A new source for more's ‘utopia’

The Historical Journal

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 493-498

  Parrish, John Michael ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010111456     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X97007243     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. ‘Nusquamam nostram nusquam bene scriptam ad te mitto: praescripsi epistolam ad Petrum meum.’ In P. S. Allen, ed., Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roderdami (Oxford, 1958), 11, no. 461
2. lines 1–2. Translation by Marcus Haworth from Elizabeth Rogers, ed., St. Thomas More: selected letters, (New Haven, Conn., 1961), no. 6, p. 73.
3. Rogers notes without explanation that ‘Nusquam’ was ‘More's first choice of title for the Utopia,’ p. 73, n. 1.
4. Plato, Republic, IX, 592.
5. Loeb Classical Library, VI, trans. Paul Shorey (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), p. 415.
6. These interpreters may have been unduly influenced into accepting a Greek source by the fact that the ‘ou-topia’ of More's title is in Greek. But the word ‘outopia’ does not appear in the passage from the Republic noted above; Plato uses the word ‘oudamos’. More seems to have coined the term ‘Utopia’ himself By pointing to More's curious use of the word ‘nusquam’ in his letter to Erasmus (as well as in two other letters concerned with Utopia's publication - Rogers, Selected letters, no. 7, p. 76 and no. 9, p. 80) I want to suggest that More could just as easily be alluding to a Latin source through a Greek compound. It goes without saying that the option of naming the island ‘ Nusquam’ was simply not open to More, as this would have given away the joke.
7. An interesting treatment of another aspect of More's use of Seneca (though neglecting the De otio) was offered byJohn Crossett in ‘More and Seneca’, Philological Quarterly, 40 (1961), 577–580.
8. ‘Quodsi non invenitur illa res publica, quam nobis fingimus, incipit omnibus esse otium necessarium, quia quod unum praeferri poterat otio, nusquam est.’ Seneca, De otio, Loeb Classical Library, Moral Essays, 11, trans. John W. Basore (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), p. 200. Emphasis mine.
9. Utopia, Book I: 48/33–50/3. The Yale edition of the complete works of St. Thomas More, iv, eds. Edward Surtz and J. H. Hexter (New Haven, Conn., 1965). Citations refer to the Latin text in this edition; quotations are taken from the facing-page translation. More seems to have shared Hythloday's opinion of the Romans. In his 1518 letter to Oxford University, he states flatly that, ‘Nam in philosophia, exceptis duntaxat his, quae Cicero et Seneca, nihil habent latinorum scholae, nisi vel graecum, uel quod e graeca lingua traductam est’. [‘For in philosophy, apart from the works left by Cicero and Seneca, the schools of the Latins have nothing to offer that is not either Greek or translated from Greek.’] Yale complete works, xv, ed. Daniel Kinney, 142/18–21.
10. The dialogue rehearses the arguments over the relative merits of the active and contemplative lives, between negotium and otium. For a very helpful account of how this debate figures in Book I, see Quentin Skinner, ‘Sir Thomas More's Utopia and the language of Renaissance humanism’, in Anthony Pagden, ed., The languages of political theory in early-modern Europe (Cambridge, 1987).
11. ‘“Accedet ad rem publicam, nisi si quid impedierit”.’ Seneca, De otio, p. 184.
12. See also Diogenes Laertius' ‘Life of Zeno’, Loeb Classical Library, Lives of eminent philosophers, 11, trans. R. D. Hicks (Cambridge, Mass., 1925), p. 224.
13. ‘Quid autem interest, quomodo sapiens ad otium veniat, utrum quia res publica illi deest, an quia ipse rei publicae, si non ubivis futura res publica est ? … Si percensere singulas voluero, nullam inveniam, quae sapientem aut quam sapiens pati possit.’ Seneca, De otio, p. 200.
14. The argument is most fully illustrated by Hythloday in the episode at the French king's court, at Utopia, Book I: 86/20–96/31.
15. Erasmus, to Ulrich von Hutten, 23 July 1519. Letter no. 999, The correspondence of Erasmus, trans. R. A. B. Mynors, annotated by Peter G. Bietenholz (Toronto, 1974),VII, lines 279–284.
16. J. H. Hexter, More's ‘Utopia’: the biography of an idea (Princeton, 1952). See also Hexter's introduction to the Yale edition of Utopia.
17. ‘Quam magna populi pars iners degit.’ Utopia, Book II: 128/35.
18. Utopia, Book II: 122–4.
19. ‘Siquidem alibi de publico loquentes ubique commodo, priuatum curant.’Utopia, Book II: 238/1–2.
20. ‘Hic ubi nihil priuati est, serio publicum negotium agunt, certe utrobique merito.’ Utopia, Book II: 238/1–3.
21. ‘Gens facilis ac faceta, sollers, ocio gaudens, corporis laborum (quum est usus), satis patiens, Caeterum alias haudquaquam sane appetens.’ Utopia, Book II: 178/30–180/1.
22. ‘Quicquid inter operis horas ac somi cibique medium esset, id suo cuiusque arbitrio permittitur, non quo per luxum, aut segnitiem abutatur, sed quod ab opificio suo liberum, ex animi sententia in aliud quippiam studij bene collocet.’ Utopia, Book II: 126/32–128/3.
23. ‘Neque enim superuacaneo labore ciues inuitos exercent magistratus: quandoquidem eius reipublicae institutio hunc unum scopum in primis respicit: ut quoad per publicas necessitates licet: quam plurimum temporis ab seruitio corporis ad animi libertatem cultumque ciuibus uniuersis assuratur. In eo enim sitiam uitae felicitatem putant.’ Utopia, Book II: 134/15–20.
24. Like Epicurus, the Utopians believe that certain pleasures are true, others false; also like Epicurus, they believe that the wise man will not choose a pleasure that interferes with experiencing a greater pleasure. Utopia, Book II: 162/7–15.
25. In a marginal gloss: ‘Hoc iuxta Stoicos.’ [‘The definition of the Stoics.’] Utopia, Book II: 162/19.
26. Hythloday presents these beliefs, in which he says the Utopians seek defence for their hedonism, at Utopia, Book II: 160/31 -162/4.
27. Edward Surtz points out how this relates to the debate between the Stoics and the Epicureans in The praise of pleasure (Cambridge, Mass., 1957), p. 26.
28. Utopia, Book II: 162/15–2 2.
29. It is to this passage that the marginal gloss quoted above refers. Seneca, De otio, p. 182.
30. Utopia, Book II: 186/5–22.
31. For the Stoic rationale of suicide, see J. M. Rist, Stoic philosophy (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 233–255.
32. I am grateful to Richard Tuck for pointing out to me how unusual (possibly even unprecedented) the Utopians'justification for their imperialism actually is. If my argument here is correct, it raises the intriguing possibility that Stoic moral theory might be the indirect progenitor of a whole host of'use-right'justifications for property and imperialism.
33. ‘Nam eam iustissimam belli causam ducunt, quum populus quispiam eius soli quo ipse non utitur, sed uelut inane ac uacuum possidet, alijs tamen qui ex naturae praescripto inde nutriri debeant, usum ac possessionem interdicat.’ Utopia,Book II: 136/14–17.
34. Diogenes Laertius, ‘Life of Zeno’, p. 228.
35. Diogenes Laertius, ‘Life of Zeno’, p. 228.
36. The Stoics also endorse the community of wives (p. 234)
37. as does Plato in the Republic (pp. 152–8)
38. Erasmus [to Ulrich von Hutten, letter no. 999, lines 275–7] tells us More had in his youth written a ‘paradoxical’ dialogue praising Plato's communism and extending it even to wives.