Thomas More's Utopia

Arguing for Social Justice

Lawrence Wilde

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317281375
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Social History
• Index: History

The 500 th anniversary of the first publication of Thomas More's Utopia invites a reappraisal of its significance, not just as an ironic and playful fiction, but as a serious contribution to social and political thought. More delivers a searing critique of the injustices of his time and imagines a radical alternative based on common ownership and representative government. In this new interpretation, Wilde surveys the context from which Utopia emerged and analyses its key themes – politics, economics, social relations, crime and punishment, war and religion. Although the society of the Utopians is created as a remedy to the ailments of the old world, there are restrictions on individual freedom which reflect More's suspicion of human nature's innate fragility. Wilde argues that this should not detract from the power of the book in challenging the root causes of inequality and oppression.

The true legacy of Utopia lies in its plea for social justice in the face of a world driven by greed and the lust for power. A compelling case is made for the continued relevance of this masterpiece, a legacy that should not be diminished by attempts to discredit More's character, which are dealt with here in the epilogue. Offering a new perspective on this important historical text, this book is essential reading for students and scholars working in radical politics, the history of social thought and literature, as well as anyone interested in learning more about this fascinating work.

1

More and his masterpiece

When I consider and turn over in my mind the various commonwealths flourishing today, so help me God, I can see in them nothing but a conspiracy of the rich, who are advancing their own interests under the name and title of the commonwealth.

(U: 105)

Thomas More was born in London on 7 February 1478, the son of Agnes and Sir John More, a distinguished lawyer (Guy, 2000: 21–41). He was educated for five years at St. Anthony’s school, where the emphasis was on Latin, until the age of 12, when he was sent to work as a page to Cardinal Morton. Most of his fellow schoolboys would have proceeded to Eton, but More’s experience was invaluable, for the cardinal was also archbishop of Canterbury and lord chancellor of England, perhaps the most powerful figure in English society after the king himself (Ackroyd, 1998: 27–34). This insight into politics at the highest level clearly made a deep impression on More, who casts Morton in a favourable light as a character in both History of King Richard III, written between 1513 and 1519, and Utopia (More, 2005: 88–92; U: 15, 27). At the age of 14 More was sent to study at the University of Oxford, probably at what was then Canterbury College, now Christ Church (Barron, 2011: 10), before moving back to London two years later to commence legal training at New Inn. He was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn in 1496 and began to practise law around 1501 (Marius, 1993: 28–33).

It was at this time that he began his study of Greek and came under the influence and instruction of the leading English exponents of the ‘new learning’ or ‘humanism’, Thomas Linacre, William Grocyn and John Colet (Guy, 2000: 27–8; Arnold, 2011: 189–208, 157–74). For four years this period of intense self-education took place while he was attending the London Charterhouse headquarters of the Carthusian monks, subsidised by an income from some light legal work. His reputation as a scholar earned him an invitation to give a series of lectures on St. Augustine’s City of God at St. Lawrence Jewry church in 1501, but the content of the lectures is not extant (Ackroyd, 1998: 100–2). It seems likely that he contemplated entering a religious order, but instead he opted for family life by marrying Joanna Colt in 1505. Within five years they had three daughters and a son. All the children were educated by Thomas to the highest standard, and the eldest, Margaret, went on to be an accomplished scholar in her own right, as well as his closest confidante. She is largely responsible for preserving the vast amount of material that permits us to know so much about the life and work of her father (Guy, 2008: 265–74).

During the early years of the century More resolved other major questions concerning his future. He needed to decide whether to commit himself to public service or opt for a life of scholarly detachment, a choice openly discussed by humanists, reflecting different traditions in classical thought. This question forms the framework of Book 1 of Utopia. More rejected the attractions of a life of contemplation preferred by his humanist mentors, opting instead for a life of public service (Guy, 2000, 28–39). After leaving the Charterhouse he became a member of the House of Commons, in 1504, and in 1510 was appointed an undersheriff of London, responsible for presiding over civil and criminal court proceedings (Guy, 2008: 33). However, More ambitiously believed that a legal and political career need not preclude a literary one. He translated a life of the reforming Italian humanist, Pico della Mirandola, along with a number of his poems, from Latin into English, late in 1504 (More, 1997: 51–123; Baker-Smith, 2000: 16–17). His close friendship with Erasmus of Rotterdam, Europe’s pre-eminent humanist, was vital for his intellectual development. They had first met in London in 1499, and in the winter of 1505–6 he stayed in the More household, where together they translated verses of the poet Lucian of Samosata (125–80), a master of irony, from Greek into Latin. Erasmus wrote his renowned satire In Praise of Folly in More’s house in 1509, shortly after the accession of the new king, Henry VIII. Erasmus’s work undoubtedly provided an inspiration to More in writing Utopia, but prior to that he commenced work on both Latin and English versions of his dramatised history, Richard III, an unequivocal denunciation of tyranny, later to provide the source material for Shakespeare’s play (More, 2005; Ackroyd, 1998: 155–9).

More shared in the popular hope that the new, well-educated monarch, Henry VIII, would rule wisely. Despite the costly and futile war with France in 1512–3, the appointment of the archbishop of York, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, to the office of lord chancellor in December 1515, offered new grounds for optimism that peaceful and wise governance might yet prevail. Wolsey, a prominent supporter of the new humanism in learning, soon established a reputation for the impartial dispensation of justice, and was ill-disposed towards abuses of power by the rich (Matusiak, 2014: 136–7). Although early accounts of More’s life state that he was recruited to the King’s Council in 1518 under duress, there is no hard evidence to support this (Guy, 2000: 47–8). When More wrote his dialogue of counsel about the merits of advising kings in Book 1 of Utopia, it is clear that the positive response of Morus reflects the author’s conviction that philosophers should not ‘give up the ship in a storm because you cannot hold back the winds’ (U: 35). Nevertheless, the power of Hythloday’s withering critique of the systemic failings of monarchical government are sufficient grounds to show that More was certainly under no illusion about the tasks ahead.

Between the appearance of Utopia in late 1516 and the commencement of his duties on the King’s Council, an important event occurred that might have made him even more cautious about the prospects of being involved in government. On what came to be known as ‘Evil May Day’, 1517, hundreds of Londoners rampaged through the city to attack foreign traders and craftsmen suspected of taking business from them. In his capacity as undersheriff, More made an abortive attempt to persuade the rioters to disband, and although he escaped unscathed, this experience of popular violence would have strengthened his view of the paramount importance of law and order. According to Richard Marius, the riots were an important factor in steering More’s mind ‘to order rather than to equity’ (Marius, 1993: 195), yet there had never been any doubt that More had consistently abhorred violent disorder. What is perhaps more significant is the aftermath. Eleven of the rioters were executed, but over three hundred others, also condemned, were brought before the king at Westminster Hall, with More present among the spectators. Henry at first refused the plea for clemency made by Cardinal Wolsey, but then, to popular acclaim, pardoned them all (Ackroyd, 1998: 183–4; Matusiak, 2014: 138–40). More would surely have been impressed by Wolsey’s ability to stage-manage this placatory outcome. It is also worth recounting that a romantic version of the events which shows More resolving the whole issue peacefully is found in the play Thomas More, written towards the end of the sixteenth century by a group of playwrights almost certainly including Shakespeare (Chambers, 1967: 45–7, 150–1). The fact that a play celebrating More as ‘the best friend that the poor ever had’ could be popular in Protestant London more than fifty years after More’s execution for defending the Catholic faith shows that his name was still held in high regard by ordinary people, despite post-Reformation attempts to discredit him (Ackroyd, 1998: 183).

One of More’s early tasks as a member of the King’s Council was to advise Henry on his published defence of religious orthodoxy against Martin Luther’s explosive teachings. Luther’s attack on corrupt practices within the Church erupted in 1517 when, in the German town of Wittenberg, he issued his Ninety-Five Theses. Although criticism of corrupt practices within the Church was shared by humanists such as Erasmus and More, Luther challenged the whole legitimacy of the existing Church in a number of writings in 1520, including Concerning the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Theologically, Luther’s teaching denied that people could achieve heaven as a reward for leading good lives, and insisted that salvation was possible only through the redeeming grace of God. This doctrine, known as ‘justification by faith alone’, undermined the importance of the organised Church as an intermediary between God and the people, and challenged the status of its judicial powers and its sacraments (Skinner, 2010b: 3–11). As a consequence of this attack Luther was excommunicated from the Church in 1521 by Pope Leo X, an event marked in London with a bonfire of heretical texts (Guy, 2000: 114). More edited Henry’s Defence of the Seven Sacraments, which appeared in 1521, for which the king was rewarded by the pope with the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ (fidei defensor), the ‘FD’ still used on English coinage. More then wrote a lengthy, vituperative polemic, Response to Luther (1523), in Latin for international coverage, in an attempt to discredit Luther and his doctrines (Ackroyd, 1998: 223–6). Later he advised the king on preparing his arguments for his Reply to Martin Luther (1526), and went on to play a leading role in trying to prevent the spread of Protestant literature by confiscating imports and English translations (Guy, 2000: 114–5).

As long as the king remained faithful to the Catholic Church, More was a valued adviser. In 1521 he was appointed under-secretary of the Treasury and was also created a knight. He became speaker of the House of Commons in 1523 and was then appointed chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1525. With these appointments came rewards of land and money from the king that doubled his income (Ackroyd, 1998: 213–5; Elton, 1974a: 135–9). 1529 proved a turning point in More’s life. He published, in English, A Dialogue Concerning Heresies, in which he hypothetically persuades a young scholar sympathetic to Protestant views to reject his ‘mistaken’ position and to defend the common culture that was under threat (Ackroyd, 1998: 273–7). He also wrote the Supplication of Souls, defending the doctrines and legal powers of the Church and its historic relationship with the monarchy in England (Marius, 1993: 354–7; Fox, 1983: 147–98). Later in the year he succeeded Wolsey as lord chancellor of England, the highest honour in the land, but, at this juncture, very much a poisoned chalice. Wolsey had been dismissed because he had been unable to secure from the pope the dissolution of Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, who had not been able to provide him with a living male heir. Henry was now anxious to make Anne Boleyn his queen. Although the complexities of European political alliances made Wolsey’s task more difficult, in effect they were asking for the reversal of a previous Papal dispensation that enabled the marriage in the first place, for Catherine had previously been married to Henry’s brother Arthur, who died in 1503. While there is little doubt that More was Queen Catherine’s ally in the dispute (Guy, 2000: 146–65), the king had assured his new chancellor that he would be free to follow his own conscience, as More made clear in a letter to his interrogator, Thomas Cromwell, in 1534, shortly before his arrest for refusing the Oath of Succession (More, 1976: 210).

The king’s divorce became the only political issue of the day, and Henry moved closer to taking full control of the Church in England in order to escape his dependence on the pope. More’s position became intolerable, and he resigned on the pretext of ill health in May 1532. His decision not to attend Anne’s coronation in June the following year further antagonised Henry. Prior to the break with Rome, More had actively participated in the campaign to suppress heresy (Marius, 1993: 386–406; Guy, 2000: 106–25). Six heretics were burned during his chancellorship, compared with none under his predecessor, and More was personally involved in investigating three of those, detailing and vigorously defending his actions in his Apology in 1533 (More, 1979: 1–172). Despite attempts by his biographer Chambers to minimise his role and his ruthlessness in these matters (Chambers, 1967: 274–82), it is clear that More, despite respecting due process of law, committed himself wholeheartedly to the suppression of heresy and was deeply implicated in punishing those spreading religious views anathema to the Church (Guy, 2000: 106–25). After his resignation, he continued the battle against the Reformation in print, completing the second part of his Confutation of Tyndale’s Answer, a denunciation of the work of William Tyndale, who had produced an English translation of the Bible (Martz, 1990: 31–51; Moynahan, 2011: 242–54).

In order to secure the divorce from Catherine that enabled him to marry Anne Boleyn, Henry declared himself head of the Church of England. He then required his leading subjects to swear an oath not only recognising the right of succession of any heir produced by the new marriage, but also accepting his title as the supreme head of the Church of England. More could not accept this break with the Catholic Church and, despite interrogation and imprisonment in the Tower of London, he refused to sign the oath.

In the early stages of his first imprisonment in the Tower, from April 1534, he was granted writing materials, and regained some of the subtlety and eloquence that had been lost in the polemics against the Reformation. He wrote a Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation, in which young Vincent is consoled by his uncle Anthony as they contemplate the disaster that waits as the invading Turks prepare to enter Budapest (Martz, 1990: 64–82). More also shows his deep concern that Christendom could be destroyed by Islam at a time when it was tearing itself apart following Luther’s split from Rome. In a position so serious that suicide is contemplated, he writes the first consideration of the subject in the English language (More, 1962: 252–89; Marius, 1993: 472–9). Chapter 17 is most relevant to understanding Utopia, for here he displays great sensitivity about the moral threat posed by a longing for wealth (More, 1962: 289–308). As well as deeply affecting letters to his beloved daughter Margaret he also wrote, in Latin, The Sadness of Christ, dealing with Christ’s passion, and final prayers as a preparation for death. After several attempts by Thomas Cromwell and other members of the Privy Council to persuade him to take the oath, he was tried for treason at Westminster Hall, found guilty, and beheaded on 6 July 1535 (Derrett, 1977: 55–78; Guy, 2000: 166–208). As we shall see later in the book, his place in history is passionately disputed. In the English Protestant tradition, John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (1563) portrays him as a cruel and murderous fanatic. To Catholics, he becomes their martyr, canonised in 1935, and declared patron saint of politicians and statesmen by Pope John Paul II in 2000.

Utopia

More began to write Utopia in Antwerp in the autumn of 1515 when taking a break from duties as legal adviser to a trade mission tasked to remove or reduce the tariffs on English cloth exports to Flanders, then under Spanish control (Guy, 2008: 51–5). King Henry VIII had ‘invited’ him to become part of the delegation to Bruges because of his reputation for resolving legal disputes in the City of London, where his expertise in facilitating good business resulted in his selection as a freeman of the Mercer’s Company, the trade association looking after the interests of traders in wool and other fabrics. Taking advantage of an adjournment in the trade talks, More rode to Antwerp and stayed at the home of Peter Giles, to whom he had been recommended by their mutual friend, Erasmus (Ackroyd, 1998: 164–5). In the six or seven weeks that he stayed there, More wrote the bulk of what became Book 2 of Utopia, largely an enthusiastic account of the egalitarian republic of the Utopians by Hythloday (Hexter, 1965b: xv–xxiii). When the author returned to London, early in 1516, he completed the text by writing Book 1, a discussion between Hythloday and the characters Morus and Giles, focusing on the question of whether or not a philosopher should become involved in political life, in the process covering a range of contemporary social problems. More then added the last few pages of Book 2 and sent the manuscript to Erasmus in early September (More, 1967: 73). Erasmus edited it and sent it to the publisher, Theodoricus Martens in Louvain (Ackroyd, 1998: 180). On 15 December, More wrote to Erasmus that he was still waiting for his copy, ‘like a mother waiting for her son to return from abroad’ (More, 1967: 87), so it may be assumed that publication occurred around this time.

In Book 1 Hythloday engages in a vigorous critique of the major social, economic and political problems besetting English society, often extending the critique to other European societies, and in Book 2 he presents the radical alternative, the self-governing communist republic of the Utopians. In both books the character Morus makes significant objections. As we shall see in greater detail in Chapter 2, the text is an example of the best work of the European humanists, who drew heavily on the inspiration of the poets and philosophers of ancient Rome and Greece (Kristeller, 1961: 3–23; Kristeller, 1965: 1–88). More uses the dialogue style favoured by Plato (427–347 BC), and indeed makes direct comparison with the latter’s Republic, which also has a communistic system, albeit only for its ruling elite (U: 37, 117). The influence of the satirical dialogues of Lucian is clearly in evidence, and the book is also littered with references to issues discussed in ancient philosophy (Surtz, 1957a: 119–50; Surtz, 1965: clvi–clxii). Irony, of course, can be a most effective way of conveying a serious point, as More states in a letter appended to the second edition in 1517 (U: 109), but it also thrives on ambiguity, causing difficulties for the reader who wants to gauge the author’s true intentions. The rhetorical devices used by More are deliberately unsettling, requiring the reader to think carefully about the issues raised (McCutcheon, 1971: 107–21).

The original title of Utopia translates as The best state of a Commonwealth and the new island of Utopia: A truly golden handbook, no less beneficial than entertaining, by the distinguished and eloquent author, Thomas More, citizen and sheriff of the famous City of London (More, 1965: 1). As noted above, ‘Utopia’ means ‘no place’ in Greek, but it has been suggested that More originally intended to entitle it ‘Nusquama’, meaning ‘nowhereland’ in Latin (Baker-Smith, 2011: 143; Kristeller, 1980: 10). However, although More uses ‘nusquama’ in letters to Erasmus (More, 1967: 76, 80), it is far more likely that he was simply using the Latin translation of ‘Utopia’ in a letter written in Latin. After the first edition in Louvain, a second edition appeared in Paris in 1517, with many spelling inconsistencies, before the definitive third and fourth editions were published by Froben in Basle in 1518, containing numerous letters commenting favourably on the text, the poem by ‘Anemolius’ mentioned above, a representation of the Utopian alphabet, and a detailed map by Ambrosius Holbein (Surtz, 1965: clxxxiii–cxc). In letters attached to the text by More, Erasmus and another famous humanist, Guillaume Budé, they refer to the book simply as More’s Utopia, and all editions after 1653 use the short title of Utopia (Cave, 2008: 5n). Before 1650, there were twenty editions in Latin, and twenty-five in translation (Cave, 2008: 14). Towards the beginning of the boo...