RP4: Bradshaw’s More on Utopia Critique

In the article More on Utopia: The Historical Journal, the author Brendan Bradshaw presents an interesting twist on the way More’s utopia has always been viewed. He offers his view on J. H. Hexler’s interpretation of the classic utopian novel, which claims that More actually viewed the society as the epitome of a Christian commonwealth, instead of a pagan one, and was simply using irony to call attention to the notion that 16th century european countries, with governments built on Christian values, were pagan themselves. Bradshaw challenges this interpretation, asserting that More didn’t believe that living as a Christian should (as they did in Utopia according to Hexler) was the Christian virtue, but that virtue is Christ. This means though Utopians lived in accordance to Christian values, this was not enough to make them a supposed Christian society in More’s eyes.

Humanists, like More, would agree that “‘Christ is virtue’, in the sense that his life and teaching reveal definitely what it is to be truly virtuous” (Bradshaw 8). Erasmus, who shared similar beliefs as More, said “It follows that the virtuous pagan, even the most noble…and the most noble were surely the Utopians – could never be a true Christian” (Bradshaw 8), he goes on to say that this is because they are lacking the knowledge of the divine, which would allow them to be so. He asserts that the Utopians are as virtuous as pagans could possibly be, and yet because they are not in touch with Jesus, and do not use him as the figurehead of their cause to be just, they can never be considered truly Christian, nor Christian in a traditional sense. This is not to say that Christians atop a higher podium than Utopians when it comes to virtue, just that they have arrived at their current state through logic and reason, rather than Christian morals and Christ’s teaching.

The second part of Bradshaw’s argument addresses not the idea that Utopians could not be considered Christians but the concept that they could have reached their utopian state through morals obtained from logic and reason, rather than through religion. Then once at this heightened state of living, the Utopians would be happy to accept Christianity and exist as the most Christian society. A society cannot reach a truly virtuous based on just one of these factors however, for the moral must accept the teachings of Christ to be considered just in More’s eyes, but the religious must also accept reason and morality as an integral part of their Christian journey. More argued, “the purpose of Utopia as a religious polemic is not, therefore, to reduce Christianity to a matter of morality. Nor is it concerned to demonstrate the congruence of reason with revelation…Utopia considers the relationship between the two” (Bradshaw 13). Bradshaw proposes that More created Utopia as a dialogue to display that what is important is the combination of both.

While Hexler’s points do seem to make sense for the most part, Bradshaw’s challenges are all made with solid evidence. His case for More’s greater meaning in writing Utopia is one that is grounded in reason. When he says,“the possibility of constructive social, and political progress resides neither in the moral idealism of the intellectual alone nor the sceptical pragmatism of the politician, but in the constructive and continuing dialogue between the two” (Bradshaw 27), this is the summation of his argument, and total thesis. It is only through a combination of both rationality and religious virtue that a society could reach its peak in More’s eyes.

I have neither received nor given unauthorized assistance in the completion of this work.

Works Cited

Bradshaw, Brendan. “More on Utopia*.” Hist. J. The Historical Journal 24, no. 01 (1981): 1-27. Accessed September 30, 2015.