|
|
|
|
A Man For All Seasons
Written by: Robert Bolt Directed
by: Fred Zinnemann Vir omnium
horarum The title of
“A Man for All Seasons” has long intrigued me.
The seasons of the year are, of course, ever changing.
They go from cold to warm, from wet to dry, from calm to windy.
They present the countryside in different aspects.
They pose a wide variety of challenges to all living things, dictating
(at least in earlier times) that people had to spend their time and energies
differently depending upon whether it is summer or winter; spring or fall.
So, when we describe someone as a man for all seasons we suggest someone
who changes with the seasons; someone who is never constant.
And yet if we took this from the title of the movie as a description of
its central character we would be quite wrong.
At one point More, having been committed to the Tower of London for
refusing to take the oath of Supremacy recognizing Henry VIII as head of the
Church in England, watches from his prison as the seasons change.
But he remains in the same place and for the same reason –
unchanging. So, why the title?
Why is Thomas More “a man for all seasons”?
In the printed version of his play Robert Bolt provided us with two
quotations. One quotation was from Jonathan Swift, who
called More "The
person of the greatest virtue these islands ever produced". The
other was from Robert Whittinton, a schoolteacher of More's time, who said that
More "is
a man of angel's wit and singular learning; I know not his fellow. For where is
the man of that gentleness, lowliness, and affability? And as time requireth, a
man of marvellous mirth and pastimes: and sometimes of as sad gravity: a man for
all seasons." This
accolade is derived from two letters of More’s close friend Erasmus which were
first published in 1519. In one of
them, written in 1499 Erasmus said of More: "Did
nature ever create anything more supple or sweet or felicitous than the
character of Thomas More?" Twenty
years later, he wrote a long character sketch in which he praised More for his
extraordinary blending of gaiety and gravity and for his flexible adaptation to
company of all sorts, with no compromise of a decent sense of his own dignity. And
Whittinton's Latin for "a man for all seasons" - "vir omnium
horarum" - clearly came from Erasmus' letter dedicating his masterpiece,
“The Praise of Folly”, to Thomas More. The Folly or Moria, as Erasmus and
More usually called it after Folly's name in Greek, was written at More's house
in 1509. It was suggested, says Erasmus in the letter, by the similarity of
Moria and More, since, though More was far from being a fool in the usual sense
of the word, he nevertheless delighted making fun of the ordinary lives of
mortals. But Erasmus went on to say: "On
the other hand, though your remarkably keen intelligence places you world apart
from the common herd, still the incredible sweetness and gentleness of your
character makes you able and willing to be a man for all seasons to all men (cum
omnibus omnium horarum hominem agere)." Erasmus appears himself
to have derived the phrase from a latin proverb which he recorded in his
collection of Greek and Latin adages, “the Adagia”.
There Erasmus says that "omnium horarum homo" is applied to
those who are equally adept at pleasantries and serious matters and whose
company we always enjoy. It is
important to note here that the word "seasons" in Whittinton's English
term is perhaps misleading. It does
not refer to the seasons of the year.
The Latin phrase and Whittinton's translation mean "suited to all
hours, times, occasions." And
in a sense that was More. When the
times allowed or demanded it More could be a witty and companionable friend, a
loving family man, an accomplished lawyer, a loyal servant to his King.
He could be fun loving or serious. He
was in that sense comfortable in any given occasion.
But in all of these
different guises More was the same man. He
was not defined by his interests, by his work, by his skills or intellect or
even by his family. These were all
important to him. But they were not
what made him. They were ultimately,
therefore, secondary to him. Nor was
he defined by ambition or greed or a sense of pleasure or any of the other
appetites humans have. And we can
see this most clearly by the way in which piece by piece all of these aspects of
More’s life were stripped away from him until in the end there is only More
himself. He lost his position, he
lost his fiends, he lost his liberty and he even lost his family.
And with them went any hope for the rewards and pleasures that he could
so easily have enjoyed. But in spite
of all of this we see, in the end, a man who is recognizable the same man we
first meet at the start of the movie. He
was in this sense true a man for all seasons rather than different men
for different seasons. This is in contrast to
the opposite and darker meaning of the phrase “ a
man for all seasons”. It was
applied by Erasmus to the Greek philosopher Aristippus.
He was a pupil of Socrates, but adopted a very
different philosophical outlook, teaching that the goal of life was to seek
pleasure by adapting circumstances to oneself and by maintaining proper control
over both adversity and prosperity. One
famous anecdote recounts that, being shipwrecked and cast ashore on the coast of
Who is Thomas More? When
the King comes to visit More at “Because you're
honest... and what is more to the purpose, you're KNOWN to be honest. There are
those like Norfolk who follow me because I wear the crown; and those like Master
Cromwell who follow me because they are jackals with sharp teeth and I'm their
tiger; there's a mass that follows me because it follows anything that moves.
And then there's you...” The point is illustrated
by the courtiers who mindlessly imitate and follow the King in everything he
does. Later “Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!” And this is the prism
through which all the major participants in the movie view More.
For both Henry and “I will not give in,
because I oppose it. Not my pride,
not my spleen nor any other of my appetites, but I do, l.
Is there, in the midst of all this muscle, no sinew that serves no
appetite of In the movie Bolt does
not treat those who espouse particular religious beliefs kindly.
A good example of this is Will Roper. When
More returns from seeing Wolsey he finds Roper with Meg.
Roper passionately argues that the Catholic Church needs reform, even
going so far as to call the pope the Antichrist. But his actions, according to
More, are simply outward displays of ideals and are not necessarily grounded on
firm, personal moral footing. Roper’s passion in this scene illustrates how
lofty ideals are unstable moral guideposts compared to one’s own moral
conscience. More’s commitment to
Catholicism is based upon what his conscience tells him to do, not upon some
lofty ideal. More’s morals contrast with Roper’s high-minded, insincere
idealism. In this sense religious
conviction itself in the movie is treated just like any of the other external
forces that drive or motivate the protagonists: to indulge the desire for a son
or advance or protect a career. Notwithstanding Roper’s vociferousness he
changes his mind from being a passionate Lutheran to being a passionate
supported of the Church to in the end uncomplainingly accompanying Meg as she
tries to persuade More to take the oath. His
religious beliefs are no more anchors of his selfdom than anything else is.
More is quite the
opposite. He does not depend upon
anyone or anything outside of himself because he looks inwardly for his
motivations. In this context it is
both interesting and significant that More continually surprises with his
pragmatism. He is in fact quite
willing to compromise public duty or moral principle. When
Will Roper attacks the religious reforms Henry wishes to introduce, More rebukes
him: More:
“For heaven's sake, remember my office.” Roper:
“If you stand on your office…” More:
“No, I don't stand on it, but there are certain things I may not hear." Later
when More is urged to arrest Richard Rich he clashes again with Will Roper: Meg: “That man’s
bad” More:
“There's no law against that. Roper: “Yes
there is - God's law!” More: “Then
God can arrest him.” More: “Go he should,
if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.” Roper: “Now you give
the Devil benefit of law!” More: “Yes, what would
you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?” Roper: “Yes. I'd cut
down every law in More: “And when the
last law was down and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the
laws all being flat? This country is
planted with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's and if you cut
them down...and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could
stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of
law for my own safety's sake.” Even when it comes to
the moral imperative to protect the good and punish evil, More is prepared to
compromise; to discard things he knows or believes to be right in the name of
pragmatism. In one of the most
telling passages in the movie he reacts to news that the oath of supremacy is to
be administered by looking for an escape route: More: “But
what is the wording?” Meg: “Do the
words matter? We know what it means.” More: “Tell
me the words. An oath is made of words. It may be possible to take it.” And
in the face of his daughter’s incomprehension he explains: “Listen, Meg.
God made the angels to show him splendour. As
he made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man he made
to serve him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If he suffers us to come to
such a case that there is no escaping then we may stand to our tackle as best we
can. And yes, Meg, then we can clamour like champions, if we have the spittle
for it. But it's God's part, not our own to bring ourselves to such a pass. Our
natural business lies in escaping. If I can take this oath, I will.” But what he
will not do is to compromise his own idea of who he is.
So, if his safety means being silent when Henry divorces his wife and
makes war on the Church, More is prepared to do this. But an oath touches upon
his sense of self in a way that does not permit compromise.
More explains it to his daughter in these terms: “When a man
takes an oath, Meg, he's holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. And,
if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.” More defined himself in terms of his
private conscience – by the set of beliefs that he had: More: “He is.
He's also the descendant of St. Peter, our only link with Christ.” More:
“Because what matters is that I believe it, or rather, no...not that I believe
it, but that I believe it.” Whether a
particular belief was right or wrong or whether it was to be openly defended
against attack was not the point. The
integrity with which the belief was held was: the consistency, the unbreakable
completeness and the totality of the belief; the way it went to and make up the
very core of the person who held it. As
More pointed out Henry strongly defended the papacy from Lutheran attack in
“The Defence of the Seven Sacraments” but that did not stop him from himself
attacking Papal authority when it suited him to do so.
There was no more integrity in his belief than Will Roper’s.
As the examples I gave above illustrate More was quite prepared to be
flexible when it came to what he did in pursuit of his conscience.
But what he would not do was to compromise on the beliefs themselves
because to do so was not a matter of how he related to the outside world but how
he defined himself. And in the
end he illustrated this point when he analysed the reason why so much effort was
made to pursue him to the bitter end: “Nevertheless
it is not for the supremacy that you have sought my blood but because I would
not bend to the marriage!” He could not
take the oath because to do so involves discarding his own sense of identity. In
More therefore we have someone who is not a hero of any particular belief or
even of belief itself. Rather we
have someone who has a strong sense of who he is, what he stands for and what he
does not. And coming back to where
we began he is in this sense a man for all seasons – man who kept his
integrity intact. Compromising
your Integrity This is in
contrast to pretty much everyone else in the movie – even Meg.
But the principal counterpoint to his character is, of course, Richard
Rich. “A Man for All Seasons”
focuses on his rise almost as much as it follows the fall of Sir Thomas More. As
More’s steadfast selfhood leads him to ruin and death, Rich acquires more and
more wealth and greater status by selling out his friend and his own moral
principles. We can see a sort of leitmotif running through his story in the form
of a gown. When Rich turns down
More’s offer of a job as a teacher, More offers him the silver cup Averil
Machin had goven him: Rich: “What
is it?” More: “It's a
bribe! "l am the gift of Averil Machin."
And Averil Machin has a lawsuit in the Court of Requests. Italian silver.
Take it. No joke.” Rich: “Thank
you.” More: “What
will you do with it?” Rich: “Sell
it.” More: “And
buy what?” Rich: “A
decent gown!” The cup is
tainted. It is itself a symbol of
corruption and Rich’s decision to take it and use it to buy more fashionable
clothes is a symbol of his corruption. Later
when he meets Cromwell he falls in the mud, thus showing how he gets trapped in
the mire of corruption and how the taint has contaminated him.
It is important to stress that Rich is not an evil man.
He wrestles with his conscience and is fully aware of his own
shortcomings Cromwell:
“What kind of thing would you repeat or report?” Rich:
“Nothing said in friendship.” Cromwell: “Do
you believe that?” Rich: “Why, yes." Cromwell:
“No, seriously.” Rich: “Well,
yes.” Cromwell: “Rich,
seriously.” Rich: “That
would depend what I was offered.” Cromwell:
“Don't say it just to please me.” Rich: “It's
true. It would depend what I was offered.” And ultimately
he laments what he calls the loss of his innocence.
And from there he slips even deeper into the mire in which he has become
entangled. He suggests that More be
put to the rack in an effort to get the truth from him and finally, with no
trace of his former qualms, he testifies under oath against More.
And all the while we see him arrayed in a succession of more and more
expensive gowns. Rich’s
corruption, set against More’s hard and fast sense of self, shows the damage
Rich has done to his own life. Rich has sacrificed the goodness of his own self
for advancement while More sacrifices his own well being to retain his sense of
self. More, as we have seen, is thoroughly pragmatic, but not, like Rich, at the
expense of his beliefs or his deep rooted sense of self.
Remember More’s words to Wolsey: “I think that
when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public
duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.” Wolsey served
his King rather than God. Cromwell,
Wolsey’s secretary at the start of the movie, seamlessly takes over that role
– doing his master’s bidding regardless of the cruelties or immoralities
involved. But there is
another character too who deserves our attention.
In the play there is a character called “common man”.
The character survives in the movie but appears in a number of different
guises – the boatman, Matthew, More’s servant, and the jailer to name but
three. These people are not intended
to represent a “low” class in opposition to the generally upper class
characters who are the main protagonists of the movie.
Rather they are intended to represent the generality of human beings.
And as the movie progresses they are drawn into co-operating with evil in
just the same way as anyone else. So
there is the boatman who refuses to take More back home after his first
interrogation. There is Matthew who
refuses to stand by an employer who has been very kind and understanding to him.
And there is the jailer who strictly enforces the time limit for the
visit of More’s family in the tower, even though he can see the obvious
inhumanity in doing so. Each
explicitly or implicitly makes excuses for doing so.
Mathew for example justifies his refusal to stay with More in the
following terms: ""Matthew,
will you take a cut in wages?" No, Sir Thomas, I will not. And that's it.
And that's all of it! All right, so he's down on his luck, I'm sorry. I don't
mind saying that I'm sorry, bad luck. If I had good luck to spare he could have
some! I wish we could have good luck all the time. I wish rainwater was beer!
I wish we had wings! But we don't." Complicity,
Bolt is saying here, is not just a function of ambition or greed.
It is part and parcel of the little compromises that we all make in life.
Through the common man we are being asked: is there anything that we could never
bring ourselves to do, regardless of the price, or whatever pressure might be
brought to bear upon us? And if there is nothing like that — if we are
infinitely malleable, capable of becoming, under the right circumstances,
anything at all — then are we really anyone at all? Do we have an identity, a
self? Or are we only a cipher. A quantity of no importance ourselves, useful
only for whatever others choose to make of us? |
