Reference no: EM133320768

Question: Scholars of Thomas More-recognized as a saint in 1935-have supported his legacy as "a man humane, wise, and witty, honest in his work as judge and lawyer, devoted to and loved by his family and friends, but underneath all this, a man of conscience so strong that he would die rather than bend his beliefs to suit the demands of a ruthless tyranny" (Martz 3). However, in his introduction to Thomas More: The Search for the Inner Man, Louis L. Martz identifies historian G. R. Elton and English and Reformation scholar Richard Marius as contributing to a very different assessment of More. Martz discusses in his 1990 book how Marius's biography (1984) influenced actors in a 1987 production of Robert Bolt's play: "'Rehearsal talk' has apparently been affected by the new biography, for this view of More's treatment of heretics, disseminated long ago by John Foxe's Book of Martyrs . . . is vehemently resurrected by Marius as a basic theme" (3). Martz goes on to argue that both More and Cromwell-whom he charges with executing sixty-five people to More's "persona[l] involve[ment]" in only six cases of heresy (6)-are defensible because "the political procedures of the age were cruel and ruthless on either side" (6).

In recent years, there has been an outcry over certain statues that celebrate historical figures who lived in an age similarly "cruel and ruthless." Many statues have been vandalized, or simply taken down, making this assessment of historical figures through a modern lens an ongoing dilemma. In this option, you will focus on Mantel's representations of Cromwell and More while considering the idea of whether or not we can excuse More or Cromwell for the harm that they do. Marius's book has been placed in this course's reserves