Review of As You Like It

            Upon experiencing the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of the pastoral romance As You Like It, my concluding assessment can only be described as being conflicted. From the perspective of an engaged audience member, I found the performance to be exceptionally entertaining, humorous, and saturated with momentous energy; however, as a literary scholar, I frequently questioned the effectiveness of many of the dramaturgical devices employed in the staging of this play. My particular concerns can be attributed to the company’s often neglectful interpretations regarding the prominent textual motifs of love/marriage and Shakespeare’s convoluted commentary on the complexity of gender and cross dressing.

            Instead of elucidating on the textual themes of love/marriage and gender disparities, the Royal Shakespeare Company dedicated the majority of their dramaturgical choices to emphasize the dichotomy between the court and rural life. The RSC program provides a descriptive article with the following quotation distinguishing the two radically opposing settings: “The court speaks the language of intimidation and imperative, its trappings are constructive, inhibiting and cruel. The forest speaks of freedom and the characters move from inhibition to exhibition, from restriction to a gentle wildness as the forest ripples its open-heartedness out, ever out.” Traditionally, pastoral romances constituted a symbiotic relationship between the court and country; one cannot survive without the other. It is for this reason that Shakespeare has the cast return to the court upon the play’s conclusion. This particular performance, as a consequence of the company’s incorporation of jubilant music and dance, did not necessarily achieve the customary balance often associated with pastoral romance. Due to stringent desires to portray the Forest of Arden as a magical and sensual setting, the company unfortunately neglected the more prominent motifs mentioned above.

            In regards to the play’s commentary regarding the legitimacy of love and marriage and the rather ambiguous equivalence they represent, this production’s most prominent fault can be attributed to the company’s interpretation of the character Touchstone. The text portrays Touchstone as an exceptionally cynical and vulgar character especially, when discussions attempt to illuminate the essence of love. In Act II, Touchstone mockingly remembers a time when he too was in love: “We that are true lovers run into strange capers; but all is mortal in nature, so is all nature in love mortal folly” (Act II-iv 52-54). Despite his obvious wooing of the country wench Audrey in act III, Touchstone maintains his opinion associating love with falseness: “No, truly; for the truest poetry is the most feigning; and lovers are given to poetry; and what they swear in poetry may be said as lovers they do feign” (Act III-iii 17-19). The Royal Shakespeare Company’s interpretation of the same scene grants Touchstone a soliloquy in which he directly interacts with an audience member through a serious of questions inquiring after the man’s own experiences with marriage. Although the interaction contributed to the play’s humor, Touchstone’s subsequent responses contradicted the textual representation of his character. In general, the cynicism Shakespeare seemingly intended to emphasize when discussing the nature of love and marriage was substituted with a modern perspective of intensely romantic love.

            An additional flaw I found egregious was the company’s neglect to accentuate the complexity of cross dressing and the subsequent distortion of gender roles. Shakespeare’s casting of Rosalind would have been exceptionally complex considering a boy actor would have portrayed a woman cross dressing as a man pretending to be a woman with the aspiration of successfully wooing a man. Considering the company’s decision to initially cast Rosalind with a female actor, one layer of complexity is consequently disregarded. Despite Pippa Nixon’s outstanding performance as Rosalind, it was rather obvious that the crossed dressed persona of the masculine Ganymede was in fact, a woman. The obvious femininity attributed to Rosalind when cross dressed as Ganymede was not a consequence of her appearance but rather, a result of the company’s poignant humor that continuously referenced Ganymede’s true sex. Most prominent of these humorous allusions was Ganymede’s self conscious attention to his simulated male genitalia. Granted, Ganymede’s desire to constantly assure herself that his “package” was visible to Orlando was especially humorous, the subsequent effect was detrimental in maintaining the complex annotations Shakespeare insinuates within the text. Additionally, although I was pleased that the company included Rosalind’s Epilogue, the manner in which it was delivered deviated from Shakespeare’s concluding commentary on complex gender roles and Renaissance cross dressing. This performance had Rosalind deliver the epilogue in women’s apparel as opposed to Ganymede’s male apparel the text insinuates. As a result of Rosalind’s more feminine appearance at the play’s conclusion, the following lines lose their potential insightfulness concerning the nature of gender and cross dressing: “I charge you, O women, for the love you bear to men, to like as much of this play as please you: and I charge you, O men, for the love you bear to women (as I perceive by your simpering, none of you hates them), that between you and the women the play may please. If I were a women, I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me…” (Epilogue 12-19).

            Consequently, for the reasons above elucidated, the play’s effectiveness in emulating Shakespeare’s more prominent theatrical motifs can primarily be characterized as a failure; however, the play was still very enjoyable and I would certainly recommend this particular performance to anyone wishing to experience exuberant humor and an evening of profound entertainment.

A Rural Community: Shakespeare's Stratford upon Avon

Constituting a direct contrast to the diverse metropolis of London, Stratford upon Avon in the Elizabethan era reflected a quaint rural community of perhaps no more than 1,500 inhabitants. Born in Stratford in 1564 Shakespeare would one day capitalize on his successful career as a playwright and actor and become one of Stratford’s most distinguished and wealthy inhabitants. Those buildings preserved by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, specifically the Birthplace, New place/Nash House, and Holy Trinity Church, can enlighten visitors today on the characteristics that defined everyday life in Shakespeare’s Stratford.

            Unlike the conglomeration of competing cultures and sprawling urban magnetism associated with 16^th-17^th century London, Stratford upon Avon was situated in the rolling countryside and was primarily a farming community. As a boy, Shakespeare would have probably spent time in the neighboring borrow of Wilmcote and contributed to the basic chores required to successfully manage a farm. Stratford also encouraged domestic trade businesses that crafted and sold the necessary goods and materials required by farmers to tend their crops and livestock. As we discovered while touring Shakespeare’s birthplace Shakespeare’s father, John Shakespeare, utilized the family’s home as a workshop for crafting gloves and other leather/hide products. The house itself was specifically designed to accommodate John’s glove business and featured a wide hallway for driving carts of leather and other materials through the house and a window facing Stratford’s largest street out of which, John could peddle his gloves to passing customers.

            Additional evidence of Stratford’s rural history can be discovered at the site of Shakespeare’s home from c. 1597 until his death in 1616. Shakespeare: Work, Life, and Times reveals that upon buying “New Place” in 1597 “Shakespeare had been ranked as one of the most prosperous men in Stratford. From the list of chief householders in Chapel Ward, where New Place was situated, we find that out of 20 holders of corn, only two have more in stock than William Shakespeare.” The reference towards Shakespeare’s capita in corn alludes to the striving farming community characterizing Stratford in the Elizabethan era. Unfortunately New Place was demolished in 1759 by the Reverend Francis Gastrell but the house’s original foundation and adjacent garden can still be observed today. The official guidebook provides additional information regarding rural gardens and refers to them as “medical chests for the treatment of household ailments, a convenient supply of vegetables for cooking, and sweet smelling flowers and herbs to decorate the house.”

            Perhaps the most prominent indicator of Stratford as a tight-knitted rural community is Holy Trinity Church where we visited yesterday to view Shakespeare’s tomb. The architecture of the church is similar to the Gothic design of Westminster Abbey and Southwark Cathedral but the condensed size and minimalism on the interior reflects Stratford upon Avon’s small population that resided here in the Elizabethan era. 

Macbeth Review

Upon entering the Rose theatre to experience WOH Productions’ performance of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, I was skeptical as to how this particular production might benefit from the seemingly unorthodox decision to situate the play within a technologically modern context. Despite the minimal distractions resulting from the employment of a modern setting and contemporary props, the company’s theatrical judgment in staging Macbeth within the context of a modern day news report was surprisingly effective and offered a unique and culturally pertinent perspective on Shakespeare’s most iconic tragedy.

            WOH’s decision to stage Macbeth within a modern perspective was especially ingenious considering the entire play was performed with only five actors/actresses. By incorporating modern technology such as cell phones, the play could include plot-essential personas without having them physically appear on the stage. A prime example of the company’s efficiency in staging characters can be discerned in the scene in which Macbeth, overcome by his debilitating paranoia, orders the death of his fellow comrade Banquo. Instead of casting three additional actors as the murderers, Macbeth takes advantage of the company’s inclusion of technologically modern props and delivers his sinister instructions via a phone call. The subsequent effect allows the audience to become privy to Macbeth’s treacherous designs without the encumbrance of three additional actors.

            One of the major faults I attributed to the Globe production of Macbeth was the company’s disregard of the temporal correlation between time and place; specifically, the scene in Act One when Lady Macbeth receives Macbeth’s letter revealing his encounter with the weird sisters and the prophetic truths they divulged. Although I was later informed that it was customary for Renaissance plays to simultaneously stage characters across successive scenes, I still experienced a sense of discontinuity after witnessing the letter’s exchange. Contrary to traditional Renaissance staging techniques, Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s overlapping presence on stage contradicts Russ McDonald’s affirmation that theatrical performances during the Elizabethan era depended upon visual and verbal codes to indicate any transitions relative to time and location (McDonald 2). In comparison, the Rose production of Macbeth addressed the disparities I associated with the letter scene by directing Macbeth to make use of his phone once again and thereby “text” the contents of his letter to Lady Macbeth. The instantaneous exchange of information as a result of modern technology greatly rectifies the discontinuity of temporal time which I felt was a significant flaw in the Globe’s more traditional production.

            In conjunction with WOH’s dramaturgical decision to produce a modern interpretation of Macbeth, the emphasis on subtle symbolic motifs, specifically those regarding the engenderment of Lady Macbeth, were especially profound and contributed, in my opinion, to the performance’s exceptional success. The most dramatic and intense scene of the Rose production can be credited to the company’s provocative interpretation of the following lines delivered by Lady Macbeth: “Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here; and fill me, from the crown to the toe, top-full of direst cruelty! Make thick my blood, stop up th’access and passage to remorse, that no compunctious visitings of nature shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between th’effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts, and take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers” (Act I-v 43-51). Rather than simply have Lady Macbeth deliver her potent soliloquy to the audience, the company casts the above mentioned spirits as the three weird sisters and subsequently has them conduct the unsexing of Lady Macbeth on stage. The androgynous insinuations regarding the engenderment of Lady Macbeth becomes one of the major theatrical motifs characterizing WOH’s production and can most readily be attributed to the duel casting of Francesca De Sica as both Lady Macbeth and Banquo. Throughout the performance the company’s theatrical interpretations consistently encourage the idea that the gender of Lady Macbeth is exceptionally subjective and dependent upon her counterpart role as Banquo. Following the uncomfortable scene in which the weird sisters apparently honor Lady Macbeth’s pleas to have her sex removed, her power and influence in orchestrating the assassination plot of King Duncan achieves a palpable apex. When one considers the masculine authority and power ascribed Lady Macbeth following the ritual, the dichotomy and irony of Macbeth’s later statement “I dare do all that may become a man; who dares do more is none” (Act I-vii 47-48) encompasses new significance. This production, at least initially, casts Lady Macbeth as being anamorphous in regards to her gender identity and therefore, Macbeth’s statement is both true and false.

            What is most intriguing is the manner in which the company utilizes De Sica’s dual role to contribute to the ambiguous gender motif. As a result of her being staged as both Lady Macbeth and Banquo, the duality of her sexual identity is visibly portrayed and subsequently, when Macbeth orders the death of her male counterpart Banquo, the audience begins to observe the inevitable decline of Lady Macbeth’s female gender; the fate of both characters and their respective genders are intrinsically interrelated. The company seemingly acknowledges this connection and at times, their specific dramaturgical judgments directly refer to the duality of De Sica’s roles. Most notably is the banquet scene in which Macbeth is subjected to the haunting spectacle of Banquo’s ghost: “Ere human statute purged the gentle weal; ay, and since too, murders have been perform’d too terrible for the ear: the time has been, that, when the brains were out, the man would die, and there an end; but now they rise again, with twenty mortal murders on their crowns” (Act III-iv 78-83). Rather than incorporating addition special effects to simulate Banquo’s ghost at the banquet, the company once again references the ambiguity of Lady Macbeth/Banquo by demonstrating the extent of Macbeth’s increasing derangement as he “mistakes” Lady Macbeth for the murdered Banquo. 

Queen's Gallery: Fashion in the Tudor and Stewart Dynasties

Beginning as early as 1562, Queen Elizabeth I levied a series of statutes referred to as the Sumptuary Laws which constituted regulations on the appropriate attire of men and women in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.The laws were primarily enforced due to increasing anxiety and fears that "the excess of apparel and the superfluity of unnecessary foreign wares thereto belonging now of late years is grown by sufferance to such an extremity that the manifest decay of the entire realm," was a palpable possibility. (June 1574) These laws were also utilized as a means in which to distinguish between social status and more specifically, gender.

As David Cressy acknowledges in his article "Gender Trouble and Cross-Dressing in Early Modern England," many literary scholars assert that "Cross-dressing, we are told, upset patriarchal values, assaulted cultural boundaries, and unraveled sexual separators of ambivalence, androgyny, and eroticism" (Cressy 3). As Cressy develops his counter argument to the above statement, it becomes apparent that cross-dressing was much less tolerated when practiced by women who dressed in the apparel of men as opposed to men who humorously garbed themselves in the apparel of women. Contrary to the assumptions literary scholars make concerning Renaissance transvestism and "a sex-gender system in distress" (Cressy 3), the portraits displayed in the Queen's Gallery reflect ways in which women in particular, subverted the Elizabethan Sumptuary Statutes for reasons other than petty exploitation and potential advancement within the social/engendered hierarchy that was supposedly advocated during Elizabeth I's reign.

The Portrait of an Unknown Woman painted by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger c. 1590-1600, reveal a women who is most certainly not abiding by the strict dress codes that encouraged propriety and modesty in women's garments. The information accompanying the painting revealed that the unknown woman in question is dressed in a costume that is most likely attributed to the performance of a Court Masque. Masques were a popular form of entertainment that were usually performed for private audiences such as the reigning monarch and incorporated allegorical references and other performance techniques to account a story; in many ways, similar to plays acted on the Elizabethan and Jacobean stage. The information also reveals that Ben Johnson, famous contemporary of Shakespeare and premier composer of such Masques, associated the color white/carnation as the most appropriate female attire when performing Masques.

The portrait of Eleanor Needham, Lady Byron painted by Sir Peter Lely c. 1664, depicts another possible exception in which women were able to subvert Elizabeth's Sumptuary Statutes. This particular portrait of Lady Byron, depicts her in a draping garment that would have been most closely associated with the apparel commonly portrayed in biblical paintings. Despite the loose garment and rather sensual pose, it was surprisingly ordinary and suitable for a women to model and adapt themselves  to  the personas of prominent religious figures. Lely's painting of Lady Byron is most likely a tribute to Saint Catherine of Alexandria.  Saint Catherine in particular, was an especially popular guise for wealthy female courtiers throughout the 1660's.

As demonstrated in the paintings of the Unknown Woman and Lady Byron, Cressy's assertion that "Cross-dressing, I argue, was not as transgressive as critics and scholars have suggested," (Cressy 3) appears to be accurate. Rather, it is perhaps probable that women who actively subverted Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws were not deliberately challenging the established gender and social hierarchy but expressing themselves and the sumptuousness unique to their female sex.

Portraits and Speeches of Elizabeth I

The reign of Queen Elizabeth I ushered in an era of relative peace and prosperity that promoted England’s validity as a formidable world power specifically, in regards to international trade and military supremacy. Despite England’s obvious prosperity under Elizabeth’s forty-five year reign (1558-1603), skepticism concerning her competence as Queen was perceptible among those who valued the ideologies advocated by the established patriarchal system defining government and social life. Rather than yield to the nation’s preconceived notions regarding women, specifically women monarchs, Elizabeth masterfully reciprocated the perceived weaknesses of her sex, and through subtle manipulation and symbolic imagery, transformed her feminine qualities into her most prominent strengths.

            On the eve of the imminent invasion by the Spanish Armada in 1588, Elizabeth presented her famous speech to the English troops assembled at Tilbury. Elizabeth’s rhetorical delivery of the speech is largely characterized by her gratitude and acknowledgement of the vulnerabilities associated with her female sex. “I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects”/ “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman.” (Elizabeth) When considering the context of her speech, Elizabeth insinuates that her womanly weaknesses must be defended by her loyal subjects; however, although she recognizes the vulnerabilities of her physical body she equally acknowledges the divinity and regency associated with her corporal or governmental body: “but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too.” (Elizabeth)This duality of the physical and corporal bodies of the monarch became the primary subject most often portrayed within the various portraits of Elizabeth I. Perhaps the most famous of these paintings is the “Rainbow Portrait” painted in c1600 by Isaac Oliver. The portrait’s date reveals that Elizabeth was well into her 60’s at the time Oliver painted her; however, Elizabeth’s representation in the “Rainbow Portrait” illustrates her youthful beauty thus encouraging the belief that her influence is beyond the natural aging process and therefore, immortal. Numerous iconographies adorn the painting and symbolize Elizabeth’s unconditional sovereignty despite the assumed weaknesses of her female sex. The rainbow, from which the portrait derives its name, is held in Elizabeth’s right hand with the inscription “No rainbow without the sun” and symbolically insinuates that peace and prosperity can only be achieved through the wisdom and aptitude of the Queen (the snake adorning her left arm constitutes an additional symbol for wisdom). The embroidered eyes and ears that populate her elaborate attire also provide testimony to the Queen’s unbridled influence, implying she sees and hears all. (Portraits)

            Additional obstacles experienced by Elizabeth as a consequence of her female sex can be discerned in her 1559 Speech to Parliament. The speech serves as Elizabeth’s response to Parliament’s consisted urging for her to marry and secure a line of succession. In conjunction with her reputation as the “Virgin Queen” Elizabeth organizes her speech upon the assertion that “I happily chose this kind of life in which I yet live, which I assure you for my own part hath best contented myself and trust hath been most acceptable to God.” (Elizabeth) In her Parliamentary address, Elizabeth once again distinguishes between the physical and corporal and claims God honors and supports her current decision to remain chaste- a brilliant and tactful rhetorical decision employed to subdue Parliament’s frustrating delegations. The equally famous “Ditchley Portrait” presents a stunning image of Elizabeth dressed in an elaborate white gown symbolizing her purity and virginity. The painting, while exceptionally feminine, also situates Elizabeth standing over the world-- a direct symbolic reference to her influence and absolute power as England's divine monarch. Rather than shy away from her female sex, Elizabeth embraces her image and subsequently utilizes it as a means of persuasion and political exploitation.

St. Paul's Cathedral v.s Westminster Abbey...Ready? Fight!

 Originally founded as early as 604, the modern rendition of St. Paul’s Cathedral was commissioned by King Charles and constructed by Sir Christopher Wren between 1675 and 1711 following the Chapel’s destruction in the Great Fire of 1666. As Michael revealed in today’s tour, St. Paul’s Cathedral constitutes the literal heart of the city of London and throughout its expansive history, it has not only functioned as the center of the Christian faith and its teachings, but also as a center promoting arts, culture, learning, and public debate (Guidebook 3).

 Unlike other prominent religious institutions that populate the surrounding area, St. Paul’s Cathedral differs in that it can be characterized by its diverse, multi-faceted purposes that attribute to the general welfare and productivity of London and its inhabitants. These differences are especially obvious when one compares the documented historical functions of St. Paul’s with its rival cathedral Westminster Abbey. The contrasts between St. Paul’s and Westminster Abbey are primarily dictated by their respective influences regarding religion and social/political motivations. At the beginning of the tour Michael divulged an abbreviated history revealing the current Cathedral is the fourth reconstruction following a series of fires and other calamities that consequently left St. Paul’s in disrepair. Upon receiving his commission by King Charles to restore the chapel, Sir Christopher Wren deliberately avoided adhering to the traditional Gothic architectural design that had once characterized St. Paul’s as well as other medieval cathedrals including Westminster Abbey. Instead, Wren utilized architectural concepts such as the 65,000 ton dome, which would have been more common with the structures located in ancient Greece. Allegedly, Wren’s specific plans were conceived as an attempt to remove examples of catholic idolatry ubiquitously portrayed by Gothic inspired cathedrals (Guidebook 6-7). In relation to the religious turmoil instigated by the Reformation, St. Paul’s Cathedral differed significantly in how it regulated and responded to the confrontations between Catholics and Protestants. Whereas Westminster Abbey constituted a direct relationship between the monarchy and its subsequent religious significance, St. Paul’s is largely described as a direct reflection of “the taste, attitudes and peoples of the nation” (Guidebook 4). Henry Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s Cathedral asserts that if one were to discover and assemble the entirety of the various religious sermons that occurred throughout the seventeenth century at St. Paul’s Cross one would essentially have a complete perspective of religion as it pertained to the reformation (Milman169). Due to the lack of affiliation with the English monarchy, St. Paul’s Cathedral became the final pilgrimage for anyone who wished to express their concerns and innovations regarding religion and its insinuations within society.

 As we observed when visiting Westminster Abbey, the cathedral enjoyed additional functions beyond those associated with religion. St. Paul’s Cathedral was also utilized as a center for social congregation in addition to religion; however, unlike Westminster and its reputation as the church of the monarchy, St. Paul’s was not constructed with the singular intention of promoting a symbolic representation of the monarch’s power. Rather, the history of St. Paul’s Cathedral has revealed that the relationship between the cathedral and the people of England is most similar to those observed between a master and servant in which, St. Paul’s serves the current needs of the people. Milman provides historical evidence that depict the cathedral as a thriving indoor market in which traders “expose their wares, as it were, in a common market, buy and sell without reverence for the holy place” (Milman 83). The guidebook recounts the Cathedral’s use as a stable for over 800 horses in addition to a market with a road running through the transepts prior to the restoration of King Charles II.

The Legacy of Windsor Castle

            Located in the only naturally defensive site relative to that area of the Thames basin, construction of Windsor Castle was begun in 1070 by William the Conquer and was explicitly designed with the intention of defending London from the western approaches. Despite its initial purposes as a defensive holding, Windsor Castle was greatly esteemed by William and other subsequent monarchs who would later renovate the Norman fortress and refurnish it to better serve as a royal residence. The Official Windsor Castle Guidebook elucidates on the monarchy’s affectionate attachments to Windsor and reveals that “it has been the home of 39 monarchs and is the oldest royal residence in the British Isles to have remained in continuous use.” (3)

            As we have observed in other prominent Renaissance sites and institutions such as the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey, it was often the prerogative of the current monarch to expand upon preexisting buildings as a reflection of their royal prestige and authority. Windsor Castle was similarly renovated; however, the Guidebook specifically refers to four monarchs who were primarily responsible for the Castle’s more prominent attributes: William the Conquer, Edward III who greatly expanded the fortress and contributed additions such as St. George’s Hall and the Royal Apartments, Charles II, and George IV. (5) Our informative tour guides revealed that throughout its history the legacy of Windsor Castle is largely a reflection of these renovations and the multiplicity of various architectural designs including Gothic, Baroque, Romantic, and Neo-Classicism. The shifting architectural designs exhibited by the Castle, especially those perceived in Edward IV’s grandiose St. George’s Chapel, reflect the monarch’s particular interest in the Castle and the ensuing devotion they dedicated to ensuring it survived the ravages of time and political contention. The Chapel itself constitutes one of the greatest examples of medieval architecture in Western Europe and due to Edward's dedication of the Chapel to Saint George, patron saint of England, the legacy of the Castle is substantiated by tradition and religious symbolic representation. St. George's Chapel remains a testament to the religious piety of Edward IV in addition to the religious progression England experienced throughout the 15th and 16th centuries..Additionally, much of the architectural additions such as Saint George’s hall are superfluous in design yet reiterate the pride in which Edward III valued Windsor as a royal residence. Inadvertently the successful legacy of Windsor Castle is directly associated with the monarchy’s infallible pride and desire to contribute their own lasting influence upon the iconic fortress.

            In addition to enlightening us on the linear progression of the construction and diverse renovations conducted on Windsor Palace, Kaitlyn and Gabby also informed us on various historical accounts that may have potentially devastated the Castle’s integrity and legacy as a symbolic representation of England and her monarchs. One such historical account occurred in 1642 when Oliver Cromwell and parliamentary forces successfully captured Windsor Castle following the Battle of Edgehill. Contrary to warfare traditions that warranted the sacking of captured fortresses, Cromwell’s forces were explicitly ordered to maintain the integrity of the castle. Although some aspects of Windsor were defiled and removed, the extent of Cromwell’s influence within the castle is visibly limited despite him utilizing Windsor as a prison for captured Loyalist. The castle furthermore reveals little evidence detailing the execution of Charles I in 1648. Despite this particular demoralizing period in the history of Windsor Castle, its reputation as the quintessential royal residence remained uncompromised following the restoration of Charles II to the English throne in 1660. To restore the image and legacy of Windsor Castle following its function as Parliament’s headquarters, Charles II echoed the actions of previous monarchs and renovated the upper ward into a Baroque Palace effectively erasing the fortress’s soiled legacy and the effects of the English Civil War. (8-9)

            In conclusion, a stanza from a poem composed in 1703 reflecting the grandeur and national pride of Windsor Castle following the ascension of Queen Anne to the English throne:

One tow’ring Oak of huge Gigantick size,

That did on Windsor’s shady forest rise,

Does, by its Native Strength alone support,

The ascending Ladder of this spacious court.

A hundred Paces to the Floor you mount,

And twice two Hundred afterwards may count.

The Ceiling of stupendous Height does seem,

Shrewing no Crack, or Flaw, or artless Beam.

But in the noblest Paintings, there divine,

Does all the glorious Acts of Europe shine.

     Nor are the wond’rous Deeds of William here forgot,

And all the mighty Battles which he bravely Fought.

(Hills 4)

Hampton Court Palace

            Unlike other notable sixteenth and seventeenth century institutions, the functions attributed to Hampton Court Palace can be observed as maintaining a certain impression of pragmatism that monuments such as the Tower of London and Westminster Abbey noticeably lack. Whereas other Elizabethan and Renaissance establishments were constructed with the primary intent of signifying the monarch’s absolute sovereignty, Hampton Court Palace, located well outside the city limits of London in what would have once been a sprawling countryside, is described as being “a potent symbol of political intrigue and even violence.” <Guardian :24>

            Originally a manor house, ownership of Hampton Court Palace was relinquished unto Henry VIII in 1525 by Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, who in addition to his religious honors was also the chief political adviser to Henry VIII and was largely responsible for establishing England as an authoritative entity within the gamut of foreign diplomacy and politics  In addition to its function as a royal residence, Hampton Court Palace is primarily characterized by its implicit function as the idyllic political institution where Henry VIII, and eventually James I, entertained and negotiated with foreign dignitaries throughout the renaissance. The architecture and renovated additions contracted by Henry VIII constitute a tangible reflection of the palace’s intended purpose as a political established rivaling that of Louis XIV’s palace in Versailles. Many of Henry’s extraneous additions such as the cloister and great hall were specifically constructed in accordance to accommodate specific political assemblies. The kitchens of Hampton Court Palace are considered the largest of their kind; the most probable rationale behind their expansive size would be  to cook and feed the vast influx of various aristocrats and foreign ambassadors that assembled there to conduct governmental policies. A notable example of these foreign congregations occurred in 1527 following England’s endorsement of a peace treaty with France. The peace negations were conducted at Hampton Court Palace and were considered a crucial concordance necessary to the success of Henry’s continued attempts to persuade the Pope to annul his marriage with Katherine of Aragon. The Palace’s unique design specifically catering to the demands of foreign diplomacy greatly contributed to its success as a political establishment. Evidence of documented letters revealed that foreign ambassadors were particularly ingratiated to the Palace and assert that the building itself constituted an influential component in their diverse political policies and interactions. <Page>

            In 1603, following the ascension of James VI of Scotland to the English throne (later christened James I of England), one thousand puritans signed the “Millenary Petition”; a document appealing to James to further reform the Anglican Church to better accommodate the religious preferences of the puritan sect.  In response James I hand selected and summoned nineteen clergymen and four puritans to the Palace and conducted what is now referred to as the Hampton Court Conference. On January 14^th, 1604 the select individuals met in the King’s Privy Chamber, east of the Clock Court and began to strenuously address the various religious grievances presented by the four puritan representatives. <Page>Despite the obvious biases demonstrated by James when orchestrating the general proceedings of the Conference, the concluding result would fundamentally revolutionize religion in England and yield one of the most influential books ever printed: the King James Bible.

The Appeal of Southwark: A Cultural Melting Pot

            Segregated by the natural boundary of the Thames River, Southwark, the area south of the city proper, constituted a place in which renaissance Londoner’s could enjoy activities and pleasures that were often considered detrimental to the morality of the individual as well as the general welfare of society. Despite the city’s discontent the rapid diversification of cultural rituals and traditions, the area of Southwark, then referred to as the Liberties, became a place of exile and controversy that embraced what others in London deemed scandalous. in his article “Toward a Rhetoric of Space in Elizabethan London,” Steven Mullaney asserts that despite the theatres being “Effectively banished from the city by increasing strict regulations, popular drama translated the terms of its exile to its advantage.” <Mullaney>

            Mullaney identifies that Elizabethan theatres such as the Globe, Swan, and Rose were significant promoters of the cultural proliferation that occurred throughout the Renaissance; however, contrary to the theatre’s undeniable success they were certainly not the only institutions that inspired Londoners to defy tradition and cross the Thames into Southwark. The Globe Exhibition dedicates a large selection of information that attributes Southwark’s popularity to various leisurely opportunities including: playhouses, pleasure gardens, bull-baiting, taverns/alehouses, and brothels. Located at what was once Holland Street, Holland’s Leaguer was a brothel notorious for its blatant defiance of regulations enacted by the Privy Council. Originally constructed as a manor house the property was leased in the 1630’s by Elizabeth Holland and under her management, the property was renovated into perhaps one of the most frequented whorehouse south of the Thames. <Fumerton>The brothel immediately became the target of puritan regulations and in 1632, following the Privy Council’s attempt to permanently close its door, the loyal patrons responded by locking themselves inside. The “siege” on Holland’s Leaguer was later documented in at least three texts including a play by Shakerley Marmion, a ballad composed by Lawrence Price, and a pamphlet written by Nicholas Goodman. <Fumerton> All three written accounts were entitled “Holland’s Leaguer” and satiated the public’s insistence upon a reputable account of the incident.

            Perhaps the most prevalent example of the cultural multiplicity demonstrated in Southwark is Southwark Cathedral. The cathedral’s Gothic architecture dates back to the 13^th century making it the oldest building of its kind in London; the foundation of the cathedral is even older and dates to the early 12^th century following the Norman invasion of 1066. Considering the Liberties reputation as a breeding pool of vagabonds and frequenters of ill-repute, the presence of a Cathedral is one example of the dramatic irony that characterizes the “great book faire” described by Mullaney. Despite its religious affiliations, Southwark Cathedral symbolically represents the conglomerate of burgeoning cultures throughout the Renaissance. The Cathedral’s symbolic representation is predominantly depicted by St. Andrew’s alter dedicated to the saint of impartial acceptance regardless of religion or cultural identity. 

James Tyrell's Imprisonment in the Tower of London

 Perhaps one of the most astonishing examples of morbid irony surrounding the Tower of London begins with the Tower’s most infamous mystery concerning the “Princes in the Tower”. The Princes in the Tower refers to the imprisonment of Edward V and his younger brother Richard by Richard of Gloucester, later renamed King Richard III of England, under the pretenses of being illegitimate children of the previous King Edward IV. The last documented sighting of the two young princes in the tower was c. 1483; however, renovations to the tower in 1674 led to the discovery of two small skeletal remains buried beneath the stairs and were later positively identified as belonging to Edward and Richard. The specified tower, originally referred to as the Garden Tower, was renamed the Bloody Tower in accordance with the deaths of the two princes.

               Considerable speculation has been appropriated in determining the culprits responsible for the murders but frequent records demonstrate that Sir James Tyrrell, on direct orders from Richard III, was principally involved in the abduction and subsequent murders of Edward and Richard. Son of Sir William Tyrrell, James was in particular favor with Richard III and was initially characterized by his irrevocable loyalty to Richard prior to his crowning. Following his service in the war with Scotland in 1482, Richard awarded James the title of knight-bannerette in addition to Richard’s previously held position as the office of the constable. The Historie of Kyng Rycharde the Thirde provides questionable evidence in the form of lettered correspondences between Richard and James which allegedly implements him in the furtive murder plot of the two princes. <Archbold> Following the disappearance of Edward and the young Richard from the tower, Richard III bestowed upon James additional honors including: commissioner of Buckingham estates, duchy of Cornwall, sheriff and lordship of Wenlock, and steward of the lordships of Newport Wenlock, Kevoeth Meredith, Lavenitherry, and Lanthoesant for life. <Archbold>Despite the titles awarded to him by Richard III it was rumored that his allegiances to the King faltered towards the end of his reign which may have attributed to his eventual incarceration in the Tower of London.

Validated evidence divulges that in 1499 James harbored the fugitive Edmund da la Pole, earl of Suffolk, in his attempt to flee England. Henry VII, the newly coroneted king, sent Sir Richard Guildford and Richard Hatton to apprehend Edmund at James’ estate in Guisnes and upon arrival, James’ was ordered to accompany them back to the tower where he was later pardoned. Following another attempted escape by Suffolk in 1501, James was obligated to surrender his acquired properties and was accused of being a traitor due to the aid he had previously granted Suffolk in 1499 and imprisoned in the Tower along with his son William Tyrell. James was later beheaded atop Tower Hill on May 6^th, 1502. The picture to the left, reveals an engraving William carved into the walls of the Beauchamp Tower while imprisoned there with his father. <Archbold>