Hilary Mantell’s historical
fiction about Thomas Cromwell, and the current BBC dramatisation of Wolf
Hall, present us with rather counter
culture versions of both Cromwell and Thomas More.
I am sure that most people of my generation saw More as The Man for All Seasons in David Lean’s 1966 film, and of course
More is now a Catholic saint, but what
was he really like?
Of course we can never
know. He lived in times of sharp
religious and political divisions and literally deadly rivalry. To some he will always be a saint, to
others a much darker character. I am a
Protestant priest, trained in an Anglican Seminary, and studying Church history
through Protestant eyes. More is seen by Protestants as a zealous
prosecutor of those who believed
(1) that Holy Scripture should
be available to every person in their own language, and
(2) that we all have a God
given – natural – moral conscience.
We must, of course, pay heed to the moral teachings of the Church, but
not subjugate our conscience to the authority of the Bishops or Pope.
More had been taught by the church to regard both of these beliefs
as heretical, and ordered the execution of those who translated, published,
transported or held English language Bibles, or refused to recant their
Protestant belief in God’s direct access to his people. Today, of course, the Catholic Church embraces both of these ‘Protestant’ doctrines. The Catholic Church of the 20th
century is much closer doctrinally to the Protestant Church than to the 16th
century Catholic Church. More could be seen therefor as faithful, obedient and zealous, but
ultimately wrong. Of course he paid
for his unwavering obedience to the Pope when it brought him into opposition with
his King.
Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor of church
history at Oxford University, wrote that
there is no denying the appeal of More’s mind.
“I
have seen some of the new series and More comes across as a desiccated fanatic.
Well, that would be one take. It is true he has always been a controversial
character partly because he became such a plaster saint, seen as unassailable
in the Catholic church. But like
Cromwell he was a complicated humanist, as well as a great stylist and the
author of the wonderful Utopia. For More, I think, the whole of the late
1520s became resolved into a life and death struggle for his world. We all have
our priorities and for him a united Christendom overrode his concern with mercy
or with pity.”
The question is, how did this priority, which overrode his concern with mercy or with pity,
affect his actions as Lord
Chancellor?
Rumours circulated both during and after More's
lifetime regarding his ill-treatment of heretics when he was Lord Chancellor. In his defence of his faith he engaged in
spying on and ‘investigating’ suspected Protestants, especially publishers of
the English Bibles. Did his
investigations include torture?
What do other historians say?
‘Peter
Ackroyd’s dignified, often eloquent biography offers a picture of More which is
a combination of Catholic admiration and scholarly determinism.’ (James Wood’s review) But in
it Ackroyd still writes that
“More
approved of burning. In total there were
six burned at the stake for heresy during More's chancellorship. After the case of John Tewkesbury, a London
leather-seller found guilty of harbouring banned books and sentenced to burning
for refusing to recant, More declared: he "burned as there was neuer
wretche I wene better worthy.”
Of course Thomas Cromwell also oversaw
executions. I know of four, but they were all beheaded for treason, not burnt
for heresy. As every theological
advance throughout the history of the Church starts as heresy (a minority view
not yet shared by the orthodox majority) I approve of it, if not always of
individual heretics!
Brian Moynahan, in Thomas More and the
Writing of the English Bible, criticised More's intolerance, and it was said the he had John Bainbridge ‘whipped in his own garden’. I do not know if the garden was Bainbridge’s
or More’s!
John Foxe, in his Book of Martyrs (1563) claiming that More had often personally used
violence or torture while interrogating heretics.
Jasper Ridley
goes much further in his dual biography of More and Cardinal Wolsey, The
Statesman and the Fanatic, describing More as "a particularly nasty sado-masochistic pervert”
Even John Paul 2, recognised
that More’s zeal could take him too far – at least by today’s standards,
"It can be said that he demonstrated in a singular way the value of a
moral conscience... even if, in his actions against heretics, he reflected the
limits of the culture of his time".
Of course standards change. It is beyond doubt that More used foul and
scatological language that no one would tolerate today from a churchman. But he was not alone in this. Although he educated his favourite daughter
in Latin and Greek (as did Cromwell) he refused to let his wife learn to read
and write. But these were misogynist
times when wives were chattels with no rights.
So I suppose the jury will always be out, and
divided. But after Robert Bolt’s
hagiographic portrayal of More and vilification of Cromwell in ‘A Man for All Seasons’ it is good to
have alternate views of both men,
remembering that both of them fell under the executioner axe. One for serving his God - and Pope – to
well, the other for serving his God and King too well – and making deadly
enemies in the court as he did so. At
least More got a trial.
I loved the first two volumes of Mantell’s
trilogy, and I am enjoying the Beeb’s
version, surprised but persuaded by the casting of Mark Rylance as Cromwell. I
had thought that some one with more physical heft might get the part, maybe Dominic West. But that might have really confused those
who get all their history from the tv and had seen West playing Thomas’s distant relative Oliver Cromwell
in the excellent Channel 4 Civil War production ‘The Devil’s Whore.’
Thomas or Thomas as hero or villain? I suspect it all depends on which religious or historical lens you are looking through.
