Ecclesia Semper Reformanda est:A Satirical Ecclesial Renewal in Thomas More’s Utopia

Thomas Bailey, OSBHS 506: The Renaissance and the Reformation

April 26, 2010

October 31, 1517, at the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther (1483-

1546) nailed his famous Ninety-Five Theses. Undoubtedly it is a watershed event in the history

of western society, nevertheless, its importance is overstated by the popular understanding that

Luther was the lone voice calling for reform in an ecclesial world of corruption. Scholarly

research long ago debunked the popular portrayal of history; and yet it remains because

Marguerite of Navarre, Jacques Lefevre, Guillaume Budè, Ulrich von Hutten, Johannes

Reuchlin, John Colet, and Erasmus do not capture the public imagination. Thomas More (1478-

1535) was such an individual, but he is more often seen in terms of jurisprudence and his

resistance to Henry VIII’s (1491-1547) marriage to Anne Boleyn.

Thomas More was a man of his age, a Renaissance humanist, and like many other

northern humanists was profoundly concerned about the state of the Church. More was a

frequent correspondent with Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), who stayed in More’s home when

he was in England. Erasmus kept his pulse on the religious debates of the early sixteenth

century, corresponding with the great reformers of the era – including Martin Luther. Erasmus

had a great respect for Thomas More, to whom he dedicated and attributed the name of his most

famous work with a play-on-words, Moriae Encomium.1 More himself then was within this

religiously zealous circle, particularly in his native England.

Of the plethora of writings that Thomas More composed during his life, Utopia is

generally the best known. During the era of the Cold War (1945-1991) however, it was viewed

through the prism of political ideology, yet by doing so the reforming nature of the document

was glossed over. The perspective that will be argued in this paper is that as a northern,

Renaissance humanist, Thomas More had a reforming vision for the Church and that it can be

1 Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly: A New Translation, with Introduction and Notes, translated by Leonard F. Dean, (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1953), 37-39.

Bailey 2

discovered in the satirical prose of Utopia. In order to place Utopia in its proper place as a

satirical work that deplores the abuses in the Church and calls for reform, several areas will need

to be explored. The first is an understanding of Renaissance satire, placed within the humanist

tradition. Secondly, understanding the religious framework of society and the church in the early

sixteenth century, focusing specifically on More’s convictions both in societal attitudes and

religion. Finally, an analysis of Utopia itself, seeing how he employed satire and the objections

More saw with his contemporary world.

The primary intention of satire is to change perceptions, which often lead to a change in

behavior.2 As such it is a tool often employed to critique societal attitudes and behaviors,

questioning conventional wisdom and the motives of those who originally established them.3

There exists within satirical work a sub-layer that necessitates looking beyond the immediate

issue being presented to find the hidden object of derision.4 For example, Jonathan Swift

suggested that the Irish eat their own children as way to better their situation. It is not the lack of

food that Swift decried, but the hegemonic actions of Great Britain. A device employed within

satire is the construction of an alternative metanarrative – an all encompassing, collective

understanding or worldview specific to a group of people – the various features of which can

attack societal perceptions.5

Within the historical context of the Renaissance and sixteenth century England in

particular, the usage of satire possessed a unique development. As with many ideas during this

time, there existed a desire to return and build upon the “glories of ancient Rome.” Though other

genres remained more popular, satire based on Juvenal found a place in England. Juvenal’s

2 Charles Knight, The Literature of Satire, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 5.3 Knight, 13-14.4 Knight, 3.5 Knight, 5.

Bailey 3

emphasis on righteous indignation, sensationalism, and a return to perfect simplicity struck a

chord within Renaissance England.6 It provided an opportunity to decry the social problems of

the day in the safe environment of fiction.7

Those who knew Thomas More remarked upon his wit and that it maintained a balance –

not silly or vindictive, but intelligent and purposeful. “It simply demonstrated More’s constant

awareness that the official forms of social order could not encompass reality,” and so led others

to “an independent and critical perspective.”8 By translating various tracts of Lucian, More was

first introduced into the satirical writings of the ancient world. Satire was a style of writings that

he saw as providing a moral compass to society.9 Not only did he appreciate the genre, but he

was able to find many structures to employ as well. In particular, he found no difficulty in

applying pagan literary devices or ideas in order to incorporate change in his contemporary,

Christian society. One such structure was the societal obsession with outward displays, often

lacking internal conviction, denounced by Plato. By extension, Augustine of Hippo’s usage of

this Platonic idea to combat hollow pagan rituals in the fourth and fifth centuries provided the

authority to do the same in the sixteenth.10 The pieces were there to contribute to a re-ordering of

society. More’s friend, Erasmus, was to lead the way with The Praise of Folly.

The Praise of Folly is the quintessential Renaissance critic of society, by which Erasmus

employed Lucian’s literary form to renew church and society.11 From the beginning of The

Praise of Folly, Erasmus presented Folly as an all-pervasive entity that boasted of its own

6 Alvin Kernan, The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance, (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976), 65-67.7 Kernan, 37-38; Arthur B. Ferguson, The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965), 202-205.8 Dominic Baker-Smith, More’s Utopia, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 39.9 J.B. Trapp, Erasmus, Colet and More: The Early Tudor Humanists and Their Books, (London: The British Library, 1990), 54.10 Baker-Smith, 42-43.11 Baker-Smith, 48.

Bailey 4

accomplishments. “I am still the one, the only one I may say, whose influence makes God and

men cheerful.”12 The Renaissance reader was taken aback by this unabashed prideful statement

that immediately cued the reader to know of the satirical nature of The Praise of Folly. Even this

early in the text, Erasmus showed contemporary society as the object of his commentary because

he criticized the false modesty that hid the true pride of the “leading citizens and scholars.”13

Erasmus went on to associate Folly with the attainment of pleasure, which he saw as a

basic human instinct. As an example he pointed to the human acts of procreation. He described

the act as one of passion – devoid of reason – for it led to death and motherhood for women and

servitude for men, all for a moment to be like the gods. The drive for pleasure ruined the ability

of society to improve and sought only the status quo. Reform disrupts and unsettles, it is

therefore to be avoided through Folly’s aid, and self-delusion reinforced by praise commends the

status quo to divine approval.14

The safety of literary fiction offered an opportunity to attack the institutions that

continued to stifle reform – the church and the monarchy. Monarchy existed to fulfill its

obligations to care for in the earthly realm those over whom the monarch exercised authority.

Erasmus saw it as having degraded to personal aggrandizement worn as titles that were too large

to fit on the individuals invested with the power. Folly’s responsibility then was to distract the

monarch from looking into the mirror and seeing him/herself as a usurper. The church too

utilized such distractions, but also engaged sophistry to approve its actions.15 Erasmus instead

saw love and aid to others as the important elements of Christianity.16

12 Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly: A New Translation, with Introduction and Notes, translated by Leonard F. Dean, (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1953),43.13 Ibid., 44.14 Baker-Smith, 48-49; Erasmus, 64.15 Baker-Smith, 49-51.16 Erasmus, 97.

Bailey 5

The Praise of Folly did not exist in a vacuum, but was the product of its society, a society

that had become critical of the way that people and institutions lived. Martin Luther, Erasmus,

and Thomas More, though disagreeing about the method and the solution, agreed that there

existed problems in the church and sought to remedy them by using the gift they prized above

others – reason. The milieu of the Northern Renaissance was profoundly religious in orientation,

seeking to purge religion from the accretions of the Middle Ages.

The religious environment of pre-modern Britain was an age of faith. Despite the abuses,

corruption, and superstition, the majority of the population believed in a God who expected

certain actions and behaviors from people. Throughout the English Reformation, people

continued to lavish benefices upon the clergy because they believed in the efficacy of the rituals

to please God irrespective of the holiness of the priest. “It was the ordination of the priest, not

his personal piety, which gave him power.”17 Bruce argued that the inappropriate behavior was

actually an example of people’s faith. The sale of indulgences, for instance, was such a case.

The decision of people to spend difficultly obtained money for the remission of sins meant they

believed that it protected them from God’s wrath and that the Church possessed the power to

grant such a reprieve.18

The sophist systems of scholastic theology also left religious belief in disarray. A heavy

emphasis on the after life and the end times preoccupied the daily lives of people, perhaps

leading to their belief in the value of indulgences. God’s mercy was available to all if they only

performed the required actions or good works. By delaying to the last possible moment before

death the administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction evidenced this belief. How you

lived your life was not as important as how you died because a deathbed conversion guaranteed

17 Steve Bruce, “The Pervasive World-View: Religion in Pre-Modern Britain,” The British Journal of Sociology 48, No. 4 (December 1997): 674.18 Ibid, 677.

Bailey 6

eternal life through God’s mercy. Henry VIII’s “Great Matter” showed that scholasticism

enabled a theologian to conclude the opinion he sought or to discover the necessary precedent.

Thomas Cranmer canvassed the universities of Europe for their opinion on the validity of Henry

Tudor’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon, achieving a less than definitive answer.19

The reformers on the other hand sought to purge the Church of the practices they saw as

having their source solely in the Dark Ages and wanted to return to a purified form of

Christianity found in the early Church through the Patristic era. Erasmus was the leader of the

reforming movement as it was based on his principles: focused on reading and interpreting

scripture, reducing superstitious practices, and correcting abuses.20 Christianity was understood

to be a rational faith and that passionate, emotional Christianity was anathema.21

Before the Reformation, Thomas More established his reputation as a humanist scholar

unafraid to challenge others. Between 1515 and 1520 he wrote three letters that outline some of

his core principles: Letter to Dorp (1515), Letter to Oxford (1518), and Letter to a Monk (1520).

More wrote to Martin Dorp, a professor of theology at the University of Louvain, in response to

Dorp’s criticism of Erasmus’s The Praise of Folly. In an uncharacteristic manner, More harshly

criticized Dorp, even using Dorp’s writings against him. The essence of his attitude is clear

however, Thomas More was concerned about Martin Dorp the man. More hoped to convince

him of the rightness of Erasmus’ argument, advocating a new intellectual and moral program that

would better humanity. He employed the dialectic method against itself to bring rational

discourse for “it is man that counts, not the system.”22

19 G.G. Coulton, “The Faith of St. Thomas More,” in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 504-505.20 Stefania Tutino, Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570-1625, (Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2007), 4.21 David Weil Baker, Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England, (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999), 51-52.22 R.S. Sylvester, “Thomas More: Humanist in Action,” in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 464-465.

Bailey 7

The other two letters combined More’s concern for learning with his concern for faith

and morals. In the Letter to Oxford Thomas More encouraged the faculty to introduce Greek

into the curriculum. He praised the university’s commitment of the liberal arts, by which he

meant the studia humanitatis. He stated that it was only through secular learning that virtue and

pure religion would be produced, otherwise medieval scholasticism was the result.23 In More’s

Letter to a Monk, he again defended Erasmus, whose motives were questioned. The unnamed

monk accused Erasmus of writing The Praise of Folly “to cause discord and bring in

deception.”24 More responded by comparing Erasmus to St. Paul who was forced to undergo

many hardships for the sake of the Gospel. He continued to use scriptural allusions throughout

the remainder of the letter to emphasize the importance of scripture and to highlight the self-

proclaimed authority of the monk.25

The works he penned on his personal asceticism and devotion provide a unique

opportunity to understand Thomas More’s religious praxis. These works were not written to be

published, but to support himself and his family in the difficult time of his imprisonment and

execution, and as such was less guarded in what he wrote. The four years he spent in a

Carthusian monastery provided him with an appreciation for silence, which allowed for a spirit

of acceptance to the providential design in his life. The prayers that he composed echoed this

sentiment and focused him on the reception of grace, abandonment of earthly things, an absolute

love of God in the face of suffering, and all firmly rooted in faith and works.26

23 Ibid, 463.24 Thomas More, “Letter to a Monk, 1520,” as quoted in R.S. Sylvester, “Thomas More: Humanist in Action,” in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 466.25 Ibid, 466-467.26 Bernard Fisher, “English Spiritual Writers: St. Thomas More,” in Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour (Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977): 513-516.

Bailey 8

The public writings of Thomas More were different as he responded to the Reformation

writers after 1517. In spite of being a layman, he was thought to be the greatest mind of his

generation in England and capable of combating the perceived errors of continental

Protestantism.27 His polemical writings did not outline a systematic theology, instead it was

directed toward responding to the challenges presented. More was interested in the moral and

spiritual consequences of reformed ideas and believed that they were incompatible with leading a

virtuous life; it was a fight for the soul of mankind.28 As Lord-Chancellor More was responsible

for rooting out heresy in England and providing stability to the realm, which he saw as going

hand-in-hand. He even personally questioned witnesses at Chelsea House, his residence.29

The world of Thomas More in 1516 when he finished Utopia was profoundly different

than the one in which he found himself after Luther’s 95 Theses. As Lord-Chancellor of a

Catholic nation he felt bound to protect the faith and to serve his king. Luther’s questioning of

established authority, in the mind of Henry VIII and Thomas More, attacked the foundation of

society. They believed that if one divinely appointed institution was questioned so could all the

rest – the Roman Church first, then the monarchy. Their suspicions were confirmed in 1524

when the German peasant’s revolted against their rulers. The heated passion of religious fervor

seems removed from the reasoned conversation of Utopia.

The beginning and end of Utopia provide bookends to understanding the satirical nature

of the work. The reader, along with Thomas More, is introduced to the mysterious figure of

Raphael Hythloday who extolled the virtues of the Commonwealth of Utopia. The mixture of

Classical and Christian interplay is evident in the bard of the story. In the Christian tradition,

Raphael is one of the archangels who stand beside God bringing God’s message to the people.

27 Baker, 49.28 Fisher, 514; Baker 49.29 John Guy, Thomas More, (New York: Oxford University Press. 2000), 106.

Bailey 9

By presenting Raphael as the traveler’s name, Thomas More implied that he is a purveyor of

truth. The surname however in Greek means purveyor of nonsense.30 At the end of the treatise,

More’s character makes an aside in which he disagrees with many of the customs and laws of the

Utopians; he found them absurd. He listed the objections to include their views on war, religious

ceremonies, social customs, and the most condemnable of all was their economic system. His

parting remark however, “Yet I confess there are many things in the Commonwealth of Utopia

which I wish our own country would imitate.”31 The list of objections More provided

condemned essentially all aspects of Utopian society. Then he praised the majority of Utopian

society. The condemnation and the praise provide ambiguity about the character’s thought, but

serves as a reminder to the reader to question one’s own motives and presuppositions.

In such a short paper it would be impossible to look at the entirety of Thomas More’s

Utopia, as such three principle areas will be considered: food distribution, moral philosophy, and

religion. Following in the satirical tradition, More presented a new metanarrative of a strange

and different world. In the postmodern age of the twenty-first century some of his satire seem

acceptable, but the perception he sought to change were those in sixteenth century Europe. It is

important then to keep that framework in mind to compare and contrast the Utopian ideal with

More’s contemporary society.

The food was produced in the surrounding countryside, where everyone took their

allotted term as a farmer, and shipped to the city where it was prepared and served in a

communal building. Before it was distributed to the masses however, it was first given to the

infirmed in the hospital to ensure they received all they needed to return to health; Hythloday

30 Ibid, 99.31 Thomas More, Utopia, translated and edited by Robert M. Adams, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1975), 91.

Bailey 10

highly praised this practice. It was then dispersed to the communal halls by an allotment based

on the total number of families the hall serves. It is noted that those areas that served the prince,

the high priest, the tranibors (senators), ambassadors, and visiting foreigners received more for

those individuals consumption. The serving of the food was structured as well; preference was

given to the older, while the children who ate separately also ate last. Though delicacies were

served in the same manner, the expectation was that they shared with those younger.32

As noted earlier, there needs to exist within satire something that will seem plausible to

the reader or else it will be immediately rejected. The distribution of food was based on a

hierarchical structure that appealed to the mentality of the aristocracy of the sixteenth century.

All belonged to the monarch, and thus he should receive what was first, followed by his chief

councilors and then visiting dignitaries and guests. Apart from the quaint equal distribution of

the remainder, which was again hierarchically assigned, it was a plausible though not preferred

method for European society.

The juxtaposition lies elsewhere than the obvious equal distribution. Christian

humanists, More included, based their presuppositions on scripture and early Church practices.33

A model was provided for them in the Acts of the Apostles that distribution was made to each

according to need alone (Acts 2:42-47). More and special foods were provided to the leaders of

the Utopian society, but they preferred to pass them on to those lower in the hierarchical

structure. “The old people, as they feel inclined, give their neighbors a share of those delicacies

which are not plentiful enough to be served to everyone. Thus, due respect is paid to seniority,

yet the principle of equality is preserved.”34 More then was criticizing the behavior of the greater

32 More, 46-48.33 Baker, 66-68.34 More, 48.

Bailey 11

in his society who should be concerned with the betterment of those entrusted to their care, like

the Philosopher-King of Plato’s Republic.35

In terms of ecclesial change, More used the distribution of food as a direct challenge to

the system of benefices. The high priest (representative of all clerics) was placed in the Utopian

hierarchical line to receive a greater portion of food. More argued then that it was proper for the

priest to receive his due (Luke 10:7; 1Tim 5:18), but that he should be like the elders who passed

the benefit over to those entrusted to his charge. Thomas More provided an example of a good

cleric in Utopia as well. He was one inspired by purely religious motives, forsook all earthly

pleasures for a heavenly reward (Matt. 19:21), and worked the hardest labor out of charity for

others.36 The corruption that had seeped into the Church was considered to stifle the progress of

a properly reformed Christian. More hoped to present clerics with an opportunity to look into a

mirror and then rationally choose to make a change.

In addition, Thomas More enjoyed playing with words, exampled throughout the text in

the names he gave various places and offices within Utopia. In his contemporary world there

was a distinction between heavenly (grace) and earthly (sustenance) food. The clerics were the

undisputed dispensers of God’s grace and it was necessary for everlasting life. An emphasis on

the Utopian free, equal distribution of food attacked the selling of indulgences. More was not

arguing against the efficacy of indulgences, but the profit procured. Grace was available through

the good actions of individuals and not a wizardric purchase of goods.

The inhabitants of Utopia were captivated by learning and placed great emphasis on

moral philosophy for it contained the raison d’être of their society. The chief virtue for Utopians

was the pursuit of human happiness. The virtue was manifested in “living according to nature

35 Baker-Smith, 42-44.36 More, 82-83.

Bailey 12

and God [who] created us to that end.”37 Human happiness was defined therefore as leading a life

free of anxiety, seeking joy, pursuing “good and honest” pleasure, and helping others to do the

same.38 The search for optimizing pleasure and decreasing suffering continued until death. The

Utopians sanctioned euthanasia as a means to end useless suffering, it was even promoted to a

holy good. In the face of an incurable and painful disease, the citizen, by choosing to either

starve oneself to death or drink a poison, “would be obeying the advice of the priests, who are

the interpreters of God’s will; which ensures that it will be a holy and pious act.”39

In the explanation for the pursuit of pleasure, Hythloday distinguished between good

pleasure which was understood as “every state or movement of body or mind in which man

naturally finds delight,” and pleasure “which is against nature” that seeks only vain glory.40 The

pursuit of natural virtues was expected of anyone who had not yet received the Christian

message. The Cardinal Virtues were not alone in Utopia society, there existed the need to aid

others in the pursuit of the same goal. The Theological Virtues of charity and hope existed in the

commonwealth before Christianity. More separated it however from its medieval understandings

and focused instead on the early Christian view of righteousness before God. The addition of the

theological virtues within the Utopian society before Hythloday’s preaching was meant to shame

Christendom for their inability to live the precepts they were to have experience by God’s

mercy.41 A rightness that meant providing proper knowledge of the faith and scripture to

Christians, as well as, material and societal needs.

The discomfort necessary for satire to work is found in the laudatory statements on

euthanasia, particularly the sanctity of the action. Medieval scholasticism was concerned with

37 Ibid, 55.38 Ibid, 54-56.39 Ibid, 65.40 Ibid, 56-57.41 Coulton, 507; Olin, 63-64.

Bailey 13

systems and proving dictums. They often created complicated webs of proofs, which to the

humanist mind were sophistry and an attempt to prove the conclusion the scholastic initially

sought. More’s approval of euthanasia alerted the reader to those systems. The pursuit of

happiness on the surface was a concept that easily gained support, the prevalence of feasting and

wenching give testimony to pleasure’s (or folly’s) temptations. If pleasure is the ultimate goal,

however, the logical conclusion to pain is to end it. More’s understanding of the atonement and

each individual’s participation within it (Col. 1:24) did not allow for him to personally accept

euthanasia. If it had, he would not have suffered the separation from his family or the hardships

of the tower himself. It underscored the irrationality of scholasticism instead.

A fascinating element of More’s Utopian world is the inclusion of religious toleration.

The island was presented as possessing a plethora of religious beliefs and practices. As laid

down by the founder of the nation, Utopus, all religions were to be respected because truth will

be victorious in the end and that religious warfare only causes the truth to be “crowded out by

blind superstitions.”42 The Utopians were required to have faith and to believe in an afterlife

were righteousness was rewarded and vice punished. A pseudo-exile was employed on those

who did not believe the basic principle. They were not harmed, forced to convert, or deprived of

food or goods; instead, the individual was passed over for leadership positions. The rationale

was that without a sense of fear for eternal punishment, the temptation for the individual to

betray the laws and customs of the society was too great.43

A story was related that one of the converts to Christianity, as preached by Hythloday and

his companions, became overly zealous and began demanding that others convert to Christianity.

The citizens of Utopia convicted him and sentenced him to exile, but it was noted that it was not

42 More, 80.43 Ibid, 80-81.

Bailey 14

for his religious conviction but his incitement of a riot.44 Some scholars have argued that the

condemnation of religious zealotry exemplified the humanist position of rational religious

discourse.45 The literary refutations of Thomas More indicate that those assumptions may be

correct. Following Thomas Cardinal Wolsey’s fall from power in 1529, Thomas More became

Lord-Chancellor and he no longer waged only literary battles. As Lord-Chancellor he was

personally responsible for eliminating heresy in the English Kingdom.

As noted earlier, the suppression of heresy was vigorously enforced by More – he was

not merely doing his duty, but saw it as a necessity for the survival of the realm. If this is the

case, it casts great doubt upon those scholars who advocate More’s modern ideas of religious

toleration. Thomas More was a man of his time and the majority of reformers vigorously

defended their beliefs on battlefields or in church trials. It is important then to see the religious

toleration of More’s Utopia in line with Renaissance Humanism and not the Enlightenment. If

this is the case, then the explanation for its presence in the text is as the satirical image. In

conjunction with the weak philosophical underpinnings More deplored in the pursuit of

unadulterated natural pleasure, he attacked those similar to Martin Dorp and the anonymous

monk. The Christianity preached by the visitors to Utopia was the pure Christianity More

wished to see instituted. It was the detractor, the scholastics, who exiled the one bringing the

truth to them. It is an analogy to the cave in Plato’s Republic. The one who broke his bonds and

saw the world as it truly existed was, upon his return, considered crazed by the others. The

illustration then was to provoke courage in the face of discrimination.

In Olin’s analysis of Utopia he wrote:

I have already stressed that the ideal they have in mind is a spiritual one. It has to do with men being good; it has to do with Christ’s command to love one another;

44 Ibid, 79.45 Baker, 51-52.

Bailey 15

it has to do with the values men live by; it has to do with changing and reforming lives.46

Olin was correct in his assessment; Thomas More wanted to change ecclesial actions. More saw

the problems in the Church and as a committed humanist sought to bring it in align with the new

ideas of his age. The medium that he employed was satire because it was capable of making

people think without seeming to be overtly doing so. The Church was a major component in

society and if he wished to bring about the perfection of man, the Church could be a powerful

force in the process.

It will be important for scholars to examine in a more detailed way the satirical elements

of Utopia than is capable in this paper. In so doing, it will aid in the further development of

Reformation studies. Those studies have already questioned the inevitability of Protestantism

and the sudden shift from one paradigm to another. Satire will be another key because humanists

often employed it. The academic must also be careful in not falling into the trap More abhored

with scholastics – seeking the answer they wanted in their own systems. Thomas More was a

Renaissance man and not an Enlightenment one. Perhaps it is possible though that the

misinterpretation of More’s religious toleration itself aided its development a couple of centuries

later?

46 Olin, 66-67.

Bailey 16

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Erasmus, Desiderius. The Praise of Folly: A New Translation, with Introduction and Notes. Translated by Leonard F. Dean. New York: Farrar, Straus, 1953.

More, Thomas. “Responsio ad Lutherum.” Translated by Sister Scholastica Mandeville. In The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, vol. 5, part 1, edited by John M. Headley. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969.

____________. Utopia. Translated and edited by Robert M. Adams. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1975.

Luther, Martin. “The Ninety-Five Theses, 1517.” Translated by C.M. Jacobs and H.J. Grimm. In Martin Luther’s 95 Theses with the Pertinent Documents from the History of the Reformation, edited by Kurt Aland, 50-58. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1967.

Secondary Sources:

Baker, David Weil. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999.

Baker-Smith, Dominic. More’s Utopia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000.

Bradshaw, Brendan. “More on Utopia.” The Historical Journal 24, No. 1 (March 1981): 1-27.

Bruce, Steve. “The Pervasive World-View: Religion in Pre-Modern Britain.” The British Journal of Sociology 48, No. 4 (December 1997): 667-680.

Coulton, G.G. “The Faith of St. Thomas More.” In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour, 502-512. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977.

Cousins, A.D., and Damian Grace, eds. More’s Utopia and the Utopian Inheritance. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995.

Davis, J.C. Utopia and the Ideal Society: A Study of English Utopian Writing, 1516-1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Duhamel, P. Albert. “Medievalism of More’s Utopia.” In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour, 234-250. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977.

Dust, Philip C. Three Renaissance Pacifists: Essays in the Theories of Erasmus, More, and Vives. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1987.

Bailey 17

Ferguson, Arthur B. The Articulate Citizen and the English Renaissance. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1965.

Fisher, Bernard. “English Spiritual Writers: St. Thomas More.” In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour, 513-519. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977.

Galibois, Roland. Religion et Socialisme: Dans L’Utoppie de Thomas More et dans les Écrits du Premier Tillich. Quebec: Le Presses de L’Université Laval, 2002.

Ganne Élisabeth-Marie. Thomas More: L’homme complet de la Renaissance. Montrouge, France: Nouvell Cité, 2002.

Guy, John. Thomas More. New York: Oxford University Press. 2000.

Heiserman, A.R. “Satire in the Utopia.” Publications of the Modern Language Association 78, No. 3 (June 1963): 163-174.

Hexter, J.H. More’s Utopia: The Biography of an Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952.

Kernan, Alvin. The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1976.

Kessler, Sanford. “Religious Freedom in More’s ‘Utopia’.” The Review of Politics 64, No. 2 (Spring 2002): 207-229.

Knight, Charles. The Literature of Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Logan, George M. The Meaning of More’s ‘Utopia’.” Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Nendza, James. “Political Idealism in More’s ‘Utopia’.” The Review of Politics 46, No. 3 (July 1984): 428-451.

____________. “Religion and Republicanism in More’s Utopia.” The Western Political Quarterly 37, No. 2 (June 1984): 195-211.

Ogborn, Jane and Peter Buckroyd. Satire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Olin, John C. Erasmus, Utopia, and the Jesuits: Essay on the Outreach of Humanism. New York: Fordham University Press, 1994.

__________. Interpreting More’s Utopia. New York: Fordham University Press, 1989.

Shephard, Robert. “Utopia, Utopia’s Neighbors, Utopia, and Europe.” The Sixteenth Century

Bailey 18

Journal 26, No. 4 (Winter 1995): 843-856.

Surtz, Edward L. “Interpretations of ‘Utopia’.” The Catholic Historical Review 38, No. 2 (July 1952): 156-174.

_____________. The Praise of Wisdom: A Commentary on the Religious and Moral Problems and Backgrounds of St. Thomas More’s Utopia. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1957.

Sylvester, R.S. “Thomas More: Humanist in Action.” In Essential Articles for the Study of Thomas More, edited by R.S. Sylvester and G.P. Marc’hadour, 462-469. Hamden, CT: Archon Books, 1977.

Trapp, J.B. Erasmus, Colet and More: The Early Tudor Humanists and Their Books. London: The British Library, 1990.

Tutino, Stefania. Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570-1625. Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2007.