Robert Bolts play A Man for All Seasons - Essay Example

A Man for All Seasons A Man for All Seasons is the most famous Robert Bolt’s play which can be regarded as a genuine dramatic parable. The main aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the main character (Thomas More) to Henry VIII. First of all it is necessary to give a short description of both characters. Thomas More, being the main character of the play, is presented as an uncompromising fighter against injustice. It is obvious that Thomas More properly served both English crown and the Catholic Church.

In his youth he was torn between church services and social activities, but still in the end he chose the latter, being a good specialist both in canon law and in civil law. Observing Henry VIII we see that he is the King of England who has only a minor role in Bolt’s play. King Henry VIII was More’s friend, but he was strict in his desire to demand his friend’s head when he refused to go along with his royal marriage. Thus, the conflict between English monarchs throne and the Holy See, which arose in 1529, sucked More in itself as a funnel, and drowned him in it.

Comparing two characters we can mention that More and King Henry VIII are very different people by their nature. Thomas More is presented as a completely enlightened, erudite person, with excellent oratory skills and, equally importantly, firm principles and beliefs; while King Henry VIII is described as a purposeful, eccentric tyrant, a person in whose charisma something rotten and very dangerous lies in contrast to More. Referring to the Republic and the Nichomachean Ethics in comparing and contrasting two characters we can mention that Thomas More and Henry VIII have different positions towards social justice and attitudes towards what a happy life consists in.

Discussing Thomas More’s position in the play we see that More hurriedly resigned and honorably interrupted all relationships with friends. Departing in deaf silence, not arguing with the king, but not supporting him, More stays clean before the law. He would be clean even before the king if the king had a detachment of paper on which laws are written. But Henry had an explosive, impulsive and demanding temperament, multiplied by the almost limitless possibilities. Unwillingness to help the king looks like king’s personal offense, moreover, the challenge and the suspicion of opposition sentiment has solved More’s destiny.

At the same time, the prosecution of a competent and intelligent lawyer (Thomas More) – is a great opportunity to push for all careerists. The huge irony is also shown in the words, twice repeated by the new Lord Chancellor: “We are not Spain - we are England.” This phrase has a double sense, and the first meaning is that for England in the face of Europe it is important to maintain the reputation of a civilized state, i.e., to prove More’s betrayal in court; while the second meaning is much more sinister: England, has its own laws and because you are a citizen of the King of England, for own dedication to the Pope you can suffer the most severe punishment.

More for all his intelligence, apparently underestimated the importance for the king of the question of divorce; and also the importance of loyalty. King Henry VIII proved in his turn that exactly monarch established laws in the country. Both characters of the play are not quite the same that we used mean by typical characters: socio-psychological generalizations of philosophical level. In this play we see that the author presents system of relations between the basic semantic units of own outlook.

More, being a defender of own ethical and moral principles, is contrasted to King Henry VIII, who is described as a person with another moral values. For instance, deep devotion to God led More to reflect on the religious vocation and practicing extremely rigorous asceticism for more than four years, in order to experience his own self-discipline; while the King Henry VIII, being a person of other temperament and ethical views, as it was mentioned above, has tore, in his opinion, a purely formal ties with the Roman church, and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Anglican Church.

Thus, ethical conflict in this fact is determined by religious circumstances and beliefs in different things and ideals. In conclusion, Robert Bolt described both characters in brilliant way, making each of them interesting to readers by their social and political positions, and original characters. Work cited: Bolt, Robert. A Man for All Seasons. Vintage; First Vintage International Edition, 1990.