51

HY]HLODAY AND THE ROOT OF ALL XVIL

In the tûirry-fifrh chaprer ol the Enchindion nilitis Crmiriad xrasnus

tells us thar apat from hr:men enor gold and siher re merety red and
and çhite ertÏ. Now. he does nor say that this red end whire eartl is
pernicious. Noi does he call it useless. Rather, his ârgurnenr begins wirh
rhe premise that God created everythirg to s€rve man s purpose and con-
cludes thar tfiere is no sin in having money. lr is sinful ro hoard money.
to us€ money basely, to lov€ money. He warns the teader agtnsr giving
away all his property and then having to beg ofânorher. In chaptei four-
teen Tatrtalus gazes ai riches he will never use. In chepter thirteen wealth
is seer as â piecârious gift to be useti for virtue or as â meâns toward
unhappiness. other gifts are equally daagerous in Erasmus's eyes. xven
good heâlth, which is â meâns to God, ought not to becone an end, for
ânything worshipped in itself degrades the neture ofthe worshipper. Gold,
a precious bane, â dângerous blessing, a precadous resporuibility, is a gold-
en ambEuiry. Reason. a! Erasmus tells us in the fifth chapter, wears a
solden crown.
Humânists and Renaissance witers did condenn gold for its use-
l€rsness and its intrinsic pernicior:sness. Budé in his prefatory letter to the
Urop;a nàmes contempr of gold and silver as one ofthree ovenhrowes of
',all frauds, imposrures. swindles, rogùeries. ùd wicked deceprions. r
Ihere is ample evidence. on the orhei hand, rhat hr:manists and nenais-
unce men resp<ted rhe uses ofgold. sir culon says rhat gold has been
buried deep il rhe ground to Tid€ ir lrom man. but prior;o rhis he has
insisted rhar there is a rigTr use of gold. Mammon. Si; cuyon poinrs our.
les hidden his rictr heaps of gold from rhe world\ eye. i.anà f,". h",
righr usaunce " {2.7.7). ln Mâmmon s cale SiJ GuyoF conremptares the
plighr of Tanralus. an exrmple of the intemperate mjnd. who re;ches men
'' how to use (heir pres€nr state {2.7.60i. Friar Laurenceis one ofnany
characærs in Renaissance literature who views no part of the reation as
intrinsically and totally pernicious. Even vile things, he has discovered,
hold some special good. Monrague uses gold to a virtuous end ; he raises a
statue ofJuliet. Like rhe Friar. Sr. Augustine nores rhar eren pojson bæ
medlcinal v.tue (cl_y o/ cod, xt. 22).
The bene{icenr nature of gold and its use loin Ilnks from rime ro trme
in the argtrmenr of rhe C i'y oI cod. tn the hierarchy of narure rhe living
stend above the insensate. But who, asks Augustine, wor:ld not prefer to
have gold in his house rather rhan âeas (xL16) ? To be sule, aheie are
dânsere in judsing by use. for no man lnows rhe inscrumble will ofcod.

l. EdMrd Sunz, S. J. and J. H- Hexte\ The Conplete wo*s ofSi moMs Mùe
(NewHaven,l965). lV, I l All Éf€r€nces to the Uropid will be to this ediljon and
cited by page number within my text.
s2

The swarms which scourged the p.ide of Egypr served that will, though
.he swerms appeâr€d to the aftlicted as peûicious (XII.4), Êverythitrg nar-
ural, Augustine argues, is useful. The cr€arion must be measured by the
wisdorn of the dêsigner (xI.22). trlan should enjoy God but use money
(xl.2s), for avadce is noi inherent in gold, but itr the man who loves gold
above justice (XlI.8). Erasmus and More reasoned sinilarly. who, asks
Erasmus, would not exchange gold for silver (Erchnidion, c.r2) ? cold,
wongly prized, becomes a briar which chokes the seeds of cod's word
(c1s), but cod has designed the whole universe with purpose and for
man's usê (C,3s). tn the Diabgue conceming Hefts;es Mot€ arF€s thar
our faith and works are of theû own nature right litde in ralue, though
it has pleased cod to set a vâlue on tÀern. Just so a ten pound weight of
gold is not worth onc ounce of wheat or one silly shecp, but rnen heve
established values so rh.r one ounce of gold is worth many sheep and
much bread. lt is €xtr€me to call a thing inferior b€cause it is inferior by
nature. Use may raise inferiors and may demote superiors as Augustine,
Ensmus, ând More show by the ex.mple ofgold.
More, it has bcen thought, found gold pernicious and useless in the
Trcatise on tha Pd'sion. " How proud be nen of gold and silvcr, no part of
ourself, but of rhe earth, and of nature no better rhan is rhe poor copper
ortin,nor to manrs use so pro6table as is the poor met.l that makeù us rhe
ploughshae and horseshoon and horsenails." Thc subjecr of this reproof
is pddc, for it is silly ro take pride in gold which we did not create, which
is by nature nor superior to coppe. or tin, nor for o'rr so proÊtablc as
'-rse
ùon. Àarn\ pride. not gold and silver, is pernicious. I'here are a thousand
uays for silly man ro be proud ; More illustrates one striking way. Pride in
gold is r widesprerd failing, and the folly of such pridc is obvious. Now
gold, silvcr. copper, rnd rinae by nature equal and poor, rs is !h€ poor iron.
for r}ey :re irsensate. Jufued by use. where use is resrricred ro whrr is
profitable in daily life. iron wins the pa!m. The argument is nor rhat gold
i5 pernicious by racurê. Nor À it useless in êvery way.lndeed, it ;s useful
in this very passag€ âs en exampl€. tn orher contex* More hæ found gold
useful as a measurc of hierarchies and duties. He has witten on I Corinthians
L I2, 'such good works a. are so eood and so pure thet they be likê fine
sold, file sil;er... r A foundârion-of such eooà *o,ks *ill sra'd th. *-
fineas fire in the day of our Lord. Here-the goodness and purity of
woks find an analogue in gold ; and gold, no dor:br, serves too as a
r€minder that our works are in themselves naughr In .nswering Tyndale
More uses Sr. Paul's ugumert from the vessels of gold and silver, wood,
tree, and earth, sone occupied in honorâble business, some in dishonest
aad vile,z our senice to God having it, n€âsure itr gold. St. Petert usê of

I. Ccrmah Mdchldour, me Bible in the Wotkt of 51. Itrona! ntor€, (Ni€uwk@p,

l9?0), lll, 58. Thc judtm.nt thlt gold is uælêsr illusrr.t s the dm&r in judSing ûc
cealion by oaqt limilcd mitd, for inan ùas disovercd myriâd us.s ot gold, such
as foming , link in a d.ti@te insrrum.nr. Whâr man, his throùbi4 t@th ô!s.d by
a gold iillins, woùld not plef.r on. ounce ot Bold 10 nary 3i[y shecp ?
 SYTHTODÂY AND THE ROOT OF AL! EvI! 53

gold as a meâsur€ for the preciousness of man's faith, tried by fre, More
has noted.i while these uses of gold are not uses proûtable to man in his
daily business, they are us€s which benett the understanding and sewe,
indeed, to curb one's pride. lr should not be forgotten that silly man fte
quendy tales pride in his skills, such as forging horseshoes.
orir lis foresighr. such as Taving his b*ns sroclLed wirh an ample supp\
of horseshoes against the morrow so that his soul is at ease. while such
pride ls silly, the silliness is not as obvious as is pride in gold. cold, like
aI things, has its dargers and uses.
Hythloday explahs cleæly his idea of the nature aad use ofgold. It is
by natureuseless : its value comes through natrk agency aad fron man's use
(P. 157). But Hythloday is cynical and despairing of nan\ character, of
man's capacity to control his 'graad invention' ; so, he would abolish
money (p. 24J). Hy(holdry\ views on the nature Ànd use of gold coincide.
I thinl. wirh More ! views. But ir is difficult to prove that More strared
Hythloday's abandonmert of hope that men can rnake good use of riches.
Ifone accepts Hythloday's views as More's viêws, then Moreheldthat
eâth, our kind rnotler, hid gold out of kindnes to her children. B'rt Moreh
attitude toward the Utopians and Hythloday is anbiguous. More's views
nay be identilied with those ofHyt}loday, On the other hand, More may
have adrnired rhe Utopians and not Hyt}1oday, rnay have thought the
Utopians and Hvthloday both fooljsh, have admned some practic€s ofthe
Utopians and not others, some trâits in Hythloday's chaacter ard person-
ality and not other traits.
There is a type of mind which gâthers the world into orc humân
head. such a mind becomes its oçn plâce or every place, and the conduct
of the world is ieduced to problems which that mird solves. This mind
holds court for counselors of every nation who debate there and plot
cor:rses for theL countries Hythloday has such a mird : he knows what
the King of France proposes, what is happening in V€nice, how the Swiss
mercerâries ùe used. He hâs listened carefu\ and watched closely.
His gtasp of facts, one learns from Fr. S,.rrtz's notes, is comnanding. Yet
Irasnus has observed with his shrewd eye that such a man is not wise, for
he lnows his environmenr bur nor himsell Eræmus châll€nges this man :
You have analyzed the noubles of England ; tell us abor:t the troubles in
your own heart-ânger, envy, lust, ambition (Ézchitidion, c.1.5). Here 1s z
crux, for ùhis mind views itself as srâble, the world as shifting ard intrac-
table. such imparience with the world is treacherous wh€n joined to
Chtisriân opposition to the world, for Christian oPpositiotr to the world,
Etasnus wârns in rhe sixteenth chept€r of the En chindion, can degenetare
into a supercilious rejection of every mode oflife Hythlodây's exPerience
of the world and his rejection of the world outside UtoPia âre bro.d and
cynicâl, a position which leads, Erasmus warns, to one's anacking and
degrading the opinions ofothers, as Hythloday does.
54

He knows about the troubles in England, and he proposes renedies

for those troubles. For hstance, he calls for restoration ofthe cloth indus'
try ir England, But Fr. surtz rrites | " It is hard to undentand how
Hyrhlodaeus could demad ùe rcslotutio of.n industry Âe exPassion
of wTich was going on r.pidl) ,p. J40,. Now. Fr. SurE erplains bril
liantly a possible cause for More's ignorance concerning England's cloth
industry. But there is ânother explamtion possible : Hythlodayt error is
not More's €ror. Rather, the enor reveals e flaw common to those who
would form the world to a diagram in their own heads. Such men gather
facts rapidly and panially. Though they appear to know everything and to
have experienced all things, they trip thenselves on their cr€duliry, for
being zealous in regard for their own dreans they believe readily those
rhings whicb confrrm thù dreans. zealots bring tTe,r credibiJity into ques
tion by thei' mdner, and Hythlodry is. as More says. a zealor who brisdes
when his views are question€d. who does not resPect Hythlôday's eârnest
rigidity ; his zest for himself, for life, and for Utopia ar an age when a
man's dry bones tease him into self-hatred ihis admirâtion for generosity ;
his approvat of sensible customs and standards ? But the singularity of
HytLloday's thene brings his bâlance into question. H€ resenbles
tuistod€'s communist who claims that all evils in the world arise fron
private property-suitr, contracts, perjury, flafteries of rich men.l The
iictioneL Tliomas More of Book I tells Hythloday, as Aristotle rold his
communist, ihât the cause of evils in the world is wickednes in human
nature. Just as zealots are likely to reduce the world ro a diagtarn in then
heads, so are they likely to reduce h'-rman character to abstractions The
zealot's report of the world and human character is usually earnest
aad fragmented.
Hythloday's report sometimes brings his credibility into dor:bt i
indeed, at times his diicrepencies de so appùent rhat one wonders whether
More is not using them to cast doubt on Hythloday's word
Hythloday tells us thar rhe Uropians use their surplus ro rmport what
tbey do not produce, iron. gold. and sil"er. so thar rhey have gathered
by trade an ùundance of all three metals. Their single use for gold and
silver is to use it in wag;tte war I . aut qu n bellum gerendrn est, quam
ih æm unam totù1n ilhtm thesaltr n ,l^em habent ilomi sefla'tt, uti aut
exftenis i opà L\. dut in ebiùs otæsi.lio tit (D. I48. lines 2q Jl)l
To sene thii use rhe rulen have devised , way of cheapening gotd. the
end being that the citizens-common folk who have foolish imagi-
nâtiors-will not come to value it and so object to its being confiscat€d
when it È needed for war. The uses to which the rulers assign gold in this
subterfuge are chamber pots, humbre vess€ls, chains and fettets for slaves'
ornamentsfor disgrace. Hythloday recounts how the Utopians mistook the
Anemoliân âmbaasadors for daves, becaose the ambasradors wore golden
chains. The reason fo this etor is clear. The rulers have kept the common
people ignorant ofwhat the rest of the world values ; otherwise, their ruse
 BYTHTODAY AND IIIE ROOT OF ALL EVIL 55

woùld fail. Th€ scheme is a cl€ver one. Bur rhere is reâson to question
whether Hythloday has reported accurarely what he saw and heard.
Hythloday comments that the Utopians wonder why gold is so valued in
the world. How could the common people lnow that it ii valued ir the
wortd when they mistook those who valued gold for slaves ? And how did
the Utopians know about the foolish mariag€ customs in the rest of the
world and not krow that in o.her countries arnbassadors wore golden
chains ? If the Aaemolians betrayed to the Utopians the value which the
the world placed on gold, it seens odd rhat the Utopians should have
continued in their old ways, curbed then foolish imaginârions, and sub-
mitted to the deception of their rulers. Though Hythlodayt r€port is
confirsed, it is clear enough to reveal that the rulers do value gold and hoârd
it ina cunning manner for use in the world.
Hythloday, like ovid, Hora.e, and sn Guyon, prâises nature for kird-
ly concealing gold out of mant reach. Like a kind and indulgent mother,
eârth has hidden fron us, he comrnents, "all vain and unprofitable things,"
while she has placed at hard an, mter, a:rd earth h€rself (p. 151) once
more r reader wonders whether More iS distiBuishing his view fron
Hythlodry's, for Hythloday names hidden things rs unprofltablejust after
he har said, "... without iron norta.ls cannot live any more than without
fir€ ând wâter" (p. 1s1).
speaLing ia his own voice in explication of a biblical text, More calls
into quesrion the confusion of the Creator and the created which vi€wing
the earth as a kindly rnother arouses. He had read Augustine\ ârgument
that we trâmpl€ on the Creâtor if the eath be His body lcitf ofcod,
IV.12), Augustine\ description of the dtes of rhe effeminates who had
been consecrated to the Great Moth€r (vII.26), and Augustine's assertion
thât these ites rise frorn the failure to distinguish creâture from the
crearor (vll30). More fiinself nakes the very poin! in d comment on
P omans 1. 24-21
' ... the old plilosophers. for their wilful idolary
against cod, were given by cod inio tLe sin against th€ nâture ofman."r
It is difÂcult to think h the face of such aa explicit parsage that More
would have synpathized with the view that men tear the womb of their
kind mother when they tale metals from the earth whâtev€r w€ make of
tearing earth's womb, the idea scarcely applies to th€ Utopiâns, for they
do not share Hythloday's views on metals , they use iron, gold, and silver
which hrve been ton from the e*th.
ovid'suseofgold recalls a biblical use, the pr€ciousness of gold to the
gods. Man hæ delved into the bowels of the earth for baneful iron and
baneful gold, as we find in the first book of the Metattoryhoses, R:ur rhe
gods use gold. cupid's arow of gold kindles the Ilame of love. Dianat
bow ir gold. cold shines from th€ palace of the sur' tn odes3.3.49'52,
Horâce sets the word hunanos agjàÂsr sactum. we may det€ct premises
hete which lead to a difference between ovid, HoÉce, and More ovid

t. Marc hadour, p. 36- An I fastidious in linding the connobtions of po.ent

disquierint in thc foUowing pasages of the L/topiil , "uelut patent intulgentisina
56

calls gold noxious, a view which Augustine aad More do not hold. Horace
calls gold sacred, aview which Augustin€ and More reject.
If Ovid and Horace condemn all human uses of gold, thenvi€ws are
to be distinguished from the views of such Renaissance wlirers as lrasmus
and Spenser. sir Gùyon, in the passage which Professor Doyle quotes
(see above p.48-49), follows the ovidian trâdition. Like Friar Lâurence, he
sees the womb ofearth as â tomb where treâsures âre hid. Ma, Sir Guyon
arserts, has conpounded fron gold and silver monstrous pride which
Mammon'scave exhibits. Arachne, whose pride had been in art, has spun a
web over the gold, so that her pride is exhibited in relation to gold.
Gold, as sir cuyon has said, has a right use. Mannon and Arachne exhibit
the wrong use of gold as do all the other inhabitants of Mammon's cave.
when Sn Guyon speaks âgâinst gold and mining, he has beer overcome at
the moment by the sight of Mamnon who has inordinate love of gold. It
would indeed be better never to have seen gold than to be like hirn. Sir
Cuyon learns by his journey through the câve that the Émificâtions of the
loss ofthe golden aç are myriad, for gold becornes there a syrnbol for every
kind of avarice. ïre weary man who sits on the silver stool ir the cave has
succumbed to various intemperances. Hythloday, ir dlrtinction, sees gold
literatly as the sole source ofavarice which comes from fear of waat or pride
in super{luity (p. 139). But as Chaucert Pnson said in his shrewd explic-
oç Ad Timothellm S€xto, "And understoond that Avaf,ice ne stânt nat
^rlon
oonly ir lond ne catel, but somryme in science and in glorie, and in
every nanere of outrageous thyng is Avarice and coveitise."
To identifr sir Guyon's dramatic exclarnâtion with Spenser's views
on gold is wrong. while Sir cuyon lies exhausted from his journey thrcugh
the cave, Spenser assures his reader that the gods corne from their silver
bowers on golden wings to succour men. To cite e few cases in ihe Fdilb
Qreeze where gold and silver are put to good use, there ae in the House
of Holiness Fidelia's cup of gold, Speranzo\ silver anchor, and Charissa's
ryre of gold adorned with gems In the House of Tenperance Alna wears
a golden train. Sir Guyon does not exclaim there over the treachery of
digging gold from eartht womb. Unat father at her betrothal to the
Red cross Knight gives St. George gif.s of ivory and gold. It ls doubtful
that Spenser thought gold useless and pernicious.
Hythloday describes the Utopiân use ofgold and war as noble, for
the end ofUtopian actiotr is to mâintâin an Eden on this earth. As Hooker
noted, rhe Puflrans resembled Hythlod:y s Utopians Now. the Puritans
worked to brrg Eden to rhis eærli and olten said rs much. conon Mather
asserted that to return to the golden age would mâle a man a Puriran.l
His notion of Eden incl'ided many ofthe improvenents which were to be
found in trtopir. sucl rs wrrer reidered rerricerble ro md. Puriranmm
is scienti{ic, inrell€cùal, progressiv€ i ir makes irs principal business know-
ledge of man s environment rrthe' rhan man.:

1 . Hary LÊin. me Myth ol the Golalq Ase in the Rruissan.e,

(Bloominston, I969), p. 67.
2. Jotû Lùkacs. IÀ? Pa$ iag ol the Mod.m Ase, Uew York, 1970). pp. 139-140.
 IIYTHLODAY AND THE ROoT OF AI-L E!1L 57

Those who try to make an lden of errh by way of a planned

program which ffnds its principles h a secret wbdom knowa to an elite
are gnostics, Eric Voegelin argues. The gnostic sees matter as intrinsically
pernicious and in need of proper .uaryement and connol. Èofessor
Voegelin has poinùed to the Ufopia às an example ofgnostic construction
in which "a thinker suppresses ân essentiâl ele'n€rt ofreality in order to be
able to consrruct an image of man. or sociery. or his(ory ro suir his
desires. ' More has nmeà ururopia afrd Ab;Àæ. a gnoiic god. Are
we to conclude that the Utopians âre gnostics who have risen above
gnosticism by way of philosophy, or that they are gnostics who have
fallen into false philosophy ? It will be recalled thar Mo.€ criricizes false
philosophy on the grounds that it destroys place by taking all phces to be
one and the same place |quae quidais putet ubiuis con eniîe lp. 98)l,
and that Hythlodây argues irnmedirtely after More's cridcism thât the
views which he has just expounded are applicable to every plæe, rbilis
(p. 100). But âre they ? Idle retâineff come to mind. were Goneril .nd
Rêgan righù, after all ? should we epplaud their depriving their fether of
his retinue ? Utopia, no-place, which in a sense is what ân abirn is,
follows in spirit Basilides's asseftion thar God can be described only by
negatives, in that Uiopiâ defines the good society by describing a society
which cannot exist and applying the rul€s of tlis society to all places.
More was not â gnostic and not â Puritân. He wore a golden chain.
Can we tuin the world bæk to the golden age ? More argued that we
cannot mench to a golden aç €ver the litde world, the chuch. wLen
Luther attempted to strip the church of its patina, More accused him of
ûying to build a church in the ninds of a few persons in a corner,
perhaps ir Utopia.2 This comes from followirg a hidden wisdorn
Ignosls u Jwhich reduces the cfiurch to d invisible one, an internâl one, to
a church not in rhis world tgnosdc rejection of the external world ? 1.3
Such a church becones imperc€ptible and mathematical like Platonic
ideas 1r i3 apparently includes only good nen.5 That church, then,
would be a Utopian society. But, âs More had said to Hythloday, we
cannot predicate social institutions by relying on universal goodness.
The church militant, More knew, embraces the fallen. in the fallen
world a man has to do as well as he can with God's creatures. St. John
Chrysostom in preaching on Acts 2.44-45-the lo.us ol Christian commu'
nirn which, oddly, More pals€s unnoticed in his voluminous use of the
Bible-warns that "universally the devil has nade it his endeavour to
disparage the oeatures of cod, as if it were inpossible to make good use
ofriches.6
In holding possessions ro be the sole source ofav*ice. Hyrhloday has
denieda p*t of human nature. rhar pert in which lurhs avdce of
knowledç. That the source of evil is in money and not in men\ hearù is

| Eric Voegelin. Sêience, Polincs and Gnosnêisn, (Chicâso, 1968), p. 106.

2. John M. Headley, "Mumer, More, ud Mor€t Ecclesioloryi ,S&dt€s u tre
Renaissa ce. ><lv (1967), 83. See also. Joh'l M. Ll€adley, me Cotkptete work: of
St. Thomas Morc, (New Hàeen, 1969), V. Pan II. 76G3.
3. lbt l.,p.a4. 4. lbid. 5. Ibtd..p.as.
58 waRD ÂLLEN

an old and prevâiling superstition. Fr. Surtz cites €xpressions of it in

Sallust's exhortation to Caesar, in Luciân, and in â relinement ofthe idea
where Ficino is careful to speak of the "luxury, pride, and sloth arising
frorn riches" (pp. s63a). Hythloday, in describing how allies draw rulers
from Utopia, asserts that the rulers cannot be bribed, for efter one to ffve
yeârs they will return to Utopia where mon€y is worthless (p. 197) This
neglects a part of hurnan nature, Is not one of the srrangert parts of
experience our forgetting that death will talce us horne, so that business
weldsusto the moment despite our knowledge that the moment is fleeting
and that we are but pilgrims on earth ? lfnoney be the sole source of
avarice, then the abolition of money will eradicate avarice. And so it has
been eradicated ir Utopia. To j'rdç that rnoney is the sole source of
av.rice Hythloday must, âs Fr. Surtz notes, modify ard transfer "from the
€conomic to tle moral sphere Aristotle's statenents : 'money. . is a
measure ofâll things'(Ei[. Mc. 5.5.10,1133a), and : 'rnoney is a standard to
which all things are refetred and by whicL they ae neasured' (ibid.
9.r.2, 1164â). c{ Aquinas, Reg, pnn 2.13" (p. 378) Here lies a diflrculty
of Hythloday\ position. In measuring evil by riches Hythloday makes
inoney the sole meâsure in the moral sphere. Hence, Hythloday can boast
thet by eradicating mon€y the Utopiâns have "extirpated rhe roots of
ambition and factionalisrn along lvith all the other vices" (p. 24 5).
In his htroductory letter to the Utapia R]udê adopts Hythloday's
aaalysis of ttre cause of pride and avarice. Three divine prirciples, he
writes, heve rooted out vice in Utopia : the equaliry ofgoods, the love of
peace, ard the contempt of gold and silver (p 11). He goes on to say that
if avarice would depa.rt "the golden age of Saturn would return" (p. t1).
But how serious is Budé ? Before his letter is done he has poirted to
another soùrce of pride in revealiag why More has ascribed his whole
account to Hythloday. Otherwise Hythloday could rightly claim that
"More had left him a prematurely plucked and de{lowered glory" (p. t3)
This is emphasized, for the Latin statenenr, gloiam.. PnecerPtafl'
prcÊforatamqxe, is repe.ted in the curiotls litde passage in Greek which
folJows it. rpocn4ufro!èvov À xtèoc. Br:dé encouruges rTe reader to
suspect that fi€ irrends to be âmbiguous about LtoPiâ and Hythloday
whèn ar the outset ofhis letter he describes Lb almost neglectùg the
management of his household affairs through rhe insfhts he has had
Êom discoveriag Utopie we âre left to wonder whether Budé *ccepts
Hythloday sanalysis or wherher he is undercutring Hythloday by revealing
thâr hi, principle of exrirpating pride by âbolishing money is defective For
Budé suspects thrt Hythloday is subject ro pride. and HytLloday. it will
be tecalled, has dispened rll of his money.
More confronts the reader with like ambigult,es. After Hythloday has
frnished his eccount, More queslions rhe abolition of rhe exchange oÉ
noney, for this "alone Lrtrerly overthrows all the nobility, magnificence,
splendor, and najesty which âre, in the estimation of the common people,
the trûe glori€s ând ornaments of the commonwealth" (p. 2as). There are
many wâys to take this passage. Prof Hexter, for instance, read5 i! as .
weak refutation placed deliberarely to show that More's argument has
 HYTIITODAY AND THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL 59
collapsed.r Ano(her w,y ro read rhe ùsumenr is ùâr nobijjry, maq-
niticence. splendor. end maje'ry are sood rhjngs and rhat it is wel à
Proqde rhose ot qeak imaginarions wirh a *ay of perceiving rhese
rhings. or, one may argue rhar rhe common peopte who can se; nobil_
rry. by way ot money only are anrlogous to Hyrhloday who can see
ev .h rerms of money only. In borh cases rhe intricate moral sphere
has been reduced to rhe economic sp}ere.
More created Hyrholoday. a man uho despned money but who stilt
covered personal glory. ts noi the example of Éythlodal ; itself a criri.
cism of rhe view whicfi reduces moraliry ro rhe merjure of !he economic
sphere , ln nanslarùg I Timothy ô.I0. ii4ore did nor ffansl.re rrÀdplup.ia
by 'love of money. He chose a larger reÉerence. ..The roor ofâU evits i5
cov€tise, which while some folk coveted, they walted out of the way
from the faith."2
l. L H. Hê\te\ Morc \ UTOPIA, (New York, 1965). p. 39.
2.

Ward ALLEN

A]ong with his âticle in thi! issue re.cring to Proi Doyle's, ward
Àlen's letter of June 14, 1971 contained a few rermris which r
cannot refrain from quoting :
You-haue no doubt sen '.Utopia and G6nevâ .by prof. Hexrer.. The
appeat of Utopia as a literal ùing to be buib on this ea h hd, beeh stok,
asongtt the Protestdlltt. eqPcially the punhn' O! .obrce, thû mal .ona
flon theh m^tahea rcadi;g oIit. "ot I,o^ .,1; i"t",tio" ol M;* ,. h
seen"d ro me rhat thc Jotap persons who obiected to out buyino the
gold crp wae oJ rha snain. now naal notestants have r head chàzinp
that the.Catholics ."ste o" deio,otions ol go\d. Anà alt &e ;hiie
thosc who ùete deplorinj ^o".y
rhe waste atteûded chbrch ih an.cosditioned
buildisgs uh"rc ùe .o,t of tuanihg ihe M.hikc to cool the buitding
ùds itsell nore thar rhe cost of poldentessek. Doem r t+ritanLsm haveZ
uay ol enàing up by reconnenàins confotts rc nan ? p. C. Stdnùood
renaths in hi. prefa.e to Johk Cosit's Devotions /,ar liiners and Books
oI Ho|B of vûio"s hkàs had a way oJ giuing in àuting tti2abeùan rines
in Fngbnd to de,oiiohs ùhi.h .onccsttured o" dan.s;?eds.

* EjjroJ:t!!,ole.
Yes, I saw that esay, "a pârticulârly intercstine piece". says Marius B. Jansèn
r€viewing the volumè in which it i\
1969 (Morcana, no. 27 p. I I 2). Answering
ny requesl âbor.rt copi€s ofil,Iick^ppeûed
Hexler wrires (Àugùst 18, l9?1):
''Sonedhe ths v.a. Bosn 8@ks is pubhùM8 d .ollcc o, olhiae. to be.olL.l
rye-!!-'-i9n-_oL_P-a!Lli.a\ 9L !bs_E!e_ pLt-hc RpfolhsrloJt n |9i ùclude rhc nnrc
I
introduclory essay to the Yale edition of UtaAb. h@e rc-in oryôrute.J i that
estuy, lton which Ptofstut Syllestet excied ir, n, piece oû Utopia and caeva."
60

I thinl that m! lieus on the Utopiz - I hope - cone near to louls

atd Fî. Sri'z's, but b, a dilferent rcute. I think that it fumishes a
model of uhat the Ch rch krcus to be na \ ptopet phce in this
'oid.a
Bû I think that I see the model b, oay ol seetng hou, empty e1'ei
petfect uoid is uirhout the Chulêh. Hlthlodat seems to me to be morc
Puntù than Qtholic. la gobab$ unong, fol lor and Fr. Sstt, hnow
fat bettet than I the ma*s bt which a man is recogltized e' a Catholic.
For hsta êe, wheæ Ft. Sutt2 seet Hythloday et concened about the
ptopd odiiation fot the piesthood,I find hin indîfkrenL
Anil isn't thk a point u'herc one hat to rclf on Atetutt in
interyrctation, on the reading of cÀatuctet ? Mt ansuet to the point that
Moæ's contemporunes ageed at to the neaiihg oI the Utopia sta s uith
the proposition that the Utcry. is o literct uroi.. And uhen one agrees to
a neanlne of a litetury tuo.L, one i' agteeing to the neaûing of d
pataphase of the uork. Ir is genaally thought Ûou, I beliew,,hat
contemporcry cîitics werc aII mistdben in thei inteerctatioi of Eliot's
Waltelând" Ot corrse, Eliot\ poem is norc highlr symbolic than Morc\
Ut.D.iÊ, norc highly allus;ve. Ot, is it ? Mtt, thinb oî the allusion' uhich
Ft. Stttz points out in his billiant notes !
Thk letteî is getting o t of hand. AII good wishes.
Yoffi faithfrtlt,
,/ . .f,,
ful ùfu'4
vou haoe rc doubt seet lh. Year's Work 1967,* p. 121.
"But More\ economic theory is unscientilic through his frilure to
understand the value of money, which, likc Lycurgus, Plato, and many
earty chôtian witers, he denounced on ethical groun<ls. Regarding noney
and bullion solely rs a source ofunhappincss and s-cial problens, he made
the sâme miltâke âs rhe Luddites, blind to the fact that the dweloPment
of a rnarket economy leads to greÂt productiviry .nd provides effective
incenriv€s inducing people to increase their skills aad to work harder."
Sumft.rv of l'{.rion Frackowiak's Poqlâdy Economicz,le Tomâr,a More.
I thinh th4t this thesis rcqunes d nisrcading of Morc'
" Ed!t-o-r:s_'t-o-le.
The Yeat's Lnoth m€ans, of course, Tte Yeat\ bb* in Englbh Studies,
published for the English Association by John Murray, London, and usually
tevlewel in Moreana soon after it reaches Angers The Jubnee volume
(no- 50), due out this November, will be r twin ofour Festschrift B.E.C.
Davis, who tackles the Reraissence section with fairness and conpetence,
has proved himself a line appraiser ofliterature on More. Th€ Associâtion
news'lerter of Sepr€mber 1971, emong its oùttel dica has a saying of
Sanuel Butler's which deserves re-quoting her€, as it seems ro echo the
letter to Giles in which More qualmfully inquires âbout the length ofthe
river that spans the Anydrus, after naking (Y.le ed. p.40) his fahous
distinction between mentiri E menda.isn dtc€'€. Now,Buder says : "I
don\ nind Iying but I hrte inâccuracy."