This excellent play explores the conflict between Thomas More and Henry VIII over the break with Rome and the establsihment of the Church of England. The well known story is told primarily through the perspective of More's resolve to stand on his principles despite pressure from a variety of sources. The play uses the political intrigue and the sycophantic characters surrounding a monarch with absolute power to show More as a tower of strength as he refuses to bow to power and compromise his beliefs.
The Movie version with Paul Scofield in the lead is equally remarkable and follows the play without much embellishment.

i am not a big fan of reading plays (they are meant to be performed after all), but this one is an exception. i found myself relishing line after line, enjoying the fact that i could pause and reflect on all of the tightly packed poignancy scattered throughout this work. sir thomas more is the hero's hero...of the messiah or socratic martyr sort (though he himself says he is not the "stuff" martyrs are made of), the man of true principle. he is one of the characters our generation unfortunately will only ever know through works of fiction. a person who does not (and cannot) separate their actions from their moral convictions, as the two are inextricably bound together, as are oxygen and lifeblood.

i am reminded of a quote by confucius: "at 70 i could follow my hearts desires without transgressing moral principles"...thomas more is THIS brand of sage. and we all have a lot to learn from him, even long after you discard the religious drivel.

it also doesnt hurt that he punks every single member of H the VIII's royal court (hehe).

I first saw the movie, and was riveted by the dialogue. The clarity of thought, the elevation of principals above self is awe-inspiring. I rushed out to buy the book (the script of the play), and read the wonderful dialogue over and over. Many of the lines simply cry out with logic and integrity, and some have found a place on the wall of my office.

Whether one characterizes Thomas Moore as a saint, a statesman of unbending principals, or both, his strength of character, intellect, humanity and general goodness shine through with brilliant clarity.

This is an amazing play about an incredibly holy man, which employs its words in a profound manner. Thomas More, the beheaded lord chancellor of England under Henry VIII is the patron saint of attorneys, civil servants, politicians, and statesmen:
* "When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties...they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
* (In response to objection over his use of the word, "heretic":) "It's not a likeable word. It's not a likeable thing!"
* (Pointing to himself:) "this is not the stuff of which martyrs are made." WRONG!
* "The nobility of England, my lord, would have snored through the Sermon on the Mount."
* (To his betrayer, Richard Rich, attorney general of Wales:) "Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...But for Wales!"
* "I Die His Majesty's Good Servant, but God's First"

This is an amazing play about an incredibly holy man, which employs its words in a profound manner. Thomas More, the beheaded lord chancellor of England under Henry VIII is the patron saint of attorneys, civil servants, politicians, and statesmen:
* "When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties...they lead their country by a short route to chaos."
* (In response to objection over his use of the word, "heretic":) "It's not a likeable word. It's not a likeable thing!"
* (Pointing to himself:) "this is not the stuff of which martyrs are made." WRONG!
* "The nobility of England, my lord, would have snored through the Sermon on the Mount."
* (To his betrayer, Richard Rich, attorney general of Wales:) "Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world...But for Wales!"
* "I Die His Majesty's Good Servant, but God's First"

I had a few hours in between flights this Thanksgiving and brought this along. It's considerably deeper than your typical airport reads, though since it's a play you can finish it quickly.

Bolt does an outstanding job in the Preface talking about his motivation, his direction for the character and persona of Sir Thomas More. What's most interesting I think is how he handles the character development. I won't ruin it for you, but I think it needs to be said that this is not the story of a man changing because of events but almost the inverse.

Language is very easy to read and understand, though some passages will certainly benefit from rereading just to consider what the message is, what Bolt is trying to get across. I loved the book and would love to see an adaptation of it.

I had a few hours in between flights this Thanksgiving and brought this along. It's considerably deeper than your typical airport reads, though since it's a play you can finish it quickly.

Bolt does an outstanding job in the Preface talking about his motivation, his direction for the character and persona of Sir Thomas More. What's most interesting I think is how he handles the character development. I won't ruin it for you, but I think it needs to be said that this is not the story of a man changing because of events but almost the inverse.

Language is very easy to read and understand, though some passages will certainly benefit from rereading just to consider what the message is, what Bolt is trying to get across. I loved the book and would love to see an adaptation of it.

From biblical times to the present, it is evident that power corrupts those in charge. One of the landmark examples of this in history is Henry VIII's murder of Sir Thomas More. Truly if you are not with the powers that be, you are against them.

Henry VIII's attempts to dissolve his marriage on account of his wife's inability to bear him a son, falls on deaf eyes in Rome. Even while the pope will not allow divorce, Henry hopes his loyal subject Thomas More will condone it. Sir Thomas More's silence is deafening to the king. Unable to stand the silence of this influential, the king's servants drum up charges to treason to rid the king of his problem. During this process, we see a man growing from a lawyer to a saint. He will not place the sovereignty of God behind the king.

I would give this story 4 1/2 stars because it sacrifices too much of Thomas More for literary purposes. This is bothersome because of the initial slow pace of the story. Still Robert Bolt does a commendable job telling this story of integrity and allegiance to God.

A wonderful and dramatic companion to the Selected Writings of Saint Thomas More, Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons is a superb piece of literary drama, because it makes More's own writings, specifically The Sadness of Christ, come to vivid life. Christ's sadness and More's understanding of our Savior's heavyheartedness unto death, by way of the play, presents a reliable and honest portrait of Thomas More the man and the saintly holiness of his unyielding commitment to the Truth in him, for Christ who is in us is apart of us. And in the play, on page 121, More lets that very fact be made known that his faith is an integral slice to his very identity, his being. It is distinct, especially when he responds to Norfolk upon being strongly advised to give in and submit to King Henry VIII's oath to the Act of Succession, whereby the king is viwed as the Supreme Head of the English Church which incorrectly overrides the authority of the Vatican: "I can't give in, Howard. You might as well advise a man to change the color of his eyes..." Strictly adhereing to a commitment, especially a religious one, can, in of itself, be a cross, because it implies so many different things, not just a physical suffering, but it includes doubt, torturous mental anguish and unthinkable sacrifices of the most terrifying sort. Are the actions that lead to a particular moment in one's life a mere social-political-philosophical stance or a divine offering of the most extreme sort to test that human love for God? In A Man For All Seasons, More's response to his son-in-law, Roper on page 126 is thus: "Now listen, Will. And Meg, you listen, too, you know I know you well. God made the angels to show him splendor-as he made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man he made to serve him wittily, in the tangle of his mind! If he suffers us to fall to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle like champions...if we have the spittle for it. And no doubt it delights God to see splendor where He only looked for complexity. But it's God's part, not our own, to bring ourselves to that extremity! Our natural business lies in escaping-so let's get home and study this bill." For the majority of us, we do not have the 'spittle' as More describes, because pragmatic intellectualism is easier to subscribe to than divine bondage and empyrean love. And when one accepts the latter, as More ultimately does, he is punished for it, first with a stripping away of his title and affluence, then with imprisionment and separation from his family: "Content? If they'd open a crack that wide, I'd be through it." Pg 141. Like Jesus Christ, whom More felt in him all along, he too suffered and felt sadness unto death. A Man For All Seasons is a riviting play, one that makes you take a closer look at the meaning of commitment and what it entails. Like Peter, after reading this play, I would definately say that Thomas More was a contributing rock to the foundation of the Church.

I definitely recommend this play detailing the struggle between St. Thomas More and King Henry VIII. It asks the important question: "How long can a man's conscience hold up against constant outside allurements and pressures?"

It is a good quick read (3 hours at most).

This is one of my favourite books.
I have read a few of the 'bad' reviews of the book - one that commented on its historical 'correctness'. The story of Moore was just one aspect to the play (I felt anyway), the common man who appears throughout the play is supposed to remind us of ourselves. The common man is quite confronting as the character reminds us of our own need for self-preservation above all else. Reading the book made me a little less critical of other people of present times and past, as I am no longer certain that I wouldn't act the same way if given the same circumstances.

This play is not about Thomas More the man, as much as it is about Thomas More as an archetype. Bolt has taken More and idealized him into almost mythical proportions. This is not difficult given that the historical reality was larger than life to start with, but those looking for insights into the real More won't find them here. The playwright was not striving for a biography. He wanted to use More as a launching point for a reflection on Being. This is in some ways a Platonic work, and in this sense, Bolt's idealization of More is entirely acceptable, and the play, entirely successful.

In a way, the play, idealized as it is, does not do the man justice. It presents Thomas More as little more than an ideologue. There is a reference to his friendship with Erasmus, but the real More was accounted one of the foremost philosophers of his time and enjoyed a moral prerogative throughout the western world that is difficult to credit in our own cynical age. The closest modern equivalent might be Martin Luther King or Mohandas Gandhi.

The play presents him primarily as a unique man of the world. However, as a true Renaissance man, More was of considerably broader genius. He gave us the word "Utopia" and formalized the concept within western thought through his writings on this namesake perfect society. His essays may seem dated and naýve today, but this is unfair, viewing them as we do through the filter of the intervening centuries. In addition to being a lawyer, judge and Chancellor, More was a scholar, author, essayist, philosopher and minister.

But the play is concerned with none of this. It focuses on one aspect of More's character: his acute sense of Self. The person of Thomas More commands our respect, because he possesses a strength of character that we all admire, some envy, and a few hate.

But where does this strength of character come from? Strangely enough, it's not faith, in the traditional sense of the word. The playwright uses faith as More's particular moral centre because it happens to be true in More's case. But we are allowed to generalize from More's case to our own, and Bolt argues that for every man, even the nonreligious, an unshakeable sense of Self is necessary for life to be worth living. More would not cross the line drawn by his faith because, in his case, his faith defined his Being. Is there a line we would not cross? A line defined by our own core values and beliefs? Contrast More's character to that of his foil, Cromwell, who embodies his antithesis, a life hired out to considerations of 'administrative convenience'.

In the end, we are our principles. Nothing less and nothing more. If we destroy our principles, we destroy our Being. You don't have to believe in the divine or in an immortal soul to understand the thesis at the heart of A Man For All Seasons.

This is an easy play to read and just as easy to understand. For all its literary beauty and thematic potency, it achieves a level of clarity that is missing in even the great classics. For this reason, some erstwhile intellectuals dismiss it as superficial. Ignore such snobs. This play is made the more wonderful by its accessibility, even to children, and certainly to intelligent youth who could do far worse than to start out on life's journey following the example set by such a man for all seasons.

Bolt held me from the first word to the
last. I read slowly - because I never
wanted it to end.

Bold held me from the first word
to the last. I read slowly because
I never wanted it to end.

"Spark Notes A Man For All Seasons" was not condensed, but was merely the play reworded. Granted that it did help decipher hidden meanings behind some of the dialogue, or certain innuendo's which can go over one's head, but other than that, it was not helpful or insightful. I think it actually took me longer to read the Spark Notes, than the actual play itself. If you do get this book, of course you know to read "Spark Notes A Man For All Seasons" AFTER you have read "A Man For All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts." I do not recommend.

"A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts" was not my style. I adore plays, and this era in time, but this play disappointed me, and I'm disappointed that I didn't enjoy it, as I had high hopes. I looked at the play, as if I were to perform in it, and it did not strike my fancy. With practically no stage direction, and little direction of emotion, I thought to myself how I would hate to perform it. I do give credit for it being such a short play, when this time in history was anything but short and sweet. I do not recommend.

A short book. And well worth the effort to read.

Tells the story of Thomas More, who loved King Henry, but who loved God most. Henry wanted More to sanction his marriage to Anne Bolelyn. More could not do it in good conscience because he knew it violated God's Law. More was willing to risk his life to keep his conscience clean.

This play disproves the old saying that "every man has his price." Fortunately, some people, like More, have been willing to lift us to higher standard of behavior by standing on prnciple.

I love books which demonstrate solid moral values and which are based on real history. Robert Bolt did a truly classic job with this play.

--George Stancliffe

A Man for All Seasons has long been my favorite, whether in written form, stage play, or motion picture. The story is fairly simple, another angle on the drama of Henry VIII. Sir Thomas More is a deeply religious man, much troubled by the king's break with Rome and the establishment of the Church of England, naming the king as head of the church (directly contravening the idea that Christ is ultimately head of the church, indeed, Catholics believe the church to espoused to Christ). In an attempt to keep the peace, and his neck, More resigns his office and refuses to make any statement about the issue of the break with Rome or the king's divorce what-so-ever, even to his own wife.

Unfortunately, it would appear that while the king doesn't want to follow the rules, he also doesn't want a bad conscience. This requires him to get the 'blessing' of someone known to be reputable on the subject, so that his conscience may rest at ease. By circumstance of who he is, More is chosen. A document is drawn up in the Parliament, rather craftily, to which subjects of the king are required to swear.

Upon refusing to swear to this document More is thrown into jail. He will neither make a statement about his thoughts on the document, nor make explanation for refusing to swear. In More's thinking, he has been forced to choose between his bodily life and his immortal soul. Eventually More is tried and convicted of High Treason, carrying the sentence of death.

The play is wonderfully crafted and does an excellent job of being subtle and emotional at the same time. It is the essence of a morality play. When push comes to shove, and egos, life, inheritances are on the line, where will you fall?

Some criticize this play for not being historically accurate in some matters. I toss these criticisms aside with two short arguements 1.In some matters, such as More's feelings and private dealings with the king, we will never know the historical truth. 2.Most important to remember, it is a play, not a history text. It owes no wage to historical accuracy.

This play is a very easy read. The language is simple enough. My only suggestion is that those readers who are not Catholic may want to do a tiny bit of research about basic Catholic theology concerning marriage and divorce, in order to understand some of the motivations in the play.

This book is the essential companion to the movie. Or do I have it backwards?

So, to what lengths will a man go to keep his honor? Is everything for sale? This is the story of conscience over expediency, which is a message we need right here, right now, especially in DC. The problem with politics and principles is perennial, but it has become a bit more exacerbated with the war on terrorism.

We rally behind More since he stands up for conscious. It is an interesting dilemma, since we might criticize him for not being more vocal or proactive in his stand against the king, but More does say that God made "man to serve him wittingly, in the tangle of his mind! If he suffers us to fall to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand our tackle as best we can. . . But it's God's part, not our own, to bring ourselves to that extremity! Our natural business lies in escaping!" (p. 126)

The best plays are the ones that make you think yeas after you experience them. This is Bolt's spell, and we can never escape.

This is almost a perfect play. The only flaw is that More ends up with the best one liners, while the antagonists Henry VIII and Cromwell have lifeless lines without the wit and sparkle speeches that Bolt have given to More.

One of the intriguing aspects of this play is all the subplots, or rather, ripples across the ocean of events. These sub-plays augment an already powerful story, and help bring more light and detail to the story.

One ripple is Richard Rich. He is a young man with burning ambition. More wisely counsels him to become a teacher, instead of involving himself in affairs of court. Rich ignores the counsel, gets caught up in the sausage-machine of state, and eventually perjures himself in More's trial. More did not have a price; Rich's price was Wales.

Henry VIII is another backgound mover, and the driver of the events in the play. He wants an heir, but at what price? The dynastic wars had just been settled, and his line was established, but he had no heir. Harry VIII was a bit of a playboy like Harry V, but Harry V eventually grew up. Henry VIII went to every extraordinary extreme to have an heir, from marrying his wife, to divorcing his wife, establishing a new church to soothe his conscience, and finally sanction the death of his one and only loyal friend. His price was his pride.

Another sub-ripple was the romance between Margaret More and William Roper. Thomas was, of course, a staunch Catholic, but Roper was a new Lutheran, and there was religious tension. Thomas forbade his daughter Margaret from marrying Roper until he returned to Catholicism.

Two characters were almost ignored in the play: Wolsey and Alice More, but I guess that you can't have everything in a two-act play. Sigh!

The 1966 film adaptation left out another sub-plot Senor Chapuys, the Spanish ambassador. Since Katharine was from Aragon, Catholic Spain had quite an interest in having the first marriage remain in tact.

Aside from reading a history book on the man and the time, I would recommend the companion classic of Shakespeare's play "Henry VIII," which tells how Wolsey accidentally got Anne Bolyn and Henry VIII together at a dinner party, and how Wolsey fell out of favor with the King. Surprisingly, Shakespeare only mentions More once (III.ii.468), but we understand the edgy politics during Shakespeare's day.

Bolts quick wit and ability to compress complex ideas into compact catchphrases, what are called "bumper-sticker" lines in the film industry. I would like to read more of his plays.

I really enjoyed this play. It dealt with one of my favorite topics: history. However, despite this being a period play, Bolt wisely chose to abstain from obscure references and arcane language. It is not at all difficult to understand the play, despite its setting being 16th century England, under Henry VIII. Also, one only needs a cursory knowledge of English history to fully understand the play. If you don't know that, I'd recommend reading just a few paragraphs from an encyclopedia or text book dealing with Henry VIII's famous series of wives, divorces and beheadings and his withdrawing England from the Catholic church (known as the Act of Supremecy.)

The characters of the play, as with the actual people involved in the play, were interesting. However, I think that Bolt could have done a slightly better job in stirring the emotions of the audience at some of the key scenes, such as the last and second to last ones. Since he was dealing with such an emotionally charged topic, some of the characters could have been slightly more sympathetic.

But, overall, this is a great play, short and sweet. I'd recommend it for anyone and everyone who enjoys history.