Techniques Employed by Sir Thomas More in His Work Utopia - Book Report/Review Example

? The following analysis is a presentation of some of the techniques employed by Sir Thomas More in his work d Utopia. First published in 1516 [More, 1515: 4], this will be approached with a number of themes and concepts at the foreground. First, this paper is approaching the work as though it is a serious commentary on the politics and social values of his era. In this respect, it will be argued that some of his ‘ironic’ and ‘phantasmagoric’ techniques were employed as a form of self censorship. By presenting this as a fantasy, it will be argued that More was capable of providing a ‘distance’ from the political and religious authorities of his era. In other words, his technique will be presented as a form of self censorship. This paper will begin with a brief overview of some of the central themes of the work, proceed to a discussion of the historical context of More’s life, and finally, the focus will turn toward understanding how his techniques are employed for the goal of masking a tirade against the authorities of his era. As is generally known, utopia derives from the word ‘u-topos’, which literally means no-place or “nowhere” [More, 1515: 4] – from the classical Greek. The word ‘topos’ means place, and the ‘u’ is a negative prefix, like apolitical or un-American, etc.. It is difficult therefore to take this work too seriously at the very outset. It is easier perhaps to write this work off as a work of fictive imagination than a work which stands as either a serious social and political commentary (e.g. Book i.), or as a serious social and political vision on how the world ought to be (e.g. Book ii.). With respect to the question of historical context on the one hand, and on the other hand, the techniques employed by More as a form of self censorship, it is important to stress at the most general level that this is a work which is written in Latin. The work in question was first published in 1516 in Latin, and then translated into the vernacular in 1551 by an individual named Ralph Robinson [Campbell, 1973: 25]. This is stressed because it has important political implications which relate to the historical setting or context of More’s times. As is generally known, More is aligned with the humanists of the time of the Renaissance [Ames, 1949: 111-113]. Generally speaking, this was an intellectual movement which was beginning to challenge both the religious and political authority of the church, and moreover, this was a challenge that would lead Europe into an entire crisis with respect to both the Reformation and the Thirty Years War. At least among the social class that was literate, it can not be over-estimated the extent to which humanism is an important backdrop to what can be considered to be among the most divisive conflicts of modern Europe. Until publications were translated into vernacular languages, and in turn, disseminated to a public, it was the case that only the elite’s of society could read, and moreover, read in one of the languages afforded to the privileged, namely, Latin or classical Greek. More was well aware of the subversive nature of his literary masterpiece, and in a letter indicating why it is that he chose to not translate this work, he writes: “ . . . since men by their own default misconstrue and take harm from the very scripture of God” [Campbell, 1973: 24]. Thus, More was well aware in the historical setting of this work, that the object of his criticism were also the power institutions to fear as well, namely, the authority of the Church and the authority of the essentially “feudal monarchy” or aristocracy in Britain during his lifetime [Ames, 1949: 81ff.]. Thus, given that the work is written in Latin, it is similarly limited to the very elite’s of society itself. As such, censorship or self-censorship in this sense can be said to be one of the dominating elements or social facts which can be said to influence or shape his actual literary style in the work in question. In this sense, it might be argued counter to this position that perhaps the work is actually intended as entirely farcical. And, to this, it is worth responding in turn by citing an important passage in the closing section of the work. More was deeply religious and deeply concerned about questions of morality [Ames, 1949: 129-34]. And, although he is a humanist, it can be said that he is more interested in ‘reform’ than he is in abolishing the church. What is important in this respect, is his vision of ‘god’ in some senses. One of the important techniques in the above terms with respect to self censorship, is his use of techniques involving ‘inversion’ of sorts. It is argued by some scholars [Logan, 1983: 98; 150-3; 190ff.] that the influence of Plato was central to understanding More’s work. What is argued by Plato, and supported by Logan as evident in Utopia is that ‘god’ exists beyond the senses. That is, god is an abstract idea which is perfect, while by contrast, the world of sense experience is continuously changing and imperfect by virtue of the variance and change. In the philosophy of Plato which is cited throughout More [Olin, 1989: 22], this 'dualism' is an important component of his over-all view of 'knowledge' or 'understanding', and moreover, it is the knowledge that is beyond the common individual and that which makes a philosopher suitable to be a kind: “I grow more favorable to Plato and do not wonder that he resolved not to make any laws for such as would not submit to a community of all things; for the wise man could not but foresee ... how plentiful soever a nation may be, yet a few dividing the wealth among themselves, the rest must fall into intelligence” [More, 1515: 29]. It can be argued that in this sense, and in keeping with the views maintained by More in the humanist tradition, that there is an entire ‘inversion’ of perfection. That is, rather than being something which is beyond the senses and known only through reason (Plato), this form of perfection is manifest in the living community which he presents. This is stressed as a technique for a number of salient reasons concerning the self censorship of More. First, without question it is likely that most of his highly literate readers are aware of the problems presented by Plato: “Utopia is the work of a scholar who read Plato's Republic” [More, 1515: 5]. As such, if they are already in agreement that perfection is ‘beyond’, then, it follows that the manifestation of this in the present cannot be taken too seriously. This has a form or force of creating a distance from the text itself – and, it is a distance which is quite necessary given the biting and sometimes extreme social criticism leveled by More in his vision of the perfect society. More posits this emphasis of reason over and against the senses in the following: “Utopians on the contrary... conclude that... though these things may create some tickling in the senses (which seems to be a true notion of pleasure) ... bitter things may pass for sweet ... “[More, 1515: 59]. The senses for More are relative. One can not trust the senses, and sense experience has taught us that fact itself, so to speak. What tastes a certain way to one individual, does not taste the same to the next as More emphasizes in the passage just cited. In sum, More’s work can be seen and understood as a biting social criticism of the power structures of his era. In order to protect himself from these powers which he is criticizing, it has been argued that a number of techniques which he employs which acts as a way of tempering these criticisms. The criticisms themselves are tempered by the ‘distance’ between the reader and the text. It has been argued that the literate of More’s time could in no sense take this work seriously, and this was a deliberate goal of the author in the first place. To this end, this paper has examined some of the techniques which were used to create this distance, and further, that his techniques are the means toward the end of a form of self censorship. Works Cited: Ames, Russell. Citizen Thomas More and his Utopia (Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1949). Campbell, W.E.. More’s Utopia and His Social Teaching (New York: Russell & Russell, 1973). Logan, George. The Meaning of More’s Utopia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). More, Sir Thomas. (1515). Utopia. Wikisource Edition. Olin, John C. (1989). Interpreting Thomas More's Utopia. New York: Fordham University Press. More's Utopia. Read More