Anti-utopian Mood, Liminality, and Literature. Irma Ratiani
forms, but this process was neither fast, nor radical.
The comic writers of the classical period, namely Aristophanes and Lucan can be seen as the first opponents of utopia. Their works, of course, are not a classical example of utopia, but in many comedies, we come across anti-utopian motifs, not as an independent literary model, but as a negative necessity for the realization of the utopian model. From an early stage, anti-utopia has been received as ←24 | 25→an auxiliary satirical means, serving as the ideological and practical commentaries of utopia.
In Aristophanes’ and Lucan’s work, satire can be seen as the catalyst element for utopian models. The aim is clear: To achieve the positive and sedative by means of devastating criticism.
Prominent Georgian scholar, Simon Kaukhchishvili in his work “The History of Greek Literature” (1950) divides Aristophanes’ comedies into three groups, according to its themes:
1. Comedies, where Aristophanes opposes war;
2. Comedies, where Aristophanes attacks democratic political and public figures;
3. Comedies, where Aristophanes depicts the search for a Utopian world (Kaukhchishvili 1950: 389).
Professor Kaukhchishvili considered the comedies “Women in Tents”, “Plutus” and “The Birds” to represent the third typology. I believe that in these comedies utopian theme showed itself as the satirical application model of utopian structure.
The main aim of Aristophanes in the plays listed above is to achieve ideal, harmonious and utopian society, which can be proved on the example of the author’s sympathy toward the program of Praxagora (“Women in Tents”), the actions of Plutus (“Plutus”) and the ideal city in the sky (“The Birds”). But at this stage our main sphere of interest is not the final result of the author, but the main process of achieving this aim: Aristophanes, on one hand, strives to achieve order, but, at the same time, appears to be a rebellious thinker against order. Anti-utopian motif here is a relevant concept of “undesirable reality” and has the meaning of “bad”, whereas the utopian motif “desirable reality” is the same analogous model of “good”. The anti-utopian text – Aristophanes’ political satire, directed toward statesmen, any type of criticism of dishonesty or a reflection of realistic manner – in this case, the primary structure is a basis on which the utopian text should be placed as a secondary structure, or the additional one.
The symbiosis of unity between utopia and anti-utopia can be seen in Lucan’s satirical texts as well, although it is more or less isolated in this very case. The criticism of reality, which includes the flagellation of existing religious dogmas, philosophical schools and social rules, is accompanied by sharp criticism of the Hellenistic utopian model, as a popular dream. But the images depicting ideal being are so persuasive that they had a great impact on the utopists of the Middle Ages.
The understanding of utopia and anti-utopia as a unity, but component elements of ambivalent construction, changed in the Stoic era, mainly in the doctrine ←25 | 26→of Seneca. From this point of view, our sphere of interest is Seneca’s work “Simple living benefits”, where the philosopher questions the perspective of forming an ideal society and outlines the main road that should define the striving of mankind for idyll.
All men, brother Gallio, wish to live happily, but are dull at perceiving exactly what it is that makes life happy: and so far is it from being easy to attain the happiness that the more eagerly a man struggles to reach it the further he departs from it, if he takes the wrong road; for, since this leads in the opposite direction, his very swiftness carries him all the further away. We must therefore first define clearly what it is at which we aim: next we must consider by what path we may most speedily reach it, for on our journey itself, provided it be made in the right direction, we shall learn how much progress we have made each day, and how much nearer we are to the goal towards which our natural desires urge us. But as long as we wander at random, not following any guide except the shouts and discordant clamors of those who invite us to proceed in different directions, our short life will be wasted in useless roaming, even if we labor both day and night to get a good understanding. Let us not therefore decide whether we must tend, and by what path, without the advice of some experienced person who has explored the region which we are about to enter, because this journey is not subject to the same conditions as others; for in them some distinctly understood track and inquiries made of the natives make it impossible for us to go wrong, but here the most beaten and frequented tracks are those which lead us most astray. Nothing, therefore, is more important than that we should not, like sheep, follow the flock that has gone before us, and thus proceed not whither we ought, but whither the rest are going.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I
The quotation cited above is a clear example that Seneca essentially drops a boundary between the “collective happiness” characteristic of utopia, the general idea of unity and sees it as an illusion impossible to fulfil:
Now nothing gets us into greater troubles than our subservience to common rumor, and our habit of thinking that those things are best which are most generally received as such, of taking many counterfeits for truly good things, and of living not by reason but by imitation of others. This is the cause of those great heaps into which men rush till they are piled one upon another. In a great crush of people, when the crowd presses upon itself, no one can fall without drawing someone else down upon him, and those who go before cause the destruction of those who follow them. You may observe the same thing in human life: no one can merely go wrong by himself, but he must become both the cause and adviser of another’s wrongdoing. It is harmful to follow the march of those who go before us, and since everyone had rather believe another than form his own opinion, we never pass a deliberate judgment upon life, but some traditional error always entangles us and brings us to ruin, and we perish because we follow other men’s examples: we should be cured of this if we were to disengage ourselves from the herd; but as it is, the mob is ready to fight against reason in defense of its own mistake… ←26 | 27→When we are considering a happy life, you cannot answer me as though after a division of the House, “This view has most supporters;” because for that very reason it is the worse of the two: matters do not stand so well with mankind that the majority should prefer the better course: the more people do a thing the worse it is likely to be.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_I
Then what road should the person take who is desperate to find happy and careless life? Where is the solution to the problem? It should be the variety of action, believes Seneca, which is more worthy for people, not the one that we come across at every corner; we should concentrate on what will fill us with the possession of everlasting happiness, and not what the veritable enemy – the mass – likes. In the mob, I do not mean only the poor people, but the rich as well…. soul is the only one responsible for spiritual dignity.
Against the background of ancient interpretation of utopia, Seneca’s conception can be distinguished according to its categorical tone: He not only questions the issues of utopian collectivism as an empty structural probability but also reveals the alternative route of achieving “ideal happiness”, the road to personal and spiritual self-determination. It is spirituality that represents the only model for happy life, according to Seneca, which is different from how the ancient philosophers perceived utopia. What is the difference between such a human and others? – asks Seneca, – that some of them are softly tied, whereas the others are more tightly tied and the third are so firmly chained that they cannot even move. The person who achieves some state of spiritual perfection is not disturbed by chains: He, of course, is not free, but has achieved the right of freedom.
The emerging paradigm of “careless life” in Seneca’s doctrine, individual values – spiritual perfection – freedom is in opposition to the classical model of utopia: Equality – collectivism – good or right governance. According to this, we can assume that Seneca’s “Simple living benefits” can be regarded as a text upholding strong anti-utopian characteristics, text where for the first time the possibility