The New Republic: A Commentary on Book I of More’s Utopia Showing Its Relation to Plato’s Republic

I. More's Criticism of the Platonic Separation of the Classes

30 THE NEW REPUBLIC: A COMMENTARY had merely presented Raphael's description of Utopia. Coming literally from another world, its ideas would have had no chance of being seri­ ously considered unless their relation to the actual situation of his readers was first established.29 This is the function of the Dialogue of Book I. It is intended to prepare the reader to receive a new and truer position by first showing the inadequate nature of the traditional solu­ tions based on what had become received truths and long­unexamined presuppositions. I. More's Criticism of the Platonic Separation of the Classes Let us now turn to the argument of the Dialogue in Book I beginning at 55/15. In it Raphael, speaking for More the author, aims to show that the two most essential features of the old order are in fact the cause of the problems in contemporary Europe. Both were ultimately derived from the teaching of Plato's Republic. Raphael attacks the Platonic dogma that "commonwealths will finally be happy only if either philosophers become kings or kings turn to philosophy" (87/12­13; see Republic 473c,d; 499b,c), and he criticizes the notion that there can be no true republic where the Platonic distinction between the three classes of philosopher­king, guardians and craftsmen was not observed (see Republic II­IV). Raphael first attacks the necessity of separating the three classes in the episode at Cardinal Morton's (59/19­85/38) where the traditional (i.e., Platonic) position is defended by the pompous lawyer. His argu­ ment against the desirability of a philosopher­king begins after this when he turns the conversation to the problem of counselling a king (87/26). Here the character More argues against Raphael in favour of the traditional (i.e., Platonic) position that there can only be "a distant prospect of happiness if philosophers will not condescend even to impart their counsel to kings" (87/13­15). The Dialogue begins with Giles' astonishment that Raphael, the quin­ tessential philosopher, did not "attach himself to some king" (55/15­16) where his learning and experience would surely be welcome as enter­ taining and also, possibly, of some assistance. This, says Giles, "would not only serve [Raphael's] own interests excellently but [would] be of great assistance in the advancement of all [his] relatives and friends" (55/20­22). In this remark we start with the very lowest view of the philosopher and the highest view of the king which is, no doubt, the position More thought most of his readers actually held. The philoso­ COMMENTARY ON BOOK I OF MORE'S UTOPIA 31 pher here is merely an entertainer who might accidentally be of assist­ ance to the king by "furnishing him with examples" (55/19) and he is thought to be moved by the most vulgar, immediate and sophistic of reasons—personal gain and the advancement of his family. The king,on the other hand, who has allpower and knowledgeand needs the philoso­ pher only to divert and "amuse" himself (oblectare, 54/16), is exalted to the highest position. It is no wonder that Raphael, spurningthis sugges­ tion, calls it not serviced but "servitude" (servitium, 54/26­27).In this role the philosopher is simply a toy of kings, a kept curiosity like the dwarves at the court of Philip IV in the paintings of Velasquez. In his answer Raphael demonstrates that he is moved by neither of these reasons. He has no desire for possessions. And the interests of his family have been reasonably looked after since he has already given them all his wealth (55/23­31). Peter, dismissing as mere words the question of whether his proposal involves service or servitude (55/ 32­33),30 holds on to his point, but now witha subtle change. He reverses the stress of his former statement insisting first on the "profitable contribution" (conducere, 54/31) a philosopher can bring to the com­ monwealth. His own advancement to a happier condition is now only a secondary concern (55/35­39). The main gain is for others and the private good is no longer wealth, which Raphael clearly did not want, but the honour and power he would acquire. Raphael refuses these as well (57/1­6). How could his own condition be made better when,in order to gain status and power, he wouldhave to toady to the king?He has pointed out that these gains can only be had...