moretalk5

Page 5 of students' enquiries on Robert Bolt's play, A Man for All Seasons
remaining silent the three pressures Utopia dialogue between More and a person from the future Act 1 Scene 7 cause his own death More's moral dilemma silver goblet suitable theatrical set extent of responsibility misplaced trust cause of his own fate More and Jesus alienation device play meant to edify and entertain three characters responsible for More's death dispose of More quickly settings revenge anyone? Bolt's style whether characters change or grow finally love not reason cf. Willy Loman, in Death of a Salesman lose his soul law protects the devil relate to him today? significance of oath and silence development of self-image justifies Protestant Reformation More's philosophies true spiritual martyr compared with Shaw's St Joan compare More with Galileo compare with Miller's Crucible More a teacher? See other replies at page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, page 6, plan of play, comparisons.
What is plagiarism? You must acknowledge all sources: To cite this page: Smith, Greg, The best A Man for All Seasons Study site (2005) [On-line] Available: http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/moretalk5.html
Dear Greg I was wondering if you could help us out...we have an essay on a man
for all seasons...the thesis is More's downfall is in his misplaced trust...we have come
up with three points...his misplaced trust in the law; people; and his morals/beliefs...we
were wondering if you had any ideas you could throw our way on how we could make
our arguments more concrete and prove they led to his downfall. Thanks K and I

Yes misplaced trust in the law
the Law or the laws: abstraction vs concrete details, ever changing, goal posts changed by Cromwell.
misplaced trust in people:
harder to answer he seemed to trust no one he broke off with Norfold his great friend
he did not trust Alice or Meg with his views
mistrust in God, conscience
could be expected; he sensed his death
he knew it would come to this and faced it bravely

Prove they brought on his downfall (I prefer this rather than led to)
well the plot of the play, the events of history tell it all.
I suggest you establish a clear link as cause and effect e.g.,
his refusal incurred his beheading
the sheer simplicity of this cause-effect linkage set it apart from "arguments"; the facts are the best persuasion.
He must have trusted his confessor as he confessed every week.
You could note those he did not trust for various reasons:
well of course he steered clear of Chapuys knowing he could not trust him - he had other agenda.
It's a pity he never considered Roper having that one dimensional view of him (heretic).
Greg Hello great site !

I have an essay due soon and I have to pick three characters that are responsible for More's death. I picked King Henry, Rich and Cromwell. I'm having a bit of trouble coming up with points or arguments especially for Henry since he avoids confronting More accept for garden seen. I read your bit on that.

For Henry im trying to argue that even though he does not confront More he is a major influence on More death. He is not verbal about this, he does not appear at the trial, but yet he seems to be the root of this conflict between More and Himself. Is this a valid argument ? If you can add anything to this it would be greatly appreciated.
Best Regards

You say "Root of the conflict"- yes indeed.
One might imagine he hid in the shadows at the "trial' to hear it all himself; he felt More had failed him
He had no mercy for those whom he suspected oppose him - that is, his own insecurity showing.
Henry is responsible for More's death because
- he set up the original trouble the oath and the Act to start with
- he had him imprisoned and gave the order for execution
- he turned on his friend

Greg
Wednesday, July 23, 2003: Dispose of More quickly
Why doesnt king henry dispose of More? he esily could of done this. he goes to great lengths to secure More"s approval of his actions concerning the divorce. why does he do this? any ideas?

Also, could you briefly descibe the argument the king puts forth about why he should be able to divorce Catherine? How about More's argument why the king should not be allowed to divorce the queen? anything is helpful. thanx
hi ,

Henry is king and wants to remain so, he has just survived the long and bitter Wars of the Roses and he holds on to his throne tenuously. He needs to reinforce his legitimacy and acting dishonestly or underhandedly or violently without mercy would rob him of that right to be a Christian king.

He respects More's intelligence and his standing and his skills as a lawyer and a Christian. He knows he needs More's help in this great matter of the queen.
Wolsey had failed him.
Henry quoted a scripture passage about laying with his brother's wife being a sin of incest. Thus being sinful he needed to free himself of that sinful marriage and start afresh.
Well all this is theological argument for the underlying political and may I add the appetite argument for wanting the young, alluring and promising Anne. He needed an heir to keep the dynasty on the throne of England. Catherine had failed him in this one matter that was so central to him and to the marriage and to England and to the Tudors.

Of course More stuck to the cannon law argument (Church law) and the long held teaching of the Church you cannot divorce. Otherwise society would be threatened with unravelling a divine sacrament (marriage) and the king is the linchpin of society.

Such a teaching was further complicated politically by the fact that his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had been approved as an exception by the Pope (for state reasons = peace between the world's then superpowers Spain and England) and now a second request to ask for a dispensation from it would in effect be saying that the pope was wrong in the first place - a state of politics (apart from his role as head of the church moral governor) that would be intolerably compromising to his office.

Hope that helps. Is that enough?
Greg Could More be described as a teacher? What examples can you give of him teaching and how would you describe his teaching methods?
Of course he urged Rich to be a teacher suggesting it was honourable but perhaps not fame headed.
As a moral exemplar More taught the nation and history a great deal about human resilience, living on principles and dying for them, and his profound religion.
He was clever but did not tech Alice to read and write
He did not try to teach Norfolk but broke off from him.
He did not try to persuade Rich; he rejected him.
He resisted his son in law Roper where he could have made more of this.
On these counts he held back his wisdom
What did he have to teach? a lifetime of dispensing the law.
Who were his willing students/disciples?
He had taught Meg Latin and Greek or
at least encouraged a female in these learnings very novel for the time; finishing it was courageous.
greg
Why was Sir Thomas More not permitted to remain silent on the "King's Great Matter"?
>Thanks in advance
A short answer is Henry would not leave him alone.
More wanted silence and had a perfect right to it.
BUT he was a very prominent man even after resignation from public office and publicly a litmus test for legitimacy for Henry's actions.
Remember the Tudor dynasty was very precarious and Henry needed every
form of legitimacy, i.e., including More's approval but the died never giving it.
He got his way and Henry bullied for his. It was a great test of wills.
Greg
If you can, tell me this, how is the common man a notorious device of alienation?
The alienation device, a dramatic device notorised by Bertold Brecht, is meant to remove any escapism, any pretence, any darkness and mystery, any forgetting of our life in society in the here and now while sitting in the theatre. It removes the mystery from the proscenium arch so that the stage is in our space too. It makes the play a means of reflecting on our social policies and own own situation so that we can rebel against an unjust economic system if disadvantaged.Use of the common man as alienation device is discussed at my site at commonman.html

Whether it is notable I think you mean (not notorious = infamous bad) is a moot point.
It is only moderately successful, less successful than Bolt wanted it to be.
It is the link with the watching audience to remind them that these events turn in their own lives too, that More's dilemma is not remote, distant, rare, but part of everyman's life.
Greg
Meant to edify and entertain
My question is :"A Man For All Seasons" will last because it is thought-provoking, a prompter of conscience, and a play that must entertain and stimulate as well as edify (improve morally). Write an essay of 400 words in which you consider this statement in the light of your experience of the play.

My responses and a plan:
1. thought provoking = relevant issues for today conscience and
individuality still pertain as important social/ legal issues

2. conscience - that is its theme - although Bolt used the man and the
issue in the sixties for his own purposes (he was not a Christian), wanted to find a fixed point somewhere to challenge the moral laxity of the sixties. A man standing up for what he believes as himself is this pivotal point for Bolt.

3. a play to entertain and edify - well it is difficult to sit through today; it is a costume drama about kings and nobles, not the stuff to make a mint at the box office; but it does entertain 5/10; and edify 9/10 that is, it prompts us to reconsider our morality in the light of what we see dramatized.: Greg
My essay question is is More a true spiritual martyr or is he a clever political manipulator serving his won ends? I think he is a true spiritual martyr, but I don't know how I can find the evidence in the play. Please help!
This is a very humble man the opposite of the ambitious Rich and Cromwell.So his own ends are not his own interests, ambitions, gains, etc. He had estates, honours, the ear of the king, what did he not have?

What is a spiritual martyr?
This is not fantasy, fairy story heroism overblown. This is flesh and blood on the chopping block.
He is a martyr to WHAT?
> the truth?
> the old way?
> the Roman Pope?
> taking a stand against the whole establishment of Henry where the Catholic bishops would not?
Answer is he witnessed to spiritual values: honesty to conscience, a modern virtue after all in a still medieval age feudal age he witnessed to integrity which is beyond wealth, beyond honours, a conscience uncompromised is what so few could claim. He vectors into the modern era pointing out (witnessing to) each man's accountability for his actions if people who wash their hands of their actions: "I was carrying out orders"

Suiggest you quote that piece about a man's worth in the palm of his hand and if he perjures himself he will see himself run out like water throughout the fingers.
Hi I have an English essay to write and I was just wondering if you can help me. The question is: "More refuses to compromise his conscience despite the pressures of family friends and politics." Discuss these three pressures and show how More responds to them."
>Thank you!
1.Recount the final interview in the Tower with Meg, Alice and Roper. How they swore to get More to swear to the oath.
He declined saying he would if he could but the oath was a two-part one and so too complicated to take.
2. He broke off with friends - posed a row with Norfolk.
It was easier to take a stand despite pleadings of friends.
Keeping a friendship demands compromises.
3. political pressures
Cromwell and Rich and the Tower interrogations
the misunderstanding from the Common man: steward, boatman, etc.; its intricate dealing with a king who is a bully; silence is perhaps least offensive, wisest way to take. 25 March 2002:
I have a short project due in English and I was wondering if you could help me out.
The question I need to answer is, "How might we relate to the character of Thomas
More?" WE, could mean I, or it could mean society. Your help would be greatly
appreciated. Lynn

It's hard to relate to moral heroes to start with, and it's hard to relate to life in an autocracy today with so much democracy. Society today needs moral heroes because there is too much compromise, cowardice on important questions eg stem cell research.
Bolt gets our sympathy for his central character pretty well I guess and so we can "relate" to his plight, dilemma, prison cell, etc.
We would find it hard to overthrow all that he loved and those he loved like he did. This is hard to accept
We can admire from a distance but not imitate.We don't have to die to make a stand
Greg Wed, 27 Mar 2002
I sent a question earlier this week and received and awesome response from
you! It helped very much. Thanx
Now I have a second question i would very much enjoy your help in this one
aswell:
Indicate the significance of each quote in terms of artistic unity- theme,
character, symbol, conflict, irony, foreshadowing.
Quote 1. "This 'silence' of his is bellowing up and down Europe" (p.58)
Quote 2. "When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his
own hands. Like water (cups hands) and if he opens his fingers then- he
needn't hope to find himself again." (p.83)
I have noticed your tables makes things easy to understand. thanx for your
help.
Thanks for your acknowledgement too. Hope this table helps you now:

Quotation

theme

character

symbol

conflict

irony

foreshadowing

Quote 1. "This 'silence' of his is bellowing up and down Europe" (p.58)

Cromwell is disturbed by More's stand; as a public figure his opinion is even heard in Rome

Describes a lot about Thomas More: his scholarship, his international standing, his stature

silence betokens a greater truth

principled silence among the idle chatter is loudest declaration

moral act can have international consequences, reverberations (e.g. Clinton); conscience is the loudest voice

must declare it as he eventually does in the trial - to his own detriment

Quote 2. "When a man takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his

own hands. Like water (cups hands) and if he opens his fingers then- he needn't hope to find himself again." (p.83)

central pivotal statement of intent and theme:

More must be integral with himself;

he cannot lie to save himself.

describes his robust, persevering, persistent and resilient character

A most powerful symbol:

water is life and he clasps at eternal life

(Jesus' living water, John 6??)

goes it alone;

conflict inevitable;

circumstances force it on him - not of his own making

that stalwart stand is itself his fuse for the path to death

his mental suffering and own death

© G. B. Smith 2002
22 Oct 2002 I am doing an essay on how More was the cause of his own fate. We
> either have to support this or disagree woth it. I was wondering what
> you thought. Maybe it could be of some help. Thanks a lot.
See more at:
silence
death
responsibility

You will need to divide distinguish causes and extent of responsibility
It is not all his fault.
His death is not of his doing directly although he could foresee it possibly.: Greg
>Did Sir Thomas More cause his own death?

Yes if you mean he was realistic and in time anticipated the fatal reaction (see the interrogation "even chop off my head" comment/scenario)
But he was not instrumental in causing it ("I am no martyr")
Distinguish meanings of 'Cause'; it can be efficient (local fuse) or material (agent or agency) or final (aim, goal, expected/ inevitable outcome).
No he did not behead himself (efficient agent), he was a cause in the sense that his stand was the material cause of the result and his dispute was a formal cause for the charge of treason in that king's view.
I was wondering if you could help me. I have to write a paper on the philosophies of Thomas More. This might not have all that much to do with the movie... But am I far off in saying or catagorizing his beliefs around ethics? or would it be something like cosmology...etc... i really appreciate your help!! Thanks!
This is a research project!!
Yes you are on the right track with ethics and moralsity but it also faith and ecclesiology (theory of Church and revelation - that to be a believer you had to belong to the Church [no sense of the Reformers' faith only idea])
He was an Enlightenment man and he would have concurred with Galileo since it was scientific I guess
His cosmology was a Christian one
he was a scholar
For his ethics click here.


His political philosophy is in <Utopia> get a summary on the net; it is too feudal for us to accept today.
His son-in-law Roper wrote a lot about him in a book (I have a copy.)
His epistemology would be the legal one: sift evidence, accurate observation, rigorous testing, hypothesis, judgement.
Greg
On 30 March 2002,
Your site is amazing!!!! **if only every play/story had a website like yours, every kid would be getting straight A's!**
I'm supposed to trace More's character and contrast it with those around him as it reflects his self-image, all while keeping Bolt's thesis (integrity and identity) in mind. Help?

"Trace his character "seems a bit like trace/plot the events that Bolt dramatised in the play leading up to this
ultimate behaeading.
Whether his character "changes" like in a plot is a moot point. I would rather talk about revealing layers of character
to the audience.
You know a journey of conscience like this (my term I invented today just for you) is an increasingly greater awareness of identity, for identity is delineation from others, from childhood to experience, from naivety to wisdom. So identity is what More developed. (Scholars today say that Jesus learnt his identity gradually too finding out what being messiah meant.)
The others around him took different choices. Our identity is result of our choices really (who to imitate, who to marry, deeds regretted, etc.)
Reflecting self image and keeping integrity and identity -
you cannot have idenity in a crowd but suddenly England was a crowd of King-pleasers.
Having an identity makes you stand out and possibly alone, e.g., "It's lonely at the top."
The rest remain anonymous and single dimensioned really stuck in time for their misdeeds but More shines brighter today than ever before.
Greg
23 October 2002 > What does the story reflect upon the Protestant Revolution?

That it happened in a very Catholic country
That it was not unexpected
that it was very personality centred (that Pope versus that king)
that the would would never be the same again
that it was just beginning Elizabeth cemented it a generation later
it was needed (corruption abounded)


> What arguments does it express to justify change?
Your "it" = More's trial I guess; or does it = the Protestant Reformation?
arguments it expresses is a contentious statement;
the event does not express arguments
Are you asking whether anyone explicated the need for the Reformation?
I answer well yes. Luther, Zwingli, Erasmus, and More too to some extent (Utopia), expressed many arguments in their writings, philosophies attitudes to live ways of finding wisdom in their times.
Does the play or the film express arguments? only enthymemes, bits or ends of long tails of arguments
the play dramatises the times and the issues and the personalities quite well within its limited scope
A history would be a little richer I suggest.Greg On 2 April 2002

Hey greg i was wondering what evidence there is that More is comparable to Jesus Christ. I know they both died for their beliefs, and that both are willing to sacrifice their lives for what they believe is a greater casue, but is there anything else im
missing?thanx deb

Both lived exemplary lives
felt destined to die
loved by all
admired by all good people; reviled by enemies
made enemies
died not by their own hand
died for principle
suffered imprisonment
outspoken on the Law spirit vs letter
Say not versus but comparison
Jesus a honest Jew; More an honest Christian

.
Compare Thomas More and Galileo Galilei?

John Willett and Ralph Manheim's Introduction the Brecht's Life of Galileo (1980) say that when written in 1939 it was originally called The Earth Mover.(page viii). As a film project "really intended for New York" for "what induces us to think in this country is not ideas but action" (director Reyher)

(vi.) in line with Russia's historicizing thread after the [Communist] Writers' Congress of 1934 [a rewriting/reinterpretation of history so as to understand the present] Brecht's play is noted for the accuracy of its
scientific and historical aspects (ix)

(x) In spring 1944 in New York, Brecht looked at the play with a fresh eye rechecking its moral content: "it upsets me to be told that I approve of his own publicly recanting so as to be able to carry on his work in secret . . . g. threw all progress to the wolves when he recanted."

(xi.) Actor Charles Laughton commissioned a fresh translation [of Brecht's text] to decide it might well be the masterpiece to carry him back to the live stage. . . the Brechts approved Life of the Physicist Galileo a collaboration of Brecht and Laughton (first unsure of English and the latter unsure of German).

In 1938 its relevance from need to smuggle truth out of Nazi Germany gave it the edge of topicality.

(xii) In 1945 a new American text but the 1947 premiere too flat and colourless, not theatrical enough, a play to be read; "the facades of language [failed to ]give way" to something essential, significant.

Second production lasted only 3 weeks; well known that Brecht a convinced Communist; Laughton nervous of his career.

In Brecht's view:
* The recantation was an absolute crime
* Galileo's line: "My object is not to establish that I was right but to find out if I am" is the central sentence of his
play.

Others read the play too readily with contemporary parallels: the KGB, Stalin, Marxist-Leninism

(xix) Brecht said: "the play is a hymn to reason, [of the] need to be skeptical, to doubt" compared to the 'positive thinking' called for by Nazis.

My table of comparisons between Galileo and More © G. Smith 3 December 2002
> Both faced either martyrdom or accommodation, ideology or compromise, theory or reality.
> Both instigate a didactic turn in the folly of the human comedy.
> Both were believing Catholics
> Both were great men defying prevailing wisdom
> Both died for it (well Galileo died professionally = lost his status, prestige 'authority' in his time
> Both disliked aspects of their ruling regimes
> Both were in fact prophetic i.e., pointing to higher, broader Truths or Goods.
> Urban VIII (aka. Stalin) and Henry VIII were autocratic dictators
> Both plays provide assessments of the losses, costs involved in their respective conscientious stands
> Both plays stress the moral beyond the merely political
> Both settings were dark times for their nations (read here: times of change, uncertainty) (xxi) "the time we live in is an excellent time for fighters; was there ever a time when Reason has such a chance?" (Brecht 1942)

How the plays differ
> Brecht foreshadows a new age of enlightenment to come optimistic
> Bolt can only point to an age of personal honesty
> Brecht's Galileo is an optimistic tragedy; a hymn to Reason.
> Bolt's A Man for All Seasons is a sad tragedy, to decry contemporary death of morality; a salute to Love.
> Bolt searches for a hero of conscience; Becht anguishes over doubt about grounding one's ideology.
> Galileo: "My object is not to establish that I was right but to find out if I am" is the central sentence of his play.
> More's central line: "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!" Act II scene 5 p. 72.

G. B. Smith, Brisbane November 2002.
See also the excellent reconstruction of the history of these events in the letters between Galileo and his daughter the nun Maria Celeste now translated into English by Dava Sobel, Galileo's Daughter: A drama of science, faith and love London: Fourth Estate 1999. www.4thestate.co.uk
See also the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry.

Sobel tells a wodnerful tale of the infirmities, intrigue, exegencies, machinations and pressures G. suffered. His dismissal of Tycho Brache's explanations of the comets of 1577 and 1585 when more came in 1618 is a wonderful vignette in itself. His Dialogue published in 1632 was entitled: Dialogue of Galileo Galilei, Lyncean Special Mathematician of the University of Pisa And Philosopher and Chief Mathematician of the Most Serene Duke of Tuscany. Where, in the meetings of four days, there is discussion concerning the two Chief Systems of the World, Ptolemaic and Copernician, Propounding inconclusively the philosophical and physical reasons as much for one side as for the other.
The revolutionary nature of his thinking, the paradigm shift he was revealing is picked up in this quotation: "This emphasis on the practical application and value of science, so far removed from the metaphysical considerations of causes, set Galileo apart from most philosophers of his time. While Aristotelian philosophers talked of essences and natural places, Galileo went after quantifiable entities such as time, distance and acceleration . . Two New Sciences takes place in a shipyard. . . From now on, phyiscs will never be the same." Sobel p. 351.
The full references:
B Brecht and C Laughton From the Modern Repertoire ed. E Bentley Denver University Press 1952. and
Seven Plays by Bertolt Brecht tr. E Bentley et al. Grove Press 1961.
See also Ronald Gray Brecht London: Oliver and Boyd 1962.
28 March 2002, Dear Greg,
I have just received a Theology report to do on the extent of responsibility of the characters in "A Man for All Seasons." If you could, please help me. The rest of your site was a life saver, thanks for your time!
~Erin

Hi Erin
This is a bit tricky. Divide your answer up as: Extent of responsibility More Cromwell and Rich Henry to themselves, to God felt it was paramount, the overriding priority, eternal duty very little, very limited scope yes as king but yes as an heirless Tudor king he had to take all necessary steps too to others yes but a secondary consideration little sense of this cut wives' heads off, beheaded More! loyalty & love=serving him to king, and nation More separated these two; the higher Good for England was to oppose its present King "ear of the King" for personal ambitious gains saw himself and it as one and the same to history yes I think he knew well of a precedent in Thomas a'Beckett he knew his death would set an agenda for the future no none duty to history only as it impacted on himself © Greg Smith 2002
In 2002,
> Dear Greg,
> The following quote was said by More to Margaret before his death.
> What is the significance of it? Thanks for your help.
> "Finally, it is not a matter of reason; finally, it is a matter of love."

Hi Work through the text summarizing it at the interview in the Tower.
After all that has gone on, all More's attempts to avoid offending the king; he is here trying to avoid taking the oath to the Act of Succession but he can't take the oath in conscience.
For finally it is a matter of love of God not logic; love can infuse and humanify reason but love goes beyond it; love is self justifying; it is the great leap into the beyond that sustains itself and its actions;
love IS foolishness but it is the ultimate justification also e.g., dying for one's friends, loyalty to oneself, to one's principles, to one's knowledge and experiences of God to what one ULTIMATELY holds is necessary for identity continuity and conscience.
More knew this and was now resisting for love of his God, his Church and all he held dear.
It is a love even greater than the love of his wife, even his own life and his daughter!
Finally now it was not the logic of the law (for the law had fallen away as a justification it being manipulated by Cromwell and others now it was holding firm t what one knew was right because one loved what was right.
The choice was now clear and unequivocal; he would die for his conscience.
Greg Thomas More and Death of a Salesman
> Hi Greg!
> I am preparing myself for a final exam, and I am trying to relate
> AMFAS with several other works including: The Stone Angel, by Margret
> Lawrence and The Death of a Salesman just to name a few. If you can
> see any connections within these three, or can identify some
> relationships in themes, I would very much appreciate it.

> Sorry I don't know the Lawrence novel.
Comparing Willy Loman and Thomas More:

both are 'true life' tragedies
each man is in a crisis not necessarily of his own making
not happy endings
Miller portrayed Loman as an everyman; Bolt intended More to be a symbol.


Perhaps also see my links comparing More with Jesus, Macbeth, Macbeth again, King Lear, Hamlet, Hamlet again, Romero, Gandhi, myself today, teenagers, and Harper Lee's Mockingbird, Willy Loman (Salesman), The Fixer. Galileo, Socrates, Job in the Bible, Miller's The Crucible.

In 2002,
Hi,
> There are some question that I want to ask you,
> What was the Bible verse that More asks to see Rich's chain of office, and what has Rich done?
It is a challenge of Jesus from the Gospels (Mark 8:36 see i nterpretation; see also Luke 9:25; Luke 14:33, Mark 10:29, Job 34:9), that winning even the whole world is not worth losing one's soul, that is, going to everlasting fire for it instead of enjoying one's rightful destiny in everlasting bliss in heaven (the Faustian tradeoff).
Here is an extract from a sermon on that text from one of the second century Fathers of the Church:
" ... but a man will in no way be profited if he shall gain the whole world. Now he gains the world, I think, to whom the world is not crucified; and to whom the world is not crucified, to that man shall be the loss of his own life. But when two things are put before us, either by gaining one's life to forfeit the world, or by gaining the world to forfeit one's life, much more desirable is the choice, that we should forfeit the world and gain our life by losing it on account of Christ.
... But if any one despising the present life because of my word, which has persuaded him to strive in regard to eternal life even unto death for truth, loses his own life, surrendering it for the sake of piety to that which is commonly called death, this man, as for my sake he has lost his life, will save it rather, and keep it in possession. And according to a second way we might interpret the saying as follows. If any one, who has grasped what salvation really is, wishes to procure the salvation of his own life, let this man having taken farewell of this life, and denied himself and taken up his own cross, and following me, lose his own life to the world; for having lost it for my sake and for the sake of all my teaching, he will gain the end of loss of this kind--salvation."
This is the kind of either/or thinking that More would have heard in church - that his loyalty to God is shown by his actions in the real world, not just 'spiritually' As we know, he saw no way forward and indeed, saw an opportunity to make a play for God, and for integrity, for the old way, for law, for individual differences in a growing autocracy, and so he was prepared to undergo all this suffering, rejection, misunderstanding even death for spiritual motives. In hindsight, he succeeded - Bolt seems to think so - he admires that "absolutely primitive rigour" (Preface p. xii) that sustains him. (Note that for Bolt, the word 'primitive' has a positive, instinctive, true-as-a-die, clean/genuine/authentic/unmixed/uncompromised connotation.)
Protecting the Devil himself
> How is More's rationale in offering the devil himself the protection of the law?
> THX
It is an example pushed to the extreme for demonstration of its truth but the law is meant to protect everyone and so it would protect even the worst wrong/evil doers, i.e. the Devil himself. More accedes that protecting even the worst lawbreaker is one's right under English law. Thus logically he must accord the Devil himself that same protection to ensure his own.: Greg
>Hi, I need to write a dialogue between Sir Thomas More and myself, either debating with him or supporting his decision in not taking the oath I must act as someone from the future and may use past events to support my ideas. I am not quite sure what to ask...and how Thomas More would answer, since he is a humanist.
>Please help.

Take up a persona yourself like Gandhi, and ask More questions like:

What does taking an oath mean to you?
Can't you see that putting yourself beyond reach, even of your family, that you run the risk of being misunderstood?
Do you style yourself like Thomas a'Becket in 1174 who similarly defied a King, Henry II? Did you think your dissent with a precedent like this was likely to win?

Have a look at the draft on civil disobedience. and relevant links there too. >Hi right now my literature class is studying A Man for All Seasons .. . . We have one last assignment for the term due next week, and it's my last chance to lift up my marks,and I'd appreciate all the help I could get. Here are the questions:
>Examine Act 1, Scene 7
>1. What is the purpose of the meeting between Cromwell and Rich?
To buy Rich's knowledge. Get him on-side; see him as a crooked character win him over to the plot to get More; to stain his reputation in the eyes of the audience; see that he can be bought and compromised; set Cromwell up in our eyes as a crooked character as his perjury will kill More later on.
>2. What further qualities of each character are brought out in this scene?
Qualities or services?? Cromwell's conniving, Rich as above
>3. What does this scene foreshadow?
The next stages of the drama: the arrest interrogations and eventual beheading of More
placating of King, playing out of the battle of Good and Evil, New and Old, Honest and Corrupt.
>4. Why would you describe the set women as dangerous?
Evil intentions and methods are unscrupulous, air of conspiracy; Machiavellian politics, bad law and immoral actions

>Any help or pointers would be much appreciated, thanks in advance. By
>the way thumbs up to this site!: Thanks indeed!! Good luck with this last assignment. Greg.

How do characters change or grow?
see also discussion of theatre set.

Three characters change or grow:
- More grows more aware of his situation inevitability emerges would need a growing courage to stick to his principles; learns that the law is not enough to protect him.
- Rich changes from a pleading no body to a compromised somebody.
- Alice More learns to suffer steadily; suffers her husband's silence; grows more frantic and yet loyal to him
>Hi.You seem to know the film very well. I'm writing an essay on: what was the moral dilemma More faced and
>how did he deal with it? What did More' response reveal about him?
>The dilemma I know is his objection to the King's unfaithfulness towards his wife and how he wanted to divorce her. But what I wanted to know I what was More's response? and what it revealed about him. Also can I have some background on the film such as setting,time period?
>Thanks for your help!
Hi Tina
His dilemma was how to serve his God and his king at the same time!
In this instance he could not honour his conscience and find a lawful divorce for Henry
His response was to avoid confrontation
He was very careful not to annoy vex or rub the King up the wrong way but just had to withdraw from showing dissent.
He resigned as Lord Chancellor and tried to hope it would go away.
People held him to his probable views (and their own secret ones too, I guess)
This crisis revealed a great deal about his rigorous ethics, his perseverance, his loyalities were tested
He lost house, estates, office, marriage, freedom and his head for this.
Setting London England 1530s

Greg
Re: More's Utopia!!!!!
Date: Tue,06Nov2001
I was wondering if you knew much about More's, Utopia? I have to write this eight page paper about it. I
>have to discuss the historical value of this work. Whether the events in the work are depicted as fictional or real and can the info.be verified!If you have any input it would certainly be appreciated!
It is fictional
Like Plato's Republic, another paradigm work of political philosophy.
It is his vision of a perfect working Christian society
It is on the web-I think try here.
The word in Greek means 'nowhere' but through usage has come to mean a
dream-wish society, an ideal society- to be contrasted with the novel "1984" of course which was a warning.

Its historical value first; well it shows a lot about More and his idealism.
It locates a synthesis of religion and society that might please a Taliban but not our thinking in modern democratic societies. It is complicated and rather dismissive of women and highly impractical by denying private property and money.
We rate our religion a free gift to the Creator, not a system of beliefs and ethics waiting to be implemented (incarnated?) in human society.
Greg
>Hi Greg, I have an assignment about the allusions of the play A Man for all Seasons. I have to find the allusion referring to "silver goblet worth fifty shillings". If you would please write back asap because it's due very soon. and please email me directly. Thank you.
Hi, Sandra.
The silver cup is mentioned more than once of course as your question implies. It is almost a totem or motif of his honesty.
The goblet was thrust into his hands as a bribe outside the Court of Bequests
he threw it in the river but the boatman rescued it.
He gave it to Rich who bought a coat for himself on its proceedings.
It was mentioned by Cromwell in interrogations.
BTW., since Christ was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, there may be some memory associations for an audience in this too, 50 shillings.. Read my thread about metaphors and symbols in this play.
Greg :
> I am planning a production of the play this fall and would like to have some
> idea what other productions envisioned as a set. It's difficult to infer,
> really, from a reading of the play. Is there a link to a visual outlook of
> the play. Thanks.


Regarding the set for King Lear, yesterday I was reading much about the overuse of set effects in the Act III on the heath The view was that the naked fork of a man alone on a bare stage was much more terrifying pitiable and dramatic!
As for More, copying the film on stage is impossible yet I think some sense of place can be effectively created: the suffocation of Wolsey's study, the brooding darkness of the river when More was denied a ferryboat home; the stinking insanity of the Tower; the sparse bareness of Chelsea in poverty could be conveyed with a few props.
This is not my area but this issue is set particular times; whereas Lear could be set in outer space so universal is its message, it guess the particular pique of Church versus State, Tudor versus England, More versus Henry, conscience versus autocracy is time based - and so well known.
Another thought for a set- John the Baptist was a real radical - issues are black and white, no negotiations, or compromises. He must have been a moral figure for More - stark desert and Jordan River, a stark prophet for today?? prototype for all men of conscience?
Doing a total transfer of time and place setting like Shakespeare's Julius Caesar done as Chicago gangsters seems to be out of the question. What about a filmic collage with similar heroes of conscience: Mandella as More v Govt.?, a Greenpeace activist up against a Govt. to engage our collective memory???? The action must engage today's audience otherwise it runs the risk of becoming just another costume drama, irrelevant to men and women's moral and personal dilemmas in the 2000's. After Lear's dilemmas as both personal and public just like More's.; an exposed, stark and lonely set might just convey this modern dilemma.
Greg
Settings in this play see elsewhere
Three main settings to me seem to be:

Chelsea (More's home and garden)
Tower
Trial in the Commons' Hall of Westminster.

Why?

because significant things are said and done therein: meets the King avoids disagreeing
suffers imprisonment for disagreeing
reveals his disagreement

Adjectives to describe the settings:
Chelsea: feigned calm, tense undertow, more significant than it seems
the Tower: stinking Hell not a purgatory, inevitable, hopeless, The interrogations: persistent, perfunctory, predetermined
the Trial: stacked, climactic, revelatory, final.

"Setting is a term that denotes the local and historical time in which action occurs in a narrative work.
Discuss the importance and use of setting in the play."
Of course it is in the particularity of the setting that we can find universality. See settings.
Bolt wanted a universe message and wide relevance
Does More reach beyond English speaking shores.? Sure?
Importance of setting: not symbolic but real flesh and blood people with real problems; Mistables, worries, intractables like in our world This enhances Bolt's purpose and the dramatic power.
Use of setting: the river is a major pathway and source of metaphors of separation, flow flux whirlpools etc. see metaphors.
The Tower is one major setting that lends much atmosphere/horror/memories.
The real places lend major connection for people there today. Bolt exploited all this in his play. See also life
Greg Fenruary 2003.

Bolt's style:
classical, stilted, arresting, dramatic

thematic topics:
conscience, bravery, courage, faith
cowardice, In 2002
> I was wondering if you know of 3 incidents where revenge is seen in A Man
> for All Seasons.
> thanks, mike
No I do not
More's chiding of Rich at the Trial is not revenge; just a dramatic reversal of fortunes - More had no joy in seeing evil prevail
I guess that his perjury was seen to be that by everyone is a source of satisfaction but not revenge I would think.
Henry got his revenge by beheading More but no joy out of it.
Chapuys was denied much; Cromwell too
Their laughter at the execution is hardly revenge
Roper got none in winning Meg's hand; the common man survived but had no fight /injustice to avenge. This play is not a revenger's tragedy.
Greg

Return to seasons, moretalk1, moretalk2, moretalk3, moretalk4, plan of play, | joan_more | comparisons | hamlet |
This site is completely non-commercial, compiled and maintained by Greg Smith in Brisbane Australia. This page begun 12 December 2001.

This page's address is: http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/moretalk5.html

Extent of responsibility	More	Cromwell and Rich	Henry
to themselves, to God	felt it was paramount, the overriding priority, eternal duty	very little, very limited scope	yes as king but yes as an heirless Tudor king he had to take all necessary steps too
to others	yes but a secondary consideration	little sense of this	cut wives' heads off, beheaded More! loyalty & love=serving him
to king, and nation	More separated these two; the higher Good for England was to oppose its present King	"ear of the King" for personal ambitious gains	saw himself and it as one and the same
to history	yes I think he knew well of a precedent in Thomas a'Beckett he knew his death would set an agenda for the future	no none	duty to history only as it impacted on himself