Sonnet 11 - Lady Mary Wroth

Sonnet 11 is - well, a sonnet.  And all that a sonnet form implies.


It is from a collection of poems called Pamphilius to Amphilanthus.  A quick google search will bring up a long list of possible resources.




Wroth was primarily concerned with gender roles throughout this sonnet series, and the series itself is not truly original.  Critics seem widely convinced that the series is based on a work of Sir Philip Sidney's, a collection known as Astrophil and Stella.  On that point, Jennifer Laws writes:

And yet, when I actually read Pamphilia to Amphilanthus, what strikes me is not its similarity to Astrophil and Stella, but its differences, particularly in relation to gender issues. In place of the lively and at times even assertive Stella, there is the passive and victimised Pamphilia who cannot free herself from the perfidious Amphilanthus. Whereas Sidney seems deliberately to break sonnet conventions by creating not so much an idealised representation of remote feminine beauty as a living responsive human being who can act, Wroth allows her woman to remain inactive and helpless, the victim of another's behaviour. And this is in spite of the fact that the woman in Wroth's sequence has become the poet/narrator; no longer an object, she is now the speaking subject. The opportunities one might imagine that this reversal of roles could bring -- either for female wooing or for the scornful rejection of unwanted male attention -- are simply passed by. Pamphilia remains throughout unfulfilled and yet a model of patient constancy.

(Laws, 1996)


One of the Pamphilius to Amphilanthus online resources, written by Richard Bear, has a very informative introduction on Lady Mary Wroth's life and works.  He notes:

Mary Sidney was married in 1604 to Sir Robert Wroth. The match apparently was not a happy one {4}. Her husband ran up massive debts and died in 1614, leaving the young widow to apply to the King for relief from her creditors. She had one child from her marriage, who died at about the age of two, and two "natural" children whose father was William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, her first cousin and very probably the person in her life for whom Amphilanthus is a persona.

(Bear, 1992)


It is important to note that in this sonnet series, Lady Wroth is subtly subverting - though not reversing! - the classical Petrarchan model of a male in passionate romantic pursuit of the female love-interest.

The sequence opens with the dream vision of Pamphilia, whose name means "all-loving," in which she describes the triumph of Venus and Cupid over her heart. The first section of 55 poems reveals Pamphilia's conflicting emotions as she attempts to resolve the struggle between passionate surrender and self-affirmation. The Petrarchan model of the male lover wooing a cold, unpitying lady posed a genuine challenge to Wroth, who could not simply reverse the gender roles. Instead of presenting her female persona in active pursuit of Amphilanthus, whose name means "lover of two," Wroth completely omits the Petrarchan rhetoric of wooing and courtship. She addresses most of the sonnets to Cupid, night, grief, fortune, or time, rather than directly to Amphilanthus, whose name appears only in the title of the sequence.

(Extract from larger article on The Poetry Foundation website.  Useful stuff there.)

Hope this helps!

For further reading on Lady Mary Wroth, see this article by Carolyn Campbell, 2001.

- T. Marcus

Why So Pale and Wan

The piece itself is a lyrical poem.

Mr. Sir helpfully tells us that this song is from the play 'Aglaura', and that directly preceding this song comes a line from the character Orsames:

'A little foolish counsel... I gave to a friend of mine... when he was falling into a consumption.'

Why call it a 'consumption'?  It's actually an archaic term for tuberculosis!

(Extract from the above link)-

The much older name originally came from the ancient Greeks who called the disease something meaning “consumption,” “phthisis,” specifically referring to pulmonary tuberculosis, with the earliest references to this being in 460 BC.

The “father of Western medicine,” Hippocrates, estimated that phthisis was the most widespread disease of his age. He further told his students that they shouldn’t attempt to treat patients in the last stages of phthisis, as they were sure to die and it would ruin his protégés’ reputation as healers if they made a practice of attempting to heal such individuals.

Tuberculosis wasn’t just found across the pond either, but it is known to have been present in the Americas as early as 100 AD.

So why was “phthisis” aka “consumption” chosen for the name? It was because the disease seemed to consume the individual, with their weight drastically dropping as the disease progressed.

The author, Sir John Suckling, was also a Cavalier.  So he was of the English gentry and was a royalist supporter of King Charles I in the English Civil War. (In that last link, it's all interesting, though the most relevant bit is possibly the 'Class Divisions' section about halfway down.)

Wikipedia also provides us with further information on both the poet and his play, Aglaura.

As a dramatist Suckling is noteworthy as having applied to regular drama the accessories already used in the production of masques. His Aglaura (pr. 1638) was produced at his own expense with elaborate scenery. Even the lace on the actors' coats was of real gold and silver. The play, in spite of its felicity of diction, lacks dramatic interest, and the criticism of Richard Flecknoe (Short Discourse of the English Stage), that it seemed "full of flowers, but rather stuck in than growing there," is not altogether unjustified.

On a related note, the decisive (and derisive!) tone of the final line may also give us some insight into the character of the author, as Wikipedia further tells us

"In 1639, Suckling assisted King Charles I in his first Scottish war. Putnam's Monthly Magazine of American Literature states,

At the breaking out of disturbances in 1639, when the Scottish Covenanters advanced to the English borders, many of the courtiers complimented the king, by raising forces at their own expense. Among these, none was more distinguished than Sir John Suckling. These gallant gentlemen vied with each other in the costly equipment of their forces, which led the king facetiously to remark, that "the Scots would fight stoutly, if only for the Englishmen's fine clothes." The troop of horse raised by Sir John alone cost him, so richly was it accoutred, twelve thousand pounds. In the action which ensued, the sturdy Scots were more than a match for the showy Englishmen; and among those who particularly distinguished themselves by their shabby behavior, was the splendid troop of Sir John Suckling. There is every reason to believe that Sir John personally acquitted himself as became a soldier and a gentleman; but the event gave rise to [a] humorous pasquil, which, while some suppose it to have been written by Sir John Mennis, a contemporary wit, others have attributed to Suckling himself."

Hope this helps.  I recommend you do your own further research!

- T. Marcus

2016 - It begins!

Hello everyone!


Get ready, because this year is going to ramp up very quickly.  This year will need a lot of note-taking and note-revising, yet will largely focus on how you respond to what is read.  Be critical.  Be detailed.  And enjoy the process!

That online poetry analysis link is on the right in the Songs of Ourselves tab - scroll down a bit, you'll see it.


- T. Marcus

One down!

Congratulations - you're halfway there!

Remember to book a time with me to sort out any questions or have me mark some of your practice essays for discussion and revision.

Meantime:

• For A Man For All Seasons, use the questions at the back of the book to focus your study.  Knowing those answers will put you in a strong position to respond to the exam questions.
• For both drama texts, review your course book!  It offers valuable information about analysing drama texts on pages 102-127, and takes a targeted look at exam questions on p253-254.

Study well!


- T. Marcus

New Resource Links

Hi everyone,


To the right you'll notice a "Further Support" link list.  The class exemplars link will show you PDFs of essay responses from a few of our students from 2013.  The question being addressed is in regard to A Passage To India.

Additionally there are a few support documents I found from Cambridge which I think you'll find useful.  The Example Candidate Responses PDF unfortunately does not answer questions related to any of our set texts (sad panda), yet some of the poems will be familiar from last year's study, and it should still serve as a guide for us in terms of what examiners will be looking for.  Examiner Comments follow at the end of each essay in that PDF.

Let me know if you have any further questions, would like to meet or would like more practice questions!


- T. Marcus

APTI - practice questions!

Hi everyone,


Here's a question set from earlier this year.  Includes a general essay question and a passage based.

Either (a) In the novel, Mrs Moore says, ‘India’s a muddle.’

      Discuss the importance of this view to Forster’s presentation of India.

Or

(b) Comment closely on the following passage, considering ways in which it presents the relationship between Fielding and Aziz’s friends.

     ‘The whole world looks to be dying, still it doesn’t die, so we must assume the existence of a beneficent Providence.’
     ‘Oh, that is true, how true!’ said the policeman, thinking religion had been praised.

     ‘Does Mr Fielding think it’s true?’
     ‘Think which true? The world isn’t dying. I’m certain of that!’
     ‘No, no – the existence of Providence.’
     ‘Well, I don’t believe in Providence.’
     ‘But how then can you believe in God?’ asked Syed Mohammed.
     ‘I don’t believe in God.’
     A tiny movement as of ‘I told you so!’ passed round the company, and Aziz looked up for an instant, scandalized. ‘Is it correct that most are atheists in England now?’ Hamidullah inquired.
     ‘The educated thoughtful people? I should say so, though they don’t like the name. The truth is that the West doesn’t bother much over belief and disbelief in these days. Fifty years ago, or even when you and I were young, much more fuss was made.’
     ‘And does not morality also decline?’
     ‘It depends what you call – yes, yes, I suppose morality does decline.’
     ‘Excuse the question, but if this is the case, how is England justified in holding India?’
     There they were! Politics again. ‘It’s a question I can’t get my mind onto,’ he replied. ‘I’m out here personally because I needed a job. I cannot tell you why England is here or whether she ought to be here. It’s beyond me.’
     ‘Well-qualified Indians also need jobs in the educational.’
     ‘I guess they do; I got in first,’ said Fielding, smiling.
     ‘Then excuse me again – is it fair an Englishman should occupy one when Indians are available? Of course I mean nothing personally. Personally we are delighted you should be here, and we benefit greatly by this frank talk.’
     There is only one answer to a conversation of this type: ‘England holds India for her good.’ Yet Fielding was disinclined to give it. The zeal for honesty had eaten him up. He said: ‘I’m delighted to be here too – that’s my answer, there’s my only excuse. I can’t tell you anything about fairness. It mayn’t have been fair I should have been born. I take up some other fellow’s air, don’t I, whenever I breathe? Still, I’m glad it’s happened, and I’m glad I’m out here. However big a badmash one is – if one’s happy in consequence, that’s some justification.’
     The Indians were bewildered. The line of thought was not alien to them, but the words were too definite and bleak. Unless a sentence paid a few compliments to Justice and Morality in passing, its grammar wounded their ears and paralysed their minds. What they said and what they felt were (except in the case of affection) seldom the same. They had numerous mental conventions, and when these were flouted they found it very difficult to function. Hamidullah bore up best. ‘And those Englishmen who are not delighted to be in India – have they no excuse?’ he asked.
     ‘None. Chuck ’em out.’
     ‘It may be difficult to separate them from the rest,’ he laughed.
     ‘Worse than difficult, wrong,’ said Mr Ram Chand. ‘No Indian gentleman approves chucking out as a proper thing. Here we differ from those other nations. We are so spiritual.’

     ‘Oh that is true, how true!’ said the police inspector.
     ‘Is it true, Mr Haq? I don’t consider us spiritual. We can’t co-ordinate, we can’t co-ordinate, it only comes to that. We can’t keep engagements, we can’t catch trains. What more than this is the so-called spirituality of India? You and I ought to be at the Committee of Notables, we’re not; our friend Dr Lal ought to be with his patients, he isn’t. So we go on, and so we shall continue to go, I think, until the end of time.’

Chapter 9 

Revise your notes, read the texts, study well.  I'm praying for you.  :)


- T. Marcus