Satan being Satan w/ some beautiful poetry?

My initial observation of this reading was the way these words sounded and how they flowed when being read. The structure of these words was incredible, and it sounds so much better when read aloud. I believe it is better when read aloud as opposed to being read silently due to the fact that this was story was spoken aloud by a blind Milton before being transcribed. 

After having read the first couple hundred lines, and re-read them, I listened to a recording while following along. Having it read to me while I read as well helped me understand the rhythm of the lines. This was helped even more by the footnotes which tells the reader which words were meant to be read in a certain way, a way which the modern English reader may not read them (i.e. "perpetual" is meant to be read with 3 syllables as "per-pet-chal").

The brief introduction before the reading also kind of prepared me for what I was about to dive into, which I found helpful in navigating the words. Also, identifying the subject and sorting the pronouns was massively helpful (though difficult).

me @ all the helpful stuff

The Satan-talk begins pretty much right away, when discussing Eden, and we all know what happened there. We also hear about Satan convincing/tricking/getting people to do other stuff, "Who first seduced them to that foul revolt? / Th' infernal Serpent" (lines 33-34). 

Also early on, we get that Satan and his "host of rebel angels" (dibs on that band name) are cast out because Satan wanted to overthrow God's monarchy (around line 40-45), which I found to be a really interesting word choice especially due to the discussions we've recently had in class about treason/Charles' execution. While there's almost a 20 year gap between these two events, I can't imagine the views on treason changed much, and if a king can be executed for it I imagine Satan won't be looked upon highly for speaking against God's monarchy. 

I found this a really pleasant challenge in that this was really difficult to read, but greatly rewarding once I understood it. I'd also like to throw in the disclaimer that I'm proud to have been able to understand maybe 1/3 of what I read, but that's a good enough improvement for me. 

Insert Clever Utopia Title Here

Right off the bat, Thomas More gave me a kind of annoying vibe. His letter to Peter Giles had quite a few humblebrags and he's super shady about Raphael. Literally (used in the literal sense not the figurative one) within the first paragraph he's saying that Raphael is "hurried and impromptu" in his way of speaking, as well as speaking with "careless simplicity".

Thomas also talks for like a paragraph about how he's so busy doing so many things for other people, if Raphael had not been so simple, and were his job more difficult than just transcribing Raphael's story, he would not have been able to finish. Okay Thomas, we get it. That being said, he clearly respects Giles' opinion; on page 24, he's telling of how he questioned his children's tutor on something but if Giles concurred More was comfortable changing his opinion on the matter, a seemingly big step for such a pompous guy. (I'm not sure if this is actually how More feels or if he's projecting a character?) 

I also respect the fact that More asks Giles to contact Raphael and make sure that nothing is wrong or forgotten. It seems that while More is arrogant and condescending, he also really cares about the work he's putting out into the world which is a great quality to have. 

actual video of Thomas More

Another thing: oh my god this title. "Utopia: The Best State of a Commonwealth, The Discourse of the Extraordinary Character, Raphael Hythlodaeus, as Reported by the Renowned Figure, Thomas More, Citizen and Sheriff of the Famous City of Great Britain, London" [sic]. That's all I have to say about that. 

Book 1 didn't really pull me in. This introductory letter grabbed me more than Raphael's monologue did. However, from what I gathered, Raphael thought that being in service to kings was no better than being a slave to them and would rather not be involved. He has some great one-liners which would make for nice sound-bites. 

Examples: 

• "Almost all princes prefer to occupy themselves in the pursuits of war rather than in the honorable activities of peace" (32)
• "It is only natural for everyone to like his own brainchild the best: the crow is delighted with his chick, the ape pleased with his cub" (33) 
• "...it is never safer to follow a wicked purpose than to repent it" (42)

So, it is safe to say that Raphael goes against the grain, and as many others have pointed out in their blogs this week, that he dislikes the "sheeple" in society. 

I wikipedia'd More and found out that, "More insisted upon giving his daughters the same classical education as his son, a highly unusual attitude at the time." That's irrelevant to this blog post but I think it's awesome. So maybe he's not so annoying after all. 

The Wife of...Everyone, Apparently.

To be completely honest, this is kind of what I expected from the Wife of Bath. Reviewing my understanding of her based on how we described her in class, it can be summed up in: husbands, gold-digger, ostentatious, and a world traveler (by herself?). So 3/4 things I just mentioned aren't really "good" qualities to most people. Again, that being said, I didn't think highly of her and therefore wasn't surprised by what I read, but coming out of the reading I did have a new-found respect for her girl power.

The real first thing we hear from this woman is "I'm the authority on marriages, I've had enough of em." That's not a direct quote. Then, tailing off that, we hear that she's had 5 husbands! But don't accuse her of bigamy, because they're sequential, not at the same time. Oh, and she's cool with a sixth "whan that evere he shall!" (45, 103). 

Also, don't ask about her virginity because she's tired of hearing it. To paraphrase, so many people think virginity is more important than marriage, but she calls it "frailty" if people want to be abstinent their whole lives, and you won't make her jealous. In the same section of the book, we get a lot of innuendos talking about how men and women have different parts and "how can a man make his payment if he's never used his instrument"(p. 104-105). Basically, she likes marriage and virginity ain't all that. 

this is the wife of bath @ the haters

We also hear from her that she won't follow a rubric, she follows her own path which is cool to hear from a woman back then, regardless of why she's saying it. 

Alisoun (I think I read that's her name) gives us a quick rundown of her husbands, and from what I gather they're all old and wealthy and not worth her time. But the fifth husband is actually rad. He was so fresh and gay in bed (507, 113) (her words not mine). Someone who had my book before me annotated next to lines 503-514 when she's talking about husband #5, "it hurts so good" which I thought was hilarious and actually a great way to sum up that passage. 

I really appreciated her straightforwardness, and how she was a powerful woman. She had a lot of husbands, she enjoyed the perks of being married (even if it's to a man 20 years her junior) and she wasn't shy about doing things her own way. I can dig that. 

Beowulf isn't Brave?

Okay, first things first I won't lie about my confusion. Coming into this class a little late definitely threw me off , but while I'm confused, I'm super intrigued by everything.

Where to even begin? I'm not going to be shy about the fact that every few hundred lines, I'd have to stop and think "wait, what just happened?". So, this blog is going to beg the question: is Beowulf courageous? I think not, and I'll tell you why.

Socrates had an idea of what courage looked like. He also had an idea of what could be perceived as courage, but wasn't really hitting the mark.

In a philosophy class I took freshman year, we talked about what constituted courage based onLaches and other old Greek guys ideas that are still considered. The example we used was bull-fighting. Bear with me here. If someone enters a bullfight, why are they doing it? Is it for fame? Rewards? Pride? If they are entering the bullfight for selfish reasons, that's not courage, because courage (as we defined it in class) is risking your own life without any promise of reward, for someone who didn't do anything FOR you.

I may be rambling a little, but long story short, Beowulf doesn't fall into that definition of courage, he's doing it for a reward. Not that that even matters, because who cares if Beowulf is courageous? Is that even relevant to the story? Probably not.

But even when you think about whether or not he is brave, I say no again. I made a grave error and didn't mark the page, but in the book there is a comment about Beowulf that he is "indifferent to death". Then to me, by default he's not brave. Bravery suggests some kind of courage in risking your life to save others, and if Beowulf isn't really scared of dying, is he a brave man? 

Alright, well that concludes my ramblings about Beowulf's courage/bravery/lack thereof. I hope it made sense/was a somewhat interesting take!