Talk:Thomas More

Wolsey

The current article says "His early actions against the Protestant Reformation included aiding Wolsey in preventing Lutheran books from being imported into England, spying on and investigating suspected Protestants, especially publishers, and arresting anyone holding in his possession, transporting, or distributing Bibles and other materials of the Protestant Reformation. " However, More did not actually work for Wolsey (did he?): indeed he was on the King's Bench and actively helped bring Wolsey down.[1] I could not get a look at the source, but I am dubious that this is what MacCulloch's book says (though we would expect MacCulloch not to take a positive view). I am also putting making it "unauthorized bibles", as plain "bibles" is simply wrong. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I own MacCulloch's Cromwell and I looked over the pages given in the reference. You are right: MacCulloch compares the anti-heretic actions of both men (“Gone were the days of Cardinal Wolsey, when no one was burned at the stake for heresy: More had a positive relish for burning heretics.”) but does not say that More assisted Wolsey.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

References

"Barrister"

A recent edit removed the description of "lawyer" and replaced it with "barrister". Technically, this is correct, but too restrictive. For example: More's early legal work included commercial lawyering for the Mercers' Company and negotiating new terms for a cloth trade deal with Flanders. The common usage then to describe him would only be "lawyer". I suggest reinstating "lawyer".--AntientNestor (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Added a further ref: both now support "lawyer".--AntientNestor (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Execution allegations

I have pulled out the material on the controversy of whether More tortured and sentenced heretics to be burned into its own section. I have added many citations and re-phrased much material. I have tried to add both pro- and anti-More sources, for balance and NPOV. I think some recent sources, especially the Richard Rex article, are very useful.

To prepare and research, I first updated the Star Chamber section, in particular concerning the scope and limits of their power.

The thing that has struck me, reading various sources and allegations, is that many sources pass on information uncritically, without attending to the basic issues of legality, jurisdiction, and procedure. Consequently, many of the sources lack credibility to that degree.

In particular, what is raising my eyebow are the often-repeated statements that link More's time as Lord Chancellor with the number heretic executions that happened in England during that time: the idea seems to be that More was like the boss of England, so every execution that happened happened because he like directed it and stuff. "When More was Lord Chancellor, six heretics were executed" becomes "Under More, 6 heretics were executed" or "More executed six heretics" to "More wanted to exterminate all Protestants".

That More, the man who introduced the notion of fairness (equity) into English law, and who relied on legal principles against self-incrimination for his very life, was somehow a total cowboy taking the law into his own hands when it came to heretics. I mean, anything is possible, but it looks like a situation where you would demand your WP:RS sources provide hard evidence rather than what smells like a post hoc ergo procter hoc or Chinese whisper??? If there is no causal connection between More and the executions, then of what value is that information. (Richard Rex's paper brings out the excellent point that More was involved in heresy appeals at the Star Chamber for the previous decade. What made his time as Lord Chancellor so special?)

The Lord Chancellor position was concerned with common law (civil law) that included misdemeanours like rioting, and equity, not criminal law; I gather than many case of heresy also involved aspects of the law proper to the Lord Chancellor (illegal book sales, rioting, sedition) so they were often funnelled through his office before any trial procedure. (Due to De heretico comburendo sedition and heresy were explicitly conflated in English law.)

But at the other end of the process, in the Lord Chancellor's role as presiding judge of court of the Star Chamber he only had one vote from 10 to 30 others (and the Star Chamber's voting was not recorded, so we don't know what he voted anyway). The Star Chamber could not impose the death penalty, and was a kind of Appeals court with better procedures than general courts. Crimes, like treason, and so on were handled by the King's Bench, not the Star Chamber.

The aggregate impression I am getting from the non-partisan academic sources is that the Star Chamber could hear appeals on heresy charges, and could commute a death penalty or allow it, but not impose it.

Does anyone have any reliable source with better info for this, sometime near the 1520s? 

For heresy charges, when someone was apprehended and charged, they first went through a (civil) discover process by the arresting authorities to determine whether there was enough evidence to initiate the process. Then they were handed over to the local bishop (who had his own prison accommodation, like the Lollard's Tower) for examination (the Bishops would have also presumably have been bound by the general rules of the (Roman) Inquisition in their procedures.) So the Bishop returned them to the secular authority with their finding: not a heretic, re-canted heretic, minor heretic, major heretic, or whatever. If the Bishop found them to be persistent or relapsed major heretics, then they were handed over to the secular authorities and XXX and then they were executed.

...It is that XXX where I find academic source articles unclear or variable.

I would appreciate any pointers editors have: did they then get indicted by the secular authorities and tried, being able to appeal to the Star Chamber?   Or was the results of the Bishop's examination treated as a summary judgment not needing a further trial?  (My suspicion is that the former is true for capital cases, the later is true for non-capital cases where the person had abjured or only guilty of some minor infringement, like being illiterate and looking after the book for a friend without promoting its reading.) Did the bishops actually give the result of the examination with an expected or recommended punishment?

Thanks Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)