In “More on Utopia” by Brendan Bradshaw, Bradshaw argues that J.H. Hexter’s brilliant analysis of More’s Utopia is in fact “founded on an unsustainable hypothesis” (p. 2, para 1). Bradshaw also argues that although Edward Surtz’ interpretation of the text poses “many irrelevancies”, that his “hypothesis is basically sound” (p.2 para). It is not Bradshaw’s intention to refute or praise either interpretation but rather to recognize the achievements and mistakes of these interpretations. Bradshaw’s main method of proving his point is to fully state what Hexter believes and to state his interpretation of Utopia. Bradshaw then uses Fenlon’s paper on Utopia to describe why Hexter’s hypothesis is inaccurate.
Bradshaw begins to defend his argument by speaking about the traditional question of whether Utopia was proposed by More to be “an idyll or as an ideal”. Traditionally speaking, most people believe that Utopia is an idyll, an extremely happy and peaceful place that is idealized or unsustainable. However, Hexter interpreted Utopia to not be unattainable but rather a sparkplug for social revolution based on its Christian roots. Bradshaw continues to speak about Hexter’s view of utopia when he says, “In a word, book II of Utopia presents not an idyll but an ideal” (p.3, para 1). This ideal is something that people can emulate in order to help create a real utopian place that does not have to exist in the hypothetical world but that can be grounded in reality.
Hexter hypothesizes that because More was a deeply committed Christian and a social revolutionary. The Utopian commonwealth is forced to, “be interpreted as a Christian humanist statement about religion and society” (p3, para 3). Because of this interpretation, Hexter was able to prove that Utopia existed as the model Christian society that did not exist in Europe. He believed that the Utopians possessed the morals and values of what true Christians were supposed to be despite their lack of Christian institutions. This was contrary to More’s European society, which had Christian institutions but whose people did not possess the morals of the ideal Christian. Bradshaw goes on to explain Hexter’s argument in full detail so that his critiques cannot argue that he did not address any essential points in Hexter’s interpretation of Utopia. Bradshaw says that Hexter’s view of Utopia was not just of an ideal but that Hexter saw Utopian society as “A Christian ideal” (p.5, para 1).
Bradshaw believes that, “the ultimate significance of Book II lies in its critique of humanism itself”. Both Hexter and Fenlon can agree on this belief being at the center of Book II but Fenlon does not see the book as an attempt to, “improve the humanist scheme by reformulating it along more rigorous and more radical lines” (p.5 para 2). Bradshaw goes on to say that the More’s message is not meant to provide a plan on how to improve the humanist scheme but rather that the “humanist programme is misdirected and led nowhere” (p.5 para 3) . More names Book II, “Nowhere” and the humanists are stranded on an isolated island. Bradshaw concludes his argument by saying that, “Utopia is indeed the model of a Christian commonwealth, but a model which More wishes to expose as an illusion” (p. 5 para 3). Bradshaw believes that Hexter’s hypothesis sets off in the wrong direction and uses Hexter’s logic as well as Fenlon’s essay to prove so.