Page one of A Man for All Seasons Students' and Readers' Forum (100K).
More talk out of class to help you understand this play.
 
See also moretalk 2, moretalk 3, moretalk4, moretalk5, moretalk6, plan of play
Uplift your questions here
Links to some enquiries with my replies
Characters
More v Rich
roles of Richard, Cromwell and Norfolk
Cromwell defining man
profile of characters
the character foil
Henry's frame of mind
stands out from the crowd
insults Norfolk
insulting Norfolk
Chapuys' role
few qualities of friendship
More's silence
profiling characters
profile Alice
Margaret's attitude
More's 'mania'
Hamlet and More
compromising principles
More's qualities
Accused of cruelty
Text Analysis
Bolt's Preface
play's title
play's title 2
who is the man for all seasons?
Falcon and heron
candle out
falconry metaphor
jackal, fox, etc.
metaphors
faithfullness, obedience?
Machiavellian theory
Cromwell defining man
More a tragic hero?
five key symbols
common man device
brings history to life
three theme quotes
oath
Who responsible, to blame, causes
Themes, Issues, Views
stacked jury
tragic hero
consciences
role of common man
appeal today
Foolish and Wise
More a tragic hero?
superhuman
More a hero?
compared with heroes
leadership
martyrdom
faithfullness, obedience?
every man his price
More a Humanist?
a man ahead of his time?
metaphors
repugnant to his nature
Utopia and The Prince
Theme of isolation in three texts
Readers' Issues
movie
dominant ideologies, response
relevance to teenagers
fictional references
necessity
affecting the audience
logic = congruity, consistency,
Text revision questions
categorical imperative
achieving objectives
 
other pages:
page 2,
page 3,
page 4,
page 5.
page 6,
page 7
"Well as a spaniel is to water, so is a man to his own self.
I will not give in because I oppose it - I do -
not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites
but I do - I! " Bolt's More (Act II scene V)
 
Falcon and the heron; candle snuffed
> I have two questions:
Q: Discuss the symbolic value attached to the story of the falcon and the heron (Act 1, beginning of the act, pg10).
Q: What significance may be attached to the snuffing and the relighting of the candle? (Act 1, end of the act, pg. 77)
> > Your help will be greatly appreciated.
 
 
Local readers will find these at Heinemann Australia 1982 edition pages 5 & 6 and p. 46.

Refer to the Methuen Notes A Man for All Seasons Methuen Educational 1982 for a discussion of symbolism in this play p. 88.

1) This falcon and heron banter is deceivingly important, for it sets up the tensions; they talk about ordinary things like hunting in a realistic way (Alice and Norfolk) but More takes it a step further to a moral application reassuring her that all will be well and the heron returns to its chicks, that the natural things will continue. In effect, he says the horrors of the hunt will not foredoom any fracture in England, that the ferocity of Nature can be no guide for the behaviour of Man and a theological statement to Alice that Man is greater than nature, that the King's greed, appetite and pride cannot conquer established ways of doing things in a civilised society. Knowing history, the audience of course knows better. Henry toppled this medieval world view.
 
The double meaning in 'stoop' (both 'downward flight' and 'obeisance') is a cue that its deeper levels of meaning are understood among these gentry. Remember, words and puns would be important to preserve life in England in the very near future (see the political and religious ambivalence necessary under Elizabeth a generation later); they ensure personal safety; this verbal interplay is a thematic way into the play's central issue of taking the oath - would the formula of words permit Thomas to take Cromwell's Oath? N.B. 'Stoop' means obeisance, that is declaring obedience, homage to a royal personage, or yielding to him or her as one's rightful King (and even in his every command?) See the word as used in George Peele's 1590 poem as "one would say, stoop Eagle to this Sun" meaning that Lord Strange (Ferdinando Stanley, a strong bloodline contender to the throne) shows deference to Elizabeth in a pageant day joust, quoted in Ian Wilson [1993] Shakespeare the Evidence, 109.)
 
2) The horror and shock in Cromwell torturing Rich with the burning candle ends Act I to prefigure the horrors and tragedy of Act II. Cromwell underrated More's principles and resolve to stick to them quietly. Cromwell infers through his action that he could force More to agree because he thought every man has his limit ('price'). That dramatic suggestion is so shocking about so civilised, urbane and innocent a man like More that it is a useful dramatic tool and meaning-laden symbol to make much of some action in a play that is largely words without action (which is a difficult thing to enjoy for very long so even such minor visuals can be imbued with great symbolic meanings). There, I've practically written your assignment!
Source: greg smith
 
Colleen Kot. I don't understand the falconry metaphor. Could you explain it to me in really simple terms?
 
The art of falconry was a pastime of the nobles and gentry. Whether Falcons stoop or not is neither here nor there i.e., it does not matter; it is only a talking point, a matter of interest. It is amusing and verbal in such a society to discuss things in this intense philosophical way (e.g., how many angels fit on the point of a pin). But Robert Bolt's More made it a bit seriously real and made applications. Bolt allows this to get us into the plot and the atmospherics of the play, where words mean a lot, and the form of the words is crucial . Would you dare say or be heard to say or even think statements like: e.g., Henry is the Head of the Church, Henry is the visible head of the Church in England, The Pope is the Head of the Church, The Pope has power over the secular princes, or even more fatally, Henry was married validly to Catherine. etc. etc.
Greg
 
8 Dec 2000 I'm having a hard time trying to explain how the use of animal imagery foreshadows, develops character, and aids in plot progression. The heron and hawk were my main concern but now I'm only struggling with lion, jackal, water spaniels (if that's even an
animal) and the fox. Help please asap.
 
Why not talk of traits, characteristics and resemblances?
Then talk of the effects, success of the language, metaphors fitting or not, how they help the atmosphere, drive along the subtexts of revulsion, suggest emotional depths of despair, operations of the forces of life and death, etc.?

Mon 15 Jan 2001. Hi Greg, my teacher assigned us a journal topic from A Man for All Seasons with a topic that is "does every man have a price? "and I don't have no clue what I'm even suppose to start from.......can you give me some help? thanks!

Hi Cindy, Cromwell and his cronies (and I suspect, even possibly everyone in England) believed that every man had his price; that loss or title, rank and estate was a big enough price to pay for compliance, that no one would go to his death for principles. Remember the bishops fell in with Henry. But More knows this and Cromwell infers through his action that he could force More to agree because he thought every man has his limit ('price').


26/1/01 Hiya Greg, I'm doing an essay on A.m.f.a.s. Is a Man for All Seasons any more than a chronicle of events? The answer is of course inviting me to say yes as all the events occurred and the characters were real but I'm starting to get really stuck. I have to include the different consciences More and the King have and how the writer uses the skill of making (For e.g.  Alice/Roper/  Norfolk)he makes them seem........... I don't even know! 
Then I have to end my essay with a conclusion..... . I know its more than a Chronicle of Events but I'm struggling! Please help if you can. This website is v. good by the way. Thanx  
 
Thanks for the praise. The play is art and so reconstructs events despite being in chronological order mostly anyway. But there are the usual crafts of the stage used too:
  • use of the common Man to link them
  • the selection of key events
  • the impact of the concatenation of key scenes with minor scenes
  • portrayals of More and character development
See my answer about unhistorical vs historical at moretalk.html#historical
Refer also to Bolt's stated purposes in his Preface. How he took More in the 1960s to make a point to his society.
He had no real need to stick to history. Conscience is interior and offers more than a Chronicle which is
factual. Shakespeare took Holinshed's Chronicles and used material to his own
purposes. Shakespeare did not stick to history but constructed dramas e.g. Lear
In your conclusion make the point differentiating drama and history. a play with a purpose e.g.. Compare with Galileo Brecht's play
Greg
Hi. Can you please help me connect the play to Thomas Aquinas' natural law and Kant's categorical imperatives? I need all the help I can get for my philo exam. Thanks so much.
 
Dear Margret
I understand the categorical imperatives are moral absolutes that are axiomatic (universal laws of nature that are self justifying and self explaining) and so analogously More stuck rock fast to his belief and stance. The analogy is somewhat helpful as More's stance has become a universal moral prototype.
 
Regarding natural law, it is not written down of course and so is very different from what More served. I guess the teacher is expecting you to refer to the fixed, unchanging and recurring pattern of natural law; the trouble is how can we read it and how can it be a model for us? Evolutionary theory shows that at nothing in nature is eternally fixed as if the past is a pattern for future development. But then to make a transfer to make that which we see as a template for (moral) behaviour is sometimes called biologism, that is, copy nature (as we <see> it now); but we have intelligence and can improve on nature: separating Siamese twins, cutting fingernails, improve the human genome, human cloning, the pill, etc. Greg
 

Wed, 25 Oct 2000
What was More's frame of mind when confronted by King Henry VIII?
Also what were each of these characters views of the controversy: Richard Rich, Thomas Cromwell, Cardinal Wolsey, and Thomas Cranmer? thanks a lot for your help. 
 
(1) No wonder you ask!! In fact and in the play, Henry avoided confronting More at all. There was the one meeting at Chelsea. All communication and actions were through Cromwell. Henry could not be seen to do anything underhand to so honourable a figure as More. He "let events take their course" as we might say. He did not judge at a Lords trial but left it to the Commons to trial. He was More's friend and liked to style himself so. The film shows this continuing anxiety about their friendship in the wedding festivities when he shouts with joy upon seeing someone whom he thought was More. But as a arch-bully himself, he too would not be governed by a mere lawyer on the wrong side. Henry Tudor was never wrong.
 
However are you thinking of the garden scene at Chelsea early in the play when their conversation goes sour? I would hardly describe this as 'Henry confronting'. Take issue with the set question if this assumption is inferred in it. Reread that scene carefully again and visualise it. Henry appealed to bonds of friendship in the matter of the Queen..."But I have no queen!!!" He was asking for legal permission, trusting More would, as a clever Christian lawyer, find a way clear to undo the political marriage. It could be done today in 2000 of course. But then it was high politics and religion intertwined, or that's the way More compounded it anyway.
 
(2) Various view on the controversy:

Character

Likely view on the controversy

Richard Rich

opportunity to get advancement; the issue is spiritually irrelevant; it's all about where you are when the music stops; lying is a means to an end. No integrity.

Thomas Cromwell

sees it as a challenge to get back at More; to act as the 'eye and ear of the King' i.e., to do the dirty work and so to win advancement and consolidate his power and position, and it worked. He introduces the Machiavellian element into English politics at the highest level. Is he too cut and dried in the film, made into a ogre? After all, history is the working out of difficult politics.

Cardinal Wolsey

should be embarrassed but was not; English not Roman; a pragmatist and used to bullying others to get his way. More was 'foolish' to oppose him at the Council. Saw himself as a statesman who could do this for the King if he needed to; meeting the dictates of the Roman church was not the issue for him; would try to use this opportunity to enhance his estates and wealth further but died too soon.

Thomas Cranmer

a late starter and an image of the lukewarm, groveling churchmanship of the new order; a loser too.


Sat, 28 Oct 2000
Hi, for my English, I have to write an essay considering the statement that Rich is in many ways the opposite of More. In the essay I have to contrast the two characters. Any useful tips on what I could include, as soon as possible would be great. Thanks. P.S This site is really useful, thanks!
 
More and Rich could hardly be equal although for dramatic purposes they might seem to be (e.g., the time taken in the Trial scene to comment on Rich's fortunes going up as More's go down). Bolt's play focuses on More and the others are foils, misunderstanding friends or merely rejected family necessarily kept in the dark for fear of torture. Perhaps plan an essay this way:

Characteristic

More

Rich

personality, temperament

ascetic, restrained, unflappable

appetites, go for it, unpredictable to himself

behaviours, actions, words

measured, Christian, public

self seeking, whining, secretive,

principles, agendas

traditional, brave to defy, "big picture' conscience

unprincipled, like so many at the time


I need to write an essay on why Thomas decided to remain silent and how he handled the situation up until his death. so I could use some suggestions. Thank you James 31/10/00
Hi James,
More of course found silence was his sure defence quoting the famous maxim of the law in his trial to correct Cromwell: qui tacet consentire = he who is silent agrees (something like Nixon's 'silent majority" in the Vietnam War). He handled the situation in varying degrees of happiness as the visit to the Tower in the film shows. Plot his reactions through these pages as you read. He was content he was dying for a worthwhile cause; the cost of his life was less than the statement of Principle that he believed it would make. What do you know about his predecessor Thomas a'Beckett 200 years before, who annoyed Henry II: "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" More was very aware of precedents!
Greg
 
>I have an essay to write on describing where Thomas More's character fits on a continuum of behavior that goes from the sensible to the fanatical. Do you have any ideas to get me started? It's for a faith and reason class.
Thank-you!
 
I note the phrase 'Where it fits' Well is it fixed or is it moving? and in what direction?
I guess the teacher wants you to examine More's responses and highlight his lawyer's reasonableness, as against the unreason of Henry and Cromwell. His actions were guided by politics and faith, theirs by politics and greed. His conscience was fixed but his own state of mind became increasingly saddened.

2/1/2001. I am in the process of writing an essay on the topic that "More is clever but Cromwell ultimately defeats him."  From sifting through information on More as a humanist, an Cromwell as a bully, and self-orientated, I have started to believe that More was not totally defeated by Cromwell as he died in respect and honour.  However, Cromwell did win
his objective.  Your thoughts on this topic would be greatly appreciated
 Hi ,
Yes you are correct; More has been sainted and so his symbolic message has endured the centuries. More was well aware of this dimension although I don't have a quote for you but he was steeped in religious significances in ways Wolsey was not. More unfortunately could not anticipate the sour turn of events that followed his death.
May 17, 2007,, Robert wrote:
 

I have to write an essay on "who is responsible for More's death?" Can you help ? Responsibile, causes, blame

Causes or "blame" comes in at four levels: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/4CAUSES.HTM

material formal efficient and final causes:

final cause - the overall final outcome: the problems of overall moral laxity, general compromise everywhere in England is the social political setting or a cause in itself as it causes More's silence and eventual death because he felt he had to challenge it more than even the bishops would. Final cause looks at inevitability of trends and with More the outcome would indeed be to chop his head off as he taunts Cromwell to do. The final cause or end cause identifies how the progress of events caused this very outcome.

a material cause is the nature of More himself -it all happened in this body, that it was his personality/make-up/formation/ temperament that caused the silence and eventual death; it did not happen to others, it required such a noble, innocent, keen, urbane, courageous and informed man to do what he did. the material cause is that the crucible of these historical events resides in More uniquely

the efficient cause - the act, word, cue that acts as the immediate cause fuse to light the fire is the demand to swear to the bill; all the wider and closer factors narrowed in on this outcome would More swear or not. The timing and response all depended on the coalescence of many local and remote factors which could be seen as causing it. They all come together in this one single and significant demand on More. To swear or not to swear is the efficient cause.

the formal cause is the pattern or shape of things, events, personalities and circumstances that elicited this remarkable response from More. Defining the formal cause identifies that these events would not happen other than with Henry and More and Cromwell. These three in particular created circumstances and the situation for the eventual outcome, they informed the shape of the outcome. The failure of the aristocracy and bishops to contain Henry, the situation pf a king in a feudal society, the influence of the Renaissance (tussle of new versus old ways of thinking), the legal nature of the dispute, the growing definition of monarchy versus parliament, the uncertainty of the Tudor dynasty (remember the Wars of the Roses were only freshly over), and all these factors "cause" or are to blame for what happened. Formal cause describes and shapes the kind of response that happened - so it was a religious and legal process for More not say a crisis of parliament, or a lower versus upper class debate. More's resistance to Henry's dissolution of the monastries act should not be discounted in al this too.Without a powerful surge of public disapporval, More felt he had to take a stand and defined it a personal conscience.

Hope this helps.

Greg


Seeking help with this essay topic. "Norfolk and Alice both accuse More of cruelty. Does the play show hisfailings as well as his virtues?" I'm really struggling with this question.
 
I guess you  can reply by agreeing that both faults and virtues are shown.
This is fine because he was a man who had to make choices and found he had to trade off one against the other. This was no disembodied spirit but a real man in difficult circumstances not all of his own making too of course.

It is overstating to call it cruelty though-

He deprived himself of the comfort of home and family, he took the higher moral road to answer honestly before God. Alice had Margaret to care for her. Alice was very self reliant being from Smithfield London markets -butchers?

Suggest you take each accusation in turn and deal with them separately

That he was assailed on both sides both by friends and enemies is testament to his strong will.

 
Norfolk accused More of something to do with friendship, but I'm not too clear on what exactly. So what did Norfolk accuse More of?

More pointed out the fallacy in his call to "Come with us for friendship's sake."

because everyone has a conscience (NB key term in this play) and is responsible individually to God. Everyone has to take responsibility for his actions; it was not enough to go with the crowd.

Greg
 

My assignment is to explore the theme of isolation by analyzing the characters of Iago in Othello, Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons and Paul Bauer in All quiet on the western front --- Can you give me some advice ?? Apr 7, 2007
 
Strikes me Paul Bauer and his fellows felt isolated as a group forgotten by his country, abused by his officers and expelled by decency/humanity. (Remember this book was banned for 50 years) rather than alone and lonely.
 
More was isolated in a cell but understood by England. He was making a very visible stand understood by all (to his God too of course) and in that he cannot have been alone.
Othello may have felt the most alone of these three being isolated and misunderstood in his jealousy and the scheming of Iago. That was his own fault not willed by his own decision as in the previous two.
Physical isolation does not equal moral isolation here.
Isolation as an individual could be caused by standing apart by their/his heroism.
Othello's racial isolation + Othello faces a dilemma of vulnerability because of his marriage
"Shakespeare focuses more on the differences in color and age between Othello and Desdemona than Cinthio. Shakespeare does this to escalate Othello's isolation from the rest of Venetian society and to display Othello's vulnerability due to his color. In the tragedy not only is Othello susceptible to weaknesses but so is every major character . The tragedy reminds humans that even one's good nature can be taken advantage of for the worse. "http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/handouts/sample/Othellopaper.html
Greg

I need to know why Thomas More is noted as a Humanist when he believes in God fervently and Humanism is a theory involving the lack of importance in believing in a God?
 
Check your encyclopedias for precise definitions. Humanism comes with the Renaissance, and rebirths with the Enlightenment and Descartes. It is not a political party. Humanism arose with the New Learning in the 1300s and in the 1500 it was a fellowship of scholars. As opposed to the medieval generalised and symbolic (e.g., highly stylised Gothic statues), its art featured realism and individualism; it refocused the medieval focus on God to see people as majestic, worthy of admiration. It grew out of the (rediscovered) classical learning which focused on Man and his achievements.
 
"More was famed for his merry wit." Thus the Renaissance humanist was a universal man - skilled in many fields humanism to teach us how to use science and technology in a moral, human way. Classical humanism having an emphasis on philology led to analysis (as opposed to belief). Such humanists can believe in a god but may disagree with the Church, and More was never blind to the faults in the lives of church people of the time either (e.g. critical of Wolsey's greed). He was a literateur, classicist, extoller of learning, friend of that great European humanist, Erasmus, etc. More was on the side of reform and intellectualism. Henry was for coercion and gain; the Dissolution was his personal work. He was not enlightened. Today's Christians relate to More very easily for his humanism.
 
Your answer ought to distinguish Humanist and humanist. It is not a well defined creed, code or cult. In your essay remember to distinguish 19th century reinvented Humanism from the humanism of More's era. Just as it would be very silly to say More was like an American Democrat; the transfer is unfair, anachronistic. More was a humanist, that is, he looked at human nature candidly and honestly, he held high ideals for humanity; humanist literature is realistic, critical and often humorous. The World Book Encyclopedia 1992 Vol. 9, p. 363. Click to read some modern Humanist agendas.
 
Thomas More "was a humanist who argued for a moral and social reform through education and sacred literature." p. 893 Encyclopedia of Catholicism Harper Collins 1985. His book Utopia (1516) is classic humanist thinking. Also see 'Christian humanists' p. 220 Vol. 16 The World Book Encyclopedia on Erasmus and More. See also the 1979 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion Vol. F/N p. 1734: Christian humanism = humankind to rely on its own resources, not passive resignation; powerfulness of Christian faith to make real its promises. See Erasmus and Humanism.and also Christian humanism,

1. How can this novel man for all seasons be compared to Hamlet or the great gatsby!
thanks plz reply to legsv.... ciao
Hamlet's madness is contentious i.e., not sure. He knew he fell into madness at times but More never did.
Draw up a list of comparisons in motives, actions, words to plan the essay response. . . Greg
 
2. Hi could u help me think of a thesis for an essay about hamlet and the great gatsby .. comparative essay have they are both tragic heroes!
plz . .
Neither is really a hero in anyone's eyes are they? Hamlet's courage is modified even in our eyes by his indecision TGG is tragic but not a hero either, moral or social or virtual! Perhaps concentrate and compare how each is tragic: use the Aristotelian definition: the fatal flaw in character that brings
the character down: indecision, recklessness Keep me in touch with your comparison and progress Greg
 
28/3/01 Hi
I was wondering if you could help me out comparing the similarities between Hamlet and AMFAS. Using atmosphere, comic relief, supernatural etc. Thank you so much.
Yes all of these. Here is a bit of an essay plan for starters:

Trait

Hamlet

AMFAS

main character

indecisive, introspective, human

decisive, deals with doubt, not without pain, much stronger than human

atmosphere

revenge, death calls

sustained tension, threatening

comic relief

actors visit,

boatman, little really, very serious play

supernatural

ghost, mention of creator, superstitious sense

presumed, post Christian understanding of presence, higher rule of conscience

audience's expected reaction

England is an unneeded garden; lacking in morals, indecisiveness, power of cowardice, evil happens when good men do nothing.

need for heroic stand, power of principle, fickleness of the times, fruits of optimistic relativism.

Note too that humour occurs as one-liners in Hamlet; Polonius is a butt of jokes but it is a largely serious play.
See also another discussion comparing Hamlet and More here.

Hi, I was wondering how Bolt's play appeals to modern audiences? Please help.
 
It appeals less to us in the 19-nineties; we have become so cynical and distrustful of heroes and saints
Modern could be 20th century?
Well Bolt wrote it in the 20th century for his own contemporaries. It was quite successful but his hero is rather dry humourless, too good, too brave, too uncompromising
For a costume drama, the common man is a useful link with audiences and it works O.K.
I suspect Cromwell is of more interest to us today: how to be Machiavellian and succeed!
Greg 
Hey Greg, How is Utopia similar to The Prince?
 
Sorry I can offer only superficial comments without textual references right now to The Prince.
 
Utopia is well discussed on web sites. See text of it here. and Socialism in Utopia here, and Plato's effects on More here.
It is Christian communism really quite impractical and repugnant to us democrats today. But it did serve the purpose of offering a constructive alternative to Henry's repressive regime.
 
Machievelli's The Prince is pragmatism as I recall; it offers advice on the practicalities of government (Cromwell used its principle of the end justifying the means, that any means will do to attain the desired effect, as opposed to us today more ethically who agree not to use immoral, unethical agents/ devices/ means to attain ends even if (and with even more reason!) if it is the government acting. See my discussion on Machievellian actions here. We set higher standards for our government's actions for they model an ethical society. Have a quick look at morality framework too. I discuss Utopia too: click here.
 
What I am basically saying is they are more different than alike.
In what ways are they similar?:
  • they appear at roughly the same time in history
  • they address actions by governments
  • they address abuses
  • they both have effects on political theory today
More's paradise island is no where; unreal, ideal. The Prince is real, conniving, 'influencing', art of government stuff.

Wed, 31 May 2000
I have to do an essay so I would appreciate it a lot if you could briefly answer these questions for me:
1. In what way does Bolt use the alienation device?
See my comment s already this page at moretalk.html#common The Common Man is meant to be a kind of alienation device Verfrendung but its success is usually debated. This play is certainly not Brechtian theatre which is much more social-realist.
 
2. How does the relationship of Thomas with his family progresses through the play?
Downwards. Although they too are adults and in the end he thought he should please God or as the not-particularly-Christian Bolt would say, take a stand on principle, or be a man of conscience. Perhaps you could plot the emotional highs and lows on a graph to show this in your assignment ?
 
3. STEWARD: "Some day, someone is going to ask him for something he doesn't want and he'll be out of practice then". (p. 9) What does this tell me about More's decisions by the end of the play?
Steward reinforces his reputation that More was universally charitable and so he muses "There must be something that he wants to keep. That's only Common Sense" inferring that as a man he must have some Achilles heel. However, was he out of practice at saying No? More was well able to refuse; he had enormous self control (the virtue of meekness), and also magnanimity (ability to give beyond his own comfort zone). He was saintly in virtue and that strength was what everyone admired and respected - the King did too.
 
4. In what metaphorical way does Bolt uses the water, the land , and the forest!
The River Thames with its tides and currents and whirlpools (p. 39 Act I Scene vi) is a metaphor for the turmoil of political life in Tudor times. The forest is raw and dark and yet somehow stable, immallable, continuous and safe to walk home through - More says he is safe "in the thickets of the law." Such clusters of metaphors greatly add significances in the Bolt text: the river "it's silting up" p. 16.
 
Thanks a lot! I really liked it that you had this site for the play! Keep up the good work!
Thanks George for the encouragement!
 
Wed, 31 May 2000 21:35:36 -0400
Hi ! I was wondering if you could help me with an essay my teacher gave me. It's , Robert Bolt presents a drama in which 'one man stands out from the crowd'. What makes Bolt's character so different from the rest? I would appreciate your reply greatly.
Thanks in advance.
 
More is a man of conscience; he is not part of the mob, he is stronger than the ordinary man and woman and is willing to stand out on principle. He his part of humanity not above it, for "there's a little area where I must rule myself" (p. 35 Act I scene vi). Like the common man "if he can't touch the bottom I'll go deaf blind and dumb." (p. 25 Act I scene v).
 

 My literature teacher has told us that during the trial scene the lines,
> "It is not so, Master Cromwell - very and pure necessity for respect of my own soul."
> sums up the reasons for More's actions.
> Is this true?
> And of so how is it true?
 
These words highlight the great theological and cultural and class divide between More and Cromwell
Cromwell is for necessity, exigency and pragmatism i.e. get a son for Henry.
More is the medieval man, steeped in symbolism and principle: he rejects Necessity (with a capital letter) as the principle for behaviour and morals. He sees life as a divine destiny and submission to the divine will (here = accept barrenness, heirless Henry) as natural = part of God's plan. To him, it is immoral to break God's laws . . . and the pope's too
Does that help?
Greg 

Tue, 30 May 2000
> What is the comparison between the movie and the play, A Man For All Seasons?
Hi Greg,
Your site is great. I had problems understanding some parts of the play and now everything is making sense!
I have to do a seminar concerning the play. I was wondering if you could give me some ideas about it.
My topic is as follows: The historical figure of Sir Thomas More versus Bolt's version of the man. Bolt's motives for his characterization, his significance, meaning, relevance.
 
I would really appreciate it if you could just help me with giving me some ideas about this topic.
Thanks in advance,
 
Some excellent sites (but long) are:
 
http://users.snip.net/~hzee/gcc7ol.htm
 
http://www.humanities.ualberta.ca/emls/iemls/conf/texts/marius.html
 
and go five clicks down at teachwithmovies - A man for all seasons
for a very comprehensive comparison.
 
Of course the play came first and the Schofield movie is an adaptation of Schofield's own performances in the stage play which ran over some years. He made More his own forte. Then the Heston movie, a later one, tried to be more faithful to the play incorporating Chapuys and the Common Man. I have become so steeped in Scofield's interpretations by teaching the play over so many years that I found the Heston movie corny.
 
See also my comments comparing the theatrical and the historical More.
http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/moretalk3.html#Romero
http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/moretalk.html#fictional
Charlton Heston's "You simply disobey, peaceably and respectfully"

On the significance of Thomas More today: First note he is being studied today 400 years later. Bolt's play (1960) touched a nerve at his time and this site attests to your Faculties' belief that he is worth studying now in the 21st century. The play may be dramatically flawed but the message is perennial. We all need a moral exemplar and he is one who took his stand to the ultimate. See comparisons and comments on this point in these pages. Hamlet & Gatsby, foolish

 
What doe he mean? Well we have so many moral systems alive int he world: religion, humanism, New Age enlightenment, human rights contract, whatever - but it all comes down to commitment and identity and adherence of the individual with principles of excellence in moral action; He is at the cusp of Humanism, he was an Enlightenment Man, an eminent Christian, respected scholar, and to so many alive and since his stand and his courage and his integrity are a beacon to all.
 
Greg 5 April 2002
 
6 May 2002 Hi!
 
Is the movie/play historically accurate?
 
The reason I ask this is because the movie implies More refused to sign the Act of Succession because he would not recognize Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII. Everything I am finding on the net says he would recognize the marriage, it was the "repudiation of papal supremacy" that he couldn't agree to, and that's why he was tried for treason.
 
Would you say the movie stresses More's denial of the marriage (which historically appears to be not accurate)?
 
Thank you!
 
I must say you web search finding surprises me, Amy.
I would VERY much appreciate getting those web links you found.
No, the film is not accurate historically and the play is a bit skewed too - writer's licence!
He would definitely not recognise the marriage.
Anyone simplifying the issue so much would be inaccurate.
This is a multidimensional problem: personalities, history, autocracy v humanism, religion, laws, etc.
Greg

Tue, 30 May 2000
Hi, I have to do an essay about the book that deals with leadership.  I have to incorporate the Machiavellian ideas of leadership, and sort of compare More and Henry.  Could you please send me some ideas on this.  Thanx
 
Hi Rohini, Not sure about Machievelli (no scruple about satisfying ambition) but you could compare an autocrat with servant leadership of More: impulse versus consideration, force versus principle, bullying versus invitation, etc. More has public ambition for England to raise the moral stakes, to correct the Tudor arrogance; he had no personal ambition for he had already risen to the highest office in the land he could aspire to.
 

 17 May 2000. We are doing a debate to resolve whether or not martyrdom is the only solution to More's dilemmas. Would really appreciate any help you could give us on the matter ASAP!!! Thanks a lot
Actually More says to Alice earlier pointing to his chest
"this is not the stuff of martyrs" (p. 35) so he had thought of it. It is actually the only brave thing he could do:
He sees everyone falling into line (taking the oath) around him.
It seems to him only he can stand up to the King with any impact and the resulting symbolism for the Pope, the traditional values he stood for, for the world of stability in Henry's world of chaos is tremendous.
I think More had no other option but to be a martyr: It would make his life have significant to him and if there is a God to God too. His death is in a win-win situation on earth and in heaven.
Greg


Sun, 30 Apr 2000

Hi, I am doing a character study on Chapuys and am finding it a bit hard to find any info on him. Could you suggest any reference material that may help me, or have you got any ideas? Thanks.
 
At this point of time I cannot help a lot
Perhaps just isolate Chapuys's lines in the play to see what comes to you. Profile his role in the play to get a grip on his political and theatrical role. He was no foil to More nor was he attractive to More not like Erasmus was.
Representing Spain, he was a challenge to More; More could neither side with Chapuys (and therefore the King of Spain) which would be a treasonous act OR deny/refuse/offend him (a Catholic diplomat and defending Catherine) OR therefore isolate himself further from his dilemma or any escape/exit.
Of course it would never occur to More to flee to Spain to side with the Catholics defending Catherine. He was at the centre of English life and thoroughly an Englishman. Death would be his honourable release. Click for Chapuys' own account of events. Some history (Farrow). Sarah's summary. See also he limped.
Greg

Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000
 G'day
I am doing an essay on A Man for All Seasons, and I was wondering how you would start it off if the question was:
 "Texts position us to admire or reject characters who oppose dominant ideologies." Discuss with reference to A Man for All Seasons.
 I have found your site to be very useful, yet I can't seem to come up with a good opening. Please reply if you can help me in any way. Cheers. Jules
 
Hi Jules
Yes I guess a novelists and playwrights do set up audience expectations. It is certainly true for Bolt. He even did violence to the historical More to make a contemporary point! See my moretalk.html site (readers' forum) below.
"position us" = situate expectations, set up identification with characters, etc.
Question: Are we meant to identify with More or just admire him??
Seldom would mainstream texts/plays set us up to reject dominant ideologies!! AND
Would Bolt be classed as an 'alternative' playwright? No
Did his play run in mainstream venues? Yes!
Challenging dominant ideologies is the task at the margins, done by art houses, rebels, revolutionaries like Brecht etc. Plays like Waiting for Godot (Samuel Beckett) are like this but not Seasons.
Let's continue to talk. Send me your responses ideas on this so far. See my page on this: texts
Greg
 

Mon, 10 Apr 2000
I need some help on an essay I'm doing.  I have to compare any fictional references in A Man for all Seasons to the actual historical things that happened.  I can't find anything so any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Hi Douglas
Wow this is a hard topic. What is the teacher examining: your facility with search engines or the knowledge of the play? I cannot think of much that is only fictional and if so, it is not important; it would just be for the stagecraft, to make the play work on stage, a theatrical interpretation. Bolt would serve no purpose by distorting history. It is basically an historical play for a contemporary purpose.
I would study the Preface to see what Bolt said he would leave out.
The Schofield film left out the common man but the Heston film did not. See my comments above also.
 
Re the historical versus the unhistorical in A Man for All Seasons
One major point being made in a video discussion of the play we bought and use (Goodwin and McInerney) is that the historical More would NOT have had such an adamantine self of his own self as Bolt portrays. He was in fact a loyal son of the Medieval Church and as such makes reference to things being true by reference outside himself, he would always seek the Church's greater wisdom and history; he would not assert that something is true because "he (!) believes it to be so" ( a very 1960s comment) but because it was accepted to be so by the core of Christianity. The self that Bolt portrays dramatically distorts the historical More in this core issue of identity, his epistemology if you like.
 
Regarding differentiating Bolt's More and the historical More, you might like to consider his domestic life; Alice is portrayed very differently in the Schofield and the Heston films of the play and consequently his relationship too.
 
18 March 2000
Hello there, my name is Julianna Hauer and I'd really appreciate your help on a essay that I have to write. Our Teacher gave us:  Few qualities of friendship are demonstrated by the characters in "A Man for all Seasons".  By focusing on 2 characters, determine the validity of the statements.   Do you have any suggestions on which would be the best characters to choose and what kind of friendship they show???? Please if you can email me your thoughts to me.
 
Is the bond between More and his wife a friendship that is strained at least for Alice's part? More seemed not to value his second wife (see the prison visit scene). More and Norfolk had a friendship that could not endure - they found they were on opposite sides. More even tried to insult Norfolk to sour the link and avoid the temptation to accede that that friendship demanded. More and Margaret offers possibilities: they were more like intellectual equals and deep understanding existed between them. I would compare these last two - one that endured to the end and the other that ceased.
Greg

hi my name is mike and I need to know what are the roles of Richard, Cromwell and Norfolk in the play A man for all seasons?
> thank you
 
This question is a length of string - just how long does each profile have to be?
More is protagonist the just noble and victimised prisoner of conscience . See discussion click here.
Cromwell is antagonist evil conniving shadowy unscrupulous never-will-be famous self-styled ear and instrument of the King's will.
Richard is sucked into the morass, traitor to More, disregards More's advice, ambitious and unable to contain his greed and ambition.
Norfolk is the friend of More who sides with the powerful, breaking his friendship. He represents the dull and unscrupulous nobles of England who went wherever the political wind blew; survivors without name; they had no conscience
All these characters are stereotypes for Bolt.


With specific references to the play i.e. water and land, explain what is meant by the superhuman context as it applies to the life (and death) of Sir Thomas More. 30 November 2000.

 
What is the 'superhuman context'? The "superhuman context" refers to page 16 in the Preface, second paragraph three lines down.  "As a figure for the superhuman context...Society by contrast figures as dry land."
I define superhuman as anything above and beyond ordinary performance. So More was super courageous, morally superior for his stalwart defence of his stand This comes from his long study, his religious devotion, his intelligence and his belief that it was RIGHT and his audacity to stand up to the bully KING alone and without the capacity to explain it. The Common man admires him for it yet fails to understand it too so fatal is its consequences; no (common) man wants to die. It was really a dramatic denouement at the trial to do so at last! Regarding "specific reference to land and water", this is a geographical context, or perhaps it could be suggested as a metaphoric context for human action - there is a pathetic fallacy in the play where the waters of the Thames too seems to boil with the tides of the human drama. This man's death is very real and ugly and human and its significance resonates with us even now. Are we meant to draw out theological significances? No. But other than that, the question's intention evades me right now
For my novel study, I am suppose to find the character foil in a man for all seasons. I really cant figure out which two characters foil. Can you help me?!?!
 
Dear Julie
The major foil for More is Cromwell not Henry A foil is the antagonist for the protagonist.
Foil counters moves and exposes character cracks however unlike in Shakespeare, Cromwell is no match for More. He is merely an opportunist bully
Greg  

My teacher assigned us a question on a man for all seasons. the question was what is the significance of the scene where the common man set up the hats in the jury box. our teacher said it had some meaning. if you know anything about this I would greatly appreciate it. thanks
 
Dear Michael
Well Cromwell needed to stack the jury of course to get his conviction.
Everyone in England knew More was an innocent and a just man.
On the significance of the scene: watch the video of the movie - it is the central scene where all issues come to a head and are explained and resolved there. It is very powerful drama.
Greg

What evidence does the play give that Thomas More is a tragic hero.
 
Dear Carole
Tragic heroes die tragically i.e. they need not die and their death is the result of a fatal flaw (in Aristotle and Shakespeare).
But what is More's flaw? Is it his pride? Or his secrecy? Or his moral courage that was too great to bear? See Bolt's introduction to the play on what he was looking for in More as a hero for the sixties
More died through his own intransigence. He knew it and he knew Cromwell's schemes would get the better of him in the end.
See his reference at one Hearing about cutting off his head for treason (at least in the film!)
Hope this helps.
7 November 1999. We have to examine the various character's consciences and I don't know where to start. Thanks.
 
 I would go thorough each character and assess whether he has a conscience: Cromwell showed no scruple, More is an exemplar figure of conscience, the others at all the stages in between. See my comments above.
 

Topic: Bolt's preface
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999
My teacher gave us an assignment to write a 2 page summary of the Preface for A Man for all Seasons. I'm having some difficulty understanding it. If you could give me a background of it I would really appreciate it.
.
Dear Danny
Focus on conscience - Bolt wanted to write a play about sticking to principles - remember it was the sexy sixties! The historical stuff there is quite involved so for your homework skip most of it except mention that the fight between Henry and the pope was basically political. The Tudors fought for control of England and even at the end they did not have total control. Memories of the Wars of the Roses were still fresh. More was respected by everyone for his integrity and stand and in that era that is saying a lot indeed because everyone had to bend with the times. Greg
"Explain in 5-7 paragraphs
what it means to be a "man for all seasons" and relate it to the story by using quotes and refer to Thomas More."..........thank you very much.
 
This is a common question
Answers to it are written up in Study Guides like Monarch Guides readily available at libraries and stores.
More was a man for all seasons, through thick and thin, through trouble and good times. Bolt was praising his constancy.
We all despise a fair weather friend. Talk about faithful in all seasons, all weathers, all tides, all turns of fate despite pain, popular misunderstanding, self imposed silence, fear of death, risk of death, etc. Have you written about an all weather friend, someone who is an exemplar and reliable, not fickle, unprincipled, bought off?
Greg

Tue, 29 Feb 2000

hello, my teacher gave us two possible essay topics on the play a man for all seasons can you explain the role of the common man and the significance of the title of the play thanks...
 
I suggest you do the second question.
The play is about moral nobility and the role of principles in immoral times i.e., the nineteen sixties and more indirectly every age. The worth of someone is measured both in crises and in season and out of season. It's about the value of fair weather friends too (Norfolk: "come with us for company's sake") . See also my answer to Danny this page.
 
 
On 30/1/01
> why is the play called a man for all seasons? and why is More the man for all seasons? I'm sure the answer is staring me in the face.
Bolt meant that he is steadfast through thick and thin, summer and winter, in friendship and out of it.
He sticks to his principles. He is a man of steadfast conscience.
 
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001
> > - The title of the book, "A Man For All Seasons". What does it mean?
> > I am really struggling with this book and my exam is in 2 days, can
> > you pleeeeeease help me, it would be greatly appreciated.
 
More died because he would not swear an oath on the Act of Succession as is explained int he play.
He lived in obscurity, then the Tower because Henry knew his public agreement (because he was such an honest public man) was necessary to affirm Henry's actions. More could not in conscience agree. Play is about this conscientious stand and for Bolt it is central message to his age. See also: relevance to teenagers, relevance to audiences today, motifs and themes.
see here also
 
2 November 2002
Also, my mum and I have been arguing about who really is the man for all seasons. She says it is More but I think it is the Common Man. Can you settle the argument for us???
 
Bolt intended More to be the man for all seasons - the one reliable fixed point in a sea of change and relativity.
The one moral exemplar for everyone a man of principle etc. see my replies at html#title and at html#preface
 
You may have a point though that bending with the times is the key to survival; we all do it now so unconsciously of course. The common man represents this very English facility to blend in with the wallpaper.
 

Fri, 27 Oct 2000
hi I wanted to thank you for helping me with my last question (what was More's frame of mind when confronted by the king) and I have another question for ya: ":More's career and fate presented a problem was evident to everybody. It was summed up by a representative Englishman of the time, the chronicler Edward Hall who wrote, "Surely this was the foolest wise man or the wisest foolish man?"
Explain what is meant by the phrase, breaking down the words Foolish and Wise, then give your interpretation of the phrase and show whether it is a valid or invalid appraisal of Thomas More and his life." thanks a lot.
 
"Surly this was the foolest wise man or the wisest foolish man?" Yes he was indeed a puzzle to everyone, to Alice, the King, Norfolk, Cromwell and Rich. He himself knew that but he was not a puzzle to himself. He would see it was God's foolishness to take the silent stand he did; it was a lawyer's observance of the Law and a Christian's following of Principle. He felt the medieval construct of the world was true (i.e., the original or innate one) and essential to maintain. He knew he was in the midst of grand politics; Henry Tudor has much at stake and yet the distant Pope represented their only continuity back to Christ as the central figure of Christendom. He knew he was in a catch 22 situation, as we say today.
 
His was a mistaken world view in retrospect. But Bolt's purpose was not to focus on this but on More's bravery and persistence to stand against the forces of change. In that he is foolish and wise too. More was no Clown nor Butt of common humour; he was held in highest repute (Common man says so); people did not know how to react in the end under Henry's crushing opposition. He was no Socrates provoking mockery of himself either. Hall's phrase is indeed a fair description of More. [Footnote: Reserve "valid" to describe a conclusion reached from steps of logic; prefer rather correct, fair, advisable, etc.]. This is a hard question: tell me how your teacher deals with it in class, please.

[texts] [hero] [moretalk2] [moretalk3] [common man] [hamlet]

Click to second Moretalk page, third Moretalk page, fourth, fifth, sixth
Return to A Man for All Seasons page
Last revised 03/11/07
A completely non-commercial site, composed and maintained by Greg Smith in Brisbane Australia. This page's address is home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/moretalk.html