A Man for All Seasons Essays

‘Both the decline of a man of principle and the steady rise of an opportunist are
discussed in A Man for all Seasons’.

“Convenience is the constant factor.” So declares the pragmatic Cromwell with

smug self-satisfaction, this approach in life completely contrasting the humble More
who solely aims for a “quiet life” to serve God. Inevitably, the convictions for which
More stands for leads him into a reluctant martyrdom. In A Man for all Seasons,
playwright Robert Bolt explores the consequences of men motivated primary by
“appetite”, whether it be lust for power, greed, status or self-protection. Though
these opportunists may have temporal earthly success Bolt however does not
position the audience to admire their voracious self-promotion. It is the frail
humanity of More whose gaze is spiritual and whose motivation is to protect that
“little area the size of a tennis court” who Bolt endorses, his ability to prioritise his
god before his own life being an attribute of a true moral hero.

Cromwell, never checked by prompting of his conscience, has no trouble in

compromising any aspect of himself in order to move up the hierarchy of the State.
He is a pragmatist driven by “success” which he can never get “enough” of. Bolt
establishes early his unscrupulous means of obtaining power. As a self proclaimed
“King’s Ear”, his sycophantic measures in appeasing the King are exposed through
his statement of “when the King wants something done, I do it.” It is obvious that he
is happy to perjure his soul as long as the situation is “convenient” for him,
justifying why people are already calling him “the coming man”. Indeed Cromwell’s
lack of principles allows him to readily climb the political ladder as there is nothing
to stop his dishonest acts of political expediency, unlike More’s “moral squint”.
Cromwell even creates a “finer mesh” in order to trap the “innocent” More by
“creating a law”. However, Bolt leaves us feeling disgusted and fearful of
Cromwell’s sadism through his action of burning Rich’s hand in the “candle flame”.
Cromwell’s “triumphant” expression reveals the nature of his ruthlessness and
indicates that rise in status is capable of reducing men to such amoral figures.

Though Rich is initially reluctant to “lose [his] innocence” for status, his perjury
and consequent compromising of his own soul ultimately grants him a “position”.
Bolt quickly establishes Rich’s weakness in character through his citing of the
Machiavellian theory of “every man has his price”. The way in which he “swiftly”
retrieves More’s bribed cup, though More feels as if it were “contaminated”,
suggests that he is unethical, especially when he dismisses it quickly and deems it
as “worth the risk”. We see how easily Rich is tempted, his hunger for power
overriding his tugging conscience which we briefly glimpse as he admits “I would
much rather [More] than Cromwell!” However, though we may sympathise with Rich
in the way which he is “adrift”, we do not endorse the duplicitous way in which he
operates. His token admiration for More is but a small bridge to cross before falling
into the waters of corruption. The way in which he smiles at Cromwell “willingly”
and later “indulgently” highlights his obsequious attitude to those in authority,
especially when an offer is involved. Though Rich is clearly “unhappy” and
“stubborn” when replying to Cromwell’s taunting, it does not deter him from
becoming political partners with him if it were to grant him “something” in return.
Though he is aware of Cromwell’s trickery and dishonesty, his quest for “office” and
recognition is of greater importance than retaining his morality. Through the
Brechtian device of the Common Man’s informing that Rich ultimately “dies in bed”,
we feel disgust at a system that promotes and protects such devious sycophants. In
fact, Bolt positions us to feel repulsed by Rich’s dwindling morality which has
gradually evaporated. As More says with a mixture of “pain and amusement”: “It
profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world”, this being precisely what
Rich did in exchange for his desires. Though able to ride these “current and eddies”
of corruption, Rich’s rise in power accounts for his lost morality.

While opportunists like Rich and Cromwell continue to rise in status, we observe
the cost of having principles through More’s social downfall. Bolt quickly sets More
aside as a man of an “adamantine” selfhood through his juxtaposition between
More and Rich. While Rich dreams of “a gown like [More’s]”, More would rather “a
quiet life” and considers office to be “inflicted” onto him. We see here that More
does not desire this recognition that Rich craves for, but instead longs to live life
pleasing to God alongside his family and friends. The Common Man’s commentary
that More’s values will cause him to “be out of practice” hints at More’s death and
instantly informs the audience that remaining steadfast may have a high personal
cost. And that is what happens exactly – though More lives unflinchingly according
to the prompting of his conscience and is completely devoted to God, his moral
purity fails him in surviving such a corrupt moral landscape. We learn that in “the
times”, political opportunists are completely self-serving and are capable of lying,
abandoning beliefs and cheating, which contrasts the honesty in which More
operates. Thus it is no wonder More cannot overcome the “blackness” of the
“waters silting up”, even though he attempts to shelter himself “within the thickets
of the law” as a desperate means of survival. His naïve trust in the law and
humanity is also another aspect that accounts for his decline, as both ultimately fail
him. While More considers “man’s law” as the “safest place”, little does he realise
the corruption of Cromwell and Rich who “cut [the laws] down” through the ruthless
trickery. The cowardly complicity of the Common Man’s desire to be a “plain, simple
man” also destroys More’s only chance of surviving, More’s disbelief reflected in his
“passionate” voice as humanity has reached the epitome of corruption. As we
explore More’s social decline, we discover how all material possession can be lost
when sticking firm to beliefs. From Lord Chancellor to a man who gains warmth
from a “bracken fire”, to a reduced “aged”, “pale” and “wary” figure in prison, we
understand the great personal cost involved for More’s stance and faithfulness to
his convictions. Though all is lost for More at the end in terms of his possessions,
family and life, he retains his integrity as he transcends above these waters of
corruption.

Bolt demonstrates that having moral standards will involve suffering, as shown
through More’s wealthy household dwindling to a mere three members who “sit in
the dark”. However, his principles are more deeply etched on his soul than the
opportunists who are “intoxicated” by their success, having few scruples in their
quick abandonment of beliefs. Though More appears to have died in vain, his moral
fortitude continues to be a timeless reminder of the importance of having principles
especially in the time of crises. He is not a seasonal man whose moral code
continues to remain constant even through the shifting environment, indeed the
only “man for all seasons”.

‘The characters regard their personal beliefs as being more important than
relationships.’ Discuss.

“Affection goes…deep in me, but only God is love right through.” So says Sir
Thomas More, wanting to maintain his relationship with his family and friends,
however places God’s law “much above” man. In A Man for all Seasons, playwright
Robert Bolt explores how men prioritise in satisfying their own “appetites” before
considering friendship. Whether it be lust for money, status, power or self-
protection, many political pragmatists chose to be “intoxicated” in their self-serving
motives over human compassion. Though not many value the concept of friendship,
we see through More’s humanity how deeply he wishes to enjoy life with his family
and friends, yet, cannot abandon his personal beliefs. It is More’s ability to
compromise his own earthly pleasures, even relationships, for his convictions which
Bolt endorses and we admire his morality which is not seasonal.

Bolt uses the political pragmatist Cromwell to construct a picture of how

relationships are used as a stepping stone in a pursuit of political advancement to
move up the State. It is evident that Cromwell is scheming and duplicitous in the
way in which Bolt introduces him, his “exaggerated pleasure” in greeting More
highlighting this feature. We are left with the initial impression that Cromwell is a
man who believes in political expediency, the Common Man’s addressing of him as
“the coming man” reinforcing Cromwell’s hunger for status. Indeed as the play
progresses, we understand that there is no room for friendship in Cromwell’s mind
as he is solely driven by “success” which was “never enough” to satiate him. His
sycophantic measures to please the king are observed through his self proclamation
as a “King’s Ear” whose philosophy is simple: to “do” whatever “the king wants
done”, even if it requires him to abandon his moral code. Though Cromwell is
arguably loyal to the king, his so called devotion is actually an underlying attempt
to promote himself. He is like a “jackal with sharp teeth” in the way he tolerates
King Henry’s “innocent fancies” while “preparing” himself for “higher things”.
Similarly in his alignment with Rich, Bolt highlights this feigned “friendship” through
Cromwell’s shifting tone. From an initial doting tone of a “kindly teacher” to the
ruthlessness towards Rich, he values the information of his political partner more
than their relationship. Thus when Cromwell “triumphantly” burns Rich, the scene
ends with an image of innate sadism. Bolt leaves us fearful of the amorality of
Cromwell and we are sure that men like him place no value on relationships as
success always overrides compassion.

Though we can liken Rich’s lust for power to Cromwell’s belief in “convenience”,
we at least glimpse his initial moral doubts. Rich is also driven by success, his citing
of “every man had his price” conveying his appreciation of the unethical theories of
Machiavelli. He is weak in character, his “swift” retrieval of the bribed silver goblet
which More feels is “contaminated” suggesting his willingness to “risk” his morals
for material acquisition. Despite being evidently lustful for “office” and
“recognition” and even a “new gown”, Rich does at least have a moral code as he
confesses that he would “much rather [More] than Cromwell!” He is able to identify
the slyness and trickery in which Cromwell exhibits, thus later pleads More
persistently to “employ” him. Yet, though admiring More’s integrity in contrast to
the devious Cromwell who lacks a conscience, he aligns with the latter in order to
gain a “position”. Perhaps we do feel a little sympathetic towards Rich when we
indentify his reluctance to “lose [his] innocence”, his “cynicism” and “bitter” tone
towards Cromwell suggesting that he is at an inner conflict between his conscience
and public office. However, the way he is quickly cheered by the thought of
“Collector of Revenues” establishes that status is what ultimately interests him.
Though perhaps initially decent, we feel nothing but disgust for Rich’s perjury of his
soul and we see that he is morally inadequate.

The Common Man shares a similar sort of capriciousness as Cromwell and Rich,
his survival to him being more important than maintaining relationships. His
fickleness illustrated by his changing face and identity highlights his desperate
measures in protecting himself. From the “crafty” Steward to the manoeuvring
Boatman, the cynical Publican to the obsequious Jailor and finally the cowardly
complicity of the Headsman, the Common Man advocates for a sort of moral
compromise for self-protection. It is clear that the Common Man identifies More’s
integrity amidst his immoral contemporaries, his “contemptuous” attitude towards
the weak Rich and his snide comment of “that one will come to nothing” suggests
his ability to differentiate between More’s moral purity and Rich’s seasonal morality.
Yet, his philosophy of survival at all costs deters him from getting “out of [his]
depth” as he keeps himself on solid ground. Perhaps the Common Man may be the
most despicable of all three pragmatists as the others at least admit their frailties.
Though the Common Man may be able to manoeuvre the “waters silting up”, his
self-interest causes every audience to reflect if we too are reduced to such
immorality. Bolt intends on us to question ourselves if we too will be quick to
abandon friendship when faced between the choice of our own interests and
compassion.
 Juxtaposing those who are driven by their lusts, More indeed places a high value
on friendship and relationships. When introduced to his household, we are greeted
by the bickering of Norfolk and Alice and then later a prayer before More’s
departure, painting a picture of the close relationship. In fact More reveals that this
“quiet life” is what he appreciates in contrast to the complexity of politics which is
full of “temptation” and “bribes”. Indeed we identify how dearly he loves his family:
the way he compliments Alice, his denial of Roper’s proposal to marry Meg due to
his “sea-going principles” all illustrate More as a family man. However, martyrdom
is thrust against More as he places “God’s law above man’s law”, and even his
unconditional love for his family does not cause him to waver. His prioritising
between man and God is not without difficulty though, evident in his anguish as
seen in the way he resists Henry who is both his king and friend. Though he
desperately wishes to “come” to an agreement with the king, he finds it more
important to retain a “pure conscience”. The stage directions construct a picture of
his “affectionate admiration”, “shaky voice” and fear. Though More suffers, had he
“opened [his] fingers” and compromised his soul in exchange for his family, no
doubt he would not be able to “find [himself] again”, nor court the same sort of
admiration we have for him. Through his multidimensional humanity, the audience
commend More’s steadfastness even if it means to give up the relationships in
which he treasures.

Indeed, many follow their corrupt lusts and have an inward gaze instead of
showing any sort of human compassion. However, it is only those like More who
attempt to maintain relationships who are the most humane and decent. Though
forced to abandon his family for his stance, we continue to admire his “adamantine”
selfhood, More’s unwavering morality deeming him as a timeless moral hero and
the only “man for all seasons”.

'A Man for All Seasons shows the consequences of adhering to one's
belief'. Discuss.

Essay Plan

• Defend Sir Thomas More by highlighting how corrupt society was at the time
and so on and so forth by using the other characters... and examine what the
'consequences' REALLY are -- you have to remember -- more believed that he
had no choice BUT to do what he did. He believed that by swearing to the
oath, he was giving up his mortal soul for his immortal one and it's just
something that he could not do.
• How adhering to one's belief (More, Bishop fisher) leads to loss of life, but
keeping morals and beliefs. But how not adhering, or perhaps not having very
steadfast beliefs (pretty much every other character, i would probably use
Rich, Common Man as they're most corrupt etc) leads to wealth and power at
the cost of losing soul

• Cromwell, Rich : broth driven by expediency and guided by the principles of

machiavelli. u can include the way different parties viewed 'the law', more-
steadfast belief in the sanctity of the law whereas Cromwell views it as a tool
which can be manipulated to achieve ones desired outcome.

• Roper is also a good character to include, talk of his continuously wavering

religious beliefs as he goes from a Lutheran to a catholic.
"A Man for All Seasons suggests that corruption and dishonesty are often
rewarded."Discuss.

Essay Plan

• "Success...none of us gets enough of it". So declares the pragmatic Cromwell

with smug self-satisfaction, his singleminded persuit for status allowing him
to readily do all things dishonest and politically expedient as long as it is
"convenient". Indeed, this is exactly what happens: the pragmatists such as
Cromwell and Rich manipulate their way up the State, while the humble More
whose gaze lies on God is ultimately executed. In A Man For All Seasons,
playwright Robert Bolt....

• e.g. In a perfect world we could expect that if people act with integrity and
honesty they would be rewarded for their just efforts. However, humanity has
never inhabited such a Utopia. It is often apparent in our society, and has
been throughout history, that the opposite happens -- the good crumble
against the power of those who use their authority with improbity. Such is the
case in Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons.(and continue on...)

Be careful with this topic. Who actually succeeds?

How are you going to define 'rewarded'?

“No matter how much we admire Sir Thomas More, it is the Common Man
that we can identify with.”
To what extent is this true?

Bolt’s play, A Man For All Seasons, tells us of Sir Thomas More’s immovable
conscience and strongly based principles. This is aided by the Common Man, who is
both narrator and extra character rolled into one. The Common Man’s actions in the
play are easier to understand to an extent, especially with a modern audience,
however it is clear that Bolt wishes for us to question his actions. The Common
Man’s affirmation of this, by calling himself the derogatory term “rat” and calling
more a “lion” confirms to the audience that More is indeed the one to admire.

The Common Man’s own observations of More are also confirmation of More’s
strengths. He mentions that More is incredibly giving and rarely, if ever, says no, to
the extent that if someone asked him for something he was unwilling to give, he
would be “out of practice,” foreshadowing the events to come, but also highlighting
the extent of More’s generosity. Furthermore, he also offers a deeper insight into
both his own character and More’s character, by saying “it is perverse to start a
play… with me,” and by drinking some of Sir Thomas More’s wine behind his back.
The fact that the Common Man believes that it is “perverse” to start a play with him
is a hint to us that he is not the man we should admire, and the fact that he drinks
the wine behind his master’s back is confirmation of this. Furthermore, the fact that
Sir Thomas More laughs this off offers an accurate and early insight to his character,
demonstrating that he is indeed the one we should admire.

An example of one of the questionable actions from the Common Man is when he is
interrogated by Chapuys, Cromwell and then Rich. Of course, the Common Man
does not give any man any information worth their coin, saying things such as “Sir
Thomas prays for an hour and a half,” and yet gives each man information that they
deem relevant. Although one may say this is due to the loyalty towards More, we
see that the Common Man only “serves one” master, himself, when he pulls out the
“enormous cross” in mockery of the Chapuys. During the questioning from the other
characters, the Common Man is paid “more than [he can] earn in a fortnight,”
demonstrating how he will do anything for money, as long as he is not “out of [his]
depth.” This is something that a modern audience can identify with, as almost
everyone is motivated by money to a degree. However, it is clear that Bolt wishes
for us to condemn his actions, too, or at least question them. One of these times is
when after leaving the employment of More, the Common Man is seen working for
Rich, even though he had said earlier in the play “that one’ll come to nothing.” This
highlights the “fluid” beliefs of the Common Man, in direct contrast to More’s
steadfastness to his conscience and beliefs.

During the course of the play, More faces many adversities in the shape of
Cromwell, the King and Rich, because he does not swear to the Oath. However, to
More, taking an oath is similar to “holding oneself in his own hands, like water,” and
hence More’s beliefs lead him to say that taking this particular oath is like asking
him to “change the colour of his eyes”, and therefore, impossible. More’s ability to
stand by his beliefs in front of everyone else highlights his strength of character, a
trait that Bolt wishes for the audience to admire. What makes this even more
admirable is that even after justice has deserted him, indicated by how “the
trappings of justice are flown up,” and even when his death is near, More is able to
take it so “blithely” due to his strong faith and beliefs. A modern audience may find
it difficult to understand somebody dying for the sake of a belief, however, a vast
majority of the modern audience should be able to understand dying for a cause
that they believe strongly enough in, such as dying for one’s children or family,
indicating how there are aspects of More’s behaviour and decisions that we can
indeed identify with.

Society of the time was very corrupted, and there is proof of this, from the Common
Man telling us at the beginning of Act Two that “imprisonment without trial” and
“torture” was a “common practice.” Furthermore, Cromwell’s employment as “the
King’s Eye” and his willingness to “make laws” to suit also provides evidence to the
extent of corruption at the time. Hence, one should admire More’s wish to hide “in
the thickets of the law,” even with Cromwell and Rich cutting the laws down. It
again illustrates how strong More’s beliefs are, to think that he can hide in the law
and get away with it, amidst all the corruption at the time, believing that the other
characters will not commit perjury as it is More’s belief that if he did so, he will die
and be condemned forever. More’s willingness to let the King have everything from
“his house” to “his arm” instead is another admirable trait of his; More's loyalty
cannot be matched by any other character in the play. The fact that he would do
anything for the King as long as he can follow with a “clear conscience” is an action
that Bolt wishes for us to respect and also admire.

In the alternative ending of the play, the Common Man concludes with the
statement “if we should bump into one another, recognise me.” This can be
interpreted two ways: bumping into the Common Man himself at a later time, or
coming to the realisation that there are aspects of the Common Man in us all. If one
is to go off the latter interpretation, then one could also assume that we are to
question these aspects, through the Common Man’s actions throughout the play.
There is no doubt that Sir Thomas More is the man we are meant to admire in the
play, and that there are, to a certain extent, aspects of him that a modern audience
can relate to. However, a modern audience can also relate to aspects of the
Common Man too, however unsettling it may be to realise this.