# Writing under Tyranny: Tyranny put to the Test of Language in the Works of Thomas More and Thomas Elyot

Isabelle Bore

► To cite this version:

Isabelle Bore. Writing under Tyranny: Tyranny put to the Test of Language in the Works of Thomas More and Thomas Elyot. Moreana, 2013, 50 (Number 191- (1-2), pp.111-130. 10.3366/more.2013.50.1-2.7. [https://u-picardie.hal.science/hal-04301253v1](https://u-picardie.hal.science/hal-04301253v1)

HAL Id: hal-04301253

Submitted on 22 Nov 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
Isabelle BORE

Université de Picardie-Jules Verne

WRITING UNDER TYRANNY:

TYRANNY PUT TO THE TEST OF LANGUAGE

IN THE WORKS OF THOMAS MORE AND THOMAS ELYOT

The idea of this article was derived from the reading of a book by Greg Walker. This book entitled *Writing Under Tyranny : English Literature and the Henrician Reformation*<fnref n="1" /> charts the effects that Henry VIII's increasingly tyrannical regime had on the literary production of the early sixteenth century. Here my scope is far more limited as I shall concentrate on the relationship between language and tyranny. Indeed my intent is to show that where there is tyranny, language is at stake. In this perspective, we shall focus on two authors, Thomas More and Thomas Elyot, who made radically different choices to analyse the ambiguities of language and assess to what extent language is the ally or the enemy of those who fight against tyranny.

1) A distorted use of language as a sign of tyranny

A) *The use of contrast*

To deal with the notion of tyranny, Thomas More and Thomas Elyot did not question kingship that they defended fervently, but they argued that tyranny was a perverted form of kingship, that the king turning into a tyrant had distorted the nature of kingship. This way of tackling the question of tyranny was not typical of the Renaissance thought. It was actually a commonplace of the Middle Ages. In the *De Regimine Principum* Thomas Aquinas noticed that kingship was the best form of government whereas tyranny was the worst. This was echoed in their discourse by the use of contrast meant to reveal the qualities required for good kingship.

In their writings, More and Elyot both staged the good king and his negative counterpart the cruel tyrant. In the epigram 109 dealing with ‘the difference between a tyrant and a king’<fnref n="2" />

<footnote n="1">¹ - Greg Walker, *Writing Under tyranny : English Literature and the Henrician Reformation*. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005, 556 p.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² - ‘Quid inter tyrannum et principem.’ Thomas More, *Latin Poems*. Edited by Clarence H. Miller, Leicester Bradner, Charles A. Lynch, Revilo P. Oliver, New Haven and London : Yale University Press, 1984, p. 162.</footnote>
Thomas More explained that 'A king who respects the law differs from a cruel tyrant thus : a tyrant rules his subjects as slaves; a king thinks of his as his own children.'<fnref n="3" /> Likewise in the epigram 115 entitled 'On kings, good and bad'<fnref n="4" />, he wondered what a good king is. There is no doubt in his answer. The good king 'is a watchdog, guardian of the flock, who by barking keeps the wolves from the sheep. What is the bad king? He is the wolf.'<fnref n="5" /> To sum it up, unlike the tyrant who favoured his own personal desire, the good king put the common good above his own personal desires.

We find the same contrasting discourse in Thomas Elyot's work but where Thomas More used mainly general categories, - the king, the tyrant – Thomas Elyot was more specific. For each category, he gave examples drawn from the Antiquity. In *The Governour*, Elyot provided a list of good and bad examples for the edification of his readers. On the one hand, he praised the virtues of the good kings who are to be imitated and on the other hand, he denounced the hateful tyrants whose examples are to be avoided. The good kings are classified in different categories. The learned princes are given pride of place. They are represented by the Emperor Augustus, who read Cicero and Virgil to his children and 'nephew', or the tyrant Dionysius of Sicily who reformed himself by reading Plato while in exile. There are followed by the princes who acted as patrons to learned men. Elyot quoted 'Nerua, Traiane, Hadriane, the two Antonines, and the wonderfull emperour Alexander, for his grauitie called Seuerus', whose palaces were 'alway replenisshed with eloquent oratours, delectable poetes, wise philosophers, mote cunnynge and experte lawyars, prudent and valiaunt capitaines'<fnref n="6" />. According to Elyot, the virtues of these rulers were exemplified by the people who were part of their retinue. On the contrary, 'monstruous emperours' such as Nero and Caligula announced their vices as they 'norisshed about them ribauldes and other voluptuouse artificers'<fnref n="7" />. Even if Thomas Elyot is more specific than Thomas More, the use of language is the same : through the use of contrast it helps to categorize, make distinctions and finally define to what extent a tyrant is different from a king. But this is not the only use of language. If we try to analyse further the works by More and Elyot we notice that the relationship between language and tyranny is far more complex. Indeed through counselling, language is involved in the destiny of a government.

<footnote n="3">³ - 'Legitimus immanissimis / Rex hoc tyrannis interest. / Seruos tyrannus quos regit, / Rex liberos putat suos.' *Ibid*., p. 162.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ - 'De principe bono et malo'. *Ibid*., p. 164.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ - 'Quid bonus est princeps ? Canis est custos gregis inde / Qui fugat ore lupos. Quid malus ? ipse lupus.' *Ibid*., p. 164.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ - Thomas Elyot, *The Boke Named The Gouernour*. Edited by Henry H. S. Croft, London : Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1883, volume II p. 8.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ - *Ibid*., p. 7.</footnote>
## B) *The ambiguities of language*

### 1) *Counselling versus Flattery*

Indeed, at court, there were two ways of using language. The first way consisted in giving advice. It was embodied by the counsellor who advised the good king. As it was demonstrated by John Guy, the notions of good kingship dated back in part to Tacitus and Cicero and dealt with the need to surround the king with reliable counsellors who, like the senators of ancient Rome, could be bold enough to speak for the common good and control the prince's natural propensity towards self-interest and authoritarianism<fnref n="8" />. The second way consisted in flattering. It was embodied by the sycophants who surrounded the tyrant. Language was therefore two-sided and Thomas More and Thomas Elyot were well aware of this ambiguity. In his biography, Roper reports the basic principles at work in good counselling. Thomas More taught Thomas Cromwell when he entered royal service. 'If you will follow my poor advice, you shall, in your counsel giving unto his Grace, ever tell him what he ought to do, but never what he is able to do [...] For, if [a] lion knew his own strength, hard were it for any man to rule him.'<fnref n="9" /> Thomas More implied that a good counsellor was to act as the king's surrogate conscience and he prepared him to enter the scene if ever the king's conscience failed.

The question is even more important in the works by Thomas Elyot which are more or less all devoted to this notion of good counselling. I will mention only two of them. It is the topic of the first political dialogue entitled *Pasquil the Playne*. Staging three characters - the plain-speaker and two kinds of flatterers : the base sycophant and the puritanical imposter - this dialogue describes the paralysis that is created at the centre of government when counsellors practise sycophancy and flattery rather than offer the King honest advice. But the idea is not new. It was already present in *The Governour* where Elyot analysed the disastrous consequences that happened to princes who surrounded themselves with flatterers and refused to listen to the wisest subjects of their court. He lamented the damage that 'haue ensued to princes and their realmes where liberte of speche hath ben restrayned ?'<fnref n="10" /> Even the best rulers who were presented earlier as the embodiment of perfect kingship were not free from this vice later in their reigns. He argued, for example, that Alexander's neglect of his former openness to criticism was responsible for his premature death. 'Where, if he had retained the same affabilitie that was in hym in the

<footnote n="8">⁸ - John Guy, *Politics, Law and Counsel in Tudor and Early-Stuart England*. Variorum : Ashgate, 2000.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ - William Roper, *The Life of Sir Thomas More*. Edited by Elsie V. Hitchcock, Early English Text Society : London, 1935, pp. 56-57.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ - Thomas Elyot, *The Boke Named The Gouernour*. Op. Cit., p. 46.</footnote>
begynnynge of his conquest, and had nat put to silence his counsailors whiche before used to speake to hym frankly, he mought haue escaped all violent dethe [...] For after that he waxed to be terrible in maners, and prohibited his frendes and discrete seruantes to use their accustomed libertie in speche, he felle into a hatefull grudge amonge his owne people.'<fnref n="11" /> Language with its ambiguities is therefore intertwined with the destiny of a government : the proper use of language preserved good kingship whereas the distorted use led to tyranny.

## 2) *Fluctuating referents*

There is no doubt as to the choice made by More and Elyot who always acted as good counsellors. But, it does not mean that their discourse is deprived of any ambiguity. This ambiguity lay in the use of similar examples from which they drew opposite conclusions. For instance, they both proposed two contrasting portraits of Henry VII and Henry VIII. In the epigram n°19 devoted to the coronation day of Henry VIII<fnref n="12" />, the portrait of the promising king is an attack on the policies of Henry VII. Thomas More did not content himself with extolling Henry VIII's merits as a man but he chose to praise the new king first for banishing the injustice, fear, and oppression of his father's reign. More did not, of course, explicitly place the blame on Henry VII himself. The furthest he goes is to praise Henry VIII for repealing some of his father's policies. 'Our prince without delay has restored to the laws their ancient force and dignity (for they had been perverted so as to subvert the realm).'<fnref n="13" />

We find the same strategy in *The Governour*. But whereas Thomas More used the portrait of Henry VIII to criticize his father, Thomas Elyot drew the portrait of Henry VII to comment on the vices of his son. Elyot remembers that despite his 'long absence out of his realm' Henry VII was able, on his return, to restore order to a realm divided by civil war. 'By his moste excellent witte, he in fewe yeres, nat onely broughte this realme in good ordre and under due obedience, reuiued the lawes, auaunced Justice, refurnisshed his dominions, and repayred his manours ; but also with suche circumspection traited with other princes and realmes, of leages, of aliaunce, and amities, that during the more parte of his reigne, he was litle or nothyng inquieted with outwarde hostilitie or martiall businesse. And yet all other princes either feared hym or had hym in a fatherly reuerence.'<fnref n="14" /> As Henry VIII was praised by More at the time of his

<footnote n="11">¹¹ - *Ibid.*, p. 47.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² - Thomas More, *Latin Poems. Op. Cit.*, p. 100.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ - 'Legibus antiquam (nam uersae euertere regnum / Debuerant) subito uimque decusque dedit.' *Ibid.*, p. 107.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ - Thomas Elyot, *The Boke Named The Gouernour. Op. Cit.*, Book II, pp. 258-259.</footnote>
coronation because he symbolized a hope for more justice with the restoration of ancient laws, at a time when the king's Great Matter had opened up a schism at home and was threatening to provoke international conflict with both the Pope and the Emperor, Elyot represented Henry VII as a peacemaker who restored order. Unlike More who insisted on the necessity to break with the policy led by Henry VII, Elyot considered that Henry VIII had been the beneficiary of his father's legacy of peace, honour, and domestic stability which implied that he had a duty to maintain and strengthen the legacy for his own heir. Even if the results are different, both authors were prompted by the same desire. They painted Henry VIII as they would like him to be.

Despite their differences, these two portraits are very interesting for two main reasons. First they stress the ambiguity of language through the use of two fluctuating referents. Besides, this aspect will be strengthened by the fact that tyranny is many-sided in the works by More – tyranny being in turn political with the criticism of Henry VII, economic with the denunciation of the greed of nobles and finally religious in the controversy with the ‘Lutheran sect’. On the contrary, it is univocal in the works by Elyot who focussed on the political tyranny of Henry VIII. Second, they emphasize the importance of the implicit, the part of which will grow as the tyrannical behaviour of Henry VIII and the parallel tyrannical influence of reformers will intensify. The increasing weight of the implicit led Thomas More and Thomas Elyot to play hide-and-seek with the authorities. Actually, as they played on the ambiguities of language, they succeeded in concealing their identities or their intents while revealing the dangers of tyranny.

## 2. Revealing and Concealing

### A) Relocation

The first way of escaping from censors consisted in diverting their attention by changing dates and places to comment on the political situation of their country. *The Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation* is quite revealing. This dialogue denouncing the religious tyranny of the Reformers took place in the town of Buda, after the death of Louis II of Mohacs when Hungary was divided by inner conflicts due to a rivalry between several pretenders to the throne, in particular Ferdinand of Austria and John Zapolya, and threatened from the outside by a new Turkish invasion<fnref n="15" />. The date chosen by More for the scene of his dialogue is meaningful. The

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ - After the battle of Mohacs, Suleiman kept on occupying Buda. As winter was approaching, he stopped his campaign and the Turks withdrew on the European bank of Danube. As Louis II died without any</footnote>
conversation did not take place, as it could have been expected, in 1526, just after the battle of Mohacs when Hungary was defeated. It would have been the most logical and the most dramatic date if More had only wanted to show the Turkish threat in Europe. Instead, he chose the years 1527-1528, which were rather calm between the first and the second Turkish invasion. This choice makes the impact and the meaning of the book more complex. As the scene of the dialogue took place somewhere after the coronation of Ferdinand in 1527 and before the invasion of Suleiman in 1529, it shows that More wanted the outside threat from the Turks to coincide with the inner threat from the false Christians who had become allied with the Turks. The real target was the Turks from Hungary, as Louis II used to call them. It included the nobles who, after the battle of Mohacs, ransacked their own estates, the twenty thousand Lutherans supposed to have enrolled in the Turkish army, the European princes who strove to become allied with the Turks in order to restore their power and the protestant sects who, according to More, had betrayed faith, turned towards false Gods and taken part in the dismembering of the mystic body of Christ through wars and persecution. Therefore, Thomas More used the allegoric mode and the rhetoric mask of the Turkish threat in Hungary to reveal the real problem at home. England was not threatened by a Turkish invasion but by a Lutheran one.

Likewise, Thomas Elyot was keen on relocating his own dialogues. He was far more prudent than Thomas More as he used to relocate them in the Antiquity. For example, in *Of the Knowledge which Maketh a Wise Man*, he relied on the *Lives of Eminent Philosophers* written by Diogenes Laertius in the third century. Elyot imagined a meeting between Plato and an antagonist, Aristippus of Cyrene. The debate consisted in deciding whether Plato had been right to accuse King Dionysius of Sicily of behaving like a tyrant. The question underlying this debate was to know what an honest counsellor should do when faced with the obvious tyranny of a king. Plato considered that, being a wise man and true to himself, he could have done nothing else but confront the King directly. On the contrary, Aristippus argued that there were more pragmatic and prudent options available to him that would have achieved the same ends without provoking Dionysius's anger. This relocation in the Greek Antiquity gave Elyot the opportunity to tackle the problem of counselling a tyrant without giving the impression to deal with a topical problem.

<footnote>heir, Hungarian nobles met to choose a new king. They chose John Zapolya. Another faction supported Charles V's brother, Ferdinand of Austria. In 1527, the problem led to civil war. Ferdinand invaded Hungary. Zapolya ran away to Poland and negotiated with Suleiman to recover his throne. In spring 1529 Suleiman invaded Hungary again. In September he was very close to Vienna and just before winter he gave John Zapolya the kingdom of Hungary as a fief.</footnote>
## B) *The authorial role*

### 1) *Blurred authors*

Another way of diverting the attention of censorship consists in toning down the authorial role through different stratagems. Concealing the author's identity under a fictitious name was a solution. It was chosen by More in the *Responsio ad Lutherum*. There are two versions of this work. In the first version, the author known as Ferdinandus Baravellus, was presented as a student attending a Spanish university. As the purpose of the book was to contrast Luther's and Henry VIII's arguments, we may conclude that this name which concealed the true identity of the author was a way of preserving his anonymity while underlining the widespread reaction to the controversy between the king and the reformer. In the second version, the author's name and nationality were different. The author's name was Guilielmus Rosseus and he was an Englishman. This change may suggest that the defense of an English king must be taken by an Englishman.

Thomas Elyot chose a different device to cover his tracks: he proposed translations. It is the case in the *Doctrinal of Princes*. Like the *Responsio ad Lutherum* it is an oration. It is presented as the translation into English from a Greek oration written by the political and moral philosopher Isocrates for his former pupil Nicocles when he became King of Salamis around 372 BC. This translation gave Elyot the opportunity to deal with questions he had already evoked in *The Governour, Pasquil and Of the Knowledge* without appearing to tackle topical questions. The distancing effect created by the use of Isocrates' name allowed Elyot to say what he wanted to say. He addressed to the King himself but Isocrates was responsible for commenting on the importance to the good prince of taking good counsel into account, banishing flatterers, behaving reasonably and governing humanly. To sum up, Elyot behaved as a good counsellor while giving the impression to be only a translator.

### 2) *The voice of Wisdom*

Another way of preserving one's identity consisted in presenting one's work as a mere compilation of quotes from wise sources. For example, Thomas More was very keen on piling up biblical quotations to justify his own argumentation. Again, the *Responsio ad Lutherum*, is very
revealing. To show that Luther's reading of the Bible was flawed, he proposed a piling up of
quotes borrowed from Matthew, Luke and John. 'Unless he either denies again his admission that
the church has from God the power to distinguish the words of God from the words of men, or
brings forward another catholic church by whose teaching he has known the gospel, or proves to
us that the church has learned nothing without the scriptures, despite the evangelist's statement :
'Not all things have been written in this book'; and likewise the apostle's words : 'Hold on to
what I have commanded to you, whether by word of mouth or by letters'; likewise what was
recalled by the same apostle : 'I will give my laws into their hearts and in their minds I will write
them'; and likewise those words of Christ : 'The Spirit, the Paraclete, when He shall have come,
will lead you into all truth'; [...] I have made most clear to you, reader [...] that this fellow not
only abolishes the traditions of men [...] but that he abolishes even the traditions of God.'<fnref n="16" />
Likewise, a little further, More applied a long passage from the Book of Wisdom to Luther's
followers. 'But when that day shall have come, Luther, in which the faithful shall stand in great
constancy, then you heretics and infidels, seeing it, will be shaken with dreadful fear, and
groaning in anguish of spirit you will say : "These are the faithful and holy men whom we
faithless and impious men once held as a laughingstock and as a type for mockery. See how they
are accounted among the sons of God. We then have strayed from the way of truth, and the light
of justice did not shine for us, and the sun of understanding did not rise for us. We had our fill of
the ways of mischief and of ruin ; what did our pride avail us ?"'<fnref n="17" /> These quotations which are
presented as exact quotations from the Bible are in fact taken out of their context. The subtlety
of the exercise was there. The trick lay in choosing the most convincing quotes from the Bible
and in adapting them to the purpose and the context they were supposed to address.

We find exactly the same device in the *Bankette of Sapience* by Elyot. In this work looking
like an anthology of maxims meant for the reader's instruction and pleasure, Elyot resumed his

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ - 'Nisi aut rursus neget : quod fassus est : hoc ecclesiam habere a deo : ut uerba dei decernat a uerbis hominum : aut aliam proferat ecclesiam catholicam : qua docente cognouit euangelium : aut probet nobis nihil ecclesiam didicisse sine scripturis, contra illud euangelistae : Non omnia scripta sunt in libro hoc. Et item illud apostoli : Seruate, quae praecepi uobis, siue per sermonem, siuer per epistolas. Item illud, ab eodem commemoratum apostolo : Dabo leges in cordibus eorum : et in mentibus eorum superscribam eas. Et illud item Christi : Spiritus paracletus, cum uenerit : ille ducet uos in omnem ueritatem. [...] ego planissimum tibi lector feci [...] istum non tantum traditiones hominum tollere, [...] sed etiam tollere traditiones dei.' Thomas More, *Responsio ad Lutherum*. Edited by John M. Headley, New Haven and London : Yale University Press, 1969, part I, pp 280-282.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ - 'Sed quum dies illa uenerit Luthere : in qua stabunt fideles in magna constantia : tum uos haeretici, et infideles uidentes, turbabimini timore horribili : et gementes prae angustia spiritus dicetis : Hi sunt fideles et sancti : quos nos infideles et impij aliquando habuimus in derisum, et in similitudinem improperij. Ecce, quomodo computati sunt inter filios dei. Ergo nos errauimus a via ueritatis : et iusticiae lumen non luxit nobis : et sol intelligentiae non est ortus nobis. Lassati sumus in uia iniquitatis et perditionis. Quid profuit nobis superbia ?' *Ibid*., p. 418.</footnote>
favourite task of counselling his king. He quoted from the *Books of Wisdom*, but also from ancient
philosophers and Church Fathers. The topics are diverse. They appear in alphabetical order
ranging from abstinence to wrath. For example, in the section entitled 'Correction' Elyot quoted
Solomon as the author of the following maxim: 'Correct not a scorner, lest that he hate thee;
correct a wise man and he will thank thee' and again 'The ear which will ear his own life rebuked
shall dwell in the middle of them that be wise men.'<sup>18</sup> As Greg Walker put it: 'by reducing his
own authorial role apparently to nothing, and allowing the ideas to be spoken wholly through the
voices of others, he seems to have gained a confidence that was lacking in his earlier exercises in
good counsel. Freed from the need to construct a voice and a role for himself as a royal
counsellor, he found a far more potent voice in the words of generations of the wise. Hence,
perhaps, he was able to find the confidence and courage to come as close as he had yet come to
criticizing royal policies directly.'<sup>19</sup> The diverting stratagems were completed with parodic and
ironic elements on which we are going to concentrate now.

### C) Parody and Irony

#### 1) *The influence of ancient comedy*

Actually the play on concealing and revealing is also suggested through
dramatisation. Both Thomas More and Thomas Elyot used Greek drama as a magnifying glass to
reveal the vices of the characters they staged. For example, in the *Responsio ad Lutherum*, Luther
was identified with Thraso, a boastful and smug character staged by Terence in one of his plays
entitled *Eunuchus*. More who addressed his reader directly wrote: 'Tell me, reader, who does not
see, even from these words of the madman, that all the infernal furies, after knocking out the
fellow's brains, have taken up residence in his empty noggin? These furies drive him so mad that
they do not allow him to perceive what a ridiculous and wretched Thraso he makes of himself
before the whole world.'<sup>20</sup> Making Luther a new Thraso had nothing new as it was a usual insult
in the XVIth century to call someone a Thraso. What is interesting, however, is that More tries to
adapt the character to his portrait of Luther. More portrayed Luther in such a way as we find the
same smugness in him. Besides it is mainly what More reproached Luther with since at the
beginning of his work he wrote: 'This whole epistle breathes Luther Thrasonic vainglory and the

<footnote n="18"><sup>18</sup> - Thomas Elyot, *Four Political Treatises*. Op. Cit., p. 129.</footnote>

<footnote n="19"><sup>19</sup> - Greg Walker, *Writing Under tyranny: English Literature and the Henrician Reformation*. Op. Cit., p. 234.</footnote>

<footnote n="20"><sup>20</sup> - 'Obsecro lector, quis uel ex his furiosi uerbis non uideat, furias omnes inferas, excusso homini cerebro, in uacuo sedem sibi fecisse capite ? quae adeo dementant eum : ut sentire non sinant : quam ridiculum ac miserabilem toti orbi se Thrasonem prebeat.' Thomas More, *Responsio ad Lutherum*. Op. Cit. p. 78.</footnote>
scoundrel’s malicious spite toward the authority of the Roman See.’<fnref n="21" /> While Luther reminded the reader of the ridiculous confidence of a Thraso, his followers were compared to Gnathos, parasites, who tried to draw their master’s attention with obsequious flatteries. They made their best to gain the favour of the guru who, on the other hand, strove to organise his sect on the model of ancient philosophical sects. ‘This he zealously strove for, took pains about, accomplished so that as the sects of philosophers have names after the philosophers themselves, and Gnatho contemplated that parasites likewise should be called Gnathonites, so the most absurd race of heretics, the dregs of impiety, of crimes, and filth, should be called Lutherans.’<fnref n="22" />

The same reference emerged in the dialogue by Elyot entitled *Pasquil the Playne*. In this dialogue, as we saw earlier, Elyot staged three characters, among whom there are two flatterers. The former is called Gnatho. The latter is called Harpocrates. The portrait of Gnatho is particularly interesting. He is represented as the fashionable courtier who has adopted the appearance and manner of a scholar and carries the New Testament in his hands which makes of him a parody of the Henrician evangelicals. However, Elyot suggests that this Christian inspiration is only an appearance. Indeed, he has Gnatho carry Chaucer’s *Troilus and Criseyde* within his coat, closer to his heart than the Scriptures that he ostentiously shows to the world.<fnref n="23" /> He symbolized all the courtiers, such as Christopher St German, Thomas Audley or Thomas Cromwell, who had become evangelical in order to be in favour with the king. The second flatterer is slightly different. He was given the name of the Greek God of silence. But, even if his name was not borrowed from Terence’s comedy, there is no doubt about the parodic intent. Harpocrates stood for Cranmer, Henry VIII’s confessor, who was famous for his silence and his gravity. Thanks to these characters borrowed from Greek comedy and mythology, Elyot criticized on the one hand courtiers who preached virtue but did not practise it and, on the other hand, confessors who kept silent when their masters sinned in order to protect their own promotion.

## 2) *The looking-glass effect*

These parodic effects are strengthened by the creation of inverted world through the use of irony. The most famous example in the works by More is, of course, *Utopia*. Book II being a

<footnote n="21">²¹ - ‘TOTA ISTA SPIRAT EPISTOLA, Thrasonicam Lutheri gloria: et, in dignitatem Romanae sedis, liuidam nebulonis inuidiam.’ *Ibid.*, p. 40.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² - ‘Qui id studuerit, curarit, effecerit, ut uelut philosophorum sectae ex ipsis habent uocabula: et Gnato meditatus sit parasiti itidem, ut Gnatonici uocentur: sic absurdissimum genus haereticorum impietatis, scelerum, spurciciaeque colluies, appellentur Lutherani. *Ibid*., p. 685.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ - Thomas Elyot, *Four Political Treatises*. *Op. Cit.*, pp. 46-47.</footnote>
reflection of Book I, we may say that the whole work is based on this looking-glass effect. Besides Thomas More cared about the least witty of his readers since in the chapter entitled ‘Utopian travel’, More writes explicitly that Utopians always do the opposite of what the other people do and he gives a series of examples highlighting to what extent Utopians are different from the others. Thus, whereas the other people value gold and are careful in safeguarding it, Utopians make chamber pots from gold and silver. ‘Moreover, they employ the same metals to make the chains and solid fetters which they put on their slaves [...]. They also gather pearls by the seashore and diamonds and rubies on certain cliffs. [...] With pearls, diamonds and rubies they adorn little children [...]. They look with contempt on silk and regard gold as a badge of disgrace.’<fnref n="24" /> The examples which focus all on signs of wealth (gold, gems and silk) are not only a way of stressing the Utopians’ originality but it is also a way of denouncing the economic tyranny of nobles who where criticized in the first book because they put their personal desires above the common good<fnref n="25" />.

This looking-glass effect is also used by Thomas Elyot in the last political treatise entitled *The Image of Governance*. Like *Utopia*, it is based on two opposite forms of government. Indeed, the purpose of Elyot's book is to portray two emperors. The first one, Heliogabalus<fnref n="26" /> was a tyrant whereas the other, Alexander Severus<fnref n="27" />, was described as an ideal prince. Like Utopus, the latter had a passion for reforms which, by the way, are very close to the reforms implemented in Utopia. He organized the education of all children who were taught in letters and physical sports. Boys were also taught the basics of trade. As for girls, they were taught housekeeping and morality. Idleness, considered as the root of vice and disorder, was banished from the state by the creation of programmes of exercises for each class. Dice-players were treated as if they were madmen. Reforms also revealed an interest in health and well-being since there was a plan for the renovation of public bath-houses and for the creation of pleasant gardens. Sixty ‘conservators of the weal public’ were appointed to control the well-being of all children, to ensure that

<footnote n="24">²⁴ - ‘Ad haec catenas & crassas compedes, quibus cohercent seruos: ijsdem ex metallis operantur [...] Margaritas praeterea legunt in littoribus, quin in rupibus quibusdam adamantes ac pyropos quoque [...] His ornant infantulos [...] sericum contemptui esse, aurum etiam infame sciebant.’, Thomas More, *Utopia*. Edited by Edward Surtz and J. H. Hexter, Yale University press: New Haven and London, 1965, pp 152-154.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵ - ‘Nempe quibuscunque regni partibus nascitur lana tenuior, atque ideo preciosor, ibi nobiles & generosi, atque adeo Abbates aliquot sancti uiri, non his contenti reditibus, fructibusque annuis, qui maioribus suis solebant ex praedijs crescere, nec habentes satis, quod ociose ac laute uiuentes, nihil in publicum prosint, nisi etiam obsint, aruo nihil reliquunt, omnia claudunt pascuis, demoliuntur domos, diruunt oppida, templo duntaxat stabulandis ouibus relicto, & tanquam parum soli perderent apud uos ferarum saltus, ac uiuaria, ill boni uiri habitationes omnes, & quicquid usquam est culti, uertunt in solitudinem.’ *Ibid*., p. 66.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus who ruled from 218 and 222.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ - Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander Augustus who ruled from 222 to 235.</footnote>
householders kept a moderate diet, and observed the sumptuary laws that regulated the dress appropriate to each social class. Markets were carefully regulated and the prices and the quality the goods sold were monitored. According to Greg Walker, ‘the result was a state in which public conduct and private morality were brought into harmony through a combination of good example and judicial severity’<fnref n="28" />. However, we must not be mistaken by the similarities with *Utopia*. *The Image of Governance* is not a pale imitation of the work by More. Actually, the criticism is not pointed at Heliogabalus but at Alexander, the so-called good emperor. Indeed, the reforms were undermined from the inside by the personality of the emperor, a very quick-tempered man, who tried to implement his policy with the harshest cruelty. Then, it is quite easy to see in the portrait of Alexander, Henry VIII himself, and to understand that *The Image of Governance* is a mirror of contemporary policy that suggests the tyrannical motives and methods behind the claims to reform and sound government. As Greg Walker put it : ‘rather than present a straightforward portrait of an ideal emperor as it claims to do, then, the text actually presents the mirror image of such a king, a tyrant who dresses himself in the rhetoric and trappings of virtuous rule.’<fnref n="29" />

Even if Thomas More and Thomas Elyot made very different choices and if we have only
very little information about friendly or business relationship between the two men, it is obvious
that they both considered language as a useful weapon to fight against tyranny. The comparison
of their works gave us the opportunity to show that language and kingship were tightly
intertwined in so far as counselling, whether it be good or bad, was responsible for turning a
Prince into a good king or an awful tyrant. Our two authors seized the ambiguity of language to
play hide-and-seek with censors while revealing the vices of tyranny. Although More and Elyot
did not target exactly the same kinds of tyranny, the similar devices they used prove that there is a
fighting literature testifying to the former’s dissenting spirit and the latter’s resisting attitude.

<footnote n="28">²⁸ - Greg Walker, *Writing Under Tyranny: English literature and the Henrician Reformation*. Op. Cit., p. 259.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹ - *Ibid*., p. 263.</footnote>