The theme of a ‘utopia’ – a place which is normally defined as the ideal state or place to live, is something which has captured the minds of writers and philosophers for centuries. The word ‘utopia’ itself is something of a word-play – in Greek, the word as sounded could mean either ευ-τοπος (good-place) or ου-τοπος (no-place), and the debate over which interpretation is correct is something which has lasted for almost as long as the concept of utopia itself! Plato’s Republic is a book which delineates in fine detail the republic that Plato has envisaged for his countrymen, detailing everything from the hierarchical structure right down to the educational syllabus for children. More’s Utopia, on the other hand, while it is ultimately a reworking of Plato’s own book, is a framework for More to reflect on the politics and social mores of his own time, and his experiences as Chancellor under Henry VIII. The concept of utopia itself is something which means different things to different people – something which could have anticipated the debate over the meaning of the word itself – so it is easy for both Plato and More’s work to be taken together under the same umbrella. Indeed, one way in which the debate over the concept has been explained away is to say that both interpretations of the word are correct – a utopia is an ideal state which is at the same time a state which is unattainable by most.
Plato’s Republic is not described explicitly in the book – instead, it is formed via dialogue between Socrates and a few interlocutors.
One difficulty, then, has been surmounted. It remains to be asked how we can make sure of having men who will preserve our constitution. What must they learn, and at what age should they take up each branch of study?
Yes, that is the next point. (Plato, VI, 502)
As mentioned above, Plato is different from More and other writers in that he doesn’t use his utopia as a means of commenting directly on his own society. His society is one which he feels will benefit the people in it (and those around it). While we could read condemnation of his own society into the very fact that Plato feels the need to create the perfect society in his own utopia, we must remember that he is a philosopher – thought experiments are what he does, even if these experiments are dismissed as being unsustainable or a pipe-dream (Mastin). In the case of the Republic, though this is somewhat mitigated by the existence of the Laws, Plato created his own society where he thought people could flourish, depending on their own status and aspirations in life.
When Thomas More wrote the Utopia, he had not yet become the supreme chancellor of England, though he did serve as one of Henry VIII’s privy councillors. In a direct contrast to Plato, instead of constructing a utopian society in its entirety in his book, More used the utopian society of the island almost as a backdrop to his own musings on the politics and social mores of sixteenth century England. By doing this, More manages to create a narrative wherein he can both write about the society he lives in, and at the same time create a new one. In a call-back to Plato, and further muddying the utopia translation debate, Raphael – the mouthpiece created by More as a physical embodiment of the Utopian ideals he wants to convey – Raphael sees himself as carrying on Plato’s own ideals for a utopia. Perhaps this was More connecting himself with the Classical tradition of philosophy, but there is an equal chance that he deliberately used Plato in-universe in an attempt to distance himself from those traditions. Since, like the Republic, More’s work features a conversation between two people – himself and Raphael – it would not be unusual to assume that this would take the form of a dialogue. Unusually, it doesn’t, instead having More relate everything in the form of a uninterrupted narrative. More’s utopia, while it is described in such vivid terms as Plato himself had used in the Republic, still seems more remote than the city-state described in that book. Why this is might be debated for years to come, since More is no longer here to ask. It might be argued that More’s purpose in writing the book is what spurred the change – where Plato has the entire dialogue to spend building his new world, More had to split his time between his own utopia, and the world as he knew it. It may even possibly be down to the narrative method used – not a dialogue, but instead something closer to a conventional storytelling set-up, as if More was dictating the work to a scribe.
In an interesting fashion, Plato and More embody both sides of the translation debate. Where ευ-τοπος means good-place – used when the utopia something which actually exists - we can see that Plato’s ideas for a city fit into this definition, right down to the fine detail of living conditions. On the other side of the debate, ου-τοπος – no-place – fits with More’s work, which has a utopian backdrop to his own writings about the world he lives in. The idea of utopia, as expressed by both Plato and More, is both similar and different to each other, though in separate ways. Plato followed up the Republic by writing the Laws several decades later – he still uses the book to expound on his perfect society, but it has been tempered by the passing time into something which is not quite so hopeful. Perhaps the changes in the concept of utopia and how both Plato and More approach it are down to the same thing – a gradual eroding of optimism. While the Republic is full of hope, not just because Plato himself was young when he wrote it, Utopia is quite dark, and it seems likely that this is down to the political climate which More found himself in at the time. The concept of Utopia seems to have changed between Plato and More as a direct result of the pressure they found themselves under.
Works Cited
Mastin, Luke. What is a Utopia? Utopian Literature, 2008. Web. Accessed 8 August 2016.
More, Thomas. Utopia. Kindle. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
Plato. The Republic of Plato. Translated by Francis Cornford, Oxford University Press, 1969.
