Utopia - is it really?

In Book one, page 543, Raphael states, “So I reflect on the wonderfully wise and sacred institutions of the Utopians, who are so well governed with so few laws.”  Yet, as I read Utopia, all I saw were laws. Although “rules” are throughout the book, for this rumination I’m focusing just on the many rules in place in the section on Social Relations (pages 553-556).

  Right away, I have to say that I wouldn’t picture a Utopian society as one that could just move people, “transferring individuals from a household with too many into a household with not enough. Likewise, if a city has too many people, the extra persons serve to make up a shortage of population in other cities”.  Who makes that decision and who makes the decision on who is to move, separating families and loved ones?

Let’s skip to mealtime.  Everyone in the city is required to eat together in one communal area.  How very generous that the first people served are those in the hospital. The rest is given out fairly, that is, except for the “special regard” to the governor, the high priest, etc.  They even have rules in place on who sits next to whom, with the children standing around and waiting to be handed food that someone feels like giving them.    Laws or rules, what’s the difference?

The next thing that really struck me was the preparation that the Utopians had for war.  For a people that were so against war, they were certainly prepared for it.  The lay out of the island itself is perfect for defense.  War was mentioned right in the beginning of book 2, with the description of the island.  From the channels that are known only to the Utopians, the garrison in the tower on a rock, and a well-fortified coast that could be defended using only a few Utopians for defense to the lay out of the cities, like Amaurot.  The description of the cities tells how they are surrounded by thick high walls, and ditches that are filled with thorn hedges. 

                                It is mentioned that Utopians are “ashamed when their forces gain a bloody victory”. They also, however, “exult mightily” if they overcome their enemies using skill and cunning.  (pg. 575) From this book, it appears they are very well prepared warriors.  It is even stated that “they try to take such bitter revenge on those who have injured them that they will be afraid to ever do it again.” 

                I also found it interesting that this peaceful people feel it’s “perfectly justifiable to make war on people who leave their land idle and waste, yet forbid the use of it to others who, by the law of nature, ought to be supported from it”. (pg. 554).  They’ve given themselves a perfectly reasonable explanation to just take what they want. If natives aren’t willing to conform to Utopian law, they wage war and just kicked them out! 

                 These are two things that really struck me while reading Utopia, as well as the slavery that others have already mentioned.  The very strict “rules” they have probably scare the citizens into complying. Did I miss, however, any mention of anyone else leaving this society, other than Raphael, who wanted to share his experience?

Execution of a King

My first thought when reading about the King was, How pompous!   He really had an inflated opinion of himself!  In his responses at his trial there is much reference to God and the disservice that is being done to Him.

But then, didn’t they all have a rather inflated opinion of themselves?  They changed the laws to be able to bring charges and hold a trial against the King for treason.  As listed on page 1738, those who wanted to get rid of the King had to get rid of half of parliament, and pass a law that redefined treason. Treason now was against the country and not against the King.  Then there was a sham of a trial, obviously he was going to die regardless! Another thing that I found interesting is in reading the footnotes.  Did anyone else happen to notice that most of those fine noble men that were involved in the King’s trial were later “executed after the Restoration”?   One man, John Bradshaw, was even posthumously convicted of treason, and his remains dug up and hung in chains! Going a little far there, don’t you think?

I also found it interesting that these new political writings, more abundant now that censorship was removed, were being used as tools for the political parties.  I immediately thought of how the same thing happens with the news media today (my opinion anyway).  According to our readings, these reports influenced people’s opinions and probably contributed to the problem. 

One last thing, on page 1738 it mentions that the King conducted himself with dignity, even at the end.  I do agree with that.  When reading his responses, I was amused at how he refused to answer the charges since those bringing the charges didn’t have the authority, at least in him mind, to accuse him of anything.  In the end, he asked for forgiveness for those who had committed this crime against him and even admitted to himself being influenced and committing this same sin against another, (his advisor, Thomas Wentworth).