{"id":69,"date":"2015-12-15T16:45:22","date_gmt":"2015-12-15T21:45:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/?page_id=69"},"modified":"2015-12-15T16:45:22","modified_gmt":"2015-12-15T21:45:22","slug":"response-paper-4","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/response-paper-4\/","title":{"rendered":"Response Paper 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/em>Bradshaw\u2019s \u201cMore on Utopia\u201d<\/p>\n

In \u201cMore on Utopia\u201d, Bradshaw explains past interpretations of Utopia <\/em>and looks more into More\u2019s purpose in writing it. His main argument is centered around Hexter\u2019s interpretation and hypothesis on Utopia, which Bradshaw claims is \u201cunsustainable\u201d[i]<\/a>. However, Bradshaw does not attempt to falsify Hexter\u2019s theory, but rather he examines it further and builds upon it as well as past knowledge to better understand Utopia. <\/em>Bradshaw goes about this by trying to answer two main questions. First, he tries to determine what More intended to describe in writing Utopia<\/em>, and second, what More\u2019s purpose was in describing it[ii]<\/a>. Bradshaw begins by claiming that before Hexter gave his interpretation, Utopia <\/em>was meant to be taken literally. Bradshaw stated that it was simply meant to \u201cdepict how reasonable human beings might organize their society relying on the powers of natural reason\u201d[iii]<\/a>. Because of this, Bradshaw moved on to his second question- what was the purpose of writing it? Bradshaw claims there are a few different interpretations, the most traditional of which examines \u201cwhether the utopian commonwealth was proposed by more as an idyll or as an ideal\u201d[iv]<\/a>. This is a widely accepted debate, and one which is intertwined throughout Bradshaw\u2019s argument. Here, Bradshaw shifts to Hexter\u2019s point that Utopia<\/em> is connected with Christianity. He states that because the central aspect of Christianity is virtuous living, \u201cthe Utopians, despite their lack of Christian rituals, are true Christians, while the inhabitants of Europe, despite their observance of Christian rituals, are not\u201d[v]<\/a>. This presents a unique and ironic paradox because the pagan utopians are virtuous, whereas the Christian Europeans are egotistic and are concerned with wealth and power. The idea that Utopia was meant to serve as a model of a true Christian society continues to be the core of the argument and is used to prove that \u201cUtopia is not a pagan idyll. It is a Christian ideal\u201d[vi]<\/a>. However, this leads to Bradshaw\u2019s shift where he begins to look at the counterarguments to Hexter\u2019s hypothesis. It is agreed that Utopia <\/em>is a model of a Christian society, despite the lack of the actual acts religion. However, Fenlon proposes it is more of an illusion, therefore bringing it back to the original debate of whether it is an idyll or an ideal. He continues to disprove it by saying, \u201cwhen More depicted the utopians as a community that lacked knowledge of the Christian gospel, he could never have intended them to provide a model of a truly Christian commonwealth\u201d[vii]<\/a>. He argues that it is impossible for anyone to come to that conclusion when there is no real evidence to prove it. Therefore, he claims Utopia<\/em> has to be taken as a non-Christian society that is purely based on morals and virtue and separated from religion. Throughout the article, Bradshaw presented his argument through other scholars\u2019 interpretations of the text, to which Bradshaw examined and then built upon.<\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> Brendan Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>,\u201d The Historical Journal<\/em> 24(1), 2<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>\u201d, 2<\/p>\n

[iii]<\/a> Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>\u201d, 2<\/p>\n

[iv]<\/a> Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>\u201d, 2<\/p>\n

[v]<\/a> Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>\u201d, 4<\/p>\n

[vi]<\/a> Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>\u201d, 5<\/p>\n

[vii]<\/a> Bradshaw, \u201cMore on Utopia<\/em>\u201d, 8<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0Bradshaw\u2019s \u201cMore on Utopia\u201d In \u201cMore on Utopia\u201d, Bradshaw explains past interpretations of Utopia and looks more into More\u2019s purpose in writing it. His main argument is centered around Hexter\u2019s interpretation and hypothesis on Utopia, which Bradshaw claims is \u201cunsustainable\u201d[i]. However, Bradshaw does not attempt to falsify Hexter\u2019s theory, but rather he examines it further … Continue reading Response Paper 4<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2393,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-69","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/69","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2393"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/69\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/utopias05\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}