Reading Questions and Notes for Sir Thomas More’s Utopia.

What to read: You can find the full text at: http://www.d-holliday.com/tmore/utopia.htm

Utopia is a relatively short piece and an easy read, all things considered. So, if you can, you should try to read the whole thing. However, barring that here is what you absolutely must read:

All of Book I and the following chapters of Book II: “Of their Traffic,” “Of the traveling of the Utopians,” “Of Their Slaves and of their Marriages,” & “Of the religions of the Utopians.”

A few comments: There is a central or abiding ambiguity to Utopia that continues to make it intriguing and a subject of controversy. On the one hand it is clear that Utopia is a satire and is meant to be humorous. This was a common genre of the so-called “northern humanists” (e.g. Erasmus’ In Praise of Folly). Indeed, the letters exchanged amongst this group of intellectuals, and their apparent (childish?) glee that some people assumed that Utopia was real place, sometimes suggest that Utopia is meant as a joke. (Peter Giles, in one of this letters, went so far as to construct an actual alphabet for the Utopians.) On the other hand, it is not at all clear what is being satirized or what the butt of the joke is. More was a devote catholic (he wore a hair shirt and would at times flagellate himself with a corded whip), yet much of Utopia is critical of contemporary Christianity. More’s own activities in the government of Henry the VIII (in both foreign relations and domestic policy) suggest he was far less tolerant of both religious and political freedom (he really did not like the Protestants movement then taking off). Can we say that More was some sort of proto-socialist? Or, did he wish to see a return to the monastic ideals of the late Middle Ages? However we answer these questions, we must recognize two things. First, Utopia does pose very serious and interesting questions for our consideration. Not only do these questions give us some insight into the intellectual culture of the period, but they remain important questions for us. Second, Utopia had a very profound impact upon the minds and thinking of the humanists during this period. It is interesting to note that while More could have in no way read Machiavelli’s The Prince, there is much in Utopia that can be seen as a direct response to Machiavelli’s particular understanding of political justice.

Much of the satire in Utopia is bound up with More’s use of Greek (which accounts for why some people did not pick up on its satirical nature). So, for example, “utopia” itself means “no place.” Currently, we consider “utopias” to be perfect or ideal places (and this is suggested by the possible pun on “eutopia” which means “good place”). However, it is not clear –and seems dubious—that More’s Utopia was considered to be an “ideal” for him or anyone in his circle. We should be careful of assuming that the social structures illustrated by the Utopians are social structures that More thought were ideal –we must remember at least the lack of Christianity as an informing element in those structures and what limits reason had for many humanists. Almost all of More’s uses of Greek in constructing names have something to do with nonsense or stupidity. So, for example, “Hythloday” (Raphael’s last name) is probably a construction from “huthlos” and “daien” and can be read as “nonsense peddler.” So, watch for this.

Some questions to consider: While you are reading the text you should keep in mind these general questions.

1. Identify and try to explain the “humanist” elements in Utopia. That is, try to find specific passages, themes, or references that indicate the text’s placement within the humanistic intellectual tradition.
2. Consider More’s work here in relation to the work of Machiavelli. How is his vision (to the degree that you can work this out) of justice and politics different from Machiavelli? Which vision do you find more realistic or more appealing?
3. It is also useful to contrast More’s characterizations of people –and his sense of what a good person is—with that put forward by Castiglione.

Book I

1. Consider carefully the question that More poses to Raphael: why don’t you work in the service of some king? Why does Raphael refuse to do this? What are his arguments such as they are that he should not do this?
2. What are some possible responses to Raphael’s refusal? How would you respond to Raphael here?
3. Consider: is it possible to be a virtuous person –as More understands this (think of his description of Peter Giles)—and still service in politics? Think about this in relation to Machiavelli.
4. Trace out and try to re-write the argument (as you understand it) that Raphael gives for his position. Do the same for More.
5. One of the sub arguments here concerns the death penalty for crimes. What do you think of this discussion? What is Raphael’s argument here? Is slavery a more just form of punishment? Do you agree with the purpose of punishment outlined here?
6. Of course, you should know the basics here as well: Who is Raphael, who are the Polylerites, Achorians, etc.?

Book II

1. For each of the specific chapters in this section you should know the basic content. For example, what are the key structures of society and business in Utopia? What is most interesting or “striking” about these structures? In a sense, you should know the basic content. However, here are a few more general questions.
2. What is the role of reason in Utopian society? What can reason do you human society? Does it have any limits?
3. What is the basis of their moral philosophy? What is the role of reason and nature in morality for the Utopians? What do you think of this construction? Is it reasonable? Does it leave anything out, or leave any important questions unasked and unanswered? What are the rules of nature/reason?
4. How do the Utopians define and understand pleasure as a part of human life? What place does pleasure have in their social structures and in their moral philosophy? Does the elimination of private property relate to the emphasis on pleasure?
5. What do you think of the role of religion in Utopian society? Can you have religious freedom if you maintain the two “fundamental laws” of Utopian society? What is the purpose or function of these laws?
6. What is the precise nature of the toleration of diversity in religion in Utopia? What is allowed and what is forbidden? Is this a true tolerance or a true freedom of speech?
7. What do you think of this sentence: “If anyone claimed to prefer celibacy to marriage, and a hard life to a comfortable one, on the grounds of reason alone, the Utopians would think him absurd”? What does this mean for the function and limits of reason?
8. Consider the sentence that follows: “But, since these men [religious people who are celibate and reject pleasure] claim to be motivated by religion, the Utopians respect and revere them.” What do we do with this?
9. Over-all what do you think of the role of religion in Utopian society?
10. Finally, what is your over-all judgment of Utopia –both as a text and as a vision of a just state?