- Page 6 of answers to student questions on
the play A Man For All Seasons
- Links to replies on this
page:
See other replies at
page 1, page
2, page
3, page
4, page
5.plan
of play
-
Thanks,
Acknowledgements
-
- 20 March 2002
- i just wanted to say thank you for your
site.. there are not very many helpful sites about a man for
all
- seasons.... this one helped me more than
all of them put together
- once again. thanks!
- Nina...
-
- 24 Feb 2002
- Hi! My name is Jackie and i would really
like to thank
you for your website.
- I have an essay test tomorrow morning
and i really feel confident that now i
- have a feel for what the play really is
about. My teacher is a stickler for
- details and i think your website really
answered any and all questions i had.
- Thanx a whole bunch!
- ~Jackie
-
- > Dear Greg, Regarding the Email that
you sent me on Sun 26 Aug helping me
- > with my homework. I would like to
thank you for taking the time out to
- > reply. I very much appreciated it
and it is helped me greatly with my
- > homework.
- > Many thanks Shaun
-
- > Hi Greg,
- > Absolutely love your site, it has
helped me immensely with my
- > literature studies.Dear
Greg,
-
- 31 August 2006: I've been reading your
site and deepily enjoying
it. My daughter (aged 13) is
presenting Henry's government and life to her History class
tomorrow. As part of the presentation, she will be showing a
fragment of AMFAS movie, that of More's trial. I've found
your site wonderfully
useful for helping her to understand
the meaning of More's attitude, so she will be able to transmit it
better to her class-mates. The presentation may include any kind
of material, and she'll be airing out music composed by Henry,
she'll wear a special Tshirt with the portrait by Holbein on it,
the other two girls in the team will wear costumes, they'll talk
about Henry and football, they'll talk about the Church's Refomr,
Henry's wives, Wolsey, Cromwell, Cranmer, and they'll deliver
magnetos with Henry's portrait as souvenirs. But I believe the
most meaningful activity will be watching the movie and commenting
on it. I've made the transcription of the dialogue and translated
it into Spanish, for the kids to fully understand what is
said.
- Thanks for developing
such an interesting site,
which I'll be certainly visiting
again to go on learning about Thomas More. The site also shows how
history can be successfully taught to teenagers.
- Best regards,Analía
- Montevideo, Uruguay
-
What made Thomas More so "stubborn"
instead of
"practical"?
-
- He was a man of principle he was well
aware of the overall compromising going
- on, he no doubt could negotiate and
accommodate. But on this very central issue he could lead the way
even to the cost of his own life.
- It was to him so central and so critical
an issue that whichever way one looked at it, there was no
changing what had always been - marriage was the foundation for
society and such a public flouting of thatnatural rule has totally
abhorrent. I guess there were personality issues in there tool
that Henry had so publicly renounced his oath of office to uphold
the laws of the country. He was a renaissance man well before his
time yet his religious faith was a guide to action.
For a legal mind too I guess the weight of
precedent and probabilities demanded an uncompromising
stand.
Such issues has to continue through all
seasons,when popular and when not so.
-
humour
in Thomas More
- > Dear Greg,
- > For my English class I have been
assigned to write two short essays -"State and describe three
instances of Sir Thomas More's humor thoughout the play." I've
been searching and haven't found anything. Please
help.
-
- To be philosophical for a moment, I guess humour is
relativising, keeping things in perspective whereas
- madness, craziness, obsession is seeing and becoming slave to
the immediate detail without seeing any background. More can
always see the whole picture, annoyingly so: he keeps his temper,
his perspective his
- humour = proportionate emotional distance.
- He can laugh at himself too.
-
- I think your tutor means funny!! Suggest you redefine the
essay topic in this second way.
-
- 1. In this play, comedy belongs to the common man as a
counterfoil to the seriousness of the
protagonists e.g., jailer
- 2. Not that More is presented as 'straight man' his
incisiveness and wit lend entertainment of
an intellectual kind e.g., p. 17 to Norfolk you're
between the upper and nether millstones - a smart
observation of his unchosen circumstance
and then he rapidly recognises inevitable choice (as a
lawyer would) to shed the friendship to
observe his duty to the King: a terrible
choice. This incisiveness catches Norfolk out.
- 3. More presents a proportional response to what is played out
in front of him: The bit about Roper's head
spinning is a bit of sick humour or dry humour typical of such a
man with such dignity power and learning.
- 4. humour and drama often come together what about Alice's
custard tarts scene in the Tower - the open
trivialities, a pretence at lightness that
falls into pathos? 85
- 5. sometimes silence can be humorous (a wink is as good as a
nod) but More's silence at
- interrogations and at the Westminster Hall trial is deadly
serious.
- 6. bathos/understatement is a kind of humour as when he says
in p 83
- "I'd be loathe to think your father one of them."
- 7. Overall, Bolt could not have More doing comedy (as a
dramatic device) lest he qualify or
compromise our sympathy for his central character
(who bears the message of the play) It is hard enough
staying
- sympathetic with More as it is; If he were light-hearted
(which in fact historically he was very
urbane witty and social jokes), this might
unnecessarily lighten up the general prevailing tone of the
play; he is
- singularly presented having personal integrity in his life and
death dilemma with the King:
- page 11: Wolsey: The king wants a son; what are you going to
do about it?
- More: I an very sure the king needs no advice from me on what
to do
- about it.
- (NB the stage direction not dry humour but dry murmur)
- Greg
2006: I was wondering if
you could help me out?! In the play A Man For All Seasons how does
a single set and scene
changes make the play
theatrical? and how does it show, as Bolt points out in the
preface, that More accepted "the
shelter of his society?" Please Help!
-
- Hi Megan Yes I will try to help you out.
- I will take these two questions as separate as I can see no
link
- If there is, your topic is more complicated.
-
- Take any of of the crossovers from the historical action to
the common man at the front of the stage between the action and
the audience to illustrate that the play is theatre. These returns
to our reality where the common man comments and questions actions
and motives, and provokes us to assimilate for today the action
and drama and More's dilemma as an act of the theatre. Like the
realism of Brecht, it returns us from the swoon of historical time
and the dazzle of costume drama to assimilate the central human
and perennial dilemma of a man of principle into our own
situations as far as possible. In this act of conscientization,
Bolt brings the ethical issues into the 1960s focussing our
attention and making sure we get the message.
-
- The common man is often represented as reading a large book at
a pulpit or reading stand in fort of the procenium curtains
thereby linking the stage action with us viewers. He activates our
critical senses and we are meant to trust the common man as our
medium through history. This is an act of the process of 'modern'
theatre for raising our awareness of reality, teaching everybody
present not just the informed/elite/lawyers "in the know" about
such matters as it were, and doing more than just entertain. It
adds to the cathartic effect of his eventual death for welding our
emotions to that death and its significance as tragedy.
-
- On accepting the shelter of his society: this is more
difficult to answer. More was witty, urbane, fun loving, highly
connected, and an obvious choice for leader. His honesty was
legendary. I suppose we could say he both represented and
challenged his society into the Enlightenment. He was a man ahead
of his times. Society formed him but did not protect him in the
end. He was unable to accept its corruption and mediocrity (the
upper classes sleeping through the Sermon on the Mount), its
seemingly deliberate regression in servile dependence on any
kingly actions lawful or otherwise; he distained this herd
mentality. He stressed individual judgment after death before the
throne of God = individual responsibility.
-
- So I cannot agree that he accepted the shelter of his society:
he refused the consolations offered by Spain, he refused the
consolations of family life, he was very aware of his public
status and must have felt singularly chosen to lead the people
into new paths of righteousness like a John the Baptist.In every
sense he was a reformer while being a thoroughgoing conservative
to the long held doctrines of the Church (see the trial text).
After all what use/validity there they if they were not believed
in every age?
-
- Focus on the scene with Meg when he says he would find a way
to agree to the new oath. I guess this scene shows the most human
side of More we might identify with today in his seeking a way to
live in society by compromising with it within the safety of the
many. But ultimately he could not lie and so did not live.
- Hope this helps, Greg
-
2003 The question
reads "On the evidence of A Man for All Seasons, what do
you consider to be the appeal of
historical drama?"
-
- Any suggestions? What I have so far is
that historical drama not only brings historical fact to life by
making the characters realistic, but also by turning what might be
a story from thousands of years ago into something that a modern
day reader would find interesting and informative.
-
- Also- the fact that dramatizing history
allows the reader to make their own relationships with the
characters, and by being able to have, even if biased, an opinion
of the characters.
-
- Yes. I would elaborate further on what you have said, that is,
think of the opposite: What does history offer more than say
symbol and allegory? fairy tales with a moral intent? Realism can
be developed there too of course.
-
- I guess it is the particular circumstances of the time that
are interesting like in real life every problem is situated
in a particular context and particular parameters; action is
limited and a number of responses have to be considered. Scenarios
of possible outcomes can be anticipated and avoided if
necessary.
-
- 'Historical' often means of course a history we can access
e.g. not Far Eastern dynasties which are remote from our society
and structures. Elements of realism and interest have to be
emphasised.
-
- This is a criticism of A Man for All Seasons too that
it is too remote from the world of today; it is a costume drama
really with the issues of kings and nobles not our own. In this
sense, history is always about kings and bishops not the pawns;
History for the ordinary man in feudal times was predictable:
follow the Lord and Sovereign; his fate was your fate. People did
not have many options, little private wealth, few chances in life,
low life expectancy. Life was cheap and mortality short. History
was too simple and remote from our democratic-commercialised
sophisticated society.
-
- Maybe have a look at my own idea I worked on this week on Job
in the Bible for comparison: see Job.
- See also perhaps: today,
dialogue,
connects,
modern,
ahead,
ideologies, texts.
- Greg
Hi i need to argue whether
'power
separates those who have from
those who don't have' in AMFAS. And i need some examples.
thanks.
-
- Whether power separates
- Yes indeed it does; it separates who has it, who wants it, who
fears it, who suffers it.
- More had a great deal of moral power and knew it: his acquired
social standing, his moral record (most honest judge in all
England), his wit, humour, clear headedness, self-control and
persistence, make him a remarkable man holding wide moral power.
Everyone in England said they knew his reasons.
- Henry envied all this. Henry mistakenly believed he held the
power but maintained it by brute force. He held the crown by a
slender thread after the Wars of the Roses.
- Cromwell vied for power but won it by blackmail, threat and
fear.
- Norfolk and the aristocrats held the reigns (controlled the
feudal system) but unknowingly, foolishly and wantonly.
-
I was wondering how
could you relate the setting to
the theme for the play
A man for all
seasons? Thank you,
-
- Bolt presented very little local setting so it would not
overshadow his theme, that is, in 1960s to present a man of
principle.
- The setting for this issue is anywhere/anytime really, for
understanding the stand a man of principle takes against evil
powers e.g. Nelson Mandela.
- But the exact issue and motivation is complex and difficult to
convey dramatically in Tudor England so Bolt failed in this as he
seems to admit (Preface)
- Greg
The essay is "
Describe how a man for all sesons is found in the
contemplative mode
using reference of three
elements, your choices include
mysticism,reflection,insight,perception and divination using
refernces and examples from the play " I am not sure if you can
help me out but anything would be appreciated.
-
- First comment: the contemplative is
strangely apart from peer pressures, stronger beyond their gaze
and stare of criticism.
- Without using your technical language, I would say that
contemplatives create dialogic spaces that allow participants to
offer their own thoughts/musings/ideas into the public spheres
relatively free from consensual/dissensual structural forces.
-
- "Put in very general terms, political thinking may occur in
two different modes. First, we might reflect on political things
as
- ends in themselves. In this contemplative mode, we ask deeply
philosophical questions like "What is justice?" or "Why
should
- be obey the law?," seeking to find unchanging "truths" behind
shifting social and political phenomena. This contemplative
- mode is characteristic of Socrates' "classical" mode of
political thinking. Always critical of mere "opinions" and
"prejudice,"
- the political theorist's search for meaning and ultimate
values might conflict with the state's need for stability, thus
often unsettling the existing political power structures." Source:
http://lilt.ilstu.edu/mbstege/POS161questions.htm
-
- You can fnd some definitions at
http://www.noteaccess.com/MODES/Contemplation.htm
-
- "There is a trinity between the contemplative mode of being
and the active mode of consciousness. There is a wedding of
the
- two modes that gives rise to a Spirit-filled living out of the
gospel life-a transcendence not in some esoteric sphere but
embedded and enfleshed in every day living when we rise to see, as
the psalmist says, that "darkness and light are the same."
- Then we see that there is nothing ugly that is not redeemed,
and nothing beautiful that does not need redemption. It is all of
God-whether it be darkness or whether it be light".
-
Four
corruptions I have an essay to
discuss four aspects of corruption, political, mental, moral and
spiritual. I'm stuck getting starting. Need to cite
examples..Thanks
-
- First a broad definition and then your four applications:
-
- Corruption is... (I'd define it as "a debasing of existing
higher standards of practice and behaviour as has been acceptable
in a profession or public
- domain towards a level of practice and behaviour that defy
its constitutive principles and so erode that domain or
profession's standing, public trust, or practitioners'
interrelationships to an unacceptably lower level." (That's
out of my head - better to get a dictionary one!!!).
-
- political: the political process exemplified by Wolsey's
appetite for power and coerciveness at start of play; Henry's
obviously coercive power, Cromwell's threats of torture and Rich's
rise upon favour not merit .
-
- legal, in contrast to the generality, More stood out as the
only judge in England immune from corruption see Norfolk's comment
upon the bribe of the silver cup.
-
- moral corruption implied in More's stand on conscience against
family all odds his own self interest, repute and in the end his
own physical
- life. Also the perception from the common man's roles that
compromise has no limits, political, religious, commercial or
social.
-
- spiritual: the Bishops fell in with the King in fear and More
alone had to stand up to this pig of a man.
- All the aristocrats took the Oath lightly and lied to live;
Margaret even urged More to "prevaricate" to protect himself.
-
- Greg
-
I need to write a sketch
to show the differences between
Alice and
Margaret
and cannot clearly work it out. Thanks again for your help!
:)
-
-
- Different relationships as wife and daughter: Alice was
illiterate; Margaret was disproportionately well-educated.
- Remember in the film and play she showed more knowledge of
Greek than the King to More's embarrassment.
- Alice could challenge (I married a lion) and short
shift anyone.
- In Margaret he would confide. He understood when she took an
oath to persuade him to leave the Tower
- He acquiesced to her wish to marry Roper. Margaret understood
what she could of him.
- BUT he was a puzzle to both of them.
-
- 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!!! G
-
- Some headings/questions I consider you could pose:
- How do you understand an oath?
- Why do human actions and motives affect the divine plan?
- Does England need a martyr?
- What is moral courage and to what extent is one required to
exercise it?
-
-
- I was wondering what
the significance of the family
life was in this play? How does
the importance of family return to More's behavior in the trial
scene?
-
- 'Significance' is the meaning it gives, the context it
provides, the importance it holds within the overall theme I
guess.
- Well, Bolt's play and the film stress the ordinariness of
family for More (and that is not pejorative but good) - that it
was happy, real, always there, the love he felt anf gave was
constant, and the intellectual support Meg gives is very
real.
- So the rejection of all that is very significant for us at
least. He had almost a perfect set up and gave it all up.
- Alice was a devoted loving second wife. He had had another
chance at happiness and won it and gave it away in this conscience
issue.
- This happy circumstance contextualises the utter singularity
of More to this cause and the very public and strongly symbolic
effect it had on all in England.
- No one gives up such earthly joy for a hope of heavenly one do
they? He did.He agreed to Roper's marriage and so he was no family
disrupter, no sterile absent, ruffian; he was held in very high
honour universally and his family of course is part of this
context.
- Honour is the theme word for the trial; otherwise I am not
sure how family impacts on the Trial scene. The more important one
is the meeting in the Tower, that very intimate farewell and their
attempt to get him to take the new Oath They would have been
absent from the Trial; remember he had sent them to Europe on
different ships but they stayed; Henry had no quarrel with any of
them and left them alone.
- Greg
-
-
I was wondering if you could answer
this question for me...
- > In what ways do the
Common Man's words and actions
prepare the reader
- > for the subject matter and nature
of the play?
- > Thank you sooo much :)
- Mike
-
- The Common Man sets the scenes as sheriff of Tower, boatman,
Matthew (steward), etc.;
- he highlights the dramatic tension
- he links audience with drama
- he links the different episodes in the drama
- his reactions and puzzlement articulate for us what is the
play about
- Hope this helps
- Is this specific enough?
- Perhaps go through each time he appears and show how he
prepares the
- audience for that scene
- Weigh up his words about foolishness etc.
- Read my material at click
here.
-
- > hey u are the greatest, could u
please help me with a few more
quotes
and their
significance,please,thanks
- > --Common Man: It is perverse! To
start a play made up of Kings and
Cardinals in speaking costumes and
intellectuals with embroidered
mouths, with me.
- Costume dramas are not everyone's cup of tea; this is more
than a parade of history. The 1960s was an age of rebellion not
repetition of the past.Note that the common man speaks the
(anticipated) reactions of the audience.
-
- > --More: The law requires more than
assumption. The law requires fact.
- Evidence is the issue here: his steward Matthew was pumped for
information about any 'treason' he knows of and still Cromwell has
nothing on him. Even Chapyus could not trick him into
treachery.
-
- > --More: In good faith, Rich, I am
sorrier for your perjury than my peril.
- Lies and perjury is the pits (ultimae denial of himself)
for More for no one can trust a perjurer. For More, this was the
end of days when ambitious upstarts could gain advantage, position
and favour by dishonesty. More was especially disgusted/ galled at
this.
-
- > --More: It is a long road you have
opened. For first men will disclaim their hearts and presently
they will have no hearts. God help the people how Statesmen walk
your road.
- Listening to your heart is the only way people have integrity.
Otherwise it is the king who controls all minds. No one in that
scenario is safe from that autocrat bully.
-
- > ---Common Man: Oh. "Richard Rich
because a Knight and Solicitor General, a Baron and Lord
Chancellor, and died in his bed." So did I. And so, I hope will
all of you.
- Everyone wants to die safe and calm in his own bed I would
think. But to add suspense, the threat of violence pervades this
play. But when even the evil Rich can die peacefully in his bed,
one must ask is there no justice/God?
-
- > ---More: Some men think the Earth
is round, other think it flat; it is a matter capable of question.
But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if
it is round, will the King's command flatten it?
- No, I will not sign.
- The king cannot change the facts.
- The king cannot change the pope's law = God's will.
- > Thank you so much; you are
awesome!
-
> I don't know if u run
the site anymore but I need help with an essay
- > due tomorrow. okay here goes. I
need to know how Roper is
an idealist.
- > there is no info on roper anywhere
b/c he isn't a big character but I
- > need lots of help. thanks a
bunch!
-
- Roper wrote a life in praise of Thomas More (The Life of
Sir Thomas More by William Roper Templegate: Springfield,
Inninois)
- He admired his father in law.
- Yes, he was an idealist at least in the era of the play; he
expected the church to be more perfect as More did too of course
But More was realist enough to know it had corrupted
officials.
- More was very disappointed the bishops caved in to Henry
VIII.
- Suggest you look up William
Roper in the Catholic encyclopedia click
here.
It is mentioned that
Thomas More has an adamantine
sense of himself. I don't quite
understand why you say that he has an adamantine sense of himself.
Can you somehow please explore a bit more on this
statement?
-
- I only quote Bolt who said that in the Preface to the
play:
- "adamantine" has a couple of overtones:
- 1) it means large, beyond ordinary, very self aware, very
aware of his dignity and his need to consider every move to
preserve his dignity
- 2) It also has the root Adam suggesting something true and
primitive about his self that is was pristine/ untainted/
uncompromised and uncompromisable. In his soul was something
essentially honest and good in everyone (but often disguised,
ignored or suppressed) and that connected to everyone; in that
way, he becomes a symbol for the race.
- This is the medieval idea of Everyman - a common nature, a
commonality that all could relate to. More held this view. and
knew that actions would send wider messages than words. This is a
play about the uselessness of words and the frustration and power
of words aka the words of the Oath of Allegiance that More would
have taken if could but alas he would have had to equivocate (in
the way Norfolk suggested)..
- Greg
-
More's attitude
towords law, referring him saying
to Cronwell:
- Cromwell: "Oh, justice is what you're
threatened with."
- More: "Then I'm not
threatened."
- While in other place he
said:
- "I know what's legal, not what's right.
And I'll stick to what's legal."
-
- More equates the law and justice not realising that for
Cromwell the law is just an instrument for getting his way
legally. He believed Laws could be changed and perceptions (as if
what is just is only a matter of point of view or opinion rather
than a universal perception that honest men can recognise) can be
dealt with in other ways (threat, torture?).
- But for More in the old mould and training in the law, the law
was an instrument for justice imperfect yes but ever perfectible -
- it could never threaten an innocent man. Oh how he was
mistaken!
-
- What is right could be a dilemma for More about how to
proceed/ what is wisdom in this situation / how to defend oneself
when the might of the Law is turned against one. This is a central
theme in the play and shows how More is outmanoeuvred by the
unscrupulous wiles and cunning of Cromwell.
What
dramatic
purposes are served by More's
short conversations with Cromwell and Chapuys?
- They are short but significant.
- More will not side with Spain he is a patriot and will not
compromise with Cromwell or play his game.
- More's an individual and his adamantine sense of self is his
strength, at least for Bolt. That regged stock-sure individualism
may put us moderns off however. We usually seek horizontal social
support for our decisions, not a vertical God-me assurity.
-
- What proof is there that More, in
matters of state, is a cautious
man?
-
- He is a lawyer.
- He crossed Wolsey but is not afraid to explain wny. It is
quite deliberate.
- He is not careless- keeps a file on the bribery case in the
Court of Bequests.
- > thanks! - mike
-
I need to know why
Richard's rise to power is sad to
human nature. Please help.
Thanx
-
- Richard Rich is very much human nature
- an opportunist greedy ambitious
- all that More is not
- a foil to More's superior morality.
- "sad to human nature' is a 'funny' statement
- He represents what is natural to human Nature
- More represents the supernatural transcendent level our
'nature' can achieve.
- Greg
-
Hi Greg. Thanks for all
the info you give on your site.
- I've read AMFAS many times and I still
wonder why Bolt did not picture
the negative "aspects" in More's
life, as his obsession with
heretics,because I think there's an allusion to the fact
that some heretics were burned while he was Lord Chancellor (page
38: "the money changers in the temple must be scourged from
thence- with a scourge of fire if that is needed...")
- I also think the role of Alice is
sometimes very funny and interesting, but not many people realize
the kind of woman she was, the opposite of her husband.
I would appreciate your answers on the
subject! Thanks from Spain.
M
-
Well Bolt's purpose was to present a modern saint, someone who
stuck to principles through thick and thin and he latched onto
Thomas More although he is not a Christian himself. Remember this
is the wild 1960s.
- Re the negative aspects: Bolt is not interested in recounting
history still less hagiography.He is a playwright with a message
for contemporary audiences. Historical complexities only muddle up
the enjoyment and message of the play.
-
- Alice is not an antagonist rather a second fiddle to
contextualise the drama. This seems to be true to life.
- Greg
-
-
How do Henry and
More differ in their
nature?
-
- Henry: bully, volatile, proud, appetitive.
- More: measured, serene, cautious, regular, anticipated
consequences, aware of the symbolic meaning of actions.
-
Rating more on the
Kohlberg scale of moral
worth
-
- I am writing a paper regarding the moral
development of Thomas More and William Roper based
on Kohlberg's
and Gillagan's stages of Moral
development. Would appreciate any input to get me going. Phillip
- Carol Gilligan studied under Kohlberg,
but felt his stages were biased against women so she developed her
own stages that take women's perspective into account. I have
found little useful info on Giligan on the Internet.
- The assignment is to pick two characters
from the movie a man for all seasons
and examine their moral
development using Kohlberg and/or
Gilligan. I chose Roper because I thought he moved across some
stages as the movie developed and that would make an interesting
paper. We don't nessarl;y have to yoke the two together. Thanks
for any input. Phillip
-
- Well of course the top most advanced
stage autonomous is More is not understood and radically different
from the "lower" stages.
- Why Roper.?
- How can you yoke More and Roper
together?
- Roper has loyal to his father in law of
course andwrote his book Sir Thomas More.
- Greg
-
Sticking to principles
-
- October 4, 2006, G'day Greg,
- I just finished studying AMFAS great
book, no doubt about it. However, i would like to pose a question,
and hope that you do get round to responding. After having
finished my exams down here in Australia, and faced a lot of
questions, there is still one that gets to me:
Why is Thomas More a Man For all
seasons? Hope you can help me out
with that one. Just email me back if you can.
-
- However, if i may just one more inquiry.
If Thomas More is a man for all seasons for his ability to stick
to a principal through all types of 'weather' then surely
characters such as Rich and Norfolk are men for all seasons in
their ability to change from season to season. Bolt, must have
been getting at the fact that not only is More a man for all
seasons for his ability to stay with a principal through all
seasons, but Rich and Norfolk's ability to be swayed from season
to season: they too are men for all seasons...are they
not?
- Will
- Thanks for the enquiry. Sticking to principles through thick
and thin even to death is admirable;
- any principles that rule a person to that extent must bespeak
moral courage and superior insight.
- this is why he is the man for all seasons.
- Greg
-
What
manipulation
was used by King Henry throughout the play?
- How did he manipulate the society to
follow him?
- How did he gain their respect and
maintain his power.
-
- Yes you may ask but take the replies as opinions only! This
word is about the exercise of power and the play is about power
over minds; the tussle between medieval feudal authoritarianism
and modern personal responsibility and conscience.
- This question presumes a reading beyond the text really.
- Henry's 100 or so lines in the play is indicative of the man:
hidden, yet theatrical, and well working behind the scenes - and
so,
- manipulative.
- He was very much the king and played the role to the full; he
left it to others to fit in. He was powerful and loud and
manipulative: king with a capital K.
- He was royal - easily hurt, aware of his own inferiority (see
the introduction of Meg at Chelsea and More's restraining her lest
she seem superior in intelligence to Henry) and free of restraint
in a way we cannot imagine today. In short, a bully.
- He respected More; he did not manipulate him; he sought his
help and sought his agreement. Angry at not getting it, he sought
not revenge but perceived a threat to his own ego, his power and
royal authority. He used fear to gain and maintain power.
- This was a feudal kingdom under stress; the Wars of the Roses
were still fresh in memory and his Tudor dynasty's legitimacy had
to be asserted. Catholic Lords in the North were no friend of
his.
-
- Manipulation implies sure purpose and unlimited power to
attain it.
- Manipulation implies undercutting ordinary communication and
dialogue; using unconventional pathways like threats;
undercutting/beating the law to the gun, etc.
-
- I am not so happy to take this reading of Henry VIII.
- I think others seeking to gain favour manipulated those weaker
than themselves in the feudal hierarchy e.g., Cromwell ("I am the
King's ear") threatening torture More to extract an agreement is
typical of such low types, and low morals. Henry was not like this
but used them to his advantage and so encouraged them at least
notionally. Norfolk offsets Cromwell in this; he is decent.
-
- Greg
-
-
Did Sir Thomas More
cause his own
death?
-
- Yes if you mean he was realistic and in time saw/ anticipated
the fatal reaction (see the interrogation "even chop off my
head")
- But he was not instrumental in causing it ("I am no
martyr")
- 'Cause' can be efficient or material (agency) or final (aim,
goal, expected/inevitable outcome)
- He could be partially guilty of the latter.
- Perhaps he saw the effect such a martyrdom would have on
England -
- remember the bishops had caved in. He was alone.
- Greg
Hi Greg, I love your site. I am doing a
debate on Friday and I was wondering if you could provide me with
some extra points. The debate topic is
"More brings himself to his own
death" My partner and I are opposing
this, saying that the others in the play do...can you please help us
out asap? Thanks
- >
-
I've got to write a essay on,to what extent is
More responsible for his own
death? i really don't know which
side of the fence i could go on. Can u help me?
-
- It's a good question for the answer is yes and no
- I mean, it depends on how you weigh up the situation:
- I say no but society says, well yes he was responsible - he
could
- foresee the consequences and was not afraid of society. he was
willing
- to face death for his stand and it came to that in the
end.
- He stood out from the crowd; he was singular indeed and that
irritated
- the King and the parliament
- His charge was that he stood above, had a more superior wisdom
than
- Parliament: now that's understandable grounds for beheading,
don't you think?
- His idea was that he was following his conscience a very new
idea a
- humanitarian idea revolutionary for a Catholic and for his
age.
- He taunted the prevailing ideas of the age. see more
discussion here
and here.
and fanatic.
and here, self delusion.
- Greg
-
- April 2003
- Hey there. I have to write about the
paradox of More's good
qualities. The thesis that I've
composed is "Thomas More's qualities of honesty, faith, and
loyalty shield him from corrpution by evil, yet play an active
role that leads to his death." Any elaboration on that thesis is
greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch!
-
- Hi Peter
- The paradox you identify is that good leads him not to gain
advantage or victory but demise and in fact death.
- OK
- You might study the dynamic in a context though. What we
expect in a good world (a utopia) is that good people will
flourish (as Margaret says in the attempt to take the second
oath); More has been raised in a good world and these qualities
were right for then as they would be expected now in ours.
- But the world had changed and Henry was turning the tables:
honesty, truth, goodness, integrity, mercy and loyalty to
conscience no longer counted.
- You might identify the context had changed; the qualities were
still good and are still good (universally human qualities) but
their role in that society at that time for him has changed
radically.
- You might point out too that More would not compromise
with those times and all these other qualities were not allowed to
flourish until he compromised: this was a lynchpin requirement
(quality?). More a an active hand in his own demise. He was no
blind fool.
- Don't show him up as a victim of naive goodness. Hope that
helps.
- Greg
Hi I am a year 11 student
currently studying A Man for All Seasons. We are required to
do an essay with the topic 'Sir Thomas More is a
tragic
hero.' Do you have any
references or an essay structure which I could use to help me with
this? It would be greatly appreciated! -Andrew.
- Here's one essay plan:
- 1. definition of a tragic hero
- do we admire someone who has fallen on hard times?
- tragedy in Aristotle's definition is a catastrophe as a result
of a "fatal flaw" of character,
- it is the one Achilles heel a character has becomes his
downfall e.g. a gambler is brought down by it alone and not by
circumstances, drinking, accident, etc.
-
2. More is a tragic figure: brought low not by his own fault
but by circumstance:
- He did not suicide
- he did not choose death
- beheading was not inevitable but foreseeable perhaps
-
3. More is a hero
- of conscience, of honesty, of individualism, of Chistian
conscience.
-
How can More
compare to
Macbeth? (similarities and
differences)
-
- More is good Macbeth is a regicide
- More is honest; Macbeth is a guest killer liar and brazen
usurper
- More represented public interest; Macbeth selfish interests
(self ambition)
- More did it alone Macbeth and lady Mac in cahoots; More
suffered acute mental agony
- Macbeth self inflicted suspicion - witches; More was a man of
law, macbeth outlaw notional formalism
- More lived the spirit of the law - freedom justice; Macbeth
used it for advantage
- Also see my reply at title
- Greg
-
> - Why More died. Who,
Why, etc.
- > - The title of the book,
"A Man For All Seasons". What does it
mean?
-
- More died because he would not swear an oath on the Act of
Succession as is explained int he play
- He lived in obscurity then in the Tower because Henry wanted
his public agreement because he was such an honest public man. It
was necessary to affirm/legitimate Henry's actions i.e., break
'the Roman connection'.
- More could not in conscience agree. Play is about this
conscientious stand and for Bolt it is central message to his
age.
- Bolt intended More to be the man for all seasons - the one
reliable fixed point in a sea of change and relativity.
- The one moral exemplar for everyone a man of principle etc see
my reply at here
and preface.
-
I need to discuss the
attitude of More to
the
probing by Chapuys
and to the news which Norfolk
brings in Act
2 Scene
1. However I am having a difficult
time coming up with specific
points showing More's attitude. Can
you help??
-
Hi, More's two defences are the law and non-alignment. The tenor
of 'the times' (= agree with the King i.e. take the Oath means for
Bolt go with the crowd, join the relativism of the age, i.e., not
stick to one's principles which are seen to be disadvantageous and
old-fashioned.
- More rejects martyrdom (no need to 'take hemlock') i.e., say
anything to require his death for 'treason.'
- He is respectful of Chapuys but distant and very obviously not
willing to enter into colluding with him, even though they are
'fellow Christians', even possibly as Chapuys infers, together
opposed to the King.
- It is in non-alignment that More thinks he will find
safety.
- This new beginning after interval reasserts More's stand as an
individual that his opinion is a private matter not a public
matter, not even a matter for the spectulation of important
ambassadors.
- On Norfolk's news: he is initially disbelieving that all the
bishops (Convocation) caved in to Henry so readily.
- More praises Fisher for standing out from them.i.e., for
taking a stand on principle.
- Alice and Roper vehemently oppose his resignation: "Is this
wisdom...."
- Then the action allows the dramatic crux of the play "What
matters to me ..."
- More's reaction to the news is disbelief then acceptance of
the facts and understanding; this moment cements his future that
he would be alone possibly misunderstood. This event defines the
rest of his life and separates him from the rest by this very
conscientious stand.
- Greg
dramatic
techniques
-
- > 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. 27 Nov
2001
-
- Well thank you for your praise
- See my previous replies at common
man
-
- Bolt uses commonman as a device to tell a 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.
-
- I was wondering if you could help me
out?! In the play A Man For All Seasons
how does a single set and scene
changes make the play
theatrical? Thanks, Megan
-
- Hi Megan
- I will take these two questions as separate as I can see no
link. If there is, the topic is more complicated.
- Take any of of the crossovers from the historical action to
the common man at the front of the stage between the action and
the audience to illustrate that the play is theatre. These returns
to our reality where the common man comments and questions actions
and motives, and provokes us to assimilate for today the action
and drama and More's dilemma as an act of the theatre. Like the
realism of Brecht, it returns us from the swoon of historical time
and the dazzle of costume drama to assimilate the central human
and perennial dilemma of a man of principle into our own
situations as far as possible. In this act of conscientization,
Bolt brings the ethical issues into the 1960s focussing our
attention and making sure we get the message.
-
- The common man is often represented as reading a large book at
a pulpit or reading stand in fort of the procenium curtains
thereby linking the stage action with us viewers. Our critical
senses are activated and we are meant to trust the common man as
our medium through history. This is an act of the process of
'modern' theatre for raising our awareness of reality, teaching
everybody present not just the informed/elite/lawyers "in the
know" about such matters as it were, and doing more than just
entertain. It adds to the cathartic effect of his eventual death
as welding our emotions to that death and its tragedy.
-
- and how does it
show, as Bolt points out in the preface, that
More accepted "the shelter of his
society?" Please Help!
Megan
-
- On accepting the shelter of his society: this is more
difficult to answer. More was witty, urbane, fun loving, highly
connected, and an obvious choice for leader. His honesty was
legendary. I suppose we could say he both represented and
challenged his society into the Enlightenment. He was a man ahead
of his times. Society formed him but did not protect him in the
end. He was unable to accept its corruption and mediocrity (the
upper classes sleeping through the Sermon on the Mount), its
seemingly deliberate regression in servile dependence on any
kingly actions lawful or otherwise. he distained this herd
mentality.He stressed individual judgment after death before the
throne of God = individual responsibility.
-
So I cannot agree that he accepted the shelter of his society:
he refused the consolations offered by Spain, he refused the
consolations of family life, he was very aware of his public
status and must have felt singularly chosen to lead the people
into new paths of righteousness like a John the Baptist.In every
sense he was a reformer while being a thoroughgoing conservative
to the long held doctrines of the Church (see the trial text).
After all what use/validity there they if they were not believed
in every age?
-
- Focus on the scene with Meg when he says he would find a way
to agree to the new Oath. I guess this scene shows the most human
side of More we would identify with today. Finding a way to live
in society by compromising with it in the safety of the many. But
ultimately he could not lie and so did not live.
-
- Greg February 2, 2006.
-
December 5, 2005, at 02:23
AM,
- Hi, I have one quick question, I have to
analyze
irony in the play "A man for all
seasons"...but I have no clue....
- could you please help?
-
- It's ironic that like Socrates and Jesus, More the good man
dies.
- It's ironic that the most articulate expert in the law chooses
silence as his defence.
- It's ironic that a man who defends the Law so vehemently fails
to find a way to take an oath honestly.
- It's ironic that the friend of the King is beheaded by the
king.
- It's ironic that the most loyal to the nation's interests and
precedents is executed as an inconvenience.
- It's ironic that the most urbane, literate, wittiest man at
court is condemned by a kangaroo court.
- Dramatic irony occurs when Cromwell says "The likes of me can
hardly be expected to follow the processes of a man like
that...(sly) can we?"
- It's ironic that a moral act can have unintended consequences,
reverberations: the anguish and rightness of this one man's
interior act of conscience is visible and intelligible to the
whole nation. More takes his stand as an individual and that his
opinion is a private matter not a public matter, not even a matter
for the spectulation of important ambassadors. But all the nation
knows where he stands regarding the King's marriage.
- Greg
-
Hey, I was just reading
all your questions and I found them very insightful, I would just
like to ask about the role and
significance of silence in the
play, either positive or negative, i need three concrete points
that i can prove, so any help would really be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
-
- Re-read Cromwell's three silences in the Trial: the neutral
silence, the silence of ignorance and the silence of dissent.
- Cromwell makes out a case that More's silence is heard all
over England and everyone knows it is dissent about the new
marriage.
- That is a significant silence.
- On the role of the silence: well it is the dramatic impulse of
the play (and in history)- it made More to keep his counsel from
everyone even from Meg and Alice. He tried it out on Meg and
showed how the king could demand she reveal what she knew under
oath.
- Compare with Nixon's silence majority int he VN war silence
means approaval
- and in our law silence is consent as More so eloquently said
at the Trial: "qui tacet consentire" = he who keeps silent
consents.
- Greg
-
-
Compared
with The
Fixer
|
A Man for All Seasons A Play by Robert Bolt
1960
|
The Fixer a novel by Malamud, Bernard. The
Fixer. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.
|
|
Crisis fuse: More resigns the Lord
Chancellorship
|
Yakov Bok begins his quest by cutting off his
beard.
|
|
Sanity / connection with Nature
|
Bok's awareness of the passing of the seasons. Despite
his solitude, he is still connected with nature.
|
|
Redemption
|
- The movement of redemption is always from the
mass, of fate or the way things unspeakably are, to
the person, to individual acts of courage or
conscience, to some individual realization that this,
too "these tiny but volatile sparks of hope" is part
of the way things are, part of what is given
|
|
Imprisonment
|
- Yakov endures. He endures solitary confinement,
chains, daily physical searchings and beatings. He
refuses to "confess," and in his cell he comes to an
understanding of that refusal. His victory is that a
trial will take place; whatever the verdict, the
evidence of his innocence will be made public.
|
|
suffering More has mental anguish, Self
inflicted to some degree
|
- Borne bravely Malamud uses the schlemiel, or Jew,
as a symbol of one's morals and inner beliefs.
Hershinow also talks of Malamud's interpretations of
the Old Testament's questions on suffering. Hershinow
believes that the schlemiel is important to Malamud's
writing to point out Malamud's ideas on
suffering.
|
- Symbolic messages
- More this way is the way everyone
- can be expect to be treated
|
- Malamud repeatedly stresses that Jewish victims
are Everyman as victim, for history, sooner or later,
treats all men as Jews.
|
- religion
- The whole reason and justification for More; his
consolation
- and salvation in religion, not in antagonising
Henry, or outsmarting him or in tricking him .
|
- Bok's return to his religion after more than a
year in jail. Tanner feels that Bok's return to his
religion is inevitable.
|
|
freedom Faith trust in God
For More, God is the true Judge of hearts
|
- Bok comes to know
- that freedom lies within the mind: one rises to
God when one can think
- himself into nature
|
© G. B. Smith 2001- Source consulted:
- http://www.springfield.k12.il.us/schools/springfield/APTheme/APThemesStudentProjs/Malamudfixer/malamudfixerannotbib.htm
-
I have been set
the task of writing and essay on the trial
scene (Act 2
scene 8). "How does Robert Bolt make the
trial scene
dramatic?".
I have a fair
idea what to do but any help from you would be very
muchappreciated.
- Shaun
-
- Yes the scene is dramatic with suspense and a satisfying
dramatic resolution for More (Now the court has seen fit to
convict me, let me
- reveal my true thoughts" or words to that effect You will have
them
- Then he goes on to say what everyone thought he thought. Which
was historically true but cost him his head really. It was a
direct
- challenge to the King and all that had happened. He managed to
cross just about everyone.
-
- Why not plot the speech along an emotional axis, the taunts of
Cromwell rebutted by More's humour and superior knowledge of the
law, revealing the perjury of Rich, the Red Dragon piece and the
Bible injunction, the correction of his judges on procedure ("When
I practised at the bar...") and so on.
-
- This would enable you to show what emotional shape it has, the
impact it had historically, the impact on stage and the moving
closer to the denouement that was so satisfying to More and to us
the audience in sympathy with him. Don't forget the location in
the Commons, the microcosm of the whole country. Can you imagine
Henry lurking behind the curtains listening?? I can.
- Greg
-
How relationship
changes between More and Norfolk
- > Hi I need to describe the
relationship between More and Lord Norfolk and
how it changes
throughout the play. Could you please help..
- 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
- 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 eve hated More just confused puzzled by
him
- Consult the
Catholic Encyclopedia for him too
- Greg
G'day, I have to
write an essay in which I have to consider how theelements and
functions of drama play out so vividly:
- i) the causes and effects of when power
relations are in conflict
-
- and
-
- ii) the causes and effects of
self-delusion
or not seeing
clearly.
-
- It would be great if you could point me
in the right direction. P.S. Brilliant website.
-
- High tensions produce big sparks!
-
- The causes of conflict are many: policy disagreement,
personality conflicts, stubbornness with the past, change too
fast, poor communication, etc., etc. The effects of personality
conflict are many: waste in time and effort, brawl, power games,
messy resolution, divisions, etc.
-
- Self delusion is not self imposed blindness: being full of
self interest, self-importance, deluded, blind to evidence, seeing
only what suits one's oneself leads to hubris, etc.
-
- Of course none of this pertains to Thomas More He was striving
for what's best for England, for the cause of God etc. He actually
died sacrificing self interest aggrandizement gain fame and name.
His moral bravery stands for everyone to see through the
ages.
-
- I have no resources, sources for these sociology topics for
you, sorry Elaine
-
-
Hey, Greg. I need some
pointers as to how Rich's
character changes throughout the
play, especially in significant points where he is featured. I you
could help out. it would be really great.
-
- Rich had just graduated from Oxford I think. So start with his
visit to Chelsea: where More suggested he become a teacher
- But Rich had other agenda - for importance and power.
- This is rather strange as it is a feudal society and movement
up the classes was not imagined, or likely. Perhaps that shows he
he is a man of those times, reads the changes and sees that a
flexible conscience gets you very far.
- The interview with Cromwell in the inn where he first gave
information is overdramatised in the film I think; he seems
surprised he could lie. or betray someone. He has no connections
so no conscience no moral community to conform to; the wider (now
wealth creating) society was riven with secular diversity and
rejection of the old Catholic values. More knows all this and can
see no coherence in it for the future of the 'nation' unless they
return to genuine human values of integrity honesty, etc.
- Work through the incidents up to the Finale of the trial and
how More again wins the high moral ground but loses the war of
wills.
- Is the plan like this: Intimations of power; two ways: More or
Cromwell; betrayal; compromise; Red Lion; Chancellor; ultimate
survival.
- Greg
-
- More's
advice to Rich
- Hi Greg! I have two
questions.
- Q1: Why does Thomas reject
Richard?
- Q2: Why does he advice him to be a
teacher?
-
- More assesses his character (and this is an initial indication
in the play that he is a good judge of character) and advises for
whatever reason that he is not a diplomat.
- He does a christian act and advises him to find a secure
career a a teacher.
- Beyond that I cannot supply a reason
- Dramatically it shows a history in progress and how people
appeal to More's judgement
- Greg
-
- On Tuesday, October 11, 2005, DAVID
wrote: 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
- Greg
October 3, 2005, hi i was
wondering - a man for all seasons- norfolk says "the law is
More's golden
calf" what exactly does he mean
by that?
-
- In the bible, Aaron's golden calf in the
bible was worshipped instead of the true god.
- Moses returned from Mr Sinai and melted it down again.Exodus
32.
- an idol replaces what should be. Norfolk was exaggerating
More's literalism with the law, when he was respecting it as a
rule and an institution in itself rather than a tool for
dispensing justice.ie is there room for interpretation (Bush's
"legislating from the bench" in today's news) or must a judge just
apply the penalties like a robot?
-
- While Norfolk was not a lawyer, as a member of the inner
council he should have known better:
- if the laws are not upheld, society would unravel with
anarchy. holding to the law is the safeguard for society.
- Henry was tampering with the laws to suit his own dictatorial
purposes, making it again arbitrary as it was in ancient chieftain
times when the word of the king is the rule of law (not impartial
without fear or favour)
- In your answer quote More about his being a forrester in the
thickets of the law - he can find his way through the tangle of
laws. which he could and was respected for being the only honest
judge in all of England.
- 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
-
- 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 fifties.
- 1968 was the VietNam war of course so the freedom grew into
the antiwar moratorium movement.
- 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 there if it failed, because More was misunderstood/
remote /noble/ removed from our times, and
furthermore in a theatre, semi religious in an
anti-religious age
- Greg
- 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
-
-
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 possess 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 through it 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!!
-
Hi! We have this paper
for school, and your website has a lot of
info, but it
hasn't really helped me narrow down 3 of the
main themes/
motifs
in Act
1, that lay the scene for Act 2.
Could you Help me?
-
- treachery is abroad
- honesty brings no rewards
- no one can please volatile Henry.
4 November 2003:
theme of
loyalty
- Was More loyal to Alice???
- Should he have been loyal to his wife and looked after her
above his loyalty to God?
- Was More loyal to Henry? Yes. In his best interests (in More's
view).
- Was More loyal to the Church? Well yes to the abstraction and
principles of the Church but he sharply disagreed with the English
bishops who caved in to Henry.
- Was More loyal to himself? Yes- what does this mean?
Consistent with his long held principles? high sense of integrity,
loyalty to principles (see his legal argument about the line of
Peter in the final trial).
- Loyal to Christ? yes indeed! Preferred death and unity with Xt
than compromise with men.
- He positively deterred Chapuys - he held no loyalty to Spain
and wanted that very clear.he was no traitor.
- He broke the friendship with Norfolk - that loyalty was not
built on common principles.
- Is loyalty an important theme in this play? Certainly it is
the test of loyalties and forcing everyone to reveal their
loyalties or be revealed as compromisers and so opportunists and
so not loyal to themselves, or the past.
- More is a martyr to loyalty. Hope this helps.
- © Greg Smith
"How successful do
you think Bolt has been in his portrayal of
a hero of "selfhood"?
- > I'm not really sure what is meant
by hero of selfhood.
-
- Is Bolt's play successful portrayal of a hero of
selfhood?
- Well, yes and no!
- Are you surprised?
- The play is very successful on a number of levels and the film
even more so: realism, symbolism, moral, historical, cinematic,
etc.
- Remember Schofield made this play his own in the West End so
he was the natural choice for the film
- Have you seen the Charlton Heston film of it? yuk!
- see success at edify
and relate
- webmaster Greg
-
I must write a comparative essay
comparing
Thomas More and
Thomas Beckett (from Murder in the
Cathedral). I have
NO idea where
to begin or what to compare the two with (i.e. beliefs). I
would really
appreciate any and all help that you can give to
me. Thank you
in advance
-
-
- There are many very helpful parallels which More was
undoubtedly aware of too. Some
knights/thugs (4 in history, 3 in the play) under Henry II in 1170
(without his authorisation but in an attempt to take him at his
word "Will someone rid me of this priest?" to please
him) killed Thomas a'Beckett in his
cathedral - as dramatised in "Murder in the Cathedral" the play by
T S Eliot (1965).
- The current series on TV, Sharma's A History of Britain
has an excellent episode on it.
- Look at the Catholic
Encyclopedia Thomas a'Beckett was a
very competent commoner who rose to run the Kingdom
and it became a battle of wills,
personalities in the end
- I see many similarities and suspect More could quite well have
too.
- Greg
Is More a
fanatic?
- No far from it.
- His action is heroic but never fanatic.
- Fanatics see nothing else than their view; they are slaves of
their closed ideology.
- More was a reasonable urbane and humorous man who had no other
choice in his eyes; he says he wanted to avoid the Oath if he
could; see his discussions with Margaret.
-
- > Is there any evidence of More's
feelings towards Henry before the standoff?
- Friendly but guarded
- Two very opposed characters in temperament
- More restrained self controlled Henry appetites met; bully
overbearing
- >
- > How do Henry, Rich, and Roper
"change direction" in Act 2? (or 1)
- They get more demanding more unreasonable more outside the
precedent of
- the law. except Henry who could not do much to stain his
hand
- Why not include Cromwell in this list?
- Greg
HOW IS
MORE'S
SKILL
AS A
LAWYER
APPARENT IN THE "MOCK TRIAL" HE IS
SUBJECTED
- TO NEAR THE PLAY'S END?
HOW DOES THIS SKILL CONTRAST WITH CROMWELL'S LINE OF
REASONING?
Cromwell's rhetoric is based on false logic:
- Many kinds of silence (page 91):
- silence of the dead betokens nothing
- silence of witnesses to a murder is silence of
accomplices
- More's silence on the king's title, Supreme Head of the Church
in England, this silence is most eloguent denial.
- false analogy; pleading similitude of examples when they are
not the same; assumes observing is understanding something.
-
- More's skill as a lawyer is to have the issues clear; he both
rebutts Cromwell and offer the standing interpretations (not the
contemporary shifted ones.)
- The maxim of the law (a precedent honoured through time) is
qui tacet consentire: he who is silent agrees.
- Cromwell accuses More of smoking clouding, what is clear to
see
- More replies: the law is not a light to see by; it is not an
instrument at all (it is no one's possession to use inferred how
King has used it to his own purposes) but is a causeway, a safe
path for everyone.
- More: the truth is the best gift a subject can give his
king.
- 93-94 Rich's perjury follows as a dramatic counter example of
this.
- More's defence:
- this "Act of Parliament is directly repugnant to the Law of
God"
- Supremacy of the Church is a Spiritual Supremacy; this
separation was established in 1066 Magna Carta.
- "I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm."
- Surely this good behaviour is what behoves every good
subject.
- The King's title is not the issue: "I would not bend to the
marriage"
- i.e., agree to it Anne Boleyn as legitimate and her heirs as
legitimate.
- More reveals Cromwell's incompetence at law, his disdain for
procedure and his malice which subverts the law.
-
> I am a grade 13
student and I think your site is amazing. We are
currently
- > doing A Man For All Seasons and I
was assigned this question in which I
- > cannot answer. The question
is:
- >
- > "Throughout the play, More displays
a subtle, ironic
wit." What examples
- > from the novel prove
this?
- >
- > If you have time could you please
help me out with this one. I know you
- > must be very busy. If you can, your
help would be appreciated. I have to
- > have it done for Tuesday January
15, 2002.
- >
- > Thanx again.......
-
- More was an urbane well-read humorous scholar.
- He was well aware of the many levels of subtlety in his
dealings with Henry.
- Irony comes when the speaker knows more than the hearer
- or dramatic irony comes when the audience knows more than the
speaker or hearer.
- More's irony could have been entertaining even slightly
cynical but never cruel
- In the end, he had to be straight as far as he could without
confrontation, as I see it.
- His speech is suffused with asides which could be taken as
subtle ironic humour
- His treatment of Chapuys and Cromwell was direct..
- His talk to Roper about being a Lutheran was direct without
cynicism or prevarication.
- So he used no irony when it counted to be unambiguous.
- He never lied if he could avoid telling the truth about his
soul.
- Suggest you go through the text and pick up a few examples of
double entendre apparent both to us and him or even to say
Meg
- Avoid making him out as a prevaricator, or evasive or
lying.
- More was straight and to the point, e.g., differing with but
never offendingWolsey in the first scenes
- Greg
1 Oct 2002 > How would you compare Sir
Thomas More to
Socrates?
Both are:
- wise in a pure unmixed sense; uncompromising
- courageous to death
- male role models
- both open to the public; easy access to great men
- both remembered with a legacy of the human spirit
- Some differences:
- More IN the Establishment
- Socrates made a life time of annoying
questioning; a vagabond went about
dishevelled
- More wrote; Socrates wrote nothing
- More's son in law wrote proudly about him
- Socrates had no heirs; More a Christian
saint
Director's
instructions
- Hiya! I have this essay question: the
question is: analyse the scene where Henry first appears in
play closely. discuss what considerations and contempary
interpretations would have to make in order to reflect the social
and historical issues of the time. Discuss/explain how you, as a
director would instruct the actors to perform this scene and the
responses you expect from your audience. I hope you can help
thanks
-
-
- Suggest you view the scene in the
Scofield video too.
- This is a feudal King in trouble. He has
survived the very divisive Wars of the Roses and his Tudor
- dynasty is shaky. His grip on the throne
needs more legitimacy and an heir.
- To play Henry, Robert Shaw is excellent
casting giving out the brusqueness, irasability, physicality,
appetite, egotism, overbearing bully characteristics so needed to
play this part.
-
More is opposite: medieval, urbane,
comfortable in the old order, learned, scholarly, very serious,
aware of his need to show obedience/ deference and yet retain at
least mental independence and dignity
- The two are in an uncertain dance tied
and yet opposite. Contemporary actors would need to undo method
acting and follow an agreed way to play the scene. The tensions
are historically nuanced bu personalities, the Enlightenment, the
dissolution of the monasteries Act, intrigue, what's at stake,
etc. At this stage Henry was approval and legitimacy and trusts
More.
- Greg
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002
-
-
Alice different from
More
- p. 86 Alice I don't believe this had to happen." From a London
merchant family - deals with circumstances; but More makes them.
This is what More brought on and he knew it.
- Alice to jailer: I'll see you suffer for this! 87
- Bluster, false threat. like More to Cromwell: "Then you
threaten like a dockside bully."
- There is an air of this in Alice.
- You are visitor number
since
1 February 2002.
Return to A
Man for All Seasons website, moretalk1,
moretalk2,
moretalk3,
moretalk4,
moretalk5,
top of
this page | links to other subpages at bottom seasons page.
Page is completely non-commerical; maintained in
Brisbane Australia by Greg
Smith. First posted 13 January 2002. Last
addition 09 March 2007.
This page's address is:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~greg.hub/thanks.html