Page:The Review of English Studies Vol 1.djvu/58

46 The rebellion is looked at by More, from—in the main—three points of view: (1) Practical wisdom (consider the consequences of your action!); (2) religion (you offend against God’s law!); and (3) humanity (“let us do as we may be done by”). But it is very curious that between the second and the third thought the writer throws in some considerations which in reality belong to the first point of view. The idea of v, 114 seq.: “what rebel captain—as mutinies are incident—by his name can still the rout? Who will obey a traitor?” has already been expressed before in other words, or at least its legitimate position would be after the lines 82 seq.: “by this pattern not one of you should live an aged man,” for they only continue or vary the train of thought which initiates the whole speech. I do not mean to say, of course, that these lines (114 seq.) have been actually misplaced; I only draw attention to the fact that the writer is by no means a man of very clear conception.

But he is very far, also, from possessing Shakespeare’s marvellous insight into the motives of human action. There can be little doubt that the effect of a speech like Sir Thomas More’s in this scene would in reality have been very different from that depicted by the dramatist. For two reasons. Firstly, the crowd would have been right in answering him that he entirely misconstrues their case. For if they really would have to leave England and would have to implore the mercy of the people in “Fraunc or Flanders, any Jarman province, Spane or Portigall,” their situation would be absolutely different from that of the proud and overbearing foreigners, whose impudent attitude towards the natives of London has—as the first scenes of the play show—become simply unbearable. What the rebels object to is not that strangers are treated humanely, but that they themselves must endure to be treated by them like dogs. But even if the rhetorical power of the orator was able to make them forget this difference, they would scarcely be moved by the argument which is here couched in the words “letts do as we may be doon by.” Experience teaches us that in times of public excitement no argument has less force with the masses than this one. Did Shakespeare take a different view about the psychology of the multitude? The facts point to the contrary. What is the way of Clifford (in 2 Hen. VI,, vii, 34 seq.) to win over the masses to him, which have been seduced by Jack Cade? lie appeals to their patriotism, to-day we should say, to their chauvinism, in egging them on against France. Like a