Independent Study on Barthes' Love Figures

Candidate 316773 English II Independent Study: Barthes Love Figures In Astrophil & Stella

Independent Study: Elizabethan & Jacobean LiteratureCandidate Tutor Title MHRA Citation 2791 Words 316773 Pamela Mason Barthes Love Figures in Astrophil & Stella

1

Candidate 316773 English II Independent Study: Barthes Love Figures In Astrophil & Stella March 2002

Barthes Love Figures In Astrophil & StellaFor many critics Astrophil And Stella and The Defence Of Poesie are two halves of one whole, putting theory into practice on one hand and theorising practice on the other. Both reflect Sidneys contradictory support for the Aristolean ideal of poetic mimesis and the Platonic ideal of poetry creating something beyond nature1. However, this essay contends that Astrophil And Stella implies a different view (or at least a profound extension of the Platonic one); that the main purpose of poetry lies in the act of utterance itself. In this Sidney anticipates structuralist critics such as Roland Barthes, whose love figures lead to an insightful reading of Sidney's poetry. This essay will first explain why Astrophil & Stella is suited to Barthes' system, and then identify some of the enacted figures. Finally the limitations of this approach will be considered. Astrophil & Stella is suited to this type of reading because it fulfils much of Barthes definition of a love discourse2. Astrophils verse is the site of someone speaking within himself, amorously, confronting the other (the loved object) who does not speak (1977, 3). Like Barthes lover he cannot stop his mind from racing, taking new measures and plotting against himself (1977, 4). Or as Astrophil puts it, with a feeling skill I paint my hell (2: 14). Like Barthes lover, Astrophil cannot be reduced to a symptomal subject (1977, 3). Compare the raving madman of sonnets 20 and 31 to the confiding poet of sonnet 6. Astrophil is not a coherent character, but a voice embodying different stances on love. Barthes asserts that the description of the lovers discourse has been replaced by its simulation (1977, 3). Astrophil & Stella is such a simulation, dramatising a lovers mental processes, his discoursing at thewhim of trivial, of aleatory circumstances (1977, 4). The reader follows the progression of Astrophils feeling in real time. In Sonnet 2 we endure and understand his process of falling in love: I saw and liked, I liked but loved not, I loved, but straight did not what Love decreed: At length to Loves decrees, I forcd, agreed (2:5-7) Caesuras cause erratic bursts of tempo and rhythm that correspond to Astrophil's intellect struggling against escalating emotions. As he loses control of his faculties and becomes a Muscovite his verse becomes anaesthetized and entirely rhythmic. We become detached

2


from his viewpoint as we realise that, while he can articulate the severity of the situation, he only appreciates it with gentle melancholy: I call it praise to suffer Tyranny; And now employ the remnant of my wit To make myself beleeve, that all is well, While with a feeling wit I paint my hell (2:11-14) Similarly, in Sonnet 47 Stella seemingly appears during Astrophils discourse and he declares but here she comes (12), changing the course of his argument. These sonnets are primarily a performance, sometimes addressed to Stella (still I thinke of you (AS 30, 14), sometimes at My friend, that oft saw through all (69: 5), sometimes at personifications of prevailing contemporary ideology (Virtue or Reason). Most of all, however, Astrophil discourses for his own fulfilment, performing Barthes Loquela figure, the philosophy that I am my own theatre (161). Astrophil dramatises the importance of poetry and love, often replicating Barthes' love figures. He performs atopos: the loved being is recognised by the amorous subject as . . . unclassifiable, of a ceaselessly unforseen originality (1977, 34). Stellas eyes are contrasted with convention, syncopation adding to the sense of originality: whereas black seems Beauties contrary/She even in blacke doth make all beauties flow (10-11). Stella transcends the courtly values that Astrophil dismisses: Only of you the flatterer never lieth (First Song, 28). Astrophil instead performs the affirmation figure; he must affirm love as value, or in his words knowne worth (2: 3). In Sonnet 18 Astrophil presents a list of conventional value judgements, of those goods, which heavn to me hath lent (4) which condemn him according to Reason and Nature, but he uses the volte to shift his argument and prove that love is most valuable of all: I see and yet no greater sorrow take,/Then that I lose no more for Stellas sake (13-14). Astrophil only relates to contemporary value systems by projecting his experience onto them, performing the identification figure3. Virtue itself is personified, in order that thou thyself shall be in love (AS 4, 14). This love eventually eclipses Stella, as Astrophil performs the annulment figure to love love. A third subject is never introduced. Astrophil cannot conceive that Stella may love another, because his verse prescribes a world in which he is at the centre, able only to affirm his own existence. Instead of feeling jealous of the outside world, looking out, Astrophil feels that the world will envy him, looking in: Envie, put out thy eyes least thou do see/what

3


oceans of delight in me do flow (3-4). Astrophil condemns the idea that eyes are formd to serve/The inward light (5: 1-2). Instead, when he gazes at Stella thou straight lookst babies in her eyes (11: 10) he sees his own reflection. Love consistently follows the Petrarchan definition of an effect induced in the speaker by seeing a beautiful other. The union4 figure never occurs; it may only have been added to our repetoire in Donnes revolutionary conception of love: we shall/Be one, and one anothers all (Loves Infiniteness). Nevertheless, Astrophil constantly refer to Stellas body, drawing parallels and differences to Barthes Body figure. In Sonnet 8 Astrophil declares that love perched himself in Stellas joyful face (8). This idea of the body as a container of that which motivates the lovers discourse is evoked in Barthes Proust quote: I am searching the others body, as if I wanted to see what was inside it, as if the mechanical cause of my desire was in the adverse body (1991, 71). Astrophils physicality sometimes takes in the incomplete parts of the body. In the First song Stella is separated into lips, feet, breast and hand enforcing the impression that Astrophil is fetishizing a corpse (1977, 71). However, this is done here for dramatic purpose, obscuring her whole to enforce the repeated line Only in you my song begins and endeth. Overall Astrophils examination of Stellas body does not fit Barthes figure. Astrophil does not merely regard her body as the mechanical cause of [his] desire (though this is an element) but projects onto it desire itself, the nature of his love. Her eyes are no longer eyes but daintie lustre, mixt shades of light (7: 4). The eyes are windowes (AS9, 9) through which spiritual concerns can be identified. Unlike Donnes verse, there must always be spirituality beneath the physical here. In Sonnet 9 Astrophil says Stellas eyes Of touch . . . are that without touch doth touch (12). The image is repeated almost exactly in the first song: Who hath the hand which without stroke subdueth (21). These claims transcend Barthes contact5 figure. From this wecan infer that the speaker is not interested in Stella the signified, an extra-textual human being, so much as in Stella the signifier, whose connotations set various discourses in motion. As Waller states the poetry invites its reader to enter into such sensual appreciation of word, sound and many kinds of suggestiveness (1986, 73). Hence the eroticisation of Stellas name, the strongest example of the beauty of an object transferred to the beauty of a word. The name - always italicized - is as important as her attributes: Stellas eyes (7: 1), Stellas joyfull face (8: 8). In the expositionary sonnets five and six, Stellas name is twice placed

4


emphatically in the concluding foot, in the motif: I must/do Stella love. By first resisting and then rejecting Astrophil, Stella induces him to perform the why6 figure. She clearly reciprocates his desire to an extent, even kissing him in Sonnet 74,but does not love him enough: what I want is to occupy a site from which quantities are no longer perceived, and from which all acounts are balanced (Barthes 1990, 186-7). Astrophil consequently argues against all value systems, claiming that he has been cast outside them by Stellas love; Reason . . . Leave sense, & those which senses object be:/Deale thou with powers of thought, leave love to will (10: 7-8). Besides, he reaffirms, love is the most important thing: Dig deepe with learnings spade, now tell me this/Hath this world ought so faire as Stella is?. It can only be explained in writing by means of contradiction: Reason, thou kneeldst, and offeredest straight to prove/By reason good, good reason be to love (10: 13-14). The strongest love figure in Astrophil & Stella is crire/to write 7. This is established in the opening line: Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show. Like the other Renaissance sonnet sequences it reflects what Barthes terms the romantic myth of crire: I shall produce an immortal work by writing my passion (1977, 97). Astrophil hopes that in future generations perhaps some [might] find/Stellas great powrs (34: 13-14). Yet the true importance of writing in the sequence is harder to grasp, implied rather than explicit. Stella is first introduced in the context that in Stellas face I read/What love and Beautie be(3: 1213). This is a Russian doll type metaphor: Astrophil reads what love and beauty are through Stella, then we read what love and beauty are through his verse. Presuming that others may read what love and beauty are through us, the process is never ending. The only way out lies in rearranging the equation, to realise that love and Beautie be the process of reading (discoursing), for love exists only in the utterance. For Astrophil writing is synonymous with discoursing, with building love figures. Sonnet 34 dramatises the struggle of writing: Come let me write (1). The speaker debates what he is doing line by line with an unnamed other, concluding that the purpose of writing is To ease/A burthned hart (1-2). Yet he rapidly qualifies this cathartic explanation by claiming that people find something toplease in the quality of the words themselves, and that they identify with mutual experience: Of cruell fights well pictured forth do please (4). Appreciating the importance of the discourse itself, the written artefact, is vital. The Astrophil of the Second Song, uneducated in the ways of love, alludes to the lovers discourse as a learning process with the maxim: Who will read [understand love] must first learne spelling

5


(24). Despite Astrophils lust for Stella the only sexual experience resulting in conception is his annulment, his love of love itself. This results in the half-profound, half comic image of a pregnant Astrophil at the beginning of the sequence:great with child to speake, and helpless in my throwes. His verse is the great progeny derived by his love for Stella, the evolutionary purpose of his love in language. Astrophil creates poetry in the same way that Milton would later describe God creating the world: satst brooding on the vast abyss/And madst it pregnant (Abrams 2000, 1818)8 In this context Astrophils attack on Petrarchan tradition can be seen as an attack on the constraints of language itself. Barthes believes that the lovers descriptive language aspires to be: precisely the utopia of language: an entirely original, paradisiac language, the language of Adam natural, free of distortion or illusion, limpid mirror of our senses, a sensual language: In the sensual language all minds converse together, they need no other language, for this is the language of nature (Barthes 1977, 99) As mentioned earlier Astrophils discourse is introspective, so he excludes the idea that all minds converse together. For him, instead, this utopian language must derive from the fit words of his individual, anti-tradional expression. He echoes Barthes words, describing this as Invention, natures child (1: 1). But for him the distortions or illusions impeding his verse are traditional: others feete still seemd but strangers in my way (1: 11) 9. He does not realise that his problem lies not in poetic convention but language itself, as in Barthes view the lover cannot write if he fully understands the nature of writing10. The close of Sonnet One syntactically represents the inspiration and frustration of language. Using a typical English concluding couplet to debase the argument, The consonant sounds of its first line: Biting my trewand pen, beating myself for spite constrast with the resolutions rich assonance Foole/look and vowel sounds: looke/heart/write (1:14) Correspondingly, Astrophil also articulates a great uncertainty about expressing his love in verse. This corresponds to Barthes sign figure, the act of the lover attempting to prove his love with no certain system of signs. The following part of the definition is especially apt: A man who wants the truth is never answered save in strong, highly colored images, which nonetheless turn ambiguous, indecisive, once he tries to transform them into signs: as in any manticism, the consulting lover must make his own truth (1977, 215)

6


Astrophil & Stella is full of strong or highly colored and ultimately ambiguous images. As Astrophil puts it in a line of startlingly alliterative energy: flow/Some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sun-burned brain (1: 7). He also makes his own truth, constantly constructing obscure arguments such as Vertue may best lodged in beauty be (71: 2) or expressing conventional opinion and countering it in the volte, such as in Sonnet 5. Barthes universal love figures may constitute the most pleasurable aspect of Astrophil & Stella for a modern reader, as it is in them we recognise that we have been there; we have wept with Astrophil and laughed with Stella ; we see conflicts and considerations of love in our own experience (Waller 1986, 74). However a faithful reading must also take into account those elements that have nothing to do with our conception of love at all. Waller's position that such poetry seems to resist . . . the prudency of ideological analysis (1986, 73) is flawed. The sequence irrevocably reflects courtly powers struggles, Renaissance machismo and new national pride. The sequences revolutionary aesthetics are most often a dramatic effect. Attacking contemporary notions of folk o'recharged with braine (64: 4) contributes to scholarly discussion over terms such as Vertue and Reason that were perpetually open for debate anyway. The image of the lover at odds with society may simply be a romantic effect in a society enamoured by the Cult Of The Virgin. The heart of Renaissance ideology is not touched. Barthes also stipulates that the lover's discourse is no more than a dust of figures stirring according to an unpredictable order (1977, 197), but Astrophil & Stella connects them as a near-narrative chronology. Carol Neely describes the best way of viewing this: we must look for structure where [the text] worked to incorporate it at the beginning and conclusion of the sequence and in an overall formal, narrative and thematic development broad and loose enough to embrace digression, retreat and recapitulation (1978, 363). This not only adds crucial traces of love story to the sequence, but adds rich ambiguity. In Sonnet 70, for example, we cannot simply admire the quality of Astrophils heav'nly joy. That his pen the best it may/shall paint out joy subtly evokes the Muscovite image of Sonnet 2, where with a feeling skill I paint my hell. The possibility is raised that we have been duped, that Astrophil's early delusions have come to dominate his verse in these happy portraits: And now employ the last remnant of my wit/To make myselfe believe that all is well (1213). Finally, Barthes love discourse is a dramatic method which renounces examples and

7


rests on the single action of a primary language (no metalanguage) (1977, 3) but Astrophil is a character viewed through a metalanguage of Sidneys, which encourages us to distinguish ourselves from his point of view. In Sonnets 20 and 31 Sidney persuades us to laugh at Astrophils ravings, when he again performs the identification figure attributing the universal woe of unrequited love to the moon. Our response to the speaker is manipulated most strongly, perhaps, in the Second Song, in which a particularly lascivious Astrophil debates whether to take advantage of Stella when she is asleep and disarmed. This dramatises the inferiority of renaissance machismo to pure Love to greater effect than any of the preceding sonnets. Astrophils military/chivalric metaphor to disguise rape is particularly ugly: Now will I invade the fort:/ Cowards Love with loss rewardeth. None of Barthes figures correspond to this desire, as it represents not love but brute masculinity. The line also contributes to Sidney continually condemning the Petrarchan oxymoron, as the idea of the rewarded hero is built on immoral logic. It is one of the most subversive parts of the sequence, unlocking one paradox of courtly life: Astrophil fails and is therefore made chaste by Stellas Lowring beauty, yet he was made lascivious in the first place because of Stellas chastity (a vice in men, a virtue in women). Moreover, this is the only instance in which the reader is pushed to feel sympathy for Stellas repeated frankly niggard No.

8


In conclusion, Astrophil & Stella finds a purpose for poetry that is divergent from its rhetoric poetry itself. This reading does not confirm the structuralist stance that such a readerly text (one interested in the process of writing, see Abrams 1999, 302) should inspire the reader to produce his/her own meaning however. Instead it produces what is effectively an extension of the Socratic myth of love disoursing (see Barthes 1977, 97), that loving serves to engender a host of beautiful discourses, but it is these discourses that construct love itself. InAstophil & Stella love is the purpose of writing, and writing is the purpose of love.

Works CitedAbrams, M.H. & Greenblatt, S. ed. 1999 The Norton Anthology of English Literature: Seventh Edition: Volume 2 USA: Norton Abrams, M.H. 1999 A Glossary Of Literary Terms: Seventh Edition Hardcourt Brace College: Orlando Barthes, Roland 1977 trans. Howard, Richard 1990 trans. A Lovers Discourse: Fragments Penguin (Jonathan Cape 1979): England Dubrow, Heather 1995 Echoes Of Desire: English Petrarchanism And Its Counterdiscourses Cornell Univ. Press: New York Hayward, John ed. 1950 John Donne: A Selection Of His Poetry Penguin: England Kalstone, David 1970 Sidneys Poetry: Contexts And Interpretations The Norton Library (1965 Harvard Univ.Press): Toronto Kerrigan, Willam and Braden, Gordon 1986 Miltons Coy Eve: Paradise Lost and Renaissance Love Poetry in ELH Vol.45, The John Hopkins Univ. Press: Baltimore Neely, Carol Thomas 1978 The Structure of English Renaissance Sonnet Sequences in ELH Vol.45, The John Hopkins Univ. Press: Baltimore Roche, Thomas Jr 1989 Petrarch & The English Sonnet Sequence AMS: New York Waller, Gary 1986 English Poetry of the Sixteenth Century Longman: New York Watson, Elizabeth Porges ed. Sidney, Philip 1997 Defence of Poesie, Astrophil And Stella And Other Writings Everyman: London

9

1

NotesAristotelean: "there is no Arte delivered to mankinde that hath not the workes of Nature for his principle object"; "[the artist] seeth, setteth down what order Nature hath taken therein" (The Defence Of Poesie, 87-88). Astrophil describes Stella as Nature's "chiefe work" (AS 7, 1) and poetry as "copying what in her Nature writes" (????). Platonic, conversely: "Nature never set forth the earth in so rich tapestry as divers Poets have done" (The Defence Of Poesie, 88) and Astrophil poses the question "Hath this world ought so faire as Stella is?" (21: 14). 2 the lovers discourse is today of an extreme solitude. This discourse is spoken, perhaps, by thousands of subjects (who knows?), but warranted by no one; it is completely forsaken by the surrounding languages: ignored, disparaged, or derided by them, severed not only from authority (science, techniques,arts). Once a discourse is thus driven by its own momentum into the backwater of the unreal, exiled from all gregarity, it has no recourse but to become the site, however exiguous, of an affirmation (Barthes 1977, 1) 3 "The subject painfully identifies himself with some person (or character) who occupies the same position as himself in the amorous structure" (Barthes 1977, 129). 4 Dream of total union with the loved being (Barthes 1977, 227) 5 The figure refers to any interior discourse provoked by a furtive contact with the body (and more precisely the skin) of the desired being (Barthes 1977, 67) 6 Even as the obsessive asks himself why he is not loved, the amorous subject lives in the belief that the loved object does love him but does not tell him so (Barthes 1977, 187) 7 Enticements, arguments, and impasses generated by the desire to "express" amorous feeling in a creation (particularly of writing) (1977, 97) 8 Neely identifies this symbiosis of writing and breeding across renaissance sonnet sequences (1978, 365). Kelligan and Braden link Paradise Lost to Renaissance love poetry (1991). 9 In fact the Petrarchan conceits that Astrophil derides with comic alliteration as "running in rattling rowes" (AS 55, 5-6) are perfect for expressing conceptslike love, that can only exist in the realm of metaphor. Astrophil's problem is that he discourses in a context that places negative connotations on the technique by tyinh it to the bad poetry of "daintie wits" (AS 3, 1) and the scholarly ideology that hefeels his love transcends. In fact, as Heather Dubrow notes, Astrophil does use the techniques he criticises (1995, 110). The Song One is held together by a frame of oxymorons that break with the economical sonnet form using a barrage of repetition to convince Stella that she is the loved object: "Who womankind at once both decke and stayneth . . . Whose grace is such, that when it chides doth cherish? . . . Who makes a man live then glad when he dieth?" 10 To know that one dos not write for the other, to know that these things I am going to write will never cause me to be loved by the one I love (the other), to know that writing compensates for nothing, sublimates nothing, that it is precisely there where you are not this is the beginning of writing.

(Barthes 1977, 100)

Independent Study on Barthes' Love Figures

Documents

Transcript of Independent Study on Barthes' Love Figures