Surtz, a learned professor of literature, did distinguish between More and his characters, and he agreed with Chambers that Utopia is the best state possible if one would rely on reason alone. Hexter never distinguished between the characters and the author of Utopia, and he considered the Utopians to be true Christians. Hexter, a historian, took Utopia more literally than Chambers. Chambers’ classic position that Utopia satirized the abuses in Europe by presenting a serious political ideal. Both, in wholly different ways, developed R.W. But before looking for the basis of this current view of More, let’s turn to a brief review of Utopian criticism as it has developed over the last forty years.ĭuring the 1950s and 1960s, J.H. Hexter and Edward Surtz, S.J., were the two most noted interpreters on Utopia. Accordingly, they were asked to edit and translate the Yale edition of Utopia, published in 1965. They explain Utopia as an attempt by More “to resolve the contradictions of his own divided impulses’’ or as an example of More’s youthful progressive spirit-a spirit that would become pathologically conservative in later life. If they do, the explanation given is psychological. Those holding the opinions just cited do not generally try to reconcile their interpretations with the corpus of More’s work or with the author’s reputation as prudent statesman, orthodox philosopher, and canonized saint. Such is the diverse opinion and confusion surrounding this little book. And the Soviets, seeing Utopia as one of the early communist prototypes, erected a monument honoring More near the center of Moscow. The Euthanasia Society of America considers the author of Uto pia as an early friend and patron of their particular cause. Many today herald Utopia as embodying “distinctively modern elements” in calling for radical political and economic reform others praise Utopia for advocating “open-ended dialogue” about fundamental ethical and political issues. This seems to be the sorry state of scholarly affairs as one turns to what is perhaps the most debated literary work of the Renaissance. In the middle are the many who do not believe truth exists and would define wisdom as a relative balance of moderate opinions. And Shakespeare is not to be studied to understand better the perennial truths of life, but as a vehicle for understanding isolated individuals who have not found it possible or necessary to confront vigorously the misconceptions and factual errors of those who blithely dismiss any one who turns to the great literature of the past for what was recognized as literature’s first and greatest function: to artfully and pleasantly teach wisdom to any who labored valiantly enough to acquire it. Thomas Cromwell, for example, becomes “the most remarkable statesman of the sixteenth century,” while Thomas More becomes a self-seeking and deceitful villain. These revisionists are having a dramatic effect on the commonplace understanding of the Renaissance, introducing as they have a whole new cast of heroes in an attempt to dethrone the old. Basic to this revision is the elimination of “nature” in favor of cultural fabrications of power they would also eliminate allusions to the soul in favor of assumptions concerning the historically conditioned self. On the one side are the few but well organized and well-positioned revisionists and New Historicists who wish to give validity to their radical revision of “values,” human nature, and political life. Anyone who has been a part of Renaissance literary studies over the last ten years realizes that the Renaissance has become a battleground of intense scholarly interest. “The struggle is not merely over an isolated work of genius but over a whole culture”-so says Stephen Greenblatt about Thomas More’s Utopia. By thinking through the limits and possibilities of political life, as presented in “Utopia,” the careful reader imitates Cicero and Thomas More by preparing for politics through the careful study of great literature.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |