General Philosophy of Thomas More’s Utopia

To know that most probably Ceylon was Thomas More’s ‘dream island’ in mind when he wrote his Utopia in 1516 should undoubtedly be an inspiration for the socialist minded people in Sri Lanka both in the South and in the North.

Socialism (added with liberalism) perhaps in its broadest sense of the term might be the viable philosophy that can unite the people in the North and the South, transcending their narrow ethno-nationalism. But the primary objective of socialism is much broader to eradicate poverty and to establish social equality between men and women and all strata of society including of course ethnic communities.

Mores’ Utopia did not refer to the ethnic or racial issue, but Modern Utopia by H. G. Wells did so in an admirable manner which will be visited later. Without, however, More’s Utopia, the Modern Utopia by Wells does not make much sense.

As we all know by now, Utopia was written as a fiction with dialogues. Therefore, this article also tries to keep that character intact as much as possible.

The Meeting in Antwerp

Thomas More was sent to Flanders as Ambassador or envoy by Henry VIII, the King of England, “for treating and composing matters between them.” This is a fact and no fiction. When he was in Antwerp he meets this “one that was more acceptable to [him] than any other, Peter Giles, born at Antwerp, who is a man of great honour, and of a good rank in his town.”

He is also “both a very worthy and a very knowing person, so he is so civil to all men.”

“One day as [More] was returning home from mass at St. Mary's, which is the chief church, and the most frequented of any in Antwerp, [he] saw him [Peter] by accident talking with a stranger.” That was Raphael Hythloday who has apparently come to Ceylon after voyaging in the Philippines.

This is how More wrote about the meeting. “As soon as Peter saw me, he came and saluted me; and as I was returning his civility, he took me aside, and pointing to him with whom he had been discoursing, he said: ‘Do you see that man? I was just thinking to bring him to you.’

I answered, ‘He should have been very welcome on your account.’

‘And on his own too,’ replied he, ‘if you knew the man, for there is none alive that can give so copious an account of unknown nations and countries as he can do; which I know you very much desire.’

Then said I, ‘I did not guess amiss, for at first sight I took him for a seaman.’
‘But you are much mistaken,’ said he, ‘for he has not sailed as a seaman, but as a traveller, or rather a philosopher.”

It is this traveller ‘philosopher’ and that is Raphael who describes the socialist dream of Utopia and that is mainly in Book II.

But Book I is a discourse between More, Peter and Raphael on several matters which gives the general philosophy of Thomas More’s Utopia which is the theme of this article. The discourse takes place at Thomas More’s residence in Antwerp before dinner.

Academic Freedom

The first matter that becomes under discussion between More, Peter and Raphael is the ‘prudence’ of becoming an advisor to a ruler which had been a common theme in political discourse since Plato and Aristotle.

“After Raphael had discoursed with great judgment on the many errors that were both among us and these nations; had treated of the wise institutions both here and there, and had spoken as distinctly of the customs and government of every nation through which he had passed, as if he had spent his whole life in it, Peter, being struck with admiration, said:

‘I wonder, Raphael, how it comes that you enter into no king's service, for I am sure there are none to whom you would not be very acceptable: for your learning and knowledge both of men and things, are such that you would not only entertain them very pleasantly, but be of great use to them, by the examples you could set before them and the advices you could give them; and by this means you would both serve your own interest and be of great use to all your friends."

The following was the answer given by Raphael:

"As for my friends,’ answered Raphael, ‘I need not be much concerned, having already done for them all that was incumbent on me; for when I was not only in good health, but fresh and young, I distributed that among my kindred and friends which other people do not part with till they are old and sick, when they then unwillingly give that which they can enjoy no longer themselves.”

Then he added: “I think my friends ought to rest contented with this, and not to expect that for their sake I should enslave myself to any King whatsoever."

I have titled this discourse as ‘Academic Freedom’ because that is what is relevant under the present circumstances in Sri Lanka or elsewhere. When academic freedom is usually discussed, what is emphasised is the restrictions that come from the State or the government but hardly the aspects of ‘slaving’ oneself to any politician are hardly discoursed - unless of course one is completely committed to the cause of that politician!

What is emphasised in Utopia is at least the philosophical independence and distance. Even on the suggestion that Peter didn’t mean to be “a slave to any king, but should assist and be useful to them,” Raphael replied ‘no’ and added “Now I live as I will, to which I believe few courtiers can pretend.”

Then the discussion leads to more of philosophical matters referring to Plato. More intervenes and says, “For your friend Plato thinks that nations will be happy, when either philosophers become kings or kings become philosophers, it is no wonder if we are so far from that happiness, while philosophers will not think it their duty to assist kings with their councils.”

“They are not so base-minded,” said Raphael, “They would willingly do it: many of them have already done it by their books, if those that are in power would but hearken to their good advice.” Then he continued saying, “But Plato judged right, that except kings themselves became philosophers, they who from their childhood are corrupted with false notions would never fall in entirely with the councils of philosophers.”

Then Raphael gives several examples in detail to show that counselling Kings might not work, it will not work at least under the present circumstances. “There is no room for philosophy in the courts of princes." The reason being the “affairs are carried on by authority."

Justice System

Utopia is normally considered as a social discourse, but in addition, there is a strong political discourse as well. Referring to the Cornish rebellion in England, Raphael relates that he was there and had occasion to discoursing matters of importance with the reverend prelate, John Morton, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The suppression of the rebellion is also condemned as “a great slaughter of the poor people that were engaged in it.”

"One day when I [Raphael] was dining with him [the Archbishop] there happened to be at table one of the English lawyers.”

He “took occasion to run out in a high commendation of the severe execution of justice upon thieves.” He then said they were “hanged so fast that there were sometimes twenty on one gibbet.” “Upon that he said he could not wonder enough how it came to pass, that since so few escaped, there were yet so many thieves left who were still robbing in all places.”

Then comes the Utopian discourse. Raphael says “not only you in England, but a great part of the world imitate some ill masters that are readier to chastise their students than to teach them.” Likewise, “There are dreadful punishments enacted against thieves, but it were much better to make such good provisions by which every man might be put in a method how to live, and so be preserved from the fatal necessity of stealing and of dying for it.”

The capital punishment for theft of that time was strongly condemned. Instead it was proposed that “every man might be put in a method how to live, and so be saved from the fatal necessity of stealing” in a ‘socialist’ society. The term ‘socialist’ is not used but it is what it meant.

When the lawyer argued referring to handicrafts that “they may make a shift to live unless they have a greater mind to follow ill courses,” Raphael retorted as follows: “There is a great number of noblemen among you, that are themselves as idle as drones, that subsist on other men's labour, on the labour of their tenants, whom, to raise their revenues, they pare to the quick.”

The above was a critique of capitalism or remaining feudalism in England. After referring to several other ailments creating stealing or theft, the discourse evolved more closely to several of the economic policies of England of that time. On the question of justice, Raphael expressed the opinion that perhaps England should learn from ‘Polylerits’ in Persia than the Romans where the thieves were compelled to compensate the owners apart from compelling them to do some form of community service. Persia is another country that is praised in the course of the Utopian discourse.

“Those that are found guilty of theft among them are bound to make restitution to the owner, and not as it is in other places, to the prince, for they reckon that the prince has no more right to the stolen goods than the thief.”

“But if that which was stolen is no more in being, then the goods of the thieves are estimated, and restitution being made out of them, the remainder is given to their wives and children: and they themselves are condemned to serve in the public works, but are neither imprisoned, nor chained, unless there happened to be some extraordinary circumstances in their crimes.”

Critique of Capitalism

The neglect of agriculture was identified as the main ill of emerging capitalism. “The increase of pasture, by which your sheep, which are naturally mild, and easily kept in order, may be said now to devour men, and unpeopled,” Raphael had said.

“They stop the course of agriculture, destroying houses and towns, reserving only the churches, and enclose grounds that they may lodge their sheep in them.” Although it was not directly said, the urge for colonies as supply sources of agricultural material also was hinted in this discourse.

The enclosure movement was strongly criticised. It “resolves to enclose many thousand acres of ground, the owners as well as tenants are turned out of their possessions, by tricks, or by force.” Then they become poor and then they steal.

“The price of wool is also so raised that the poor people who were wont to make cloth are no more able to buy it; and this likewise makes many of them idle.” The cunning of capitalism is also criticised. “The rich do not breed cattle as they do sheep, but buy them lean, and at low prices; and after they have fattened them on their grounds sell them again at high rates.”

Thomas More’s Utopia is basically a humanist discourse. It is from the point of view of humanism that the conditions of poor were depicted. There are repeated sections of the discourse where ‘misery of the poor is lamented upon’ and the avarice of the rich is criticised and castigated. The following paragraphs are some examples.

“Those miserable people, both men and women, married and unmarried, old and young, with their poor but numerous families (since country business requires many hands), are all forced to change their seats, not knowing whither to go; and they must sell almost for nothing their household stuff, which could not bring them much money, even though they might stay for a buyer.”

“When that little money is at an end, for it will be soon spent, what is left for them to do, but either to steal and so to be hanged (God knows how justly), or to go about and beg? And if they do this, they are put in prison as idle vagabonds; while they would willingly work, but can find none that will hire them; for there are no more occasions for country labour, to which they have been bred, when there is no arable ground left. One shepherd can look after a flock which will stock an extent of ground that would require many hands if it were to be ploughed and reaped. This likewise in many places raises the price of corn.”

Not only the system is criticised, but there are constructive proposals to solve the existing problems. See the following arguments.

“Let agriculture be set up again, and the manufacture of the wool be regulated, that so there may be work found for those companies of idle people whom want forces to be thieves, or who, now being idle vagabonds or useless servants, will certainly grow thieves at last.”

“If you do not find a remedy to these evils, it is a vain thing to boast of your severity in punishing theft, which though it may have the appearance of justice, yet in itself is neither just nor convenient.”

“For if you suffer your people to be ill-educated, and their manners to be corrupted from their infancy, and then punish them for those crimes to which their first education disposed them, what else is to be concluded from this, but that you first make thieves and then punish them?”

The Main Thesis

The main argument of Book I ofUtopia is against private property. This is something taken very much from Plato’s Republic and also from the religious thinking of that time until the advent of Reformation. After saying that this is what “Plato has contrived in his commonwealth” and “the Utopians practise in theirs,” Raphael said it very plainly as follows.

"Though to speak plainly my real sentiments, I must freely own that as long as there is any property, and while money is the standard of all other things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily: not justly, because the best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few (and even these are not in all respects happy), the rest being left to be absolutely miserable.”

After reflecting “on the wise and good constitution of the Utopians--among whom all things are so well governed, and with so few laws; where virtue hath its due reward, and yet there is such an equality, that every man lives in plenty” and compared “with them so many other nations that are still making new laws, and yet can never bring their constitution to a right regulation, where notwithstanding everyone has his property,” Raphael further said the following.

“From whence I am persuaded, that till property is taken away there can be no equitable or just distribution of things, nor can the world be happily governed: for as long as that is maintained, the greatest and the far best part of mankind will be still oppressed with a load of cares and anxieties.”

While there is some ‘extremism’ in the above argument, which is common to all socialist thinking; there is also fundamental truth in it because since then the world has not been able to eradicate poverty in the midst of enormous riches in few hands. What is correct and what is wrong in the thesis of Utopia are still controversial matters.

Some of the above concerns were expressed by Thomas More himself in the ensuing dialogue. “On the contrary,” as he said “it seems to me that men cannot live conveniently where all things are common.”

“How can there be any plenty, where every man will excuse himself from labour?”
“For as the hope of gain doth not excite him, so the confidence that he has in other men's industry may make him slothful: if people come to be pinched with want, and yet cannot dispose of anything as their own.”

“What can follow upon this but perpetual sedition and bloodshed, especially when the reverence and authority due to magistrates fall to the ground? For I cannot imagine how that can be kept up among those that are in all things equal to one another."

The following was the answer given by Raphael.

“I do not wonder,” he said. “that it appears so to you, since you have no notion, or at least no right one, of such a constitution: but if you had been in Utopia with me, and had seen their laws and rules, as I did, for the space of five years, in which I lived among them; and during which time I was so delighted with them.”

He also added that “Indeed I should never have left them if it had not been to make the discovery of that new world to the Europeans; you would then confess that you had never seen a people so well constituted as they."

Upon this More rather appealed: “I earnestly beg you would describe that island very particularly to us. Be not too short, but set out in order all things relating to their soil, their rivers, their towns, their people, their manners, constitution, laws, and, in a word, all that you imagine we desire to know. And you may well imagine that we desire to know everything concerning them, of which we are hitherto ignorant.’

‘I will do it very willingly,’ said Raphael, ‘for I have digested the whole matter carefully; but it will take up some time.’

‘Let us go then,’ said More, ‘first and dine, and then we shall have leisure enough.’
The following thus is the last paragraph of Book I which is the prelude to Book II or the Utopia proper.

“He consented. We went in and dined, and after dinner came back and sat down in the same place. I ordered my servants to take care that none might come and interrupt us. And both Peter and I desired Raphael to be as good as his word.

When he saw that we were very intent upon it, he paused a little to recollect himself, and began in this manner.

1.This was the theme of my last article on the subject “Was Sri Lanka Thomas More’s ‘Dream Island’? Asian Tribune (21 January 2012), reproduced in the Sunday Observer (22 January 2012).

- Asian Tribune -

Tweet