This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Thomas Bailey, OSB HS 506: The Renaissance and the Reformation April 26, 2010
October 31, 1517, at the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther (14831546) nailed his famous Ninety-Five Theses. Undoubtedly it is a watershed event in the history of western society, nevertheless, its importance is overstated by the popular understanding that Luther was the lone voice calling for reform in an ecclesial world of corruption. Scholarly research long ago debunked the popular portrayal of history; and yet it remains because Marguerite of Navarre, Jacques Lefevre, Guillaume Budè, Ulrich von Hutten, Johannes Reuchlin, John Colet, and Erasmus do not capture the public imagination. Thomas More (14781535) was such an individual, but he is more often seen in terms of jurisprudence and his resistance to Henry VIII¶s (1491-1547) marriage to Anne Boleyn. Thomas More was a man of his age, a Renaissance humanist, and like many other northern humanists was profoundly concerned about the state of the Church. More was a frequent correspondent with Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), who stayed in More¶s home when he was in England. Erasmus kept his pulse on the religious debates of the early sixteenth century, corresponding with the great reformers of the era ± including Martin Luther. Erasmus had a great respect for Thomas More, to whom he dedicated and attributed the name of his most famous work with a play-on-words, Moriae Encomium.1 More himself then was within this religiously zealous circle, particularly in his native England. Of the plethora of writings that Thomas More composed during his life, Utopia is generally the best known. During the era of the Cold War (1945-1991) however, it was viewed through the prism of political ideology, yet by doing so the reforming nature of the document was glossed over. The perspective that will be argued in this paper is that as a northern, Renaissance humanist, Thomas More had a reforming vision for the Church and that it can be
Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly: A New Translation, with Introduction and Notes, translated by Leonard F. Dean, (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1953), 37-39.
Bailey 2 discovered in the satirical prose of Utopia. In order to place Utopia in its proper place as a satirical work that deplores the abuses in the Church and calls for reform, several areas will need to be explored. The first is an understanding of Renaissance satire, placed within the humanist tradition. Secondly, understanding the religious framework of society and the church in the early sixteenth century, focusing specifically on More¶s convictions both in societal attitudes and religion. Finally, an analysis of Utopia itself, seeing how he employed satire and the objections More saw with his contemporary world. The primary intention of satire is to change perceptions, which often lead to a change in behavior.2 As such it is a tool often employed to critique societal attitudes and behaviors, questioning conventional wisdom and the motives of those who originally established them.3 There exists within satirical work a sub-layer that necessitates looking beyond the immediate issue being presented to find the hidden object of derision.4 For example, Jonathan Swift suggested that the Irish eat their own children as way to better their situation. It is not the lack of food that Swift decried, but the hegemonic actions of Great Britain. A device employed within satire is the construction of an alternative metanarrative ± an all encompassing, collective understanding or worldview specific to a group of people ± the various features of which can attack societal perceptions.5 Within the historical context of the Renaissance and sixteenth century England in particular, the usage of satire possessed a unique development. As with many ideas during this time, there existed a desire to return and build upon the ³glories of ancient Rome.´ Though other genres remained more popular, satire based on Juvenal found a place in England. Juvenal¶s
Charles Knight, The Literature of Satire, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 5. Knight, 13-14. 4 Knight, 3. 5 Knight, 5.
Bailey 3 emphasis on righteous indignation, sensationalism, and a return to perfect simplicity struck a chord within Renaissance England.6 It provided an opportunity to decry the social problems of the day in the safe environment of fiction.7 Those who knew Thomas More remarked upon his wit and that it maintained a balance ± not silly or vindictive, but intelligent and purposeful. ³It simply demonstrated More¶s constant awareness that the official forms of social order could not encompass reality,´ and so led others to ³an independent and critical perspective.´8 By translating various tracts of Lucian, More was first introduced into the satirical writings of the ancient world. Satire was a style of writings that he saw as providing a moral compass to society.9 Not only did he appreciate the genre, but he was able to find many structures to employ as well. In particular, he found no difficulty in applying pagan literary devices or ideas in order to incorporate change in his contemporary, Christian society. One such structure was the societal obsession with outward displays, often lacking internal conviction, denounced by Plato. By extension, Augustine of Hippo¶s usage of this Platonic idea to combat hollow pagan rituals in the fourth and fifth centuries provided the authority to do the same in the sixteenth.10 The pieces were there to contribute to a re-ordering of society. More¶s friend, Erasmus, was to lead the way with The Praise of Folly. The Praise of Folly is the quintessential Renaissance critic of society, by which Erasmus employed Lucian¶s literary form to renew church and society.11 From the beginning of The Praise of Folly, Erasmus presented Folly as an all-pervasive entity that boasted of its own
Alvin Kernan, The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance, (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976), 6567. 7 Kernan, 37-38; Arthur B. Ferguson, The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965), 202-205. 8 Dominic Baker-Smith, More¶s Utopia, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 39. 9 J.B. Trapp, Erasmus, Colet and More: The Early Tudor Humanists and Their Books, (London: The British Library, 1990), 54. 10 Baker-Smith, 42-43. 11 Baker-Smith, 48.
Bailey 4 accomplishments. ³I am still the one, the only one I may say, whose influence makes God and men cheerful.´12 The Renaissance reader was taken aback by this unabashed prideful statement that immediately cued the reader to know of the satirical nature of The Praise of Folly. Even this early in the text, Erasmus showed contemporary society as the object of his commentary because he criticized the false modesty that hid the true pride of the ³leading citizens and scholars.´13 Erasmus went on to associate Folly with the attainment of pleasure, which he saw as a basic human instinct. As an example he pointed to the human acts of procreation. He described the act as one of passion ± devoid of reason ± for it led to death and motherhood for women and servitude for men, all for a moment to be like the gods. The drive for pleasure ruined the ability of society to improve and sought only the status quo. Reform disrupts and unsettles, it is therefore to be avoided through Folly¶s aid, and self-delusion reinforced by praise commends the status quo to divine approval.14 The safety of literary fiction offered an opportunity to attack the institutions that continued to stifle reform ± the church and the monarchy. Monarchy existed to fulfill its obligations to care for in the earthly realm those over whom the monarch exercised authority. Erasmus saw it as having degraded to personal aggrandizement worn as titles that were too large to fit on the individuals invested with the power. Folly¶s responsibility then was to distract the monarch from looking into the mirror and seeing him/herself as a usurper. The church too utilized such distractions, but also engaged sophistry to approve its actions.15 Erasmus instead saw love and aid to others as the important elements of Christianity.16
Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly: A New Translation, with Introduction and Notes, translated by Leonard F. Dean, (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1953),43. 13 Ibid., 44. 14 Baker-Smith, 48-49; Erasmus, 64. 15 Baker-Smith, 49-51. 16 Erasmus, 97.
Bailey 5 The Praise of Folly did not exist in a vacuum, but was the product of its society, a society that had become critical of the way that people and institutions lived. Martin Luther, Erasmus, and Thomas More, though disagreeing about the method and the solution, agreed that there existed problems in the church and sought to remedy them by using the gift they prized above others ± reason. The milieu of the Northern Renaissance was profoundly religious in orientation, seeking to purge religion from the accretions of the Middle Ages. The religious environment of pre-modern Britain was an age of faith. Despite the abuses, corruption, and superstition, the majority of the population believed in a God who expected certain actions and behaviors from people. Throughout the English Reformation, people continued to lavish benefices upon the clergy because they believed in the efficacy of the rituals to please God irrespective of the holiness of the priest. ³It was the ordination of the priest, not his personal piety, which gave him power.´17 Bruce argued that the inappropriate behavior was actually an example of people¶s faith. The sale of indulgences, for instance, was such a case. The decision of people to spend difficultly obtained money for the remission of sins meant they believed that it protected them from God¶s wrath and that the Church possessed the power to grant such a reprieve.18 The sophist systems of scholastic theology also left religious belief in disarray. A heavy emphasis on the after life and the end times preoccupied the daily lives of people, perhaps leading to their belief in the value of indulgences. God¶s mercy was available to all if they only performed the required actions or good works. By delaying to the last possible moment before death the administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction evidenced this belief. How you lived your life was not as important as how you died because a deathbed conversion guaranteed
Steve Bruce, ³The Pervasive World-View: Religion in Pre-Modern Britain,´ The British Journal of Sociology 48, No. 4 (December 1997): 674. 18 Ibid, 677.
Bailey 6 eternal life through God¶s mercy. Henry VIII¶s ³Great Matter´ showed that scholasticism enabled a theologian to conclude the opinion he sought or to discover the necessary precedent. Thomas Cranmer canvassed the universities of Europe for their opinion on the validity of Henry Tudor¶s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, achieving a less than definitive answer.19 The reformers on the other hand sought to purge the Church of the practices they saw as having their source solely in the Dark Ages and wanted to return to a purified form of Christianity found in the early Church through the Patristic era. Erasmus was the leader of the reforming movement as it was based on his principles: focused on reading and interpreting scripture, reducing superstitious practices, and correcting abuses.20 Christianity was understood to be a rational faith and that passionate, emotional Christianity was anathema.21 Before the Reformation, Thomas More established his reputation as a humanist scholar unafraid to challenge others. Between 1515 and 1520 he wrote three letters that outline some of his core principles: Letter to Dorp (1515), Letter to Oxford (1518), and Letter to a Monk (1520). More wrote to Martin Dorp, a professor of theology at the University of Louvain, in response to Dorp¶s criticism of Erasmus¶s The Praise of Folly. In an uncharacteristic manner, More harshly criticized Dorp, even using Dorp¶s writings against him. The essence of his attitude is clear however, Thomas More was concerned about Martin Dorp the man. More hoped to convince him of the rightness of Erasmus¶ argument, advocating a new intellectual and moral program that
G.G. Coulton, ³The Faith of St. Thomas More,´ in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 504-505. 20 Stefania Tutino, Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570-1625, (Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2007), 4. 21 David Weil Baker, Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 51-52.
Bailey 7 would better humanity. He employed the dialectic method against itself to bring rational discourse for ³it is man that counts, not the system.´22 The other two letters combined More¶s concern for learning with his concern for faith and morals. In the Letter to Oxford Thomas More encouraged the faculty to introduce Greek into the curriculum. He praised the university¶s commitment of the liberal arts, by which he meant the studia humanitatis. He stated that it was only through secular learning that virtue and pure religion would be produced, otherwise medieval scholasticism was the result.23 In More¶s Letter to a Monk, he again defended Erasmus, whose motives were questioned. The unnamed monk accused Erasmus of writing The Praise of Folly ³to cause discord and bring in deception.´24 More responded by comparing Erasmus to St. Paul who was forced to undergo many hardships for the sake of the Gospel. He continued to use scriptural allusions throughout the remainder of the letter to emphasize the importance of scripture and to highlight the selfproclaimed authority of the monk.25 The works he penned on his personal asceticism and devotion provide a unique opportunity to understand Thomas More¶s religious praxis. These works were not written to be published, but to support himself and his family in the difficult time of his imprisonment and execution, and as such was less guarded in what he wrote. The four years he spent in a Carthusian monastery provided him with an appreciation for silence, which allowed for a spirit of acceptance to the providential design in his life. The prayers that he composed echoed this
R.S. Sylvester, ³Thomas More: Humanist in Action,´ in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 464-465. 23 Ibid, 463. 24 Thomas More, ³Letter to a Monk, 1520,´ as quoted in R.S. Sylvester, ³Thomas More: Humanist in Action,´ in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 466. 25 Ibid, 466-467.
Bailey 8 sentiment and focused him on the reception of grace, abandonment of earthly things, an absolute love of God in the face of suffering, and all firmly rooted in faith and works.26 The public writings of Thomas More were different as he responded to the Reformation writers after 1517. In spite of being a layman, he was thought to be the greatest mind of his generation in England and capable of combating the perceived errors of continental Protestantism.27 His polemical writings did not outline a systematic theology, instead it was directed toward responding to the challenges presented. More was interested in the moral and spiritual consequences of reformed ideas and believed that they were incompatible with leading a virtuous life; it was a fight for the soul of mankind.28 As Lord-Chancellor More was responsible for rooting out heresy in England and providing stability to the realm, which he saw as going hand-in-hand. He even personally questioned witnesses at Chelsea House, his residence.29 The world of Thomas More in 1516 when he finished Utopia was profoundly different than the one in which he found himself after Luther¶s 95 Theses. As Lord-Chancellor of a Catholic nation he felt bound to protect the faith and to serve his king. Luther¶s questioning of established authority, in the mind of Henry VIII and Thomas More, attacked the foundation of society. They believed that if one divinely appointed institution was questioned so could all the rest ± the Roman Church first, then the monarchy. Their suspicions were confirmed in 1524 when the German peasant¶s revolted against their rulers. The heated passion of religious fervor seems removed from the reasoned conversation of Utopia. The beginning and end of Utopia provide bookends to understanding the satirical nature of the work. The reader, along with Thomas More, is introduced to the mysterious figure of
Bernard Fisher, ³English Spiritual Writers: St. Thomas More,´ in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 513-516. 27 Baker, 49. 28 Fisher, 514; Baker 49. 29 John Guy, Thomas More, (New York: Oxford University Press. 2000), 106.
Bailey 9 Raphael Hythloday who extolled the virtues of the Commonwealth of Utopia. The mixture of Classical and Christian interplay is evident in the bard of the story. In the Christian tradition, Raphael is one of the archangels who stand beside God bringing God¶s message to the people. By presenting Raphael as the traveler¶s name, Thomas More implied that he is a purveyor of truth. The surname however in Greek means purveyor of nonsense.30 At the end of the treatise, More¶s character makes an aside in which he disagrees with many of the customs and laws of the Utopians; he found them absurd. He listed the objections to include their views on war, religious ceremonies, social customs, and the most condemnable of all was their economic system. His parting remark however, ³Yet I confess there are many things in the Commonwealth of Utopia which I wish our own country would imitate.´31 The list of objections More provided condemned essentially all aspects of Utopian society. Then he praised the majority of Utopian society. The condemnation and the praise provide ambiguity about the character¶s thought, but serves as a reminder to the reader to question one¶s own motives and presuppositions. In such a short paper it would be impossible to look at the entirety of Thomas More¶s Utopia, as such three principle areas will be considered: food distribution, moral philosophy, and religion. Following in the satirical tradition, More presented a new metanarrative of a strange and different world. In the postmodern age of the twenty-first century some of his satire seem acceptable, but the perception he sought to change were those in sixteenth century Europe. It is important then to keep that framework in mind to compare and contrast the Utopian ideal with More¶s contemporary society.
Ibid, 99. Thomas More, Utopia, translated and edited by Robert M. Adams, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1975), 91.
Bailey 10 The food was produced in the surrounding countryside, where everyone took their allotted term as a farmer, and shipped to the city where it was prepared and served in a communal building. Before it was distributed to the masses however, it was first given to the infirmed in the hospital to ensure they received all they needed to return to health; Hythloday highly praised this practice. It was then dispersed to the communal halls by an allotment based on the total number of families the hall serves. It is noted that those areas that served the prince, the high priest, the tranibors (senators), ambassadors, and visiting foreigners received more for those individuals consumption. The serving of the food was structured as well; preference was given to the older, while the children who ate separately also ate last. Though delicacies were served in the same manner, the expectation was that they shared with those younger.32 As noted earlier, there needs to exist within satire something that will seem plausible to the reader or else it will be immediately rejected. The distribution of food was based on a hierarchical structure that appealed to the mentality of the aristocracy of the sixteenth century. All belonged to the monarch, and thus he should receive what was first, followed by his chief councilors and then visiting dignitaries and guests. Apart from the quaint equal distribution of the remainder, which was again hierarchically assigned, it was a plausible though not preferred method for European society. The juxtaposition lies elsewhere than the obvious equal distribution. Christian humanists, More included, based their presuppositions on scripture and early Church practices.33 A model was provided for them in the Acts of the Apostles that distribution was made to each according to need alone (Acts 2:42-47). More and special foods were provided to the leaders of the Utopian society, but they preferred to pass them on to those lower in the hierarchical
More, 46-48. Baker, 66-68.
Bailey 11 structure. ³The old people, as they feel inclined, give their neighbors a share of those delicacies which are not plentiful enough to be served to everyone. Thus, due respect is paid to seniority, yet the principle of equality is preserved.´34 More then was criticizing the behavior of the greater in his society who should be concerned with the betterment of those entrusted to their care, like the Philosopher-King of Plato¶s Republic.35 In terms of ecclesial change, More used the distribution of food as a direct challenge to the system of benefices. The high priest (representative of all clerics) was placed in the Utopian hierarchical line to receive a greater portion of food. More argued then that it was proper for the priest to receive his due (Luke 10:7; 1Tim 5:18), but that he should be like the elders who passed the benefit over to those entrusted to his charge. Thomas More provided an example of a good cleric in Utopia as well. He was one inspired by purely religious motives, forsook all earthly pleasures for a heavenly reward (Matt. 19:21), and worked the hardest labor out of charity for others.36 The corruption that had seeped into the Church was considered to stifle the progress of a properly reformed Christian. More hoped to present clerics with an opportunity to look into a mirror and then rationally choose to make a change. In addition, Thomas More enjoyed playing with words, exampled throughout the text in the names he gave various places and offices within Utopia. In his contemporary world there was a distinction between heavenly (grace) and earthly (sustenance) food. The clerics were the undisputed dispensers of God¶s grace and it was necessary for everlasting life. An emphasis on the Utopian free, equal distribution of food attacked the selling of indulgences. More was not arguing against the efficacy of indulgences, but the profit procured. Grace was available through the good actions of individuals and not a wizardric purchase of goods.
More, 48. Baker-Smith, 42-44. 36 More, 82-83.
Bailey 12 The inhabitants of Utopia were captivated by learning and placed great emphasis on moral philosophy for it contained the raison d¶être of their society. The chief virtue for Utopians was the pursuit of human happiness. The virtue was manifested in ³living according to nature and God [who] created us to that end.´37 Human happiness was defined therefore as leading a life free of anxiety, seeking joy, pursuing ³good and honest´ pleasure, and helping others to do the same.38 The search for optimizing pleasure and decreasing suffering continued until death. The Utopians sanctioned euthanasia as a means to end useless suffering, it was even promoted to a holy good. In the face of an incurable and painful disease, the citizen, by choosing to either starve oneself to death or drink a poison, ³would be obeying the advice of the priests, who are the interpreters of God¶s will; which ensures that it will be a holy and pious act.´39 In the explanation for the pursuit of pleasure, Hythloday distinguished between good pleasure which was understood as ³every state or movement of body or mind in which man naturally finds delight,´ and pleasure ³which is against nature´ that seeks only vain glory.40 The pursuit of natural virtues was expected of anyone who had not yet received the Christian message. The Cardinal Virtues were not alone in Utopia society, there existed the need to aid others in the pursuit of the same goal. The Theological Virtues of charity and hope existed in the commonwealth before Christianity. More separated it however from its medieval understandings and focused instead on the early Christian view of righteousness before God. The addition of the theological virtues within the Utopian society before Hythloday¶s preaching was meant to shame Christendom for their inability to live the precepts they were to have experience by God¶s
Ibid, 55. Ibid, 54-56. 39 Ibid, 65. 40 Ibid, 56-57.
Bailey 13 mercy.41 A rightness that meant providing proper knowledge of the faith and scripture to Christians, as well as, material and societal needs. The discomfort necessary for satire to work is found in the laudatory statements on euthanasia, particularly the sanctity of the action. Medieval scholasticism was concerned with systems and proving dictums. They often created complicated webs of proofs, which to the humanist mind were sophistry and an attempt to prove the conclusion the scholastic initially sought. More¶s approval of euthanasia alerted the reader to those systems. The pursuit of happiness on the surface was a concept that easily gained support, the prevalence of feasting and wenching give testimony to pleasure¶s (or folly¶s) temptations. If pleasure is the ultimate goal, however, the logical conclusion to pain is to end it. More¶s understanding of the atonement and each individual¶s participation within it (Col. 1:24) did not allow for him to personally accept euthanasia. If it had, he would not have suffered the separation from his family or the hardships of the tower himself. It underscored the irrationality of scholasticism instead. A fascinating element of More¶s Utopian world is the inclusion of religious toleration. The island was presented as possessing a plethora of religious beliefs and practices. As laid down by the founder of the nation, Utopus, all religions were to be respected because truth will be victorious in the end and that religious warfare only causes the truth to be ³crowded out by blind superstitions.´42 The Utopians were required to have faith and to believe in an afterlife were righteousness was rewarded and vice punished. A pseudo-exile was employed on those who did not believe the basic principle. They were not harmed, forced to convert, or deprived of food or goods; instead, the individual was passed over for leadership positions. The rationale
Coulton, 507; Olin, 63-64. More, 80.
Bailey 14 was that without a sense of fear for eternal punishment, the temptation for the individual to betray the laws and customs of the society was too great.43 A story was related that one of the converts to Christianity, as preached by Hythloday and his companions, became overly zealous and began demanding that others convert to Christianity. The citizens of Utopia convicted him and sentenced him to exile, but it was noted that it was not for his religious conviction but his incitement of a riot.44 Some scholars have argued that the condemnation of religious zealotry exemplified the humanist position of rational religious discourse.45 The literary refutations of Thomas More indicate that those assumptions may be correct. Following Thomas Cardinal Wolsey¶s fall from power in 1529, Thomas More became Lord-Chancellor and he no longer waged only literary battles. As Lord-Chancellor he was personally responsible for eliminating heresy in the English Kingdom. As noted earlier, the suppression of heresy was vigorously enforced by More ± he was not merely doing his duty, but saw it as a necessity for the survival of the realm. If this is the case, it casts great doubt upon those scholars who advocate More¶s modern ideas of religious toleration. Thomas More was a man of his time and the majority of reformers vigorously defended their beliefs on battlefields or in church trials. It is important then to see the religious toleration of More¶s Utopia in line with Renaissance Humanism and not the Enlightenment. If this is the case, then the explanation for its presence in the text is as the satirical image. In conjunction with the weak philosophical underpinnings More deplored in the pursuit of unadulterated natural pleasure, he attacked those similar to Martin Dorp and the anonymous monk. The Christianity preached by the visitors to Utopia was the pure Christianity More wished to see instituted. It was the detractor, the scholastics, who exiled the one bringing the
Ibid, 80-81. Ibid, 79. 45 Baker, 51-52.
Bailey 15 truth to them. It is an analogy to the cave in Plato¶s Republic. The one who broke his bonds and saw the world as it truly existed was, upon his return, considered crazed by the others. The illustration then was to provoke courage in the face of discrimination. In Olin¶s analysis of Utopia he wrote: I have already stressed that the ideal they have in mind is a spiritual one. It has to do with men being good; it has to do with Christ¶s command to love one another; it has to do with the values men live by; it has to do with changing and reforming lives.46 Olin was correct in his assessment; Thomas More wanted to change ecclesial actions. More saw the problems in the Church and as a committed humanist sought to bring it in align with the new ideas of his age. The medium that he employed was satire because it was capable of making people think without seeming to be overtly doing so. The Church was a major component in society and if he wished to bring about the perfection of man, the Church could be a powerful force in the process. It will be important for scholars to examine in a more detailed way the satirical elements of Utopia than is capable in this paper. In so doing, it will aid in the further development of Reformation studies. Those studies have already questioned the inevitability of Protestantism and the sudden shift from one paradigm to another. Satire will be another key because humanists often employed it. The academic must also be careful in not falling into the trap More abhored with scholastics ± seeking the answer they wanted in their own systems. Thomas More was a Renaissance man and not an Enlightenment one. Perhaps it is possible though that the misinterpretation of More¶s religious toleration itself aided its development a couple of centuries later?
Bailey 16 Bibliography Primary Sources: Erasmus, Desiderius. The Praise of Folly: A New Translation, with Introduction and Notes. Translated by Leonard F. Dean. New York: Farrar, Straus, 1953. More, Thomas. ³Responsio ad Lutherum.´ Translated by Sister Scholastica Mandeville. In The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 5, part 1, edited by John M. Headley. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969. ____________. Utopia. Translated and edited by Robert M. Adams. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1975. Luther, Martin. ³The Ninety-Five Theses, 1517.´ Translated by C.M. Jacobs and H.J. Grimm. In Martin Luther¶s 95 Theses with the Pertinent Documents from the History of the Reformation, edited by Kurt Aland, 50-58. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1967. Secondary Sources: Baker, David Weil. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Baker-Smith, Dominic. More¶s Utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000. Bradshaw, Brendan. ³More on Utopia.´ The Historical Journal 24, No. 1 (March 1981): 1-27. Bruce, Steve. ³The Pervasive World-View: Religion in Pre-Modern Britain.´ The British Journal of Sociology 48, No. 4 (December 1997): 667-680. Coulton, G.G. ³The Faith of St. Thomas More.´ In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour, 502-512. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977. Cousins, A.D., and Damian Grace, eds. More¶s Utopia and the Utopian Inheritance. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995. Davis, J.C. Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing, 1516-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Duhamel, P. Albert. ³Medievalism of More¶s Utopia.´ In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour, 234-250. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977. Dust, Philip C. Three Renaissance Pacifists: Essays in the Theories of Erasmus, More, and Vives. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1987.
Bailey 17 Ferguson, Arthur B. The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965. Fisher, Bernard. ³English Spiritual Writers: St. Thomas More.´ In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour, 513-519. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977. Galibois, Roland. Religion et Socialisme: Dans L¶Utoppie de Thomas More et dans les Écrits du Premier Tillich. Quebec: Le Presses de L¶Université Laval, 2002. Ganne Élisabeth-Marie. Thomas More: L¶homme complet de la Renaissance. Montrouge, France: Nouvell Cité, 2002. Guy, John. Thomas More. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000. Heiserman, A.R. ³Satire in the Utopia.´ Publications of the Modern Language Association 78, No. 3 (June 1963): 163-174. Hexter, J.H. More¶s Utopia: The Biography of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. Kernan, Alvin. The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976. Kessler, Sanford. ³Religious Freedom in More¶s µUtopia¶.´ The Review of Politics 64, No. 2 (Spring 2002): 207-229. Knight, Charles. The Literature of Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Logan, George M. The Meaning of More¶s µUtopia¶.´ Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983. Nendza, James. ³Political Idealism in More¶s µUtopia¶.´ The Review of Politics 46, No. 3 (July 1984): 428-451. ____________. ³Religion and Republicanism in More¶s Utopia.´ The Western Political Quarterly 37, No. 2 (June 1984): 195-211. Ogborn, Jane and Peter Buckroyd. Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Olin, John C. Erasmus, Utopia, and the Jesuits: Essay on the Outreach of Humanism. New York: Fordham University Press, 1994. __________. Interpreting More¶s Utopia. New York: Fordham University Press, 1989. Shephard, Robert. ³Utopia, Utopia¶s Neighbors, Utopia, and Europe.´ The Sixteenth Century
Bailey 18 Journal 26, No. 4 (Winter 1995): 843-856. Surtz, Edward L. ³Interpretations of µUtopia¶.´ The Catholic Historical Review 38, No. 2 (July 1952): 156-174. _____________. The Praise of Wisdom: A Commentary on the Religious and Moral Problems and Backgrounds of St. Thomas More¶s Utopia. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1957. Sylvester, R.S. ³Thomas More: Humanist in Action.´ In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc¶hadour, 462-469. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977. Trapp, J.B. Erasmus, Colet and More: The Early Tudor Humanists and Their Books. London: The British Library, 1990. Tutino, Stefania. Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570-1625. Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2007.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.