"The Lie"

            Sir Walter Raleigh’s “The Lie” is my favourite course text to date.  Though fascinated by the manipulative nature of James’s writing, Elizabeth’s unconcealed angst, More’s socio-political critique in Utopia, etc., there is something about the strength in the simplicity of Raleigh’s poem that I was struck by.  Knowing he was to be executed and that any convictions of treason would obviously be nullified by the fact that he was already to be beheaded, Raleigh addresses the political, social, and monarchic issues that exist in society, head-on. 

Within the first three stanzas, Raleigh attacks the monarch, the court and the church, three institutions not to be meddled with, showing their corrupt and rotting foundations and their deceiving ways.  Raleigh points to the falsehood and weakness of monarchic rule stating, “they live / Acting by others’ action; / Not loved unless they give, / Not strong but by a faction” (13-16), unequivocally commenting on exactly what caused James and Elizabeth so much anxiety.

These obtrusive revelations continue in the tenth stanza as Raleigh subverts some of the fundamental principles people live by. He equates fortune with blindness, nature with decay, friendship with unkindness, and justice with a lack of action (55-58).  Although Raleigh appears simply as a bitter and pessimistic prisoner, he is encouraging people to challenge the accepted state of affairs.  He forces them to look past the superficial stability of these socio-political systems to their rotten core by telling people, in his powerful and passionate, monosyllabic phrase “give them all the lie.”

While I appreciate the effectiveness of Raleigh’s language and style, I think most of all I applaud his attitude.  Instead of sulking over the fact that he is soon to be beheaded, he is empowered by his inevitable demise, this invincibility of the soul.  He cannot be beheaded a second time for treason.  Understanding this he rips open the confines of society to expose to the people the ruin that has governed their lives.

Sinner or saint? The choice is pretty clear to me.

And the Anxiety Builds…

After spending time analyzing James’s texts in class, scoping out and revealing signs of anxiety in his writing, it was intriguing to move on to the next monarch, Queen Elizabeth I, and find similar trends in her writing as well.  In both the speech “To the Troops at Tilbury” and “The Doubt of Future Foes,” Elizabeth attempts to put forth powerful messages that are tainted with anxieties.   

            In “The Doubt of Future Foes” Elizabeth discusses the threat posed to her title by Mary, Queen of Scots, who felt entitled to and planned to claim the throne from Elizabeth.  I was particularly surprised by Elizabeth’s worries at the beginning of the poem where she states:

 “For falsehood now doth flow, and subjects’ faith doth ebb, / Which should not be if reason ruled or wisdom weaved the web” (3-4). 

Elizabeth doesn’t even try to conceal her worries.  She both acknowledges that her people probably don’t offer unwavering support and suggests that she might feel more at ease if her ability to rule wasn’t based on something other than “reason” or “wisdom.”  While it appears that Elizabeth bounces back, going on a powerful and emotional tear, she concludes:

 “My rusty sword through rest shall first his edge employ / To poll their tops that seek such change or gape for future joy” (15-16).

Alluding to her rusty sword, Elizabeth suggests a few things that don’t seem to offer her citizens a very promising sense of security.  These suggestions might include (1) that she is unfamiliar with hand-to-hand combat (probably true), (2) that she has never actually had to fight herself as the monarch and wouldn’t follow through on her promise (probably true) and (3) that even if these are not true, do you think the people would feel more safe under the protection of a “rusty sword,” or a sharp-edged blade that glistens in the sun (something of that sort)?  She says she will “poll their tops that seek change,” personally, with that old rusty sword, I would be taking into consideration that the potential battle they face is not simply going to be a clean decapitation, but instead drawn out hack-fest… yikes.

            Moving to Elizabeth’s speech “To the Troops at Tillbury,” her lack of faith in her people’s allegiance is once again blatantly stated, alongside false promises of defending her people in battle.  Elizabeth starts her speech:

“My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety to take heed how we commit ourself to armed multitudes for fear of treachery” (Anthology 305)

Once again, Elizabeth really fails to get a good start out of the blocks, as she admits to her people that she is vulnerable and understands that some may take advantage of that fact.  As in “Doubt of Future Foes,” she tries to build off this poor start, to rouse her troops for battle, claiming she will “live or die amongst them” and that “I [Elizabeth] myself will take up arms.”  However, her anxieties and fears get the best of her again, unequivocally admitting she has the “body of a weak and feeble women” and although she has promised to fight along side them, “In the meantime [her] lieutenant-general shall be in [her] stead.”

            I’d like to jump back to her recognition of the possibility that her people could be armed treacherers.  While at first (especially after our discussions of James) I saw this admission as an inability to keep anxious feelings at bay, I also considered that perhaps it might also suggest an unscathed confidence.  Maybe a little farfetched, but let me explain.  I began to think of the similarity between this attitude and Obama’s approach to his inauguration.  Although Obama was protected throughout ceremony by bulletproof glass, he still, against the advice of his personal security crew, walked for a portion of the parade unprotected.  Even with the looming notion that an attempt might be made on his life (a serious risk), he exposed himself, made himself vulnerable to the enormous crowd, even if just briefly.  Personally, I thought this showed a tremendous amount of confidence and established for the American people, that even in times of serious threat, he will not be shaken by fear-mongers and cower in times of potential danger.

So maybe I’m being a little hard on Elizabeth, but when you constantly point out your weaknesses it isn’t very flattering and certainly doesn’t instill confidence in the people who “trust” you with their safety.

Transcendental Signifier

In God we trust.  The motto of the United States, inscribed on every coin and paper bill.  The same phrase that saved old Kris Kringle from being deemed psychologically unfit in Miracle on 34^th Street.  How was this so?  If the American people could stand by a phrase that mentioned a being no more material than Santa Clause, how could they say that the jolly, round man didn’t exist?  The transcendental signifier at work again!

            The transcendental signifier has been a key tool in western thinking for a long time and continues to be in use today.  Essentially the transcendental signifier is an image, concept, idea, etc., which is used as leverage in an argument.  Sounds simple enough.  However, this signifier is extremely complicated in that it is always a presentation of something, which cannot be evoked into being, something we have no ability to personify, something… like God.  Usually associated with political or religious ideologies, the transcendental signifier is used to establish a natural order, to create a hierarchal relationship that suits the self-interests of its employer.  This puts the reader/listener at a disadvantage, as they become subject to the will of this irrevocable figure.  The speaker or text tells you how to read/listen and thus we are subject and controlled.

            After reading and discussing King James’s The True Law of Free Monarchies, it was slightly disturbing (or perhaps a little more than slightly) how often this tactic was deployed. As the full title suggests (The True Law of Free Monarchies: or The Reciprock and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subject… a mouthful), James’s text is looking to establish evidence to support the King’s dominance over the people.  If the seven transcendental signifiers in the title aren’t enough to disadvantage the reader, James, while also using the laws of the kingdom and of nature, builds his argument through what is found in the scriptures – the book of God. 

Michaelangelo's, "The Creation of Adam"
            (... is that James on the left? Wait, no the right?)

            There are a number of things that can be flagged as problematic in this argument.  First, and most obvious, is the fact that James is declaring his superiority has been given to him through the words of God.  Since God is a transcendental signifier, who cannot be interrogated on the matter and is purely subjective, there is no way for the reader to challenge this.  Supplementary to this, as King, James was given the privilege to be one of few to actually have the power interpret the word of God.  This being said, of course he would use the text in his favour.  After listing from the book of Samuel that the King will, “take your sons…also take your daughters…take your fields, and your vineyards and your best olive trees, and give them to his servants… he will take your manservants, and your maidservants…and your asses, and put them to his work… and ye shall be his servants” (qtd. in Fischlin and Fortier 58), James then goes on to say that Paul says (in the scripture) this is “ground no good Christian will, or dare, deny” (58).  Does it sound like the people have much of anything to use in defense?  Just to put the icing on the cake, James adds later that they should acknowledge him as “a judge by God over them, having power to judge them but to be judged only by God” (66).  Yah, that sounds fair.  Scary to think that the King James Version of the Bible is the most popular English translation of the text…

            I think it is interesting to note that Jacques Derrida, who coined the term “transcendental signifier,” also created its oppositional term “différance.”  Différance basically determined that meaning is never absolute when someone speaks it into being.  Derrida asserts that meaning is created out of difference, in a yin-yang effect and if this is true, the fact that these opposing views exist destabilizes meaning, as certain views can accept or reject various aspects of a meaning.  Take that James!