Chapter XXXVIII: Appendix: I

SIR THOMAS MORE AND MAN'S SOCIAL PROBLEMS

There is a very general impression that this is the first time in history that the general social problems of humanity have been taken seriously and solutions of them deliberately sought. At least there is a very prevalent feeling that no generation before our time recognized all of these problems so well as we do and seriously tried to reach rational solutions in spite of vested interests of all kinds and old-time prejudices and traditions. Because Sir Thomas More's "Utopia" represents a complete contradiction of this complacent attitude of mind toward our sociological interests, it seems worth while to quote here a series of passages from his book which illustrate very well how as a young man of twenty-seven he faced all our social problems, which are of course those of humanity at all times when in a reasonably civilized condition, and saw as clearly as anyone has ever done, and expressed quite as thoroughly, the rational solutions of them.

Perhaps the most surprising passage is that with regard to religious toleration, which in Utopia was complete. It has often been said that More himself afterwards, as Lord Chancellor, violated his own principles in the matter, but he has been ably defended from such imputations by some of the best lawyers of England. The supposed stain on his character is due to religious prejudices in those who write. After religion, the question of armament for nations is More's most important contribution to political science, and there is a full discussion of the evil of standing armies and of the foolish reasons for keeping the nations on a war footing. As might be expected, there is severe condemnation of the vulgar display of such objects as costly precious stones, and More has the children of the Utopians even make great fun of such childish barbaric tendencies. The over-value of gold is laughed to scorn. More's idea of a certificate of health before marriage anticipates many eugenic ideas of our day in a very simple way. The future Lord Chancellor had a fine appreciation for physicians, though surprisingly enough not so much for his own profession of lawyer, and his descriptions of the hospitals of Utopia shows how thoroughly they comprehended what a hospital should be and how little there is of any development in our modern plans for hospitals, though we are so inclined to think of these as a great evolution in hospital construction.

{546}

There are many other phases of thought that he introduces which are extremely interesting in our time. Indeed one can scarcely turn a page of the "Utopia" without finding that it fulfils what James Russell Lowell suggested as at least the accidental definition of a classic when he said that "to read a classic is to read a commentary on the morning paper." The books the Utopians were interested in show More's own breadth of interest in great literature, and the fact that the great scientific writers are included contradicts many modern notions as to the limitations of intellectual curiosity at this time. In Utopia they reject astrology, have music during meals, which are prepared in common, saving much time for the individuals, think that discipline is the watchword of education, have invented door springs, care for their forests, anticipating all our conservation ideas, and divided their time so that there is six hours of work and eight hours of sleep and the rest for culture and recreation. These are but examples chosen at random of the surprises that meet one constantly in the book.

The passage with regard to religious toleration is all the more striking because, written in 1515, or at the latest 1516, it represents his opinion before the beginning of Luther's disturbance and just before that series of disturbances began in Europe which during the next three centuries was to prove of such serious detriment to art and literature and education, as well as the politics of Europe. It runs as follows:

"At the first constitution of their government, Utopus having
understood that before his coming among them the old inhabitants had
been engaged in great quarrels concerning religion, by which they
were so divided among themselves that he found it an easy thing to
conquer them, since, instead of uniting their forces against him,
every different party in religion fought by themselves. After he had
subdued them he made a law that every man might be of what religion
he pleased, and might endeavor to draw others to it by the force of
argument and by amicable and modest ways, but without bitterness
against those of other opinions; but that he ought to use no other
force but that of persuasion, and was neither to mix with it
reproaches nor violence; and such as did otherwise were to be
condemned to banishment or slavery.

"This law was made by Utopus, not only for preserving the public
peace, which he saw suffered much by daily contentions and
irreconcilable heats, but because he thought the interest of
religion itself required it. He judged it not fit to determine
anything rashly, and seemed to doubt whether those different forms
of religion might not all come from God, who might inspire man in a
different manner, and be pleased with this variety; he therefore
thought it indecent and foolish for any man to threaten and terrify
another to make him believe what did not appear to him true. And
supposing that only one religion was really true, and the rest
false, he imagined that the native force of truth would at last
break forth and shine bright, if supported only by the strength of
argument and attended to with a gentle and {547} unprejudiced mind;
while, on the other hand, if debates were carried on with violence
and tumults, as the most wicked are always the most obstinate, so
the best and most holy religion might be choked with superstition,
as corn is with briars and thorns; he therefore left men wholly to
their liberty, that they might be free to believe as they should see
cause; only he made a solemn and severe law against such as should
so far degenerate from the dignity of human nature as to think that
our souls died with our bodies, or that the world was governed by
chance, without a wise over-ruling Providence: for they all formerly
believed that there was a state of rewards and punishments to the
good and bad after this life; and they now look on those that think
otherwise as scarce fit to be counted men, since they degrade so
noble a being as the soul, and reckon it no better than a beast's:
thus they are far from looking on such men as fit for human society,
or to be citizens of a well-ordered commonwealth; since a man of
such principles must needs, as oft as he dares to do it, despise all
their laws and customs: for there is no doubt to be made, that a man
who is afraid of nothing but the law, and apprehends nothing after
death, will not scruple to break through all the laws of his
country, either by fraud or force, when by this means he may satisfy
his appetites. They never raise any that hold these maxims, either
to honors or to offices, nor employ them in any public trust, but
despise them as men of base and sordid minds. Yet they do not punish
them, because they lay this down as a maxim, that a man cannot make
himself believe anything he pleases; nor do they drive any to
dissemble their thoughts by threatenings, so that men are not
tempted to lie or disguise their opinions; which being a sort of
fraud, is abhorred by the Utopians: they take care indeed to prevent
their disputing in defence of these opinions, especially before the
common people: but they suffer, and even encourage them to dispute
concerning them in private with their priest and other grave men,
being confident that they will be cured of those mad opinions by
having reason laid before them."

Standing armies would seem to be a subject that would interest statesmen mainly in the present time. It would rather be expected that we had evolved the arguments we now use against them in comparatively recent years. Some of Sir Thomas More's remarks then are extremely interesting because they show the problem as we have it fairly stated and the reasons for and against armies set forth very simply, but very emphatically. Four hundred years has made no difference in the situation, though we are prone to think of evolution as having made great changes in that length of time. Only the evils have been emphasized. More said at the beginning almost of his "Utopia":

"In France there is yet a more pestiferous sort of people, for the
whole country is full of soldiers, still kept up in time of peace
(if such a state of nation can be called a peace); and these are
kept in pay upon the same account that you plead for those idle
retainers upon noblemen: this being a maxim of those pretended
statesmen, that it is necessary for public safety to have a good
body of veteran soldiers ever in readiness. They think raw men {548}
are not to be depended on, and they sometimes seek occasions for
making war, that they may train up their soldiers in the art of
cutting throats, or, as Sallust observed, 'for keeping their hands
in use, that they may not grow dull by too long an intermission.'
But France has learned to its cost how dangerous it is to feed such
beasts. The fate of the Romans, Carthaginians and Syrians, and many
other nations and cities, which were both overturned and quite
ruined by those standing armies, should make others wiser."

And still we can find no better reason for large armies than what Thucydides called [Greek text], "the balanced fear," which we have come to designate by the courtlier term, the balance of power.

The passage in "Utopia" in which More discusses the wearing of fine clothes and of precious stones and jewels has often been quoted. After 400 years it will still come home with great force to all those who think seriously on the subject. Of course it is literal common sense, but then what has common sense ever availed against fashion? The mid-African wears brass rings and fancy calico because they are hard to get and expensive and therefore give distinction to their wearer. His cultured European brother--and sister--wears what is equally childish and barbaric because costly and distinctive and will doubtless continue to do so. Sir Thomas More's ideas on the subject are interesting, but will fall on quite as deaf ears in our generation as in all the others since his time.

"I never saw a clearer instance of the opposite impressions that
different customs make on people than I observed in the ambassadors
of the Anemolians, who came to Amaurot when I was there. As they
came to treat of affairs of great consequence, the deputies from
several towns met together to wait for their coming. The ambassadors
of the nations that lie near Utopia, knowing their customs and that
fine clothes are in no esteem among them, that silk is despised, and
gold is a badge of infamy, used to come very modestly clothed; but
the Anemolians, lying more remote, and having had little commerce
with them, understanding that they were coarsely clothed, and all in
the same manner, took it for granted that they had none of these
fine things among them of which they made no use; and they, being a
vainglorious rather than a wise people, resolved to set themselves
out with so much pomp that they should look like gods and strike the
eyes of the poor Utopians with their splendor. Thus three
ambassadors made their entry with a hundred attendants, all clad in
garments of different colours, and the greater part in silk; the
ambassadors themselves, who were of the nobility of their country,
were in cloth of gold, and adorned with massy chains, earrings, and
rings of gold; their caps were covered with bracelets set full of
pearls and other gems--in a word, they were set out with all those
things that among the Utopians were either the badges of slavery,
the marks of infamy, or the playthings of children. It was not
unpleasant to see, on the one side, how they looked big, when they
compared their rich habits with the plain clothes of the {549}
Utopians, who were come out in great numbers to see them make their
entry; and, on the other, to observe how much they were mistaken in
the impression which they hoped this pomp would have made on them.
It appeared so ridiculous a show to all that they never stirred out
of their country, and had not seen the customs of other nations,
that though they paid some reverence to those that were the most
meanly clad, as if they had been the ambassadors, yet when they saw
the ambassadors themselves so full of gold and chains, they looked
upon them as slaves and forbore to treat them with reverence. You
might have seen the children who were grown big enough to despise
their playthings, and who had thrown away their jewels, call to
their mothers, push them gently, and cry out, 'See that great fool,
that wears pearls and gems as if he were yet a child!' while their
mothers very innocently replied, 'Hold your peace! this, I believe,
is one of the ambassadors' fools.' Others censured the fashion of
their chains, and observed, 'that they were of no use, for they were
too slight to bind their slaves, who could easily break them; and,
besides, hung so loose about them that they thought it easy to throw
them away, and so get from them.' But after the ambassadors had
stayed a day among them, and saw so vast a quantity of gold in their
houses (which was as much despised by them as it was esteemed in
other nations), and beheld more gold and silver in the chains and
fetters of one slave than all their ornaments amounted to, their
plumes fell, and they were ashamed of all that glory for which they
had formerly valued themselves, and accordingly laid it aside--a
resolution that they immediately took when, on their engaging in
some free discourse with the Utopians, they discovered their sense
of such things and their other customs. The Utopians wonder how any
man should be so much taken with the glaring, doubtful lustre of a
jewel or a stone, that can look up to a star or to the sun himself;
or how any should value himself because his cloth is made of a finer
thread; for, how fine soever that thread may be, it was once no
better than the fleece of a sheep, and that sheep was a sheep still,
for all its wearing it." (John G. Saxe told the last generation how
great a difference it made whether one wore the product of an India
plant or an India worm.)

Immediately following this there is almost a more striking passage with regard to wealth and the changes that it makes in the attitude of the minds of men towards one another that would seem surely to have been written by a modern socialist.

"They wonder much to hear that gold, which in itself is so useless a
thing, should be everywhere so much esteemed that even man, for whom
it was made, and by whom it has its value, should yet be thought of
less value than this metal; that a man of lead, who has no more
sense than a log of wood, and is as bad as he is foolish, should
have many wise and good men to serve him, only because he has a
great heap of that metal; and that if it should happen that by some
accident or trick of law (which sometimes reduces as great changes
as chance itself) all this wealth should pass from the master to the
meanest varlet of his whole family, he himself would very soon
become one of his servants, as if he were a thing that belonged to
his wealth, and so were bound to follow {550} its fortune! But they
much more admire and detest the folly of those who, when they see a
rich man, though they neither owe him anything, nor are in any sort
dependent on his bounty, yet, merely because he is rich, give him
little less than divine honors, even though they know him to be so
covetous and base-minded that, notwithstanding all his wealth, he
will not part with one farthing of it to them as long as he lives!"

Perhaps his greatest contribution to social ethics and the solution of social problems is to be found in his emphatic assertion of the right of the laborer to a living wage in the best sense of that much abused term and his insistent deprecation of the fact that laborers must not be exploited so as to enable men to accumulate great wealth that is sure to be abused. More believed in profit-sharing very heartily and had no hesitation in expressing himself. Above all, he deprecates the injustice worked by predatory wealth. It was the judicial mind of the greatest Lord Chancellor England has ever had, who, after speaking of the Utopian state as "that which alone of good right may claim and take upon it the name of commonwealth," continues:

"Here now would I see, if any man dare be so bold as to compare with
this equity, the justice of other nations; among whom, I forsake
God, if I can find any sign or token of equity and justice. For what
justice is this, that a rich goldsmith, or an usurer, or to be
short, any of them which either do nothing at all, or else that
which they do is such that it is not very necessary to the
commonwealth, should have a pleasant and a wealthy living, either by
idleness or unnecessary business, when in the meantime poor
laborers, carters, ironsmiths, carpenters, and ploughmen, by so
great and continual toil, as drawing and bearing beasts be scant
able to sustain, and again so necessary toil, that without it no
commonwealth were able to continue and endure one year, should get
so hard and poor a living, and live so wretched and miserable a
life, that the state and condition of the laboring beasts may seem
much better and healthier? . . . And yet besides this the rich men,
not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day
pluck and snatch away from the poor some part of their daily living.
. . . They invent and devise all means and manner of crafts, first
how to keep safely without fear of losing that they have unjustly
gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor
of the poor for as little money as may be. These devices when the
rich men have decreed to be kept and observed under color of the
commonalty, that is to say, also of the poor people, then they be
made laws. . . . Therefore when I consider and weigh in my mind all
these commonwealths which nowadays anywhere do flourish, so God help
me, I can perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men
procuring their own commodities under the name and title of
commonwealth."

Everywhere one finds supreme common sense. For instance, Sir Thomas More points out that while the Utopians "knew astronomy and were perfectly acquainted with the motions of the {551} heavenly bodies; and of many instruments, well contrived and divided, by which they very accurately compute the course and positions of the sun, moon and stars; but for the cheat of divining by the stars, by their oppositions or conjunctions, it has not so much as entered into their thoughts." This sentence was written about the time that Copernicus was working out his conclusions with regard to the Universe as we now know it. Most people might presume that astrology had by this time lost all its weight. More than a century later, however, Galileo and Kepler were drawing up horoscopes, and astrology was very commonly accepted during the seventeenth century. Even in the eighteenth century, Mesmer wrote a thesis for his doctorate at the University of Vienna on the influence of the stars on human constitutions. The really great thinkers in humanity had all of them refused to accept astrology, but it is a tribute to the genius of this man of thirty-seven who had been trained at the law to have reached so true a conclusion.

Almost any page of "Utopia" furnishes a quotation that shows how penetrating was More's view of the significance of life not alone for his own time, but for all time. Literally I turned over the page from the quotation with regard to astrology and find this: "A life of pleasure is either a real evil, and in that case we ought not to assist others in their pursuit of it, but on the contrary to keep them from it all we can as from that which is most hurtful and deadly; or if it is a good thing, so that we not only may but ought to help others to it, why then ought not a man to begin with himself?" He has many sentences on that page with reference to the philosophy of what we now call learnedly hedonism. "They infer that if a man ought to advance the welfare and comfort of the rest of mankind, nature much more vigorously leads them to do this for themselves. They define virtue to be living according to nature, so they imagine that nature prompts all people on to seek after pleasure as the end of all they do."

Ideas with regard to many modern questions are touched on only in passing and yet with sufficient detail to make us realize that problems that we are sometimes likely to think of as new were faced and solved in that older time. For instance, the question of afforestation and the necessity for keeping up a readily available supply of wood is touched on.

"For one may there see reduced to practice not only all the art that
the husbandman employs in manuring and improving an ill soil, but
whole woods plucked up by the roots, and in other places new ones
planted, where there were none before. Their principal motive for
this is the convenience of carriage, that their timber may be either
near their towns or growing on the banks of the sea, or of some
rivers, so as to be floated to them; for it is a harder work to
carry wood at a distance over land than corn."

{552}

One might think that perhaps so practical a man as More would not believe in the usefulness of books for his ideal republic and it might even be thought that, devoted to law and to politics, he would not be over-familiar with the classic authors. Here is his paragraph on the subject, however, that reveals at once his estimation and his tastes.

"I happened to carry a great many books with me, instead of
merchandise, when I sailed my fourth voyage; for I was so far from
thinking of soon coming back that I rather thought never to have
returned at all, and I gave them all my books, among which were many
of Plato's and some of Aristotle's works: I had also Theophrastus on
'Plants,' which, to my great regret, was imperfect; for having laid
it carelessly by, while we were at sea, a monkey had seized upon it,
and in many places torn out the leaves. They have no books of
grammar but Lascaris, for I did not carry Theodoras with me; nor
have they any dictionaries but Hesichius and Dioscorides. They
esteem Plutarch highly, and were much taken with Lucian's wit and
with his pleasant way of writing. As for the poets, they have
Aristophanes, Homer, Euripides, and Sophocles of Aldus's edition;
and for historians, Thucydides, Herodotus and Herodian."

His description of how the Utopians divide up their time is interesting from many standpoints. Six hours of work, eight hours of sleep and the rest to be employed in learned leisure with lectures, sports, games and various exercises is indeed an ideal that human nature would find hard to surpass at any period of the world's history. Such a division would probably make for human health and happiness better than anything that has ever been tried.

"But they, dividing the day and the night into twenty-four hours,
appoint six of these for work, three of which are before dinner and
three after; they then sup, and at eight o'clock, counting from
noon, go to bed and sleep eight hours: the rest of the time, besides
that taken up in work, eating, and sleeping, is left to every man's
discretion; yet they are not to abuse that interval to luxury and
idleness, but must employ it in some proper exercise, according to
their various inclinations, which is, for the most part, reading. It
is ordinary to have public lectures every morning before daybreak, at
which none are obliged to appear but those who are marked out for
literature; yet a great many, both men and women, of all ranks, go
to hear lectures of one sort or other, according to their
inclinations: but if others that are not made for contemplation,
choose rather to employ themselves at that time in their trades, as
many of them do, they are not hindered, but are rather commended, as
men that take care to serve their country. After supper they spend
an hour in some diversion, in summer in their gardens, and in winter
in the halls where they eat, where they entertain each other with
music or discourse. They do not so much as know dice, or any such
foolish or mischievous games. They have, however, two sorts of games
not unlike our chess."

{553}

Probably the most striking testimony to the life and character of Sir Thomas More is to be found in the fact that writers who have studied his career most carefully are agreed that he exemplified all the great principles that he has laid down in his "Utopia" in his own environment and family life. Maurice Adams, in his Introduction to the Camelot edition of the "Utopia," says:

"Utopia was but the author's home writ large. His beautiful house,
on the river side at Chelsea, was, through his delight in social
life and music, and through the wit and merriment of his nature, a
dwelling of joy and mirth as well as of study and thought. It often
rang with song, and was cheery with the laughter of children and
grandchildren, he himself, in his own words, 'being merry, jocund
and pleasant among them.' Erasmus, who was often his guest, has
given us many delightful glimpses of his family life, of his
children and their tasks, and the monkey and rabbits which amused
their leisure. To the solitary and ever-wandering Erasmus, More's
house was a haven of refuge from the discomforts and vexations of
his bachelor existence. In one of his epistles he writes, 'More has
built near London, upon the Thames, a modest yet commodious mansion.
There he lives, surrounded by his numerous family, including his
wife, his son and his son's wife, his three daughters and their
husbands, with eleven grandchildren. There is not any man living so
affectionate to his children as he, and he loveth his old wife as if
she were a girl of fifteen. Such is the excellence of his
disposition that whatever happeneth that could not be helped, he is
as cheerful and as well pleased as though the best thing possible
had been done. In More's house you would say that Plato's academy
was revived again, only, whereas in the academy the discussion
turned upon geometry and the power of numbers, the house at Chelsea
is a veritable school of Christian religion. In it is none, man or
woman, but readeth or studieth the liberal arts, yet is their chief
care of piety. There is never any seen idle; the head of the house
governs it: not only by a lofty carriage and oft rebukes, but by
gentleness and amiable manners. Every member is busy in his place,
performing his duty with alacrity; nor is sober mirth wanting."