E. C.'s Tragedy or Triumph?
Valerie L. Guyant
Thesis
Master of Science in Teaching English
Spring 2002 <2,'rC._ ])e sl{ PA ;;;, 'i 9 9 .F3 z. 58
Elizabeth, Lady Falkland, by T. Athow from a painting by Paul Van
Somer.
Sutherland Collection, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
ii Table of Contents
Introduction - The Renaissance for Women ------1
The Author------3 The History of Mariam ______15
The Argument______22
Josephus versus Cary______27
The Chorus------43 First Choral Speech ______51 Second Choral Speech 58 Third Choral Speech 62 Fourth Choral Speech 68 Fifth Choral Speech 75
The Characters------78 The Men 85 Pheroras 85 Constabarus 89 Silleus 95 Herod 97 The Women 103 Graphina 105 Alexandra & Doris 108 Salome 112 Mariam 119
Conclusion ------128 Works Cited 136 Works Consulted 144
iii Imaginative work is not dropped like a pebble upon the
ground, [ ...] fiction is like a spider's web, attached ever so
lightly perhaps, but still attached to life at all four corners [ ..
.] But when the web is pulled askew, hooked up at the edge,
torn in the middle, one remembers that these webs are not
spun in midair by incorporeal creatures, but are the work of
suffering, human beings.
(Woolf 71-72)
The Renaissance for Women
When Virginia Woolf first discussed her vision of "Shakespeare's sister," Judith, in A Room of One's Own, it seemed to be very nearly accurate. Judith was a woman who would have had the same creativity and ambition as her brother William but lacked the support of her family or the public. Where William Shakespeare had the freedom to spend years perfecting his craft, his theoretical sister was forced to run away from home rather than suffer an arranged marriage. Frustrated by her inability to find a creative outlet, she eventually killed herself (Woolf 81-84 ).
Although gruesome in its extravagant representation of the barriers that women faced, this image, as presented by Woolf, was believed to be true for a great length of time. After all, at that point, literary historians
- 1 knew that only men were allowed to act in a theatrical production during
the English Renaissance. Certainly, during Virginia Woolf's time,
everyone assumed that women were taught to be "chaste, obedient, and
silent" but were rarely taught to read or write and would never have been
involved in anything as potentially damaging to their reputations as writing
a play. The concept of a female playwright of any kind was
unfathomable, the possibility of a female author of any talent
incomprehensible. As Virginia Woolf stated,
Some of the most inspired words, some of the most
profound thoughts in literature, fall from her lips; in real life,
she could hardly read, could scarcely spell, and was the
property of her husband [ ...] [l]t would have been
impossible, completely and entirely, for any woman to have
written the plays of Shakespeare in the age of Shakespeare
[ ...] [A]ny woman born with a great gift in the sixteenth
century would certainly have gone crazed, shot herself, or
ended her days in some lonely cottage outside the village,
half witch, half wizard, feared and mocked at. (Woolf 75, 80,
85)
Luckily, the study of literature is far from stagnant. Over the last several decades, there has been considerable evidence unearthed that women were not only occasional actors during the Renaissance, several were also well known patrons of the arts and known to support the works
- 2 of their favored playwrights. Even more important, it has been discovered that women authored a number of works that were well known during the
Renaissance and buried thereafter. Among the authors were Elizabeth I,
Mary Sidney, Mary Wroth, Elizabeth Brackley, Jane Cavendish, and
Elizabeth Cary. Granted, as S. P. Cerasano points out in the introduction to Renaissance Drama by Women, there is no evidence that any of the
plays written by these women were ever produced. It is believed that they were written in a form now referred to as "closet drama", meant to be enjoyed read aloud, usually in front of a small audience consisting of a private circle of friends. This closet drama was "a literary form which simultaneously liberated and policed their voices; they balanced their works precariously between their private and public roles, and between silence and self-expression" (3). Of these authors, perhaps the one that did the least well at balancing her life was Elizabeth Cary. She is the first known English female playwright to write an original work, rather than a translation. The Tragedy of Mariam was also the first tragedy, and the first published fictional work, in English by a female.
The Author
Elizabeth Cary was born Elizabeth Tanfield in either 1585 or 1586 in Oxfordshire at the Priory of Burford. She was the only child of Sir
Lawrence, a lawyer, and Lady Elizabeth (Symondes) Tanfield. Little is
- 3 known about her early life. Most anecdotal evidence of her life is gleaned
1 from the pages of The Lady Falkland: Her Life , a rather detailed biography that was written by one of her daughters. Although there is no conclusive evidence as to the identity of this author, most scholars believe it to be Anne Cary, later the Dame Clementia Cary, Mother Foundress of the Our Lady of Good Hope English Benedictine house in Paris (Holloway
15)2.
As evidenced by the comments in The Lady Falkland: Her Life,
Elizabeth appears to have had a rather strict upbringing, especially as regards her interactions with her mother, and seemed to immerse herself in her studies. Her abilities as a linguist were phenomenal; she taught herself French, Hebrew, Spanish, Latin and Transylvanian in order that she might read, as well as translate, works in those languages. Her mother attempted to contain her voracious appetite for learning by forbidding her the use of candles in her room at night. Rather than bend to the will of her mother, she bribed the servants to bring her candles at
"half a crown apiece" (Life 188) so that she might continue to study. In fact, her desire for learning was such that she was in debt to the servants
"a hundred pound afore she was twelve year old, which with two hundred more for the like bargains and promises she paid on her wedding day"
(Life 188).
She appears to have been a rather precocious child with a good sense of logical reasoning, as shown by the following incident described in
- 4 The Life:
Being once present when she was ten year old, when a
poor old woman was brought before her father for a witch,
and, being accused for having bewitched two or 3 to death
[ ...] her father asked the woman what she said for herself?
She falling down before him trembling and weeping
confessed all to be true [ ...] One of her accusers [said] "Did
you not send your familiar [ ...] and he presently came
home sick and languished away?" She, quaking, begging
pardon acknowledged all, and the same of each particular [ .
. .] but the child [Elizabeth], seeing the poor woman in so
terrible a fear, and in so simple a manner confess all,
thought fear had made her idle, so she whispered her father
and desired him to ask her whether she had bewitched to
death Mr John Symondes of such a place (her uncle that
was one of the standers-by). He did so, to which she said
yes, just as she had done to the rest [ ...] then [all the
company laughing] he asked her what she ailed to say so?
told her the man was alive and stood there [ ...] Then he
examined her what she meant to confess all this, if it were
false? She answered they had threatened her if she would
not confess, and said, if she would, she should have mercy
showed her - which she said with such simplicity that (the
- 5 witness brought against her being of little force, and her
own confession appearing now to be of less) she was easily
believed innocent, and [ac]quitted. (186-7)
Although this anecdote was included in The Life specifically to enforce the image of Elizabeth Cary as an intelligent child, there is more conveyed about her personality in this one incident than mere intellect.
Despite the fact that she was only a child, Elizabeth may have recognized the fact that none of the men at her father's judicial proceeding would defend this frightened female. The fact that Elizabeth found a way to help the accused and undertook to do so spotlights her compassion for a woman in crisis who is unable to articulate her own defense, a theme that is important to The Tragedy of Mariam. In addition, this example illuminates the fact that her father was interested in her opinions and quite likely, despite her mother's disapproval, gave his support to her educational efforts in the limited ways that the existing social structure allowed. Even at such a young age, Elizabeth appears to have understood that, although her father might listen to her suggestions, she must be as circumspect as possible. Therefore, it is important to note that her intervention in this matter was whispered to her father in a social setting. As Karen Raber points out:
Cary's inaudible transmission, channeled privately between
father and daughter, girl and judge, is compatible with
cultural proscriptions of women's speech. Yet here,
- 6 domestic counsel, instead of being erased or contained,
intervenes to salvage the tyranny potential in this legal
judgment. It is successful precisely because it creates a
private space within the public world of the court. If Cary's
words were overheard, her trick would not work. She has
access to her father's ear because she is his daughter; and
because she is not a public figure, she can intrude her voice
in this minimal, intimate, but powerful fashion to change the
outcome of public decision making. (322)
This scene is an excellent example of how women were walking a tightrope of propriety wherein they were allowed to have opinions, and even occasionally express them, as long as they did not call attention to themselves in public while doing so. As Tina Krontiris points out, a woman in the aristocracy:
Must assess what men might do or say and must pre-empt
their responses if they are likely to place her in a
disadvantageous position. But she must not assume a
merely defensive stance either. She must learn to take up
opportunities for self-display without giving the impression
that she wants to attract attention. (15)
Elizabeth Cary appears to have learned this rather difficult lesson very early.
Although this incident is the most detailed example presented in
- 7 ------
The Life regarding Elizabeth's logical abilities as well as her forwardness in a male dominated society, it is difficult to believe that it was the only such occurrence. In fact, when she was twelve years old, her father gave her Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion to read. Rather than simply accepting Calvin's tenets, she "made so many objections, and found in him so many contradictions" (Life 188) that her father forbore to discuss it further with her. That she argued her own opinion eloquently enough, at the age of twelve, to confound her father is a testament to both her reasoning ability and her ability to debate an issue.
Unfortunately, as was the case with nearly all women of Elizabeth
Cary's class standing at that time, her parents chose a spouse for her, Sir
Henry Cary, who was Master of the Jewel House to Queen Elizabeth at the time of their betrothal. Although The Life states that she was married at the age of fifteen (188), which would be in either 1600 or 1601, Burke's
Peerage gives the date of the marriage contract as June 27, 1602, with the marriage following in the fall of that year (921 ); her probable age at that time being seventeen. The exact date notwithstanding, what is generally agreed on is that this was a marriage that allowed the Tanfields to boast of a tie to nobility, including a distant blood tie to the late Queen
Anne Boleyn (Burke's Peerage 921 ), and gave the Cary's access to the dowry of an heiress. Although the Tanfield's could not have known the outcome of this affiliation, it could, in retrospect, most assuredly be considered a sound political move, as Henry Cary was eventually
- 8 "elevated to the peerage of Scotland, 10 Nov. 1620, as Viscount Falkland and Lord Carye" (Burke's Peerage 921 ). They had certainly chosen a husband for their daughter who was able to realize his ambitions and secure a place within the nobility. It was most assuredly no love match as
"he had no acquaintance with her (she scarce ever having spoke to him) and she was nothing handsome" (Life 188).
There is further evidence that this was the case as, during the first year of their marriage, Sir Henry Cary stayed at court while Elizabeth was allowed to stay with her own family - hardly the epitome of romantic love.
This separation was followed closely by a much longer one as Henry was sent to fight in the Protestant wars, captured by the Spanish, and forced to live in captivity for several years while his father raised the ransom necessary to gain his freedom. Thus, it was no surprise that the marriage remained childless for the first seven years. In fact, it was quite probably not consummated until after Henry returned from Spain.
Although this would seem the ideal situation for a young woman who thrived on the opportunity to learn and to read, that was not the case.
In 1603, her mother-in-law, Dame Katherine, demanded that Elizabeth move to the Cary family estate. It is unclear what Elizabeth did to anger her mother-in-law after she arrived other than a comment in The Life that
"her mother-in-law[ ...] loved much to be humored (and found Elizabeth) not to apply herself to it" (189). Apparently, Dame Katherine believed that locking her daughter-in-law in her room would punish her for this
- 9 intransigence only to find that Elizabeth was perfectly happy to be locked away with her books. Dame Katherine retaliated by removing her books; it is believed that it was at this point that Elizabeth began to write as a creative outlet for her suppressed intellect.
She is known to have written at least one play prior to The Tragedy of Mariam that did not survive. The primary evidence for this is the mention in her dedication of Mariam that:
He shone on Sicily, you destined be
T'illumine the now obscured Palestine
My first was dedicated to Apollo,
My second to Diana now shall follow.
(Cary 66)
It is generally agreed that Elizabeth Cary is referring to a first play that she dedicated to her spouse, Henry Cary, and is now dedicating this piece to her "worthy sister, Mistress Elizabeth Cary" (Cary 66). What is still open to a great deal of conjecture, however, is the exact dating of this play set in "obscured Palestine", which will be discussed later. This initial play is also referred to in the dedication to The Muses Sacrifice by John
Davies where he praises Cary by saying:
Thou mak'st Melpomen proud, and my Heart great
of such a Pupill, who, in Buskin fine,
With Feete of State, dost make the Muse to mete
the Scenes of Syracuse and Palestine.
- 10 (Davies, Muses Sacrifice 5)
He mentions both Syracuse and Palestine, which substantiates the claim that both plays were quite likely circulating within Elizabeth Cary's social circle at the time that he published The Muses Sacrifice in 1612.
Exact dates are less pertinent to the overall picture of Elizabeth
Cary's life than anecdotal evidence offered in her biography which
illustrates how important reading and writing were to her in comparison to
the issues that should ordinarily have filled the world of a noble lady. For
instance, regarding her careful dressing in the proper manner, her
daughter relates the following:
Her women were fain to walk round the room after her
(which was her custom) while she was seriously thinking
on some other business, and pin on her things and braid
her hair; and while she writ or read, curl her hair and
dress her head. (Life 194)
Even later in life, when she was dying of consumption, she spent her time
writing, leaving a partial translation of the works of Fran9ois-Louis Blasius,
a Benedictine abbot and spiritual writer at her death.
In general, her life seemed to revolve around her husband, her
reading, her writing, her children, and her religion. It was only when those
areas were at cross-purposes that Elizabeth Cary appears to have had
problems walking the tight rope of propriety, for she instructed her
daughters to behave in the same way that she lived, "wheresoever
- 11 conscience and reason would permit her, she should prefer the will of
another to her own" (Life 193).
Unfortunately, religion appears to be the one area where her conscience would not permit her to follow the will of her husband, her family, or her king. In her adult life, she was a recusant Catholic in an
England that was unbendingly Protestant, married to a man who enforced
Protestant laws. It must have been extremely difficult to hide her beliefs in a world that propelled her into situations where her convictions were in marked contrast with the policies that her husband enforced. This was especially the case in Ireland when Henry Cary was sent there as the Lord
Deputy. When "Sir Henry Cary, Knight, Lord Viscount Falkland, late comptroller of his privie counsel! in England, and now Lord Deputie of
Ireland, landed at Hoathe late in the evening" of "Friday, the sixth of
September, 1622" he was sworn in at Christ Church (McCarthy 102). This alone would not have been at all discomfiting for Elizabeth Cary as Christ
Church was often used for such occasions. However, the content of the sermon must have been difficult for her to calmly and blithely ignore as it is said to have:
excited much alarm among the Roman Catholics, as
Dr. Usher, having selected the text, 'He beareth not the
sword in vain,' Romans, xiii., delivered a discourse
popularly interpreted as intended to excite a religious
persecution. (McCarthy 103)
- 12 She was also present in Ireland with her husband on January 21,
1623, when a proclamation was issued "requiring the popish clergy,
regular and secular, to depart the kingdom in 40 days, and forbidding all
converse with them after that time" (Irish). It is perhaps in part due to the
stress of living in this situation, without being able to discuss her religious
beliefs with her husband, who was not only a Protestant but obliged to
enforce Protestant laws, that she left Henry in Ireland and returned to
England with her children.
It was shortly after this, in 1626, that Elizabeth Cary rather publicly
converted to Catholicism. This had not been her intention, however.
Apparently, she was living at court at the time and a friend of hers, Lady
Denbigh, presented her secret to the King as a fait accompli. When Henry
Cary was informed, he took their children and left her penniless. Elizabeth
Cary wrote several letters to the King requesting financial intervention so
that she would not be reduced to abject poverty. Although Henry Cary
was later forced by the King to provide for her, it was never more than
what was necessary for a bare existence. She retreated to her religion
and her writing. She was later reconciled with her children, several of whom followed religious vocations including the aforementioned Anne.
In 1631, Queen Henrietta Maria managed to get Elizabeth and
Henry Cary to agree to a lukewarm reconciliation (Cerasano, Renaissance
Drama 43). Unfortunately, in 1633, Henry suffered from gangrene after the amputation of a leg. Elizabeth rushed to his side and tended him in
- 13 his final days, (Life 219-21 ); The Life suggests that he converted to
Catholicism on his deathbed (221 ). However, no supporting documentation has been found. This is, quite probably, either the wishful thinking of a daughter who was also a Catholic nun or an attempt to portray Elizabeth as saintly in her ability to convert even the most recalcitrant of Protestants. There are many times throughout The Life when Elizabeth Cary is portrayed as being a nearly revered religious person, which is why many refer to the work as a hagiography.
Elizabeth Cary died in 1639 of tuberculosis. She had withdrawn from the Court, primarily due to her strict adherence to Catholicism, although she did continue to receive visitors. She spent her final years in near poverty. Although she wrote several translations during this time, there is no evidence that she wrote any further original pieces. Only two original works survive from a lifetime of her literary endeavors: The
Tragedy of Mariam and Edward II, which was, for years, attributed to her husband rather than herself. There are also several translations still extant that have been attributed to her, although not nearly the volume that is alluded to in The Life. Certainly, it is possible that additional works will be unearthed; however, the existing works are quite probably the extent of the literature we will discover by the first known English female author of an original tragedy.
- 14 The History of Mariam
With male-authored Renaissance plays, it is often a matter of extensive sleuthing in order to determine approximately when they may have been written. However, there are usually several markers in time to help the scholar attempting to date a work. There is existing information as to when a play was performed, when it was submitted to the Stationers'
Register for authorship rights, even specific dates as to when an historical occurrence became common knowledge and might have been written about. Unfortunately, this is far from the case where the author was writing only for private circulation as some men and nearly all women did.
These works were "closet dramas" in every sense of the word. Since they were almost exclusively written for personal enjoyment among friends rather than public consumption, there was no need to register them or publish them, therefore rarely allowing for the dating of them with any accuracy. It is sometimes possible to arrive at a conjectured timeframe, based on the life span of the author. However, this is far from an exact science.
Luckily, the issue of dating is not quite as haphazard in the case of
The Tragedy of Mariam as it is with many works by females. Copies of the play were in fact printed in folio in 1613 by "Thomas Creede, for
Richard Hawkins and are to be solde at his shoppe in Chancery Lane"
(Cary 62). Obviously, the play "written by that learned, vertuous, and truly
- 15 noble Ladie" (Cary 62) had to have been completed prior to 1613.
However, it seems highly probable that it was, in fact, already circulating among her friends in 1612 as that is the date attributed to the publication of The Muses Sacrifice whose dedication refers to Elizabeth Cary's play.
In fact, it was within this dedication that John Davies nearly begged
Elizabeth Cary to publish her work. The "Epistle Dedicatorie" offers extensive praise of the work itself, as well as the author, followed by an exhortation:
Such Grace you haue, by Vertue, and by Fate,
as makes you Three, the Glory of these Times;
The Mvses Darlings, and their Chaires of STATE;
Shapers, and Soules of all Soule-charming Rimes!
[... ]
CARY (of whom Minerua stands in feare
lest she, from her, should get ARTS Regencie)
Of ART so moues the great-all-mouing Spheare,
that eu'ry Orbe of Science moues therby.
[... ]
Art, Language; yea; abstruse and holy Tongues
Thy Wit and Grace acquir'd thy Fame to raise;
And still to fill thine owne, and others Songs;
thine, with the Parts, and others, with thy praise.
Such neruy Limbes of Art, and Straines of Wit
- 16 Times past ne'er knew the weaker Sexe to haue;
And Times to come, will hardly credit it,
if thus thou giue thy Workes both Birth and Graue
(Davies, Muses Sacrifice 4-5).
It is virtually impossible to argue that John Davies had not seen her work, else how could he have referred to it with any accuracy. It is also quite likely that Elizabeth Cary rose to his bait and published the following year, not wishing her literary endeavor to succumb to the grave so quickly.
Although John Davies handily provides us with what appears to be a fairly accurate end date of possible authorship, it is the starting point of the date range for The Tragedy of Mariam's existence that is open to a great deal more conjecture. Most scholars agree that the play had to be written after her marriage to Henry Cary in 1602. This was the year that
Thomas Lodge's translation of The Works of Josephus became available.
Since it has been assumed that Lodge's translation is the source for the play, scholars have almost universally embraced that as the date, asserting that it could not have been written prior to that time. It is possible that Cary could have read Josephus in the original Greek and therefore written prior to 1602. However, although she was purported to have been fluent in several languages, Greek is not generally included in that list. It is far more likely that it was Lodge's translation that she read, as it was popular at the time. In addition, it is quite probable that she had at least met Thomas Lodge, as she was known to travel in literary circles.
- 17 Thomas Lodge was a poet, playwright, and author of romances in verse.
He was the son of Sir Thomas Lodge, Lord Mayor of London. He
became a convert to Roman Catholicism and he settled in London as a
physician. His second wife, Jane Aldred, a widow, was a Roman Catholic
and is supposed to have converted him. At one period, about 1616, he
was obliged to leave England and live in Holland to avoid punishment as a
recusant ("Lodge"). Since they had both religion and literature in common,
it seems probable that they would have met. It is interesting to consider
the possibility that Thomas Lodge and Elizabeth Cary might have been
acquaintances. This possibility not withstanding, it is nearly indisputable
that it is through Lodge's translation that Cary read Josephus.
In addition, the dedication that was printed with the play, as
previously discussed, makes mention of a first play that was dedicated to
her husband. Since they were not truly acquainted prior to their marriage,
it is illogical to believe that she would have dedicated a play to him prior to
the wedding in 1602. Therefore, The Tragedy of Mariam, which is the
second play, needs must be written after that.
That does however leave the inquisitive scholar with a ten-year
range from the marriage in 1602 until the dedication in 1612. There is one further piece of evidence that may either narrow the time frame or simply
make the argument more confusing - the true identity of the Mistress
Elizabeth Cary that is named in the dedication.
To Diana's Earlh/y Deputy, and My Worlhy Sister,
- 18 ------
Mistress Elizabeth Cary
When cheerful Phoebus his full course hath run,
His sister's fair brother is to me the sun,
And you his sister as my moon appear.
[... ]
He like to Sol, clear-sighted, constant, free,
You Luna-like, unspotted, chaste, divine:
He shone on Sicily, you destin'd be
T'illumine the now obscured Palestine.
My first was consecrated to Apollo,
My second to Diana now shall follow.
(Cary 66)
There are two possibilities for this woman's identity: Henry Cary's sister Elizabeth or the wife of his brother Philip, Elizabeth Bland (Weller and Ferguson 54, 151 ). Unfortunately, the dedicatory comparison to
Diana, a virgin goddess, and the reference to someone who is "unspotted, chaste" certainly suggests a maiden, which neither of these women was at the time the play is believed to have been written. Henry's sister married
Sir John Savile in 1586 well before Lodge's translation was in circulation.
In comparison, Elizabeth Bland did not marry Philip Cary until 1609, well after he was knighted in 1605. Scholars as disparate as A.C. Dunstan and W.W. Greg, in their 1914 edition of The Tragedy of Mariam, and
Elizabeth Beilin, in Redeeming Eve, have insisted that referring to
- 19 Elizabeth Bland as "mistris" would be deemed inappropriate as she would have been considered "Lady" Elizabeth after her marriage and would not have been an "Elizabeth Cary" prior to her marriage. This is not true, however, as mistress and lady were both used as honorary titles during the Renaissance and could, in fact, be interchangeable. The Oxford
English Dictionary states that "Lady" is used, "As an honorific title. a. A prefix forming part of the customary designation of a woman of rank"
(810). However, as early as 1588, Shakespeare was using Lady as "a courteous synonym for 'woman', without reference to the status of the person spoken of' (OED 809). In comparison, "mistriss" was used:
As a title of courtesy. Prefixed,
a. to the surname (in early use also to the Christian
name) of a married woman.
1563-1583 FOXE A. & M. II. 2073/2 One maistresse
Anne Lacie widowe in Notinghamshiere.
b. to the Christian name or surname of an unmarried
woman or girl c.1535 ELIZ. SHELLEY in Miss Wood
Lett. Roy. & lllustr. Ladies (1846) II. 213 Your letter,
by the which I do perceive your pleasure is to know
how mistress Bridget your daughter doth.
(OED 900-1)
The interchangeability of the two words is especially obvious in a quote from Shakespeare's Love's Labour Lost, "Studies my Ladie? Mistresse,
- 20 looke on me" (5.2.84 7). If "mistress" could in fact refer to either a maid or
a married woman without concern for social standing, then either
Elizabeth Bland, who married into the family in 1609, or Henry's sister
Elizabeth, who married out of the family in 1586, could potentially be the
"mistris" mentioned in the dedication. The only other possibility is that the
author was actually referring to another of Henry's sisters; perhaps "his
sister Jane, who did not marry until 1627, is also a possibility, though this
identification requires the supplementary hypothesis that the printer
misapplied the name 'Elizabeth' to the heading of the sonnet" (Weller and
Ferguson 151 ).
Regardless of whom they believe the dedication refers to, most modern scholars tend to date the play within the 1603-1605 range, not only prior to Elizabeth having children, but also prior to her living with her husband. However, it seems that the tone of the play is far more cynical in its attitude toward matrimony than a newly married woman, who has yet to live with her husband, would have been likely to exhibit. Interestingly, there was a second edition of Thomas Lodge's translation released in 1609, which could well have been the influence for this work rather than the first printing. If that were the case, then she might have written The Tragedy of
Mariam in 1609 during her confinement, as her first child Catherine was born late in 1609 (Weller and Ferguson 179). This would mean that her first play would have been written while Henry was in captivity, before she ever lived with him, and The Tragedy of Mariam would have been written
- 21 shortly after she began to truly experience married life. This would also explain with less difficulty why John Davies would be referring to this work in a 1612 dedication, as it would be only a few years old, rather than nearly ten years old. After all, the play would more likely be in circulation within
Elizabeth Cary's social circle shortly after it was written instead of a decade later. Therefore, I tend toward a later dating for the initial authorship with
Elizabeth Bland Cary, newly married into the family, (perhaps still considered "unspotted" and "chaste" as a new bride) being the Diana referred to here, despite the labeling of another "Lady" Elizabeth as
"Mistress" instead.
The Argument
Whether it was because she accepted the fact that not all of her
possible readers would be as well versed in ancient Jewish history as she
herself was or simply to be certain that they knew at which point in the
story of "Herod the Great" and his wife Mariam her work took place, Lady
Elizabeth Cary authored an argument, or play synopsis, to introduce the
subject to her readers and acquaint them with the events that led up to the
situation depicted therein. As the synopsis unfolds, it becomes obvious
that this particular story is depicted by Flavius Josephus in both his
Antiquities of the Jews and The War of the Jews. There are variants
between the two sources so that it becomes apparent that Cary took for
- 22 her main source Book 15 of the Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93 AD).
Josephus' texts were quite likely popular "being one of the first works published after the advent of the printing press. The Renaissance also experienced a rising interest in Jewish studies" ("Tragedy of Mariam" 1).
Therefore, it seems likely that most people reading Elizabeth Cary's work would have had a basic knowledge of the circumstances, even if they were less aware of the details of the story.
In comparison, today's reader will benefit, if not require, the introduction offered from the context set forth by Cary's introduction:
Herod, the son of Antipater (an ldumean), having
crept by the favour of the Romans, into the Jewish
monarchy, married Mariam, the [grand-daughter] of
Hircanus, the rightful king and priest, and for her (besides
her high blood, being of singular beauty) he repudiated
Doris, his former wife, by whom he had children.
This Mariam had a brother called Aristobulus, and
next him and Hircanus, his grandfather, Herod in his wife's
right had the best title. Therefore to remove them, he
charged the [second] with treason: and put him to death; and
drowned the [first] under colour of sport. Alexandra,
daughter to the one, and mother to the other, accused him
for their deaths before Anthony.
So when he was forced to go answer this accusation
- 23 at Rome, he left the custody of his wife to Josephus, his uncle, that had married his sister Salome, and out of violent affection (unwilling that any should enjoy her after him) he gave strict and private commandment, that if he were slain, she should be put to death. But he returned with much honour, yet found his wife extremely discontented, to whom
Josephus had (meaning it for the best, to prove Herod loved her) revealed his charge.
So by Salome's accusation he put Josephus to death, but was reconciled to Mariam, who still bare the death of her friends exceedingly hardly.
In this meantime Herod was again necessarily to revisit Rome, for Caesar, having overthrown Anthony, his great friend, was likely to make an alteration of his fortune.
In his absence, news came to Jerusalem that Caesar had put him to death; their willingness it should be so, together with the likelihood, gave this rumour so good credit, as Sohemus, that had succeeded Josephus' charge, succeeded him likewise in revealing it. So at Herod's return, which was speedy and unexpected, he found Mariam so far from joy, that she showed apparent signs of sorrow.
He still desiring to win her to a better humour, she, being very unable to conceal her passion, fell to upbraiding
- 24 him with her brother's death. As they were thus debating,
came in a fellow with a cup of wine, who, hired by Salome,
said first, it was a love potion, which Mariam desired to
deliver to the king: but afterwards he affirmed that it was a
poison, and that Sohemus had told her somewhat, which
procured the vehement hate in her.
The king hearing this, more moved with jealousy of
Sohemus, than with this intent of poison, sent her away, and
presently after by the instigation of Salome, she was
beheaded. Which rashness was afterward punished in him,
with an intolerable and almost frantic passion for her death.
(Cary 67-8)
Certainly, the concept of a synopsis or argument necessitates that
all of the pertinent action is explained. However, in the case of The
Tragedy of Mariam, the pertinent action is only a thin surface layer. When
it is removed, there is a great deal more revealed roiling beneath the
surface. Although the Argument appears to be simply a means to give the
reader the context of the story, this is not necessarily the case. With the
use of her Argument, Cary is able to offer a subliminal suggestion to the audience that Mariam is the person with whom they are meant to
sympathize. She unequivocally creates the impression that King Herod is an unforgiving tyrant intent on securing his power base and only interested
in maintaining his own happiness at the expense of all others. She
- 25 presents Salome as a vicious vindictive woman with no moral structure who is akin to her brother in her belief that no one has the right to stand in the way of her personal goals. Although both Salome's and Herod's faults are mentioned quite openly, the only things said about Mariam are that she took the death of her family very badly and that she seemed saddened rather than pleased to see Herod return. By ignoring those
"faults" of Mariam's that the Chorus later dwells on, such as her inability to follow societal precepts regarding the proper behavior of a woman,
Elizabeth Cary manages to create an atmosphere where these actions no longer seem to be inappropriate. The Argument creates an atmosphere where Herod is at fault for being jealous and power-hungry and Salome is at fault for orchestrating Mariam's murder. However, the Argument leaves
Mariam free from blame. The reader begins this piece already predisposed toward Mariam.
Also, by offering the gist of the action prior to engaging the audience's attention within the play, the author is able to free the audience from concentrating on the external information, so that they will hopefully pay closer attention to the elements that are less obvious. In this way, without realizing it, readers are more likely to be attuned to the underlying messages that Elizabeth Cary has included. Similar to a well-written
Shakespeare play, what is initially apparent is only the minutest part of all that is there. When one considers the specific differences that Cary chose to make compared to Josephus, the role that the chorus fills in the context
- 26 of the play, the importance and significance of each of the male and
female characters, and the social commentary and religious overtones
that are imbedded in the text, it becomes obvious that this was most
certainly not intended as simply a light piece of entertainment within
Elizabeth Cary's social circle but a commentary on the situations that
women were forced to endure and the society that needed to change in
order to offer them more.
Josephus versus Cary
The works of Flavius Josephus have a large degree of historical
importance in their own right. His works are "the principle source for the
history of Jews from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 175-163) to the fall of Masada in A.O. 73" (Whiston 9). They are also one of the few
surviving documents that provide a non-Biblical version of events during that time. It is certainly easy to understand why Elizabeth Cary would be
intrigued by such a work so that she not only read it, but also chose to write a play based on an event depicted within Josephus. Why she chose the story of Herod and Mariam out of the wealth of interesting moments in history that Josephus discussed is impossible to ascertain, although there are certainly a great many possibilities. What is certain is that she wrote an original work based on the general story line with her own creative contributions, not simply a retelling of Josephus in dramatic form.
- 27 The most obvious difference between Josephus and Cary is readily
apparent in the flow of the play. While Josephus related historical events
that took place over a number of years in several locales, Elizabeth Cary
condensed the story line considerably. In keeping with the Renaissance
ideal of dramatic form, The Tragedy of Mariam is written in strict
adherence to maintaining the Three Unities: unity of time, unity of place,
and unity of action. Although Rome is spoken of, all of the action takes
place within Herod's palace in Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside
in a seamless time frame. Josephus suggests that Herod's "suspicions
increased, and lasted a whole year after Herod returned from Caesar"
(Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Whiston 15.7.1) prior to Mariam's arrest and
execution. The Tragedy of Mariam presents the action within the same
day. The same condensation of time is true of the release of the sons of
Baba and Salome's divorce decree; Josephus puts them well after the death of Mariam, Cary puts them at the same time as the execution.
Cary's use of the three unities as a storytelling convention does
make for a clearer immediate understanding of all of the pertinent events as they relate to the theme of The Tragedy of Mariam. Rather than trying to show several years of events that are marginally connected in history,
Elizabeth Cary created a tapestry of these events in order to display a single theme regarding the power that men held in society and how that power helped determine women's actions, creating a tapestry of expectations, artifice, and enslavement that were woven into the fabric of
- 28 3 love and marriage • This thematic content is solely Elizabeth Cary's contribution to the story; there is no evidence that Josephus infused his original depiction of the events with any intentional subtext.
In addition to changing the time frame involved and including a subtext lacking in Josephus' account, Elizabeth Cary makes one other substantial alteration to her source material. She creates, deletes, and metamorphosises characters as befits her literary needs and meshes the new characters seamlessly with the historical figures as well as embellishing on the kernels of emotional truth that Josephus offers in order to create believable people from nearly mythical figures. In doing so, she brings a story of betrayal and deception to life in a way that
Josephus' rather dry accounting does not achieve.
Of the characters portrayed, Herod is, without a doubt, the most famous. In modern times, he is referred to as Herod the Great in order to differentiate him from his descendants, two of whom were also King
Herod. However, it does not appear that this particular appellation was attributed to him during his lifetime. He was in fact called the "evil genius of the Judean nation" (Josephus, History, trans. Whiston vol. 2 p.77) who is best known by most Christians as the King who welcomed the Magi to
Jerusalem and then ordered the Slaughter of Innocents as described by
Matthew in the New Testament:
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the
days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from
- 29 the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born
King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In
Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, [ .
. .] Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. [ ...] being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: [ ...] Then
Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men,
- 30 was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the
children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts
thereof, from two years old and under, according to the
time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
(Matthew 2, 1-16).
Although Josephus does not discuss this particular incident, there are certainly adequate examples of Herod's predilection for destroying anything that frightened, threatened, or angered him. As discussed in
Elizabeth Cary's "Argument", and substantiated by Josephus' account,
Herod had his grandfather-in-law, Hyrcanus 11, and his brother-in-law,
Aristobulus, murdered because they were well liked and legally closer to the throne than he was. What is not discussed is that Herod's own grandfather, Antipater, had given refuge to Hyrcanus 11, which is what actually secured the "Herod" family their initial power in Palestine ("Herod"
1). Two generations later, Herod felt it more advantageous to have him murdered. Later in life, he also had three of his own children murdered when he felt they were threatening his life, including two of his sons by
Mariam. He would hardly be an exemplary choice as a central figure for a typical romantic play revolving around the subject of love and marriage.
However, he is ideal for the sub-textual content of The Tragedy of Mariam and it was not even necessary to alter his personality or the general facts in order for Elizabeth Cary to fit him to her motif.
There are, however, several differences between the Mariamme
- 31 portrayed in Josephus and the Mariam depicted in Elizabeth Cary's play.
In the translation of Josephus, Mariamme's character is encapsulated in the following paragraph:
Thus died Mariamme, having beene a woman that
excelled both in continence and courage: notwithstanding
that she defaulted somewhat in affabilitie and impatience
of nature: for the rest of her parts, she was of an
admirable and pleasing beautie, and of such a cariage in
those companies wherein she was intertained, that it was
impossible to expresse the same, in that she surpassed
all those of her time; which was the principal! cause that
she lived not graciously and contentedly with the king.
For being entertained by him, who intirely loved her, and
from whom she received nothing that might discontent
her, she presumed upon a great and intemperate libertie
in her discourse. She digested also the losse of her
friends verie hardly, according as in open termes she
made it known unto the king: whereby also it came to
passe, that both Herodes mother, and sister, and
himselfe likewise grew at ods with her, and in especial!
her husband, from whom onely she expected no hard
measure. (Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Lodge 15.7.6)
In other words, Mariamme was a beautiful woman and a great
- 32 conversationalist but she was too forward with her opinions and far too convinced that Herod's love would keep her impervious from harm.
Although it must be admitted that the translator of Josephus might be partly responsible for this bitter and unkind portrayal of Mariamme, it is equally likely that Josephus himself held this opinion. Nowhere in
Josephus is there any mention of the possibility that Mariamme might truly love, or even care for, her husband. In fact, Lodge's translation of
Josephus suggests that Mariamme was angered because she and her mother:
were not shut uppe in that Castle for their securities sake,
but as it were in a prison; so that in as much as they
[Mariamme and her mother] neither might make use of
other mens, nor enjoy their owne goods [ ...] Mariamme
also supposed that her husband did but dissemble his
love, rather for his owne profit and commoditie, th[a]n for
any intire affection he bare towards her. (Josephus,
Antiquities, trans. Lodge 15.7.1)
Thereby, he suggests that Mariamme is not only "a shrewish, whiny wife who plots against her husband" ("Two Mariams") but also an adulteress who is bitter that her freedom has been curtailed. Hardly a flattering portrait.
In marked contrast, the Mariam that Elizabeth Cary presents to us is one who is torn between loving her husband and hating him for killing
- 33 her family; torn between rejoicing that his (supposed) death gives her freedom and sorrowing over the end of his life. In fact:
Josephus's Mariam is contentious, forward, and scheming,
using 'prettie presents and feminie flatteries' to elicit secret
information from Sohemus, Herod's servant. Cary gets rid of
such traits, which might make Mariam appear frivolously
insubordinate. (Krontiris 84)
She is definitely an elitist in her attitude toward Salome, her sister-in-law.
However, the fact that Salome was an ldumean by birth, rather than a
"true" Jew, would have contributed to this attitude, which may well have been common during that time. Their animosity is also well documented in Josephus. However, this negative attribute actually makes Miriam seem more realistic in her feelings and attitudes. She loves, hates, fears, condemns, and condones in a very human way, although not always a stereotypically feminine one. Above all, she is an innocent woman who is sentenced to an unjust death simply because she is outspoken and honest.
Of the other characters portrayed in The Tragedy of Mariam,
Salome (Herod's sister), Alexandra (Mariam's mother), Doris (Herod's first wife), Anti pater (his son by Doris), and Constabarus (husband to Salome) are all represented in a way similar to their portrayal in Josephus' work.
Obviously, there are particular plot contrivances that are a creation of
Cary's fertile imagination. For instance, there is no historical evidence that
- 34 Mariam and Doris ever exchanged words. Elizabeth Cary also excises
Salome's mother from the action. However, both of these changes are
important to the integrity of the story that The Tragedy of Mariam is
presenting.
For instance, the confrontation between Mariam and Doris brings
into bold relief the difference in temperament between Mariam, who is
outspoken about her opinions but truly pure of heart, and Doris, who is
actively seeking vengeance. Although Mariam is bitter about Herod's
obvious involvement in her family's deaths, she does not actively seek
retribution. In fact, she is truly saddened when she believes him dead. In
contrast, Doris says of Mariam, who she only believes has wronged her,
that:
Oft have I begg'd for vengeance for this fact,
and with dejected knees, aspiring hands
Have pray'd the highest power to enact
The fall of her that on my trophy stands.
[... ]
I wish'd it should high-hearted Mariam kill.
(2.3.247-54)
Not only does Doris pray to the Heavens for vengeance against Mariam, who she blames for Herod casting her aside, she approaches Mariam
immediately prior to her impending death to gloat and to spew forth a final
curse.
- 35 Had I ten thousand tongues, and ev'ry tongue
lnflam'd with poison's power, and steep'd in gall:
My curses would not answer for my wrong,
Though I in cursing thee employ'd them all.
Hear thou that didst Mount (Gerizim) command,
To be a place whereon with cause to curse:
Stretch thy revenging arm, thrust forth thy hand,
And plague the mother much: the children worse.
Throw flaming fire upon the baseborn heads
That were begotten in unlawful beds.
But let them live till they have sense to know
What 'tis to be in miserable state:
Then be their nearest friends their overthrow,
Attended be they by suspicious hate.
And, Mariam, I do hope this boy of mine
Shall one day come to be the death of thine.
(4.8.609-28)
In doing so, she is presented as the embodiment of the vengeful, shrewish woman that Mariam has been accused of being. She stands in stark contrast to the impervious calm of Mariam and helps to cast Mariam in an even more positive light because of that comparison.
The absence of Salome's mother is also important, although not as
immediately apparent. In Josephus, both Salome and her mother are
- 36 listed as the instigators of Herod's suspicions against Mariam. Josephus writes:
Whilest thus he was sweltered and devoured in his
passions, and conceived sinister opinions against
Mariamme his wife; Salome his sister and his mother
having an inckling of his discontents, thought that they
had gotten a fit opportunitie to expresse and execute their
hatred towards Mariamme: for which cause they conferred
with Herode, and whetted his spleene and displeasure
with varietie of slanders, sufficient at one assault to
engender hatred, and kindle his jealousie against her.
(Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Lodge 15. 7 .3 ).
The fact that they are co-conspirators actually causes either of them to be less culpable individually. It also raises the question as to whether
Mariam had actually done something wrong to incite their hatred. All three of the women potentially share the guilt over their situation.
Elizabeth Cary's version, in contrast, deletes the third individual, leaving Mariam and Salome standing alone and accountable for their actions. It becomes obvious that Salome is the sole instigator in an effort to destroy Mariam. In addition, the dislike between the women that
Josephus glosses over is offered quite apparently here. Mariam very clearly states that, in her estimation, Salome is:
Thou parti-Jew, and parti-Edomite,
- 37 Thou mongrel; issu'd from rejected race,
Thy ancestors against the Heavens did fight,
And thou like them wilt heavenly birth disgrace.
(1.3.235-8)
After all, Mariam believes that Salome is a "Base woman ... You scarce have ever my superiors seen: / For Mariam's servants were as good as you,/ Before she came to be Judea's queen" (1.3.223-6). Their vilification of each other would lose some of its power if there were a third person involved. It was therefore necessary to delete Salome's mother from the equation. By doing so, these two women take a stronger position center stage.
Equally important to the underlying thematic content of the play is the appearance of three characters whose involvement is not even hinted at in this section of Josephus work. Pheroras is Herod's brother; this
Josephus agrees on:
Antipater ... married a wife, who was the daughter of one
of their (ldumeans) eminent men, and her name was
Cypros, by whom he had four sons, Phasael, and Herod,
who was afterwards made king, and Joseph, and
Pheroras; and a daughter, named Salome.
(Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Whiston 14.7.3).
However, in Josephus recounting of Mariam's end, Pheroras is not mentioned at all despite the fact that other episodes offered in Josephus
- 38 lead one to believe that he was living in the royal compound at the time.
The only logical reason for including him in this rendition is that
Elizabeth Cary had an ulterior motive for wishing to discuss Pheroras'
marriage and his choice of wife. That choice of wife is represented in The
Tragedy of Mariam as Graphina, described as, "And me your handmaid
have you made your mate, / Though all but you alone do count me base"
(2.1.59-60). Pheroras marries her as soon as it is believed that Herod is
dead and he would therefore be allowed to make his own decisions.
Graphina herself appears, in nature and name, to be completely a
creation of Elizabeth Cary. Pheroras wife is only mentioned once by
Josephus in the Antiquities, and, even then, she is not named:
neither did the king's brother Pheroras keep himself out of
trouble, but had a particular foundation for suspicion and
hatred; for he was overcome with the charms of his wife, to
such a degree of madness, that he despised the king's
daughter, to whom he had been betrothed, and wholly bent
his mind to the other, who had been but a servant.
(Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Whiston 16.7.3)
No background is offered as to when or why Pheroras married someone who had been "but a servant", other than the fact that it is mentioned in
Josephus prior to the chapter where "Herode being incensed by false accusations, putteth his wife Mariamme to death" (Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Lodge 15. 7 .1 ), and there is no further information regarding her
- 39 personality. It therefore stands to reason that Elizabeth Cary created the
character of Graphina from her own imagination based on this single
mention in the Antiquities.
The final character choice that shows a distinct difference between
The Antiquities of the Jews and The Tragedy of Mariam is Silleus. In
Elizabeth Cary's version of events, Silleus and Salome are lovers while
she is still married to Constabarus and it is because of her desire to be
with Silleus that she sends a bill of divorce to Constabarus. In
comparison, Josephus relates that Salome apparently had little known
cause for seeking this divorce, which she requested after Mariam had
already been killed. As Josephus tells it, "But some time afterward, when
Salome happened to quarrel with Constabarus, she sent him a bill of
divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him" (Josephus, Antiquities,
trans. Whiston 15. 7 .10 ). In no way does Josephus suggest that the
dissolution of their marriage was caused by her involvement with another
man.
In addition, Silleus was not apparently a part of Salome's life until well after the events depicted in The Tragedy of Mariam. Josephus places
Silleus' introduction to Salome as occurring after Mariam's children are grown and wed but before Herod has them killed (Joseohus, Antiquities, trans. Whiston 16.7.6). In fact, the true story of Sylleus and Salome is
interesting, in comparison to Cary's version, partly because of how much it differs:
- 40 There was one Obodas, king of Arabia, an inactive and
slothful man in his nature; but Sylleus managed most of his
affairs for him. He was a shrewd man, although he was
but young, and was handsome withal. This Sylleus, upon
some occasion coming to Herod, and supping with him,
saw Salome, and set his heart upon her; and
understanding that she was a widow, he discoursed with
her. Now because Salome was at this time less in favor
with her brother, she looked upon Sylleus with some
passion, and was very earnest to be married to him; and
on the days following there appeared many, and those very
great, indications of their agreement together. [ ...] After
this, Sylleus the Arabian being suspected, went away, but
came again in two or three months afterwards, as it were
on that very design, and spake to Herod about it, and
desired that Salome might be given him to wife; [ ...]
Accordingly, when Herod discoursed with his sister about
it, and asked her whether she were disposed to this match,
she immediately agreed to it; but when Sylleus was desired to come over to the Jewish religion, and then he should
marry her, and that it was impossible to do it on any other terms, he could not bear that proposal, and went his way [ .
. .] Then did Pheroras reproach Salome for her
- 41 incontinency, as did the women much more; and said that
Sylleus had debauched her.
(Josephus, Antiquities, trans. Whiston 16.7.6)
This is certainly not the same story that Elizabeth Cary uses in her drama.
Obviously, the fictional account is far less flattering for Salome and Silleus
since it suggests that they were willing adulterers prior to the dissolution of
her marriage rather than the unattached people that Josephus relates. In
addition, it casts Salome in a far more sinister light and places
Constabarus in a stronger role of victim. Furthermore, by setting these
events within the context of the play's time frame, Cary offers another
example to further her underlying themes regarding the inherent inequality
between the choices that men make and the options that women are
allowed.
Certainly, it cannot be argued that all of the elements of Elizabeth
Cary's The Tragedy of Mariam are present in her source material, The
Antiquities of the Jews. However, what is equally apparent is that, while
Josephus planted the seeds, it was Cary's mind that grew the intricate weaving of plot and subtext offered in her drama. She picked specific
characters from the wealth of possibilities presented within Josephus,
based on which ones could best further her story, then compressed a
number of years worth of palace intrigue into a single day. By doing so,
she created an event that depicts believable characters behaving in ways that are understandable within the context of their society. She also
- 42 conveys important information about the differences between the ways that Renaissance society expected women to act and the ways that their own personalities led them to act when not policed. The primary means of showcasing Renaissance societal beliefs regarding women was through the five choral interludes that end each act.
The Chorus
Elizabeth Cary was able to create a unique drama that was interesting and engaging for readers in her time as well as in ours. In many ways, it epitomizes what the literary artists of the Renaissance were actively pursuing. It melds new ways of thinking and new philosophies with ancient modes of expression. Although the Greek tragedies had begun to resurface during the English Renaissance, they were not the primary classical influence in the writing of tragedy. Instead, the works of
Lucius Annaeus Seneca were the most influential. This was due, in part, to the publication of a translation by Thomas Newton, in 1581, of all ten of the plays that were attributed to Seneca. Seneca was a tutor for, and later an advisor to, Nero. His plays, like Elizabeth Cary's, "were simply intended for recitation before a small private audience" (imagination). In fact, Seneca's plays are not exceptionally artistic in nature, "Eight of the tragedies which bear Seneca's name are undoubtedly genuine. In them the defects of his prose style are exaggerated; as specimens of pompous
- 43 rant they are probably unequalled, and the rhythm is unpleasant, owing to
the monotonous structure of the verses" (Bates 137). Despite the
apparent lack of literary ability, Seneca's use of the ghoulish and
grotesque would have appealed to the groundlings in a Renaissance
theater. In fact, Seneca was popular enough to have garnered the
attention of Queen Elizabeth, who personally translated a "123-line
fragment of Seneca's Hercules Oetaeus" (Ralston). It was the Senecan
model that introduced the concept of "five episodes separated by choral
interludes. This five-act form would become the standard during the
Renaissance" (imagination). It is commonly agreed that, "closet
dramatists of the seventeenth century, banned from using various forms of
Catholic medieval drama, turned to Roman and Greek models. Lucius
Annaeus Seneca[... ] provided a popular prototype for dramatists
experimenting in neo-classicism" ("Tragedy of Mariam"). It was also through emulating Seneca and Aristotle that the concept of the Three
Unities was promulgated in Renaissance England.
Obviously, when Elizabeth Cary chose to write The Tragedy of
Mariam using the Three Unities, she was following this ancient convention that had recently been reintroduced through Italian literature. This was
most certainly not simply a means of showcasing her understanding of the conventions or a way to emphasize her affinity with the classics. It is through the use of Unity of Time, Place, and Action that Cary is able to create an atmosphere where so many unimaginable things happen in one
- 44 day. By showcasing suspected adultery, real adultery, jealousy, betrayal, murder, suicide and divorce within the framework of a day in Judea, the reader is left with the most startling feeling that all of these things are not simply part of a single extraordinary day; rather, they are the norm within this society. By transposition, one can then assume that part of what the author was suggesting is that all of these things were also happening in her own society. Granted, any student of history knows that nothing as blatant as Salome's declaration of divorce was occurring regularly in
Renaissance England. Symbolically, however, Cary was certainly arguing that what she presented in The Tragedy of Mariam was teeming beneath the surface of English Society; "Whoever hath beheld with steadfast eye, /
The strange events of this one only day." (5.1.259-60) would certainly encounter it.
The Three Unities was not the only ancient convention Elizabeth
Cary chose to employ in creating her work. In fact, the second convention that Elizabeth Cary used, more obviously Senecan in influence, is even more blatantly utilized to exhibit the connection between Cary's altered version of Judea and her attempt to illuminate the reality of England's misogyny. Seneca utilized a Chorus interspersed throughout a play, almost exclusively at the end of a scene or an act, as a means of commenting on the preceding action and influencing how the audience was expected to feel regarding certain events. The Chorus was meant to be an integral part of the play but, generally, they commented from outside
- 45 the action of the play. They were often not actively involved in the course of the play's development. Their role was not to influence the plot; rather, they were meant to echo the occurrences within the play and the thoughts of the protagonists in such a way that they presented moral solutions/suggestions. Often, the Chorus used language that allowed it to seem that they were speaking from the perspective of the audience, thereby molding the audience's responses in the ways that the playwright desired.
An excellent example of this use of a Chorus exists in Seneca's
Oedipus. In this instance, the Chorus helps to develop an affinity between the audience and the main character of Oedipus through repeated exchanges between the Chorus and Oedipus. The Chorus helps the audience to sympathize and empathize with the situation that Oedipus finds himself in while still maintaining the accepted viewpoint of moral indignation that society would have dictated and necessitated:
Fortune the guide of humaine lyfe
doth al things change at will.
And stirring stil, with restless thoughts
our wretched minds doth fill.
In vayn men strive their stars to kepe
when hideous tempests rise:
And blustering windes of daungers deepe
sets death before their eyes.
- 46 Who saith he doth her fauning feele?
And chaungeth not his minde,
When fickle fight of Fortunes wheele
doth turn by course of kinde.
These grevous plagues from private house
to princely Thrones do flow,
And oft their minds with cares they souse
and thick upon them strow,
Whole heapes of griefe and dyre debate,
a woeful thing to see:
A princely lyfe to mysers state,
converted for to bee.
0 Oedipus thy fatal! fall,
the dreadful! mischiefs ryght,
Thy doleful! state, thy mysery,
thy thrise unhappy plight:
These things shall blase through all the world
(Seneca, Oedipus 4.3)
Mans lyfe with tumbling fatal course
of fortunes wheele is rowld,
To give it place, for it doth run all swiftly uncontrowld.
And Cares and teares are spent in vayn,
- 47 for it cannot be stayed,
Syth hie decree of heavenly powers
perforce must be obayed.
[... ]
Yea many a man hath come unto
his fatal! ende by feare.
Wherefore set pevish feare aside,
and worthy courage beare.
And thou that subject art to death.
Regard thy latter day,
Thinke no man blest before his ende.
(Seneca, Oedipus 5.1)
Clearly, the Chorus' speech is designed to remind the audience of the greatness that Oedipus once exuded in the same heartbeat as presenting the horrors that were hidden. He should be thanked for all the wonderful things that he did during his lifetime but this inadvertent wrong must overshadow it all. The Chorus shows sympathy for the man he was and what he has endured yet reminds the audience that a man's fate has already been ordained and cannot be escaped. The audience is meant to agree with the commentary offered. Although Oedipus is a character whose woes the audience can sympathize with, the Chorus creates an atmosphere where he is also at fault and is being justly punished. They shape the audience reaction so that Oedipus is perceived as an incredible
- 48 monarch who was brought low because of inadvertent incest. The fact that he was unaware of it does not diminish his blame in the eyes of the
Chorus; therefore, it did not diminish his blame in the eyes of the audience. Although the modern reader may not agree with that assessment, it is definitely the intended perception.
On the surface, Elizabeth Cary is using her Chorus in a similar manner. They are listed in the "Names of the Speakers" as "a company of
Jews" (65) in order to create a sense of a generic presence within the society of the play. Seneca listed his simply as "Chorus", achieving a similarly ambiguous nameless presence. It must be assumed then that symbolically Elizabeth Cary's Chorus was meant to act in a similar capacity to the Chorus in a Senecan tragedy; they most certainly comment on the action that is taking place around them without ever being actively involved. The Chorus' appearances are limited in number as Cary has them appearing only at the end of each act in order to clarify for the reader what they should be thinking regarding the activities that have just taken place. At the end of Act Two and Act Five, the Chorus' speeches appear to include generalized comments about all of the characters and how their individual actions created the circumstances portrayed. In contrast, the speeches at the end of Acts One, Three and Four revolve around Mariam and a detailed analysis of what she is doing wrong. The intent in the other two speeches would appear to be to explain to the reader what all of the characters are doing that should be considered morally wrong. After all,
- 49 the Chorus is meant to be the moral compass of a play. In truth, even the apparently all-encompassing comments at the end of Act Two are directed rather pointedly at Mariam. It is only in the final Choral speech that
Mariam is not the primary target for the Chorus's scorn and chastisement.
However, the motivation for the Chorus' railing has both an overt and a covert purpose. In order to be the moral compass of the play, the
Chorus must be completely unbiased; they must simply report on what they see in a way that makes it clearer. The Chorus in The Tragedy of
Mariam betray themselves almost immediately as being far less unbiased than they need to be in order to perform that particular job function. The
Chorus is far from maintaining the reserve and impartiality necessary to behave as the moral center of the play. Instead, they are used as a societal compass, which causes them to be far more ambiguous and contradictory in their perceptions and their declarations. After all, societal precepts are malleable, constantly in flux, and rarely deeply seated in logic or true morality. It is therefore impossible to present as fact any opinions offered by this Chorus. Instead of being unbiased, I feel that it is their function to present to the audience what society's opinion of women, who behaved in ways similar to Mariam, was likely to be at the time of the play.
As Karen Raber discusses:
The chorus's argument expands upon the doctrine of
coverture which makes the wife's legal being identical
with her husband's during marriage - her existence is
- 50 assumed to be coextensive with his, subsumed into his.
Given that the wife so defined is in effect represented by
her husband's will, the chorus argues that the direction of
her speech should be inward, to the marriage and her
husband, not outward toward a public audience. The
chorus delineates an extremely narrow view of the
domestic sphere women occupy, yet this view is
culturally powerful and representative of much conduct
literature and political writing on the subordinate role of
women within marriage. (324)
It is therefore possible, by carefully analyzing the Chorus's
speeches, to discover not only how society would have perceived
someone who behaved as Mariam did, but also how Elizabeth Cary
viewed her and what she felt about society's attitudes.4
First Choral Speech
The first speech by the Chorus is an admirable example of how the viewpoint of society and Elizabeth Cary meshed regarding certain qualities
in most human beings. This first speech quite obviously includes a
lengthy diatribe against fickle people in general prior to the Chorus settling
upon Mariam in particular to vent their spleen against.
Those minds that wholly dote upon delight,
Except they only joy in inward good,
- 51 Still hope at last to hop upon the right,
And so from Sand they leap in loathsome mud.
Fond wretches, seeking what they cannot find.
For no content attends a wavering mind.
If wealth they do desire, and wealth attain,
Then wondrous fain would they to honour leap:
If mean degree they do in honour gain,
They would but wish a little higher step.
Thus step to step, and wealth to wealth they add,
Yet cannot all their plenty make them glad.
Yet oft we see that some in humble state,
Are cheerful, pleasant, happy, and content:
When those indeed that are of higher state,
With vain additions do their thoughts torment.
Th'one would to his mind his fortune bind,
Th'other to his fortune frames his mind.
To wish variety is a sign of grief,
For if you like your state as now it is,
Why should an alteration bring relief?
Nay, change would then be fear'd as loss of bliss.
That man is only happy in his fate
That is delighted in a settled state.
(1.6.493-516)
- 52 In part, this social commentary is quite likely based on Elizabeth
Cary's own opinions about such flightiness of character. Elizabeth Cary herself held firm to a tenet that was likely held by the majority of the population during her time and best expressed in The Mothers Counsel!:
Good Counsel! to the Christian Reader
1. That you keepe a narrow watch over your
heart, wordes, and deedes continually.
2. That with all care the time be redeemed
that hath been idly, carelessly, and unprofitably
spent.
[... ]
6. That no more care bee spent in matters of
this world, then must needs. (R.M. 1)
With such apparent beliefs, it is perfectly understandable that the first, thinly veiled, moral suggestion springing from the mouths of Elizabeth
Cary's creations is the vilification of people who spend their time idly, carelessly, and concerning themselves overly much with the cares of this world. In this, Elizabeth Cary's unyielding religious background is manifested. Within the first six lines, two strong allusions have been made to a parable offered in the "Book of Matthew" in the New Testament of the
Christian Bible. Granted, these allusions are commingled in a unique way in order to create a vision that is more clearly the author's and in order to
- 53 meet the criteria imposed by rhyme and meter.
Nonetheless, the contempt shown for people who "wholly dote upon delight" and leap from the sand "into the loathsome mud" brings to mind the parable of the sower as explained in Matthew 13:
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one
heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not,
then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which
was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the
way side. But he that received the seed into stony places,
the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy
receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a
while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of
the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received
seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the
care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the
word, and he becometh unfruitful. (Matthew 13, 18-22)
Taken in this light, it is assuredly more understandable that the author displays the amount of disdain that she does for those who "wholly dote upon delight" for these are the same people whose interest in "the cares of the world" and the "delight in riches choke the word". These were the type of people that would leap from the safety of a pious life in an effort to attain worldly goods, hoping "at last to hop upon the right" (Cary
1.6.495) or to achieve a prosperous outcome (Weller and Ferguson 87). It
- 54 is particularly important that Cary tells us that people of this nature are
seeking something that they can never find because "no content attends a
wavering mind" (Cary 1.6.498) and "to wish variety is sign of grief' (Cary
1.6.511 ). Nearly every character in the play is wishing for a change; in
essence, wishing for variety and assuming that what they are seeking will
make them happy. Although it is impossible to pinpoint with any accuracy
how detailed Elizabeth Cary's study of the Bible was, it is easy to assume
that her knowledge of the Bible was well developed. This particular thread
within the play is similar in many ways to another passage in Matthew:
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and
doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his
house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and
it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one
that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not,
shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house
upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and
it fell: and great was the fall of it. (7.24-27)
All of the people in The Tragedy of Mariam have been building their
homes in the sand and the floods and winds are about to cause a great fall. The Chorus warns us of the coming storm in their first speech.
However, the only person that they say is unhappy is Mariam, because
- 55 she always wants what she cannot have: variety and freedom from Herod.
Still Mariam wish'd she from her lord were free,
For expectation of variety:
Yet now she sees her wishes prosperous be,
She grieves, because her lord so soon did die.
Who can those vast imaginations feed,
Where in a property contempt doth breed?
Were Herod now perchance to live again,
She would again as much be grieved at that:
All that she may, she ever doth disdain,
Her wishes guide her to she knows not what.
And sad must be their looks, their honour sour,
That care for nothing being in their power.
(1.6.517-528)
As Weller and Ferguson point out:
The Chorus of act I runs against the grain of a reader's
expectations in a particularly striking way. The first four
stanzas, emphasizing the restlessness of those "minds that
wholly dote upon delight," crave variety, and insatiably seek
an ever higher degree of wealth and influence, suggest
Salome, as the preceding act has represented her, and it is
almost shocking to discover, in the fifth stanza, that all along
the Chorus has been talking about Mariam. (35)
- 56 What the Chorus is stating and, due to their sphere of influence
within the context of the play, leading the audience to believe, is that
Mariam is guilty of wishing Herod dead so that she might have a variety of
sexual partners. In addition, they are suggesting that Mariam quite simply
cannot be happy no matter what she has, that she is the type of person
who will be soured by her circumstances no matter what they are. In
addition, they actually suggest that, in the case of her marriage, "familiarity
breeds contempt" (Weller and Ferguson 80). Nowhere in the Choral
speech is there any suggestion that, perhaps, Herod had actively engaged
in activities that could have caused her to feel contempt towards him, such
as having members of her family murdered and establishing the means to
have her follow him into his death. Nor is there any suggestion that others
in the play may be unhappy with their lot and seeking a change. The
Chorus is biased against Mariam at this point; therefore, Mariam is the
only person who is portrayed in a negative light. Mariam is not acting the
proper role of a woman and a wife; it follows in the Chorus's logic that she
is vilified.
This is a prime example of the way that the Chorus acts as a
reflection of the societal expectations during the Renaissance. The wife
who is unhappy with her husband and willing to express her feelings is
portrayed as the villain. Mariam has forgotten that "those vertues that in
women praise doe win,/ Are sober shewes without, chaste thoughts within;/ True faith & due obedience" (R.M. 15). If she were a proper
- 57 woman, she would not question why her husband did anything, simply because he is her husband. If she has begun to question him, then she no longer belongs in the category of a proper woman. Society would of course frown upon her behavior and label her the transgressor. The facts involved would be secondary to the requirements of being a woman and a wife. The fact that the Chorus labels Mariam alone, of all the characters, as a soured, inconstant woman is verification that they are acting as a mirror for the official values of Jacobean England.
Second Choral Speech
To hear a tale with ears prejudicate,
It spoils the judgment, and corrupts the sense:
That human error, given to every state,
Is greater enemy to innocence.
It makes us foolish, heady, rash, unjust,
It makes us never try before we trust.
It will confound the meaning, change the words,
For it our sense of hearing much deceives:
Besides, no time to judgement it affords,
To weigh the circumstance our ear receives.
The ground of accidents it never tries,
But makes us take for truth ten thousand lies.
Our ears and hearts are apt to hold for good
- 58 That we ourselves do most desire to be:
And then we drown objections in the flood
Of partiality, 'tis that we see
That makes false rumours long with credit pass'd,
Though they like rumours must conclude at last.
[... ]
They not object the weak uncertain ground,
Whereon they built this tale of Herod's end:
Whereof the author scarcely can be found,
And all because their wishes that way bend.
They think not of the peril that ensu'th,
If this should prove the contrary truth.
On this same doubt, on this so light a breath,
They pawn their lives and fortunes. For they all
Behave them as the news of Herod's death
They did of most undoubted credit call:
But if their actions now do rightly hit,
Let them commend their fortune, not their wit.
(2.4.389-436)
In stark contrast to the first choral speech, this speech, which ends the second act, does not fixate on Miriam as the bearer of all evil. Of all the choral speeches, this one has the most in common with a traditional
Senecan chorus. The Chorus is commenting at length on the fact that
- 59 everyone has chosen to believe that Herod is dead, despite the fact that they have no concrete justification for this belief. In fact, the Chorus suggests that the characters want to believe it so desperately that they have probably forgotten where the initial report came from. It is proposed here that believing something is true without cause can lead to grief in the extreme. Therefore, the Chorus is insinuating that the principal characters should behave as if Herod is still alive until they receive concrete proof of his demise rather than building their actions upon what might be accidental misinformation or well constructed lies.
Once again, reference is made to the insecure building of a future based on the "weak uncertain ground" that they have created by choosing to believe that Herod is dead. This links the second choral speech to the first; the foundation of the character's lives is insecure and a storm is coming that will tear them apart when Herod returns. At this point, the
Chorus is not alerting us to Herod's impending arrival. In fact, the last two lines state, rather sarcastically, that if it develops that Herod is in fact dead, they can all thank their "fortune" or good luck rather than their intelligence.
By this point in the play, each of the main characters has made a decision of great importance based upon the belief that Herod is dead.
Doris has come to the palace, hoping to overthrow Mariam's children and place Antipater on the throne as a means of securing his future and regaining her preeminence. Pheroras has married the woman he desires,
- 60 despite Herod's intent to bind him in matrimony to his eldest daughter
(Weller and Ferguson 160) as a means of securing stronger political ties between the brothers. Alexandra has boldly declared how much she reviles Herod to his sister Salome, an action that Salome rightly asserts
"You durst not thus have given your tongue the rein,/ If noble Herod still remain'd in life" (1.3.219-220). Salome herself has declared her intentions to sue for divorce from Constabarus, saying that she will let her own desires govern her, certainly not something that she would do without
Herod's permission if he were alive. Constabarus has released the sons of Baba. Mariam, the only person to be shown grieving, has voiced her intention to rule the kingdom until her sons are old enough to rule themselves. None of them shows any concern that their actions may be unfounded.
Although the Chorus does not mention any character by name in this particular speech, it is once again obvious that they are primarily upbraiding Mariam, in this instance for behaving as if she is a widow. This is particularly interesting when it is taken in to consideration that widowhood was a much-desired state of being in Renaissance England.
In fact, becoming a widow, "actually returned women to the legal status of femme sol and made them responsible for government of the household"
(Travitsky and Seeff 17 4 ). As a widow, the woman in question would have control of her late husband's property, whether as the inheritor or as the representative for his legal progeny until they reached their majority. She
- 61 would also not be required to answer to a particular man for what was likely to be the first time in her life and would be allowed legal recourse without going through a husband. Perhaps most importantly, she could not be legally constrained to marry again. In fact, in Protestant England, where the ability to become a nun had been forcibly withdrawn, becoming a widow was the only means available for a woman to attain some small measure of autonomy in a strictly patriarchal society. A Chorus that was reflecting Renaissance society would therefore consider it doubly wrong for Mariam to behave as if she was a widow without verification that it was her right. It can be assumed that many men in Renaissance society disliked the freedom that widows were granted and that many women were jealous of that same freedom. Although the others in the play are acting foolishly, the subtext of the Chorus' speech is that Mariam is the guiltiest of them all. The others may be foolish but Mariam's actions are unworthy of her gender.
Third Choral Speech
'Tis not enough for one that is a wife
To keep her spotless from an act of ill:
But from suspicion she should free her life,
And bare herself of power as well as will.
'Tis not so glorious for her to be free,
As by her proper self restrain'd be.
- 62 When she hath spacious ground to walk upon,
Why on the ridge should she desire to go?
It is no glory to forbear alone
Those things that may her honour overthrow.
But 'tis thankworthy if she will not take
All lawful liberties for honour's sake.
That wife her hand against her fame doth rear,
That more than her lord alone will give
A private word to any second ear,
And though she may with reputation live,
Yet though most chaste, she doth her glory blot,
And wounds her honour, though she kills it not.
When to their husbands they themselves do bind,
Do they not give themselves away?
Or give they but their body, not their mind,
Reserving that, though best, for others' prey?
No sure. Their thoughts no more can be their own,
And therefore should to none but one be known.
Then she usurps upon another's right,
That seeks to be by public language grac'd:
And though her thoughts reflect with purest light,
Her mind if not peculiar is not chaste.
For in a wife it is no worse to find,
- 63 A common body than a common mind.
And every mind, though free from thought of ill,
That out of glory seeks a worth to show,
When any's ears but one therewith they fill,
Doth in a sort her pureness overthrow.
Now Mariam had (but that to this she bent)
Been free from fear, as well as innocent.
(3.3.215-250)
The sentiments that the Chorus is presenting here are quite noticeably the same ones that were espoused rampantly in print and in sermon during the early seventeenth century. They are obviously manifestations of the ideological perspective that was at the forefront in
Renaissance society - women must bend their will to the men in their lives because women are the weaker gender. Nearly every sentiment offered in this speech may be found, with slight variations in the wording of course, in extant tracts that were published during the same time frame.
Women were constantly and forcefully reminded in their literature that they must follow the dictates of their society. For instance, the full title of Penelope's Web, published in 1587, claims to be a story:
Wherein a christall myrrour of faeminine perfection
represents to the viewe of every one those vertues and
graces, which more curiously beatifies the mynd of women,
then eyther sumptuous apparel!, or jewels of inestimable
- 64 valew ... In three several! discourses also are three
especial! vertues, necessary to be incident in every
vertuous women, pithely discussed: Namely obedience,
chastitie, and sylence. (Hull 81)
The most required attributes of a woman, according to a majority of literature during the period were these three things - obedience, chastity, and silence. Although the means of discussing them might vary, the message rarely did.
Most often, the author of any argument regarding women's role in society would begin with one of several possible quotes from the Christian
Bible. One of those most often quoted was:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as
unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the
saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject
unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
every thing. (Ephesians 5:22-24)
This Choral speech is obviously another example of this same type of exhortation. The Chorus is asserting that Mariam should not only be pure, she must present herself in such a way that no one would ever consider her as impure. She must "bare herself of power as well as will"
(3.3.218) in order to avoid blotting her glory (3.3.231 ). The only way to do so is to obey Herod in everything. After all, when she married him, she
- 65 bound herself to him and gave of her mind as well as her body (3.3.235).
The Chorus would have us believe that any woman vocalizing her thoughts or feelings is of "a common mind" (3.3.244) and might just as well be a whore since she has already defiled her marriage. Mariam could have lived happily with Herod; however, she was unable to follow the simple rules of how a wife must behave in marriage. Although she was easily able to maintain her chastity, she could not adhere to the tenets of silent and obedient; therefore, her marriage was doomed.
As William Whately preached in a wedding sermon that was later published:
The whole duty of the wife ... is to acknowledge her
inferiority, next to carry herself as inferior ... If the wife do
not learn this lesson perfectly, ... if her very heart
condescend not to it, there will be wrangling, repining,
striving, vying to be equal with him, or above him. (Hull 31)
The importance of the Choral speech at the end of Act Three is discussed by Alexandra G. Bennett in "Female Performativity in The Tragedy of
Mariam":
The Chorus, which advocates a strict regimentation of
women's conduct, muses upon the nature of wives at the
end of act 111, insisting upon a wife's need to "bare herself
of power as well as will" in order to avoid any suggestion of
impropriety (lll.iii.218). In other words, the Chorus seems
- 66 to speak for be and seem as correlated concepts. But this
is not an inevitable process, for it is open to question, and
questions can raise doubts. (299)
The Chorus is insisting that the only way for a woman to be happy
in her marriage is to accede to her husband all authority and acknowledge
him the superior in all things. Therein lies the problem for Mariam. In
many ways, Mariam quite likely does feel herself to actually be better than
Herod is. After all, he, like his sister, is not truly a Jew, but an ldumean.
Even Alexandra suggests that there were a number of other Kings suing
for Mariam's hand in marriage. It would therefore be doubly difficult for
Mariam to behave as if Herod is the head and she the heart of a single
body. The Chorus asserts, and wishes us to believe, that it is simply
because Mariam is unable to hold her tongue that she is being refused the
happy married life that she is expected to want. In doing so, the Chorus
acts as a mirror for Renaissance society where the appearance of
propriety was so important. Salome has yet to be chastised by the Chorus
because she has maintained the appearance of a proper woman even
though internally she is far from it. The Chorus badgers Mariam, who is truly chaste, because she does not appear to be a proper woman. Once
again, the Chorus has painted Mariam as the only evil in their world.
- 67 Fourth Choral Speech
Of the Choral speeches, this is perhaps the most densely packed
with underlying meanings and inherent contradictions. On the surface,
this is again a complaint against Mariam and her inability to behave in the
ways that her society demands her gender should. In addition, there are
obvious Biblical references that further the Chorus's argument. Beyond
these layers however, there are jabs at the patriarchal society that have
absolutely nothing to do with the societal message that the Chorus is
supposed to be sending but everything to do with the message that the
author is offering.
The primary Biblical reference within this speech is one that, rather than being pointed directly at women, is in fact gender neutral. It is of
such importance in the New Testament that it warranted mention in two
separate books, both "Matthew" and "Luke". Although the exact wording differs between the two, the gist is the same and has come to be known as "the Golden Rule":
I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to
them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray
for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that
smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him
that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that
taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye
- 68 would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank
have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if
ye do good to them which do good to you, what thanks
have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend
to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?
for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping
for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye
shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the
unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as
your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be
judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned:
forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: (Luke 6.27-37)
There is really very little difference between this passage and the Chorus's exhortation:
The fairest action of our human life
Is scorning to revenge an injury:
For who forgives without a further strife,
His adversary's heart to him doth tie.
And 'tis a firmer conquest truly said,
To win the heart than overthrow the head
(4.8.629-34)
- 69 After all, they are asserting that scorning to revenge an injury is a noble action that will be rewarded. Granted, the Bible suggests that the reward will be attained in Heaven and the Chorus is asserting that it is possible to win over existing enemies on the mortal plane in this way but the concept is the same.
Obviously, the Chorus's overt message in this speech is that if
Mariam had simply kept quiet, forgiven Herod for the injuries that he had done her family, not held a grudge:
Had Mariam scorn'd to leave a due unpaid,
She would to Herod then have paid her love:
And not have been by sullen passion sway'd.
To fix her thoughts all injury above
Is virtuous pride. Had Mariam thus been prov'd,
Long Famous life to her had been allow'd
(4.8. 659-64)
All Mariam had to do was behave as a proper, virtuous wife and allow her husband to rule over her and she would have lived a long and happy life.
This argument would probably have more power however if the
Chorus did not seem ambivalent at certain junctures within this particular harangue. For instance, if one may assume that they are referring to the current difficulties between Mariam and Herod, it is interesting that they specifically say:
- 70 If we a worthy enemy do find,
To yield to worth, it must be nobly done:
But if of baser metal be his mind,
In base revenge there is no honor won.
Who would a worthy courage overthrow,
And who would wrestle with a worthless foe?
(4.8.635-40)
It could be argued that Mariam has found a "worthy enemy" to
wrestle with in Herod rather than a "worthless foe". If that is true, then the
Chorus is admitting that at some level Herod and Mariam are in fact
equals. It would be impossible to be worthy adversaries and be inherently
somehow a lesser person simply because of gender. At this point, our
"societal" Chorus is beginning to question what it has been espousing throughout - Mariam's inferiority.
Perhaps realizing their error, the Chorus immediately strives to once again chastise Mariam's choices and actions:
We say our hearts are great and cannot yield;
Because they cannot yield it proves them poor:
Great hearts are task'd beyond their power but seld,
The weakest lion will the loudest roar.
Truth's school for certain doth this same allow,
High-heartedness doth sometimes teach to bow.
(4.8.641-6)
- 71 If Mariam were truly as noble as she believes herself to be, then she would willingly yield to Herod and learn to bow before him. It is however important to note that even though this stanza is seeking to argue against
Mariam's actions, the Chorus is no longer speaking about her duty to her husband. They are suggesting that her need to roar out her pain and anger shows her to be weak and that, if she was truly strong, she would learn to bend to Herod's will. Without realizing it, as a "character", the
Chorus is no longer espousing popular Renaissance theory. The underlying element has become a choice on the woman's part to do what is most expedient for her own well being rather than the belief that women must behave a certain way or they are evil. The Chorus has finally acknowledged, not only that women have a choice in how they behave, but also that the choices open to them may be directly opposed to the men in their lives.
The next stanza proves this even further. If female kind in general, or Mariam in particular, is the noble heart mentioned, then it is virtuous to refuse to do certain things:
A noble heart doth teach a virtuous scorn:
To scorn to owe a duty overlong,
To scorn to be for benefits forborne,
To scorn to lie, to scorn to do a wrong,
To scorn to bear an injury in mind,
To scorn a freeborn heart slavelike to bind
- 72 (4.8.647-52)
It goes against the grain for any noble heart, male or female, to leave a debt unpaid, to be "treated leniently from gratitude for former kindnesses"
(Weller and Ferguson 138), etcetera. Most importantly, there is nothing noble about allowing "a freeborn heart" to be bound.
This is the second time within this speech that "the heart" is referred to. This is especially interesting since, in texts of the period that were referring to marriage, the woman was often referred to as the heart and the husband as the head. Therefore, it is a more important victory to win a woman to your side of an argument than it is to overpower the man
(4.8.633-634 ). In addition, it is imperative that no woman, born with a free will, as the Bible guarantees all humans are, should be subjected to a slave-like binding, even in marriage (4.8.652).
However, even as the Chorus is beginning to bend its strictly patriarchal outlook, it still enforces the belief that Mariam was in the wrong and that it is her own fault that her life is ended:
But if for wrongs we needs revenge must have,
Then be our vengeance of the noblest kind:
Do we his body from our fury save,
And let our hate prevail against our mind?
What gain 'gainst him a greater vengeance be.
Than make his foe more worthy far than he?
(5.8.653-658)
- 73 According to the Bible, the noblest vengeance is forgiveness; not simply a
refusal to enact revenge, but true forgiveness is required (Weller and
Ferguson 173). If Mariam had truly been able to do what Christians are
exhorted to do and forgiven Herod, leaving his final tribulation to God, then
she would have been able to not only live but also be happy. She failed to
abide by the precepts that were espoused by Paul when he wrote in his
letter to the Romans:
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest
in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in
you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge
not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is
written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give
him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on
his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good. (Romans 12.17-21)
Perhaps the most significant factor at the end of Act Four is that the
Chorus is no longer chastising Mariam for her actions as a woman but for
her actions as a religious person. Nowhere in Act Four's Choral speech
do they suggest that if Mariam had been a proper wife she would have
survived. Rather, they insist that if she had only adhered to the Christian tenet of "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" she would have been able to live peacefully with Herod and enjoyed a long life. The Chorus is still
- 74 insisting that Mariam is wrong but that insistence stems from religious beliefs rather than patriarchal prohibitions.
Fifth Choral Speech
The fifth choral speech, coming as it does at the end of the play, provides the same type of synopsis as the opening Argument did.
Because it is in the words of the Chorus, there is a message underlying the summation of events in much the same way that there were messages in each of the preceding Choral speeches. However, there is a marked difference in this speech. Where each of the earlier speeches in some way laid the blame for what was befalling Mariam solidly at her feet, this speech instead aims to show how everyone was affected by the day's events:
This morning Herod held for surely dead,
And all the Jews did on Mariam attend:
And Constabarus rise from Salome's bed,
And neither dream'd of a divorce or end.
Pheroras joy'd that he might have his wife,
And Saba's sons for safety of their life.
Tonight our Herod doth alive remain,
The guiltless Mariam is depriv'd of breath:
Stout Constabarus both divorc'd and slain,
The valiant sons of Babas have their death,
- 75 Pheroras sure his love to be bereft,
If Salome her suit unmade had left.
Herod this morning did expect with joy,
To see his Mariam's much beloved face:
And yet ere night he did her life destroy,
And surely thought she did her name disgrace.
Yet now again, so short do humours last,
He both repents her death and knows her chaste.
(5.1.265-282)
Rather than Mariam being in the wrong in some way, either through her actions as a woman or as a Christian, she is named within the same terms as the other, male, characters who suffered similar fates within this day because of Herod's survival. In essence, the Chorus is naming Mariam as an equal to the men.
Not only is she equal in her final dispensation, with no blame attached to her; even in death, she has power over Herod:
Had he with wisdom now her death delay'd,
He at his pleasure might command her death:
But now he hath his power so much betray'd,
As all his woes cannot restore her breath.
Now doth he strangely, lunaticly rave,
Because his Mariam's life he cannot save.
(5.1.283-288)
- 76 Granted, the Chorus is still acknowledging the fact that Herod had the
power of life or death over his subjects and over his wife. However, there
is the suggestion that if he had learned to restrain his impulses, he would
be happier. All of the individuals affected are equally held to blame. This
is an important distinction. If, in fact, Elizabeth Cary is using the Chorus to
reflect her society, then perhaps she is suggesting that Renaissance
society was on the cusp of realizing the innate equality between men and
women and that it is the actions of a person, not the gender, which
determines that person's future. If that is the case, then the final stanza of
The Tragedy of Mariam is, in fact, prophetic in nature:
This day's events were certainly ordain'd,
To be the warning to posterity:
So many changes are therein contained,
So admirably strange variety.
This day alone, our sagest Hebrews shall
In after times the school of wisdom call.
(5.1.289-294)
If the Renaissance, rather than ancient Judea, is being discussed, then the "changes therein contained" could have a great deal to do with the fact that "women among higher social classes began to question their
inferiority to men as a result of the new emphasis on education for women" (Stephen 1). There was, at approximately this same time, a great
debate being played out in literature regarding the inferiority or equality of
- 77 women referred to as the "querelle des femmes" ("Renaissance Women").
Authors from a wide range of backgrounds were weighing in with their
opinions in tracts such as Jane Anger's "A Protection for Women" and
John Taylor's "A Juniper Lecture, With the description of all sorts of
women". Given the subject matter and the way that the characters are
portrayed in The Tragedy of Mariam, it is certainly not difficult to suggest
that Elizabeth Cary was purposely adding her point of view to the debate.
The Choral speeches are one aspect of that opinion brought to life. The
primary characters themselves are another.
The Characters
Obviously, it has always been possible, and quite often probable,
that an author uses at least one, if not all, of the characters in a literary
work as the means to portraying a certain social or cultural message. In
the use of her characters as the venue to discuss the social and cultural
ramifications of male/female relationships, Elizabeth Cary is neither the first nor the last author to do so. However, the means by which she
achieves her goal are interesting in that they meld together several
previous author's styles and methods to achieve her own goals.
Elizabeth Cary used a translation of Josephus that was produced
by Thomas Lodge as the basis for her story. That is not, however, the only influence that Thomas Lodge had on her work. His influence may
- 78 also be seen in the personifications of female authority that Elizabeth Cary
creates in her Tragedy. Thomas Lodge's Rosalynde, which was published
in 1590, was extremely popular. However, it is unlikely that the work's
popularity alone was what attracted Elizabeth Cary enough to use it as an
example. Rather, it was the personification of authority that drew her:
According to Constance Jordan in a 1998 review article,
power does not necessarily imply the ability to carry out
or initiate policy, while authority does. Women, she
claims, most certainly did have power during the
Renaissance, but they did not have authority. This
important distinction is useful to re-empower female
voice, without losing sight of the equally real constraints
posed by a patriarchal society. Thomas Lodge's
Rosalynde, a text with two female protagonists and
enjoying a strong popularity during its day, may be the
benchmark to measure this distinction between power
and authority. [ ...] The radical element of Lodge's literary
vision is his insistence that gender may not be a true
indicator of intelligence or ability, that women's voices
have potential beyond the ability to plead. Lodge creates
a model of a woman whose voice has both power and
authority. ('Thomas Lodge").
Although much can be argued about both Mariam and Salome, the two
- 79 integral female characters in The Tragedy of Mariam, it certainly can not
be argued that they have the potential to do more than plead. By the
preceding definition, their voices have both power and authority.
Although a significant amount of scholarship has been composed
addressing the importance of the female characters in The Tragedy of
Mariam, little discussion exists concerning the importance and significance
of the individual male characters. This is unfortunate, for investigating the
male characters is important in order to reach a full understanding of this
work. In comparison to the complexities of Salome and Mariam, the men
in the play appear to be nearly single trait caricatures of men rather than
well-rounded personifications of reality. The use of these types of
characters allows for the author to exemplify a certain trait in such a way
that it is brought into bold relief. In this, Elizabeth Cary is also following an
established literary convention that dates back to Grecian times when
Theophrastus wrote the first "characters" independently of any major
thematic intent. In fact, his Characters were translated into Latin, a
language that Cary knew, in 1592 by Casaubon (Blackwell 5). His
portraits of such men as "the lout", "the skinflint", and "the arrogant one" were used to personify traits that he was discussing within philosophical
circles. Such was also the case for Joseph Hall who was the first writer of
a collection of English "Characters of Vertues and Vices", published in
1609, the same year that Thomas Lodge's second edition of Josephus was released.
- 80 Joseph Hall, himself, admitted that he was using Theophrastus as
his example when he conceived of writing his sketches. However, Hall
does not duplicate Theophrastus exactly. In fact, he:
diverged from his method in order to suit his own
purposes. [ ...] Whereas the Theophrastan characters
are concrete, external, dramatic, Hall brings in many
generalizations and comments of a subjective nature.
Much of this subjective element is attributable to the
Christian philosophy that underlay all that Hall wrote.
(Kirk 13-4)
In that respect, both Hall and Cary have something in common for
certainly her Christian philosophy affected what she wrote as well.
Although John Earle's Microcosmography (1633) and Thomas Overbury's
Characters, to which is added a wife (1614) are also excellent examples of
character sketches, and perhaps more widely known, neither was
published prior to 1613. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that either could
have been a direct influence on Elizabeth Cary's literary choices when
composing The Tragedy of Mariam.
In addition to Joseph Hall, who wrote characters in an exclusively
prose style, there is another author who may have had a direct effect on
Elizabeth Cary choosing to employ "characters" within her play - Ben
Jonson. There were brief character sketches prefixing Jonson's Every
Man Out of His Humour, which was performed in 1599 by Shakespeare's
- 81 company at the Globe and published in 1600. These sketches briefly explain what the main gist of each character is. They were an integral part of what Jonson termed a "Humour" of which he wrote several:
Jonson's comedy of humours, in a word, conceived
of stage personages on the basis of a ruling trait or
passion (a notable simplification of actual life be it
observed in passing); and, placing these typified
traits in juxtaposition in their conflict and contrast,
struck the spark of comedy[... ] Indeed, the comedy
of humours itself is only a heightened variety of the
comedy of manners which represents life, viewed at
a satirical angle, and is the oldest and most
persistent species of comedy in the language.
(Schelling 3)
In addition to Every Man Out of His Humour, Jonson also produced another play, which may have had a modicum of influence on Cary during the creation of her own work. The Silent Woman, which was produced in
1609, is a farce of the "most ingenious construction. The entire comedy hinges on a huge joke, played by a heartless nephew on his misanthropic uncle, who is induced to take to himself a wife, young, fair, and warranted silent, but who, in the end, turns out neither silent nor a woman at all"
(Schelling 5). Furthermore, "it reflects the idea that once a woman
- 82 violates one convention of her traditional role, she falls into orgies of lust
and vanity" (Henderson and McManus 121).
Although Elizabeth Cary's work is certainly not meant to be a
comedy, nor does it even remotely touch upon the farcical, there are
aspects of both of these works present within The Tragedy of Mariam. In
The Silent Woman, it is a man's desperate attempt to find the "perfect" wife, chaste, silent, and young enough to be molded, which leads to his troubles. In The Tragedy of Mariam, it is Herod's need to have a chaste and silent wife that leads him to doubt and kill Mariam.
In Every Man Out of His Humour, Jonson uses character sketches to personify certain types of people in order for the reader to better understand the particular trait that motivates them. For instance,
DELIRO, a good doting citizen, who, it is thought, might
be of the common-council for his wealth; a fellow
sincerely besotted on his own wife, and so wrapt with a
conceit of her perfections, that he simply holds himself
unworthy of her. And, in that hood-wink'd humour, lives
more like a suitor than a husband; standing in as true
dread of her displeasure, as when he first made love to
her. He doth sacrifice two-pence in juniper to her every
morning before she rises, and wakes her with villainous
out-of-tune music, which she out of her contempt (though
not out of her judgment) is sure to dislike.
- 83 FALLACE, Deliro's wife, and idol; a proud mincing peat,
and as perverse as he is officious. She dotes as
perfectly upon the courtier, as her husband doth on her,
and only wants the face to be dishonest.
SAVIOLINA, a court-lady, whose weightiest praise is a
light wit, admired by herself, and one more, her servant
Brisk. (Jonson 25)
Although none of Elizabeth Cary's characters exactly matches
these examples, the concept is certainly similar. In fact, all of Cary's male
characters can arguably be presented as representations/personifications
of existing character sketches from Joseph Hall's Characters of Vertues
and Vices. It is as if, in creating male characters that are not truly well
rounded but instead are stereotypical of male "types", the author is
showing that patriarchal opinions held by these characters are also not truly well rounded. Rather, they are stereotypical, reactionary beliefs that
have been imbedded in Renaissance society. These beliefs are not
necessarily true; therefore, they need to be reexamined by the very men that hold them. In doing so, perhaps they will be able to break free of their
patriarchal, stultifying two-dimensionality and develop into truly three dimensional people.
- 84 The Men
Rather than giving in to an impulse that might have been difficult to
withstand in a patriarchal society where she felt constricted to create men
who are inherently evil and purposely vile to the women in their lives,
Elizabeth Cary manages, even while presenting her men as character
sketches, to present them in an even handed fashion. Both Pheroras and
Constabarus appear to be characters of inherent virtue, although their
choices of wives lead them to different ends. However, Herod and Silleus
are both presented in such a way that they are, without a doubt, characters of vice. Instead of making all the men the epitome of evil,
Elizabeth Cary presents us with men that we are able to sympathize with or disdain in equal measure. This balance contributes to the power of her final message.
Pheroras
Of the four men that are central to the action of the play, and behave in distinctly male ways, Pheroras is perhaps the only one that the reader can believe is truly happy at the end of the play. He has been allowed to marry the woman that he desires. Although Herod is displeased with his choice, his own domestic situation is demanding his full attention so, with the help of Salome, Pheroras will be allowed to keep his new bride. Graphina, who is apparently chaste, obedient, and silent,
- 85 seems to be able to fulfill his needs admirably. It would therefore be only
fair to say that he epitomizes the last entry in Joseph Hall's characters of
virtue:
He is an happy man,
THAT hath learned to read himself more than all
books, and hath so taken out this lesson, that he can
never forget it [ ...] that hath got the mastery at
home; so as he can cross his will without a mutiny [..
.] stands on his own feet, not needing to lean upon
the great [ ...] If all the world were his, he could be no
other than he is; no whit gladder of himself, no whit
higher in his carriage; because he knows contentment
lies not in the things he hath, but in the mind that
values them[... ] as one that hath learned, a man's
greatness or baseness is in himself [ ... ] and hath as
full scope to his thoughts as to his eyes. [ ...] His
conscience and his hand are friends [ ...] he hath
learned to fetch both his counsel and his sentence
from his own breast. [ ...] He walks cheerfully in the
way that God hath chalked, and never wishes it more
wide or more smooth. (Hall 164-7)
Pheroras shows his equanimity of nature in the fact that all he truly wishes to attain is marriage to the woman that he has chosen as his ideal.
- 86 It does not matter to him that she is base-born or that another bride has
been chosen for him. He has learned to "fetch both his counsel and his
sentence from his own breast" and is happy that he will be able to make
his own choice become reality. Although he is saddened at Herod's
apparent demise, he admits that he is unable to cry for his brother
because the sight of Graphina dries his tears:
Thy love, fair maid, upon mine eye doth sit,
Whose nature hot doth dry the moisture all,
Which were in nature, and in reason fit
For my [monarchal] brother's death to fall
(2.1.9-12)
In true keeping with the definition of "the happy man", he is aware
of what he truly prizes in life and these are the only things that he is
interested in achieving. It is for that reason that he seems ill concerned
with the fact that marrying Graphina, instead of the royal bride that has
been chosen for him, will deprive him of power.
What booted it that he did raise my head,
To be his realm's copartner, kingdom's mate?
Withal, he kept Graphina from my bed,
More wish'd by me than thrice Judea's state.
(2.1.25-8)
It is however interesting to note that even as he is waxing eloquent about Graphina's perfection, an opinion we have little cause to doubt that
- 87 he truly feels, he still is unable to state that she is better than Mariam. The
best that he can achieve for his new bride is to compare her equally to
Mariam in beauty. He state that, although Mariam's crown might cause
others to declare her without compare, "I will boast Graphina's brow's as
white, her cheeks as red" (2.1.39-40) and he makes no declarations about
Graphina's comparison to Mariam in the matter of intellect or personality.
Perhaps even more important, it is at the very moment that he is
comparing Graphina to Mariam that he comments unfavorably on her lack
of speech. Mariam we already know is willing to share her thoughts and
feelings; in fact, she has been censured about it. Of Graphina, Pheroras
asks, "Why speaks thou not, fair creature? Move thy tongue, / For silence
is a sign of discontent" (2.1.41-2).
Pheroras, Elizabeth Cary's "happy man" clearly expresses that he
believes his chaste and obedient wife must not be silent. He does not
request that Graphina speak to him, he demands it. It is reasonable to
assume that Elizabeth Cary, in supplying us with a happy, content,
positive male figure who wishes to have a wife that expresses herself, was declaring that men in her society would be far happier if they
allowed/required their wives to vocalize their own opinions, thoughts, and
beliefs.
- 88 Constabarus
Unlike Pheroras, who appears to be almost exclusively represented as the "happy man" with little to dim his happiness, Constabarus encounters adversity and conflict throughout the course of the play.
However, even as he rails against Salome, frees the son's of Baba, or fights Silleus, he does everything with the strong belief that what he does is right. Presented with the chance to fight Silleus, the man who has just stolen his wife, Constabarus refuses. In fact, he declares that he will not fight for something that he does not deem worthy of the fight. Even as he rants against the entire feminine gender, he expresses what he truly believes. He is an example, in Joseph Hall's lexicon, "Of the honest man:"
HE looks not to what he might do, but what he should.
Justice is his first guide: the second law of his actions is
expedience. He had rather complain than offend: and
hates sin more for the indignity of it than the danger. His
simple uprightness works in him that confidence which
ofttimes wrongs him, and gives advantage to the subtle,
when he rather pities their faithlessness than repents of his
credulity. He hath but one heart, and that lies open to sight;
and, were it not for discretion, he never thinks aught
whereof he would avoid a witness. His word is his
parchment, and his yea his oath; which he will not violate
for fear or for loss [ ... ] He esteems a bribe venomous,
- 89 though it come gilded over with the colour of gratuity. His
cheeks are never stained with the blushes of recantation,
neither doth his tongue falter, to make good a lie with the
secret glosses of double or reserved senses: and when his
name is traduced, his innocency bears him out with
courage: then, lo, he goes on the plain way of truth, and
will either triumph in his integrity or suffer with it. His
conscience overrules his providence: so as in all things,
good or ill, he respects the nature of the actions, not the
sequel[ ... ] once bound, what he can he will do[ ... ] And if
there were no heaven, yet he would be virtuous. (Hall 149-
50)
In many ways, it is the nature of Constabarus "character" that
makes him more complex than Pheroras, even though they are both
characters that portray the "good" side of the male gender. After all,
maintaining a sense of honesty would be difficult in the best of
circumstances. Married to Salome and living within a world of royal
intrigue makes it nearly impossible. Yet, even in this situation,
Constabarus' honesty shines through.
The reader's introduction to Constabarus occurs at the moment that
he happens upon Salome and Silleus in "private conference" (1.6.378).
As a husband should, he upbraids her for being found in such an
indiscreet act with a "base Arabian"(1.6.380). However, even as he is
- 90 reminding her that, in their world, it is important to "be both chaste and chastely deem'd" (1.6.394), he is also admitting, with incredible candor, that she has "been my comfort chief' (1.6.381) and that he "love(s) thee more than thou thyself dost know" (1.6.386). It is perfectly understandable in such circumstances that he would admonish his wife to behave in a more wifely manner. If he truly cares about her, as he appears to and professes to, he would understandably be concerned for her in such circumstances.
What is most interesting is that he admits to needing and wanting her so much at the same time as he is upbraiding her. What a cruel shock it must have then been to have her announce that, "thy love and admonition I defy. I Thou shalt no hour longer call me wife" (1.6.418-9).
Much has been made of the "misogynistic" nature of Constabarus' reply.
An excellent example of this feminist reading is offered by Tiffany Rosavic:
Constabarus sees women as hopelessly divided: they are
lovely on the outside but rotten on the inside ...
Constabarus' double-bind is that when women are all
acting a particular way to please society or husband, that
is, hiding or denying their will, of course he cannot know
their "minds" ... Constabarus thus abandons the society of
women-misogynistically based on the assumption that one
"bad" woman means that they are all so. (Rosavic 3-4)
- 91 True, he does essentially assert that, if Hebrew women are allowed to
initiate divorce, the entire nature of the world will be rearranged. However,
it must be admitted that, in essence, this is true of any significant change in the social construct of allowed female behavior. The same has been said at the moment that women were given any significant freedom that they were not allowed before. Constabarus, in all honesty, is simply expressing a belief that most men likely held, in ancient Judea or
Renaissance England; if women are allowed the freedom to think and to choose for themselves, the entire world will fall apart.
This same belief is stressed again at the end of the play when
Constabarus is facing his death:
You were the angels cast from Heav'n for pride,
And still do keep your angels' outward show,
But none of you are inly beautified,
[... ]
You are the wreck of order, breach of laws.
[Your] best are foolish, forward, wanton, vain,
Your worst adulterous, murderous, cunning, proud:
[... ]
You are the least of goods, the worst of evils,
Your best are worse than men: your worst than devils.
4.6.321-50
- 92 Once again, Constabarus is openly expressing his own views as
honestly as he can. However, for any reader to assume that what
Constabarus says is meant to be a reflection of what Elizabeth Cary truly
believed is to ignore the rest of the play in its entirety. In fact, the women
were specifically written in a manner capable of disputing Constabarus
opinion, however honestly he may have been expressing it.
Despite his outlook on women, which was quite obviously caused
by the situation he was in with Salome, Constabarus has two other
important moments that reflect his honesty in character. He saved Saba's
sons when Herod wanted them killed and it is only at Herod's supposed death that Constabarus finally releases them. He quite apparently
believed that they would be safer hidden by him and that their deaths were wrong. He directly opposed his monarch in order to follow his conscience.
His conscience also dictates his actions in the scene between himself and Silleus. When he is confronted by Silleus, Constabarus refuses to fight him over his "impugning" of Salome's honor. He does not believe that he should be required to fight when what he said was so blatantly true. It is purely ridiculous to fight for "slandering her unspotted name" (2.4.297) when everything he said to her was truth and her reputation is obviously very spotted indeed. That does not mean, however, that he does not want to fight Silleus. After all, this is the man that stole his wife. Constabarus begs Silleus to slander him in some way so that he may fight him without breaking his vow:
- 93 I prithee give some other quarrel ground
To find beginning; rail against my name,
Or strike me first, or let some scarlet wound
Inflame my courage, give me words of shame;
Do thou our Moses' sacred laws disgrace,
Deprave our nation, do me some despite:
I'm apt enough to fight in any case,
But yet for Salome I will not fight.
(2.4.301-8)
In this, as in all things within the play, Constabarus acts with what he feels is true honesty and integrity of self. In fact, it is because of this that we must take note of the fact that Constabarus insists that Mariam was the only female worthy of grace:
You wavering crew: my curse to you I leave,
You had but one to give you any grace:
And you yourselves will Mariam's life bereave;
Your commonwealth doth innocency chase.
(4.6.311-4)
This is the second man to list Mariam as being the exemplification of femininity. Pheroras compared her favorably to his new bride and
Constabarus insists that she is the only worthy woman in the world. This is a marked contrast to the Choral speeches, which vilify her actions. The two positively represented men both noticeably approve of Mariam. In
- 94 presenting these two characters to have such an opinion, Elizabeth Cary
causes the reader to reconsider what the Chorus has said presented to be
the ideal for a woman and consider the possibility that Mariam, either
despite or because of her outspokenness, is an ideal vision of femininity.
Silleus
Since the only interaction that Silleus has is either with or because
of Salome, it stands to reason that he may only be categorized in relation
to her. If the reader considers that Salome, as the sister of a prominent
king who listens to her counsel, could be considered a worthy prize for a
man who wishes to rise to power in his own country, it is easy to see why
Silleus would desire her. However, it is very important to remember that
he not only desires her, he seeks to win her, despite the fact that Salome
is married. Apparently, he believes that there is no reason that his goal should be unattainable even though she should be untouchable. That type of behavior is exactly what Joseph Hall was describing when he detailed "The presumptuous":
PRESUMPTION is nothing but hope out of his wits; a
high house upon weak pillars. The presumptuous man
loves to attempt great things, only because they are hard
and rare; his actions are bold and venturous, and more
full of hazard than use [ ... ] he runs on high battlements,
gallops down steep hills, rides over narrow bridges, walks
- 95 on weak ice, and never thinks, 'What if I fall?' [ ... ] Any
pattern is enough to encourage him: show him the way
where any foot hath trod, he dare follow, although he see
no steps returning [ ... ] no man promises himself more, no
man more believes himself[ ... ] Lastly, he is ever
credulous in assent; rash in undertaking; peremptory in
resolving; witless in proceeding; and in his ending,
miserable. (Hall 188-9)
Silleus displays his presumptuous, covetous nature with his first words,
"Hath thy innated wisdom found the way/ To make Silleus deified,/ By gaining thee, a more than precious prey?" (1.5.326-8). He presumes that, in gaining Salome, he will secure himself a power base that allows him to promise her the kingdom of Arabia because "The weakness of Arabia's king is such, The kingdom is not his so much as mine" (1.5.351-2). In fact, it is important to note that in the version of the Silleus and Salome story told by Josephus, Silleus leaves Salome because she will only marry him if he converts to Christianity. However, in Elizabeth Cary's version, that is simply not discussed. It is assumed that Salome will willingly follow her chosen man to the land he knows and the religion he follows. Despite the fact that Salome is the sister of a monarch, Silleus assumes that his newest acquisition will obligingly follow him wherever he may go.
Therefore, Silleus is guilty of the crime that many women today accuse men of- he treats Salome as a prize, an object, to be won and displayed.
- 96 He does not consider the person underneath the pretty wrapping paper
and that could very easily lead to his death, as it has for her two previous
husbands. Elizabeth Cary's message could easily be that an arrogant
man takes a woman for granted and ignores the reality of who she is at his
own peril.
Herod
Of the four male characters, Herod has the most influence on the
lives of the other characters. It is his choice how they live. It is his choice
how they die. Of course, literally speaking, he is the King of Judea and such choices are his to make. However, symbolically, he is the embodiment of a patriarchal society in Renaissance England that dictated every aspect of the lives of England's citizens. Sumptuary laws determined what people were allowed to wear. The monarchy determined the religion that English subjects were allowed to practice. In fact:
By the time Cary's play was published, James I had
reaffirmed the importance of absolute rule in England [ ...]
James and his supporters to clearly and emphatically
articulate a doctrine of divinely ordained patriarchal
absolutism. As Gordon Schochet notes, "only in defense of
absolutism [did] patriarchalism assum[e] its full
dimensions." In The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, James
naturalizes the king's paternal role: "By the Law of Nature
- 97 the King becomes a natural! Father to all his Lieges at his
Coronation: And as the Father of all, his fatherly duty is
bound to care for the nourishing, education, and vertuous
government of his children; even so is the King bound to
care for all his subiects." Perhaps the clearest articulation
of James's symbolic relationship to his people comes in his
speech to Parliament in 1603: "What God hath conioyned
then, let no man separate. I am the Husband, and all the
whole Isle is my lawful! Wife." (Raber 332)
In direct correlation to the King's behavior, as the embodiment of his philosophy, men determined what women were allowed to do and dictated in what venues they might speak. Herod is the physical manifestation of the male jail or that dictates female behavior. It stands to reason then, considering Elizabeth Cary's perspective, that his is the most negative of the character sketches.
Herod is not only dominating in his attitude toward Mariam, as well as the other characters; he is also contradictory, possessive, and distrustful:
THE distrustful man hath his heart in his eyes or in his
hand; nothing is sure to him but what he sees, what he
handles. He is either very simple or very false; and
therefore believes not others[ ... ] All absent things, and
unusual, have no other but a conditional entertainment:
- 98 they are strange, if true [ ... ] so casting beyond the moon,
he makes wise and just proceedings suspected. In all his
predictions and imaginations, he ever lights upon the
worst: not what is most likely will fall out, but what is most
ill [ ... ]Words, oaths, parchments, seals, are but broken
reeds: these shall never deceive him: he loves no
payments but real. If but one in an age have miscarried,
by a rare casualty, he misdoubts the same event[... ]
what might have been affects him as much as what will
be[ ... ] Argue, vow, protest, swear; he hears thee, and
believes himself. He is a sceptic; and dare hardly give
credit to his senses, which he hath often arraigned of
false intelligence. (Emphasis is mine) (Hall 190-1)
Herod is incapable of believing Mariam. It is not in his nature to be able to do so. In fact, he behaves exactly as many texts of the Renaissance declared that men should behave, as typified by the following, included in a published marriage advice manual of the late 1500's:
Yet, I will ever bear my father's minde
I scorn as much to stoop to women kinde
For if I should then all men would me hate
Because from manhood I degenerate
And surely I should have the love of no men
If I were such a slave unto a woman
- 99 Which to prevent, or to avoid ill speeches
I'll look that tho shalt never wear the breeches.
(qtd. in Hull 118)
Herod's masculine behavior has already been called into question due to
the latitude that he allows Mariam and the fact that he so noticeably dotes
on her, "I know I could enchain him with a smile: / And lead him captive
with a gentle word" (3.3.163-4 ). It is imperative then, in order to retain his
dominate place in the relationship, that he must not allow her to dictate the
terms of the relationship. He must control her or he must destroy her.
Herod is a man "for whom love becomes torment. [ ... ] he is driven to
madness by jealousy, but the outcome is chilling tragedy rather than the
forgiveness and reconciliation of Shakespearean romance" (Fitzmaurice
4).
It is also part of his nature to mistrust Mariam. After all, every since
Eve seduced Adam into trading a bite of apple for Paradise, it has been the nature of women to betray their men. Aristotle presented this
argument, "She is also more envious, more querulous, more slanderous,
and more contentious. Further still, the female is more dispirited, more despondent, more impudent, and more given to falsehood, than the male"
(qtd. in Aughterson 44 ). This was far from a singular opinion. During the
Renaissance, Joseph Swetnam published a diatribe against women titled
"The Arraignment of Lewde, Idle, Froward, and Unconstant Women" in which he asserted that:
- 100 she was no sooner made, but straightway her minde was
set upon mischiefe, for by her aspiring minde and wanton
will, she quickly procured mans fall, and therefore ever
since they are and had beene a woe unto man, and follow
the line of their first leader. (Sig. B)
During the Renaissance, men were bombarded with literature proclaiming women as the home to a wanton nature and a false mien.
Herod, as the manifestation of that male population, is torn between his love for his wife and his inability to trust her. It is this juxtaposition of beliefs that leads Herod to accuse the woman he loves of adultery without any concrete proof, to sentence her to death, and then to beg for her to appear after she is gone. Herod might truly believe that women are wanton, false creatures; what he forgot is that they also are capable of being Sir Thomas Overbury's "A Good Wife" (emphasis is mine):
a man's best movable, a scion incorporate with the stock,
bringing sweet fruit; one that to her husband is more than
friend, less than a trouble; an equal with him in the yoke.
Calamities and troubles she shares alike, nothing pleases
her that doth not him. She is relative in all; and he
without her, but half himself. She is his absent hands,
eyes, ears and mouth; his present and absent all . ... a
husband without her is a misery in man's apparel.
(Overbury 21)
- 101 Herod suffers delirium and anguish at the end of The Tragedy of
Mariam as his penance for not believing in Mariam's innocence. He is the
very type of man that Rachel Speght is discussing in "A Mouzell for
Melastomous":
fare greater is the ingratitude of those men toward God,
that dare presume to speake and exclaime against
Woman, whom God did create for mans comfort. What
greater discredit can redound to a workeman, then to haue
the man, for whom hee hath made it, say, it is naught? or
what greater discurtesie can be offered to one, that
bestoweth a gift, then to haue the receiuer giue out, that
hee cares not for it; For he needes it not? And what greater
ingratitude can be shewed vnto G O D then the
opprobrious speeches and disgraceful! inuectiues, which
some diabolical! natures doe frame against women?
(Speght 12)
Herod is the Joseph Swetnam of The Tragedy of Mariam. His
"Arraignment" ends with Mariam's death. However, just as Joseph
Swetnam had counter-arguments lobbed at him by the likes of Rachael
Speght and Ester Sowernam, so to does Herod. Each of the women presented in The Tragedy of Mariam counters some aspect of the patriarchal Renaissance creation of the proper woman that Herod is
- 102 cleaving to. Propriety may have deemed that women should be chaste, silent, and obedient; these women believe differently.
The Women
In marked contrast to the male characters, which are typified embodiments of a patriarchal society, the women in The Tragedy of
Mariam are essentially the personification of what Renaissance society wanted, believed, or feared. As Alexandra Bennett so eloquently explained:
The Tragedy of Mariam is not simply a tale of one woman's
unshakable integrity in the face of oppression, but instead
an exploration of duplicity, multiplicity, and their
implications for women. By setting up an apparent
opposition between the characters of Mariam and Salome
yet delineating specific parallels between them, Cary
examines the ways in which both women choose to
construct themselves as speaking and performing agents,
revealing a remarkable awareness of the possibilities
afforded to women by different tactics of self
representation. The very opening of the tragedy reveals its
author's concern with the ideas of deception and
multiplicity. The fact that a woman chooses to begin her
- 103 play with her heroine musing upon the significance of
public utterance is highly suggestive of the metadramatic
possibilities of the text[ ... ] [making this] what Elin Diamond
(following Bertolt Brecht) has called "Gestus: a gesture, a
word, an action, a tableau by which, separately or in a
series, the social attitudes encoded in the playtext become
visible to the spectator." These multiple layers of gender
and discourse, as a woman writes a woman speaking
about women speaking, serve as a forcible reminder of the
ideal of female silence advocated by contemporary
manuals of conduct, and the difficulty which women could
have in voicing their views. (295-6)
Each of the women in The Tragedy of Mariam serves as an example of one of the "layers of gender and discourse" that the drama is presenting. Graphina, although outwardly embodying the epitome of female gentility and submissiveness, is in fact a warning to the men who desire the illusion she offers. Alexandra and Doris have attempted to live within the bounds of their patriarchal society. They attempted to exist inside the narrow tenets of a male society and were warped by that existence. Salome appears to live by her own rules and seeks to create her own world but she is unable to completely relinquish her association with the patriarchal society from which she longs to escape. In fact,
Mariam is the only female character that is able to completely relinquish
- 104 her attachment to a male dominated society; living, and dying, true to her
own beliefs and attitudes.
Graphina
In many respects, Graphina is exactly what the sermons and
marriage handbooks insisted that a man should desire in a woman. She
is, according to her own words, chaste, "You have preserved me pure at
my request, / Though you so weak a vassal might constrain / to yield to your high will" (2.1.61-3). She declares her willing obedience, "your lowly
handmaid's steadfast love/ And fast obedience may your mind delight"
(2.1. 70-1 ). As to the third requirement of silence, Pheroras must beg her to speak because he fears she is unhappy about their impending nuptials,
"Why speaks thou not, fair creature? Move thy tongue,/ For silence is a sign of discontent" (2.1.41-2). Graphina embodies the characteristics that the patriarchal Renaissance insisted were correct and required for a woman. In Thomas Overbury's "Characters" the descriptions of both a
"Good Woman" and the "Good Wife" describe a woman exactly as
Graphina is promising she will be:
Now shee is given fresh and alive to a husband, and
she doth nothing more than love him, for shee takes
him to that purpose. So his good becomes the
business of her actions, and she doth her selfe
- 105 kindnesse upon him. After his, her chiefest vertue is
a good husband. For Shee is Hee. (3-4)
Calamaties and troubles shee shares alike, nothing
pleaseth her that doth not him [ ... ] She frames her
nature unto his howsoever, the Hiacinth followes not
the sun more willingly. Stubbornnes and obstinacie
are hearbs that grow not in her garden. (21)
Graphina is everything that a woman, and a wife, is supposed to be. Why then does Pheroras want something more from her? It seems that is exactly the purpose of including her as she is portrayed. After all, she is the personification of patriarchal perfection, yet, even before their marriage, Pheroras is seeking to change her. He is seeking, in fact, to give her the power of speech that she seems so unwilling to wield.
At first glance, Graphina appears to be an "example of Cary's apparent advocation of patriarchal ideals about female acquiescence to male ideology" (Weaver 5). On the surface, Graphina functions to do little more than reproduce what her lover Pheroras desires to hear: "You know my wishes ever yours did meet," she explains, "And fast obedience may your mind delight" (2.1 .48, 71 ). However, that surface is a false and misleading caricature of the perfect woman.
Cary gives us a glimpse into the true nature of the silent woman by naming the blushing bride Graphina. The name Graphina is a derivative form of the Greek word graphein, meaning, "to write." What would be the
- 106 purpose of naming a character in this way and then having the character
be silent unless prompted? Some scholars assert that this "suggests a
parallel between her acquiescent character and the Early Modern
construction of women's writing as non-creative reproduction of male
thought" (Ferguson 237). The assumption seems to be that "as Cary
herself was a member of the upper-class aristocratic society, which
permitted her limited access into the public realm of print, she likely
understood the diminished potential for self-expression permitted to lower
ranking individuals, particularly women" (Weaver 7).
However, it is equally possible, in fact, given Cary's own history,
highly probable, that the message hidden within Graphina is entirely
different. It is possible that "Cary creates Graphina, not in order to
advocate such dutiful speech, but to acknowledge the existence of
mandates that would encourage women's reproduction of patriarchal discourse through speech" (Weaver 7). Perhaps Cary created Graphina and named her in this way for a much simpler purpose. Graphina appears to be the perfect mate, yet:
The claim always to meet his wishes is thus tantamount to
her declaring that no matter what he thinks he sees, he
must see her as he desires her to be, the docile text. He is
the one therefore who is being erased in order that her
existence may be seen as his mirror. [ ... ] If Graphina is a
blank text, a site to be inscribed by him, it is only through
- 107 her offer of herself as such, indeed her demand that he see
her as such, and therefore not see that the Graphina she is
producing as his is her production of herself as his.
(Goldberg 174)
Graphina existence in this drama is both a warning and a challenge. She is a warning for men that, if they continue to stifle the voices of women, if women are denied the ability to speak their minds, they will simply find other creative outlets. They will begin to write. In the same vein, Graphina is a challenge to the women of the Renaissance, a challenge to find their own voices even if they must find them only on paper. After all, "Silence is a sign of discontent". In essence, Elizabeth
Cary is warning that women must receive an equal right for outward self expression or they will be forced to resort to presenting a fac;ade to their men of the expected perfection and save their true selves for the pen.
Alexandra and Doris
Although, at first glance, Alexandra and Doris appear to have nothing in common, they are in fact mirror images. Each woman has been adversely affected by a man in such a way that it has significantly altered her character and demeanor. In fact, they are perfect examples of an argument that Esther Sowernam used in her repudiation against Joseph
Swetnam:
- 108 As for that crookednesse and frowardnesse with which you
charge women, looke from whence they haue it; for of
themselues and their owne disposition it doth not
proceede, which is prooued, directly by your owne
testimonie: for in your 45. Page, Line 15. You say, A young woman of tender yeares is flexible, obedient, and subiect to doe any thing, according to the will and pleasure of her
Husband. How commeth it then that this gentle and milde
disposition is afterwards altered? your selfe doth giue the true reason, for you giue a great charge not to marrie a widdow. But why? because say you in the same Page, A widdow is framed to the conditions of another man. Why then, if a woman haue froward conditions, they be none of
her owne, she was framed to them. Is not our aduersarie ashamed of himselfe to raile against women for those faults which doe all come from men? Doth not hee most grieuously charge men to learne their wiues bad and corrupt behauiour? for hee saith plainely, Thou must vnlearne a widdow, and make her forget and forgoe her former corrupt & disordered behauiour. Thou must vnlearne her, Ergo, what fault shee hath, shee learned, her corruptnes commeth not from her own disposition, but from her Husbands destruction.
- 109 (Sowernam 10)
Herod divorced Doris without cause in order to take a new wife. Herod murdered Alexandra's father and son. It stands to reason that the embittered, poisoned women that are presented to us are a direct result of
Herod's intervention in their lives. Although both Doris and Alexandra perform acts within the course of the play that are questionable:
Cary is openly sympathetic to Doris, whom she presents as
a victim of patriarchal laws. Doris is allowed to express her
feelings of anger and revenge [ ... ] without judgement or
condemnation. In fact these feelings serve to remind us of
the wrongs done to her and invite our sympathy. (Krontiris
91)
Although Alexandra is not portrayed as quite so sympathetic, both Doris and Alexandra display with amazing clarity exactly how it is possible for a man to so alter a woman's disposition that she becomes unfit company:
The milde and flexible disposition of a woman is in
philosophy proued in the composition of her body, for it is a
Maxime, Mores animi sequntur temperaturam corporis,
The disposition of the minde is answerable to the temper of
the body. A woman in the temperature of her body is
tender, soft, and beautiful!, so doth her disposition in minde
corresponde accordingly; she is milde, yeelding, and
vertuous; what disposition accidentally happeneth vnto her,
- 110 is by the contagion of a froward husband, as loseph
Swetnam affirmeth. And experience proueth. It is a shame
for a man to complaine of a froward woman, in many
respects all concerning himselfe. It is a shame he hath no
more gouernment ouer the weaker vessell. It is a shame
he hath hardned her tender sides, and gentle heart with his
boistrous & Northren blasts. (Sowernam 11)
In attempting to mold women into the male image of perfection, all men truly accomplish is the destruction of the loving person that was originally there. Doris and Alexandra are the proof that men should not try to play God. If they were to allow women to find their own image, there would be far fewer embittered, battle-scarred harridans in existence and more loving wives and mothers. As Doris herself says, "Had I ten thousand tongues, and ev'ry tongue / lnflam'd with poison's power, and steep'd in gall:/ My curses would not answer for my wrong" (4.8.609-11 ).
The wrongs that they have suffered were wrongs at the hands of men and nothing can alter such pain once it has been inflicted. The only option available is to avoid inflicting the wrong in the first place. Alexandra and
Doris are Elizabeth Cary's warning that men must be more careful how they treat the women in their lives; seldom does a man kill a woman he cares for, but he may damage her irrevocably just the same.
- 111 Salome
Graphina is the young virgin before she has lived with a man,
representing, at least on a surface level, the Renaissance definition of a
perfect wife. Doris and Alexandra are the embittered products of lives
spent living with and being destroyed by men. They are the before and
the after; Salome and Mariam are currently living what Graphina has yet to
experience and Doris and Alexandra have already survived - life married to a man who does not allow them to be themselves. Salome and Mariam
are the embodiment of the time in between. They represent women
interacting with men on two levels - as men believe women do and as women wish they could.
Salome has all of the characteristics that men were warned women were capable of in the marriage tracts and derogatory pamphlets of the time. She is deceitful, lustful, vengeful, and strong willed. However, she
is so skilled at what she does that either men do not recognize her wiles or they do not survive. Salome survives in her world rather than being destroyed as Mariam is. However, Salome and Mariam have a great deal in common. They are both striving for independence and the ability to determine the course of their lives. In other words, "two women battle against kings, emperors, convention, and each other to regain 'autonomy.'
Only, first they need to figure out what 'autonomy' really means" (Nesvet).
In fact, many recent critics maintain that:
- 112 by challenging the rules governing women and marriage
in their state, Mariam and Salome agree not to play along
any more. (Nesvet)
and
Only Salome's, among the female voices, persists in
its wonderful if horrifying force after the return of
[Herod]. Likewise, Raber believes that Salome
"successfully defies patriarchal order, both
domestically and politically, by recognizing its
inconsistencies, refusing to allow any code to define
and contain her. (Oberg)
This does not appear to be the case. Mariam chooses "not to play along";
Salome chooses to play the same game as the men, only better. She
satisfies her wants and desires, but she never betrays her true self to the
men in her life. Herod believes that she is a weak willed female who will,
"whine to beg his breath" when Constabarus is killed and that he will need to be "deaf to prayers: and blind to tears."(4.2.77-8). He assumes that
Salome will give in to such "weak" emotions and that he will need to steel
himself to withstand her imploring partly because she has used such ploys on him before. While the audience knows that Salome is acting the part of an inferior female, Herod believes her to be exactly as she seems. In true keeping with the duality of nature that Cary is suggesting women had to use to survive:
- 113 Salome is able to capitalize upon Herod's knowledge of the
division between being and seeming to bring about
Mariam's downfall. This is just one way in which Salome
exploits the potential for dissimulation and subversion in
The Tragedy of Mariam. Instead of embodying an implicit
potential for pretense, she is explicit in fabricating her
personae, modifying her behavior to conform to whichever
paradigm will get her what she wants. Salome's demarcation as an apparent political, sexual, and social foil to Mariam [ ... ]Though Salome appears at first to be
molded upon the Vice figures of medieval morality plays and Mariam to be an attempted embodiment of spotless virtue, the simultaneous links between these women say much about Cary's designation of the potential for female constructions of subjectivity. [ ... ] It has been a long time since she herself displayed signs of abashment despite her nefarious actions, and Mariam, she claims, demonstrates the same characteristics--the negative picture she delineates for Herod is based, in part, upon her own traits.
Herod's earlier verbal slip, "I will require / Thee, gentle
Mariam--Salom I mean" (IV.ii.83-4), is highly suggestive of the ease with which their attributes can be conflated. [ ... ] It is not surprising, therefore, that once made aware of the
- 114 potential for deception inherent in the division between
being and seeming, male authorities are quick to decry
their wives' self-constructive abilities as inherently evil. [ ... ]
In playing the role of the dutiful sister, Salome gives Herod
what he is looking for, a mirror which confirms his own
importance, while creating opportunities for the fulfillment
of her own desires. In making such a vivid distinction
between Mariam's or Salome's inner convictions or desires
and their outer conduct, Cary reveals the ways in which
women could fabricate public characters and adapt those
personae to their environments. (Bennett 303-6)
The same can also be said of Silleus, whom Salome plays like a maestro on the violin. She must, unfortunately, confide to him that she intends to divorce Constabarus. However, rather than making it appear to be her choice, she presents it as a final effort to relieve herself of her unwanted husband and furthers the image that Silleus carries of her as a perfect woman by begging his understanding and approval:
I have devised the best I can devise;
A more imperfect means was never found:
But what cares Salome? It doth suffice
If our endeavors with their end be crown'd.
In this our land we have an ancient use,
Permitted first by our law-giver's head:
- 115 Who hates his wife, though for no just abuse,
May with a bill divorce her from his bed.
But in this custom women are not free,
Yet I for once will wrest it; blame not thou
The ill I do, since what I do's for thee,
Though others blame, Silleus will allow.
(Emphasis is mine) (1.5.329-40)
She knows that what she must accomplish is frowned upon and appears to ask permission in order to forestall any possibility that Silleus might be concerned at her distinctly unwomanly behavior.
It is for the same purpose that Salome manages to bribe Pheroras into betraying Constabarus and Saba's sons. Herod must not be aware of her machinations or he would not perform in the way that she requires of him. Therefore, she sends Pheroras, knowing that her message will be received and, "This will be Constabarus' quick dispatch,/ Which from my mouth would lesser credit find." (3.2.81-2). If Herod knew that she had divorced Constabarus for personal reasons and was purposely seeking his death, he would be far less inclined to believe in Salome or her actions and certainly less inclined to behave in the ways that she needs requires of him.
In fact, there is only one male who is allowed insight into the true nature of Salome, and that is Constabarus. He begins his only discourse with Salome by requesting that she behave in a more seemly manner.
- 116 She retaliates in an even less "womanly" way by informing him that she
means to divorce him. Although Constabarus' response has been
analyzed by many scholars as being purely misogynistic in nature, that is
not true. He has simply gained the insight into Salome's true nature and
realized that she is seizing freedoms and rights that have hitherto been
reseNed for men.
Are Hebrew women now transformed to men?
Why do they not as well our battles fight,
And wear our armour? Suffer this, and then
Let all the world be topsy-tuNed quite.
(1.6.421-4)
Constabarus recognizes something that none of the other men have;
Salome believes she has the right to behave as she pleases. She has seized the rights allotted to men, in essence transforming herself into a
man. However, even Salome does not want the world to go topsy-tuNy.
Therefore, the one man who recognizes her behavior and understands that she will continue to do as she pleases within the confines of society must die before he proclaims her unwomanly behavior to the others and destroys her disguise of propriety.
Although Salome insists to Constabarus that, "I mean not to be led
by precedent,/ My will shall be to me instead of Law" (1.6.453-4), she is only willing to declare it so to the man that she dooms to death. Herod, the man in power, must not be allowed to suspect. Rather than bending
- 117 her will to Herod or declaring openly what she wishes, Salome hides her true intent. She is a hypocrite of the highest sort; the concept of "Be and
Seem" (Life 195) is completely alien to her. Oberg believes that "Cary's fascination with Salome, a woman who, as Josephus puts it, 'chose to follow not the law of her country, but the law of her authority,' may reveal her own longings for freer expression" (3). I do not believe that is the case. Salome does not have freedom of expression. She has simply learned the rules so well that she knows when her speech will be permissible and when it will not.
It is important to note however that there are only two women who may have the potential for happiness as the play ends - Graphina, who has only begun her life in a patriarchal world and Salome, who pretends in a believable fashion that she willingly bends to the patriarchal structure and actually bends it to her needs and desires. Doris and Alexandra have both tried to live according to the rules imposed on them by a masculine world and they have both been indelibly scarred by the experience. There is little reason to believe that Graphina may not be approaching the same fate, unless she chooses either Salome's path of subterfuge or Mariam's path of honest expression.
- 118 Mariam
Salome represents the woman that men feared and, according to the literature of the time, believed all women would be if they were left to their own devises: forward, idle, licentious, deceitful, and completely
uncontrollable. In contrast, Mariam is the embodiment of what women wished they could be. She is outspoken only when she feels it is
important to be so. She behaves in a classically womanly fashion in every way except her speech. She is chaste in body as well as mind. Despite the fact that Herod has essentially imprisoned her and acted with jealousy at every turn, she acknowledges:
Blame me not, for Herod's jealousy
Had power even constancy itself to change:
For he, by barring me from liberty,
To shun my ranging, taught me first to range.
But yet too chaste a scholar was my heart,
To learn to love another than my lord:
(1.1.23-8)
Even faced with insane jealousy, Mariam is unable and unwilling to allow herself to "range" outside her marriage. She is truly chaste.
She also admits that she loved her husband when they first married. Her tears when she believes him dead are genuine:
Why, now methinks the love I bare him then,
When virgin freedom left me unrestrain'd,
- 119 Doth to my heart begin to creep again,
My passion now is far from being feign'd.
(1.1.71-4)
In fact, it is only through Herod's actions that she has become less than
the loving wife he wishes and expects from her. The only specific
complaints Mariam voices about Herod are that he murdered her relatives
and that he left specific instructions to murder her if he were to be killed in
Rome. Certainly, these are understandable grievances.
However, Mariam makes what could be considered her fatal error
in that she voices her opinions regarding Herod's behavior rather than
simply submitting and maintaining the quiet equilibrium that was
expected of a woman. Chaste, silent, and obedient were not individual attributes that were expected of women. They were inextricably linked.
It was unfathomable that someone could be chaste and not adhere to the other two tenets. As Juan Luis Vives advised in The Instruction of a
Christian Woman:
Be nat proude mayde that thou are holle of body. Yf thou
be broken in mynde: not because so many hath touched
thy body/ if many men have persed thy mynde. What
avayleth hit/ thy body to be clene/ whan thou hearest thy
mynde and thy thought infected with a foule and an horrible
blotte: 0 thou mayde/ thy mynde is wyddred by burnnyng
in mannes heate: nor thou fretest nat with holy love: but
- 120 hast dryded by all the good fatnes of the pleasures of
paradise. Therfore art thous the folishe mayde .. ./ whan
thou commest agayne/ and knockest/ thou shalte be
answered: who art thou: I knowe the nat. Thou shalte say
than: knowest thou nat those body closed and untouched
of men: our lorde shall say agane: I se nat the body: I se
the soule open unto men/ and unto devylles worse than
men/ and often knocked at. (4)
Mariam's body is untouched by any but her husband. However, her willingness to express her opinions is viewed as an uncleanness of the soul. After all,
There is nothing that becommeth a maid better than
soberness, silence, shamefastnes, and chastity, both of
bodie & mind. For these things being once lost, she is no
more a maid, but a strumpet in the sight of God. (Thomas
Bentley, The Monument of Matrones, qtd. in Hull 143)
This belief is expressed by the Chorus's speeches as well as Herod's reaction to Mariam after his return. If she is outspoken, if she is willing to express an opinion openly, then she must no longer be chaste of body.
Granted, this is hardly a fair assertion by any means. Modern logic would argue that it is fairly common for individuals to seem to be something other than what they are. The same obviously holds true for
Salome, who most assuredly seems to be a proper woman but is, in fact,
- 121 the personification of impurity. However, that does not change the simple fact that Mariam appears to be unchaste, therefore Herod assumes that
she is. It is evident that she dies for seeming to be something that she is
not. As Herod proclaims, "It may be so: nay, 'tis so: she's unchaste,/ Her
mouth will ope to ev'ry stranger's ear: / Then let the executioner make
haste (4.7.433-5). In fact, Mariam herself comments on the duality of "Be and Seem" when she says, "But I did think because I knew me chaste, /
One virtue for a woman might suffice. (4.8.561-2).
Of all the characters presented in The Tragedy of Mariam, Mariam herself is the only one that cannot be neatly pigeonholed into an existing mold. The male characters are realizations of Joseph Hall's Characters of
Vertue and Vice. Graphina is the embodiment of the ideal woman and wife as presented in literature of the Renaissance. Doris and Alexandra exemplify how a man's actions can be responsible for a woman's demeanor. Salome is everything evil that a woman is capable of being, hidden beneath the fagade of a proper woman. The type of character that
Mariam represents is not presented as a recurring theme in Renaissance literature. Why, then, is this type of woman the tragic heroine that
Elizabeth Cary chose to present to her audience?
The opinions on that subject are numerous and far ranging. Some scholars believe that Elizabeth Cary was presenting Mariam as a warning of how not to behave, that she was designed to deter woman from behaving in an unseemly manner. In the article "Transgressing
- 122 Boundaries", Janet Clare voices this opinion very succinctly, "Mariam seems ... to be endorsing cultural prescriptions of feminine behaviour and accepting that transgression of such boundaries can only bring
misfortune" (16).
Others believe quite the opposite, that Elizabeth Cary was writing a thinly veiled description of her own life in a patriarchal structure that inhibited her freedom and confined her to an arranged marriage where she was not happy and forced to subvert her own religious beliefs. This belief is espoused by Alexandra Bennett:
The tragedy is read as an extension or expression of its
author's own life and struggles, both within a difficult
marriage and involving her conversion to Catholicism ...
the consistency of her views about proper female behavior
in both the Life and the play has frequently been noted ...
the assumption that Mariam is a stand-in for the author
herself becomes logical. (293)
Unfortunately, those scholar who adhere to such a belief fail to take into account the fact that Elizabeth Cary is believed to have written this play very early in her marriage, possibly prior to living in the same household with her husband, and certainly before she is believed to have converted to Catholicism. Nancy Gutierrez suggests, in "Valuing Mariam" that
"Mariam is subversive, not because it advocates woman's social and intellectual autonomy, but because it realizes the difficulties in
- 123 implementing such autonomy, however autonomy is defined" (242).
Perhaps, however, it is closer to the truth to say that:
Mariam speaks with a "public voice," evaluating politics,
power, fear, and hypocrisy with impressive accuracy. Cary
shows that random preferment, exclusion, and persecution
according to religious, political, and gender affiliations do
not exist in isolation with each other: they are all tangled
inseparably. Challenging all is the only way to eradicate
any. (Nesvet)
Mariam herself is definitely meant to pose a challenge. She is a challenge to male authority because she questions the actions of her husband. She is unwilling to behave as a proper woman, look after the household, raise the children, and silently and willingly obey Herod. She challenges the status quo because she does not behave in the ways that are expected of a woman and a wife:
Mariam is surrounded by women who may disapprove of
her "unbridled speech," but who offer alternatives to her
martyrdom. Yet Mariam's resistance to domestic tyranny
has profound political implications, and the play invites its
audience to identify with a heroine who openly defies
society's injunctions to silence and obedience.
(Fitzmaurice 5)
- 124 In fact, she willingly goes to her death rather than concede her
individualism and make a mockery of her unique personality:
Mariam refuses to act according to prescribed social
norms. She[ ... ] attempts to establish a perspective
from which she can speak as a person who has a
conscience of her own to answer to. [ ... ] Mariam does
not appear to regard the marriage bond as a raison
d'etre. (Krontiris 83)
By definition then, Mariam is a martyr. Although the original meaning of a martyr was derived from the Greek martyr-, martys, which meant, literally, "witness", it quickly developed a religious meaning. By the
1ih Century, the word martyr was often used to refer to someone who
"voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion" (Webster 317). It stands to reason that in this, like many other instances in The Tragedy Of Mariam, Elizabeth Cary would choose to present something in such a way that it emphasizes the dichotomy between religion and every day existence. The second definition of a martyr, also in use by the 16th century was, "a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle" (Webster 317). This is exactly what Mariam does.
Perhaps somewhat extravagantly, scholarship has shown a correlation between Mariam and the martyrdom of Christ:
- 125 In the play's final act [ ... ] the dying Mariam acquires
symbolic features of Christ and his precursors, the
Slaughtered Innocents and the beheaded John the
Baptist [ ... ] when she meets her death, she is a
figurative Innocent. (Weller and Ferguson 21-23)
The difficulty becomes analyzing exactly what principle Mariam has
sacrificed herself for and whether it was a worthy sacrifice. On a literal
level, of course, she sacrifices her life because she believes that she has
the right to argue about actions that Herod has taken against herself and
her family. More deeply than that, she sacrifices herself because she
believes that she has the right to speak, to voice her opinions, to disagree.
Rather than demeaning herself and her gender by behaving in the way that Salome does, she forfeits her life to remain true to her beliefs.
In the final analysis:
Cary's Mariam is quite an assertive woman. In her, Cary
gives us an example of wifely insubordination in the context
of seventeenth-century patriarchal society, which identified
woman, legally and socially, as her husband's dependant. [ .
. .] Mariam refuses to sacrifice her idealism in favour of
wifely duty. [ ...] Mariam ultimately dies primarily because
she insists on remaining, in Belsey's phrase, 'a unified,
autonomous subject. (Krontiris 83)
- 126 If Mariam is the nobler person, why does Salome survive and she die? The conventions of tragedy not withstanding, Mariam must die for the simple reason that only in death is her true worth understood by the person who sought to confine her within a predetermined mold of perfection. It is only after she dies that Herod realizes, not only that she was innocent of his ludicrous charges against her, but that, "Upon your sex's forehead Mariam sat, I To grace you all like an imperial crown"
(5.1.163-164). Mariam, outspoken, opinionated, and forward, was still the epitome of femininity. He has realized the extremity of his mistake in destroying someone who did not fit the accepted societal definition of feminine. It is at this moment that Elizabeth Cary's underlying theme becomes clear; Mariam advocates everything that Renaissance society seeks to stultify in women, yet she is regarded as the perfection of womanhood by the men who surround her.
In fact, the Chorus, which has spent the vast majority of the play chastising Mariam, says, at the last:
This day's events were certainly ordain'd,
To be the warning to posterity:
So many changes are therein contain'd,
So admirably strange variety.
This day alone, our sagest Hebrews shall
In after times the school of wisdom call.
(5.1.289-294)
- 127 The warning that these events are giving to posterity is simple: do not
destroy a woman for being different. It is, in fact, the differences in her
personality and nature that make a woman unique and valuable. Only by
embracing the "admirably strange variety" is it possible to truly understand
and appreciate women.
Although, on the surface, Elizabeth Cary is referring to Mariam, the
reality is that she has made Mariam a martyr for all women. As Tina
Krontiris points out:
Through Mariam the play queries the validity of a universal
standard on wifely behaviour and simultaneously challenges
the assumption behind the standard - that man is
necessarily woman's moral superios. Ultimately, the play
undermines many of the assumptions on which Cary's
society based its definition of a wife. (Krontiris 83)
By dying a literary death, Mariam will hopefully give women a literal rebirth into freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom from patriarchal tyranny, freedom to be themselves without the necessity of hiding behind duplicity or a social mask within the confines of their own homes.
Conclusion
The effects of Elizabeth Carey's bid for intellectual freedom and freedom of expression for all women are difficult to assess. Certainly, she
- 128 was not the only woman writing about such concepts during her era. Nor was she the only author to publish her thoughts, even though she was the first Englishwoman to publish an original drama. However, it is certainly possible to see the same beliefs reflected in Aemilia Lanyer's often quoted, "If Eve did erre, it was for knowledge sake" ("Eve's Apology" line
37). After all, one of the things that Elizabeth Cary seemed to believe in strongly was a thirst for knowledge and the right for anyone to seek it.
It is certainly not difficult to believe that Elizabeth Cary might have influenced, even indirectly, the concepts that began appearing in literary endeavors later in the 1600's. For instance, The Mothers Legacie, To her vnborne Childe, which was published in 1624, openly declares that women are not only capable of learning and wisdom, but that:
I desire her bringing vp may bee learning the Bible, as my
sisters doe, good houswifely, writing, and good workes:
other learning a woman needs not: though I admire it in
those whom God hath blest with discretion, yet I desired
not much in my owne, hauing scene that sometimes
women haue greater portions of learning, than wisdorne,
which is of no beter vse to them than a main saile to a flye
boat, which runs it vnder water. But where learning and
wisdome meet in a vertuous disposed woman, she is the
fittest closet for all goodnesse. She is like a well-ballanced
- 129 ship that may beare all her saile. (qtd. in Tebeiux and Lay
203)
Nor was this the only time that such concepts were put into print after the publication of The Tragedy of Mariam. In fact, it is possible that the knowledge that other women, such as Elizabeth Cary, were writing and publishing their thoughts gave women such as Rachel Speght and Ester
Sowernam the fortitude to publish their responses to the virulent spew that
Joseph Swetnam published in 1617. Not only did Sowernam intelligently counter all of Swetnam's arguments, she also closed her pamphlet with a witty, well thought out poem attributed to "Joan Sharp" that shows the progress women were making in their attempts to articulate their opinions in a public arena:
The humors of men, see how froward they bee;
We know not to please them in any degree:
For if we goe plaine we are sluts they doe say,
They doubt of our honesty if we goe gay;
If we be honest and merrie, for gig lots they take vs,
If modest and sober, then proud they doe make vs:
Be we housewifly quicke, then a shrew he doth keepe,
If patient and milde, then he scorneth a sheepe.
What can we deuise to doe or to say,
But men doe wrest all things the contrary way.
'Tis not so vncertaine to follow the winde,
- 130 As to seeke to please men of so humerous minde.
Their humors are giddy, and neuer long lasting,
We know not to please them, neither full nor yet fasting.
Either we doe too little, or they doe too much:
They straine our poore wits, their humors are such.
They say, women are proud, wherein made they trial I?
They moou'd some lewd suit, and had the deniall:
To be crost in such suites, men cannot abide,
And therupon we are entitled with pride.
They say we are curst and froward by kinde,
Our mildnesse is vnchanged, where raging we finde,
A good lacke sayes the prouerbe, doth make a good Gill,
A curst froward Husband doth change woman's will.
They vse vs (they say) as necessary euils,
We haue it from them, for they are our deuils.
When they are in their rages and humerous fits,
They put vs poore women halfe out of our wits.
Of all naughty women name one if you can,
If she be prou'd bad, it came by a man.
(Sowernam 26-7)
This is certainly not the type of opinionated diatribe that would have been allowed a scant decade earlier when Elizabeth Cary's Tragedy of Mariam was first published. True, the instances of female authorship continued to
- 131 be exceptionally rare. However, women were more often listening to the advice of Marie de France, advice that Elizabeth Cary had proven she
believed in:
Ki Deus ad dune esc"ience
E de parler bon' eloquence
Ne s'en deit taisir ne celer,
Ainz se deit volunters mustrer.
[Whoever has received knowledge
and eloquence in speech from God
should not be silent or secretive
but demonstrate it willingly.]
(37)
A willing demonstration of knowledge and eloquence is something that women have had to fight for the right to exhibit. Elizabeth Cary was a general in that war. She presented a play to the public that had depth, multiple layers, and an integral call to arms to the women of her era to participate in a subtle war to win freedom of expression. She may not have experienced the horrors that Virginia Woolf described for
Shakespeare's sister. She may not have had a talent equal to
Shakespeare's. However, she was definitely Shakespeare's literary sister, both chronologically and contextually.
I told you that Shakespeare had a sister. She died young-
alas, she never wrote a word ... Now my belief is that this
- 132 poet who never wrote a word and was buried at the
crossroads still lives. She lives in you and in me, and in
many other women who are not here tonight, for they are
washing up the dishes and putting the children to bed. But
she lives; for great poets do not die; they are continuing
presences; they need only the opportunity to walk among
us in the flesh. If we have the habit of freedom and the
courage to write exactly what we think; ... if we face the
fact, for it is a fact, that there is no arm to cling to, but that
we go alone and that our relation is to the world of reality
and not only to the world of men and women, then the
opportunity will come and the dead poet who was
Shakespeare's sister will put on the body which she has so
often laid down. Drawing her life from the lives of the
unknown who were her forerunners, as her brother did
before her, she will be born. (Woolf 197-199)
Elizabeth Cary's The Tragedy of Mariam was a triumph not simply because it was the first original drama by a female Englishwoman to be published. It was a triumph because Elizabeth Cary embraced the essence of what Virginia Woolf refers to as "Shakespeare's sister" and had the courage to write exactly what she thought. It was a triumph because Mariam was the martyr that enabled future generations of women writers to do the same. Elizabeth Cary and her contemporaries helped to
- 133 blaze a trail of freedom of expression that women in modern society take for granted. In the hands of Elizabeth Cary, the character of Mariam provided a key for women to unlock the freedom to express themselves in print. It was, without a doubt, a literary triumph.
- 134 NOTES
1 Hereafter referred to as Life in all citations.
2 Several scholars argue the identity of the author of this biography. However, the most persuasive arguments, offered by Weller and Ferguson, S.P. Cerasano, and Karen
Raber offer compelling reasons to believe that Anne, who was the eldest, is the author.
3 Excellent sources for the debate regarding male power in Renaissance England and it's effects on marriage can be found, especially in Suzanne Hull's A Renaissance
Sourcebook and Half Humankind by Katherine Usher Henderson and Barbara F.
McManus.
4 For additional and differing opinions on the use, as well as the purpose, of the Chorus, see Alexandra G. Bennett's "Female Performativity in The Tragedy of Mariam" as well as
"The Chorus and Conventional Wisdom" in Barry Weller and Margaret Ferguson's introduction to their edition of The Tragedy of Mariam.
135 Works Cited
Anger, Jane. "Jane Anger, her Protection for Women" 1589. 15 Jan. 2002
Aughterson, Kate. Renaissance Women: A Sourcebook: Constructions of
Femininity in England. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Bates, Alfred, Ed. The Drama: Its History, Literature and Influence on
Civilization. Vol. 2. London: Historical Publishing Company. 1906.
134-137.
Beilin, Elaine V. "The Making of a Female Hero: Joanna Lumley and
Elizabeth Cary." Redeeming Eve: Women Writers of the English
Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1987. 151-76.
Bennett, Alexandra G. "Female Performativity in The Tragedy of Mariam".
Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. 40 no2 (Spring 2000):
293-309.
Blackwell, B. Ed. The Overburian Characters: to which is added, A Wife.
1936. New York: AMS Press, 1977.
Burke's Genealogical & Heraldic History of the Peerage, Baronetage &
Knightage. 104th Edition. London: Burke's Peerage Ltd. 1967.
Cary, Elizabeth. The Tragedy of Mariam, the Fair Queen of Jewry. Ed.
Barry Weller and Margaret W. Ferguson. Los Angeles: U of
California Press, 1994.
- 136 Cerasano, S.P. and Marion Wynne-Davies. Readings in Renaissance
Women's Drama. New York: Routledge, 1998.
Cerasano, S.P. and Marion Wynne-Davies. Renaissance Drama by
Women Texts and Documents. New York: Routledge, 1996.
Clare, Janet. "Transgressing Boundaries." Renaissance Forum: Volume
1, Number 1, March 1996. 29 Sept. 2001. Hull/EL Web/renforum/v1 no1/clare.html> Davies, John. The Complete Works of John Davies of Hereford. Ed. Rev. Alexander B. Grosart. 1910. New York: AMS Press, 1967. De France, Marie. The Lais of Marie de France. Translated and edited by Robert Hanning and Joan Ferrante. Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth Press, 1982. Dunston, A.C., and W.W. Greg, Ed. The Tragedy of Mariam 1613. By Elizabeth (Tanfield) Cary Falkland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1914. Earle, John. Microcosmography. 1633. Edited by Alfred S. West. Cambridge: University Press. 1951. Ferguson, Margaret W. "The Spectre of Resistance: The Tragedy of Mariam ( 1613 ). " Staging the Renaissance: Reinterpretations of Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama. Ed. David Scott Kastan and Peter Stallybrass. New York: Routledge, 1991. 235-50. - 137 Fitzmaurice, James, Josephine A. Roberts, Carol L. Braash, Eugen R Gunnar, Nancy A. Gutierrez, eds. Major Women Writers of Seventeenth-Century England. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. Goldberg, Jonathan. Desiring Women Writing. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1997. Gutierrez, Nancy. "Valuing Mariam: Genre Study and Feminist Analysis," TSWL 10, 2 (Fall 1991): 233-51. Hall, Joseph. Heaven Upon Earth & Characters of Vertues and Vices. 1608. Edited by Rudolph Kirk. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1948. Henderson, Katherine Usher and Barbara F. McManus. Half Humankind: Contexts and Texts of the Controversy about Women in England 1540-1640. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985. "Herod". 12 Feb. 2002. 05855.html> Holloway, Julia Bolton. "Julian's Showing of Love in a Nutshell." The Tablet. 1996. 14 Dec. 2001. Hull, Suzanne W. Chaste, Silent & Obedient: English Books for Women, 1475-1640. San Marino: Kingsport Press, 1982. Imagination workshop. "Seneca". 15 October 2001. nation.com/ moonstruck/clsc50.html> - 138 "Irish History". 04 Nov. 2001. chapter11 a.html> Jonson, Ben. Every Man Out of His Humour. Ed. Helen Ostovich. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002. Josephus, Flavius. The Famous and Memorable Works of Josephus. Translated by Thomas Lodge. London: Peter Short, 1602. Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, Massachusetts: A.M. Hendrickson Publishers, 1987. The King James Bible. New York: American Bible Society, 1970. Kirk, Rudolph. Ed. Heaven Upon Earth & Characters of Vertues and Vices. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1948. Krontiris, Tina. Oppositional Voices. New York: Routledge, 1992. The Lady Falkland Her Life. Ed. Weller, Barry and Margaret W. Ferguson. Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1994. Lanyer, Aemilia. Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum. London: Oxford University Press, 1993. Lodge, Thomas. Rosalynde. Ed. Edward Chauncey Baldwin. New York: Atheneum Press, Ginn and Company, 1910. - 139 "Lodge, Thomas". The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. Columbia University Press. 7 Jan. 2002. people/A0830135.html> McCarthy, Michael J.F. Priests and People in Ireland. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co., 1903. Nesvet, Rebecca. "Shakespeare's Sister: The 'Public Voice' of Elizabeth Cary. Verge Magazine. 10 August 2001. Oberg, Maria M. '"Trouble -quiet Sowers of Unrest: Representations of Women, from Josephus to Cary." 11 August 2001. ObergJosephusandCary.html> Overbury, Thomas. The Overburian Characters: to which is added, A Wife, 1614. 1936. B. Blackwell, Ed., New York: AMS Press, 1977. Oxford English Dictionary. Volume 9. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. R. M. "The Mothers Counsel! or, Live within Compasse". Women Writers Project first electronic edition, 2001. Raber, Karen L. "Gender and the Political Subject in The Tragedy of Mariam". Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. Spring 1995. 35:321-343. - 140 Ralston, Patricia. "Review of Renaissance Drama by Women: Texts and Documents." Early Modern Literary Studies. 3.1 (May 1997): 13.1- 9. http://purl.oclc.org/emls/03-1/rev ral1.html Rosavic, Tiffany. "Dismembering Discourses in The Tragedy of Mariam." 12 Sept. 2001 rasoviced1 .html> Schelling, Felix. Ed. Every Man Out of His Humour. Project Guttenburg E-Text #3695. 26 January 2002. books/gutenburg/etext03/ emohh1 0.txt> Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. His Tenne Tragedies, Translated into Englysh. Ed. Thomas Newton. Printed London 1581. New York: Da Capo Press, 1969. Sowernam, Ester. "Ester hath hang'd Haman: or An Answere To a lewd Pamphlet" 1617. Transcribed in Half Humankind. Speght, Rachel. "A Mouzell for Melastomus" 1617. Transcribed in Half Humankind. Stephen, Carmen. "Renaissance Women: An Insight into 1 Henry IV". Women and the History Plays, 1996. 23 November 2001. Resol> - 141 Swetnam, Joseph. "The Arraignment of Lewd, idle, forward, and unconstantwomen". 1615. 14 October 2001. Taylor, John. "A Juniper Lecture, With the description of all sorts of Women." Transcribed in Half Humankind. Tebeaux, Elizabeth and Mary M. Lay "The Emergence of the Feminine Voice, 1526-1640". Texas A&M University. 15.1/Articles/4.htm> "Thomas Lodge (1556-1625)". 28 Feb. 2002. minto4.html> 'The Tragedy of Mariam: A Critical Argument." Prodigal Daughter Project. 8 Aug. 2001. mariam.html> Travitsky, Betty S. and Adele F. Seeff. Attending to Women in Early Modern England. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1994. "The Two Mariams: Elizabeth Cary and the Source for Her Play". 05 September 2001. rswnet2.html> Vives, Juan Luis. Instructions for a Christian Woman. Ed. Jen Janke and Krista Kutz. Early Modern Texts Project. emtexts/vives1 .html> - 142 Weaver, Susan M. "A Space for Women in The Tragedy of Mariam". 23 March 2001. space.html> Webster's New American Dictionary. Ed. Merriam-Webster. New York: Smithmark Publishers, 1995. Weller, Barry and Margaret W. Ferguson, Ed. The Tragedy of Mariam, the Fair Queen of Jewry. Los Angeles: U of California Press, 1994. Whiston, William, translator. The Works of Josephus. Peabody, Massachusetts: A.M. Hendrickson Publishers, 1987. Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929. - 143 Works Consulted "The Argument: Cary's Synopsis of the Tragedy". Prodigal Daughter Project. http://www.valpo.edu/home/staff/kinnes/closet/ carysargument.html "Bio: Elizabeth Cary (1585-1639)". Prodigal Daughter Project. http://www.valpo.edu/home/staff/kinnes/closet/carybio.html Coffin, Judith, Marlowe Irvine, Ramona Sousa. "The Lives of Renaissance Women". 1996. The British Columbia Teachers' Federation. http://www.bctf.bc.ca/lessonaids/online/ LA9245.html#activity9 Donawerth, Jane. "Teaching Shakespeare in the Context of Renaissance Women's Culture." Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 47, Issue 4, Winter 1996, 476-489. "Finding Shakespeare's Sisters" http://athena.english.vt.edu/~jmooney/ ren mats/women. html Findlay, Alison, Gweno Williams, and Stephanie J. Hodgson-Wright. "'The Play is ready to be Acted': women and dramatic production, 1570- 1670". Women's Writing, Vol 6. No.1, 1999. 129-148. Ferguson, Margaret W. "A Room Not Their Own: Renaissance Women as Readers and Writers." The Comparative Perspective on Literature: - 144 Approaches to Theory and Practice, ed. Clayton Koelb and Susan Noakes. Cornell Univ. Press: Ithaca and London, 1988. 93-116. Ferguson, Margaret W. "Running On with Almost Public Voice." The Comparative Perspective on Literature: Approaches to Theory and Practice, ed. Clayton Koelb and Susan Noakes. Cornell Univ. Press: Ithaca and London, 1988. 37-67. Gutierrez, Nancy. "Why William and Judith Both Need Their Own Rooms". Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 47, Issue 4, 424-432. Haec-Vir; or, The Womanish Man. 1620. Transcribed on http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kari/querhv.html Hall, Kim F. "Beauty and the Beast of Whiteness: Teaching Race and Gender''. Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 47, Issue 4, Winter 1996, 461-475. Hendricks, Margo and Patricia Parker, Eds. Women, "Race", & Writing in the Early Modern Period. New York: Routledge, 1994. "Herod of the Corpus Christi". Prodigal Daughter Project. http://www.valpo.edu/home/staff/kinnes/closet/herodcorpus.html Hic-Mulier; or, The Man-Woman. 1620. Transcribed on http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kari/querhm.html Hintz, Carrie. "Review of The Tragedy of Mariam." Early Modern Literary Studies. 3.2 (September 1997): 9.1-6. - 145 LeBaron, Garn Jr. "Sexual Relations in Renaissance Europe." 1995. http://www. lebaronet. net/sex. html Lodge, Thomas. Wits Miserie, Worlds Madnesse, 1596. Theatrum Orbis Terrarum Ltd. New York: Amsterdam and Da Capo Press, 1969. Matchinske, Megan. "Credible Consorts: What Happens When Shakespeare's Sisters Enter the Syllabus?" Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 47, Issue 4, 433-450. Miller, Naomi. "Domestic Politics in Elizabeth Cary's The Tragedy of Mariam." Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. V37 p 353-369. Spring 1997. Munda, Constantia. "The Worming of a Mad Dog; or, A Sop for Cerebus, the Jailor of Hell". Transcribed on http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kari/ quercm.html Parrott, Thomas Marc and Robert Hamilton Ball. A Short View of Elizabethan Drama. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958. Poole, Kristin. "The Fittest Closet for All Goodness: Authorial Strategies of Jacobean Mother's Manuals". 1995. William Marsh Rice University. http://lonestar.texas.net/~mseifert/puritan1 .html Purkiss, Diane. "Blood, Sacrifice, Marriage: why Iphigenia and Mariam have to die." Women's Writing, Vol 6. No.1, 1999. 27-45. - 146 "Saint Mariam: Cary's Tragedy and the Medieval Saint Play". Prodigal Daughter Project. http://www.valpo.edu/home/staff/kinnes/closet/ saintmariam.html Skretkowicz, Victor. "Mary Sidney Herbert's Antonius, English Philhellenism and the Protestant Cause." Women's Writing. Vol. 6, No.1, 1999. P.7-25. Stirm, Jan. "'For Solace a Twinne-like Sister': Teaching Themes of Sisterhood in As You Like It and Beyond." Shakespeare Quarterly. Volume 47, Issue 4, 374-386. Webel, Susanne. "17 th Century Women Poets". http://www.uni- koeln .de/phil-fak/englisch/ku rse/17 c/index. html "Women in Elizabethan England". http://www.elizabethi.org/women.html "Women's Roles". http://www.4essays.com/essays/womens 2.html 'The Worlds of the Renaissance Projects, 2000". http://www.svhe.pdx.edu/sumerinstitute/projects2000/walters/par Zimmerman, Shari. "Disaffection, Dissimulation, and the Uncertain Ground of Silent Submission: Juxtaposing John Milton and Elizabeth Cary". ELH. 66.3 (1999) 553-589. - 147