Utopia (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

By Sir Thomas More and Wayne A. Rebhorn

Utopia, by Sir Thomas More, is part of the Barnes & Noble Classics series, which offers quality editions at affordable prices to the student and the general reader, including new scholarship, thoughtful design, and pages of carefully crafted extras. Here are some of the remarkable features of Barnes & Noble Classics:
    New introductions commissioned from today's top writers and scholars
    Biographies of the authors
    Chronologies of contemporary historical, biographical, and cultural events
    Footnotes and endnotes
    Selective discussions of imitations, parodies, poems, books, plays, paintings, operas, statuary, and films inspired by the work
    Comments by other famous authors
    Study questions to challenge the reader's viewpoints and expectations
    Bibliographies for further reading
    Indices & Glossaries, when appropriate

All editions are beautifully designed and include illustrations of historical interest. Barnes & Noble Classics pulls together a constellation of influences—biographical, historical, and literary—to enrich each reader's understanding of these enduring works.

One of the most influential books in the Western philosophical and literary tradition, Sir Thomas More’s Utopia appeared in 1516. The formidable Henry VIII had recently assumed the throne in England, and conflicting ideas about religion were fueling the Reformation throughout Europe. A scathing satire, Utopia was hugely successful and vaulted More to the forefront of the growing humanist movement.

The story of Utopia is told by a mysterious sailor named Raphael Hythloday, who travels to the New World with the Italian explorer Vespucci and remains at a fort built at the farthest point reached. From there, he discovers a strange island kingdom named Utopia, a pagan and communist city-state in which language, social customs, dress, architecture, and education are identical throughout the country’s fifty-four cities. The Utopians have eliminated wealth, the nobility, and currency. Labor and goods are distributed equally and property is held in common. And there are no monasteries, alehouses, or academies to tempt a person to withdraw from society.

Given More’s satiric leanings and eventual execution, is Utopia simply an attack on Europe’s wickedness? Or is it a philosophical tract extolling the ideal way to live? Ultimately, Utopia navigates a course between the desire to create perfection and the pragmatic understanding that perfection, given the fallibility of mankind, is impossible.

Wayne A. Rebhorn is Celanese Centennial Professor of English at the University of Texas at Austin. He has written extensively on Renaissance literature in English, Italian, French, Spanish, and Latin, on authors from Boccaccio through More and Shakespeare down to Milton.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble Classics
• Release date: Jun 1, 2009
• ISBN: 9781411433397

Book preview

Table of Contents

From the Pages ofUtopia and The Life of Sir Thomas More

Title Page

Copyright Page

Sir Thomas More

The World of Sir Thomas More and Utopia

Introduction

UTOPIA

The Translator to the Gentle Reader

Letter of Thomas More to Peter Giles

THE FIRST BOOK OF UTOPIA.

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE - Communication of Raphael Hythloday Concerning the Best ...

THE SECOND BOOK OF UTOPIA.

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE - Communication of Raphael Hythloday concerning the best ...

Of the Cities and Namely of Amaurote.

Of the Magistrates.

Of Sciences, Crafts, and Occupations.

Of Their Living and Mutual Conversation Together.

Of Their Journeying or Traveling Abroad, with Divers Other Matters Cunningly ...

Of Bondmen, Sick Persons, Wedlock, and Divers Other Matters.

Of Warfare.

Of the Religions in Utopia.

LETTER OF PETER GILES TO BUSLYDE - To the Right Honorable Hieronymus Buslyde, ...

POEMS ON UTOPIA

THE PRINTER TO THE READER

Appendix: Dedicatory Epistle by the Translator of the Utopia

THE LIFE OF SIR THOMAS MORE BY WILLIAM ROPER

Endnotes

Inspired by Sir Thomas More and Utopia

Comments & Questions

For Further Reading

From the Pages of

Utopia

and The Life of Sir Thomas More

‘The way to heaven out of all places is of like length and distance.’

(from Utopia, page 18)

One man to live in pleasure and wealth, whiles all other weep and smart for it, that is the part not of a king, but of a jailor.

(from Utopia, page 49)

If you had been with me in Utopia and had presently seen their fashions and laws, as I did, which lived there five years and more, ... then doubtless you would grant that you never saw people well ordered, but only there. (from Utopia, page 56)

Now you see how little liberty they have to loiter; how they can have no cloak or pretense to idleness. There be neither wine taverns, nor alehouses, nor any occasion of vice or wickedness, no lurking corners, no places of wicked councils, or unlawful assemblies. But they be in the present sight and under the eyes of every man, so that of necessity they must either apply their accustomed labors, or else recreate themselves with honest and laudable pastimes.

(from Utopia, page 83)

To gold and silver nature hath given no use that we may not well lack, if that the folly of men had not set it in higher estimation for the rareness sake. But of the contrary part, nature, as a most tender and loving mother, hath placed the best and most necessary things open abroad, as the air, the water, and the earth itself, and hath removed and hid farthest from us vain and unprofitable things.

(from Utopia, page 86)

The wits, therefore, of the Utopians, inured and exercised in learning, be marvelous quick in the invention of feats helping anything to the advantage and wealth of life. (from Utopia, page 105)

They have but few laws, for to people so instruct and institute very few do suffice. (from Utopia, page 112)

When I consider and weigh in my mind all these commonwealths which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men procuring their own commodities under the name and title of the commonwealth. They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely, without fear of losing, that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the poor for as little money as may be. (from Utopia, page 143)

My king and conqueror, Utopus by name,

A prince of much renown and immortal fame,

Hath made me an isle that erst no island was,

Full fraught with worldly wealth, with pleasure and solace.

(from an untitled poem by More, page 151)

Forasmuch as Sir Thomas More, Knight, sometime Lord Chancellor of England, a man of singular virtue and of a clear unspotted conscience, as witnesseth Erasmus, more pure and white than the whitest snow, and of such an angelical wit, as England, he saith, never had the like before, nor never shall again, universally, as well in the laws of our realm, a study in effect able to occupy the whole life of a man, as in all other sciences right well studied, was in his days accounted a man worthy famous memory.

(from William Roper’s Life of Sir Thomas More, page 163)

And so was he by Master Lieutenant brought out of the Tower and from thence led towards the place of execution, where, going up the scaffold, which was so weak that it was ready to fall, he said merrily to Master Lieutenant: I pray you, Master Lieutenant, see me safe up, and for my coming down, let me shift for myself.

(from William Roper’s Life of Sir Thomas More, page 214)

He turned to the executioner and with a cheerful countenance spake thus unto him: Pluck up thy spirits, man, and be not afraid to do thine office. My neck is very short. Take heed therefore thou strike not awry, for saving of thine honesty.

(from William Roper’s Life of Sir Thomas More, page 214)

001002

BARNES & NOBLE CLASSICS

NEW YORK

Published by Barnes & Noble Books

122 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10011

www.barnesandnoble.com/classics

Utopia was first published in Latin in 1516. Ralph Robinson’s

English translation first appeared in 1551. William Roper’s

The Life of Sir Thomas More was first published in 1626.

Published in 2005 by Barnes & Noble Classics

with new Introduction, Notes, Biography, Chronology, Inspired By,

Comments & Questions, and For Further Reading.

Introduction, Notes, and For Further Reading

Copyright @ 2005 by Wayne A. Rebhorn.

Note on Sir Thomas More, The World of Sir Thomas More and Utopia,

Inspired by Sir Thomas More and Utopia, and Comments & Questions

Copyright © 2005 by Barnes & Noble, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,

including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and

retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Barnes & Noble Classics and the Barnes & Noble Classics colophon are trademarks of Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Utopia

ISBN 1-59308-244-4

eISBN : 978-1-411-43339-7

LC Control Number 2004115316

Produced and published in conjunction with:

Fine Creative Media, Inc.

322 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10001

Michael J. Fine, President and Publisher

Printed in the United States of America

QM

13579 10 8642

FIRST PRINTING

Sir Thomas More

When philosopher Desiderius Erasmus was asked to describe his close friend Thomas More, he obliged with intimate details regarding More’s quick wit and humor, his piety, his good looks and winning way with women, his loyal friendship, and his love of corned beef and eggs. While such details could apply to many men, the subject in question was also the most famous philosopher in England, author of the masterpiece Utopia, and the right-hand man of King Henry VIII. But it was the cruel fate that followed hard on this glorious career that made More a political martyr and canonized saint in the Catholic Church.

More was born in London in 1478. His father, Sir John More, was a respected judge with connections to Cardinal John Morton, the lord chancellor of England and second most powerful figure in the country. In the early 1490s More worked as a page in the Cardinal’s house, and the boy’s keen mind motivated Morton to sponsor More at Oxford University, where he studied classical languages, French, mathematics, and history. His professors were favorably impressed by their brilliant, charismatic student; indeed, scholar Thomas Linacre provided More with introductions to the renowned intellects of Europe.

Following in his father’s footsteps, More went on to study law. A concomitant spiritual quest led him to consider the priesthood; he moved into a monastery, donned a painful hair shirt, and lived like a devout monk while pursuing his legal studies. More finally opted to forgo the priesthood and in 1502 began the legal career that would earn him a place in King Henry VIII’s court. A successful tenure in Parliament defending London merchants followed, as did an appointment as under-sheriff of London. In 1515 the King’s lord chancellor, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, selected More for an ambassadorial mission to Flanders; while there he began writing Utopia.

The publication of Utopia in 1516 spread More’s fame throughout Europe. At home, he was elected speaker of the House of Commons (1523) and appointed high steward of both Oxford (1524) and Cambridge Universities (1525); in 1529 King Henry VIII appointed him lord chancellor of England. By this time Martin Luther and other reformers had begun to strongly criticize the Catholic Church and call for reform. More strongly defended the King and Catholicism with such texts as A Dialogue Concerning Heresies (1529).

More’s devout faith ultimately proved to be his downfall. In 1533 the Pope excommunicated Henry VIII for his marriage to Anne Boleyn, and the following year More refused to endorse the legitimacy of Henry’s subsequent heirs. For this supposed treason, the King’s former favorite was sent to the Tower of London to await trial. More was found guilty and sentenced to death. On July 6,1535, he was executed and his head placed on a spear on London Bridge. For the steadfastness of his faith, he was beatified in 1886 and canonized in 1935.

The World of Sir Thomas More and Utopia

Introduction

Omnium horarum homo: a man for all hours. That’s what Desiderius Erasmus calls his friend Thomas More. The phrase appears in the letter that serves as the preface for Erasmus’s masterpiece, The Praise of Folly, and is also the source of Robert Bolt’s title for his play and movie about More, A Man for All Seasons. Bolt’s title transforms More into a secular saint, a model of individual integrity, a man for all seasons—that is, for all of history. Indeed, the French translated the title of Bolt’s film as Un Homme pour l’éternité, making More into A Man for Eternity. This is not, however, what Erasmus meant by the words he penned in 1511, long before More achieved martyrdom, suffering death rather than accept Henry VIII as the head of the Church. Erasmus is actually praising More for being able to play the man for all hours with everyone. More is an ideal figure, in other words, because he is adaptable, able to get along with all sorts of people in all sorts of situations and as circumstances change from hour to hour, what Erasmus means by folly—that is, a supreme versatility in living life in this world. The historical More certainly possessed such versatility, so that when Erasmus decided to praise Folly, or Moria in Greek, it is not surprising that the name of More, Morus in Latin, should have popped into his head not just as an appropriate dedicatee, but as someone who epitomized all the best meanings he attributed to folly in his work.

Erasmus’s compliment to More makes More into a player, someone who knows how to play—or act—the man (hominem agere) in every situation. Indeed, in his biography of More, almost the very first thing his son-in-law William Roper does is to praise More’s success at improvisational acting when he was still a young page in the household of the learned John Cardinal Morton: Though he was young of years, yet would he at Christmastide suddenly sometimes step in among the players, and never studying for the matter, make a part of his own there presently among them, which made the lookers-on more sport than all the players beside (see, in this edition, pp. 163-164). Even a cursory review of More’s life and works reveals his ability to play many incredibly varied roles, some of which were even opposed to one another. For example, More was a faithful husband and devoted father, but also an ascetic who seriously considered entering a monastery. He was a learned humanist scholar and translator of the classics, but also a propagandist for the Tudor regime and a mud-slinging critic of Luther. More won cases as a clever lawyer and fought to preserve his economic, social, and political status, but he was also a deeply religious devotional writer who looked down on attachments to this world. An impartial and fair-minded negotiator, civil servant, and magistrate, he became an implacable opponent and persecutor of heretics; best known for his role as a lord chancellor who willingly implemented Henry’s policies and paid his royal master almost servile deference, he was also, at the end, a defender of his own conscience against monarchical tyranny. Finally, More stands on the world stage as an unfettered genius capable of imagining brave new worlds in his greatest literary and philosophical achievement, even though he was also an uncompromising defender of received traditions and of an ancient, long-established institution that was deeply opposed to change. Luther once said of Erasmus, complaining of the Dutch humanist’s mutability and contradictoriness, Erasmus of Rotterdam, where will you stand fast? He could almost have said the same thing about Thomas More.

More’s complexities and contradictions go to the heart of the Renaissance and the Reformation, the two great cultural upheavals England, like the rest of Europe, experienced in the early decades of the sixteenth century—and would continue to experience for many years after More’s death in 1535. In these two social transformations More played a key role both in what he did and in what he said or wrote. Nor was More merely an important English figure; he was also well known on the European continent, respected everywhere as a humanist writer and political thinker, and, finally, either admired as a martyr for the true faith or disparaged as a fool for not seeing the insufficiency of the Catholic Church.

More’s reputation in the last century has been equally complex and contradictory. The Catholic Church finally beatified him in 1886 and made him a saint in 1935, and many scholars and historians, some Catholic and some not, have admired his deep commitment to his religious faith. His Utopia has been celebrated by others for its relatively egalitarian social structure, its religious tolerance, and its economic system—a system in which all things are held in common and which thus seems to anticipate the ideals of socialism and communism. Indeed, Utopia was one of the first books authorized for translation into Russian after the Communist Revolution in 1917. By contrast, in Bolt’s 1960 A Man for All Seasons, More has turned into a secular saint who defends his self, not his soul, against tyrannical political authority. Finally, More has been attacked by others as a mediocre statesman and condemned for his servile relationship to Henry, a servility best seen in the exaggerated expressions of deference he made to the King, as recorded in Roper’s Life, while Protestant polemicists have objected to the largely popular press he has enjoyed and have stressed his persecution of heretics, instead.

There is perhaps no way to resolve all the contradictions that characterize More, for they reflect both his complexity and that of the age he was living through. What we can do, however, is to make them somewhat more comprehensible by placing them in the context of his times. Indeed, it may well be that More’s enduring attraction for us derives precisely from his contradictoriness, his ability to be so many different Thomas Mores to so many different people. In a sense, his being Erasmus’s man of all hours is really what ensures he will always be Robert Bolt’s man for all seasons.

Born in 1478 into what we would call a middle-class family—his father John More was a barrister—Thomas More grew up just as the Renaissance was arriving in England. That cultural shift had begun in Italy in the late fourteenth century and had reached full bloom in the fifteenth. The Renaissance, as the name implies, sought nothing less than the rebirth of classical antiquity in its own time. That rebirth focused primarily on the replacement of late medieval Latin with a revived classical Latin based on Roman writers such as Cicero and Vergil. This seemingly trivial concern with language was actually crucial for European culture, for Latin was the language of education as well as the professions, diplomacy, and the Church. Latin was, in short, the lingua franca of the educated, and they not only read it as trained classicists do now, but wrote it and spoke it in both public forums and private conversations. To this revived classical Latin scholars added the study of ancient Greek, a language that had been generally unknown in western Europe during the Middle Ages and that was given a substantial boost after the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire to the Turks in 1453—which led many Greek scholars to flee to Italy, bearing with them their knowledge of the ancient language as well as countless manuscripts. Enthusiasm for the study of classical Latin and Greek, what soon became known as the New Learning, began to spread outside of Italy in the late fifteenth century, thanks in part to the recent invention of printing with movable type and in part to the fact that scholars from the rest of Europe began to come to Italy to study. Two of those scholars, the Englishmen William Grocyn (c.1446-1519) and Thomas Linacre (c.1460-1524), came to Florence to hear lectures by Italian Neo-Platonist Angelo Poliziano ( 1454-1494), and on their return home they spread their knowledge of and commitment to the New Learning through their teaching, thus becoming the leading figures in a group that included John Colet ( 1466/67-1519) and William Lyly ( 1468?-1522). Colet went on to found Saint Paul’s School in London to teach the new disciplines, and together with Lyly and Erasmus, he produced what would become the standard Latin grammar in England for several decades. These scholars as well as their students have generally been referred to as humanists since the early nineteenth century because they were committed to what they called humane letters—that is, the artes liberales, or liberal arts, which were centered on the teaching of classical Latin and Greek, of rhetoric, literature, and history, what we now call the humanities. Note that they are not called humanists because they wished to replace religion with some set of secular values. Indeed, although the New Learning did have an important secular dimension, especially in Italy, it was generally thought to be fully compatible with Christianity, and many of the leading humanists in northern Europe, such as Colet and Erasmus—and More—were deeply religious men.

More was initially educated at Saint Anthony’s school in London, one of the best in England, and then spent about two years from 1490 to 1492 in the household of John Morton, the archbishop of Canterbury and lord chancellor of England. Morton recognized More’s abilities and sent him to Oxford, where he studied either at Canterbury College (now Christ Church) or at Magdalen College School. Oxford was divided for several decades about the New Learning, as many professors rejected the humanist program of studies and continued to teach logic, or dialectic, which had been the Queen of the Sciences in the Middle Ages. As late as 1518 More was writing to the university defending the study of Greek there. Nevertheless, Grocyn did teach Greek at Oxford in the early 1490s, and John Holt, the master of Magdalen College while More was at the university, produced a new classical Latin grammar to which More contributed a prologue and dedicatory epistle. Even while he was training to become a lawyer in the late 1490s, More continued his classical education; he achieved recognition for his learning when, in 1501, he was invited to lecture on Saint Augustine’s City of God at Saint Lawrence Jewry—whose rector at the time just happened to be Grocyn. Attaching himself to the distinguished humanist, More began the study of classical Greek, which he mastered sufficiently over the next few years so that by 1506 he could embark on the project with his friend Erasmus of translating some of the dialogues of the ancient Greek satirist Lucian into Latin. Crowning his achievements, his publication of Utopia in 1516 established More’s European reputation as a classical scholar and writer. Not surprisingly, he hired a tutor to give a thorough classical education to his children, including his daughters, to all of whom he was especially devoted. More wrote to his children practically on a daily basis, and he expected their replies, like his letters, to be written in the choicest classical Latin.

More valued and could clearly play the role of the scholar. Indeed, in Utopia he makes the learned exempt from the universal work requirement imposed on everyone else, revealing just how important the life of the mind was for him as a humanist intellectual. Nevertheless, More chose to pursue a career in the law, a career that engaged him deeply in the world of practical affairs and that quickly led him into politics and royal service. Consequently, after just two years in Oxford, he returned to London in 1494 to begin his legal studies at New Inn, one of the Inns of Chancery, where one was taught how to compose legal documents. Then, on February 12,1496, he was accepted as a student at Lincoln’s Inn, one of the Inns of Court, an institution that took the place of universities in England in providing legal training. Finally, some six years later, in 1502, he was admitted to the bar, and within two years was elected to Parliament. More’s political rise after that was sure and steady: an under-sheriff of London in 1510; a member of the Council of the Star Chamber under Cardinal Wolsey in 1516; master of requests (one of the heads of a court that heard the complaints of the poor) and a member of the Privy Council in 1517; knighthood in 1521; under-treasurer of the Exchequer in 1521; speaker of the House of Commons in 1523; chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster in 1525; high steward of Oxford in 1524 and of Cambridge in 1525; and lord chancellor from 1529 to 1532. Starting in 1509, More was sent on various important commercial and diplomatic missions to the continent, activity that climaxed in 1520 when he accompanied Henry VIII to meet Francis I of France and later helped to conclude a peace treaty between Henry and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. More’s political ascent may have had something to do, especially at first, with his legal training, but it also depended on his intellectual vigor, moral rectitude, and skills as a diplomat and a courtier. His wit especially endeared him to the King, as Roper’s Life amply documents. More’s political rise would have been impossible without his ability to read, write, and converse fluently in classical Latin, for he had to make use of that language not only on diplomatic missions, but even in trade negotiations both in England and abroad. Thus, his scholarly education, though clearly attractive to him on its own terms, also helped transform a skilled lawyer and judge into a dependable royal servant, a transformation that brought More considerable wealth and worldly status. It effectively made More into a New Man, a novus homo, a term applied, sometimes with praise and sometimes with contempt, to commoners who rose to prominence because of their intellectual ability and training and who were thus put on the same plane, or even above, those whose social rank depended on their inherited wealth and titles. After almost a century of civil war driven by the ambitions of powerful noblemen that culminated in the War of the Roses and the bloody reign of Richard III, Tudor monarchs, such as Henry VIII and his father, Henry VII, who came to power by defeating Richard in 1485, were determined to consolidate their power by diminishing that of the nobility. To that end, they gave well-educated, talented commoners often newly created legal and political positions of importance; such New Men were beholden to royal authority in a way that dukes and earls seldom were. The Middle Ages saw relatively few commoners rise in this fashion. Those who did so were invariably churchmen since education was exclusively in the hands of the Church and the Church itself offered the surest possibility of meritocratic advancement for those it educated. Secular advancement became increasingly possible for laymen in the Renaissance, and one of those laymen was Thomas More, who would be the first non-churchman in almost a hundred years to be named lord chancellor of England.

Although More’s training as a lawyer was a first step toward politics, his acceptance of royal service was by no means inevitable. Indeed, More was at something of a crossroads in the middle of the second decade of the sixteenth century. He had been earning a good living as a lawyer, had served in Parliament, and was working as a judge as one of the under-sheriffs of London. Then, in June 1515 his situation changed dramatically: He was asked by the King’s council to join a mission being sent to Flanders to negotiate commercial and political treaties there. This would be his first entry into royal service, albeit at some remove from the King himself. That he was hesitant to embrace such a career path is evident from the literary work that he composed during the long months he spent in Flanders and then completed upon his return to London in 1516. That work was, of course, Utopia. Although the second book of Utopia and the introductory pages of the first were written during More’s stay in Bruges and Antwerp in the fall of 1515, he added the bulk of the first book during the following spring and summer. In this two-book form, the work finally appeared in November 1516 at Louvain. The history of its creation raises a question: Why did More not publish what he had completed while abroad, but instead wait to add the material that became the first book? One answer—an answer relevant to More’s life situation—is that book 1 is intensely concerned with one simple question: Should a learned humanist, such as the fictional Raphael Hythloday, who tells the story of Utopia in book 2, remain a kind of unattached intellectual, or should he enter the service of a monarch in order to better the state he lives in? Significantly, More introduces himself as a fully developed

Reviews for Utopia (Barnes & Noble Classics Series)

[et.carole · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Confusing, not for its content, but for its peculiar mix of satire and genuine suggestion. A strong precursor to 1984.

[mandi628-599515 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Never read it before I assigned it to A for Lit class. Definitely something to keep around. This edition is a little hard to read because of poor editing - paragraphs lasting for pages & some sentences over a page long!

[timoroso · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Historically important to be sure, but stylistically terribly monotonous. In some ways comparable to Swift, but Gulliver’s Travels is a much more entertaining read. More was an important thinker but unfortunately not a great writer.

[stillatim · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

I've taught this a few times, but for whatever reason, reading it through this year, it made much more sense and was far more affecting than previous readings. Perhaps because of this new translation, which avoids idiocies like 'communistic system'. Or perhaps because the question of whether the wise can do anything helpful in political life is pretty darn live this election season, as are questions of political extremism, inequality, greed etc etc...

[glennbell_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

This is an early attempt to promote a type of communist government by means of a story. The content is appropriate for the activities and occupations of the time. Although the author is thoughtful, the proposed Utopia is far from ideal. His Utopia includes slavery and forced religion. His theory of no ownership of property is naive. His explanation of using mercenaries in warfare is not noble or just. I do not recommend this book.

[velmeran · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Utopia describes a different Commonwealth lifestyle. Would this lead to happiness? It's tough to say. Read it and see what you think.

[faith_murri · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I loved the dialogue in book 1; Raphael is really quite woke. While the structure of Utopia itself was interesting, I would have rather liked a story rather than a textbook explanation. Nonetheless, it was enjoyable.

[leslie398 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

If this audiobook hadn't been a free offer, I would never have tried to listen to this classic instead of reading it. I have found that I have a very hard time absorbing difficult or factual or philosophical material via audiobook. Knowing that, I did an 'immersion' read with this book, reading the text as I listened. So my low rating isn't a reflection upon Simon Prebbles narration per se (though his somewhat gravelly voice did tend to make me sleepy!).Thomas More's vision of a idyllic society was somewhat disappointing for me. The society he describes had some fascinating aspects but as a modern woman, there were a few too many chauvinistic attitudes. I also had some issues with some of the religious aspects such as this passage:"he [Utopus] therefore left men wholly to their liberty, that they might be free to believe as they should see cause; only he made a solemn and severe law against such as should so far degenerate from the dignity of human nature, as to think that our souls died with our bodies, or that the world was governed by chance, without a wise overruling Providence: for they all formerly believed that there was a state of rewards and punishments to the good and bad after this life; and they now look on those that think otherwise as scarce fit to be counted men, since they degrade so noble a being as the soul, and reckon it no better than a beast’s: thus they are far from looking on such men as fit for human society, or to be citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth; since a man of such principles must needs, as oft as he dares do it, despise all their laws and customs: for there is no doubt to be made, that a man who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy his appetites."

[musespublisher · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

One of the classic that has withstood the critics throughout the years. It was written in 1516. The work was written in Latin and it was published in Louvain (present-day Belgium). Utopia is a work of satire, indirectly criticizing Europe's political corruption and religious hypocrisy. Many believe it may had been a major influence of the Protestant Reformation which begun the following year in 1517. Many later works has been based upon it.

[madepercy-1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Yet another of the books for which I could provide a synopsis but have never read cover to cover (until now). There is much to Sir Thomas More's communist (note my use of a lowercase "c") essay that surprised me. One can see the little twists to insure against More being burned at the stake (the Utopians were ready to receive Christ as they had more or less self-discovered Christ's communal teachings - but it didn't prevent him having his head cut off for refusing to succumb to its antithesis) along with it being presented in the form of a dialogue in Book I (as per Plato, Machiavelli, et al.). A few things made me think it might be more socialist than communist, if one accepts that communism attempts to abolish the state in order to achieve equality, whereas socialism aspires to the same aim but through governmental or formal institutional arrangements. The founder of Utopia, "King" Utopus, suggested the limitations of More's imagination, and had me thinking of modern Bhutan. But the notes on the translation point out that Ralph Robinson, the translator, had added his own interpretations of the original Latin that added kings and princes where none was intended. The introduction by Richard Manus explains the reasons for keeping the original translation and for that I was pleased. The focus on religion and the idea of bondsman doing all the unpalatable work for the commonwealth brings to the fore many of the problems of communism in it twentieth century practice. Aside from the obvious problems where the dictatorship of the proletariat has never ended in its practical forms, communism has never really obtained that level of freedom, particularly in terms of occupations or individuals becoming "Renaissance" men or women, whereas, and despite its reliance on the "Metroplesque" underground to make it practicable, this is achieved, along with a six-hour work day, in Utopia. The interesting use of mercenaries in warfare and foreign relations and the stigmas attached to precious metals and pearls (for bondsmen and children respectively) point to the absurdity of surviving ideas about value and money. The use of Plato suggests a reinvention of the Commonwealth of centuries before, whereas Jonathan Swift, too, draws on the folk tradition to protect himself from his own political commentary, albeit over a century later, but relying on similarly strange peoples with startlingly homogeneous cultures. But, taken in its times, More seems to have done a good deal of the theorising for Marx to arrive and merely iron out the shortcomings. Despite my familiarity with the work, there is much fruit to be harvested by taking the time to read thoroughly what one has previously learnt second-hand. Yet I am pleased that our education system is remarkable in that, despite its secondary-source nature, the synopses I (at least) have received are true to form, if otherwise lacking in detail.

[nbmars · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

First published in 1516 (in Latin), the book we usually call “Utopia” originally had a much longer title, which can be roughly translated as “Concerning the Best State of a Republic and the New Island of Utopia.” It was not translated and published in English until 1551. At first, I was surprised that the language of the copy I read seemed quite modern for a book written in the 16th century, but I now realize that it was a recent translation of the original Latin rather than the first English translation.Thomas More, the author, was councillor to Henry VIII, and Lord High Chancellor of England. Working for Henry was even more perilous than working for Donald Trump (at least, so far) — More was beheaded in 1532 for refusing to take the king’s Oath of Supremacy. The book takes the form of a discussion among fairly learned men, one of whom purports to have visited the mythical island of Utopia. More intended the word utopia to mean “no place.” In modern English, it has come to mean impractically ideal. The book itself is part satire, part wish fulfillment, and the society described is indeed impractically ideal.In some ways More was a precursor to Karl Marx. The Utopians had no need for money because everyone worked hard enough to produce ample goods and shared them with everyone else. No one took more than he needed. Such an arrangement is unlikely to prosper among real human beings. Although More was describing what he may have thought to be an ideal society, he expressed a few ideas that seem repugnant to the modern reader. For example, the Utopians kept slaves, although slavery was a form of punishment for breaking the law. In addition, the Utopians were wont to extend the boundaries of their society by sending their men:“…over to the neighboring continent, where, if they find that the inhabitants have more soil than they can well cultivate, they fix a colony, taking the inhabitants into their society if they are willing….But if the natives refuse to conform themselves to their laws they drive them out of those bounds which they mark out for themselves, and use force if they resist, for they account it a very just cause of war for a nation to hinder others from possessing a part of that soil of which they make no use….”This sounds a lot like white Americans justifying Manifest Destiny. The Utopians had the same disputes of moral philosophy as the 16th century English. However, More says they “never dispute concerning happiness without fetching some arguments from the principles of religion as well as natural reason.” They spend their lives in pursuit of pleasure, but the pleasures they pursue are of a virtuous kind, forsaking “foolish…pleasure [like] hunting, fowling, or gaming, of whose madness they have only heard, for they have no such things among them.” More’s own attitude toward Utopia and the Utopians is a bit ambiguous, in that he concludes the book with the sentiment that: “I cannot perfectly agree to everything [described above]. However, there are many things in the commonwealth of Utopia that I rather wish, than hope, to see followed in our governments.” Utopia is significant historically, but I don’t think it has much practical to say about forming a just society. It is more a description of what a just society would look like if its citizens were not as self serving, untrusting, and greedy as real humans. (JAB)

[teknognome · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

An easy, reasonable quick read. More has some interesting communist ideas, infused with his version of Christianity and agrarianism. Many of his critiques about then-contemporary English/European society are still quite applicable.

[jaylivernois · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

A highly influential classic with interesting letters but including pedantic essays heavily influenced by socialism.

[katieloucks · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Interesting to read. I liked seeing the perspective of some issues in More's time.

[cooindabhl · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Written about 1515 or 1516 and worth reading see pages 93 at bottom e.g. rich managing selfishly and 95 last para eg However, there are many things in the commonwealth of utopia that I rather wish, than hope, to see followed in our governments.He of course was beheaded and later made a Saint.

[jessica_reads · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The work begins with written correspondence between Thomas More and several people he had met on the continent: Peter Giles, town clerk of Antwerp, and Jerome Busleiden, counselor to Charles V. More chose these letters, which are communications between actual people, to further the plausibility of his fictional land. In the same spirit, these letters also include a specimen of the Utopian alphabet and its poetry. It is a great book that allows one to think about human nature. Utopia itself is an imaginary place that is nonexistent. Many have wondered over the years why More even wrote it. I forces one to consider that if the government of a place allows circumstances to occur that remove mans ability to take care of basic needs on a just and right way, should they be punished when they achieve it by breaking their laws?

[jesssika-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The work begins with written correspondence between Thomas More and several people he had met on the continent: Peter Giles, town clerk of Antwerp, and Jerome Busleiden, counselor to Charles V. More chose these letters, which are communications between actual people, to further the plausibility of his fictional land. In the same spirit, these letters also include a specimen of the Utopian alphabet and its poetry. It is a great book that allows one to think about human nature. Utopia itself is an imaginary place that is nonexistent. Many have wondered over the years why More even wrote it. I forces one to consider that if the government of a place allows circumstances to occur that remove mans ability to take care of basic needs on a just and right way, should they be punished when they achieve it by breaking their laws?

[theokester · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Thomas More's Utopia is nearly five centuries old yet it's still quite relevant and poignant today. It's somewhere between a fictional travelogue and a philosophical political treatise. I found it especially interesting that many of the complaints presented still ring true 500 years later. The sixteenth century writing can be a little dry at times but the narrative style and presentation are readily accessible and sometimes rather humorous.As I dove into this book I knew very little about it other than it was supposed to be More's outline of the "perfect city/state." Interestingly (as pointed out in some of the notes and introduction I read), the word "Utopia" is derived from Greek words and means both "good place land" and "no place land" simultaneously. So strangely it suggests that this is both a "good place" and that it doesn't (or can't) exist. That paradox was an interesting starting point for me as I read.The book is divided into two parts. The first "book" starts with letters between More and other real-life characters. This epistolary method of writing was quite common especially when trying to frame the reality of the situation. The letters work to introduce the characters and discussion that follows and to emphasize the significance of the information we are about to read. It also serves to introduce us to a character named Raphael who has apparently journeyed to the land of Utopia and has a great deal of expertise and respect for their customs and practices.The rest of "book 1" consists of a dialog between the recipients of these letters. The dialog includes criticisms of various political policies (primarily European) ranging from wars and international relations down to property rights, poverty and punishment of criminals. It is suggested that perhaps Raphael should go into politics as an advisor. The reply seems to be rather cynical in suggesting that the kings or rulers wouldn't listen to Raphael and that the current flaws of the system will simply be allowed to perpetuate rather than be healed. The best result Raphael could see would be that the leaders may be depressed at the knowledge of the flaws but wouldn't be willing to fix them. A worse result would be that Raphael would be run out of court as a wicked corruptor of society.The second "book" in Utopia goes beyond the philosophical discussions and into the specific details about the land of Utopia. First we get some general geographic details followed by information about the physical makeup of cities, communities and families. We're taught about the leaders of the society both how they're elected and what they do. We get significant detail about the nature of work within Utopia and the nature of property. We learn about international relations between Utopia and the outside world. We learn about their trade policies, immigration and emigration policies and how they handle wars. We're told in detail about criminal punishment, slavery, household relations (marriage, divorce, etc) and their concept of religion. Each aspect is presented in great detail and with various examples of implementation as well as sometimes comparing their methods to the flawed methods of European countries.Probably the biggest overall aspect of Utopia is the idea of a wholly communal society. There is no private property. There is no real hierarchy or aggrandizement of any individual, occupation or organization. Those who "lead" certain affairs of the country do so out of necessity for the greater overall good and not with the hopes of "looking good" or getting rich or leaving some sort of legacy. Criminals generally become slaves though their method of slavery is quite humane. The idea is that people are motivated to be good in order to keep the peace and to avoid the shame and restrictions that come in "slavery." The status quo is further maintained by making it a crime to not properly carry your own load. Laziness and idleness are not permitted. If you do not do your particular job, you are a criminal and become a slave.The Utopian concepts here are often (and rightly) seen as precursors to Marxist systems of government. The distinction is that More's Utopia is outlined as a pure and complete communistic society. Everything is in common from the property to the work to the rewards. Furthermore, while the society strives to improve through education, technology and other means the improvements are seen as existing to better the society as a whole and are taken in such a way as to provide mutual benefit to all involved. They would not consider any illicit means for obtaining advantage or influence. There is no place for pride or greed.The entire concept sounds very appealing and interesting on paper. There are also many very sound concepts that could see great success in practice. However, in trying to envision the society truly being put into practice, the problems come with the "humanity" of humans. Specifically the pride, greed, laziness and other vices of humanity. Over time, individuals would become bored or otherwise dissatisfied and try to change things. The book suggests that others in society would squash such desires and disallow any groups of such people to disrupt the system. Unfortunately the desire for power, influence or wealth will inevitably allow someone to find a way of scrambling to the top, even in a society with no formal "top."The idea of doing away with a monetary system and everybody working for the good of society is an ideal that would have potential if it could be sustained. But all it takes is a few small disruptions in the process and soon the whole system collapses in on itself.From a literary standpoint, Utopia is fun in that it seems to be the predecessor to a genre that's gaining popularity now. That being the utopian novel (and its friend, the dystopian novel, which is all the rage right now). I love reading about societies trying to become "perfect" in every way. It's such a great ideal. I find the dystopian concept very intriguing as well since it generally showcases the way these utopian societies will often overstep their bounds and collapse on themselves or become the enemy.Overall this was a very interesting read. I can definitely see it as being an influential book on political theory. Taking the concepts "off the page" becomes a rather interesting philosophical investigation into the nature of humanity and the things that help us rise or fall through generations. ***3 out of 5 stars

[6boysandme · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Summary: Sir Thomas Moore sets forth his ideas for the ideal society. This books was instrumental in discussion of our own government. Quote: "Thus you see that there are no idle persons among them, nor pretences of excusing any from labor. There are no taverns, no ale houses, nor stews among them, nor any other occasions of corrupting each other, of getting into any corners, or forming themselves into parties; all men live in full view, so that all are obliged both to perform their ordinary task and to employ themselves well in their spare hours; and it is certain that a people thus ordered must live in great abundance of all things, and these being equally distributed among them, no man can want or be obliged to beg."

[lisamaria_c · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The word "utopia" was coined by More for his book from Greek for "no" and "place." There's some controversy as to whether this work is meant as serious or satire. Given not just the name of no place but things like the explanation of why the island is not reachable (someone coughed when the location was announced) I suspect the later. Moreover, this ideal state seems notably radical for a man who was famously a very orthodox Catholic. There's equality between the sexes (sorta), divorce, married and women priests, sanctioned euthanasia and religious tolerance (sorta). And it's a state without lawyers imagined by a man for whom that was his profession. I can't imagine from all I know of the man that what he presents is his ideal. I think it's more satire, more fanfic of Plato's Republic, than serious prescription. I mean c'mon, the slaves' chains are made of gold, children use jewels as playthings? Even the surname of the narrator, Raphael Hythloday, means "spreader of nonsense." Anyone really think More meant this all seriously? It's certainly not my ideal. Utopia is a republic that elects it's leaders. But like Plato's ideal republic it's one where lives are very tightly controlled. Where people live and their work is chosen by the state; there's no private ownership, no privacy, internal passports, sexual mores are legally enforced. There's even slavery--prisoners of war and people who have violated any of the republic's tyrannical laws. It sounds closer to China during Mao's cultural revolution than anyplace I'd want to live in. About the only aspects I can see as positive are the (relatively) egalitarian relationships between the sexes, the (relative) religious tolerance, the idea of keeping laws few and simple so that all could understand, and elected leadership. Which goes to show, one person's utopia is another's dystopia. Part of why I'm skeptical of utopias left and right--they often seem to crush too many individuals along the way to perfection, and I don't know what I'd find more horrifying, what you'd have to do to reach this utopia, or what it would be like to live under it--although goodness knows, we came close enough during the 20th century and it wasn't pretty. But what I'm reviewing and rating is not this imagined society, but this book about imagined societies. And I do love the idea of this kind of thought experiment, even if often I find attempts to create them (or at least impose them) wholesale the source of much evil. More might even agree with me. Given the satiric elements, I do think this is more about how utopias are unworkable than admirable. And you know, I think More gets it. There's this passage, said by the the character representing More himself:I don't believe you'd ever have a reasonable standard of living under a communist system. There'd always tend to be shortages, because nobody would work hard enough. In the absence of a profit motive, everyone would become lazy, and rely on everyone else to do work for him. Then, when things really got short, the inevitable result would be a series of murders and riots, since nobody would have any legal method of protecting the products of his own labour.That. Or they just starve to death. So I suspect those criticizing More as a commie are missing the mark. Some also complain this is a slog. Yet there is wit and humor here, and though some parts were tedious, well, it is short--only 134 paperback pages, not including notes, in my edition. Also More might have been an Englishman, but he wrote the book in Latin, so that means if you're reading it in English it's a translation. The first such translations didn't appear until after More's death. So if you're suffering from one with Middle English affectations, that's not More's fault--it's the translation you picked. I definitely think whatever you think of More's imaginary land, encountering these ideas are worth the read.

[baswood · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

“Thus I am wholly convinced that unless private property is entirely done away with, there can be no fair or just distribution of goods”“When I run over in my mind the various commonwealths flourishing today, so help me God, I can see nothing in them, but a conspiracy of the rich, who are fattening up their own interests under the name and title of the commonwealth”“If money disappeared, so would fear, anxiety, worry, toil, and sleepless nights. Even poverty, which seems to need money more than anything else for its relief, would vanish if money were entirely done away with.Sir Thomas More’s Utopia is littered with seemingly revolutionary thoughts and ideas like those above; has been claimed as an early example of medievalism, modernism, socialism, communism; it has also been claimed by protestants, catholics, idealists and even Nazis, but why on earth would a reactionary churchman like Thomas More write and publish such a tract? It has to be a joke doesn't it?. If it is then the joke is on More because his invented Utopia has passed into common usage today as an ideal world.More’s story is simplicity itself. He is introduced by his friend Peter Giles to Raphael Hythloday, who is visiting London after a voyages across uncharted seas searching for new lands. He has chanced upon the island of Utopia where he believes he has found the perfect society and is eager to return. Before Raphael can tell his story of the wonders of Utopia, he describes a dinner he had attended with Cardinal Morton and a distinguished lawyer. More uses a first person narrative for Raphael to describe the evils of the way England is currently ruled paying particular attention to the plight of the poor and the infirm. Rafael’s knowledge of foreign countries and the society’s he has witnessed on his travels leads him to propose alternative ways of dealing with the ills of England. The Utopians are introduced into the conversation and More and Peter Giles are eager to learn more details of how their society is organised and so they arrange to have dinner with Raphael and his descriptions of Utopia take up the whole of Book Two.Utopia’s geography (although not where it can be found), its cities, its social organisation, its work habits, its relations with other countries, moral philosophy, art of warfare and their religion are all lovingly described by Raphael. There are no interruptions from More or his friend as a picture of Utopia emerges. Of course there are contradictions in the story and it soon emerges that a Utopian society is based on discipline at the expense of liberty. The pursuit of pleasure for all and the good of the commonwealth cannot be achieved without restrictions on freedom that would be unacceptable to people in Thomas Mores’s circle. A point he makes on the final page of his book when he allows himself to think about what he has heard:“……but my chief concern was to the basis of the whole system, that is, their communal living, and their moneyless economy. This one thing alone takes away all the nobility, magnificence, splendour, and majesty which (in the popular view) are considered the true ornaments of any nation”Utopia was published in 1516 just about the same time as copies of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” were appearing and on the face of it the books are worlds apart. Machiavelli’s advice to his Prince is based on pragmatism and commercialism with the basic premise that a ruler always needs to be tougher and/or fairer than his opponents to maintain his position and/or increase his power.. More’s Utopia is based on a shared communalism where everybody benefits from just laws with the pursuit of pleasure for all being the chief aim. However running underneath both books is an undercurrent of pessimism; a pessimism that bites deep into the human psyche. I think that Machiavelli and More took a similar view of mankind, they saw around them people whose natural instincts were totally selfish, anarchic and sinful, whose wilful pursuit of riches and power had to be kept in check.Thomas More as far as we can judge was an ambiguous character; "a man for all seasons", in his early life particularly he was much respected in humanist circles, a friend of Erasmus and known for his wit and sagacity, however when he became active in public life; C R Elton says that “he remained determined to apply coercion and judgement to dangerous sinners, rather than compassion and comprehension.” (he was instrumental in enforcing the ultimate penalty of burning for heretics). There is evidence that he regretted the publication of Utopia and certainly when his circle of friends commented on it they thought it was a delightful little joke. The way More told his story especially by including real people in book one, convinced some people at the time of the validity of Utopia, and while today we are sure that the island of Utopia does not exist, there are still plenty of people who can read into More’s book serious political philosophy.I think it is a satire and no doubt an indictment of early 16th century society, but Raphael Hythloday’s Utopia is an excuse for the witty More to poke as much fun as possible at the society in which he lived. It is a book that is still open to many different interpretations and will produce plenty of ammunition for debate on the ills of current society and how we would like to see a perfect community organised. It is a fun read and at only 85 pages can easily be read in one sitting.I read the Norton Critical Edition, which has some excellent critical essays following a clear and absorbing translation of the text by Robert M Adams. Some contextual information is also included along with extracts from letters that were written by More and his friends, which add immensely to the enjoyment of More’s little book. There are also extracts from other authors attempts at defining a Utopia, which may be of interest. This is a classic that I thoroughly enjoyed and so I rate it at 5 stars.

[angelic55blonde · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is another one of those classic books that everyone should read. It was written in 16th century England so the language can make reading this a bit difficult/tedious. But it is worth it.This is a small book but it is broken down into two sections. The first book is letters between Sir Thomas More and several people he met. The reader is introduced to Raphael, whose the main character. The second book is about Utopia. The reader learns what life is like there, how things are run. For instance, people are re-distributed around the households in the Utopia to keep numbers even. People wear the same type of clothing, no one is unemployed. Everything is kept as equal as possible. What I found interesting abotu Utopia was that it was a welfare state, not unlike the U.S., but it was taken to the extreme. I liked this book and I would recommend it to everyone. Again, it's a classic and everyone should read this at least once in their life time.

[sourire_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is the kind of book that wouldn't be done justice with just one read-through. One should carefully read, reread, analyze, take a break from, and read again. Every time I read it, I pick up on something new or come to a different conclusion about what More might have meant. It's truly fascinating, especially for the fact that the reaction upon reading may in fact reveal more about the reader than it does about More or the work itself. I've never met anyone who takes exactly the same thing away from it as someone else, and have been constantly amazed at the various insights people have that never occurred to me. To hear one's impressions of the book is to have a small window into their mind. For the sheer amount of thought and introspection Utopia provokes, I feel it is a must-read. Much is said about the actual description of Utopia, but I would encourage readers to pay just as much attention to the first portion of the book, where Raphael is introduced and speaks with his companions (the character versions of More and Giles). One might also want to keep in mind that Utopia (as opposed to Eutopia- "good place"), despite modern usage, means "no place" rather than some sort of ideal. Just as Raphael Hythlodaeus/Hythloday is a "speaker of nonsense", Utopia/"no place" is not so simple as to be the description of a perfect society. Or is it? That ambiguity is the beauty of More's work.

[shannonkearns · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

i couldn't get past the stilted language to get into this book. by the time i got into the groove i really just didn't think he had much to say. i had hoped for a lot more from this, and was sorely disappointed.

[lauranav_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Reading this is a good exercise in humility, to realize how many subjects we discuss today have been discussed (in the same details) before. I find it interesting that people don't know just how serious More was about most of this. Is he sincere and exposing how he really feels even though he can't be more explicit or act on much of it? Or it is satirical? The subjects are presented with such respect that it isn't obvious either way.

[tineoliver_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I'm sure Utopia has lost much of its meaning through the translation from its native Latin (By no means is this comment directed at the translation - I think much of the difficulty lies in the inherent limitations of English).For the rating I have given, I considered three things: the general enjoyment from reading the book, the ideas contained within and the historic importance (and context) of the work. Immediately after I finished reading the book, I determined that I didn’t enjoy it. After giving it much thought, I’m still not sure why that is – possibly the difficulty I have with the concept that all men are created equal, yet women are subservient to men (although, given the historical context, Moore can hardly be chastised for that), the inherent flaws I see in the ability of any society to function as described, or even some of the other more subtle difficulties I see with the novel (such as attempting to applying logical debate to religion).The difficulty I’m also faced with is the degree to which Moore is suggesting that Utopia would be the perfect society (particularly since he states within the text that he does not agree with all of the Utopian ideals) and the degree to which it is a work of satire (a highly debated topic among academics - see for example the introduction in the Penguin Classics edition).

[aethercowboy · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Utopia is the book that put the word "utopia" in our lexicon. Utopia, the word, is generally used to describe a place in which everything is a happy land where everybody is happy, and life is relatively easy. Like most children's fiction, where even the most dastardly of villains is just a litterbug or a liar, and he or she learns a valuable lesson before too many pages have passed.The book itself is written as a frame story in which More is telling others about his visit of a man named Raphael (though his last name depends on which translation you're reading), who told him about this wonderful island in the New World called Utopia, in which everybody is happy, even the slaves!Raphael goes on to explain the aspects of this island, and how it works, presenting a sort of proof-of-concept for better living (hint, hint, you new, developing nations in the New World!).No study of utopian writing is complete without at least starting here, so this book is highly recommended to any utopian (or even dystopian) reading schedule. It's also highly recommend if you like philosophical writing, and are looking for some great new ideas to consider.

[zare_3 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

In a very interesting way More paints his ideal state - state of Utopia. Here, all the virtues of men are cherished while all foolishness and - well, let us call them - all the bad things in society are non-existent, due to the very nature of Utopians, their state and the very way of their educational system.Interesting book, a rather subtle critique of the European states of the time (especially when it comes to vanity of the rich and uneven distribution of wealth among the populace - again some virtues glorified in the book may prove obsolete today [because of that ever-lasting temporal element that stands between writer and the reader or maybe some political reasons] but were focus of many a debate at the time). Man cannot but agree with many aspects of Utopia to be the very ideal - dedication to knowledge and constant strive to be better human being - but the required level of social maturity is so high that even today (maybe especially today) it may be considered to be way too high.Again, society itself is not peace loving as it may seem at the beginning - when faced with conflict (forced upon them or caused by them - for territory e.g) Utopians won't hesitate to fight, but first they will extensively use their allies (motivated by political means - sounds familiar does not it) to end the conflict rarely entering the fray themselves. This makes them very modern and in my opinion less ideal society. Again, those societies that reach the level of Utopians can be forgiven to feel supreme to every other nation/society and to behave in the manner they do - but nevertheless this stains their reputation.Very questions that arise in this book - like is it better to have free roaming citizenry without any restraints thus causing havoc on most on behalf of few, or to have ordered and disciplined society that will have limited liberties but live freely and under the benevolent government - are very common themes in SF literature (there exists no better example than Heinlein's "Starship Troopers").Writing style may be difficult but don't give up - book gives a rather good view of human nature and a lot can be learned from it.

[p_s_patrick · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Utopia is a work written by Thomas More in response to the grave inequality and injustice in 16th Century England. It is difficult to take seriously, unlike the Politics and the Republic, as though it borrows heavily from ancient Greek thought, it is concerned more with satirising and correcting the problems of the times than with philosophising and arguing towards something absolutely ideal. This is made obvious in several ways: the account of Utopia is given by a traveler who has supposedly been there, and the names of the country, the cities, rivers, people, etcetera are all jokes, several of the policies in the country are merely told to ridicule current western practice, and many of the details are capricious and not given reasons for.Underlying the satire is a serious message though, that through equality, fair dealing, and general niceness, general happiness can be achieved. Utopia seems less practical than other works on ideal states, as well as less ideal, but as a commentary on 16th Century England it excels. To understand the reasoning behind this book it only needs to be understood in context. Contemporary England was unfair, property was being taken from the peasants by the thousands, to use to pasture sheep to make money for the government and the wealthy via the wool trade. This lead to a large proportion of the population being homeless and without means to survive, they turned to crime to survive and in turn were hanged for petty crimes, while the rich were living it up and swaggering round in fine clothes and jewels.More being an all round good egg disliked this, and this is why an essentially communist system is advocated here, communism being an improvement on severe feudalism, and blind equality being an improvement on gross inequality. The state described here would have seemed close to perfection for the average inhabitant of England at the time, but it doesn't stand up today in comparison to the superior systems described in the more rationally thought out Greek political writings. More gets away with it though, and this remains a worthwhile read, as a satire and a work of humour it compensates for its theoretical failings. What lets it down politically are the extreme socialist and communist values, which just don't strike me as satisfying. I prefer the proportionate equality described in Aristotle's Politics, and don't believe a system where everyone is treated exactly the same would work. More when writing this did not intend it to be taken completely seriously, but it is hard to tell quite where he is joking and where he is serious; this probably lessens its worth as a piece of political philosophy, but on the whole makes it more enjoyable a read.

[bribaker2001_1 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I actually found this book to be quite boring. Sure, it's a classic. Sure, it outlines a theoretically equal world. But honestly, I found it difficult to keep engaged in what I was reading. How boring would life be if it were like what this book describes!