The Play
A Man for All Seasons opens in the home of Sir Thomas More, a respected counselor to the king, at a time when England is rife with rumors that Henry VIII is about to divorce his wife because she has not borne him a son. The nobles and churchmen are being asked to support Henry’s petition to the pope to have the marriage annulled; the king would then be free to marry one of the queen’s ladies-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn. In the opening scene, More and one of his proteges, Richard Rich, converse about Rich’s prospects for advancement; Sir Thomas advises the young man to become a teacher. More’s friend, the Duke of Norfolk, arrives to converse with More about the divorce; Norfolk reveals that Thomas Cromwell has been appointed secretary to the aging Cardinal Wolsey, who is serving as the king’s chancellor.
More is summoned by the cardinal, with whom he discusses a dispatch requesting the pope’s approval of Henry’s annulment. More opposes sending the missive, whereupon Wolsey reminds Sir Thomas of the turmoil caused by the Yorkist wars when no male heir was on hand to assume the throne upon the death of Henry VI. More remains adamant that his conscience cannot allow him to support the request. On his way home from the meeting, More meets Cromwell and then Chapuys, ambassador from Spain; the first urges More to support the king, the second applauds Sir Thomas for opposing the action.
Back at his own house, More engages in an argument with his daughter’s suitor, William Roper, over the corruption in the Catholic church. More recognizes the problems that ensue whenever men pursue God’s work. Viewers get a glimpse of the More family, as Sir Thomas’ wife Alice and his daughter Margaret engage him in conversation about his visit to Wolsey. Alice prophesies that her husband may soon find himself chancellor—a position More says he does not want, but in which he finds himself soon after Wolsey dies.
The intrigue over the annulment continues, as the audience gets a glimpse of the chief antagonists in the issue, Cromwell and Chapuys, who meet at Hampton Court. The two engage in a sharp debate over More’s true position on the impending divorce. It becomes clear that, for the English people to accept the king’s action, More’s approval must be obtained.
The climactic scene of act 1 occurs between More and the king, who visits Thomas at home. The king insists that More support him, but More tactfully avoids committing himself. Alice and Margaret are angry with Thomas, but he insists that he must keep his true position private to protect them from harm. The final short scene of act 1 makes it clear that More is wise to be circumspect. Just before the curtain falls, Cromwell informs Rich of his intent regarding More: He will have him side with the king, or discredit him.
Act 2 opens in the More household, where Sir Thomas and Roper have been reconciled. The audience learns that the bishops may soon agree in convocation to support the king’s petition; More says he will resign if that happens. There follow key meetings between More and Chapuys, then More and Norfolk, as both sides try to get Sir Thomas to make his position on the divorce public. In the scene immediately following, Cromwell takes center stage again: First he informs Norfolk of the necessity of bringing More into line, then he plots with Rich to have More disgraced.
In the More household, first Chapuys then More’s own family plead with him to take a public position on...
(This entire section contains 970 words.)
Unlock this Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
the king’s annulment. More displays unusual casuistry in avoiding such a statement, remaining optimistic that as long as he is silent, no harm will come to any of them. Ominously, More is summoned to Cromwell, who quizzes him over his unwillingness to support his king. Eventually, the man who describes himself as “the King’s ears” threatens More before dismissing him.
On his way back home, More runs into Norfolk, who pleads with him to abandon his silence. Knowing that he must distance himself from those he loves so as not to implicate them, More provokes Norfolk to anger. Roper brings More news of a new act requiring all subjects to acknowledge the annulment.
The following scenes of the play are set in the jail. The audience learns from the Common Man that More has been imprisoned; the audience sees him there, adamant in his refusal to sign the Act of Succession. Much of the effort of men such as Cromwell and the new archbishop, Thomas Cranmer, is spent on getting More to explain why he will not sign. More, a lawyer, is more than a match for these men; they leave frustrated, but Thomas remains in prison. A poignant scene follows, in which More’s family comes to visit him. All urge him to give in, but More remains resolute in his refusal. Believing this will be his last meeting with them, Thomas urges his wife, his daughter, and Roper to flee the country.
The climax of act 2 occurs in the courtroom, where More is accused of various trumped-up charges including bribery. The real issue, of course, is More’s refusal to consent to the king’s wishes regarding his queen. When More is finally convicted of refusing to sign the act, he asks to speak out before sentence is passed; finally, he states his position publicly, acknowledging the primacy of God’s laws and pointing out the immorality of the king’s action. Unmoved, the jury recommends execution. In the final scene, More consoles his wife and daughter, who have remained to see him meet his fate, and goes to the scaffold with great resignation.
Dramatic Devices
Bolt relies heavily on the materials from historical records that he uses to form the basis for the play. He develops his plot conventionally. Nevertheless, he achieves his dramatic aims in great measure through his bold use of modern techniques of staging and presentation of character. Following the lead of pioneering dramatists such as Bertolt Brecht, he abandons rigid adherence to the demands of realism and consciously introduces devices that remind the audience that they are watching a play. At the same time, however, he uses these techniques to draw the audience closer to the action and to give the historical events with which he deals a sense of universal significance.
Foremost among these devices is his use of the Common Man character as a kind of bridge between the audience and the historical figures. Not mentioned in any historical account of More’s life, the Common Man plays several roles in the course of the play—steward to More, boatman on the Thames, jailer in the Tower of London, jury foreman at More’s trial, and finally executioner—changing his costume before the audience and providing a running commentary on the action. He fills in historical gaps between major scenes, often reciting details about both the past and future of key figures such as More, Wolsey, Cromwell, and King Henry. Through him Bolt attempts to involve the audience by getting playgoers to recognize aspects of themselves both in this spokesman and in the figures from the past who share many attitudes and values still held in contemporary society.
Bolt also uses costuming and set changes to emphasize both the artificiality and the universality of his drama. Directions for costuming call for actors to be garbed in plain, bold colors: More in gray, the king in gold, others in similarly plain fashion. The playwright wishes to keep his work from appearing as a simple period piece, choosing instead to have the costumes suggest something about the inner qualities of the characters. The Common Man’s many costume changes reinforce the idea that outer appearance can either reflect or mask the inner self. Bolt’s directions for the set suggest similar spareness in props and in the design for flats and stage area. Scene changes are accomplished before the eyes of the audience, with the Common Man carrying on chairs and tables or rearranging the furniture while explaining to the audience the shift of action from one locale to another.
The language of the play also reinforces the universal qualities Bolt hopes to suggest by this drama. Throughout, the playwright uses the images of water and land to establish a contrast between the self and society. The image of the river becomes a symbol of the current of events that sweeps most men along; repeated references to the river work subtly to show how More stands against this unrelenting pressure. Bolt also introduces other images that prefigure the tragic ending. Most notable, perhaps, is King Henry’s description in act 1 of his hunting trip, in which his falcon chases a heron, which maneuvers craftily away from the mightier bird to return home safely to her children. The incident, drawn from the natural world and described by the king quite jovially, is an ominous foreshadowing of More’s situation as Henry becomes increasingly insistent that his chancellor consent to Henry’s divorce, and Thomas must become more devious in his refusal to commit himself in order to escape the consequences of his failure to support the king.
Places Discussed
*London
*London. Capital city of England that was torn by religious controversy during the reign of King Henry VIII. After defying the Roman Catholic pope, the king established the Church of England, with himself as head, and in so doing severed ties with the Roman Catholic Church. Although Sir Thomas More had long served Henry loyally as lord chancellor, he remained a staunch Catholic and refused to accept the English king as head of his church.
*Tower of London
*Tower of London. Famous prison by the River Thames in central London, with roots going back to the reign of William the Conqueror in the eleventh century. More was imprisoned there for refusing to take an oath to acknowledge the supremacy of Henry VIII over all other foreign kings, including the pope. In 1535 he was executed in the tower, whose cells are the location of the play’s scenes depicting his final days.
Stage set
Stage set. Like the Globe Theater where William Shakespeare’s plays were first performed, and like other Renaissance theaters, the stage set for A Man for All Seasons is divided into three primary acting areas. Playwright Robert Bolt visualized the set as “two galleries of flattened Tudor arches, one above the other, able to be entered from off-stage” and “a projection which can suggest an alcove or closet, with a tapestry curtain to be drawn across it.” A stairway connects the upper and lower acting areas, and a table and heavy chairs are the only permanent props on stage. As in Shakespeare’s plays, the stage space is used quite flexibly, and specific locations are defined by the actors’ language and props brought on for each scene. The style of the production has strong affinities with the history plays of Bertolt Brecht, whose works were particularly influential in England in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
The much-acclaimed film adaptation of A Man for All Seasons, directed by Fred Zinnemann (1962), abandoned all of the play’s Brechtian devices and was notable for its elegant costumes, historic locales, and spectacle.
Historical Context
The Rise of the Tudor Monarchs
King Henry VIII was the second Tudor ruler of England and had valid concerns
about maintaining his family's hold on the throne. Cardinal Wolsey hints at the
looming threat from two influential families who had alternated in seizing,
losing, and reclaiming the kingdom during the thirty years before Henry VIII's
father took power. He remarks to Sir Thomas More, "Do you favor a change of
dynasty? D'you think two Tudors is sufficient?" These two factions were the
House of Lancaster, represented by a red rose, and the House of York,
symbolized by a white rose. Their conflicts over the crown became known as "The
War of the Roses." Henry VII, the first Tudor king, had fought on the side of
the Lancasters and strategically married a York to establish a temporary peace
between the families, thus initiating the Tudor dynasty. The responsibility of
continuing this legacy fell to Henry VIII.
Church Reform, Humanism, and Social Reform
The Church Reform issues such as "forgiveness by the florin," temperance, and
duty to God, discussed by Sir Thomas More and his son-in-law William Roper in
A Man for All Seasons, were not novel concepts in the sixteenth century.
These ideas had been infiltrating Europe's intellectual hubs and gradually
undermining the long-standing Roman Catholic dominance since the fourteenth
century. There were two primary fronts challenging Catholic hegemony. On one
side, various Church Reform movements aimed to eliminate the widespread
corruption among the clergy, who made up one in forty of England's total
population and often lacked education and moral integrity. On the other side
was Luther's Protestant movement, which was more a complete rejection of
clerical authority than a simple "Reformation." Protestants denied the Catholic
clergy's power to absolve sin, asserting that only God could provide salvation.
They positioned God as their ultimate authority. Since God did not communicate
his authority directly to humans, it was left to the laity, not just the
clergy, to interpret his will. This democratic notion, which empowered
laypeople, resonated with the emerging philosophy of the Humanists, including
More and his Dutch friend Erasmus. These Humanists aimed to enhance human life
on earth by adhering to the noble ideals of classical Greek and Roman cultures.
As Papal authority diminished, there arose a need for stronger state
governance. Henry VIII's desire for independence from ecclesiastic rule was
driven by a vested interest in state sovereignty, even if his immediate reason
for breaking with the church was more political and urgent. Although Henry was
a devout Catholic who had defended the Church against Martin Luther's attacks,
his need to secure the Tudor line with a male heir took precedence over his
religious loyalty. This necessity led him to recognize flaws in Catholicism
that he might have otherwise overlooked. Over time, Church Reform had a
profound impact on everyday life, extending beyond spiritual matters and
aligning with peasant revolts against the hardships of serfdom.
King Henry VIII
Initially, young Henry Tudor did not anticipate becoming the king of England,
as his older brother Arthur was the heir to the throne. However, when Arthur
died at the age of eighteen, Henry succeeded their highly accomplished father.
To strengthen the alliance with Spain, Henry was arranged to marry Arthur's
widow, Catherine of Aragon. Despite Catherine bearing five children, only one
daughter survived infancy. Henry and his advisers deemed it essential to have a
male heir for the political stability of England. Believing that Catherine's
inability to produce a male heir was a divine punishment for marrying his
brother's widow, Henry sought to annul the marriage and wed Anne Boleyn, the
daughter of a wealthy noble. Defying Pope Clement VII, Henry married Anne
Boleyn in a civil ceremony, which Sir Thomas More refused to attend. When More
did not endorse the marriage or the Act that made Henry the head of the Church
of England, Henry had him executed. Prophetic in his writings, More had noted
that despite his friendship with the King, "If my head would win him a castle
in France it should not fail to fall." Three years later, with no sons from
Anne, Henry had her executed for infidelity. Henry went on to marry four more
times, executing one additional wife.
What began as a quest for a divorce and remarriage ultimately led Henry to overthrow the Pope's authority in England. He dissolved hundreds of monasteries and nunneries, redirecting their funds to the Crown in the largest redistribution since the Norman Conquest, and executed numerous clergy who refused to acknowledge his supremacy over the Pope. Despite his conflict with the Church, Henry remained a devout Catholic and actively suppressed heretics. Through his ruthless determination, Henry VIII centralized the administration of England, effectively separated Church and State, and initiated the Reformation of the Church.
Literary Style
Symbolism
Robert Bolt intentionally wove symbolism related to the sea and water into the
play as "a figure for the superhuman context." Throughout the narrative,
mentions of currents and tides symbolize the shifting forces surrounding More.
For instance, More's reliance on being ferried by boat to meet Wolsey or
Cromwell, or to return home, signifies his vulnerability to the whims of
others. Conversely, Henry VIII's pride in steering a ship himself, albeit
poorly, underscores his arrogant seizure of control. Another example of this
sea imagery is when More tells Roper about the "currents and eddies of right
and wrong," describing a moral landscape he finds far more complex to navigate
than Roper does. More is portrayed as being "set against the current of [his]
times."
The symbolism of clothing is another prevalent motif in the play. From the opening scene, clothing acts as a metaphor for identity, easily put on or taken off. For instance, Roper's dramatic shift in religious allegiance is signaled at the start of Act 2 when he appears in black, adorned with a large cross, indicating his loyalty to the Church. Earlier, More had denied him Margaret's hand in marriage due to his heretical beliefs—now, More comments on Roper's tendency to change his core principles too readily. The Common Man also frequently changes his attire to adopt different personas. Unlike Roper, however, he remains consistently driven by self-serving opportunism. In one scene, he wears spectacles and carries a book, portraying a pedantic commentator; in another, he dons a gray cap and condemns an innocent man to death—it's all a matter of headgear. The only costume that gives the Common Man pause is the one for judging More. Yet, once he overcomes this hesitation, he readily takes on the role of executioner. Before the trial scene, the Common Man showcases his various hats, placing them on poles (foreshadowing More's head soon to be displayed on a pole) in front of an array of coats of arms of varying sizes. While the hats highlight the Common Man's (and by extension, everyman's) capricious nature, the coats of arms ironically reference eternal, noble ideals that only More truly upholds, even at the cost of his life.
Chorus
In the sixteenth century, the chorus, which had been comprised of multiple
actors during classical Greek times, was reduced to a single actor who provided
commentary and interpretation of the play's action before, after, and between
scenes. For instance, Shakespeare opens "Henry V" with an apologetic prologue
where an actor asks the audience to use their imagination to enhance the stage
props ("Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts…. Think, when we talk of
horses, that you see them"). Modernist Bertolt Brecht redefined the chorus with
a new purpose; his "chorus" figures served as alienating devices to remind the
audience of the theatrical artifice, thereby distancing them from the play's
action. Bolt adopts Brecht's use of the chorus but adds his own twist. Like a
Brechtian chorus, the Common Man delivers a modern, self-reflective, and
self-conscious critique of the play: "It is perverse! To start a play made up
of Kings and Cardinals in speaking costumes and intellectuals with embroidered
mouths, with me." However, unlike Brecht, Bolt intended for the Common Man to
engage the audience and provide a relatable character. Feeling that this device
did not fully succeed, Bolt explains in his Preface why he included the Common
Man and had him frequently make puns on the word "common"—it was "intended
primarily to indicate 'that which is common to us all'" (xvii). Despite
audiences often perceiving the Common Man as crude and alien, Bolt notes that
he sometimes detected a "rueful note of recognition" in their laughter.
Compare and Contrast
-
16th century: During this period, all English citizens were officially members of the Catholic Church, and many attended its services. However, since the Roman Catholic service was conducted entirely in Latin, few attendees fully comprehended it. Additionally, the Church was losing its authoritative influence due to the rise of Martin Luther's Protestantism and various Church Reform movements aimed at addressing clerical corruption. Within a century, the Catholic Church would lose its religious monopoly in Europe.
1950-1965: The Catholic Church still served about one-third of English citizens and a majority in many European countries, despite its declining popularity due to its strict positions on issues such as abortion, birth control, and clerical celibacy. During the significant Convocations of 1962 and 1965, the Church took steps to "update" its image and make the religion more appealing.
Today: While the Roman Catholic Church remains the largest organized religion globally, only about one-fifth of England's citizens identify as Catholic. The Church has experienced divisions due to its continued rigid stance on issues like abortion, birth control, clerical celibacy, euthanasia, and the ordination of women. In less developed regions, such as parts of Africa, missionary efforts have led to remarkable growth in Catholicism.
-
16th century: Religious persecution was so rampant that
America was partially colonized by English citizens seeking the freedom to
worship as they wished. In England, it was common for individuals to be accused
of "heresy" (whether for religious or other reasons) and forced to wear a
marker of shame so others could shun them; some were even executed.
1950-1960: In developed nations like England and the United States, religious freedom was officially guaranteed, though some groups still faced prejudice. In communist countries, religion was actively suppressed by the state.
Today: Religious freedom and diversity are present in most developed and third-world countries, including those formerly under communist control. However, religious differences continue to contribute to various ethnic conflicts worldwide, such as those in Bosnia, Liberia, and Rwanda.
-
16th century: Treason charges were commonly used to
eliminate unwanted individuals in England and other European countries. Henry
VIII had John Fisher beheaded shortly before executing Sir Thomas More, and
Cardinal Wolsey died while charged with High Treason.
1950-1960: England maintained a clean record of protecting its citizens from unfounded treason charges. In contrast, the United States, despite promising due process and protection from baseless accusations, saw Senator Joe McCarthy undermine political tolerance and legislative integrity by relentlessly persecuting intellectuals and filmmakers suspected of communist ties.
Today: In England, the United States, and most developed nations, a strong case is required to convict a citizen of treason or other crimes against the state.
Media Adaptations
- Robert Bolt initially created A Man for All Seasons as a radio play, which the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) produced in 1954. Three years later, the BBC-TV aired a televised version of the play.
- In 1966, Robert Bolt adapted his play into a screenplay. The Columbia film, featuring Paul Scofield as More, Robert Shaw as King Henry VIII, and Orson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey, garnered six Academy Awards. These included Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director (Fred Zinnemann), and Best Actor for Scofield, who had previously portrayed the role on stage in London.
- In 1988, Charlton Heston both directed and starred in a cable TV adaptation of the play, alongside Vanessa Redgrave and John Gielgud. However, this version did not achieve the same level of popularity as the Zinnemann film.
Bibliography and Further Reading
Sources
Corrigan, Robert, ed. "Five Dramas of Selfhood." In The New Theatre of
Europe. Dell, 1962, pp. 9-31.
Taubman, Howard. Review of A Man for All Seasons in the New York Times, Vol. 23, November, 1961.
Further Reading
Alvarez, A. "The Price of Period." In British New Statesman, Vol. 60,
July 9, 1960, p. 46. An early review of the original London stage play that
describes the play as a "historical romance," and criticizes it for being too
"cozy" to achieve real dramatic tragedy.
Atkins, Anselm. "Robert Bolt: Self, Shadow, and the Theater of Recognition." In Modern Drama, Vol. 10, September 1967, pp. 182-88. Atkins equates More with the Common Man, describing both as "a striking example of the coincidence of opposites," since they both adhere to the principle of self-preservation.
Brustein, Robert. "Chronicle of a Reluctant Hero." In the New Republic, Vol. 145, no. 24, December 11, 1961, pp. 280-30. A positive review of the New York play that views Bolt's work as a successful model for the revival of the chronicle history genre.
Carper, Gerald. "Dramas of the Threatened Self in Video Classics of American Film", September, 1989. A summary of Bolt's major works highlighting their recurring themes about the "threatened self."
Duprey, Richard A. "Interview with Robert Bolt." In the Dalhousie Review, Vol. 48, Spring, 1968, pp. 13-23. Bolt discusses his choice of More as a man in conflict over selfhood and outlines two choices for modern man: accepting a world without moral standards or returning to Christian morals.
Fuegi, John. "Robert Bolt." In Contemporary British Dramatists, edited by James Vinson. St. James Press (London), 1973. An essay identifying Brecht and cinema as the two major influences on Bolt's work.
Gambill, Thomas C. The Drama of Robert Bolt: A Critical Study. Kent State University, 1982. A study of Bolt's plays as representative of the "angry young men" drama and the influence of Bertolt Brecht.
Hayman, Ronald. Robert Bolt, Heinemann, 1969. A concise volume including an interview with Robert Bolt about his life, chapters critiquing six of his plays, and a follow-up interview where Bolt responds to the critiques.
McCarten, John. "The Reluctant Martyr." In the New Yorker, Vol. 37, no. 42, December 2, 1961, pp. 117-18. A positive review of the New York production, praising Bolt's realistic portrayal of More.
McElrath, Joseph R. "The Metaphoric Structure of A Man for All Seasons." In Modern Drama, Vol. 14, 1972, pp 84-92. A detailed analysis of the sea and land metaphor that Bolt mentions in his Preface and that permeates the play.
Peachment, Chris. London Times, October 23, 1986. A retrospective review of Bolt's work, finding much of value in it.
Simon, John. "Play Reviews: A Man for All Seasons." In Theater Arts, Vol. 46, no. 2, February, 1962, pp. 10-11. A favorable review suggesting that although the play is limited by attempting too much historical scope, it remains "intelligent, pungent, and absorbing."
Tees, Arthur Thomas. "The Place of the Common Man: Robert Bolt: A Man for All Seasons." In the University Review, Vol. 36, October 1969, pp. 67-71. Tees explores the role of the Common Man as a counterbalance to More. They are complete opposites; while More is a "non-tragic hero" without a fatal flaw, the Common Man is portrayed as a "tragic non-hero."
Trewin, J. C. "Two Morality Playwrights: Robert Bolt and John Whiting." In Experimental Drama, edited by William A. Armstrong. Bell and Sons, 1963, pp. 103-27. Trewin examines Bolt's plays as effective explorations of social conscience within individuals. Although he appreciates the plays, Trewin finds Bolt's explanatory preface to be a distraction.
Tucker, M. J. "The More-Norfolk Connection." In Moreana, Vol. 33, 1972, pp. 5-13. Tucker uncovers that Bolt has misrepresented the role of the historical Duke of Norfolk in More's downfall and elaborates on the true nature of their relationship as shown by history.
Walker, John. "Top Playwrights." In the Sunday Times Magazine, November 26, 1978. This special edition, dedicated to British theater, features Walker's essay categorizing fifty British playwrights into six groups such as "wits and dandies," "traditionalists," and "individualists."
Bibliography
Sources for Further Study
Brown, John Russell. A Short Guide to Modern British Drama. London: Heinemann, 1983. A valuable overview of the works of Robert Bolt, including A Man for All Seasons.
Corrigan, Robert, ed. The New Theatre of Europe: An Anthology. New York: Dell, 1962. A collection of five European plays including Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons along with Bolt’s preface to the play and an insightful introduction by the editor.
Garstenauer, Maria. A Selective Study of English History Plays in the Period Between 1960 and 1977. Salzburg, Austria: University of Salzburg Press, 1985. A concentrated and extremely thorough study that examines the play from a variety of views. Helpful for placing the drama into the context of its times.
Harben, Niloufer. Twentieth-Century English History Plays: From Shaw to Bond. Totowa, N.J.: Barnes and Noble Books, 1988. The volume contains a useful chapter, “Three Plays of the 1960’s: Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons; Peter Shaffer, The Royal Hunt of the Sun; John Osborne, Luther.”
Nightingale, Benedict. A Reader’s Guide to Fifty Modern British Plays. London: Heinemann, 1982. A brief statement on the life and writings of Robert Bolt followed by a useful analysis of his play, A Man for All Seasons.
Taylor, John Russell. The Angry Theatre: New British Drama. New York: Hill and Wang, 1969. In his epilogue, Russell places A Man for All Seasons in the context of other British writings of the time.
Tynan, Kenneth. A View of the English Stage, 1944-63. London: Davis-Poynter, 1975. A highly personal, even idiosyncratic view of the play. Since the bulk of the essays in this volume were originally reviews, they provide a clue as to how the play was received during its debut.
Vinson, James, ed. Contemporary Dramatists. 3d ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982. There is helpful discussion about A Man for All Seasons that places the drama within the scope of Bolt’s career.