Marriage Customs in Utopia

Book II of Utopia discusses at great length several customs and social practices in its section on "Social Relations." Among these customs is the naked preview of males and females before marriage. This is apparently done in order to reduce the "risk of hating one another for the rest of their lives" (570). Now why would a place like Utopia (where people are supposedly encouraged to be tolerant of one another) encourage profound shallowness and how can one compare buying a piece of property (the colt story) with choosing one's spouse? This leads me to believe that perhaps the citizens of this strange society are not entirely valued as people and are likewise encouraged to treat each other in a business-like, dehumanizing manner. What is so terrible about compromising as a Utopian? Isn't that how we grow as individuals?

We are pretty much guaranteed to not always get what we want, and therefore we must learn to deal with life's little disappointments. Many of us have (or have had) in our minds an ideal mate - either in looks, personality, religion, job, etc. But it usually works out that the person we end up committing to doesn't have every single one of those qualities - and it also usually ends up working out wonderfully (I said usually). Personally, I'm glad we don't live in a perfectionist-type society (mostly because I'm not perfect I suppose). I like the fact that many marriages are based on love and compromise and not purely on physical attractiveness. How would it feel if your potential spouse had to view you naked and decided to leave you because you have cellulite or a big birthmark or small breasts or genitalia? How horrible would that be? I can understand arranged marriages and marriages of convenience, but I can't honestly understand what good could possibly come from shallowness and intolerance. The fact is that people age and grow and change. What may have pointed north in one's youth is sure to face south later in life. Hair falls out where it's wanted and grows where it's not. People gain weight. Looks change and often times things cease to function properly. Either Utopians were entirely ignorant of this simple fact of life, or they just didn't care. Either way, this practice seems utterly pointless and in fact detrimental to self-esteem and marriage.

More's Utopia: Book I

Sir Thomas More's Utopia Book I is actually more interesting than I initially thought it would be. I thought it would have an entirely instructional tone to it, but it doesn't. It's a conversation among men who disagree about what has caused the decline of their country and what should be done to remedy it. It brings up some interesting points such as whether or not they (or we) should use their greatest attributes for the greater good of their country (serving their ruler in this case), and exactly what is the best way to punish criminals? It raises serious, controversial, and thought-provoking questions that can still produce a great amount of discussion in today's society.

But honestly, the part that I enjoyed most was the brief letter to Peter Giles. It was full of silly excuses - something I would not have expected from someone as highly regarded at Thomas More. He explains why it has taken him a year to what what originally should have taken him a month. He says that "the task [of writing] was rendered impossible by my many other obligations" (522). He states various reasons such as work, visitations, and other "business." But in the next paragraph he states: "when I get home I have to talk with my wife, chatter with my children, and and consult with the servants. All these matters I consider part of my business, since they have to be done, unless a man wants to be stranger in his own house" (522). I found this passage to be very humorous and interesting (even if it's not truly autobiographical). It's slightly humorous because he describes his familial obligations as business that has taken him away from such important matters in life as writing about Utopia (and I hope my husband never talks about me and the kids like that). But this is interesting because it gives us some insight on a slightly more personal aspect of his life. This man recognized the importance of family and made a conscious effort to be a part of it - even if he does claim that he was simply conducting "business" (which I'd like to not believe he truly viewed his family this way). Either way, I wish there were more pieces available about the typical family life during the Renaissance (from a more personal perspective anyway), but I suppose that's what research is for.

Sir Thomas Wyatt

I found Wyatt's poems to be somewhat difficult. It's hard to determine which words or lines are meant in a literal sense and which are abstractions, and without the assistance of the footnotes it is very difficult to decipher the conceit. Honestly, what "average" person would have known that in the sonnet "The long love that in my thought doth harbor" love is a warrior or even that love is an abstraction (aren't those usually capitalized anyway)? Or who would have guessed that "Whoso list to hunt" is in fact about the love interest of Henry VIII? I think that it's quite a difficult task to interpret the conceits in these sonnets properly without any outside sources (thank goodness for footnotes). Honestly, I much prefer the Modern Prose Translations. No, they aren't as "fluffy" as the sonnets, but there's something about the clarity in them that I find refreshing (ok - they're just easier to understand). I can easily ignore any hidden meanings, and I don't have to worry about meter or rhyme patterns or even how they should be read. I think that Modern Prose Translations should be made available in conjunction with (or in replacement of) obscure poetry.

Intro to Renaissance Re: Queen Elizabeth

After reading the introduction, I found it interesting that Queen Eliazabeth, although initially met with a great amount of opposition, became quite successful and revered. The text states that "in England [...] there remained a widespread conviction that women were unsuited to wield power over men. Many men seem to have regarded the capacity for rational thought as exclusively male; women, they assumed, were led only by their passions" (493). But this information isn't too surprising, is it? After all, misogyny was not at all uncommon in that era (and most others for that matter). But perhaps what is most interesting is that she reigned for 45 years - without having to entirely "unsex" herself. She maintained a lavish, feminine style, "adorn[ing] herself in dazzling clothes and rich jewels" (494), and she was also sought after by many men (who perhaps wanted a share of her wealth). But despite the fact that she was rich, womanly, and associated with a "religious cult of love," she was tough. She didn't encourage change or dissent and punished those who spoke or acted against her. It is very likely that she was fully aware of the fact that she had to display her power in the same manner that a king would; she could not afford to appear weak or sensitive in any way.

She became very popular, and it seemed that both the men and women of England could identify with her in some way. She even appeared before her soldiers preparing for battle and gave them a motivating speech (all while wearing a "white gown and a silver breastplate" - I do think it's ridiculous that because she was a woman the editors focus on her fashion sense and other feminine virtues. Would they have written something like that if a king showed up to rally his soldiers wearing silky, black pants and an exquisite golden amulet? Probably not - sorry for the rant). Either way, Queen Elizabeth became very respected and feared, and most importantly, she remained beautiful while having people's hands chopped off.