Utopia

Que un libro siga estando vigente en sus planteamientos y propuestas después de quinientos años induce a reflexionar. O la utopía es algo irrealizable y por tanto seguirá siendo un ideal de futuro; o muchos hombres machacona y cabezonamente se empeñan en creer que es posible y luchan por ella.

La obra de Moro no es el primero, ni el último, de los intentos de diseñar o proponer un sistema social y político que mejore el existente. En la práctica, muchos grupos intentaron formar una sociedad que ellos creían deseable. Desde el plano teórico “La república” de Platón es el ejemplo más claro en la antigüedad. Cualquier sistema social propuesto revela una disconformidad con el existente y, como tal, el deseo del ser show more humano de mejorar en la organización de sus relaciones con los demás.

Tomás Moro interpela al hombre actual en multitud de temas que siguen siendo motivo de discusión: la pena de muerte, la eutanasia, los impuestos, el expansionismo territorial, el apoyo mutuo, la comunidad de bienes o colectivismo, la reducción de la jornada laboral, la asistencia sanitaria pública, el rechazo a la caza, la tolerancia religiosa, la oposición a la guerra, ...

Muchos de los sinónimos que se utilizan para la palabra utopía encajan mal con el trabajo del canciller inglés: quimera, fantasía, sueño, invención, … Otros, en cambio, sintonizan perfectamente con el autor: ilusión, ideal, anhelo,… Tomás Moro no es un ingenuo y así expresa “… que hay muchísimas cosas en la república de los utopienses que, a la verdad, en nuestras ciudades, más estaría yo en desear que en esperar.”(Libro Segundo pág. 174); pero al mismo tiempo, aunque sea en un futuro lejano, si cree en su realización. Como buen humanista cree en el hombre y en su capacidad de mejora. El mismo nombre de utopía significa que no está en ningún lugar pero no que no pueda estarlo. Esa terminación en -ia apunta esa posibilidad frente a utopo.
Por lo demás es fácil caer en la trampa del lenguaje: deseable, mejor, … Evidentemente esto encaja para quien propone el sistema pero no necesariamente para el resto. ¿Era deseable el estado de Platón?¿Es mejor la isla Utopía que la sociedad europea de la época? Para Moro y Platón puede pero… ¿y para los demás? Pues el camino que va de la utopía a la distopía es extremadamente corto y equívoco. “La mejor república” puede ser para muchos el peor de los estados. show less

Wat een heerlijk boek, dit product van een van de briljantste geesten van zijn tijd! Het denk- en schrijfplezier spat van de bladzijden, en het leesplezier was navenant.
Hoewel ik geen expert ben in vertalingen, schrijf ik de friste van dit 500 jaar oude boek toch graag toe aan de prachtvertaling van Paul Silverentand. More's humor, ironie, sarcasme en verontwaardiging komen helemaal tot hun recht.

“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 show more 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. show less

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 show more 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. show less

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 show more [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." show less

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 show more 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) show less

The best reason to read Utopia is to be more like Drew Barrymore’s character in the delightful movie, Ever After. But it is also a pretty good booky-boy on its own account. My mom read it to my siblings and I when I was a wee bairn, and I didn’t much care for it at the time. But after rereading it as an adult, I found lots of great stuff!

In it, the author (ol’ Tommy M. himself!), meets a fictional Portuguese explorer, Raphael Hythlodaeus. Raph first tells T. More what’s wrong with Europe of his day (making great points), and then goes on to describe a small island in the New World called Utopia that he visited. The book is at its best when it is critiquing the rich, vain, lazy, greedy, selfish rulers and nobles of Europe in the show more author’s day. Most of his criticisms apply equally to the rich and rulers of our own time. There are plenty of things I don’t like about the Utopian society as described by T.M., but it's interesting anyway. I would actually recommend this bad-boy! show less