Insert Clever Utopia Title Here

Right off the bat, Thomas More gave me a kind of annoying vibe. His letter to Peter Giles had quite a few humblebrags and he's super shady about Raphael. Literally (used in the literal sense not the figurative one) within the first paragraph he's saying that Raphael is "hurried and impromptu" in his way of speaking, as well as speaking with "careless simplicity".

Thomas also talks for like a paragraph about how he's so busy doing so many things for other people, if Raphael had not been so simple, and were his job more difficult than just transcribing Raphael's story, he would not have been able to finish. Okay Thomas, we get it. That being said, he clearly respects Giles' opinion; on page 24, he's telling of how he questioned his children's tutor on something but if Giles concurred More was comfortable changing his opinion on the matter, a seemingly big step for such a pompous guy. (I'm not sure if this is actually how More feels or if he's projecting a character?) 

I also respect the fact that More asks Giles to contact Raphael and make sure that nothing is wrong or forgotten. It seems that while More is arrogant and condescending, he also really cares about the work he's putting out into the world which is a great quality to have. 

actual video of Thomas More

Another thing: oh my god this title. "Utopia: The Best State of a Commonwealth, The Discourse of the Extraordinary Character, Raphael Hythlodaeus, as Reported by the Renowned Figure, Thomas More, Citizen and Sheriff of the Famous City of Great Britain, London" [sic]. That's all I have to say about that. 

Book 1 didn't really pull me in. This introductory letter grabbed me more than Raphael's monologue did. However, from what I gathered, Raphael thought that being in service to kings was no better than being a slave to them and would rather not be involved. He has some great one-liners which would make for nice sound-bites. 

Examples: 

• "Almost all princes prefer to occupy themselves in the pursuits of war rather than in the honorable activities of peace" (32)
• "It is only natural for everyone to like his own brainchild the best: the crow is delighted with his chick, the ape pleased with his cub" (33) 
• "...it is never safer to follow a wicked purpose than to repent it" (42)

So, it is safe to say that Raphael goes against the grain, and as many others have pointed out in their blogs this week, that he dislikes the "sheeple" in society. 

I wikipedia'd More and found out that, "More insisted upon giving his daughters the same classical education as his son, a highly unusual attitude at the time." That's irrelevant to this blog post but I think it's awesome. So maybe he's not so annoying after all. 

Politics...Evil sheep ruling the world.

    So Raphael has some pretty strong political beliefs. He knows what he wants to see in a perfect society and what he does not want. He also has plenty of examples that help him prove his point about a belief. I guess that comes from his age and wisdom as well as all  of his travels and how he was able to see how other societies worked and did not work. 

    His idea that no matter how good a policy is it will always look insane to someone who sees the world differently is spot on. That idea is still relevant now. If people have a different view and idea of how the world works it will be hard to get them to abandon that idea. 

       I also liked how he did not think that thieves should be getting the same death penalty as murders. Yes they committed a crime but the crime is not that bad that they need that severe of a punishment. Killing them off also really doesn’t realistically stop people from stealing. To stop someone from stealing you would have to find the root of the problem, the reason why they are stealing, and try and fix that. He says that the reason why some have resorted to stealing is because of sheep farming. They are being run off of their land and have no choice but to beg, since they aren’t needed as farmers since their land is being used for something else.

 

      Sheep really do get a bad name due to the practice of enclosure. When Raphael mentions how sheep used to be mild and content but now they are so greedy and wild that they devour men, all I see is a demonic sheep. I just imagine a secret gathering of sheep plotting on how to kill off the humans. That is a really creepy thought to have enclosure compared to it seems like he has a problem with the idea of landowners using their power to fill their pockets and starve the little guy.

Exactly Who's Utopia is This Going to Be?

Before I dig into the political meat of Book One, I'd like to point out something subtly noted in the letter Thomas More sent to Peter Giles. Basically, More admits he didn't ask the first thing most cognitively functioning human beings ask when a location is described to them, "where is it?" Even more conveniently, Raphael Hythloday forgot to mention it, which makes no sense considering the first chapter of Book Two is literally titled "Geography of Utopia." I cheated a little and flipped forward to see how specific the geography gets otherwise, and let me tell you, it's pretty specific. It just makes me wonder - why was the detail of Utopia's exact location left out? I know More actually coined the term Utopia in reality. Was he trying to metaphorically announce that Utopia didn't exist but could exist anywhere?

Sidebar: I just Googled "Raphael Hythloday" (to make sure I was spelling it correctly because I was too lazy to pick up the book) and according to some website called Grade Saver, "Raphael" is the name of a Biblical angel, but "Hytholoday" means "peddler of nonsense." What the heck? Why would More choose this name for the fictional man who's sole role is to explain things that are apparently not nonsense?

Anyways, I read through all of Raphael's political stances, ideas, concepts, solutions, or whatever you'd like to call them, and agreed with some but disagreed with others.

Agree: Capitol punishment is practically pointless because it eliminates the criminals, not crime. In addition, the punishment of death won't stop a thief who steals to put food on the table for his family. The system almost manufactures these kinds of thieves, then blames them, and why should they be punished with the same intensity as murderers?

Disagree: Private property should be abolished and replaced with communal property to create more prosperity. I disagree with this because I study psychology and I understand that private ownership is considered a right to individualistic people, and you would definitely decrease prosperity if you took it away from those who have had it and told those who didn't get a chance to have it that they never will. More also disagrees with Raphael but claims that communal property would leave no room for prosperity because the people will have no incentive to work, then they would disrespect authority. Well, I also disagree with More. There are plenty of societies in history we can look at who have abolished private ownership, and prosperity wasn't dead and gone, it was just equalized among members of society.

I might have this backwards or entirely wrong, but Raphael sounds consistenently liberal throughout Book One while his opposers sound conservative. I wonder if Raphael's/More's Utopia is going to be more liberal than conservative, especially since More wrote himself as a character who expresses disagreement with Raphael's ideas. Isn't Utopia different for every single person anyways?

Remember: Utopia is defined as an "imagined place or state of things"...DEFINED as IMAGINED...

Utopia by Thomas More.

Sheep Hater

          For a work of fiction, Moore seems greatly concerned that it be factual in nature. It seems strange to me though since Utopia doesn't really exist why he needs to add information such as where it exists on a map to the story. I'm also a bit confused on why the theologian says he wants to go to Utopia. Does he not know that it isn't real? 

          I find it interesting how when talking about Raphael's travels, he mentions how Raphael didn't talk about the mundane things that were everyday occurrences but how he talked about "...well and wisely trained citizens..." who were "...not to be found everywhere." The use of the word trained makes it sound to me that Moore thinks citizens and civilization should be robotic, like a well oiled machine. This is concerning to me because people are not robots and never will be. Is this the kind of society he envisions for Utopia? 

          When Raphael was discussing England's problem with thieves, he brings up a couple of interesting points. One is that due to sheep farming, people are being run off of their land and have no choice but to beg, as their services as farmers aren't needed once they are off the farmland and have no other skills to offer. It seems to me that Raphael has a real problem with capitalism in the sense of the big guy squashing the little guy. I don't know if this means he believes in a society similar to socialism. Another point he brings up is that since all of the land is being taken over for pasture, whole towns are destroyed, "...leaving only a church for a barn." I see this as Raphael finds it important to have spaces within towns for citizens to better themselves such as a library or a park. I find it interesting that he starts off the passage not by attacking the sheep farmers but by saying how terrible the sheep themselves are, those greedy little man eaters. What does he have against sheep?

How Raphael imagines the sheep.

An Honest Liar

I found the Pardoner to be first and foremost one of the sleaziest characters I’ve encountered in literature. After reading his prologue, I felt like I needed to wash the sliminess of his conman ways from my hands and my brain. It was pretty gross. Then, I got to his tale.

His tale is intriguing. He is definitely an immoral man, but this is a pretty straightforward and moral tale. If someone like the parson, or even the knight, had told this tale, I would have had a different perception of it.

While I’ve encountered “do as I say, not as I do” people, I can’t say that I have ever met one who so readily and calmly admits it. Most of the people who are like this go out of their way to ensure that no one figures out this flaw in their character. The Pardoner doesn’t care whether or not people know. He’s okay with what he does, even if it is wrong.

Reading his prologue did strike up a thought about what a hypocrite really is. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. Interesting…I don’t know of anyone who isn’t a hypocrite in some way. They aren’t an uncommon figure. They’re all over the place, yet we as the readers are automatically compelled to point fingers and be angry at this one guy who is honest about his hypocrisy. In pointing out the Pardoner’s hypocritical speeches and saying “See? See how awful this guy is? What a slime ball!”, are we worried that someone will point out the hypocrite in us? I’m a hypocrite. Let’s face it, you probably have been, too. In looking at the Pardoner, I found that my finger was pointing right back at me. Go figure.

On another note, the role of the old man in the Pardoner’s tale was really intriguing. I think he’s Death. My reasoning for this mostly comes from the fact that in many stories that I’ve read, Death doesn’t usually ignore threats directed at him. If the three guys in the bar we ranting and raving about how they were going to kill Death (which is a funny enough phrase by itself), I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility for Death himself to show up to prove a point. In this case, he took the form of an old man. Death usually isn’t stupid in stories. He is pretty clever and not above trickery. The three guys are drunk.  They’re not exactly thinking clearly. Why wouldn’t they believe that some random old guy they’ve never seen before is telling the truth? He had an easy answer, and all they had to do was stumble over to the tree. It wasn’t like they had to go on this long journey. And hey, they did find Death.

I pledge I have neither given nor recieved any unauthorized aid on this assignment.

Pardoner or Hypocrite??

I just want to start by pointing our that the Pardoner is so gross and crude that people tell him that they'll only listen to his story if it's one with moral...
     
        But right anon thise gentils gonne to crye,
        "Nay! lat him telle us of no ribaudye;
        Tel us som moral thing, that we may lere
        Som wit, and thanne wol we gladly here."

And then, on top of his grossness, hypocrisy seems to be his way of life! "My thee is alwey oon, and evere was- / Radix malorum est Cupiditas" (333). Which means that the love of money is the root to all evil, and yet...he's a pardoner!! He literally forgives the sins of others in exchange for money! And call me crazy, but if he was truly a God-fearing man, he would pardon people out of the kindness of his heart, not out of a desire for a heavier purse.

Not to mention, he preaches about the sin of covetousness and avarice, but he practices both himself. If fact, helping and pushing people to repent these sins is the very way that he feeds into his own vices (which he admits to around lines 424-434). And it would also appear to me that he targets those who are of less intelligence than him, because he believes that they are easier to trick because of their love of tales
    
        "For lewed peple loven tales olde;
        Swich thinges can they wel reporte and holde.
        What, trowe ye, the whyles I may preche
        And winne gold and silver for I teche
        That I wol live in poverty wilfully?

And to make me dislike him even more, he tells in his tale of people that drink and gamble and make false oaths, and says that all of those things are sins and whatnot. And yet again, he showcases his hypocrisy by the very fact that while he tells the tale, he himself is drunk. LOL he's so annoying...

I dislike the Pardoner.

Pardon Me, Sir

Okay, so here's the deal: the Pardoner is one greedy little dude. Frankly, I don't like him one bit. I mean, yeah, his story is interesting and everything, but like, he's all about the money and quite frankly, he doesn't care about much else.

Anyway, he's real big on sinning, and not just the "I'm selling this church stuff so pay me" kind of sinning. Like the dude is into partying and chicks, kinda like that drunken frat guy at the function that nobody's trying to mess with because he's just too sloppy. Real classy, Pardoner. 

The end of this tale is pretty funny/strange, like the two friends set out on a mission and end up killing each other... Which I mean, probably isn't the worst outcome that could have happened. I'm not gonna lie, it wasn't much of a loss. Maybe Chaucer did us all a favor and thought that we simply needed something like that to happen. My dear Geoffrey, you were correct.