Although More sets forth theological principles about suffering in book 1, it is in book 2 that he takes on the problem of applying these paradoxical truths to lived experience. Billingsley argues that while book 1 appealed to the reason, book 2 directs its focus on the senses.73 More thus turns his attention to the fearful
imaginations of suffering and the feelings of grief, fear, and dread they evoke. Rather than seek to abnegate or repress the power of such human emotions, More instead accommodates the image-making capacity of the mind by fighting “false fantasies” with alternative images and stories. While, as Billingsley points out, the imagination may be misused through focus on “worldly tribulation,” it may also be used rightly when directed toward proper objects of meditation.74
73Billingsley, “Resources of Kind,” 67.
74 Dale B. Billingsley, “‘Imagination’ in A Dialogue of Comfort,” Moreana 74 (1982): 62.
In book 1, the word “imagination” occurs relatively few times, and the word “fancy” does not occur at all. Imagination, however, takes on a central role in book 2 as Antony seeks to apply the principles of book 1 while taking into account the limitations and contingencies of suffering and frightened human beings. In the opening chapter of book 2, Vincent reflects on their previous discussion and worries that Antony’s “labour…in talkyng so long together without interpawsyng between / & that of mater studiouse & displesaunt” (More 12:78) may have tired him and worsened his illness. Antony acknowledges that he also reflected on the conversation and wishes that they “had more often enterchaungid words / & partid the talk
between vs” (More 12:79). Antony recognizes the dialogue structure as a form of accommodation to both speakers because it enables them to divide the work between, enables both speakers to participate fully, and guards against weariness.
Antony also modifies his style by acknowledging the value of “merry tales” in the process of seeking comfort. Citing Thomas Aquinas on the value of
playfulness and joking,75 Vincent argues that “proper plesaunt talkyng…is a good vertew, servyng to refresh the mynd & make it quikke & lusty to labour & study agayne / where contynuall fatigacion wold make it dull and dedly” (More 12:82). Antony hesitatingly agrees, explaining that joking and merry tales are so natural to humans that they would be used whether he sanctioned them or not (More 12:82). He assents that, as long as God is the first cause of comfort, “some honest worldly myrth” may be allowed as an accommodation to “diuersitie of diuers mens myndes” (More 12:83). By comparing his audience to children who do not want to take
medicine unless it is “temprid with some such thing for his fancye as maketh the meate or the medisin lesse holsome than it shuld be” (More 12:84), he acknowledges that as a counselor he must concede to “fancy” so that his message will be received. As a result, in book 2, More uses many examples and merry tales, elicits more input from Vincent, and dwells at length on the pitfalls and proper use of the imagination.
For More, the imagination, or “fancy,” is the central battleground in the struggle with Satan. It is through the imagination that the sufferer “frames” or shapes their vision of the trials they are currently experiencing and that lie ahead of them. In his discussion of the “night’s fear,” or suffering that arises for an unknown cause, More argues that “fantasye dowbleth” dread and causes the sufferer to believe that their circumstance is “much worse than in dede it is” (More 12:107). The overly scrupulous person, for instance, “frameth hym selfe many tymes dowble the feare that he hath cause” (More 12:113). He asserts that such fear comes about not only because of the way the individual “frames” their experience but also because the devil “hath framid” it so “in their fantasye” (More 12:112). In his discussion of temptation, More identifies the physical makeup of the individual as a source of vulnerability to Satanic attack, acknowledging that Satan not only uses external circumstances to tempt Christians, but also “mens complexcions within them, helth or siknes, good humours or bad / by which they be light hartid or lumpish / strong hartid / or faynt & feble of spirite / bold & hardy / or timerouse & ferefull of corage” (More 12:149). More bases his view on the interconnectedness of the body and soul, observing that “for sith the soule& the bodye be so kynt and ionyd together, that they both make between them one person / the distemperaunce of either other, engendreth
some tyme the distemperaunce of both twayne” (More 12:152). As a result, he advises those struggling with sin to see a doctor and those who are sick to seek the aid of a priest (More 12:151-52). Regardless of what humoural disadvantages a person may possess, More regards such difficulties as sources of merit. Discussing the example of a person who struggles with unwanted or intrusive thoughts, More points out that since “he taketh such thoughts displesauntly & striveth & fighteth against them / he hath therby a good token that he is godes favour” (More 12:153). More goes so far as to argue, citing Jean Gerson, that such internal struggle may “stand hym in stede of his purgatory” (More 12:153).
Even as More validates the private, interior struggle of sufferers, he also underscores the vulnerability of the imagination to deception and delusion. In response to his doubt about the capacity of the individual to interpret their circumstances rightly, he exhorts sufferers to look outside themselves, to the resources of the church and its traditions, in order to find certainty. For More, the church is the epistemological anchor that enables him to ascertain what is real in the midst of both an inner and outer world full of delusions and false images. Antony considers the mind’s capacity for delusion in 2.16, where he discusses the problem of a person who believes that God has told him to commit suicide. Among the tests proposed for evaluating revelations, Antony warns Vincent to ask “whether he fall into any singularite of opinions, against the scripture of god, or agaysnt the comen faith of christes catholique church” (More 12:133). “Singularity,” for Antony, may lead to error, and the scripture and the shared beliefs of the church provide the basis for truth. By identifying scripture as “of God” and the church as “christes catholique
church,” Antony underscores the divine origin of both Scripture and tradition, arguing that these two forms of revelation taken together form the basis for
discerning whether a new insight constitutes “revelation” or not. For More, dialogue serves as a means of testing the validity of truth claims. For instance, as a remedy for the delusions of the suicidal man, More imagines a scenario in which friend uses counsel, combined with accommodating rhetoric that takes into account the man’s emotional state, in order to order to correct his false conviction (More 12:129). Thus, while More validates the individual’s internal struggle, he finds the resources for overcoming Satan’s delusions outside the self, in the spiritual resources of Christ and his church. Thus, in book 3, Antony pushes Vincent beyond discussion of the pitfalls of the imagination into the process of orienting the will through meditation. For More, looking outward to the church, to heaven and hell, and to the passion of Christ strengths him to endure suffering despite the persistence of fear. These broader contexts help More not by doing away with his fear, but by enabling him to place it in perspectives that render the painful experience of persecution meaningful and worth enduring.