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

Southern Quarterly, Summer 2003 by Bowman, Glen

A number of reviewers-according to one observer, over half-focused their comments on the most controversial part of the book: its depiction of More's peculiar attitudes toward sex. This reaction seemingly did not disturb Marius, who noted in an interview while in London on a tour promoting his book that the greatest tension in More's life was sexual (O'Neill 75). In fact, Elton rejoiced that Marius had focused on it. In his review of the book, he wrote,

No doubt Marius's emphasis on More's sexuality will cause the greatest displeasure among the acolytes, but Marius is right. The evidence that More failed to restrain his sexual drive to such a degree as to force him to give up his youthful ambition to enter the cloister . . . is so strong that only willful blindness has ignored it for so long. More feared women because he loved them too well and thought that love of them stood in the way of salvation. (7)

This strong defense of Marius's interest in More's sexual identity, to some students of biography, would be disturbing. When considering potential material to be included in a biographical study, should a person's private life or sexuality even be considered, particularly when that person's great achievements were outside of the bedroom? Renowned historian Barbara Tuchman, in general, does not think so-unless the material that can be found is historically relevant. Anything else is "voyeurism" (Pachter 146, 147). Others have expressed a hesitation about delving into a person's sexuality, yet are open to this possibility if a biographer is to find the clues needed in order to understand a person (Pachter 6).

Without a doubt, Marius's examination into More's sexuality has the effect of stripping some varnish away from More's image as a saint, but is it supported by evidence? Of More's many biographers, few could loosely be labeled as contemporaries. Desiderius Erasmus, the greatest sixteenth-century humanist, was the only writer on More's life who actually spent a great deal of time with him. The next major biographer, William Roper, More's son-in-law, wrote his study in 1557, decades after More's death, and Nicholas Harpsfield composed his around the same time. These writers offer conflicting accounts of More's decision to abandon his plans to become a monk. Roper never said that More longed for this, but instead had attended the Charterhouse to pray and to worship God. As John Guy has pointed out, it was Harpsfield who first offered the theory that More never could be a monk because he could not control his sexual desires (Guy 34). Seemingly, Marius regarded Harpsfield's account as credible enough to use as a source for his hypothesis on More's sexuality. But from where did Harpsfield get his information? It is hard to tell because writers in the sixteenth century were not as careful as modern scholars (usually are!) in revealing their sources. This almost certainly was the case when it came to More's early biographers, as Roper and Harpsfield were arguably most interested in promoting his reputation (Conrad 133-61).