HOW TO GROW ANOSE:

THE EDUCATION OF DESIRE IN MORE’S UTOPIA AND SADE’S LIBERTINE REPUBLIC

DANY NOBUS

Abstract

In this essay, Thomas More’s enduringly enigmatic Utopia (1516) is read alongside D.A.F. de Sade’s “Frenchmen, Some More Effort if You Wish to Become Republicans” (1795), based on four distinct convergences between the two texts. In retracing and unpacking these synergies, it is demonstrated that reading More with Sade may generate a fresh perspective on what, in utopian studies, is designated as the ‘education of desire’, as it impacts upon the vexed relationship between happiness and hedonism. It is argued, through a combined reading of More and Sade, that the texts celebrate satire as the most advanced technique for destabilizing doctrinal knowledge but also, and more importantly, that they may function as lasting reminders of the fictional status of autonomous selfhood and the intrinsic impossibility of full satisfaction—happiness being no more than an unpredictable momentary occurrence that is predicated upon the ineluctable dissatisfaction of desire and the empty promises of a limitless hedonism. The hope of these texts, which should also be the hope of all educational discourses in the 21st century, is that they do not contribute in any way to the promotion of a new disciplinary practice, through which desire would be modelled, shaped and tamed, but rather to an emancipatory form of instruction, in which the ‘education of desire’ is geared towards the creation of an endless ‘desire for education’, supported by the faculty of critical analysis, whose distinguished flag features a really good nose, insofar as the latter epitomized the quintessential seat of satire during the Renaissance period.

Five hundred years after it first appeared in print, Thomas More’s small libelluson the best state of a commonwealth, which came to be known simply as Utopia, remains one of the greatest literary enigmas of the Renaissance, and much of its enduring appeal is precisely due to this, its obstinate and persistent refusal to see its textual cipher being unlocked.[1]In his highly acclaimed Renaissance Self-Fashioning, Stephen Greenblatt famouslycompared “More’s conundrum” (Carey 1999, 38) to the impenetrable and incongruous mood elicited by Hans Holbein the Younger’s celebrated painting “The Ambassadors” which, although it was completed seventeen years after Utopia was released, plays on a similar configuration of strangely disquieting, anamorphic art (1980, 17-26). On occasion, Utopia’s semantic quandary has even been equated to the maddening inscrutability of the stately portrait of the author himself, which Holbein painted in 1527, and which has become the standard representation of More during his later years as Chancellor of Henry VIII (Ackroyd 1998, 260-61; Achterhuis 2016, 25-26). What kind of man are we looking at here? Is he really as authoritative, shrewd and uncompromising as his sumptuous gown and livery collar suggest? Isn’t he rather more convivial, to the point where he can barely conceal a self-satisfied smirk? Is the profound ambiguity of More’s facial expression in the Holbein portrait but an outward reflection of the fact that, in all likelihood, he was wearing a cilice underneath his red velvet doublet, or does it signify a much more insidious, unresolved internal tension between his public and private persona?

In a sense, the plethora of unsettled matters raised by More’s little volume comes down to one single issue. What exactly is the message of this book? What are we supposed to do with it? What can we still learn from it, five hundred years after it first saw the light of day? The issue is even more troublesome as reading Utopia is by no means a daunting, vertiginous experience, even in the original Latin, despite its implicit appropriation ofreams of Classical scholarship, its great many allusions, and its abidingreliance on exceedingly clever rhetorical figures. More is no Rabelais. He is no Swift either. And yet, the reader cannot but wonder what all this talk of a remote island of perfectly governed, happy and satisfied people is supposed to mean, what we are expected to think of Raphael Hythloday’s loquacious encomium to the Utopians, to what extent the figure of More as he appears within the book voices the views and opinions of the book’s author, why More the author would have wanted to invent “a stranger, a man of quite advanced years, with a sunburned face, a long beard, and a cloak hanging loosely from his shoulders” (More 2016a, 9) to tell the story of a faraway country in which people are purportedly living in harmony and—should they not always be at peace with the outside world—are always at peace with themselves. In short, the reader is constantly left speculating how the text should be employed, what purpose it may have served, and what its contemporary relevance may be.[2]

In this essay, I want to shed some light on these and other questions—without going so far as to suggest that I would be able to properly resolve them—by juxtaposing More’s enigmatic text with another small utopian treatise in which the boundaries between literature, political philosophy and ethics are blurred, and which continues to divide the scholarly community as to its precise status, as to how it should be read, and as to what it represents for historical and contemporary perspectives on utopianism. The text in question is entitled “Frenchmen, Some More Effort if You Wish to Become Republicans”, and it was included, in ostensibly random fashion, by Marquis de Sade in the fifth dialogue of his Philosophy in the Boudoir, which started to circulate, as an anonymous pamphlet in two small volumes, in France during the second half of 1795, just over a year after the so-called ‘Thermidorian Reaction’ put an end to Robespierre’s Reign of Terror (Sade 2006, pp. 104-49).[3] In his seminal critical analysis of Sade’s life and works, Gilbert Lely speculated that Sade may have only inserted this atypical, socio-political essay into Philosophy in the Boudoirin order to alleviate the lingering smell of the ancien régime that was running through its pages, and that it could have been originally destined for a stand-alone publication (Lely 1957, 545), to which it effectively gave rise long after Sade’s death (Sade 1965a). Others, however, have claimed that it cannot be dissociated from the ‘philosophical’ principles Sade exposed in the rest of the book and which, in typically Sadean fashion, follow a recurrent alternation between theoretical discourses and erotic scenes, so that instead of its being considered an arbitrary digression, it should be acknowledged as an integral part of the book’s narrative structure (Le Brun 1986, 263; Pauvert 1990, 183).

Bizarre as it may seem at first, my juxtaposition of More’s Utopia and Sade’s “Frenchmen, Some More Effort . . .” will be based on four distinct, yet interconnected points of convergence between the two texts. Whereas many ostensibly disparate texts could admittedly be compared on account of certain thematic similarities, I shall argue that a comparative reading of More’s and Sade’s utopias generates three interlocking principles that may still be of strategic importance for contemporary perspectives on the social governance of happiness. First, in retracing and unpacking the four synergies between the two texts, I will show that reading More alongside and through Sade—much like Lacan at one point read Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason(1997) ‘with Sade’ (Lacan 2006)—may yield a fresh outlook on the value of both works for what, in utopian studies, has been termed the “education of desire” (Abensour 1973; Thompson 1977, 791; Levitas 2011, 123-50), as it impacts upon the vexed relationship between hedonism and happiness. Secondly, I will demonstrate how both texts engage with and to some extent depart from the Stoic and Epicurean ethical systems, in order to advance a much more complex and intrinsically fractured concept of happiness, which can only be sustained as a fully accomplished state of human existence within the psychic realm of fantasy, and which is therefore inescapably embedded in a psycho-social construct of asymptotic realization. Thirdly, I shall argue on the basis of my combined reading of Utopia and “Frenchmen, Some More Effort . . .” that what can be extracted from these texts, over and above certain socio-political arguments about communality, state power and social justice, is a perennially valuable, composite style of reasoning, which celebrates satire as the most advanced technique for destabilizing doctrinal knowledge, and which embraces subjectivity as a fundamentally unstable construct. At this point, the third part of the argument will re-connect with the first, insofar as I shall propose that an emancipatory ‘education of desire’ can only be synonymous with the installation of an endless (and therefore never fulfilled and fundamentally unhappy) ‘desire for education’, and that the latter rests upon the subjective embrace of satire as the highest critical good, or what the Renaissance humanists designated as the cultivation of a ‘good nose’.Whatever has been said, then, about the political messages of More’s Utopia, and Sade’s ‘dystopian’ version of the ideal commonwealth, the texts may also function as lasting reminders of the fictional status of autonomous selfhood and the intrinsic impossibility of full satisfaction—happiness being no more than an unpredictable momentary occurrence that is predicated upon the ineluctable dissatisfaction of desire and the empty promises of a limitless hedonism.

***

The first point of contact between Utopia and “Frenchmen, Some More Effort…” can be easily identified at a purely textual level, although for all I know neither More- nor Sade-scholars have ever paid any serious attention to it. At one stage in his relentless disquisition, the author of the political pamphlet in Philosophy in the Boudoirexplicitly refers to More’s Utopia in support of the thesis that the natural lechery of women (le désordre des femmes) is reason enough for all forms of adultery to be decriminalized: “In Utopia, Thomas More [Thomas Morus] proves that it is advantageous for a woman to indulge in debauchery, and the ideas of this great man were not always dreams. Thomas More also wanted engaged couples to see each other naked before their nuptials. How many marriages would be foiled if that law were practiced! You must admit that the opposite truly means buying a pig in a poke!” (Sade 2006, 133).

Although it is not at all clear what exactly More (the author of Utopia and the character in the book) himself endorsed, the Utopians have indeed adopted the custom of insisting that potential marriage partners are being shown naked to each other before they take things further—and of which Hythloday says that it “seemed to us foolish and absurd in the extreme”—both in order to avoid the holy bond of matrimony being subsequently undermined by feelings ofdisgust, discord or offence, and in order to legally protect both parties from deception (More 2016a, 79-80).Yet nowhere in Utopia is it stated, or even insinuated, that debauchery would be beneficial to women. If anything, the Utopian rulers are adamant that no type of sexual activity outside marriage should be condoned, under any circumstance.Men and women who are found guilty of engaging in sex before marriage are prohibited from marrying for the rest of their lives, unless they are being pardoned by the governor, and they also bring public disgrace upon their parents, because the latter are deemed to have failed in their educational duties (More 2016a, 79). Utopians who violate the marriage bond by engaging in extra-marital sex are “punished with the strictest form of slavery”, from which they can again only be redeemed by the governor, whereas recidivism in these matters is invariably punished by death (More 2016a, 80-81). Either the author of “Frenchmen, Some More Effort . . .” deliberately misrepresented the Utopian system, somewhat naïvely assuming that his readership probably would not notice, or his revolutionary hubris led him to misread the text, or he drew on unreliable secondary source materials, yet the Utopians would definitely not have been happy with the way in which they were depicted in the pamphlet here.[4] I will return to the issue of mis-representation and distortion later on in my essay, because it crucially affects the way in which the fourth point of convergence between More and Sade is being interpreted, yet I would already venture the thesis, here, that by virtue of the anonymous author of the political pamphlet, which was also designed to serve educational purposes, Sade offered his own satirical take on Hythloday’s allegedly truthful account of Utopian morals.

The second synergy between the two texts concerns the strange authorship ploy and the associated, double filtering of the narrative. In his prefatory letter to Pieter Gillis, which was designated as the preface to Utopia in its first edition, More apologized to his friend for taking so long in completing the manuscript, a delay which was all the more embarrassing since the only thing he purportedly had to do was to recount the words of Raphael Hythloday (More 2016a, 3). In the third edition of the book, a letter was included from the humanist scholar and publishing coordinator Beatus Rhenanus to the lawyer Willibald Pirckheimer, in which Rhenanus reported how some “foolish fellow” (quidam pinguis) had said of More that he “deserved no more credit than a paid scribe, who simply writes down what other people say after the fashion of a pen-pusher” (More 2016a, 132). In these ancillary materials, More is thus presented, and indeed presents himself, as a mere spokesperson, as a “passive conduit” (Baker-Smith 2011, 141) for the views and opinions (in the dialogue of Utopia’s Book I), and the travelogue and personal experiences (in the discourse of Book II) of a third-party interlocutor, whose accidental acquaintance he had made outside the cathedral in Antwerp. Thus, More could only lay claim to being Hythloday’s mouthpiece and, as we shall see later, because of this he also expressed his worries over the truthfulness of his account. However, as soon as it is ascertained that Hythloday is a literary invention, which would not have been obvious at all to each and every reader from the first editions of the book, More’s authorship status becomes ambiguous, because he regains full authority over Hythloday’s words whilst simultaneously distancing himself from the very contents of these words by allowing them to enter a critical dialogue with a first-person narrator by the name of Thomas More, who is by no means convinced that the Utopian life-world represents the ideal commonwealth. In other words, were we to accept that everything Hythloday says has effectively been invented by More the author of Utopia, his self-representation within the book, as Hythloday’s critical soundboard, opens up crucial questions about the relationship between authorship, authentication and authenticity.

Remarkably, similar issues emerge from the rather peculiar presentation of “Frenchmen, Some More Effort . . .” in Philosophy in the Boudoir. After the young Eugénie de Mistival has been sodomized consecutively by two male libertines, and everyone decides it is time for a short philosophical pause, she asks the master of ceremonies Dolmancé “whether a government truly needs a set of morals, whether they can really influence the essence of a nation” (Sade 2006, 103). The latter replies that it so happens that he has just purchased an anonymous pamphlet which will answer all of Eugénie’s questions. Casting her eye over the document, Madame de Saint-Ange, in whose boudoir the education of Eugénie’s libertine desireis taking place, instructs her brother, the Chevalier de Mirvel, to read it aloud, and what follows is the full forty-five-page text of the pamphlet, which takes up almost a quarter of Sade’s entire book. In ‘Sade and the Revolution’, Pierre Klossowski posited that the pamphlet is in a sense more Dolmancé’s than Sade’s work—and at the end of the Chevalier’s recitation Eugénie’s first reaction to it is that she is tempted to regard Dolmancé as its author, which he does not explicitly deny—yet that precisely because of this authorship ploy the document is more revealing of the author’s intentions than anything else in the book, or than any official document Sade produced during his years as a republican politician (Klossowski 1992, 58-59).[5] In his essay ‘Kant with Sade’, Lacan made an almost identical point when he wrote that the pamphlet should be recognized for “its closer relationship to the real”, similar to how Freud had interpreted the dream within the dream, in the sixth chapter of The Interpretation of Dreams, as a representation of reality, “the true recollection” (die wirkliche Erinnerung), and “the most decided confirmation of the reality of the event” (Freud 1953, 338; Lacan 2006, 648). Yet were it to be the case that Sade’s authorship ploy in “Frenchmen, Some More Effort . . .” mainly served the purpose of a “protective barrier against discovery” (Phillips 2001, 70), why would he have wanted to double it—Philosophy in the Boudoir was published anonymously, as a posthumous work by the author of Justine—and what part of the political pamphlet would have made him anxious, more than a year after the execution of Robespierre and his fellow terrorists? Moreover, it would have been quite easy, much easier than in the case of Hythloday, for readers to ascertain that Dolmancé was the author’s literary creation, a purely fictitious character whose own relationship to the pamphlet is rather ambiguous, sincehe purports to agree with only some of the views expressed therein. Hence, if Dolmancé represents Sade’s own beliefs, then the former’s equivocal reception of the pamphlet, which is notably read by the Chevalier, and apparently for no other reason than his being not only endowed with a massive member, but also with a beautiful voice (Sade 2006, 104), makes it next to impossible to establish, much like in Utopia, which of the pamphlet’s views are shared by its author. We know that Sade was a lifelong opponent of the death penalty, yet we also know that his sexual mores were not nearly as remorselessly barbaric as those advanced in the revolutionary tract, or in any of the other libertine perorations for that matter.[6] Much like Utopia, Sade’s pamphlet raises the question of the authorial voice, without ever resolving it. If anything, both texts deconstruct and destabilize the truth, knowledge and meaning of the (educational) discourses they advance, both on account of their authorship ploy and, as we shall see, through their clever use of satire as a critical strategy.