Hieros Gamos: the Holy Marriage

In contemplating the concept of "holy marriage" today after our class discussion, I was struck by how this topic is not only present explicitly on the surface of Shakespeare's works, but also in a more symbolic and intrinsic way. 

Shakespeare, in a sense, entered into a holy marriage with his writing. A marriage that combined (instead of man and woman through God), combined the ordinary people and the aristocrats through romantic, poetic language.

 "Few things are less understood than the hieros gamos – the “sacred marriage”. Considered to be the “Holy Grail” of sexual rituals, is it within reach of comprehension and explanation?"

                                                                                                  ~Philip Coppins

I believe the answer to this question, to put it simply, is no. I do not think, no matter how much analyzing we do of a text (especially a as complicated a text as those of Shakespeare) that we can ever fully comprehend or explain it. We may be able to uncover the author's meaning behind a text. And we may be able to find our own meaning in one; and this is enough, because all good works speak timelessly to their readers. But as far as fully comprehending the marriage between mind and word is as complicated as trying to understand the hieros gamos. 

~~~I am considering something along these lines for my final project for this class.  ~~~AS

Vico on the Decline of Humanity

"Human history, says Vico, passes through a cycle of three ages: the age of gods, the age of heroes, and the age of men. The age of gods is the most primitive age: it is the age when men are more beast than human, and it is the age when these primitive creatures believe that the world is shaped by supernatural forces with anthropomorphic characteristics.  The age of heroes is the age when these anthropomorphic gods are replaced by human icons.  It is the age when these icons or heroes are held to be divine, not only by the people at large but also by themselves.  The
age of men is the age of democracy: it is the age when men finally come to see all men as equals; and it is the age when men, intoxicated by their own powers of reasoning, see themselves as masters of the universe.  Allied to each of these stages is a distinct language.  The language of the age of gods is sacred or divine; the language of the age of heroes is symbolic, and the language of the age of men is vernacular."

     After googleing Vico after class on Wednesday, I found a very interesting dissertation on his works on the Philosophy Pathways website; above is an excerpt that expands a bit more on the first three phases of human history that we talked about in class. The "chaos", or degraded phase is not directly listed, but is understood as the result of the decline of humanity. 

     The author goes on to describe how Vico presents a concept of history that sees humankind working its way to its inevitable dissolution that is driven by an "unhuman" force. However, this dissolution is not its absolute demise, for
out of the ashes of chaos there emerge survivors who initiate a renaissance of primitive religious belief.   

     Relating this to our discussion about the "feather" being everything, it makes shockingly clear sense as to why Shakespeare consciously writes in the way he does - reaching from the "men" category to "hero" and, to some, perhaps nearing the "gods". 

a Midsummer Night's Dream clip from the Boston Ballet...way cool

maybe this is just because I'm a nerdy dance kid, but I thought that this clip was a REALLY neat visual of a midsummer night's dream...thought I'd share it haha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FCtVBxRvQ

Nothing. Does it matter?

     Nothing. This word is the central idea behind most if not all of the first part of Turner's essay. The question of whether "nothing" refers to a lack of anything, or is instead being used as a noun, is a difficult one; it can function as either. The first way of looking at "nothing" implies a sort of lack of anything concrete. Nothing matters. The emphasis is on what is not acting or being. On the other side of this equation, we have "nothing" functioning as a subject. Nothing matters. Meaning that "nothing" is actually "something".  

     One easy metaphor I use to understand this difference, is to relate it to painting. A canvas may have "nothing" painted on it yet; it is completely blank. In this state, there is nothing painted. However, after a painting is complete, there is almost always still places where different amounts of the white canvas still show through the colors. These places are important, even critical, to the portrayal of the picture. The "nothing" then, is a specific important noun. The nothing (does) matters.

     This, I believe after much close analysis, is the point and differentiation Turner is trying to explain in the beginning of his essay.


-AS

More Hughes Introduction Reflections

In reading Ted Hughes' introduction, there was one idea that really caught my interest: that Shakespeare, at least on some level, was "writing for a deadline". For some reason, in all of my previous studies (though they are minimal) and writing and reading of his works, I have had a mental image of sort of a brilliant and strange musing prodigy. This essay is the first place I have received any hint as to the legitimate effort that was put forth into the language and form of these plays and sonnets. 

On page 36, Hughes says that "...to assemble and deploy the extraordinary number (of works) that he did suggests a particular diligence of method.

In Sonnet 111, Shakespeare even says "almost...my nature is subdued to what it works in, like a dyer's hand." His writing, then, must have been more of a job to him than many people realize; instead of the Hunter S. Thompson-esque trance that I pictured, Shakespeare (according to Hughes) was merely a brilliant, but not particularly insightful or out-of-the-ordinary, poet. 

However, his way with words is unarguable. The vocabulary he uses in his poetry was no more common in the Globe theater days than it is today.   

So how did he manage to do this? "How did he manage to introduce such a steady flow of strange words and yet reduce them to what turned out to be a massively successful language of the common bond?" (Hughes 25) That question is one that I (with the help of Hughes and Turner) am striving to find an answer to.  

-AS  

Poem from Turner

Go, soul, the body's guest,
Upon a thankless arrant.
Fear not to touch the best;
The truth shall by thy warrant.
Go, since I needs must die, 
And give the world the lie.

Say to the court, it glows
And shines like rotten wood;
Say to the church, it shows
What's good, and doth no good:
If church and court reply
Then give them both the lie.

This poem in Turner's essay is so beautiful I had to share it on this blog...this is the essence of what intrigues me about poetry as an art form. (Corona, page 51)  

Hughes Essay reflection

     In reading Hughes' essay, I was very much captivated by the idea that (as we have also discussed in class) Shakespeare's works have great and perhaps more beauty and meaning as single selections and pieces. This also allows a deeper analysis and interpretation of his passages...not a typical analysis of the plot, but one of the art that is his poetry.

     When switching the focus of our attentions to specific sections of Shakespeare (be it an act, a situation, a speech, or even a line) the timelessness of the work becomes more apparent. Through the many interpretations and adaptations of characters through theatre, dance, music, etc. the joy and significance of each individual word remains the same. 

     This is a picture of the three Macbeth witches as depicted by Claudia Boddy, the costume designer for Montana Shakespeare in the Parks. I currently have the pleasure of working for this organization, which strives to make Shakespeare's works a now. 



-AS

     William Shakespeare is such a read, learned, referenced, and noticeably timeless author that, in our culture today, many people like to claim some sort of expertise in Shakespearean subject matter. We all know of his major works, we all know about his childhood, and we all know that he was able to reach all classes of people (and still can) with his lyric poetry. 

     However, to fully grasp the essence of what gives Shakespeare's works this timelessness, I believe it to be all but unnecessary to study in depth the dates and theaters and specific vocabulary of these writings and performances; instead, we should turn our key focus to the intense emotion of his writings. Human beings relate to emotion; love of art, be it paintings, poems, dance, theater, prose, or merely an acute awareness of ones self and of ones surroundings, is key in producing this emotion, and is therefore absolutely necessary to the human experience. It was Shakespeare's grasp of this that led not only to his success, but to his timelessness. 


-AS