Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:47:41.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persecution and the Dialogue of Comfort: a Fresh Look at the Charges Against Thomas More

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Leland Miles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The canonization of Thomas More in May 1935 was not greeted with universal approbation. According to one writer, the ceremony “was met by an official boycott in the English press and Parliament as well as in the Universities.” Though such a statement is not wholly justified, it must be granted that in a large segment of the British press, coverage of the canonization was minimal and hostile. The hostility was partly inspired by disapproval in some quarters at More's silence over the issue of Henry VIII's ecclesiastical supremacy. On this score there were charges that he was at best an “unsatisfactory saint” or a “negative martyr.” Typical of this attitude was the moderate statement of Ernest Barker a few months after More achieved Sainthood: “More, in the final trial of his faith, was obstinately silent about his real thoughts …. There is something negative in this attitude …. More died for the right of a free conscience — provided it were silent. But is a free conscience which keeps silent really free?”

For some scholars, however, the doubts concerning More's canonization ran deeper than mere disapproval of his silence on the supremacy issue, and centered rather on his alleged mistreatment of heretics (chiefly in the period 1526-34). Certainly the sixteenth-century Reformers regarded More as a persecutor. The Chronicler Edward Hall described him as “a great persecutor of such as detested the supremacy of the bishop of Rome.” Fox in his Book of Martyrs represented him as “blinded in the zeal of popery” to all humane considerations in the treatment of Lutherans.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , November 1965 , pp. 19 - 30
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Fisher, B., “In Memoriam: Richard O'Sullivan,” Moreana, No. 1 (1963), 25Google Scholar.

2. Barker, Ernest, “Saints and Martyrs: St. John of Rochester and St. Thomas More,” London Observer, June 9, 1935Google Scholar. See also Dart, J. L. C., “Thomas Beckett and Thomas More: Were They Both Martyrs?” Church Quarterly Review, CLVII (1956), 35–46Google Scholar.

3. Hall, Edward, Chronicle Containing the History of England (London, 1809), p. 817Google Scholar.

4. Note D.N.B., XIII, 883. See Fox, John, Acts and Monuments of the English Church (London, 1844), II, 321Google Scholar. At II, 13-17, 303, 308, 328-33, and else-where, Fox treats More with scorn and contempt. He specifically refers to Bilney as having been “persecuted by … Sir Thomas More” (II, 286). A useful commentary is Mozley, James F., John Foxe and His Book (London, 1940)Google Scholar.

5. Delcourt, Joseph, “Saint Thomas More: Some New Aspects,” Catholic World, CXLVIII (1938), 446–54Google Scholar.

6. See the review by Trapp, J. B., E.H.R., LXXIX (1964), 408CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Readers interested in exploring this issue for themselves will find much heat and some light in Lloyd, W. W. and Gairdner, J., “More's Treatment of Heretics,” Academy (London), XXXIX (1887–1892), 419, 442, 467, 491Google Scholar; Ganss, H. G., “Sir Thomas More and the Persecution of Heretics,” American Catholic Quarterly, XXV (1900), 531–48Google Scholar; Knox, Ronald, “The Charge of Religious Intolerance,” The Fame of Blessed Thomas More (London, 1929)Google Scholar; and Schoff, D. S., “More's Tolerance,” Christian Century, LII (1935), 828Google Scholar.

7. Documentation from this work is drawn from More's Utopia and A Dialogue of Comfort (Everyman, ed.; London and New York, 1951)Google Scholar. This volume is a modern spelling reprint of the 1910 Everyman edition, which was in turn a transcription of the text of the Dialogue as found in More, Thomas, English Works, ed. Rastell, William (London, 1557)Google Scholar.

8. More, Dialogue of Comfort, Pt. 3, chs. v-xiii.

9. Ibid., chs. xviii, xix - xx.

10. Ibid., chs. xvii, xxi - xxvii.

11. Note SirMore, Thomas, The Apologye of Syr Thomas More, Knyght, ed. Taft, Arthur I. [Early English Text Society, original series, No. 180] (London, 1930), ch. xxxvi, p. 134Google Scholar.

12. See Nichols, J. C., Narratives of the Reformation (London, 1859), pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

13. See BM, item C 18 e. 1 (94), entitled Den wirdigen … Burgemeysteren.

14. On these points check Reynolds, E. E., St. Thomas More (Garden City, N. Y., 1958), p. 171Google Scholar.

15. More, The Apologye, ch. xxxvi, pp. 132-33. It is probably safe to assume that More issued writs of arrest for the heretics detained at Chelsea. See Routh, E. M. G., Sir Thomas More and His Friends (London, 1934), p. 195Google Scholar.

16. Fox, , Acts and Monuments, II, 328.Google Scholar

17. The same John Petit previously cited in Nichols, , Narratives of the Reformation, pp. 26–27Google Scholar. Of two petitions extant in the PRO, accusing More of illegal imprisonment, one was not substantiated; the other was apparently not a case of heresy. See Proceedings of the British Academy, XII (1926), 193Google Scholar; and Brewer, J. S. and Gairdner, James (eds.), Calendar of Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1862–1910), VIGoogle Scholar, No. 1059.

18. See More, , English Works, ed. Rastell, , p. 348Google Scholar.

19. Fox, , Acts and Monuments, II, 325.Google Scholar

20. Ibid., II, 326.

21. Ibid., II, 330, 331.

22. See Routh, , More and Friends, p. 197Google Scholar.

23. More, Dialogue of Comfort, Pt. 3, chs. xvii, xxi-xxvii.

24. More, The Apologye, ch. xxxvi, pp. 132-33.

25. Note carefully ibid., p. 133.

26. See the section on “The Chancellor and the Heretics,” in Chambers, R. W., Thomas More (Ann Arbor, 1958), pp. 274–77Google Scholar.

27. See Foxt, , Acts and Monuments, II, 328Google Scholar; and Froude, J. A., History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth (New York, 1865), II, 90Google Scholar.

28. More, The Apologye, ch. xxxvi, p. 135. More is of course referring to those adult heretics placed in his custody pending trial. He makes a similar defense at ibid., ch. xlix, p. 190. Gairdner, James, in The English Church in the 16th Century (London, 1904)Google Scholar, accepts More's testimony at face value. With reference to the alleged mistreatment of Bainham, Fox also implies (Acts and Monuments, II, 328Google Scholar) that More confiscated his possessions and sent Bainham's wife to prison. However, since More denies two key charges (whipping and racking Bainham) in Fox's passage, it seems safest to discount the whole report, especially since the confiscation and imprisonment are not explicitly attributed by Fox to More.

29. More, Dialogue of Comfort, Pt. 3, chs. xvii, xxi-xxvii.

30. Routh, , More and Friends, p. 195Google Scholar, notes 2-3, lists four: Tewkesbury (Dec. 1529), Bilney (Aug. 1531), Bayfield (Nov. 1531), and Bainham (Apr. 1532). The dates of these burnings are confirmed by Brewer, and Gairdner, , Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, IV–VGoogle Scholar, to have fallen within More's Chancellorship (Oct. 1529-May 1532). If the Greyfriars Chronicle (Monum. Franc., II, 194) is to be interpreted that two others were burned with Bainham, the total would be six. See Chambers, , Thomas More, pp. 278–81Google Scholar. Chambers's figure of three is probably correct for the last six months of More's tenure, but he apparently forgot the earlier burning of Tewkesbury. Erasmus is incorrect in stating that while More was Lord Chancellor, no one suffered death for heresy in England. Erasmus, , Epistolae (London, 1642)Google Scholar, lib. XXXI, col. 1505.

31. On these three points, see Chambers, , Thomas More, pp. 280–81, 281, and 275Google Scholar. Also note Routh, , More and Friends, pp. 195–96Google Scholar.

32. Note Chambers, , Thomas More, p. 281Google Scholar.

33. Henry compelled the clergy to proclaim him supreme head in Feb. 1531. More was so distressed he wanted to resign at once; note Reynolds, , St. Thomas More, p. 202Google Scholar. From this point his political influence waned.

34. Note carefully More, Thomas, Dialogue concerning Tyndale, in Campbell, W. E. (ed.), English Works of Sir Thomas More (London and New York, 1931), II, 301 ff.Google Scholar, wherein “The author sheweth his opinion concerning the burning of heretics, and … sheweth also that the clergy doth not procure it, but only the good and politic provision of the temporality.” Note also p. 304, the section entitled, “The Order of the Ecclesiastical Laws against Heretics,” and pp. 305 ff., in which “The author somewhat showeth that the clergy doth no wrong in leaving heretics to [the] secular hand, though their death follow thereon.” See also Chambers, , Thomas More, p. 281Google Scholar.

35. Fox, , Acts and Monuments, II, 326.Google Scholar

36. Fox contends (e.g., ibid., II, 307) that More personally issued the writs of execution for the burnings which occurred during his Chancellorship. Pollard, A. F., Wolsey (London, 1929), pp. 211–12Google Scholar, argues (not altogether logically) that “The absence of any confirmation of Fox on this point suggests that he is wrong.”

37. Routh, , More and Friends, p. 199Google Scholar.

38. More, Dialogue concerning Tyndale, in Campbell, , English Works, II, 301.Google Scholar

39. More, The Apologye, ch. xlix, p. 191.

40. Preface to More's Confutation to Tyndale's Answer, in English Works, ed. Rastell, , p. 348Google Scholar. Froude, , History of England, II, 92Google Scholar, cites Fox's Report of Bainham's farewell speech, in which that martyr blamed his death on More. Fox, , Acts and Monuments (original 1563 ed.), Bk. IV, p. 705Google Scholar. If the speech is authentic, it would suggest More's direct and specific (as distinguished from indirect and general) responsibility for the burning of at least one heretic. However, Fox's deletion of the speech in later editions implies that he doubted its authenticity. His action in this respect tends to support the interesting comment by Craig, Hardin, The Literature of the English Renaissance (New York, 1962), p. 36Google Scholar, that Fox “was incapable of intentional misrepresentation.”

41. Reynolds, , St. Thomas More, pp. 165–66Google Scholar.

42. In Colet, John's Sermon to Convocation (1512)Google Scholar. See the text as reprinted in Lupton, J. H., A Life of John Colet (London, 1887), App. C, pp. 293 ffGoogle Scholar. Note Miles, Leland, John Colet and the Platonic Tradition (London, 1962), pp. 179–81Google Scholar.

43. The “one work” was Erasmus, , Hyperaspistes (1526–1527)Google Scholar. Note Reynolds, , St. Thomas More, pp. 171–72Google Scholar, and Routh, , More and Friends, pp. 189–90Google Scholar. The Luther-Erasmus debate on predestination has recently been edited by Winter, Ernest F., Discourse[s] on free Will by Erasmus and Luther (New York, 1961)Google Scholar.

44. Chambers, , Thomas More, p. 282Google Scholar.

45. E.g., note More, Dialogue of Comfort, Pt. 1, ch. xii, in which certain Protestant arguments are refuted. Note also Pt. 2, ch. vi, which vividly satirizes a “loud” and “sweating” Lutheran preacher.

46. Ibid., Pt. 3, ch. xxiii.

47. On this point see D.N.B., XIII, 883; Baumann, Frederick L., “Sir Thomas More,” J.M.H., IV (1932), 609Google Scholar; and More, The Apologye, ch. xlix.

48. Note Coulton, G. G., “The Faith of St. Thomas More,” Quarterly Review, CCLXV (1935), 342Google Scholar; and Routh, , More and Friends, p. 193Google Scholar.

49. For the derogatory epithets applied to Luther see More, Dialogue concerning Tyndale, in Campbell, , English Works, II, 6–8, 220–25, 256–59, 265–72, 279–82, 294–96, 319–24Google Scholar, and passim.

50. E.g., Sidney Lee in D.N.B., XIII, 883: “In his Utopia the most advanced principles of religious toleration held sway …. But no theory of toleration influenced More's official conduct [toward heretics].” Note also Ernest Cassirer's point, in The Platonic Renaissance in England, tr. Pettegrove, James (Austin, Texas, 1953), p. 108Google Scholar, that in Utopia More attempts to oppose to the system of dogmatic theology an entirely new form of religion. On the whole issue of More's “consistency” consult Baumann, , ’Sir Thomas More,” J.M.H., IV (1932), 606–10Google Scholar; and Coulton, , “The Faith of St. Thomas More,” Quarterly Review, CCLXV (1935), 337–38Google Scholar. In “The Saga and Myth of Sir Thomas More,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XII (1926), 179–225Google Scholar, R. W. Chambers attacked what he called the “myth” of More's “inconsistency” as built up by historians.

51. Note Miles, Leland, “The Platonic Source of Utopia's Minimum Religion,” Renaissance News, IX (1956), 83–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52. More, Thomas, Utopia, tr. Ogden, H. V. S. (New York, 1949), pp. 71–72Google Scholar.

53. Ibid., p. 71.

54. This is the position of Campbell, W. E., More's Utopia and His Social Teaching (London, 1930)Google Scholar.

55. Reynolds, , St. Thomas More, p. 167Google Scholar. In milder form this is also the position of A. W. Reed in his Introduction to More, Dialogue concerning Tyndale, in Campbell, , English Works, II, 7.Google Scholar

56. This interpretation is also advocated by Coulton, in “The Faith of St. Thomas More,” Quarterly Review, CCLXV (1935), 337–38, 342Google Scholar. In 1515, just before he began writing Utopia, More was present at the trial of heretic Richard Hunne. Note Reed's Introduction to More, Dialogue concerning Tyndale, in Campbell, , English Works, II, 6–7Google Scholar. But Reed notwithstanding, this hardly proves that the youthful More was already an antiheretic. The trial was a sensational affair, held in St. Paul's; More could have been there out of mere curiosity, or even out of sympathy for Hunne. More's view of Hunne in 1528, when he wrote the Dialogue concerning Tyndale, was not necessarily the view which More held a decade earlier. Ibid., II, 238 ff.