Essay on a Man For All Seasons - By Robert Bolt: Mores Moral Dilemma

Honor is not the all mighty,

same rights and chances and then he did not take on a case because the

He would get this because he is very

Although it is believed that honor is acquired by having immense power and dedication, as seen in A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, having the traits of loyalty and the willingness to make sacrifices truly describes honor, as seen in Antigone, A Tale of Two Cities, and Julius Caesar. Some people might argue that one who has power and determination is honorable

In the beginning of A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More is introduced as a profoundly religious man focused on adhering to the laws of his country and faith. As the play progresses the audience sees More putting further faith into his belief that by abiding to the present laws and withholding his opinion about King Henry VIII’s divorce he will be protected from prosecution. The issue starts when the King wishes to divorce his brother’s wife, who initially he had taken as his own through a special papal dispensation, in order to wed Queen Anne and produce a male heir. More, being a devoutly religious man, realizes this goes against the laws of the Church. He refuses to give his willing approval based on the fact it is not morally or

In Shakespeare’s play, “Henry IV Part 1”, the concept of honour plays a huge role in the characters. Shakespeare’s presents the concept of honour through the characters like Falstaff and Hotspur to give readers a reflection on individual’s personality and values. For Hotspur, honour feelings relate to commitment towards his chivalric duty on the battlefield, an obsession about reputation and good name. Whereas, Falstaff views on honour are totally opposite. Falstaff, a coward man lack the concept of honour.

To look at Jesus as simply a good man who had a philosophy of doing

“I’ve got more than enough money for my daughter. What I need is honour. I intend to make her a marquise” (226).

                In some literature, a character’s moral stature plays an important role.  In the play, A Man for All Seasons, by Robert Bolt, no other character comes close to More’s moral reputation.  Thomas Cromwell and Richard Rich do not compare to More’s moral stature because both Rich and Cromwell lie, while Rich accepts bribes and Cromwell does anything King Henry VIII tells him to no matter what it is, and they will do whatever it takes to get what they want.  More on the other hand, would not lie no matter what the consequences would be, he would not accept a bribe under any circumstance and he would never go against his morals.

He feels that if More publicizes the divorce it would proceed without a great amount of public revolt as he is such a man of his principles and religion. He hopes that the people would see that if More is promoting the divorce than it must be acceptable. At one point in the play, King Henry tells More, “not to pursue me on this matter”(54), but after More accepted the position of Chancellor, King Henry began badgering him to help with the affair. Henry’s behaviour became more violent and intense towards More as he continually declines to comment on the divorce. Despite the fact that King Henry promised again to More, “There, you have my word – I’ll leave you out of it” (56), he hired Cromwell to try to convince him to make a statement. King Henry wanted More’s approval so badly that he comes up with two possible scenarios. He “Wants either Sir Thomas More to bless his marriage or Sir Thomas More destroyed” (119).

The main plot in the play “A Man For All Seasons” by Robert Bolt is corruption, more specifically political corruption. While the play focuses heavily on the social demise, and moral strength of the character Thomas More. It also covers the inverse process with other characters, such as; Richard Rich, Thomas Cromwell, and the king of England Henry VIII. In the play Thomas More stands as a beacon of selfhood and virtue, while the other three men used manipulation and disloyalty, to gain wealth and power, no matter what the consequences may be.

Despite what many may think, More would rather not get involved or influence the life of the king concerning the divorce. To most people signing the oath is a minor thing. It is something that should be done to appease the King , despite personal beliefs. However, for More his decision to sign the oath must be based on his beliefs. If he were to sign the oath he would lose all self respect. The audience learns this when he says " I neither could nor would rule my King. But there's a little...little, area...where I must rule myself. It's very little-less to him than a tennis court."(Bolt, p 59).

Cromwell manages to persuade Rich that King Henry’s divorce would be convenient not only to himself but everyone else as well. Cromwell uses Rich to bring King Henry a step closer to getting more to bless his marriage, only to fall victim to King Henry’s cruel punishments later on in the play. The irony displays the corrupted way in which society is

In the play A Man For All Seasons, the main character is Sir Thomas More. Sir Thomas is the Chancellor of England and a very religious man. Once, during a conversation with Wolsey (Chancellor at the time) about the King needing a son, Wolsey asks if Sir Thomas would like to govern the whole country by prayer and Sir Thomas agrees. This shows how strong his faith was. Sir Thomas is a friend of King Henry VIII, but when he disagreed with the King’s opinion on marriage, he was beheaded. King Henry was married to Catherine of Argon, the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain. Catherine was Henry’s brother’s widow. King Henry and Catherine were married “for State reasons”, but although Catherine was pregnant many times, only one child

This shift from promoting an ideal 'Utopia ' in his work to openly and aggressively defending the Catholic Church is one of the first examples of the Reformations affect on changing political discourse from criticisms to open violent outbursts and pleas of aggression. Adding to this further is More 's response to Tyndale in 1531, where More states the Reformation is a genuine danger to all of Catholic society4. More was eventually executed but stated “I die the Kings faithful servant, but Gods First”5 revealing although More hated the Reformation, he had stood by his religious values, including his King, making his political writing still plausible in terms of how an authority, such as a monarch, could work hand in hand in a religious society. More 's response to Tyndale and final words shows how much his own way of political discourse had shifted through the years of the reformation, as he had called for violence in the early years 1517, aggressively insulted protestant philosophers such as Luther, but had now consorted to reason. Therefore it can be concluded that many of the philosophers actions during the early years of the Reformation were shock reactions to this shift in power and apparent attack on the perceived 'Catholic state ' rather than a true change in political discourse, as many of the underlying religious opinions in political writing has been retained.