Ralegh's Criticisms

I thought it would be interesting to take a closer look at what Ralegh is specifically criticizing about Marlowe's poem. It is obvious that he is critical of the over-idealistic tone.  He shows this by starting the poem "if all the world and love were young." Immediately there is a condescending tone to the pastoral poem as Ralegh says the world is NOT what Marlowe has written.  I think Ralegh's main criticism is that the pastoral poem wants to hold on to a spring-time paradise forever.  Unfortunately "the flowers do fade" (9). And in line 11, Ralegh brings more reality to relationships.  Springtime may bring the coming together of a relationship "but sorrows fall." Ultimately there will be hurt.
The last stanza softens the poem in my eyes.  The nymph is almost wistful, "had joys no date nor age no need" (22).  Ralegh wishes that it would be possible for there to be a happily ever after, that no one would get old and love would last forever. 

Marlowe Vs. Ralegh

        Christopher Marlowe's poem "The Passionate Shepherd to His Love" conveys an idealistic perspective of earthly existence. In it, spring lasts forever and lovers can experience the beauty of nature for all of eternity. It is as if Marlowe attempted to describe what life would have been like in the Garden of Eden had Adam and Eve not catalyzed the fall of man. Sir Walter Ralegh's response however, reminds us that the paradise described by Marlowe no longer exists because the world is fickle and does not stop transforming--- seasons change and people die. Marlowe's character of the Shepherd invites his love to live with him in his pastures, but Ralegh's character of the Nymph rationally explains that everything that he loves about nature will not last forever. While Marlowe and the Shepherd view the world through rose colored glasses, Ralegh and the Nymph know that nothing lasts forever, including love.
           I originally wanted to uncover the histories of these two British authors in order to explain why there is such a contrasting view on life between them, however, I found that both of them lived lives of intense trials and tribulations. Ralegh for example, was despised by others as a "rapacious monopolist," and his political affirmations eventually lead to his executon. Marlowe was a spy against English Catholics, but was later "branded with atheism, sedition, and homosexuality." He was then stabbed to death at an inn. I suppose the only conclusion to draw from this is that Marlowe and Ralegh were just able to maintain separate outlooks on life despite their mutual suffering.

As we’re looking at Ralegh’s works I wanted to take some time to ask the class what they think is going threw his head at this time. Now the book says that in 1591 he seduced one of Elizabeths maids in waiting. The book doesn’t address when Elizabeth put him in jail but it is very likely soon after his marriage. His poem the “Nymph’s Reply” was published in 1600. If my understanding of this piece as an allegory of the affectionate but painful relationship between Ralegh and Elizabeth is right, then there are two ways to interpret this.

Either one he wrote it to try and show Elizabeth that he was still loved her and that she should let him out of the tower. Or he wrote this before she put him in the tower and it is only now being published. What do you think the poem is trying to say? Is the nymph someone else maybe this lady in waiting?

One hit wonder

When we look at texts like the Faerie Queene it’s hard to imagine that there is anything there besides the religious implications and imagery that are so apparent in the text. We can see the obvious religious equivalents of the time, like the fact that Elizabeth is Una and the monster is the Virgin Mary. But I wonder if there is anything more to the text. Was this written to say nothing more than Protestants are great and we will conquer the Catholics?

I know Spencer also wrote this poem as patronage to Elizabeth but it seems like the piece lacks in depth. When there is only one obvious interpretation I don’t know it poem can truly be called great. I must admit to being a little disappointed by this overly lauded text. Do any of you see something more to the text? Do you agree that there should be multiple interpretations to a truly great work?

Ralegh, Marlowe, and Spenser

When I read Marlowe’s “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love,” I thought it was an interesting poem but if the reader takes it literally, it is not romantic at all. Sheep smell! What happens when winter comes? Then I read Ralegh’s “The Nymph’s Reply to the Shepherd” and he brings up a lot of my issues with the first poem. I think that it is interesting that while Marlowe’s poem is quite well known--most people have at least heard the first couple lines—we can look at his poem and have the same reaction that Sir Walter Ralegh had in 1600. It makes me wonder with situations like Queen Elizabeth and Edmund Spenser’s “The Faerie Queene” whether she saw the poem the same way we see it. In my opinion “The Faerie Queene,” while interesting, is overly flattering and very obvious in its attempt to win the queen’s support. If Queen Elizabeth had a similar opinion, that could explain why she gave Spenser the castle in Ireland, since that castle seems to have been more of a punishment than a reward.

Rachel Means

The Faire Queen

There is so much to say about this. The first thing that comes to mind is that I am slightly surprised that this has made it into literature textbooks. Spenser is not that great of a writer in my opinion. I'm not saying that "I'm far better then this babbling fool, ho ho, "but that his writing isn't that entertaining, it doesn't have a lot of depth, he's obviously sucking up, he's obviously delusional about his talent, and that I didn't find it to be very original. I am surprised that Elizabeth gave him any patronage at all. I will say that I don't know who his competitors were, but I still fail to see his significant mark on history that makes him worth studying. This could be that we just haven't covered that part in class yet or that later authors found him to be useful in their own climb to greatness or something else entirely. I think I would appreciate his work more if he accepted himself as a struggling poet of his time, but the fact that he considers himself akin to Chaucer is a big turn off for me. I hope we'll soon find out exactly what was so special about this poet because at this point I am not a fan of his.

Wyf of Bath Temperament

    I think that the Wyf of Bath's temperament is a paradox, yes, but is also if cross-section of a common human experience.  Possessing inward desires that diametrically oppose your actual outward actions is something that most humans can relate to.  We need acceptance and affirmation from others, and yet the manifestation of that basic need actually antagonizes those who could satisfy it.  The Wyf shares her tale for many egocentric purposes, but one primary one is she needs validation of her opinions and choices---and who cannot identify with that?  The "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" passage comes to mind here.  Critical of her choices or not, you know that the tensions in her passage have been played out in your life in some way.
  Although I don't have any answers of why she is sharing her tale in such an aggressive manner,  I do believe that Chaucer is a genius at subtly portraying the myriad of human complexities and paradoxes. I admit I digress from purely academic dialogue here, but I wouldn't be an English major if the human experience wasn't utterly intertwined with ideas in literature.  The fact that the characters Chaucer created in the fourteenth century continue to relate to modern psyches and experiences is what I love about literature.