A Man For All Seasons (VATE Teacher Notes)

VATE Inside Stories A Man for All Seasons 1/36

!"#$%"&'("$))"*+$,'%,"-."/'0+(1"-')1"

2+$345%6"%'1+,"3'785)+9"&'(":!2;"7+70+(,""0.";9<$(9"/+5))."

=>?2;?2*"" 1. Introduction

Page

2

2. Ways into the text

Page 4

3. Running sheet

Page 7

4. A perspective on the text

Page 13

5. Characters

Page 17

6. Issues and themes

Page 20

7. Language and Style

Page 25

8. Close study of three scenes

Page 26

9. Further activities

Page 29

10. Key quotations

Page 31

11. Essay topics

Page 32

12. Guided essay responses

Page 33

13. References and resources

Page 35

Text referred to in these notes is A Man for all Seasons by Robert Bolt, Heinemann Educational, 1960. Purchasers may copy Inside Stories for classroom use.


*+315'%"@A"B%1('9C315'%"1'"!"#$%"&'("!))"*+$,'%," Much of what is presented here about the characters of Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More, and also regarding the lesser figures, is deliberately polemical. The reasons for this strategy should become clear enough as readers proceed through the study guide. Henry, man and sovereign, must be one of the most fascinating monsters of European history; the damage he wrought to its social and religious fabric still reverberates today as Britain disintegrates before our very eyes. I am less decided about More: he remains quite enigmatic in some ways, but is a recognisable precursor to the twentieth century’s ‘heroes of conscience’. In writing A Man for all Seasons, Bolt was quite deliberate in his choice of subject. We must remember that he was writing during the Cold War when the question of whether one should privilege one’s conscience over the demands of the state, whether Nazi, Communist or Liberal-Democratic, was preoccupying some of the best minds in the west. Through Sir Thomas More, Bolt chose to demonstrate that the modern state was and is a tyranny, even though its makers had the best of intentions, and that a well-informed conscience was the only light by which one could live. Yet even this latter notion must now be contended with by any of us who cling to the hope that some shred of Western civilisation will be retained in the face of the fanatical religiosities that now assail us. We watch in horror as contemporaries blindly imitate Henry’s manipulation of religious controversies for personal profit, to slake sexual greed, to enact their spiritual crises on an international scale. And it is More’s realisation of Henry’s monstrous nature, his failure as both man and king, that leads to his taking the only moral path open to him. As readers of this drama, we may later want to look at our own leaders, and those who want to destroy us, in light of what we have learnt about the failure of leadership in this play. Bolt was a significant force in the rebirth of English theatre. He succeeded wonderfully in A Man for all Seasons, and later with screenplays for Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago, to give a spiritual dimension to popular drama. Each of these texts investigated men who in extreme times had to choose a course of action which set them at odds with prevailing opinion. The tortured figure of T. E. Lawrence, who struggled fruitlessly against self-doubt and his own flesh, may be viewed as an extension and opposite of the heroic More. Then, in his adaptation of Pasternak's sweeping novel of revolution-torn Russia, Bolt showed how pitiless are those who have given themselves to a soulless ideology at the expense of those human and spiritual values we treasure. Moreover, his treatment of recent British history in Ryan’s daughter displayed unusual and unfashionable sympathy for the predicaments of both Irish and English as England was forced to come to grips with the dissolution of its post-Tudor empire. Bolt's concern with heroism lent itself to dramatic treatment, and A Man for all Seasons is a particular kind of drama modelled on the theories and practices of Berthold Brecht, the East German playwright. Brecht held the view that a realist theatre implicated an audience in bourgeois modes of appreciation; that is they sought to be entertained, rather than confront and take ownership of an explored problem. A cursory view of a video recording of either Mother Courage or the Caucasian chalk circle will introduce his style of theatre. Bolt certainly borrowed some devices from Brecht's theatre, especially in the figure of the Common Man, but otherwise he allows the play to slip back into a realist mode throughout its main episodes. This produces its own disquieting effect: not quite a slice of real life, not quite a political cabaret. Its


weighty subject matter would not quite lend itself to a musical production of Poor Thom!, starring Hugh Jackman as Sir Thomas and Barry Humphries as Henry VIII. Bolt was writing in the early part of Queen Elizabeth II's reign, when she had pointedly refused any identification with her earlier namesake, being well aware of the Tudors' bloody histories. So the period in which the play is set is interesting, for the figure of Henry VIII had been glamorised in a few films – and certainly in a very dishonest manner by Shakespeare. Any glamour that was attached to the figure of Henry VIII is quickly dispelled by Bolt, and he successfully conveys the point that a despot is an undesirable character to have as one's political master. The 1995 film version of Richard III, with Ian McKellen playing the title role, makes that point rather broadly. To my mind the play is more about our time's crisis of conscience than it is about the historical period in which it was set. In the previous twenty years, Bolt's generation of young men and women had seen the rise of two great tyrannies, one in Germany and the other in Russia. After Hitler had been beaten, some English voices were raised against the new tyranny. George Orwell, Arthur Koestler and George Steiner were a few of the writers who explored the new evils confronting Europe. Robert Bolt sought to take their concerns and make them public through the medium of the theatre. The English intelligentsia, and their Australian counterparts for that matter, had in the main despised Hitler and adulated Stalin, although both men demanded that the best minds of their generation give assent to claims of absolute political, social and moral rightness as embodied in one man, the leader of the state. Anyone who opposed the current ideological line was ruthlessly dealt with, as were Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More.


*+315'%"DA"E$.,"5%1'"14+"1+F1"

Some introductory group activities: research Construct an historical timeline as a mural: Britain’s Wars of the Roses and the self-destruction of the Plantagenet régime – Britain’s consequent isolation – religious controversies within Catholicism and rise of messianic dissenters – Luther and the rise of nationalist reformers – Henry’s accidental kingship – marriage crises & consequent actions. Investigation of Henry’s details & psychology: The spoilt younger brother of the heir-presumptive – his schooling – religious controversialist – Fidei Defensor (1521) – sexual habits & consequences – bloodlust: judicial murders of wives & rivals – mixture of scrupulousness & opportunism. M. Toscani’s on-line article on Anne Boleyn (see References and Resources) contains an extensive and informative annotated bibliography. Investigate the rise of a new class: Waning of the old aristocracy – apply theories of M. Djilas (1911–1995) of the new class to situation under Henry’s régime – how could a member of the new class possibly become queen? – More’s family background & his training in law – a double threat to the crown?

Text and Performance The text of A Man for all Seasons is clearly presented to the class for a first reading. Bolt's preface highlights his fascination with More's ‘adamantine sense of his own self’ (p. xii) and shows something of his innate sense of theatre. There are some general notes on the people, set and costuming needed for realisation of this play. However, given the cultural gaps between ourselves and England of both 1960 and the sixteenth century, we need more material than this for a full understanding. If only a repertory company could stage and tour a high-quality production each year. The next best thing is to stage our own productions in schools. There are two film versions of A Man for all Seasons: the 1966 version directed by Fred Zinnemann and starring Paul Scofield, Orson Welles, Wendy Hiller, Susannah York and Leo MacKern, is derived from the 1960 London production ($US14 @ Amazon.com); the other is a far inferior 1989 American version featuring Charlton Heston. Two other films may be of interest in exploring the political and social background of Henry's reign: Henry VIII and his six wives (BBC TV 1972) starring Keith Michell and Jane Asher, and Anne of a thousand days (1969) starring Genevieve Bujold and Richard Burton. (As far as I can find out, these are available only as VHS tapes & not as DVDs.) The Internet is a rich resource base, but must be used with a degree of teacherly discrimination. It is better to use information from sites in which authors and their academic institutions or publishing houses are clearly nominated and to avoid spurious sites such as Wikipedia.


Music and artistic references Henry had been raised in the shadow of his elder brother's expectation of becoming king, and evolved into a dashing and athletic young man. His education included Latin, French and the courtly arts. In the manner of his age, Henry composed, or adapted, a number of tunes. The Victorian State Library holds a 78 rpm record Henry VIII dances (D785 GER3). One tune traditionally, but erroneously, associated with Henry is ‘Greensleeves’, which is referred to in Shakespeare’s The merry wives of Windsor (II.i.64 and V.v.22). This at least will give some idea of the pleasant melodies and romantic ballads of the period. Henry wrote several musical compositions, including the song ‘The holly’, as well as the motet ‘O Lord, maker of all things’ and two five-part masses. He could play the lute, organ and virginals and sing as well. Nor was he a slouch when it came to wooing the ladies; from what we can gather he was a courtly lover, when not visiting the stews, and a skilful user of words. This is not to say that he and his companions were passionless: they dressed their words as they did themselves, ornately for public consumption. ‘The hind’ by Sir Thomas Wyatt (1557) can be found in J. Leonard, Seven centuries of English verse. It celebrates Anne Boleyn, with whom Wyatt was, as Leonard so delicately puts it, ‘at one time involved’, and who later was the trigger of Henry's apostasy. She is an ambiguous figure in English history, at times praised for her beauty and as the mother of the first Elizabeth, but also the object of such scorn as exhibited by More. Yet she was not Henry’s only mistress, as Ridley has pointed out in his 1985 biography of the king. Poor Wyatt, having yielded Anne to his sovereign, had to endure the terror of arrest when she was tried on charges of adultery then executed in 1536. Then in 1541 he was falsely accused of high treason, but released. Henry was a cruel gamekeeper. Sir Thomas More also wrote poetry. ‘A rueful lamentation on the death of Queen Elizabeth’ (1503) refers to Elizabeth of York, whom Henry Tudor married in order to claim the throne. Here are the first and last stanzas:

O ye that put your trust and confidence In worldly joy and frail prosperity, That so live here as ye should never hence, Remember death and look here upon me. Ensample I think there may no better be. Your self wot well that this realm was I Your queen but late, and lo now here I lie. ...Where are your castles now, where are your towers? Goodly Richmond, soon thou art gone from me; At Westminster that costly work of yours, Mine own dear lord,now shall I never see. Almighty God vouchsafe to grant that ye For you and your children well may edify. My palace builded is, and lo now here I lie. (Oxford Book of Sixteenth Century Verse – see references)


Internet images Students will be able to find images from Renaissance England simply by using a search engine, and there are many more than just Google.com. Again, a degree of selectivity is needed. A recent source is a set of reproductions of many of the leading lights of this drama, ‘Tudor England: Images’, published at www.marileecody.com/images.html. At a second site I have located both a pen and ink and a full colour painting of More’s family by Hans Holbein the Younger (c.1527) at www.marileecody.com/temporary/images.html. Another well-illustrated site is http://www.geocities.com/tudorhist/tudor.htm. There have been some documentaries about Tudor England, notably one on the raising of Henry's flagship, The Mary Rose, which sank at its launching with a great loss of life. This feature gives insight into the lives of ordinary folk upon whose shoulders Henry's régime was built. The Mary Rose homepage may be of general interest to students: http://www.maryrose.org/.


*+315'%"GA"/C%%5%6",4++1" A suggested breakdown of both acts into scenes & movement blocks Act I S1 1–5

Common Man ! Disdain for ‘kings and cardinals’ ! Theatricality of persona (costuming)

Sir Thomas More at home Richard Rich

! His vain attempt to find patronage ! Disdain for an offer of a teaching post ! More’s allusion to an attempted bribe

Admission by More: ‘commanded into office’ S2 5–7

Norfolk ! Bluff and hearty character ! Easy banter with More’s family ! Henry as a falcon ! Norfolk’s utilitarian attitude to philosophy ! Norfolk’s summation of Machiavelli

Cromwell ! ‘a farrier’s son’ ! More shocked by Rich’s association

S3 7–10

More is summoned by Wolsey ! Tension ! More: ‘the King’s business’ ! Alice: ‘the Queen’s business’ ! Departing prayer

More recommends Rich to Lord Norfolk ! More’s admonition ‘Be a teacher.’

Steward & Rich ! Business of the goblet

S4 10–13

The Latin dispatch ! More’s opposition to the document ! Indicates the Council should be informed ! Wolsey pleads for help on the matter ! Q: What is the document? ! Q: Why are both men concerned? ! Threat of civil war – ‘two Tudors’ ! Queen Catherine ‘barren as a brick’

Their respective assessments of Henry’s sexuality ! ‘He’s been to play in the muck again.’ ! ‘…the King needs no advice…’ ! Q: Do they respect their king?

Wolsey & More in dispute

! Henry had obtained a dispensation to mary Catherine ‘for state reasons’

! Now wants marriage annulled by pope to marry his mistress ! Wolsey’s fear of civil war restated


! Wolsey accuses More of privileging own conscience of country’s needs

More’s key response: ‘When statesmen…they lead their country by a short course to chaos.’

! Q: Is theocracy More’s ideal? ! Their fear and loathing of Cromwell

S5 13

Cromwell emerges from shadows ! Has he been spying on Wolsey & More? ! Threatening image

S6 13–16

Chapuys ! Displeasure of Spanish king at Henry ! An insult could become casus belli ! More very troubled by the possibility of a war with Spain

S7 16–20

The courting couple ! Roper’s request to marry Margaret ! More’s refusal ! Not a matter of family but heresy ! Q: What does More mean? ! Q: Why would More be so firm? ! Still, allows for Roper to see Margaret ! Assessment: ‘Nice boy…Terribly strong principles though.’

More and daughter and Alice ! More avoids M’s questions about Wolsey ! Danger in talking ‘treason’

Exchange between More & Alice ! The Chancellor (Prime Minister) ! Q: What does his comment to Alice – ‘Beware of the Tower’ –

presage? S8 20

The Common Man ! Wolsey’s arrest and death ! More appointed Chancellor ! CM’s assessment: ‘wilful indifference to realities’ of political life

S9 20–25

Cromwell, Rich and Chapuys ! Exchange between More & Rich, now Cromwell’s secretary ! Cromwell’s self-assessment: ‘If the King wants something done, I do

it’ ! Yet, his mockery at Henry’s narcissism

Discussion of More’s reaction to the divorce ! Chapuys shocked ! More’s steward Cromwell’s spy – ‘two masters’

Note: Bolt demonstrates the Common Man to be as unprincipled and duplicitous as a Cromwell or a Henry.

S10 25–27

Preparing for the king’s visit ! More’s studied indifference to pomp ! Norfolk & Alice attuned to political realities ! Margaret’s homeliness

S11 27–29

Henry and Margaret ! Henry’s costume ! His meagre command of Latin ! He flirts by showing her his leg etc. ! The king’s music


S12 29–34

The king’s matter ! A wolf’s gambit – H calls More ‘friend’ ! Wolsey’s failure to obtain dispensation ! Henry’s previous promise ! Henry’s discourse – ‘no marriage’ ! Ambiguity of Biblical texts ! Henry turns – ‘No opposition!…you are my Chancellor!’

S13 34–41

Uncertainties ! Roper offered a seat in Parliament ! Rich’s information re Cromwell ! Rich dismissed by More

More’s core beliefs ! Law: ‘the tickets of the law’ ! Secularity: ‘Man’s laws, not God’s.’ ! Family: ‘I’ll hide my daughter with me!’

His kindness to Roper S14 41–46

Cromwell seduces and rewards Rich ! Contrast to More: ‘There are no rules.’ ! Religion as a convenience ! Cromwell’s sadism

Act II S1 47

The Common Man’s history lesson ! Political realities

S2 47–49

Roper, now married to Margaret, exchanges some sharp words with More ! M: ‘You are either idiots or children.’

S3 49–51

Chapuys ! Intimates More could act against H ! Spain looking for a ‘signal’ to act ! More refuses, Chapuys admits defeat

S4 51–57

More resigns and retreats into silence ! Convocation assents to Henry ! Communion with Holy See broken ! Norfolk’s sneer – apostolic succession ! Norfolk as Henry’s messenger ! More cautions Norfolk ! Q: Why?

Family dissent ! Alice’s fears & More’s strategy to protect his family

S5 57

The Common Man/faithless steward

S6 57–62

Questioning More’s silence ! More’s silence ‘bellowing’ ! Norfolk’s defence of More to Cromwell ! Business of the silver cup as a bribe ! Cromwell wants to weave a ‘mesh’ ! Q: Why does Cromwell hate More?

S7 62–66

The Spanish letter ! Chapuys sees More as an ally ! More’s refusal to accept Spanish letter ! More’s poverty


S8 66–70

Cromwell makes his first moves against More ! Conspiracy – Holy Maid of Kent ! Treason – King’s book (now revealed as written by More) had

defended pope’s position ! Disloyalty – Queen Anne (Boleyn) ! More’s ‘ingratitude’

S9 70–73

More engineers a break with Norfolk ! More accuses Norfolk & aristocracy of betraying Britain & the people

S10 73–74

A question concerning the oath ! More’s naïve belief that the bill can be defeated because it is a legal

instrument S11 74–76

The Common Man is now a turnkey ! History lesson – Cromwell & Cranmer executed, Norfolk & Rich

survive ! More in the Tower of London

S12 76–81

The seventh commission ! More recognizes Anne’s children as Henry’s heirs ! Will not budge on the matter of Queen Catherine ! Continued friendship with Norfolk ! More calls Cromwell a ‘dockside bully’ ! Rich seeks further advancement from Cromwell ! Cromwell now concerned for his own skin

S13 81–87

Visitors for the prisoner ! Margaret’s position ! More’s obdurate nature & refusal to accede to the oath of

succession ! More tries to get his family to leave England ! More re Alice – ‘It’s a lion I married!’

S14 87–88

Changeover scene ! More: ‘Alice, good-bye, my love!’

S15 88–94

Show trial ! Cromwell’s accusation and Rich’s perjury ! Q: What does the charge of ‘high treason’ really mean here? ! More charged with denial of Parliament’s ‘competence’

S16 94–97

More’s defence

! Accuses Rich of perjury, but witnesses conveniently absent ! Notes Rich’s advancement to attorney-general for Wales ! Norfolk party to this charade ! More’s statement regarding the immunity of the church & the true

cause of his arraignment ! Sentenced to execution

S17 97–98

Changeover scene ! Theatricality

S18 98–99

More’s contrasting reactions ! Margaret & Woman

S19 99

His execution ! Strange scene between Cromwell & Chapuys

S20 100

Every tale has two endings ! The Common Man as an equivocator ! Morality as expediency



Student activities ! Students should construct their own detailed running sheets in which the text is

further broken down into discrete movement blocks. This task could be divided amongst small work groups to spread the load, with photocopies of group notes being distributed. Groups could also present oral reports on key scenes.

! Then, students should be encouraged to write a commentary on a selected scene,

fully researched, with bibliography and image-bank, which then becomes a useful resource for all students.

Below I have given a detailed scene commentary as a model; it is deliberately polemical in tone and signals my position as a reader on events and ideas. Students should also be asked to present a commentary rather than just a summary to give them practice and confidence in interpretation. However, it may not be possible for students to undertake this as an early task and it may be more suited as a further activity after study of the text.

Sample commentary: pp. 29–34 More compliments his king on his ‘many accomplishments’ after Henry shows off his knowledge of Latin, his ‘dancer's leg’ and his command of music. But this is all a peacock’s display, its purpose to soften More for the fatal blow. Henry damns Wolsey's failure in ‘the one thing that matters, Thomas, then or now’. Henry's anticlericalism and dislike of Rome's legates are paraded, as is his pilotage of The Great Harry. No doubt Henry is using this as a metaphor for his ability to govern the State, for he is familiar with Plato's Republic, which first used that image. But one wonders whether Henry is really the captain of his ship, or merely a fair-weather sailor. The conflict between the two men is a fundamental difference in outlook on what constitutes the right balance between the spiritual and the practical. While they are both Catholics and opposed to the ranker heresies that stalk abroad, More has been entrusted with the real work of the State's governance, while Henry has taken to hawk and hound, making decisions as it pleases him. Moreover, More is a representative of the older spirituality, which views the Church as a sacral institution, a vehicle for gracing mankind, and an instrument of God's will which ought to be outside of politics. Henry, on the other hand, sees the Church as a political institution, one which ought to bend to him in certain political matters. Perhaps, each is right in his own way. Henry has promised ‘not to pursue’ More on the matter of the divorce, but politicians' and kings' promises are written on the wind. His insistence that a solution be found leads to a misreading of Leviticus 18: 16, which is most likely an injunction against polyandry. The other text, Deuteronomy 25, offers the possibility that a widow could stay within her late husband's clan by remarriage to a brother-in-law. But we must be careful, as both Henry and More should also have been, not to place absolute and literal reliance upon texts which are two millennia and four languages removed – from Hebrew and Aramaic, to Greek, then Latin and finally to English, and for which social contexts bear little resemblance to the writers' cultures. This pursuit of Henry's is that of a hunter of a hind; not the means but the game is uppermost in his mind, so he can cheerfully badger More, using his scholastic apparatus, and expect that More will find a way of coming round.


Henry's complaint that he is concerned with his soul's state rings false; his real fear is that the state will suffer if he has no legitimate male heir. His complaint about Queen Catherine's inability to bear a healthy son – ‘son after son she's bore me, Thomas, all dead at birth, or dead within the month...But I have no son’ – can perhaps be seen as a cry from the heart. But Henry did have a son. In the summer of 1519 his mistress, Elizabeth Blount, a noblewoman from the Welsh Marches, gave birth to young Henry, surnamed Fitzroy, who was ennobled as the Duke of Richmond in 1525. One wonders what Henry was really moaning about; perhaps the Boleyns and other wealthy merchants had been putting the squeeze on the upstart and foreign house of Tudor. Henry's other complaint, that one did not ‘need a Pope to tell him he's sinned’, begins the process whereby he conveniently shifts blame for his lack of a successor away from himself and onto the church as an institution. Henry's hysterical outburst ‘I have no Queen!’ is the cry of a spoilt brat who cannot accept the world he has made for himself. These are also the threats and stampings of a bully. Henry blends guile, courtliness and anger to place almost unbearable pressure on More in the presence of his family, where he is most vulnerable. More collapses, not just out of fear for himself and his family, but in realisation of the monster before him. From this point on, More realises that nothing will move the king off his chosen course. Henry will steer his ill-designed vessel into reef-strewn seas no matter what the eventual cost to people and state.


*+315'%"HA"I+(,8+315J+" NOTE: In the commentary below I have interspersed some questions and comments which could lead teachers and students to query my interpretation and follow up some further investigation.

I have already indicated that Bolt wanted to examine the question of the primacy of one's conscience for obedience over the demands of the state. Now I want to undertake some further explorations, with a view to provoking dispute and discussion amongst you. Some may well believe that Henry was fully justified in seeking a divorce, and later in asserting the Act of Primacy. Perhaps they are two separate questions, to which More ought to have developed different responses, and which Bolt may have confused in the development of his stage character. Henry fancied himself as the complete king, for not only was he handsome, but he was also reasonably literate In Latin and French, could compose, and had a modicum of theological training. He was politically astute. But his morals were rather loose, even by the standards of his day. Wolsey refers to Henry's night sports in less than complimentary tones (p. 11).

Henry's bastard son, the Duke of Richmond, was also flaunted on the country. One might even suspect that Henry tried to get to More through his daughter Margaret – remember the scene where Henry exposes his leg to Margaret (p. 28). If that was Henry's idea of social pleasantry, not even Margaret was impressed.

Surely this was harmless flirtation, or mere boasting? Comment on this aspect of the King's visit as if you were Margaret or More.

Like many men of limited real accomplishments, Henry was intellectually and politically a bully. His title was Fidei Defensor, which Queen Elizabeth II still holds as head of the Anglican Church. This title was granted by the then pope in appreciation of a tract Henry had written, probably with More's detailed assistance, against Luther and the continental reformers.

But Henry amplified that title from a spiritual honour to a claim of pre-eminence within the Church which not even the Catholic French or Spanish monarchs had dared to publicly assert.

Find Henry's A defence of the seven sacraments (1592) and summarise.

I believe Henry and his advisers deliberately misread the Old Testament to suit his new lusts and to accommodate the crisis which came when Anne Boleyn, pregnant and demanding he do the right thing, was thought by Henry to be a good bet to be capable of producing a much wanted, legitimate male heir.

Above anything else, Henry as well as Sir Thomas More and Thomas Howard, the Duke of Norfolk and England's premier aristocrat, wanted to avoid a situation where England could be left in the hands of an heiress. Henry's claim of his lack of a male heir, and the consequent danger to the throne, smack very much of trimming the facts to suit his needs, both political and sexual. If we condemn current celebrties for their misbehaviour, should we not do the same in our consideration of Henry's behaviour?

Read Shakespeare's plays dealing with the Wars of the Roses. Especially in Richard III, fear of civil war and a consequent drive to cultural singularity were deep-rooted in the English psyche and reverberate even today.


Marrying one's pregnant mistress may be a way out of her trouble, but only if one is a widower. Attempting to discard a perfectly healthy and lawfully wedded wife for a mistress has not usually been condoned by the Christian confessions. But if certain women are to function as heir-bearing vehicles for the crown and state, then failure to bear a male heir may be grounds for divorce – no? Perhaps a critical reading of Attwood’s A handmaid’s tale is in order here. From my reading I get the distinct impression that More may have acceded to the divorce if the pope had granted an annulment. A case could have been made out, even if the Old Testament texts contradict themselves. A useful exercise would be to find and compare the two salient chapters on marriage matters in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 25, then ask how they can be reconciled, if at all, and how their comments on divorce compare with Christian teachings? Then, also, with a suitable oiling of the diplomatic machinery, nothing is impossible: the differences between sixteenth century Spain and England were far less than those which currently divide Israel and Palestine. To be sure, once the matter was broached, the best legal and ecclesiastical minds in England applied themselves willingly to the task. But Cardinal Wolsey failed, not through his own fault or because an annulment was out the question, but because a justifiably angry Spain held a dagger to Rome's throat. Regardless of the political causes behind papal refusal to grant an annulment, More's attitude was that the pope had spoken as Christ's vicar on earth, and that both he and Henry – even though he was king of England – were bound by that ruling. More's conscience on that matter was set. He had such faith in God that England would cope if Henry were succeeded by a woman.

There may well have been some other reasons causing More to baulk at Henry's bullying. Firstly, Henry's religious pretensions had become rather large, and through his minions he had sought to effect a range of changes, reforms even, which had broadened into an anticlerical attack on the church as an independent spiritual authority; tyrants cannot brook independent thought.

What parallel attacks by politicians on church outspokenness can you observe in our own society?

Then, in his treatment of the non-English minorities, the Welsh and the Cornish, Henry was less than generous, seeking to expunge any acknowledgment of that aspect of his father’s heritage. His new assertion of English nationalism was exclusive and imperialist, and a break from his father's policies of entertainment and containment.

Lastly, Henry’s policies bred illiberal cruelties, harsh even by the measures of the day: arbitrary arrests, secret trials in the court of the Star Chamber, and a sense of abrogation of the liberties announced in the Magna Carta.

What were these liberties, real or inferred, promised in this document?

As the personification of the state, Henry VIII was growing less and less attractive and was beginning the process of destabilising England in a way that was only to be fully realised in the person of that wicked, bloodthirsty regicide, Oliver Cromwell. Did More sense that Henry was spendthrift with his spiritual inheritance? Probably. More's nature was pacific and spiritual, as much as he was a man living in the world, but not living of the world. Through a certain degree of detachment, and a good lawyer is detached, clinical and observant, More was able to judge Henry for what he was, and was not going to lower his ethical standards to satisfy a spiritual bully, no matter what the cost.


But who killed More? Henry was not able to eliminate More unless certain conditions were right. Certainly More was isolated through arrest and imprisonment, his contacts with his confreres were curtailed, the secret police – Richard Rich or even the Common Man could play that role – were ever present, but these were not enough to allow Henry to have More killed. One wonders if Henry would really have been so gross as to directly order More’s death through a quasi-legal process, or would he have maintained a more distant approach, so that the king’s men interpreted and effected the king’s will? More helped Henry by not playing the political game, by insulting parliament in his final address, by his silence even. His speech (pp. 96–97), although a fine statement of principle, was the final nail in his crucifix. More showed the stubborn honesty of a saint, not the guile of a lawyer, or the desperation of a cornered lion, or the brute power of a panther. Perhaps he gave up, and commended his soul to God rather than betray his conscience to Henry and the new state.

Writers of this century, such as Koestler, who have described their own terrible struggles against state tyranny, have indicated that they too have had to face up to the question of whether it is better to accede outwardly and survive, or resist with every ounce of their being, even at a cost we think of as too great for anyone to bear. Many good, some even indifferent, men and women have died at the hands of tyrants for their beliefs.

Can you think of anyone else you would count as a hero of conscience? Why? What qualities would they share with More?

Some, like Bonhoeffer or Kolbe, we call saints. Most, like the Chinese youths cut down at Tiannamen Square, go unrecorded and unremembered.

So, I think the play comes down to this: do we a have a prime responsibility to act out our spiritual beliefs even if the state, that is society in its political expression, demands that we put them aside? As there is no such thing as an absolute truth, all is negotiable. The only way we have of defining ourselves is through our perceptions of the world; that is, through our beliefs.

If the modern state is so tyrannical, so imposing on our sense of right, then surely one has a duty to struggle against it – no?

Neither I, nor Sir Thomas More, would advocate the overthrow of the state, but there must be limits where those things outside of ourselves are not allowed to intrude. Our belief systems are the only ways in which we can erect barriers against unwanted intrusions and the dissolution of the individual's sense of a spiritual self. Perhaps such an attitude leaves one just as naked before God as before society, but in More's journey he does strip himself to that extent, and becomes vulnerable to Henry's depredations. How else could this conundrum be expressed? Perhaps in this way: nothing that one can say or do can ameliorate evil. If one can avoid, flee, fight or even defeat evil, then do so, but do not imagine that evil can be appeased.

It is to be hoped that we have seen enough of tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin to be able to work actively to break evil men, and activities, as they arise. We agree that evils such as the heroin trade, or prostitution or slavery ought be fought. But what of societies such as the People's Republic of China, which actively set out to destroy the Tibetan people, their spirituality and culture? This is an evil which must be fought somehow – there is now no way that it can be appeased; it must be confronted. Yet where is there today an equivalent

Was the awarding of the 1996 Nobel Peace Prize to Bishop Belo of Dili and José Ramos-Horta an indication that some people in the world of politics do recognise the need to


of a Sir Thomas More who will confront such evil? encourage the struggle against the state’s oppression of conscience?

Bolt's play dares us to ask the big questions, not just of English society in a particular stage of history, but of any society which has embarked upon a rejection of morality for the sake of gain in a new and uncertain future. England's gamble was to expand beyond the narrow political and moral confines of being an insignificant off-shore island and aspire to leading status in the affairs of Europe. To some extent the gamble paid off, and England's mercantile classes were able to create an empire, firstly by the reduction of their immediate neighbours to vassalage, and then by virtue of the slave trade and piracy. But the costs were enormous, and ultimately the gamble failed. The stresses of reform and modernisation brought about the Civil War and loss of religious cohesion. It could be reckoned that England subsequently lost its faith, its empire and any sense of society. Furthermore, the children of England, that is the post-colonial Anglophone states such as ourselves, have become secularised playing fields for new generations of materialist freebooters. As Bolt's hero points out in his impolitic, old-fashioned and unheard final address, men must pay attention to their conscience, not to the lure of the secular world; the state ultimately will subsume and erode the one thing that distinguishes a man from the rest of creation: his soul. More was not willing to play the game Henry VIII and his supporters were engaged in, and in turn paid the price of all those who are seen as society's scapegoats.

Some questions for consideration ! Which version of the King’s Matter should one embrace? ! Could Henry VIII be said to have any redeeming features? ! To whom, or what, does one owe loyalty? ! If we applaud a Solzhenitsyn as a prisoner of conscience, why do we condemn a

Palestinian suicide bomber, even though she enacts the demands of her conscience?

! Should Sir Thomas More be considered a saint or a failed politician? ! What are the limits of conscience?


*+315'%"KA"=4$($31+(,"

For More and Henry, I have identified significant quotes and references under

various sub-headings:

! Allocate each such section to a couple of students, and have them prepare a brief character report based only on that information.

! When students have heard all the reports, ask them, in groups, to prepare a total character analysis.

! Have them compare it with the one I have given and contest the conclusions

5.1 Sir Thomas More What does More do or say of himself?

Sense of obligation: ‘I was commanded into office’ (5) – studied indifference to show ‘disguised as a parish clerk’ (26) – to Henry: ‘I am Your Grace’s loyal minister’ (33) – ‘This is not the stuff of which martyrs are made’ (35) – Chain of Office: ‘I’ll take it off’ (48) – ‘I have no taste for hemlock’ (49) – ‘the Lord Chancellor is not an ordinary subject’ (50) – ‘I am afraid’ (53). Key speeches

To Henry, refusing to accede to the divorce: ‘Take your dagger…’ (31) – on law as a ‘thick’ protection against tyranny (38–39) – on humanity (49) – ‘this isn’t Reformation; this is war against the Church!’ (52) – on belief (53) – on gestures (55) – ‘I have made no statement’ (55). What do others say of him?

Disliked by his steward for his generosity to others (9) – Wolsey describes him as a legal ‘plodder’ (10), statesman (12) who should ‘come down to earth’ (13) – Chapuys: ‘You are a good man’ (15) – common assessment ‘wilful indifference to realities’ (20) – Chapuys’ ‘a good son of the Church’ vs Cromwell: ‘a man’ (22) – Steward: ‘worried…frightened’ (23) – Henry: ‘You are honest’ & ‘Now I’ll never know your true opinion’ (32) – Alice: ‘You don’t know how to flatter’ (35) – chided by Margaret for ‘harsh’ treatment of Roper (40) – Common Man’s sly assessment ‘deep nature’ (41) – Rich: ‘an innocent’ (46) – Chapuys: ‘the English Socrates’ (49) – Norfolk: ‘Crank he may be, traitor he is not’ (58) – Cromwell on Norfolk’s friendship with More (60). The accusations

Norfolk: (More’s refusal to accept Convocation’s decision) ‘this looks like cowardice’ (52) – (on linkage between Christ & pope) ‘a tenuous link’ (53) – ‘High Treason’ (89). Cromwell: More’s silence ‘is bellowing up and down Europe!’ (58) – More ‘accepted bribes’ (58) – More had met Maid of Kent (67) – had ‘instigated’ writing of A Defence (69) - ‘ingratitude’ to the King (69) – ‘conspired to deprive our liege lord Henry of his undoubted certain title’ (90) – ‘refused the oath’ (90) – More’s silence is denial (92) – allows Rich’s unsupported statement that More had denied Act of Supremacy (94). More’s resolution of the crisis

Important speech (96–97) Summary of More’s character

A loving husband and fond father, but quite the pedantic lawyer, as one ought to be, and a true son of both church and country, Thomas More believed that the law was defence enough against tyranny. He placed his trust in a system that depended upon


the grace and favour of one man, Henry, but sadly miscalculated the consequences of allowing that man his selfish indulgences.

5.2 King Henry VIII What does Henry say of himself? Thames: ‘my river’ (27) – ‘I dance superlatively’ (28) – ‘I launched a ship today’ (29) – ‘I am a fool’ (30) – Henry to More: ‘your taste in music…’ (33) – ‘I have no Queen’ (34). Key speeches Wolsey’s failure to obtain the marriage annulment (30) – ‘it was no marriage’ & quotation of Leviticus 18:16 (31) – ‘Does a man need a Pope…’ (32) – ‘No opposition!’ (33). What do others say of him?

Wolsey: ‘He’s been to play in the muck again’ (11) – More’s assessment of Henry’s sexual activities (11) – mocking description by Cromwell of Henry’s pilotage (22) – of More: ‘He seeks to shame me with his modesty’ (29) – Cromwell’s bluntness: Henry wants to change ‘his woman’ (44) – More: King’s position as head of church (48). His actions

Fornicator: ‘He’s been to play in the muck again’ (11) – adulterer Wolsey re Anne Boleyn: ‘that thing out there’ (11) – heretic (Act of Supremacy) – tyrant (Wolsey arrested) & murderer: Bishop Fisher executed (90). Uses Norfolk, Cromwell and others as tools for his selfish ends. Offended by More’s ingratitude and humiliated by his bellowing silence. Summary of Henry’s character

Bolt successfully manages to convey the curious and revolting mix that constitutes Henry’s character. He is self-indulgent to the point of obsessive narcissism, and his sexual passions are out of control. As the play develops, he increasingly manipulates the country’s legal and political processes to fulfil his own ends. The play cleverly uses both the popular enthusiasm for the new Queen Elizabeth II, current historical pastiches about the Tudor dynasty, and increasing knowledge of Soviet show-trials to sound a warning about investing too much faith in a charismatic leader, contemporary or historical. For the following characters, allot one to each pair or group of students and have them prepare an oral report for the class based on the references and quotes given.

5.3 Duke of Norfolk (Thomas Howard 1473–1554) A fair-weather friend – blustery (5) – political astuteness (7) – attempts to soften the blow on More (57) – plays his appointed role in More’s trial (89–97); in life, a far more complex character, king-maker & great survivor.

5.4 Cardinal Wolsey A compromised conscience – tries to serve both the church and King Henry – fails to obtain annulment & dies on way to the Tower.


5.5 Thomas Cromwell (d. 1540) His appointment as Wolsey’s secretary – More shocked (7) – ‘the coming man’ (14) – ‘the King’s Ear’ (21) – sets spies on More (37) – to Rich: ‘there are no rules’, religion as a ‘matter of administrative convenience’ (43) – plots to ensnare More on charges of bribery (45) – claims More’s silence constitutes denial (92) – traps More into his closing statement after manipulating a guilty verdict on charge of high treason (96). Bolt makes Cromwell play the role of a beria (Soviet police chieftain) to Henry’s Stalinist régime.

5.6 Chapuys Diplomat, able to speak concisely to More (15) – eventually ineffectual in any action that might have ameliorated the situation and saved More.

5.7 The Common Man Opening statement rings false – envious tone (1) – contemptuous of Rich (2) – impugns More’s generosity (9) – boatman’s greed (15) – coward’s advice (24) – cynical view of politics (25) – callow disloyalty (57) – etc. Bolt has a low opinion of the common mob.

5.8 Sir Richard Rich A man on the make – accepts More’s gift of the goblet (4) but refuses the offer of a teaching post (4 & 9) – advanced to Duke of Norfolk’s librarian (21) – then by Cromwell to Secretary of Council (42) – perjures himself to assist Cromwell (93) – complicit in More’s execution.

5.9 Alice More Able to deal with Norfolk’s banter (5) – sharp with steward (5) – astute assessment of ‘the King’s business’ (8) – alarmed at her husband’s obdurate stand – distressed at loss of social station – ultimately loyal to her husband – More: ‘an honest woman … a lion!’ (86).

5.10 Margaret More (1504–1544) Well-taught, able to appreciate importance of Machiavelli (7) – encourages Roper in his suit – fiercely loyal to her father: ‘and leave you here?’ (85).

5.11 William Roper Margaret’s suitor, later husband – passionate but limited understanding of religious matters (17–18) – willing to modify views at More’s urging (36) – protective of Margaret and More’s family; in later life, the author of More’s biography.


*+315'%"LA"B,,C+,"$%9"14+7+,"

6.1 Tudor politics as a Reality Show Perhaps Mr Blair and Mr Howard may be adroit enough politicians, but even they would not have survived the machinations of someone like Henry VIII. He practised politics as though his life depended upon his own actions, and, given the ruthlessness of his actions, one can only believe that it did. In a way, Henry was the supreme politician of his time, not that it makes him an attractive or admirable figure; just look at those piggy eyes! We should ask ourselves a niggling question to begin with: What is politics? In my childhood, politics evidenced itself as a knock on the front door at four in the morning. Three men from the union had called on my father, who was then working night shift, to persuade him to vote for a Communist candidate in an election. Mother, dressing gown dragged over shoulders, met them at the front door, stood her ground and told them that Dad was asleep and was not to be disturbed. Oddly enough, one of the men was a prominent member of our parish. Mother looked him in the eye and, shamed, he shifted ground. Then we saw that another of the men was carrying a shot-gun. With a fierce whisper in my ear I was sent down the hallway to phone Dad and tell him to stay over at the priest’s house for the while. That’s politics. It’s a dirty game of core promises and non-core vacillations; it’s a local heavy laughing in the electorate’s face when the people want a highway route changed to meet new circumstances; it’s the sly look that crosses a minister’s face when she blatantly lies to parliament and knows that she has succeeded in escaping effective censure. It’s a reality show far coarser than a drug-fuelled lapse in decorum or a smirking judge’s dismissal of honest talent. But it’s also a John Fitzgerald Kennedy; or a Vytas Landsbergis, outgunned and outnumbered, reaching out to the people over the heads of a corrupt system, leading us to imagine what it could be like to live in a civil society. Sometimes politics is a game of endurance, a stubborn, almost mulish clinging to a few common decencies whilst our masters drive the world towards ruin. And it seems to me that the English, amongst all other nations, have been unfortunate in their choice of politicians: what a parade of venal incompetents and grasping manufacturers and mere shopkeepers seeking to marry their sons and daughters above their natural station, elevated to positions of unnatural power. In the meanwhile, the piteous masses of common English, herded into factories to fatten their masters’ pockets, were too dull in their protest, ground down by the weight of arms and poverty. Later, much later, William Blake would raise his prophetic voice, and some would listen. By then it was too late. And the country’s history was so deeply steeped in blood: for if Churchill’s hands were stained with Irish, German, French, even Australian blood, what of that Cromwell who slew his king, or this Henry who merrily butchered his own wives? No one in this drama escapes without some degree of censure: Henry and Cromwell are unspeakably evil; Rich and Chapuys are creatures of convenience; and even More himself can be held partly responsible for the ruin brought to Britain by his lack of willingness to either negotiate or rebel. The latter may have been preferable, certainly more honourable than a belief in the law. But what binds each of these players together is the reality of political life. It comes down to this: in the yard by the Tower of London is a small patch, about three metres square, set aside on the green


sward. There, surrounded by apartment houses no more than a few paces away, the court would gather and watch whilst the latest of Henry’s victims was led up a few steps, thrust onto the block and executed.

6.2 The law and separation of powers Ordinary folk, decent people, seem to regard lawyers as either mysteriously wise and wonderful, or duplicitous and grasping. Hence, Dick the Butcher, a bit of a rebel, has a brilliant idea: ‘Let’s kill all the lawyers!’ (2 Henry VI, iv, 2). Foolish man, for neither butcher, nor king, is a match for a sharp-quilled lawyer. Likewise, some ascribe to the law magical, almost talismanic powers, while others see it as a vehicle for the furtherance of personal and party ambition. With respect to this play, it may be worth investigating some aspects of the interactions between secular and ecclesiastical law, and how More’s destiny is still relevant. The real Thomas More (1478–1535) was a lawyer’s son, and had received a mixed legal and ecclesiastical training in the household of Cardinal Morton before commencing legal practice in 1501. He was a good friend of Erasmus, a well-regarded Member of Parliament, later Speaker, and an ambassador for King Henry VIII. So the person on stage who points out to the rather excitable Roper that ‘Man’s laws’ are planted thickly ‘from coast to coast’ is well aware of what he is saying. His assertion that these laws will provide a refuge from the ‘winds’ for people such as himself at odds with the king’s will (39) is in itself well founded. There’s something else: in this statement: More proposes a differentiation between the king and the law, even while acknowledging the propriety of the king’s reign over Britain, and also proposes that ‘God’s law’ is a matter for separate consideration. One can sense that here at work is a mind very closely attuned to the needs of both the ecclesiastical and secular spheres of governance. Unlike the Taliban or Hezbollah, More is not a theocrat, and rightly rebukes Roper for his conceptualisation of God as unremitting Moloch: he visibly shudders at the hint in Roper’s voice of what became Puritanism. Now, all would be well and good if ‘Man’s laws’ were operated and supervised by men and women of good will and honest soul. We only need to peruse the daily papers to see what a mess politicians, lawyers, judges and ecclesiastics make of their chosen trades, and we are those who pay our taxes and tithes without demur. Perhaps we do get the politicians et al. that we truly deserve. But then, we, the citizens, must put into place effective measures by which public officials are held accountable through democratic processes. The problem faced by More and all good men of his time was that there were no democratic checks and balances to ensure that the laws were observed by the most powerful in the country. Henry VIII, like some precursor of our present nightmare, ran unchecked over all his country’s laws and proprieties to satisfy his own wants and religious vagaries. Indeed, Bolt somewhat later makes More clearly enunciate a doctrine of separation of powers, something even our politicians seem to forget on the odd occasion, in his stubborn rejection of Henry’s proposal to claim personal supremacy over the church in England. Such a law would confuse the notion of the state as a secular, human, instrument of governance of material matters with ecclesiastical and moral rule. As More exclaims quite bluntly after he has been found guilty of high treason, ‘The King in Parliament cannot bestow the Supremacy of the Church because it is a Spiritual Supremacy!’ (96). Moreover, he cites two specific legal instruments, the basis of the


country’s constitution, which guarantee separation. That is, does More argue that theology and ecclesiastical affairs are matters for trained clergy, just as the stock exchange and the positioning of road works are matters for politicians and engineers? It took almost another 250 years for us to get to a stage where the Americans and French insisted through their revolutions on complete separation of church and state. Though now some revisionists claim this was a mistake, it has meant the liberalisation of society and the realisation of humanity’s creative potential. These days, lawyers can go about their profession without fear of the king’s axe, just as priests minister to their various congregations in peace. The boundary lines are clearly marked. One hopes so. It bothers me terribly that there are some politicians who want to blur these boundary lines, to create laws that are primarily statements of personal fancies, or to take ancient and obscure religious codes of which they see themselves as the sole, unaccountable custodians, and use them to replace ‘Man’s laws’. The spectre of Moloch frightens me as much as it did More.

6.3 Family: the core of More’s life In the play’s bustle and the whirlwind swirling about that eventually destroys him, the man, Thomas More is shown to be a loving husband and tolerant father. His first wife, Jane Colt, had died seven years after their marriage, and he married Alice Middleton soon after. Seven children, and friends, formed the household, and all were afforded a wonderful education, girls and boys alike. In the final stages of his imprisonment he cries out ‘Why, it’s a lion I married! A lion! A lion!’ (86). Of course, this is said half in jest, but none the less it is a real expression of his affection and admiration for Alice. She has maintained the household for over twenty years, supervising care of the children and playing the role of hostess in More’s numerous social engagements. She is able to hold her own with the blustery Norfolk (6) and comment quite knowingly on the dubious origins of a parvenu such as Cromwell (7). She is fiercely protective of More, especially when she perceives Rich as a threat (38), then is girlishly rueful in the poverty caused by her husband’s fall (65). But we can see in the way that this couple react to each other that their love binds them ever closer as the inevitable looms. Margaret, his first-born child, appears in the play as his fondest companion. He has seen to it that her education makes her more than a match for the lecherous Henry, and she is fully cognisant of her father’s position. And it is she who is fixing his plain garb when the King, resplendent in gold-shot cloth, comes bounding into the household, all smiles and sharp teeth. Roper, the apple of Margaret’s eye, is moulded by More to become not just a suitable husband, which he would have been in any case, but a careful thinker. Times were too dangerous, and too many young bloods were to lose their heads for speaking too quickly, too volubly, in coming years. Besides, More could properly be described as a paterfamilias, who knew his responsibility to shield and protect his charges all too well. We know that the family survived his execution, and Roper later proceeded to write the delightful biography upon which our knowledge of More is based.

6.4 A matter of conscience Who keeps our country’s conscience? Is it the parish priest seeing to the needs of a newly unemployed worker’s family whilst struggling to conduct a youth program in an


atmosphere filled with secular suspicion? Is it the earnest, newly elected bishop who must contend with fashionable demands that he let the rainbow brigade flaunt themselves at the cathedral door? The politician? That bluff and earnest fellow representing a marginal seat, who must now try to make sense of calls for stem-cell research to be facilitated – a great advance in medical science, but of course there’ll be a few souls flushed down the gutter. The scientist who tries to juggle rising demand for energy against the inevitable desertification of the country’s interior? Just what bothers More? It is evident that he shares with others a distaste of Henry’s libidinous behaviour, but then, misdemeanours of that ilk are private matters, and even while they may be sinful More is not Henry’s priestly confessor. In fact, More has earlier been complicit in Henry’s gain of papal accolades. Perhaps Henry’s misbehaviour towards young Margaret can be dismissed as loutish, but his childish demand that his wife, Queen Catherine, be cast aside so that his grasping mistress can be satisfied, will not be so easily dismissed. More’s unease with his king’s behaviour and policies grows as the play runs its course. By the time Henry begins to demand that the matter of his marriage move beyond mere petition to the pope and be effected by an Act of Parliament, More has seen where his course must lie. It is less the matter of marriage than Henry’s abrogation of the Magna Carta, with its implicit guarantee of both secular and ecclesiastical rights, that pricks More’s conscience. Correctly, More sees that Henry has crossed the line from personal indulgence to political tyranny, and realises that the laws of the land would be no protection for anyone, however great or insignificant, if the king is not resisted. Yet all More has to resist with is his knowledge of the law, his rectitude, and his unshakable belief in the order that ought to govern the relationship between church and the English crown. More proves to be right. Is More’s conscience too sensitive? After all, it’s easy enough to dump the old wife and acquire a ‘trophy wife’; and as for priests, they can be kept as pets for the sake of what Cromwell calls ‘administrative convenience’. So does it matter that he dies in vain? For it could be said that that is the case: there is no stopping the tyrant. Worse still, Henry provides the means for Catholic Britain to be revolutionised into Cromwell’s England, the butcher of Ireland and rogue state of Europe. And, does the keeper of a country’s conscience need to be a prominent person, such as a Sir Thomas More? It helps to have a hero stand up to state brutality, as did Archbishop Belo (Timor), or Vaclav Havel, the Czech playwright (Czechia). But what of a Sophie Scholl (Germany) or a Homa Arjomand (Canada)? What about you, the reader, or me, the writer of this passage? Do we, as insignificant specks in the great order of this republic’s politics, stand aside and let other people speak on our behalf? If so, then someone else will decide to build a leaky nuclear power plant at Anglesea or waste a thousand potential children to grow enough cells for a would-be Superman to walk again. Someone else, not us, will decide to draft our sons on their seventeenth birthday into the army, then send them to some distant desert to satisfy our greed for cheap petrol. Perhaps the real matter of conscience comes to this, and More would agree, that if we do not speak up now, then no one will speak up for our daughters when they are told to wear the burqa, and any objectors will be deemed expendable.


6.5 Twenty consequent questions on themes and issues

1. What, if any, parallels can be drawn between the emerging materialist society in 16th century England, and the Australia of our own time?

2. What beliefs do you hold so dearly that you would sacrifice your life for them? 3. Was it right for that lone student to stand up before the tanks in Tiannamen

Square? (Alternative heroes to consider: the Lithuanian students at the TV tower in Vilnius before the Russian tanks in 1991; Sophie Scholl; Aung Sang Suu Kyi; the Dalai Lama’s ongoing resistance to the Chinese communist state).

4. What political dramas are being played out on our television screens this year? 5. Refer to Orwell’s 1984: are we being manipulated into hating certain parties?

How? 6. For whom do you barrack (speaking politically, that is)? 7. What would you do to help your team (political party) win? 8. ‘Whatever you say, say nothing’ (Séamus Heaney). Does silence imply assent,

or does it imply defiance? What do our political masters desire of us? 9. Is Divorce acceptable to Christians (by this term I include Catholics, Orthodox,

Lutherans and Calvinists, Anglicans and the other 57 varieties). If so, why? If not, why not? (check both the Old and New Testaments as well as the various canons).

10. Applying the Tudor dilemma to recent times, find out why the Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, married Lady Diana Spencer. What are royal marriages made for? Is this a matter of state or of conscience?

11. Was Henry correct or justified in his repudiation of Queen Catherine? Why? 12. Should the church(es) have spoken out more clearly to defend Princess

Diana's rights in that marriage? 13. Would it be possible to write a Brechtian-style play about Princess Diana's

divorce and death? 14. Should the church have spoken out more clearly to defend the rights of Queen

Catherine of England? If not, why not? 15. Had Princess Diana lived in the 16th century, would she and her courtiers have

survived? 16. Was More right to dissent from the King’s laws? 17. What is the difference between articulated dissent and sedition? 18. How would you articulate your beliefs on a major moral question such as the

stem-cell debate? 19. Does the cause justify the means? Where does the balance rest? (Discuss

with reference to both Henry’s desire for a male heir and the recent London bombings).

20. Which is more important: one’s conscience or the organisation?


*+315'%"MA"N$%6C$6+"$%9"*1.)+

A Man for All Seasons is a difficult play, in that it demands that students be ready to acquire a new vocabulary and so become familiar with some key concepts pertaining to both theology and law. The problems being faced by More as a result of Henry’s adulterous behaviour stem in part from the linguistic revolution which was an integral part of the Renaissance. Whilst some European scholars were rediscovering the ancient Latin & Greek texts, publishing them in fine editions for scholarly use, others were delving into other texts in Hebrew, Aramaic & Arabic. The urge to propagate their findings beyond scholarly circles led to a flood of translations into the various European vernaculars, Italian, French, German and English. With regard to the sacred texts, some of these activities were properly licensed, some were not. In this manner the range of texts known as The Bible became available to the educated laity, rather than being reserved for the clergy. The thing is that The Bible, as Henry had it, was a translation into English of a translation (The Vulgate). So, with all historical and theological perspectives cast aside, a cunning layman such as King Henry would be tempted to select such passages as suited his purposes. Here’s an example. In the exchange between Henry and More over the passages in Leviticus 18:16 & Deuteronomy 25 referring to ‘his brother’s wife’, both men used the word ‘brother’ as a translation of the Vulgate Latin frater: But, in the light of modern scholarship we would now realise that in Hebrew social system, one would be referring to a group of related men, that is, cousins, and as noted, the scribes were perhaps trying to regulate the practice of polyandry. Likewise, Henry’s obsession with repudiating his brother’s ‘wife’ may also have been occasioned by sexual jealousy, given his known murderous intentions towards sexual rivals: but that’s more the field for a psychiatrist’s comment. But the sticking point surely is the ahistoricity of Henry’s reading, for in a semi-nomadic community to which the text refers, the concept of a singular ‘wife’, as has been developed in the West over the past millennium, was not valid. The texts seem to imply group marriages and changing partnerships, much as applies in contemporary Melbourne. Another word that might be considered is a constitutional term, ‘king’. The word king is derived from the same root as gives ‘kin’ and ‘kindred’, and its oldest Germanic form *kuninggaz also denoted a sacred function, as preserved in the Lithuanian term for a clergyman, kunigas. Hence, one would expect that the King (or Queen) of England be a person of noble birth and having a priestly cast of character, capable of leading his kindred through times of good fortune and of troubles. Henry’s nobility was suspect, his character and style left much to be desired. As students go through the text in detail, many other words will warrant very close attention. For example ‘treason’ and ‘divorce’ are terms that mean something quite different now as in More’s time. It is worth the effort to use a good dictionary, the Oxford Concise at least, in conjunction with key texts from the period, and work through the maze of law and theology that failed, in the end, to protect More, and England, from Henry’s will to absolute power.


*+315'%"OA"=)',+"(+$95%6"'&"14(++"8$,,$6+," Passage 1: Common Man’s prologue (1–2)

The prologue is Bolt’s nod to the Shakespearean convention of having some commoners or soldiers comment on the situation at hand before main characters enter. It also echoes the practices of Brecht’s drama, which had some degree of currency at the time, and in which the audience were supposed to be won over to the commoner’s viewpoint. But Bolt’s take on the Common Man does not excite one’s sympathy. A true Londoner, the Common Man whinges and whines in false modesty: ‘perverse,’ he calls it, ‘to start the play…with me!’ (1). He, like the common crowd, is unable to accept that this is a drama in which the powerful, the king, lords and the church, are engaged in a deadly struggle for the nation’s soul. The Common Man can only ever be a bystander. What is interesting is his attitude to the women in the household. Having pulled out a costume from the property basket which ‘barely covers one’s nakedness’, he is reduced from ‘Old Adam to Common Man’ (1). What is meant by this? ‘Old Adam’ is a somewhat misogynistic term used to indicate Adam, gloriously sinless and alone before Eve was fashioned from his rib, with the sly implication of ‘a bit of black material’ that he would have been better off alone. For the Common Man no real joy can be found in the feminine, as is shown in his leering reference to Margaret: ‘lovely, really lovely’ (5), and by his total lack of sympathy for Alice and Margaret as they take their leave of More (87). Bolt clearly demonstrates that the Common Man, the heroised motif of the revolution, is really quite common, not worth our consideration: so much for Marxist theories of class struggle. Yet, as is boldly stated, ‘Like all other centuries’, his time ‘is the Century of the Common Man’ (2), and the point is rammed home in the alternative concluding scene, where he demands recogntion (100). Perhaps Bolt uses this Common Man as a framing device to remind his audience that religion and politics may not just be games reserved for the great and powerful; that perhaps some consideration should be paid to the needs and wants of the unwashed masses, of our aspirational classes. There’s the dilemma. In the whole mess of politics and mismanagement, whilst More tries to wrestle a safe passage between his conscience and the king’s tyranny, with state and church tugging at each other, the steward, the boatman, the jailer and the executioner sit beneath the table, go about their daily business, look out for their own interests, and manage somehow ‘to keep alive’ (100). Perhaps More, and his antagonists, should have paid some attention to that particular art. Passage 2: Cromwell on More (44) Cromwell makes two statements. The first reveals his cynicism about the King’s situation. The fact is that Henry, ‘our Sovereign Lord’, holds all the political cards and that people such as Cromwell and Rich are merely his servants. That is, whatever Henry wants, Henry will get, as in his desire to ‘change his woman’, which is Cromwell’s brutal way of expressing an affair gone out of control. Administrators such as Rich and Cromwell had to deal with that certain ‘constant factor’ amidst the swirl of possible revolt in York and More’s unbending opposition to Henry’s wilfulness. Their job was to smooth the path for the King’s progress, something Wolsey had earlier failed to do by following established protocols, and which Cromwell, the farrier’s son, would succeed in by smashing down the established processes of law and decency.


He seduces Richard Rich into complicity with ‘this post at York’, an advancement on being Norfolk’s librarian; Rich’s willingness to be the king’s instrument in later life would see him promoted well beyond his wildest dreams. And however much Rich bemoans his lost ‘innocence’, it is Cromwell, ever the realist, who reminds him that it was lost ‘long ago’. Cromwell has clearly established the other constant in their relationship. As the conversation moves to a condsideration of More’s position, Cromwell becomes almost excited. He understands that More is truly ‘an innocent man’, but one whose innocence is ‘tangled’ in the webs of political reality. That reality also involves consideration of the pope’s strikingly corrupt nature, to which Cromwell alludes, and the very real threat posed by the emperor, Queen Catherine’s would-be protector. Bolt’s audience would have been aware of that reality, and its later realisation during the reign of Elizabeth I, from their school history lessons. The implication is quite chilling: More must be dealt with ruthlessly. Cromwell is evil incarnate. Just as every drama needs a villain, if only to demonstrate the hero’s nobility, there’s something comfortingly reptilian about this character who enjoys inflicting pain even on his most favoured protogé, Rich (46). Eventually, nothing will stop him from staisfying his master’s lusts; nothing will hinder him from tearing down the very fabric of law and church in which More has invested his safety and that of his country. Passage 3: More’s closing statement (96–97)

Part of of the problem this play represents for contemporary Australian audiences, and especially for students, is the lack of European history taught in schools over the last two or three decades. Bolt’s audience was of that generation whose ears were stuffed full of potted histories of the Renaissance, Reformation and Counter-Reformation, of France, the Holy Roman Empire, the emergence of England, and the Irish wars. We may have resisted that schooling at that time, but it bore fruit. Bolt’s audience knew and understood their history, and were reading the daily papers in 1960. They lived in a very dangerous era, had witnessed the rise and fall of tyrants, and trembled at the edge of mutually assured destruction. What then is More’s position? As a Christian he understands that there is a distinction between the secular and the sacred, and that this distinction is expressed through the codes of civil law (prevention and punishment of crimes, settling commercial differences and the like) and the ecclesiastical canons (regulation of church affairs, morals, doctrinal matters and the like). More uses the phrase ‘the Law of God’ as a way of expressing this separation of powers, and privileges this over the particular ‘Act of Parliament…directly repugnant’ which claimed Henry’s personal supremacy. It is almost a claim for theocracy, a doctrine which we see firmly established in contemporary Iran, and also dangerously bubbling under the surface in the USA. In such a state, clerics (the religious class) control the police and the army, mandate morality and dress codes, and designate who is to be included or excluded. Our society has rejected that mode of government, for we elect our representatives, and expect government to be enacted for the benefit of all, not just the elect. But I doubt that More would have argued for a theocratic state; that horror was to be inflicted upon Britain when another Cromwell, the regicide, came to power. More’s cry is that Henry has broken his coronation oath, a core election promise if ever there was one, that the Church is immune from arbitrary actions by the state. Moreover, Henry breaches Magna Carta, which laid out the beginnings of a written constitution (1215).


More is not a soldier, nor that sort of politician, being too closely identified with the régime established by Henry VII. Short of engaging in some sort of conspiracy with Chapuys to entangle the Spanish in England’s internal affairs, or working with the scattered, disaffected elements outside of London, there is little More can do. He knows it; hence his recourse to the only thing that might offer protection to himself and some solution to the crisis: the law. This then is a lawyer’s complaint, but then lawyers are as unworldly as priests when it comes to politics, and are liable to the same delusion that the word is enough. The truth of the matter, however, is that More ‘would not bend to the marriage’ (97), could not accommodate a spoilt brat’s lust; and for all his principles, his saintliness and service to king and country, was quite expendible. He realises that, and resigns his ‘poor body’ to the ‘King’s pleasure’ (97). He knows that he has lost, and there are no more tactics left to use: this is the end of all hope. His manner of going is strange: no more fine speeches, some small comfort from his daughter, a bitter exchange with the Woman, repudiation of Cranmer (who later was to feel the axeman’s edge). It is a death taken alone but for his conscience. Postscript Is this the stuff of heroism, of sainthood? Some think so. He was canonised (proclaimed a saint) by the Catholic church in 1935, at a time when the great secular heresies of National Socialism (Germany) and Communism (Russia) were at their height; when men and women of good conscience, who could not abide the barbarism that threatened to engulf Europe, needed a model for their conscience and actions in the gathering gloom. The problem is, who but an intellectual would choose St Thomas More as a mentor? Not the Common Man.


*+315'%"PA"QC(14+("$315J515+,"

Discussions about the play 1. How is the play structured so as to highlight More’s crisis of conscience? 2. Does the Common Man really act as a Brechtian distancing device or is he a

distraction? 3. What staging devices would you use to establish period and place in a new

production? 4. Are characters such as Rich, Wolsey and Henry really amoral villains or merely

expedient politicians? 5. Can you make a judgement on Norfolk’s character, especially as he cooperated in

More’s rigged trial? 6. Does the play succeed in convincing you that More was right in his course of

action, and that he was a hero, or does it leave you with the impression that this was an exercise in futility?

7. Which of the two video/film versions is more authentic? Can you give reasons other than those related to the lead actors’ reputations?

Exploring the text Many of these suggested activities should flow from students' journal work. Some of them are suitable for recording on a sound-cassette or videotape and can be used later for listening and viewing. Individual work: ! Prepare a reading of a key passage from the play or from Utopia, and audio or

videotape it. ! Give a talk to a group of students in another class about an important issue in the

text; e.g. ‘More's view of the church as a sacral institution’. ! Acting the part of one of the play's characters, explain to an audience a viewpoint

on an issue; e.g. as Henry, give your reasons for dismissing Wolsey as your Chancellor. Dress for the part and tape your presentation.

! Research and explain with reference to the device of the Common Man, what you understand of Bolt's use of Brechtian devices in the play.

! Listen to or watch one of the recorded exercises and write a critique of the presentation offered.

! Listen to a record or tape of English Renaissance poetry and/or music for an extended period of time. Note your impressions in your journal.

! Write your own suite of Henrician sonnets or ballads on some aspect of life; e.g. Henry as Anne's wooer or More's reflections on mortality.

! Write and publish an inflammatory tract against the king's divorce, or even against More as a traitor to the king.

! Research and present a paper on Berthold Brecht's theories and practice as a playwright and how they relate to the structure of this play.


Work for small groups:

! Rehearse and present a reading of a small scene; e.g. the early conversation between More, Rope and Margaret. Record it on video cassette.

! If there is a large class, or if several classes in the one school are undertaking a study of the play, much of the play can be covered by editing a set of rehearsed readings together. Continuity can be ensured by simple costume items or by one actor playing the Common Man.

! Undertake a singles debate on a selected specific topic; i.e. three minutes each speaker, with a follow-up question and answer session and adjudication by applause-metre. Record it on video cassette. The topic can be adapted from those in this guide.

! Undertake a formal debate between two teams on a selected topic, with adjudication by a panel of three. Record it on video cassette.

! Watch and make a comparative analysis of the same scene from the two video versions of the play. Record your observations and comments as a paper and circulate to other groups of students.

! Address one of the key issues in the play, such as whether More was morally right in denying the Act of Supremacy. Each member of the group should research and present a short paper of about 400 words. Make sure that each topic is different in scope and focus. Combine the papers as single booklet and circulate this publication. If your school has a homepage, post it on the Internet.

Creative responses ! You are Margaret. You have been allowed to embrace your father on his

execution. Write an immediate memoir for your family and friends explaining your father's silence.

! You are More. The King is coming to visit you and your family tomorrow. What issues will Henry raise? How will you respond? Write a letter to your good friend Erasmus, explaining your position as Chancellor and how you would want things to work out.

! You are Henry. It is some years after you have dispatched Anne Boleyn. Chapuys is still the Spanish Ambassador. How would you react to the suggestion of a reconciliation between yourself, Rome and the European powers, drawing upon More’s saintly reputation as a basis?


*+315'%"@RA"S+."TC'1$15'%," While these quotations ought be memorised, this list is no substitute for the student’s own close reading & selection of any number of appropriate selections. QUOTATION SPEAKERS & CONTEXT PAGE & SETTING

! “a farrier’s son” Alice More in discussion of Cromwell’s character & actions.

Act 1, Scene 2

! More: “The King’s business”

! Alice: “the Queen’s business”

More & his daughter in discussion of the constitutional crisis occaisioned by the King’s desire to divorce his Queen and marry his mistress.

Act 1, Scene 3

! “Nice boy … Terribly strong principles though”

More about Roper, his daughter’s suitor, perhaps sensing that Roper would abandon his protestant sympathies out of his love for Margaret.

Act 1, Scene 7

! “No opposition! … you are my Chancellor!”

King Henry VIII to More: exemplifies H’s desire to use the political process as an instrument of personal desire.

Act 1, Scene 12

! “the tickets of the law”

! “Man’s laws, not God’s”

On Law and the possibility of protection from the King’s whimsy.

Act 1, Scene 13

! “There are no rules” Cromwell seduces Rich Act 1, Scene 14

! “bellowing” More’s silence Act 2, Scene 6

! “ingratitude” Cromwell’s assessment of More’s refusal to support the King.

Act 2, Scene 8

! “dockside bully” More’s assessment of cromwell & hence of the English political system.

Act 2, Scene 12

! “High Treason” The charge made to ensure More’s execution.

Act 2, Scene 15

It is suggested that students memorize More’s closing speech – it is a noble utterance and serves as a good summary of his legal and theological position.


*+315'%"@@A";,,$."1'853,"

Part 1 ‘More was wrong to resign his Chancellorship. He would have been more effective in office if he had wanted to achieve reconciliation between his sovereign and Rome in the longer term.’ Do you agree? ‘If any family exhibited those Christian values so sorely needed in their day it was that of Thomas More, yet their goodness was not enough to save him.’ Discuss. Did More eschew his responsibility to his sovereign and the English people by his opposition to the divorce and the Act of Supremacy? Part of the enduring strength of this play is to be found in the assortment of evil and weak characters circling like sharks around More and the old order. Discuss. If Henry’s need for a son and heir outweighed all other considerations, political and religious, then More should have conceded. Do you agree? ‘The men and women we observe on stage are doomed to fail as they struggle against the inexorable tide of Henry’s will to power.’ Discuss

Part 2 ‘A Man for all Seasons shows the supreme importance of conscience in political life.’ Discuss ‘The text shows that silence implies consent.’ Do you agree? Which is more important, the state or the individual? ‘The play shows that trust in the law is never sufficient defence against tyranny.’ Do you agree? The play shows that the strength of family is a powerful support against public attack. ‘This play clearly demonstrates that the challenges we face may not always be overcome, no matter what the depth of our courage and faith.’ Do you agree?


*+315'%"@DA"UC59+9"+,,$."(+,8'%,+,"

Part 1 Essay ‘The men and women we observe on stage are doomed to fail as they struggle against the inexorable tide of Henry’s will to power.’ Discuss. As the rubric uses the word discuss, I would take this as licence to explore, tease out, and address a range of issues seen as relating to the centrality of Henry VIII in the play. He is not on stage all that often, but his irruptions are well-staged and in the court scenes he is present through his minions and symbols. In the short time before any writing is allowed, and having chosen the other topics, I would at least take note of key words such as men and women, stage, doomed, inexorable tide, will to power, Henry, and then put this topic aside. When starting to think, that is write down the ideas that have been working away in my mind, I would use a left-hand page to start brainstorming, placing the words Henry in the centre, and a range of other key terms, thus: MORE FAMILY ALICE MARGARET ROPER RICH BOLT WOLSEY Q. CATHERINE HENRY VIII ANNE BOLEYN CROMWELL ANNULMENT / DIVORCE ACT OF SUPREMACY JUDICIAL MURDERS (FISHER / MORE)

! H’s determination to m. AB and get a male heir – mixed reasons

! H’s religious manoeuvres ensnare ! The nature of More’s resistance ! Bolt’s purpose(s) & our reactions

It is something of a scattergun approach, but I have only a few minutes in the exam, and so I would quickly draw linkages between key characters, and along those link-lines place annotations such as W-H8 ‘W fails, arrested’, M-Roper ‘M wants R to take family abroad’. Some of these linkages will be central to the topic, some peripheral, so I would need to concentrate mostly on Henry. By the time I have built my spider’s web, I would then be in a position to list say 4 main paragraph topics, and compose a main contention with which to attack the topic. The last thing one would want to do is repeat or mimic the cue statement that has been provided. The examiners are interested in what the student has to offer, and how it is written. So I might start the essay with the playwright, given that I am interested in theatre as such. Here goes: Just as Henry sought to manipulate his subjects into acquiescence with his triumphant will, Bolt manoeuvres us into identifying with More and his lost cause.

Will it do? The only thing to do now is write, and keep control over what is written.


Part 2 Essay ‘This play clearly demonstrates that the challenges we face may not always be overcome, no matter what the depth of our courage and faith.’ Do you agree? This seems to be less than straightforward. It is a difficult topic because it is stated in the negative, ‘not…no’, and asks for some commitment from the essayist. There are two traps. The first is to accept unreservedly the statement’s negativity, the danger being that you will write a negative answer, one that is likely to depress the reader. The second is that an essay could be too strident in its protestation of hope. Somehow, a balance is needed. The key verbal to consider is ‘clearly demonstrates’. Ask yourself if the play fulfils that function. If so, how? If not, why not? How does the play work in showing its proposition(s)? The other matters of ‘courage and faith’ and ‘challenges…overcome’ are straightforward enough, but as you must not retell the plot, what is at issue here is the success or otherwise of this play. In planning this essay, I would start at the beginning: In presenting this play in 1960, Robert Bolt sought to explore the quandary {that so many of his generation had been faced with}…the choice between demands of (one’s) conscience and (state-imposed) duty.

It’s fairly rough at first, and I am aiming to get the first line as succinct as possible, to attract the reader’s interest and propel the essay into some of the major topics. How will I develop the opening paragraph? Then, what will be the subject matter of the second and consequent paragraphs? To open the next paragraph, I have quickly written: Because this is a play, not a novel or a political tract, Bolt must work out his ideas through the characters he has chosen to present. More is pitted against Henry only indirectly, through Cromwell, but it must be clear to the eye that Henry’s spirit dominates every other character, even More in his most private of moments. It’s a bit like Big Brother, quite Orwellian.

And so on: I am aiming for a strong conclusion, something along the lines of: not so much Bolt’s marionettes, the mere vehicles of conflicting ideologies, but courage and faith manifest under the cruellest condition… Then, I need to back-fill with clear paragraph headings that will allow me to move logically from beginning to end. I jot these down as dot-points, allocate at least one key word/quotation to each, and, knowing approximately where to finish, begin writing. Not everything may go according to plan, so I make sure to leave 5 to 10 minutes to go back over, check and recheck, make sure I have written exactly what I wanted, then go on to the next task.


*+315'%"@GA"/+&+(+%3+,"$%9"(+,'C(3+,"

Texts

Bolt, R. 1970, A Man for all Seasons, Heinemann, London. Davies N. 1996, Europe: A history, OUP, Oxford. More T., ‘O ye that put your trust and confidence…‘, Oxford book of sixteenth century verse, ed. E. K. Chambers, 1931, OUP, Oxford. Reynolds, E. 1965, Sir Thomas More, Longman, London.

Internet sites Jokinen, A 2005 ‘Sir Thomas More (1478–1535) http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm A Man for all Seasons (1966 film): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/ Mary Rose: http://www.maryrose.org/ Prys-Jones, D. 1999 ‘Remembering Milovan Djilas’, The New Criterion Online, London: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/18/oct99/djilas.htm Richard III (1995 film): www.mgm.com/richard/ Toscani, M. 1998, ‘Anne Boleyn’: http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/anneboleyn.html Tudor England: http://englishhistory.net/tudor/contents.html Tudor England: Images 1 www.marileecody.com/images.html Tudor England: Images 2 www.marileecody.com/temporary/images.html

Documents

A Man For All Seasons (VATE Teacher Notes)