sovereign.
Hamlet's cultural Lance
Let us now approach Shakespeare’s Hamlet with a view to seeing power in its cultural context.
Shortly after the play within the play, Claudius is talking privately with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet’s fellow students from students from Wittenberg. In response to Claudius’s plan to send Hamlet that – if read out of context is both an excellent set of metaphors and a summation of the Elizabethan concept of the role and power of kingship.
The meanings of their names hardly match what seems to be the essence of their characters. Murray j. Levith, for example, has written that “Guildenstern and Rosencrantz are from the Datch-German: literally “garland of roses” and “golden star”. Although of religious origin, both names together sound singsong and odd to English ears. Their jangling gives them a lightness, and blurs the individuality of the characters they label”.
Lightness to be sure. Harley Granville- Barker once wrote in an offhand way of the reaction these two roles call up for actors commenting on solanio and salarino from The Merchant of Venice, he noted that their roles are “Cursed by actors as the two worse bores in the whole Shakespearean canon; not excepting, even those other twin brethren in nonentity, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Harold Jenkins reports as historical person bearing these names: “These splendidly resounding names, by contrast with the unlocalized classical ones, are evidently chosen as particularly Danish both were common among the most influential Danish familiar, and they are often found together”. He cites various appearances of the names among Danish nobles, and even notes the appearances of the names as Wittenberg students around 1590.
Clearly Hamlet makes reference in the lines just noted to the “mighty opposites” represented by himself and Claudius clearly too the ones of “baser nature” who “made love to this employment” do not matter much in this struggle between powerful antagonists. They are powns for Claudius first, for Hamlet second. It is almost as if Hamlet had tried before the sea voyage to warn them of their insignificant state, he calls Rosencrantz a sponge, provoking.
So they are pawns, or sponge, or monkey food: the massage of power keeps coming through. Thus, they do not merit a pang of conscience. True there may be some room for believing that at first they intended only good for their erstwhile school fellow. But their fate, however, is to displease mightily the prince, who will undermine them and “hoist with own petard.”
Claudius was aware of power, clearly, when he observed of Hamlet’s apparent madness that “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go’ with equal truth Rosencrantz and Guildenstern might have observed that power in great ones also must not unwatched go.
Whether they “are” at all may be the ultimate question of this modern play. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Are dead, Stoppard has given the contemporary audience a play that examines existential question in the context of a whole world that may have no meaning at all. Although is it not our intention to examine that play in great detail, suffice it to note that the essence of marginalization is here in this view, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are archetypal human beings, caught up on a ship- spaceship. Earth for the twentieth or the twenty first century that leads now here, except to death, a death for persons who are a heady dead. If these two characters were marginalized in Hamlet, they are even more so in stop-part’s handing.
Whether in Shakespeare’s version or stopper’s, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are no more than what Rosencrantz called a “small annexment”, a “petty consequences”, mere nothings for the “ massy wheel” of kings..
Thank you 😊
Thank you 😊
No comments:
Post a Comment