^{page 260 note 1} More, Thomas, Utopia, Robinson's, translation, ed. J. Warrington (Everyman's Library, London, 1955), p. 50.Google Scholar All subsequent references to Utopia are to this edition.

^{page 260 note 2} ibid., p. 97–98.

^{page 260 note 3} ibid., p. 30–33.

^{page 261 note 1} ibid., p. 107.

^{page 261 note 2} ibid.

^{page 261 note 3} ibid., p. 104.

^{page 261 note 4} ibid., p. 107.

^{page 261 note 5} ibid., p. 105. Those allies are also like 'so many nations in their (the Utopians') debt' (p. 111).

^{page 262 note 1} ibid., p. 108.

^{page 262 note 2} ibid., p. 116.

^{page 262 note 3} ibid., p. 109.

^{page 262 note 4} ibid., p. 110.

^{page 263 note 1} ibid.

^{page 263 note 2} ibid., p. 110–111.

^{page 263 note 3} ibid., p. 112.

^{page 263 note 4} ibid.

^{page 263 note 5} ibid., p. 111.

^{page 264 note 1} ibid., p. 70.

^{page 264 note 2} ibid.

^{page 264 note 3} ibid., p. 113.

^{page 265 note 1} To quote just two recent examples, from both sides of the Atlantic, cf. Sabine, G. H., A History of Political Theory, Revised edition (N.Y., 1953), p. 435–437Google Scholar; Bowle, J., Western Political Thought, New edition (London, 1961), p. 263–269.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 2} The Epistles of Erasmus, trans, by F. M. Nichols, II, 503.

^{page 265 note 3} Erasmus to von Hutten, 23.7.1519, cited in Campbell's, edition of the Utopia (N.Y., 1947), p. 200.Google Scholar Erasmus here obviously refers to Book I, but his remark may be extended to cover the whole book.

^{page 265 note 4} Busleiden, to More, , November 1516, in: The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More, ed. Rogers, E. F. (Princeton, 1947), p. 82–84Google Scholar: “Quod et si alias semper praestare contenderis, tamen id maxime es nuper mira felicitate adsecutus, scilicet pomeridiano illo sermone abs te in literas relato. Quem de recte et bene constituta (ab omnibus expectanda) Utopiensium Rep. aedidisti … Quas quidem insigneis clades, vastationes, euersiones, caeterasque belli calamitates, nostrae (si quae sint) Resp. facile evaserint, modo ad unam Utopiensium reipublicae normam sese adamussim componentes, ab ea ne transversum quidem, ut aiunt, unguem recdant.”

^{page 265 note 5} Quoted by Morton, A. L., The English Utopia (London, 1952), p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 1} It is interesting to note that no study about the history of the interpretation of More's Utopia really exists. Professor Gerhard Möbus' lecture “Macht und Menschlichkeit in der Utopia des Thomas Morus” (Schriftenreihe der deutschen Hochschule für Politik, Berlin, 1953) covers only part of the ground, nor is it intended to be a substitute for such a study.

^{page 266 note 2} Seebohm, F., The Oxford Reformers of 1498 (London, 1867), pp. 279–280.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 3} ibid., p. 282.

^{page 266 note 4} Rudhart, G. H., Thomas Morus (Nuremberg, 1829), p. 141.Google Scholar

^{page 266 note 5} ibid., p. 119.

^{page 266 note 6} ibid., p. 132.

^{page 267 note 1} Dermenghem, E., Thomas Morus et les Utopistes de la Renaissance (Paris, 1927), p. 97Google Scholar: “Ces grands érudits, fervents d'hellénisme et de patristique, se plaisaient à voir dans l'Utopie les influences combinées de Platon et de saint Augustin, l'incarnation même de cet humanisme chrétien qu'ils s'efforçaient de faire triompher … Héritière légitime de la République et de la Cité de Dieu…”

^{page 267 note 2} ibid., p. 144.

^{page 267 note 3} Privat, E., Le Chancelier Décapité: Saint Thomas More, Henri VIII et la République des Utopiens (Neuchâtel, 1935), p. 64.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 4} Potter, G. R., Sir Thomas More (London, 1925), p. 89–90.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 5} ibid., p. 113.

^{page 268 note 1} ibid., p. 102.

^{page 268 note 2} Marx, K. & Engels, F., Werke, III (Berlin, 1959), p. 448.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 3} New York Daily Tribune, No. 3687, 9.2.1853. Similarly, Marx's remarks about Utopia in Das Kapital are confined to the enclosures only. Cf. Das, Kapital (Berlin, 1960), I, pp. 648–649.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 4} Engels, F., “Deutscher Sozialismus in Versen und Prosa”, Deutsche Brüsseler Zeitung, No. 94, 25.11.1847 (Werke, IV, p. 227).Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 5} Grün, K., Über Goethe vom menschlichen Standpunkt (Darmstadt, 1846), p. 225.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 6} Kautsky, K., Thomas More and His Utopia, trans, by Stenning, H. J. (London, 1927), pp. 126Google Scholar, 159, 161.

^{page 269 note 1} ibid., p. 1.

^{page 269 note 2} ibid., pp. 212, 200–201.

^{page 269 note 3} ibid., p. 232.

^{page 270 note 1} Beer, M., History of British Socialism (London, 1919), IGoogle Scholar, ch. I–IV; Laidler, H. W., Social-Economic Movements (N.Y., 1944), pp. 22–39Google Scholar; Voigt, A., Die Sozialen Utopien (Leipzig, 1906), pp. 55–64.Google Scholar

^{page 270 note 2} Vorländer, K., Von Machiavelli bis Lenin (Leipzig, 1926), p. 21Google Scholar: “Mit einem Worte: More ist der erste grundsätzliche Sozialist der neuen Zeit.”

^{page 270 note 3} ibid., p. 27.

^{page 270 note 4} ibid.

^{page 270 note 5} A. L. Morton, op. cit., p. 41.

^{page 270 note 6} ibid., p. 44.

^{page 271 note 1} It may be of some interest to note that the first time a parallel was drawn between Machiavelli and More it happened not in Germany and in a completely different context. The Russian Populist Yury Galaktionovich Zhukovsky wrote in 1861 in the journal “Sovremennik” that “the people, the workers deprived of land and capital, have found in writers such as Machiavelli and More, who are able to see the falsity of all juridical interpretations and their dependence on the ruling force their true defenders” (cf. Zhukovsky's essays, Petersburg, St., 1866, p. 157Google Scholar). Another early reference to a possible connection between More and Machiavelli comes from Aharon Shmuel Liebermann, who under the pseudonym of Arthur Freeman published in Vienna in 1877 the first Hebrew socialist paper, Ha-Emeth (The Truth). In an essay on More Liebermann sees the author of Utopia as a reformer who bases his concept of the social order on the interpretation of the power elements in politics. More is a necessary sequel to Machiavelli, and both start their teachings with a look at the existing concrete political systems of their respective countries. Both have a quest for power, and institutionalize it in one man or one organ. The main difference between the two is that Machiavelli understands power in a purely political context, whereas More recognizes its economic origin. Liebermann goes on to suggest that the reason for this difference may lie in the fact that Machiavelli still had to get hold of the realities of power in his divided Italy, wheras More found the political structure of power ready and available in the Tudor monarchy. Thus economics appears as the clue to the question how power should be wielded, and to what purpose. Cf. Ha-Emeth, , No. 2 (Vienna, 1877), p. 31Google Scholar; also Liebermann, A. S., Ktavim (Works), ed. Berkowicz, M. (Tel-Aviv, 1928), I, pp. 1–62Google Scholar (in Hebrew).

^{page 272 note 1} Oncken, H., Die Utopia des Thomas Morus und das Machtproblem in der Staatslehre (Sitzungsbericht der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Heidelberg, 1922, 2. Abhandlung).Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 2} ibid., p. 6. Cf. my “The Problem of War in Hegel's Thought”, Journal of the History of Ideas (N.Y., 1961), XXII, pp. 468–9, for a different nuance in the treatment of the same problem.

^{page 272 note 3} Utopia, , p. 38–47.Google Scholar

^{page 272 note 4} ibid., p. 47.

^{page 272 note 5} Oncken, op. cit., p. 10; Oncken is aware of the fact Book II of Utopia was written prior to Book I, and that the exposition of Utopian life is done by Hythloday, wheras the reference to the philosophia civilior is by More himself. But this does not seem to influence his judgment.

^{page 273 note 1} Utopia, , pp. 23–28Google Scholar, 39–44.

^{page 273 note 2} Oncken, op. cit., p. 13.

^{page 273 note 3} Utopia, , pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 4} It is not wholly without interest to point out that More's brother-in-law John Rastell was involved in a commercial-naval venture to settle New Foundland in 1517, and that More looked after his family and affairs while he was away. Cf. Reed, A. W., Early Tudor Drama (London, 1926), pp. 11. 187.Google Scholar

^{page 273 note 5} Oncken, op. cit., p. 17.

^{page 274 note 1} Oncken, H., Einleitung zu “Klassiker der Politik”, Bd. I, Utopia (Berlin, 1922), p. 37.Google Scholar This double-edged, anti-British and anti-Communist reading of the Utopia became very popular among the German political right wing during the Weimar Republic. Moeller van den Bruck in his Das Dritte Reich, 3. Aufl. (Hamburg, 1931), p. 41, says that Versailles was the incarnation of More's Utopia: a self-appointed pacifist nation won a war by the help of mercenaries and colonial people, corruption, deceit and propaganda, and without actually occupying the vanquished turned them into a veritable people of slaves toiling and working for the pious pharisaical victors. Van den Bruck's book was written within a year of the publication of Oncken's studies.

^{page 275 note 1} Freund, M., “Zur Deutung der Utopia des Thomas Morus – Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Staatsräson in England”, in: Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. 132 (1930), p. 224.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 2} Utopia, , p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 275 note 3} Freund, op. cit., p. 276.

^{page 276 note 1} Bendemann, O., Studie zur Staats- und Sozialauffassung des Thomas Morus (Berlin, 1929), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page 276 note 2} ibid., p. 71 (“heroisch und schwungvoll”).

^{page 276 note 3} The English public was presented with a modified version of the “German” view in a lecture read before the London Society for the Study of Religion in March 1923 by Troeltsch, Ernst, subsequently published as an essay by the name of “Politics, Patriotism and Religion” in his “Christian Thought – Its History and Application”, transl. by Hügel, Baron F. V. (London, 1923).Google Scholar Troeltsch concludes that Utopia represents “a sincere endeavor to preserve the moral and religious standpoint”, but “at the same time it leaves notable openings for political realism (Realpolitik) or the doctrines of raison d'état, by means of which all the theoretical problems and practical applications of Machiavellism are able to penetrate into his system” (p. 148–9).

^{page 277 note 1} Ritter, G., The Corrupting Influence of Power, trans. by Pick, F. W. (Hadleigh, 1952), p. 78.Google Scholar

^{page 277 note 2} ibid., p. 80.

^{page 277 note 3} ibid., p. 89.

^{page 277 note 4} ibid., Author's Preface to the English Edition, p. xiii.

^{page 278 note 1} Utopia, p. 100–101.

^{page 278 note 2} ibid., p. 98.

^{page 278 note 3} Thus, mainly, Father Bridgett, Thomas E., Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More (London, 1891)Google Scholar; also Warrington in his Introduction to Everyman's edition of Utopia (London, 1910), p. xi.

^{page 278 note 4} Though most of those who based themselves on the “dialogic” nature of Utopia were Roman Catholics, some were not; therefore it would perhaps be more accurate to call this approach the “dialogic” rather then the “neo-Catholic”.

^{page 279 note 1} Utopia, , p. 135Google Scholar: “Many things came to my mind which in the manners and laws of that people seemed to be instituted and founded of no good reason.”

^{page 279 note 2} ibid.

^{page 279 note 3} Hollis, C., Sir Thomas More (London, 1934), p. 75.Google Scholar

^{page 279 note 4} Brie, F., “Machtpolitik und Krieg in der Utopia des Thomas Morus”, Historische Jahrbücher, Vol. 61 (1949), p. 117 passim.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} Campbell, W. E., Erasmus, Tyndale and More (London, 1949), p. 92.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} ibid., p. 94.

^{page 280 note 3} It is often shown in this connection that in his Dialogue of Comfort More strongly opposed community of property.

^{page 280 note 4} Reynolds, E. E., Saint Thomas More (London, 1953), p. 124.Google Scholar For other versions of the neo-Catholic “dialogic” school cf. Cecil, A., A Portrait of Thomas More: Scholar, Statesman, Saint (London, 1937)Google Scholar; Sargent, D., Thomas More (London, 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 5} Reynolds, op. cit., p. 125. This way of seeing Utopia as a reductio ad absurdum of the chimera of an “ideal” state was also accepted, without necessarily relying on the “dialogic” approach, by Allen, J. W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1957), p. 159Google Scholar: “More knew that his Utopia was nowhere and proved nothing. He had declared in effect, that men being what they are, there is no conceivable remedy for social evils except, at all events, one that cannot be adopted; and as to that one, that it is doubtful what, in any case, the result of the adoption would be.”

^{page 280 note 6} Chambers, R. W., Thomas More (London, 1935), p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} ibid.

^{page 281 note 2} ibid., p. 131.

^{page 281 note 3} ibid., p. 134. Another variety of this interpretation is the one offered by G. Mōbus, op. cit., who sees More's intention as writing a tract against abstract thinking in politics which overlooks man's imperfect condition (p. 23).

^{page 281 note 4} Augustine, St., The City of God, trans, by Dodds, M. (N.Y., 1950), Bk. XIX, ch. 17, p. 695.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 5} ibid.

^{page 281 note 6} Chambers, op. cit., p. 142.

^{page 282 note 1} Donner, H. W., Introduction to Utopia (London, 1945), p. viiGoogle Scholar; cf. also p. 78, where he says that “The most elevated pagan philosophy could only be a preparation for the revelation of Christianity and the first rungs of Jacob's ladder.” Donner holds much of the same opinion about philosophia ancilla theologiae as expressed by More in his earlier study, “On the Utopia of More”, St. Thomas, in Studier i modern Språkvetenskap (Uppsala, 1943), pp. 93–200Google Scholar, which covers much the same ground.

^{page 282 note 2} Donner, , Introduction to Utopia, p. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 3} ibid., pp. 44–5.

^{page 283 note 1} ibid., p. 63.

^{page 283 note 2} It is to be regretted that Hexter, J. H., in his otherwise excellent monographical study More's Utopia: The Biography of an Idea (Princeton, 1952)Google Scholar, while questioning much of the accepted notion about Utopia refers to the problem of war as satisfactorily dealt with by Donner (p. 13). Another recent study by a member of the Society of Jesus, E. Surtz, The Praise of Pleasure: Philosophy, Education and Communism in More's Utopia (Cambridge, Mass., 1957)Google Scholar emphasizes the Christian origins of More's Communism and the fact that Utopia is necessarily limited by its secular humanistic ethics, but does not, however, refer to the problem of war.

^{page 283 note 3} Huber, P., Traditionsfestigkeit und Traditionskritik bei Thomas Morus (Basler Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, No. 47, Basel, 1953), p. 108.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 1} Utopia, , p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1} Cf. More's Correspondence, p. 81.

^{page 285 note 2} Giles to Busleiden, 1.11.1516; cf. Utopia, , pp. 131–9.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 3} ibid., p. 2.

^{page 286 note 1} Correspondence, pp. 85–88.

^{page 286 note 2} Utopia, , p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} ibid., p. 75.

^{page 287 note 2} For the last possibility, cf. Russel, Ames, Citizen Thomas More (Princeton, 1949), p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 3} That it is not, and could never be, the ultimate ideal for a Christian thinker like More is self-evident even if one does not accept the neo-Catholic version: for the ultimate kingdom is never of this world. Yet Utopia is the utmost which may be achieved in the social, this-worldly sphere.

^{page 287 note 4} Augustine, St., The City of God, Bk. XIX, ch. 17, p. 695Google Scholar: “The families which live by faith… use as pilgrims such advantages of time and of earth… that aid them to endure with greater ease, and to keep down the number of those burdens of the corruptible body which weigh upon the soul.” The pilgrim's progress is implied in the aeterna peregrinatio.

^{page 288 note 1} Utopia, , p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 2} ibid., p. 56.

^{page 289 note 1} ibid., p. 25.