The juice of it on sleeping eyelids laid
Will make or man or woman madly dote
Upon the next live creature that it sees.
(2.1.176-178)
The following images are from late sixteenth and early seventeenth century emblem books depicting Cupid: first as a dominating and even violent agent and, second, like an Alchemist’s apprentice who merely fans love’s flames.
The following images are from late sixteenth and early seventeenth century emblem books depicting Cupid: first as a dominating and even violent agent and, second, like an Alchemist’s apprentice who merely fans love’s flames.
Whitney, Geffrey. A Choice of Emblemes, and other devises, For the
moste part gathered out of sundrie writers, Englished and Moralized.
And divers newly devised. Leyden, 1586.
Daniël Heinsius, Quaeris quid sit Amor (c. 1601)
NY Times: Anti-Love Drug May Be Ticket to Bliss
For this blog, I want you to consult a recent NY Times article, in which medical science seems to be assuming the role of Cupid, or Puck, by devising similar "potions" to deepen and/or revive love, or alternately, to function as an antidote to unwanted desire.
NY Times: Anti-Love Drug May Be Ticket to Bliss
The article suggests that a vaccine might make it possible to inoculate ourselves against “love-sickness.”
Please use the article or emblems (or both) as prompts for discussing the role of love in Galatea. Some questions to consider: What does it mean to think of love as a disease or infection? Does love work as a disruptive, or destructive, force that operates though suffering, punishment, bewitchment, or deception? Is love something that we need to be cured of? Or, does love, as a destabilizing force, open a space for radical possibility? Finally, are there any conclusions you draw from the fact that Galatea (and A Midsummer Night’s Dream) was performed for the Virgin Queen?
The first emblem and the article both depict love as a violent force charging into an ordered life to create chaos – something that needs to be protected against. In the article, Tierney argues for the practicality of love inoculation, believing it to be beneficial in preventing inconvenient or unplanned romances from complicating or interfering with one’s carefully crafted life plans (not unlike a love condom).
ReplyDeleteIt is this sort of thinking that Galatea lampoons (with special consideration for its Royal audience). The idea that someone must be inoculated against love so she can stay focused on career plans is nowhere more apparent than in the image of the Virgin Queen: eternally deferring love to devote herself to her country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England).
While Galatea illustrates how love can infect one’s life and disrupt things, it does so mockingly – demonstrating how silly this image of love is. The last lines of the play speak directly to this: “Yield, ladies, yield to love… that love conquereth all things but itself, and ladies all hearts but their own” (Lyly Epi. 5-13). Lyly seems to be daring Elizabeth away from the image of devoted virgin and towards embracing a more human idea of a monarch.
The idea of love-sickness is one that is illustrated to great effect in Galatea. When one is in love, one's mind is a mere slave to the desires of the body. In the play, Diana's nymphs had taken vows of chastity, but when Cupid causes them to fall in love with Galatea and Phillida, they readily admit to a willingness to abandon their vows, despite the fact that, intellectually, they do not want to: "O divine love, which... makest the… chaste wanton, and workest contraries to our reach, because thyself is beyond reason," (III, 1, 113, 116-118). Certainly the promise that they are to be “cured” of their affliction, leaves them greatly relieved. In this situation, when one has an earnest desire or responsibility to rid oneself of sexual desires, an anti-love vaccine might not be such a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s world, one might think of the Catholic priests who have achieved such notoriety by giving into their desires and molesting young boys. One can’t help but consider the possible benefits of giving these people a way to remain true to their vows. The innocents would be protected, as in the play, and all would be as it should be: "Naught shall go ill," to quote A Midsummer Night's Dream (III, 2, 462).
In Galatea, love is certainly seen as a destructive infection. It is love that stirs everything up in the play. Diana's nymphs loose control of themselves and the bizare attraction between Galatea and Phillida confuses not only the two girls, but also their fathers and the gods. What is to be done about such a strangely crafted romance?
ReplyDeleteThe idea that love is a sickness depends entirely on the situation of the attraction and the culture surrounding those in love. Love is viewed differently in different cultures. Many cultures value certain types of love because they support the existing culture and devalue other types of love because they challenge the existing culture. In the world of Galatea, Diana's nymphs are expected to be chaste, so finding themselves battling love's emotions is unacceptable for them. In the case of the two virgins, attraction to one's sex is seen as unnatural and confusing in their world. What about today's culture and the boundaries of love? Many people in America today look unfavorably on love between two people of different generations, two people of the same sex, or two people of different races. Even today, there seems to be a need to restrict the boundaries of love. The idea of a love vaccine might easily be welcomed by people both in our day and in Lyly's.
If literally viewing love as a disease, one would automatically stray away from anything and everything to do with love and its powerful effect upon one's mind, heart, and soul. But, as human beings, we are naturally intrigued by the thought and feeling of indulging oneself into another, so to curse upon love and deem it a disease is quite impossible, unless one has an extreme amount of self-control. The love "vaccine" as introduced in Tierney's article may be helpful after a break-up, but aren't we than ridding ourselves of the growing and learning process of love? It's true that after strong love has come and gone between two people, one might look upon it as a destructive force, but isn't it better to have loved than to never have loved at all? Love is natural, so don't deny the body's impulse and desire to love with complete vulnerability, because chances are your heart will win over your mind.
ReplyDeleteIn Lyly's play "Galatea," two women both disguised as men to avoid an attack on the fairest virgin by Neptune, end up falling in love, and even pronounce their love after their disguises are revealed. Although this situation is unacceptable in their time, does that make it lesser than true love? I disagree with the idea of restricting love, if it is consensual love, than who has the right to say it’s wrong?
The character of Cupid and Puck are obviously unrealistic in the real world. There is no fairy or god tricking and manipulating others to love. It's true that love can be stretched and shaped in different cultures and time period, such as arranged marriages, but for the Virgin Queen, perhaps "Galatea" and "A Midsummer's Night Dream" spoke a different message. In her extreme case of being and responsibility, the Queen must have looked at love from every angle, to avoid manipulation like "Cupids arrow" or a potion. Who's to say she didn't want a husband or to find love? No matter the case, the desire was there, but perhaps she never found what she was looking for and never settled for less than what she deserved.
Viewing love as a sickness can mean many different things about a society. In the past I think it represented an acknowledgment of higher power (the gods and therefore cupid) but also perhaps an excuse for courtly love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love). Love in Galatea is posed as a potentially destructive force for the sake of amusement and festival that destruction is averted. In Galatea love is presented as something that you can be cured from if it is not "true" or "strong" enough but in the case of Phillida and Galatea it could not be.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that human beings "need" to be cured from love. I acknowledge the article above may appeal strongly to some and that they would take a love vaccine. I can see benefits but I think if it is used by people attempting to direct their love or to suppress homosexual desires it is not going to produce the desired results. Love is about possibility and limiting those or increasing those possibilities may significantly lower the rate of enjoyment out of the relationships so directed.
I think that Galatea was performed for the Virgin Queen because it has spectacle, happy/conservative ending, and because it celebrates women and then marriage.
Omg,did I post in the wrong spot...I'm such a blogging noobie.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of love as a disease or infection, something that must be cured, is certainly an fascinating one. The idea of love as a disease, something one can catch (and with the correct antidote, cured of) brings a very negative connotation to the word. It also implies that love is outside of human control, an emotion one cannot help. One does not ask to fall under the disease of love no more than one would ask to contract pneumonia. The fact that a drug is in development in order to control, tame or even prevent love further attests to this implication, as love seems to be a force that cannot be suppressed by sheer will power, but rather, needs an outside "cure".
ReplyDeleteIn John Lyly's Galatea, love seems to be treated as a destructive, even fatal, disease. Galatea and Phillida "catch" the sickness of love, and indeed, their love for each other seems to be characterized by misery, as their love for one another is a love that can never be accepted or legitimized within their world. Phillida in Act 4, scene 4 laments, "Poor Phillida what should thou think of thyself, that lovest one that I fear me is as thyself is?...If it be so, Phillida, how desperate is thy case!...I will after him or her, and lead a melancholy life, that look for a miserable death." The nymphs of Diana, too, characterize love as an infection and disease for which they must seek a cure. Indeed, in the end, it takes an outside force in order to set things aright. Venus, the goddess of love, appears and acts as a cure for the disease that is love. She cures the nymphs of their miserable state, as well as Galatea and Phillida, by promising that one of them shall be turned into a boy so that they can marry and consummate their love, no longer living in misery because their love for each other is impossible.
Not to disagree too strongly with Robbie, but I think Lyly presents two rather distinct views of love in Galatea. The love inflicted on Diana's nymphs certainly retains the flavor of a "destructive infection;" especially considering Cupid's villainous claims that he will "make [Diana's Nymph's] pain [his] pastimes, and so confound their loves in their own sex that they shall dote in their desires" (you can almost hear his handlebar mustache twirling)(II,2,60). Here Cupid is behaving in the manner of the first emblem and the hypothetical "love potion", bending others to his will and inflicting upon them unwanted desires.
ReplyDeleteThrough the love of Galatea and Phillida, however, Lyly demonstrates true mutual love (albeit of an "impossible variety"). Galatea and Phillida come to love each other through no artifice on Cupid's part, but through mutual attraction and affection. Here we would see Cupid as the alchemist's assistant, merely fanning the fire he didn't start.
Cupid's role as assistant or as terrorist seem to correspond with the amount of mutuality present within the love bond. In cases of true, elective interpersonal bond he is a kindly assistant; but in those all-too-frequent cases of unrequited love a little devil. Lyly defends the power of the former variety, but in the latter, well, I think he'd reach for a "love condom."
Love can traditionally be seen as a compelling, and almost destructive, force in a vast number of dramas. In Galatea, love causes much discord and havoc among the characters. It can definitely be viewed as a sort of disease. The nymphs have vowed to remain chaste, but eagerly are swayed by Cupid’s love spells. However, they do recognize that love is dangerous. Eurota says, “If thou be in love (for I have heard of such a beast called love) it shall be cured.” (III, 43-44)
ReplyDeletePhillida and Galatea fall in love, and appear ready to maintain their love, despite the unconventional nature of their relationship (that is, both being female, at the time). Given the unacceptable (or at least frowned-upon) situation between Galatea and Phillida, had they been presented with an anti-love potion (or love vaccination, even) suggested in the article by Tierney, would they have taken the potion? Is it possible to turn away from love, because of logic? Logically, the two girls know that they cannot love each other, both as women (and therefore decide that one must be a man). However, would a potion to make them fall out of love sway their actions, or would they choose changing themselves (one to a man) in order to stay in love?
"Write with compassion about the deceit in the human heart, how I hate you when others love you more than me, when others love you more than I love you, when others love you more than they love me.
ReplyDeleteFrom whose point of view are you trying to love your body. You can no longer control the ones you love...
And is this what you wanted,
To live in a house that is haunted
By you and me?"(Leonard Cohen, Energy of Slaves)
When love, generally considered the most powerful and moving of all humanly emotions, is disregarded as merely a chemical imbalance in the brain, the spirit of human interaction seems, to me, to be lost. The quintessence of love isn't a chemical attraction between two people, it is the essence of conflict, the essence of beauty, and, most importantly, the recognition of such. A poet loves his poetry, a painter loves his art, if love can seemingly be controlled by chemical means, than what is to happen to the essence of emotion and passion in human existence? I pose this as a serious question. The time-long battle of the sexes is the inspiration behind what many would consider the greatest achievements, or failures perhaps, of all humanity. If one can merely synthesize this effect what is to happen to sincerity? free-will? In Notes from Underground Dostoevsky discusses the effect of pleasure through torment, or suffering. If a man or woman is to nearly flee from any sign of a deterrent or hindrance, how is one to learn and gain anything from life? The decadence of this entire theory seems to me incredibly vast, as well as being a giant impeding leap towards the persuasion of the self that, perhaps, science shouldn't overstep.
In respect to Galatea, Lyly seems to have a secure, if not slightly abstract, view of love. Even among his satyr and mockery, he comes through, mainly during the conclusive speech, with a strong and ardent belief in the purity and ecstasy of love; let yourselves in he says, to this great emotion, this wonderful experience, this invigorating feeling. Even after Galatea and Phillida know of the shrewd and mischievous behavior of Cupid, they still believe in their love, not as forced or being held subject to, but as a pure feeling between them, one which they embrace in its youthful essence. That is what love is, and when something deems to control that, not only are they impeding on the free-will of others, but they are literally sapping any purity and sincerity out of the one emotion that has managed to fascinate both lover and poet alike for thousands of years.
Love is possibly the most important aspect of life. This can be seen from the drawing depicting Cupid both forcing love and tending love’s flame in much earlier times to Galatea’s theme of love both desired and undesired in the 16th century to the vaccine to prevent love and the “potion” to start it in today’s world. In Act Three of Galatea, Diana’ nymphs remorse at their state of being in love (due to cupid’s tying of “love-knots”) when they say things like, “to distain love,” “if thou be in love it shall be cured,” and “can there be no heart…but love can wound” (sc. 1, ln. 28, 43-44, and 74). What’s interesting here is that although love is a vital part of the play, most of the participants (namely the nymphs) don’t enjoy the feelings with which they’ve been “forced” to possess. However, when Galatea and Phillida fall in love with one another in Act Four (without the help of Cupid’s arrows), Lyly is raising the question of what constitutes real love or just the loosely knotted love of Cupid’s interference.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s age the vaccine to block the hormone which causes love acts in much the same way that people have dreamed about from the first instances that human being felt love. The idea of control is a central point of interest when discussing how love is viewed and worked upon when reading Tierney’s article. I would venture to say that the control aspect of love is what makes humans so entranced by our encounters. Just as the nymphs are both in awe of their emotions, which they cannot begin to describe, and in pain for their loyalty to Diana, the vaccine of today’s society seems to indicate a sense of abhorrence and well as infatuation with the very idea of love (Lyly Act 3, sc.1).
With this in mind, when we view how Cupid is both an instigator of love, a prankster of love, and a “loosener” of love in Galatea, it becomes easier to see that humans are simply obsessed with the action of controlling the idea of love rather than actually experiencing the real deal. Although Galatea and Phillida create an anomaly of this in the final act, I would still say that the overall effect of Lyly’s depiction is one of control, for even in the romance between Galatea and Phillida, one was forced to become a man to make the romance “natural” (Lyly Act 5).
As a side note, and just a general question: do you think it’s ethical for people to control when and how we fall in love?
Many can argue the benefits that a love “vaccine” would provide. If one simply calculated that they were falling for a person that they understood to be a risk, they could simply inject themselves and be done with the situation. In “Galatea”, Diana’s nymphs display this sentiment when they wish they were not in love. Love can be quite a detriment at times. Throughout history and literature we can see countless cases where love has altered an individual’s persona in a positive or negative manner. Humanity’s wish to control this emotion is far from new. There has always been a strong interest in controlling our emotions through external means (especially the emotion of love).
ReplyDeleteWhile there are a number of arguments that display the benefits of suppressing love, there are certain possible negative effects from such suppression that cannot be ignored. Though many may not consider the emotions the same, how different from love are caring and concern? If we are to view the emotion of love on a strictly scientific basis, then we can argue that these emotions are simply subsets of love. By suppressing that which induces love in an individual, we may be suppressing the very thing that makes them human. Although this love “vaccine” would begin as an innocent method of avoiding irrational and painful behavior, it has the potential to quickly dehumanize our emotions towards others. Love may be a highly volatile emotion. But whether it is negative or positive, it is better not caring.
I found the fact that “Galatea” was played before the Virgin Queen quite intriguing. Although there is much exultation of chastity and self-control throughout the play, the epilogue tells the women of the audience to give in to the emotion of love(Lyly Epi. 5-13). The play seems to suggest that although remaining chaste is an admirable quality, it is not worth missing out on true love. It seems like Lyly wanted to convey this ideal of true love all along but needed to exult Diana’s situation in order to avoid insulting the Virgin Queen.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that I completely agree with you on the idea that love can't just be a hormornal trigger. My friend and I were talking about this, actually, that love is a choice and an action, not just something that comes on purely by our hormones. I think this is part of what Lyly was trying to depict in his play with the characters of Galatea and Phillida.