Cromwell's Second Rise - The 'Wolf Hall' Phenomenon

Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell, in the BBC's upcoming adaptation (source)

With our TV listings this January jam-packed with Tudor dramas and documentaries, and new editions of Mantel’s books hitting the shelves, it seems that Thomas Cromwell is rising as fast and high in 2015 as he did in Henry VIII’s day. Cromwell has had his fair mix of good and bad press in historical dramas (as shown in Tracy Borman’s  recent article here) but it’s Mantel who’s really captured the public’s imagination.

Now, I’m fairly new to all this hullabaloo. His reign was what first got me interested in history, but for a long time, I avoided Henry VIII like the plague, thinking that he’s overrated and very ‘popular history’. It wasn’t Thomas Cromwell, or even Wolf Hall, that brought me back, shame-faced, into the Tudor fanbase, but now that I’m here, I’m buzzing about the upcoming BBC series, based on Mantel’s writings, as much as anyone else.

Discussing her books, Mantel has stated that what she writes is fiction woven around the facts, but that she tries to keep it as accurate as possible. That said, pinpoint historical accuracy is now being plugged as the Unique Selling Point of the BBC series. Both Mantel and director Peter Kaminsky have said that they envisioned it being filmed almost as a documentary from Cromwell’s point of view, and Dr Lucy Worsley has walked away from the set with her only criticism being that Jane Seymour (played by Kate Philipps, image here) is ‘too pretty’. (Dr Worsley’s article is here.) All this historical hype really does beg the question: how much should we trust the series?

I’m willing to take Dr Worsley’s word for it that the practical details are accurate (the costumes, ceremonies, use of cutlery, the state of the lawn, you name it), but having read Wolf Hall and seen both of the RSC productions, and I think it really does depend on the script and how the actors tackle it. Having seen him in various productions, I’m confident that Mark Rylance, playing our scheming Master Secretary, will deliver, and that Mark Gatiss’ Stephen Gardiner will be every bit as scathing and grandiose as the real bishop’s prose. Claire Foy, in her French hoods and stunning gowns, has already won me over as the ill-fated Anne Boleyn.

The problem is, I had the same compliments to make about the RSC production. It was stunningly acted. Yet there was something amiss. Mantel’s books capture the essence of most of the characters brilliantly, with just enough exaggeration to make them memorable. (How else is a casual reader to remember which Thomas is which? One quickly labels Cromwell, Wolsey, More, Howard, Boleyn and Cranmer as Our Tom, Cardinal Tom, Honest Tom, Old Tom, Monseigneur Tom and Quiet Tom.) The problem with the RSC production is that when you take away the subtleties of Mantel’s work, condensing two books into six hours, they quickly become caricatures. Lovely caricatures though they be in some cases, figures like Norfolk, Suffolk and George Boleyn really do draw the short straw. (Poor George always seems to draw the short straw, no matter who writes him. And his wife, for that matter.)

The thing is, the RSC production seems to have been aiming for comedy, in the first play at least. The BBC service isn’t. I worry for characters like Thomas More. His portrayal in the books is certainly no Man of All Seasons, and has drawn a great deal of criticism. I’m no expert on More, but I do like to see one who is less than saintly. In the RSC’s Wolf Hall, he comes across as incredibly harsh and self-centred. In the books, on the other hand, I feel a great deal of sympathy for him. The TV series is likely to bring some of that sympathy across, seeing as Margaret Roper – More’s much-loved daughter, who did not feature in the play – has been cast, but it will largely depend, I think, on the directing.

Ben Miles and John Ramm as Cromwell and More in the RSC's Wolf Hall (source)

On the other hand, I do know a fair bit about Thomas Cranmer, and I find it difficult to fault cautious, candid, politically naïve scholar we see in Mantel’s books. (One thing I will say though, to add to Lucy Worsley’s criticism of the TV casting, I am disheartened to see a bearded Cranmer at Anne Boleyn’s coronation (image here) when the unwritten rule was that good Catholic priests were clean-shaven. Only a minor niggle.) Giles Taylor’s interpretation in the RSC production was certainly endearing, but would probably look incredibly out of place in the BBC drama, and it could be difficult to get Cranmer’s subtle personality across without the aid of Mantel’s prose.

I think this – the removal of Mantel’s prose – is what’s most dangerous about both the RSC and BBC productions. Without the subtleties of her writing, and the brilliant insight we get into Cromwell, her flaws are much easier to notice. The misinterpretations of some of the Boleyns will be that much clearer, and other characters may be reduced to mere shadows, or villains, or saints. This is inevitable with any editing project as large as this, but in a production that has prided itself on its historical accuracy, it does set off a few alarm bells in me.

Where I think the strength of the TV production lies is in Cromwell himself. Rylance has shown himself willing to find the threads of comedy in everything in the past, tragedies included, but I trust him to play this part straight. What we get, therefore, is a Cromwell who still remains mysterious to us, who still begs us to ask whether he looks like a murderer. In Bring Up the Bodies (the book), when Cromwell is playing the ruthless schemer, we know him well enough to consider him as our ruthless schemer, and I think the TV series will help to bring that edge back.

I might post something once all six episodes have aired, but these are my thoughts so far.

Of course, the Tudor hype this January doesn’t begin and end with Wolf Hall. Tomorrow (the 10^th) at 9pm on BBC2 we have David Starkey teaming up with Lucy Worsley to present Britain’s Tudor Treasure: A Night at Hampton Court, to celebrate 500 years of the palace by reconstructing Edward VI’s christening. We also have documentaries later in the month about accidental Tudor deaths and Hans Holbein. Even if you don’t buy into historical fiction and period dramas, there’s still plenty to watch!

V.G

Two Steps Back? - The Six Articles, 1539

Another post from me about the Reformation, seeing as I’m still reading about it!

Although the practical effectiveness of the Six Articles, passed through parliament in 1539, can be debated, the Articles remain significant as a dramatic shift away from growing evangelicalism in the English Church. Perhaps even more significantly, the Articles were the first major example of Henry VIII taking an aggressively active role in the religion of his country. Henry had always sought a middle way, which is evident in the balanced appointment of clerics to doctrinal discussions and committees: it was generally an equal number of conservatives and evangelicals. The Six Articles follow this trend in that they were meant to eliminate controversy, but Henry’s involvement in the theological debates, rather than merely signing the finished document, was unprecedented.

Before 1539, the reformers had gained victories under the patronage of Anne Boleyn, and later with the 10 Articles and Bishops’ Book, which, although full of compromises, were a step in the right direction. Cromwell also pushed forward with his and Cranmer’s shared goal and made sure there was an English Bible in every parish church. The extremely conservative Six Articles therefore represented a U-turn in religious policy, reaffirming the key doctrines of the Catholic Church, including transubstantiation, clerical celibacy and the necessity of auricular confession. These orthodox affirmations resulted in Bishops Latimer and Shaxton – who had spoken out viciously against the Articles in the House of Lords – resigning their sees; yet another loss for the evangelical cause.

The Articles stated that:

1. Transubstantiation was the definitive Eucharistic doctrine of the Church (though this was only implied – transubstantiation was not explicitly mentioned).
2. Lay people should not receive both parts of the Eucharist (i.e. they could take the bread but not wine).
3. Priests could not marry.
4. Vows of chastity had to be strictly observed.
5. Private masses for both the living and the dead had to be continued.
6. Auricular confession was a necessity.

The Articles took three days to pass through parliament, much to the dismay of Cromwell, who had effectively been shoved to one side by Henry’s sudden assertiveness. The parliamentary session seems to have been only a formality, as the outcome had been clear from the start, and Cromwell and Cranmer could only look on helplessly as Henry’s conservative beliefs made their mark.

For Cranmer in particular, the third article was devastating. The Archbishop had secretly married the niece of a Lutheran theologian in 1532, and the accompanying penalty was death. It was perhaps through concern for his friend that Cromwell amended the article at the last minute to include only known clerical marriages. Nevertheless, the passing of the Articles through Parliament forced Cranmer to send his wife and daughter back to Germany. Henry VIII himself doesn’t seem to have quizzed Cranmer on his marital state until 1543, but he was aware that his chaplain’s conscience was troubled by the acts: he gave Cranmer permission to miss the last day of the vote (which Cranmer refused to do) and later held a feast in the archbishop’s honour at Lambeth.

The Articles can also be seen as a clear shift in diplomatic strategy. With the support of Henry and the continental reformer, Martin Bucer, theologians had received a German Lutheran delegation at Lambeth, partly in an attempt to strengthen ties with the League of Schmalkalden. The key reason for this was the Imperial-French truce, presenting the possibility of French-Imperial-papal alliance against Henry. When the delegation refused to make enough concessions, Henry changed tactics, and seems to have favoured appeasing the Catholics instead. Although not technically foreign policy, as it was governed by England, Calais also proved to be a key stimulant: dissent was growing within the upper secular classes against Archbishop Cranmer’s more outspoken preachers there, which seems to have unnerved Henry about the speed and possible radicalism of reform. Threats from home, therefore, were more important than a possible attack from abroad, especially with the memory of the Pilgrimage of Grace weighing heavily in people’s minds.

The Articles, however, were not a complete loss for the evangelical cause. Even the point about transubstantiation was vague. The reformers at this stage, who had not yet lost their belief in the true presence in the Eucharist, could claim that the Articles still followed their own doctrine, even if the language was aggressively conservative. Cromwell also managed to delay the appointment of commissions and some of the articles either took a long time to enforce, or the initiatives were dropped. In Henry’s more happily evangelical mood following Cromwell’s fall a year later, he lifted the death penalty for married priests (no doubt with sighs of relief from Cranmer) and dropped charges on the 200 or so evangelical Londoners who had been rounded up by Bishop Bonner’s men. The changes the Articles made, therefore, were significant in what they said, rather than what they did to the English Church in practice.

V.G