Comparing Reason And Law In A Man For All Seasons

A Man for All Seasons demonstrates the Renaissance contrast between reason and law. These two ideas are manifested through Thomas More and King Henry. Thomas More symbolizes reason while King Henry represents the law. However, because Henry is King he has the power and authority of the law and can govern as extreme or as lenient as he wishes. Bolt refers to him as a “monstrous baby” meaning that he will have it his way at any cost (vii). On the contrary, Thomas More represents reasonable law which is commonly referred to as civil law. This is where evidence is required to prosecute. Throughout the play, Thomas More relied on civil law to protect him, but it was unsuccessful and unreliable. His firmness in his belief was both admirable and ignorant; however, he drove himself toward his demise. More has a reputation as a moral man and is perceived as saint-like. He is known to be fixed to his conscience and he tells Wolsey “…I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties…they lead their country by a short route to chaos (22). Ironically, it is More’s conscience that leads him to chaos and forsaking it could have saved him. More tells his colleagues that he cannot approve of Henry’s marriage because his conscience tells him otherwise (22). King Henry eventually hears this and meets with Thomas. It
begins as an amicable affair, but the topic of Henry’s marriage shifts the mood and it becomes disagreeable. Henry demands “no opposition”, but he is disputed by Thomas (56). King Henry states that More’s conscience is his own affair, but must follow duties as Chancellor; however, Thomas’s reasoning tells the King that he is unjust (56). This is the inciting incident towards Thomas’s demise and falling out of his friendships. More ends his friendship with Norfolk after he refuses to give in. Norfolk asks Thomas to “give in” for the sake of their friendship; however, Thomas says “I can’t give in Howard—our friendship’s more mutable than that” (121). After his friendship with Norfolk is over, accusations of treason begin to proliferate. Each one of his colleagues accuses him of treason while Thomas finds the legal proceedings to refute it. He relies on civil law and uses it to safe guard himself. He tells Roper that “how far the law of God does allow it remains a matter of opinion, since the Act doesn’t state it (83)”. More believes that the act is one’s own interpretation because the Act does not explicitly state a law. Because of his trust in legal proceedings he is not aware that although the Act does not clearly state a law, King Henry resides the ultimate power and he is not protected. Furthermore, More becomes too confident in his case. He even tells Roper his case is “watertight” (112). During the trial, More remains bound by civil law.
He tells his prosecutors that “the law requires more than assumption; the law requires fact” and that they “cannot lawfully harm him further” (131). Despite his lawful arguments, he was too naïve to grasp that the case has been over and decided before it officially began. Norfolk even tells Thomas “the death of Kings is not in question”, yet Thomas replies “nor mine…until I’m proven guilty (p151). Moreover, every moment until his sentence, Thomas depended on the law. He breaks Norfolk mid-sentence and tells him that he is allowed final words before the sentence
(p159). Ultimately, Thomas controlled his fate. His conscience and unnerving beliefs are courageous and he acted as a martyr for reasonable law. Nonetheless, More was oblivious to the outcome. Norfolk gave Thomas an opportunity to save himself in saying that “your life lies in your hand…as it always has (p151)”. This means that Thomas could have complied to save his life yet his stubbornness was too rooted in his belief to change.