NON-AFRICAN DRAMA
ROBERT BOLT: A Man For All Seasons
Discuss the notion that Sir Thomas More is naive
Sir Thomas More is the central character in the play, In his dealings with the people around him and with very serious matters of state, More does seem naive. More fails to see greed in Richard Rich who is not employed but refuses More's offer to teach, preferring something big and more lucrative to teaching. He does dismiss Roper's exposition that Rich is dangerous.
More does not see the danger, nor the threat, in his refusal to approve of King Henry's divorce with Catherine. Even when the King visits More personally, More is too naive to understand the threat in the King's refusal to even eat :he food offered him by More's wife. Even when More's wife advises him to sign the divorce papers for the sake of his family, More is still adamant. Naturally, the king is angry and will seek his revenge but again, More does not care. He s only mindful about what his conscience tells him.
More demonstrates naivety in his discussion with Wolsey. He fails to see the danger if Wolsey fails; neither does he bother to discuss the matter with his wife. In the alliance between Rich and Crownwell lies a threat to More, out he does not see any evil there. He fails to see that these two are looking for means to destroy him.
Thomas More also puts much trust in the law to vindicate him. What he overlooks, however, is that the law can easily De manipulated by greedy men like Crownwell. More behaves naively in his refusal to pay heed to Rich's warning about Crownwell collecting information about him and equally persistently refuses to listen to his wife's and daughter's advice. Even when they visit him in jail, instead of discussing his plight, he is busy admiring his wife's dress. His wife is exasperated. She becomes irritated that his case is serious but he does not see it that way. In fact, he appears unconcerned about what may befall him.
At the trial, one is expecting More to clarify issues in his defence but he is evasive and does not seem to be bothered at all. He carries his theory about conscience to provocative lengths. This is what Crownwell capitalizes on. Even More's speech is considered ill timed. This further gives Crownwell and others the opportunity to condemn him. In the end, he is sentenced and executed.
On the other hand, a candidate who disagrees that More is naïve and advances strong arguments to support his/her assertion should be rewarded. Such a candidate might mention that what we see as More's naivety might be attributed to his virtuous nature. He is a just man and believes in the goodness of human nature. His trust in Richard Rich, for example, could be attributed to this. Also his own conscience allied to his faith in the law assures him that he is standing for what is right and just.
Contributions ({{ comment_count }})
Please wait...
Modal title
Report
Block User
{{ feedback_modal_data.title }}