Talk:Utopia (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Small change. The original article author put down that the Utopians made "plates and cutlery" out of gold, which sounded off to me. I double checked the source and in fact, "they eat and drink from dishes and cups made of earthenware and glass... [whereas] they make their chamber pots and all the other vessels that they use for shameful purposes out of gold and silver" (Wootton translation, 1999 Hackett Publishing, page 110-11)

[edit] My changes

I have just made a number of alterations, most of them minor. However, I have changed the titles of two sections and corrected the order of composition. I changed the section titles because I felt them to be misleading. Although Book 1 does discuss the travels of Raphael, it primarily deals with giving advice to princes. Simply calling Book 2 "Utopia" may be confusing. It is standard practice within academia to call the two sections the "dialogue" and the "discourse", hence the reasons for my choices.

Although it is generally true that Book 2 was written before Book 1, J. H. Hexter, in his essay which proved the theory beyond any doubt, showed that the material composed in England was inserted after the opening few pages. Hence the reason for the line "Now I intend to relate merely what he told us of the manners and customs of the Utopians" being followed for several dozen pages regarding anything but the manners and customs of the Utopians. Rje 01:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More's "Utopia"

The society outlined in More's book is not meant to be his "perfect society." He specifically says in the last lines of the work that he does not agree with everything that goes on in Utopia. In addition, his attached letter to Peter Giles as much as says that he is merely using the piece to "drop pointed hints" about European society at the time. More's presentation of his "Utopia" is meant only as a platform from which to discuss social issues. I feel that, as is, this wikipedia article is misleading in this regard. I know I am not exactly "being bold" here, but would anyone be opposed to me altering this article to better reflect what pretty obviously seems to be More's true intentions?

[edit] Not Raphael the angel

Has the author of this section actually read the text? He/she seems to indirectly imply that the character called Raphael is the archangel of that same name, for what else can be the reason for writing this: "These letters help continue the fiction that they actually met Raphael"? I haven't read the text either, but a cursory look at the Gutenberg e-text here tells me that it is only a human being, a sailor in fact, called Raphael Hythloday. This makes me think that there may be other serious errors on this page; could an expert please check it through?

Well I think what is implied that Raphael Hythloday is not a real person but a made up character in More's work of fiction. I don't think the implication is that More met, or recieved inpiration from an angel, just that he chose the name to hint at his meanings, in the same way other names are used. It may not be clearly enough stated, I've made a small change what do you think? MeltBanana 15:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)