For those of us in the United Kingdom; Bring Up The Bodies (sequal to Wolf Hall) by Hilary Mantel goes on sale in just three days time. Knowing that many readers (and me!) are beside themselves with excitement about the new book, I decided to post this link. From the Daily Telegraph, it contains an extract of BUTB; an encounter between Thomas and Catherine of Aragon. There’ll be another in tomorrow’s paper, too.
The quote professor Geoffrey Elton, “the English Reformation under Henry VIII produced, one might say, no victims, and only martyrs”. This statement was never more true when applied to Saint Thomas More. Additionally, never was this statement more fully realised than in the Robert Bolt play, “A Man For All Seasons.” So, for this blog post, I’ll be taking a little look at the play, and its depiction of the relationship between More and Thomas Cromwell.
A Man For All Seasons, the film version, was released in 1966. An undeniably excellent play, transformed into an equally compelling, well acted, film starring Paul Schofield as the protagonist, Saint Thomas, and Leo McKern as the brutish, bully boy Cromwell. More’s portrayal can be summed up quite simply: he is an easy going, 1960s liberal who just happens to be alive during the reign of Henry VIII. Contrasting with More; is Cromwell. At one point in the dramatisation, Cromwell even considers using the rack to break More. It all fits so neatly; hand-in-glove, to present one man’s silent defiance against the over-bearing State which is personified in the Cromwell character (strangely, the real head of state, King Henry, barely gets a mention). But, how much actual truth is there in this seemingly impeccable work?
Paul Schofield stars as Thomas More, in Bolt's "A Man For All Seasons" (1966).
Thomas More himself, in a letter to his eldest daughter (Margaret Roper), talked of his gentle handling by Cromwell: “Master Secretary (as he that most tenderly favours me) said, and he swore a great oath, that he would lever his only son had lost his head, than that I would refuse to swear this oath.” Also, there are other testaments from the More family of Cromwell’s kind treatment of them. More’s wife, Lady Alice, refers to him in one letter as “my especially tender friend.” It was also Thomas Cromwell who arranged family visits, and arranged a handsome pension for Lady Alice following the execution of her husband, in July 1535, and turned a blind eye as Margaret rescued her beloved father’s head from the pike.
So, the letters exchanged were certainly polite; warm even. But, there were also actions that show Cromwell bore no particular death grudge against Thomas More. For a moment, allow me to regress back to “A Man For All Seasons”. The Cromwell character, at one stage, goes to great lengths to implicate More in the Elizabeth Barton scandal (Barton, aka the “Holy Maid of Kent, who was hanged in 1534 for prophesying the King’s death). The truth behind this could not be more different.
More strenuously denied having any involvement with Barton, with the exception of one letter in which he commanded her to cease and desist with her treasonous behaviour. However, when the bill of attainder was drawn up against Barton and her accomplices (including her dubious sounding handler, Edward Bocking), King Henry made sure that More’s name was included in the list. But, it was Cromwell (along with many others), who pleaded with the King to remove More from it. Thus, thanks in part to Cromwell’s intervention, More was saved from being dragged down in the swell of the Barton/Bocking scandal.
Although the men were, ideologically speaking, worlds apart; Professor Elton asserts that: “Both Cromwell and Cranmer tried hard to save More from Henry, and himself.” He later goes so far as to state that: “Cromwell had a real liking for More.” However, Cromwell’s behaviour towards More must surely have stemmed from the Master Secretary’s appreciation of the fact that creating martyrs to the supremacy/reformation would have been counter-productive in the extreme. But also, ultimately, the new Church of England, that Cromwell was striving to build, would be created solely through law; not the brutality of bloodshed and coercion. He simply did not want anyone to have to die for the future he had in mind.
None of this, of course, is discussed or explored in “A Man For All Seasons”. Bolt has black and white heroes and villains, and it is plain what he thought of Cromwell. But, the blackening of Cromwell’s name serves a higher purpose. That, naturally, is to assist in the whitewashing of the plays main man, Saint Thomas More himself. Where Cromwell is slandered, More is utterly sanctified, as though to compensate.
Although the focus of the play is about More’s silent protest against the Supremacy, his time as Lord Chancellor is covered. But nowhere is there a mention of More’s extreme religious policy. Not a single heretic burned, nor a single servant whipped on the orders of Thomas More. But, between 1529 – 1534, rough six to eleven heretics were burned under his orders. According to More’s recent biographer, John Guy, one of them was even burned illegally (as Guy states it, he “neglected the paper work”). It was as though More felt that the law of the land did not apply to those he deemed as “heretical”.
Also detailed in “A Daughter’s Love” by John Guy, is the case of Richard Purser. A young servant that More ordered to be whipped after being caught reading an English Bible. Following his public flogging, he was tossed out onto the streets. From there, he was employed by none other than Thomas Cromwell. Guy claims Cromwell employed Purser to feed his “pet Leopard” but I can find no source that claims Cromwell kept such a pet; but rather that Purser was merely feeding his numerous hunting dogs (boring, I know. The Leopard was far funnier!)
None of More’s negatives were included in the play. He was conditioned and re-moulded to fit nicely with twentieth century ideals and sensibilities. But, there is another word for what Bolt created here. Propaganda. Or at least, I would consider such blatant and deliberate whitewashing of political/historical figures to be a form of propaganda. And this, I think, gives it a slightly more sinister edge than other dramatisations. It has been made with an agenda in mind. “The Tudors” may have been a soap opera, but there was no agenda there. It did not set out to demonise on one hand, and sanctify with the other.
Also, A Man For All Seasons has another advantage. It has long perceived as “high brow”. It has a sheen of respectability and realism that other dramatisations (not least, the above mentioned “The Tudors”) lack completely. Therefore, its propaganda properties are all the more insidious, because it can hide behind that veneer of credibility that Oscar awards and fine acting have given it. But, it would be deeply uncharitable of me to say that this is all bad. It is beautifully written, beautifully filmed, and wonderfully acted out. However, readers, theatre goers, and film buffs ought to cautious. Robert Bolt does for Thomas Cromwell what Shakespeare did for Richard III. This film may even be a bit posh, but it is as accurate as “The Other Boleyn Girl.”
Paul Schofield (left) as Thomas More, and Leo McKern (right) as Thomas Cromwell. A Man For All Seasons.
Sources:
Elton, G. “England Under The Tudors” (1991 edition)
Guy, John. “A Daughter’s Love” (2008)
Letters and Papers vol. 6-8
Schofield, John “Rise and Fall of Thomas Cromwell” (2008)
Smith and Wegener “A Thomas More Resource Book” (2004)
Okay, I have a recommended reading for fiction and non-fiction alike. But, I think it’s time to take the (possibly controversial) step of having a “Wall of Shame”, for those truly hideous moments literature (fiction and non-fiction). Here, I will list some awful portrayals of Cromwell in novels, plays, and biographies, and give an explanation of why they’re here. Like the other pages, this is a work in progress, and will be updated intermittently, as and when new culprits are discovered.
Taking “pride of place” at number one, is Emily Purdy (or Brandy Purdy in the USA), and her truly dire novel “The Boleyn Wife.” LINK TO AMAZON HERE.
Not only is there a horrendous portrayal of most characters, but Cromwell deserves special attention. Not only does he go about tricking Jane into making her spill all of George’s darkest secrets, but he does so through sex. Yes, sex. That well known method of interrogation that Cromwell was forever resorting to. Naturally, Jane then conceives Cromwell’s love child, which she self-aborts. And of course, once Cromwell has all the information he needs from Jane, he casually tosses her aside like last night’s take away.
Other “highlights” of this piece of odious trash literature involve a lesbian fling between Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard, and the highly interesting use of a pot of honey.
I have a sense of humour, and can have a laugh as much as anyone. But this is rather beyond a joke. Cromwell is painted up to be as low as a rapist, and I sincerely wish that writers of fiction would remember that he was also a human being. As such, he and his story deserve a bit of respect!
For those interested in the follow up to Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall”, the publication dates have now been announced. “Bring Up The Bodies” will now be published in the United Kingdom on 10th May, 2012, and is now available for pre-order by following this link to Amazon. The cover art of a manacled flacon is quite striking, in my opinnion; but beyond that I cannot comment until the big publication day.
Finally, this is just a short post to keep people updated. A proper post about Thomas Cromwell (the real one, that is) is pending. After a very busy Christmas and New Year period I am only just catching up on research. Anyway, I hope you all had a great holiday, and see you all again soon!
Here is some more rather exciting news regarding “Wolf Hall”. There is an article HERE detailing plans to turn “Wolf Hall”, and presumably, the sequel, into a TV mini-series.
All historic fiction, (whether in novel, or TV show/movie form), is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be a wildly entertaining romp through time obscured eras. On the other, it can be a wildly inaccurate, confusing, mess (*cough*The Tudors*cough*). Or, it can be both. Worse still, are authors who undertake minimal research, and then pass their wild flights of fancy off as Historical fact, (I’m mentioning no names, but we all know who I’m referring too. A certain somebody with the initials, “P.G”).
However, Wolf Hall is different. Mantel’s research was obviously painstaking. She took the time to present an alternative picture of an often maligned figure. She presented the other side of the story, without resorting to making it all up off the top of her head. Best of all, for a HF reader, it was beautifully written. No bodice-ripping, no heaving bosoms, and no verbose, endless paragraphs about frocks. Just a refreshing look at a pivotal moment in British Constitutional history. The focus kept firmly on the future shaping political changes that Cromwell wrought, and not the distracting side-subjects that were the mere fluff and baubles of the era.
So, if anything in the world of Historical Fiction today deserves the dramatisation treatment, it is Wolf Hall. Besides, now all of us Cromwell fans can have endless hours of fun speculating over who could possibly be playing the Big Man, himself. I’ve had a few mention James Frain (who played him in “The Tudors”, already), but, time for a change, methinks. TBH, I have no idea!?
Some exciting news for Cromwell admirers all over the world, now. The eagerly awaited sequel to “Wolf Hall”, by Man Booker winner Hilary Mantel, is now scheduled for publication in May, 2012. Entitled “Bring Up The Bodies,” it will begin where Wolf Hall left off, and focus on the downfall of Anne Boleyn. I am fantastically excited about this!! LINKY
