Some thoughts on Thomas More’s “Utopia”

Note: By writing the work “Utopia,” Thomas More created a new literary genre: utopian and dystopian fiction. This genre is still popular today.

During the Renaissance, Sir Thomas More wrote a satirical book called “Utopia”

In the year 1516, Sir Thomas More published a book in Latin which has since become famous. He titled his book “Utopia,” and this word is now used as a popular word for idyllic and perfect places. But people have long debated about the extent to which More believed that this kind of society could actually exist. That is to say, people debate about whether the work is satirical or not. It is one of the most influential “utopias” ever to appear in fiction, and some attempts at real-life utopias have been modeled on the state that he presents therein. Some would argue that this is the first utopia ever to appear in a work presented as “fiction,” although Plato’s “Republic” offers the first utopia in a work presented as “non-fiction.” Interestingly, there are explicit mentions of Plato’s “Republic” in Thomas More’s “Utopia” – more than one of them, in fact.

Sir Thomas More, the author of “Utopia”

“Utopia” has two possible meanings in Ancient Greek: “happy place” and “no place”

But did Sir Thomas More really believe that this “ideal state” could exist in reality? There are a number of arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one side, for example, a website referenced by Wikipedia quotes More as saying that “Wherfore not Utopie, but rather rightely my name is Eutopie, a place of felicitie.” (see source) “Eutopie” is an interesting spelling to me, because it turns out that the Ancient Greek word εὐτόπος (rendered as “eutopos” or “eutopia”) literally translates to “good place.” But some have wondered whether More actually intended a second meaning for this word, possibly in addition to the other meaning that I have already mentioned. This is because an alternative origin of the word in Ancient Greek would be οὐτόπος (rendered as “outopos” or “outopia”), a word that literally translates to “no place” – possibly implying that this kind of “good place” could not exist in reality.

Illustration for the 1516 first edition of “Utopia”

A review of “Astronomy: The Heavenly Challenge” (audiobook)

The battle over the Sun-centered universe was as much political as it was scientific. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a theory that had been defended since antiquity was suddenly challenged by the new theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun. In antiquity, the Earth had not yet been recognized as a “planet.” Thus, there was no apparent contradiction in saying that the Sun and the “planets” revolved around the Earth. At this time, it seemed to be the most natural theory in the world. Most importantly, it was defended by the Catholic Church – which held political as well as doctrinal power, and was at the peak of its military and political might.

A review of Étienne de la Boétie’s “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” (audiobook)

Étienne de la Boétie

When “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” was first published in 1577, its author had been dead for more than a decade. The author was Étienne de la Boétie, who had never made it to his 33rd birthday. His friend Michel de Montaigne said that Boétie had written it when Boétie was just 18 years old. Boétie had made quite a mark for someone so young, but most people have never even heard of his name. Even in the political philosophy world, his name is fairly unknown. Nonetheless, he is one of the most important political philosophers of the Renaissance era, and arguably of all time. His ideas are still studied today in universities.

Michel de Montaigne

A review of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” (audiobook)

I had read “The Prince” itself before listening to this audiobook, sometime during the winter of 2006-2007. It was in English translation, since I don’t speak Italian, but it would still seem to have counted for something. Thus, you might expect that I didn’t learn anything from this audiobook. But on the contrary, I learned much from this hour-and-a-half audiobook.

Niccolò Machiavelli

Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

“I admit that, provided the subjects remained always in submission, the prince's interest would indeed be that it should be powerful, in order that its power, being his own, might make him formidable to his neighbours; but, this interest being merely secondary and subordinate, and strength being incompatible with submission, princes naturally give the preference always to the principle that is more to their immediate advantage. This is what Samuel put strongly before the Hebrews, and what Macchiavelli has clearly shown. He professed to teach kings; but it was the people he really taught. His Prince is the book of Republicans.[footnote]”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (1762), Book III, Chapter VI

Rousseau said that Machiavelli's “The Prince” is “the book of Republicans” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau commented on this work in 1762. Rousseau argued that it was “the book of Republicans.[footnote]” (Source: “The Social Contract,” Book III, Chapter VI). In this context, “Republicans” seems to mean “those who support a republic.” Was this meant as positive praise or negative criticism? It appears that this was indeed meant as praise, as we can see by examining Rousseau's definition of a “republic” (as I shall do below).

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… and said that “every legitimate government is republican”

Elsewhere in “The Social Contract,” Rousseau had written: “I therefore give the name 'Republic' to every State that is governed by laws, no matter what the form of its administration may be: for only in such a case does the public interest govern, and the res publica rank as a reality. Every legitimate government is republican;[footnote] what government is I will explain later on.” (Source: Book II, Chapter VI) In the footnote to this paragraph, Rousseau actually said that “I understand by this word republic, not merely an aristocracy or a democracy, but generally any government directed by the general will, which is the law. To be legitimate, the government must be, not one with the Sovereign, but its minister. In such a case even a monarchy is a Republic.” (Source: Footnote to Book II, Chapter VI) Thus, for Rousseau, “even a monarchy is a Republic,” and “every legitimate government is republican.” Thus, referring to “The Prince” as “the book of Republicans” seems to be meant as positive praise.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

Machiavelli argued that Cesare Borgia was a good ruler. (Was he?)

“I shall never hesitate to cite Cesare Borgia and his actions. This duke entered the Romagna with auxiliaries, taking there only French soldiers, and with them he captured Imola and Forli; but afterwards, such forces not appearing to him reliable, he turned to mercenaries, discerning less danger in them, and enlisted the Orsini and Vitelli; whom presently, on handling and finding them doubtful, unfaithful, and dangerous, he destroyed and turned to his own men.

And the difference between one and the other of these forces can easily be seen when one considers the difference there was in the reputation of the duke, when he had the French, when he had the Orsini and Vitelli, and when he relied on his own soldiers, on whose fidelity he could always count and found it ever increasing; he was never esteemed more highly than when every one saw that he was complete master of his own forces.”

– Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532), Chapter XIII

Niccolò Machiavelli

Rousseau argued that Machiavelli's choice of Borgia as his hero revealed a “hidden aim” …

More than 200 years after Niccolò Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” in 1532, Jean-Jacques Rousseau would comment on this work in 1762. In his work “The Social Contract,” Rousseau opined that “Macchiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country's oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Cæsar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of the Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.” (Source: Footnote to Book III, Chapter VI) Even Rousseau admitted that Machiavelli's hero “Cæsar Borgia” was “detestable” (calling him his “detestable hero,” after all), but he argued that this strange choice “clearly enough shows [Machiavelli's] hidden aim” right after this. In this passage, a “love of liberty” is thus implied to be a part of this “hidden aim.” Was it really so? I shall examine this question below.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau