Second thoughts on the proto-Spinozism in Part 1 of More's Utopia.

At some point, in Part I of More’s Utopia, the main informant on Utopia, Raphael Hythloday rejects the suggestion by Thomas More (the character) that he enter into public service of kings in order to serve the private interests of his friends, and the interests of the many, but also for his own advancement “to a much wealthier state and condition than you be now in.” The implication is that at the start of the sixteenth century counciling power is a lucrative enterprise to the select few invited to do so in a society, where connections, patronage, and public access matter most. More, who we are told is a trade-ambassador to the King, surely knew what he was talking about.

After pointing out that public spirited and impartial advice is not welcomed in the councils of the warlike rich and powerful, Raphael responds to More’s argument as follows:

Now I live as I will; which I think very few of these great states and peers of realms can say. Yea, and there be enough of them that seek for great men's friendships; and therefore think it no great hurt, if they have not me, nor two or three such other as I am.—Translated by Robinson (modestly corrected)

There is surely a touch of haughty vanity in Raphael in denying the need for patronage from rich and powerful. He thinks of himself as the rare, principled select who can resist the lure of wealth. But my interest is in this declaration of freedom. Raphael asserts that at a distance from the rich and powerful, where he goes unnoticed and so is without ties of loyalty and mutual obligation, he can be free and pursue his own interests and pleasure.

This attitude toward freedom is not acquired in Utopia by Raphael. Because, in fact, just before we learned that before he went on his voyages, Raphael gave away his estate to his family and friends. He travelled the world unencumbered, and at ease with his “liberality.”

Now, it’s tempting to see in Raphael’s self-imposed poverty an echo of Diogenes the Cynic or the early Stoic stance toward property, except that Raphael has no interest in instructing the polis (by negative example) or being an exemplar to anyone. There is more also than a hint of Epicurean withdrawal here, except that Raphael has wanderlust: he doesn’t even remain in Utopia, and he seems on the road again by the time More has composed his narrative.

But Raphael is also echoing the Franciscan doctrine known as apostolic poverty or absolute poverty of Christ. This was heretical by the time of the early sixteenth century. But Raphael hints at it again when, while critical of More’s suggestion that in a world where not everyone is good a philosopher can deploy an indirect art of persuasion in order to shape a leader’s art of government, he attacks the very idea of accommodating an audience’s preferences/prejudices. And (recall this post) he does so by switching to a striking example: “if we dismiss as outlandish and absurd everything that the perverse customs of men have made to seem alien to us, we shall have to set aside, even in a community of Christians, most of the teachings of Christ.” And then he goes on to state, “Yet he forbade us to dissemble them, and even ordered that what he had whispered in the ears of his disciples should be preached openly from the housetops. Most of his teachings are far more alien from the common customs of mankind than my discourse was.”

Now, when I reflected on these passages before (recall), I emphasized all the ways this expresses a kind of proto-Spinozistic strain in in Part 1 of Utopia. This strain historicizes the Hebrew Bible and treats Moses as an exemplary, artful lawgiver in particular context, and treats Jezus as a too demanding prophet.

But there is another reading lurking here. (This need not be incompatible if we take the proto-Spinozism as reflecting More’s sensibility (More the narrator not necessarily More the author), and the reading I am developing in this post as instructive of Raphael’s character.) And that is that Raphael, who clearly thinks property is at the root of much evil, thinks of himself as just about the only true Christian alive because he has made no concession to human weakness to be liked or admired—so there is more than a hint of fanaticism in his character.

Now the official point of the passage just quoted is something like this: ‘if you are willing to believe revelation, there is really no reason to disbelief what I (Raphael) have to say despite the fact that my last name is ‘nonsense-peddler.’’ And it is no surprise that this passage occurs just before he is about to relate an ever more surprising tale about a relatively egalitarian, albeit wealthy and powerful, polity (without the institution of private property). What is unclear to me is how we are asked to evaluate the status of Raphael’s testimony in light of these facts about him.