Sir Thomas More

Utopia
Possible Lines of Approach Utopia in relation to a Marxist world view Utopia as an exploration of alternative systems of governance Utopia as response to Lutherism and impending Reformation Utopia as a Renaissance response to a Medieval worldview Utopia as an exercise in Humanist satire Questions for Discussion Comparative Approaches Notes on Approaching Particular Passages Social and business relations Religions Slavery Punishments, legal procedures, and customs Critical Viewpoints/Reception History Appendices Appendix 1: Henry VIIIs Act of Supremacy Appendix 2: Excerpt from The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli Appendix 3: The Land of Cokayne

Possible Lines of Approach

Utopia in relation to a Marxist world view
Such an approach will view the text through a primarily Marxist lens, considering the way in which More holds the emergent market economy responsible for the social ills that corrupt England. Such an approach will focus on the Utopians communal living and shared labor, considering not only the practical implications of the governance of Utopia, but Mores response to the ideology and implementation of their social system. This approach will also discuss the nature of early modern feudalism, and look at Mores rebuttal of this system as repressive and dangerous to a commonwealth. Mores fictional vision of Utopia is deeply Marxist in its philosophy, from its distribution of land and labor to its rejection of any monetary system of exchange. During the midtwelfth century, manorial enclosure statutes were passed, allowing landowners to close off parcels of common landthat is, land used by poor farmers and peasants for livestock and living space. During the Tudor period, wool was the primary English export and, as a result, many landowners enclosed common land on which people lived and worked for privately owned sheep pastures. Such enclosures created a plethora of social and economic problems, including high unemployment, homelessness, and urban migration. The impact of these economic developments can be seen in Book 1, in the discussion of the rising crime rate, and in Raphaels suggestion that the social climate is at fault for the number of robberies that occur throughout England. Combined with these 1

domestic issues were the issues surrounding emergent spice routes, which opened the door to international trade and brought an increasing selection of luxury goods into the English economy. Merchant classes were rising, and a nouveau riche class began to emerge, creating a shift away from feudal England. The Marxist view is most easily approached by the simple question: Does Utopian society work? Although More finds a lot to commend in Utopian society, he also suggests many ideas that his character, Morus, finds absurd. Although Utopia gives nods toward individuality (allowing apprentices to leave the family profession, for example), a class system is still very much in operation in Utopia. An approach using this question might try to decipher how the class system would work in Utopia (hierarchical diagrams would be useful as tools to organize the social order) and consider the role that personal desire and individuality play in it. The inevitable question of what must be sacrificed for the common good emerges when we consider issues such as euthanasia, the penal system, and the practice of enforced labor. This approach would consider Utopias ban of taverns, alehouses, and brothelsno chances for corruption; no hiding places, no spots for secret meetings, discussing the extent to which intellectual and spiritual freedom is curtailed and examining the point to which individuality is sacrificed for the common good. Further Reading: Aimes, Russell. Citizen Thomas More and His Utopia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949. Kautsky, Karl. Thomas More and His Utopia. Trans. H.J. Stenning. New York: International Publishers, 1927. Ritter, Gerhard. Utopia and Power Politics. The Corrupting Influence of Power (6th ed.). Trans. F.W. Pick. Essex, UK: Tower Bridge Publications, 1952. 70-89. Connections: Plato, The Republic; William Shakespeare, Timon of Athens; Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan; Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto; George Orwell, 1984.

Utopia as an exploration of alternative systems of governance

This approach will take the rejection of absolute monarchical rule as its starting point and look at the social system that Raphael offers as an alternative to living under the rule of an autocratic prince. Such an approach will discuss the structure of social classes in Utopia and rejection of the sycophantic system currently in place, and look at critiques of various methods used to govern a country King Henry VIII of England and Ireland, born 28 June 1491, came to represent a new model of kingship throughout England when he ascended to the throne in 1509. Henry, building on his fathers initiatives, began to implement a bureaucratic England, in which the monarch would emerge as Supreme Head of both church and state. Henry was typical of the trend in Europe toward strong, autocratic leadersa movement led in part by Charles V, the product of a Spanish-Habsburg alliance who ruled Spain and Austria and became the Holy Roman Emperor in 1519. Charles struggled to govern his vast empire,

and there were frequent periods of dissatisfaction during his reign. Raphaels discussion of princes eager to launch wars and expand their kingdoms to unwieldy proportions was a common imageHenry himself was consumed by his desire to return France to English rule. Moreover, Machiavellis infamous treatise on leadership, The Prince (1513), is a deeply cynical agenda about the deception, force, and politicking necessary to maintain control of a kingdom. The Prince essentially asserts the stupidity and laziness of the general populace, stating explicitly their willingness to be fooled into compliance. An approach exploring alternate systems of governance would benefit greatly from a comparison with Machiavelli. This approach would spend time looking at Book 1, exploring the detailed and subtle critiques of Renaissance kingship. A discussion of Raphaels rejection of a political career could examine the veracity of his distinction between the place of the politician and that of the philosopher. Such an approach would also consider the structure of governance in Utopia, asking whether or not it is a democratic society and what role class plays in the social structure. Furthermore, this approach would discuss the Utopians justifications for war and methods of warfare. To what extent, for example, can the assertion that Utopians only embark upon war for good reasonsto protect ones country or ones friends, or to prevent injusticebe manipulated by an unscrupulous prince? A comparative approach would consider the texts belief that all people are inherently sinful and discuss to what extent the nave populace could be manipulated by Machiavellis canny princes. Further Reading: Schoeck, R. J. More, Plutarch, and King Agis: Spartan History and the Meaning of Utopia. Philological Quarterly 35 (1956), 366-75. Si Hythlodaeo Credimus: Vision and Revision in Thomas Mores Utopia. Soundings 51 (1968), 272-89. Bevington, David. The Dialogue in Utopia: Two Sides to the Question. Studies in Philology 58 (1961), 496-509. Connections: Machiavelli, The Prince; King James VI & I, On Kingship ; John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book 3.

Utopia as response to Lutherism and impending Reformation

This approach will consider the way in which the ideology of Utopian society responds to Lutherism and the potential changes looming from the religious Reformation that was beginning to spread across Europe. Such an approach will consider the spiritual corruption that More sees in his world and consider in particular the autocratic system of justice that punishes criminals, but fails to address the root sources of social problems such as crime. It will consider the role that spirituality plays in Utopian society, and question the Christian piety and spiritual tolerance that Raphael promotes as an integral part of Utopian living. By 1516, Lutherism was quickly spreading across Europe, paving the way for the Reformation. In fact, Thomas More would be executed in 1535 for refusing to recognize

Henrys status as Supreme Head of the Church of England, famously declaring that he died The Kings servant, but Gods first. Martin Luther, a fifteenth-century clergyman, set himself up as a reformer of the deeply corrupt Catholic church, and ignited a movement across Europe that resulted in the destruction of churches, an abandonment of the Latin Bible, and a shift in focus that we now call the Reformation. Books such as Tyndales The Obedience of a Christian Man challenged the absolute authority of the Catholic church, encouraging the lay congregation to absorb English translations of Scripture, turn away from hollow ceremony, and create their own intimate relationship with God. More, a staunch and conservative Catholic, was horrified by the blasphemy of emergent Protestantism, but, as a humanist scholar, he also believed that reason could be the servant of faith. During his life, More was responsible for executing (by burning) Protestant heretics, and he assisted Henry VIII in the book he wrote denouncing Martin Luther, which resulted in the King receiving the title Defender of the Faith from the Papacy prior to Englands break with Rome. A religious approach would begin by attempting to define the role that faith plays in Utopia, and might conclude by asking what dominates Mores vision of Utopiareason or faith? Raphael explicitly states that in Utopia no mans religion, as such, shall be held against him, yet, Epicurism, the idea that the soul dies with the body, is strictly illegal, as is atheism. This approach would consider the extent to which religious freedom is tolerated in Mores fictional country. This approach would also consider the framework of the narrative, focusing on the mocking of the friars in Book 1, and ask whether or not More is criticizing the Catholic Church. If so, is he advocating an alternative? Such an approach would benefit from viewing Utopia not only within the context of writings on the Reformation, but by looking at Mores own words in his letters. Further Reading: Adams, Robert M. Paradise a la Mode. Utopia: Norton Critical Edition. New York: WW Norton and Company, 1992. 211-16. Chambers, R.W. Thomas More. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1936. Cassier, Ernst. The Platonic Renaissance in England. Trans. James P. Pettegrove. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1953. Connections: Martin Luther, On the Freedom of a Christian; William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man; Selected Letters of Thomas More (see companion website); William Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity; Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus; William Shakespeare, Macbeth.

Utopia as a Renaissance response to a Medieval worldview

Such an approach would consider Utopia in comparison to a variety of medieval visions of the world, examining the conflict between ancient and modern visions of the world. Such a focus will consider the tension between Medieval and Renaissance visions of ideal societies and use this tension to explore Mores delicate balance between the Renaissance emphasis on humanist reasoning and the Medieval emphasis on piety. This approach will also consider the ways in which the corruption of the world is explored in

texts such as Dantes Inferno and examine Mores modernization of ancient virtues, such as those laid out in Platos Republic. At the advent of the sixteenth century, the world was in flux. The Italian merchant Vespucci with whom Raphael claims to have sailed had, by the turn of the century, travelled to the New World twice, and fictional accounts of his journeys had become bestsellers. In the half-century since the invention of the printing press, knowledge was becoming widely available, and More, among others, was able to benefit from the popular shift to secular learning by looking back to the works of philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato for inspiration. Yet these innovations were still very new, and tensions existed between the Medieval and Renaissance views of the world. Raphaels concerns regarding morality and sinfulness suggest a sense of regret at the increasingly political world of Tudor England, and we can read Mores text as an attempt to reconcile Medieval principles with Renaissance trends in thought. This approach is challenging, and benefits most from comparison. Dantes Divine Comedy presents a scathing critique of the social ills that dominated Europe and demonstrates a loyalty to Medieval piety and conservatism that is found in other Medieval visions of ideal societies, such as William Langlands Piers Ploughman. Examining these deeply allegorical texts will encourage a discussion of what elements of Utopia are designed to be read through an allegorical lens, and how technical and intellectual innovations in the text (such as the Utopians quite radical treatment of marriage) tie together ideals found in texts such as Platos Republic with the desires of Dante and Langland. This approach will ask what fears arise from the rapidly expanding boundaries of the world, perhaps comparing them to modern science fiction. Ask students to consider how More tackles the concerns inherent in stepping into the fear of the unknown with rational thinking inherited from Greek philosophy. You might also ask to what extent Utopia is wishful thinking and consider the way in which Raphael promotes a certain form of conduct in the presence of unknown persons, and for what purpose. This approach would consider the character and experiences of Hythloday, discussing what he represents as a traveler of the Renaissance, and what More is suggesting is his responsibility to his world. Further Reading: Duhamel, P. Albert. Medievalism of Mores Utopia. Studies in Philology 52 (1955), 99-126. Elton, G.R. The Real Thomas More? Reformation Principle and Practice: Essays in Honour of A.G. Dickens. Peter Newman Grooks, ed. London: Scholar Press, 1980. 21-31. Fox, Alistair. Thomas More, History and Providence. Yale: Yale University Press, 1983. Hexter, J.H. Mores Utopia: The Biography of an Idea. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952. Philips, Joshua. Staking claims to Utopia: Thomas More, Fiction, and Intellectual Property. Material Culture and Cultural Materialisms in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Curtis Perry, ed. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2001. 111-138.

Connections: Dante Aligheri, The Divine Comedy; William Langland, Piers Ploughman; Plato, The Republic; Ovid, Metamorphoses; Sir John Mandeville, The Travels of Sir John Mandeville.

Utopia as an exercise in Humanist satire

This approach will consider the way in which Mores Utopia functions as a means of stabilizing an increasingly changing world by emphasizing reason and ancient values. Such an approach will consider Utopia as a Humanist exercise in reason: focusing on the way in which More emphasizes the fictitious nature of the discussion of Utopia rather than offering an ideal alternative. This approach will also look at the way in which More uses satire to provoke discussion and critique his society. Such an approach will think about the way in which Utopia is constructed as a reflection of sixteenth-century Europe and look at the insinuations More makes about the dystopian nature of his world. Desiderius Erasmus, in his groundbreaking The Praise of Folly, suggests that the role of such work is serious playi.e., to explore moral and philosophical questions in an entertaining and thought-provoking manner. Satire, using literature to mock and critique human weakness, was a popular form of social commentary during the Renaissance. Certainly the pictures offered of the nascent capitalist society, clerical corruption, and ego-driven courtly systems suggest a worldview that is (for More) lamentably akin to Machiavellis presentation of his society. This approach will primarily consider Mores attitude toward human beings, beginning with the question of the fundamental nature of people. Raphael proposes that people are inherently sinful, and this approach will consider the way in which satire is used to prove the truthfulness of such an observation. It will look at the ways in which Utopia micromanages the lives, desires, and thoughts of the people, and will examine the inconsistencies between the repressive corrupt world More condemns and Raphaels celebration of the mythical land of Utopia. This approach will ask the student to consider Moruss (the fictional More) response to Raphaels description of Utopia, found at the end of Book 2. Also, using the supplemental course materials, such as Mores letters, students can discuss the ultimate aim of Mores work as a piece of social reform, ultimately asking whether or not people can be reformedand if so, how? Further Reading: McCutcheon, Elizabeth. Denying the Contrary: Mores Use of Litotes in the Utopia. Moreana 31.2 (1971), 107-21. Nelson, Eric. Utopia through Italian Eyes: Thomas More and the Critics of Civic Humanism. Renaissance Quarterly 59.4 (Winter 2006), 1029-57. Yoran, Hanan. More's Utopia and Erasmus' No-Place. English Literary Renaissance 35.1 (Winter 2005), 3-30. Connections: Machiavelli, The Prince; Erasmus, The Praise of Folly; Anonymous, The Land of Cokayne; Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal; Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales; Erasmus, Moriae Encomium; Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta.

Questions for Discussion

1. How are we, as readers, expected to respond to Raphaels description of Utopia? How does the text, through its presentation of Raphael in Book 1, shape our initial response? What are Raphaels critiques of England? Does Utopia offer a complete solution to Raphaels criticism of England? What questions emerge after hearing his description? What are the apparent contradictions in this ideal society? Is it possible to resolve any of these conflicts? How do the two books reflect upon and inform each other? According to Raphael, what is the nature of humanity? Is Utopia an example of a democratic society? In what way is Utopia a progressive society? In what way is it regressive? What is the aim of the penal system in Utopia? Do you think it is a just system? Why does Morus disregard Raphaels narrative as absurd? Is he correct in his assumption? Why? What is the role that wealth plays in Utopian society? What is the point of marriage in Utopia? How is that a reflection of the role of marriage in Medieval and early modern English society? What is the role that religion plays in Utopia? Is Utopia a tolerant society? Why? Why not? Are there any contradictions in Raphaels observations about human nature? What is the point of making Utopia a fictional universe? What do you think that Sir Thomas More was hoping to achieve through this text?

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

Comparative Approaches
Consider Utopia within the context of Mores letterswhat can we glean about his agenda in writing of Utopia? How seriously are we supposed to view the text? What do the letters reveal (if anything) about the distinction between More the author and Morus, the character within the text? Consider Utopia as a response to Machiavellis The Prince. In what ways are the authors world views similar, and how do both authors treat such a negative view of humanity? How does the differing agenda of each dictate the way in which the material is shaped? Compare Mores use of satire to that of Erasmus in The Praise of Folly, Jonathan Swifts Gullivers Travels, or George Orwells 1984. Discuss the way in which the fears of Dante are explored in Utopia. Compare and contrast Karl Marxs The Communist Manifesto to Utopia. Does Marx acknowledge the limitations on this vision that More does? If so, how does he deal with them? Compare Mores vision of Utopia with that of Plato in his Republic.

Approaches to Particular Sections

Social and business relations (in Book 2, Chapter 5)
In this section, More lays the groundwork for his vision of Utopia, and an examination of this section will most likely begin with an interrogation of the values he promotes, perhaps asking who is treated unfairly in this vision of equality. From this question, the issues of gender, colonialism, socialism, and family bonds might arise. An approach that considers the tension between Medievalism and Renaissance world views might consider the claim of Utopians that the most just cause for war is when a people does not use its soil but keeps it void and vacant (39). It would further discuss how this policy was a motivation for claims made on the New World, in spite of the presence of native people. Can this Utopian philosophy be used as an Imperialist tool? How do their assumptions of governance for the good of the common people overlap with Machiavellis suggestions for princes? A Marxist approach would consider the way in which primus inter pares (first among equals) is employed in Utopias daily life and examine the contradictions (or examples of hypocrisy) that arise. More tells us that special consideration is given to the Governor, the Bishop, the Tranibores, and to ambassadors and all foreigners (40) at mealtimes. A discussion of this might lead to a study of other examples of inequality within the text. An aspect that often strikes students is the role that family plays in Utopia. The Utopian family follows a very traditional patriarchal order, but family units

are subordinate to the social unit, and a class might discuss whether such inclinations are as natural as Raphael suggests.

Religions (in Book 2, Chapter 6)

An approach to this section will obviously be grounded in the religious approach to the text, remembering that More was a staunch Catholic who was ultimately martyred for his refusal to acknowledge Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the Church of England. Following his death, More was canonized. The question that first arises is the extent to which religious freedom is tolerated in Utopia. Raphael tells us that all religions are welcome, with the exception of Epicurismthat is, the belief that the soul dies with the body. What does this condemnation suggest about Mores construction of Utopia? More suggests a natural inclination toward ideals that are compatible with Christianity, and a discussion of religion might ask in what way faith and reason complement or contradict each other in Utopia. To what extent is the religion of the Utopians conducive to Christian beliefs? Could we make an argument for More putting forth his own idealized vision of faith? Furthermore, utilizing a Marxist approach to the text, one might examine the issue of those in Utopia who commit themselves to good deeds. How does the notion that these men will work harder to benefit societyi.e., cleaning and repairing roads, caring for the sickcontradict what Raphael says about the communal spirit of Utopians? How do discussions of religions serve to create contradictions in the presentation of this society?

Slavery (in Book 2, Chapter 7)

The chapter on slaves is one of the most interesting and controversial aspects of Mores Utopian society. Raphael says that Utopians treat their own countrymen with greater harshness because, having had such a good education to a virtuous life, they could not restrain themselves from crime (52). Such a quotation raises the question of mans nature, asking how a Utopia can exist if man is inherently inclined toward self-interested behavior. An examination of the section on slavery asks a question about humankinds natural tendencies and forces readers to address the veracity of the societys happiness as well as look for forced conformity. While discussing such issues as slavery, however, it is important to keep in mind Moruss final dismissal of Raphaels tales as absurd. Approaching the text from the perspective of humanist satire would discuss the way in which we can understand Mores concerns for his world by examining elements of Utopian society, such as the decision to force slaves to wear chains of gold. Discuss what does and does not work in Utopia and which aspects might be successfully transferred to real life. How does the rest of the book support or contradict Raphaels claim that slaves are treated with mercy?

Punishments, legal procedures, and customs (in Book 2, Chapter 7)

A discussion of this section will begin by outlining and organizing the distinctions between laws and customs. Such a discussion will consider the way in which the identity of a Utopian is shaped by legal constraints and cultural pressure. For example, Raphael 9

says that as a rule, they live together harmoniously. One might ask if this is simply a turn of phrase, or could we conceivably imagine in Utopia a law that demands happiness and unity? From this, a class might look for other moments in which More plays on words and serves up ambiguity to his readership. Moreover, in this section More says that most men are simpleminded and need to be told where their duty lies, which is a quotation that can be approached as part of a discussion on kingship, again comparing this work with a text such as The Prince, or by using Mores own life as context, citing the additional source materials. How can such a view of a countrys citizens be used to validate extreme actions, such as Henry VIIIs decision to separate from Rome? One might ask how More would fare in Utopia, given what we know of his biography. Furthermore, looking at this section from a Reformation context would again lead to a discussion of the apparent contradictions in the piece. Raphael says that in Utopia no image of God is seen in a church, so that each may be free to conceive of God according to his own belief (64) which could arguably be seen as a substantial part of a Reformers argument against the Medieval Roman Church.

Critical Reception and History

Utopia was vastly popular during the sixteenth century, celebrated by Mores peers, and believed to the point that there are apocryphal stories of churchmen trying to send missionaries to the country. The humanist Peter Giles said that the book deserved to be sent forth into the hands of men, and Erasmus, whose work The Praise of Folly in part inspired More, praised the divine wit at work in the book. Although Utopia was a celebrated part of Mores career, until recently it has been overshadowed by Mores dramatic life and death, and until the twentieth century most of what was written on More was primarily biographical. Early critical attention relegated study of Utopia to a biographical study of the man, beginning with William Ropers account of his father-inlaw, written during the reign of the staunch Catholic Queen Mary. Many early biographies such as Thomas Stapletonss 1588 Vita Mori follow the pattern of Medieval saints lives, and what C.S. Lewis calls the intermittent decorations1 of Catholic polemic. Within the last 60 years, however, Utopia has become a divisive text, with scholars trying to claim More either as arch-conservativethe last Medieval man in a burgeoning Renaissance societyor as radical reformer of a corrupt capitalist world. C.S. Lewis rejects all political interpretations, suggesting that we read Mores book as a holiday work, a spontaneous overflow of intellectual high spirits, a revel of debate, paradox, comedy and (above all) of invention which starts many hares and kills none.2 Many authors, from Franois Rabelais to Jonathan Swift and Edward Bellamy, have used Mores satirical portrait in their own works, fashioning visions of a no-place Utopia as reflections of their own society in much the same way that More is thought to have done. The word seeped into the common vernacular as an adjective for visions of an ideal society. Utopia was published upwards of 40 times during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a testament to its popularity during the Industrial Revolution. During the
1

Lewis, C.S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama. Volume III of The Oxford History of English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 286. 2 Lewis, 170.

10

nineteenth century, Utopia was heralded by such critics as William Morris, who used Mores fictional country as a defiant emblem of socialist hope. Indeed, R.W. Chambers suggested in 1937 that we view Utopia as the textbook of Socialist propaganda3 and stated that the book did more to make William Morris a Socialist than Karl Marx ever did (125). In his 1893 preface to Mores work, Morris suggested that Utopia is a necessary part of a Socialists library.4 Reading More as sympathetic to Medieval communism, Morris centered his reading on Mores economic critiques of early sixteenth-century England. Mores influence was greatly felt at the end of the eighteenth century and into the beginning of the nineteenth, when his critiques of private property were used by socialist commentators as validation of the need for social reform. Ruskin and Marx were both influenced by Mores ideas. In 1957 Edward L. Surtz suggested that Utopia has a way of reflecting back the images of those who discuss it. Karl Kautsky, in his book Thomas More and His Utopia5 dismisses the idea that the text was written as a joke, proposing that the book pursued the special object of influencing the government and constitution of England (245). Kautsky goes even further in his praise of More as Utopist/Socialist by suggesting that we read Moruss final dismissal of Raphaels narrative as the tragedy of More sacrificing his true beliefs to the capriciousness of powerful princes. He says that only in the twentieth century is it possible to do justice to More the Socialist and suggests that the ideals of More are not vanquished, but still lie before striving mankind (250), ready to be fulfilled. J.H. Hexter, in Mores Utopia: The Biography of an Idea, argues that More needs to be rescued from the ideologically motivated scholars of the Left and the Right, both as anxious to capture him for their own as if he were a key constituency in a close Parliamentary election (74). Many critics throughout the twentieth century have moved beyond the examination of Mores socialism and focused on his politics of faith. R.W. Chambers argues that More is the quintessential humanist, presenting reason in the service of faith. He reads the text as an integration of the four Cardinal virtues of the heathen world (Wisdom, Fortitude, Temperance, and Justice) with the three Christian virtues found in Saint Pauls First Epistle to the Corinthians (Faith, Hope and Charity). Chambers diverges from the Socialist critics by suggesting that it is indeed faith that underpins Mores vision, not a more secular drive for social reform. He says of Utopia, More attacks the enemy in their philosophical camp, and makes his heathen Utopians into unexpected allies of the Catholic faith with regard to this great dogma [the immortality of the soul]and with regard to other things as well. (133) Chambers views Mores Utopia as spiritually orthodox even as it is socially groundbreaking. Hexter supports this move toward conservatism by pointing out that missing from Utopia is that happy anarchist last chapter of modern socialism intended to justify all the struggle, all the suffering, all the constraint we must undergo in order to
3 4

Chambers, R.W. Thomas More. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1936. More, Thomas. Utopia. Introduction by William Morris. Hammersmith, UK: Kelmscott Press, 1893. 5 Kautsky, Karl. Thomas More and His Utopia. Trans. H.J. Stenning. New York: International Publishers, 1927.

11

reach it (70).6 Hexter asserts that More knew surely, as a profoundly Christian man he had to know, that the roots of evil run far too deep in men to be destroyed by a mere rearrangement of the economic organization of a society (71) and suggests that the text be read instead as a sermon, a preaching of Christian values to his reading audience. Hexter says, The Utopian Discourse then is based on a diagnosis of the ills of sixteenth century Christendom; it ascribes those ills to sin, and primarily to pride, and it prescribes remedies for that last most disastrous infection of a mans soul. (74) Hexters view is the sort that Lewis would condemn; it reads More the heretic-burner into Utopia, emphasizing the lack of free speech and spiritual restrictions found in the text. P. Albert Duhamel continues reading the text through the lens of the authors lingering medieval dogmatism(99),7 seeing it as an exercise in Scholastic quaestiones, an opportunity to explore philosophical questions through hypotheses and speculation. Duhamel suggests that Utopia is an exploration of what properly directed reason might accomplish, and reads such potentially objectional behavior as euthanasia as an example of rationality taken to its human limits. He suggests that for Utopians this rationalism is modified by a spiritual clarity akin to the aims of Thomas Aquinas. The goal of this, according to Duhamel, was to demonstrate the failings of contemporary Christian society which was the product of those same forces (121). Emerging slightly from the confines of Mores biography, some critics have shown interest in Historicist readings of Utopia, elaborating on the clearly established link between the text and its cultural background. Gerhard Ritter suggests that More wrote Utopia to represent some of his dearest dreams (71).8 In a world increasingly shaped by nascent capitalism and ruled by capricious princes, Ritter suggests, Utopia represents a political agenda that promotes a dream of social justice. Such a reading emphasizes Mores opposition to Machiavelli and places moral boundaries on the seemingly irrepressible princely quest for power. Russell Aimes believes that city and guild life of the early sixteenth century greatly influenced Utopian living,9 and in 2002, Simon Morgan-Russell sought to link Utopia with chronicles of England, for the precise purpose of highlighting the differences between the two places.10 He says, The process of reading Utopia as a project for social reform effectively calls for a bridging of the abyss between the actual Britain and its fictive, ideal equivalent; in other words, reform would result in the distance between the actual and the ideal lessening as the actual approaches the ideal, so that the discontinuities in the text
6

Hexter, J.H. The Roots of Utopia and All Evil. In Mores Utopia: The Biography of an Idea. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952. 7 Duhamel, P. Albert. Medievalism of Mores Utopia. Studies in Philology 52 (1955), 99-126. 8 Ritter, Gerhard. The Corrupting Influence of Power. Trans. F.W. Pick. Essex, UK: Tower Bridge Publications, 1952. 9 Aimes, Russell. Citizen Thomas More and His Utopia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949, 13. 10 Morgan-Russell, Simon. St. Thomas More's Utopia and the Description of Britain. Cahiers Elisabthains: Late Medieval and Renaissance Studies 61 (Apr. 2002), xii, 1-11.

12

cease to be recognizable. But, in view of the character of Mores assertion that such reform is easier said than done the two worlds remain distinct. (7) Morgan-Russell is ultimately arguing for a comparison designed to elicit a desire for social reform, and is proposing Utopian solutions for English problems. In 1984 Sanford Kessler alternatively suggested that Mores Utopia functioned in part as an exploration of the role that religion can play in social reform of sixteenth-century Europe.11 Kessler contends that the religious freedom in Utopia could serve as a model for contemporary Europe. He argues that More breaks with the dogmatic insistence on authorative interpretations of Scripture, using Utopia as an example of the way in which doctrinal flexibility can promote peace. Kessler suggests that Mores intention was to suggest that no mortal, however great, can make the ambiguities of Scripture fully intelligible without divine assistance. Thus, while recognizing the Church's ultimate authority in doctrinal matters, he warned churchmen to theologize humbly and implicitly endorsed Erasmus's view that salvation depends more on virtuous behavior than on belief in extensive theological systems. (217) Kessler suggests that the validity of this argument is found in the civic peace that emerges through the Utopians religious tolerance. Robert Shepard agreed that the impact of Utopian society on the fictional countries near Utopia is analogous to the impact that More hoped his book Utopia would have on Europe (844).12 His approach echoes the historicist approach to More found in people such as Stephen Greenblatt, who proposes that we read the text as a response to a world changing around the author.13 Greenblatt suggests that Utopia is Mores exploration of the tension between public service and private belief as he contemplated his political commitment to Henry VIII. He even goes so far as to propose that what was at stake for More was not simply his career but his whole sense of himself, the dialectic between his engagement in the world as a character he had fashioned for himself and his perception of such role-playing as unreal and insane (36). Many critics, such as Peter Ruppert, Wayne Rebhorn, and R.W. Chambers,14 read Utopia as a response to enclosures, emphasizing the boundaries and barriers that mark out both the land and the culture. Louis Marin15 proposes that More deliberately constructs a space between the potential and actual, in order to reveal the fundamental conflicts in ideology between the developing productive forces and social conditions of production formed into judicial and political institutions.

11

Kessler, Sanford. Religious Freedom in Thomas Mores Utopia. The Review of Politics 64.2 (Spring 2002), 207-29. 12 Shepard, Robert. Utopia, Utopia's Neighbors, Utopia, and Europe. Sixteenth Century Journal 26.4 (Winter 1995), 843-56. 13 Greenblatt, Stephen. At the Table of the Great: Mores Self-Fashioning and Self-Cancellation. In Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. 14 Ruppert, Peter. Disputed Boundaries: Defining the Utopian Terrain. In Readers in a Strange Land. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986. Rebhorn, Wayne. Thomas Mores Enclosed Garden: Utopia and Renaissance Humanism. English Literary Renaissance 6 (1976), 140-55. 15 Marin, Louis. Frontiers of Utopia: Past and Present. Critical Inquiry 19.3 (Spring 1993). 39-420.

13

Throughout the twentieth century, there has also been extensive interest in Mores literary influencesthat is, in the ancient texts that helped to shape his Utopia. The source of this assumption is found in the name Utopia, which can be translated literally as nowhere, which is widely thought to be influenced by a moment in Platos Republic when a commentator observes that their imaginary republic will be found nowhere on earth. Critics such as Leland Miles have used this source as a springboard from which to investigate further Platonic influences threaded throughout the text.16 John A. Gueguen reads Platos influence, however, as more ambivalent.17 He suggests that Utopia is a critique of the Republic and an attempt to improve on the ancient original in order to sustain Platos relevance. He suggests: More sought to save it for posterity by transforming it into a more potent account, because a truer and a more complete one, of man's spiritual condition and destiny. Without such a correction by Christian wisdom, the Platonic insight would be able to survive in the new Europe only as an antiquarian, not an operational, one. (50) Gueguen seems to imply the ongoing importance of Mores Christianity in his view of humanism. Other critics read a variety of additional literary influences on the text. T.S. Dorsch18 traces what he finds to be clear traces of Lucians True History in Mores text, noting a variety of Lucianic elements, such as the comic anecdotes, punning names, trivial objections, and systematic discussion of the pros and cons of Utopian society. R.J. Shoeck reads Utopia as a response to the parallels he found between England and Sparta as read in Plutarchs Lives.19 Even todays critics continue to debate what is at the heart of Mores vision, examining the text for clues about Mores subjectivity and his relationship to his world. Anne Lake Prescott suggests that we embrace this multiplicity of readings that jostle for our attention.20 She says, More was not truly postmodern, but his work anticipates many postmodern concerns and he shared with many of us at the start of a new century the sense that if we are to find our way in this world, and make it more humane, we will need collaboration more than self-esteem or pride of authorship; a multiplicity of voices more than closed ears; paradox more than single-minded smugness; attention to the margins, not just to the centers of wealth or power; and wariness of the words by which we can slither into lies and self-delusion. (39)

16

Miles, Leland. The Platonic Source of Utopias Minimum Religion. Renaissance News 9.2 (Summer 1956), 83-90. 17 Gueguen, John A. Reading More's Utopia as a Criticism of Plato.Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 10, Quincentennial Essays on St. Thomas More (1978), 43-54. 18 Dorsch, T.S. Sir Thomas More and Lucian: An Interpretation of Utopia. Neueren Sprachen (1967). 352-370. 19 Shoeck, R.J. More, Plutarch, and King Agis: Spartan History and the Meaning of Utopia. Philological Quarterly 35 (1956), 366-75. 20 Prescott, Anne Lake. Postmodern More. Moreana 40.153-154 (March 2003), 219-39.

14

She, like Alistair Fox,21 recognizes the dangers inherent in trying to force Utopia into one particular category and suggests that we read past the myth of the martyr and recognize the numerous identities that made up the man. Fox reads the text as an evolution of these numerous identities and of Mores personal philosophy, proposing that through the writing of Utopia More had learnt the foundations of all his future beliefs and actions (71). This view suggests what many critics freely acknowledge, that More created the Utopians in his own image. Fox offers the most cohesive explanation, one that will enable us to approach such a complex and contradictory text. He says, More could have it both ways: he could explore the implications of a communal way of living without necessarily proposing it, however much he may have felt emotionally or intellectually inclined towards it, as one suspects he was (55). G.R. Elton most accurately sums up the puzzlement that More inspires when he declares that I do not find More inconsistent I find him consistently ambiguous.22

Appendices
Appendix 1: Henry VIIIs Act of Supremacy (1534)
Albeit, the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and oweth to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations; yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ's religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity and tranquillity of this realm: any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.

21 22

Fox, Alistair. Thomas More, History and Providence. Yale: Yale University Press, 1983. Elton, G.R. The Real Thomas More? Reformation Principle and Practice: Essays in Honour of A.G. Dickens. Peter Newman Grooks, ed. London: Scholar Press, 1980. 21-31. 22.

15

Appendix 2: Excerpt from The Prince by Niccol Machiavelli (1505), Trans. Edward Dacres (1640)
Every Prince should desire to be held pitiful, and not cruel. Nevertheless ought he beware that he ill uses not this pity. Csar Borgia was accounted cruel, yet had his cruelty redressed the disorders in Romania, settled it in union, and restored it to peace, and fidelity: which, if it be well weighed, we shall see was an act of more pity, than that of the people of Florence, who to avoid the term of cruelty, suffered Pistoya to fall to destruction. Wherefore a Prince ought not to regard the infamy of cruelty, for to hold his subjects united and faithful: for by giving a very few proofs of himself the other way, he shall be held more pitiful than they, who through their too much pity, suffer disorders to follow, from whence arise murders and rapines: for these are wont to hurt an entire universality, whereas the executions practiced by a Prince, hurt only some particular. And among all sorts of Princes, it is impossible for a new Prince to avoid the name of cruel, because all new States are full of dangers: whereupon Virgil by the mouth of Dido excuses the inhumanity of her Kingdom, saying, Res dura et Regni novitas me talia cogunt Moliri et lat fines custode tenere. My hard plight and new State force me to guard My confines all about with watch and ward. Nevertheless ought he to be judicious in his giving belief to any thing, or moving himself thereat, nor make his people extremely afraid of him; but proceed in a moderate way {319} with wisdom, and humanity, that his too much confidence make him not unwary, and his too much distrust intolerable; from hence arises a dispute, whether it is better to be beloved or feared: I answer, a man would wish he might be the one and the other: but because hardly can they subsist both together, it is much safer to be feared, than be loved; being that one of the two must needs fail; for touching men, we may say this in general, they are unthankful, unconstant, dissemblers, they avoid dangers, and are covetous of gain; and whilst thou doest them good, they are wholly thine; their blood, their fortunes, lives and children are at thy service, as is said before, when the danger is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And that Prince who wholly relies upon their words, unfurnished of all other preparations, goes to wrack: for the friendships that are gotten with rewards, and not by the magnificence and worth of the mind, are dearly bought indeed; but they will neither keep long, nor serve well in time of need: and men do less regard to offend one that is supported by love, than by fear. For love is held by a certainty of obligation, which because men are mischievous, is broken upon any occasion of their own profit. But fear restrains with a dread of punishment which never forsakes a man. Yet ought a Prince cause himself to be beloved in such a manner, that if he gains not love, he may avoid hatred: for it may well stand together, that a man may be feared and not hated; which shall never fail, if he abstain from his subjects goods, and their wives; and whensoever he should be forced to proceed against any of their lives, do it when it is to be done upon a just cause, and apparent conviction; but above all things forbear to lay his hands on other mens goods; for men forget sooner the death of their father, than the loss of their patrimony. Moreover the occasions of taking from men their goods, do never

16

fail: and always he that begins to live by rapine, finds occasion to lay hold upon other mens goods: but against mens lives, they are seldom found, and sooner fail. But where a Prince is abroad in the field with his army, and hath a multitude of soldiers under his government, then is it necessary that he stands not much upon it, though he be termed cruel: for unless he be so, he shall never have his soldiers live in accord one with another, nor ever well disposed to any brave piece of service. Among Hannibals actions of marvel, this is reckoned for one, that having a very huge army, gathered out of several nations, and all led to serve in a strange country, there was never any dissention neither amongst themselves, nor against their General, as well in their bad fortune as their good. Which could not proceed from any thing else than from that barbarous cruelty of his, which together with his exceeding many virtues, rendered him to his soldiers both venerable and terrible; without which, to that effect his other virtues had served him to little purpose: and some writers though not of the best advised, on one side admire these his worthy actions, and on the otherside, condemn the principal causes thereof. And that it is true, that his other virtues would not have sufficed him, we may consider in Scipio, the rarest man not only in the days he lived, but even in the memory of man; from whom his army rebelled in Spain: which grew only upon his too much clemency, which had given way to his soldiers to become more licentious, than was well tolerable by military discipline: for which he was reproved by Fabius Maximus in the Senate, who termed him the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrensians having been destroyed by a Lieutenant of Scipios, were never revenged by him, nor the insolence of that Lieutenant punished; all this arising from his easy nature: so that one desiring to excuse him in the Senate, said, that there were many men knew better how to keep themselves from faults, than to correct the faults of other men: which disposition of his in time would have wronged Scipio's reputation and glory, had he therewith continued in his commands: but living under the government of the Senate, this quality of his that would have disgraced him not only was concealed, but proved to the advancement of his glory. I conclude then, returning to the purpose of being feared, and beloved; insomuch as men love at their own pleasure, and to serve their own turn, and their fear depends upon the Princes pleasure, every wise Prince ought to ground upon that which is of himself, and not upon that which is of another: only this, he ought to use his best wits to avoid hatred, as was said.

Appendix 3: The Land of Cokayne by Anonymous (twelfth century)

Far across the sea to the west of Spain Is a land that is called Cokayne; There is no land under the heavenly kingdom Like it in prosperity and goodness. Although paradise may be merry and splendid, Cokayne is more lovely to see. What is there in paradise Except grass and flowers and green branches? Though there be joy and great delight there, There is no food but fruit; There is no great hall, nor private room, or bench, Nothing but water to quench man's thirst.

17

There are only two people there, Elijah and Enoch with him. Tediously are they able to lead their lives In a place where no other people dwell! In Cokayne there is food and drink Without care, anxiety and labor. The food is excellent, the drink is splendid, At dinner, snack time, and supper. I say in truth, without doubt, There is no land on earth its equal. Indeed, there is no land under heaven Which has so much joy and bliss. Many a pleasing sight is there; It is always day, there is no night. There is no conflict or strife; There is no death, but life forever; There is no lack of food or clothing; There no woman is angry at no man; There is no snake, wolf, or fox; No horse, cow or ox; There is no sheep, no swine, no goat; There is no dirt, God knows, Nor horse-breeding farm nor stud farm. The land is full of other goods. There is no fly or flee, no louse, In clothing, village, bed or house. There is no thunder, no hail, There is no vile worm or snail, And no storm, rain or wind. There no man or woman is blind, But all is play, joy and mirth; Well is it for him who can be there! There are rivers great and fine Of oil, milk, honey and wine; Water there serves no purpose Except to be looked at and to wash with. There is all manner of fruit; All is amusement and delight. A very lovely abbey is there Of gray and white monks There are private rooms and large halls; The walls are all of pies, Of meat, of fish, and rich food, The most pleasing that a person can eat. All the shingles are cakes made of flour, On the church, the cloister, and the hall.

18

The pegs are fat sausages, Rich food fit for princes and kings. One cannot eat enough of them, And can eat justifiably, without blame. Everything is shared by young and old, By the proud and the fierce, the meek and the bold. There the cloister is lovely and full of light, Spacious and long, of pleasant appearance. All the pillars of that cloister Are made out of crystal, With their base and capital Of green jasper and red coral. In the cloister garden there is a tree Very pleasant to see. The root is ginger and galingale; The shoots are all setwall. The flowers are choice maces, The bark is cinnamon of sweet odor, The fruit are cloves of fine taste. There is no lack of cubebs. There are roses of red color And lilies pleasant to see. They never wither by day or night; This has to be a sweet sight! There are four springs in the abbey, Of ointment and healing potion, Of balm and spiced, sweet wine, Always flowing to true profit, They drench all the soil there, [which is] Precious stones and gold. There is sapphire and pearl, Carbuncle and aster, merald, ligure, and prasine, Beryl, onyx, topaz, Amethyst and chrysolite, Chalcedony and hepatite. There are many and plentiful birds: Song thrush, thrush, nightingale, Lark and golden oriole [?] And other birds without number Which never, in keeping with their power, stop Singing merrily day and night. I'll cause you to know still more: The geese roasted on the spit Fly to that abbey, God knows, And cry out: "Geese, all hot, all hot!"

19

They bring along plenty of garlic, The best prepared that one can see. The larksthis is well known Land in a person's mouth, Having been very well prepared in the stewpot, Powdered with cloves and cinnamon. Nothing is said about drink, Just take plenty, with no trouble. When the monks go to Mass All the windows which are of glass Turn into bright crystal To give the monks more light. When the Mass has been said And the books put away, The crystal turns [back] into glass, The state in which it was before. Each day the young monks Go out to play after dinner. There is no hawk or bird so swift That flies better through the air Than the monks, high spirited, With their sleeves and their hoods. When the abbot sees them fly, He considers it a great joy; But nevertheless, all the same, He commands them to land for evensong. The monks do not land, But fly further, in a rush. When the abbot sees for himself That his monks fly away from him, He takes a maiden of the company And turns up her white behind And beats the small drums with his hand To make the monks alight on land. When his monks see [him do] that, They fly down to the maid And go all around the wench And pat all her white behind And then, after their labor, Go meekly home to drink and go to their collation, A very lovely procession! There is another abbey nearby, In truth, a lovely, large nunnery, Up a river of sweet milk, Where there is a great quantity of silk.

20

When the summer day is hot, The young nuns take a boat And betake themselves onto that river, With both oars and rudder. When they are far from the abbey, They take off their clothes in order to play And they leap down into the water And skillfully set about swimming. The young monks, who see them, They get themselves up and hasten out And come to the nuns quickly, And each monk takes one for himself, And they quickly carry off their prey To the great gray abbey And teach the nuns a prayer With "raised leg" up and down. The monk who wants to be a good stallion And who knows how to wear his cowl properly, He shall have, without objection, Twelve wives each year, Entirely as his right, not at all through special privilege, To amuse himself with. And the monk who sleeps best And gives his body entirely over to rest, For him there is hope, God knows, To quickly become father abbot. Whoever wants to come to that land Must do a very great penance: Seven years in swine's dung He must wade, well may you understand, All the way up to his chin, So he can deserve this land. Gentlemen good and courteous, May you never depart from this world Until you hazard your luck And try that penance, So that you can see that land And never more return from it. Let us pray God that it may be so, Amen, pur Seint Charite. The publisher gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Louise Geddes of Baruch College, The City University of New York, for the preparation of the draft material.

21