A Comparison of Thomas More and Galileo - Essay Example

A Comparison of Thomas More and Galileo The characters of Thomas More and Galileo may not immediately emerge as characters that have much in common. After all, one was associated with politics and the rule of a particular monarch while the other is associated with science and the rule of the church. Thomas More was a statesmen who became one of the first Lord Chancellors to the English crown and remained throughout his life dedicated to the Catholic ideals of his upbringing. Galileo Galilei was an Italian scientist who is best known for opposing the church’s views regarding the nature of the universe by claiming that the planets revolved around the sun rather than that the sun revolved around the earth. While Thomas More never backed down on his principles, eventually being led to the headsman’s block for them, Galileo recanted his claims regarding the universe as a means of preserving himself and ensured, at a later date, that his scientific writings made it out of the country that had so oppressed him. However, the two men did have much in common if one looks at their general worldview and the events that shaped their lives. Each experienced trouble with the powers that be as a result of their convictions and each had to choose between life at the cost of their conscience or death for holding fast to their principles. These similarities and differences in their characters, their conscience and their relationships with their families are explored in the modern plays “A Man for All Seasons” by Robert Bolt concerning Thomas More and “The Life of Galileo” by Bertolt Brecht regarding Galileo Galilei. Within these two plays, the characters of the men involved are explored as being highly opposite. Thomas More is depicted as a gentle and thoughtful man, full of humor and patience with his fellow man. At the beginning of the play, for instance, when a somewhat belligerent Richard Rich enters his home interrupting his refreshment and insisting that every man can be bought, More simply laughs and good-naturedly disagrees with him. He expresses interest in the conversation when Rich introduces the idea that a man can be bought through suffering, but this interest drops when he learns that Rich is simply talking about the expedient of torture or physical punishment. “For a moment I thought you were being profound” (Bolt, 1990). Like More, Galileo is depicted as a strongly intellectual man, interested in discovering the secrets and the truths of the world around him free of the mystique and myth of religious dogma. However, unlike More, his motives are not to defend the church nor to align himself unerringly with his beliefs as opposed to his fortunes. His thirst for knowledge begins when he faces financial difficulty and he hears about a new invention, some “queer tube thing”, that is being circulated in Amsterdam that allows one to more closely observe the stars. Unashamed to build upon this idea, he quickly develops his own telescope and begins marketing it through Italy, using it to formulate his own ideas regarding the universe, which are in line with those of Copernicus centuries earlier. His thirst for knowledge is insatiable, giving him no qualms when it comes to destroying the thoughts and feelings of others, but caving in and recanting when pressure is brought to bear upon his own life. Even with the threat of death hanging over his head and a lifetime sentence of house arrest, though, he continues to work at his theories and calculations, managing to find a way of getting these writings smuggled out of Italy before his death. Both characters must struggle with their conscience in making momentous decisions regarding their lives. For Thomas More, remaining true to his ideals is more important than anything else. This is the primary contention of the play and figures prominently in nearly every scene as More is required to consistently defend his views to those around him. This is despite the fact that the entire world seems to conspire against him. He upholds his religious convictions regarding the Catholic faith, consistently appearing as a saint-like character in direct opposition to his self-serving friends. This is shown in scenes such as the one involving Eustace Chapuys, who tells More of a planned Scottish rebellion he knows of, thinking to illicit More’s sympathy and support. Instead, More, still bound by his loyalty to the throne despite his disagreement with the king, informs on the rebellion. Another scene in which More’s adamant conviction to his beliefs is shown when Norfolk is attempting to talk him into signing the Act of Succession on the basis that all the men who have signed it thus far are friends of his, that More should sign as an act of fellowship. More responds by telling Norfolk, “when we stand before God, and you are sent to Heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come along with me – for fellowship?” More’s strong adherence to his conscience is compared with Galileo’s conscience, which is equally as strongly convinced that he is right in what he has seen. He sees science as a necessary activity for human development asserting that “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.” This, of course, went against the tenets of the church which held that such knowledge can only lead to the discontent of the masses, who exist in utter poverty yet are content to remain so believing that there is a larger plan in mind for them. It was thought that the revelation that the sun does not revolve around the earth would destroy the basic beliefs of the poor and thus cause them to lose their contentment regarding the natural order of their world. In addition, when Galileo was threatened to either recant his scientific knowledge, his beliefs, or die, in much the same way that More was forced to make a choice between one course and another, Galileo chose to live. Despite this, though, Galileo, a broken and bitter man in his old age, realizing that he failed to stand up for his convictions, nevertheless managed to get his research out into the greater world, telling his student in the process, “I hold it that the only proper goal of science is to relieve the miseries of human existence. If scientists, cut off from the masses by selfish rulers, seek merely to heap up knowledge for its own sake, then science is a cripple and your new inventions will merely bring about new drudgeries.” That this speech is the revised edition of the play, written only after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, indicates the author’s changed viewpoints, but also begins to hint that perhaps the old man had been more true to his ideals in his public recapitulation than is at first assumed. If he truly believed that his scientific revelations might have caused harm to the masses, recanting what he had reported could have been seen as protecting these little people while ensuring that his work was smuggled out of the country could have been seen as a means of preserving the knowledge for a later date when such knowledge would not be so harmful. Finally, both men have similar responses and effects upon their families. In each play, each character is depicted as having one daughter, whom he loves dearly but whom he has profound, long-lasting and detrimental effects upon. For example, Thomas More, in his strong religious convictions, refuses to allow his daughter Margaret to marry the man she has selected until he agrees to convert his religious affiliations to Catholicism, or at least away from the upstart Protestants with whom he has been affiliated previously. This, of course, is something Roper cannot do as switching convictions will also have the effect of proving More correct in that this is a man lacking in moral character. Similarly, Galileo’s beliefs prevent his daughter, Virginia, from marrying the man of her choice, a man she obviously loves. Unlike the problems faced by Margaret, however, Virginia is not prevented from marrying her true love based on her father’s moral objection, but rather because of her intended’s decision to protect his wealth and property by cutting off ties with the contentious heretical thinking of her father. Throughout each play, it can be seen that each man, Thomas More and Galileo Galilei, had strong convictions regarding what they believed and quick, intelligent minds. However, they were each faced with different means of making a choice regarding how to deal with these convictions. More was given countless chances to recant his convictions and thereby preserve not only his wealth and lands but also his life and yet chose to preserve his soul instead. Galileo, knowing he was correct in his scientific calculations, nevertheless did not have his soul on the line when he chose to recant his evidence. While this had significant repercussions upon his reputation and upon the psyche of his students and followers, he was able to remain alive long enough to formulate these ideas into written form and get them smuggled out of the country for other societies or future generations to benefit. While the two men can be seen in these plays to have faced similar characters and choices with similar disastrous effects upon their families, there remain numerous differences leading to the different ways in which they addressed these difficulties. Works Cited Bolt, Robert. A Man for All Seasons. New York: Vintage, 2004. Brecht, Bertolt. Life of Galileo. New York: A&C Black, 2001. Read More

Both characters must struggle with their conscience in making momentous decisions regarding their lives. For Thomas More, remaining true to his ideals is more important than anything else. This is the primary contention of the play and figures prominently in nearly every scene as More is required to consistently defend his views to those around him. This is despite the fact that the entire world seems to conspire against him. He upholds his religious convictions regarding the Catholic faith, consistently appearing as a saint-like character in direct opposition to his self-serving friends.

This is shown in scenes such as the one involving Eustace Chapuys, who tells More of a planned Scottish rebellion he knows of, thinking to illicit More’s sympathy and support. Instead, More, still bound by his loyalty to the throne despite his disagreement with the king, informs on the rebellion. Another scene in which More’s adamant conviction to his beliefs is shown when Norfolk is attempting to talk him into signing the Act of Succession on the basis that all the men who have signed it thus far are friends of his, that More should sign as an act of fellowship.

More responds by telling Norfolk, “when we stand before God, and you are sent to Heaven for doing according to your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing according to mine, will you come along with me – for fellowship?” More’s strong adherence to his conscience is compared with Galileo’s conscience, which is equally as strongly convinced that he is right in what he has seen. He sees science as a necessary activity for human development asserting that “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.

” This, of course, went against the tenets of the church which held that such knowledge can only lead to the discontent of the masses, who exist in utter poverty yet are content to remain so believing that there is a larger plan in mind for them. It was thought that the revelation that the sun does not revolve around the earth would destroy the basic beliefs of the poor and thus cause them to lose their contentment regarding the natural order of their world. In addition, when Galileo was threatened to either recant his scientific knowledge, his beliefs, or die, in much the same way that More was forced to make a choice between one course and another, Galileo chose to live.

Despite this, though, Galileo, a broken and bitter man in his old age, realizing that he failed to stand up for his convictions, nevertheless managed to get his research out into the greater world, telling his student in the process, “I hold it that the only proper goal of science is to relieve the miseries of human existence. If scientists, cut off from the masses by selfish rulers, seek merely to heap up knowledge for its own sake, then science is a cripple and your new inventions will merely bring about new drudgeries.

” That this speech is the revised edition of the play, written only after the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II, indicates the author’s changed viewpoints, but also begins to hint that perhaps the old man had been more true to his ideals in his public recapitulation than is at first assumed. If he truly believed that his scientific revelations might have caused harm to the masses, recanting what he had reported could have been seen as protecting these little people while ensuring that his work was smuggled out of the country could have been seen as a means of preserving the knowledge for a later date when such knowledge would not be so harmful.

Finally, both men have similar responses and effects upon their families. In each play, each character is depicted as having one daughter, whom he loves dearly but whom he has profound, long-lasting and detrimental effects upon. For example, Thomas More, in his strong religious convictions, refuses to allow his daughter Margaret to marry the man she has selected until he agrees to convert his religious affiliations to Catholicism, or at least away from the upstart Protestants with whom he has been affiliated previously.

Read More