What was before God? (or, Why did He wait so long?)

[The Unnamable]

"As for qui tacit consentire, it didn’t do Thomas More much good."

Thomas More, definitely the thinking man's martyr. He did not attempt to force his view on others, but refused to act against his own principles. Did not seek martyrdom, but would not compromise to save himself from it. It's hard to say what good any of it was after 500 years, but he still stands as the best example of how to behave when the powers around are totally in the wrong.

From what I know of him, he was a remarkable man. I really like Bolt’s play, even though it contains More’s comment to Richard Rich when Rich perjures himself:

"Richard, the Lord said that it did not profit a man to gain the whole world if he lost his soul. The whole world, Richard ... but for Wales?"

He's got a point, though.

[rachel]

When ever I watch a man for all seasons I can scarce breathe. All that and I think you are referring to who I call Saint Thomas Moore, all he held dear I do too, all he believed I believe to the core of me. I like when he said that he was no hero, no martyr and wanted if possible to just live and be and carry on with the family he loved. But if he had to stand, he would stand. I have had to many times and lost everything. I neither judge the persons who wielded that power over me nor think ill of them. I think whatever you DO believe you ought to be whole souled and be prepared to accept the consequences, even if that leaves you standing utterly alone in a wasteland at the end of the day.

[mir]

hey, we have to read one of More's books for history this summer. Utopia. what does he write on? is he good? should i start the book in June rather than the last week of August?

[ennison]

Bolt's play is an astonishingly good piece of drama and a clever use of the concept of alienation but the central character is a fiction. The real More was a torturer and a bigot - no doubt he was a highly principled torturer but if someone tells you that art does not lie then this play if taken as an accurate representation of the life of a real human being called Sir Thomas More is a direct contradiction of that. The real More was quite vile.

[Scheherazade]

Bolt's play is an astonishingly good piece of drama and a clever use of the concept of alienation but the central character is a fiction. The real More was a torturer and a bigot - no doubt he was a highly principled torturer but if someone tells you that art does not lie then this play if taken as an accurate representation of the life of a real human being called Sir Thomas More is a direct contradiction of that. The real More was quite vile.

Is this based on your personal experiences with More or what you heard through the grapevine?

[ennison]

.............................??? Could you rephrase the question to make it more answerable in English. On the grapevine I've heard Caligula was a naughty chap. Are you from the Mr Irving school of history?

[Whifflingpin]

Passion begets passion.

Could we agree that More was many sided?

The More of the play was not unreal.

The More who condoned or ordered the torturing of heretics was not less real.

The More who was a humanist scholar was real too.

The More who loved both law and justice was real, as was "the most affectionate father to his children that ever was in the world."


I think the phrase I would draw the line at is "The real More was quite vile." More was no Caligula, or Torquemada even. Torture was a standard legal procedure in More's day, and indeed for some centuries afterwards. Even More's enemies did not claim that More particularly enjoyed or encouraged the use of torture more than the law required. To condemn More as vile for using torture is to condemn all our ancestors as vile, up to the nineteenth century.

[ennison]

It's not likely that all our ancestors or even a few were torturers. I stand by that judgement on More. As for being good to one's children even the Nazis were that, in fact they were very strong on that as a principle and the road to Hell is paved with.. etc. But more importantly for me is any attempt to whitewash history through art. I'm not necessarily accusing Bolt of doing that; he may just not have known about More's torture of Bible smugglers in his own home (or considering Bolt was a one-time commie he may not have cared that rich and powerful state servants could and can torture others). If I treat Bolt's More a little differently from Shakespeare's Macbeth (another unhistorical but once real person) it's that Macbeth is relatively unimportant and is not presented as admirable whereas More is. We'll have to agree to disagree here. I take your comments on board. My comment on Caligula was a facetious response to a facetious question.

[Whifflingpin]

"It's not likely that all our ancestors or even a few were torturers."

It is almost certain that anyone, within two or three centuries either side of More, who was responsible for administering the law was involved to a greater or lesser degree in torture. Equally certain it is that law abiding citizens accepted torture as a normal part of the administration of justice.

You may think of More as a torturer, and you may have reliable evidence that he enjoyed torturing people. I think that is unlikely, but my only evidence is from the more or less neutral Encyclopedia Britannica, and Foxe's Book of Martyrs, a Protestant polemic that would be expected to be very hostile to More.

In the Encyclopedia, amongst a great deal of good, there is the following:
"On the other hand he appears to have been merciless to heretics. In the epitaph which he wrote, he described himself as hereticus molestus, and, although the accusations of Protestants may be discounted, his own words and unimpeachable documents bespeak his severity."

In Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the book above all in which Protestant accusations against More might be expected, all I could find was:
"One Bainham, ...,was taken on suspicion of heresy, and whipped in the presence of Sir T. More, and afterwards racked in the Tower, yet he could not be wrought on to accuse any...
Soon after this More delivered up the great seal, in consequence of which the preachers had some ease."

So I acknowledge that More's enemies, or victims if you like, declare him to be a persecutor, and he himself considered that persecution of heretics was acceptable. The one instance recounted by Foxe does not however show More to command torture more than was required by his office, and certainly not, as you imply, one who carried out torture himself or enjoyed watching it.



Your off-hand dismissal of Bolt scarcely stands up either - the play portrays More, heroically, as one who stood firm against the apparatus of the state. Whether or not that is a fair portrayal of More, it is certain that Bolt did not condone misuse of the state's power in any way.

[ennison]

Silence of the lemmings implies consent eh. It could imply fear. Anyway leave that. Bolt is not interested in portraying the real More. Nor was he under obligation to do so. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt of not knowing about More's interrogation techniques when he (More) himself was an agent of state power and note that there is no attempt in the play to suggest such techniques were good when used against More himself. I am not under any obligation to treat Bolt as a politically/socially moral individual just because he was a good playwright and good writer for the screen.So far from dismissing him I take him very seriously indeed. For art as propaganda is a powerful tool or weapon. Several modern historians have gone further than consulting Foxe who you rightly say may be seen as a polemicist. (Perhaps he's a case of propaganda becoming art). These historians have been much harsher than my mild 'quite vile'. More was certainly scholarly, clever, interesting in conversation and maybe talented in other directions. He still supervised torture of other human beings in his own home. Facts are chiels that winna ding as someone or other said. Anyway I rather think you want to remember him as a humanist scholar and I wouldn't say much against that reasonable position.
PS We wont fall out over it, I like a lot of your thoughts