Wednesday, October 21, 1998

The Irony of Utopia

During the nearly five centuries since the initial publication of More’s Utopia, critics have found themselves in two rather contradictory interpretive frameworks. Indeed, More’s seemingly contradictory text serves to promote such scholarly disagreement. It seems more likely, however, that the author did not in fact intend Utopia to be viewed as an ideal community, or for the text itself to be taken completely seriously: he is able to “[discuss] serious problems, but not in a humourless or depressing way” (p. 83). Modern readers might first be misled by the work’s title, as “Utopia” means no place in its Greek etymology, and does not refer to the modern lexicon. Throughout the text, More subverts the apparent realism of this fictional country by displaying its flaws and inconsistencies. One can conclude that he was highly sceptical whether a true utopia could in fact be created by humans.

An initial reading of the text may suggest that More is advancing a perfect community in which to live. The Utopians base their society and religious beliefs on the ideology of perfect happiness. This contentment comes through good deeds and a healthy lifestyle, while all other pleasures are illusory. While this theory is indeed noble and well-intentioned, it seems unlikely to have been practised in Utopia. Through several inconsistencies, one is led to question whether the Utopians themselves were in fact happy within their society. For More, the Utopian belief that the ultimate motive for life was the pursuit of pleasure was fallacious. Hythlodaeus repeatedly stresses that citizens were to put the desires of the community above their own, yet it seems that they are not provided with a satisfactory reason for doing so, and indeed this belief is in contradiction with an individual’s pursuit of pleasure. They reasoned that human nature was naturally virtuous, “which in their definition means following one’s natural impulses” (p. 91). Yet, such individual liberties cannot exist without harming some members of the community. Hythlodaeus states that many Utopians found happiness in relieving the discomforts of others despite increasing their own, yet they do not “boast about their own” lives and accomplishments (p. 122). He then seems to belie the good intentions of the Utopians by stating that some citizens erect statues of themselves as a tribute to their good deeds. Consequently, they are forced to believe in an afterlife since the absence of money and glory precludes a reward on earth for a morally-correct life. By pressuring its citizens to act in a good manner, Utopia removes from them the spiritual happiness and fulfilment that comes through the acceptance of God through the free will of humanity. Since they lack such a ‘pure’ relationship with God, they do not gain any revelation from Its wisdom. The prayer to Mythras demonstrates such a problematic situation:

I thank thee ... for letting me live in the happiest possible society, and
practise what I hope is the truest religion. If I am wrong, and if some
other religion or social system would be better and more acceptable to
Thee, I pray in Thy goodness to let me know it (p. 128)

Hythlodaeus states that the Utopians have no capacity for relevation, however, and thus they must perpetually exist in their vacuous and static society. They accept their religious principles not through religious revelation, but alternately through reason (p. 91). Therefore, it can be concluded that the social order of Utopia is based on a rational ideology, and not in any way ordained by God. More would have found such a society intolerable.

A more careful reading of the first book of Utopia provides a parallel which contradicts the supposition of the Utopians as a content people living in a perfect society. While the Utopians live in relative peace and stability, it becomes clear that they have no freedom in any fashion. Citizens have the freedom to travel within their local communities, but if they leave without permission they are severely reprimanded; “for a second offence the punishment is slavery” (p. 84). Hythlodaeus subverts this law with a line from the Utopians’ religious philosophy: “perfect happiness implies complete freedom of movement” (p. 121). This restriction likens them to the prisoners in the nation of the Tallstorians (pp. 51-3). Additionally, citizens are moved around the island at the will of their supervisors to balance the population. Similarly, there is no freedom of thought, although this was not an overt restriction. Children were taught “the right ideas about things — the sort of ideas best calculated to preserve the structure of their society” (p. 124). However, the Utopian religion seems somewhat contradictory, as “one of the most ancient principles of their constitution is religious toleration” (p. 119), yet one ‘destructive’ ideal, atheism, is in fact completely forbidden (pp. 119-20). The Utopians’ practise of such conservatism is in fact parallel to More’s own beliefs as a conservative Catholic, and as a man who convicted several heretics. The stability of their society is stressed, however; they neither engage in many wars with foreign powers, nor do they have internal disputes. Yet, as has been stated earlier, More does not consider them truly happy. Instead, they live in a society of physical well-being without any genuine spiritual contentment. Such a life is fallacious, as Hythlodaeus states: “freedom from pain is anaesthesia” (p. 96). As they lacked any true connection with God, More would agree with his ‘dispenser of nonsense’.

Utopia was definitely constructed by More in a paradoxical and somewhat unclear manner for a specific purpose. He wanted the intellectuals of his age to contemplate the problems it addressed. Simultaneously, however, he did not wish any radical subversions to the established English court society of which he was a part. Humour and satire were therefore the principle methods by which he achieved his goal. Utopia was to be taken lightheartedly, and indeed, one can thus understand the self-referential irony in Hythlodaeus’s doubts whether “there was anything in Latin that [the Utopians] would like very much” (p. 99). Indeed, they would not have liked the portrait that More painted of them.

Bibliography

More, Thomas. Utopia. Trans. Paul Turner. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1981.


New, Peter. Fiction and Purpose In Utopia, Rasselas, The Mill on the Floss, and Women In Love. Hong Kong: MacMillan Press, Ltd, 1985.

Thursday, October 15, 1998

The conversion of Europe to Christianity

While there can be no denying the importance and influence of Christianity on Europe in the early middle ages, many source documents belie the rapidity and extent of its adoption. Reading the sources from Bede and other contemporaries, one’s initial impression is that the change from paganism to Catholicism was immediate and all-encompassing. It must be noted that many of the sources were composed after the majority of Europe had already been Christianized, and thus present an obviously biassed perspective of the events they describe. This is especially true as the documents were neither firsthand accounts nor officially issued texts. Alternately, they constitute part of the historical “scholarship” of the period, a nearly fictional method of historical writing in the tradition of authors dating back to the Greek historians such as Thucydides and Xenophon. To provide a thematic context, conversations between historical figures are provided in a narrative, as though the author had been present. The excerpts from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History are notable for utilising this narrative device.

Bede provides a fictional framework not in an effort to record a verbatim account of the meeting between the missionary Paulinus and King Edwin of Northumbria, but instead to convey the important themes of such encounters between Christians and pagan leaders. Arguably, the most predominant motif advanced by the author is the rationality of adopting Christianity. Bede emphasizes that the Christian church does not rely on appeals to the senses to influence non-believers, but instead through rational discussion and argument. One can speculate that Christians of this period believed their religion to be infinitely more civilized and logically coherent than the varied and obviously primitive collection of pagan religions that they encountered throughout Europe. Consequently, Bede reflects such a belief in the pro-Christian sympathies of his council of wise men. They present their arguments in a highly reasonable manner, following a logical progression, and indeed, the King is easily persuaded by them. Similarly, in the subsequent document a similar logic is used to convince a later king to accept the central rule of Rome over the isolated traditions of Christian Ireland. Here again the customs of a rural and still somewhat pagan people, the Irish, are overtly mocked by Bede, through the speech by Wilfrid: “And if that Columba of yours...was a holy man and powerful in miracles, yet could he be preferred before the most blessed chief of the Apostles [Peter]” (p. 83). Once again the king cannot disregard the wisdom of his advisors; the sequence seems almost formulaic in its construction.

It is through the council of wisemen in the first document, however, that Bede reveals his biases against pagan religions. The wise men proclaim the uselessness of their pagan tradition, and consequently their dissatisfaction with it; this remains the subtext throughout these two sources. One of their number—Coifi—states that “the religion which we have hitherto professed has no virtue in it and no profit” (p. 81), and similarly that “This long time I have perceived that what we worshipped was naught; because the more diligently I sought after truth in that worship, the less I found it” (p. 82). It seems unlikely that any ancient religion was quite so unsatisfying as here insisted by Edwin’s priests. Similarly, another councillor states of life that “what is to follow or what went before we know nothing at all” (p. 82). For several reasons, it is quite clear from this statement that Bede was writing for a Christian readership. His ignorance of pagan theology is quite evident and shared with many Christians of the time. These pagan tribes almost assuredly had some idea of what “went before”, as all peoples have some degree of mythology surrounding creation and death. Additionally, Bede implies the notion that there is an afterlife which provides a meaning for life and that it is the truth to which all people aspire; this is an explicitly Christian ideology. In both sources the wisemen immediately display a determined enthusiasm to convert to the new religion, in complete disregard for their own ancient traditions. Their conversation implies that conversion would be immediate and painless, as though one set of morals and beliefs could easily be disregarded in favour of another. Coifi states that if Christianity is found to be “better and more efficacious, we hasten to receive them without further delay” (p. 81). To Bede’s Christian readers, such a quick and uncomplicated conversion would be only natural for the uncivilized pagans. His text seems to be a justification and a confirmation toward Christian readers for their beliefs.

Simultaneously however, Bede’s text implies that the pagan peoples of Britain had the inherent intelligence to understand the righteousness of Christianity through such logical means. He was himself of Anglo-Saxon descent, so such a connexion is elementary. A different characterization is provided by Willibald, a biographer of the Roman missionary Boniface, and likely not German himself. The Roman priest faced consistent opposition to his evangelical work in Germany as the various tribes retained their beliefs in their traditional gods. Although reason did manage to convert a number of Germans to Christianity, many others remained pagan. A miracle was required— an appeal to the senses—in order to convince the tribes of the truth in Christianity. Similar to the conversions in Bede’s text, in this instance conversion was instantaneous: “When the pagans who had cursed did see this, they left off cursing and, believing, blessed God” (p. 85). Indeed, this pattern of conversion is obviously shared with Bede’s text, and is perhaps a convention of the literature; it is merely another standard tale among a host of conversion myths. A more likely purpose for the story, however, is suggested by the final line of the selected text: “Then the most holy priest [Boniface]...built from the wood of the tree an oratory, and dedicated it to the holy apostle Peter” (p. 85). This line intimates that the story provided a mythological history for a pre-existing oratory in the region, perhaps an oral tradition in the area, or perhaps invented by Willibald himself. If the latter is in fact the case, then it is likely that the author adapted the literary tradition of the conversion to a chronicle of the German area without any real historical basis for doing so.

An initial study of the source documents selected may convey to the reader the sense of the inevitability of the conversion of Europe to Christianity. Seemingly, it provided a more logical and compassionate religion than did the old pagan traditions. Additionally, the process of conversion itself appears immediate, complete, and uncomplicated by any moral dilemmas. The reverse was more likely to have occurred. The overturning of the ancient traditions of pagan Europe must have occurred over several decades— perhaps even centuries—and not without any moral and ethical complications. It is still more probable that the conversion to Christianity was not a complete one; an amalgamation of Christian and pagan certainly took place. Indeed, one can observe the practise of both cultural traditions throughout the middle ages.

Bibliography

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. Trans. A.M. Sellar. The Middle Ages. Gen. Ed. Brian Tierney. Vol. 1.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1992. Pp. 81-3.

Willibald’s Life of Boniface. The Middle Ages. Gen. Ed. Brian Tierney. Vol. 1. New York: McGraw Hill, 1992. Pp. 84-5.

Friday, October 09, 1998

laughter, the tears of my mother

laughter
the tears of my mother
a smile
like a rat
caged

fucking we feel
like dogs
weeping am i born
forgetting to listen
i hear you always in passing

why must i live sideways
and smile to stay upright?