Doctor, Doctor, Gimme the News, I got a bad feeling that Faustus is loose!

We’ve spent a lot of time considering how dumb Faustus is with all of the bad decisions he makes, but at this point in the play (Acts 3&4), I’m wondering what his intentions have really become. In the beginning he was all about getting money and being cool, truly the stuff of greatness. However, in act 3 we see Faustus freeing Bruno from what appears to be a pretty damn corrupt Pope with the help of Mephostophilis. At this point I’m wondering if his intentions have remained the same, and this is a way of furthering those goals, is Faustus trying to have fun at the expense of others, or is he legitimately trying to do good?

My vote is for option two. It seems like Faustus is all about having fun at this point and Bruno’s rescue is simply a byproduct of Faustus trying to mess with the Pope. At some point it seems like Faustus begins to care less about money and prefers to show off his powers and cause inconveniences. With the powers Faustus is shown to have (invisibility, conjuring spirits, etc.) it would be pretty easy for him to get as much money as he needs. However, Faustus never really does anything about that. Instead he curses the Pope and slaps him. Clearly he’s using those powers to their full effect.

I don’t completely fault Faustus for his change of heart though. If I had been given demonic powers with 24 years left to live I would likely end up trying to have fun with it as well. If he spends those 24 years amassing a great fortune, what will that do for him in death? Faustus is aware that there is a countdown on his life, and I suppose is now trying to make the most of it. I can’t say he’s not being dumb about it because he absolutely is, but it seems like a fun time.

Lastly, I’m interested in why his limbs are so easily dismembered. The horse-courser very easily detaches Faustus’s leg and walks away with it. Obviously when magic is involved some weird shit is gonna happen, but in this case I’m just wondering how Faustus is so unfazed. After his head is cut off he remarks about not being able to die until the 24 years is up (I didn’t realize immortality was part of the deal, but that’s cool), but generally I would consider losing a limb to be fairly inconvenient. He seems not to stress it too much.

Every day is Hythlo-day when Raphael never stops talking...

Hythloday seems like a pretty smart, well-traveled guy. Specifically, his thoughts on the advisors of kings are well thought out, though they don’t give any credit to anyone. Throughout his entire explanation he’s basically just saying that every noble person is too greedy to make any kind of good system work, and I would say he’s right. For example, when Hythloday discusses the scenario in which he notes the Macarians and their limited treasury, More accepts that the other advisors wouldn’t agree with Hythloday at all completely out of greed. A system like that is entirely unrealistic simply because of the greed that is inherent in people. That’s not to say that every person is filled with greed, but there is a natural desire to have more, and especially for someone in a position of power, it’s easy for that desire to run wild. Because we don’t get a whole lot more context on the Macarians, it’s difficult to see how their system really functions, but I bet there are a lot of checks and balances that make it work. In reality, however, I just can’t see that working. Much like the politicians in our country (not trying to get political, but this is a fact), there are some that can be susceptible to bribe, which makes the entire system null. If you can buy someone’s vote, you can get whatever you want, then checks and balances don’t work particularly well. That is a massive oversimplification, but the point remains the same.

Anyway, back to More and Hythloday. One of my problems with Utopia is that I can’t argue too much of what Hythloday is trying to say. In the context of the story, Utopia is an actual place that Hythloday has seen and is successful. Because of that, it’s difficult for me to say, “no, that’s entirely unrealistic and impossible,” because he does have an example to lean on. Hythloday is correct that so many political leaders are too wrapped up in the idea of private property versus actually sharing things, and does make some good points about it.

I think my main point against Hythloday (because I really do just feel like I need to argue with him and I’m not sure why) is that in order to create a place that is self-sustaining with no wars and no desire for luxuries, you would need to start from scratch with people who were completely committed to it and a population who never knew anything else. It’s impossible to take an established power like England and suddenly change everything. No one would accept it and it would very quickly become chaos. Hythloday really seems to want the rest of the world follow the ways of life of these different places he’s traveled, but it just couldn’t work out. Really though, I think Hythloday already knows that.

We are the Knights Who Say... the correct answer and get away with rape.

Diving right into my thoughts on the Wife of Bath’s Tale, I’m honestly not too sure what to make of it. At first I thought it was good that the women were punishing the lusty knight for raping the woman, but by the end of the tale he’s basically gotten everything he wanted just by whining about his wife being ugly. I suppose my main question here is: Did he really learn his lesson? It seems by the end that he might have, but he also just kind of whined until she gave him the question, to which he couldn’t answer and just forfeited.

            Conversely, I did appreciate that the women in the story did have a strong central focus and were consulted for the major decisions. King Arthur obeying his wife’s counsel is obvious foreshadowing to what would be the answer to the queen’s question. I think because of the main role that women play in this story, the Wife of Bath’s role as a proto-feminist does begin to shine through and the story speaks volumes to the type of person she is. The control that she has over all of the husbands she has had is a perfect example of the desire to be in charge that answers the queen’s question.

           

            So while I think that it’s good that women took a central role, and the Wife of Bath is definitely making a point of telling a story that is relevant to her life, I’m still not 100% sold on the ending. It’s good that there was a nice tied ribbon of a happy ending, but should the knight have gotten what he wanted? The tale begins with him raping a woman and ends with him married a woman that is both beautiful and good. I know that the setting is an important factor here, but I definitely don’t believe this guy deserves a happy ending. He stays shitty until he decides to leave one decision up to her and she magically becomes great and – big shocker here – he’s suddenly happy because beauty is only skin deep. The woman already seemed good, so the personality was there. She just had to look better before he would accept that they were married.