More, Thomas (1478–1535)

views updated

MORE, THOMAS
(1478–1535)

Sir Thomas More, later canonized St. Thomas More, was a lawyer and statesman rather than a philosopher. More was born the son of a London lawyer who later became a judge. He was educated at St. Anthony's School and was appointed a page in the household of Archbishop (later Cardinal) Morton, who sent him to Canterbury Hall, Oxford, in the early 1490s. More left without a degree to study at New Inn and Lincoln's Inn in London. His lectures dealt not only with law but also with St. Augustine's City of God. He early composed various English poems and Latin epigrams that were not printed for years. However, a Latin translation of four Greek dialogues of Lucian appeared in 1506, and an English translation of the Latin life of his model, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, in 1510. Increasingly involved in public affairs, More became a member of Parliament in 1504, beginning the career that led to the well-known events of his chancellorship and his martyrdom. By the time of the Utopia (1516), he had long since mastered Greek and enjoyed the friendship of such humanists as Desiderius Erasmus, Thomas Linacre, William Grocyn, John Colet, Cuthbert Tunstall, and St. John Fisher.

Philosophical Orientation

With respect to his philosophy, Thomas More belonged very much to the early or Erasmian period of the English Renaissance in his emotional and intellectual attitudes—toleration of eclecticism, search for simplicity, stress on ethics, return to Greek sources, and desire for reform: social, political, educational, religious, and philosophical. These traits appear not only in his highly imaginative and durably significant creation, Utopia, but also in his most pertinent pronouncements in real life. The latter may be divided into two philosophical periods, roughly separated by the year 1521, the year of publication of Henry VIII's Defense of the Seven Sacraments (Assertio Septem Sacramentorum ), which More undertook to defend by his pseudonymous diatribe (1523) against Martin Luther's strictures.

During his first period, in his justly famous letters to Martin Dorp (1515), to the University of Oxford (1518), and to a monk (1519–1520), More opted for a simplified logic, the study of all Aristotle's works in Greek with their classical Greek commentaries, and the mastery of the Greek New Testament and Greek Fathers as well as the pagan classics in the original language. He praised the Aristotelian paraphrases of Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples and, in a letter to Erasmus (May 26, 1520), expressed complete agreement with Juan Luis Vives's False Dialecticians (Pseudodialectici ). His attack on contemporary Schoolmen centered on their preoccupation with logic, the universals, and a mere fragment of the Aristotelian corpus.

In his second, controversial period, More rose to the defense of Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic theologians, whose doctrine he showed to agree with that of the earlier church. However, since the interest of these works, even of A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation (1534), is almost entirely theological, there is no need to dwell on them, except to point out that he held the common scholastic views on the mutual relationship, harmony, and assistance between reason and revelation, with philosophy as the propaedeutic to theology and as the handmaid of theology. This synthesis appears in a fundamental form even on the island of Utopia, where ethical norms are bolstered by religious truths and where the true religion can prevail in an atmosphere of free and calm reasoning.

Utopia

Since Utopia is More's major, or at least most influential, writing, its philosophical elements will be discussed in detail.

background

Renaissance thinkers usually held that there were four great philosophical schools: Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism, which differed mainly according to their opinions of the summum bonum. The Christianization of Aristotle was accomplished in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the Schoolmen, and that of Plato in the fifteenth century by Marsilio Ficino and other humanists. Stoicism had found expression in almost boundless humanistic admiration for the writings of Seneca and especially Cicero before reaching definite formulation later in the Christian Stoicism of Justus Lipsius. It was therefore inevitable that humanistic attempts, if only rhetorical ones, should be made to Christianize Epicurus, too. The latter's rehabilitation had been much accelerated in the early fifteenth century by Ambrogio Traversari's Latin translation of his life by Diogenes Laërtius. Lorenzo Valla had set forth Epicurus's doctrine favorably in De Voluptate ac de Vero Bono (Pleasure and the True Good ). Finally Erasmus undertook his thorough baptism in De Contemptu Mundi (The Contempt of the World, written c. 1490) and the colloquy The Epicurean (published 1533). In both these works, Erasmus manipulated the concept of pleasure and the principles of selection to establish a Christian Epicureanism.

epicureanism in utopia

More's main sources for classical Epicureanism were undoubtedly the Lives of Diogenes Laërtius and the De Finibus of Cicero, with minor borrowings from Seneca, Quintilian, Lucian, and Aulus Gellius. The "Christian" modifications already introduced by such humanists as Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus should not be minimized. The preoccupation of Renaissance men with the problem of pleasure is evident from the many humanistic treatments of the subject, including that by Ficino. Consequently Epicurus and Epicureanism are here viewed not according to their historical reality but according to the light in which they appeared to Thomas More through his reading and conversation.

In spite of the great to-do in the Utopia about the philosophy of pleasure and in spite of the deliberate but superficial rejection of Stoicism, the emphasis on virtue and virtuous living is disproportionate, even extraordinary, and therefore suspicious. This respect for Stoicism also becomes explicit in the stress on the guidance of nature, the assumed existence of natural law, and the natural community of humankind.

There are several contacts between Utopian and Epicurean hedonism. The most evident, naturally, is the exaltation of pleasure as the summum bonum, to which all human activities, including the operations of the virtues, are directed and subordinated. But the term pleasure (coluptas ) is so manipulated in the Utopia that it embraces everything from scratching an itch to enjoying eternal bliss with God. Like Epicurus, the Utopians hold to both kinds of pleasure: pleasure as a state and pleasure as motion. Hence health for them is a true pleasure. Like Epicurus, they belittle neither the joy arising from conferral of a benefit, nor the testimony of a good conscience as the reward for just deeds, nor the importance of mental pleasures. There is a common emphasis with Epicurus on the simple life, which in Utopia leads to the ridicule of false, unnatural delight in fine clothing, noble ancestry, glittering jewelry, gold and silver, gambling, and hunting. Perhaps the most important connection is the enunciation of the principles of selection; the single positive criterion is that a pleasure be natural—a criterion recognized as so obscure that it is delimited by three negative norms: that no pain follow the pleasure chosen, that no greater pleasure be lost, and that no social harm result.

divergences from classical epicureanism

The departures from the postulates of classical Epicureanism are so radical that the Utopian philosophy in action can be labeled Epicurean, or even hedonistic, only in the broadest sense. For example, good Utopians must believe in the providence of God, the immortality of man's soul, and divine retribution in a future life. These Utopian principles are taken not from Epicurus but from More's great favorite, Plato, especially his Laws. Utopian ascetics, with their hope of reward in a future life, would be ridiculous to Epicurus. The Platonic origin of Utopian communism also is evident, for Epicurus thought that the holding of property in common by friends implied mutual mistrust. Minor points of divergence are the emphasis upon marriage (in contrast with its disapproval by Epicurus in spite of his traditional devotion to his parents), upon euthanasia (in comparison with Epicurus's denial of suicide even to the blind), and upon learning (Epicurus urged his disciples to fly from learning in the swiftest ship available). Utopians love their gardens, but for practical rather than philosophical purposes, so that, surprisingly, no reference is made in Utopia to the connection between Epicurus and gardens.

raphael hythlodaeus

The unconscious pull of Platonism and Stoicism, not to mention Christianity, is too great to allow a full-fledged Epicureanism in Utopia. This is perfectly consistent, however, with the engrossing character of the main narrator, Raphael Hythlodaeus, who is a philosopher by nature and profession and interjects mild expressions of disapproval of Utopian hedonism. He is unattached: His only commitment is to freedom, truth, and justice. Negligent in dress, he has divested himself of the cares of riches by giving his patrimony to his relatives. He now lives as he pleases (according to Cicero's definition of freedom), and he must speak his mind openly. In spite of being accused of too great speculativeness and idealism by Thomas More, he travels and searches for something quite practical: the good state and the good citizen. In this emphasis on the useful, and in his return to the sources (especially the Greek), Hythlodaeus is at one with the early English, as well as the northern, Renaissance. In his chosen field of philosophy, he finds nothing of value in Latin except Seneca and Cicero. But he is far from being narrow. The great books in Greek that he carries with him include Plato and Plutarch, as well as Aristotle and Theophrastus, dramatists, poets, historians—and Lucian. Devotion to Lucian undoubtedly helped to mark More's philosophical character as his friends saw him—as "another laughing Democritus." More's emphasis upon the Greek sources in medicine (Galen and Hippocrates) and science (Aristotle's Meteorology ) makes him, in a sense, an unwitting scientific reactionary.

plato's influence

Of all the Greek authors, Plato is cited most frequently in the Utopia proper and in its preliminary materials. This is hardly surprising, since its true title may be translated as The Best Order of Society (De Optimo Reipublicae Statu ). More is indebted, however, as much to Plato's Laws as to his Republic. His obvious but modified borrowings from Plato are dialogic form, but with a monologue in Book II; communism, which he broadens to embrace a whole nation, not merely an elite class; preeminence of learning, with transformation of the philosopher-king into the scholar-governor; the almost complete equality of men and women; and the connections between goodness and religion. The differences are radical: Utopia is a casteless democracy, not an aristocracy; and the family, not a ruling class with common wives and children, is the basic social and political unit. It is significant that More also briefly introduces the Aristotelian objections to communism of property.

pleasure and the best society

It is a tribute to More's rhetoric (not philosophy) that the unwary reader is left under the impression that the Utopians espouse thoroughgoing hedonism. But this does not involve merely a humanistic jeu d'esprit or even a literary tour de force, for pleasure is related intimately to the main subject of the Utopia, the best society. The best society is one whose aim is the temporal well-being or happiness—or pleasure, as defined and described in Utopian terms—of all the citizens, not only of the rich or of the well-born. All are to share equally and equitably in all the good things—or pleasures—of this life and this world: food, clothes, houses, work, play, sleep, and education. More bridges the gap between Utopian philosophy and Utopian communism by the use of the basically Aristotelian phrase "the matter of pleasure" (materia voluptatis ). Vital commodities (food, clothing, housing) constitute the pleasurable matter, which must be determined by a form (either private ownership or common possession). The Utopians have chosen communism, not private property, to bring the greatest pleasure to the whole nation. Only in this way will justice be introduced into an unjust society. In this at least theoretical espousal of communism, More agreed with Erasmus and many fellow humanists.

weaknesses

On the debit side of the Utopia might be listed the deliberately static nature of this ideal society and the failure to recognize the individual person and his basic instincts, liberties, and even imperfections. The removal of all struggle and all insecurity would logically and psychologically lead to the prayer: "Give me something to desire."

influence

The major influence of the Utopia lies not in its philosophic hedonism, with its concomitant communism, but in its establishment of a pattern for ideal commonwealths. Historically the type proliferated into a thousand different forms that can be found discussed in bibliographies and commentaries. In particular, the Utopia itself set an example for what might be termed the philosophical utopia that continued well into the eighteenth century. The most notable productions are Francis Bacon's New Atlantis, Tommaso Campanella's City of the Sun, and Samuel Johnson's Rasselas.

Bibliography

The best modern edition of More's Latin and English writings is the Yale edition: The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, R. S. Sylvester, executive ed. (New Haven, CT, 1963–1997), 21 volumes. Vol. IV, Utopia (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965), is edited by Edward Surtz and J. H. Hexter. Also see the Selected Works edition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961–), planned in seven volumes, of which two have appeared: Selected Letters, E. F. Rogers, ed. (1961), and Utopia, Edward Surtz, ed. (1964). E. F. Rogers had previously edited More's Correspondence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947). Only the first two volumes of a contemplated seven-volume modern version of More's English Works (1557), edited by W. E. Campbell, were issued (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1927–1931).

More's best biographers are the earliest: William Roper, The Lyfe of Sir Thomas Moore, edited by E. V. Hitchcock (London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1935); and Nicholas Harpsfield, The Life and Death of St. Thomas Moore, edited by E. V. Hitchcock and R. W. Chambers (London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1932). The best modern life is still R. W. Chambers, Thomas More (London, 1935), to be supplemented by E. E. Reynolds, Saint Thomas More (London: Burns and Oates, 1953).

Bibliographical data can be found in St. Thomas More: A Preliminary Bibliography … to the Year 1750, compiled by R. W. Gibson, with a bibliography of Utopiana compiled by R. W. Gibson and J. M. Patrick (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961). Also see F. and M. P. Sullivan, Moreana, 1478–1945 (Kansas City, MO: Rockhurst College, 1945). In 1963, the international Amici Thomae Mori began publication of Moreana: Bulletin Thomas More (Angers).

Illuminating studies of the background can be found in W. E. Campbell, Erasmus, Tyndale, and More (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1949); Fritz Caspari, Humanism and the Social Order in Tudor England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954); Pearl Hogrefe, The Sir Thomas More Circle (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1959); R. P. Adams, The Better Part of Valor: More, Erasmus, Colet, and Vives on Humanism, War, and Peace (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1962); and especially G. Marc'hadour, L'univers de Thomas More (Paris: Vrin, 1963), corrected and supplemented currently in Moreana.

The principal interpretations of Utopia are those by Karl Kautsky, Thomas More and His Utopia (1888), translated by H. J. Stenning (reprinted, New York: Russell and Russell, 1959); H. W. Donner, Introduction to Utopia (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1945); Russell Ames, Citizen Thomas More and His Utopia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949); J. H. Hexter. More's "Utopia": The Biography of an Idea (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952); Edward Surtz, The Praise of Pleasure: Philosophy, Education, and Communism in More's "Utopia" (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Edward Surtz, The Praise of Wisdom: A Commentary on the Religious and Moral Problems and Backgrounds of St. Thomas More's "Utopia" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1957).

The fate of the utopia as a literary form can be followed in Richard Gerber, Utopian Fantasy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1955); J. O. Hertzler, The History of Utopian Thought (New York: Macmillan, 1923); and G. R. Negley and J. M. Patrick, eds., The Quest for Utopia (New York: Schuman, 1952).

See also Michael Jackson, "Imagined Republics: Machiavelli, Utopia, and Utopia," Journal of Value Inquiry (34[4] [2000]: 427–437; Anthony Kenny, Thomas More (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).

Edward Surtz, S.J. (1967)

Bibliography updated by Tamra Frei (2005)

Encyclopedia of Philosophy