Gonzalo's Utopia - Act 2, Scene 1

Gonzalo's Utopia - Beginning pg 53, line 140

I' th' commonwealth I would by contraries
Execute all things, for no kind of traffic
Would I admit; no name of magistrate;
Letters should not be known; riches, poverty,
And use of service, none; contract, succession,
Bourn, bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none;
No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil;
No occupation; all men idle, all,
And women too, but innocent and pure;
No sovereignty—
[...]
All things in common nature should produce
Without sweat or endeavor: treason, felony,
Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine,
Would I not have; but nature should bring forth
Of its own kind, all foison, all abundance,
To feed my innocent people. (2.1.162-171; 175-180)

Gonzalo would be king of the island - 'and were the king on't, what would I do?'

• There would be no 'traffic' which means no trade or business.
• No 'name of magistrate', therefore no one in charge of administering the law, as their would be no law.
• 'Letters should not be known', 'Letters' being in reference to education, therefore there would be no education, learning or literature.
• Everyone would be the same, there would be no 'riches' and 'poverty' and no 'use of service' meaning slavery or servants.
• No one would inherit; 'contract' and 'succession... none'.
• No 'Bourn, bound of land, tilth' which means there would be no boundaries, fences or agriculture, which also alludes again to there being no law.
• 'No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil'
• No one would be employed and everyone would be 'idle', possibly wanting everyone to be free.
• Women would also be 'idle' and 'innocent and pure'.
• Everyone would be allowed access to everything, 'all things in common nature'.
• He believes that this would lead to no 'Treason or felony' and no need of weapons or to fight.
• Everything would be made natural and there would be no 'need of any engine' since nature would be 'all foison', plenty, 'all abundance'.
• His subjects would be innocent.

Which peice of writing did Shakespeare draw these ideas from?
Shakespeare actually plagiarised this speech from 'Of Cannibals', an essay by Montaigne's, where Montaigne's describes how Brazilian indians live;

'no kind of traffic, no knowledge of letters, no intelligence of numbers, no name of magistrate or politic superiority, no use of service, of riches or of poverty, no contracts, no successions... no occupation but idle, no respect of kindred but common, no apparel but natural, no manuring of lands, no use of wine, corn, or metal.' (From John Florio's 1603 English Translation)

Montaigne does suggest that the way these people live is like some sort of Utopia and that the European invaders were the real barbarians. Does this add to the colonial reading of the Tempest, that Shakespeare gets Gonzalo to speak this since he is the 'good guy' who helped Prospero and Miranda survive their exile and is very optimistic throughout. This could allude to the idea that he agrees with Montaignes suggestion and therefore is against Europeans colonisation. Although this reading contradicts how Prospero, who would represent the European invaders, in a positive light and how Caliban is presented savage and barbaric unlike the Brazilian Indians describe by Montaigne.

Why is Gonzalo's Utopia flawed?
In his speech Gonzalo almost instantly contradicts himself, he asks 'were the king on't, what would I do?' before his speech yet in his speech he states how their will be 'no name of magistrate' which implies there will be no king and no leader. Therefore, how can Gonzalo be in control.
Shakespeare, presents the flaws of this Utopia through the other characters in the play, not only to Antionia and Sebastian mock Gonzalo's speech they also demonstrate how the 'modern man' could not live in such a society because of the corruption of modern society.
To Antonio and Sebastian the island is a free land where they can deny authority. Antonio and Sebastian plot to kill their king Alonso whilst they sleep because of their greed for power. Shakespeare reveals the true dishonest and conniving traits of these two men, presenting to the audience the man in 'modern society' that would undermines Gonzalos Utopia. This is reiterated by the way these two men mock Gonzalo through this scene.