The Arnolfini Marriage, Jan van Eyck, 1434
In last week’s blog we discussed Galatea’s representation of love: at once an affliction and a force of radical liberation and possibility. As we move from a boy’s company’s command performance to domestic tragedy, and from the pseudo-classical dreamworld of the Lincolnshire coast to a less fanciful picture of private life, it's worth wondering what Heywood is telling us about the realities of love once the romance is over and marriage begins.
The Marriage of Convenience, Sir William Quiller Orchardson, 1883
For this blog, we will be looking at William Whately’s treatise on marriage (1617) a typical example of the conduct literature (e.g.: marital advice manuals) from the early modern period.
The following excerpt presents advice to men on the duties of husbands:
“Now for the husbands speciall duties, he may fitly be referred to these two heads: The keeping of his authority, and the using of it. First, he must keep his authority, and maintaine himselfe in that place, wherein his Maker hath set him. Nature hath framed the lineaments of his body to superiority, & set the print of government in his face, which is more sterne, lesse delicate then the womans. He must not suffer this order of nature to be inverted. The Lord in his Word calls him the head; hee must not stand lower than the shoulders; if he doe, that is a deformed family.” (18-19)
In this next excerpt Whately addresses women and their role as wives:
“First, in speeches and gestures unto him. These must carry the stamp of fear upon them, and not be cutted, sharpe, sullen, passionate, teechie; but meeke, quiet, submissive, which may shew that she considers who herselfe is, to whom she speaks. The wives tongue towards her husband must bee neither keene, not loose, her countenance neither swelling nor deriding: her behaviour not flinging, not puffing, not discontented, but favouring of all lowlinesse and quietnesse of affection. Looke what kinde of words or behaviour thou wouldst dislike from thy servant or childe, those must thou not give to thine husbande: for thou art equally commanded to be subject.” (38)
Larger excerpts from Whately's text are available through the Folger Shakespeare Library site.
In light of Whately’s dicta, what are we left to think about the brides and bridegrooms in Heywood’s play? How might Whately account for the failure of the Frankfords’ marriage? Who or what is to blame? How does Frankford’s kindness, or Acton’s love at first sight, map onto Whately’s construction of holy matrimony?
Questions to consider: is Heywood refuting or upholding the Protestant theology of marriage? How do his representations of the serving class, the aristocracy, male-male friendship, and women, complicate a homiletic reading of his play?
Questions to consider: is Heywood refuting or upholding the Protestant theology of marriage? How do his representations of the serving class, the aristocracy, male-male friendship, and women, complicate a homiletic reading of his play?
Montreal street performer acting like a statue on a pedestal
Title page from The deceyte of women, to the instruction and ensample of all men yonge and olde, newly corrected. 1557
The image is of Aristotle being ridden (like an ass) by the courtesan Phyllis.
From a site on Misericords and choir stall carvings (who knew you could find such a thing?) I have taken the following account: In one of the best-known tales of the thirteenth century, Aristotle's efforts to disengage the infatuated King (Alexander the Great) from a beautiful courtesan conclude with Aristotle himself falling prey to her seductive charm. She promises to indulge his urgent desire, if he will first indulge hers. Eagerly, he agrees, unaware that the foxy lady had arranged for Alexander to witness the humiliating ride in the garden.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete