- Page 4 of students' enquiries on Robert
Bolt's A Man for All Seasons
-
- Replies on this page:
See other replies at
page 1, page
2, page
3, page
5,
page 6, plan
of play
Roper's
theology
-
- > I have three questions about the
book. Your help would would be
greatly appreciated!
- >1. Explain the theology of William
Roper which makes Thomas
- > More reject him as a suitor to
Meg.
-
- It is well known even today that marriages with non-Catholics
are not preferred. In essential matters, it is felt that a couple
ought to basically agree.
- So Roper being a Lutheran was unacceptable as well as
rejecting waht More regarded as the one true Church (RC) which is
in historical line through the popes with Christ.
- A marriage had to be celebrated by the Church and no other
than a catholic one would suffice or perhaps in More's mind, it
would not be an eternal union = blessed in God's sight.
-
- > 2. How does Lady Alice contrast
with her brilliant husband?
-
- Uneducated
- direct where he is circumspect
- loving directly; he is measured
- brashly unafraid; he was very afraid of King
- see also my bit on
Alice.
-
- > 3. In the end, the law responds to
More. How and why?
-
- This is an odd way to put it.
- The law became merely a tool to cover Cromwell's/Henry's
autocratic will.
- It is not a protection for More but a tool to convict
him.
- See Cromwell's stumbling proposal of evidence in sliences of
various
- kinds
-
- > Thank you very much for your help,
your time and effort show in this
page.
-
- You're welcome Good luck
- Hope this helps
- Greg
I need to find out all the characters
of this book and what each of them
do. HELP PLEASE! I have a
quiz on characters
tonight!
-
-
- Hi Good luck in the exam
- See replies at
- Cromwell,
Alice,
Alice
and Meg, Alice,
Wolsey,
major
characters, Cranmer,
Chapuys,
Norfolk,
common
man. woman
-
- 21 March 2002: Vicky wrote:
HI, my topic I got was " Thematic
concerns,
and
how minor
characters in the play develop
them.". So far, I have uncertainties about who the minor
charactors are, For my part, I am in charge in talking about the
themes of friendship and love. However, I am not sure which two
characters to compare, and how they show these themes. Can you
help me? thanx!
-
-
- I disagree
- I think common man is minor
- He appears only occasionally and is not one of the
protagonists
- He is like the chorus of the Greek drama commenting, sifting
and shaping excpectations
- Norfolk his More' s friend and More broke this off with a
deliberate quarrel.
- Alice loved his Meg loved him but he could not go with them.
WHY??
- Is love secret?
- Is Love of God so strong, stronger than human love??
- Compare Alice and Cromwell - lover and
enemy
- Greg
-
- Smaller characters have smaller significance
- They are there historically and More is the focus
- None are equal to the great More
- Henry is no protagonist I would think
- Cromwell is not More's foil
- See more replies at
- Cromwell
- role
of common man
- Chapuys
- common
man again
- Alice
and Meg
- Roper
and More
- Wolsey
- More's
family
- Norfolk
and More
- characters
grow?
- Norfolk
-
-
Could you please explain the Woman's
role in the play. Also, what are some of her characteristics?
Thanks.
-
- She is listed in the People in the Play (Dramatis Personae) as
"middle fifties, self-opinionated, self righteous, selfish and
indignant." p. xxiv. Her name is Catherine Anger.
- So a difficult customer, obviously intent on securing her
case, having the time to wait for him with the other litigants on
a matter of some importance to her or her family or affairs. The
cup was Italian and expensive "I bought it for 100 shillings" (59)
as was agreed by the boatman who rescued it from the river, and by
Rich who sold it for a tunic.
- The woman comes forward to ask More to consider her cause in
the Court of Requests April 1526 where she got "an impeccably
correct judgement" from More himself. Cromwell then finds her and
tries to build a case about bribery in Act II.
- She gives him the silver cup as a bribe as one would and as
was customary then (it seems from Norfolk's comment about what
judge in England could not be bribed).
- This is a Bolt's dramatic sample of an everyday occurrence:
More was firm but polite promising to read her request. He was
open accessible and made no false promises. He was very widely
regarded as a singularly honest man in a corrupt system.
-
- Like the common man, she is a voice from the ordinary classes,
a woman of no consequence, for Cromwell only what she can give for
his case against Thomas. It failed in that hearing as Norfolk's
interpretation of the facts shows and as Cromwell agrees. p.
60.
-
- Hers is a preliminary to the main show, a trial canter of what
is to come and an indication of the shonkiness Cromwell is
prepared to go to convict More.
-
- Greg
-
In 21 March Hi Greg,
- I think your site is fantastic and very
helpful. How do I response to this statement, I
- need some help. "More's death provides
us with a model by which to judge
our own morality."
-
- Yes More's death is a examplar for others; Bolt intended this
& he is a saint in the Church.
- He sets the standard for our motives.
- His seemingly are so pure so God directed.
- So refined of any compromise, dross, cowardice, ignorance,
inertia, laziness, convenience.
- We unfortunatley work on these "principles" sometimes.
- He challenged us to really think things through and he is a
measure of our own morality.
- His actions and apparent motives transcend the ordinary, the
pragmatic, and the mundane.
- Greg
28 May 2002
- The complete statement that was given to
us for the essay topic to attempt
to prove that Thomas More was
innocent. Perhaps I could use
the angle that he was altruistic and was not fully aware of the
political dealings of the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps he was
innocent through his naivety.
-
- "In literature the hero often
determines his own innocence or guilt
and
imposes his own sentence by
the choices he makes." Show to which
extent this
statement is true with respect to AMFAS.
-
-
- His own honesty is evident in the play -
refusal to take the oath because he feared committing
perjury
- that we know from his discussion with
daughter Margaret - in a most intimate
and honest setting - no rhetoric or pretense
here.
- Norfolk refers to his public and well
known innocence regarding the taking of the cup - everyone
respected his innocence among a corrupt bench. We can believe
these two witnesses to his integrity
- A foil is someone or something in the
drama that heightens a character trait.
- So Rich and Cromwell in their bribery
corruption ambition are foils to More's integrity
- We can measure his moral stature against
their low standards.
- It was remarked how he fasted and
confessed every week and undertook penances
- He was very religious.He dis proved
Rich's maxim "Every man has his price."
- His teasing of Roper deflates any
posturing, pompsity untruth.
-
- >
I am doing a seminar on a man for all seasons wed. dec 11/02 on
the
- > topic " is it true that each
character has his or her
price". if you
- > have any information or recources
that i could use i would be very
- > thankful.
-
- Of course Bolt set out to disprove this
cynical statement.
- More is one who died for principles, is
one who had no price, would not compromise. He believed his
integrity is greater than a compromised life
- See also replies at compromisers,
compromise,
strike
a bargain, has
a price,
corruption, innocent.
- In a sense, his God is an image for
solid principled behaviour even to death . . . like his Lord
Jesus.
- Greg
-
17 March 2002: I have
to do a debate for my English class based on a man for all
seasons. The debate is whether "A Man For All Seasons", is a play
based wholly on politics or on
religion. I could really use some
insight on the sibject. Thanx,
-
- It is about both about equally for More
- For Henry more about politics.
- Not based wholly on either politics or religion but also based
on morality I would say
- Bolt has a moral point here It's a teaching play, a didactic
playwright.
- Big sparks mixing them but they do collide and More had to
take sides . . .for his God.
- You can see why theocracies (a la Taliban) do not work, and
why we have separation of Church and State today.
- Take the negative view to the debate topic and to the word
"wholly" & say why,
- See my compromisers
reply too.and man
of principle, morality,
'practical',
pragmatism
- Greg
-
I
am writing a literary analysis on AMFAS for my
AP literature
class. The topic of my paper is how Thomas More is a hero.
What
are his heroic
characteristics, what
weapons he
uses to fight his foes?
And
are how could he be compared
to an epic hero?" I have some ideas but not enough to finish
my essay with. Please help.
-
- epic hero qualities are
enduring recognisable ones common to all humankind e.g., bravery
courage
- 'epic' suggests a long battle and the qualities needed by the
hero to conquer
- Surely More possesses these to heroic proportions.
- This crisis revealed a great deal about his rigorous ethics,
his perseverance, his loyalties were tested.
- He lost house, estates, office, marriage, freedom and his head
for this.
-
- Is an epic hero foolish?
- Should More have been more canny, less holy, more
worldly-wise?
- In one frame of reference (Norfolk's), life is the most
precious quality. Why throw it all away?
- What do you gain from standing out from the crowd -
misunderstanding by the ordinary people yes but even
misunderstanding by the protagonist, the King, would erode its
effect. And it did.
- As it was, what real effect did his death have on events?
- Henry went on without him!!
-
- - More's
weapons
- More's weapons are ideas and patience - allow things to take
effect, take their course, significances to grow. reticence: not
annoy vex irritate King, hide a bit to step out of the limelight
of public scrutiny (even though he believes he is right), take the
heat out of the issue courage: to stick to his decision
- modesty: that he is under God, that words can be ambiguous,
allowing for others' faults, not being overweening in being
right
- He had disposed of friendship which could been his greatest
asset unfortunately
- Greg
-
- More's weapons again
-
- > I saw that portion on your website
about weapons before I wrote to you...I
- > suppose I should have asked you
what you think about laws, sense of self and
- > conscience as
weapons
against King Henry specifically.
- > Thanks
-
-
- 1. Yes More believed in the law and this is developed in the
play:
- "In the law I am a forrester" etc.that is, I am an expert at
the manipulation understanding and manitenance of the law BUT it
was not enough in face of Henry's shifting ground.
-
- 2. sense of self - Well "adamantine" is the word Bolt uses
about his character
- Yes he was enormously aware of his individuality which was
remarkably for a medieval man; he emerges as a Renaisaance man
really, ahead of his time.
-
- 3. conscience is private - a real weapon e.g., conscientious
objectors have trouble proving it is a genuine court of appeal. It
is the interior court before God.
- it is a weapon in that no one can read it like you do (private
even from Alice). Thus everyon must respect it and it is its own
justification.
- Hope this helps
- Greg
-
- more on More's three
weapons
- Thanks so much for your insight...I have
another question though. Do you
- believe that More's
weapons were ultimately
successful against King
Henry?
- My first thought was no, because King
Henry lived and More did not. But
- then I thought, More's ideals have
survived and because he died for them, he
- was the triumphant victor. But I'm not
sure.
- Thanks again
-
- Hello again,
- Oh yes most certainly so because More won a moral
victory.
- His name is covered in glory for all ages now.
- Moral excellence will always stand out e.g., Jesus, More,
Gandhi, Mandella
- Greg
-
- Hello, my name is
Jaime. I have been assigned to
- write a short essay about:
-
- 1. How Henry's life and
aims
clash with those of
More.
-
- 2. Describe a method by which more
can save his
honor and his
life. *Please
help me because I do not have enought
information. Please e-mail
(Jaimers87@yahoo.com) me
as soon as possible because this
assignment is due
tomorrow. Thank you so
much.
-Jaime
-
- For Question 1 see
- Click reply on natures
and reason
vs passion
-
- Question 2
- Well no I don't have an answer nor did
Thomas More!!
- That's the whole point he did not want
to be a martyr either. He could find no way out!!
- If we took the oath, he would not be
true to himself -lie to God.
- If he fled England he would not be a
patriot and his family might have been killed
- If found out fleeing, who could know the
fatal consequences.
- He had a large sense of himself so could
not deny himself or fade away (or suicide).
- He might have sought the king's pardon
but he had committed no crime.
- Sugggest you pursue these possible
options and show how he could not
- kill these two birds with any one
stone.
- Greg
Sun, 21 Apr 2002 I
need to write a 5 paragraph essay on either
the major or
minor theme from A Man for All Seasons. I'm not sure if you have
the themes analyzed on your
site... I am totally lost. Would you
please clearly define the
major and minor theme(s) for me?
My appreciation to you would be ineffable! By the way, your site
is fabulous!
-
- Thanks for the praise
- Identifying themes is tricky and
identifying major and minor is such a clear way is trickier.
- The major theme must lie with the
central character More
- that is, his integrity, honesty,
conscience, is the major theme.oath and silver cup goes in there.
-
- A minor theme I guess. his
steadfastness, perseverance in suffering, endurance of the
ultimate cost is the consequence. see compromises.
- The contested marriage, the broken
friendships, and the politics are the setting
- Greg
|
Theme
|
Statement/
quotation
|
Character embodies
it
|
Symbol / totem/
motif
|
|
major theme
|
his integrity, honesty,
conscience, man of principle, rocklike personal
integrity; "What
matters to me is not whether it's true or not but that I
believe it to be true, or rather not that I
believe it, but that I believe it" More
53
|
- Thomas More -
- refusal to accept
bribes
- refuses to perjure
- sacrifices comfort for
integrity,
- adamant in defying Wolsey and
Cromwell
- maintains his loyalty to
King,
- Henry loves his
honesty
|
silver cup, cupped hands
|
|
minor theme;
compromises
England forsakes "private conscience for the sake of
public duties"
|
"Cromwell: "Now that's wasn't
difficult was it?" end Act 1
|
Rich, to lesser extent Norfolk and the
upper classes of England "would have slept through the
Sermon on the Mount."
|
Red Dragon medal of office
eddies river water
|
|
minor theme: corruption
"Every man has his price" 2
|
"Will you help England by populating
her with lies?" More at trial 93
|
Rich accepts the biggest
bribe:
perfects the art of
betrayal
|
candle
|
|
minor theme: the law
|
"It's just a matter of finding the
right law. Or making one." 61
|
More: I am a forrester
"This country's planted thick with
laws from coast to coast - Man's laws not God's - and if
you cut them down . . . d'you really think you could
stand upright in the winds that would blow then." More
39
|
chain of office of
Chancellor
|
|
minor theme: psychological setting -
fear
|
"The Court has corrupted you Sir
Thomas; you are not the man you were." Roper
36
|
More
|
Tower
|
|
minor theme: m,oderation versus
extremism
|
|
More examplar of moderation " "This is
not the stuff of which martyrs are made." More
35
Roper extremist: teetotalism, dressing
in black, Lutherism
|
|
G. B. Smith 22 April
2002-
- 21 May 2002 I have to write an
interpretive essay on the main
theme which my teacher told us
is, and I quote, " fidelity to a well-formed and sincere
conscience is a greater good than any earthly good,
- including physical life, because such a
conscience brings one into union with God's love." I've formulated
a thesis similar to this, but I am having trouble coming up with
three reasons backing it up found in the book....... any
suggestions?? Thanx, and if you could get back to me a/s/a/p
e-mailing me directly I would be very greatful as its due very
soon. Kudos on your sight, it's fabulous! Anna
-
- How about this for a plan for your essay:
-
- 1. what is conscience/ More's version of his dilemma
- 2. fidelity to conscience has costs /plot details/
- 3. worth of integrity/ better than others/ loved by God/why is
this admirable?
-
- Greg
-
-
Common sense/
Practical: "The word
'practical' is used
several times in the play. Some
aren't fond of the word
practical and some are fond of it. Determine what
meaning revolves around this term.
Identify a character
who could be defined as
practical and
quote two passages that
support your conclusion."
-
- Practical in Cromwell's terms means flexible,that is, having a
flexible conscience to meet the new
realities i.e., admit Henry as head of the Church in England and
recognise the marriage to Anne as legitimate, that is, he has
divorced Catherine, in short, have a willingness to compromise
with the old principles.
- Of course Thomas More did not agree to either.
- Cromwell considers himself to be the Ear of the king and will
do the King's will
- He is pragmatic, practical, not working from high principles
first but from the practical affairs, that is, resolve dilemmas in
any way that is 'reasonable'.
- Common Sense is also used
in this play with capital letters as a way forward too. and
eminently English thing to do.
- Why not go thorugh the text to find the 2 passages that used
'practical' (page 35?) and 'common sense'.
-
I need to write a paper analyzing the
following quote for English:
More: ... If we lived in a State where
virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed
would make us saintly. And we'd live like animals or angels in the
happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that
avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly
profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought,
and have to choose, to be human at all ... why then perhaps we must
stand fast a little ¯ even at the risk of being
heroes.
I understand More's desire to avoid
unnecessary confrontation, but the part about how in a world where
virtue was profitable, greed would make us saintly throws me for a
total loop. Does he also mean that
common sense is
bad?How would that relate to virtue
being rewarded? I could see how something that is common could have a
bad connotation, like the common man, who is continually "just doing
his job". And he talks about the world being filled with avarice,
which is greed. I don't see the difference. Any insight?
- Thanks,
-
Greed avarice much the same just more traditional
list/language.
It is interesting that he adds (or Bolt does) 'thought' to the
list - that a man must do the Humanist thing and not just follow the
crowd but think out his salvation, think where he will stand as
individual, what stances he must adopt in the face of events and
challenges, The Humanist does not merely leave it all to God or force
of circumstances but indeed believes his own actions can make a
difference and he has a duty to act wisely (Socratic rationalist
tradition) merely by being alive, a citizen.
I think your question centres on the sensibleness of common
sense.
Ques: Is it in fact common sense to stand up as a hero against all
these vices? No indeed.
It would seem more than common sense is driving More; he is aware
of the heroic dimension; the virtuous dimension in his stand that
entails. and it was.
To analyse the quote, you need to say what it means in the play
then what it would mean today and then possibly what it means to
you.
You could take up a more modernist view that today good reasons
need to support common sense because it could be just folksie sense,
not understood in the wider rational bureaucratic world. One needs
defensible reasons for one's action if they depart from the norm,
what is expected. Deciding upon on divorce today for instance needs
only a few common standard reasons; not compatible etc.whereas in
years gone by it would be a major departure from normal and would
need substantial public reasons.
When you think about it, common sense is really a very woolly
concept; it could mean
- -what seems appropriate
-what others would approve of
-what to do despite my more rational notions
-what saves me, enables me to continue on the same path without
risks
-what needs the smallest public substantiation
-what is easiest, least trouble,
understandable/acceptable.
Heroic Virtue is not easy, common, attainable and so not common
sense solution.
Thus More is a saint for his achievement of heroic virtue in
keeping his silence which is his disapproval of public licence by the
King.
Greg Mon Jan 26, 2004
-
18 March
2002
- Hi Greg your site is really helpful, but
i am still having some difficulties writing my essay. Could you
- just please help me to see how More and
Cromwell "handle the compromises
which come their way"? I
- already read the compromisers part of
your site.
- I know that More does not compromising
because he does not want to accept the new ideas brought by
- the King, but i don't what else i could
write about their true natures. I hope you can help me. Thank
- you very much!!
-
- Glad the site is helpful
- Cromwell and Rich:do not have wholeness and integrity
- More does: he has thought out his stand before God and the
world.
- they react to opportunity, they lack consistency &
holistic thinking.
- Do they have true natures?
- Are they true to us? we wont know - they lie,
prevaricate.
- true to themselves ? No they are "hollow men" as TS Eliot
would say
- true to their God? no they reject him and his church
- true to one another? No they deceive one another like
thieves
- true to their own eternal destiny? nmo they reject any
transcendental destiny beyond this life.
- true to ambition? Yes
- true to the King? No Cromwell was put to death by him.
- Perhaps expand on these ideas..
- Greg
-
-
-
More's
virtues
- > Hi, my name is Leanne. After
looking at your site, I think you are
- > just the person that can help me
with my question. I am writing a
- > paper for a Catholic Ethics class,
and my topic is to identify the
- > virtues of Thomas More and
elaborate on them. I can only choose from
- > certain
virtues. They are: prudence,
wisdom, justice, fortitude,
- > faith, & charity. Also, we were
assigned to watch the movie, not to
- > read the play, so all I have to go
on is what is in the movie. I have
- > a couple of ideas, but I was
wondering what your thoughts were. If
- > you could just tell me which
virtues you feel are applicable and why
- > I'd really appreciate
it.
- > Thanks a bunch!!!
- > Leanne
-
- Leanne,
- prudence: wary of the bully king; circumspect in his
words; regular in
- his dealings
- wisdom: a wise man knows how to act honourably; a wise
man sees past
- immediate personal gain; or short term goals; More was
eminently wise.
- fortitude: persistence, endurance, long suffering for
principle, courage
- in face of impossible odds and sure death = More
- faith: in his God; faith in right; faith in the law
over arbitrary rule;
- faith in tradition; faith over despair.
- I hope this can help.
- Greg
-
- More's weapons: (see also
talk with Oscar above).
- Humanist idea that ideas change the world; the power of
the pen over the sword type of thing; he is proved right of
course. Ideas are invisible, intangible but the most real.
- patience - allow things to take effect, take their
course,
- significances to grow
- reticence: not annoy vex irritate King hide a bit to
step out of the limelight of public scrutiny (even though he
believes he is right) take the heat out of the issue
- courage: to stick to his decision
- modesty: that he is under God, that words can be
ambiguous, allowing for
- others' faults, not being overweening in being right
- He had disposed of friendship which could been his
greatest asset unfortunately
- Greg
28 February 2002
- >Subject: Re:
Symbolism
- > > Hi Greg, Iíve been
asked to identify 3 symbols in the play which I
- > > feel are most important and
elaborate through fully on each.
- > > Please help. Thanks. I'm more
or less looking for the
- > > appriopiateness of the
following symbols: falcon and heron, burning candle, and
the chain of office.
- > > Thanks for all your
help,
- > > Derek
-
- 1. falconry was a sport but falcons are wild and had to be
tamed; the natural process of finding food is a predatory process.
Does that excude Cromwell from pursuing More? Is this yet another
instance of the age-old process of rise and fall of careers - I
rather think that this is returning with the globalisation
treatment of workers as mere units of work not human beings.
-
- 2. Cromwell extinguishing the candle to end Act I suggests
possible physical violence to extinguish a life if needed; he
suffered no pain in doing it as he would suffer no moral scruple
in persecuting More
-
- 3. The chain of office, eg the Red Dragon, is an important
motif in the play and a symbol of power, achievement and
responsibility. More gets it after Wolsey and when resigning it
himself, there is debate about who would help him remove it from
his shoulders; the visible sign of office is important reminder of
the feudal society, the uniqueness of the office bearer and that
he is chosen by royal decree and the bearer owes total obedience
to the king. Remember when More reprimends Roper for saying things
before him that were treasonable.
-
- My other replies on symbolism and symbols in this play:
five
symbols, reading
symbols today, metaphors
and symbols, the
silver goblet, reply to
George on metaphors.
-
- Greg
-
> Hi I'm doing an oral
report for English and I was wondering how Bolt's
- > time period connects to why he
wrote the play and if anything was
- > going
on in the 1960's that related to it.
Oh and if more is the
- > protagonist then who is the
antagonist? thanx ~Jess
-
- Hi Jess
- Bolt was certainly writing a play for
his own era
- This was NOT to be a costume drama
- The flower power freedom of the sixties reacted to the
conservatism of the 1950s.
- A quick survey of the changes can be read in Richard Osborne's
Megawords (Allen & Unwin 2001) pp. 8-11: "extraordinary
change . . . completely destroyed the orthodoxies of the postwar
cultures . . . sexual radicalism and civil rights . . . dialectic
between change and tradition . . . transformation spanned
1965-1976 . . . 1968 was its zenith." 1968 was the VN war of
course so the freedom grew into the antiwar movement/ moratorium.
"Central issue of realism came to the fore: Brecht's criticism of
realism and Barthes' semiotics . . . shift towards critical
European philosophy"
- Bolt was not necessarily historical on all counts
- His PREFACE says he was writing to show a man of rock solid
principle in an age of slide.
- Bolt wanted to show someone with conviction.
- He wonders if it failed because more was misunderstood/
remote/ too noble/ too removed from our times, and in a theatre,
semi religious in an anti religious age
- Greg
If More is the
protagonist, who is the antagonist?
-
- There is no one antagonist
- Is it Henry? possibly but that tussle is not defined in the
play
- It is not Cromwell or Rich who were far below his class and
moral and dramatic stature and cannot be considered to be
equals.
-
- julie.c wrote:
- > 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?!?!
-
- The major foil for More is
Cromwell not Henry
- A foil is the antagonist for the protagonist
- Foil counters moves and exposes character chracks however
unlike in Shakespeare, Cromwell is no match for More. He is merely
an opportunist bully
- Greg
- Please help me I'm very stuck on an
essay which is do tomorrow and i have nothing.!!!!! The essay is
on
- an comparison between sir Thomas
and
Frankenstein. I really could use
the help, if you know anything
- about Frankenstein
-
- I have the Boris Karloff 1931 film
Frankenstein on DVD
- Frankenstein and Thomas More:
Similarities:
- both victims of circumstances beyond
their control
- both essentially good beings, morally
good beyond their masters
- both died at others' hands "grim
consequences" for all
- both misunderstood by the mob
- both locked up for their silence
- Differences
- More was thoroughly humane, urbane,
witty, highly sophisticated, learned, acclaimed scholar of the
Enlightenment
- Frankenstein was not human, a robotic,
pathetic creature doomed from the start by his ugly appearance,
strange beginnings, lack of identity or history.
- Frankenstein was not able to make
decisions or act morally; More was and did and so becomes a moral
exemplar for us. Frankenstein can only be a poor shadow of a human
as we would pity a sick dog.
- Greg
-
-
More and
MozartSun, 14 Apr
2002
-
- > Your website is really awesome! It
helped me quite a bit for my MFAS
- > seminar! I need some suggestions.
I'm required to write an essay comparing
- >
MFAS and
Amadeus, I chose to
compare More's and Salieri's self. I've worked
- > very hard trying to come up with an
original thesis and arguments and I've
- > checked them over with my teacher
and she said that they would work really
- > well but she said that the biggest
problem I have is that right now I'm
- > focusing on the differences more
than similarities and I've got to find a
- > common 'link' that ties the entire
essay together. Could you give me some
- > suggestions as to how I can improve
my thesis and arguments? My teacher
- > suggested me to state a similarity
and then states, "in spite of the
- > similarities, they are
actually...." I've put a lot of thought into this and
- > I still can't figure similarities
between More's self and Salieri's.
-
- This is not easy I put reseults of my
web search: Click on
a new page. There is good
discussion of the unhistorical points of the film Amadeus
that could help you compare.
- Perhaps you could focus on how a
playwright (Bolt) and film maker stretch, select, twist, omit
historical fact for dramatic purposes?
- Greg
-
"who we are" and
"what makes us that way"
- Dear Greg,
- I have an essay question that is due
tomorrow, i know it is a little late, but I did not realize you
had this terrific
- webpage. My question is "Robert Bolt's
play, A Man for all Seasons, is an exploration of a man ruled
by
- his own sense of self. Bolt is not as
interested in exploring the conflict between More and the
authorities, as
- he is in examining
what makes people behave the way
they do"
- By examining both Sir Thomas More, and
three other characters, illustrate how this play is most
interested in
- the question of "who we are" and "what
makes us that way"
- Thank-you for taking the time to
acknowledge my request. sincerely, Melissa
-
-
|
Character
|
Who we are
|
What makes us that way
|
|
Thomas More
|
strict asceticism. training, rising
through personal power and appeal and probity
|
training, insight, a moral life,
guidance, prayer
|
|
Richard Rich
|
low born, learns to be ambitious,
learns Machiavellian power
|
learns compromise, learns to discard
the strucure of probity, learns that people have a
price
|
|
Cromwell
|
single dimensional. servant for gain,
ambitious
|
thrill of the chase, evil will win,
moral compromise upon compromise 'serial liar"
|
6 March 2002- Dear Greg,
- I was wondering whether you could help
me as i am writing essay about how satisfying
the
ending of A Man
- For All Seasons is. Would you be able to
give me a few pointers and also something about the
alternative
- ending? Thanks very much,
-
- The need to write a second ending is
just typical of the happy ending syndrome: I dislike it because it
blunts the dramatic purpose and high tragedy of More's end. Bolt's
purpose was to make a point about sticking to one's principles; it
is a beacon to all in all ages.
-
- The second ending brings us back to
earth yes and send us out with a smile, but it compromises a focus
on More; in effect, distracting us rather to a so-called opinion
in common eyes, reducing More's sacrifice to truth as just another
event confusing and confused.
- Greg
-
-
- > Dear Greg, I am doing a debate in
English class and the topic is "Rich
- > is the
true
villain".I am on the affirmitive
side. Do you have any
- > points that I can debate back with?
Thanks!CandiceOntario, Canada
-
- Here are three points in a possible plan:
-
- 1. define a villain: NOT enemy of the people, or enemy of the
Church, or even threat to law and order BUT
self serving, aggrandising, ambitious,
ruthless, unscrupulous, self interested.
-
- 2. Rich is all of these examples
- serves Cromwell pursues self interest Order of the Red Lion
for Wales; he eventually did become Lord
Chancellor after Cromwell. Thus ambition satisfied.
-
- 3. "the true villain" because he betrayed More a friendship -
the
- evidence of the Italian cup as bribe
-
- Greg
7 March 2002
Shown about More, Plato on
More, Ratiba770@aol.com
wrote:
-
- > hi Greg, i seen you web site and
wow its great job you doing their and i can
- understand it more by looking at it, i
have an assignement for my Humanity class
- and i need your helpp soooo bad
pleaseeee
- > 1 what is
" Shown "
about More in his speech/and
or/silence?
-
- His silence is loud and strong and
correct
- His speech is clear and traditional and
based in precedents of the law
-
- > 2. Why Plato understands the "Good"
as beyond Conception? why is the more real,
- the idea rather than the material . give
your best guess
-
- Plato was explaining the world;
certainly what is seen and felt is peripheral, fading and
decaying, So that can't be real. So what
holds it together must be real and eternal.
- So He posited the Perfect Forms of Goodness (Justice etc.)
that only some can view and
- apply at some times. These must be what holds the universe
together.
- In that sense, they are more real than the accidental, the
sensual, the perceptual.
- So the soul is realer than the body for containing the
elements of the eternal.
- More was someone who touched this Goodness, applied the
universal Goodness to his
- particular dilemma in his own time.
- For reaching that Universal, he was a superior human
being
-
- > 3. Contrast this with the attitude
of Cromwell, and his coversation with Richard
- Rich. does this contrasting style of "
Civil Service" make a difference in one's
- use of rhetoric ?
-
- Pragmatism and getting the job done is the function of such
functionaries
- In this model, visionaries (that is seers of the Superior
Forms of Goodness) form the policy and
- functionaries apply it.
- More rejects this altogether (the two moralities model). He
holds that everyone, every human has moral
responsibility and can act for good or or for ill,
and must be taught how to act morally.
- We are weak and can act through ignorance laziness apathy
dishonesty or whatever
- But we each of us is called to act morally "before God' in all
our lives, that is, to take the high ground
and follow the Principles of conscience.
- Morality belongs not just to the rulers as some kind of
exemplars who alone are responsible. More
says we are all responsible for the rest of society
- and the sum of our shared responsibilities
contributes to the happiness of the whole of society.
-
- Also consider the differing understaings
of friendship.
-
- Friendships of convenience (shallow,
conventional: "hale fellow well met" Norfolk & More)
- friendships of conspiracy (Rich and Cromwell focus on getting
something done)
- friendships of blood (Meg Alice More: that blood is thicker
than water so we a loyal to one another)
- friendships of respect (More and Erasmus equal scholars
disagreeing at times)
- Greg
-
Greg,Thank you so much
for your help! Here is my first draft. Any help would
be
- appreciated. Thanks again!
-
- Disobedience of the law:
More, Gandhi,
and Martin Luther King
-
- While most scholars today hold Dr. Martin Luther King in
the highest respect, some of his beliefs were met with
opposition in his time because his thoughts and actions
often threatened the established racist order in his society.
According to some scholars, disobedience of the law and the
individual duty to change injustices in society can be
potentially harmful and can possibly lead to chaos.
-
- On the other hand, there is substantial support for
the argument that the individual has the duty to ameliorate
his society in any means necessary. . . . . Basically, King's
statement is that an injustice against anyone was also an
injustice against himself. . . . He believed that he had a moral
obligation to go out and correct injustices wherever they might
exist even if it required him to break the law.
-
- Thomas More recognized that leadership is a gift from God
for the common good of mankind and the duty of that gift was a
life of service to all. He was a man of conscience . . . Thomas
More would have completely agreed with Dr. King's beliefs. More
died because of his passion for his beliefs. He felt that if man
truly believed something with all his heart, it was worth
dying for. He held high esteem for those who would rather die than
renounce their beliefs. Dr. King fits into that category.
Moreover, More recognized that the laws of God were separate from
the laws of Man, and the laws of God were just. To Dr. King,
segregation is not viewed as a law from God that would need to be
absolutely obeyed.
One of the arguments that More would have had against King's
beliefs was the need to remain within the boundaries of the law. .
. . More's belief that he could never break a law because he was a
protector of those laws. More held that to be firmly grounded in
his beliefs he needed to match words and actions; Dr. King also
possessed strong moral convictions so he respected the actions
that were consistent with one's beliefs.
-
- . . . More encouraged others to follow the laws of the
land, but in the end, he recognized his need to challenge or even
condemn a law because it conflicted with God's. Thus More followed
the doctrine that we have a moral obligation to go out and correct
injustices which do arise in an imperfect world . . . . .
-
- Another aspect of More's perspective on King's statement
entails the degree of disobedience Dr. King had for the law. More
was a realist enough to acknowledge that the rifts between two
opposing forces in society could not be solved in a short period
of time. He would have been cynical of any actions made too
radically and would approve of gradual societal change.
-
- My comments to add to Ashley's
essay:
- This is the reformer's dilemma: do I wait for incremental
change or set in motion crucial actions to change the prevailing
social paradigm? King saw that the traditional way so far followed
was getting no where; he had 100 years of history to prove this!
So he took a small but significant action on segregated buses in
Alabama (e.g., like Gandhi's taking salt from a beach) which was
breaking a minor law to reinforce a major principle. More's stand
was small (not to take the oath) but significant for him and as it
turned out for the Henry VIII too. Reluctantly, his stand became
public; he was not a conscious, social political reformer just a
conscientious objector (to put it in today's language).
-
- SOME WEBSITES MAY HELP HERE TOO:
- http://www.usfoundation.org/Gandhi-King.
- http://www.usfoundation.org/Gandhi-King/Default.htm
-
- More allowed no right of civil
disobedience:
- http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/english.htm
- http://www.civilunions-civilrights.org/gandhi-mlk.html
- http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990129.sgsm6880.html
-
- More the first non violent
protestor:
- http://www.haverford.edu/publicrelations/archives/april98/gandhi.html
-
- Further nice comments to read:
- http://gandhi.virtualave.net/wwwboard/messages/788.html
-
- Greg
-
-
Chapuys' chuckle:
Why do Chapuys and Cromwell walk away
from the execution together in laughter??
-
- Cromwell's goal achieved- King's ear satisfied, King's will is
done.
- Chap more puzzling: this is probably unhistorical by Bolt
- Chapuys was unable to get More to side with Spain
- More was in no man's land; in fact the problem is not solved;
the two are very unlikeable. both grew to dislike More and
audience has no sympathy for them both.
- their chuckle is not collusion or even satisfaction over a job
(beheading) well done but just the conniving of fellow
conspirators who recognize one another's methods.
- The joke is on them for us to see, for we know history and
history is not kind to them.
- Let me know what your teacher says; I would be very interested
please.
- Greg
-
- 27 April 2002
- Please could you help me with the role
of Chapuys? I understand that he is the Spanish Ambassador because
he wants More to take the Spanish king's side.
-
- But is he also a spy for Cromwell? and
if not why at the end do Cromwell and Chapuys exchange
smiles?
- and how come Chapuys isn't captured by
people such as Cromwell for being "let loose" in England at
this
- crucial time when he is supposedly
Catholic?
-
-
- Diplomatic immunity survives into today
and it is the only way Kings can communicate through local
representatives He was the Spanish king's
mouth in England; Chap is no spy for England he is the Spanish
king's ear . Catholic yes but from another country
- Remember the whole country is not
Protestant . Most of England is catholic esp in the north
- I guess Cromwell and Chapuys from
diagonally different corners can recognise each other's games
of professional diplomacy, recognise
each other's machinations as just part of their roles in their
jobs and More is the meat in the
sandwich
-
- Greg
-
- 27 April Sorry about this but I am still
confused a little.
-
- I understand that Chapuys is catholic
and that most of the country remains Catholic especially in the
North of
- England but why does Chapuys have to
exchange conversation with Cromwell after he has first spoken to
Sir
- Thomas More? How come he doesn't get
into trouble and be executed for expressing his Catholic
beliefs
- when the king is trying to get everyone
to become Protestant? Even though he is the Spanish
Ambassador
- you would think if Henry is so against
the "Dago's" religious beliefs at this point that no Spainard
would dare
- enter the country in fear of their own
lives never min dexpress their anti-Protestant ideas in front of
the
- country!
-
- Well Henry had to keep some semblance of
diplomatic relationships; he was a king and had to talk to other
kings.. Otherwise all of Europe would cut themselves off from
England - unthinkable as he had to trade with them; they were
still in Christendom after all.
-
- Also what is this supposed to mean
"Enter into spots left and right, Cromwell and Chapuys.........
and how to
- be comfortable in it."? How come Chapuys
is allowed to take nearly the
passive "front
seat" in More's
- execution? Even though his execution was
public Chapuy's seems to be one of the people that gets a
very
- good view of it!
-
- 'Spots' is into the spotlight - places
already prepared for them on stage and reserved at the execution
site too. Well this was after all, a very public act that was why
it was performed in the relative privacy of the Tower, not in the
public arena say Martyrs' Gate for risk of civil unrest. Henry did
not do this lightly; it took time to reach this point to execute
More.
-
- How can Cromwell and Chapuys link arms
and chuckle
together? Surely Chapuys should
be distraught that
- such a magnificent man as More has just
been killed instead of laughing and linking arms with the evil
enemy
- Cromwell that set up More's trial
consequently causing his death?
-
- Yes but of course it could just be
Schadenfreude, malicious enjoyment at the discomfort of
others. I have read of sociologists describing the distinct
plkeasure that the living have when walking over graves; they are
alive - More is dead. Matter is closed. That chapter of their
diplomatic feuding is closed.. It was not them to die this time at
least. Of course it might be not historical but just a dramatic
device by Bolt; it could be prophetic a bit too since Cromwell was
beheaded in fact soon after.
-
- A chuckle usually indicates
satisfaction, a passing moment of recognition, of release of a
tension of waiting. A snigger on the other hand is not what
they did - that is underhand and disrespectful - like in shared
dirty knowledge.
-
- Finally could you also explain
the alternative
ending with the Common man's speech
and what is this
- supposed to signify?
-
- See my
answer to this
previously
on this page should be
enough
-
- Sorry for all these questions but I am
finding your information a great help. I hope you don't mind me
emailing
- you. Thanks again.
-
- Not at all - this was a challenge. Sorry
the answer is so patchy. I consulted a colleague on this point for
you. Greg
-
-
I am doing a paper
on what Thomas More's perspective based on A Man for
All
- Seasons would be on Dr. Martin Luther
King's statement, "an injustice against
- anyone is also an injustice against
myself. I have a moral
obligation to go
out
- and correct injustices wherever they
might exist even if it required me to break
- the law." Do you think you could
provide some help getting started? Thanks in
- advance.
-
-
- an essay plan to follow;
- 1. More the lawyer could never break the law
- the law was his and our protector
- absolutely wedded to this idea
-
- 2. difference between customs/expectations/lore and the
law
- law of god vs law of the land occurs
- More was confronting this very dilemma
-
- 3. role of Christian vs martyr crusader
- More was realist enough to know that even the necessary
changes in
- church and society would not be cured overnight
- He was no fanatic.
-
- Greg
Exam topic is:
Temptation; what represents it in the play? Who succumbs to
it?
-
- The temptation to speak out must have been enormous for More:
he was such an urbane jovial and eloquent man (like Roman poet
Ovid cast into Romania on the Black Sea in exile speaking no
Latin). but as a legal man he followed legal precedent and felt
safe behind the law's maxim; qui tacet consentire he who is silent
consents: that is, the great majority of England did not oppose
Henry so More would be safe if he hid in the "silent majority' as
Nixon called it in the Vietnam War. but no even the law proved
unable to protect him under this monster.
- To call Cromwell a tempter is silly; to call Rich a tempter to
More is quite silly; give reasons
- to call Margaret a temptress to try to equivocate is not
really true either.
-
-
- Selfishness; is More selfish? How do
others suffer? Does he cost others?
-
- some see his high and mighty stand as selfish;
- discuss whether he was derelict towards Alice Margaret and
Roper . quote the passage about having only candlelight at
Chelsea.
- In the end Roper and Margaret admired him . It was his second
marriage. Meg has great personal reserves.
- I have Roper's book on his father-in-law beside me now.
- Discuss this critical question: Is it selfish to address a
wider audience than one;s immediate family, to serve the whole
country at the cost of one's own family? For More the stakes very
very high indeed and conscience is not a private matter but a
public statement of the individual man - he was a forerunner of
the Enlightenment - celebration of the individual.
- Cheers
- greg
-
-
- > Hi! This is an excellent site! I'm
doing a project and it involves
- > discussion questions and answers
about the dramatic
techniques used in
- > the play. I was thinking about the
use of the common man, the basket,
- > and why the common man tells us
what happens after More dies. Can you
- > share any insight on these topics?
Thank you so much, your site is
- extremely helpful.
-
- As a device Bolt uses cm to tell the story of history. as in a
documentary the closing credits are so some times followed by the
facts. the MFAS Schofield/Lean film uses this too telling us the
fate of the characters. It is a relatively useful device although
a bit alien to us .
-
- > Show how Robert Bolt's play enables
the audience to understand Thomas
- > More and consider the dramatic
effectiveness of the final trial
scene.
-
- His use of an 'alienation device' is experimental
- see my discussion on the Common Man at common
man, audience,
dilemma.
- The last scene is a resolution when More could finally break
his silence
- and reveal his own thoughts, finally to no one's surprise in
fact anyway.
- See trial.
-
- Greg
-
J
- > Hi I need to describe the
relationship between More and Lord Norfolk and how
- it changes throughout the play. Could
you please help. Jessica.
-
- First Friends - that is same class, social, but not
intellectual
- Norfolk related better to Alice and More to Meg (with her
education)
- Norfolk loved the sports and did not take the religion so
seriously
- More had to provoke a fight to break this friendship a most
painful thing for both
- Second, a parting of ways:
- The Norfolk was an interrogator as Chancellor- a distasteful
thing to do.
- Their relationship suffered and perhaps plotted More's stale
of affairs.
- I don't think Norfolk ever hated More; was just confused,
puzzled, frustrated by him.
- Consult click the Catholic
Encyclopedia for him too:
-
- Greg
-
-
- > Hey,
- > I need to ask and answer questions
on the role of More's
family in the
- > play. (Margaret,Alice, Roper) I
have a presentation, and I'm stuck on
- > questions to ask!!
- > Thanks!!!
-
- 1. How do you understand an oath?
- 2. Why do human actions and motives affect the divine
plan?
- 3. Did England need a martyr?
- 4. What is moral courage and to what extent is one required to
exercise it?
-
- > I have to write 2
essays!
- > 1- Why More died. Who, Why,
Etc.
- > 2- 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.
-
-
- 1. Click for
title for my reply to this. and here
also
-
-
- 2. More died because he would not swear an oath on the Act of
Succession as is explained in the 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/legitimise Henry's actions in the public mind
. (Yes even an autocrat need public approval).
- More could not in conscience agree. Bolt's play is about this
conscientious stand and for Bolt it is central message to his
age.
- Greg
-
-
I have some questions
here, as your website's essay part,
- > what's the meaning of the title, A
man for all seasons?
- > And, what does "God more regards
the thoughts of the heart
than the words of
- > the mouth" mean to
More.
- > Thank You!
-
-
- I would tend to disagree.
- More valued the publicly uttered words as evidence of what the
heart holds.
- He would not equivocate (lie, that is, to say one thing and
believe another) as many others did.
- More held that Heart and heart must be in accord.
- More would have rejected this cop out in your quote.
- Greg
-
-
Return to
- top of this page
- moretalk6
- moretalk5
- moretalk3
- moretalk2
- moretalk1
-
- This site is completely non-commercial,
operated in Brisbane Australia. This page begun 5th December 2001
by Greg
Smith.latest additions 23 March 2002. This
page's address is
http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/moretalk4.html