More's Utopia

            This is my second time reading More’s Utopia and I am definitely appreciating more this time than I did the first time I read it.  I read it about three years ago for British Literature and found it rather dull.  It’s a work of fiction rather than a political document…but this work of fiction reads a lot like a political document.  However, this time I was better prepared for More’s pedantic style and I thanked him for writing this in subsections.  It helped organize Hythloday’s report of Utopia into more manageable sections of reading rather than one huge block of text.

            More’s narrative voice irritates me.  In the letter to Peter Giles, he is making excuses for not having written Hythloday’s account earlier and one of his reasons was that he had to talk to his wife and children though he “mustn’t spoil them with…familiarity” (6). And yet he has no problem sitting for hours, talking to Hythloday about a country that he feels is impossibly ideal.  However, More’s voice as the author is something completely different.  His character rejects many of the Utopian ideals and praises his king endlessly, but More as the author is addressing England’s problems through Hythloday.  This really shows More’s skill as a writer and a political activist. Though some ideas seem like excellent ones to utilize even today, I have to disagree with many of the Utopian policies.

            As we already talked about in class, a death sentence for stealing is way over the top. However, Hythloday suggests enslavement as an alternative.  While this may be better than death, lifelong subjugation still seems extreme especially when Hythloday asserts that most thievery is done out of necessity.  I think that a better solution would be to force the thief to work until he can pay off what he stole.  The Utopians in this book seem to want to rehabilitate their criminals and I think this would be a better way to give them a second chance.

            In Book II, Hythloday goes more in depth with the Utopian lifestyle.  I thought it was really cool how all of the Utopians have the opportunity to work on a farm in a two-year rotation.  I think this would prevent a lot of the negative classism that went on during More’s time as well as the classism that still plagues our society today.  On top of that, I think if everyone had experience in agriculture, we would have a better appreciation for our food, our health, and our environment.  If we are all invested in our own agricultural production, we would be motivated to protect the nature in which we cultivate our food.

            However, the Utopian’s knowledge of their country and world must be very limited.  They can’t travel without permission from their political superiors.  Supposedly, the Utopians “are at home everywhere” (53) on their island so it doesn’t make sense that they are not allowed to have free range of it. Traveling and exploring are great ways to make connections with people and understand our environment. I don’t think I could stand living in a country where I had to ask permission to visit the coast or another state.

            I don’t think More is hinting that England should adopt all of these policies.  Maybe he’s not even hoping that England will adopt any.  More continuously points out that people are reluctant to change even when the change appears to be in their best interest.  He is advocating for a societal adjustment in the hopes that England can maybe move toward a better way of life.  

The Rule… COMMANDMENTS of St. Benedict

It seems to me that the rule of St. Benedict is a laundry list of laws and regulations that epitomize an authoritarian kind of utopia where any dissenter is met with harsh punishment and exile.  Perhaps the emphasis on order, respect, and strict leadership puts me in the mindset of a utopia where no one except for the members of the highest caste is even relatively happy.  I understand that this is a Christian based document illustrating the tenants of what it is to be essentially a “Good Christian”.  I see many interesting facets of this goal throughout the piece.

It was somewhat befuddling that near the beginning of the work, St. Benedict lists the 4 types of monks immediately sifting out the good from bad monks.  I suppose one could say that this sets a goal for all monks in the monastery to aim for the best kind of monk; the Cenobites.  Likening this piece to the previous works we have examined for class, everyone has established innate differences between groups of people.  No other work seems to take as blatant a position on viewing one group as better than another.  This group of monks is described in extraordinarily positive terms while the descriptions of a couple of the other types of monk are riddled with disapproval. 

Aside from the Cenobites being the most valued of the monks, three positions the Cellarer of the Monastery, the Abbess, and the Abbot seem to hold the greatest positions of influence.  Holding the prime positions of power these three are presented with rather extensive ideas of what qualities each should embody in order to properly lead the monks.  I am not sure if this is simply my idea of faith but I think it such a personal aspect of a human being, that to have a leader dictating the commands of God to all others seems a bit rigid.  Taking into account this is likely how things were when the text was written, it still seems a bit absurd that any kind of deviation from what the Abbot or Abbess said, was met with such harsh punishment as with the discipline of boys. 

The idea of sharing everything is definitely not unique to St. Benedict’s Rule.  Everyone sharing the responsibility to feed each other is a rather interesting take on specialization as it seems as though everyone is responsible for the most basic duties which is a functional aspect of any society.  The principal of how no one owned anything by themselves but shared it with the monastery seems like an older Christian value but one that should be put into practice more today.  I think this relieves some feelings of entitlement that can cause tension between people in a community.  It also helps ensure that no one person has more than anyone else.  It aids in fostering the idea that everyone is equal. That is, everyone aside from the Abbot, Abbess, Cellarer of the Monastery, and, of course, the beloved Cenobites. 

Love thy neighbor, Hate thyself

While everyone is feeling guilty that they should be brushing up on their Bible readings or going to church more, I am in a whole new world of wonder. Some of the phrases match the ones I hear in the Torah on Yom Kipur (Our day of judgment), but my religious knowledge is more attuned to how to prepare a mean bagel with Lox and Cream Cheese or knowing how to deal with curly hair. Growing up Jewish meant not really understanding communions and confirmations, and just trying to make comparisons with the holidays and traditions I grew up with instead. As I mentioned to Dr. MB, I attempted to learn the basics of the bible for fear of not knowing allusions used on my AP Lit test in high school. I believe I used the Precious Moments children's bible.

Needless to say, my knowledge of bible verses is slim, and unless Laura Ingalls practiced writing the bible verse on her slate in her little house on the prairie, I'm probably not familiar with it. I really liked the way that this was organized. The is the topic I want to discuss and this is how I'm going to explain it. I guess Augustine was set up similarly, and I know I bashed it, but I felt here that the explanations were vital to understanding the topics and subjects presented and that it was written in a pretty clear and easy manner that kept it interesting and not as dry.

There are so many thoughts both positive and negative brewing in my head, but I guess I'll just focus on the things that stood out. I suppose the biggest point to be aware of is that those in a monastery are to live their life for God. This, of course, seems obvious, but I've never realized how demanding that statement is. You live your life for God. Not for you, at all. You should never do anything to make yourself feel better or happier, and you should never be upset with yourself or angry at yourself. In fact you should feel nothing yourself, and you can't even pity yourself if you feel any of these things. You were born merely to serve God and that is all you will do. If you are happy, it is because you have done things to make God happy. Nothing can be for personal gain. Everything comes back to God.

And while we're on the subject of what life is meant to be lived for, it's also key to note that everyone should be fearful of God and Hell. Everyone must accept that God is awesome and almighty and there should be fear in their hearts and minds in order to serve God. You may love God, but you may not think yourself a comrade or equal to God. You must always serve God and respect God. You also must live in constant fear of Hell. You can't just be aware that hell is a bad place, you must constantly fear it every day and it should be your biggest worry. Your life goal should be eternal bliss in Heaven. Everything you do is to earn that eternal glory, but you must also remember that it is easy to fall into the pits of hell. It is so simple to think a bad thought that turns to sin and drives you to hell. There is even a portion of the text that says to never follow your intuition. It basically states that it might seem like a good idea at the time, but that ultimately whatever trial you attempt will end with you in Hell, because any personal idea or plan is apparently unholy and can only result in hellish turmoil.

The other points that seem to get drilled into your head during the reading are obedience and general rule following. Rules of any kind are law. You should follow these rules and respect them above all else. You must also be obedient. You must do everything you are told to no matter what you think of it. This goes for the rulers at your institution or from God himself. It doesn't matter what the command is, you must follow it for God. It is considered insane to follow your heart and instinct. Why should you need to come up with ideas and plans of your own if you have rules and obedient orders to follow?

I could go on and on with the bad and the good, but my notes and the text itself are endless. (The discussion should be filled with content and length too!) But overall, I found the rules fascinating because they were all backed by bible verses that seemed to be the perfect mottos and slogans for installing the rule. Everything also circled back to serving God. So while a rule might not make sense to us in a modern sense, they did all serve a purpose to serving God. A monastery resident would know everything to do, think, say and act without having to ask [which is good because we shouldn't really be talking unless absolutely necessary...I mean a question could provoke an answer which is scandalous] It's perplexing to read something in a Utopia class that is all about living for one thing: God and not for creating a perfect world for ourselves. In this sense, we must serve God and think nothing of ourselves in order to gain that Utopian eternal life, but while you live, you may only serve God, you must respect all others, but you can think nothing and do nothing for yourself. You can live, but you can't live for you.

Rules of St. Been-a-dick

Rule 9 of chapter 4 notes that we are "not to do to another what one would not have done to oneself." After that, at least like 80% of the other rules could be collapsed into a subsection of that rule. Do we really need to be told not to murder after that one? I'm not likely to murder myself, and so I'm not likely to murder you if I think that the consequence. I've also already been told to love my neighbor, who I am unlikely to murder if I've properly followed that step.

Don't forget to be afraid of God's wrath, and remember that Hell is right there for you if you're bad.

Also, don't forget to be a poor eater, love fasting, and think constantly and infinitely about the horrors of Hell that await you if you don't listen. God loves you, but you need to fear the day he returns to judge you, and know that you'll suffer in an eternal purgatory if you've done something to piss him off. When you love someone, you need to be constantly afraid of their disappointment and their subsequent wrath that will condemn you to an eternity of spiritual and physical torture that will follow you beyond the grave and never let you know peace, wishing to have never been born. At least, that's how I've always understood love, and so these rules make total sense to me.

You haven't forgotten that you're probably going to Hell, have you? Don't forget that, please.

Also, please realize that you need to hate your own will. What you think and want don't matter unless you're thinking about and wanting God's love. Try not to talk too much or to like talking at all, because most of what you say is useless bullshit and you're wasting oxygen that could be better purposed to praise God who loves you enough to have made these rules for you. And when you talk, try not to say anything funny. Funny stuff makes people laugh and laughing is a disrespectful waste of time. If you laugh, God will come to your house and tear your wife in half, because he loves you.

Hey, for a second there it looked like you forgot to be afraid of Hell. Don't do that. Cry for me.

Just do whatever people from a church tell you to do. Don't question them, because that's disrespectful, and like I said, it doesn't matter what you want. If they're older than you, they're smarter than you.

Fear Him. Do not forget to fear him. FEAR HIM BECAUSE HE LOVES YOU.

There are plenty of decent ideas in this text, because obviously it makes sense to be generous to the poor and the sick and not to murder people, but I feel like nothing from a religious text has ever told me anything I haven't figured out of my own human decency and tendencies toward civility. I'm aware that killing and hurting and stealing are wrong, because I have empathy. It makes me sad and scared that there are people out there who only want to be good because they're afraid they won't get to live forever if they're not. Be good because it, like, totally sucks to be bad, man. I don't think it's fair to say th

The author of this blog post has been prematurely condemned to Hell because he forgot to fear being condemned to Hell.

Rules, Rules, Rules. Oh and more Rules

My initial reaction to this reading was that there's no way I'm gonna understand any of this, but now that I've actually taken my time to read it. It was sort of boring, but I liked it. There are so many rules. Rules to Rules to Rules.

But I think the just of the whole text was that you must submit yourself to God. Your whole self. You own nothing. It is all God's. Everything you must do you must do it for God with God in mind. You must also ask the Abbot/Abbess. Even they must use counsel sometimes. I am assuming from this text that the best kind of person is a God fearing man. The text even states that the Abbot himself should do all things in the fear of God... he will have to render an account of all his decisions to God, the most just Judge.

Another thought was that this text is like a day by day rules and regulations list of how to live by God. St. Benedict thought of EVERYTHING and how to do it. Like I said before: lots and lots of rules, even for the sick, which to me is crazy.

Did anyone actually read Chapter 4, What Are the Instruments of Good Works????? Well I did and the list is freaking crazy. Do not murder, do not steal, to bury the dead, visit the ski, love fasting, relieve the poor, clothe the naked, help in trouble, prefer nothing to the love of Christ, don't get mad, don't hold grudges. AHHHHHH. Its so much. How can anyone remember all of these things? Oh, I know. Because women have certain times of the day during certain times of the year to read. We must always read and when reading time is over, we can sit on our beds and be still OR read. We just cannot disturb the others from sitting still. This is absolutely ridiculous. There is nothing wrong to live a life by God. But to live this life described in this text????? Oh, hell no. (Sorry God). That's not gonna happen. Well, I'm sure there were people who did, because those people are described in chapter 1. There are four different types of monks. The first is the best and its the life that is described in the rest of the reading. The second type, Anchorites/Hermits, are okay. The third type, Sarabaites, are described as detestable, so they ain't shit. And the fourth kind, Gyrovagues, ain't shit either. The last sentence of the chapter says: Passing these over, therefore, let us proceed, with God's help, to lay down a rule for the strongest kind of monks, the Cenobites. Is that what the rest of the 42 chapters are? Just A rule???? How about a whole bunch of freaking ruleSSSSSSSSS.

After I read this whole text and thought about this piece of work. I realized who in their right mind would take their time to actually write this??? Who says that these are the right ways to live their life??? Did he get a vision from God? I highly doubt that. Did he get counsel and a whole bunch of abbots get together with their brothers and wrote this work? I don't get it, but would like to know why. Knowing what class is like, I'm not sure if my question is going to be answered. I would hope so though.

Socrates, Augustine, and St. Benedict walk into a bar...

...and there's no punchline but now that you're here, why don't you read my post?

One theme that is consistent throughout “The Rule of St. Benedict” is the theme of moderation and self-control. Obviously this isn’t unusual in a Christian text but I did think it was fascinating considering that moderation is one of Socrates’ four virtues. I decided to look through Chapter 4 (“What are the Instruments of Good Works”) to see how many lined up with Socrates’ virtues.

(Here are links to the rules so you can check out what number goes to what rule: Chapter 4 and Chapter 4 cont.)

What I found was that there a lot that loosely matched up and then some that didn’t fit in. The rules that I considered were about wisdom were: 3-9, 22-30, 48-52, 56-58, 60, 62, and 66-67. The rules that I considered were about courage were: 44-47. The rules that I considered were about moderation were 10-13, 34-40, 53-55, 59, and 65. The rule that I considered was about justice was 33.

There remains a group of rules that cannot fit in one of these four categories. Rules 1-2, 14-21, 31-32, 41-43, 61, 63-64, 68-69, and 70-72 belong in a separate category that I propose we call holiness. These rules are ones that involve the Christian virtues of loving your neighbor, forgiving your enemy, putting God first, etc. While some of the rules in the holiness can be also placed in the wisdom category and vice versa, I don’t think all of the holiness ones constitute good judgment. These rules are more like the ones Augustine gave in his “City of God” than anything that Socrates identified.

The virtue of wisdom contains the largest amount of the rules, closely followed by moderation. There are a few rules that speak on courage and one that mentions justice but does not define it: “33. To bear persecution for justice's sake.” However, if we look at Chapter 73, we can see that justice can be obtained not only by following the rules but by taking these rules as a bare minimum and moving further on the path to holiness. Chapter 73 tells us that “fulfill with the help of Christ / this minimum Rule which we have written for beginners; / and then at length under God's protection / you will attain to the loftier heights of doctrine and virtue.” St. Benedict is saying that following these rules will not immediately grant you eternal live but by only following these rules, you are lazy. Instead, after you have mastered all of these rules, you should move on to the Bible and writings of saints and other such writings. This mirrors Socrates’ idea that justice can be found when wisdom, moderation, and courage are implemented. In “The Rule of St. Benedict,” justice is found when Christians follow the virtues of wisdom, moderation, courage, and holiness and then continue from there onto the path of God.

“The Rule of St. Benedict” ultimately seems like a mixture of Plato’s “The Republic” and “City of God.” I would be surprised if St. Benedict was completely unaware of the two preceding works.

"I just wanted a trim..." St. Benedict says as he stares in horror at himself in the barber shop mirror.

Am I in Sunday School?

When I first started reading “Rule of St. Benedict” I could have sworn I had accidentally picked up the Bible. While reading Chapter Four, I felt like I was back in Sunday school reading the Ten Commandments, except instead of ten there is a list of 72 “instruments of good work”. Just to be a little different from everyone else, I thought I’d highlight some of the points St. Benedict made that I actually really like (yes there are many that remind me of the City of God and I am not completely in favor of, but there were quite a lot of points that I thought would make a sufficient society). For starters, how about no meat? Addie? In Chapter 39 he says, “Let all abstain entirely from eating the flesh of four-footed animals.” In addition, he says that people should not over-indulge. Though some may see this as people not eating enough, I see it as a good thing. Perhaps it’s hard to understand because in our culture today people eat quite a lot and obesity is rapidly increasing, but eating just enough would help people stay healthy and make sure everyone gets food.

            Now let’s talk about social structure. Yes, people have certain jobs to obtain to, but there isn’t really much of a power imbalance. The young are to respect their elders, but they are not necessarily less important in the society. Early on in the chapter one he says, “whether slaves or free, we are all one in Christ.” This being said, everyone is on somewhat of an equal playing field, at least more so than in St. Augustine’s version of society. He also says, “let no one in the monastery follow his own heart’s fancy” (Chapter 3). Benedict believes that rather than doing his or her own will, everyone must do the will of God. I suppose this takes away individuality, but at the same time, if the Utopia of the afterlife is something everyone in the society is striving for, wouldn’t it make sense to work together to achieve it? And if everyone does similar things and shares the same beliefs wouldn’t that make it easier too?

            Back to the Utopia real quick…does Benedict ever use the words “Heaven” or “afterlife”? I could be completely mistaken and oblivious, but I did not see these words appear in the text, at least not frequently. Yes, the Abbess “hold[ing] the place of Christ in the monastery” makes us aware that there is some other place where God must be, but Benedict doesn’t really mention Heaven itself (he refers to living for God but never says exactly where God lives). I couldn’t tell if this was just supposed to be common sense (that he is talking about Heaven) or if perhaps it was purposeful. He never really mentions that there is a place that they are hoping to get to, rather that they are just living for God. Is Utopia Heaven? Can there be a Heaven without a Hell?

Busy refilling my wine glass

A lot of what Saint Benedict talks about in his Rules reminds me of Augustine and his City of God. Both men believe complete dedication to God leads to eternal peace, which is their version of utopia. In his prologue Benedict says that “we must hasten to do now what will profit us for eternity.” In the same regard, Augustine believes that the Heavenly City is “related to the enjoyment of eternal peace” (872). For both men, eternal happiness cannot be found on earth because people are inherently selfish and evil. For Benedict, mending our evil ways will guarantee acceptance into God’s world: we must “recognize always that the evil is one’s own doing, and to impute it to oneself” (chapter 4, #43). If we are aware of our sins and repent, then we can gain access to only perfect world. Similarly, Augustine believes that the Earthly City can never reach the Heavenly City because people will never be as moral as God.

Benedict touches on the four different types of monks, and how the strongest monks are the Cenobites. The Cenobites are the only monks who live in monasteries, which makes it easier for them to “become a stranger to the world’s ways” (chapter 4, #20). If they go into the world they would be subject to the evils of other people and be more likely to give into their own evil ways. Benedict believes that the monasteries curb people’s evil tendencies. However, the monks still sin sometimes and are forced to repent for their sins. Benedict does not claim that the monks become perfect examples of God’s work—only God can be perfect—but he does explain that they put in a valiant effort to be worthy of His love.

Benedict’s belief that “the sisters should be occupied at certain times in manual labor, and again at fixed hours in sacred reading” (chapter 48) also reminded me of City of God. Augustine touched on the idea that mind and body work together to promote peace (872), and I think this is what Benedict is explaining. It is not enough for someone simply work all the time or relax all the time; there has to be a balance between activity and rest, physical stimulation and mental stimulation. I think this balance helps maintain the mind in such a way that unsavory actions and thoughts are held at bay.

Essentially, both men are saying that utopia can never be achieved on earth. People are too unworthy or evil to reach God on earth, but as long as they dedicate their lives to serving Him they will reach that heavenly utopia one day. Benedict says that “the Lord shows us the way of life” (prologue), indicating that without the Lord there will never be a life worth living.

In a sense, I really resent these two readings. I’m not an organized religion kind of person, and I don’t think the fact that I don’t believe in putting a label on the sky stirs me away from living a fulfilling life. Besides, I love wine way too much to ever consider following Benedict’s rules.