Thou blind man’s mark, thou fool’s self-chosen snare,
Fond fancy’s scum, and dregs of scattered thoughts,
Band of all evils, cradle of causeless care,
Thou web of will, whose end is never wrought -Desire, desire! I have too dearly bought,
With price of mangled mind, thy worthless ware,
Too long, too long asleep thou hast me brought,
Who should my mind to higher things prepare.But yet in vain thou hast my ruin sought;
In vain thou madest me to vain things aspire,
In vain thou kindlest all thy smoky fire;
For virtue hath this better lesson taught -
Within myself to seek my only hire,
Desiring nought but how to kill desire.–Sir Philip Sidney, 1581
Since we live in a culture that is suffused with desires; that is more expert than any culture ever in the incitement of desires, and that is on the brink of collapse at the very idea that our desires might finally be momentarily slackened; it is remarkable to me that we were once able to conceive of desire as something that drives us against our will, and that perverts us, rather than defines us.
This post was inspired by Twisty’s last two Thanksgiving posts, in which she examines our privileges as being nearly universal. My response was to wonder what we can do about it, and the only thing I could come up with was to reduce the desires that cause us to crave our privileges. Hence the poem, which I read this morning with wonder and awe. Fond fancy’s scum! Cradle of causeless care!
I note that in Sidney’s culture, Virtue was, first and foremost, a set of ideals for the philosophic mind. Not a codeword for patriarchal submission.
Lars L. | 08-Jan-09 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
I’ll have to, partially, correct you on the above.
Virtue as understood in the 16th century England have to do with society and keeping things “proper”, that means fighting loyally for your country (Sir Philip Sidney himself died due to a wound from being shot in the leg), being faithfull and devout (in Sidney’s case, it means being a devout english protestant), being a good husband and so on.
If anything, virtue in this period emphasises what was seen as “proper”, this includes such ideals as being a strong man, ideals wich we today identify as a part of the problem of male pride and a part of the problem in the patriachal society.
The polish born english sociologist Zygmunt Baumban describes how the old cultural norms of that society is being unravelled today in his book “society under siege” perhaps it could be an interesting take on the development of society in relation to gender roles and more importantly, the removal of the same. His observations at any rate are rather interesting concerning the slow disbanding of the old nation-state ideals as we move further into the postmodern “floating” society.
Fred | 08-Jan-09 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
I stand by my interpretation of virtue in 16th century England because I was comparing it to what 21st century Americans think of it, which is the definition you gave. My reason being that even slightly educated persons in renaissance England could name a handful of virtues with ease, and define them in terms of ideals to live up to; while even highly educated persons in my culture see virtues far less precisely, and can usually only name one or two of the more oppressive kinds, interpreted in oppressive ways.
Virtues today are seen as proper, then they were a set of ideals for improving yourself, mostly as mirror images of the seven deadly vices. Virtue was more like strength than purity, which it has become today.
Lars L. | 09-Jan-09 at 1:54 am | Permalink
The following may sound arrogant, and I apologize deeply in advance for it, it is not my intent to sound that way, however our linguistical barrier might get the result even though I do not wish it.
We have different interpretations of the meaning of the word proper, I blame this on the linguistic barrier due to you being a 21st century american and I being a dane from the same century.
Offcourse virtues where something to strive and to uphold as you put it, but not just ideals to improve yourself on, they where more basic than that, a man counteracting the ideals of that period would be seen as not just a bad person, but as directly dangerous to society. Keep in mind that the word “virtue” here is’nt a new concept, nor is the english version of it particulair unique, you can find the same version of virtue in say the french author Rousseau’s works on the goverment, works that I might add, inspired to shape the french constitution and the american one before it. You can find Hume, Locke, Montesqui and several more from that century and the previous one before it writing about virtue, one of the things they have in common is the denouncement of their present societies flaws and their thoughts on how to improve them, wich is why virtue was such an important trait to them, and still should be today.
My bottomline statement however is that the virtues then held within them an appreciation of society as it was, the reason you should strive towards them where for the betterment of all, a part of this is the appreciation of the “ideal society” wich sorry to say, had very strong patriachal tones.
Women to name one, where considered the emotional beings unable of higher logical thinking, if you are interested I can find several quotations from the period by contemporary authors. (I happen to study history of ideas, and as a part of my examn preperation for this summer i’m working with authors from that period on exactly this field. This is also why I might sound arrogant though I don’t wish to: Because I do know a bit about the authors and the mindset of the period).
One of the interesting thoughts today, as a sidenote, could be to rethink virtues into a modern context, we should work to abolish previous ages ideals or many of them at least, but also consider some of them and try to strive towards them, the problem is that many of todays virtues in the mixing pot we call the postmodern society, are as of yet very undefined. Perhaps feminism could be a very worthwhile contribution to defining the virtues of todays society? I personally find that many feminists have sharp analytical minds wich would help that cause tremendously.
Regards
Lars
p.s.
Sorry for sounding arrogant in the above.