3.4 Value profile: integrity  (Page 6/7)

Your task in this exercise is to explore the different approaches to integrity taken by four characters in Bolt’s play: Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell, Richard Rich, and Thomas Howard, the Duke Norfolk. How does each approach this situation? Does the character’s approach preserve or betray integrity? Is preserving integrity compatible with compromises like the one suggested by Norfolk: take the oath and publicly affirm the legitimacy of the marriage while internally and privately denying its legitimacy? How does one preserve integrity and avoid betraying or abandoning one’s deepest self as outlined by strong religious and political convictions?

1. thomas more

• More refused to take the oath. For him, an oath is an especially strong promise, made before God, in which one offers one’s very self as guarantee. Accepting Norfolk’s proposal, publicly affirming the marriage while privately and internally repudiating it had very real consequences for More that would result in the loss of self, the betrayal of conscience, and the destruction of his “moral compass.” As More put it at one point, abandoning one’s conscience for the sake of political expedience was the sure road to political corruption and chaos. While Bolt portrays More as a “saint of selfhood,” Susan Wolf (in her historical novel on Cromwell) presents him as a religious fanatic, one who would hold to religious dogma even to the point of civil war and social destruction.
• Question : Is More a saint of selfhood or a religious fanatic?

2. richard rich

• Rich begins as an admirer of More. But he is also ambitious, so when More refused him a political appointment, Rich found a new patron in the Machiavellian politician, Thomas Cromwell. (More did offer Rich a teaching post, but this clearly was not enough to satisfy Rich’s political ambitions.) Rich’s career advanced nicely through Cromwell’s patronage but at a price to personal integrity. To get his first appointment, Cromwell asked Rich to provide incriminating evidence against More. Rich found this betrayal difficult but after pressure from Cromwell, gave in. Cromwell assured him that it will be easier next time. Rich proceeded step-by-step toward the point where he was able to betray More and convict him of treason by perjuring himself as a witness; he falsely testified that More declined to take the loyalty oath for treasonous reasons. More told Rich that he had lost his soul with this lie but Rich eventually rose to the exalted position of Chancellor of England.
• Questions : Did Rich betray More? Did Rich abandon integrity for personal gain? Or were Rich’s actions an appropriate political response to More’s religious fanaticism?

3. thomas cromwell

• Thomas Cromwell described himself as a civil servant devoted to the king, whoever he was. Thus his position could be characterized as uncritical loyalty. If the king wished for something, then Cromwell asserted that it was his duty to see to it that he got it. Cromwell’s special talent was removing political and bureaucratic obstacles. If his means seemed extreme (he prosecuted More for treason and brought about his execution), Cromwell justified these by the legitimacy of the ends they were meant to bring about. Henry, for Cromwell, was more than just a man; he was the King of England and his desires could be re-described as the collective and common good of the people of England. Cromwell, thus, sided with the political side of the Church vs. State dispute. He saw his actions as the proper political response to More’s religious fanaticism.
• Questions : Did Cromwell preserve or abandon integrity through his actions? To what extent do legitimate political ends justify taking extreme administrative measures? Is it necessary to “dirty one’s hands” in order to realize social and political goods as well as to avoid political disasters like civil war? At one point, More affirmed that he would like to see England’s affairs “governed by prayer.” Does Cromwell represent the practical antidote to this utopianism?