Sir Thomas More contributed immensely to political thought in both the 16th century and future generations in his complex novel Utopia. Influenced by Plato’s Republic, More describes the concept of one potential state of a perfect commonwealth which has led to much speculation and debate. The fictional island of the Utopians is argued to have heavily influenced communism and brings to the fore both the concepts of idealism and pragmatism and the difficulty of balancing them. The novel largely focuses on the concept of knowledge and the theme of power – how it should be used and the fatalities it can cause. In my essay, I will critically examine the relationship between knowledge and power in the text whilst establishing the key facts and important issues surrounding the relationship.
The noun ‘Utopia’ now denotes ‘an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect’ and is linked to both Communism and Marxism. The novel was written in Latin and is thereby intended to be read in this language, yet despite the translation to English, perhaps which adds to the confusing nature of the book, it is noted that ‘even erudite Renaissance humanists – the audience to whom More addressed the great social-political questions of his time –might not have understood the subtle brunt of his irony.’
As More discusses the issues of his contemporary European society in Book 1 of Utopia, the relationship between knowledge and power is first established in relation to the violence of his people, the punishments for crimes and the general ideas of his society which seem to lack any sort of justice. These notions are philosophically discussed with Peter Gilles and Raphael Hythloday; the fictional protagonist who acts as More’s narrator when describing the island of Utopia. Crucially, Hythloday embodies the platonic view that philosophers should not get involved in politics . His name literally translates to ‘speaker of nonsense’, presenting not only a somewhat unreliable narrator but also ensuring that we are aware of his fictional nature. However, More aims to give his story credibility and realism through his use of prefatory letters and by presenting the Utopian alphabet.
After hearing Hythloday’s account of ‘wise laws and prudent decrees’ alongside his extensive travel experiences, More and Giles attempt to convince him to find a job in the court. Giles states:
‘I wonder greatly why you get you not into some king’s court. For I am sure there is no prince living that would not be very glad of you, as a man not only able highly to delight him with your profound learning… but also meet to instruct him with examples, and help him with counsel. ‘
Giles statement here underlines his belief that those in power would benefit from the wisdom of Hythloday’s extensive knowledge which in turn would aid their reign. Drawing upon this relationship between knowledge and power, More makes apparent his pragmatic belief that those with wisdom have a duty to share it with those in power and in doing so advance themselves ‘to a much wealthier state and condition’ . This represents the idea that knowledge can elevate anybody to a higher position as they are relied upon and respected for their wisdom.
However, Hythloday strongly declines; following the traditions of Plato, he believes that knowledge and philosophical action is necessary for good ruling. Also he makes apparent that being under somebody else’s authority depletes power, his tone suggests that he is satisfied with his freedom and position. He also observes that kings are more interested in gaining higher power, taking over nations than they are in ruling their own as they should. This reflects upon More’s own beliefs as he is committed to the Humanist ideal of individual conscience and wrestles with the problem of whether one can remain true to one’s principles and to truth while in the employment of a ruler.
‘… part of all princes have more delight in warlike matters and feats of chivalry… than in the good feats of peace; and employ much more study… to enlarge their dominions, than how well and peacefully to rule and govern what they have already.’
This statement highlights the concept of the corruption that power can bring. Hythloday is suggesting that princes are more knowledgeable in terms of bravery and war like matters than philosophers, yet that this type of knowledge leads to greediness rather than a happily governed nation.
He also notes that:
‘Plato doubtless did well foresee, unless kings themselves would apply their minds to the study of philosophy, that else they would never thoroughly allow the council of philosophers, being themselves before, even from their tender age, infected and corrupt with perverse and evil opinions.’
Here, it is suggested that those in power are lacking in knowledge and thereby corrupted by the extent of their power. This again reinforces Hytloday’s platonic view that philosophers should not apply themselves to politics.
As Hythloday continues his attack on the European legal system, divine power is brought to the fore. He states:
‘… that the power of God’s commandment shall extend extend no further than man’s law doth define and permit?’
This suggests God’s law against killing is not considered where human law allows it. Hence, this can relate to the hypocrisy of More’s current society in which rules only apply for certain situations. It also brings in the theme of religion which is heavily laced throughout the book.
Many see Book 1 as a criticism of contemporary European society and indeed all the problems of More’s society are mentioned and resolved in many ways in Book 2. Book 1 offers a more pragmatic approach than Book 2 which focuses more on ideology.
The second book depicts the fictional, idealistic island of Utopia which More places within the new world. Focusing much on idealism, he creates a land of people who live to very high standards of honesty and behaviour and heavily contrasts with his more pragmatic approach in the previous book. The beautiful concept of a perfect island indeed does link to communism due to the eradication of private property, unemployment and private health care. The equality of power in this land not only minimises knowledge but also power and thus gives happiness underlining that less of each leads to a happier nation and this is perhaps what More attempts to highlight.
Hythloday is said to have spent five years examining the customs of the Utopians in which he is well informed enough to present a vivid and descriptive image of the society . He states that there are 54 cities which are all ‘set and situated alike’ . Each city has 6000 households and it is noted that each family ‘be governed of the eldest and ancientest father’ . This highlights that there are still power dynamics despite the equality of the land. The oldest is hence viewed as being the wisest.
Additionally, the politics of Utopia highlights the relationship between knowledge and power. The Prince of each city is elected by the people via a secret ballot. He rules for life unless he dies or is removed for ‘suspicion of tyranny’ . It is not made clear what this means and perhaps Hythloday does not elaborate as it has never happened or it would ruin his perception of the fairness of the Utopian political system. Or perhaps by being ambiguous, More leaves it open to our translation.
The Princes are selected from only the learned men which again brings credit to the argument that those with greater knowledge would be better rulers.
Moreover, there are various religions throughout the island but each is tolerant of the others with the exception of atheists. Atheists are seen as presenting danger to this communistic life as with no belief in an afterlife for which their actions on Earth matter, they can be more concerned for their own gain and break away from the communistic lifestyle. More’s devotion to Christianity is made apparent here and also his belief in a divine power in which knowledge is essential to understand. The priests will talk of their beliefs until the atheists see their errors highlighting the perception that Christianity is esteemed religion.
Also, the Utopians do not understand how somebody that may lack knowledge should be able to govern many wise people simply because he is rich:
‘… that a lumpish, block-headed churl, and which hath no more wit than an ass… shall have nevertheless many wise and good men in subjection and bondage… because he hath a great heap of gold.’
Through humorous language and metaphors, More highlights that wealth should not be the basis of power and also underlines the idea that only those with knowledge should have power over the people. This also draws upon Plato’s theory which was while money is the state of all things a state cannot be ran justly and happily .
In a moving conclusion, Hythloday links a country’s power to the happiness of its subjects indicating what is wrong with the present society and hence perceiving Utopian society as indeed the best state of a commonwealth. In the state of Utopia which is governed with equality, knowledge and power are linked together in a subtle way by using happiness as the catalyst for them both. More ends his book by stating that he may ‘rather wish for than hope after’ many of the ideals of this Utopian society indicating that he indeed does believe it to be an idealistic view.
In conclusion, Utopia successfully creates an example of a perfectly governed society and in many ways excels that of Plato. Through vivid description and a complex structure, More highlights the relationship that exists between knowledge and power and his belief that the wise are better rulers, caring more about the happiness and peace of their people than those who are simply born into power. He highlights the notion of how powerful people were at that time and contrasts this with the semi democratic government of Utopia beckoning the question of which one was better. In doing so he leaves us wondering how much power is too much and also determining which Utopian concepts excel our own.