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”
Other Ancient Greek place names in “Utopia” reinforce the double meaning of this title
Virtually everyone seems to agree that the “good place” version was indeed intended. Thus, the debate seems to be between those who believe that it’s only the “good place” version, and those who believe that it’s both versions. The title of the work is spelled “Utopia,” rather than “Eutopia” or “Outopia.” Thus, without an additional vowel before the “U,” the title can be interpreted in both ways. It seems likely to me that this double meaning was indeed intentional. This is supported by other place names in “Utopia,” which are likewise of Ancient Greek origin. At least one of these place names seems to support the undisputed “happy place” version, which is the name “Macarenses” meaning “Happyland.” But several other place names support the inclusion of the “no place” version. These include “Achora” meaning “No-landia,” “Polyleritae” meaning “Much-nonsense,” and the river “Anydrus” meaning “No-water.” Although I do not speak Latin, I do know some Ancient Greek. Therefore, I looked up all of these root words in my Greek-English dictionary, and this dictionary verified their authenticity. (See the name of the dictionary here.)
A woodcut by Ambrosius Holbein, illustrating a 1518 edition of the work
Sir Thomas More was executed for opposing the divorce of King Henry the Eighth …
But saying that this land “doesn’t exist” is different from saying that it “can’t exist,” or that it shouldn’t exist. Thus, it may be appropriate here to present some additional evidence. In the work “Utopia,” a number of local customs are mentioned. Some of them directly contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church, of which Sir Thomas More was a devoted member. These included euthanasia, married priests, female priests, and the ease of divorce. One might respond that Sir Thomas More “wasn’t really that devoted” to his church’s practices after all, but there is strong evidence to contradict this. These even include the circumstances of Sir Thomas More’s death. He was a minister of England’s King Henry the Eighth, both before and after his conversion to Protestantism. But Henry the Eighth soon divorced from his first wife, the staunchly-Catholic “Catherine of Aragon.” Instead, he married his second wife, a Protestant named “Anne Boleyn.” Sensing that he was in danger, Sir Thomas More reluctantly acknowledged Anne Boleyn as the new queen. But he refused to accept the validity of Henry’s divorce from his first wife, on the grounds that the Catholic Church forbade divorce. When Henry the Eighth instead formed his own church (the “Church of England”), Lord More refused to take the new loyalty oath, which involved renouncing the authority of the Pope. This was enough to seal More’s fate. In 1535 (nearly twenty years after the writing of “Utopia”), Sir Thomas More was executed on order of a jury. Incidentally, the jury was handpicked to be composed of Anne Boleyn’s uncle, father, and brother (among others) – obviously a rather partial jury. This story was later dramatized in the 1966 movie “A Man for All Seasons.”
Beheading of Thomas More, 1870 illustration
… so why would he have presented divorce “sympathetically” in “Utopia”?
Thus, why would Sir Thomas More have presented divorce “sympathetically” in his book “Utopia,” only to later be executed for opposing the divorce of the king? It seems more likely that the presentation of divorce in “Utopia” was satirical. The other practices in the book that oppose the Catholic Church – which, again, included euthanasia, married priests, and female priests – also seem to point in this direction. Nonetheless, there have been a number of people who seem to have taken “Utopia” at face value. Among them are a number of Marxists, who like the fact that the society presented in “Utopia” does not have private property. I would argue that even this society has some private property, because people make property claims whenever they eat – and the “Utopians” do eat. (But that’s a subject for another post.) But the Marxist theorist Karl Kautsky liked More’s presentation of a society with “no private property.” The Soviet Union also must have liked it, because they erected a statue of Sir Thomas More in the Kremlin.
Portrait of Saint Thomas More
The work seems to be spoofing these things, as well as spoofing an early form of socialism
However, there are a number of problems with interpreting this feature of “Utopia” at face value. Among them are the earlier-mentioned signs pointing to satire. Another problem is that Sir Thomas More himself appears as a character in his own work “Utopia,” giving some of the standard objections to abolishing private property in his own name. The fact that he was putting these objections into his own mouth, rather than that of another character, seems to suggest that the objections are indeed his own. The rest of the book is narrated by a character named “Raphael Hythlodaeus,” whose last name is another Ancient Greek phrase. Specifically, “Hythlodaeus” translates to “dispenser of nonsense.” (Again, I looked up these words in the aforementioned Greek-English dictionary, and verified that this is definitely an accurate translation.) Any pro-socialist arguments presented by this character would thus seem to be among the arguments that More labels “nonsense.”
Statue of Sir Thomas More
Conclusion: The work “Utopia” is one of the greatest parodies ever written
As a disclaimer, I do not pretend here to present the definitive coverage of Sir Thomas More’s “Utopia.” And I acknowledge that there are some other arguments in favor of accepting the book at face value. Sir Thomas More seems to have made the book a little ambiguous, as literary writers often do. But most of the signs seem to point to the work’s really being satirical. In particular, they point to the “abolition of private property” being parodied and mocked. Thus, I remain skeptical of the enterprise of taking this book at face value, since the “satire” interpretation seems to be far more supported by evidence. This is the standard judgment of most readers of “Utopia,” who make some of the same arguments that I’ve made here. My arguments are admittedly not new ones, but they are solid ones, which point to the “Utopia” being one of the greatest parodies ever written. This kind of idyllic and perfect place cannot exist in the real world. At times, its pursuit actually makes things worse, and leads more to a hellish dystopia than a truly good utopia.
Footnote to this blog post:
During the American Revolution, the thirteen American colonies would win their independence from Great Britain. But after the war, there was a real danger that their union would fall apart. For various reasons, the current system of government was not working out. Thus, the country wrote a new constitution, but it was not accepted by all. While some supported a stronger union, others seem to have supported its dissolution.
One Founding Father who was then arguing for union was Alexander Hamilton. At this time, he wrote in the Federalist Papers that “A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.” (Source: Federalist No. 6)
Thus, when this Founding Father was saying that “A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations” to say things like this, he seems to be suggesting that these “Utopian speculations” are hopelessly unrealistic. Like other Founding Fathers, he seems to have been suspicious of even the concept of “Utopianism,” and of all proposed schemes to create it.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment