Neither saint nor sinner: An analysis of Richard Marius as biographer of Thomas More

Southern Quarterly, Summer 2003 by Bowman, Glen

More had the ability to rail against Protestants with ferocious, hate-filled rhetoric, yet he also had a gentler, more manipulative side. One sees this in Marius's detailed introduction to More's "Letter Against Frith," composed in 1532 in order to refute the Eucharistic views of a young Protestant. Although Frith is sometimes regarded as one of the more obscure English reformers, More did not consider him a lesser talent. Other Protestants did not either, as Tyndale respected Frith's ability to compromise and encouraged him to remain steadfast in the faith. Marius argues that there is evidence that Henry VIII wanted to woo Frith to help defend his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and that More personally liked the young man. There was one major problem: Frith's beliefs on the Mass were heretical. More was therefore in a difficult predicament. On one hand, he knew that he had to do what was necessary to refute his dangerous theology. On the other hand, he had a soft spot for the young man and wanted to keep the door open for possible reconciliation, if Frith abandoned his theological heresy. Indeed, Marius points out that More made an appearance of treating Frith as a son-a wayward son, but a son nonetheless (Works 7: cxliii).

More also knew that Henry VIII had an interest in using Frith's engaging mind to write in support of the divorce; nevertheless, he had to suspect that the king might know or might find out that the young man's theology was in essence a clear repudiation of Henry's own views. Hence, More had to be careful. It is no wonder that Marius believes that More's letter against Frith is "an exercise of considerable rhetorical merit" (Works 7: cxliii). The letter is a curious mix of a strong appeal to logic and a deep, heartfelt faith. Marius notes that More tried to relate his faith so it "harmonized with experience," and he had to defend Catholicism from Frith's heresy because it threatened the religious experiences of other believers. (Works 7: cli). Marius concludes that the "Letter Against Frith" might well be More's "most effective" piece of polemic (Works 7: clix) because he brought a previously obscure heresy to light. Once exposed, it could then be attacked and eliminated.

Examining Marius's editorial work might appear odd, since this is purportedly a study of Marius's approach to biography. In this case, that kind of first impression would be mistaken. Although Marius was not the first biographer of the Tudor scholar and politician, his Thomas More represents the first true literary biography of the man. No previous study of More's life and career had employed so thoroughly his voluminous body of writings. Naturally, Marius would use the Yale edition of More's writings in order to get inside the man. He would have agreed with one observer that a biographer must not only examine archival materials-physical evidence-but also must undertake "an in-out immersion in the personality" of the subject (Fleming 29).

In his own biography, Marius treats More not as a revered saint, but instead as a man of contradictions. The thesis in this book is that More was "a cruelly divided man, torn between the necessity of making his way in the secular world and the devout longing to simplify life and to prepare his soul for the eternal world to come" (Marius, Thomas More 391). Marius's examination of More is so extensive that it is difficult to sum up his work in a limited space. Nevertheless, the book's most compelling conclusions are focused on five themes: More's sexuality, his literary contributions to Renaissance humanism, his virulent attacks on heresy, his political career (especially that as Lord Chancellor), and his death.