Bolts Man for All Seasons Analysis - Book Report/Review Example

Name of Student] [Name of Instructor] [Name of Course] [Date of Submission] Views on Statecraft in Robert Bolt’s Man for All Seasons: An Analysis Since its debut in the 1960s, Robert Bolt’s masterpiece titled “Man for All Seasons” has catapulted into critically acclaimed hit worldwide. Its power to invoke soul-searching contemplation and change in people, above all other myriad reasons, is the key to its universal success. For this paper, however, the discussion centers not on the merits of the play and its film adaptation, but rather on the views on statecraft advocated in the work by two renowned philosophers: Sir Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli. This paper aims to compare, contrast, and evaluate these thinkers’ perspectives on matters of the state and the necessary political actions that rulers must make to achieve and safeguard their success. This paper is divided into six sections. The first section discusses the core values of Sir Thomas More, which comprise his “adamantine sense of self” and serve as basis for his political decisions. The second section compares and contrasts Thomas More and Niccolo Machiavelli’s views of the action political rulers must make, and how they factor in morality in the process of coming up with political decisions. The third section explores how both thinkers view the relationship between spiritual and temporary authority, and how their corresponding perspectives have affected their ideals and goals of political life. The fourth section identifies characters in “Man for All Seasons” that are inclined heavily on Machiavellianism. The fifth section hypothesizes on what Machiavelli would have advised to More had he been made into a character in the play. Lastly, this paper sums up all the points expressed and presents a conclusion. More’s “Adamantine Sense of Self” “Nobody wants to be a hero. You go through life giving up parts of yourself – a hope, a dream, an ambition, a belief, a liking, a piece of self-respect. But in every man there is something he cannot give up and still remain himself – a core, an identity, a thing that is summed up for him by the sound of his own name on his own ears. If he gives that up, he becomes a different man, not himself.”1 Applying the above statement on More, it is quite plain that the core of his identity rests on his conscience and his faith in the Catholic religion. Despite the inevitable suffering, shame, and death that came along with it, More’s “adamantine sense of self” drove him to deny recognition of Henry VII’s title of Head of the Church of England. His conviction deemed that although he would suffer gravely but temporarily on earth for his actions, he would earn a more terrible fate by doing otherwise and condemning his eternal life after death to damnation. Bolt opted to select some of the historical More’s traits and leave a few out of More’s character in the play. According to historical records, the real More seemed to be a person of massive contradictions: he had ascetic tendencies and wore a hair shirt against his skin, but he relished worldly success and comfortable living. He was very brutal in his writings against Lutherans, but displayed nothing but benevolence and tenderness at home. He was very active and devoted as a humanist and a government official, firm in his belief that the virtuous should do his best to promote good in the world, but he had always longed for monastic life. He was distraught over the blatant corruption in the church that he loved but died rather than play a part in dividing it. These contradictions, although glaring, do not essentially bear any political implications on the historical More’s obedience to political authority. Political Rulers’ Actions: Morality & Outcome It is important to be aware that in 16th century Europe, kings were deemed as God’s representatives here on earth, and that they derive their mandate to rule from God Himself. Perhaps as a result of this mental paradigm, political philosophers have shared the perspective that relationship exists between moral goodness and legitimate authority. Sir Thomas More was among these great thinkers. In fact, being one of the most widely held humanists who focused on the education of rulers, More was all for the development of virtue – courage, mercy, fortitude and justice, among others - and worked under the conviction that the possessor of virtues, a ruler of people, should play his part in bringing about good in the world. Political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli, also normally categorized as a humanist writer by virtue of his major book, “The Prince,” is mentioned in “Man for All Seasons” as the strongest influence on amoral politicians. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli advocated pragmatic rather than moral values as guiding hands in statecraft: the leader does what is necessary to be effective and achieve political ends instead of being morally right. By these assertions, Machiavelli immortalized the statement, “the ends justify the means.” He also asserted that there is no moral standard on which we can pronounce what are valid and invalid actions of those in power. Instead, he stated that whoever has power has the right to command; but goodness does not guarantee power. A good person does not automatically have authority by virtue of being good. A closer and deeper reading of Machiavelli would reveal that there are intrinsic moral limits to such actions. Machiavelli shunned morality and religion only because they are applicable to individual behavior, and there is no room for individual uprightness in politics when the collective outcome is all that matters. Machiavelli veered away from total capitulation to unrestrained evil in politics by limiting evil through lobbying for the effective application of power. He ascribed this to well-used cruelty and the elimination of unnecessary brutality. Cruelties are unavoidable but must only be employed out of need to secure oneself. Relationship between Spiritual & Temporary Authority More and Machiavelli clashed in the appropriate connection between spiritual and temporary authority; by temporary, human rule is meant. More’s deeply embedded system of religious principles is the source of his conviction that the rule of heaven supersedes that earthly mandate. This led to his arrest and concomitant death – no earthly king’s edict would surpass that of God’s commandments and, in relation, His established Church. For Machiavelli, on the other hand, spiritual authority does not exist at all, or at the very least, it has no place in the realm of politics. It is evident in his writings that Machiavelli was by no means an advocate of the institutionalized Christian Church as he knew it. He made it quite plain that he viewed conventional Christianity as draining men of the necessary passion and energy for active civil life. He spoke with disdain and admiration about the state of the Church and its Pope during his lifetime. These opposing views affected their understanding and perception of political life, but despite their differences, they surprisingly shared a few goals. The core of More’s political ideals rests in affecting change and promoting good in the world, whereas Machiavelli labored on how amoral means by which rulers should use to efficiently channel and maintain power are also in the end, all for the betterment of the state. Characters with Machiavellian Tendencies It is worthwhile to note that, at the start of the play, the character of Richard Rich is portrayed to be reading Machiavelli’s work and makes mention of Cromwell’s, the Duke of Norfolk, keen interest in his political philosophy. These are the two men in the play who most unmistakably ignore moral principles in order to gain their own ends, who support and push forward the king’s aims by destroying More, all for the desire to augment their personal fortunes. While such characterization does not accurately represent Machiavellian thinking – as Machiavelli’s amoralism was for the pursuit of good of the state, not of the self, in all means – Rich and Cromwell are the closest to enacting his values. At present time, Machiavellianism still suffers from negative perception: in putting the state first, it is easily synonymous with totalitarianism. Machiavelli’s Advice to More Referring to Machiavelli’s political philosophy, the writer of this paper surmises that had he been included in “Man for All Seasons,” Machiavelli would have strongly opposed all of More’s actions – from his belief system, his opposition of heretics, to his final decision to accept beheading. Despite sharing the same political goal of wanting the overall good for the state, More also placed importance in the individual’s sense of morality, and this condition was what catapulted him to choose death over acknowledging Henry VIII as Head of the Church of England. Machiavelli, on the other hand, does not believe that moral standards and individual religious convictions have any place in matters of the state. In fact, he does not believe that religion has any place at all in the political arena. The foregoing said, Machiavelli would have advised More to acknowledge to Act of Supremacy and Succession, consequently escaping imprisonment and death, and continue to live on and perhaps lobby his goals in more discrete and less moral means. Conclusion More and Machiavelli have very different underlying principles that serves as the foundation of their political philosophies. The former believes that morality and authority are inherently intertwined, while the latter believes that morality should be discarded by those in authority. More held very solid individual religious and moral beliefs, all of which have a profound effect on his political decisions, while Machiavelli deemed that such has no place in the world of politics, that all that matters are collective actions for the achievement and maintenance of power. Lastly, More believed in a higher spiritual authority that governs and surpasses all earthly rule, while Machiavelli does not acknowledge the relevance of such in matters of the state. Read More