Deanna Miconi
Brit
Mize contrasts Joan’s immediate response, "Have to-do?" (1.1023) with
A’s intention of "have to do/With you" (1.1021-2) in "Lexical
and Textual Studies on Fulgens and Lucres."
Mize interprets Joan’s perception of A’s question as a reference to sexual intercourse,
built out of his pursuits and desires for her. Mize ponders the idea that
Joan’s "upper hand" (778) in the conversation defends her liberty and
self-worth as a woman, deriving from Joan’s assumptions that A seeks control
over her feelings to ensure she is sexually bound to him. The logic of Mize’s
argument about A’s intentions in his reading of "have to do/With you"
(1.1021-2) is based on our assumption that Joan does not come from wealth.
However, his argument lacks the consideration that Joan’s social inferiority
due to her lack of nobility devalues not only her social power but the
"nature of women and femininity" (Salleh 42), drawn from Ariel
Salleh’s Ecofeminism as Politics. Mize bases Joan’s social inferiority
on the sexual connotations of the hyphenated to-do versus to do, without
acknowledging the possibility of Joan’s feminist stance, offering me to both
apply my feminist response to the unrefined, ambiguous language of "have
to do/ With you" (1.1021-2), and to delve deeper into the greater context
of the conversation, where God becomes an additional subject. As a merciful
being, God (Salleh 46) is devalued and objectified as His name is used in vain
by A in order to protect himself from Joan’s repelled reaction. In defense of
both Joan and God who are represented as objects rather than respective beings
of nature, let us first determine the limits to which language and subject
matter cohere.
Mize
believes Joan’s questioning of “Have to-do?” (1.1023) is a reinterpretation of to
do as to-do n., which he believes makes “it the direct object of have”
(778). He insists that it was normal to have such wordplay through the
“modern nominal usage of to-do” in the 1570s, where the double meaning of “to
do | to-do, n.” was first noticed (778).
Mize’s argument is valid according to the Oxford English Dictionary,
where the hyphenated to-do n., refers to work, business, or bustle, in
contrast with “have to do/With”(778), to have dealings or business with; to
have a connection or intercourse (of any kind) with (“to do | to-do, n”
def. 1). Mize believes Joan
achieves the “upper hand” (778) in the conversation, by demanding an
explanation of A’s comment, assuming significance in asking “Have to-do?”
(1.1023) and attaining a higher power in this encounter; however, he lacks a
deeper interpretation of this connection.
If the OED’s first definition of “have to do/With” is “to have
dealings or business with” (“do, v” def. 33), it is fair to question why
Joan automatically assumes A is referring to its sexual meaning. Moreover, Mize lacks an explanation as to why
Joan would require an “upper hand” (778), even if A’s intentions were to
immediately or eventually have sexual relations with her. Is sex not a part of God’s intentions for
women as child bearers, as a natural element of sexual reproduction? My interpretation of Joan’s defensive
reaction exposes her possible feminist reaction, and in conjunction to elements
of nature, is an example of ecofeminism.
Salleh’s
definition of ecofeminism; “engendering a discourse where not only nature is a
subject to be emancipated, but women and men -- as nature -- are too” (29)
draws an interesting connection to both Joan and A’s defensive reactions toward
one another. When A uses God’s name to
defend his mistaken comment: “But I would no man should have to do/With you but
only I!” (1. 1021-2) he seems to consider Joan quite sensitive and easily
offended. He immediately responds saying
“Ey, God’s mercy! / I see well a man must beware / How he speaketh thereas ye
are--” (1. 1025-7). According to the OED,
the 15th century use of “God’s mercy” is used in “weakened use
expressing surprise, fear….” (“mercy, n. and int.” def. 8). A might be surprised about Joan’s offended
reaction, or her immediate assumption that he sees her as an object of
sex. He might also fear Joan’s
misinterpretation and sensitivity of the subject matter, worrying that it may
destroy his chance to attain her in whichever way he desires. Either way, A uses God’s name in vain in
order to show he is somewhat sincere.
From an ecofeminist reading, God is projected as a “source of life and
renewer of life form,” intended to rule over nature, and to offer forgiveness
and healing to all living beings (Salleh 47).
A defends himself when accused of demanding that Joan should solely
engage in sexual intercourse with him by screaming “Ey, God’s mercy!” (1.1025),
using God as an object for protection in the matter. He does not seem to care for God’s
forgiveness but rather, more about how Joan perceives him. Rather than politely
convincing Joan of her misunderstanding, A sarcastically insinuates she is too
sensitive and is absurd for thinking he referred to sex. Along with “the nature of God” (48) that
Salleh describes as an object of gratification and forgiveness, ecofeminism can
also be applied to Joan’s response.
Joan’s
position as a maidservant implies she lacks wealth, which may be a reason for
her offended response “Have to-do,” quod a? What call ye that?” (1. 1023) Salleh
highlights that girls, especially those of lower class who cannot establish a
profession or career that may present them as equals with men, “come to
adulthood with assumptions about themselves as essentially Other: as
instinct-driven, irrational creatures...earth mother, evil, damp, passive...”
(36). It is likely that Joan believes that A is aware that she does not have
much money or social power; all she would have to offer to him are the
stereotypical mediations “between nature and culture: sweeping floors, cooking
vegetables” and having children (Salleh 46).
Bearing children is a natural aspect of womanhood that Joan may feel is
devalued, as a man whom she does not have any love for or a relationship with
assumes he can control her sexually.
Joan might defend herself thinking that A perceives her by her abilities
as a female, specifically by her ability to have sex and bear children. The result of her stance may elicit our
sympathy for Joan as she is viewed as paranoid and absurd by A, which are the
preconceived qualities of women that ecofeminism defends (Salleh 48).
The
tension between “nature of women and femininity” (Salleh 42) and “of our
merciful creator” (Salleh 47) with A’s equivocal comment "have to do/With
you" (1.1021-2) offers an ecofeminist reading of Joan and A’s
conversation. As an “irrational
creature” (Salleh 36) with instinctive impulses exhibited by Joan’s immediate question:
“Have to-do?”(1. 1023), Joan’s “upper hand” (Mize 778) in the conversation
becomes obsolete. Mize’s idea disappears
in my ecofeminist reading of the context.
Joan loses her opportunity for a higher stance in the conversation;
although she questions A, his defense surmounts hers. Regardless of A’s intentions, Joan is not
only potentially treated as an object of sex, but also as an irrational,
monstrous creature, who hastily forms conclusions based on her “natural
inferiority and vulnerability” as a woman (Salleh 37). Analyzing alternative possibilities of Mize’s
reading of to-do versus to do has presented an ecofeminist
reading of Joan and A’s conversation.
Comparing Joan to elements of nature such as creatures and analyzing the
notion of using God’s name in vain for personal benefits have demonstrated
this. The ambiguous “have to do/ With
you” (1.1021-2) invites an ecofeminist interpretation of Joan and A’s
conversation where she and God are presented as social inferiorities, used and
socially defeated by a man.
Works Cited
"do, v.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University
Press. 17 February 2014 <http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/56228?
redirectedFrom=have+to+do+with>.
Medwall, Henry. "Fulgens and Lucres." Ed. Christina M.
Fitzgeralnd. The Broadview Anthology of Medieval
Drama. Ed. John T. Sebastian. Toronto: Broadview, 2013. 412+. Print.
"mercy, n. and int.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford
University Press. 17 February 2014 <http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/116713?
redirectedFrom=god%27s+mercy>.
Mize, Britt. "Lexical and Textual Studies on Fulgens and
Lucres." English Studies 93.7 (2012): 775-808.
OCUL. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. http://bf4dv7zn3u.search.serialssolutions.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/
ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8
&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:j
ournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Lexical+and+Textual+Studies+on+Fulgens+and
+Lucres&rft.jtitle=English+Studies&rft.au=Britt+Mize&rft.date=2012
&rft.pub=Swets+%26+Zeitlinger+bv&rft.issn=0013-838X&rft.volume=93
&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=775&rft.externalDocID=2799822521.
Salleh, Ariel. Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx, and the
Postmodern. London: Zed, 1997. Print.
"to do | to-do, n.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford
University Press. 11 February 2014. http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/202830?rskey=ba0Ou7&re sult=1&isAdvanced=false.
No comments:
Post a Comment