Compare Utopia And A Man For All Seasons

Thomas More’s book, Utopia, was constructed to criticize aspects of European life during the 1500s. One issue that More evaluates is the subject of politics and war. War during this time was used to gain territory or increase the ruler’s power. The Utopians are a peaceful group of citizens that rarely have any altercations occurring upon their island. They have a strict daily schedule that provides a minute amount of time for leisure, resulting in a low rate of problems. So why does More bring up the issue of war, if the people of Utopia infrequently misbehave? More analyzes this issue to exemplify how war was implemented in Europe under the reign of King Henry VIII. In addition, more describes the Utopians’ preparations when they engage in war. More wrote Utopia to provide the citizens of Europe with a source of hope for a new outlook on life.

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

The main plot in the play “A Man For All Seasons” by Robert Bolt is corruption, more specifically political corruption. While the play focuses heavily on the social demise, and moral strength of the character Thomas More. It also covers the inverse process with other characters, such as; Richard Rich, Thomas Cromwell, and the king of England Henry VIII. In the play Thomas More stands as a beacon of selfhood and virtue, while the other three men used manipulation and disloyalty, to gain wealth and power, no matter what the consequences may be.

Although comparing one society to another does not require them to be different in government or human behavior, it does necessarily weight one’s faults against its victories to render it better or worse than the other. This comparative structure, found between Thomas More’s two books of Utopia, poses the country of Utopia opposite the broader communities of world civilization. Despite the comparison of Utopia as distinct from and morally better than widespread society, in truth Utopia is, at best, an extension.

King Henry VIII’s reign was an awakening for many living in England during the sixteenth century. Thomas More was no exception. As a writer, More had the ability to publish his views about the change in politics, society, and religion. As religious views began to shift, and King Henry VIII separated from the Catholic church, Thomas More held firm to his belief in the Catholicism. His views on humanism thrived off of his standing in the Catholic church. He continued to defend humanism and catholicism relying in the knowledge that “...language is directed out to the social community in the effort to stimulate moral or political response” (Baker-smith 1). More hoped to convince the public eye of King Henry VIII’s misuse of power and moral judgement. This was a common idea he continually used throughout the remainder of the renaissance period.

Raphael uses an example the King of France aims to seize milan while also maintaining his authority over his current kingdom. This example demonstrates how powerful the kings are and also their greed in trying to get more than they already have. We see that their focus is not on their people, but on gaining assets and acquiring new kingdoms. In Book One, More uses am accumulation of examples and anecdotes to emphasize the nature of authority in 16th century Europe. This European style governance is later juxtaposed with the style of Government in Utopia in Book 2. This highlights how the King of France is so nelgecting of his people, unlike the Utopian rulers. “Why do you suppose they made you a king in the first place,? Not for your benefit, but for theirs.” More through the persona of Raphael, warns against the power-hungry and ambitious

A glint of good news came to the now-impoverished family when the merchant heard that a ship containing his merchandise had just arrived in port. The merchant was overjoyed and went to claim his wealth, only to find that there had been a legal ordeal and he had, indeed, lost it all. Here, the author tries to illustrate the French government’s inadequacy in meeting the needs of the people. In the 1850s, great minds, including the Swiss/French political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, were writing that the authority to rule came from the people themselves. Furthermore, philosophers argued that the government’s duty was not to serve their own decadence but rather to serve the people. The French government, being an absolute monarchy, was ruled by only the word of Louis XV, and the royal Bourbon family had a history of ruling to meet their own selfish desires. The French monarchy did not uphold the intrinsic promise and duty of any government to protect, feed, and serve its people. De Beaumont symbolizes this by failing to deliver the goods to the impoverished former merchant. In other words, just like the merchant’s undelivered goods, the

Dystopia and Utopia can be explored in many forms of media such as artwork, film, music, poetry and even dance. The easiest and most vivid way to depict these genres to the audience is in films. Films specifically incorporate visual symbolism through colors and settings and screenshot width and filters. Films may also incorporate a subliminal message to the reader through background music used in different scenes. Displaying utopian and dystopian societies through film leaves some imagination to the audience while allowing them to visually compare with the real world around them. For the purpose of exploring aspects of utopia and dystopia through films, I have chosen the films Metropolis by Fritz Lang (1927) and the episode Nosedive from

Thomas More'sUtopia and Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan each offer alternatives to the worlds in which they lived.. More's society, viewed through the character Hythloday, is seemingly based on man's nature in society being generally good, and the faults of man emanate from how society itself is set up. Hobbes takes the opposite view of human nature, where man's will to survive makes him unable to act out of goodness and it is man who is responsible for society's ills.

The so-called Utopia – the quasi-perfect society – flourishes in Margaret Cavendish’s “The Description of a New World, Called a Blazing World” and Sir Thomas More’s Utopia. While the former is a dreamlike account of fantasy rule and the latter a pseudo-realistic travelogue, both works paint a picture of worlds that are not so perfect after all. These imperfections glitter like false gemstones in the paths of these Utopians’ religious beliefs, political systems, and philosophical viewpoints.

Relationship Between the Sovereign and the Subjects in More's Utopia, Machiavelli's The Discourses, and Hobbes' The Leviathan

Machiavelli in The Prince and More in Utopia have different views on the role of religion and reason in a state. Niccolo Machiavelli insists that the decision of a prince based on reason should be the supreme law, while Thomas More persuades that religion and moral norms stay behind the peace and welfare of a state. Similar to Machiavelli, More gives much power to a ruler, but he constrains it by the will of people and his devotion to the Church. On the contrary, Machiavelli empowers a prince with unlimited authority and a right to employ any available means. The prince may violate moral principles, and his powers to resort to violence and cruelty have paramount importance. Meanwhile, More’s ideal society lives in harmony due to worshiping religion.

Utopia is Sir Thomas More’s seminal work, depicting a fictitious island and its religious, social, and political customs. Working as an advisor to King Henry VIII, More was aware of the issues of his time such as ridiculous inflation, corruption, wars for little or no purpose, courtly ostentation, the abuse of power by the absolute monarchs, and the maltreatment of the poor. Consequently, More used Utopia to contrast some unique and refreshing political ideas with the chaotic politics of his own country. It is important to note that More did not intend to provide an exact blueprint for a perfect society, rather he merely presents his ideas in the form of a political satire, revealing the evils of his time.

Although misunderstood when introduced to society during their time, Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan have been two of the most influential political works in history. The Prince and Leviathan, although seen as immoral and almost wicked works of their time, have guided many political thinkers, even America’s own Thomas Jefferson, on the subject of governance and power. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between both works in terms of the historical settings in which they were written as well as between the two distinct political philosophies presented by each man. More specifically, this paper will differentiate the purpose of power between Machiavelli’s theory of an absolute ruler separated from morals and ethics compared to Hobbes’ reasoning for a necessary and absolute ruler to put an end to the chaotic “state of nature” he presents.

“Utopia, Book I” by Sir Thomas More begins with the narrator, More, that is traveling around Northern Europe as an ambassador for England and ends up in Antwerp. While he was in Antwerp, he met up with a good friend of his Peter Giles. One day he finds Giles conversing with a bearded man. Soon Giles introduces him to this man, Raphael Hythloday. Hythloday is a philosopher and travels to different places around the world. After More and Hythloday meet, More is intrigued by the stories Hythloday has to say. The three of them all go to Giles’ house for supper and a long chat. Hythloday then describes about the many voyages he has been on along with Amerigo Vespucci, a famous Italian explorer. They have traveled to the New World, South of the Equator, through Asia and then mentions how he ended up in an island called Utopia. He then describes the different societies in the variety of countries he has gone to. Giles and More come to the conclusion that Hythloday will be a great counselor to a king. Hythloday rejects their idea and begins telling the story of when he once had a dinner with Cardinal Morton and others. Throughout this dinner he proposed a variety of ways for punishing people who break the laws. They refuse his proposals. He uses this story by showing More and Giles how useless it is to counsel a king or prince when his other counsels agree with the king 's beliefs and policies. He tells other different stories to prove his