Hawes - "The Pastime of Pleasure"

[This work] had several literary elements that I found particularly captivating. On page 63, in the section entitled "Captimum XXII," there was a detailed discussion of the idea of the sciences. What was extra intriguing about this section was the marrying of two controversial subjects of the time: religion and science. There are many references, especially, to the scientific subject of astronomy. It was during this period that theories and discoveries of the heavens were new, exciting and popular. From Hawes' portrayal of this topic, it seems as though he wants to express feelings about science, yet is very cautious of being offensive and/or violating any religious sanctity. He continuously is referring to God as the "chief astronomer" and the "high astronomer." The second noticeable technique I found interesting in this piece was the numerous references to Greek mythological character. This is also used in conjunction with a lot of personification. There are many references to Phoebus, the sun God, Zepherus, the idea of goddesses, and the symbols of the Gods. I find this intriguing, not because it is original or uncommon in literature, but instead because I have never seen this technique used much or ever during this era.

More - "A Dialogue Concerning Heresies and Matters of Religion"

More than anything when reading a piece, I always am drawn to the way the author chose to write their piece. Thomas More's "A Dialogue" is very notable for the way it is written. More took an argumentative piece about a very hot topic of the time (Bible interpretation/heresies) and made a conversation piece out of it. Instead of More simply stating his ideas plainly and supporting them with several reasons, he takes a more realistic, unconventional (in terms of modern times) approach to argue his stand. The dialogue reads flawlessly; as though you are reading a documentation of a real-life conversation. It is note-worthy that More was able to displace himself, stand back and put himself in the opposing position's head. The author was able to grasp both sides-not just his own. To relate to myself, I always find it hard to see the other point of view when arguing a point. I try, but I can never really understand [for the most part] the opposing side's ideas. What is commendable about More, is that he was able to do just this through his own knowledge. I can now see that anticipation is even more challenging than factually knowing what one may say.

Colet - "The Sermon" "Covetousness is the third secular evil. . . Saint Paul calleth it idolatry"

If I'm reading this correctly, the third secular evil, according to John Colet, is idolatry, and if I understand Catholicism correctly, the whole religion is based on idolatry. I find it audacious that the Church presents people with its own idols and encourages their worship, but it prohibits its followers to learn about other idols of other religions. The Bible is worshipped and can be considered an "idol," which is hypocritical.

Hall - "The Union of the Two Noble. . ."

This piece is a history. It begins with Hall explaining that his writing may not be altogether true. It is almost like he is trying to save himself in the long run if something is not completely true. Also, even though this is a history, it is not a typical written history. That is--in today's time we would not consider this a well-written text because he uses too much opinion and too much hearsay. For example he writes, "The Bishop was of very many men lamented, for he was reported to be a man of great learning and a man of very good life. . . " (34). Using the word "reported" followed by adjectives such as "great" and "good" makes Hall's piece weak because there can be no real credibility.