1 11027798 Does English Renaissance literature challenge the social order?

Much Ado About Nothing1 (herein MAAN) and Utopia2 both present challenges to social order the order which is created within the texts, and the wider contextual order of the Renaissance period. Each piece embodies a criticism of the aristocratic echelons of society, with MAAN questioning issues surrounding marriage, social status quo and outward appearance, whilst Utopia, split into two books, concerns itself in the first with the more overarching problems of wealth and property, and how these entirely artificial concepts have lead to an ill-functioning society. The second book discusses society in which morality and law are intertwined to such an extent that the matters raised in the first book by Hythloday are nonexistent. This essay will seek to show how these challenges are presented by the authors and interpreted by the reader. In J. C. Davis work, Utopia and the Ideal Society, he highlights some criteria established by utopian scholars. He quotes Judith Shklar: Utopia is nowhere... it exists neither in the past nor in the future. Thus, Rousseau was the... last great political theorist to be utterly uninterested in history... the last also to condemn without giving any thought to programs of action 3. By this definition, Sir Thomas work is one of two things: either it is, as the name suggests, a classical utopist piece, or a challenge to the social order - the required indifference to contextual surroundings makes the two mutually exclusive. At first, it might seem that Utopia falls into the former category. Although the first book is given over almost entirely to Hythlodays account of corruption across the ruling class, no progressive ideas are examined in great detail to the end of solving this problem, and the internal narrator shies away from playing a part on the grounds of his own morality:

...the most part of all princes have more delight in warlike matters and feats of chivalry... than in the good feats of peace, and employ much more study how by right or by wrong to enlarge their dominions, than how well and peaceable to rule and govern that they have already.4 Here, Hythlodays main disgruntlement is outlined, and throughout the course of the first book
1

Shakespeare, William, Much Ado About Nothing, ed. A.R. Humphries (London and New York: Meuthen, 1981) 2 More, Sir Thomas, Utopia and a Dialogue of Comfort rev. edn (Dent: London, 1970) 3 Davis, J. C., Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) pp. 14-15 4 More, p. 20

2 11027798 explained until we reach the underlying cause for this social discordance - that a few divide among themselves all the whole riches, be there never so much abundance and store, there to the residue is left lack and poverty 5 . This is where the text begins to break with Shklars definition: it is near impossible to read the above in any way other than a critical finger-pointing at the greedy upper class. Is Utopia subversively belied by its title? Perhaps - although Davis notes a slightly more cohesive definition from Glenn Negley and J. Max Patrick, stating three criteria: It is fictional, it describes a particular state or community and its theme is the political structure of that fictional state or community6. Mores work ticks the boxes, and the two books of Utopia are juxtaposed in such a way that the description of real world corruption is distinct from the outlining of fictional moral paradise. So if the two are separate, and both providing no real-world application, where is the challenge to the social order? I find it to be a slightly hidden, intellectual one, utilising the aforementioned juxtaposition to emphasise Utopias description as a challenge to the ignobility of corrupt nobility. It is painted as a society of such equality that this all-encompassing morality is enshrined in law to the extent that the distinction... between good citizen and good man, have disappeared7. The authors use of fictional location helps to mask the is-ought connection between the two books of Utopia, and Shakespeare uses a similar ploy in MAAN. One of the main reasons for doing so is to allow the audience to discard Elizabethan attitudes to marriage. Queen Elizabeth Is political angle on marriage was widely known - a good example is her considered marriage to the Duke of Anjou, with a view of strengthening ties with France. Indeed, Tennenhouse notes in Power on Display that position, place and power were almost exclusively a matter of kinship and courtship, and so writing of marriage at the time was to take up a political argument 8. Therefore, in removing the play from her home turf, Shakespeare allows differentiation between the marital values of the people of Messina and those of the court, whilst at the same time protecting himself from accusations of political challenge. The absence of politics creates a void in the motivation of marriage - if not for political gain, then why? Two notions come to mind. The first is that of holy matrimony for the glory of God, which is the reason any god-fearing sixteenth century Christian would likely provide. The second, provided by Shakespeare for his characters, is maintenance of an outward appearance dictated by the social ecosystem of Messina. Each
5 6

More, p. 51 Davis, p. 16 7 Davis, p.50 8 Tennenhouse, Leonard, Power on Display: the Politics of Shakespeares Genres (New York and London: Methuen, 1986 p. 19

3 11027798 tangent has its own social challenge - the first rooted in reality, and the second within the pages of MAAN.

In black and white terms, if holy matrimony is the true, correct reason for marrying, then it stands to reason that political gain is something of a false method. Here, I begin to see a challenge rearing its head. Either the aristocratic classes are marrying for the subversive purpose of personal favour, or the intended religious end of marriage is already long perverted. In the case of the latter, Shakespeare challenges the aristocratic convention of convening the religious (not so easily separable from the social) convention of marriage, whilst in taking the former to be true he more directly attacks Elizabethan practice. This is challenge by comparison, and the best one to be made is in the marriage of Claudio. At the very beginning of MAAN, shortly after their first meeting within the time frame of the text, he declares, with traditional Shakespearean aplomb: In mine eye, she is the sweetest lady that I ever looked on 9 . Queen Elizabeth would not likely have married on such a whimsical notion, and the presentation of this right at the start of the play sets a tone of challenge to her royal motivations.

But how strong of a challenge is this? Even now, Shakespeare would hardly be considered an activist playwright - he wrote typically for a court or upper class audience, and despite some allegory in his works to monarchy and noblemen (chief in my mind is King Richard the Second), it is a fair assumption to assume he enjoyed the perks of his reputation with these classes. Add to this the likely and fairly imminent incumbancy of King James I (a lover of literature and performance) and this particular interpretation can be reduced to a pithy challenge for the sake of the playwrights own humour. However, Claudio and Heros is not the only marriage established by the end of the play - the partnership of Beatrice and Benedick is finally achieved in the same occasion by the love-gods10 Don Pedro and Claudio. This is no easy feat - both are sworn against marriage, Benedick in fear of appearing weak in the face of his merry war 11 with Beatrice and losing his machismo outward appearance, and in efforts to maintain his trust of no woman12. Beatrice is much the same with her proclaimed incompatibility with marriage he that is more than a youth is not for me; and he that is less than a man I am not for him 13. However, Elliot Krieger makes the observation that
9

Shakespeare, Act i Scene i ll. 174-5 Shakespeare, Act ii Scene i, l. 364 11 Shakespeare, Act i Scene i, l. 56 12 Shakespeare, Act i Scene i, l. 226 13 Shakespeare, Act ii Scene i, ll. 33-35
10

4 11027798

the characters are attentive to the surface of their situations, and do not care much about the deeper ramifications of feeling... Beatrice and Benedick can easily have their strongly held attitudes modified when they are made to perceive slight changes in the matrix of attitudes in their society.14

Throughout the play, Benedick and Beatrice are the most staunch supporters of their own words, with Benedick under constant teasing and encouragement from his fellows to profess his love. By the last act, however, Benedick has dropped his facade - and although Beatrice is a slightly tougher nut to crack, in the end they are matched by a social change - in this case love notes from either side being presented by the sly Claudio and Hero. With this new awareness, their long-held pretences are discarded simply because, in the eyes of society, there is now nothing left to protest against. Benedick in particular shows he is not so dismayed by this with the description of the ploy as A miracle!15. Kriegers assertion may be further substantiated in considering Claudios willingness to renounce Hero on four words from Don John - the lady is disloyal16. This displays both the flimsiness of Claudios love, and his willingness to bend to the proper social stance with lit tle consideration to the fact that, for all he knows, he has just discovered he is being misled by his beloved, the night before his marriage. Leonatos willingness to release her dishonourable soul into death as the fairest cover for her shame17 echoes this, and these two examples clearly demonstrate the power of social information new to the public realm - each character is more concerned with the proper social reaction and continuity of their image in relation to their stance in society (i.e. noblemen, soldiers - men of valour and supposed principle) than any real emotional impact. Here, perhaps, is Shakespeares real challenge to societys order, and it is that order which is created for and within his own work. Let us not forget, though, that all key characters are of high aristocratic standing - this may still be viewed as a criticism of the secular society of court.

If MAAN enshrines a challenge to the corruption of the institute of marriage, Utopia can be

14 15

Krieger, Elliot, Social Relations and the Social Order in MAAN, Shakespeare Studies, 32 (1979) p. 51 Shakespeare, Act v Scene iv, l. 91 16 Shakespeare, Act iii Scene ii, l. 93 17 Shakespeare, Act iv Scene i, l. 116

5 11027798 considered the more intellectual challenge in the sense that, to establish that the challenge exists at all, one must first acknowledge that it is - at least presented at first glance, if not written - as a document containing and setting forth the best state and form of a public weal 18 . Secondly, one must be to some extent aware of the current state of affairs regarding trade, currency and the involvement in and corruption of such by the aristocratic quarter, and thirdly it must be understood that commentary on such in the first book and the manner in which the second succeeds it - that is to say, the juxtaposition of such in order to provoke comparisons - is made only in the interest of discussing the first acknowledgement. It is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, and More further obfuscates this end by furnishing his text with realistic descriptions of geography and a promise to the Peter Giles to provide the correct measurement for the bridge of Amaurote, the reason for which he states ...take good heed that there be in my book nothing false19. Carlo Ginzburg explains this device as the aim of the Greek rhetorical tradition ekphrasis - to set it before our eyes20. As a reader better educated for Ginzburgs explanation, the conclusion that I arrive at is that More is indeed setting out an encompassing challenge to social order, not only in repudiation of corrupted power, but also in appeal to the educated to learn from the values of Utopia surrounding such issues as war, and to apply them to the benefit of both their own and neighbouring countries. Robert Shephard notes the contrasting ends Utopia and its real-life counterpart countries have for going to war, and their opposing values for conducting said wars - They apply whatever method will be cheapest in terms of human lives and still lead to victory... honour won through combat on the battlefield between worthy foes has no place in their calculations.21 This might grate against the Utopians otherwise peaceful society, and indeed inclusion of discourse on war in a Utopian book leads Shephard to note that some have pointed out this is at odds with any utopia. I agree with his response to this - that war is a reality, and the task of a utopian writer is to show how war can be as good - or at least as little bad - as possible22.

18 19

More, p. 2 More, p. 8 20 Ginzburg, Carlo, No Island is an Island: Four Glances at English Literature in a World Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000) p. 5 21 Shephard, Robert, Utopia, Utopias Neighbors, Utopia, and Europe The Sixteenth Century Journal 26.4 (1995) 843-856 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/2543790 > [accessed 9/11/2012] p. 847 22 Shephard, Robert, Utopia, Utopias Neighbors, Utopia, and Europe The Sixteenth Century Journal 26.4 (1995) 843-856 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/2543790 > [accessed 9/11/2012] p. 847

6 11027798 Utopia, then, is what the reader and their education may make of it - either a manifesto for the perfect society, or as I prefer to interpret it, a commentary on the ways we can attempt to make society a true commonwealth, as opposed to a wealth common only to the upper echelons. In terms of challenging social order, this conclusion at the time of publishing Utopia would be able to go little further in its attempt to do so. I definitely consider this piece to be the real challenger whilst MAAN does make an impassioned assault on the abuse of marriage and the supposed importance of outward appearance, these are only factors in the overarching status quo of the time, and the comedic way in which they are presented I feel detracts from their relevance. For a challenge to almost any aspect of English and European life - even today - see Sir Thomas Mores Utopia.

[Word Count: 2200]

Bibliography

Primary:

More, Sir Thomas, Utopia and a Dialogue of Comfort rev. edn (Dent: London, 1970) Shakespeare, William, Much Ado About Nothing, ed. A.R. Humphries (London and New York: Meuthen, 1981)

Secondary:

Davis, J. C., Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) pp. 12-61 Ginzburg, Carlo, No Island is an Island: Four Glances at English Literature in a World Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000) pp. 1-23 Krieger, Elliot, Social Relations and the Social Order in Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare Studies, 32 (1979) 49-61 Shephard, Robert, Utopia, Utopias Neighbors, Utopia, and Europe The Sixteenth Century Journal 26.4 (1995) 843-856 < http://www.jstor.org/stable/2543790 > [accessed 9/11/2012] Tennenhouse, Leonard, Power on Display: the Politics of Shakespeares Genres (New York and London: Methuen, 1986 pp. 1-21