What do you think?
Rate this book
Thomas More: A Biography
Over the centuries, biographers of Thomas More have always praised him and made him an example for their own times. He was a man for all seasons. This Tudor prelate and Lord Chancellor of England shared human qualities identifiable in all ages―pride, love, ambition, generosity, hypocrisy, and greed. He was less than common because he was witty and a great storyteller―the best between Chaucer and Shakespeare. Truly, he was a Renaissance man with the contradictions such praise imposes on a towering figure. In Richard Marius's authoritative and engaging portrait, Sir Thomas More, the martyr and brilliant public figure, is a lesson for our season.
592 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 1984
20 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
About the author
Richard Marius
37 books13 followersRichard Curry Marius was an American academic and writer.
He was a scholar of the Reformation, novelist of the American South, speechwriter, and teacher of writing and English literature at Harvard University. He was widely published, leaving behind major biographies of Thomas More and Martin Luther, four novels set in his native Tennessee, several books on writing, and a host of scholarly articles for academic journals and mainstream book reviews.
Marius was known as a raconteur and political activist.
He was a scholar of the Reformation, novelist of the American South, speechwriter, and teacher of writing and English literature at Harvard University. He was widely published, leaving behind major biographies of Thomas More and Martin Luther, four novels set in his native Tennessee, several books on writing, and a host of scholarly articles for academic journals and mainstream book reviews.
Marius was known as a raconteur and political activist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 13, 2016
Richard Marius’ biography is absolutely outstanding. Its strongest point is the way in which it analyzes More, the intellectual. It carefully reviews all More’s works but more importantly, it situates More’s writings in the historical context. It outlines the major theological and philosophical debates of the era showing where More fits in. In addition Marius' identifies the key issues on which More was close to Erasmus and Luther as well as those on which he differed.
Marius in his biography provides a detailed portrait of More the person and a somewhat perfunctory description of his failed political career. In his analysis of More’s personal life Marius appears to push his conclusions past the point that the data warrants but in so doing he presents the reader with a very fascinating character. Marius decision to give short shrift to the political career of More is perhaps wise as Marius was a theologian not a political historian by training.
Marius demonstrates a stunning command of the theological literature of the middle ages and the Renaissance in his book on More. Of particular value is his ability to analyze key texts that have never been translated from Latin.
Marius shows how More was caught up with the great excitement of the humanist movement which undertook to revisit the Christian faith by examining the original Greek texts of the New Testament. Marius identifies several key areas where the Greek versions undermined the dogmas that had prevailed for almost a thousand years and which had been based on St. Jerome’s Latin translation.
The value that More saw in the Greek texts was that they offered a means to overthrow the dominance of Aristotelian Scholasticism which had pushed the focus of theologians onto irrelevant dialectical arguments rather than on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. At the same time, More felt that the doctrines developed by the Scholastic tradition should be retained. In More’s view, if the prevailing Catholic doctrines were false they would not have lasted for so many centuries. More’s dominant focus in his writings and political actions was in fighting heresy.
Erasmus seems to have loved thought and debate for their own intrinsic values. He was ready to embrace heretical ideas but resolutely refused to rebel against the authority of the Church. Having doubts about transubstantiation was one thing. Openly challenging the authority of the church was another. Erasmus wanted to argue with heretics not suppress them.
Luther of course was an intellectual heretic and political firebrand. More hated him while Erasmus tried to sit on the fence.
Marius treatment of the personal life of Thomas More makes fascinating reading. In Marius view, More felt guilty because his sex drive led him to renounce a career as a priest and to get married. More according to Marius did not approve of sex for the mere purpose of pleasure and because his second wife was past the child-bearing years when he married her, More likely never had sexual relations with her. While Marius may be correct in his conjecture, he comes back to the issue of the sexless second marriage far too often given the fact that he lacks proof for his theory. In a similar way, Marius talks too long about More’s desire for martyrdom. The record stands that More refused to take an Henry VIII’s Oath to the Succession which led directly to his arrest, condemnation and execution. Marius’ lengthy speculation on why More adopted such a suicidal course fails to through any light on the matter.
Marius in his book really devotes little time either to More’s career in government or the broader political context. Given the extensive literature on the Tudor dynasty, the reader is none the poorer.
Marius is however very clear about what he thinks of More as a politician. More’s overriding goal was to preserve the independence of the Church relative to the monarchy. Thus in simple terms More was simply trying to preserve the political order of the Magna Carta. More also felt that the Pope should be only a symbolic head of the universal Church and the English Church be effectively self-governing.
Marius argues that More was totally devoid of leadership qualities. When he replaced Wolsey as Lord Chancellor he proved to be ineffective. He never acquired any power and never became close to Henry VIII. Marius may be quite right in his assessment of More the politician. If he is then his lack of interest in More’s political career is amply justified.
What is clear is that Marius has written an outstanding book about a great English intellectual and the place that he occupied in the Renaissance.
Marius in his biography provides a detailed portrait of More the person and a somewhat perfunctory description of his failed political career. In his analysis of More’s personal life Marius appears to push his conclusions past the point that the data warrants but in so doing he presents the reader with a very fascinating character. Marius decision to give short shrift to the political career of More is perhaps wise as Marius was a theologian not a political historian by training.
Marius demonstrates a stunning command of the theological literature of the middle ages and the Renaissance in his book on More. Of particular value is his ability to analyze key texts that have never been translated from Latin.
Marius shows how More was caught up with the great excitement of the humanist movement which undertook to revisit the Christian faith by examining the original Greek texts of the New Testament. Marius identifies several key areas where the Greek versions undermined the dogmas that had prevailed for almost a thousand years and which had been based on St. Jerome’s Latin translation.
The value that More saw in the Greek texts was that they offered a means to overthrow the dominance of Aristotelian Scholasticism which had pushed the focus of theologians onto irrelevant dialectical arguments rather than on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. At the same time, More felt that the doctrines developed by the Scholastic tradition should be retained. In More’s view, if the prevailing Catholic doctrines were false they would not have lasted for so many centuries. More’s dominant focus in his writings and political actions was in fighting heresy.
Erasmus seems to have loved thought and debate for their own intrinsic values. He was ready to embrace heretical ideas but resolutely refused to rebel against the authority of the Church. Having doubts about transubstantiation was one thing. Openly challenging the authority of the church was another. Erasmus wanted to argue with heretics not suppress them.
Luther of course was an intellectual heretic and political firebrand. More hated him while Erasmus tried to sit on the fence.
Marius treatment of the personal life of Thomas More makes fascinating reading. In Marius view, More felt guilty because his sex drive led him to renounce a career as a priest and to get married. More according to Marius did not approve of sex for the mere purpose of pleasure and because his second wife was past the child-bearing years when he married her, More likely never had sexual relations with her. While Marius may be correct in his conjecture, he comes back to the issue of the sexless second marriage far too often given the fact that he lacks proof for his theory. In a similar way, Marius talks too long about More’s desire for martyrdom. The record stands that More refused to take an Henry VIII’s Oath to the Succession which led directly to his arrest, condemnation and execution. Marius’ lengthy speculation on why More adopted such a suicidal course fails to through any light on the matter.
Marius in his book really devotes little time either to More’s career in government or the broader political context. Given the extensive literature on the Tudor dynasty, the reader is none the poorer.
Marius is however very clear about what he thinks of More as a politician. More’s overriding goal was to preserve the independence of the Church relative to the monarchy. Thus in simple terms More was simply trying to preserve the political order of the Magna Carta. More also felt that the Pope should be only a symbolic head of the universal Church and the English Church be effectively self-governing.
Marius argues that More was totally devoid of leadership qualities. When he replaced Wolsey as Lord Chancellor he proved to be ineffective. He never acquired any power and never became close to Henry VIII. Marius may be quite right in his assessment of More the politician. If he is then his lack of interest in More’s political career is amply justified.
What is clear is that Marius has written an outstanding book about a great English intellectual and the place that he occupied in the Renaissance.
July 21, 2023
This book left me with a bad taste. I should have put it down, but for some reason, I wanted to understand why someone would have such a negative opinion of St. Thomas More and write such an extensive book about him. I suppose I was looking for another perspective. Despite being extensive, it is not a difficult book to follow.
The author exhibits great contempt for religion, particularly the Catholic Church. He heavily criticizes St. Thomas More, speculating on his actions in a negative light. According to the author, Thomas More had the following characteristics:
- Fear of hell
- Ambition
- Love for praise
- Hatred of criticism
- Responded furiously when attacked
- Belief that worldly pleasures were traps for the soul
These characteristics can apply to many humans, especially those living in the 16th century. Didn't Henry VIII write a book in defense of the Sacraments because of the Reformation? But Henry VIII himself succumbed to these worldly pleasures and acted against his conscience. On the other hand, Thomas More desired to become better and prayed for his heart to be changed. These were difficult times, marked by the Reformation led by Martin Luther, there was turmoil within the Church, as well as King Henry VIII's troubled life that greatly affected his country. Throughout it all, Thomas More held a high position and still aspired to grow in virtue, striving to follow God's laws and stand with the Church. He valued virtue, worked towards it, albeit imperfectly, viewing it as the path to Salvation. He possessed the courage to defend his faith and conscience.
The author exhibits great contempt for religion, particularly the Catholic Church. He heavily criticizes St. Thomas More, speculating on his actions in a negative light. According to the author, Thomas More had the following characteristics:
- Fear of hell
- Ambition
- Love for praise
- Hatred of criticism
- Responded furiously when attacked
- Belief that worldly pleasures were traps for the soul
These characteristics can apply to many humans, especially those living in the 16th century. Didn't Henry VIII write a book in defense of the Sacraments because of the Reformation? But Henry VIII himself succumbed to these worldly pleasures and acted against his conscience. On the other hand, Thomas More desired to become better and prayed for his heart to be changed. These were difficult times, marked by the Reformation led by Martin Luther, there was turmoil within the Church, as well as King Henry VIII's troubled life that greatly affected his country. Throughout it all, Thomas More held a high position and still aspired to grow in virtue, striving to follow God's laws and stand with the Church. He valued virtue, worked towards it, albeit imperfectly, viewing it as the path to Salvation. He possessed the courage to defend his faith and conscience.
January 25, 2012
Biased.
March 7, 2013
Read in 2010. Detailed biography. The account of his relationship and intellectual arguments with Erasmus is particularly fascinating.
October 11, 2013
I learned some interesting things from this book. If I recall correctly he indicates the vilification of Richard III kind of began with him. But unlike Shakespeare he didn't try to portray Henry VII as all that good. He kind of felt, if I'm remembering this right, that they were both kind of tyrannical. He also had quite the potty-mouth on him, which I hadn't known before college. But there are times I think the author almost wants this to be "The Story of England's Torquemada" and I don't think that's entirely justified.
More did not have modern ideas on religious freedom, but then again almost no one in the sixteenth century did. Henry VIII certainly didn't, though I do like him making Henry VIII a bit more comprehensible. More was against "heresy" but so was Henry VIII. Even after More's death Henry VIII's regime would attack people for heresy. (See Anne Askew) I don't know that I got the sense More was all that unusual for his time or place.
Still I did come away thinking the Carthusian Martyrs should, quite probably, be more known and celebrated.
More did not have modern ideas on religious freedom, but then again almost no one in the sixteenth century did. Henry VIII certainly didn't, though I do like him making Henry VIII a bit more comprehensible. More was against "heresy" but so was Henry VIII. Even after More's death Henry VIII's regime would attack people for heresy. (See Anne Askew) I don't know that I got the sense More was all that unusual for his time or place.
Still I did come away thinking the Carthusian Martyrs should, quite probably, be more known and celebrated.
July 21, 2014
This remarkable biography examines Thomas More's complex personality and the characters that are part of his narrative. The author is a skilled writer. The book is great to read in order to see a master write the brilliant prose.The biography cannot be read quickly; it took me over a month of solid reading to get through the book and ponder what I had just read.
February 26, 2016
A good scholarly biography making substantial use of primary sources and doing a very good job in placing More in the context of his time. Not a teflon-coated saint by any means, but rather more complex than the dry and callous chancellor of Wolf Hall.
February 27, 2009
The best biography of Thomas More that I have ever read.
Martyr or zealot? The reader has to decide. How many people
would die for a belief now days?
Martyr or zealot? The reader has to decide. How many people
would die for a belief now days?
July 6, 2014
Someone who has come to the shocking realization that More was not a twentieth century liberal (Gasp!).
June 11, 2019
Marius has every claim to being an expert on More, and the comprehensive of the biography leaves little to be desired. The book is now 35 years old, and some of the trends among historians are evident in the biography: easygoing psychological speculation, a widely assumed theory of secularization, a blithe sense that religious earnestness of a certain sort can be characteristic only of modern fundamentalists.
Some themes get tiresome and leave you without much insight. Marius insists that More's lifelong regret of not becoming a priest or religious (if such regret existed) explains all of More's bemoaning the futility of earthly affairs. ('Perhaps More here vents his frustration that he never became a priest.' Or, notably, More's last days, alone, without kith or kin, no books, nothing: 'Now More had what he always longed for, the monastic life.') The fashion of the time, it must be, explains Marius's recurrent use of More's energetic and repressed libido as an explanans for a range of phenomena: his hatred of Luther, his non-mentioning of his second wife in certain letters, and so on.
Most of the book, in recollecting More's literary and political career, leaves you with a sense that Marius finds More a petty character, too given to fury over small matters, too aware that flattery might be effective. And if you're like me, these leaves you wondering why exactly Marius finds More so engrossing. I like hagiography as little as the next fellow, but the labour involved in bringing forth such a thick life of a figure so apparently un-magnificent is perplexing. The last two chapters do change tone; there Marius becomes slightly less critical of the 'hagiographical' sources we have of More's last days, and Marius seems genuinely impressed, even if puzzled, by More's martyrdom--his performance, as Marius would say. If you have Bolt's play and Marius's biography next to each other, Marius seems the less clever, less genuinely insightful interpreter of More's life. Bolt, an atheist, nonetheless seems more clairvoyant about why he is drawn to More.
Much attention is given, as is expected, given Marius's expertise, to More's treatment of heretics in England. By my lights, More seems utterly unexceptional on this score: that is, he made decisions, in his offices both as judge and chancellor, that we cannot but find abominable today but which were hardly uncharacteristic of those who held such offices in his day. More did not abuse the laws of his country; he used the only ones they had--bad ones.
I cannot rate the biography very highly, but it did not disappoint me in this respect: I was not looking for hagiography but rather for a biography that would give More a hard time. I suspect historians today might have fewer blind spots than Marius did (the ones mentioned above), but if no one has undertaken to write about More's whole life, one cannot go too wrong in reading Marius's life.
Some themes get tiresome and leave you without much insight. Marius insists that More's lifelong regret of not becoming a priest or religious (if such regret existed) explains all of More's bemoaning the futility of earthly affairs. ('Perhaps More here vents his frustration that he never became a priest.' Or, notably, More's last days, alone, without kith or kin, no books, nothing: 'Now More had what he always longed for, the monastic life.') The fashion of the time, it must be, explains Marius's recurrent use of More's energetic and repressed libido as an explanans for a range of phenomena: his hatred of Luther, his non-mentioning of his second wife in certain letters, and so on.
Most of the book, in recollecting More's literary and political career, leaves you with a sense that Marius finds More a petty character, too given to fury over small matters, too aware that flattery might be effective. And if you're like me, these leaves you wondering why exactly Marius finds More so engrossing. I like hagiography as little as the next fellow, but the labour involved in bringing forth such a thick life of a figure so apparently un-magnificent is perplexing. The last two chapters do change tone; there Marius becomes slightly less critical of the 'hagiographical' sources we have of More's last days, and Marius seems genuinely impressed, even if puzzled, by More's martyrdom--his performance, as Marius would say. If you have Bolt's play and Marius's biography next to each other, Marius seems the less clever, less genuinely insightful interpreter of More's life. Bolt, an atheist, nonetheless seems more clairvoyant about why he is drawn to More.
Much attention is given, as is expected, given Marius's expertise, to More's treatment of heretics in England. By my lights, More seems utterly unexceptional on this score: that is, he made decisions, in his offices both as judge and chancellor, that we cannot but find abominable today but which were hardly uncharacteristic of those who held such offices in his day. More did not abuse the laws of his country; he used the only ones they had--bad ones.
I cannot rate the biography very highly, but it did not disappoint me in this respect: I was not looking for hagiography but rather for a biography that would give More a hard time. I suspect historians today might have fewer blind spots than Marius did (the ones mentioned above), but if no one has undertaken to write about More's whole life, one cannot go too wrong in reading Marius's life.
October 19, 2023
Very well written
Very well written. The last chapter and the epilogue would be worth reading a second time.
At times I thought he was a little unfair to Luther and the Apostle Paul, but the gospel message he outlines in the epilogue reminded me of G.K. Chesterton.
Very well written. The last chapter and the epilogue would be worth reading a second time.
At times I thought he was a little unfair to Luther and the Apostle Paul, but the gospel message he outlines in the epilogue reminded me of G.K. Chesterton.
December 6, 2022
Well written and enjoyable biography but I still felt not much closer to knowing exactly why More chose to die. The author admitted as much himself!
Want to read
April 22, 2012Haven't been able to finish the book, but I was required to read excerpts from it in a college class. This is the only time I have ever gone out and bought the book after a class. Richard Marius' writing is excellent and engaging. I truly intend to finish this someday for the sheer pleasure of it.
August 30, 2014
•
This was not a quick read, but it was an informative and enjoyable read. Marius not only reveals the man, he illuminates the times that form the web within which More lived. Read this book…it is a worthy endeavor for anyone wanting to learn a bit about Tudor England.
•
April 2, 2009
got into watching Showtime's "The Tudors" on DVD, remembered I had this book somewhere in the house, and now I have to read it. UPDATE: Deeply researched & authoritative; tough, slow read.
May 27, 2016
Surprised by the corruption in Henry VIII's court; and the incredible, horrible violence!! Henry and ISIS were/are head to head on violence and terror!!
October 30, 2007
A fine biography.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews