Hampton Court Palace

Geographically, varying aspects contribute to Hampton Court Palace distinguishing itself from other royal residences. According to John Bundy, author of The Stranger’s Guide to Hampton Court Palace and Gardens, “Hampton Court Palace stands on the northern bank of the Thames, about twelve miles due west from Hyde Park Corner, and is situated in the parish of Hampton, in the hundred of Spelthorne, and county of Middlesex” (Guide). With the palace’s very location outside city limits, it is unique in this sense. As we discussed after touring the palace, one of the conscious decisions was to locate it outside of the city to make trade and travel more plausible and easily achieved with it being situated directly on the Thames. In addition to mercantile convenience, the location reflected the fear of the plague at the time. The rich, such as monarchs, escaped the metropolis with its large population of habitants in order to seek refuge from potential disease.  With this, the idea of the rich living longer in these circumstances comes to fruition. Thus, the location of Hampton Court Palace as outside city limits was undoubtedly intentional.

The palace also differs from other royal residences architecturally.  While renovations and additions have proven common among the destinations we’ve visited thus far—Westminster Abbey, minor changes in Southwark Cathedral, and the Tower of London—the unique red exterior bricks help unify contrasting architectural styles as the palace reflects both Tudor and Baroque influences.  The man responsible to the red brick is Cardinal Wolsey who, according to Historic Royal Palaces, “began his magnificent palace on the Thames, he chose to build in red brick, rather than stone because it was a highly fashionable building material and a clear expression of his wealth and status”.

Hampton Court Palace establishes itself amongst the Tower of London and Windsor Castle as a royal place of residence that we have and will visit while in London. From the tour today, I deducted that the degree of imprisonment at the Tower greatly exceeded instances in the palace, with most prisoners at the palace being royal. We discussed today that the upkeep of the palace lacks the degree of the other sites we’ve visited because it is cared for and funded through an independent charity, which highlights another difference between the palace and the other royal residences. Decorations and design choice also lend differences seen in Hampton Court Palace—from Henry VIII’s tapestries, to the wine barrels, as well as the size and breadth of the kitchen and dining areas it is clear the palace was heavily centered on appearances and entertaining.

As far as the sites we’ve visited at this point in the trip, Hampton Court Palace stands as my favorite. I definitely enjoy the lack of “upkeep” and over-restoration because it makes the current state of the palace seem to more closely resemble what it looked (by retaining its originality) like during the Renaissance.

Frost Fairs

The location of public, English playhouses were built outside of the city of London, specifically in Southwark, due to many civic officials beings hostile to drama performances. Evading city jurisdiction was one of the varying draws to homes and playhouses being located outside city walls. While the theatre certainly brought early moderners to Southwark, other attractions concerning commerce such as the Frost Fairs on the Thames River also did as well.

With that said, I very much enjoyed our tour guide, David, who led us through the Southwark Cathedral today (and I can definitely see why Dr. Orvis would like a miniature version to answer London-related questions at all times). A piece of information from David that stuck with me from the tour was the mentioning of the Frost Fairs.

According to David, the only means of crossing the Thames in London was by use of the London Bridge. However, the current bridge is not the one David referred to while the present five-arch bridge is not located far from the original. The original bridge contained nineteen arches, and according to the plaques at the Globe Exhibition, “The arches through which the water flowed were so low and constrained that the tides were backed up and the water slowed, which in the coldest winters helped to make the river freeze”. Climatologists would call this the ‘little Ice Age of the early 17^th Century’. As David noted as well, this freezing caused immense shipping problems and many harbors went unused.

However, the climate led to the first Frost Fair occurring in 1621, with the Thames freezing several more times in the next two centuries. According to the Globe Exhibition, the most spectacular instance occurred in the winter of 1684, “when it was visited by King Charles II and his family—this fair included a street of booths stretching from one bank to the other, and a whole ox roasted on the ice”.

According to the article “Climate Over the Past Millennia, “River Thames freeze-overs (and sometimes frost fairs) only occurred 22 times between 1408 and 1814. After the bridge was replaced in the 1830s, the tide came farther upstream, and freezes no longer occurred, despite a number of exceptionally cold winters” (Climate). Despite the replacement of the bridge in the 1830’s, the final frost fair would be held on the Thames in 1814.

The freezing of the Thames appealed to some for fun and leisure through the celebration of the Frost Fair; however, according to Joseph P. Ward, “At the same time, London was taking on a more prominent role in international trade and international trade was becoming more influential in metropolitan life” (Thames). This evolution prompted water-borne exchange both on the north and south banks of the river, thus made residing outside the city walls highly plausible. With this, living and venturing outside of the city walls proved as a means of entertainment while being economically feasible.

Beauchamp Tower Graffiti: John Dudley

The Beauchamp Tower is littered with graffiti in the form of ornate carvings created by those previously imprisoned within its walls. Prisoners of the tower utilized the confines as a site of reading meditation, prayer, and most of all, writing. According to Ruth Ahnert, “in its most basic form [the graffiti] provides the prisoner with a defense against obscurity (the ultimate suppression). More involved examples might provide a record of the prisoner’s piety through reading, meditation, and prayer” (Writing in the Tower) In addition, the graffiti can showcase a prisoner’s association with certain individuals both within and outside of the prison.

 

A prisoner who brings this idea to light is John Dudley. Dudley, son of the 1^st Duke of Northumberland, assumed the role as Earl of Warwick and campaigned against Mary Tudor by helping to set Lady Jane Grey on the Throne of England. He did so alongside his father and four brothers. However, the six men became imprisoned in the tower following this succession crisis involving Lady Jane Grey. According to Richard McCoy, “their father, the duke of Northumberland, had contrived to marry his youngest son, Guilford, to the Lady Jane Grey before persuading the dying king to alter the succession in his daughter-in-law’s favour” (Communications)

However, Dudley left his mark on the tower by carving an ornate coat of arms, the name “John Dudle,” four lines of verse, and a floral border surrounding the work. The inscription reads:

  Yow that these beasts do wel behold and se

                        may deme with ease wherefore here made they be

                        with borders eke wherein a[re to be found]

                        4 brothers names who list to serche the ground.

According to Ahnert, “The incomplete inscription is a little riddle that points to the significance of the image. The “beasts” refer to the animals of the Dudley family crest (a lion and a bear holding a staff)”. She also points out that his four brothers names “can be found in the symbolic flowers and leaves of the border: roses for Ambrose, gillyflowers for Guildford, oak leaves for Robert (robur is the Latin for oak) and honeysuckle for Henry” (Writing in theTower).

Dudley was only imprisoned in the tower from 1553 until 1554 at the age of 26. While he was condemned to death, he was luckily reprieved. However, in an unfortunate turn of fate he died shortly after being released. According to Richard McCoy, Dudley “fell ill in the Tower and was released a few days before his death in in the fall of 1554” (Communications).

Dudley’s example is especially interesting because of the riddle and hidden meanings behind his creative carvings. His graffiti lends us to believe that family was important to him and he wanted to honor them by permanently marking their existence in the Tower of London. While Dudley’s mark of history in the tower is unique, there have been well over three hundred recorded graffiti entries. However, “many do not bear dates, but by counting those that do and those made my identifiable figures, we can tell that at least seventy-four date from the sixteenth century” (Writing in theTower) during the Renaissance.

Performance Review

Comedic aspects of this production of The Tempest reigned strong and certainly left a lasting impression. This especially proves true in Act 2, Scene 2 where Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano are all introduced to one another. When reading the text, the satirical aspects were not illuminated for me. I did not read anything in jest, so this scene read stern to which I realize was clearly not the intent after seeing it performed. Trinculo, played by Trevor Fox, as a bumbling drunk worked for me in both the text and on stage. However, his costume did catch me off guard initially. When reading the play, I didn’t get the impression that Trinculo would be dressed as a jester. Admittedly, after I got adjusted to the flamboyance I truly enjoyed it. Trinculo capitalizing on his role as an entertainer was nothing less than amusing. His interaction with the audience also reflected the play’s status as a comedy. Crudely wringing himself out on the unsuspecting cast members as he initially took the stage was priceless to say the least.

His spectacle continued when meeting Caliban for the first time under his gabardine. Trinculo ponders Caliban’s physicality when we asks, “What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish. He smells like a fish, a very ancient and fish-like smell, a kind of not-of-the-newest poor-john. A strange fish!” (Shakespeare 77). After reading the scene, I felt Caliban’s true appearance to be ambiguous. It was difficult to discern whether or not Shakespeare depicted the character as a mutant or just a human that differed physically. This proves especially true when he is described as being “Legged like a man and his fins like arms!” (Shakespeare 77). Going into the production with uncertainty as to how Caliban would actually be portrayed left me pleasantly surprised with the choices the company made regarding the matter. James Garnon, who played Caliban, did an impressive job changing his posture and movements to resemble what one would consider less human and more animalistic. This duality is how Caliban is portrayed in the text, with suggestions pointing to the idea that he is being animalized. From the play I didn’t exactly pick up on fish, but rather ape. His posture and standing on the balls of his feet suggest that he is less refined and possibly hasn’t properly evolved as much as the other men. Thus, Caliban is less refined, fortunate, and less human than the other men.

Another character who doesn’t possess entirely human characteristics is Ariel. Colin Morgan, who played the nymph-like spirit servant to Prospero, was most impressive. After discussing a possible homosexual relationship between Prospero, among queer theorists highlighting this tension, I watched for it in the production. However, this idea came up short for me. Ariel’s relationship with his master seemed to be more of a young son and father scenario. Morgan’s mannerisms and facial expressions led Ariel to be seen as innocent and a character with childlike wonder when concerning Prospero. The makeup used on Morgan, accentuating paleness and lack of color helped to highlight this innocence. Ariel has had minimal exposure both figuratively and physically, possibly adding to his affinity towards Prospero. Since he does not know any better, Prospero takes advantage of this purity.

Another layer of Ariel’s character on stage is his eccentricity. He gallivants around the stage and makes his way through crowd almost elegantly. Cartwheels, climbing, and sashaying were a few examples of his movements. His nimble mannerisms were undoubtedly catlike, yet his expressions were those resembling the other side of the binary as Prospero’s loyal puppy dog who seems his approval and attention. This is especially true when Ariel delivers his famous lines, “Do you love me master? No?” (Shakespeare 123).  Prior to the play, I envisioned Ariel being much smaller in stature as nearly dwarf-like yet this didn’t translate in the play. However, it worked.

An additional interesting aspect of the play that worked for me was the minimal use of sound effects. The play’s opening was admittedly startling, with the abrupt clinking of the rocks to mimic thunder and lightning. After discussing this technique, it was pleasing to hear it being utilized in our production. It was also refreshing to enjoy the play without overcompensation of loud and intense effects. In addition, the actors also utilized the stage completely, which was highly effective. From the pillars, the rocks, and the hole under the rock that Caliban appeared from to the entrances and the balcony, the actors were anything but stagnant. One other simple, yet wondrous, effect was the scattering of the white pieces from the upper balcony. Their continuous fluttering and wafting through the air felt supremely magical, just as I’d imagined a Shakespeare performance should feel. Overall, I truly enjoyed my first Shakespeare production and left the Globe with minimal critique of its adaptation.

Pornos and Playwrights

Mammon, a man clearly interested in not only excess and sensuality but also sensual excesses, desires the finer things in life. Some of which include bedding that is not too hard and a plethora of pornographic photographs. A simple man, really. This idea is presented in Act II, Scene 2 where he tells Face, “I will have all my beds blown up, not stuffed: Down is too hard. And then mine oval room filled with such pictures as Tiberius took from Elephantis, and dull Aretine but coldly imitated” (Jonson 65).

To modern day readers the phrase “dull Aretine” may be lost; however, this was not so during the Renaissance. When Mammon references “dull Aretine” he is speaking of Pietro Aretino, an Italian who would become known as the inventor of modern literate pornography. Aretine was famous (or infamous, whichever way you choose to view it) during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in England as an author, playwright, poet and satirist.

Noteworthy examples of his work include his most known book Ragionamenti and sixteen sonnets I Sonnetti Lussuriosi. Ragionamenti portays two harlets recalling techniques and practices of sex through dialogue about the lives of controversial figures. These figures included nuns, married women, and courtesans. The sixteen sonnets dealt with modes of intercourse and also included graphics of accompanying sexual positions designed by Giolio Romano and engraved by Marcantanio Raimondi. Saad El-Gabalawy, author of Aretino’s Pornography and Renaissance Satire describes the impact of these texts by writing: “In many cases the references to Aretino’s “pictures” and “dialogues” become functional as a medium of social, moral, and political satire in the later English Renaissance” (El-Gabalawy).

While Aretino’s racy work has left its mark on society today, the saturation of his writing into Renaissance London culture undoubtedly affected the lives of the people experiencing it during the time as well. El-Gabalawy writes, “The obscene manuals of Italy led to bawdy actions which corrupted the religious beliefs and moral values of Englishmen” (El-Gabalawy).  However, the influence proved to be two-fold. El-Gabalawy continues, “There was in England, however, a love-hate relationship with Italy, manifest in the admiration for the literary ideals and models which were worthy of imitation as well as denunciation of Italian pornographic books which engendered moral depravity” (El-Gabalawy).

With this idea of moral depravity in the depictions of sex written and illustrated by Aretino, we see a connection to the characters in The Alchemist. Jonson’s text is littered with examples of corruption, greed, and sexuality so it is fitting that he included the topical allusion “dull Aretine” by utilizing the immoral Mammon.

Westminster Abbey: Notable Burials

Westminster Abbey, one of the most notable religious buildings ever constructed in the United Kingdom, was built in 1245 under the urging of King Henry III. The church possesses a diverse history that even strays from its primary use as a place of worship, especially during the Renaissance. While the English did not forego utilizing the church in it’s traditional manner, burials also took place on the property as well.

 
Westminster Abbey provided final resting places for monarchs and other important figures, to which our tour guide described as those adding to the richness of the history of England. Among the monarchs buried here during the Renaissance were Henry VII, Edward VI, Anne of Cleves, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Mary (Queen of Scots), James I, Charles II, and Mary II.

Thus, I would like to address when, possibly how, and descriptions of these burials for further clarification. So, I guess it is best to begin chronologically:

Henry VII died at the beginning of the Renaissance in 1509. Henry’s foundation stone was laid at the Lady Chapel at the east end in 1503, before his passing. He and his wife, Elizabeth of York, share a tomb. The historians at Westminster note that, “The gilt bronze effigies can be seen through the fine grille which surrounds the tomb. The heads of the effigies carried at their respective funerals still survive and can be seen in the Abbey Museum, that of the king being from a death mask” (Westminster).

Edward VI was buried beneath the original altar of Henry VII’s Lady Chapel after he died of tuberculosis in 1553. The Westminster history recalls that “the burial service from the English Prayer Book was used for the first time at the funeral of a monarch” (Westminster).

Anne of Cleves, who was Henry VIII’s fourth wife died on July 18, 1557 and according to the historians at Westminster “the funeral was conducted according to Catholic rites as Ann had wanted” (Westminster). After the ceremony, she was buried at the south side of the High Altar.

 

The fifth child of Henry VII, Mary Tudor, died in 1558. She was buried in the North Aisle of Henry VII’s Chapel where her wooden effigy can be displayed in the Abbey Museum.

The incredibly notable Queen Elizabeth I was laid to rest on April 28, 1603 where thousands viewed her procession. Elizabeth was the final monarch in the Abbey to have a monument erected above her.

Mary, Queen of Scots, was executed in February of 1587. While she was first buried in Peterborough Cathedral, James I brought her remains back to Westminster in 1612. Her tomb is among the one’s that most stood out to me. This was obviously the impression it was supposed to give. Westminster history states, “[James I] had erected a magnificent marble tomb for her in the south aisle of the Lady Chapel on which there is a fine white marble effigy under an elaborate canopy” (Westminster).

James I died in March of 1625, with his funeral taking placing nearly a month later. His remains are in the vault beneath Henry VII’s monument with a simple inscription marking his grave.

Charles II died on February 6, 1685 and was buried in the south aisle of Henry VII’s chapel. While no monument was erected for Charles, a life-size effigy was placed by his grave for over a century.

Lastly, Mary II (the eldest daughter of James, Duke of York) died from smallpox in 1694. Though a monument was designed for her, it was never erected. However, she is buried in a vault in the south aisle of Henry VII’s chapel.

Book of Hours

Recently I’ve found myself more and more interested in the portrayal of women in literature. I think I can attribute that one to Dr. Kirkpatrick and all of her feminist expertise. With this, I wasn’t surprised at all that a text from the Sir John Ritblat Gallery (in the British Library) about a female virgin martyr who was swallowed whole by Satan disguised as a dragon caught my eye. The text I’m talking about is the Book of Hours—specifically the one created in Bruges, which is now Belgium.

The gallery cites that this particular book was created in 1500 towards the beginning of the Renaissance, but it wasn’t the first or last of its kind. “Books of Hours are prayer books, made for wealthy lay people, which present prayers to be recited at specific times of day, or hours”(Christianson). One of the aspects that makes the Bruges edition literarily unique is that it follows the “use of Salisbury”. Essentially it means that it “follows the modification of the Roman Catholic rite begun by the Bishop of Salisbury in England in the eleventh century” (Christianson).

As I mentioned before, the visual and concept that sparked my interest revolved around the virgin martyr. This figure is known as St. Margaret of Antioch. In Latin, the text describes St. Margaret’s “punishment” for refusing  to marry a Roman governor and refusing to renounce Christianity. While she was said to have been swallowed by Satan disguised as a dragon, the text adds that she emerged alive but was eventually executed.

In other words, it is acceptable to punish women during the time for not taking orders from men. Were women of the Renaissance often portrayed as passive and not only unable, but incompetent, to make their own decisions? This is something I would like to explore more, especially while continuing to read the Skakesperean texts. However, I’ve made one connection that ties St. Margaret to Shakespeare and the Renaissance. The story in the Book of Hours is especially interesting when considering it in conjunction with our discussion of Miranda’s character and situation in The Tempest. Shakespeare portrays her as a girl who, for lack of better phrasing, takes what she can get. She proclaims her love for Ferdinand immediately and admits to having never even seen someone of the opposite sex previously. Prospero inherently marries her off as a means of social climbing and we have to wonder if she really feels love for Ferdinand. Or is she just following the expectations of the men in her life (Prospero and Ferdinand)? The idea isn’t fully developed, but I feel as though it can continue to be explored and I plan on examining the Renaissance through a critical feminist lens.

On a final note about the Books of Hours is that they were highly decorative. Many of these books were also produced as girdle books. The traditional of passing them down through the family was also employed. They often fell into the hands of the rich and aristocratic, which instills this idea of literature as luxury during the Renaissance.