There are few things, for the gentleman of leisure and letters, considered coarser or more boorish than political discourse. The petty bickering, and attendant din, is often enough to send the more cultured among us to foot: forced to flee a conversation, or an entire evening, the way one would abscond from a drunken uncle at a holiday soiree. We at the TLD eschew anything so crass.
Philosophy is, on the other hand, as they say, a bird with a completely different feather. And, in that context, we will periodically submit to the reader ideas borne of the human condition, and intended to inquire into, if not resolve, the fundamental nature of existence. Here is one such submission, submitted by Master Perrin of Eustachy, a scholar of some note, and well coifed gadabout.
THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS: A LETTER TO THE BISHOPRIC OF SELLMEN
My friends, and common travelers, I trust that this correspondence finds you well, and that its late arrival does not give your minds over to thoughts of last year’s trials. My health is fine, and the delay was only a result of commercial matters best left for closer conversation. If you desire to communicate with me in the next fortnight, please do so through Lord Blackamoor’s manservant, as he will most likely know of my whereabouts.
As you no doubt recall, concern had been raised by the Honorable Lord Smithwick regarding the accumulation of lucre by a small group of merchants, most notably Messrs. Craddock and Deerwick, no relation, who had, of late, begun to display affectations that drew conspicuous attention to the accumulation of their monies.
Lord Smithwick rightly addressed the matter in moral terms. It being suggested that the desire for wealth, and the conspicuous consumption of the same, by this new class of tradesmen is an unwelcome development: that it should not be fair that a few have so much, and the many have comparatively less. Indeed, he pointed to his own coffers, and argued that his status as a gentleman should entitle his estate to a small portion of the Merchant’s surplus wealth.
Understandably, the accused did not accept the underlying assumptions of the Magistrate’s arguments, and made their own argument, addressed again in moral terms, that their conduct, both in accumulating wealth, and in consuming that wealth, were unrelated to the plight of Lord Smithwick, except insofar as it moderately improved his condition by providing him periodic rents from the use of his lands. Messr. Craddock, without judgment, indicated that much of the fanfare arose, not out of the conduct of his affairs, but out of Lord Smithwick’s personal lack of industry, and unnatural concern with the affairs of other men.
What surprises me, dear sirs, is not the vitriolic nature of the dispute, but the fact that we, as gentlemen, consider this dispute at all. Learned men, such as yourselves, if they are to know anything, know of the sinful state of man: that he is prone to sin, and given to sin at all turns. Indeed, even his good deeds often turn to sin after a fashion, even after the most careful of consideration by the wisest among us. And so, in this matter, there can be no resolution between the parties for all have sinned, and in their arguments merely betray which sins serve their purposes less, and which serve them more fully.
To wit, for the merchant class of Sellmen, there is little doubt that sin has corrupted their conduct. Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness. Gluttony is the inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires. In this matter, Magistrate Smithwick is correct that it is immoral for the merchants to replace their spiritual pursuit, with the pursuit of lucre, and to consume more than they need. It is good for them to curtail both of these activities.
However, the good Magistrate, in focusing on the failings of our merchants, has betrayed the sin of greed as well as the sins of envy and sloth. Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation, and in coveting the wealth of others, the status of others, and Lord Smithwick has betrayed the same here. Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work. Lord Smithwick’s reputation as a man of leisure, who frowns upon the very labors from which he seeks to profit, evidences his sinful nature as well. It would be good for him to spend more time considering his own spiritual pursuits, and less time concerning himself with the affairs of others who brought not harm to him.
It is of course telling that these men seek judgment on the sins of the other, when they themselves are dressed in the burred cloth that was hewn from the vines of their own sin. Ultimately it is the pitiable condition of man, who must sin, to turn his gaze to the sins of others, and especially the type of sin to which that man is not given. For example, Messr. Craddock is predisposed to industry, so it is very easy to identify sloth in others, but far more difficult to identify greed. Lord Smithwick is prone to thrift, and is very capable of discerning the gluttony of others, but less able to identify his own aversion to labours.
So it is, gentle friends, that I am unable to add matters of substance to your discourse, or assist in the provision of a suitable resolution. In my estimation they are, none of them, deserving of our moral judgment for it is not ours to give, and indeed in such things they all approach the bench with unclean hands.
If we were to consider these men supplicant wards, certainly resolution could be made by us in any fashion that suits our whim, and the actors could all be forced to abstain from sin, and lead perfectly mortal lives.
But these are not wards, they are free men, as all men are (for even the slave is permitted freedom of thought and conscience, if not conduct). Where men are free, they are by definition free to sin, and there is nothing on this earth for us to do on that matter. Since we can not remedy sin in a free man, we are asked to give preference to one man’s sin over the another’s: to prefer sloth over greed, or gluttony over envy.
This we must not do.
Bravo M. Perrin!
A terrific sermon!