Talk:Thomas More

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:




Contents

[edit] Only posthumously a saint

"posthumously known also as Saint Thomas More..."

Hasn't everyone who has ever been canonized a saint acquired that distinction posthumously?

  • Yes, to become a saint in Christianity one must be dead. TheExile 04:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] early life

"seriously considered becoming a monk"? according to Erasmus, who would have us believe that any man of intellect must require some direct route of access to god. In fact More's time in the Charterhouse (again only testified by Erasmus) was quite commonplace for a lay religious man seeking to: 1, impose a religious (monastic) discipline on his life 2 create an aura around his name, en route to a life in the highest represetative bodies of politics (this accords to his early work for henry were he went unpaid for over a year, another act of rhetorical humility in order to show his devotion to the realm and lack of ambition- itself a hugely ambitous ploy)

furthermore he never abandonded his law career whilst in this charterhouse he became a civic officer for london (deputy sheriff?)

it seems hard to title thomas as doubtful over the course his life should take. yes, the fact that he is reported to have desired a more religous life than he had is important to an article on him. However, surely the point that must be made on close readings of his work is that he consistently strove for harmony between secular and religious life (a civic, christian humanism) until Henry VIII's supremacy act compromised his the concilaition of his ideologies?

let me know if i'm violently wrong -conal 14:57 14MAR06 UK

regarding "also considered joining the Carthusian order. Perhaps because he judged himself incapable of celibacy, More finally decided to marry in 1505" : I am not quite sure if these expressions are precisely true. I do not think Erasmus shared the opinion in the comment above (he was not a monk himself but a free-minded priest). Erasmus writes that, after his years in the Charterhouse, Thomas More married "ne pouvant secouer le désir de prendre femme" (I do not have the original text). He was just in love for an adolescent woman ; but, according to the rules of the time, he agreed to marry her elder sister Jane Colt. I mean, according to Erasmus, the point is not the disadvantage of celibacy, but rather the advantage of marriage. - FrédéricLN 1 apr. 2006

[edit] King's lineage

Disagreed upon bits: "... as the king's lineage was, in his eyes, traceable directly to Jesus Christ, and should remain so."

What does this mean about lineage traceable to Jesus - if he got divorced his lineage would not change, nor would the lineage his children trace through him change if he got divorced. If we mean he future children would be illegimate because of the divorce, they would still have the same lineage, although they might not be eligible for kingship. Besides I was not aware that anyone -ever- beleived that Jesus had children. Certainly More as a Catholic wouldn't have beleived this. -rmhermen

No, you can find esoteric speculation on this if you care to. It basically comes down to: It would have been unusual and worthy of note if a guy in Jesus' culture wasn't married; nobody notes this; therefore he was probably married. Mary Magdalene is usually given as the best candidate for Mrs. Jesus. (And the wedding at Cana, John 2:1 may be an account of Jesus' own.)
That's a huge amount of speculation, better suited to The Da Vinci Code. Whatever the facts neither More nor Henry believed that Kings were descended from Jesus in the biological sense. DJ Clayworth 19:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard some people talk about the divine right of kings to rule, but that is not an issue of lineage, but rather about authority.

I think that must be a misunderstanding. Wasn't the issue that Henry VIII declared himself head of the church?

...Henry didn't declare himself head of the English church; the method used was statute law in the passing of the Act of Supremacy. In other words, the authority for the change was derived from parliament. BTLizard 6 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

[edit] Inventor of utopian fiction?

another issue: was More the 'inventor' of Utopian fiction? I know he gave us the word...--MichaelTinkler

There was Plato's Republic, of course, and there was the Greek myth of the Golden and the Silver age, which both have similarities to Utopian literature, and more surely had good knowledge of the Republic (studying in Oxford under the likes of Grocyn will do that to you). But as far as the term Utopian literature goes, Utopia was the first such piece of writing and thus, logically, lent its name to the genre. -- Bringa


[edit] Head of the Church

uhhhh - Cardinal Wolsey was archbishop of York and papal legate of the Church in England pre-Oath of Supremacy, which still isn't quite "head of the church". I'm revising now. --MichaelTinkler


Michael, you've done a fantastic job helping this article along, but I have a question for you: the article says "which required all who should be called upon to take an oath (1) acknowledging the legitimacy," etc., which I misread twice. It seems to me to be worded in such a way that "all who are called upon to take an oath" must do something, when what you mean is "all who are (summoned to the king's court?) must take an oath affirming 1) and 2)." Does that make any sense? I'd change it except I'm not sure I understand what you mean and my entire knowledge of Thomas More comes from the (fantastic, IMHO) movie A Man for All Seasons. --Koyaanis Qatsi

yes, that does make sense, except that it wasn't necessarily the king's court. I know it was at Lambeth, which is the palace of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to take the oath. Hmmm. I love A Man for All Seasons, too (though lately it's come under a little criticism for making More a little toooo mid-century by-damn-I'm-an-independent-American kinda man). I'll look at it and revise.


[edit] folly

"[Desiderius Erasmus]? dedicated his The Praise of Folly to More - the word "folly" is moria in Greek."

moria or moira?

Moira = fate; Moria = foolishness.

Thanks.


[edit] quotes

Shouldn't the quotes section just link to Wikiquote? There's already an entry for More there at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_More . It would be even better if someone would add the two quotes we have here to there. --pie4all88 03:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well they do seem to pop up a lot. There are quotes under George Marshall and under Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma just off the top of my head. I think they add a nice bit of flavour to an article. Call me old fashioned. I mean by all means get rid of them but I don't think a couple of quotes at the bottom of a page do any harm. Obviously if there were twenty of them that might be another matter. Tricky one. --Mr impossible 23:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


[edit] corrections/more detail

Wasn't it in 1534 (and not 1535) that More was called to sign the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy? If I remember correctly, he was jailed for fifteen months in the Tower prior to his execution. Also, I'm currently preparing a presentation on More's connections to the European circle of Humanists (Erasmus, Giles, Bude, Lupset, Busleiden...), but I really don't know how in-depth people want this More article here to be. It could do with some serious brushing up though; starting a More biography in his 50th year is surely not a good idea. -- Bringa


[edit] More as Traitor?

Um, a categorization of this article made me twitch reflexively. How is More classified as a traitor? --Penta 22:16, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well he was classified as such by the King and the King's courts. That's why he was executed. DJ Clayworth 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good logic DJ - just as the Jews were all "traitors" in Nazi Germany.

Do shut up with that VERY specious reasoning. The fact is that he was branded a traitor, whether or not he actually WAS one. DestradoZero 21:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Christian Utopia

The page describes More's Utopia as non-Christian. It's been years since I read it, but as I recall the Utopians were converted to Christianity by the crew of a European ship that had strayed there. I'll check. Paul B 12.08 15 March 2005 (UTC)

nope. I'm wromng. They are in the process of being converted... Paul B 12.24 15 March (UTC)


[edit] Henry VIII's divorce

The article states " Pope Julius II had issued a formal dispensation from the biblical injunction against a man marrying his brother's widow. ". That is inaccurate. The dispensation was issued because the marriage was not consumated. Queen Isabella said that her daughter was a virgin. The Pope accepted this. - and, of course thats why it would have been politically difficult to agree to Henry's divorce, it would mean calling Isabella a liar. --ClemMcGann 16:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Jldd 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)==Religious intolerance== While Chancellor of England, Thomas More used the police power of the State to imprison, torture and burn alive Reformed Christians. His all consuming passion was to arrest and burn alive William Tyndale—the father of the English Bible. He wrote millions of words refuting William's Tyndale's books. Any description of the man that ignores these unfortunate details is seriously incomplete. -Stibbs 31Oct05

I've tried to address your concerns in my most recent edits. Eb.hoop 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I find the page unfair in this respect. True, 1) Thomas More WAS an opponent to Luther and to any division of the Christian Church, and 2) Thomas More DID condemn Reformed Christians and assumed that to be a legitimate decision for a Lord Chancellor and for the State's Justice. But he but did it very reluctantly, as many examples and testimonies show. In most individual cases he refused to condemn. For this reason, in the sentence "A number of modern writers, such as Richard Marius, have attacked More for alleged religious fanaticism and intolerance (manifested, for instance, in his enthusiastic persecution of heretics).", the word "enthusiastic" is untrue. - FrédéricLN, 1 apr 06

Sir Thomas More unlike the Lutherans in Germany and Henry VIII in England believed it absurd for a secular ruler to be head of the Christian Church. We see how foolish that idea was then and now as Prince Charles will soon be head of the Church of England with Camilla as his Queen. Charles in English law will be the legal head of the Church and not the Archbishop of Canterbury? Maybe Reformed Christians would like President Bush as the head of their Church. He does appear to speak directly to God as Henry VIII did also claim.

I just read the "Thomas More" article. In this section (religious intolerance) I found the ending "He was an evil man that deserved to die a thousand deaths and hated Protestants. He was an asshole and should have died the same way he killed the poor innocent Protestants." It seemed out of character with the rest of the article. When I went to "edit" it was not there. (Jldd 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC))
When More said "no temporal man may be the head of the spirituality" (a quote I copied from this article), I wonder if he realized that the pope falls in the category "temporal man". Or is that a no-no?JGC1010 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concern for Education

Thomas More was highly concerned with children education. He gave his daughters the same education that his boys' - most uncommon choice at this time [edit : oops, it's already written in "early life"]. His daughter (and confident) Margaret Roper has been a renowned translator and humanist. Two forged words he uses in Utopia do not have any know greek or latin or other roots, and I guess (this is not a very verifiable content) they may have been forged by children at his house : "tranibore(s)" and "syphogrant(s)". - FrédéricLN, 1 apr 06

[edit] Irony (?)

Is the word "ironically" necessary or justified in the following sentence (taken from the lead paragraph)?

Ironically, he was also added to the calendar of saints in the Anglican Church in 1980.

Thanks for your input --Dpr 03:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Considering that he was a staunch defender of the Catholic Church and the sovereignty of the Pope, it is indeed ironic that he was added into the Anglican saint calendar. TheExile 18:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed ironic that the Anglican Church should honour a man who burnt Protestants. But it does, and also honours, for example, the Jesuit Martyrs in Japan. In other words, it respects worthy Roman Catholic Christians. In contrast, I doubt if the Roman Catholics honour Cranmer, Latimer, Tyndale or Ridley. Millbanks 08:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infomation

shouldn't the information about him be at the top of the page? 154.20.174.54 03:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was he sacked of Oxford?

because he was studiying greek in his own account?, i just read that on a philosophy book, back then greek was the language of the oh-so-hated orthdox church.

- No, he wasn't. He studied at Oxford for 2 years, then left to pursue a legal career (Erasmus suggests at the instigation of his father, to stop him from becoming a penniless academic...). Hackloon 01:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (See Marius, p. 28)

TRUE THE INFORMAION SHOULD BE AT THE TOP. I WONDER WHY IT ISNT?

[edit] Nothing of More's family??

It's easy for me to point out that this article reveals absolutely nothing of More's family - no mention of parents, wife or children. Not my subject, I'm afraid, but someone ought to do their duty by the great man...

Thanks Nick Michael 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sorry

Screwed up my attemot to revert vandalism. Thanks to Volcanopele who put it right. Epeeist smudge 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venerated in... Anglican Church?

What BS. It was the leader of the Anglican church who had him killed. I'm almost tempted to remove that reference for pure stupidity.
NewYork1956 04:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess the Church of England Holy Day Calendar which has a commemoration on July 6 for him and John Fisher as Reformation Martyrs is BS. MesoCS 03:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you guess right.JGC1010 (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] frogs?

Whats with the scentence saying that Thomas More was raised as frogs? And what is it supposed to say?

[edit] patron saint

According to the vatican website, Thomas More was not the patron saint of lawyers. That is actually someone else. I actually found this out because I used this entry (and others) to write a trivia night, and had an embarrassing experience when it turned out that this answer was wrong (the rest of the wiki information I used was correct though) 203.202.163.209 00:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC) iiago

Please provide a link to the page at the Vatican's website showing that Thomas More is not the patron saint of lawyers. I can't find it, only a list of saints declared during JPII's and the current papacy. There are half a dozen patron saints for lawyers, and St. Thomas More is usually considered the most prominent. Sorry you were embarrassed, but if he's really not the patron saint of lawyers, the St. Thomas More Society is in trouble! Laura1822 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Career

You know, More is a wonderful author and saint and all, but what about his actual career in the service of England? No mention is made of the diplomatic mission to Antwerp that formed the setting for his Utopia, nor of much of his policies beyond his dealings with Protestants and the divorce issue. The article leans heavily toward three poles: his authorship, his religion, and his death; it needs fleshing out. There is much more that needs to be said, especially in comparison with the article on Thomas Wolsey, which is largely divided into domestic and foreign policy as befits an accounting of a chancellor's accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.198.75.22 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of this page

Just seen this, and i suggest that someone..well...change it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.155.1 (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Humanist?

I do agree that one can have, perhaps, both religious views and humanist views at the same time, but is Thomas More and, I suppose the instigator for claims of More's apparent 'humanism', his 'Utopia' at all compatible with humanism? Should a more apparent term be used here instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie M Hayes (talk • contribs) 19:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If Thomas More isn't a Humanist, the term is nonsense. More, Erasmus and the rest of the circle were the first Humanists. It'd be rather like questioning if Karl Marx could be called a Communist. Latter-day Humanism has evolved a long way from its roots, but this is where it started. --129.128.235.107 (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you're correct, but much of the praise for More would have to be from "wise men" whose consciouness has barely been elevated to even a glimmer of actual consideration of humanistic morality. If one can burn people at the stake, lie and distort freely for your sovereign (freely intermixed with 'true' opinions) and still be admired and indeed become a saint, then much of the opinions and wisom of the time must, in my opinion, be suspect as the railings of deeply ignorant highly educted men. Call it zeitgeist, but ignorance is ignorance and wisdom from ancient 'scholars' should be suspect as being wrong-headed, slanted, or downright falsehood. Consider the deep admiration for a man who distrusts only Atheists because they don't believe there will be reprecussions for oath-breaking - it follows then that men only obey God out of fear.YAC (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit to feeling a bit hypocritical in that I don't have the same contempt for Alexander the Great, for instance. But, perhaps speciously, see the atrocities committed by ancient military leaders in a difference category from those who claim to care for men's spiritual and moral welfare. I'd still like to see less reverence for the ancients simply because their consciousness had not been raised to any great degree above "us vs them" (Carthage must be destroyed) and sometimes I'm worried about "us". Anyway, specious reasoning seems to be rampant, whatever the cause - I'd prefer to see more ridicule, as it would provide a more accurate historical context - for instance, it seems incredible that so many instituttions should be named after More. Do they even know the history of their own namesake?YAC (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that this page is for discussing the article about Thomas More, not More himself or people who venerate him. Dabbler (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think his designation as 'Humanist' makes the subject of what that means in historical context a fair subject. Probably I did wander a little far afield - (a couple of hours later) on second thought, aren't facts about More described in the article fair game in placing into context the overall glowing terms used to describe him and his accomplishments in the rest of the article. He has burned people at the stake and he has freely mixed lies with honest opinion to protect his master. Isn't it fair to suggest that relative to the severity of his bad acts the article is too one-sided and his darker aspects should be given more exposure since they are in direct contrast to the man he and his collegial contemporaries purported him to be and cast doubts on the validity or motivation of his more benign accomplishments? Is it wrong to suggest that the overall information on More is not widely enough desseminated that those who venerate him are aware of who they are venerating? YAC (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Namesakes

Do we really need to list every school and institution in the world that uses his name? I've reverted a few before realizing that we have a section for it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of A Man for All Seasons

There are two different origins given for the phrase A Man for All Seasons used in Bolt's play/movie. The first is in Scholarly and literary work where it is ascribed to a phrase by Erasmus. The second is in Influence and reputation where it is ascribed to Robert Wittington. The first seems a bit of a stretch as it is a rather free translation of the Latin words but the second seems to be based on an English language source. Can anyone resolve? Dabbler (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Wittington point is sourced, I will delete the Erasmus point. It seems a bit of OR/speculation/novel synthesis. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold print shown as in original article.

I have just added a citation for the Treason act, at the end of the quote was the following comment "Bold print shown as in original article" Who added that and what was the original article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)