Utopía
by Tomas Moro (Author), Ursula K. Le Guin (Contributor), China Miéville (Introduction), Joaquim Mallafrè Gavaladá (Translator), Vicente Campos (Translator)
Book Information for SKRM
- Title
- Utopía
- Author
- Tomas Moro
- Other Authors
- Ursula K. Le Guin (Contributor), China Miéville (Introduction), Joaquim Mallafrè Gavaladá (Translator), Vicente Campos (Translator)
- Member
- SKRM
- Publication
- Ariel (2024)
- Reading Dates
- Tags
- Collections
- Your library, Philosophy
- Rating
- Review
- Not reviewed
- Lending
On This Page
Description
Politics. Nonfiction. HTML:Sir Thomas More wrote Utopia in 1516 in Latin. His Utopia is a fictional island, whose society, religion and politics he explores. Critics do not believe that the island depicted More's idea of the perfect society, but rather that he hoped to throw the politics of his own time into a new light by contrasting them with his imagined island society. The work references Plato's Republic..
Tags
Recommendations
Member Recommendations
70
paradoxosalpha Early Modern scenarios for social reform, both set in a fictionalized New World beyond the Atlantic.
Also recommended by Sensei-CRS, Chevalier.dSion
51
Member Reviews
“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
“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
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
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
Deze klassieker werd me vorig jaar al aangeraden, maar ik heb er toen niet veel aandacht aan besteed. Het was pas toen ik het boek enkele maanden geleden in de boekhandel zag staan, dat ik me voornam het op een dag te kopen.
Thomas More beschrijft in 'Utopia' zijn visie van een ideale wereld. Die is grotendeels gebaseerd op het Engeland van de 16de eeuw, maar zijn visie en de realiteit van toen staan mijlenver uit elkaar. More had een communistische visie op de samenleving (alles van de staat, geen eigen bezit), waarbij ook de koning niet in grote weelde en luxe leefde, of alleszins geen grote schatkist bijhield, zodat de bevolking niet het gevoel had dat hij op hun kap leefde.
Verder is alles van de staat, wordt alles door de staat show more bepaald: werk, gezin, vrije tijd, eten, ... Alles is via tijdschema's vastgelegd inzake werk, lunch, vrije tijd, gezinsindeling en -samenstelling, en meer. Vrije tijd is niet zoals wij die kennen; ofwel leg je je toe op studie, ofwel ga je werken (want da's nuttig voor de maatschappij), ofwel doe je iets anders. Lanterfanten, relaxen, spelen, ... dat is uit den boze. Ik heb zelfs niks gelezen over kinderen die samen (!) spelen. Zelfs over de middag moeten deze bij hun ouders blijven.
Werk wordt om de x-tijd afgewisseld (beurtsysteem), zodat het systeem blijft draaien en iedereen quasi elke job of ambacht kan uitoefenen. Tenzij je door een hoge intelligentie, bijvoorbeeld, bij de wetenschappers wordt ingedeeld, of tenzij je door omstandigheden gewoonweg niet kunt werken. En blijkbaar zijn Utopianen blij als ze aan het werk zijn of zich kunnen inspannen (dienstverlening) voor de andere Utopianen.
Er zijn ook slaven en je kunt door bepaalde misdrijven slaaf worden, al dan niet voor de rest van je leven. Slaven vervullen ook de vuile karweien, waaronder het slachten van dieren. Utopianen krijgen het niet over hun hart om dieren te slachten. Dat slachten is enkel voor landbouwhuisdieren. Er wordt dus niet gejaagd op dieren of alleszins niet voor het plezier. Alles moet in het belang van de maatschappij gebeuren en ten voordele van de ander.
Eigen bezit heb je niet, wat weer enorm contrasteert met onze huidige samenleving die eigenlijk daarvan afhangt. Kledij is monotoon en voor iedereen gelijk. Luxegoederen als juwelen worden door gevangenen gedragen, om ze zo te kenbaarder te maken. Dit is ook in contrast met het Europese vasteland, waar edellieden en hoogwaardigheidsbekleders er prat op gaan dat ze in luxe leven en kleurrijke kleren dragen.
En zo gaat het nog wat door. Eerlijk gezegd, sommige aspecten vind ik wel interessant, zoals de kloof tussen arm en rijk aanpakken (hoe is een andere kwestie), zien dat iedereen genoeg te eten heeft, een goede gezondheid heeft, enz... Want iedereen heeft toch recht op een gelukkig leven? Hoe dat alles ingevuld wordt is, alweer, een andere kwestie.
In Mores Utopia heeft de staat (centrale macht die alles overziet) nogal veel invloed, ondanks het zogezegd beperkt aantal wetten (men vertrouwt op de rede, de logica, i.p.v. duizenden wetten die na verloop van tijd in de vergetelheid raken of opgerakeld worden wanneer het de staat zou uitkomen, bijv. voor belastingen). En ergens heeft ie een punt: Er zijn (tegenwoordig) zodanig veel wetten dat een kat haar jongen er niet meer in terugvindt en het voor de bevolking niet eenvoudig is. Op dat vlak kan er dus serieus gesnoeid of vereenvoudigd worden. In België zijn ze er, voor zover ik weet, gestaag aan aan het werken.
'Utopia' heeft wat mee van [b:Brave New World|3180338|Brave New World|Aldous Huxley|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1389777917s/3180338.jpg|3204877] (zie m'n recensie hier) en [b:Nineteen Eighty-Four|185900|Nineteen Eighty-Four|George Orwell|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1437912805s/185900.jpg|153313] (zie m'n recensie hier) en lijkt, voor zover ik er iets van weet, wat op het communisme van Statin (USSR) en Noord-Korea. Niet direct een samenleving waarin ik zou kunnen gedijen en ik kan begrijpen waarom hedendaagse mensen er ook hun neus voor ophalen.
Mores verhaal bevat ook enkele tegenstellingen, vind ik:
- (veel) ziekenhuizen waar de patiënten goed verzorgd worden elders wordt geschreven dat er weinig zieken zijn, maar de geneeskunde hoog staat aangeschreven.
- geen armen of bedelaars elders wordt geschreven dat een deel van de voedseloverschotten aan de armen wordt gegeven.
- verbod om te doden dat verbod geldt niet i.v.m. misdrijven, terminaal ziek zijn, oorlog, ... want doodstraf, euthanasie, vechten ter bescherming van de vriendjes en eigen staat.
- eigen godsdienstbeleving, niemand forceren zich te bekeren, maar als je te extreem erover bezig was en andere overtuigingen afkraakte, werd je verbannen of gearresteerd, maar mocht je eigenlijk niet boeten voor je overtuiging (stond in de wet) elders staat dan geschreven dat je wel met passie je overtuiging mocht ten berde brengen in het bijzijn van priesters en aanverwanten, waarmee je dan in gesprek kon/mocht gaan, waarbij (de Kerk, de staat) dan hoopte dat je tot inkeer ging komen. Dergelijke gesprekken werden zelfs gestimuleerd.
- ...
--------------------------
De Nederlandse vertaling is zeer vlot te lezen, mits een paar kleine typefoutjes (tenzij het origineel, i.e. de Engelse vertaling, al zo was). In het nawoord geeft de vertaler wat uitleg over deze klassieker, over zijn vertaling, wat altijd nuttig is. Ook staan de voetnoten op de desbetreffende bladzijden, wat het makkelijker maakt om de verklaringen te lezen. En zo leer je ook wat bij, want er zitten veel geschiedkundige feitjes tussen die de context wat levendiger, begrijpelijker, maken. Achteraan staat ook een verklarende woordenlijst met de uitleg over de vertaalde termen.
'Utopia' is niet alleen een in een bepaald opzicht dystopisch verhaal, het bevat ook wat filosofische invloeden en gedachten die (ook) op onze huidige samenleving kunnen toegepast worden. De manier van beschrijven (over de samenleving, de cultuur, het werk, de godsdienst, ... kortom, elk belangrijk stukje) deed me wat denken aan [a:Olaf Stapledon|64177|Olaf Stapledon|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1277189498p2/64177.jpg]s [b:Last and First Men|564324|Last and First Men|Olaf Stapledon|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388375968s/564324.jpg|1631490] (zie m'n recensie hier). Verder kun je dit boek ook, enigszins, als een soort aanklacht tegen het (neo-)liberalisme zien.
Om het kort te houden: Het is eens iets anders dan de voormelde klassiekers, maar evenzeer de moeite waard om lezen. O ja, gezien Plato's [b:The Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1386925655s/30289.jpg|1625515] (wat ik nog niet gelezen heb) deels als basis diende voor Mores opus, is m'n achting voor Plato ook wat gedaald omwille van het communistische kantje. Ik wist niet dat Plato een dergelijke visie erop nahield. show less
Thomas More beschrijft in 'Utopia' zijn visie van een ideale wereld. Die is grotendeels gebaseerd op het Engeland van de 16de eeuw, maar zijn visie en de realiteit van toen staan mijlenver uit elkaar. More had een communistische visie op de samenleving (alles van de staat, geen eigen bezit), waarbij ook de koning niet in grote weelde en luxe leefde, of alleszins geen grote schatkist bijhield, zodat de bevolking niet het gevoel had dat hij op hun kap leefde.
Verder is alles van de staat, wordt alles door de staat show more bepaald: werk, gezin, vrije tijd, eten, ... Alles is via tijdschema's vastgelegd inzake werk, lunch, vrije tijd, gezinsindeling en -samenstelling, en meer. Vrije tijd is niet zoals wij die kennen; ofwel leg je je toe op studie, ofwel ga je werken (want da's nuttig voor de maatschappij), ofwel doe je iets anders. Lanterfanten, relaxen, spelen, ... dat is uit den boze. Ik heb zelfs niks gelezen over kinderen die samen (!) spelen. Zelfs over de middag moeten deze bij hun ouders blijven.
Werk wordt om de x-tijd afgewisseld (beurtsysteem), zodat het systeem blijft draaien en iedereen quasi elke job of ambacht kan uitoefenen. Tenzij je door een hoge intelligentie, bijvoorbeeld, bij de wetenschappers wordt ingedeeld, of tenzij je door omstandigheden gewoonweg niet kunt werken. En blijkbaar zijn Utopianen blij als ze aan het werk zijn of zich kunnen inspannen (dienstverlening) voor de andere Utopianen.
Er zijn ook slaven en je kunt door bepaalde misdrijven slaaf worden, al dan niet voor de rest van je leven. Slaven vervullen ook de vuile karweien, waaronder het slachten van dieren. Utopianen krijgen het niet over hun hart om dieren te slachten. Dat slachten is enkel voor landbouwhuisdieren. Er wordt dus niet gejaagd op dieren of alleszins niet voor het plezier. Alles moet in het belang van de maatschappij gebeuren en ten voordele van de ander.
Eigen bezit heb je niet, wat weer enorm contrasteert met onze huidige samenleving die eigenlijk daarvan afhangt. Kledij is monotoon en voor iedereen gelijk. Luxegoederen als juwelen worden door gevangenen gedragen, om ze zo te kenbaarder te maken. Dit is ook in contrast met het Europese vasteland, waar edellieden en hoogwaardigheidsbekleders er prat op gaan dat ze in luxe leven en kleurrijke kleren dragen.
En zo gaat het nog wat door. Eerlijk gezegd, sommige aspecten vind ik wel interessant, zoals de kloof tussen arm en rijk aanpakken (hoe is een andere kwestie), zien dat iedereen genoeg te eten heeft, een goede gezondheid heeft, enz... Want iedereen heeft toch recht op een gelukkig leven? Hoe dat alles ingevuld wordt is, alweer, een andere kwestie.
In Mores Utopia heeft de staat (centrale macht die alles overziet) nogal veel invloed, ondanks het zogezegd beperkt aantal wetten (men vertrouwt op de rede, de logica, i.p.v. duizenden wetten die na verloop van tijd in de vergetelheid raken of opgerakeld worden wanneer het de staat zou uitkomen, bijv. voor belastingen). En ergens heeft ie een punt: Er zijn (tegenwoordig) zodanig veel wetten dat een kat haar jongen er niet meer in terugvindt en het voor de bevolking niet eenvoudig is. Op dat vlak kan er dus serieus gesnoeid of vereenvoudigd worden. In België zijn ze er, voor zover ik weet, gestaag aan aan het werken.
'Utopia' heeft wat mee van [b:Brave New World|3180338|Brave New World|Aldous Huxley|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1389777917s/3180338.jpg|3204877] (zie m'n recensie hier) en [b:Nineteen Eighty-Four|185900|Nineteen Eighty-Four|George Orwell|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1437912805s/185900.jpg|153313] (zie m'n recensie hier) en lijkt, voor zover ik er iets van weet, wat op het communisme van Statin (USSR) en Noord-Korea. Niet direct een samenleving waarin ik zou kunnen gedijen en ik kan begrijpen waarom hedendaagse mensen er ook hun neus voor ophalen.
Mores verhaal bevat ook enkele tegenstellingen, vind ik:
- (veel) ziekenhuizen waar de patiënten goed verzorgd worden elders wordt geschreven dat er weinig zieken zijn, maar de geneeskunde hoog staat aangeschreven.
- geen armen of bedelaars elders wordt geschreven dat een deel van de voedseloverschotten aan de armen wordt gegeven.
- verbod om te doden dat verbod geldt niet i.v.m. misdrijven, terminaal ziek zijn, oorlog, ... want doodstraf, euthanasie, vechten ter bescherming van de vriendjes en eigen staat.
- eigen godsdienstbeleving, niemand forceren zich te bekeren, maar als je te extreem erover bezig was en andere overtuigingen afkraakte, werd je verbannen of gearresteerd, maar mocht je eigenlijk niet boeten voor je overtuiging (stond in de wet) elders staat dan geschreven dat je wel met passie je overtuiging mocht ten berde brengen in het bijzijn van priesters en aanverwanten, waarmee je dan in gesprek kon/mocht gaan, waarbij (de Kerk, de staat) dan hoopte dat je tot inkeer ging komen. Dergelijke gesprekken werden zelfs gestimuleerd.
- ...
--------------------------
De Nederlandse vertaling is zeer vlot te lezen, mits een paar kleine typefoutjes (tenzij het origineel, i.e. de Engelse vertaling, al zo was). In het nawoord geeft de vertaler wat uitleg over deze klassieker, over zijn vertaling, wat altijd nuttig is. Ook staan de voetnoten op de desbetreffende bladzijden, wat het makkelijker maakt om de verklaringen te lezen. En zo leer je ook wat bij, want er zitten veel geschiedkundige feitjes tussen die de context wat levendiger, begrijpelijker, maken. Achteraan staat ook een verklarende woordenlijst met de uitleg over de vertaalde termen.
'Utopia' is niet alleen een in een bepaald opzicht dystopisch verhaal, het bevat ook wat filosofische invloeden en gedachten die (ook) op onze huidige samenleving kunnen toegepast worden. De manier van beschrijven (over de samenleving, de cultuur, het werk, de godsdienst, ... kortom, elk belangrijk stukje) deed me wat denken aan [a:Olaf Stapledon|64177|Olaf Stapledon|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1277189498p2/64177.jpg]s [b:Last and First Men|564324|Last and First Men|Olaf Stapledon|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1388375968s/564324.jpg|1631490] (zie m'n recensie hier). Verder kun je dit boek ook, enigszins, als een soort aanklacht tegen het (neo-)liberalisme zien.
Om het kort te houden: Het is eens iets anders dan de voormelde klassiekers, maar evenzeer de moeite waard om lezen. O ja, gezien Plato's [b:The Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1386925655s/30289.jpg|1625515] (wat ik nog niet gelezen heb) deels als basis diende voor Mores opus, is m'n achting voor Plato ook wat gedaald omwille van het communistische kantje. Ik wist niet dat Plato een dergelijke visie erop nahield. 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
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
I had mixed feelings over the book Utopia. The first half was, to me, boring and hard to understand. The second half was much easier to understand as it was explaining the island, it's government, and it's people. More, continually reminds the reader that Utopians have no rules but it is often followed by what rules they have; as someone who majored in political science this was frustrating especially when they live under a monarch. Also the book had a Catholic, Latin, and ancient Greek scholarly smugness that comes off as arrogant rather than just intelligent.
Sir Thomas More (who was canonized a saint by the Roman Catholic church) was a politician and philosopher who worked under Henry VIII. He hated the Protestant Reformation and Anne show more Boleyn. Eventually he was executed by the king as a martyr for rejecting the Church of England. Ironically, for being such a staunch Catholic, he was honored as one of the top thinkers of the Soviet Union's communism. show less
Sir Thomas More (who was canonized a saint by the Roman Catholic church) was a politician and philosopher who worked under Henry VIII. He hated the Protestant Reformation and Anne show more Boleyn. Eventually he was executed by the king as a martyr for rejecting the Church of England. Ironically, for being such a staunch Catholic, he was honored as one of the top thinkers of the Soviet Union's communism. 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
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
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.
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
Best Science Fiction Originally Published in a Language Other Than English
448 works; 34 members
Well-Educated Mind
150 works; 3 members
Speculative Fiction to Read
640 works; 30 members
Books Read in 2006
395 works; 7 members
LibraryThingers' 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
439 works; 26 members
Ambleside Books
452 works; 16 members
Literary Works Read in College
316 works; 14 members
Literature Before the 17th Century
20 works; 5 members
How to Read a Book's Recommended Reading List
310 works; 8 members
Out of Copyright
244 works; 12 members
Books Read in 2020
4,376 works; 122 members
College Reads (Lit Edition)
75 works; 5 members
100
56 works; 1 member
Greatest Books, allegedly
484 works; 5 members
Books Referenced by Izetbegovic's Islam Between East and West
234 works; 2 members
Book Titles Mentioned In Newberry Medal And Honor Books
883 works; 3 members
Books You Read For University
184 works; 3 members
The Well-Educated Mind, Susan Wise Bauer, 2016
179 works; 3 members
Recommended Reading : 600 Classics Reviewed, Editors of Salem Press, 2015
634 works; 5 members
The Well-Educated Mind Reading Challenge
116 works; 8 members
Books Read in 2019
4,036 works; 109 members
Unread books
997 works; 86 members
Books that changed the world
66 works; 62 members
Best Satire
188 works; 27 members
Folio Society
808 works; 52 members
Bibliography of New World Utopias by Paul Kagan
53 works; 1 member
Best Dystopias
259 works; 274 members
Epic Fiction
42 works; 12 members
Books Set on Islands
174 works; 23 members
Philip Ward's Lifetime Reading Plan
592 works; 21 members
Read These Too
458 works; 9 members
GreatBooks Worldview Academy Lists
133 works; 4 members
1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
1,305 works; 1,062 members
Generation Joshua
115 works; 3 members
CCE 100 Great Books List
145 works; 8 members
Saints and Blesseds
74 works; 4 members
100 Books to Read in a Lifetime (That Are Older Than 200 Years)
415 works; 169 members
Harold Bloom - The Western Canon: B. The Aristocratic Age
231 works; 12 members
Leseliste
21 works; 1 member
Política - Clásicos
164 works; 2 members
Books whose titles coined words
4 works; 1 member
Ambleside Year 8
80 works; 1 member
Talk Discussions
Past Discussions
Is government "a conspiracy of the rich"? in Pro and Con (January 2022)
Bibliographie in Zwischen �t�p� und Wirklichkeit: Konstruierte Sprachen für die gl�b�l�s�rt� Welt (June 2012)
Author Information
198+ Works 15,834 Members
Some Editions
Awards and Honors
Notable Lists
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
detebe-Klassiker (20420)
Trivium (33)
Obras Inmortales (41)
Perpetua reeks (16)
Penguin Great Ideas (63)
Centopaginemillelire (139)
Penguin Classics (L165)
Work Relationships
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- Utopia
- Original title
- De optimo reip. statv, deque noua insula Vtopia, libellus uere aureus, nec minus salutaris quam festiuus; Utopia
- Alternate titles
- Concerning the highest state of the republic and the new island Utopia; Common-wealth of Utopia
- Original publication date
- 1516; 1518 (revised by the author) (revised by the author)
- People/Characters
- Raphael Hythloday; Thomas More; Peter Gilles
- Important places
- Amaurot, Utopia, The New World; Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; Belgium; Brazil; Cabo Frio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands (show all 9); The Netherlands; South Holland, Netherlands; Utopia, The New World
- Important events
- 16th century
- First words
- There was recently a rather serious difference of opinion between that great expert in the art of government, His Invincible Majesty, King Henry the Eighth of England, and His Serene Highness, Prince Charles of Castile.
- Quotations
- The moment we showed them [the Utopians] some books that Aldus had printed, and talked a bit about printing and paper-making -- we couldn't explain them properly, as none of us knew much about either process -- they immediate... (show all)ly made a shrewd guess how the things were done. Up till then they'd only produced skin, bark, or papyrus manuscripts, but now they instantly started to manufacture paper, and print from type. At first they weren't too successful, but after repeated experiments they soon mastered both techniques so thoroughly that, if it weren't for the shortage of original texts, they could have had all the Greek books they wanted.
Well, that's the most accurate account I can give you of the Utopian Republic. To my mind, it's not only the best country in the world, but the only place that has any right to call itself a republic. Elsewhere, people are al... (show all)ways talking about the public interest, but all they really care about is private property. In Utopia, where there's no private property, people take their duty to the public seriously. And both attitudes are perfectly reasonable. In other 'republics' practically everyone knows that, if he doesn't look out for himself, he'll starve to death, however prosperous his country may be. He's therefore compelled to give his own interests priority over those of the public; that is, all the other people. But in Utopia, where everything is under public ownership, no one has any fear of going short, as long as the public storehouses are full. Everyone gets a fair share, so there are never any
poor men or beggars. Nobody owns anything, but everyone is rich – for what greater wealth can there be than cheerfulness, peace of mind, and freedom from anxiety? Instead of being worried about his food supply,
upset by the plaintive demands of his wife, afraid of poverty for his son, and baffled by the problem of finding a dowry for his daughter, the Utopian can feel absolutely sure that he, his wife, his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, his great-great-grandchildren, and as long a line of descendants as the proudest peer could wish to look forward to, will always have enough to eat and enough to make them happy. There's also the further point that those who are too old to work are just as well provided for as those who are still working. - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)'Well, I must think it over. Then perhaps we can meet again and discuss it at greater length.'
I certainly hope we shall, some day. In the meantime I cannot agree with everything that he said, for all his undoubted learning and experience. But I freely admit that there are many features of the Utopian Republic which I should like - though I hardly expect - to see adopted in Europe. - Original language
- Latin
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 12,510
- Popularity
- 553
- Reviews
- 119
- Rating
- (3.51)
- Languages
- 28 — Catalan, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Galician, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Lithuanian, Multiple languages, Norwegian (Bokmål), Farsi/Persian, Polish, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Portuguese (Portugal)
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 537
- UPCs
- 3
- ASINs
- 183