Imagination, the word is wide.

So wide, that it is not possible to work on it all.

 

Utopian, this imaginary world

 

 

What is an Utopia? An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects.

 

The first text to be called this way was, of course, the novel Utopia written by Thomas More. Written just before the Reformation outbreak lead by Martin Luther, in 1516, this story is the one of a young man, Hythloday ( his name is from, thanks to some etymological stunts, the greek equivalent os "speaker of nonsense" ). Does it means that if you take only one thing that is written in this novel seriously, then you're a fool?

It's the fisrt novel of a tradition...

 

But it's not the more ancient: it's just that, before, no one called this kind of literary work this way.

For example, during the Antiquity already, Plato explained that a perfect Republic would be based on wisdom and reason, and never obstructed by feelingsand emotions.

Later, during the first century, Virgile described that a perfect society could be attained thanks to social progress.

Even the Bible had its own utopia: the garden of Eden is an ideal world lost because of the original sin.

Sir thomas More was an aristocrate, a lawyer, a writer, a statesman. He was even, for a time, Chancelor of Englang during the reign of Henry the Eight. But because of some difference of opinion, he king of, erm, lost his head. In fact, to settle his matrimonial affairs, Henry the Eight decides to split from the Catholic Church and create an Anglican Church. It did not really pleased Thomas More, and well, he refused to submit to this decision. After his death he was sanctified by the Catholic Church for his martyrdom and his convictions.

He denounced mostly, in his work, feudalism and religious intolerance.

 

---

Utopia

One day, when I was dining with him, there happened to be at table one of the English lawyers, who took occasion to run out in a high commendation of the severe execution of justice upon thieves, 'who,' as he said, 'were then hanged so fast that there were sometimes twenty on one gibbet!' and, upon that, he said, 'he could not wonder enough how it came to pass that, since so few escaped, there were yet so many thieves left, who were still robbing in all places.' Upon this, I (who took the boldness to speak freely before the Cardinal) said, 'There was no reason to wonder at the matter, since this way of punishing thieves was neither just in itself nor good for the public; for, as the severity was too great, so the remedy was not effectual; simple theft not being so great a crime that it ought to cost a man his life; no punishment, how severe soever, being able to restrain those from robbing who can find out no other way of livelihood. In this,' said I, 'not only you in England, but a great part of the world, imitate some ill masters, that are readier to chastise their scholars than to teach them. There are dreadful punishments enacted against thieves, but it were much better to make such good provisions by which every man might be put in a method how to live, and so be preserved from the fatal necessity of stealing and of dying for it.

---

 

In this extract, the question is whether or not punishing theft by death is right and effective. One of the two seems to think that it is the only solution, whereas the other ( Hythloday ) is opposed to this practice.

It's still a topical issue, about the death penalty... but well, with today's considerations about a crime and a murder.

The main argument of the lawyer, opposing Hythloday's view, is that tieves seek their punishment. But Hythloday thinks that "Death penalty is neither just nor good."

 

Because of poverty, people have no choice but to rob in order to live. It's no use to kill the robbers if poverty is not suppressed..

But the lawyer who is very very very very dumb regrets the increase in the number of thieves, so he would like to find  a better way to exterminate them.

 

And now, for your displeasure, here comes our rearranged and enlarged version of the extract above, limited to the dialogue ...

 

---

- No, no, you can't even think about it! No. Y... You know, I think that kind of execution is very good. That is actually the only thing that could, maybe one day, free us from that plague. And I personnaly don't know... Well, believe me, gentlemen, I'm telling you God's truth. God's truth! We grab so many of them that sometimes, they are twenty on one gibbet! Yes, perfectly! You know, I cannot wonder enough how it came to pass that, simce so few escape, there are yet so manythieves left, who are robbing in all places...

- Excuse me, but there is no reason to wonder at the matter, since this way of punishing thieves is neither just in itself nor good for the public; for, as the severity is too great, so the remedy is not effectual; simple theft not being so great a crime that it ought to cost a man his life; no punishment, how severe so ever, being able to restrain those from robbing who can find out no other way of livelihood.

- Could you be telling that we just should let them go? Everyone in the world does as we do, and I swear you, not anyone else would even dare to think about it!

- You're sure right on this point. But in this, not only you in England, but a great part of the world, imitate some ill masters, that are readier to chastise their scholars than to teach them.

- And so, what do you expect us to teach to some criminals without even the bases of an ethic?

- I'm not in place to decide of such a thing, and I don't think Ihave the capacities to change the world. But some people that are much more clever than I am could do that.Because, you see, there are dreadful punishments enacted against thieves, but it is much better to make such good provisions by which every man might be put in a method how to live, and so be preserved from the fatal necessityof stealing and dying for it. They remain miserable only because we chose it. It's not by killing the thieves that the problem will be solved, you know. They are not poor because they want it to be that way, but because they already are. What would you do? Find a way to exterminate all of them?

- Yes! That is what I'm on about! I think they should all die, and the problem would be solved.

- No, that is not true. You'd find more and more poor people... There's no end to it. The only solution is to help them.

- But if you help them, then the Lords, and greatest men in the Empire, will have to cancel sometaxes that are necessaryto pay the soldiers. And those ones defend the Lords, but also lower people.

- Well, you said so yourself. Though we can catch most of them, there always are more thieves. But what you seem not to know, or maybe you just don't want to see it, is the fact that robbing is their onlyway to stay alive. They are starving. But, if less people die of hunger and misery, there will be less thieves, ans so, no need of soldiers. No attack on the poors, no attack on the richs, no stolen jewelry, much less losses. The Lords alongside with the people won't see their family robbed on the road, and won't need to raise new taxes sa that what has been stolen can be repaid. Then again, people would be able to live better lifes, and the number of thieves will decrease once more, an so on.

- If things could go so smoothly, sir, then the world would be at peace. You're a fool, Mister Hythloday. You cannot understand our problems, because you are not one of us.

- And I'm proud of not being one of yours.

---

 

 

The dream of a new world

 

From the beginning to 'To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world" and "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America" to the end.

  

During the eighteenth century, in North America, the settlers fought for their independance with the kingdom of Great Britain. Thirteen colonies on the Eastern Coast, the fourth of july, chose to declare war on Great Britain, with at stake, the possibility of finally getting an independence they were waiting for since some time already. The Declaration of Independance was redacted by Thomas Jefferson.

What values is this new society founded on?

How does it opposes the existing political system that prevailed at that time?

This Declaration was, in fact, of a greatest importance than you may think at first glance, because it inspired many peoples along which the French.

It can be seen as an achievement of the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, two english philosophers.

 

 

Its fundamental valors are "Life", "Liberty",  "Happiness" that are "unalienable Rights".

Equality is also a very important one, but... ~~ WASP ~~

And for once, there is no denying that men are created equal.

I don't wanna be cynical but... It kind of remind me of... well, just on that particular point though, and it's still that way nowadays, and moreover in the whole world... http://justabook.eklablog.com/authors-and-the-totalitarism-a91428963 Remenber, that... that... hum you see, "All animals are equal but some animals are more quals than others" ... but of course you never read this, I did not write it either, because I'm not sure any free country would be very pleased to be compared ... Well, with that, you know.

But well, what to say, then, about the death penalty,  and later, the abortion? What to say about the equality, at first, when it came to black people and women? And how can you garantee that even poor people and sick ones will be happy?

Because this perfect country that the foundators wanted to build is nothing else than an Utopia, an imaginary world, and because perfection can not be achieved, we have to be frank and admit that the United States of Amerca are not so wondrous. But back then, it was already a great progress compared to the political regime existing at the time.

 

 

 

The acting government, until then, was none other the parliamentary monarchy of Great Britain, where all men are not equal, and so the poursuit of happiness ain't possible for everyone. Liberty is also chained by some old and sometimes odd laws. It's not a system where the government comes from the will of the governed, and it can not be dispelled if the people consider that it's becoming self destructive.

It's an abusive and usurping system, an absolute tyranny when it comes to the States of America, who suffered exaggerated and taxes and gained nothing from those taxes, invested only in England.

This Declaration of Independance includes besides that a list of all the american grievancies against the british king: taxes, no help from the government, exagerated war effort to support the british army, no real liberty of trade, no american representative at the parliament...

 

 

The new American government's duty is to preserve these rights, that are Life, Pursuit of Happiness and Liberty.

Contrary to the advice of Locke, they still suppressed "Possession" ( although at this date, the United States are "the" ultimate liberal and capitalist countrie ) called into question by Marx-like ideas starting to emerge.

John Locke was one of the Enlightenment thinkers. His philosophie was based on the idea of a State of Nature, natural laws ( that are the natural rights of human beings, according to him Liberty, Possession, Persuit of  Happiness and Life ). He proposed a representative government that inspired the Declaration of Independance of America. Locke and Rousseau un français... ça existe vraiment?! shared the same dream of a Social Contract ( between the powers and the people ), and it is Locke who invented the expression. The separation between the Church and the State was also one of his main idea.

They wanted a Republic where a part of the people would vote for their representative, and claimed that a state should be separated from the Church. But, well, how to explain that women got the right to vote in all the states ony in 1919, and that the President as the swear on the Bible...?

In the end of the nineteenth century, England and most of the european world is striken by poverty, due to the industrial revolution even if in fact, some big shots were getting all the profit and the others were just good for crying every tear they could, but, well, I'm saying that, I'm not saying anything, hey...

This poverty led the city of London, and every big cities, in fact, to a dirty state, as if something filthy took over the british towns. Because of that, poor people didn't have anything like a sanitary system in the streets, and there was no hygiene either, causing many diseases.

What's more, no place in the city were safe, faced with a high criminality rate.

To top it all, because of the smoke coming from factories, the air was polluted, and the town turned black.

 

In

News From Nowhere

a novel written by William Morris in 1890, the author describes what he would like London to be.

William Morris is one of the first utopian novelist after More, dreaming of a socialist future.

                                    

 

---

News From Nowhere, chapter 2

"How clear the water is this morning!"

"Is it?" said he; "I didn't notice it. You know the flood-tide always thickens it a bit." "H'm," said I, "I have seen it pretty muddy even at half-ebb."

He said nothing in answer, but seemed rather astonished; and as he now lay just stemming the tide, and I had my clothes off, I jumped in without more ado. Of course when I had my head above water again I turned towards the tide, and my eyes naturally sought for the bridge, and so utterly astonished was I by what I sought for the bridge, and so utterly astonished was I by what I saw, that I forgot to strike out, and went spluttering under water again, and when I came up made straight for the boat; for I felt I that I must ask some questions of my waterman, so bewildering had been the half-sight I had seen from the face of the river with the water hardly out of my eyes; though by this time I was quit of the slumbrous and dizzy feeling, and wide-awake and clear-headed.

As I got in up the steps which he had lowered, and he held out his hand to help me, we went drifting speedily up towards Chiswick; but now he caught up the sculls and brought her head round again, and said; "A short swim, neighbour; but perhaps you find the water cold this morning, after your journey. Shall I put you ashore at once, or would you like to go down to Putney before breakfast?"

He spoke in a way so unlike what I should have expected from a Hammersmith waterman, that I stared at him, as I answered, "Please to hold her a little; I want to look about me a bit."

"All right," he said; "It's no less pretty in its way here than it is off Barn Elms; it's jolly everywhere this time in the morning. I'm glad you got up early; it's barely five o'clock yet." If I was astonished with my sight of the river banks, I was no less astonished at my waterman, not that I had time to look at him and see him with my head and eyes clear.

He was a handsome young fellow, with a peculiarly pleasant and friendly look about his eyes,--an expression which was quite new to me then, though I soon became familiar with it. For the rest, he was dark-haired and berry-brown of skin, well-knit and strong, and obviously used to exercising his muscles, but with nothing rough or coarse about him, and clean as might be. His dress was not like any modern work-a-day clothes I had seen, but would have served very well as a costume for a picture of fourteenth-century life: it was of dark blue cloth, simple enough, but of fine web, and without a stain on it. He had a brown leather belt around his waist, and I noticed that its clasp was of damascened steel beautifully wrought. In short, he seemed to be like some specially manly and refined young gentleman, playing waterman for spree, and I concluded that this was the case.

I felt that I must make some conversation; so I pointed to the Surrey bank, where I noticed some light plank stages running down the foreshore, with windlasses at the landward end of them, and said "What are they doing with those things here? If we were on the Tay, I should have said that they were for drawing the salmon-nets; but here-" "Well," said he, smiling, "of course that is what they are for. Where there are salmon, there are likely to be salmon-nets, Tay or Thames; but of course they are not always in use; we don't want salmon every day of the season."

 

I was going to say, "But is this the Thames?" but held my peace in my wonder, and turned my bewildered eyes eastward to look at the bridge again, and thence to the shores of the London river; and surely there was enough to astonish me. For though there was a bridge across the stream and houses on its banks, how all this was changed from last night! The soap-works with their smoke-vomiting chimneys were gone; the engineer's works gone; the lead-works gone; and no sound of riveting and hammering came down the west wind from Thorneycroft's. Then the bridge! I had perhaps dreamed of such a bridge, but never seen such as one out of an dreamed of such a bridge, but never seen such as one out of an illuminated manuscript; for not even the Ponte Vecchio at Florence came anywhere near it. It was of stone arches, splendidly solid, and as graceful as they were strong; high enough also to let ordinary river traffic easily. Over the parapet showed quaint and fanciful little buildings, which I supposed to be booths or shops, beset with painted and gilded vanes and spirelets. the stone was a little weathered but showed no marks of the grimy sootiness which I was used to on every London building more than a year old. In short, to me a wonder of a bridge.

 

 

---

 

The narrator is definitely astonished, and what is, according to him, the most surprising is, at first, that the water of the Thames is just so clean and clear, at second, that people are so polite and refined and wear only clothes of good quality, and at third, that there is an incredible bridge just out there that, to say the truth, was not there when he passed a little time before yes, yes, he kind of changed world, but, you see, he just don't know that's the case....

William Morris' vision of what London should be is the one of an non-industrialised city where everybody can wear good clothing and don't need to do works that are dangerous for the health. On top of that, arts ( such as architecture ) are well-developped and don't use cheap material. The city should be useful, beautiful, the nature should be respected, and as people feel better in a nice environment, the people of this city are happy, and, moreover, welcoming to strangers.

 

 After the Second World War, London was pretty much destroyed, and  needed to be rebuilt entirely in some areas.

 The city asked architects to present some ideas, and Oliver Cox for  exemple, tried to create a London as close as possible to Morris' vision  of a perfect town. The world had been destroyed by war, and was living  under the shadw of atomic destruction. People were afraid, and needed  to be reassured. With the hope of reducing the gap between the poors  and the richs, because the housing was meant to be given to those in  the greatest need and to transform the capital's richest areas into mix-  income communities, the architects did their best with what was  offered  to them.

 Oliver Cox used the romantic ideas of the Arts and Crafts Movement (  1860 - 1910 ) to bring the values of hand-made arts ( for everyone if  possible ), with the thought that hand-made arts are the contrary of  mass produced goods and fight the standardization of society. The poor  are also allowed be "someone", andnot just "anyone". So, by using once  more the values of respect of nature, and the nostalgia of the rural past  of England, Oliver Cox hoped he was serving Morris' ideals.

Well, it was more or less successful, because, unsurprisingly, when the poors came to the neighborhood, the richs just went somewhere else. But, at least, those in difficulties then got a way better life.

 

Just in case it's not being clear enough, THAT is something from the arts and crafts movement.