Introduction
More's Utopia started a literary genre, that of utopian writing - books describing idyllic commonwealths which could not exist on earth. However, it also continues an earlier philosophical genre which was started by Plato in The Republic - describing an ideal state which represents the best way to solve the problems of human society in the mind of the author. The book is a discussion between a man called Raphael Hythloday, who is describing the institutions and customs of a people who he claims to have encountered on the island of Utopia ('Nowhere' in Greek, also 'Eutopia' would be 'happy place') and two other men, Thomas More and Peter Giles. Hythloday claims the Utopians have utterly rid themselves of ambition and faction through an egalitarian social system and religious tolerance.
Reading the book
It is a common belief that More's Utopia should be seen alongside Plato's Republic as a piece of 'ideal commonwealth' literature, providing a model for the best (if not the only) way to solve the problems of human society, in this case a Christian one.1 This view is born out by the fact More chooses to preface both books of Utopia with the subtitle 'The Discourse Of Raphael Hythloday On The Best State Of A Commonwealth'.2 It shares with the works of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero discussions about the merits of the active vs. the contemplative life, a discussion of individual morals, a discussion of how to establish a just social order (including the issue of property distribution) and even a discussion of the music appropriate to the ideal commonwealth.
The existence of multiple characters in the work allows More to present different points of view, and the work ends in irresolution, leaving doubt as to which parts are intended to be ironic. Unlike in most of Plato, the other characters do not exist purely to raise spurious objections which are eventually demolished. Hythloday's discourse on the Utopian commonwealth, and his preference for contemplation over the active life, does not escape criticism from the book's other characters, including the fictional 'More' who is depicted as a practical man of politics.
Hence, Hythloday's arguments as to why the Utopians have 'torn up the seeds of ambition and faction at home' cannot be taken as a full representation of More's views, especially as just after Hythloday has made this statement the book is ended with the fictional More’s reservations.3 A detailed analysis will perhaps show that the ultimate reason for the Utopians having established the best commonwealth, of which the destruction of ambition and faction is a part, is their single-minded devotion to rational change and progress, something entrenched social classes would resist if it threatened their position.
Civil matters
Hythloday's critique of Christendom in Utopia contains two strands, one civil and one religious. While it is true that the main focus of the work is on secular matters, the critique of contemporary Christianity which resides in the description of the religious practices of the Utopians is another important side to the work. Both concern matters of faction and ambition, which are products of what Hythloday describes as 'the prime plague and begetter of all others – I mean Pride'.4 The most striking secular suggestion in Utopia is an endorsement of the Platonic position on the equality of all property among all citizens in the commonwealth (something Plato did not specifically recommend, as he neglected to say whether the communality of property in his own Republic extended beyond the Guardians), and the associated absence of money.
Hythloday argues that gradations of wealth and property created people 'mad with delight over their own blue blood' who are in fact just parasites on society.5 Not only are these people not living a virtuous life, they harm the commonwealth through their ambition for as much money and fame as possible, when their accumulation of such things only harms the common person who must work and suffer for them: such is the basis of the critique of enclosure and engrossment in Book 1. The creation of a society in which all have equal amounts of property and gold is held in low regard does away with such problems, as although no-one is poor no-one is spectacularly rich either.
Skinner has argued that More is here making a wholehearted endorsement of this communal way of life, and that the idealism of More's work consists in the argument that 'if private property is the cause of our present discontents', it 'will have to be abolished'.6 The Utopians' abolition of faction and ambition in secular matters would hence reside purely in their abolition of private property, which begets the sin of Pride. The communal way of life has Scriptural endorsement, as the early Christians in Acts also 'had everything in common'.7 In this interpretation, Hythloday is straightforwardly arguing that the abolition of private property has led to the abolition of faction and ambition, and he also stresses that the Utopian liking for Christianity is based on their admiration for its communal way of life, which exists in Christendom only in the monasteries.
However, the fictional More's objection to this practice at the end of Utopia might point to a subtler meaning. Bradshaw has contended with Skinner whether this is the end-point of the book's argument, as the reservations listed by More at the end of the book include arguments against other parts of the Utopian system which cannot be dismissed as ironic. A deeper meaning is discerned if we note that both books end with the same polemic against the stagnant nature of Christendom, by suggesting that the true genius of the Utopians lies in their acceptance of any new practice which reason recommends to them. Book I ends with Hythloday stating that 'this readiness to learn is, I think, the really important reason for their being better governed and living more happily than we do, though we are not inferior to them in brains or resources.'8
It is hence the concern with education and learning, shared by humanists in More’s circle, which has allowed the Utopians to abolish faction and ambition: for each citizen puts the commonwealth first, and as they own nothing they do not fear losing their property when society needs to change.
Religion
In religious matters, the Utopians have also abolished both the faction of sectionalism and the ambition of the priesthood. When Utopus first arrived on the island, he was able to conquer it easily due to the fighting between various religious groups. Afterwards, he prescribed a law whereby no-one could fight about religion and any form of worship of the Supreme Being was allowed, as he saw peace was 'completely undermined by constant quarrels and implacable hatreds' relating to religion.9 Religious services were kept united as public services only led worship in ways which were offensive to none of the religious groups, and extra ceremonies could be performed in private buildings.
More, like other Christian humanists, seems to be taking the stress of Christianity away from ritual, dogma and ceremony and placing virtuous action at its centre. The Utopians are the most virtuous of pagans, and when they hear the word of Christ by being exposed to the Bible some choose to convert. Hythloday points out that they endorse the Stoic position on the definition of virtue, in that they 'define virtue as living according to nature; and God, they say, created us to that end'.10 However, their aim in seeking virtue is the Epicurean one, which was that in pleasure ‘all or the most important part of human happiness consists’ – hence they seek the virtues for pleasure, not as ends in themselves.11
Their definition of virtue means that their religion leads them to live virtuously and without egoism or faction, and More is trying to make the point that the Scripture and right reason lead people to arrive at the same conclusion, which is why the Utopians have no trouble adopting Christianity. As for the end of virtue, Hythloday argues that they are 'rather too much inclined' to the preference for pleasure – a rare criticism by him of Utopian culture, and a vice of theirs which perhaps would pass away if they adopted Christianity.
Conclusion
The Utopians can hence be seen as having torn up the seeds of ambition and faction by having civic and religious institutions which regard the greater good rather than individual advancement. They are bound together by institutions which serve not individual parasitical elements like the courtiers in Book 1 who prescribe pragmatic but immoral policies, or moneylenders or goldsmiths who do not serve a productive purpose, but rather the whole commonwealth. This is why Hythloday argues that it is the only 'commonwealth' that deserves the name, because it alone exists solely for the common weal. The island has no executive ruling over it but rather a council of citizens.
United in their observance of natural law and educated in such by the priests, the Utopians do not need masses of laws to restrain them from immoral activity, as their fear of God and communal spirit is enough. The abolition of property and money has abolished pride, which takes with it the striving for power and money which constitutes faction. This has provided the Utopians with stable institutions which can withstand change when it is rationally desirable, and also ones which More is suggesting are compatible with Christianity.
Hythloday the philosopher endorses the measures taken to abolish faction and ambition, but the practical politician More ends the piece by echoing the Aristotelian position that such levelling could destroy the basis of authority and society itself. Although this fundamental dichotomy is left unresolved, More ends the book by saying that Utopian institutions contain features he would 'wish rather than expect to see' in European Christendom.12 Hence both More and the Utopians agree on the idea of rationally advancing and reforming society towards goals, however varying the content of these goals may be.
1.For instance, B. Bradshaw, 'More on Utopia', Historical Journal (1981), pp. 18 - 27
2. Thomas More, Utopia, trans. G.M. Logan and R.M. Adams (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 8, 41
3. Ibid., pp. 106 - 7
4. Ibid., p. 106
5. Ibid., p. 69
6. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 1: the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1978), p. 262
7. Acts 2:44
8. More, op. cit., p. 40
9. Ibid., pp. 94 - 5
10. Ibid., p. 67
11. Ibid., p. 65
12. Ibid., p. 107