1) The initial
list of characters and their histories and dispositions is quite complicated in
this play (as we noted in our diagram last class). And of course in this play
there are plot developments and revelations. What happens in the middle &
late action to develop and / or clarify the complex situation?
or
2) There are
two rather surprising conversations about love and marriage in act 5.1: between
Doralice and Palamede, and between Palamede and Rhodophil (with Doralice also
in the mix). Comment on one or both of them.
or
3) What do we
make of poor Palmyra, particularly in spots like 4.4.60-61: “And is it thus you court Palmyra’s bed? / Can she the murd’rer of
her Parent wed?”
or
4) Discuss another part of today’s reading that
seems to be in need of exploration, elucidation, or comment.
The intertwining of comedy and drama in this play is really incredible. Especially with Oroonoko as a template for how it can be done badly, the maste of this play is apparent. The two plots, although clearly divided in terms of genre, seamlessly play off each other. The same basic elements – the love rectangle (ie, four people), the mistaken identities, the masquerade – are present in both, but each plotline uses these elements to its own advantage. So while the plots are really just running side by side rather than influencing each other, they have enough in common to work effectively. Rather than grating at each other, the balance between the comedic plot and the tragic plot is refreshing. I particularly liked the way the masquerade was used effectively by both plots. In both, the masquerade raises the ante, knotting up the plots thoroughly. In the Leonides/Palmyra/Polydamas plot, it’s the point where Leonides convinces Palmyra to come find out a secret, Argeleon’s hopes are dashed when he realizes Palmyra loves Leonides, and Polydamas feels betrayed. When we leave the scene, the pressure is very high. In the comedic plot as well, there is the ridiculous scene where both women are dressed as men, and the pressure is on - the plot can hardly get messier. And then the action from the other plot interferes, giving the characters in the comedy plot a moment of relief. As a result, the perfect amount of mirroring and similarity allows these two vastly different storylines in the same play.
ReplyDeleteI quite like the character of Hermogenus. His name is reminiscent of Hermes, the messenger. Hermogenus fills this role; he is the constantly producing letters proving the genealogy of whomever he want to save at that moment.
ReplyDeleteYes, poor Palmyra, finds out her loved on is being forced to marry someone else, threatened with execution, torn between love and family, this character is put through the ringer. The moment that was especially interesting was the moment when Leonidas starts to make Palmyra a prisoner, Palmyra says, “I never thought these bands / Could e’r be giv’n me by a Lover’s hands.” To which Leonidas responds, “Palmyra, thus your Judge himself / arraigns; / He who imposed these bonds, still wears you chains: / When you Love or Duty false must be / Or to you Father guilty, or to me / These chains, alone, remain to set you free.” The words judge, bands, love and duty, are placed in the same line as chains, freedom, and arraigns. This is the idea that is very prevalent in the comedy plot. Love and marriage are constraints on freedom. So much that Palmyra can’t be trusted, because torn between love for her father and love for Leonidas will drive her crazy. She even comes close to a traditional tragic figure and seems to be debating the purpose of a life without her love, only to conclude that life isn’t worth living. These are the chains of love.
The other plot made me laugh simply because of the conclusion that seems to decide that humans are so arbitrary that it really doesn’t matter who you love. Compared to the sacrifices of Palmyra and Leonidas and their fierce love for each other, this sentiment is a bit harsher, but may be a little more realistic of a normative relationship.
I loathe Palamede, so I looked up his name to know what sort of meaning is appended to these lecherous creature. Besides "Palamedes" being the name of an Arthurian knight - which Palamede may fancy himself in his dreams, but is the farthest thing from chivalrous -- it is also the Greek mythological Palamedes who devises a way to get Odysseus out to the Trojan War, but, more importantly is the son of Nauplius. And nauplius, while a character in Greek mythology etc, means the first larval stage of a crustacean, having an unsegmented body and a single eye. Which brings me to: this name, Palamede, is perfect! First off, he is the embodiment of the offspring of nasty larva. And then, he has one eye which is, ironically, trained at acquiring as many women as possible. While he preaches "variety," that pursuit is his sole concern, making him actually stupidly un-evolved, one track minded -- having one eye and an unsegmented body. He talks about how he will "cherish my body," to stay fresh and virile for Doralice once he manages to off Melantha -- with "kindness"... -- a statement made all the funnier and viler when considering his name's ties to a mythical father whose name connotes something so young and new that it is pre development.
ReplyDeleteThe highlight of this play for me was the conversation between Palamede, Rhodophil and Doralice in 5.1. After the men discover their mutual betrayal they draw their swords to fight, spurred by jealousy. They openly admit their jealousy over the fact that the other man is pursuing their woman. Doralice interjects to make a good point (by my estimation), why should they be jealous of each other's dalliances if neither of them loves their female counterpart?
ReplyDeleteTheir responses are shockingly honest and true to human nature. They both display a surprising self awareness. Rhodophil says, "Palmed has wit, and if he loves you, there's something more in ye than I have found" (5.1.366-367).
And Palmed confesses a similar sentiment, "here's an argument for me to love Melantha; for he has loved her, and he has wit too" (5.1.369-370).
This moment made these people so real to me. They acknowledge that their jealousy stems from the other's intrigue. When Palamede expresses interest in and desire for Rhodophil's wife, Rhodophil takes a second look at the spouse that he despises and realizes that there must be something special about her which he hasn't noticed before. Palamede has the same revelation about his betrothed, Melantha. The epiphany in both cases is prompted by the sensation of losing their woman to another man - a trusted and respected friend. Jealousy is only awakened when they feel their respective women slipping away. The phrase that immediately popped into my mind when I read this scene was, "we don't appreciate what we have until it's gone". In this case Rhodophil and Palamede come to appreciate what they have just in time. Nevertheless, they confess their attraction to the woman that isn't theirs but agree not to act on the attraction. My understanding of this conversation is that they finally come to realize the important distinction between love and infatuation. Although their long term relationships lack a certain romance and excitement, they value the person they are with. Lust is what each of them feels for the woman who is not theirs. Although this moment is deeply honest and candid it does not lack comedy. It pokes fun at the male species, particularly the roundabout way in which they reach this conclusion. This scene emphasized the disconnect between men and emotions (which seems to be one element of this comedy). It is only when Dormice suggested that, "neither can be jealous of what you love not" (5.1.360-361) that Rhodophil realizes he actually does love her. He replies by saying, "faith I am jealous and that makes me partly suspect that I love you better than I thought" (5.1.362-363). He can only recognize his tender feelings of love toward his wife through his harsh feelings of jealousy toward his friend.