Shakespeare probes and agitates these notions of love, by inverting these unequivocal perceptions and showing that it is not reason, but passion that is a valiant and virtuous life force. In this ideological context, the definition of love is not simple, as it is further confounded by percep-tions of sexuality and gender roles. Protestant philosophy, how-ever, deems sexuality as being an integral union of souls, the highest expression of love be-tween man and woman committing to each other to bear offspring and raise a family. Control seems to be the operative word in perceiving sexuality as a noble rather than salacious force, condoned, as long as reason controls and elevates passion to spiritual ecstasy.
Passionate love is seen as being base and sinful, the precedent being the original fall, especially for the female gender where sex and concep-tion seem to go hand-in-hand as the female reproductive imperative. Calvinist philosophy of concupiscence presents humans perplexed in a dichotomy of lustful, carnal urges that are not only disharmonious with the soul, but also ignominious to the spirit.
Ideologically, love is often perceived through the empirical mind-body or spirit-soul distinction, as consisting of a carnal, lascivious aspect most frequently controlled by reason or moral restrictions of religion. From medieval courtly love, which praises idealized love, ascetic self-restraint and sublimation, to the trobadours, and Petrarchan lyric, with its inherent struggle between sensu-ality and mysticism, the literary tradition portrays love and sexuality as convoluted and seem-ingly inextricable.
Abstract To understand the enigmatic quality of love in its dramatic portrayal in early modern England requires a consideration of human behaviour, cultural and religious ideology, and literary tra-dition.
0 kommentar(er)
