Week 3-The Faerie Queene

I have to admit the Faerie Queene is a difficult text to get through. One thing that drove me nuts about the story was the way that Spenser presents his characters. He draws out these long descriptions of them and waits for quite a few stanzas or even Cantos to tell us what their names are or who they really are. For example, he describes Sans foy’s lady within Canto 2.13, but does not tell us she is Fidessa until Canto 2.26. I felt like it made the text so much more difficult on which he was talking about when he wasn’t giving us a name. This may tie into the fact that most of the story starts off with a lot of deceitful and false people. The long introductions might be used to further emphasize the confusion on what is real and what is false.

            Spenser also spends a great deal on the women within the story. We talked a lot in class about how most of the women were shown as villains such as the dragon and Duessa, but Una is shown as such a weak and helpless person within the story. He portrays her as innocent and alone, looking for her knight. I feel as though Una has some power within the story. She is the one pushing Redcrosse on during his fight with Error and even after Redcrosse leaves she still tries to pursue and find him. If Spenser really didn’t want her to have any power, he could have left her to stay with the hermit. This could possible tie into Spenser’s political allegory to the story. Queen Elizabeth was innocent and powerful at the same time, being able to rule England. He then contrasts this possibility by throwing the lion into the story. To me the lion would symbolize a king like figure that is helping out Una and it seems like Spenser is trying to say that Elizabeth needs a king in order to run England.

            I do also feel like Redcrosse is a little stupid. Spenser describes him as both an experienced knight but an inexperienced one at the same time. He is suppose to be protecting Una, but leads her right into the Den of Errors after the dwarf tries to tell him that he shouldn’t go in. Then he stops the advances made by Una realizing that they may not be true and then right after believes that she is with someone else at the hermit’s house. He leaves in fury and immediately takes Duessa not even thinking that she may be too good to be true. When he meets the tree that was tricked by Duessa, he doesn’t even think that maybe Fidessa could be Duessa even after she faints. This ties back into when we said in class that Spenser writes in a 12-year-old boy manner. I feel like Redcrosse is the 12-year-old boy falling for all of the tricks. 

Week 3 - IYI: Women in the Renaissance

"IYI" stands for If You're Interested.* I'll post these when I can, as questions about specific topics come up in class. Feel free to suggest topics or themes for future IYIs. As the acronym implies, all of this is optional reading.

Several of you expressed interest in women's history in the Renaissance. If you'd like to read primary texts by and about women's lives and roles in society, you might want to look at Distaves and Dames, edited by Diane Bornstein, and Renaissance Feminism,, edited by Constance Jordan. Our textbook includes a number of female writers, but its choices are idiosyncratic and sometimes tokenistic. Interesting writers we will not be reading as a class include (but are not limited to) Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke; Isabella Whitney; Aemilia Lanyer; Elizabeth Cary; and Margaret Cavendish.

It's hard to recommend a single secondary text, since everyone has an angle and underlying politics. If you're interested in social history, you might look at Anne Laurence's Women in England, 1500-1760 or Mary Beth Rose's Women in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Good but problematic literary studies include Dympna Callaghan's Shakespeare Without Women and two collections of essays: Feminist Readings of Early Modern Culture, edited by Traub/Kaplan/Callaghan, and Enclosure Acts, edited by Burt and Archer.

--

*Hat-tip to David Foster Wallace.

Week 2 - Utopia: More to love

Utopia, written by Saint Thomas More, details the account of a fantastic island whose practices were unlike those of any other land. The practices of this society echo sentiments of liberals, communists, feminists, environmentalists and many others. However, it is not the details of this land which motivate my own interest. Rather, I am intrigued by the question of what was More attempting to achieve with this story? I think to take Utopia as merely a fanciful story or a direct representation of More's own ideals would both be too simplistic. I will attempt to provide evidence here as to why I find these to explanations to be lacking.

First, Utopia is a work of fiction and, as such, it is reasonable to start at that point to try to understand it. Yet by looking at the work of Utopia as a whole as well as the manner it was written makes this opinion untenable. Book II of Utopia is what most readers would think of when Utopia is mentioned. It is this second book which details Utopia and its customs. To overlook Book I when trying to interpret More's reason's for writing Utopia would be foolhardy. Book I details the character Thomas More meeting Rapheal Hythloday, the traveler who tells More about Utopia. More and this traveler engage in a discussion which cannot be interpreted as mere fiction, with talk ranging from capital punishment, the place of philosophy in government, and the best way to counsel a king. This dialogue is more in line with works of philosophical discourse than with general fiction. The other fact which makes me hesitant to believe that More meant this to be read as mere fiction is that More wrote Utopia in Latin. Latin is a language of science and education, not one used to appeal to a mass audience. It would not make sense to write a book of fiction in a language no one could read. These two reasons both lead me to believe that More did not intend for Utopia to be read as a typical work of fiction.

The second position which I wish to disprove starts at the other end of the spectrum from the last. Namely that Utopia is an expression of More's own ideals which he wishes to bring about by promoting them. However, by looking at More as a person as well as the manner in which he talks about Utopia would disagree with this premise. Saint Thomas More was a devout Catholic, being killed for his refusal to acknowledge what would become the Anglican Church. As such, I find it hard to believe that More would advocate for a society with married and female priests, divorce, and religious toleration of all faiths. These are just of a few practices of Utopia which seem to jar with the Thomas More depicted by history. The other reason for doubting that the views espoused in Utopia reflect More's own beliefs is how More talks about Utopia. If More was actually supporting the practices of Utopia I would expect him to explain how Utopia developed into what it had become or why it's practices were better than those found in Europe. Instead More's descriptions often border on a satirical tone rather than those of someone attempting to promote their own ideals.

I'm already running long so I'm going to end with a mere statement of my own theory of why More wrote Utopia. This was likely a thought experiment which came from More's own dislike of the current society. More traveled as a diplomat and was able to see aspects of other nations, giving him a broader view of the state of European society than others. By writing Utopia in Latin More was talking to the educated in society, those in the social circles who could do affect public policy. In writing Utopia More was likely attempting to spark more discussion and thought about social issues. More went beyond what he himself thought of as "right" simply to spark greater discussion about policies. This is a simple technique of expressing something more provocative in order to begin discussion which would lead to a correct answer. The End.

Week Two - More's Utopia (aka Borg Collective)

More's deceptively eloquent and thorough portrayal of Utopia was most reminiscent of Plato's Republic. Both More and Plato had very specific theories on developing perfect societies by manifesting rigid and perfectly balanced structures for the individuals of the collective in question. There were distinct differences between the two men; however, the general concepts were harmonious: pristine motives, strong work ethics, consistency, and nobody went to bed hungry. And most importantly, emotion became a non-issue. This was, of course, reasonable to keep the delicate balance of the Republic/Utopia from falling into complete chaos. Everyone knows that emotions like fear, anger, and panic are the leading causes of chaos. For More, if there were too many people in the Utopia, they were moved. If one city ran out of food, another shared with it. If there weren't enough blacksmiths, a young man was expected to gladly give up his dreams of becoming a farmer and take of the post of blacksmith. The Utopia was kept in balance.

Utopia was also reminiscent of Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Like Swift convinced me that eating babies to sustain economy, feed the poor, and decrease the surplus population was a swell idea, More convinced me to believe all of the crap that I wrote above. There is a reason that these ideas were theories and never came into fruition. All incentives aside, More's theory removed the identity of a person. He almost had me convinced, but a society of drones made me lose my appetite. While it may be counterproductive, an individual should have the right to sit on his ass all day and gamble until he's broke and naked having traded in the shirt off of his back. While More's ideas may not seem as extreme as eating babies, they're close. If I want to be a cross-dressing juggler instead of a blacksmith, then I'm going to be a cross-dressing juggler. If I want to raise my son myself instead of shipping him off to a stranger, you had better keep your damn hands off of him.

Week 2 - Wyatt, Surrey, and More, Esq.

Perhaps this blog entry would be slightly easier if reading poetry didnt make me want to eat an anthrax-powdered donut. But it does. That aside, one thing I noticed immediately about the works of Wyatt and Surrey was the angsty, "woe-is-me" tone both authors implemented. I'm sure if Wyatt and Surrey were around today they would wear very skinny jeans and listen to My Chemical Romance and maybe even wear eyeliner. Many of the poems ("Forget not yet" and "I find no peace" for example) are overdramatic in nature, and try to evoke some sort of passion in the reader, an impossible task considering the rather unispiring words of the authors. "Look at my problems. My life sucks right?" seems to be the general vibe coming from both Wyatt and Surrey. Unfortunately for them, the reader cannot be too sympathetic with their problems. Their problems arent real problems, or at least arent as big of a deal as the authors make them out to be. I did find it interesting, however, that perhaps the most impassioned poem of the bunch was Surrey's "So cruel prison," a romanticized recollection of his childhood. In this poem, a woman was not the source of his passion (which may not even be the right word considering he wasnt very passionate in those poems), but instead, his childhood friend, the nephew of the king. Surrey seems to speak genuinely in this poem, and his glorification of the "bromance" can be tied to a broader social trend entrenched in Renaissance Europe. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that one of the guys (Wyatt maybe?) had a creepy obsession with lutes. What the hell was that about?I have already become long winded. Poetry just gets me all worked up I suppose. Saint Thomas More was, among other things, a very respected court member, devoted Catholic, and a passionate scholar. After he defeated Satan in a game of Chutes and Ladders, he found time to write "Utopia," an incredibly influential tome that undoubtedly left its imprint on history. One thing that I found intriguing about "Utopia" was the almost heretical nature of some of More's principals. As a devout Christian, it is bewildering to see him speak so freely about the topics of divorce and euthanasia, to name a few. It is equally as perplexing to see him speak of people worshipping the moon and the sun, clearly at odds with Catholic doctrine. Another thing i found to be interesting was the communistic lifestyle that Utopians lead, minus the vodka. There was no private ownership in Utopia, with the people seeing themselves as tenants of the land rather than owners. One question out of the many that arise after reading this work is this: why did More write this? What was his overlying goal? Why did I just ask two questions when I clearly indicated that I only meant to ask one? Maybe he was trying to stimulate social awareness and change in his native England. Maybe he was upset at society and was voicing his righteous anger in a satirical way (just in case). Whatever the case, "Utopia" was clearly an important work, both then and now.

Week Two - Utopia: Human Nature

On the subject of “false pleasure”, More includes the absurdity of having lavish things and wanting to be or thinking of oneself as better than others. He begins to discuss people who want to own expensive jewelry and the like, “But if you consider the matter, why should a counterfeit give any less pleasure, when your eyes cannot distinguish it from a real gem? Both should be of equal value to you – as they would be, in fact, to a blind man.” (pg. 563) What intrigues me with this section is More has broken through the role of the narrator and is openly voicing his options on the matter. This section doesn’t seem to have any literal connection to the Utopians, except that they wouldn’t do such things, it is more an example of More looking at the current society with shame. This passage seems to me to be a response to the corruption and falsehoods of England as More sees it.


I couldn’t help but draw a distinction between a text I’m reading for Medieval English Literature. In Ecclesiastical History of the English People Bede does a similar thing in criticizing the society in which he lived. After an abundance of grain, Bede noted that the people began to be terrible to one another and cast their morals aside. “With abundance came an increase in luxury, which was immediately followed by every sort of crime; in particular, cruelty and hatred of truth and love of falsehood increased so much that if anyone among them happened to be milder than the rest…all the rest heaped hatred and missiles upon him, as if he had been the enemy of Britan.” It seems to me that both More and Bede are making a direct assumption that with luxury comes downfall. I think that is a very astute observation of human nature.


To address the question in class if More actually believed what he was writing was possible, I think that isn’t the way to look at Utopia. Instead of a matter of plausibility, I think it was a matter of getting the public to pay attention, or rather the educated to pay attention. I think More believed that by writing of a “perfect” society he would then be able to make people realize that what they lived in was far from perfect. It was a way to spark change, not actually a plan for civilization. Whether or not it worked, who knows.

Week 2 - Wyatt, Surrey, and More

While I read the works of Wyatt and Surrey, I found myself thinking about how ironic it is that their words should live on and not those of the less privileged and illiterate, some of whom I am sure were of much more substance. I do not downplay the prettiness of their verses; certainly they could ribbon their tongues around a thought or two. But I scanned some of their poetry with a bit of an eye roll because, like everyone in class seemed to agree, they did a lot of moaning and weeping. I cannot say that spending time in jail should birth lines about the lovely filth of the cells or the astounding intellectual company of rats, but really, if that was the worst life had to offer for those men then I would rather hear of the best. Of course "So cruel prison how could betide" also mentioned the death of his boyhood friend, but the whole thing really just seemed like a party of verse where Surrey was just trying to gather his most depressing friends for a game of sulking.

As for More, reading "Utopia" encourages me to pick up a biography of the man. I raised the question yesterday of how the work did not seem to line up with what little I know of his life, and I should really like to know more of what drove him to compose it. Certainly many authors are not devoutly in line with all of the things they write, particularly in their fiction (as a working utopian society with real human beings is quite the wild fantasy!), but I would like to separate some pieces of the work that More believed in from those that he made up for whatever reason. Then of course I would like to know those latter reasons, or if that is not possible, at least know more details of his life that would lead me to some conclusions, be they truth or otherwise. I think I will at least spend a fragment of this weekend scraping the internet for information on him.