TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………... 1 Humanism ………………………………..………………………………………………6 Foundations of Humanism ……..……………………………………………….. 7 Reformation and Renaissance ...…..…………………………………………… 10 Civic Humanism ……..………………………………………………………….12 Humanism in Education and Royal Service ….....…………………………….. 13 More, the Politician ……..………………………………………....…………....15 Humanist Works ……..……………………………………………………...…..18 Letter to Oxford 1518 ……..……………………………………………..18 Utopia ……..……………………………………………………………..19 The History of King Richard III ……..………………………………….. 21 Erasmian Humanism ……..…………………………………………………….22 More’s Defense of Erasmus ……..………………….…………………...24 Humanism: Conclusion ……..……………………………………………….....25 The Great Matter and the Acts that Followed ……..…….…………………...……... 27 Henrician Reformation ……..…………………………………………….…….31 Conservative Reformation v. Lutheran Reformation …..…………...…... 32 Assertio Septem Sacramentorum ……..……………...... 32 Discussions of Supremacy ……..……………...……..……..…..…………...... 35 More’s Resignation ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 35 Acts of Succession and Supremacy ……..……………...……..……..…..…….. 37 More’s Dissension ……..……………...……..……..…..……………....………. 39 Effect on Humanism ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 41 More, The Martyr ……..……………...……..……..…..……………....……………… 43 Vita Contemplativa ……..……………...……..……..…..……………..……...... 44 Valencia holograph ……..……………...……..……..…..…………….... 44 Espositio Fidelis de Morte Thomae Mori ……..……………...………… 47 Martyr Made ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 49 Conclusion ……..……………...……..……..…..……………....……………………….51 More’s Legacy through Margaret Roper ……..……………...………….53 Considerations Today More, The Humanist ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 53 More, The Catholic ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 54 More, The Politician ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 55 More, The Torturer ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 55 More, The Man …..……………...…..……..…..………...……...... 57 Bibliography ……..……………...……..……..…..……………...... 58

i

1

INTRODUCTION

Saint Thomas More – writer, lawyer, scholar and patron saint of lawyers within the Roman Catholic faith. Humanist, statesman, family man and friend to the king.

Devoted Catholic and martyr.

More was canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1935, 400 years after he was executed under Henry VIII, King of England (1509–1547), for his refusal to acknowledge the king as Supreme Head of the Church of England. More, a classically- trained lawyer, used the humanist tools of rhetoric and dialogue in defense of his uncompromising devotion to the Roman Catholic Church and its administration throughout his life, including at his trial for treason.

More, London-born on February 7, 1478, spent his early education at St.

Anthony’s School before being placed in the household of then-Lord Chancellor to Henry

VII, John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury. 1 While attending Oxford University from

1492-1494, More studied with Thomas Linacre and William Grocyn, 2 both of whom directed More to the studia humanitatis (study of the liberal arts, or humanities). Quickly becoming one of the “pioneers of humanist studies,”3 More focused on the works of Plato

1The basic chronology of More’s life present in Introduction can be found in Arnold, Jonathan. The Great Humanists: An Introduction . London: New York, 2011. Print.

2 More would not meet Desiderius Erasmus until 1499.

3 Wakelin, Daniel. Humanism, Reading, and English Literature, 1430-1530 . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. p. 2. 2 and Aristotle, and he strove to increase his own virtue by excelling in oration and using his skills to serve as an active citizen. 4 Encouraged by his father to study law, More was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn in 1496 and became a barrister in 1501.

While More felt a responsibility to work in law and do civic work, he longed for

Holy Orders, to become a monk and living the vita contemplativa , or contemplative life.

More went so far as to enter a Carthusian monastery to help aid in his determination of which life he should pursue. As a humanist, he was called to live actively according to his philosophy; as a monk, More could live a life of quiet contemplation. 5 However, More also wanted to live as a married man, fully enjoying the benefits that accompany matrimony.6 This pushed him closer toward a civic-minded career, and, in 1504, More became a Member of Parliament. In 1505, he married Jane Colt, who would die in childbirth in 1511, after having borne him three daughters and a son during their six-year marriage. One month later, More, recognizing his children’s need for a mother, would marry Dame Alice Middleton.7 He would later purchase the wardship of an infant girl and adopt another daughter. Along with his biological children, stepdaughter and daughter-in-law, all would be educated under the instruction of Latin and Greek studies,

4 Arnold, p. 176.

5 Ibid.

6 Chambers, R.W. Thomas More. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963. Print. p. 87.

7 Weir, Alison. Henry VIII: The King and His Court. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. Print. p. 146.

3 exceling in these studies, and two of his daughters would carry a reputation for scholarly ambitions. 8

In 1509, More’s career began to garner notoriety. Elected as a bencher at

Lincoln’s Inn, More also became a member of the Mercers’ Company and had a major role in negotiations with an embassy from Antwerp at the Mercers’ Hall. The Mercers’

Company, one of the more prominent guilds in London, offered membership to More as a result of his “professional, oratorical and legal skill.” 9 While other members had to pay membership fees, the Mercers’ Company served as a kind of patron to More, offering him both offices and embassies. The positions More accepted allowed him to prove himself in office, as well as a lawyer and civic leader. 10 One year later, More was elected a Burgess in Parliament and, later that same year, he became an undersheriff of London, a position he would retain until 1518.

More was instrumental at a merchants’ conference in Antwerp in 1515 after he was sent via royal commission to represent English interests. While there, More drafted his most famous text, Utopia , a dialogue and commentary on his ideal republic, completing it upon his return to England in 1516. 11

In 1518, More resigned as undersheriff and was made a member of Henry VIII’s

Privy Council as well as Master of Requests. More grew close to the king as a companion, as the two would hold private conversations and, according to William

8 Ibid.

9 Arnold, p. 178.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid. 4

Roper, 12 would discuss astronomy, geometry, divinity, humanism and politics – humanist topics that the king discussed only with his closest friends.13 This also was the year More wrote his letter to Oxford University, praising the virtues of the Greeks and endorsing the teaching of the classics within the school.

When More took on the role of under-treasurer in 1521, he was knighted, as was custom with the position. Two years later he was elected the Speaker of Parliament. In

1529, when Cardinal Thomas Wolsey could not complete the task of obtaining an annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage with Katharine of Aragon, More succeeded him, albeit grudgingly. He would resign only three years later, much to the king’s chagrin.

More would continue to disappoint Henry when he refused to accept the king’s Acts of

Succession and Supremacy.

Thomas More would have played no role in the divorce and second marriage of

England’s King Henry VIII had he the option. A loyal servant and devout Catholic, More also was a practicing humanist, endorsing education in grammar, rhetoric, history and moral philosophy in order to create a more-engaged citizenry. More’s education and loyalty gave Henry reason to keep him close. This education and loyalty allowed the lawyer to express his opinions and beliefs openly to his king. However, it was his silence on the king’s Act of Supremacy that exemplified More’s use of humanism as a practice in virtue. Having realized and confirmed his own virtue, More refused to acquiesce to the king. He used skilled rhetoric in his defense, but was found guilty nonetheless. More practiced humanism in some form through every stage of his life, and it was with him at

12 William Roper, married to Margaret More Roper; More’s son-in-law and first More biographer.

13 Marius, Richard. Thomas More: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. Print. p. 192. 5 the execution block as he spoke his final words with such skill that they are remembered today.

6

HUMANISM

While the term “humanism” was not coined until 1808 by a German educator to describe a classical education program, 1 humanists were considered a defined group as early as fifteenth-century Italy. Teachers and students of classical learning, humanists also were those who utilized their studies as tools of imitation within their lives, work, and philosophies. Nearing the turn of the century, the sudden spread of such classical studies made its way to Tudor England, affecting every aspect of life, including religion and politics. 2

Instruction on grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history and moral philosophy were linked to classical Greek and Latin sources, all of which were thought to hone wisdom and moral virtues.3 The exact nature of English humanism, however, has become a debate amongst scholars who believe the philosophy, once agreed upon for decades, has been over-generalized, over-simplified, and too religious in character.4

Many scholars, biographers and historians still agree in defining humanism as the interest in ancient Latin and Greek literature and the applying of those interests to

1 Fox, Alistair, and J A. Guy. Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics, and Reform, 1500-1550 . Oxford, Ox, UK: B. Blackwell, 1986. Print. Pp. 31-32.

2 Wakelin, Pp. 7- 8.

3 Anderson, J M. The Honorable Burden of Public Office: English Humanists and Tudor Politics in the Sixteenth Century . New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Print. p. xiii.

4 Mayer, Thomas F. Thomas Starkey and the Commonweal: Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry Viii . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print. p. 278. 7 temporal society. Alistair Fox, however, believes such application must be instilled within a society that is in the process of transition. In doing so, humanism is not only a

“philosophy of life,” but it is a tool utilized to make such philosophies create real world implications.5 If humanist language creates reality,6 then humanism can be considered by its activities or what David Carlson deems “humanist gestures,” implying that humanism is, in fact, a practice and not simply a philosophy.7 Daniel Wakelin, however, reminds his students that identifying humanism as an activity or gesture only undermines it as a philosophy in general. 8 It is the classical element of Greek and Latin studies that makes humanism the philosophy of classical studies, and that approach must always be there for it to be considered humanism.

Foundations of Humanism

Humanism is rooted in the philosophy of the Greeks, specifically, Plato, Aristotle and their students. Philosophizing more than 400 years before the Christian era, both

Plato and, later, Aristotle, concerned themselves with the speaker’s ability to impact his audience. To understand each man’s specific philosophies, one must understand each man’s thoughts on truth, knowledge and goodness.

Plato concentrated heavily on rhetoric, art, literature, epistemology, justice, virtue, politics, education, family and military. A follower of Socrates, Plato molded many of

Socrates’s philosophies into his own and founded the School of Athens based on these.

5 Fox, Pp. 23, 33.

6 Mayer, p. 7.

7 Ackroyd, Peter. The Life of Thomas More. New York: Doubleday, 1998. p. 89.

8 Wakelin, p. 8-9. 8

Plato believed art only could imitate the physical world, which he did not consider to be truth. Truth, according to Plato, is authentic reality and is found only in intellectual abstraction. He believed this reality, or the idea, was more real than physical objects.

Plato’s physical world does not contain ultimate reality. Reality is found through reason, and reason is accomplished through the use of rhetoric, or championing through discourse. Aiming to both persuade and instruct his audience, Plato’s rhetoric was used with the intent to “win the soul through discourse”;9 he knew he must persuade his audiences as well as instruct them, so they understood why they were choosing good or evil.

Though prior to Christianity, Plato’s philosophy, through its use of rhetoric and his vocal desire to support a working commonwealth, could be used in the promotion of

Christian Humanism. As discussed in The Republic , Plato’s four foundations of a commonwealth are wisdom, fortitude, temperance and justice, or what the Christians call the Four Cardinal Virtues. When combined with the Three Christian Virtues of faith, hope and charity, Plato’s philosophies support the Christian reform sought by More. With so much of Plato’s philosophies influencing Christian teaching, More’s biographer R.W.

Chambers wonders whether More obtained certain ideas from his studies in Catholicism or Greek. 10

Aristotle, a student of Plato, focused his philosophical pursuits on politics, metaphysics, science, and ethics, with his heaviest concentration on deductive logic, as he believed truth could be found by arguing both sides. He also believed not all audiences

9 “Aristotle v Plato.” Diffen. N.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

10 Chambers, p. 189. 9 had the capacity to be instructed; however, they could be persuaded. Unlike Plato, ultimate truth could be found in the concrete and through the senses, rather than in the idea of it. Aristotle chose to study the specific in hopes of understanding the general. 11

In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Christians were likely to follow Plato’s rhetoric rather than Aristotle’s logic,12 despite its having been applied to medieval studies of the scriptures, theology, and metaphysics within nearly all of medieval-Europe’s universities, including those in England. 13 Aristotelian logic, though not antireligious, utilized secular and scientific terminology in finding its way to virtue. 14 Humanists considered logic subordinate to rhetoric; sixteenth-century schools valued Aristotelian teaching in their grammar schools but placed emphasis on rhetoric. Syntax, etymology and allusion in grammar studies were taken over by rhetoric; and dialectic exercises were transformed from practices in syllogism, maxim, and analogy to techniques of persuasion. 15

Many students, scholars and humanists, however, did look to Aristotle for scientific or secular reasons,16 allowing for the secular side of humanism. While most

11 Diffen.

12 Aristotelian logic, in the Middle Ages, dealt with syllogisms, as well as serving as the basis of Aristotelian science; Yoran, Hanan. Between utopia and dystopia: Erasmus, Thomas More, and the humanist Republic of Letters. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2010. p. 25-26.

13 Anderson, p. 4.

14 Carlson, David R. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475- 1525 . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Print. p. 71.

15 Kinney, Arthur F. Humanist Poetics: Thought, Rhetoric, and Fiction in Sixteenth-Century England . Amherst [Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986. Print. p. 19.

16 Casini, Lorenzo. “Renaissance Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I.E.P., n.d. Web. 2 Mar 2014. 10 humanists were decidedly religious, secular humanism once was thought to be a pagan practice. This notion has come under attack as humanism could be secular in the sense that it did not subordinate other disciplines and fields to religion. Areas of concentration, such as economy and politics, used their own secular terms, rules, and practices as opposed to religious ones. 17

Those humanists practicing a “Christian Humanism” concerned themselves with the history of religion and the faith. Concerned with the spiritual aspects of doctrine and worship, Christian humanists were opposed to those religious beliefs and practices which had become considered superstition. These humanists philosophized for the purification of the Church. They were not interested in what would become known as the

Reformation. 18

Reformation and Renaissance

The humanist movement in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries began with scholars delving into classical Greek and Latin studies and reviving the philosophies they extolled. Instilling these philosophies into contemporary society allowed political and religious movements to form based on these ideas, thus providing humanism with many branches. While all humanists wanted a “restoration of theology,” 19 the humanist movement of the Reformation, in fact, weakened the medieval church and medieval theology. More believed in the reformation of the church, but he also believed in the reforming of mind and spirit in the church, as he believed the church had suffered due to

17 Yoran, p. 23-24.

18 Gelder, H A. E. The Two Reformations in the 16th Century: A Study of the Religious Aspects and Consequences of Renaissance and Humanism . The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1961. Print. p. 4.

19 Chambers, p. 73. 11 the “secular and worldly way of living on the part of the clergy,” including the search for benefices, rampant sexual misconduct, hypocrisy and heresy, with “the greater heresy

[being] ‘the vicious and depraved lives of the clergy.’” 20 More, however, did not support what the Reformation would become toward the mid-sixteenth century, that is, a break with Rome.

The Reformation is not to be confused with the Renaissance (the revitalization of the arts) and those humanists interested primarily in it. The Renaissance took on a more secular humanist aspect, concentrating on the education of laymen, specifically nobility and gentry, who would hold state and societal positions. These Renaissance humanists believed classical studies would instill piety and morality in such men and help them identify examples of good and bad government. Furthermore, studies in language and rhetoric would provide them with the skills they needed to perform ambassadorial and ministerial duties with the grace required of courtiers. 21 The Renaissance, influenced by humanist thought and propagated through the spread of printing and literacy, brought to laymen the rediscovery of classical works. Laymen suddenly became interested in intellect, the plastic arts, literature, philosophy and religious attitudes. Latin, which had become debased through the Middle Ages, and Greek were studied in an attempt to read and understand classical authors and scriptures in their original languages.22 The

Renaissance was dominated by laymen who used the secular humanist movement in an attempt to touch on the dignity of man while rejoicing in the power of reason.

20 Ackroyd, p. 136. More made his condemnation of “the secular and worldly way of living on the part of the clergy” within his 1510 convocation speech to Parliament.

21 Dowling, Maria. Humanism in the Age of Henry Viii . London: Croom Helm, 1986. Print. p. 176.

22 Weir, p. 144. 12

Civic Humanism 23

Civic humanism, another branch of the secular humanist movement, was more concerned with moral philosophy and politics than with logic and grammar. In pursuit of politics, civic humanists preferred the vita activa , or active life, to the vita contemplativa , or contemplative life. 24 These humanists’ study of the classics, or bonae litterae, were directed at reforming education and government. 25 In studying rhetoric, students learned how to become effective politically and legally; the persuasive speech they learned earned them a civic responsibility to use it within an active, political life. 26 Such civic humanists in the sixteenth century applied classical ideas to their private lives as well as assimilating these into English politics by promoting same through education, cultural and other political means. 27

Humanists, whether secular or religious, believed in using the skills with which

God provided them to help end war, care for the needy, and take into account a broader idea of humanity. Humanists lauded Plato’s philosophies in hopes of being the founders of a new ideal commonwealth. 28 Humanists believed in educating both church officials

23 According to Anderson, the term Civic Humanism was first popularized in the mid-20 th Century and was applied to and expressed in politics.

24 Anderson, p. xiii.

25 Ackroyd, p. 89.

26 Trousdale, Marian. Hattaway, Michael, ed. A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000. Print. p. 623.

27 Anderson, p. xi.

28 Weir, p. 145. 13 and secular politicians so that the effects of such an education would begin at the top of such hierarchies and, eventually, reach the lowest rung of the ladder. 29

Humanism in Education and Royal Service

Education was paramount to humanism. In order to propagate effectively the fundamentals of humanism to make changes in the church, government, culture, etc., one had to be well versed in bonae litterae , a notion Henry VIII adamantly supported. Both

Hanan Yoran and Maria Dowling acknowledge Henry VIII’s “taste for good learning,” and Yoran goes so far as referencing the king’s advising William Blount, Lord

Mountjoy, 30 that “he longed to be a more accomplished scholar.” Upon Mountjoy’s response that what is expected of him is “foster[ing] and encourage[ing] those who are scholars,” Henry replied, “Of Course, for without them we could scarcely exist.” 31 Henry

VIII ensured his heir apparent, Prince Edward, was taught humanist instruction in preparation for the throne, as was Henry Fitzroy, his illegitimate child once considered by the king for legitimacy. The Princess Mary, at her mother’s demand, was also taught a humanist education, in preparation for her potential reign. 32 As would be expected, all of

More’s children and dependents received an in-depth humanist education, and all were

29 Marius, p. 235.

30 William Blount, Lord Mountjoy is credited with introducing Henry VIII to Humanism and serving as a significant educational influence on him: “It was Mountjoy’s closeness to Henry and his efforts to introduce the Prince to humanists that laid the foundations for the establishment of the new learning in England in the following reign.” It also was Mountjoy who introduced More to an 8 year-old Henry in 1499; Dowling, p. 13.

31 Yoran, p. 39.

32 Dowling, p. 233. 14

Latinists. 33 The intent was to educate his children so they one day could serve the community themselves.34

In the early part of Henry VIII’s reign, instruction in theology within the medieval universities was taught through Latin grammar; however, humanists were concerned such instruction was leaving students ill-prepared for more complex studies. With the help of those closest to the king, Oxford and Cambridge became the first universities to include the new learning in their curriculums.35 Soon, Tudor universities and grammar schools were teaching not only the usual classroom instruction, but humanist values such as personal dignity and self-respect. Philosophic classroom discussions touched on education, perfectibility, inquiry, argumentation and rhetoric, all as found in Platonic study. 36 Such humanist education presented its students with the idea they were citizens as well as subjects. In this sense, the education they received was not so they could hone a professional or knowledgeable skill, but so each could fashion himself into an active citizen. 37 The need for such men was becoming known and understood, as universities throughout northern Europe began the debate between scholasticism and humanism.

Humanists were now in demand as the scholastics had once been. 38

33 More’s “school” would serve as the first case of female scholarship in England, as, before the reign of Henry VIII, women did not receive an education, with the exception of the education of the Princess Mary; Dowling, p. 220.

34 McLean, Antonia. Humanism and the Rise of Science in Tudor England . New York: N. Watson Academic Publications, 1972. Print. p. 56.

35 Dowling, p. 9.

36 Kinney, A., Preface.

37 Yoran, p. 32.

38 Wakelin, p. 194. 15

Henry VII discovered the benefits of having humanists in his service, as they were powerful propagandists and educated civil servants.39 Henry VIII, a learned humanist himself, drew many humanists into positions much closer to the monarchy, including his physician, chaplain and the royal secretary. More, too, served the monarch in a number of positions before ultimately being named Lord Chancellor in 1529. Other humanists were named to diplomatic missions, literary employment, etc. 40 More, like most humanists, would have considered civic activity a duty, particularly since he was a trained rhetorician; and, it was not until the early 1530s that his civic responsibility would clash with his religiosity.

More, the Politician

More, according to Wegemer, was an expert in humanitas ; his studies in oratory, law history and poetry required knowledge of both human nature and a people and its culture. 41 More was a lauded member of London society and worked as a lawyer and orator, and even served as a negotiator for London merchants of the Mercers’

Company.42

According to numerous sources, including his correspondence with John Fisher,

Bishop of Rochester, More had no desire to enter into royal service; however, he saw it as

39 Crane, Mary Thomas; Hattaway, p. 18.

40 Dowling, p. 11.

41 Wegemer, Gerard B. Young Thomas More and the Arts of Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print. p. 9.

42 Mercers’ Company – one of the richest and most powerful merchants’ guilds; More was named a full member despite not being an apprentice or son of any member, perhaps because of his standing in London society or due to his professional usefulness as a Latinist, orator and lawyer; he received an Embassy from Antwerp on the Mercers’ Company’s behalf in 1509 at Mercers’ Hall; Arnold, Pp. 177-178. 16 his duty. His saving grace was that, despite his cautious demeanor, he saw in Henry VIII a respected humanist. More wrote to Fisher in 1517,

Much against my will did I come to Court (as everyone knows, and as the King himself in jokes sometimes likes to reproach me), So far as I keep my place there as precariously as an unaccustomed rider in his saddle … the King has virtue and learning and makes great progress in both with almost daily renewed zeal, so that the more I see His majesty increase in all the good and the really kingly qualities, the less burdensome do I feel this life of the Court. 43

G.R. Elton and A.D. Cousins, however, both find More to have been more agreeable to royal service than he professes, with Cousins suggesting More’s serving as a royal councilor was expected as a result of the path he took in getting there. For eight years prior to his being named to Henry VIII’s council, More already had served as a commissioner of sewers, legal counsel, ambassador and investigator of the May Day

Riots of 1517. Cousins refers to such previous positions as “the path of political engagement, not of retreat from it.” Cousins sees More as having taken on all the necessary roles that brought him to the one of royal councilor. 44

It easily could be surmised, however, that More accepted early on that it was, in fact, his duty as an accomplished rhetorician to enter the service of the king. In discussing correspondence More sent to Maarten Van Dorp in 1515, Cousins states, “Humanists,

[More] concluded, connect man to virtue and by definition, to God; they are able to do so

43 Rogers, Elizabeth Frances, Ed. St. Thomas More: Selected Letters . New Haven and London: Yale University press, 1967. Print. p. 53.

44 Cousins, A D, and Damian Grace. A Companion to Thomas More . Madison [NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009. Print. p. 17. 17 because, as accomplished rhetoricians, they are capable of communicating wisdom and virtue to others.” 45

Regardless of how he got there, Cousins explains Henry VIII in fact did pursue

More, not for his administrative and legal talent but, for his intellectual companionship.46

In his official role as a Privy Council member, More served as an advisor to the king and assisted in the implementation of legislation and policy. Not only was More a prominent member of the king’s cabinet, but he also was a close friend. Both were concerned with the humanist ideals of virtue, and both were devout Catholics.

Before the start of his employment under the king, More was practicing humanism by influencing reality through language. Believing that virtuous goals can be reached even by means of flattery, as the source deemed worthy of the praise must try to live up to it,47 More practices this notion at the coronation celebration of Henry VIII, years before he is in his direct service. More, knowing the young king valorized war, attempted to put into his mind another idea by reiterating in his coronation address the

“humanist ideal of responsible rule for peace.” 48

More would go on to become the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1523, and, two years later, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He also would become the first lay Lord Chancellor in 1529.

45 Ibid, p. 55.

46 Ibid.

47 Marius, p. 236.

48 In More’s Latin verse, On Two Roses Which Became One , written for the King, More praises the House of Tudor for ending the Wars of the Roses and joining together the two houses; Rogers, p. 42. 18

Despite More’s devotion to and practice of humanism while in the royal service, his fellow humanist and friend, Desiderius Erasmus, objected to More’s working for

Henry VIII. Erasmus wrote More a letter in April 1517 “lamenting his desertion of good letters” in exchange for employment with the king. According to Alistair Fox, More was reluctant to tell Erasmus of his working for the king because, understanding Erasmus’s practice of humanism, which will be dealt with below, More “knew that politics could not be conducted according to the absolutes preached by Erasmus.” 49 Politics needed a recognition of reality. The friendship waned, although More would continue to defend his friend when the latter’s practice of humanism was attacked. 50

Humanist Works

More’s works fill volumes. From Latin verse to histories, and personal and political correspondence to religious polemics, More’s humanist voice is heard loudly in a many of his works. This is evident in the three examples discussed herein below.

Letter to Oxford 1518 51

More’s Letter to Oxford, considered “the most famous defense of humanism written in England,” 52 was an open letter to the University of Oxford penned after More learned of organized opposition to the new learning being exercised at the school. A group of individuals, referring to themselves as Trojans and led by Oxford alumnus and

Franciscan Henry Standish, preached against classical studies, supported a more orthodox

49 Fox, p. 20.

50 Ibid.

51 Dated March 29, 1518, the open letter was addressed to the Reverend Fathers, the Commissary, Proctors, and Others of the Guild of Masters of the University of Oxford; Rogers, p. 95.

52 Wakelin, p. 194. 19 curriculum and denounced humanism. 53 More, concerned with the opposition forming against Greek study, defended humanism itself by defining it and limiting it. 54 More recommends both a liberal education as well as the idea that secular learning and theology can both be accommodated via Platonism:55

Now as to the question of humanistic education being secular. No one has ever claimed that a man needed Greek and Latin, or indeed any education to be saved. Still, this education which he calls secular does train the soul in virtue. In any event, few will question that humanistic education is the chief, almost the sole reason why men come to Oxford … Moreover, even if men come to Oxford to study theology, they do not start with that discipline. They must first study the laws of human nature and conduct, a thing no useless to theologians; without such study they might possibly preach a sermon acceptable to an academic group, without it they would certainly fail to reach the common man. And from whom could they acquire such skill better than from the poets, orators, and historians? … Moreover, there are some who through knowledge of things natural (i.e. rational) construct a ladder by which to rise to the contemplation of things supernatural; they build a path to theology through philosophy and the liberal arts, which this man condemns as secular … This fellow declares that only theology should be studied; but if he admits even that, I don’t see how he can accomplish his aim without some knowledge of languages, whether Hebrew or Greek or Latin 56

In this one letter, written well into his actively-humanist lifestyle and on the cusp of entering royal service, More outlines the relationship between religious spirituality and humanism.

Utopia

More’s most well-known work, Utopia , published in 1516, may have been sparked by a lecture he delivered in 1501 at St. Lawrence Jewry on St. Augustine’s City

53 Kinney, Daniel, ed. Complete Works of St. Thomas More , Vol. 15. In Defense of Humanism – Letters to Dorp, Oxford, Lee, and a Monk. Historia Richardi Tertii. p. xxix.

54 Wakelin, Pp. 194, 196.

55 Fox, p. 29.

56 Rogers, p. 99. 20 of God. St. Augustine’s city included citizens all equal with one another, each happy to work and support one another communally. 57 With Plato’s Republic serving as his template and St. Augustine’s imaginary society inspiring More’s own creativity, Utopia was conceived. In this perfect commonwealth, no one citizen works for personal gain, and there is an overall contempt for wealth. One striking difference from Plato’s

Republic , however, is that Utopians despise war. A society based on education, Utopia is also a community of avid readers; books and literature are held in high esteem, and those devoting their lives to letters are placed on a pedestal. It is these devotees that hold

Utopian offices, religious positions, and royal titles. 58

Not only does the fictional commonwealth itself adhere to a humanistic way of life, but More showcases the humanist practices of argument, rhetoric, and dialogue in

Utopia , as the work does not promote one viewpoint but, instead, offers several.

According to Wayne A. Rebhorn,59 this is how More concealed his own personal viewpoints held within Utopia. By giving a primary character his name, and speaking safely through that character, More was able to advocate controversial views through another primary character, whom he christens Raphael Hythloday. “Raphael” means “the healing of God” and is the name of one of God’s archangels; “Hythloday,” however, means “nonsense.” Furthermore, More does not name his perfect commonwealth eutopia

57 Adams, Robert P. The Better Part of Valor: More, Erasmus, Colet, and Vives, on Humanism, War, and Peace, 1496-1535 . , 1962. Print. p. 32.

58 Baker, David W. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England . Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Print. Pp. 70-71.

59 Wayne A. Rebhorn provided the Introduction and Notes to the 2005 Barnes & Nobles Classics publication of Sir Thomas More’s Utopia used for this thesis. More, Sir Thomas. Utopia; with The Life of Sir Thomas More by William Roper. New York: Barnes and Nobles Classics, 2005. Print.

21 but utopia . The paradox lies in both Hythloday’s name as well as the name of the man- made island. The bearer of nonsense tells of an ideal republic that is found nowhere.

In the first book of Utopia , the fictional More tries to persuade Hythloday why learned men should live the active life with regard to politics, government and royal service, perhaps representative of More’s own views. In the second book, the reader is introduced to Utopia, whose ideal commonwealth is described by the character named

“nonsense.” Supplying the dialogue for both roles, More is able to play both sides of the argument, leaving the more controversial notions to be advanced by his made-up character.

The History of King Richard III

While More looked to Plato’s Republic as a partial model for Utopia , when writing The History of King Richard III , More turned to Greek and Latin historians and took on historical writing. 60 Such works generally took the form of either a chronicle or historia ; annales, those in chronicle form identifying dates, places, events and personalities, served as a platform for historias , which were written as humanist productions. Written around 1513 but published after his death, More’s Richard III includes a number of factual inaccuracies and, it is thought, his Tudor sympathies may have led him “to distort the character and deeds of Richard III.”61

Richard III serves as a humanist work for several reasons. The inaccuracies More included in his work may have been the work of Tudor propaganda, and his distortions of the truth were an effort to discourage any notion there was intrigue surrounding the

60 Chambers, p. 110.

61 Yoran, p. 134. 22 throne. More confuses identities of several individuals by misidentifying their Christian names, he aged King Edward IV by thirteen years and misidentifies Edward’s alleged first wife. 62 The humanist political thought throughout the text corresponds with the idea that civil wars and usurpations are facets of a corrupt and secular world. 63 Ultimately,

More’s Richard III is a humanist text because it is moralistic and didactic, arguing against the vice of pride, which More considered a “prime cause of ruin;” and it is with pride and abuse of power that More describes the ill-fated monarch. 64 Yoran, however, reminds scholars of humanism that Richard III , with all of its inaccuracies, supports the assumption that humanist history was influenced by political ideology.

Erasmian Humanism

While More wrote at both his pleasure and when prompted, he also held many professional positions that interrupted his literary pursuits. His friend, Desiderius

Erasmus, however, did not. As aforementioned, Erasmus disapproved of More’s employment within royal service. Erasmus, often referred to as a wandering scholar, had hoped to obtain a post at Henry VIII’s court while evading actual service. 65 Having practiced a form of humanism more conducive to his own beliefs, Erasmus’s brand of humanism would not have been effective in Henry’s court, as it was based staunchly on

Platonic idealism and a moral absolutism. 66 However, according to More’s letter to

62 Yoran, p. 134.

63 Ibid., p. 141.

64 Cousins, p. 14.

65 Dowling, p. 19.

66 Fox, Pp. 52-53.

23

Erasmus in February 1516, that did not mean Erasmian Humanism did not have its admirers. More wrote:

You can be sure, Erasmus, that Linacre 67 has a very high opinion of you and talks about you everywhere. I recently learned from some men who were dining with him at the King’s table, where he spoke of you in very fond and lavish terms. 68

Erasmus’s humanism called for the new learning in school curricula but it also called for the reform of both the church and state. Erasmian humanism also has been linked to the reformist notion of providing lay people with a vernacular translation of the scriptures and making the Bible understandable in literary terms rather than in theological ones. 69 Humanists lauded Erasmus when he translated the Latin New Testament into

Greek; the premise was that the “new Latin translation would inspire laymen to read the gospel, and the Greek text would encourage scholars to learn the language.” 70 It was

Erasmus’s Greek New Testament that encouraged Henry VIII to learn Greek. 71

Erasmus was the father of the Humanist Republic of Letters, to which More was a citizen. This social and intellectual group represented a reform program that represented the ideals and values of the Erasmian humanist as an intellectual. According to Yoran,

“the Erasmian humanist, in other words, did not produce knowledge and instruct society from a transcendent sphere. The Erasmian humanist was therefore a modern universal

67 Thomas Linacre was a humanist scholar and physician to King Henry VIII.

68 Arnold, p. 179.

69 Crane; Hattaway, Pp. 16-17.

70 Dowling, p. 20.

71 Ibid.

24 intellectual, perhaps the first universal intellectual.” 72 Erasmian humanists were not interested in representing the ideology of the political establishment; they were interested in representing their ideology regardless of what was practiced and believed by the political establishment. For this reason, Erasmian Humanism would not have worked in the Court of Henry VIII.

Yoran further argues that More’s humanist writings were Erasmian in nature because they were not based on the ideology of any political establishment. While it is supportable that More’s humanism could fall into a number of categories, it would be easy to understand how Utopia could be understood in terms of Erasmian Humanism, as

Utopia’s social order has realized Erasmus’s reforms with its stable republic, scholarly and virtuous rulers, values in learning, and the abolition of the distinction between the vita activa and the vita contemplativa. Additionally, moral improvement and social welfare is tantamount to Utopia’s existence. 73

More’s Defense of Erasmus

A number of personal differences can be distinguished between More and

Erasmus despite the synonymy of much of their humanist philosophies. For example,

Erasmus was a pacifist and lacked any sense of patriotism, as he tended to be without a home country. More, on the other hand, was confrontational and a devout Englishman, as well as a European. Regardless of such differences, More supported his friend and defended him on several occasions.

72 Yoran, p. 2.

73 Ibid, p. 13.

25

In the 1510s, the future archbishop of York, Edward Lee, published a dissent outlining “at least three hundred faults in Erasmus’s first edition” of his Greek New

Testament. More forwarded three letters to Lee requesting he cease his attacks on

Erasmus. In 1514, the Holland-born Maarten Van Dorp, a Louvain humanist-turned- theologian 74 and lecturer, wrote Erasmus a letter objecting to the latter’s Praise of Folly 75 and pointing out the discrepancies between the Vulgate New Testament as translated by

Erasmus and the original Greek text. After Erasmus’s original reply was responded to with additional attacks, More wrote a Letter to Dorp attacking Dorp’s scholastic philosophy 76 and scholastic grammar. More cited examples of “common logical discussions from scholastic literature”; such as, distinguishing the difference between

“Wine I drank twice,” and “I drank twice wine.” More referred to such scholastic discussions as “monstrous absurdities,’ attesting to the inanity of scholastic dialectics as a whole.” 77 Dorp did not publish any other letters regarding the matter. More would go on to defend Erasmus again in 1519 when he rebutted a monk’s attacks against Erasmus’s life, works, and scriptural labors.

Humanism: Conclusion

The basis of humanism is on the revival of classical Greek and Roman texts, imitating the ideals found in those texts, and propagating those ideas to others through education and church and state reform. The religious reform humanists favored was a response to

74 Louvain Theologians were considered in general to be hostile toward the rhetorical and literary pursuits; Kinney D., Pp. xx-xxi.

75 Praise of Folly: Written by Erasmus and inspired by More, the text was a denunciation, on behalf of the humanists, of all the wickedness and folly of age.

76 Kinney, D. Pp. xxxvii, xxii-xxiii.

77 Yoran, p. 27.

26 clerical abuses and over-reliance on relics, images, and pilgrimages that degenerated superstition and sacrilege. These humanists believed if the scriptures were afforded to laypeople in their uncorrupted form, the church would reform itself. 78

Civic humanism also stemmed from the resurgence of the classics, as they supported the preparing of a person for public life. 79 While many English humanists assimilated their personal philosophies to Henry VIII’s ever-changing views, it may have been this ability to acclimate accordingly that ensured their survival, as many humanists were sponsored by those in the king’s inner circle. While it was More’s humanism that encouraged him to partake in an active, civic-minded life, it was also his humanism that aided and supported his religiosity, as his studies of the classics helped shape and mold his ideas of virtue and morality. It would be these same philosophical and religious ideals that would place More in peril only a few years after entering the service of the king.

78 Dowling, p. 37.

79 Anderson, p. xi. 27

Work out your own ideas and sift your thoughts so as to see what conception and idea of a good person they contain; otherwise you can end up as a Caesar [who] overturned all the laws, human and divine, to achieve for himself a principate fashioned according to his own erroneous opinion. - Cicero 1

THE GREAT MATTER AND THE ACTS THAT FOLLOWED

By the early 1520s, Thomas More was a prominent member of Henry VIII’s Privy

Council and had become a much-relied upon advisor to the king. This also was the time the king began inquiring as to the possibility of an annulment 2 from his wife, Katharine of Aragon. Henry, concerned with his lack of a male heir, began to question the validity of his and Katharine’s marriage, as she was the widow of his late brother, Prince Arthur.

Henry felt the warning delivered in the Book of Leviticus – that a man married to his brother’s widow would be childless – had been satisfied, despite Pope Julius II having granted a dispensation prior to the marriage. Henry believed he and Katharine had

1 Wegemer, 2011, p. 1, quotes Cicero’s De Officiis , 3:81; 1.26; to open Chapter 1 of his Young Thomas More and the Arts of Liberty; in his 1518 Letter to Oxford , More states “For in philosophy, apart from the works left by Cicero and Seneca, the schools of the Latins have nothing to offer that is not either Greek or translated from Greek,” p. 6.

2 The Great Matter – Henry VIII’s pursuit for an annulment from his first marriage – often is misstated as his request for a divorce. By his using Leviticus 20:21 as his grounds for his request, had same been granted, it would have annulled the marriage, as it would have been deemed null and void. A divorce would have acknowledged the marriage as legitimate, which is not what Henry sought. Chambers, p. 217, considers Leviticus as an excuse, as said Book also issued injunctions to Jewish priests on the proper way to wring the neck of a chicken, how to detect leprosy and how to avoid unclean animals, such as rabbits. Marius, p. 47, states “If any book of the Bible did not seem fully binding on Christians, it was Leviticus.” Furthermore, it should be noted, Henry chose Leviticus over Deuteronomy 25:5, the latter which deems it the responsibility of a deceased son’s family to marry his widow to one of his family if she was widowed without a son.

28

offended God, and his having no sons was proof thereof. 3 Further proof, according to the king, was the fact that God had given him a living daughter with Katharine and an illegitimate son by a mistress. A daughter was unacceptable, as the only instance of female rule in England was the discouraging reign of Matilda during the mid-twelfth century, a period of unrest and civil war in England, which has come to be known as The

Anarchy. Henry Fitzroy, a surname that translates “son of the king,” received a number of titles and positions within the king’s court as early as his sixth birthday, signaling

Henry VIII’s acknowledgment of his illegitimate son as a potential heir to the throne.4 By the mid-1520s, Henry VIII knew, if he wanted a legitimate male heir, he was going to have to have his marriage to Katharine of Aragon annulled in order for him to remarry and, he hoped, sire male issue.

Under the restraint of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and nephew of Katharine of Aragon, the Pope held Henry at bay for a number of years, causing a frustrated Henry to seek support for an annulment outside of England and the papacy. Henry’s Council sought theologians’ opinions from the universities throughout Christendom in attempt of procuring a majority opinion in the king’s favor. In appointing individuals on their behalves to represent them, both Henry and Katharine chose humanists to deliver their arguments to the universities. 5

By 1529, the king still had not received an answer from the Pope. Frustrated with his Lord Chancellor, Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, who was in charge of obtaining a

3 Weir, p. 242.

4 Chambers. Pp. 213-214.

5 Chambers, p. 238. 29

favorable decision on behalf of the king, Henry replaced him with his friend, Thomas

More. This decision to appoint More was multidimensional for the king. More was the first lay person appointed as Lord Chancellor in almost a hundred years; in appointing someone outside of the church, Henry was implying his power over the Pope and the

Catholic Church. Henry also was aware that More supported Katharine in her claim that the marriage was valid, as More had told him such on numerous occasions. Having More work toward the annulment could be seen as implying Henry had both his and

Katharine’s best intentions at heart and he harbored no malice toward her. 6

Henry may also have been considering More’s defense of divorce in Utopia , possibly thinking More still might be persuaded to side with him. The king, however, was not considering Utopia as a practice in rhetoric and dialogue, as it is not the character bearing More’s name that is arguing in favor of divorce; it is the one named “nonsense.”

Also, divorce in Utopia is granted only after consent is reached by both parties. The king also is forgetting how, in Utopia, multiple offenses of adultery are punishable by death, a fate the king most certainly would have faced. 7

Henry VIII was well-aware More did not want to be involved in his Great Matter, as More’s opinions did not coincide with those of the king. The king granted him pardon, advising More on numerous occasions that he should follow his conscience and always

“look first unto God and, after God, to him.” 8 More’s reason in opposing the annulment was simple in that he always found the king’s marriage to Katharine of Aragon as having

6 Ackroyd, p. 289.

7 Chambers, p. 217.

8 Ackroyd, p. 289. 30

been lawful. Another reason More may have denounced the Great Matter was that his practice in humanism molded his ideas of virtue. More, who abandoned a path toward

Holy Orders in favor of marriage and the experiences of human sexuality, would not encourage and advocate the king’s sexual dalliances and transgressions, and, as Marius suggests, he would not support a divorce that would lead to the legal union of the king and his then-mistress. 9

Despite Henry’s promise not to involve him in the Great Matter, More had the task of delivering to Parliament on March 3, 1531, the results of the universities’ findings. Numerous scholars believe this event exhibits More’s duplicity in working against the Great Matter. As he presented the results with the caveat “that the king was pursuing the divorce from scruples of conscience, and not because he was in love with another lady,” the notion was cemented that More was speaking solely as the king’s liaison and not from his own mind. When someone asked More in open Parliament for his own opinion of the Great Matter, he answered he could only reply that he had already declared his thoughts to the king many times. This, of course, made his disapproval clear, otherwise he would have openly defended the Great Matter.10 Biographers such as Elton find More’s actions to be the work of manipulation. As Lord Chancellor, it was More’s obligation to present the opinions of the universities with the king’s favor in mind.

Instead, he introduced the survey and had the results reported by a clerk. 11 By not reporting the results himself, More’s civic humanism may have been tested, but his use of

9 Marius, p. 363.

10 Chambers, p. 239.

11 Curtright, Travis. The One Thomas More . Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Print. Pp. 194-196. 31

rhetoric was on full display. By declaring that the king knew his thoughts and remaining silent on much else, his personal opinion would be easily surmised by those present.

Richard Marius suggests Pope Clement VII never had any intention of granting

Henry’s request for annulment, as it would have second-guessed his predecessor’s decision allowing the marriage, thus questioning the authority of the papacy in its entirety. Past decisions would have to be protected, even if that meant losing England for a while, since, at that point, it was beyond comprehension it would be lost to the Roman

Church forever. Another point of contention for the church was that, by the time the

Great Matter was heard in the Papal Court, Martin Luther had made the Papacy the focus of his revolution. If Pope Clement had reversed a predecessor’s decision, Luther would have used that to his advantage, arguing this was evidence that popes erred in manipulating God’s law.12

Henrician Reformation

While Henry was not seeking the type of reformation Luther was instigating, he was seeking change, as he felt clerics and monasteries were straying from their religiosity. However, it was his Great Matter that ignited the Reformation in England.

England’s complete break with Rome was never Henry’s intent for the church in

England, but after a series government acts, the king eventually became the equivalent of a papal authority within his own kingdom.

In the beginning of Henry’s quest for a papal annulment, the difference in opinions lay in the interpretations of canon law, not necessarily the law itself. All parties agreed that Leviticus 20:21 prohibited marrying a brother’s widow if that marriage had

12 Marius, Pp. 215-216. 32

been consummated. The argument was whether or not the marriage between Katharine of

Aragon and Prince Arthur in fact had been consummated, a notion Katharine adamantly denied. It was the Pope’s refusal to declare judgment concerning whether or not Pope

Julius II’s dispensation was valid that was causing strife. If Julius’s dispensation had removed any impediment to Henry marrying Katharine, then the king had no argument.

Henry, therefore, was forced to use the argument that the papacy had no power to dispense with God-given law. The problem becomes one of church authority and not canonical interpretation. It was during the late 1520s that Henry began formulating another concept, one that would have English church authorities annul his marriage to

Katharine, disabling any appeals to Rome. The problem then evolved into disagreement over what authority the papacy has over the church as well.13

Conservative Reformation v. Lutheran Reformation

Before navigating the way through the completion of Henrician Reformation,

Henry’s initial love for the Catholic Church must be understood. The ardor he felt for

Catholicism can best be explained via his Assertio Septem Sacramentorum (1521), or

Defense of the Seven Sacraments. Luther vehemently attacked Catholicism, and particularly the papacy, in his On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). The king defended both Catholicism and the papacy with his Assertio Septem

Sacramentorum , which, according to Marius, “is said to have extolled the power of the pope, and modern scholars assume that it would have pleased the most ardent papist in

13 Elton, G.R. Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government: Papers and Reviews, 1982- 1990. Vol. 4. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print. p. 40. 33

the Catholic Church.” 14 According to Henry’s Assertio , “all the church recognized the

Roman See as mother and primate.” 15 What Henry did not include in his defense, however, were his thoughts on the exact extent of papal power, perhaps an omission advised by More, who had advised Henry that “kings and popes often fell into dispute and that if the king made too much of papal power in Assertio , he might be embarrassed by his own words later on.” 16 (Years later, during the king’s dispute with the Holy See, he would accuse More of having coerced him into writing Assertio and giving the Pope ammunition in the form of the king’s own protestations. More would remind him that he had only served as a second pair of eyes for the text after it was finished. 17 ) Regardless of who wrote and approved Assertio for publication, the king’s contribution was that he wanted Luther’s criticisms addressed and refuted and in his own name, giving the text the weight of his authority. 18 His support of the church earned the king the title “Defender of the Faith,” a title the king was more than happy to include among his other titles.

While many of Luther’s criticisms aligned with humanist views, many humanists, while wanting reform within the church, did not want the overhaul Luther demanded.

Henry, too, wanted reform, but the Lutheran Reformation was too extreme for the king. 19

The Henrician reformation advocated for the reform of the church in that canon law

14 Marius, Pp. 276-277.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid, 278.

17 Chambers, p. 184.

18 Dowling, p. 38.

19 Ibid, p. 37. 34

decisions concerning England should be made in England, and the first order of business was to be Henry’s Great Matter.

By the late 1520s, with the Great Matter weighing heavily on the minds of

Henry’s Privy Council and Anne Boleyn waiting in the wings to marry the king, Henry, encouraged by Anne, read William Tyndale’s The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528), which both criticized the papacy and praised the authority of monarchs. Henry whole- heartedly agreed with Tyndale’s views, although the book remained banned as the king did not want it available to commoners. 20 By the start of the 1530s, the Henrician

Reformation was well under way.

In September 1530, Henry issued a proclamation that served as a direct assault against the Pope’s authority, an attack at which More expressed his displeasure. The proclamation disallowed any papal bull detrimental to the king. Several months later, in

January, Henry accused church leaders of breach of praemunire .21 Those leaders acquiesced to the king, who, in turn, broadened the limits of praemunire , thus threatening ecclesiastical courts in England. The king also demanded that he be titled, “sole protector and supreme head of the English Church and clergy. 22 While he hadn’t yet separated from Rome, the king was clearing the path to become the head of the church.

20 Weir, p. 297.

21 The Statute of Praemunire (1353) was enacted to prevent church courts from advancing on the common-law courts’ jurisdiction and to prohibit appeals to the pope in matters that might better be decided in England. The statute was enacted the Hundred Years War when the French pope sided with the French. The statute, however, was not intended to deprive church courts of their traditional jurisdiction over spiritual matters, such as, heresy, marriage and divorce; Marius, p. 126.

22 Ackroyd, Pp. 318-319. 35

Discussions of Supremacy

The Supremacy was first brought up in Parliament in 1531 when George Boleyn,

Anne’s brother, suggested adding “Supreme Head after God” to Henry’s list of titles.

Bishop Fisher suggested incorporating the clause “so far as the law of God allows” to satisfy the unsure clergy; the new title was accepted by the Convocation of Canterbury in

February 1531. The King was now “their singular protector, only and supreme Lord, and so far as the law of Christ allows, even Supreme Head.” 23

It didn’t take long after the king’s new title was granted him that the Supplication or Complaint of the Commons against the Bishops came about. In March 1532, Henry took umbrage upon the realization that the clergy were vowed to both England and the

Pope. As Henry did not want his clergy being both his subjects and the Pope’s, he made them choose; and on May 15, 1532, the English bishops offered their Submission of the

Clergy , which included the promise not to propose any law in convocation without the king’s consent; not to assemble a convocation without the king’s consent; and that all laws of the church would be reviewed by a commission made up of clergy and laymen.

Marius considers this the date England transitioned from the Middle Ages to modernity. 24

The next day, More resigned as Lord Chancellor.

More’s Resignation

While More’s official resignation was on the grounds of ailing health, his resigning in the face of England’s increasing distance from the papacy was both an

23 Chambers, p. 238.

24 Marius, p. 415. 36

“admission of public defeat,” as well as “an act of public defiance.” 25 Despite rumors that the king had released More of his duties, More reiterated via various correspondence that his leaving court was his choice and on account of health. One such letter to Erasmus, written June 14, 1532, advised that he was now able to devote time to God, although

“some sort of chest ailment [had] laid hold of [him].”26

Thomas Cromwell, another laymen and advisor to the king, would succeed More as Lord Chancellor. Under his direction, Parliament further limited papal power in

England and finally brought Henry VIII’s Great Matter to a conclusion in favor of the king and also recognized him as sovereign over the church in England. The Act of

Restraint of Appeals acknowledged the king as the “one supreme head and king … who owed submission to no one but God.” 27 The Pope’s jurisdiction over the church in

England was sufficiently challenged, as appeals in spiritual matters would no longer be heard in Rome. Creating an independent Church of England, the act named the king as its ruling body. Katharine of Aragon no longer had a right to appeal the Great Matter to the papal authorities. The decision was up to the ecclesiastical courts in England.

When the Great Matter finally came to its conclusion, More was enjoying his retirement writing, continuing to use his humanist skills of rhetoric. However, it was during this time that his writing was becoming more polemical than it was Erasmian.

Upon More entering retirement, Christopher St. German, a septuagenarian lawyer and reformist, published A Treatise Concerning the Division between the Spirituality and the

25 Fox, p. 95.

26 Rogers, Pp. 172-173.

27 Weir, p. 327. 37

Temporality , criticizing the clergy’s handling of heresy and heretics. More responded with his Apology, in which he defended both the clergy’s privileges of handling heretics as well as his own part in detecting and handling heretics while he was Lord Chancellor.

More and St. German continued their virulent debates with several additional texts. 28

More’s writings, however, would soon take another turn to the contemplative, as his retirement would be interrupted by imprisonment.

Acts of Succession and Supremacy

In March 1534, the Act of Succession was passed, stating that the king’s marriage to Katharine of Aragon was against the laws of God, and that the marriage with Anne

Boleyn was within those laws. It further stated that any children born between Henry VIII and Anne would be the king’s lawful heirs, 29 succinctly placing the king and Anne’s daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, as heir apparent over the Princess Mary, now referred to as Lady Mary. The act required an oath from every citizen “when so required,” though it contained no formula for same. 30 The oath would not be required and formulated until the

Second Act of Succession passed in November 1534.

More acknowledged the king and Parliament were within their power to alter the succession, and he was amenable to this. While he preferred the Princess Mary as next in line to the throne, he was willing to acknowledge the succession to Elizabeth and even would have accepted Henry Fitzroy, had the succession included him. 31 However, the Act

28 Guy, J.A.; Fox, Pp. 97-98.

29 Rogers, p. 215.

30 Weir, p. 345.

31 Chambers, p. 287. 38

itself included words “void[ing] and annul[ing]” the king’s marriage to Katharine of

Aragon, thus removing the Pope’s jurisdiction and authority over the matter, a fact More could not accept. 32 Furthermore, the oath, though not yet formally administered, required acceptance of “all other Acts and Statutes made since the beginning of the present parliament,” which would include the legislation removing authority from the papacy. 33

In reforming the church in England, Henry’s reformation had completely usurped the papal authority.

Both Roper and Chambers suggest the king considered waiving the portions of the oath regarding the denunciation of his marriage to Katharine and the acceptance of the supremacy, if More (and Fisher, who also refused the oath) would keep the details secret.

According to Roper, however, Anne Boleyn forced the issue on the king, who, in turn, made the full oath mandatory. 34 Chambers explains, ultimately, how Henry wanted More and Fisher to accept the oath and declare their belief his offspring with Anne were legitimate. In order for that to be done, they would have to acknowledge that the marriage with Katharine was unlawful. Once an act was passed to legalize the oath retrospectively, both More and Fisher were imprisoned for having refused the oath.35

In November 1534, Parliament passed the act that titled Henry VIII as Supreme

Head of the Church of England, with no lingering clause thereafter. The king, however, still needed Parliament to make his title have merit, because, in 1506, it was made law

32 Ackroyd, p. 356.

33 Ibid., 364.

34 Roper; More.

35 Chambers, p. 293. 39

that secular law could not give a layman (including a monarch) spiritual jurisdiction. But

Henry’s reformation rid any limits upon royal power, as it gave the king autonomous authority over the Church. It was secular law that gave the king supremacy; and it was the Act of Supremacy that made it a sin to deny the king as the Supreme Head of the

Church. Sins, however, were punishable by ecclesiastical courts; the king wanted punishments for lawbreakers from the common courts. The king, therefore, had parliament make it a crime to commit the sin of denying the King as Supreme Head, 36 and the crime was treason, punishable by death.

More’s Dissension

Despite being imprisoned for his refusal to take the oath, More’s troubles did not end with his silence. In his refusal to say anything regarding the Succession and

Supremacy, his disapproval of both acts became clear. This silence was detrimental to the king and Parliament, as they felt More’s reputation and actions would encourage others.

The king desperately wanted More to consent to the oath, as that would win others over and deter any other dissenters from action. 37

While imprisoned, More continued to write to Cromwell, knowing Cromwell would relay the messages to the king. More reminded Cromwell of his loyalty and service to the king. He wrote, “I am so sure of my truth toward his Grace, that I cannot mistrust his gracious favor toward me, upon the truth known, not the judgment of any honest man.” Still relying on his tools of humanistic persuasion, More’s use of rhetoric forces the king to acknowledge that no good and honest man who values truth would

36 Elton, Pp. 44-45.

37 Curtright, Pp. 176-179. 40

condemn him, as More had always served the truth. In other letters to Cromwell, More writes of humanism, describing it as a moral philosopher preaching on honesty. The humanist/moral philosopher is willing to lose all he owns for the good of God and his monarch; in this, More is letting Henry VIII know he is loyal to the English crown but even more so to God, a notion provided to him by Henry himself. 38

Acts of Attainder were passed against More and Fisher after they refused the oath, but these acts did not threaten death as punishment. The Act of Treasons, however, made it high treason “maliciously to deprive the King of his dignity, title, or name of his royal estate,” and, after February 1, 1535, anyone who denied the Royal Supremacy would be guilty of treason and punished a traitor’s death by disemboweling. 39

More’s trial addressed the charges that he “maliciously” resisted the king’s marriage to Anne Boleyn and he “maliciously and traitorously deprived the king of the title of Supreme Head.” More defended himself in saying he had only spoken his conscience to the king, as he would never lie to him. He furthered his defense by claiming that any law on treason was for actions and words; he had remained silent.

When the prosecution aligned his silence with maligning the king, More reminded them of the legal maxim that “silence gives consent,” so that argument would bode that his silence implied acceptance of the supremacy. 40

Chambers argues that More’s trial was not seeking out a justification of his silence but rather that he was not, in fact, silent. The Jury found its scapegoat in Richard

38 Cousins, p. 65.

39 Chambers, p. 305.

40 Ibid., p. 321. 41

Rich who testified More told him, while he believed a king could be named by parliament, parliament could not designate the Head of the Church. More denied any such conversation with Rich, and Rich’s witnesses did not support his testimony. More’s testimony in response to Rich’s was not preserved, although it was noted that More assailed Rich’s character and professed he would never reveal any such confidences to

Rich. He further explained that if he had denied the king’s title, he would not have maliciously done so. More argued “where there is no malice, there can be no offence.” 41

The jury found More guilty in fifteen minutes. Prior to his sentencing, More requested the chance to speak. Here he boldly explained why judgment should not be given against him:

…And forasmuch as this indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament directly repugnant to the laws of God and his holy Church, the supreme government by which, or of any part whereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome … Howbeit, it is not for this Supremacy so much that ye seek my blood, as for that I would not condescend to the marriage.42 Effect on Humanism

While humanists were a revered group in sixteenth-century England, Dowling suggests that the status of these scholars should not be overestimated, nor their political and cultural importance under Henry VIII. 43 The conservative humanist movement that had supported Katharine of Aragon during the Great Matter lost most of its standing once the marriage was invalidated by Henry’s new church. The deaths of More and Fisher

41 Ibid., p. 323.

42 Ibid., p. 326.

43 Dowling, p. 3. 42

likely added to the loss of the humanist movement’s momentum, and conservative and non-doctrinal Erasmian humanists were no longer as visible as literary leaders and in public debates. Those humanists who supported a more radical form of ecclesiastical reformation, however, now were prominent in court,44 as Queen Anne Boleyn fervently supported their cause and placed these extremists in the positions of the court formerly held by the conservative humanists.

Originally focused on establishing classical studies in education, politics and in religious reform in general, the focus on new learning changed as Henry VIII’s reign progressed. The religious reform of devotional practices and church administration morphed into reform of the beliefs of the faith. Still, humanist tools were used to argue changes for and against beliefs. 45

It was not More’s conservative philosophies and humanist practice that caused his downfall in the court of Henry VIII. His downfall was the result of supporting conservative causes counter to Henry’s more radical wants and desires. 46 More supported a purification of the Catholic Church, not its reinvention. More, however, maintained his humanist practices throughout his tenure as Lord Chancellor and into retirement using the tools of persuasion and rhetoric. His writings while imprisoned in the Tower of London also express his humanist tendencies, as he continued to use rhetoric and dialogue to prove his loyalty to the king, and as his yearning for the vita contemplative is brought to fruition.

44 Dowling, Pp. 45, 56.

45 Ibid., p. 2.

46 Fox, p. 21. 43

MORE, THE MARTYR

More’s devotion to Christianity and the Catholic Church have never been questioned. His choosing marriage over Holy Orders as a result of a desire to experience human sexuality was offset by the lifelong, medieval-Christian practices he exercised every day. More’s wearing of a hair shirt, flagellating himself regularly, and sleeping on wooden planks to limit his sleeping hours are only a few examples of his asceticism. The penultimate sign of his unwavering devotion to Christ and the Catholic Church came in the form of his silence in response to Henry VIII’s Acts of Succession and Supremacy, for which he was imprisoned in the Tower of London on April 17, 1534. He would remain there until his trial and execution on July 1 and July 6, 1535, respectively. 1

While in the Tower, More continued to write. While three major works and more than 300 pages exist today of those writings, 2 only thirteen of More’s personal letters survive. 3 In retirement, More’s works consisted primarily of polemic rebuttals to virulent reformers. His works written while in the Tower, however, center on Christ’s suffering. 4

1 The Chronicle of Fabyan supports More’s execution date as July 6, 1535; Fabyan, Robert. The chronicle of Fabian, whiche he nameth The concordaunce of histories, newly perused. And continued from the beginnyng of Kyng Henry the Seuenth, to thende of Queene Mary . London: Jhon Kyngston, 1559. Print. However, The Historie of Philip de Comines, Knight, Lord of Argenton , states, “In June, in the xxvii. year, the Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas Moore [sic] , beheaded, for denying the kyng [sic] to be supreme hed [sic] of the churche [sic] of England;” (Commynes, Philippe de. Historie of Philip de Comines, Knight, Lord of Argenton. London, Imprinted by Ar. Hatfield, for I. Norton, 1601. Edited and translated from French by Danett, Thomas, 1566-1601. Print.) This incorrectly gives More’s execution date as June 1536.

2 Cousins, p. 225.

3 Curtright, p. 177.

44

These works include A Treatise Upon the Passion (which includes A Treatise to Receive the Blessed Body ), A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation and De tristitia tedio pauore et oration Christi ante captionem eius ,5 or The Sadness, Weariness, Fear, and

Prayer of Christ before his Capture. More’s last letter was to his daughter, Margaret

More Roper, written on July 5, 1535, on the eve of his execution. 6

Vita Contemplativa

According to Fox, while it was clear that More was a humanist in his earlier career, his works in the tower indicate his views had changed. 7 However, as a Christian

Humanist who concerned himself with reform as well as the path to virtue, More’s transfer from polemical writing to that of meditation and prayer is indicative of this form of humanism. Also, as he left behind civic humanist practices, he began to take on the vita contemplativa, which satisfied More’s primary humanist concerns. Cousins has noted that the phrase “a prisoner of conscience” appears more than 100 times in More’s letters written from the Tower. 8

Valencia Holograph

More’s last work completed while in the tower was De tristitia , written in his usual humanistic style via dialogue. This final work often is referred to by way of the

Valencia holograph, as the original draft of More’s work was found in the closet of the

Valencian Saint Vicente Ferrar and includes a handwritten note by San Juan tracing its

4 Cousins, p. 225.

5 The weariness of fear and sorrow, before the holding of prayer.

6 Arnold, p. 186.

7 Fox, p. 10.

8 Cousins, p. 230. 45 origins to Thomas More. Clarence H. Miller believes the Valenica holograph is valuable because it is, in and of itself, an absolute authoritative text for the work; it provides an

“unparalleled view of More in the actual process of shaping his thought and language.”

The manuscript’s edits and cancellations reveal the “ultimate grounds of his martyrdom.” 9

One cancellation within the Valencia holograph reads “they shall do greater things than these, but not by their own power,” alluding to Christ’s words at the Last

Supper, wherein he declares to his disciples, “Amen Amen I say to you whoever believes in me will do the deeds that I do; and he will do even greater ones than these, because I go to the Father.” 10 Miller proposes this sentiment supports the notion, as raised by

More’s opponent in De tristitia, that Christ’s martyrs should perform better acts than He in dying fearlessly as martyrs. More, who denied he was seeking a martyr’s death and could not claim fearlessness in such, did not mean for this allusion to appear in the final form of his work, as it was a cancellation. 11

Another cancellation also reflects More’s concern that his silence on the Act of

Supremacy made it appear as though he was offering himself for martyrdom. More originally wrote, “To expose one’s self to death for Christ’s sake is, I admit, a work of extraordinary virtue.” After editing this, he settled with the version that reads, “To expose one’s self to death for Christ’s sake when the case clearly demands it or when God gives

9 Miller, Clarence H. Humanism and Style: Essays on Erasmus and More . Bethlehem, Pa: Lehigh University Press, 2011. Print. Pp. 91-92.

10 Ibid., Pp. 97-98, alludes to John 14:12.

11 Ibid., p. 98. 46 a secret prompting to do so, I do not deny, is a deed of pre-eminent virtue.” 12 By adding the conditions “when the case clearly demands it or when God gives a secret prompting to do so,” More is making it clear he had no choice in his decision to remain silent on the matter. The revising of “I admit” to “I do not deny” softens the authority of his admission.

More also expresses a tragic irony in De tristitia when he discusses Judas’s role in

Christ’s death only to be followed by reference to his own. More writes, “For though a man may send someone else to his death, he himself is sure to follow him there. Even more, since the hour of death is uncertain, he himself may precede the very person he arrogantly imagines he has sent to death ahead of him.” 13 Such a proclamation may represent More’s own role in the burning of heretics.

According to Miller, biographers have found in De tristitia More’s reasons for his uncompromising silence. In remaining silent, More was not breaking any laws. Using the law as his shield evidences More’s fear in dying. Additionally, Miller explains More’s idea that if he utilized every avenue available to him to escape a guilty verdict and one was still rendered, then he would know it was God’s will for him to die a martyr’s death.

More believed his aforementioned belief that martyrdom occurs sometimes because “God gives a secret prompting to do so,” but he wanted to ensure within himself that he was not seeking out a martyr’s death out of pride. 14 As for the eager martyr, More writes in De tristitia:

12 Ibid., p. 99.

13 Ibid., p. 100.

14 Ibid., p. 103. 47

Besides is it not possible that God in his goodness removes fear from some persons not because he approves of or intends to reward their boldness, but rather because he is aware of their weakness and knows that they would not be equal to facing fear. For some have yielded to fear, even though they won out later when the actual tortures were inflicted. And so God proportions the temperaments of his martyrs according to his own providence in such a way that one rushes forth eagerly to his death, another creeps out hesitantly and fearfully, but for all that bears his death none the less bravely – unless someone perhaps imagines he ought to be thought less brave for having fought down not only his other enemies but also his own weariness, sadness, and fear – most strong feelings and mighty enemies included.15

Expositio Fidelis de Morte Thomae Mori 16

Accounts of More’s trial and execution quickly spread throughout Christianized

Europe; however, no account was made public within England until after the first year of the reign of Edward VI, when it was published by chronicler Edward Hall, who was not particularly a fan of More. 17 Expositio Fidelis de Morte Thomae Mori , or The Trial and

Execution of Sir Thomas More , was published in the Paris News Letter on August 4,

1535, and provides an account of the trial and death of More. It includes details regarding

More’s responses to his charges, the verdict and More’s final statement to the council, in which, as his fate had been sealed, he finally spoke his conscience.

What I say is necessary for discharge of my conscience and satisfaction of my soul, and to this I call God to witness, the sole Searcher of human hearts. I say further, that your Statute is ill made, because you have sworn never to do anything against the Church, which through all Christendom is

15 Ibid., p. 103.

16 The Faithful exposition of the death of Thomas More was published August 4, 1535, in the Paris News Letter, as written by Antoine de’Castelnau, Francis I’s ambassador to Henry VIII beginning June 26, 1535. He was present at the execution, and his detail of the trial and execution was the only timely mass medium to cover same. The manuscript is in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Parish, included with Castelanu’s Memoirs; Wegemer, Gerard B., and Stephen Smith. A Thomas More Sourcebook, edited by Gerald Wegemer and Stephen Smith. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2004, pp 352-355 .

17 Cousins, p. 22. 48

one and undivided, and you have no authority, without the common consent of all Christians, to make a law or Act of Parliament or Council against the union of Christendom. I know well that the reason why you have condemned me is because I have never been willing to consent to the King's second marriage; but I hope in the divine goodness and mercy, that as St. Paul and St. Stephen whom he persecuted are now friends in Paradise, so we, though differing in this world, shall be united in perfect charity in the other. I pray God to protect the King and give him good counsel. 18

According to the Expositio Fidelis , moments before More was executed, after requesting prayers for himself and for the king, he stated that “he died his good servant, and God’s first.” 19 While this Expositio Fidelis is the only source for this profound declaration, it is considered accurate as Castelnau’s was the only timely reporting of the events of that day; also, the other facts his memoir contains hold true to trial testimony.

However, it is Chambers’s version of More’s final speech that has remained present in recent history, as he popularized it by stating that More’s speech proclaimed he “died the

King’s good servant, but God’s first.” 20 Cousins explains that, although the popular version of More’s final words impress upon the adversarial relationship between the king and the church, More was a “both and” person and “never saw any conflict between his two allegiances until the schism created the opposition.” 21 The De Tristitia can support this, as it provides evidence that More was quite conscientious of every word he wrote. It can be safely assumed that he would have been even more conscientious with what he knew would be his last words, as he would want his intentions firmly understood. In De

18 See Footnote 16.

19 Ibid.

20 Chambers, p. 334.

21 Cousins, p. 31. 49

Tristitia , More changed “I admit” to “I do not deny” in an effort to soften his own authority in a declaration. Had More said he “died the King’s good servant, but God’s first,” his words would have been remembered as antagonistic and righteous. Stating “he died his good servant and God’s first,” reflects his loyalty to both relationships while softly reminding his audience that he chose God over king. More used rhetoric in his last breath to ensure his message was clear.

Martyr Made

Through More’s final speech, he is using his martyrdom to provide a moral lesson. While he did not encourage others to seek a martyr’s death, his unyielding loyalty to his faith and church certainly would serve as an example of Catholic piety. However,

More’s entire life, and not just his martyrdom, could be seen as an example of Catholic piety, as was evident in his strict religious practices. Miller supports Robert Bolt’s and

Chambers’s reasons for More’s martyrdom – maintaining his integrity in not taking the oath, preserving his freedom of conscience and respecting the papal supremacy – but ultimately he acknowledges that Bolt’s primary reason for More’s martyrdom is love of

Christ. 22

More, a Christian humanist to the end, found a way to memorialize his Christian efforts through use of speech. His life-long practice of strict Catholicism, working for the purification of the church rather than its complete reform, his prayerful and meditative writings, as well as his polemical writings in defense of the Church, and his dying in support of the Catholic Church and of Christ made Thomas More an ideal candidate for

22 Miller, p. 104. 50 canonization. He was beatified in 1886 and canonized a Saint by the Catholic Church in

1935.

51

CONCLUSION

In preparation of his death, Thomas More wrote his own epitaph to be included on his tomb. 1 Written in Latin, More completed his epitaph in 1532, three years before his death and a year and half before he was imprisoned in the Tower of London. He includes his reason for preparing it so far in advance. He states it was so

that might every day put him in memory of death that never ceases to creep on him. And that this tomb made for him in his life-time be not in vain, nor that he fear death coming upon him, but that he may willingly, for the desire of Christ, die and find death not utterly death to him, but the gate of a wealthier life… 2

In a letter to Erasmus, More explained he “consider[ed] it [his] duty to protect the integrity of [his] reputation.” More included the text of his epitaph for Erasmus to publish as “a public declaration of the actual fact.” 3

More’s epitaph introduces him as a Londoner born “of no noble family, but of an honest stock.” He considers himself “somewhat brought up in learning” and having had an education in law. He includes his being an under-sheriff of London and proceeds into

1 On the tomb within the Chelsea Old Church. After More’s execution, his headless body was buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London; Chambers, p. 331. More’s head, after remaining on display on London Bridge for one month, was illegally obtained by his daughter, Margaret Roper, who placed it within the Roper Family Vault in Canterbury; Cousins, p. 20. It is likely Margaret Roper placed it here as it was assumed it would be better undisturbed in Canterbury than if it was placed in Chelsea Old Church, where More had intended on being buried; Albin, Hugh O. “Opening of the Roper Vault in St. Dunstan’s Canterbury and Thoughts on the Burial of William and Margaret Roper.” The Head and Body of St. Thomas More. Web. 11 Mar 2014.

2 The information on More’s epitaph is sourced entirely from Bridgett’s translation of the epitaph, unless otherwise noted; Bridgett, Thomas Edward. Life and Writings of Thomas More: Lord Chancellor of England and Martyr Under Henry VIII . London: Burns & Oates, Limited, 1891. Print.

3 Wegemer, 2011, p. 14. 52 his royal service to Henry VIII. More includes among his association with Henry his serving as a “noble” within the council, as a knight, as chancellor of the Duchy of

Lancaster, and “last of all, with great favour of his prince, lord chancellor of England.”

He also describes the king as being “alone of all kings worthily deserved both with sword and pen to be called the Defender of the Faith, a glory afore not heard of.” More also includes his service as speaker of Parliament and as an occasional ambassador on behalf of the king.

Aside from positions held, the only political accomplishment More memorializes on his epitaph is that of his role in the embassy to Cambrai, which provided England with a thirteen years absence from foreign war.

and last of all at Cambray, joined fellow and companion with Cuthbert Tunstal, chief of that embassy, then Bishop of London, and within a while after Bishop of Durham, who so excelleth in learning, wit and virtue, that the whole world scant hath at this day any more learned, wiser or better; where he both joyfully saw and was present ambassador when the leagues between the chief princes of Christendom were renewed again, and peace so long looked for restored to Christendom, which peace Our Lord stablish and make perpetual.

According to Wegemer, it was this “call for lasting world peace” More hoped to preserve; he considered it the most important portion of his epitaph, as it set apart by indentions to call attention to it. 4

More also uses his epitaph to profess that he was good natured and would have been found odious only to those deserving of blame, such as thieves, murderers and, of course heretics. He also uses his epitaph to again reiterate how he left royal service due to a “sickly disposition of the breast,” and he had obtained permission from the king in

4 Wegemer, 2011, p. 10. 53 order to resign and “[withdraw] from the business of this life, [and] might continually remember the immortality of the life to come.”

More’s epitaph also memorializes his father, John More, and makes brief mention of his four biological children and eleven grandchildren. The epitaph concludes with a

Latin verse, written by More, praising both his first and second wives.

More’s Legacy through Margaret Roper

Margaret Roper largely is acknowledged as the source of information from which

More obtained martyr status. 5 Having been called before the Council to address the charge that she had retained some of her father’s writings and intended on printing them, she replied that what she had were personal, intimate letters. As to the charge of her keeping his head as a relic, she admitted she had taken his head but only to bury it. 6 The letters she did preserve she passed along to her cousin, William Rastell, who later published More’s English works during the reign of Mary I. 7

Considerations Today

More, the Humanist

Fox ponders if More can be considered fully a humanist as he believes More left humanism entirely when his friendship with Erasums began to lose its fervor. As early as

1516, while More supported Erasmus’s “enthusiasm for bonae litterae and his concern for reform, he did not imitate Erasmus’s overwhelming optimism. More expressed his concern in Utopia about adopting such a staunch moral stance that it could actually make

5 Chambers, p. 18.

6 See Footnote 1.

7 Chambers, p. 29. 54 things worse by working instead as a provocation. 8 Albert C. Baugh also does not consider More a humanist as he considers his humanism “the kind that concerned itself more with the expansion of man’s possibilities in this world than with the study of the past or thoughts of the world to come.” 9 What both men forget is how humanism is based on the study of those classical philosophies that encourage certain practices in order to increase one’s virtue. More utilized the tools of bonae litterae throughout his entire life and with his last words. His “elegant humanist works” may have been replaced by

“vehement religious polemic,” 10 but he used his humanist skills just as well in writing his religious defenses. If More’s Erasmian humanist period can be considered from 1500-

1520, then his Christian humanist period could be considered from 1520-1534, when he devoted his writings to those polemics in defense of Catholicism. Ironically, it was during his imprisonment from 1534-1535 that More finally obtained the vita contemplativa he longed for his entire life. During this period, his writings focused on suffering and death; and, it is these last writings that support More’s “ongoing cultivation of personal reputation through rhetoric.” 11

More, the Catholic

As previously discussed, More was canonized in 1935 by Pope Pius XI and named the patron saint of lawyers for his practical and theologically-guided defense of

8 Fox, p. 19.

9 Baugh, Albert C., ed. A Literary History of England, Second Edition. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1967, Print. p. 336.

10 Crane; Hattaway, p. 21.

11 Curtright, Pp. 106, 194. 55 papal authority and Catholicism. While Gordon Schochet generally abhors More, 12 he does provide an accurate description of More’s religiosity. He deems “a deeply passionate, though entirely practical and unmystical, religiosity” within More and adds

More has “an appreciation of the fate of man, that impossible challenge of Christianity which speaks of a merciful God and experiences nothing but a merciless life.” 13

More, the Politician

It is noteworthy the multi-authored play Sir Thomas More was written and produced during the Protestant, Elizabethan era. A reflection of London opinion at that time, More still is considered a hero. While the play does not include his religious views, it focuses on his civic heroism which emphasizes his working for the businesses and citizens of the city. More was lauded as a statesman whose focus was on the people. 14

The play deemphasizes his martyrdom, centering instead on More’s devotion as an

English citizen.

More, the Torturer

While many scholars continue to revere More for the contributions he brought to humanism, his martyrdom, and his political career, the revisionist movement against

More is a strong one, concentrating on his unflattering side, specifically his treatment of heretics. Both Marius and Cousins see More’s role in the burning of heretics as a key

12 Schochet has referred to More as “deliberately and artificially created” (p. 145), a “sex maniac” (p. 150), and as having lived four “idiot years during which he tried to stay in the Carthusian monastery” (p. 148); Schochet; Elton.

13 Schochet; Elton, p. 149.

14 Chambers, p. 42.

56 feature of More’s persona.15 Martin Luther, in his Table-Talk , refers to More as a “cruel tyrant … [shedding] the blood of many innocent Christians that confessed the gospel.”

Martin does not see More’s execution as dying for the sake of his religious beliefs; rather,

“at last, [More] opposed the edict of the king and kingdom. He was disobedient and was punished.” 16

There are biographers, however, who defend More’s role in punishing heretics.

According to Chambers, who has oft been criticized as overly-sympathetic to More,

“open defiance of authority in spiritual matters, of such a kind as to lead to tumult and civil war, were punishable with death” as per the law. Furthermore, heresy was triable through the ecclesiastical courts; More was a layman and did not have authority to try or sentence heretics. 17 More has admitted in his Apology he flogged two heretics for heresy, one of whom was a child he had taken into his home. That child was discovered teaching heresy to the children of the More household. More’s response to this child’s behavior falls in line with his Utopians punishing those that incite contempt for other religions.

The second heretic More flogged was punished for lifting the skirts of praying women while they knelt in Mass during the consecration of the host. 18 More believed his treatment of heretics that were burned upon sentence of the ecclesiastic courts was in accordance with his role as Lord Chancellor and approved by the king.

15 Cousins, p. 45.

16 Hazlitt, Esq., William, ed. The Table Talk of Martin Luther. London: H.G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1857. Print. p. 312.

17 Chambers, Pp. 262-263.

18 Chambers, p. 263. 57

More, the Man

While Elizabeth Rogers finds it surprising that the peace found at Cambrai served as a bigger accomplishment to More than did his Utopia , as is evident by the prominent inclusion of the former on his epitaph and the blatant absence of the latter, it was personal peace that More was seeking. Through his humanist studies, More was aiming to find peace in virtue within himself, but, living the vita activa as opposed to the vita contemplativa for which he yearned, perhaps More felt his personal Utopia in fact was farfetched. In Utopia, the commonwealth was run with an emphasis on peace and equality for all. Throughout his political career, More worked toward peace; and when the king required More to support matters that could only bring tumult, More resigned from that political career. It also can be argued that More’s polemic works were in defense of peace, as such heresy against Catholicism and Christianity would cause wars and malcontent within England. While in the Tower, More attempted to find personal peace in preparing for his death. It is no wonder he included on his epitaph his biggest accomplishment in satisfying some sort of peace.

More does not mention studia humanitatis on his epitaph, but he does not need to.

The epitaph itself was his last, written, humanist work. He was not trying to persuade his audience; instead he was advising them on what he considered the high points of his life and literally securing his reputation in stone. He was nearing the contemplative stage of his life when he wrote his epitaph, and it was in his completing his epitaph that he found his virtue. By emphasizing the peace he brought to England through his ambassadorship at Cambrai, he was acknowledging to and requesting of his audience the need for universal and personal peace. 58

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackroyd, Peter. The Life of Thomas More. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Print.

Adams, Robert P. The Better Part of Valor: More, Erasmus, Colet, and Vives, on Humanism, War, and Peace, 1496-1535 . Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1962. Print.

Albin, Hugh O. “Opening of the Roper Vault in St. Dunstan’s Canterbury and Thoughts on the Burial of William and Margaret Roper.” The Head and Body of St. Thomas More. Web. 11 Mar 2014.

Anderson, J M. The Honorable Burden of Public Office: English Humanists and Tudor Politics in the Sixteenth Century . New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Print.

“Aristotle v Plato.” Diffen. N.d. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Arnold, Jonathan. The Great Humanists: An Introduction . London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2011. Print.

Baker, David W. Divulging Utopia: Radical Humanism in Sixteenth-Century England . Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999. Print.

Baugh, Albert C., ed. A Literary History of England, Second Edition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Print.

Bridgett, Thomas Edward. Life and Writings of Thomas More: Lord Chancellor of England and Martyr Under Henry VIII . London: Burns & Oates, Limited, 1891. Print.

Carlson, David R. English Humanist Books: Writers and Patrons, Manuscript and Print, 1475-1525 . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. Print.

Casini, Lorenzo. “Renaissance Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I.E.P., n.d. Web. 2 Mar 2014.

Chambers, R.W. Thomas More. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963. Print.

59

Commynes, Philippe de. Historie of Philip de Comines, Knight, Lord of Argenton. London, Imprinted by Ar. Hatfield, for I. Norton, 1601. Edited and translated from French by Danett, Thomas, 1566-1601. Print.

Cousins, A D, and Damian Grace. A Companion to Thomas More . Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2009. Print.

Curtright, Travis. The One Thomas More . Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America Press, 2012. Print.

Dowling, Maria. Humanism in the Age of Henry Viii . London: Croom Helm, 1986. Print.

Elton, G.R. Studies in Tudor and Stuart Politics and Government: Papers and Reviews, 1982-1990. Vol. 4. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print.

Fabyan, Robert. The chronicle of Fabian, whiche he nameth The concordaunce of histories, newly perused. And continued from the beginnyng of Kyng Henry the Seuenth, to thende of Queene Mary . London: Jhon Kyngston, 1559. Print.

Fox, Alistair, and J A. Guy. Reassessing the Henrician Age: Humanism, Politics, and Reform, 1500-1550 . Oxford, Ox, UK: B. Blackwell, 1986. Print.

Gairdner, James, ed. "Henry VIII: July 1535, 1-10." Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 8: January-July 1535. British History Online. University of London & History of Parliament Trust, 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.

Gelder, H A. E. The Two Reformations in the 16th Century: A Study of the Religious Aspects and Consequences of Renaissance and Humanism . The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, 1961. Print.

Hattaway, Michael. A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2000. Print.

Hazlitt, Esq., William, ed. The Table Talk of Martin Luther. London: H.G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden, 1857. Print.

Kinney, Arthur F. Humanist Poetics: Thought, Rhetoric, and Fiction in Sixteenth-Century England . Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986. Print.

Kinney, Daniel, ed. Complete Works of St. Thomas More , Vol. 15. In Defense of Humanism – Letters to Dorp, Oxford, Lee, and a Monk. Historia Richardi Tertii . New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986. Print.

Marius, Richard. Thomas More: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. Print.

60

Mayer, Thomas F. Thomas Starkey and the Commonweal: Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry Viii . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print.

McLean, Antonia. Humanism and the Rise of Science in Tudor England . New York: N. Watson Academic Publications, 1972. Print.

Miller, Clarence H. Humanism and Style: Essays on Erasmus and More . Bethlehem, Pa: Lehigh University Press, 2011. Print.

More, Sir Thomas. Utopia; with The Life of Sir Thomas More by William Roper. New York: Barnes and Nobles Classics, 2005. Print.

Rogers, Elizabeth Frances, Ed. St. Thomas More: Selected Letters . New Haven and London: Yale University press, 1967. Print.

Wakelin, Daniel. Humanism, Reading, and English Literature, 1430-1530 . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.

Wegemer, Gerard B. Young Thomas More and the Arts of Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Print.

Wegemer, Gerard B., and Stephen Smith. “The Trial and Execution of Sir Thomas More: Account in a Paris Newsletter (August 4, 1535).” A Thomas More Sourcebook . Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2004. Pp. 352-355.

Weir, Alison. Henry VIII: The King and His Court. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. Print.

Yoran, Hanan. Between utopia and dystopia: Erasmus, Thomas More, and the humanist Republic of Letters. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2010. Print.

61

BIOGRAPHY

Whitney Pierce Santora is a life-long resident of the Greater New Orleans area. She attended Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and received her Bachelor of Arts from Nicholls State University in Thibodaux, LA, where she majored in Mass Communications with a double concentration in print journalism and public relations. She currently is employed as a legal assistant.

Whitney curated in December 2013 an exhibition of items from Tulane University’s Rare Books Collection. “Tudor England Comes to Tulane: The History of Tudor England as Found in the Rare Books Collection at Tulane University” featured texts published in Tudor England that chronicled the history, politics, and religious reformation of the period. She is a candidate for the Master’s Degree of Liberal Arts at Tulane University.

Whitney lives in Harvey, Louisiana, with her husband, Tommy Santora, and their two cats, J.J. and Buttons.