Thomas More: A man for all seasons… but one.
In this paper we shall see that Thomas More was a very adaptive man in many domains of life, but one. We shall see him in his society, as a man with his family, his contradictions, and as an attorney at law. And we shall see the final aspect for which he refused to bargain was his faith in the Church, but mainly in his Lord.
Thomas More was born in 1478, and died in 1535. So the society in lived in was going through important and troublesome changes, and he has been influenced by this atmosphere. Generally speaking let’s say that the time was a hinge between what is traditionally called Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The overall air du temps was a kind of melancholy and pessimism, and More has not been spared that. In the religious area, let us stress that the moment was slipping from an all powerful Church, with no reading of the Bible by laymen, to an independence of the Church parallel or due to the development of the secular power. With the turn of the century one can observe the development of individual studies including the study of the Greek language and literature. The societal movement, at least in the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was leading toward a general literacy extended to women. So, it seems that the horizon was expanding for everybody of means. But all these characteristics did not establish themselves in a smooth flow. The society of that time in England had its turmoils linked to specific problems like the case of Richard Hunne, the royal succession with Richard III, and the relationship between Church and State. More had a personal opinion regarding all these problems, and he took side according to his own temperament and projects.
Richard Hunne was a merchant (a tailor, therefore easily suspected of being a Lollard) from London. In March 1511, his young son died. The priest celebrating the funerals asked for the « bearing sheet » of the child that he wore at his baptism. Hunne refused because from his point of view the symbolic importance of the bearing sheet was enormous since payment of the mortuary signified the subservience of laymen to the priesthood of the Catholic Church[1]. Richard Hunne was then imprisoned in the Lollard’s Tower, the prison of the bishop. Suspected of being a heretic he was said to have committed suicide in his cell although the rumor of murder organized by the clergy gained more and more ground in the city. Indeed, the outburst against the church swelled to the point of endangering the civil peace. In that particular case, More supported the opinion of the church that Hunne was probably a heretic, and thus should be condemned to the pyre. The people of London’s opinion was that the clergy murdered Hunne while in jail due to discussable the arguments supported by the church. More showed here his faith in the Catholic church and his fears of possible heresies going around, especially his fears regarding the Reformation. The fact that More would accept more readily Hunne’s suicide – usually strongly prohibited by the Church – instead of another kind of violent death is supported by his ambivalence about that. Indeed, More always showed some uncertainty about the legitimacy of suicide as can be seen in his Utopia and in his Dialogue of Comfort written in the Tower were he was imprisoned in 1535. Moreover, More definitely tried to support the Catholic Church against any act or sign of heresy, or supposed heresy, or when attacked justly or wrongly for a dubious act. So, in the case of Richard Hunne, the bishop’s agents were said, with evidence, to have murdered a heretic, which was not as clean as a heretic killing himself for fear of pyre or Hell. The point is More’s approach to the case shows a distortion of the events in order to please the Church, which was fighting not only the Lollards, but also against Luther’s ideas spreading at that time all over Europe. This stand puts More rather outside the social mood of the period, but definitely within the mood of the power.
Another instance of More adjusting to his own time is his trial at writing an episode of monarchy’s history. More always longed for a career in letters, although he was a brilliant lawyer. The story goes that Richard III is supposed to have conquered the throne by killing the two sons of Edward IV, his nephews, while they were kept prisoners in the Tower. Part of More’s decision to write this foggy and bloody story, which will be used by Shakespeare in his eponym historical play, is his hatred of Richard’s sexual vices. Indeed, with this work, The History of Richard III, More tries to teach a moral lesson, as it was done during the Renaissance among scholars: he shows that a good office should be kept only by good men. The opposite (a good office kept by tyrants for example) was indeed dangerous for society. He was but a child when the adventure of Richard III happened, and he used many hearsays to write his work, although it is very well done, even at times considered his masterpiece. The point is that, according to Richard Marius, his story errs in some names, and he makes other obvious mistakes[2] . What we emphasize here is that More, although not a keen monarchist, was respectful of the royal institution, and he was also a man of his time in moralizing through his writings. He was certainly not a Tudor at heart, but devout enough to strongly condemn Richard’s attitude toward the little princes, condemn Richard’s defects as a man, thus the story does reflect More’s opinion on mores. Simultaneously he strongly affirms that a king is sacred because he is anointed. Therefore a rebellion against the Lord’s anointed was mortal sin. The book has not been published during More’s life time though, probably because many of the actors of the murders or their preparation were still alive and still quite powerful, including Henry VIII: their deletion or accusation would have certainly impaired More ‘s career.
Another area immersing More in his society are the relationships between the Church and the State. With the accession to the throne of Henry VIII, we can observe a shift in the attitude of the king regarding the Church. Indeed, Henry VIII used different techniques to control the church in order to make the secular authority the primary power in the country. More’s fate, as an undersheriff of London and a Privy Councilor, was tied up in all these maneuvers. Although he probably saw the dangers brought about by the king’s projects, he presumably did not see how important they were, for the country and for himself. Indeed, when the Reformation developed and gained grounds all over Europe and in England More was fiercely against it, and thus jeopardized his position in reference to the king. In a way, one could suggest that in this case it is his « medieval mind » which made him blind as far as the evolution of the lay society was concerned. Therefore we can see that the man More was definitely very complex: somehow trapped between his moral and spiritual convictions, his ambitions as a lawyer, and the changes within the society, the court, and the royal approaches of the nature of power. Let us try then to make a whole of the many traits of the man.
As it is well known, his father was a judge who built a good social position for himself. His son Thomas attended the Inns, and became a prominent lawyer, very active in his beloved city of London. A very gifted man, he was what we would call nowadays a workaholic, eager to fulfill his ambitions. He married twice: with Jane Bolt with whom he had four children, and after her death, with Dame Alice, with whom he had no children. In fact, the marriage is said to have been platonic. A very dedicated father with ideas of his time regarding education, he was also aware that he needed money to establish them. As a lawyer, it seems that the Privy Council had been among his ambitious plans, at least he readily accepted it. To complete this brief portrait, let us add that he was a man of order, keeping his real self in check. All these positive characteristics do not hid his contradictions and maneuvers though. Indeed, in order to achieve his professional ambitions, he always tried not to irreparably offend either the church or the king: he supported Wolsey, and respected the king to the point of accepting his friendship, even if he did not believe much into it. He sort of always took the less dangerous path for himself like in the affair of Richard Hunne. A true Tudor in many ways allying masks, soberness, and ornament. These more or less contradictory traits are of course within everybody: a man among men then. But he was also a good friend, even if the relationship could be sometime disappointing, like with Erasmus of Rotterdam.
More has been definitely a friend of Erasmus whom he received at his home, and with whom he had exchanges regarding his literary works like Utopia, or regarding the movements of ideas of his time like in the case of Luther, to refer to a few. Their correspondence with each other was steady over the years. More entrusted Erasmus with the printing of Utopia although the latter was not enthusiastic about it because of More’s style in Latin. Moreover, More did not appreciate the pun Erasmus made with his name in the title of The Praise of Folly in Latin (Moriae Encomium: which alluded to the Greek meaning of « more » > fool, stupid). The relation of More with this book is difficult to define. Marius says that The frivolity and radicalism of the work are opposed to the spirit of his own work[3]. Modern scholars believe that evidence as to what both scholars were happy to read this work together aloud is lacking. It is then hard to say that both were intimate, although More took strongly his defense in his Letter to a Monk, a response to a young monk, John Batmanson who was urging him to give up his relationship with Erasmus. This letter, among other points, shows the arrogance of his author, arrogance that More could not let pass in silence. More strongly suggested that anyone who tried to make himself above Erasmus had only a little standing, as this young monk had. In this letter one can again observe the lawyer’s pleasure at being polemical, and of course precise. Because More was a lawyer at heart.
For example, since the beginning of his career, Thomas More was much involved in the affairs of the city of London. Attached to the legal and exact meaning of the wording of the law, he was cautious, prudent. He was also excellent in embassies, although he could be furious when taking side in a cause. It seems that he could not make concessions in a real argument that meant so much for his view of the world as we can note in this short quote from the play A Man for all Seasons:
More (Draws up his sleeve, baring his arm) there is my right arm. … Take your dagger and saw it from my shoulder, and I will laugh and be thankful, if by that means I can come with Your Grace with a clear conscience.[4]
His faith in the law was one of his basic defenses when tried and condemn for High Treason and it explains his silence[5] as it is well shown in the film eponymous of the play. One can see there also an attitude reminding Christ before Pilate. This leads us to consider his religious convictions and his faith.
To More, every human value had to subordinate to the eternal destiny of the soul. Overall, he was a conservative, as we would say today: the best theology comes from the Bible and the ancient fathers of the church. He was never to deviate from this view. This explains that he was so much against any apparent heresy, or would-be-heresy like the Lutherans. From that point of view, he was certainly not inconsistent; he always believed that divine Revelation came and was coming to the whole Christian church, and was of course not locked in a book as Luther claimed. The most trustworthy thinkers of the church were, for More, the old holy doctors, often referring in that matter to St. Augustine and St. Jerome. For him, the only valid interpretations of the Scriptures take place within the ancient tradition sanctioned by the saintly doctors. Overall, More always stood staunchly on the side of the clergy. Up to the end of his life he stayed the devotee who contemplated ordination before his marriage. Actually he always exalted the clerical state as if in doing so he might redeem himself from the guilt he experienced through his whole life in not joining the Charterhouse. He also shared the view of the Western church that the secular order and the ecclesiastical institutions must be separate if each was to perform its divinely ordained duties in the world. Certainly a strong follower of the papacy, a strong believer in the truth carried on by Catholicism over centuries, a strong fighter against Lutherans and all the heretics, he of course could not take the Oath of Allegiance without betraying himself and his Lord because when a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water[6] . And he thought that in these times of great changes in all areas of life, the Catholic Church was the last bastion of meaning in time and eternity. His faith became a very personal attitude: he did not judge his family when they took the Oath. Yes his Faith is his own Season, to be prolonged with his meeting with his Lord, although, as many men still imprinted with the Medieval Ages, he was very scared by the moment of death. But this conviction that the Lord was dictating His Law to him was his own deep truth and that made him a Man beyond all secular ambitions, beyond political maneuvers, beyond any friendship no matter how deep it had been in this world. He was beyond all human illusions. He showed in this « stubbornness » that if he had been a man for all seasons, he was at the very heart a man of only one season: the Season of His Lord, as he wrote in this prayer before dying:
Of worldly substance, friends, liberty, life and all, to set the loss
at right nought for the winning of Christ;
To think most enemies my best friends;
For the brethren of Joseph could never have done him so much
good with their love and favor as they did him with their malice and hatred,
These minds are more to be desired of every man,
than all the treasure of all the princes and kings, Christian and heathen, were it
gathered and laid together all upon one heap.
[1] Marius, Richard. Thomas More. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.
[2] Marius, Richard, op.cit., p. 99.
[3] Marius, Richard. op.cit, p. 91.
[4] Bolt, Robert. A man for all Seasons, act I. New York: Vintage Book, 1960.
[5] A man for All Seasons, film. Zinneman, director. 1966.
[6] Bolt, Robert. Op.cit, act 2