In \u201cMore on Utopia\u201d by Brendan Bradshaw, Bradshaw argues that J.H. Hexter\u2019s brilliant analysis of More\u2019s Utopia is in fact \u201cfounded on an unsustainable hypothesis\u201d (p. 2, para 1). Bradshaw also argues that although Edward Surtz\u2019 interpretation of the text poses \u201cmany irrelevancies\u201d, that his \u201chypothesis is basically sound\u201d (p.2 para). It is not Bradshaw\u2019s intention to refute or praise either interpretation but rather to recognize the achievements and mistakes of these interpretations. Bradshaw\u2019s main method of proving his point is to fully state what Hexter believes and to state his interpretation of Utopia. Bradshaw then uses Fenlon\u2019s paper on Utopia to describe why Hexter\u2019s hypothesis is inaccurate.<\/p>\n
Bradshaw begins to defend his argument by speaking about the traditional question of whether Utopia was proposed by More to be \u201can idyll or as an ideal\u201d. 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\u2019s view of utopia when he says, \u201cIn a word, book II of Utopia presents not an idyll but an ideal\u201d (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.<\/p>\n
Hexter hypothesizes that because More was a deeply committed Christian and a social revolutionary. The Utopian commonwealth is forced to, \u201cbe interpreted as a Christian humanist statement about religion and society\u201d (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\u2019s European society, which had Christian institutions but whose people did not possess the morals of the ideal Christian. Bradshaw goes on to explain Hexter\u2019s argument in full detail so that his critiques cannot argue that he did not address any essential points in Hexter\u2019s interpretation of Utopia. Bradshaw says that Hexter\u2019s view of Utopia was not just of an ideal but that Hexter saw Utopian society as \u201cA Christian ideal\u201d (p.5, para 1).<\/p>\n
Bradshaw believes that, \u201cthe ultimate significance of Book II lies in its critique of humanism itself\u201d. 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, \u201cimprove the humanist scheme by reformulating it along more rigorous and more radical lines\u201d (p.5 para 2). Bradshaw goes on to say that the More\u2019s message is not meant to provide a plan on how to improve the humanist scheme but rather that the \u201chumanist programme is misdirected and led nowhere\u201d (p.5 para 3) . More names Book II, \u201cNowhere\u201d and the humanists are stranded on an isolated island. Bradshaw concludes his argument by saying that, \u201cUtopia is indeed the model of a Christian commonwealth, but a model which More wishes to expose as an illusion\u201d (p. 5 para 3). Bradshaw believes that Hexter\u2019s hypothesis sets off in the wrong direction and uses Hexter\u2019s logic as well as Fenlon\u2019s essay to prove so.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In \u201cMore on Utopia\u201d by Brendan Bradshaw, Bradshaw argues that J.H. Hexter\u2019s brilliant analysis of More\u2019s Utopia is in fact \u201cfounded on an unsustainable hypothesis\u201d…<\/p>\n