Margaret Roper

< c ^

CO > UJ

Ejg OU_1 60082 >m

DQ ' '~

OSMANIA UNIVERSITY UBRARY

/*

.13 R. Accession No. G> /O ^3

Author Mu'vi^Uj ,

This book should be returned on or before the date last marked below.

MARGARET ROPER

Other books by the same author

*

SAINT THOMAS MORE
SAINT JOHN FISHER

THREE CARDINALS

(NEWMAN- WISEMAN-MANNING)

dl
D

M

MARGARET ROPER

Eldest Daughter of St. Thomas More

by
E.E. REYNOLDS

P. J. KENEDY & SONS
NEW YORK

E. E. Reynolds 1960

Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 60-13955
Printed in Great Britain

CONTENTS

PREFACE ix

Chapter

I. PARENTAGE I

II. EDUCATION 12

III. MARRIAGE 30

IV. CHELSEA 44
V. THE TOWER 62

VI. THE SCAFFOLD 104

VII. BUTCLOSE 112

VIII. WILLIAM ROPER 126

APPENDIX I. NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS 14!

II. GENEALOGICAL TABLES'. 143

A. More 144

B. Roper 145
c. Rastell, Clement, Hey wood 146

INDEX 147

ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATES

I. THE MORE FAMILY GROUP Frontispiece

By Holbein.
By permission of the Kunstsammlung, Basle. Facing page

II. MARGARET ROPER 38

After Holbein.
By permission of Lord Sackville.

III. Tide page of "A Devout Treatise upon the Paternoster" 39
By permission of the Trustees, the British Museum.

IV. Holograph letter from Margaret Roper to Erasmus 54
By permission of the University of Wroclaw (Breslau).

V. MARGARET ROPER 55

Miniature by Holbein.
By permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

VI. WILLIAM ROPER 55

Miniature by Holbein.
By permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

IN THE TEXT Page

Part of the City of London in Sir Thomas More's time 5

The More Monument in Chelsea Old Church 8

St Thomas More's Chelsea Estate 45

PREFACE

/

IT is not possible to write a year-by-year biography of Margaret
Roper as the materials available are so unevenly distributed
over the forty years of her life. This defect in the records may
explain why no one has attempted hitherto to give an account
of her life. It may also be that she stood so near her father that he
has overshadowed her, and it has been difficult to think of her as
a personality in her own right.

A careful examination of the records has revealed, however,
sufficient matter to justify a separate study. Some of the details
needed for a rounded portrait are lacking, but a sketch can have
its attraction. It has been of considerable interest to see the life of
Saint Thomas More from a fresh point of view; this has brought
out some aspects of his personality more clearly, and I hope the
reader will share my experience.

The main sources of information are the early lives of Sir
Thomas More and .his English Works. Cresacre More's "Life" is
a secondary source ; he recorded one or two family traditions that
are of value. It is difficult to exaggerate the debt students owe to
the editors of the Early English Text Society's editions of the
Roper, Harpsfield and Ro. Ba. lives. Thomas Stapleton's "Life"
is the source for some of the letters; the "Tower letters", as they
may be called, were printed in the 1557 folio of More's works. I
have used here the text established by Elizabeth F. Rogers in her
Correspondence of Sir Thomas More (1947), and for the letters
between the Mores and Erasmus, Allen's Opus Epistolarum Des.
Erasmi Roterodami.

All the letters by Margaret Roper have been given in full.
Those from More to his "school" and the Erasmus correspond-
ence were in Latin. Translations by Father Thomas Bridgett and
Mgr. P. E. Hallett (for Stapleton) are the basis of those given in
this book, but each has been compared with the original and some
changes made, occasionally to get nearer the meaning of the

X PREFACE

original, but mostly to bring the style (particularly that of Father
Bridgett) more in keeping with present-day usage. Letters in
English are given in modern spelling. All dates are New Style.

I have not thought it necessary to give references to the Roper
and other lives as any passage can soon be found in them from
their indexes. Nor have I particularized references to Letters and
Papers, State Papers, Patent Rolls, etc. The dates given will be
sufficient guidance for the student to follow up my statements.
This has meant avoiding too heavy an array of footnotes; these
have been restricted to the less obvious sources, and to pieces of
information that, I hope, may add interest for the reader.

This book may be regarded as a pendant to my Saint Thomas
More, where many matters are treated in greater detail than would
be justified in a life of his eldest daughter.

E. E. R.

CHAPTER I
PARENTAGE

IN his account of Sir Thomas More's life, William Roper gave
only one date, that of the martyrdom; Nicholas Harpsfield and
Thomas Stapleton were equally reticent. How much research
and argument they could have saved later biographers by giving
the dates of More's birth, of his marriage, and of the birth of his
first child !

A glance at Holbein's sketch of the More family (Plate I), or at
his later miniature of Margaret Roper (Plate V), would seem to
give the information we need; on the first the ages are marked and
on the second it is stated that it was painted in her thirtieth year,
but unfortunately we cannot be certain of the dates when Holbein
did these works. He was in England from the autumn of 1526 to
the summer of 1528; he returned in 1532 and remained until his
death in 1 543 . The sketch for the large painting of the More family
was probably done late in 1526 or during 1527. The note on it
gives Margaret's age as twenty-two; she was born then in 1504 or
1505. The miniature does not help us; the thirtieth year of her age
suggests 1534 or 1535 for the date of the painting, but those were
the years of her deep anxiety for her father and it would seem un-
likely that she would consent to sit for her portrait at such a time.
There is, however, a more helpful clue. The title page (Plate III)
of Margaret Roper's translation of A Devout Treatise upon the
Paternoster 1 by Erasmus described her as "a young, virtuous and
well-learned gentlewoman of nineteen year of age," and the pre-
face was dated I October 1524. From this it can be said that she
was born in 1505 before October and that her parents were
married in 1504.

At the time of his marriage Thomas More was probably

1 The Preface is printed in Foster Watson's Vives and the Renaissance Education
of Women (1912).

2 MARGARET ROPER

twenty-six years of age. He had tested his vocation for the cloister
and f'MT the priesthood. To quote Erasmus :

With all his strength he turned towards the religious life, by
watching, fasting, prayer, and similar tests, preparing himself
for the priesthood; more wisely than the many who rush
blindly into that onerous profession without first making trial
of themselves. And he had almost embraced this ministry, but
being unable to master the desire for a wife, he decided to be a
chaste husband rather than an unchaste priest.

His wife was Jane (Joan) Colt, the eldest daughter of John Colt
of Netherhall near Roydon in Essex; 1 this was some dozen miles
north-east of North Mimms in Hertfordshire where Thomas
More's father, John, had a property called Gobions. 2 It is not
known how the two families became acquainted, but a possible
connection is that Thomas Colt, Jane's grandfather, was a member
of Edward IV's Council and his father before him had served that
king. John More was warmly attached to the memory of Edward
IV, for, when he made his will in 1527, he provided Masses to be
said for the soul of a king who had been dead for thirty-six years.
It may be that John More had been brought to the notice of
Edward IV by one of the Colts. Some personal link of this kind
would seem necessary to explain the association between two
families that otherwise had little in common. The Colts were a
landed family and John Colt owned two manors in Essex as well
as many other properties in that county. John More had become
a serjeant-at-law in 1503, which, in the hierarchy of the law,
placed him just below the judges. In addition to Gobions, he may
have had some London property but he was not a wealthy man.
His son Thomas had still to complete his training in the law. As a
member of the Parliament that sat during the first three months
of 1504, he is said to have fallen under the displeasure of Henry
VII for opposing the king's request for subsidies; Roper tells us
that the king took his revenge by sending John More to the Tower

1 The ruins of the house can still be seen.

* Or Gubbins, also known as More Park. The house was pulled down in 1836
and the estate became part of Brookman's Park.

PARENTAGE 3

on a trumped-up charge until he had paid a fine of ^loo. 1 This
would not recommend the Mores to anyone seeking a husband
for a daughter.

Whatever it was that brought the two families together, it is
clear from the brief accounts given by William Roper and Cres-
acre More, that John Colt enjoyed the company of Thomas More
and decided that this young lawyer, who had still to establish
himself, would be a suitable husband for one of his daughters.
But which one? It must be remembered that we are not here con-
cerned with a romantic love affair, but with the kind of marriage
arrangement that was normal at that period. According to Roper,
the second daughter was most favoured by Thomas More, "y et
when he considered that it would be a great grief and some shame
also to the eldest to see her younger sister in marriage preferred
before her, he then of a certain pity framed his fancy towards her,
and soon after married her/'

Cresacre More tells us that when Thomas More "determined
to marry, he propounded to himself for a pattern in life a singular
layman, John Picus, Earl of Mirandola, who was a man most
famous for virtue and most eminent for learning." Giovanni Pico
della Mirandola (1463-1494) was regarded by his contemporaries
as a prodigy of learning both classical and oriental; yet he did not
go the way of the pagan-humanists of the day but was a man of
deep piety who renounced his possessions and, towards the end
of his short, brilliant career, sought to enter the Dominican Order
under the patronage of Savonarola. Such a life appealed to the
young Thomas More for it reflected his own problem of com-
bining devotion to learning with devotion to the faith, and of
reconciling the search for personal sanctity with the duties of a
life in the world. About 1504 he translated a short life of Pico and
three of his letters, and added verses of his own composition on
themes suggested by three scries of his hero's apophthegms; the
last consisted of "The Twelve Properties or Conditions of a

1 Roper is the only source of this information. Doubts (which I share) have been
expressed as to the accuracy of Roper's story. Thomas More's constituency is not
known. It is difficult to believe that it was necessary to send Serjeant John More
to the Tower to get 100 out of him.

4 MARGARET ROPER

Lover." In pairs of stanzas, More gave first the worldly, and sec-
ondly the religious application of each "Property."

Thus on "To serve his love, nothing thinking of any reward
or profit" he wrote :

A very lover will his love obey:

His joy it is and all his appetite

To pain himself in all that ever he may,

That person in whom he set hath his delight

Diligently to serve both day and night

For very love, without any regard

To any profit, guerdon or reward.

So thou likewise that hast thine heart yset
Upward to God, so well thyself endeavour,
So studiously that nothing may thee let
Not for His service any wise dissever:
Freely look eke thou serve that thereto never
Trust of reward or profit do thee bind,
But only faithful heart and loving mind.

This study of Pico della Mirandola is further evidence of the
seriousness with which the young Thomas More planned his life.
He had proved that his true vocation was not for the cloister but
for the married state, and for him the Church's teaching that
marriage is a sacrament was of deep significance. This conviction
was to affect his attitude towards married life and the upbringing
of his children.

The exact date and place of the marriage of Thomas More and
Jane Colt are not known. They were to make their home in
Bucklersbury but whether they did so on their marriage or later
is not clear from Roper's account. It would have been in keeping
with the custom of the time for them to have lived first with
Serjeant John More in Milk Street, where, according to Stow,
"there be many fair houses for wealthy merchants and others."
The earliest record of More leasing a house in Bucklersbury is
dated 12 December 1513, but that does not necessarily mean that
he and his wife were not already living there. It was a house called
The Barge and was the property of the Hospital of St Thomas of

PARENTAGE 5

Aeon where the Mercers had their chapel. More had been admit-
ted to the freedom of that Company in March 1509.

The Barge was on the south side of Bucklersbury and next to
the Walbrook. Stow in 1603 described it as "one great house
builded of stone and timber, called the Old Barge because barges
out of the river Thames were rowed up so far/' The Walbrook
was covered over in More's time and the houses along the old

banks were noted for their gardens. That of The Barge probably
extended over the area where, in 1954, a temple of Mithras was
uncovered. It would be in this garden that More kept the strange
collection of animals that was one of his delights.

Erasmus saw much of Thomas More in 1505 and 1506; the two
men had quickly become friends when Erasmus came to England
for the first time in 1499, and now on this second visit they amused
themselves translating some of the dialogues of Lucian. What did
the young wife make of their guest? He was ten years older than
her husband and did not speak English; in fact, he never did learn

6 MARGARET ROPER

the language even during his years at Cambridge. It must have
been a trial for her to listen to the two men exchanging jokes in
Latin. Moreover, Erasmus was fussy about his food and his com-
forts; all his portraits show him muffled up in furs as if he could
never be warm enough. We owe him one or two glimpses of
Jane More. In the account of Thomas More which Erasmus
wrote in 1519, he said:

He married a young girl of good family, who had been
brought up with her sisters in their parents' home in the
country; choosing her, yet undeveloped, that he might more
readily mould her to his tastes. He had her taught literature,
and trained her in every kind of music; and she was just grow-
ing into a charming life's companion for him, when she died
young, leaving him with several children: of whom three girls
are still living, Margaret, Elizabeth, and Cecily, and one son, John.

In one of his early Colloquies, entitled "The Uneasy Wife",
Erasmus described an incident which was evidently based on his
knowledge of the newly married Mores. It develops the statement
just quoted that Thomas More chose his wife "yet undeveloped,
that he might more readily mould her to his tastes."

I am intimate with a gentleman of good family, learned, and
of particularly keen wit. He married a young woman, a maiden
of seventeen, who had been brought up entirely in the country
at her father's house, as men of his position prefer to live in the
country most of the time for the sake of hunting and fowling.
My friend wished to have a simple, unaffected maid so that he
might the more easily train her in his own tastes. He began by
instructing her in literature and music, and to accustom her by
degrees to repeat the discourses she heard, and to teach her other
things that would afterwards be of use to her. Now as all this
was completely new to a girl who had been brought up at home
to do nothing but chatter and amuse herself, she soon grew
weary of this life and would no longer submit to her husband's
wishes. When he expostulated with her, she would weep day
after day, and sometimes throw herself flat on the ground, beat-
ing her head as if she wished for death.

PARENTAGE 7

As there seemed to be no way of ending this, he concealed
his annoyance, and invited his wife to spend a holiday with him
at his father-in-law's house in the country; to this she most
willingly agreed. When they got there, the husband left his wife
with her mother and sisters and went hunting with his father-
in-law; he took the opportunity of taking him apart from any
witnesses and of telling him that whereas he had hoped his daugh-
ter would prove an agreeable companion for life, he now had
one who was always weeping and moaning, nor could she be
cured by scolding; he begged his father-in-law to help him in
curing her distemper.

The upshot was that the father-in-law talked his daughter into
a better frame of mind, and all was well.

We must not take this story as literal truth, but it no doubt had
a basis in fact, and we may feel rather sorry for Jane More's early
trials without accepting Erasmus's story in every detail. It suggests
that Thomas More was a little heavy-handed as a young husband
and that his sense of proportion was temporarily dulled.

Another reference to Jane More comes in a letter to Erasmus
from Henry VIII's Latin Secretary, Andrew Ammonio, who was
lodging with the Mores. On 19 May 1511 he wrote, "Our dearest
More and his gentle (fadllima) wife who never thinks of you with-
out a kind wish, with her children and all the household are in very
good health."

That note has a pathetic interest for when Ammonio wrote
again on 27 October he made a veiled reference to another hostess.
"I have moved at last into St. Thomas's College, where I am more
housed according to my ideas than I was with More. I do not see
the hooked beak of the harpy, but there are many other things that
offend me, so that I really do not know how I can still go on liv-
ing in England."

Jane More had died during the period between those two let-
ters. Four children survived her: Margaret aged seven, Elizabeth
aged six, Cecily aged five and John aged two. Those ages may not
be correct within a year, but they are near enough to show that
Thomas More was left with four very young children. The

M.R. 2

8 MATGARET ROPER

account written by Erasmus, from which an extract has been
quoted, suggests that other children had died; perhaps Jane More
died in childbirth.

Twenty years later, Thomas More placed in Chelsea Old
Church a monument with a long inscribed epitaph; the body of
Jane More was then reburied in the vault. The epitaph ends with

some lines of verse commemorating his first wife, Jane, and his
second wife, Alice. The following is a literal translation.

Here lies Jane the dear little wife of Thomas More who in-
tends this tomb for Alice and for me [himself]. The first, united
to me in my youthful years, gave me a boy and three girls to
call me father. The second a rare quality in a step-mother
was as affectionate as if her step-children were her own. It is
hard to say if the first lived with me more beloved than the

PARENTAGE 9

second does now. O how blessed if fate and religion had permit-
ted us all three to live together ! I pray the tomb and heaven
may unite us; thus death will give what life could not give.
The needs of these young children were doubtless foremost in
his mind when Thomas More decided to marry a second time,
against the advice of his friends, according to Erasmus. Though
in the manner of the period it was a cool-headed arrangement, it
proved a wise decision, and the references to Alice More in the
epitaph just quoted are evidence of her husband's deep regard.
This second marriage took place within a month of the death of
Jane More. We learn this from a letter written in 1535 by Father
John Bouge, who, before entering the Charterhouse at Axholme,
had been priest at St. Stephen's, Walbrook. He wrote:

As for Sir Thomas More, he was my parishioner in London.
I christened him two goodly children. I buried his first wife, and
within a month after he came to me on a Sunday at night late
and there he brought me a dispensation to be married the next
Monday without any banns asking.

The second wife was Alice, the widow of John Middleton, a
prosperous merchant who had died in 1509: her maiden name is
not known, but she was presumably an Arden as the arms of that
family are in the More Chapel at Chelsea. In his account of
Thomas More, Erasmus wrote :

Within a few months he married a widow, more for the care
of his children than for his own pleasure; * Wither a pearl nor
a girl," as he facetiously describes her, but a shrewd and careful
mistress of a house. Yet his life with her is as blithe and sweet
as if she had all the attractiveness of youth, and with his buoy-
ant gaiety he wins her to more compliance than severity could
command. Surely a striking conquest to persuade a woman,
middle-aged, set in her ways, and much occupied with her
home, to learn to sing to the lyre or the lute, the monochord or
the flute, and to do a daily task fixed by her husband.

The reference to music is supported by More's friend Richard
Pace who noted that she played duets with her husband. 1

ij),?. 35.

IO MARGARET ROPER

She was evidently a most capable housewife; she had a repu-
tation for blunt speech, and this may explain the phrase (if in fact
it refers to her) in the second letter to Erasmus from Ammonio;
the hooked beak of the harpy is a rude comment; perhaps she decided
that Ammonio was a nuisance, as he may have been, and used her
tongue to get him out of the house. He added that " there are many
other things that offend me" and that suggests a troublesome per-
son. The tribute Erasmus paid in 1519 carries more weight since
three years earlier he had cut short a visit to The Barge because
he felt that Alice More had had enough of him. It has already been
noted that he was pernickety, and our sympathies may lie with
his hostess.

It is true that some references to her, including one or two made
by her husband in his bantering fashion, suggest that she was a
woman of ordinary intelligence and had a sharp tongue, but
against this must be set the praise given her when More composed
the epitaph for the monument. Dr. Johnson remarked that "in
lapidary inscriptions a man is not upon oath," but there is no
reason to think that Thomas More did not mean what he said of
his second wife: "the second a rare quality in a step-mother
was as affectionate as if her step-children were her own." What-
ever Alice More's limitations may have been in the eyes of visitors
and it is easy to make too much of chance remarks she proved
a second mother to four young children. She brought with her a
daughter, Alice Middleton, who became as much one of the fam-
ily as the other children. There was another little girl, Margaret
Giggs. The note on Holbein's sketch gives her the same age as
Margaret More and describes her as "cognata"; this indicates
relationship by birth, but it has been suggested 1 that she was the
daughter of Margaret's nurse. The second Margaret became, in
More's phrase, "as dear as though she were a daughter." She was
to prove one of the most notable members of the More circle.

It was certainly a very lively household. Thomas More was
fond of children, and nephews and nieces and the children of
friends came in and out as if they belonged to the family. His own

1 By Dr. A. W. Reed in Roper, p. 128. He noted that, at a later date, a Thomas
Gygs was the occupant of a small tenement next to The Barge.

PARENTAGE II

quick sense of fun must have made life "merry" to use one of
his favourite words. He welcomed guests and visitors, but the
more staid may have found this bevy of children somewhat trying.
We should not regard the Bucklersbury House of to-day as a
desirable home for children, but four centuries ago The Barge
must have been a pleasantly situated house.

Forget six counties overhung with smoke,
Forget the snorting steam and piston stroke,
Forget the spreading of the hideous town,
Think rather of the pack-horse on the down,
And dream of London, small and white and clean,
The clear Thames bordered by its gardens green. 1

London within its walls, with a population of present-day Bath,
was a city to fascinate a child. There was so much to look at and
enjoy; so much to excite wonder: Goldsmith's Row in Cheapside,
or the open workshops of carpenters and stonemasons; the con-
stant stream of traffic, or the bustle of trade in half-a-dozen mar-
kets; processions on the great Feast Days or on state occasions with
public rejoicings on the birth of a prince or princess, or to receive
important people; the pageants of the City Companies. There
were the fine houses of the great nobles with their gardens and
orchards. Ninety or more churches were dominated by the five-
hundred foot spire of St. Paul's, and the sound of bells must have
been constant, from the bell at Prime rung at St. Thomas of Aeon
when the wicket gates of the City were opened until the Vesper
bell when traffic was supposed to end. Away to the east was the
Tower from which Henry VIII had ridden through the City to
his coronation at Westminster in 1509. London Bridge, with its
grim relics of traitors, straddled the river and made a perilous
passage for wherries and barges. Along the quays and wharves
lay the ships of many countries carrying on a ceaseless trade, with
foreign merchants and sailors to excite curiosity and sometimes
enmity. All this must be seen as the background of the lives of the
Mores at The Barge. Margaret lived in the heart of the City until she
was twenty-one and was a married woman with a family of her own.
1 William Morris, Prologue to Earthly Paradise.

CHAPTER II
EDUCATION

THOMAS STAPLETON recorded that "as soon as More's chil-
dren were old enough to begin their education, he taught
them personally or by a tutor." Until Margaret was about
twelve years old, she and her sisters and brother had their father
as their companion at home. His legal work up to 1517 was in the
City or at Westminster, and when he became an Under-Sheriffof
London in 1510, his court (police-court as we should call it) was
at the Compter in the Poultry a few minutes away from Bucklers-
bury. When he reluctantly became a member of the King's Coun-
cil in 1517, he found that the king made so many demands on his
time that he could rarely get home. Both Henry and Catherine
enjoyed his company so much that they were reluctant to part
with him even for a few days. He was in attendance when the
king went on progress, and official and personal letters from
More were addressed from Woodstock, Abingdon, Woking,
Hertford, Windsor and other royal manors during the years 1518
to 1529. It must have been particularly irksome to him to be kept
away so much from his family just at the period when his chil-
dren most needed his guidance. Indeed Roper tells us that More
deliberately * 'began somewhat to dissemble his nature, and so by
little and little from his former mirth to disuse himself" so that
the king found his company less attractive and gave him leave for
more frequent absences.

Fortunately the letters written by More to his children were
lovingly preserved, and when Thomas Stapleton came to write
his biography of Thomas More for his Tres Thomae (1588), he
copied the originals taken into exile by members of the More
household. Stapleton described these letters as "almost worn to
pieces."

We know the names of some of the tutors chosen by More.

EDUCATION 13

The first was John Clement. He had been a pupil at Dean Colet's
new school of St. Paul's under William Lilly; he was a close friend
of Thomas More and it was presumably on Lilly's recommen-
dation that Clement became tutor. The earliest reference to him
comes in More's prefatory letter to Peter Gilles in Utopia; there
he speaks of "my boy, John Clement, who, as you know, was
with us .... I never allow him to miss any conversation that may
benefit him, as I hope much from the promise he shows in his
Greek and Latin studies." This was in 1515. A year later More told
Erasmus that Clement was helping Dean Colet to learn Greek
surely a unique instance of a pupil acting as instructor to the
founder of a school ! He remained with the Mores until the spring
of 1518 when he entered the household of Cardinal Wolsey, even
as Thomas More, thirty years earlier, had entered that of Cardinal
Morton.

John Clement was followed by William Gonell who was
recommended to More by Erasmus. Gonell was a native of Land-
beach, some five miles out of Cambridge, where he kept a school;
he did copying work for Erasmus who found Landbeach a pleas-
ant retreat when he wished to get away from the University.
Gonell was given the living of Conington in Cambridgeshire in
1517, and he wrote to his friend Henry Gold of St. Neot's asking
him to find a preacher for Conington; he mentioned that "Clem-
ent is well, and so is More's whole family", and asked if he could
borrow Cicero's Letters for More's use.

In a letter to his children which may be dated in 1521, More
referred to two other tutors. "I am glad that Master Drew has
returned safely, for, as you know, I was anxious about him. Did
I not love you so warmly, I should really envy your good for-
tune in that so many and such excellent tutors have fallen to your
lot. But I think you no longer need Master Nicholas, as you have
learned whatever he had to teach you in astronomy."

Nothing certain is known of Master Drew; he may have been
the Roger Drew who became a Fellow of All Souls, Oxford, in
1512. Master Nicholas Kratzer was a German scholar who in 1519
became astronomer to Henry VIII; there is a fine portrait of him
by Holbein in the Louvre. Kratzer was one of the visiting tutors,

14 MARGARET ROPER

and, though his formal instruction may have ended about 1521, he
remained a friend of the family and there is good reason to
believe that it was he who wrote the notes on Holbein's sketch of
the More family.

The last of the tutors of whom there is any record was Richard
Hyrde who may have been educated at More's expense, for in the
dedicatory epistle to his translation of Vives' Instruction of a
Christian Woman he referred to Thomas More as "my singular
good master and bringer-up." Hyrde took his degree at Oxford
in 1519; nine years later he accompanied Stephen Gardiner and
Edward Foxe when they were sent by Wolsey on a mission to the
Pope. Gardiner described him as "a young man learned in physic,
Greek and Latin." Hyrde died in Italy of a fever caught in fording
a stream in flood during a storm. It is possible that Richard Hyrde
was not a full-time tutor in the More household; perhaps he gave
instruction in medicine, a subject which, as we shall see, More
commended to Margaret.

Doubtless there were other tutors, both occasional and regular,
whose names have not been recorded "many and excellent"
as More noted. Erasmus tells us how Mistress Alice More did her
part in seeing that the children did the work set for them. Their
education was planned by their father on considered principles.
These were explained in a letter in Latin he wrote to William
Gortell; the year is not stated but the opening lines suggest that
Gonell had settled down to his task, so perhaps 1518 would be a
fair conjecture for the date. In that year Margaret was about thir-
teen, Elizabeth, twelve, Cecily, eleven, and John, nine years old.
As companions in their studies they had Margaret Giggs and Alice
Middleton and perhaps their cousin Frances Staverton, the
daughter of More's elder sister. Another member of the household
was Anne Cresacre, of Barnbrough, Yorkshire, who had become
More's ward after the death of her father in 1512; in 1518 she
was about seven years old.

THOMAS MORE TO WILLIAM GONELL:

I have received, my dear Gonell, your letter, elegant as your
letters always are, and full of affection. From it I perceive your

EDUCATION 15

devotion to my children, and I argue their diligence from their
own. Every one of their letters pleased me, but I was particu-
larly pleased because I notice that Elizabeth shows a gentleness
and self-command in the absence of her mother which some
children would not show in her presence. Let her understand
that such conduct delights me more than all possible letters I
could receive from anyone. Though I prefer learning joined
with virtue to all the treasures of kings, yet renown for learning
when it is not united with a good life, is nothing else than mani-
fest and notorious infamy; this would be particularly the case
in a woman. Since erudition in women is a new thing and a
reproach to the indolence of men, many will gladly attack it,
and impute to scholarship what is really the fault of nature,
thinking to get their own ignorance esteemed as a virtue by
contrast with the vices of the learned. On the other hand, if a
woman and this I desire and hope with you as their teacher
for all my daughters should add to eminent virtue even a
moderate knowledge of letters, I think she will have more real
profit than if she had obtained the riches of Croesus and the
beauty of Helen. I do not say this because of the glory that will
be hers, though glory follows virtue as a shadow follows a
body, but because the reward of wisdom is too solid to be lost
like riches or to decay like beauty, since it depends on the con-
sciousness of what is right, not on the talk of men, than which
nothing is more foolish or mischievous.

A good man, no doubt, should avoid infamy, but to lay him-
self out for renown is the conduct of a man who is not only
proud, but ridiculous and miserable. A soul which is ever fluctu-
ating between elation and disappointment at the opinions of
others, must be without peace. Among the outstanding benefits
that learning bestows on men, none is more excellent than that
by the study of books we are taught in that very study to seek
not praise, but usefulness. Such has been the teaching of the
most learned men, especially of philosophers, who are the guides
of human life, although some may have abused learning, like
other good things, simply to court empty glory and popular
renown.

16 MARGARET ROPER

I have dwelt so much on the craving for glory, my dear
Gonell, because you say in your letter that Margaret's high-
minded disposition should not be impaired. In this judgment I
quite agree with you, but to me, and no doubt to you also, that
man would seem to ruin a generous character who should
accustom it to admire what is vain and low. He, on the con-
trary, enhances the character who rises to what is virtuous and
good, and who, in contemplating the sublime despises those
shadows of the good which almost all mortals, through ignor-
ance of truth, greedily snatch at as if they were the good.

Therefore, my dear Gonell, since we must walk by this road,
I have often begged not only you, who, out of affection for my
children, would do it of your own accord, but my wife, who is
sufficiently induced by her maternal love for them, which has
been proved to me in so many ways, and also all my friends, to
warn my children to beware the dangers of pride and haughti-
ness, and rather to walk in the pleasant meadows of modesty;
not to be dazzled at the sight of gold; not to lament that they
do not possess what they erroneously admire in others; not
to think more of themselves for gaudy trappings, nor less for
the want of them; neither to deform the beauty that nature has
given them by neglect, nor to try to heighten it by artifice; to
put virtue in the first place, learning in the second, and in their
studies to esteem most whatever may teach them piety towards
God, charity to all, and Christian humility in themselves. By
such means they will receive from God the reward of an inno-
cent life, and in the assured expectation of it, will view death
without horror, and meanwhile possessing solid joy, will
neither be puffed up by the empty praise of men, nor dejected
by evil tongues. These I consider the genuine fruits of learning,
and though I admit that not all scholars possess them, I would
maintain that those who give themselves to study with such
views, will easily attain their end and become perfect. Nor do I
think that the harvest will be affected whether it is a man or a
woman who sows the field. They both have the same human
nature, and the power of reason differentiates them from the
beasts; both, therefore, are equally suited for those studies by

EDUCATION 17

which reason is cultivated, and is productive like a ploughed
field on which the seed of good lessons has been sown. If it
be true that the soil of woman's brain be bad, and more likely
to bear bracken than corn (and on this account many keep
women from study), I think, on the contrary, that on the same
grounds a woman's wit is to be cultivated all the more dili-
gently, so that nature's defect may be redressed by industry. This
was the opinion of the ancients, of those who were most pru-
dent as well as most holy. Not to speak of the rest, St. Jerome
and St. Augustine not only exhorted most worthy matrons and
most honourable maidens to study, but also, in order to assist
them, diligently explained the abstruse meanings of Holy Scrip-
ture, and wrote for tender girls letters full of so much erudition,
that nowadays old men, who call themselves professors of
sacred science, can scarcely read them correctly, much less
understand them. Do you, my learned Gonell, have the kind-
ness to see that my daughters study thoroughly the works of
those holy men. From them they will learn in particular what
end they should propose to themselves in their studies and what is
the fruit of their endeavours, namely the witness of God and a
good conscience. Thus peace and calm will abide in their hearts
and they will be neither disturbed by fulsome flattery nor by
the stupidity of those ignorant men who despise learning.

I fancy that I hear you object that these precepts, though true,
are beyond the capacity of my young children, since you will
scarcely find a man, however old and advanced, whose mind is
so firmly set as not to be tempted sometimes by the desire of
glory. But, dear Gonell, the more I see the difficulty of getting
rid of this pest of pride, the more do I see the necessity of deal-
ing with it from childhood. For I find no other reason for evil
clinging so to our hearts, than that, almost as soon as we are
born, it is sown in the tender minds of children by their nurses,
it is cultivated by their teachers, and brought to its full growth
by their parents; no one teaching even what is good without,
at the same time, awakening the expectation of praise, as the
proper reward of virtue. Thus we grow accustomed to make
so much of praise, that while we study how to please the major-

18 MARGARET ROPER

ity, who will always be the worst, we grow ashamed of being
good with the minority. So that this plague of vainglory may
be banished far from my children, I do desire you, my dear
Gonell, and their mother and all their friends, to harp on the
theme, reiterate it, and pound away at it, that vainglory is a
vile thing, and to be treated with contempt, and that there is
nothing more sublime than that humble modesty so often
praised by Christ, and this your prudent charity will so en-
force as to teach virtue rather than reprove vice, and make them
love good advice instead of hating it. To this purpose nothing
will more conduce than to read to them the lessons of the
ancient Fathers, who, they know, cannot be angry with them;
and, as they honour them for their sanctity, they must needs
be much moved by their authority.

If you will teach something of this sort, in addition to their
lesson in Sallust, to Margaret and Elizabeth, as being more
advanced than John and Cecily, you will bind me and them
still more to you. And thus you will bring about that my
children, who are dear to me by nature, and still more dear by
learning and virtue, will become most dear by their advance
in knowledge and good conduct.

From the Court on the Vigil of Pentecost.

This letter repays careful study. More set as the aim of learning
"piety towards God, charity to all, and Christian humility";
in this he separated himself from those humanists who, in their
enthusiasm for the new learning, forgot the true end of man and
became little better than pagans in their outlook. In teaching his
daughters and his son he made no distinction in the education
of a girl and a boy. His explanation for following this course
reads as if he wanted to put into GonelTs hands a reasoned state-
ment of his views; perhaps someone had objected to Gonell that
it was nonsense to teach girls Latin and Greek when they would
have to cook and sew, bring up children and look after their
husbands. More's statement that "erudition in women is a new
thing" was a plain truth, for he himself was a pioneer in the edu-
cation of women. He was, of course, familiar with the idea as put

EDUCATION 19

forward by Plato, but its practical interpretation was something
new. Within his own memory, the Lady Margaret Beaufort, 1
grandmother of Henry VIII, had been a patroness of learning,
but she herself was not a scholar though of wider culture than was
usual in her day. Catherine of Aragon had benefited from the
education that had been planned by her mother, Isabella of Castile,
and when she considered how her own daughter, the Princess
Mary, should be educated, she called to her aid her countryman,
J. L. Vives, who arrived in England in 1523. His Instruction of a
Christian Woman is rightly regarded as a landmark in the edu-
cation of women, but by that time Margaret More and her sisters
were already good scholars. Again, Roger Ascham's name is
associated with progress in educational methods in the sixteenth
century, but he was ten years younger than Margaret More. One
of his suggestions was the use of double-translation in the teaching
of Latin, that is, first translating a passage into English, and after
an interval, translating it back into Latin. As we shall see, this was
a method used by More with his children when Ascham was still
a boy.

Erasmus declared that he had been convinced that girls should
receive a classical education as a result of his discussions with
More and the results obtained with Margaret, Elizabeth and
Cecily.

More's letters to his "school" reveal other aspects of his meth-
ods. It will be noticed that he gave importance to the letters they
wrote to him regularly; these were not only for the affection
between them and for their news of progress but were evidence
of their increasing skill in the use of Latin. Unfortunately none of
the letters they wrote to him has survived.

Stapleton printed some of More's letters in full, and gave ex-
tracts from others. Some he did not transcribe. "These letters,"
he wrote, referring to those not given, "I will omit, for already
my account has become longer than I expected*" Would that he
had preserved all of them for us ! It is difficult to date those he

1 Was Margaret More named after the Lady Margaret Beaufort? The name
Margaret is not found previously in the More and Colt families. A fanciful con-
jecture, but a pleasing thought!

2O MARGARET ROPER

has given; some have the month, but none has the year stated, so
it is only by internal evidence that they can be placed in what may
be their chronological order. These letters were written in Latin.
The earliest is probably the one that follows.

THOMAS MORE TO MARGARET, ELIZABETH, CECILY HIS DEAREST
DAUGHTERS, AND TO MARGARET GIGGS AS DEAR AS THOUGH SHE
WERE A DAUGHTER.

I cannot express, my dearest children, the very deep pleasure
your eloquent letters gave me especially as I see that in spite of
travel and the frequent change of your abode you have not
neglected your usual studies, but have continued your exer-
cises in logic, rhetoric and poetry. I am now fully convinced
that you love me as you should since I see that, although I am
absent, yet, with the greatest eagerness, you do what you know
gives me pleasure when I am present. When I return you shall
see that I am not ungrateful for the delight your loving affec-
tion has given me. I assure you that I have no greater solace in
all the vexatious business in which I am immersed than to read
your letters. They prove to me the truth of the laudatory
reports your kind tutor sends of your work, for if your own
letters did not bear witness to your zealous study of literature,
it might be suspected that he had been influenced by his good
nature rather than by truth. But now by what you write you
bear out his opinion, so that I am ready to believe what would
otherwise be his incredible reports upon the eloquence and
cleverness of your essays.

So I am longing to return home that I may place my pupil
by your side and compare his progress with yours. He is, I fear,
slow to believe that you are really as advanced as your teacher's
praise would imply. Knowing how persevering you are, I have
a great hope that soon you will be able to overcome your
tutor himself, if not by force of argument, at any rate by never
confessing yourselves beaten.

Farewell, my most dear children.

It would be interesting to know more of the "frequent change
of your abode* * mentioned at the beginning of this letter; it may

EDUCATION 21

refer to a series of visits to relatives but there is no other infor-
mation. Who was "my pupil" of the last paragraph? Perhaps he
was More's son John as his name is not mentioned in the greeting;
it would, however, seem unlikely that More would take his young
son to Court with him, nor on a journey abroad. The reference to
" vexatious business* ' suggests one of his embassies, perhaps the
one at Calais in the second half of 1517. "My pupil" may have
been a young protege who was with More just as John Clement
had been his companion on the embassy to Flanders two years
earlier when Utopia was conceived.

Stapleton gave passages from two letters to Margaret from her
father. The first reads:

I was delighted to receive your letter, my dearest Margaret,
informing me of Shaw's 1 condition. I should have been still
more delighted if you had told me of the studies you and your
brother are engaged in, of your daily reading, your pleasant
discussions, your essays, of the swift passage of days made en-
joyable by literary pursuits. For although everything you
write gives me pleasure, yet the most exquisite delight of all
comes from reading what none but you and your brother
could have written [Here Stapleton omitted part of the letter,
and gave only die last paragraph]. I beg you, Margaret, tell me
about the progress you are making in your studies. For I assure
you that, rather than allow my children to be idle and slothful,
I would make a sacrifice of wealth, and bid adieu to other cares
and business, to attend to my children and my family, among
whom none is more dear to me than yourself, my beloved
daughter.

The extract from the second letter is a further testimony to the
affection More felt for his eldest daughter who, Stapleton re-
corded, "more than all the rest of his children, resembled her
father, as well in stature, appearance and voice, as in mind and in
general character."

You ask, my dear Margaret, for money with too much bash-
fulness and timidity, since you are asking from a father who
1 Shaw was probably one of the servants as the "Master" is omitted.

22 MARGARET ROPER

is eager to give, and since you have written to me a letter such
that I would not only repay each line of it with a gold coin, as
Alexander did the verses of Cheorilos, but, if my means were
as great as my desire, I would reward each syllable with two
ounces of gold. As it is, I send only what you have asked, but
would have added more, only that as I am eager to give, so am
I desirous to be asked and coaxed by my daughter, especially
by you, whom virtue and learning have made so dear to my
soul So the sooner you spend this money well, as you are wont
to do, and the sooner you ask for more, the more you will be
sure of pleasing your father. Good-bye, my dearest child.

Among the letters More wrote to his children there is one in
Latin verse, in elegiac couplets. This can be dated with more con-
fidence than the other letters. The poem was first published in
the 1520 edition oflnsEpigrammata; it was not in the 1518 edition.
Allowing for time for sending the copy to Basle and for the print-
ing, the date of composition must have been 1518 or 151 9. There
is no hint in the poem of his whereabouts; it would apply to any
of the foul roads of England or of any other country of the period.

The poem opens by telling his "beloved children, Margaret,
Elizabeth, Cecily and John" that it was composed on horseback
when he was soaked by the rain and his small horse was often
stuck in the mud. He tells them of his love for them and reminds
them that he could not bear to see them weep but gave them cake
and apples and pears, and that, on the rare occasions when he
whipped them, he used a birch of peacock's feathers. He praises
their manners, their pleasant way of speaking and their nicety in
the choice of words.

There are two more letters to his children; both probably
belong to the period 1519 to 1521 when More was out of London
with the Court.

THOMAS MORE TO HIS WHOLE SCHOOL, GREETING.

See what a compendious salutation I have found to save both
time and paper, which would otherwise have been wasted in
reciting the names of each one of you, and my labour would
have been to no purpose, since, though each of you is dear to

EDUCATION 23

me by some special title, of which I could have omitted none
in a set and formal salutation, no one is dearer to me by any
title than each of you by that of scholar. Your zeal for know-
ledge binds me to you almost more closely than the ties of
blood.

I rejoice that Master Drew has returned safely, for I was
anxious, as you know, about him. Did I not love you so warmly
I should really envy your good fortune in that so many and
such excellent tutors have fallen to your lot. But I think you
no longer need Master Nicholas as you have learned whatever
he had to teach you in astronomy. I hear you are so far advanced
in that science that you can point out the pole-star or the dog-
star or any of the constellations, but also are able which re-
quires a skilful and profound astrologer among all those heaven-
ly bodies, to distinguish the sun from the moon ! Go forward
then in that new and admirable science by which you ascend
to the stars. But while you gaze on them assiduously consider
that this holy time of Lent warns you, and that beautiful and
holy poem of Boethius keeps singing in your ears, to raise your
mind also to heaven, lest the soul look downwards to the earth,
after the manner of brutes, while the body looks upwards.

Farewell, my dearest ones.

From Court, the 23rd March.

Master Drew and Master Nicholas Kratzer have been mention-
ed earlier in this chapter. In the painted version of Holbein's
picture of the More family, a copy of Boethius is seen on the
buffet. Perhaps the reference is to the peom O stelliferi conditor
orbis. 1

The last letter to all his children again shows the importance
More attached to Latin composition; his own letter was an exam-
ple of how he wanted them to write.

THOMAS MORE TO HIS DEAREST CHILDREN AND TO MARGARET
GIGGS WHOM HE NUMBERS AMONG HIS OWN.

The Bristol merchant brought me your letters the day after
he left you, with which I was extremely delighted. Nothing

1 Loeb edition, p. 1 54.
M.R. 3

24 MARGARET ROPER

can come from your workshop, however rude and unfinished,
that will not give me more pleasure than the most accurate
thing another can write. So much does my affection for you
recommend whatever you write to me. Indeed without any
recommendation your letters are capable of pleasing by their
own merits, their wit and pure Latinity. There was not one of
your letters that did not please me extremely; but, to confess
frankly what I feel, the letter of my son John pleased me best,
both because it was longer than the others, and because he
seems to have given to it more labour and study. For he not
only put out his matter neatly and composed in fairly polished
language, but he plays with me both pleasantly and cleverly,
and turns my jokes on myself wittily enough. And this he does
not only merrily, but with due moderation, showing that he does
not forget that he is joking with his father, and that he is
cautious not to give offence at the same time that he is eager
to give delight.

Now I expect from each of you a letter almost every day. I
will not admit excuses John makes none such as want of
time, sudden departure of the letter-carrier, or want of some-
thing to write about. No one hinders you from writing, but,
on the contrary, all are urging you to do it. And that you may
not keep the letter-carrier waiting, why not anticipate his
coming, and have your letters written and sealed ready for
anyone to take? How can a subject be wanting when you write
to me, since I am glad to hear of your studies or of your games,
and you will please me most if, when there is nothing to write
about, you write about that nothing at great length. Nothing
can be easier for you, since you are girls, chatterboxes by
nature, who have always a world to say about nothing at all.
One thing, however, I admonish you, whether you write
serious matters, or the merest trifles, it is my wish that you
write everything diligently and thoughtfully. It will be no harm
if you first write the whole in English, for then you will have
much less trouble in turning it into Latin; not having to look
for the matter, your mind will be intent only on the language.
That, however, I leave to your own choice, whereas I strictly

EDUCATION 25

enjoin you that whatever you have composed you carefully ex-
amine before writing the fair copy; and in this examination
first scrutinise the whole sentence and then every part of it.
Thus, if any grammatical errors have escaped you, you will
easily detect them. Correct these, write out the whole letter
again, and even then examine it once more, for sometimes, in
rewriting, faults slip in again that one had removed. By this
diligence your little trifles will become serious matters ; for while
there is nothing so neat and witty that will not be made insipid
by silly and inconsiderate wordiness, so also there is nothing in
itself so insipid that you cannot season it with grace and wit if
you give a little thought to it.

Farewell, my dear children.

From the Court, the 3rd September.

While More was in attendance at the Court at Abingdon in
1518, a preacher before Henry VIII was foolish enough to attack
the teaching of Greek at Oxford he was foolish because he
himself had no knowledge of the language. Probably at the request
of the king, Thomas More wrote a letter to the University de-
fending classical studies. Stapleton wrote, "I have seen another
Latin version of this made by one of his daughters, and an English
version by another."

The dialectical disputation which had such a large place in
medieval education was a method favoured by More. He used it
himself as a young scholar, and when Erasmus was staying with
him in 1505-6 each translated Lucian's Tyrannicida and then wrote
a declamation on the same theme. Erasmus wrote, "I very much
wish this sort of exercise to be introduced into our schools, where
it would be of the greatest utility." J. L. Vives gives us a glimpse
of the same method being used in the "school".

More had told the story of Quintilian's first declamation to
his little boy John and to his daughters Margaret, Elizabeth and
Cecily, the worthy offspring of their father. He had discoursed
in such a way as to lead them all by his eloquence the more
easily to the study of wisdom. He then begged me to write an
answer to the declamation which he had expounded, so that

26 MARGARET ROPER

the art of writing might be disclosed more openly by contra-
diction, and, as it were, by conflict. 1

The children were not being asked to consider some abstract
problem in conduct or philosophy. The first declamation of Quin-
tilian was based on the following imaginary situation. A gentle-
man had a blind son whom he had made his heir, but marrying a
second time, he set aside a room for the blind youth in a remote
part of his house. The father was murdered in the night as he was
sleeping in his bed, and, the next morning, his son's sword was
found in the body and the wall from the bedroom to his son's
room was marked with the prints of a bloodstained hand. Had the
murder been committed by the son or by the wife?

This might be described in to-day's slang as a Whodunit. Quin-
tilian's declamation was largely a defence of the son's innocence.
The problem would certainly capture the interest of any children
and would provide them with a pleasant exercise for their wits,
though the clues would not meet the standards of modern detec-
tive fiction.

Here may be added the tribute paid by Vives to the encour-
agement More gave to the education of women. The passage
comes from The Instruction of a Christian Woman in Richard
Hyrde's translation which was made at More's suggestion.

Now if a man may be suffered among queens to speak of
more mean folks, I would reckon among this sort the daughters
of Sir Thomas More, Knight Margaret, Elizabeth, Cecilia and
with them their kinswoman Margaret Giggs whom their
father not content only to have them good and very chaste,
would also they should be well learned, supposing that by that
means they should be more truly and surely chaste. Wherein
neither that great, wise man is deceived, nor none other that are
of the same opinion. For the study of learning is such a tiling
that it occupieth one's mind wholly and lifteth it up into the
knowledge of most goodly matters, and plucketh it from the
remembrance of such things as be foul.

1 Foster Watson, Vives and the Renaissance Education of Women, p. 17.

EDUCATION 27

The letters printed in this chapter may have given the impress-
ion that Latin was almost the only subject taught to the More
children. They also learned Greek, Logic, Philosophy, Theology,
Mathematics and Astronomy. We have seen how Nicholas Krat-
zer was brought in to teach the last subject, and other tutors, "so
many and excellent' ' as More called them, were employed for
their own subjects. Mathematics at that period meant Geometry;
we should expect Arithmetic to be the first step but the working
of sums was then regarded as the business of tradesmen and mer-
chants. Perhaps the More children had this subject added to their
time-table through the influence of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall.
When he and Thomas More were on the embassy to Flanders in
1515, they had difficulty in checking the transactions of the money
changers, and they suspected that they were being swindled, but
they were so ignorant of arithmetic that they were helpless. On
their return Tunstall, who was himself a considerable scholar,
decided to study the subject, and, as a result, wrote, in Latin, the
first book on arithmetic to be printed in England. De Arte Suppa-
tandi, published in 1522, was dedicated to More. Part of the dedi-
catory epistle reads :

you, who can pass the book on to your children for them to
read children whom you take care to train in liberal studies.

We do not know if this suggestion was followed, but it is inter-
esting to note that with the last letter of his life from the Tower,
More sent back to Margaret Giggs (who had become Mistress
Margaret Clement) "her algorism stone" this was a slate on
which calculations were made.

It may be felt that this scheme of education was a heavy one to
impose on children, but it is clear that these children were well
above average in intellectual ability, and their devotion to their
father and his delightful personality must have robbed the hard
work of much of its irksomeness. We must not forget the cakes
and apples and the peacock's feathers.

How successful the system was with Margaret may be judged
from the following extract from a letter her father wrote to her
not later than February 1521. This date is fixed by the reference

28 MARGARET ROPER

to Reginald Pole who left England for Italy in that month. His
family represented the Yorkist claim to the throne, but Henry was
most friendly to him at this period.

I cannot put down on paper, indeed I can hardly express in
my own mind, the deep pleasure that I received from your very
well-expressed letter, my dearest Margaret. As I read it there
was with me a young man of the noblest rank and of the widest
attainments in literature, one, too, who is as conspicuous for
his piety as he is for his learning Reginald Pole. He thought
your letter nothing short of miraculous, even before he under-
stood how you were pressed for time and distracted by ill-
health, whilst you managed to write so long a letter. I could
scarce make him believe that you had not been helped by a
master until I told him in all good faith that there was no such
master at our house, nor would it be possible to find any man
who would not need your help in composing letters rather than
be able to give any assistance to you.

This is the language of a proud father; what effects this and
other letters of praise had upon Margaret's character is not known,
but she would have been less than human if she had not been
tempted to fall into that sin of pride on which her father had so
much to say in his letter to William Gonell.

Erasmus added his tribute of admiration; this comes in a letter
to the famous scholar Guillaume Bud6, who had contributed an
introductory epistle to the Paris edition of Utopia in 1517. Erasmus
was writing in September 1521.

A year ago it occurred to More to send me a specimen of
their progress in learning. He told them all to write to me, each
without any help, nor did he suggest the subject nor make any
corrections. When they offered their papers to their father for
him to correct, he affected to be displeased with the bad hand-
writing, and made them copy their letters out more neatly and
accurately. When they had done so, he sealed the letters and
sent them to me without changing a syllable. Believe me, my
dear Bude, I never was more surprised; there was nothing

EDUCATION 29

whatever either silly or girlish in what they said, and the style
was such that you could feel they were making daily progress.

That was a letter written to a friend; sometimes it is necessary
to make allowance for some special motive behind a letter from
Erasmus, but here we can accept what he said as a genuine opin-
ion.

CHAPTER III
MARRIAGE

IN 1521 the Bishop of London issued a licence for the marriage
on 2 July of "William Roper of St. Andrew, Holborn, and
Margaret More of St. Stephen's, Walbrook." She was then in
her sixteenth year. According to the two Holbein miniatures
(which may reasonably be assumed to have been painted as a pair)
William Roper was twelve years older than his wife; this would
give the year of his birth as about 1493. This does not agree with
other information. His epitaph in St. Dunstan's, Canterbury,
stated that he was eighty-two at the time of his death on 4 January
1578; this would give his birth year as 1496. A third source, a
Chancery deposition of 14 May 1562, gave his age as sixty-four;
according to this he was born in 1498. The exact year of Roper's
birth is not of great importance; we can take our choice within
the range 1493 to 1498; the fact that matters is that he was about
ten years older than Margaret More.

The Mores and the Ropers had been associated in the law at
Lincoln's Inn and in the Courts for over a quarter of a century.
John Roper, William's father, and Sir John More were old friends
and they often served together on the commission of the peace for
Kent, the county with which the Roper family had been long
connected. "You come of a worthy pedigree," wrote Harpsfield
of William Roper, "both by the father's and the mother's side;
by the father's side of ancient gentlemen of long continuance; and
by the mother's side of the Apulderfields, one of the chiefest and
ancient families of Kent." John Roper owned lands at Eltham and
in St. Dunstan's parish, Canterbury. He was sheriff of the county
in 1521, the year of his eldest son's marriage, and was for many
years Prothonotary, or chief clerk of the King's Bench Court, an
office to which William succeeded. He died in 1524, and William
inherited the property at Eltham and St. Dunstan's. The will was

MARRIAGE 3!

so complicated that it took an Act of Parliament in 1529 to get it
settled.

In the opening paragraph of his notes on the life of Sir Thomas
More, Roper stated that "I was continually resident in his house
by the space of sixteen years and more/' This implies that he was
a member of the More household for three or four years before
his marriage to Margaret.

The Black Books of Lincoln's Inn contain the entry:

1518. Christmas Day. William Roper, son of Master John
Roper, was admitted to the Society by George Trcheyon, then
the Marshal, and Feb. 26, 1520, he was pardoned all vacations,
past and future, he may be at repasts at his pleasure.

The date of his admission to the Inn would seem to be a con-
venient time for the young law student to lodge at the Mores;
presumably his father had no town house but lived at Well Hall,
Eltham, the family home.

Nicholas Harpsfield revealed that William Roper, at the time
of his marriage, was "a marvellous zealous Protestant." This in-
formation must have been given to Harpsfield by Roper himself.
The use of the term "Protestant" is an anachronism; so too, when
Harpsfield says that Roper "got to him a Lutheran Bible", he is
predating the facts. Luther's attack on Indulgences was made in
1517, but there was no suggestion of the schism at that time. His
translation of the New Testament into German did not appear
until 1522. Roper must have used a copy of the Lollard Bible. He
also read Luther's two books, The Babylonish Captivity of the
Church, and, The Liberty of a Christian Man, both of which were
published in 1520. As these were written in Latin it was possible
for an educated man to study them. Many of the copies sold were
brought into the country by the German merchants of the Steel-
yard. One wonders if Roper was one of the secret Society of
Christian Brethren who arranged for the distribution of Lutheran
books. He did not conceal his sympathy with the new ideas, and
this got him into trouble as Harpsfield related.

Who, for his open talk and companying with divers of his
own sect, of the Steelyard and other merchants, was with them

32 MARGARET ROPER

before Cardinal Wolsey convented of heresy, which merchants
for their opinions were openly for heresy at Paul's Cross ab-
jured; yet he, for love borne by the Cardinal to Sir Thomas
More, his father-in-law, was with a friendly warning dis-
charged.

Harpsfield added that on account of these opinions, Roper had
come to dislike his father-in-law, "whom then of all the world he
did, during that time, most abhor, though he was a man of most
mildness and notable patience." More tried arguing with Roper,
but could not get him to change his views.

Until upon a time Sir Thomas More privately talked in his
garden with his daughter Margaret, and amongst other his
sayings said, "Meg, I have borne a long time with thy husband;
I have reasoned and argued with him in those points of religion,
and still given him my poor fatherly counsel, but I perceive
none of all this able to call him home, and therefore, Meg, I
will no longer argue nor dispute with him, but will clean give
him over, and get me another while to God and pray for him."
And soon after, as he verily believed, through the great mercy
of God, at the devout prayer of Sir Thomas More, he perceived
his own ignorance, oversight, malice and folly, and turned him
again to the Catholic faith, wherein, God be thanked, he hath
hitherto continued.

This must have been a period of acute mental and spiritual
distress for Margaret Roper, but there is no record of her thoughts
and feelings.

The following is the translation of a letter from her father
which was probably written in 1522, and the reference to William
Roper in the last paragraph suggests that, by this time, all was well.

THOMAS MORE TO HIS MOST DEAR DAUGHTER MARGARET:

There was no reason, my most sweet child, why you should
have put off writing for a day, because in your great distrust
you feared lest your letter should be such that I could not read
it without being upset. Even had it not been perfect, yet the
honour of your sex would have gained you pardon from any

MARRIAGE 33

fault, while to a father even a blemish will seem beautiful in
the face of a child. But indeed, my dear Margaret, your letter
was so elegant and polished and gave so little cause for you to
dread the judgment of an indulgent parent, that you might
have despised the censorship even of an angry Momus. 1

You tell me that Nicholas [Kratzer] who is so fond of you
and so learned in astronomy, has begun instruction again with
you on the system of the heavenly bodies. I am grateful to him,
and I congratulate you on your good fortune; for in the space
of one month, with only a slight labour, you will thus learn
thoroughly those sublime wonders of the Eternal Workman,
which so many men of illustrious and almost superhuman
intellect have, through the ages, only discovered with so much
hard toil and study, or rather with such shiverings and nightly
vigils in the open air.

I am therefore delighted to read that you have now made up
your mind to give yourself diligently to philosophy, and to
make up by your earnestness in future for what you have lost
in the past by neglect. My darling Margaret, I indeed have
never found you idling, and your unusual knowledge of al-
most every kind of literature shows that you have been making
progress. So I take your words as an example of the great
modesty that makes you prefer to accuse yourself falsely of
sloth, rather than to boast of your diligence, unless your mean-
ing is that you will give yourself so earnestly to study that your
past industry will seem like indolence by comparison. If this
is your meaning, as I am quite sure it is, nothing could be more
delightful to me, or more fortunate, my dear Margaret, for you.

Though I earnestly hope that you will devote the rest of your
life to medical science and sacred literature, so that you may
be well furnished for the whole range of human life, which is
to have a healthy soul in a healthy body, and though I know
that you have already laid the foundations of these studies, and
that there will be always opportunity to continue the building,
yet I am of opinion that you may with great advantage give
some years of your yet flourishing youth to humane letters and
1 The personification in Greek mythology of fault-finding.

34 MARGARET ROPER

liberal studies. And this both because youth is more fitted for
struggles with difficulties, and because it is uncertain whether
you will ever in future have the benefit of such a diligent,
affectionate and learned teacher. I need not say that by such
studies a good judgment is formed or perfected.

It would be a delight, my dear Margaret, to me to converse
long with you on these matters, but I have just been interrupted
and called away by the servants who have brought in supper. I
must have consideration for others else to sup is not so sweet as
to talk with you.

Farewell, my dearest child, and salute for me my most gentle
son your husband. I am extremely glad that he is following the
same course of study as yourself. I have been accustomed to
urge you to yield in everything to your husband, now, on the
contrary, I give you full leave to strive to get before him in the
knowledge of the celestial system. Farewell again. Salute your
whole company, but especially your tutor.

This letter shows the interest More had in medical studies; it
suggests that it may have been at his instigation that John Clem-
ent and Richard Hyrde both studied the medical science of the
day ; nor should it be forgotten that Margaret Giggs, who married
John Clement, was also skilled in medical lore. It has already been
suggested that Richard Hyrde may have given instruction in the
subject.

The Ropers continued to live at The Barge after their marriage.
When her two sisters were married in 1525 they too remained
with their husbands in the More household. Elizabeth married
William Daunce, and Cecily married Giles Heron on 29 Septem-
ber of that year; the licence of the Bishop of London (Cuthbert
Tunstall) permitted the marriages to be celebrated in the private
chapel of Giles Alington; he was the second husband of Alice
Middleton, More's step-daughter; her first husband was Thomas
Elrington of Hitchin who died in September 1523. Giles Heron,
son and heir of Sir John Heron, Treasurer of the Chamber to
Henry VIII, had become a ward of More's on his father's death in
1522. William Daunce was the son of Sir John Daunce, a member

MARRIAGE 35

of the King's Council. It must have been about this time that John
Clement and Margaret Giggs were married; Clement had entered
the service of the king and in 1528 was described as a physician.
It is difficult to date the following Latin letter from More to
his eldest daughter; the reference to John Veysey, Bishop of
Exeter, gives 1519, the year of his consecration, as the earliest date;
he carried out a visitation of his diocese in that year, but was at
the Field of Cloth of Gold with More in June 1520. If the letter
was not written that September its date must be postponed until
1522, as More was on an embassy at Bruges from July to October
1521.

THOMAS MORE TO HIS DEAREST DAUGHTER MARGARET:

I will refrain from telling you, my dearest daughter, the
extreme pleasure your letter gave me. You will be able to
judge better how much it pleased your father when you learn
what delight it caused to a stranger. I happened this evening to
be in the company of his lordship, John, Bishop of Exeter, a
man of deep learning and of a wide reputation for holiness.
Whilst we were talking I took out from my desk a paper that
bore on our business and by accident your letter appeared. He
took it into his hand with pleasure and examined it. When he
saw from the signature that it was the letter of a lady, he read it
the more eagerly because it was such a novelty to him. When
he had finished he said he would never have believed it to have
been your work unless I had assured him of the fact, and he
began to praise it in the highest terms (why should I hide what
he said?) for its Latinity, its correctness, its erudition, and its
expressions of tender affection. Seeing how delighted he was, I
showed him your declamation. He read it, and your poems as
well, with a pleasure so far beyond what he had hoped that
although he praised you most effusively, yet his expression
showed that his words were all too poor to express what he felt.
He took out at once from his pocket a gold coin which you
will find enclosed in this letter. I tried in every possible way to
decline it, but was unable to refuse to send it to you as a pledge
and token of his goodwill towards you. This hindered me from

36 MARGARET ROPER

showing him the letters of your sisters, for I feared that it would
seem as though I had shown them to obtain for the others too
a gift which it annoyed me to have to accept for you. But, as I
have said, he is so good that it is a happiness to be able to please
him. Write to thank him with the greatest care and delicacy.
You will one day be glad to have given pleasure to such a man.
From the Court, just before midnight, September nth.

The reference to "your declamation" will be understood from
what has been said in the previous chapter. Perhaps this was the
one referred to by Stapleton in the following passage:

I have in my possession a declamation of hers. It is eloquent,
clever, and perfect in its use of oratorical devices. It is in imi-
tation, or rather in rivalry, of Quintilian's declamation on the
destruction of the poor man's bees through the poison that had
been sprinkled upon the flowers in the rich man's garden.
Quintilian defends the cause of the poor man: Margaret the
rich. The more difficult such a defence is, the greater the scope
for Margaret's eloquence and wit. If it were not that I fear to
be tedious and to digress too much from the task I have under-
taken of writing More's life, I would print the speeches both
of Margaret and Quintilian.

Would that he had.

Her poems have not survived; they may have been translations
such as More himself had made in his earlier days, or have been
more in the nature of exercises than original compositions.

The next letter can be dated with some precision as it mentions
Margaret's first confinement; the child was born in 1523. Staple-
ton did not give the whole letter but only the following portion.

Meanwhile something I once said to you in joke came back
to my mind, and I realized how true it was. It was to the effect
that you were to be pitied because the incredulity of men
would rob you of the praise you so richly deserved for your
laborious vigils, as they would never believe when they read
what you had written that you had not often availed yourself
of another's help, whereas of all writers you least deserved to be

MARRIAGE 37

thus suspected. Even when a tiny child you could never endure
to be decked out in another's finery. But, my dearest Margaret,
you are all the more deserving of praise on that account. Al-
though you cannot hope for an adequate reward for your
labour, yet nevertheless you continue to unite to your singular
love of virtue the pursuit of literature and art. Content then
with the approbation of your conscience, in your modesty you
do not seek for the praise of the public, nor value it over much
even if you do receive it, but because of the great love you bear
us, that is your husband and myself, as a sufficiently large circle
of readers for all that you write.

In your letter you speak of your approaching confinement.
We pray most earnestly that all may go happily and successfully
with you. May God and our Blessed Lady grant you happily
and safely a little one like to his mother in everything except sex.
Yet let it by all means be a girl, if only she will make up for
the inferiority of her sex by her zeal to imitate her mother's
virtue and learning. Such a girl I would prefer to three boys.
Good-bye, my dearest child.

The sentence, ''you could never endure to be decked out in
another's finery" is one of the few glimpses we have of Margaret's
disposition.

In the year of the birth of this first child, Erasmus published
his Commentary on the Christmas Hymn of Prudentius, and
dedicated it to Margaret Roper. The following passage records
the birth of the child but does not say whether it was a boy or a
girl-
William Roper, who is gifted with such nobility and gentle-
ness of character that, were he not your husband, he might
seem to be your brother, has given you (or if you prefer it, you
have given him) the most fortunate first-fruits of your union,
or to put it better, each has given to the other a child to whom
a kiss is to be sent; I send you another child . . .

The child he sent was the book dedicated to her. The letter ends,
"A warm farewell to you who are not a lesser light of the age and

38 MARGARET ROPER

of Britain. Greet also for me the whole of your choir." For
"choir" we may here read "school/'

Erasmus had earlier inscribed to his godson John More a com-
mentary on the poem Nux, a complaint to a nut-tree, attributed
to Ovid. This was one of the small works that Erasmus designed
for the teaching of children; apart from its connection with the
Mores, it has little significance.

Something more will be said later about the children of William
and Margaret Roper. Here it may be noted that the eldest sur-
viving son at Margaret's death was Thomas, who, according to his
own evidence in a lawsuit, was born in 1534. He was "your little
boy" to whom More sent his blessing on the eve of his execution. 1
Another son, Anthony, and three daughters, Elizabeth, Mary
and Margaret, also survived their mother; the dates of their births
arc not known. The fact that the eldest surviving son was not born
until thirteen years after his parents' marriage suggests that one or
more of the daughters were older than the sons and other children
may have died in infancy such, of course, was the normal ex-
perience of Tudor families.

It was during the early years of her marriage that Margaret
Roper made her translation of Erasmus's Precatio dominica in septem
portiones distributa, which was published at Basle in 1523; it was
a popular little work. Margaret's translation was published at
the beginning of 1525 with the title A Devout Treatise upon the
Paternoster. Richard Hyrde wrote an introduction which he dedi-
cated to one of his pupils "the studious and virtuous young maid
Frances S." This was Frances Staverton, Margaret's cousin. A
phrase in this introduction on Margaret's age was quoted in the
opening pages of this book. One passage refers to the "school."

Howbeit, I have no doubt in you, whom I see naturally born
into virtue, and having so good bringing up of a babe, not only
among your honourable uncle's children, of whose conver-
sation and company they that were right evil, might take
occasion of goodness and amendment . . .

1 In his last letter, More referred to "your good husband and your little boy
and all yours and all my children"; this surely implies that in addition to the son
there were other children.

' MARGARET ROPER : Painting by Holbein

moujSDoctour m&ptro
j&omoaamug/anDtountcD

tortuous an&tofU
lemeo gnit^ittjoman of .ytjt*

Title page of
"A DEVOUT TREATISE UPON THE PATERNOSTER'

MARRIAGE 39

A longer passage gives Hyrde's account of Margaret Roper.

. . . this gentlewoman, which translated this little book,
hereafter following: whose virtuous conversation, living, and
sad demeanour may be proof evident enough what good learn-
ing doth, where it is surely rooted; of whom other women may
take example of prudent, humble and wifely behaviour, chari-
table and very Christian virtue, with which she hath, with
God's help, endeavoured herself, no less to garnish her soul
than it hath liked his goodness, with lovely beauty and comeli-
ness, to garnish and set out her body; and undoubted is it that
to the increase of her virtue, she hath taken and taketh no little
occasion of her learning, besides her other manifold and great
commodities, taken of the same; among which commodities,
this is not the least, that with her virtuous, worshipful, wise and
well learned husband, she hath by the occasion of her learning
and his delight therein, such especial comfort, pleasure and
pastime, as were not well possible for one unlearned couple
either to take together or to conceive in their minds, what
pleasure is therein.

Margaret Roper's little book bore the imprint:

Imprinted at London in Fleetstrete in the house of Thomas
Berthelet nere to the Conduit at the Sign of Lucrece.

Cum privilegio a rege indulto

On the back of the title page is a large cut of the arms of Car-
dinal Wolsey. It might be thought that the Cum privilegio and the
Cardinal's arms were a safeguard against trouble, but the royal
privilege was a grant of the sole right to print and not the equiva-
lent ofnihil obstat, as Berthelet was to discover. In March 1525 he
was summoned before the Vicar-General for not "exhibiting"
the book to the Bishop of London. Probably the Vicar-General
was being over-officious, especially as Berthelet was warned at
the same time for having printed a sermon by Bishop John Fisher
without first submitting it to Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. The
Bishop had tightened up the regulations for printing books in

M.R. 4

40 MARGARET ROPER

order to prevent the circulation of Lutheran doctrines; Berthelet
was not accused of printing heretical books, but of having failed
to comply with the regulations for censorship.

Richard Hyrde's effusiveness is not acceptable to modern taste;
we are eager, perhaps too eager, to seek out imperfections, and so
reduce people of exceptional goodness or attainments to the level
of our own ordinariness. Or, to quote Dr. Johnson, "to see the
highest minds thus levelled with the meanest, may produce some
solace to the consciousness of weakness." No doubt her contem-
poraries had their criticism to make of Margaret Roper, but no
such censures have come down to us. All known references speak
of her in the warmest praise, and, as we shall see, the records of
her conduct in her time of greatest trial, bear out the esteem with
which she was held.

One work of hers has been lost. When about 1521-2, her father
was writing his unfinished Treatise of the Four Last Things, he sug-
gested to Margaret that she should take the same subject and deal
with it independently of him. His pleasure at the result has been
recorded, but, though she preserved his manuscript, her own has
not survived.

There is considerable evidence for the high standard of her
scholarship. The opinions of Erasmus will be given later; here
two tributes will be quoted.

The first was paid by John Coke, of whom nothing further
seems to be known than that he wrote a curious small book en-
tided The Debate, published in 1550. This is an imaginary dis-
cussion between a representative of England and one of France
with Lady Prudence in the chair; the author, it is hardly necessary
to say, easily demonstrates the superiority of his own country.
One of his arguments was that England had produced a number
of learned ladies.

Also we have divers gentlewomen in England, which be not
only well studied in holy Scripture, but also in the Greek and
Latin tongues. As Mistress More, Mistress Anne Coke, Mistress
Clement, and other being estrange thing to you and other
nations.

MARRIAGE 41

Mistress Anne Coke, born in 1528, was the mother of Francis
Bacon. It is unusual to see Margaret Roper referred to under her
maiden name; Mistress Clement was, of course, the other Mar-
garet.

In 1552 the scholar John Coster of Louvain edited the works of
St. Vincent de Lerins. The following passage occurs among the
notes.

At one time an English Doctor of Medicine, named Clement,
a man of great eminence and a first-rate Greek scholar, used
very kindly to talk over literary matters with me. He spoke
much of Sir Thomas More, with whom he lived on terms of
intimacy, of his gentleness, his piety, his wisdom and his learn-
ing. Often, too, he spoke of Margaret, More's daughter, whose
talents and attainments he highly extolled. "To show you," he
said, "the truth of what I say, I will quote you a very corrupt
passage from St. Cyprian, which she, without any help from
the text, restored most happily. This was the sentence. Absit
enim ab ecclesia Romana vigorem suum tarn prophana facilitate
dimittere, et nisi vos severitatis, eversa fidei majestate dissolvere.
This text was so corrupt as to be meaningless, but Margaret,
by proposing nervos for nisi vos, gave to the passage an easy and
obvious sense, thus: Far be it from the Roman Church to relax its
vigour with such culpable negligence or to weaken the bonds of severity
in a manner so unbefitting the dignity of the faith.

This conversation must have taken place in the early years of
the first period of exile of the Clements and Rastells; they left
England in 1549 and returned when Mary Tudor became queen.

APPENDIX

The following extract from Margaret Roper's translation is a
specimen of her work:

The Seventh petition.

Sed libera nos a malo.

O almighty father, it hath pleased thy mere and liberal good-
ness once when we were rid from sin, to deliver us by thy son

42 MARGARET ROPER

Jesus Christ out of the hands of our most foul and unclean father
the devil, and to elect and take us into the honour both of thy
name and thine inheritance: but yet of this condition that all the
while we live here in earth we should be in continual battle with
our enemy which leaveth no ways unassayed whereby he might
draw and pluck us again into his power and authority. We quake
and tremble in heart as often times as we remember how shameful
a father we had when we were thrall and bond to sin and to how
wretched and unhappy inheritance we were appointed and how
currish arid ungentle a master we served. And we know well
enough his obstinate and froward malice and evil will which
always layeth wait and hath ready bent to our destruction not only
with violence and strong hand but also with trains [snares] and
subtle wiles he never sleepeth nor resteth but always runneth up
and down hither and thither like a ravenous lion lying in wait
seeking and hunting about whom he may devour. Verily father
he is far unlike thee for thou art naturally good and gentle; thou
carriest home again to the flock the wandering and straying
sheep; thou curest and makest whole the sick and scab sheep and
relievest [raisest] the dead, yea, and thine enemies also and blas-
phemers of thy holy name thou preventest with thy love and
callest most graciously to everlasting health; but he of an un-
reasonable and unsatiable hatred towards us, which never did him
displeasure, laboureth and goeth about nothing else than to bring
with him as many as he can into destruction. It is a sign and token
of an exceeding malice, one for nought and without any com-
modity of his own to endeavour to destroy him of whom he
has never wronged, but this even with his own hurt waiteth
those hurt and damage whom thou hast taken aside under thy
protection; thou madcst him not such but he fell into this great
malice after time he began to stand in his own conceit and refused
to be subject and obedient to your majesty: wherefore he being
pricked all with envy by crafty besieging enticed to destruction
our first progenitors, envying them the joys of paradise for as
much as he had deprived himself of the gladness and mirth of
heaven, but now he is of far greater envy because thou carriest
them out of paradise into heaven, and whereas they were afore

MARRIAGE 43

appointed to death and damnation, thou by reason of the faithful
trust which they have put in thy son Jesus callest them to ever-
lasting bliss, and also that thou turnest his own malice into the
increase of thy glory and our health whereof, though not without
a cause, he is of many to be feared, yet thy goodness doth comfort
us which is able to do more to our health and salvation than all
his malice to our destruction. We acknowledge our own imbec-
ility and feebleness but yet we fear not our enemy's assault whether
we live or die. All the while we deserve to have ye our protector
and defender, we fear no destruction of that evil and wicked devil
all the while it is our chance to stick to him that is good.

These desires and petitions of thy children O immortal father,
if they be good and after the form and order appointed of thy
son Jesus then- be nothing mistrust but that thou wilt perform
that which we desire of thee. Amen.

CHAPTER IV
CHELSEA

THE increasing size of his household with the marriages of
his daughters may have been the reason for More's decision
to leave London for the country nearby. The Barge was a
biggish house, but it would not be large enough for the * growing
families of his children. There was nothing unusual at that time
for married sons and daughters remaining with one or other of
their parents at least for a few years, but there was something
patriarchal in More's desire to keep his children and grandchildren
under his own roof.

In June 1523 he bought the lease of Crosby Place, described by
Stow as "a large and sumptious building" in Bishopsgate; it is
not known if he had thoughts of moving there; there is, however,
no evidence that he did so. Six months later he sold the lease to
his old friend Antonio Bonvisi, and, at about that time, or possibly
earlier, he began to buy land in Chelsea. He bought a messuage
(site for a house) and some thirty-four acres. The date of the re-
moval is not known, but Richard Hyrde's Introduction to Mar-
garet Roper's little book is dated "At Chelcheth, the year of our
Lord God, a thousand five hundred xxiiii, the first day of Octo-
ber." If that means the family was already settled there, then the
building of the large mansion must have been carried out with
remarkable speed, unless More had bought some land earlier than
the extant records suggest.

The northern end of the present Battersea Bridge occupies the
position of the landing stage or quay for More's house. No
remains of the house exist 1 ; it was pulled down by Sir Hans
Sloane after 1737 when he bought the lands. Fortunately there is

1 The walls of the Moravian Burial Ground (entered from Moravian Close at
the top of Milman's Street) contain Tudor brickwork. Perhaps some part is a
relic of outbuildings of More's time.

CHELSEA

45

at Hatfield House a plan, carefully drawn to scale, of the house
and estate as it was when it came into the possession of Lord
Burghley in 1597. This shows the original ground-plan except for
a later extension of the east wing. The house was 600 feet from

S T THOMASMORE'S CHELSEA EST

the river bank and had a frontage of 250 feet; the Beaufort Street
of to-day passes over the centre of the site. No view of the exter-
ior has survived, but Holbein's sketch for the family portrait
shows the interior of the hall, and this gives the impression of a
house suited to a man of position or substance of that period.
This is borne out by the reference to it made by Dame Alice
More when she visited her husband in the Tower. "A right fair
house, your library, your books, your gallery, your garden, your

46 MARGARET ROPER

orchard, and all other necessaries so handsome about you." The
present King's Road, Old Church Street, and Milman's Street
give approximately the boundaries of the main estate. More
seems to have owned other small properties in Chelsea. The parish
church (the Old Church, as we know it) was off the south-west
corner. It was here that Margaret Roper worshipped for twenty
years. More added a chapel in I528, 1 and four years later he erec-
ted in the chancel near the altar a monument with a large inscribed
tablet; part of the inscription has been quoted on an earlier page.
At the same time he moved the body of his first wife to the vault
beneath the chancel.

With the increasing size of the household, it must have been
difficult for More to enjoy much solitude. Therefore, as Roper
recorded, "A good distance from his mansion house builded he a
place called the New Building, wherein there was a chapel, a
library and a gallery." After More's death this building became
the home, no doubt with extensions, of the Ropers. The exact
position cannot be determined with the same certainty as that of
the great house; it was near the river. Danvers Street passes over
the site.

In a letter written in 1532 to his friend John Faber, Bishop of
Vienna, Erasmus told him of More's Chelsea home.

More had built for himself on the banks of the Thames not
far from London a country house that is dignified and adequate
without being so magnificent as to excite envy. Here he lives
happily with his family, consisting of his wife, his son and
daughter-in-law, three daughters with their husbands and
already eleven grandchildren. It would be difficult to find a
man more fond of children than he ... You would say that
Plato's Academy had come to life again. But I wrong More's
home in comparing it to Plato's Academy, for in the latter the
chief subjects of discussion were arithmetic, geometry and

1 The More chapel was the only part of the church that remained intact after
the air raid of 16-17 April, 1941. The More Monument was broken and has been
repaired. The church has been restored on its old foundations, and was reconse-
crated in 1958. The bombing revealed the king post at the west end of the More
chapel; this has been left uncovered. There was no tower in More's time.

CHELSEA 47

occasionally ethics, but the former rather deserved the name of
a school for the knowledge and practice of the Christian faith. 1

This letter has misled some, including J. A. Froude, to assume
that Erasmus must have visited More at Chelsea. He did not
return to England after 1517, and the two friends met for the last
time, as far as is known, at Calais in June 1520. Erasmus was
using information given him by Hans Holbein (of whose visit
more will be said), or by one of the scholar's secretaries who went
to Chelsea in the cpurse of tours of his friends, such as Quirin
Talesius at the end of 1529.

Nothing need be added to what has been said in previous
chapters about the regular studies that were part of the daily life
of the More household. As the grandchildren grew up, the
mothers and aunts no doubt acted as their tutors, but the children
must have been impressed by the fact that their own tutors went
on learning under the direction of such scholars as Nicholas
Kratzer. The religious life of the household was the primary
concern of the master. There is no reference to a resident chaplain;
William Gonell was a priest but he was engaged as a tutor and
had left before the move to Chelsea; the other tutors were not
priests. The Mores went to Mass at their parish church (the Old
Church) and made their confessions to their parish priest, who,
when they moved to Chelsea, was Robert Dandie; nothing further
is known of him. It was in 1530 that Sir Thomas presented John
Larke to the living. Besides attendance at Mass on Sundays and
Feast Days, the whole household were present at midnight Mass
at Christmas and Easter. Morning prayers at the house consisted
of the seven Penitential Psalms 2 followed by the Litanies of the
Saints; night prayers were Psalms 24, 61 and 50 followed by the
Salve Regina and the De profundis.

At meals John More or one of his sisters or Margaret Giggs read
a passage of Scripture; this was followed by some comments on
what had been read. Then More would turn to lighter topics;
Henry Patenson, who appears in Holbein's sketch, would do his
part as domestic fool or entertainer.

1 Allen x, 2750.

8 Vulgate: 6, 31, 37, 50, 101, 129, 142.

48 MARGARET ROPER

Each grown-up member of the family had his or her special
work of charity; thus Margaret had the care of an alms house in
Chelsea which her father maintained for the aged and poor. She
also undertook the washing of the hair shirt he wore at times for
penance. She was the only one of the children to know that he
wore this, until one warm summer evening when More had
doffed his jerkin, Anne Cresacre noticed the hair shirt that showed
above the plain shirt which had no collar. She was amused at this.
"My wife,", wrote William Roper, "not ignorant of his manner,
perceiving the same, privily told him of it, and he, being sorry
that she saw it, presently amended it." When they lived in Buck-
lersbury, Mistress Alice More had urged their parish priest, John
Bouge, to persuade her husband to give up the use of this "haber-
geon" 1 but without success.

The Thames became the highway for the Mores and their
visitors. When Sir Thomas More's barge, pulled by his watermen
in their livery, bore him to Westminster, to the City, or perhaps
as far as Greenwich down the river or to Hampton Court up the
river, his family would come to the quay to see him off. As
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, an appointment made in
1525, and still more as Lord Chancellor, it would be necessary for
him to keep state in accordance with his high office. There were
many visitors to Chelsea. Some were scholars bearing intro-
ductions from his friends, students from Oxford and Cambridge
are mentioned, others were ecclesiastics or councillors who sought
his advice. The Duke of Norfolk was a familiar visitor, and it was
he who rebuked the Lord Chancellor for singing in the choir of
his parish church. "God's body, my Lord Chancellor, a parish
clerk !" King Henry himself "took such pleasure in his company
that he would sometime, on a sudden, come to his house at
Chelsea to be merry with him. Whither on a time, unlocked for,
he came to dinner with him, and, after dinner, in a fair garden of
his walked with him by the space of an hour, holding his arm
about his neck." More appreciated the unusual honour but this

1 'Habergeon* is a better word than 'shirt* as the garment was sleeveless. A
portion of it is now in the care of the Canonesses of St. Augustine at Newton
Abbot. The weave and texture are very coarse.

CHELSEA 49

did not blind him to the character of the king. After this visit, he
said to Roper, "If my head could win him a castle in France, it
should not fail to serve his turn." The referenc? to France suggests
that this royal visit to Chelsea took place before the battle of
Pavia, February 1525, possibly as early as the beginning of 1524.

It must have been about the same time that the three daughters
of Sir Thomas More were engaged in a formal disputation before
the king. Our knowledge of this comes from a letter to More
from John Palsgrave, who, about 1525, was appointed tutor to
the six-year-old Duke of Richmond, the natural son of Henry
VIII. Palsgrave wrote to enlist More's support in favour of giving
the boy-duke a more thorough classical education than others
thought desirable. The last sentence reads, "and when your
daughters disputed in philosophy before the King's Grace, I
would it had been my fortune to be present." One of the king's
visits to Chelsea would have been an appropriate occasion.

When we try to picture the life of Margaret More we must see
in the background this crowd of visitors, some of no position in
society but earnest in their scholarship, some seeking favours, and
others of the highest rank who enjoyed her father's company.
There was another side to life at Chelsea much less formal or
severe. In 1520 More engaged as his personal servant Walter
Smyth who remained with his master for nine years, when, at
the personal request of More, he was appointed Sword-Bearer to
the Lord Mayor. John Rastell, More's brother-in-law, published
in 1525 Twelve Merry Jests of one called Edyth, the lying widow
which still liveth. 1 This was the work of Walter Smyth, but it is
safe to say that the More family, even More himself, had a share
in its composition. Not that Walter Smyth was illiterate like
John d Wood who was More's servant in his last years. In his will
dated 1538, Walter Smyth left his copies of Chaucer and Boccac-
cio "to John More, his master's only son", and he left other books
to no less than three widows of his acquaintance. It would seem
that he was not only a man of books but that he had a partiality
for widows.

1 Reprinted in Shakespeare's Jest Books, Vol. HI, ed. by W. Carew Hazlitt (1864).
See also Chapter VI of A. W. Reed's Early Tudor Drama (1926).

50 MARGARET ROPER

It is impossible to say how far the story was based on facts, but
it is notable that in each of the "J ests " many of the personal
names can be identified. Incidental references occur to nobles such
as the Earls of Wiltshire and of Oxford, and ecclesiastics such as
Cardinal Wolsey and Bishop John Fisher; named members of
their households get involved in the plot. It is also possible to
identify others such as a scrivener of London and several yeomen.
Indeed so many mentioned were real people whose names can
be traced in official records that it is probable that all the characters
were from life.

We need not be concerned with eleven of the roving widow's
adventures. She left her husband in Exeter and made her way to
Andover in Hampshire where her series of deceptions began. Her
usual tale of distress was that she was a woman of property who
was temporarily in difficulties owing to the machinations of her
enemies; on the strength of this she obtained lodging and money
from her dupes. At the first sign of disclosure, she disappeared
and resumed her travels. These took her all over the home counties
and, as she passed, she left a trail of disillusioned and angry vic-
tims who had hoped to marry her and enjoy her faerie money.

The ninth Merry Jest ends with the lines,

And when she saw her time, on an holy day,
She walked to a thorp called Battersea;
And, on the next day after, she took a wherry,
And over Thames she was rowed full merry.

The tenth Jest begins,

At Chelsea was her arrival,
Where she had best cheer of all,
In the house of Sir Thomas More.

She seems to have been welcomed with the kindness that
any other wayfarer would receive in that friendly household. Her
story this time was that she had a substantial property at Eltham,
with fifteen men employed on her farm and in her mills, as well
as seven women servants. Her adoption of Eltham as her supposed
domicile seems maladroit as the Ropers had property there;

CHELSEA 51

perhaps she did not know that William Roper lived at Sir Thomas
More's house.

She recounted her family and household so great
That three young men she cast in a heat,
Which servants were in the same place,
And all they wooed her a good pace.

One of them had to name Thomas Croxton,
And servant he was to Master Alington.

And of the second wooer I shall you tell,
Which had to name Thomas Arthur,
And servant he was to Master Roper.

There was much merrymaking and horseplay in the servants'
quarters as the pursuit of the widow became a household joke.

There was the revel and the gossiping,

The general bumming, as Margaret Giggs said;

Everybody laughed, and was well a-paid.

The widow Edyth decided to go on foot to the Benedictine
Convent at Clerkenwell; perhaps she thought this would impress
the Mores. The third pretender considered it a favourable oppor-
tunity to advance his suit.

She roamed in the cloister to and fro,
Till a young man saw where she did go,
And Walter Smyth was this young man's name,
One of her lovers, and I might tell for shame.

Meantime Thomas Arthur had been making some inquiries, so
that by the time the Widow and Walter got back the fraud had
been discovered.

To Chelsea she came the same night,

But all that world was changed; all was come to light;

Her substance was known and herself also,

For Thomas Arthur that day had ridden too and fro,

And tried her not worth the sleeve lace of a gown

In all England, in city nor yet in town.

52 MARGARET ROPER

In revenge the servants doctored her beer with a strong purga-
tive. Did Sir Thomas More now step in as the local magistrate?
Perhaps so, for she was sent to gaol for three weeks. Walter
Smyth plaintively ended his poem with the line,

God save the Widow, wherever she wend.

Walter Smyth would not have used the names of Giles Aling-
ton, William Roper and Margaret Giggs had there been any
offence in the verses, nor, one would think, without their con-
sent. Thomas More had in his young days written A merry jest
how a sergeant would learn to play the friar, so he may have taken an
interest in his servant's Twelve Merry Jests. It is tempting to
suggest that this rough ballad was a kind of family production,
and, as it was printed by John Rastell, it would certainly have had
More's approval. Its main interest, however, is the glimpse it
gives us of the Chelsea household, and of the high spirits that
were as characteristic as its piety.

A very different kind of visitor came to Chelsea in October
1526 the twenty-nine-year-old painter Hans Holbein. He had
already painted at least three portraits of Erasmus, who gave him,
when he left Basle, introductions to friends in the Low Countries
and in England. One of these letters, to Peter Gilles (who is best
known to us as one of the characters in Utopia), included the
sentence, "Here the arts are coldly treated, so he makes for Eng-
land (Angliam) in the hope of collecting some golden angels
(Angelatos)." The English gold coin, the angel-noble, gave the
scholar the chance to make his little pun. Holbein went on to
England with letters of introduction to Archbishop Warham and
to Sir Thomas More. Holbein's fine portrait of the Archbishop
is in Lambeth Palace. More wrote to Erasmus in December,
"Your painter, my dearest Erasmus, is a wonderful artist; but I
fear he will not find England the rich and fertile field he had
hoped; however, lest he find it quite barren, I will do what I can."

The immediate way of helping Holbein was to commission
him to paint a picture of the family grouped in the hall at Chelsea.
The sons-in-law were, regrettably, not included. The result was
the first conversational picture of its kind painted north of the

CHELSEA 53

Alps; it had been customary to treat such subjects in a religious
setting, in, for instance, an act of adoration, but the More group,
with its life-size figures, showed them as a family in their own home.

After he had planned the composition of the group, Holbein
made a series of individual sketches in chalks; eight of these have
survived and are in the Royal Collection at Windsor; there are
two of Sir Thomas More, one for the group and the other for the
well-known portrait which is now in New York. Unfortunately
these preliminary studies do not include one of Margaret Roper,
but there is a separate painting of her (Plate II), which is either a
copy of one made by Holbein or is based on her portrait in the
family painting. Holbein's original pen sketch (Plate I) for the
large painting is now at Basle. He took it with him on his return
there in the summer of 1528 and gave it to Erasmus. Of this
sketch a modern critic has written, "The brilliant characterization
in the drawing of each individual is, even to-day, among the most
outstanding achievements of Holbein's art." Anyone who has
seen the original will agree with that judgment; a small repro-
duction cannot do justice to the artist's skill. Margaret Roper is
shown seated in the foreground with her sister Cecily by her side.

Holbein would be the bearer of letters from Erasmus's friends
but these are not extant, and the earliest reference to the sketch
made by the scholar comes in a letter to More dated 5 September
1529 from Freiburg. At the end he wrote, " Would that it were
possible to see once more friends so dear to me those whom
Holbein has presented in his picture, which I have studied with
such intense delight." On the following day he wrote to Margaret
one of his most single-minded letters.

ERASMUS ROTERODAMUS TO MARGARET ROPER, GREETINGS.

I cannot find words, Margaret Roper, ornament of Britain, to
express the delight I felt when Holbein's picture showed me
your whole family almost as faithfully as if I had been among you.
I often wish that, before my last day, I may look even once
more on that most dear company to which I owe a great part
of whatever little fortune or glory I possess, and to none could
I be more willingly indebted. The gifted hand of the painter

54 MARGARET ROPER

has given me no small portion of my wish. I recognize you
all, but no one better than yourself. I seem to behold through
all your beautiful household a spirit shining that is still more
beautiful. I congratulate you all in that family happiness, and
most of all your excellent father ... I am writing in the midst
of overwhelming work and in poor health, therefore I must
leave it to your skill to convince all your sisters that this is a
fair letter and is written to each one of them no less than to
yourself. Convey my respectful and affectionate salutations to
the honoured Lady Alice, your mother; since I cannot kiss
her, I kiss her picture. To my godson John More, I wish every
happiness, and you will give a special greeting on my part to
your most worthy husband Roper, so rightly dear to you.
May God keep you all safe, and, by his all-powerful Grace
give you every prosperity.

These letters were brought to Chelsea by Quirin Talesius, 1 one
of the series of young scholars who acted as secretaries and aman-
uenses to Erasmus. From time to time he sent these young men on
tours to visit his patrons and his many friends and to exchange
letters and news. Talesius, who had carried out a similar mission
to More early in 1528, reached Chelsea near the end of October
1529, and took back with him letters from the Mores, Cuthbert
Tunstall, and other friends. He returned to Freiburg, where
Erasmus was then living, early in January 1530.

More's own letter to his old friend was of necessity brief as
he had been appointed Lord Chancellor only three days before
he wrote it; he referred to his new responsibilities, though with-
out naming his office, and added that Talesius would tell all the
news. Margaret's letter has the special interest of being the only
holograph document of hers extant (see Plate IV).

MARGARET ROPER TO THE MOST LEARNED THEOLOGIAN DBS.
ERASMUS ROTERODAMUS, GREETINGS.

How a good thing can become most welcome when one
enjoys it suddenly and unexpectedly, I recently, O most learned

1 He became burgomaster of Haarlem, and was hanged in 1572 for being a
Catholic.

// jY , . * f ,','

Mw IHM f'*r f i '**:,. U . f ilc?t IcYf ^iilf*;>*' **

^t'fi r fn ^C^ 4**^ |r

>i Cxr/./<

-vir

>1{ Itn4ioi ,
'' J '

% cm*/< jinj^f VM ,,,, tM ' f r.-fl prttrtHi ^c

j*M <r^ J.' r A v .

f^!M..
*'

/;

<<>o tcnbn$

}

HOLOGRAPH LETTER
From Margaret Roper to Erasmus

Above MARGARET ROPER
Below WILLIAM ROPER
Miniatures by Holbein

CHELSEA 55

of men, found by experience to be quite true when your letter,
no less elegant than affectionate, and a sure witness to your
devotion to my father and all his family, was brought to me by
your Talesius. As it came unexpectedly, so it brought the
greater pleasure to my mind. For I have never dared to hope or
to expect that you, so fully occupied with so much important
work, miserably and continually distressed by grievous sick-
ness, and worn out by the burden of age, that you should ever
deem me worthy of the honour to which I have been raised by
the favour of your letter. As often as I show it to anyone, I
realize that from it no small praise will accrue to my reputation,
which cannot be made more notable in any other way than by
your letter. For what can be compared with that honour of
which I am counted worthy, whom the glory of the whole
world has honoured with this letter? Wherefore, as your kind-
ness has bestowed on me something far beyond my humble
desert, so I indeed rightly acknowledge myself quite unequal
to giving the thanks due to such a signal favour.

We freely acknowledge with the greatest gratitude that the
arrival of the painter [Holbein] gave you so much pleasure
because he brought you the portraits of both my parents and all
of us. We pray for nothing more ardently than that we may
some time be able to speak face to face with and see our teacher,
by whose learned labours we have received whatever of good
letters we have imbibed, and one who is the old and faithful
friend of our father. Farewell.

My mother greets you heartily, and so do my husband who
is entirely yours, and my brother. Both my sisters send you
hearty greetings.

When Margaret called Erasmus "our teacher" she was not, of
course, referring to him as a former tutor; he could not have given
the More children any systematic instruction; his only stay of any
length at More's house in Bucklersbury was from July I5O9 1 when
he had just arrived from Italy and was awaiting the coming of his

1 As Erasmus was godfather to John More, this determines the year of the boy's
birth.

M.H. 5

56 MARGARET ROPER

books. It was then that he wrote The Praise of Folly which he had
planned during his long journey. There must have been plenty
of laughter in the house at that time! Margaret would be about
four years old. Other visits by Erasmus were brief. The last time
he could have seen the children was in 1516 when Margaret was
eleven years old. The explanation of him as their teacher must
have been that his educational books, his Adages, and the early
Colloquies were used by the More children. Later they would
enjoy The Praise of Folly, dedicated to their father, and would
use Erasmus's New Testament in Greek. We have seen that Mar-
garet translated one of his smaller tracts. His many books must
have been part of More's library ; then, too, there were his letters
many of which leave perished but those that we have show that
Erasmus took an affectionate interest in the More children and
their progress in the classics. The bond between him and Thomas
More was so strong that the name of Erasmus must have been
very familiar in that household.

The year in which Holbein left England saw an outbreak of the
sweating sickness that was a recurrent menace in Tudor times.
This was probably the occasion of Margaret's dangerous illness
when the doctors gave up hope of her recovery. Her father
prayed for her.

Whereupon going up, after his usual manner, into his afore-
said New Building, there in his chapel, on his knees, with
tears most devoutly besought Almighty God that it would like
his goodness, unto whom nothing was impossible, if it was
his blessed will, at his mediation to vouchsafe graciously to
hear his humble petition.

More's interest in medicine has already been noted, and it
occurred to him that there was one possible remedy that had not
yet been tried a clyster. The doctors admitted that they had not
thought of this; the treatment proved successful and Margaret
recovered her health. Her father had declared when hope seemed
vain that "if it had pleased God at that time to have taken [her] to
his mercy, he would never have meddled with worldly matters

CHELSEA 57

after." In that declaration he revealed the strength of his love for
his eldest daughter.

At this period More was already engaged in his labour of com-
bating the heresies of Luther and Tyndale. It was at the request
of his friend Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London, that this
work was undertaken. The bishop had written to him in March
1528 licensing him to read heretical books, and begging him to
undertake the defence of the Faith, "since you, my dearest brother,
are as distinguished in the use of our native language as you are
in Latin/' The first fruits of this appeal appeared in June 1929. A
Dialogue concerning Heresies was published by his brother-in-law,
John Rastell. This is the liveliest of More's controversial writings.
He put it in the form that was most congenial to his genius
the dialogue or disputation, set, as was Utopia, in a garden. It is
probable that he discussed the progress of the book with Margaret,
and her husband's first-hand experience of heresy may have
proved useful.

A month after this book was published, he set out with an
embassy under Tunstall to Cambrai to negotiate a peace with the
Emperor Charles and Francis, King of France. More regarded the
success of this mission as a notable event in his service to the king,
and he mentioned it in his Epitaph. When he returned to England
at the end of August, he went direct to Woodstock to report to
the king. "And while he was there with the king, part of his own
dwelling house at Chelsea and all his barns there full of corn
suddenly fell on fire and were burnt." He at once wrote to his
wife. The last paragraph reads,

I pray you to make some good search what my poor neigh-
bours have lost and bid them take no thought thereof, for, and
I should not leave myself a spoon, there shall no poor neigh-
bours of mine bear no loss by chance happened in my house. . .
At my coming hither I perceived none other that I should tarry
still with the Bong's Grace, but now I shall, I think, by cause of
this chance get leave this week to come home and see you, and
then shall further devise together upon all things what order
shall be best to take.

58 MARGARET ROPER

And thus so heartily fare you well with all our children as
you can wish, at Woodstock, the 3rd day of September, by
the hand of

Yours loving husband

Thomas More, Kg.

A far more harassing problem weighed on his mind at this time
than the loss of his barns. For two years he had known that the
king desired that his marriage with Catherine of Aragon should
be annulled. When Henry had first put the problem to him, More
had asked for time to study the issues; he reached the conclusion
that the marriage was valid and could not be dissolved. The king
was disappointed but showed no resentment and continued to
favour him. While Tunstall and More were at Cambrai, the
legatine court was sitting at Blackfriars; it was adjourned by
Cardinal Campeggio without any conclusion being announced.
This led to the downfall of Wolsey. It was while Thomas More
was at Woodstock in attendance at court, that the king permitted
the first move to be made against the Cardinal. On 19 October
he was ordered to surrender the Great Seal, and a week later it
was delivered by the king to Sir Thomas More as the new Lord
Chancellor. Henry again put before More the case for the annul-
ment of the marriage, but More still felt unable to support the
king. In recalling this occasion in later years, More wrote, "he
graciously declared unto me that he would in no wise that I
should other thing do or say therein, than upon that that I should
perceive mine own conscience should serve me, and that I should
first look to God and after God to him" words that were to be
echoed on the scaffold.

We can be certain that there was no discussion of these matters
at Chelsea in More's presence. He consistently acted on the prin-
ciple that it was his duty to give the best advice he could to the
king personally or in council, but he would not canvass his own
opinions, nor did he seek to influence others outside the circle of
councillors. Ambassadors complained that they could get no use-
ful hints out of him however carefully they angled; his silence on
affairs of state baffled them.

CHELSEA 59

How did these weighty affairs affect his family ? We have no indi-
cation of what they thought ; it is however notable that when the cri-
sis came a few years later, even Margaret, who was so close to her
father, did not know all the reasons for the stand he made. Indeed,
he did not speak out until after the verdict of death had been
pronounced.

His rise to the great office of Lord Chancellor was another
matter, for this greatly affected the status of his household. He had
to maintain a retinue suited to his position, and there must have
been more ceremony in his going and coming and in the reception
of important visitors than his family had known in the past. It
was noted, however, that it was still necessary for his manservant
to keep an eye on him to see that he was suitably dressed, and the
young lawyers copied his negligent manner of wearing his gown
when they put on their own. There must have been one gain by
his promotion; much of his time was spent in his Chancery at
Westminster and he no longer had to follow the court from
place to place. He also did some business in the hall of his own
house. This meant that his family saw far more of him than they
had done for some years.

More was Lord Chancellor for two-and-a-half years. He seems
to have concentrated as much as possible on his legal duties, but
he could not avoid the responsibilities of his position, nor the
expectations that others, besides the king, would wish to know his
views when matters of high policy were in debate. The king was
still intent on freeing himself from Catherine; the influence of
Anne Boleyn and her relatives became stronger every month;
Parliament was increasingly anti-clerical in opinion. Among its
members were More's three sons-in-law, William Roper for
Bramber, and Giles Heron and William Daunce for Thetford,
as well as his brother-in-law, John Rastell for Dunheved (Launces-
ton), but they, and those who shared their opinions, could not
ward off the attack on the Church; indeed, John Rastell was
probably inclined to support the popular view. From these and
other signs More could see the direction in which policy was
moving. It was impossible for him to go on. Fortunately he had
a well-found reason for resigning; for some time he had been

60 MARGARET ROPER

suffering from some complaint of the chest, which, he believed,
had been brought on by the long hours spent over his desk
writing his controversial works. The king accepted his resignation
on 16 May 1532. Two days earlier, by their Submission, the clergy
had surrendered their authority to the king.

Soon after his resignation, More erected in the chancel of his
parish church at Chelsea a tomb or monument with a long in-
scription; the concluding lines of this have already been quoted.
It was, as it were, a declaration that he had now withdrawn from
public life; it was also, as he wrote to Erasmus, "to defend the
integrity of his name." It must be remembered that in those days
officers of state did not resign unless incapacitated; to be dis-
missed was to be disgraced and might lead to the Tower. 1 So
More was anxious to establish the fact that his resignation was
due to "a certain sickly disposition of his breast, a sign or token
of age creeping upon him."

As a Councillor and Lord Chancellor he had been receiving
about 500 a year (Tudor values) from the Treasury; in addition
there were the customary legal fees, and the king assigned some
manors to him for the upkeep of his position. These lands were
really held at the king's pleasure and could not be regarded as
permanent possessions. It was true that the king had promised
that his former Lord Chancellor * 'should find his Highness good
and gracious lord to him", but More was well aware how ruthless
Henry could be when thwarted. The position was summed up in
a passage in More's Apologye, published in 1533.

And for as all the lands and fees that I have of the gift of the
kii^g's most noble Grace, is not at this day, nor shall while my
mother-in-law 2 liveth (whose life and good health I pray God
long keep and continue) worth yearly to my living the sum of
full fifty pound. And thereof have I some by my wife, and some
by my father (whose soul Our Lord assoil) and some have I also
purchased myself, and some fees have I of some temporal men.

1 A survival of this is the curious procedure followed by a Member of Parlia-
ment who wants to resign.

8 To-day we should say 'step-mother'; the widow of Sir John More survived
Thomas More; she died about 1546.

CHELSEA 6l

His first step in reorganizing his way of living was to find places
for the attendants and servants who had been part of his state as
Lord Chancellor. Then he called all his family together. William
Roper gives us a report of what was said to them partly banter,
partly serious. More's purpose was to make it clear to his sons-in-
law that they must now shoulder some responsibility for the
upkeep of the household if they all wished, as he so strongly did,
to go on living together. There was, however, something more
serious in the picture he painted of the economies that might have
to be practised; he was warning them that the time might come
when his lands would be taken from him at a word from a
vindictive king.

It would be wrong to infer that the sons-in-law and their
families were supported by More. William Roper had much
property in Kent after his father's death in 1524, and in addition
had his office of Prothonotary as well as other legal work. Giles
Heron had lands in Essex, and William Daunce in Hertfordshire.
Giles Alington had property in Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. No
doubt from time to time they went off with their families to live
in their own mansions. It would seem that when they were at
Chelsea, Sir Thomas charged himself with the upkeep of the
combined households; it was an expression of that sense of family
that was one of his notable characteristics.

As a further precaution he decided to convey his lands to his
children with provision for the maintenance of himself and his
wife. Unfortunately this limitation was to invalidate the transfer
of the lands and the conveyances were set aside at his condem-
nation. The share allotted to the Ropers was, however, made as
an absolute gift, and this could not be confiscated. It was the
south-east portion of the Chelsea estate where the New Building
probably stood; this small property became known as Butclose. 1

1 The name probably means 'the end piece*. It is not certain whether the later
Danvers House was an extension of the New Building, or a new structure. John
Aubrey wrote that the chimney-piece of "Sir Thomas More's chamber" was in
Danvers House; he goes on, "where the gate is now . . . there stood anciently a
gate-house, which was flat on the top ... On this place the Lord Chancellor was
wont to recreate himself and contemplate." (Brief Lives, ed. Powell, p. 315.)
Roper's account should be recalled; the New Building contained a chapel, a
library and a gallery which suggests something bigger than a gate-house.

CHAPTER V
THE TOWER

THE pressure of events increased as the months passed after
More's retirement. He would not be surprised when Henry
and Anne Boleyn were married in January 1533; the
appointment of Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury
in the following month, and his annulment two months later of
the marriage between Henry and Catherine could not have been
unexpected. Few men had had greater opportunities over a
period of fifteen years of reading the king's character than Thom-
as More. He gave only one sign of his opinions; he refused to
attend the coronation of Anne Boleyn on I June 1533; many,
perhaps the new queen herself, must have remarked on the
absence of the former Lord Chancellor.

He was a man of rare simplicity of intention and it may have
been his singleness of mind and heart that enabled him to see,
as even a Cuthbert Tunstall could not see, the inevitable outcome
of the king's wilfulness, not only in its larger probabilities, but
the practical steps that would be taken. So it was that he said to
William Roper at the time of Anne Boleyn's triumph, "God give
grace, son, that these matters within a while be not confirmed
with oaths/'

Sir Thomas More occupied himself with his writings against
heretics. The years 1532 to 1534 saw the publication of six vol-
umes, all printed by his nephew William Rastell who seems to
have taken up the trade mainly in order to publish his uncle's
books. It was an enormous output. The Confutation of Tyndales
Answer alone was nearly half-a-million words in length. To-day
only the vigorous Apologye is likely to find willing readers. We
do not know whether Margaret shared his labours, but it is
probable that he discussed the writing with her, and that she
acted as one of his amanuenses.

THE TOWER 63

William Rastell also published in 1533 John More's translation
of Damianus a Goes's account of the legendary land of Prester
John. 1 This little work suffices to dispel the late tradition (it is
certainly not contemporary) that John More was deficient in
intelligence. He may not have been as brilliant as Margaret, but
that does not mean that he was dull-witted. In the following year
Simon Grynaeus dedicated his edition of Plato to John More.
Dedications cannot be regarded as trustworthy evidence; one
sentence will serve our purpose. "Enthusiasm for learning has
carried you and your sisters, a prodigy of the age, to such heights
that no difficult question is beyond you." He was not writing
without personal knowledge for he had come to England in 1531
to study manuscripts at Oxford; he had an introduction to More
who, although his guest was a Zwinglian, gave him every help,
but saw to it that he did not spread his heresies.

This was not the first work dedicated to John More. Three
years earlier Erasmus had dedicated his edition of Aristotle to
him. These tributes must have given great pleasure to Thomas
More, and that, no doubt was their purpose.

It is not within the range of our subject to narrate in detail
either the way in which the break with Rome was carried out, or
the course of More's life during the three years before his martyr-
dom. Our concern here is with matters that affected Margaret
Roper. Two general observations may be made at this point.
There was an unusually close affinity between father and daughter;
each could follow, as if by instinct, the thoughts of the other.
While he was in the Tower, it was chiefly to her that he turned for
affectionate understanding; it was to her he most frequently
wrote, and, though it is probable that other letters have been lost,
these reveal how closely they were united. This did not mean,
however, that she blindly followed his lead ; as we shall see, they
differed on the fundamental question of the oath. The second
observation is equally important. More did not attempt to impose
hi? views on his family. Having by study and prayer reached his

1 Damianus ^ Goes, The legacy e or embassate of pr ester John unto Emanuell, Kynge
of Portyngale. There is a copy in the library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge
(S.T.C. 11966).

64 MARGARET ROPER

decision, he was content with the peace of mind and spirit this
brought to him; others, he recognized, had the same duty of
examining their consciences, and he accepted their conclusions in
good faith. Margaret's difference of opinion in no way affected
their relations. As for others, an incident in the Tower will show
his complete trust in their integrity. Cuthbert Tunstall sent one
of his servants to visit Fisher and More, probably with gifts for
them. More asked the servant if his master was likely to join them
in the Tower. The servant replied that he did not know the
bishop's views. To this More replied, "If he do not, no force
[matter], for if he live he may do more good than die with us."
He made his own position clear to the Commissioners at Lambeth.
"As touching the whole oath, I never withdrew any man from it,
nor never advised any to refuse it, nor never put, nor never will,
any scruple in any man's head, but leave every man to his own
conscience. And me thinketh in good faith, that so it were good
reason that every man should leave it to mine." The same prin-
ciple was applied in his relations with his own family.

He was left undisturbed until February 1534; his name was then
included in the Bill of Attainder brought against Elizabeth Barton
the Nun of Kent, and those who, it was alleged, had concealed
her treasonable sayings. For some years this young woman had had
trances in which she received, as she believed, divine warnings of
events to come. Her case had been investigated at the instance of
Archbishop Warham, and he, and others whose integrity cannot
be questioned, accepted her utterances as genuine. The king was
well aware of all this, and indeed she had been granted an audience
when she spoke plainly about his treatment of Catherine of
Aragon, but when she became a centre of political danger as one
who voiced popular discontent with the king's proceedings,
Henry decided she and her associates must be silenced. It was
known that Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More had both
seen her, and, in fact, the king had discussed her utterances with
More. Both were included in the Bill of Attainder drawn up
against the Nun and her chief advisers; the grounds were that they
had not at once revealed to the king what she had been saying in
public. More wrote a long letter to Thomas Cromwell giving

THE TOWER 65

him an account of his dealings with the Nun. At the same time
he wrote a short letter to the king reminding him of that promise,
"I should find your Highness good and gracious lord to me/'
This made no impression on the king, but several of the coun-
cillors strongly urged that the case against More was so thin that
Parliament would probably refuse to pass the Bill with his name
in it. Henry gave way so far as to allow a commission of four
councillors to call More before them for interrogation.

William Roper's account of his father-in-law's appearance
before this commission is among the liveliest of his pages. Roper
urged More to ask the commissioners to get his name removed
from the Bill of Attainder. When the interrogation was over, the
following conversation took place.

Then took Sir Thomas More his boat towards his house at
Chelsea, wherein by the way he was very merry, and for that
was I nothing sorry, hoping that he had got himself discharged
out of the Parliament Bill. When he was landed and come home
then walked we twain alone into his garden together; where I,
desirous to know how he had sped, said: "I trust, Sir, that all is
well because you be so merry."

"It is so indeed, son Roper, I thank God," quoth he.

"Are you then put out of the Parliament Bill?" said I.

"By my troth, son Roper," quoth he, "I never remembered it."

"Never remembered it, Sir," said I. "A case that toucheth
yourself so near, and us all for your sake ! I am sorry to hear it,
for I verily trusted when I saw you so merry, that all had been
well."

Then said he, "Wilt thou know, son Roper, why I was so
merry?"

"That would I gladly, Sir," quoth I.

"In good faith, I rejoiced, son," quoth he, "that I had given
the devil a foul fall, and that with these lords I had gone so far
as without great shame I could never go back again."

What had happened? According to Roper's report, which he
must have had from More himself, the matter of the Nun of Kent
was not mentioned; the inquiry was mainly on More's refusal to

66 MARGARET ROPER

support the king's policy. At first the commissioners were affable,
but when they found they could not move him, they threatened
him with the king's displeasure. To which he replied, "My lords,
these terrors be arguments for children, and not for me." "And
thus displeasantly departed they."

When More declared "I had given the devil a foul fall" he had
two things in mind. He had not drawn back at the first direct
attack but had been given the grace to stand firm, and, secondly,
the strain of waiting was at last over.

The commissioners, however, in spite of their threats, recog-
nized that there was no case against the former Chancellor, and they
begged the king not to go further in the matter, and it was only
after much persuasion that Henry gave way. Roper takes up the tale.

And on the morrow after, Master Cromwell, meeting me in
the Parliament House, willed me to tell my father that he was
put out of the Parliament Bill. But because I had appointed to
dine that day in London, I sent the message by my servant to
my wife to Chelsea. Whereof when she informed her father,
"In faith, Meg," quoth he, "quod differtur non aufertur" 1

In this matter he had taken Margaret and her husband into his
confidence, but when the next blow fell, he went on alone. It was
not long in coming.

Parliament passed an Act of Succession in March 1534; as More
had foreseen, "these matters" were to be "confirmed with oaths."
This Act was not just a simple statement making the children of
Queen Anne heirs to the throne; its long preamble set out to
justify the king's action in having his marriage with "the Lady
Catherine", as the Act called his first queen, "deemed and adjudged
to be against the laws of Almighty God", thus putting on one side
the authority of "the Bishops of Rome." Those who "by writing,
print, deed or act" questioned the lawfulness of the marriage with
Anne Boleyn were guilty of high treason and those who did so
"by any words, without writing" were guilty of misprision of
treason, as were all those who refused to take the oath by which
they accepted "the whole effects and contents of this present Act." The
1 What is put off, is not laid aside.

THE TOWER 67

last phrase is crucial; the oath was not simply to the line of suc-
cession laid down in the Act; both Fisher and More were pre-
pared to take such an oath as it lay within the competence of
Parliament to determine the succession; the oath, however, went
further than this; to take it meant accepting also the justice of the
king in putting away his lawful wife in defiance of Papal authority.
Such an oath they could not take.

Sir Thomas More and William Roper went to hear the sermon
at St. Paul's on Low Sunday, 12 April 1534. Afterwards they
walked down Cheapside to Bucklersbury to see John Clements and
Margaret Giggs, who, after their marriage, had gone to live at
The Barge. So it chanced that it was in his old house, so crowded
with happy memories, that a summons was served on More to
appear at Lambeth Palace the next day to take the oath to the
Succession before the king's commissioners. He and Roper re-
turned to Chelsea, and the following morning they left together
for Lambeth. This was the only occasion, so Roper noted, when
his father-in-law would not allow his wife and children to come
down to the riverside to say good-bye. "Then would he suffer
none of them forth of the gate to follow him, but pulled the
wicket after him and shut them all from him."

Bishop John Fisher had also been summoned to Lambeth.
When he rode out of Rochester, the people pressed round him,
lamenting his departure and begging his blessing.

It is a striking commentary on the times that, although no
charge had been made against them, neither John Fisher nor
Thomas More expected to return home from Lambeth.

More wrote for Margaret a full account of his appearance be-
fore the commissioners. The facts are familiar to all who know his
story and need not be repeated here. At the end of the day the
commissioners decided to postpone the matter in the hope that
More would change his mind. He was put in the charge of Abbot
Benson and lodged in the monastery at Westminster. It must have
been during this interval 1 of three days that he wrote the first of

1 In Rogers, No. 200, the editor suggests that this letter was written in the Tower
but it is concerned solely with what happened on 1 3 April, and More would know
how anxiously his family would await news.

68 MARGARET ROPER

those eight letters to his daughter that are among the most prec-
ious and affecting of documents. He came before the commission
a second time on 17 April, and after once again refusing to take
the oath, he was sent to the Tower. Bishop John Fisher was com-
mitted the same day; they were in the Tower for fourteen months,
but were not allowed to meet.

Shortly after his arrival in his cell, More wrote a short note to
Margaret; he had not yet been allowed pen and ink so he wrote as
best he could with a charred stick on a scrap of paper. It was
John d Wood, the servant allowed to be there with him, who
smuggled this and other letters out of the Tower.

The last paragraph of this letter reads:

Recommend me to your shrewd Will, and mine other sons,
and to John Harris, my friend, and yourself knoweth to whom
else, and to my shrewd wife above all, and God preserve you
all, and make and keep you his servants still.
John Harris was his secretary; he is included in the painting
of the More family, but not in the sketch. He married Dorothy
Colley, who was Margaret Roper's maid.

We now come to an incident in the relations between father and
daughter of which, unfortunately, the full details are missing, as
the key letter from Margaret has not been preserved. When
William Rastell published the folio edition of the English Works
of his uncle in 1 5 57, he printedMore's reply with the following note :

Within a while after Sir Thomas More was in prison in the
Tower his daughter Mistress Margaret Roper wrote and sent
unto him a letter, wherein she seemed somewhat to labour to
persuade him to take the oath (though she nothing so thought)
to win thereby credence with Master Thomas Crumwell, that
she might the rather get liberty to have free resort unto her
father (which she only had for the most time of his imprison-
ment) unto which her father wrote an answer, the copy where-
of here followeth.

Margaret probably had an interview with Cromwell, and,
when he found that she herself was prepared to take the oath
(a fact she mentions in a later letter), he gave permission for her

THE TOWER 69

to visit her father. As we shall see, More stated at his last interro-
gation that she had written "divers letters to exhort him ... to
incline to the king's desire". RastelTs gloss, "though she nothing
thought so", does not tally with More's own plain statements.
The answer shows that, for the first and last time, he was deeply
hurt. He certainly accepted the sincerity of her views. The open-
ing paragraph reads:

If I had not been, my dearly beloved daughter, at a firm and
fast point (I trust in God's mercy) this good great while before,
your lamentable letter had not a little abashed me, surely far
above all other things, of which I hear divers times not a few
terrible toward me. But surely they all touched me never so
near, nor were so grievous unto me, as to see you, my well-
beloved child, in such vehement piteous manner labour to
persuade unto me, that thing wherein I have of pure necessity
for respect unto mine own soul, so often given you so precise
answer before. Wherein as touching the points of your letter,
I can make no answer, for I doubt not but you well remember,
that the matters which move my conscience (without declar-
ation whereof I can nothing touch the points) I have sundry
times showed you that I will disclose them to no man. And there-
fore, daughter Margaret, I can in this thing no further, but like
as you labour me again to follow your mind, to desire and pray
you both again to leave such labour, and with my former
answers to hold yourself content.

He then turned to a thought that was to find expression time
and again in his letters.

A deadly grief unto me, and much more deadly than to hear
of my own death ... is that I perceive my good son your
husband, and you my good daughter, and my good wife, and
mine other good children and innocent friends, in great dis-
pleasure and danger of great harm thereby. The let [hindering]
thereof, while it lieth not in my hand, I can no further but
commit all unto God.

We may wonder why More's family did not follow his ex-
ample; why, indeed, the people of the country, with so few

70 MARGARET ROPER

exceptions, accepted the new order of things. To reach even a
partial understanding of their attitude, we must try to forget all
that followed the Acts of Succession and Supremacy, and see the
situation as it would appear to ordinary folk in 1534. Almost the
only way of reaching them was through their parish priests whose
guidance the people, unless exceptionally well-informed, and
intelligent, would accept. So it was that when the bishops (except
John Fisher) and the great majority of the parish clergy and the
regular clergy accepted Henry as Supreme Head of the Church
in England, the people, as a whole, followed them; the new tide
would convey little meaning to ordinary folk. When John Fisher
said, "the fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended
it," he was declaring what was a lamentable truth. For most
people, such matters as the relations between the king and the
Pope, or even the validity of Henry's marriage, were outside
their range of interest; these were problems for priest and noble.
As to the Act of Succession, how many knew what it contained?
They had to swear to "the whole effect and present contents of
this Act." It seems unlikely that the Act was read to each person,
nor would many of the literate ask, as More did when he was
tendered the oath, to see a copy of the Act.

The More family could not be described as ordinary folk but
they too must have been sorely puzzled at the course of events; for
them, too, the acquiescence of the bishops, especially of their
father's close friend Cuthbert Tunstall, must have carried great
weight. No doubt, had More expounded the problems of the
succession and Supremacy to them, he could have persuaded them
to accept his opinion, but he would not force their consciences,
and, as we have seen, even when Margaret put their case to him,
he still refused to debate the fundamental issue of the Supremacy. He
was true to his decision to "leave every man to his own conscience."

Margaret's next letter did not take up the argument.

Mine own good Father.

It is to me no little comfort, since I cannot talk with you by
such means as I would, at the least way to delight myself among
in this bitter time of your absence, by such means as I may, by

THE TOWER 7!

as often writing to you as shall be expedient and by reading
again and again your most fruitful and delectable letter, the
faithful messenger of your very virtuous and ghostly [spiritual]
mind, rid from all corrupt love of worldly things, and fast knit
only in the love of God, and desire of heaven, as becometh a
very true worshipper and a faithful servant of God, which I doubt
not, good father, holdeth his holy hand over you and shall (as
he hath) preserve you both body and soul (ut sit mens sana in
corpore sano) and namely, now when you have abjected [cast off]
all earthly consolations and resigned yourself willingly, gladly
and fully for his love to his holy protection.

Father, what think you hath been our comfort since your
departing from us? Surely the experience we have had of your
life past and godly conversation, and wholesome counsel,
and virtuous example, and a surety not only of the continuance
of the same, but also a great increase by the goodness of our
Lord to the great rest and gladness of your heart devoid of
all earthly dregs, and garnished with the noble vesture of heaven-
ly virtues, a pleasant palace for the Holy Spirit of God to rest
in, who defend you (as I doubt not, good father, but of his good-
ness he will) from all trouble of mind and body, and give me
your most loving obedient daughter and handmaid, and all
us your children and friends, to follow that that we praise in
you, and to our only comfort remember and coming together
of you, that we may in conclusion meet with you, mine own
dear father, in the bliss of heaven to which our most merciful
Lord hath bought us with his precious blood.

Your own most loving and obedient daughter and beads-
woman, Margaret Roper, which desireth above all worldly
things to be in John Wood's 1 stead to do you some service.
But we live in hope that we shall shortly receive you again, I
pray God heartily we may, if it be his holy will.
At last Margaret got permission to visit her father. The evi-
dence shows that Cromwell was anxious for Thomas More to
make his peace with the king, not merely for politic reasons, but
through friendliness. They had been on good terms in the past.

1 More's servant in the Tower.
M.B. 6

72 MARGARET ROPER

More, who was no time-server, mentioned in one of his letters
from the Tower that Cromwell "hath tenderly favoured me."
Nor is that a unique tribute. It seems that Cromwell hoped that
Margaret would be able to persuade her father to yield. It is not
difficult to picture the joy of the first reunion of father and
daughter. Roper gives the following account.

Now when he had remained in the Tower a little more than
a month, my wife, longing to see her father, by her earnest
suit at length got leave to go to him. At whose coming, after
the seven Psalms and Litany said (which, whensoever she came
to him, ere he fell in talk of any worldly matters, he used
accustomably to say with her) among other communication he
said to her, "I believe, Meg, that they that have put me here,
ween [think] they have done me a high displeasure. But I
assure thee, on my faith, my own good daughter, if it had not
been for my wife and you that be my children, whom I account
the chief part of my charge, I would not have failed long ere
this to have closed myself in as strait [narrow] a room and
straiter too. But since I am come hither without mine own
desert, I trust that God of his goodness will discharge me of my
care, and with his gracious help supply my lack among you.
I find no cause, I thank God, Meg, to reckon myself in worse
case here than in my own house. For methinketh God maketh
me a wanton, and setteth me on his lap and dandleth me".

Roper goes on to give an account of another meeting of father
and daughter; this cannot be dated.

When he had first questioned with my wife a while of the
order of his wife, children and state of his house in his absence,
he asked her how Queen Anne did. "In faith, father," quoth
she, "never better." "Never better! Meg," quoth he. "Alas!
Meg, alas ! It piteth me to remember into what misery, poor soul,
she shall shortly come."

From the first meeting she brought away the following note to
be shown to his friends.

To all my loving friends.

THE TOWER 73

For as much as being in prison, I cannot tell what need I
may have, or what necessity I may hap [chance] to stand in, I
heartily beseech you all, that if my well-beloved daughter
Margaret Roper (which only of my friends hath by the king's
gracious favour license to resort to me) do anything desire of
any of you, of such thing as I shall hap to need, that it may like
you no less to regard and tender it, than if I moved it unto you
and required it of you personally present myself. And I be-
seech you all to pray for me, and I shall pray for you.
Your faithful lover and poor beadsman,

Thomas More, Knight, prisoner.

At another meeting he said to her :

I may tell thee, Meg, they that have committed me hither,
for refusing of this oath not agreeable with the statute, are not
by their own law able to justify my imprisonment. And surely,
daughter, it is great pity that any Christian prince should by a
flexible council ready to follow his affections, and by a weak
clergy lacking grace constantly to stand to their learning, with
flattery be so shamefully abused.

He was here commenting on the fact that the oath put to him
was not one laid down by the first Act of Succession as the terms
of the oath were not included; this defect, a curious one, was
remedied by the passing of the second Act at the end of 1534, but
it is not known if the oath then given was the same as that to
which Fisher and More were asked to subscribe; it may have
been the same, but that could not remedy the fact that they had
been tendered an oath that had not been authorized by Parliament.

In the middle of August 1534, Lady Alice Alington, More's
step-daughter, had an opportunity of speaking to Lord Chancellor
Audley, More's successor. If she hoped to move him to show any
sympathy for Sir Thomas More and his family, she was quickly
undeceived; he amused himself by telling her two of ^Esop's
fables to illustrate the guiding principle of his own life that a
wise man swims with the tide and not against it. It is necessary to
give the whole letter as it is referred to in detail in Margaret
Roper's reply.

74 MARGARET ROPER

Sister Roper, with all my heart I recommend me unto you,
thanking you for all your kindness.

The cause of my writing at this time is to shew you that at
my coming home 1 within two hours after, my Lord Chancellor
did come to take a course at a buck in our park, the which was
to my husband a great comfort that it would please him so to
do. Then when he had taken his pleasure and killed his deer,
he went unto Sir Thomas Barmeston 2 to bed, where I was the
next day with him at his desire, the which I could not say nay
to, for methought he did bid me heartily, and most specially
because I would speak to him for my father.

And when I saw my time, I did desire him as humbly as I
could that he would, as I have heard say that he hath been, be still
good lord unto my father. And he said it did appear very well
when the matter of the Nun was laid to his charge. And as for
this other matter, he marvelled that my father is so obstinate
in his own conceit, as that everybody went forth with all save
only the blind Bishop [Fisher] and he. And in good faith, said
my lord, I am very glad that I have no learning but in a few of
-^Esop's fables of which I shall tell you one. There was a country
in the which there were almost none but fools, saving a few
which were wise. And they by their wisdom knew that there
should fall a great rain, the which should make them all fools,
that should so be fouled or wet therewith. They seeing that,
made them caves under the ground till all the rain was passed.
Then they came forth thinking to make the fools to do what
they list, and to rule them as they would. But the fools would
none of that, but would have the rule themselves for all their
craft. And when the wise men saw they could not obtain their
purpose, they wished that they had been in the rain, and had
befouled their clothes with them.

When this tale was told, my lord did laugh very merrily.
Then I said to him that for all his merry fable I did put no
doubts but that he would be good lord unto my father when

1 Halesworth, Suffolk; this was one of the Alington manors. They had another
at Horseheath, just over the Cambridgeshire border.
1 Head of a Suffolk family that became strongly puritan.

THE TOWER 75

he saw his time. He said, "I would not have your father so
scrupulous of his conscience." And then he told me another
fable of a lion, an ass, and a wolf and of their confession. First
the lion confessed him that he had devoured all the beasts that
he could come by. His confessor assoiled [absolved] him be-
cause he was a king and also it was his nature so to do. Then
came the poor ass and said that he took but one straw out of
his master's shoe for hunger, by the means thereof he thought
that his master did take cold. His confessor could not assoil this
great trespass, but by and by sent him to the bishop. Then came
the wolf and made his confession, and he was straightly com-
manded that he should not pass sixpence at a meal. But when
this said wolf had used this diet a little, he waxed very hungry,
insomuch that on a day when he saw a cow with her calf come
by him he said to himself, "I am very hungry and fain would I
eat, but that I am bounden by my ghostly [spiritual] father.
Notwithstanding that, my conscience shall judge me. And then
if it be so, then shall my conscience be thus, that the cow doth not
seem to me now but worth a groat [fourpence], and then, if
the cow be not worth a groat, then is the calf but worth two-
pence." So did the wolf eat both the cow and the calf.

Now good sister hath not my lord told me two pretty
fables? In good faith they please me nothing, nor I wist not
what to say for I was abashed of this answer. And I see no
better suit than to Almighty God, for he is the comforter of all
sorrows, and will not fail to send his comfort to his servants
when they have most need. Thus fare you well mine own
good sister.

Written the Monday after Saint Lawrence in haste by
Yours sister Dame

Alice Alington.

Margaret Roper's long reply was prefaced by the following
note by her cousin William Rastell when he printed More's
English Works in 1557:

When Mistress Roper had received a letter from her sister
Lady Alice Alington, she at her next repair to her father,

76 MARGARET ROPER

shewed him the letter. And what communication was there-
upon between her father and her, you shall perceive by an
answer here following (as written to the Lady Alington). But
whether this answer were written by Sir Thomas More in his
daughter's Roper's name, or by himself it is not certainly known.

It is evident from this that Rastell was using a copy and not the
original for the handwriting would have told him by whom the
letter was actually written down. Perhaps the solution to the
puzzle is that father and daughter discussed Alice Alington's
letters at some length and, when Margaret got back to Chelsea,
she wrote down an account of their talk while it was fresh in her
mind. The reader will note some passages that point to Margaret
as the writer. Whatever the explanation, the letter is an outstand-
ing example of contemporary prose, and it takes the dialogue
form that was so congenial to More; for our purpose its interest
lies in the light it throws on the two speakers; it shows their com-
plete confidence in one another even though they differedin opinion.

When I came next unto my father after, methought it both
convenient and necessary to show him your letter. Convenient,
that he might thereby see your loving labour taken for him.
Necessary, that since he might perceive thereby, that if he
should stand still to this scruple of conscience (as it is at the
leastwise called by many that are his friends and wise) all his
friends that seem most able to do him good either shall finally
forsake him, or peradventure not be able indeed to do him
any good at all. And for these causes, at my next being with
him after your letter received, when I had awhile talked with
him, first of his diseases, both in his breast of old, and his reins
now by reason of gravel and stone, and of cramp also that
divers nights grippeth him in his legs, and that I found by his
words that they were not much increased, but continued after
their manner that they did before, sometime very sore and
sometime little grief, and that at that time I found him out of
pain, and (as one in his case might) meetly [fittingly] well
minded, after our seven Psalms and die Litany said, to sit and
talk and be merry, beginning first with other things of the

THE TOWER 77

good comfort of my mother, and the good order of my
brother, and all my sisters, disposing themselves every day
more and more to set little by the world, and draw more and
more to God, and that his household, his neighbours, and other
good friends abroad, diligently remembered him in their
prayers, I added unto this, "I pray God, good father, that their
prayers and ours, and your own therewith, may purchase of
God the grace, that you may in this great matter (for which
you stand in this trouble and for your trouble all we also that
love you) take such a way by time, as standing with the pleasure
of God, may content and please the king whom you have
always found so singularly gracious unto you, that you should
stiffly refuse to do the thing that were his pleasure, which, God
not displeased, you might do (as many great wise and well
learned men say that in this thing you may) it would both be
a great blot in your worship in every man's wise opinion and
as myself have heard some say (such as yourself have always
taken for well learned and good) a peril unto your soul also.
But as for that point, father, will I not be bold to dispute upon,
since I trust in God and your good mind that you will look
surely thereto. And your learning I know for such, that I wot
well you can. But one thing is there which I and other your
friends find and perceive abroad, which, but if it be showed
you, you may peradventure to your great peril, mistake and
hope for less harm (for as for good I wot well in this world of
this matter you look for none) than I sore fear me, shall be
likely to fail to you. For I assure you, father, I have received a
letter of late from my sister Alington, by which I see well that
if you change not your mind, you are likely to lose all those
friends that are able to do you any good. Or if you lose not
their good wills, you shall at the leastwise lose the effect thereof,
for any good that they shall be able to do you."

It is important to note in this paragraph the stress put by
Margaret Roper on the opinions of "many great wise and learned
men"; she had been trained to respect their authority; now she
found herself forced to choose between her father and John

?8 MARGARET ROPER

Fisher on one side, and Cuthbert Tunstall and the other bishops
and scholars on the other. The letter continues:

With this my father smiled upon me and said, "What, Mis-
tress Eve (as I called you when you first came), hath my daughter
Alington played the serpent with you, and with a letter set
you a-work to come tempt your father again, and for the
favour that you bear him labour to make him swear against
his conscience, and so send him to the devil?" And after
that, he looked sadly again and earnestly said unto me,
"Daughter Margaret, we two have talked of this thing
ofter than twice or thrice, and that same tale in effect that
you now tell me therein, and the same fear too, have you
twice told me before, and I have twice answered you too, that
in this matter if it were possible for me to do the thing that
might content the King's Grace, and God therewith not
offended, there hath no man taken this oath already more gladly
than I would do, as he that reckoneth himself more deeply
bounden unto the King's Highness for his most singular bounty,
many ways showed and declared, than any of them all beside.
But since standing my conscience, I can in no wise do it, and
that for the instruction of my conscience, in this matter, I have
not slightly looked, but by many years studied and advisedly
considered, and never could yet see nor hear that thing, nor I
think never shall, that could induce mine own mind to think
otherwise than I do, I have no manner remedy, but God hath
given me to the straight, that either I must deadly displease him,
or abide any earthly harm that he shall for mine other sins,
under name of this thing, suffer to fall upon me. Whereof (as I
before this have told you) I have ere I came here, not left un-
bethought nor unconsidered, the very worst and the uttermost
that can by possibility fall. And albeit that I know mine own
frailty full well and the natural faintness of mine own heart,
yet if I had not trusted that God should give me strength rather
to endure all things, than offend him by swearing ungodly
against mine own conscience, you may be very sure I would
not have come here. And since I look in this matter but only unto

THE TOWER 79

God, it maketh me little matter, though men call as it pleaseth
them and say it is no conscience but a foolish scruple."

At this word I took good occasion, and said unto him thus:
"In good faith, father, for my own part, I neither do, nor it
cannot become me, either to mistrust your good mind or your
learning. But because you speak of that that some call it a
scruple, I assure you you shall see my sister's letter, that one of
the greatest estates [officials] in this realm and a man learned
too, and (as I dare say yourself shall think when you know him,
and as you have already right effectually proved him) your
tender friend and very special good lord, accounteth your con-
science in this matter, for a right simple scruple, and you may
be sure he saith it of good mind and layeth no little cause.
For he saith that where you say your conscience moveth you
to this, all the nobles of this realm and almost all other men too,
go boldly forth with the contrary, and stick not thereat, save
only yourself and one other man [Fisher], whom, though he
be right good and very well learned too, yet would I ween
[think], few that love you, give you counsel against all other
men to lean to his mind alone."

And with this word I took him your letter that he might see
my words were not feigned, but spoken of his mought [might],
whom he much loveth and esteemeth highly. Thereupon he
read over your letter. And when he came to the end, he began
it afresh and read it over again. And in the reading he made no
manner haste, but advised [considered] it leisurely and pointed
every word. x

And after that he paused, and then thus he said: "Forsooth,
daughter Margaret, I find my daughter Alington such as I have
ever found her, and trust I ever shall, as naturally minding me
as you that are mine own. Howbeit, her take I verily for mine
own too, since I have married her mother, and brought up her
of a child as I have brought up you, in other things and learn-
ing both, wherein I thank God she findeth now some fruit, and
bringeth her own up very virtuously and well. Whereof God,
I thank him, hath sent her good store, our Lord preserve them
and send her much joy of them and my good son her good

80 MARGARET ROPER

husband too, and have mercy on the soul of mine other good
son her first; 1 1 am daily beadsman (and so write her) for them
all

"In this matter she hath used herself like herself, wisely and
like a very daughter towards me, and in the end of her letter,
giveth as good counsel as any man that wit hath would wish;
God give me grace to follow it and God reward her for it.
Now daughter Margaret, as for my lord, I not only think, but
have also found it, that he is undoubtedly my singular good
lord. And in mine other business concerning the seely 2 nun,
as my cause was good and clear, so was he my good lord
therein, and Master Secretary my good master too. For which
I shall never cease to be faithful beadsman for them both and
daily do I by my troth, pray for them as I do for myself. And
whensoever it should happen (which I trust God shall never
happen) that I be found other than a true man to my prince,
let them never favour me neither of them both, nor of truth
no more it could become them to do.

"But in this matter, Meg, to tell the truth between thee and
me, my lord's jEsop's fables do not greatly move me. But as
his wisdom for his pastime told them merrily to mine own
daughter, so shall I for my pastime, answer them to thee Meg,
that art mine other daughter. The first fable of the rain that
washed away all their wits that stood abroad when it fell, I
have heard oft of this. It was a tale so often told among the
king's councillors by my Lord Cardinal when his Grace was
chancellor, that I cannot lightly forget it. For of truth in times
past, when variance began to fall between the Emperor and the
French king, in such wise that they were likely and did indeed
fall together at war, and that there were in the Council here
somewhat sundry opinions, in which some were of the mind
that they thought it wisdom that we should sit still and let them
alone, but everymore against that way my lord used this fable
of those wise men that because they would not be washed with

1 Alice Middleton married first Thomas Elryngton in 1516, and after his death
(Sir) Giles Alington. They had four sons and five daughters.
1 'Scely* can mean either 'holy* or 'foolish'.

THE TOWER 8l

the rain that should make all the people fools, went themselves
to caves and hid them under ground. But when the rain had
once made all the remnant fools and they that came out of
their caves and would utter their wisdom, the fools agreed
together against them, and there all to beat them. And so said
his Grace that if we would be so wise that we would sit in
peace while the fools fought, they would not fail after to make
peace and agree, and fall at length all upon us. I will not dispute
upon his Grace's counsel and I trust we never made war but as
reason would. But yet this fable for his part, did in his days
help the king and the realm to spend many a fair penny. But
that gear is passed and his Grace is gone, our Lord assoil [ab-
solve] his soul.

"And therefore shall I now come to this ^Esop's fable, as my
lord full merrily laid it forth for me. If those wise men, Meg,
when the rain was gone at their coming abroad, where they
found all men fools, wished themselves fools too, because they
could not rule them, then seemeth it, that the foolish rain was
so sore a shower, that even through the ground it sank into
their caves, and poured down upon their heads, and wet them
to the skin, and made them more noddies [simpletons] than
them that stood abroad. For if they had had any wit, they
might well see that, though they had been fools too, that thing
would not have sufficed to make them the rulers over the other
fools, no more than the other fools over them, and of so many
fools all might not be rulers. Now when they longed so sore to
bear a rule among the fools, and that so they so might, they
would be glad to lose their wit and be fools too, the foolish
rain had washed them meetly [fittingly] well. Howbeit, to say
the truth before the rain came if they thought that all the
remnant should turn into fools, and then they either were so
foolish that they would, or so made to think that they should,
so few rule so many fools, and not so much wit as to consider
that there are none so unruly as they that lack wits and are fools,
then were these wise men stark fools before the rain came.
Howbeit, daughter Roper, whom my lord taketh here for the
wise men and whom he meaneth to be fools, I cannot very

82 MARGARET ROPER

well guess, I cannot well read such riddles. For as Davus 1 says
in Terence Non sum GEdipus, I may say, you wot well, Non sum
CEdipus, sed Morus, which name of mine what it signifieth in
Greek, I need not tell you. 2 But I trust my lord reckoneth me
among the fools, and so reckon I myself, as my name is in
Greek. And I find, thank God, causes not a few wherefore I
so should in very deed.

"But surely among those that long to be rulers, God and
mine own conscience clearly knoweth, that no man may num-
ber and reckon me. And I ween [think] each other man's con-
science can tell himself the same, since it is so well known that,
of the king's great goodness, I was one of the greatest rulers in
this noble realm and that at mine own great labour by his great
goodness discharged. 3 But whomsoever my lord meaneth for
the wise men, and whomsoever his lordship take for the fools,
and whomsoever long for the rule, and whosoever long for
none, I beseech our Lord make us all so wise as that we may
every man here so wisely rule ourselves in this time of tears,
this vale of misery, this simple wretched world (in which as
Boethius says, one man to be proud that he beareth rule over
other men, is much like as one mouse would be proud to bear
a rule over other mice in a barn 4 ) God, I say, give us the grace
so wisely to rule ourselves here that when we shall hence in
haste to meet the great Spouse, we be not taken sleepers and
for lack of light in our lamps, shut out of heaven among the
five foolish virgins.

"The second fable, Margot, seemeth not be to ^Esop's.
For by that the matter goeth all upon confession, it seemeth to
be feigned since Christendom began. For in Greece before
Christ's days they used not confession, no more the men then
than the beasts now. And ^Esop was a Greek, and died long

1 A cunning slave in Terence's Andria.

a This was the pun used by Erasmus in the title of his book Moriae encomium
(Praise of Folly).

, 8 More several times stressed the fact that he resigned the Chancellorship and
was not dismissed.

4 "For if among mice thou shouldst see one claim jurisdiction and power to
himself over the rest, to what a laughter it would move thee !" Boethius, Loeb
cd p. 207.

THE TOWER 83

ere Christ was born. But what? Who made it, maketh little
matter. Nor I envy not that JEsop hath the name. But surely it
is somewhat too subtle for me. For whom his lordship under-
standeth by the lion and the wolf, which both twain confessed
themselves, of raving and devouring of all that came to their
hands, and the one enlarged his conscience at his pleasure in
the construction of his penance, nor whom by the good discreet
confessor that enjoined the one little penance, and the other
none at all, and sent the poor ass to the bishop, of all these
things can I nothing tell. But by the foolish scrupulous ass that
had so sore a conscience for the taking of a straw for hunger
out of his master's shoe, my lord's other words of my scruple
declare that his lordship merrily meant that by me, signifying
(as it seemeth by that similitude) that of oversight and folly, my
scrupulous conscience taketh for a great perilous thing towards
my soul, if I should swear this oath, which thing as his lordship
thinketh, were indeed but a trifle. And I suppose well, Margaret,
as you told me right now, that so thinketh many more beside,
as well spiritual as temporal and that even of those that for
their learning and their virtue myself not a little esteem. And
yet albeit that I suppose this to be true, yet believe I not even
very surely, that every man so thinketh that so sayeth. But
though they did, daughter, that would not make much to me,
not though I should see my Lord of Rochester say the same,
and swear the oath before me too.

"For whereas you told me right now that such as love me
would not advise me that against all other men, I should lean
unto his mind alone, verily, daughter, no more I do. For albeit,
that of very truth, I have him [Fisher] in that reverent esti-
mation that I reckon in this realm no one man, in wisdom,
learning and long approved virtue together, meet [fit] to be
matched and compared with him, yet that in this matter I was
not led by him, very well and plainly appeareth, both in that
I refused the oath before it was offered him, and in that also
his lordship was content to have sworn of that oath (as I per-
ceived since by you when you moved me to the same) either
somewhat more, or in some other manner than ever I minded

84 MARGARET ROPER

to do. Verily, daughter, I never intend (God being my lord) to
pin my soul at another man's back, not even the best man that
I know this day living; for I know not whither he may hap
[chance] to carry it/'

This last paragraph is of interest not only for the tribute paid
by Sir Thomas More to Bishop John Fisher, but for the light it
throws on their relations one to another. They had not discussed
the question of the oath and they had had no opportunity of
learning each other's views during the four months they had been
in the Tower. Margaret had apparently heard that Fisher had been
prepared to take the oath on certain conditions; as far as records
go, these conditions were exactly the same as those which More
put to the commissioners; Fisher was willing to take a simple oath
to the Succession but not one, as then put to him, that implied a
repudiation of the Pope's authority. The letter continues with
More's words to Margaret.

"There is no man living, of whom while he liveth, I may
make myself sure. Some may do for favour, and some may do
for fear, and so might they carry my soul a wrong way. And
some might hap to frame [adjust] himself a conscience and
think that while he did it for fear, God would forgive it. And
some may peradventure think that they will repent, and be
shriven thereof, and that so God shall remit it them. And some
may be peradventure of that mind that if they say one thing
and think the while contrary, God more regardeth their heart
than their tongue, and that therefore their oath goeth upon
what they think, and not upon what they say, as a woman
reasoned once, I trow [as I believe], daughter, you were by.
But in good faith, Margaret, I can use no such ways in so great
a matter, but like as if my own conscience served me, I would
not let to do it, though other men refused, so though other
refuse it or not, I dare not do it, mine own conscience standing
against it. If I had (as I told you) looked but lightly for the
matter I should have cause to fear. But now have I so looked
for it and so long, that I purpose at the leastwise to have no

THE TOWER 85

less regard unto my soul, than had once a poor honest man of
the country that was called Company."

And with this, he told me a tale, I ween [think] I can scant
[barely] tell it you again because it hangeth upon some terms
and ceremonies of the law. But as far as I can call it to mind my
father's tale was this, that there is a court belonging of course
unto every fair, to do justice in such things as happen within
the same. This court hath a pretty fond name, but I cannot
happen upon it, but it beginneth with a "pie", and the remnant
goeth much like the name of a knight that I have known, I
wis [assuredly] (and I trow [think] you too, for he hath been at
my father's oft or this, at such time as you were there) a meetly
tall black man his name was Sir William Pounder. But, tut,
let the name of the court go for this once, or call it if you will
a court of pie Sir William Pounder. 1 But this was the matter,
lo, that upon a time at such a court holden at Bartholomew
Fair there was an escheator 2 of London that had arrested a man
that was outlawed, and had seized his goods that he had brought
into the fair, tolling [luring] him out of the fair by a train
[trick]. The man that was arrested and his goods seized was a
northern man, which by his friends made the escheator within
the fair to be arrested upon an action, I wot not what, and so
was he brought before the judge of the court of pie Sir William
Pounder, and at the last the matter came to a certain ceremony
to be tried by a quest [inquest] of twelve men, a jury as I remem-
ber they call it, or else a perjury.

Now had the clothman by friendship of the officers found
the means to have all the quest almost made of northern men
such as had their booths there standing in the fair. Now was it
come to the last day in the afternoon, and the twelve men had
heard both the parties, and their counsel tell their tales at the
bar, and were from the bar had into a place, to talk and com-
mune, and agree upon a sentence. Nay let me speak better in

1 Court of Piepowders a summary court set up at fairs. This paragraph
strengthens the impression that Margaret herself was responsible for the com-
position of this letter.

2 Officer appointed to look after property lapsing to the crown. "Cheater" in
Shakespeare.

86 MARGARET ROPER

my terms yet; I trow [suppose] the judge giveth sentence and
the quest's tale is called a verdict. They were scant [hardly]
come together but the northern men were agreed, and in
effect all the other too, to cast [convict] our London escheator.
They thought they needed no more to prove that he did wrong
than even the name of his bare office alone. But then was there
then as the devil would, this honest man of another quarter
that was called Company. And because the fellow seemed but
a fool and sat still and said nothing, they made no reckoning
of him, but said, "Come let us go give our verdict."

Then when the poor fellow saw that they made such haste
and his mind nothing gave him that way that theirs did (if
their minds gave them that way that they said), he prayed
them to tarry and talk upon the matter and tell him such
reason therein that he might think as they did: and when he so
should do, he would be glad to say with them, or else he said
they must pardon him. For since he had a soul of his own to
keep as they had, he must say as he thought for his, as they must
for theirs. When they heard this, they were half angry with
him. "What good fellow/' quoth one of the northern men,
"where wonnes thou? 1 Be not we eleven here and you but one
all alone, and all we agreed? Whereto shouldst thou stick?
What is thy name good fellow?" "Masters," quoth he, "my
name is called Company." "Company," quoth they, "now by
thy troth, good fellow, play then the good companion; come
thereon forth with us and pass even for good company."
"Would God, good masters," quoth the man again, "that
there lay no more weight thereby. But now when we shall
hence and come before God, and that he shall send you to
heaven for doing according to your conscience, and me to the
devil for doing against mine, in passing at your request here
for good company now, by God, Master Dickenson" (that was
one of the northern men's names) "if I shall then say to all you
again, masters, I went once for good company with you,
which is the cause that I go now to hell, play you the good
fellows now again with me, as I went then for good company
1 What worries you?

THE TOWER 87

with you, so some of you go now for good company with me.
Would you go, Master Dickenson? Nay, nay, by Our Lady,
nor never one of you all. And therefore must you pardon me
from passing as you pass, but if I thought in the matter as you
do, I dare not in such a matter pass for good company. For the
passage of my poor soul passeth all good company." 1

And when my father had told me this tale, then said he
further thus: "I pray thee now, good Marget, tell me this.
Wouldst you wish thy poor father being at the leastwise some-
what learned, less to regard the peril of his soul, than did there
the honest unlearned man? I meddle not (you wot [know]
well) with the conscience of any man, that hath sworn, nor I
take not upon me to be their judge. But now if they do well,
and that their conscience grudge them not, if I with my con-
science to the contrary, should for good company pass on with
them and swear as they do, when all our souls hereafter shall
pass out of this world, and stand in judgment at the bar before
the high Judge, if he judge them to heaven and mo to the devil,
because I did as they did, not thinking as they thought, if I
should then say (as the good man Company said) mine old
good lords and friends, naming such a lord and such, yea and
some bishops peradventure of such as I love best, I swear
because you sware, and went that way that you went, do like-
wise for me now, let me not go alone, if there be any good
fellowship with you, some of you come with me : by my
troth, Marget, I may say to thee, in secret counsel, here between
us twain (but let it go no further, I beseech thee heartily), I find
the friendship of this wretched world so fickle, that for any-
thing that I could treat or pray, that would for good fellowship
go to the devil with me, among them all I ween I should not
find one. And then, by God, Marget, if you think so too, best
it is I suppose that for any respect of them all were they twice
as many more as they be, I have myself a respect to mine own
soul."

"Surely, father," quoth I, "without any scruple at all, you
may be bold I dare say for to swear that. But, father, they that

1 There is a play upon words here; one meaning being 'to pass sentence on*.
M.R. 7

8 MARGARET ROPER

think you should not refuse to swear the thing, that you see so
many so good men and so well learned swear before you,
mean not that you should swear to bear them fellowship, nor
to pass with them for good company, but that the credence
that you may with reason give to their persons for their afore-
said qualities, should well move you to think the oath such of
itself, as every man may well swear without peril of their soul,
if their own private conscience to the contrary be not the let
[hindrance], and if you well ought and have good cause to
change your own conscience, in confirming your own con-
science to the conscience of so many other, namely being such
as you know they be. And since it is also by a law made by the
Parliament commanded, they think that you upon the peril of
your soul, bound to change and reform your conscience, and
confirm your own as I said to other men's/'

"Marry, Marget," quoth my father again," for the part that
you play, you play it not much amiss. But Margaret first, as
for the law of the land, though every man being born and in-
habiting therein, is bound to the keeping in every case upon
such temporal pain, and in many cases upon pain of God's
displeasure too, yet is there no man bound to swear that every
law is well made, nor bound upon the pain of God's displeasure,
to perform any such point of the law as were indeed unleaful
[unlawful]. Of which manner kind, that there may such hap
to be made in any part of Christendom, I suppose no man
doubteth, the General Council of the whole body of Christen-
dom evermore to that point excepted; which, though it may
make some things better than other, and some things may
grow to that point, that by another law they may need to be
reformed, yet to institute anything in such wise, to God's dis-
pleasure, as at the making might not lawfully be performed,
the spirit of God that governeth his church never hath it
suffered nor never hereafter shall, his whole catholic church
lawfully gathered together in a General Council, as Christ hath
made plain promises in Scripture.

"Now if it so hap, that in any particular part of Christendom,
there be any law made, that be such as for some part thereof

THE TOWER 8p

some men think that the law of God cannot bear it, and some
other think yes, the thing being in such manner in question
that through diverse quarters of Christendom, some that are
good men and cunning [learned], both of our own days and
before our days, think some one way, and some other of like
learning and goodness think the contrary, in this case he that
thinketh against the law, neither may swear that law lawfully
was made, standing his own conscience to the contrary, nor is
bounden upon pain of God's displeasure to change his own
conscience therein, for any particular law made anywhere,
other than by General Council or by a general faith grown by
the working of God universally through all Christian nations,
not other authority than one of these twain, except special
revelation and express commandment of God, since the con-
trary opinions of good men and well learned, as I put you the
case, made the understanding of the Scriptures doubtful, I can
see none that lawfully may command and compel any man to
change his own opinion, and to translate his own conscience
from the one side to the other.

"For an example of some such manner things, I have I trow
before this time told you, that whether our Blessed Lady were
conceived in original sin or not, was sometimes in great ques-
tion among the great learned men of Christendom. 1 And
whether it be yet decided and determined by any General
Council, I remember not. But this I remember well, that not-
withstanding that the feast of her conception was then cele-
brated in the Church (at the leastwise in divers provinces) yet
was holy St. Bernard, which as his manifold books made in the
laud and praise of our Lady do declare, was of as devout affec-
tion towards all things sounding toward her commendation,
that he thought might well be verified or suffered, as any man
was living, yet, I say, was that holy devout man against that
part of her praise, as appeareth well by an epistle of his, where-
in he right sore and with great reason argueth there against, and

1 The dogma was defined in the bull of Pius IX in 1854. A feast of the Con-
ception of the Virgin Mary was kept in Ireland and England in the tenth century.
More was in error in his reference to St. Anselm.

90 MARGARET ROPER

approacheth not the institution of that feast neither. Nor he
was of this mind alone, but many other well learned men with
him, and right holy men too. Now was there on the other side
the blessed holy bishop St. Anselm, and he not alone neither,
but many well learned and very virtuous also with him. And
they both twain holy saints in heaven, and many more that
were on either side. Nor neither part was there bounden to
change their opinion for the other, nor for any provincial
Council either.

"But like as after the determination of a well assembled
General Council, every man had been bounden to give cred-
ence that way, and confirm their own conscience to the deter-
mination of the Council General, and then all they that held
the contrary before, were for that holding out of blame, so if
before such decision a man had against his own conscience,
sworn to maintain and defend the other side, he had not failed
to offend God very sore. But, marry, if on the other side a man
would in a matter take away by himself from his own mind
alone, or with some few, or with never so many, against evi-
dent truth appearing by the common faith of Christendom,
this conscience is very damnable, yea, or if it be not even fully
so plain and evident, yet if he see but himself with far the fewer
part, think the one way, against far the more part of as well
learned and as good, as those are that affirm the thing that he
thinketh, thinking and confirming the contrary, and that of
such folk as he hath no reasonable cause wherefore he should
not in that matter suppose, that those which say they think
against his mind, affirm the thing that they say, for none other
cause but for that they so think indeed, this is of very truth a
very good occasion to move him, and yet not to compel him,
to confirm his mind and conscience unto theirs.

"But, Margaret, for what causes I refuse the oath, the thing,
as I have often told you, I will never show you, neither you
nor nobody else except the King's Highness should like to com-
mand me. Which if his Grace did, I have ere told you therein
how obediently I have said. But surely, daughter, I have re-
fused it and do for more causes than one. And for what causes

THE TOWER pi

soever I refuse it, this am I sure that it is well known that of
them that have sworn it, some of the best learned before the
oath given them, said and plain affirmed the contrary, of some
such things as they have now sworn in the oath, and that upon
their troth, and their learning then, and that not in haste nor
suddenly, but often and after great diligence done to seek and
find out the truth."

"That might be, father," quoth I. "And yet since they might
see more, I will not," quoth he, "dispute, daughter Margaret,
against that, nor misjudge any other man's conscience which
lieth in their own heart far out of my sight. But this will I say,
that I never heard myself the cause of their change, by any new
further thing found of authority, than as far as I perceive they
had looked on, and as I suppose, very well weighed before.
Now of the selfsame things that they saw before, seem some
otherwise unto them now, than they did before, I am for their
sakes gladder a great deal. But anything that ever I saw before,
yet at this day to me they seem but as they did. And therefore,
though they may do otherwise than they might, yet, daughter,
I may not. As for such things as some men would happily say,
that I might with reason the less regard their change, for any
sample of them to be taken to the change of my conscience,
because that the keeping of the prince's pleasure, and the avoid-
ing of his indignation, the fear of the losing of their worldly
substance, with regard unto the discomfort of their kindred and
their friends, might hap make some men either swear otherwise
than they think, or frame their conscience afresh to think
otherwise than they thought, and such opinion as this is, will I
not conceive of them, I have better hope of their goodness than
to think of them so. For if such things should have turned
them, the same things had been likely to make me do the same,
for in good faith I knew few so faint hearted as myself. There-
fore will I, Margaret, by my will, think no worse of other folk
in the thing that I know not, than I find in myself. But as I
know well mine only conscience causeth me to refuse the oath,
so will I trust in God, that according to their conscience, they
have received it and sworn.

92 MARGARET ROPER

"But whereas you think, Margaret, that they be so many
more than there are on the other side that think in this thing as
I think, surely for your own comfort that you shall not take
thought, thinking that your father casteth himself away like a
fool, that he would jeopard the loss of his substance, and per-
adventure his body, without any cause why he so should for
the peril of his soul, but rather his soul in peril thereby too, to
this shall I say to thee, Marget, that in some of my causes I
nothing doubt at all, but that though not in this realm, yet in
Christendom about, of those well learned men and virtuous
that are yet alive, they be not the fewer part that are of my
mind. Besides that, that it were you wot well possible that some
men in this realm too think not so clear the contrary, as by the
oath received they have sworn to say.

"Now this far forth I say for them that are yet alive. But go
we now to them that are dead before, and that are I trust in
heaven, I am sure that it is not the fewer part of them that all
the time while they lived, thought in some of the things the
way that I think now. I am also, Margaret, of this thing sure
enough, that of those holy doctors and saints, which to be with
God in heaven long ago no Christian man doubteth, whose
books yet in this day remain here in men's hands, there thought
in some such things, as I think now. I say not that they thought
all so, but surely such and so many as will well appear by their
writing, that I pray God give me grace that my soul may
follow theirs. And yet I show you not all, Margaret, that have
for myself in the sure discharge of my conscience. But for the
conclusion, daughter Margaret, of all this matter, as I have
often told you, I take not upon me neither to define nor dispute
in these matters, nor I rebuke not nor impugn other man's
deed, nor I never wrote, nor so much as spake in any company,
any word of reproach in anything that the Parliament had
passed, nor I meddled not with the conscience of any other
man, that either thinketh or sayeth he thinketh contrary unto
mine. But as concerning mine own self, for thy comfort shall
I say, daughter, to thee, that mine own conscience in this
matter (I damn none other man's) is such, as may well stand

THE TOWER 93

with mine own salvation, thereof am I, Meg, so sure, as that is,
God is in heaven. And therefore as for all the remnant, goods,
lands, and life both (if the chance should so fortune) since this
conscience is sure for me, I verily trust God he shall rather
strengthen me to bear the loss, than against this conscience to
swear and put my soul in peril, since all the causes that I per-
ceive move other men to the contrary, seem not such unto me,
as in my conscience make any change."

This long and somewhat involved passage will repay careful
study. It seems probable that Margaret had been approached by
some of her father's friends, who had taken the oath, in the hope
that she could persuade him to follow their example. This anxiety
to get More to take the oath is also shown by the number of times
he was seen by some of the councillors. We need not think that
Henry was recalling former days of intimacy ; that would not have
been in character. He and Cromwell had their eyes on the Euro-
pean situation where More's reputation was so high that action
against him might lead to difficulties with Charles V and Francis
of France, who were just then on good terms. That the king was
worried about this was shown later by the propaganda carried
out abroad to justify the executions of Fisher and More. Cromwell
showed his worst side in this deliberate defamation of two such
men. In England there was, alas, nothing much to worry about
when it was found that priests and laity had small hesitation in
taking the oath.

It should be remembered that at the time of the conversation
recorded in this letter, the Act of Supremacy had not yet been
passed. More's opinion was based entirely on the first Act of
Succession. He saw that this Act was the first step, not the last, in
a policy that would carry people much further than they expected.
As he told the bishops when they wanted him to attend Anne
Boleyn's coronation, "When they have deflowered you, then will
they not fail soon to devour you." He refused to tell Margaret
what was the decisive factor, but there is a suggestion of his line
of thought in the passage referring to "the whole body of Christ-
endom"; he was to use a similar phrase after the verdict at his

94 MARGARET ROPER

trial There was only one thing in the Act of Succession to which
that criterion could be applied the implicit repudiation of papal
authority. Within a few months, what was implicit became ex-
plicit in the Act of Supremacy.

More's anxiety to make it clear that he judged no man a
theme he laboured overmuch, perhaps was partly that he did
not wish even to appear to suggest what decision each member
of his family should make.

We return to the letter.

When he saw me sit with this very sad, as I promise you,
sister, my heart was full heavy for the peril of his person, for
in faith I fear not his soul; he smiled upon me and said, "How
now, daughter Marget? What now, mother Eve? Where is
your mind now? Sit not musing with some serpent in your
breast, upon some new persuasion, to offer father Adam the
apple yet once again !" "In good faith, father," quoth I, "I can-
not no further go, but am (as I trow Creseyde said in Chaucer)
come to Dulcarnon, 1 even at my wit's end. For since the ex-
ample of so many wise men cannot in this matter move you,
I see not what to say more, but if I should look to persuade you
with the reason that Master Harry Patenson 2 made. For he met
one day one of our men, and when he had asked where you
were and heard that you were in the Tower still, he waxed
even angry with you and said, 'Why? What aileth him that he
will not swear? Wherefore should he stick to swear? I have
sworn the oath myself/ And so I can in good faith go now no
further neither, after so many wise men whom you take for no
example, but if I should say like Master Harry, 'Why should
you refuse to swear, father, for I have sworn myself?' "

At this he laughed and said, "That word was like Eve too,
for she offered Adam no worse fruit than she had eaten herself."

How are we to interpret this? Did More clearly understand that
in fact his daughter had taken the oath, or was he under the im-
pression that she was speaking in keeping with her story of Harry

1 A dilemma; see Troilus, iii, 931.

1 He had been More's fool up to 1529; he appears in Holbein's sketch of the
family.

THE TOWER 95

Patenson when she used, the words, "but if I should say . . ."? He
replied jokingly without showing any sign of surprise, still less
of shock.

When William Rastell printed this letter he added a note,
"She took the oath with this exception, as far as would stand with
the law of God." This must have been a mental reservation for
it is inconceivable that anyone, at that time, would have been
allowed to modify the wording of the oath. She came within the
category of those described by her father earlier in their conver-
sation: "and some may be peradventure of that mind, that if they
say one thing and think the while the contrary, God more re-
gardeth their heart than their tongue."

Margaret took up the conversation.

"But yet, father," quoth I, "by my troth, I fear me very sore
that this matter will bring you in marvellous heavy trouble.
You know well that, as I showed you, Master Secretary sent
you word as your very friend, to remember, that Parliament
lasteth yet." "Margaret," quoth my father, "I thank him right
heartily. But as I showed you then again, I left not this gear
unthought on. And albeit I know well that if they would make a
law 1 to do me any harm that law could never be lawful, but
that God shall I trust keep me in that grace, that concerning my
duty to my prince, no man shall do me hurt but if he do me
wrong (and then as I told you, this is like a riddle, a case in
which a man may lose his head and have no harm) and not-
withstanding also that I have good hope that God shall never
suffer so good and wise a prince, in such wise to requite the
long service of his true, faithful servant, yet since there is noth-
ing impossible to fall I forgot not in this matter the counsel of
Christ in the Gospel, that ere I should begin to build this castle
for the safeguard of mine own soul, I should sit and reckon
what charge would be. I counted, Marget, full surely many a
restless night while my wife slept and went [thought] that I
slept too, what peril was possible for to fall to me, so far forth
that I am sure there can come none above [unexpected]. And in

1 Such as an Act of Attainder.

06 MARGARET ROPER

devising, daughter, thereupon, I had a full heavy heart. But
yet, I thank our Lord, for all that, I never thought to change,
though the uttermost should hap me that my fear ran upon."

"No, father," quoth I, "it is not like to think upon a thing
that may be, and to see a thing that shall be, as you should,
our Lord save you, if the chance should so fortune. And then
should you peradventure think that you think not now and yet
then peradventure it would be too late." "Too late, daughter,"
quoth my father, "Margaret? I beseech our Lord that if ever I
make such a change it may be too late indeed. For well I wot
the change cannot be good for my soul, that change I say that
should grow but by fear. And therefore I pray God that in this
world I never have good of such a change. For so much as I
take harm here, I shall have at leastwise the less therefore when
I am hence. And if so were that I wist well now, that I should
faint and fall, and for fear swear hereafter, yet would I wish to
take harm by the refusing first, for so should I have the better
hope for grace to rise again.

"And albeit, Mar get, that I wot well my lewdness hath been
such, that I know myself well worthy that God should let me
slip, yet can I not but trust in his merciful goodness, that as his
grace hath strengthened me hitherto, and made me content in
my heart to lose goods, land and life too, rather than to swear
against my conscience, and hath also put in the king toward me
that good and gracious mind that as yet he hath taken from me
nothing but my liberty (wherewith, as help me God, his Grace
hath done me so great good by the spiritual profit that I trust I
take thereby, that among all his great benefits heaped upon me
so thick, I reckon upon my faith my imprisonment even the
very chief) I cannot, I say, therefore mistrust the grace of God,
but that either he shall conserve and keep the king in that
gracious mind still to do me none hurt, or else if his pleasure be
that for mine other sins I shall suffer in such case in sight as I
shall not deserve, his grace shall give me the strength to take it
patiently, and peradventure somewhat gladly too, whereby his
high goodness shall, by the merits of his bitter passion joined
thereunto, and far surmounting in merit for me, all that I can

THE TOWER 97

suffer myself, make it serve for the release of my pain in Purga-
tory and over that for increase of some reward in heaven.

"Mistrust him, Meg, will I not, though I feel me faint, yea,
and though I should feel my fear even at the point to overthrow
me too, yet shall I remember how St. Peter, with a blast of
wind, began to sink for his faint faith, and shall do as he did,
call upon Christ and pray him to help. And then I trust he shall
set his holy hand unto me, and in the stormy seas hold me up
from drowning. Yea, and if he suffer me to play St. Petei
further, and to fall full to the ground and swear and forswear
too, which our Lord for his tender passion keep me from, and
let me leese [be destroyed] if it so fall and never win thereby,
yet after shall I trust that his goodness will cast upon me his
tender piteous eye as he did upon St. Peter, and make me stand
up again and confess the truth of my conscience afresh, and
abide the shame and the harm here of mine own frailty. And
finally, Marget, this wot I well, that without my fault he will
not let me be lost. I shall therefore with good hope commit
myself wholely to him. And if he suffer me for my faults to
perish, yet shall I then serve for a praise of his justice. But in
good faith, Meg, I trust that his tender pity shall keep my poor
soul safe and make me command his mercy. And therefore
mine own good daughter, never trouble thy mind for anything
that ever shall hap to me in this world. Nothing can come but
that that God will. And I make me very sure that whatsoever
that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.
And with this, my good child, I pray you heartily, be you ajid
all your sisters and my sons too comfortable and serviceable
to your good mother my wife. And of your good husbands'
minds I have no manner doubt. Commend me to them all,
and to my daughter Alington and to all my good friends,
sisters, nieces, nephews and allies [relatives], and unto all our
servants, man, woman and child, and all my good neighbours
and our acquaintance abroad. And I right heartily pray both
you and them, to serve God and be merry and rejoice in him.
And if anything hap to me that you would be loath, pray to
God for me, and trouble not yourself, as I shall full heartily pray

98 MARGARET ROPER

for us all, that we may meet together once in heaven, where we
shall be merry for ever and never have trouble after."

While the order in which the letters between father and daugh-
ter can be established with some certainty, the actual dates are
difficult to determine. The next letter from Margaret was written,
according to William RastelTs note, when her father was "shut up
in close prison". This period of stricter confinement probably
began towards the end of 1534. The Act of Supremacy was passed
that November as well as a new Treason Act which declared that
anyone who "do maliciously wish, will, or desire by words or
writing ... to deprive them [the king and queen] or any of them
the dignity, title, or name of their royal estates" was guilty of
High Treason. The Commons, of which More's sons-in-law were
still members, insisted on the word "maliciously" being inserted.
It was an innovation in law to make spoken words capable of
bearing a charge of High Treason; previously only proved overt
acts had provided the necessary grounds for such a charge. By
those two Acts, a spoken denial of the king's title of Supreme Head
of the Church in England came within the meaning of treason.
The word "maliciously", as Fisher and More were to find, was
not in fact operative; the judges regarded any such denial as, ipso
facto, spoken maliciously. It was probably after these Acts were
passed that both Fisher and More were deprived of some of their
privileges they had been allowed. More appears to have been
treated with greater consideration than Fisher.

Lady Alice More made an appeal to the king at the end of 1534.
She gratefully acknowledged that up to the time of her writing
she had been allowed "to retain and keep still his moveable goods
and the revenues of his lands", but she feared that under the new
Act of Supremacy she was threatened with poverty as the lands
would be confiscated. She begged that her husband, since "his
offence is grown not of any malice", should be pardoned. It may
have been William Roper who advised her in writing this letter;
we see how that word "maliciously" was thought to be signifi-
cant; Roper would think so because he was a member of the Com-
mons who put the word into the Act; Bishop Fisher was certain

THE TOWER 99

that because of that one word the Act could not touch him, but
Sir Thomas More warned him that it would be ignored by the
judges. Lady More's letter had its reply in January 1535 when the
first grant of More's lands was made to Henry Norris 1 ; other
grants followed within a few months.

Soon after More's imprisonment became harsher, Margaret
wrote to him the following letter, in answer to one from him that
has not survived.

Mine own most entirely beloved father.

I think myself never able to give you sufficient thanks for the
inestimable comfort my poor heart received in the reading of
your most loving and godly letter, representing to me the clear
shining brightness of your soul, the pure temple of the Holy
Spirit of God, which I doubt not shall perpetually rest in you
and you in him. Father, if all the world had been given to me,
as I be saved it had been a small pleasure, in comparison of the
pleasure I conceived of the treasure of your letter, which though
it were written with a coal, is worthy of mine opinion to be
written in letters of gold.

Father, what moved them to shut you up again, we can
nothing hear. But surely I conjecture that when they consid-
ered that you were of so temperate mind, that you were con-
tented to abide there all your life with such liberty, they thought
it were never possible to incline you to their will, except it were
by restraining you from the Church, and the company of my
good mother your dear wife and us your children and beads-
folk. But, father, this chance was not strange to you. For I shall
not forget how you told us when we were with you in the
garden that these things were like enough to chance shortly
after. Father, I have many times rehearsed to mine own com-
fort and divers others, your fashion and words you had to us
when we were last with you, for which I trust by the grace of
God to be better while I live, and when I am departed out of
this frail life, which, I pray God, I may pass and end in his true
obedient service, after the wholesome counsel and fruitful

1 Executed in 1536 for his alleged relations with Anne Boleyn.

IOO MARGARET ROPER

example of living I have had, good father, of you, whom I pray
God give me grace to follow, which I shall the better through
the assistance of your devout prayers, the special stay of my
frailty. Father, I am sorry I have no longer leisure at this time
to talk with you, the chief comfort of my life, I trust to have
occasion to write again shortly. I trust I have your daily prayer
and blessing.

Your most loving obedient daughter and beadswoman,
Margaret Roper, which daily and hourly is bounden to pray
for you, for whom she prayeth in this wise that our Lord of his
infinite mercy give you of his heavenly comfort, and so to
assist you with his special grace that you never in anything
decline from his blessed will, and live and die his true obedient
servant. Amen.

We learn from this letter that More had been deprived of pen
and ink; this may not have been for long as some later letters of
his would seem to have been too lengthy to have been written in
charcoal. It is also clear that, for a time, More had been allowed
visits, not only from Margaret, but from his wife and other
children, and that they had been allowed to walk with him in the
Tower gardens. To him the most serious deprivation must have
been the withdrawal of permission to attend Mass in one of the
Tower churches, St. Peter ad Vincula or St. John's. Bishop Fisher
too was deprived in the same way.

In his reply to Margaret's letter, her father showed his in-
creased anxiety for his family now that he could not see them.
He wrote:

So doth my mind always give me that some folk yet may
ween [think] that I was not so poor as it appeared in the search,
and that it may therefore happen that yet eftsoons ofter than
once, some new sudden searches may hap to be made in every
house of ours as narrowly as is possible. Which thing if ever it
so should hap, can make but game to us that know the truth
of my poverty, but if they find my wife's gay girdle and her
- golden beads. Howbeit I verily believe in good faith, that the
King's Grace of his benign pity will take nothing from her.

THE TOWER 101

And later in the same letter he wrote:

Nor never longed I since I came hither to set my foot in mine
own house for any desire or pleasure of my house, but gladly
would I sometime somewhat talk with my friends, and specially
my wife and you that pertain to iny charge.

The playful reference to his wife's gold beads and his desire
to have conversation with her show that she was often in his
mind. Roper's account of one of her visits to her husband in the
Tower is well known, but does it give a true impression of the
relations between husband and wife? It may be that Roper and
Lady Alice did not get on well with each other and he allowed
some prejudice to colour his references to her. More's affectionate
concern for her is shown in his letters; * 'gladly would I sometime
talk with my friends, and specially my wife", "your good mother
my wife", "my good bedfellow", these and other expressions
should be kept in mind when we think of Lady Alice More.

Several letters from Margaret to her father have not survived;
we know of them from his replies. In one she seems to have ex-
pressed her fear of her own frailty. He wrote:

That you fear your own frailty Margct, nothing misliketh
me. God give us both twain the grace to despair of our own
self, and whole to depend and hang upon the hope and strength
of God . . . Surely Meg a fainter heart than thy frail father
hath, canst you not have.

On 1 6 April 1535 three Carthusian priors were imprisoned in
the Tower; one was John Houghton of the London Charterhouse;
with them were Richard Reynolds, a learned Brigittine monk of
Syon Abbey and a close friend of Thomas More, and John Haile,
vicar of Isleworth. They were brought to trial on 28 April and
condemned because they refused to take the oath of Supremacy.

A few days later Thomas More wrote to Margaret to say that
he feared that the news of the fate of the five priests might have
alarmed her especially as she may have heard that he himself had
been interrogated on 30 April. So he gave her an account of

102 MARGARET ROPER

what had happened, and ended by saying that he was back in his
cell "neither better nor worse."

The execution of the Carthusians with Richard Reynolds and
John Haile was fixed for 4 May. Margaret was allowed to visit
her father on that day, apparently the first time for several months.
Why was this visit allowed? It seems probable that the king or
Cromwell hoped that the emotion she might be expected to show
would lead her to make another appeal to her father, whose own
resolution might be shaken at what he saw. What happened was
recorded by Roper. Thomas More and Margaret were standing
at the window of his cell and could see the priests being tied down
on the hurdles on which they were to be dragged to Tyburn.

He, as one longing in that journey to have accompanied them
said unto my wife, then standing there besides him, "Lo, dost
thou not see, Meg, that these blessed fathers be now as cheer-
fully going to their deaths as bridegrooms to their marriage?
Wherefore thereby mayest thou see, mine own good daughter,
what a great difference there is between such as have in effect
spent all their days in a straight, hard, penitential and painful life
religiously, and such as have in the world, like worldly wretches
as thy poor father hath done, consumed all their time in pleasure
and ease licentiously. For God, considering their long con-
tinued life in most sore and grievous penance, will not suffer
them to remain here in this vale of misery and iniquity, but
speedily taketh them to the fruition of his everlasting deity,
whereas thy silly father, Meg, that like a most wicked caitiff
hath passed forth the whole course of his miserable life most
sinfully, God, dunking him not worthy so soon to come to
that eternal felicity, leaveth him here yet still in the world,
further to be plagued and turmoiled with misery."

More was again interrogated on 3 June, and he wrote an
account of this to Margaret. This was the last of his long letters
to be preserved. "Verily, to be short," he wrote, "I perceive little
difference between this time and last, for as far as I can see, the
whole purpose is either to drive me to say precisely the one way, or
else precisely the other."

THE TOWER 103

The final interrogation was on 14 June. He was questioned
about some harmless notes that had passed between him and
Bishop Fisher; the councillors had also learned that he had been
writing to Margaret; their questions seem to have been on the
letters giving accounts of the interrogations. The official record
reads:

Also he saith, that he, considering how it should come to
his daughter's ear, Mr. Roper's wife, that the Council had been
with him, and should hear things abroad of him thereupon,
that might put her to a sudden flight [? fright], and fearing lest
she, being (as he thought) with child, should take some harm
by that sudden flight [? fright] and therefore minding to pre-
pare her before, to take well aworth, whatsoever tiling should
betide him, better or worse, did send unto her, both after the
first examination and also after the last, letters by which he did
signify unto her how that the Council had been to examine him
and had asked him certain questions touching the king's stat-
utes, and that he had answered them that he would not meddle
with no thing but would serve God, and what the end thereof
should be, he could not tell, but whatsoever it were, better or
worse, he desired to take it patiently and take no thought there-
fore, but only pray for him. And saith that she had written to
him before divers letters, to exhort him and advertise him to
accommodate himself to the king's pleasure, and, specially, in
the last letter, she used great vehemence and obsecration to
persuade this examinat to incline to the king's desire, 1

No letters from Margaret in such strong terms are extant; it
is probable that More destroyed them after reading them, not
because he did not want his daughter's views to be known but
that she might get into trouble for writing more frequently than
Cromwell permitted. He was unable to report this interrogation
to her. An even closer watch was kept to prevent further com-
munications.

A fortnight later, Sir Thomas More was brought to trial.

1 State Papers, I, pp. 434-5. The summary in L.P. VIII, 341, docs not bring out
the force of the references to Margaret's letters.
M.R. 8

CHAPTER VI
THE SCAFFOLD

S[R THOMAS MORE was brought to trial on i July 1535. He was
taken to Westminster Hall by the river. We must not picture
such a scene as the trial of Charles I or of Warren Hastings.
The prisoner was a commoner and he was tried in the King's
Bench Court where his father had sat as judge. The visitor to-day
who enters the bare, empty hall by the north door will have some
difficulty in reconstructing in his mind its appearance in the six-
teenth century. There were two courts partitioned off at the far
end where the broad steps are now seen. That on the left was the
King's Bench Court, and that on the right was the Chancery
where More himself had presided. Neither court could have been
more than twenty-five feet square; this made it impossible for
anyone to be present other than the judges, the lawyers, the jury,
witnesses and officials. The public may have been allowed in the body
of the Hall, but no one there could have heard anything of the trial.

Roper stated that he himself was not at the trial, though as
Prothonotary of the King's Bench he could have been had he not
felt it would be unseemly to play an official part in the trial a
scruple that would not have deterred some Tudor lawyers. He
relied on reports given him by lawyers who were present, particu-
larly on his partner, Richard Heywood, who was one of the More
circle; his brother, John Heywood, "the mad merry wit", had
married Sir Thomas More's niece, Joan Rastell.

This absence of the family may seem strange to us, but they
may not have been allowed to be present as it was not a public
trial in our sense of the term, or had they been allowed, More
himself may have asked them not to come.

We are not concerned here with the course of the trial. The
verdict was a foregone conclusion. The return journey was made
down the river to the Tower.

THE SCAFFOLD IO5

The last meeting between Margaret and her father must be
told in her husband's words.

When Sir Thomas More came from Westminster to the
Towerward again, his daughter, my wife, desirous to see her
father, whom she thought she should never see in this world
after, and also to have his final blessing, gave attendance about
the Tower Wharf, where she knew he should pass by before he
could enter into the Tower, there tarrying for his coming. As
soon as she saw him, after his blessing on her knees reverently
received, she, hasting towards him, and, without consideration
or care of herself, pressing in among the middest of the throng
and company of the guard that with halberds and bills went
round about him, hastily ran to him, and there openly in the
sight of them all, embraced him, took him about the neck and
kissed him. Who, well liking her most natural and dear
daughterly affection towards him, gave her his fatherly blessing
and many godly words of comfort besides. From whom after
she was departed, she, not satisfied with the former sight of
him, and like one that had forgotten herself, being all ravished
with the entire love of her dear father, having respect neither to
herself, nor to the press of the people and multitude that were
there about him, suddenly turned back again, ran to him as
before, took him about the neck and divers times together
most lovingly kissed him, and at last, with a full heavy heart,
was fain to depart from him, the beholding whereof was to
many of them that were present thereat so lamentable that
it made them for very sorrow thereof to mourn and weep.

The Paris News Letter, 1 issued within a fortnight of More's
execution, contained his last words to Margaret.

Have patience, Margaret. Don't torment yourself. It is the
will of God. You have long known the secret of my heart.

Roper did not mention other members of the family who were
present, but Stapleton recorded that John More and Margaret
Clement were there.

1 Printed at the end of Harpsfield. For a discussion of this, see my Saint Thomas
More.

106 MARGARET ROPER

Another one, too, at the same time embraced and kissed him.
This was Margaret Giggs, his daughter, not by birth but by
adoption, and afterwards the wife of Doctor Clement. John,
too, his son, after receiving his father's blessing, kissed him and
received his kiss in return.

At the beginning of his account of that last journey Stapleton
noted that,

John More, his only son, threw himself at his father's feet as
he passed on his way, and on his knees begged, with many tears,
his father's blessing.

This is confusing. It is difficult to see how John More could
have been near Westminster Hall, as Stapleton implies, and later
at the Tower Wharf two miles away, unless, as seems improbable,
he took a fast wherry and passed his father downstream. By the
time Stapleton wrote his book (1588), Dorothy Colley's memory
of what had happened half a century earlier was not always pre-
cise. It is more likely that John More accompanied the two Mar-
garets and waited with them on the Wharf. Perhaps the state of
the tide made it impossible for More to be taken in by Traitor's
Gate, so the party had to land on the Wharf; had he gone by the
Gate, his children could not have embraced him.

During the four days between his condemnation and his exe-
cution More does not appear to have seen any of his family, but
Margaret sent her maid, Dorothy Colley, each day to the Tower,
and she was allowed to see him on the fourth day. "Nor did the
gaoler, a friend to More, at this time refuse access", as Stapleton
noted. It was then that he wrote his last letter to Margaret, and
with it he sent his hair shirt and the scourge he used as a discipline.
That precious and most moving letter has often been quoted, but
it cannot be omitted from these pages.

Our Lord bless you good daughter and your good husband
and your little boy and all yours and all my children and all my
godchildren and all our friends. Recommend me when you
may to my good daughter Cecily, whom I beseech our Lord to
comfort, and I send her my blessing and to all her children and

THE SCAFFOLD IO7

pray her to pray for me. I send her an handkerchief and God
comfort my good son her husband. My good daughter Daunce
hath the picture in parchment that you delivered me from my
Lady Conyers, her name is on the back side. Show her that I
heartily pray her that you may send it in my name to her again
for a token from me to pray for me.

I like specially well Dorothy Coley; I pray you be good
unto her. I would wit [know] whether this be she that you
wrote me of. If not, I pray you be good to the other, as you
may in her affliction, and to my good daughter Joan Aleyne
to give her I pray you some kind answer, for she sued to me
this day to pray you be good to her.

I cumber you good Margaret much, but I would be sorry,
if it should be any longer than tomorrow for it is St. Thomas's
eve, 1 and the utas [octave] of Saint Peter and therefore to-
morrow long I to go to God; it were a day very meet and
convenient for me. I never liked your manner toward me better
than when you kissed me last for I love when daughterly love
and dear charity hath no laisor [leisure] to look to worldly
courtesy.

Farewell, my dear child and pray for me, and I shall for you
and all your friends that we may merrily meet in heaven.

I thank you for your great coaste [cost].

I send now unto my good daughter Clement her algorism
stone [slate] and I send her and my good son and all hers,
God's blessing and mine.

I pray you at time convenient recommend me to my good
son John More. I liked well his natural fashion. Our Lord bless
him and his good wife my loving daughter, to whom I pray
him be good, as he hath great cause, and that if the land of mine
come to his hand, he break not with my will concerning his
sister Daunce. And our Lord bless Thomas and Austen and all
that they shall have.

This letter gives the impression that it was written hastily.

1 Not the feast of St. Thomas Becket which is on 29 December, but of the trans-
lation of his body to the shrine at Canterbury on 7 July 1220. The shrine was
despoiled in September 1538. The Feast of SS. Peter and Paul is on 29 June.

108 MARGARET ROPER

Perhaps the friendly gaoler dared not let Dorothy Colley remain
for more than a short time. More tried to remember each member
of his family, and sent such mementos as he could. There is no
mention of his wife, but he may have sent her a special message,
or she may have been allowed to see him. Nothing is known of
Lady Conyers or the picture, nor do we know what domestic
upset lay behind the few words that More wrote on behalf of
Joan Alleyn, who was, presumably, another of Margaret Roper's
maids, though the word 'daughter* suggests a member of the
'school'. It is of more interest to note that even at such a time
More could remember to put in a good word for someone who
had appealed to him. The last paragraph is devoted to his son and
his son's sons who would carry on the name of More. "I liked well
his natural fashion" would refer to that last meeting outside the
Tower.

On the morning of 6 July, Thomas Pope, a Tower official,
informed More that the execution had been fixed for nine o'clock
that day. He accepted the news with thankfulness the long strain
was at last coming to an end and then he had a request to make.

"I beseech you, good Master Pope, to be a mean unto his
Highness that my daughter Margaret may be at my burial."

"The king is content already," quoth Master Pope, "that
your wife, children and other friends shall have liberty to be
present thereat."

"O how much beholden then," said Sir Thomas More, "am
I to his Grace, that unto my poor burial vouchsafeth to have
so gracious consideration."

The last words may seem extraordinary to us, but we shall
never understand the men of that period until we appreciate their
attitude to the king ; a man's duty was to serve and obey his prince ;
the very strength of this belief is the measure of More's agony of
mind and spirit at finding himself bound by conscience to disobey
his king. He had, indeed, cause to be grateful that his family were
allowed to see his burial, though it is to be hoped that he did not
know the treatment the body of John Fisher had received a fort-
night earlier. His headless and naked body had been left lying on

THE SCAFFOLD 109

the scaffold all day until two soldiers "without any reverence
. . . buried it very contemptuously" in a hastily dug grave outside
Barking (All Hallows) Church by the Tower.

Margaret Clement was in the crowd that saw Thomas More
pass to the scaffold. Margaret Roper must have been nearby;
perhaps she was in Barking Church on her knees. She and Dor-
othy Colley were waiting to carry out their last service to Sir
Thomas. Stapleton recorded Dorothy's memories of that day.

His body was buried by Margaret Roper and Margaret
Clement in the little Chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula in the
Tower. In regard to this burial an incident occurred which
may well be regarded as miraculous. Margaret Roper from
earliest morning had been going from church to church and
distributing such generous alms to the poor that her purse was
now empty. After her father's execution she hastened to the
Tower to bury his body. In her hurry she forgot to replenish
her purse and found that she had no winding-sheet for the body.
She was in the greatest distress and knew not what to do. Her
maid Dorothy, afterwards the wife of Master Harris, suggested
that she should get some linen from a neighbouring shop.
"How can I do that," she asked, "when I have no money left?"
"They will give you credit," replied the maid. "I am far away
from home," said Margaret, "and no one knows me here, but
yet go and try." The maid went into a neighbouring shop and
asked for as much linen as was needed; she agreed on the price.
Then she put her hand into her purse as if to look for the money
intending to say that unexpectedly she found herself without
money, but that if the shopkeeper would trust her she would
obtain the price of the linen as quickly as possible from her
mistress and bring it back. But although the maid was quite
certain that she had absolutely no money, yet in her purse she
found exactly the price of the linen, not one farthing more nor
less than the amount she had agreed to pay. Dorothy Harris,
who is still living here in Douai, has told me these details again
and again.

With this winding-sheet, so strangely obtained, the two

110 MARGARET ROPER

Margarets and Dorothy most reverently buried the body.
The shirt in which he died, stained with his blood, Margaret
Clement showed me whole and entire, and gave me a large
portion of it. 1 I am not sure whether she was allowed by the
other Margaret from the beginning to keep it, or whether it
only came to her after her death, for Margaret Roper died
many years before Margaret Clement.

Since too many were visiting his grave and showing their
regard for his memory the body of John Fisher was removed from
where it had been hastily buried near Barking Church, and re-
buried by the grave of his fellow martyr. The family tradition was
that both graves were under the tower of the church; if this was
so, they were not disturbed when the main building was recon-
structed last century.

We also owe it to Stapleton that the following facts were put
on record while an eyewitness was still alive to give him infor-
mation.

[The head] by order of the king, was placed upon a stake on
London Bridge, where it remained for nearly a month, until
it had to be taken down to make room for other heads . . . The
head would have been thrown into the river had not Margaret
Roper, who had been watching carefully and waiting for the
opportunity, bribed the executioner, whose office it was to
remove the heads, and obtained possession of the sacred relic.
There was no possibility of mistake, for she, with the help
of others, had kept careful watch, and, moreover, there were
signs so certain that anyone who had known him in life would
have been able now to identify the head.

After the death of Margaret Roper, the head was in the keeping
of her eldest daughter, Elizabeth, Lady Bray, and it was probably
at her death in 1558 that it was placed in the Roper vault under
the Chapel of St. Nicholas in St. Dunstan's, Canterbury.

It was seen there in 1835* when, by accident, the roof of the

1 The fate of this precious relic is not known.

1 The Gentleman's Magazine for May 1837 contains an account by an anony-
mous eyewitness. Another reference is given in a footnote to W. J. Loftie's
History of London, n, p. 264.

THE SCAFFOLD III

vault was broken; the head was enclosed in a leaden case with one
side open; this stood in a niche protected by an iron grille. The
vault was later sealed, but a tablet in the floor above bears the
inscription:

Beneath this floor is the vault of the Roper family in which
is interred the head of Sir Thomas More of illustrious memory,
sometime Lord Chancellor of England, beheaded on Tower
Hill 6th July 1535. Ecclesia Anglicana liber a sit. 1

1 This was quoted from Magna Charta by Sir Thomas More during his trial
when he argued that the Church in England, as part of the Church Universal,
was free from the control of the king.

CHAPTER VH
BUTCLOSE

HANS HOLBEIN returned to England in 1532; his remark-
able talent as a portrait painter soon gained him the
patronage of merchants and nobles, and of the king him-
self. But Holbein did not forget those who had given him his
earlier commissions. It was probably about 1536 that he painted
the companion miniatures of Margaret and William Roper
lovely examples of that delicate art. Less than ten years had passed
since Holbein had painted the twenty-two-year-old Margaret.
The miniature shows the features of one who had suffered much
and had aged beyond her years.

It might have been thought that with the execution of Sir
Thomas More and the confiscation of his property the king and
Council would have been satisfied. The martyr's family soon
found that they were being watched. A month after the execution
Thomas Cromwell jotted down among things-to-be-done, "To
send for William Roper", and "To send to Lady More/' It is not
necessary to see any sinister meaning in these colourless notes.
Stapleton recorded that

Margaret Roper was brought before the King's Council and
charged with keeping her father's head as a sacred relic, and
retaining possession of his books and writings. She answered
that she had saved her father's head from being devoured by
the fishes with the intention of burying it, and that she had
hardly any books and papers but what had already been pub-
lished, except a very few personal letters, which she humbly
begged to be allowed to keep for her consolation. By the good
offices of friends she was released.

Unfortunately there are no records of the proceedings of the
King's (Privy) Council for the period between 1461 and 1540,

BUTCLOSB 113

so it is not possible to give further details of her interroga-
tion.

On 1 6 March 1537 Lady Alice More was granted an annuity of
20 to date from the previous Michaelmas, and in 1 542 she was
allowed the lease of a house in Chelsea at a rent of twenty-one
shillings a year; she was also permitted some of her husband's
lands in Battersea which had been leased to him in 1529 by the
Abbot of Westminster. This fact is revealed in a lawsuit in 1561
brought against William Roper over these lands; he had obtained
the lease of these lands in 1541 and Lady Alice had been very
annoyed at his doing so. A servant of hers testified that she had
heard "Lady Alice many times talk thereof and was very angry
whensoever she chanced to speak of the same until such time as
she and . . . Mr. Roper were agreed again." She went to law, and
Sir Giles Alington acted as arbitrator; an agreement was reached
by which William Roper paid her compensation. The Barge,
which was leased in the names of Sir Thomas and Lady Alice
More and was occupied by the Clements, was confiscated in 1542
but the Clements remained tenants.

Meanwhile the other Lady Alice More, the widow of Sir John,
seems to have been able to remain at Gobions as it was her jointure.
The property would have come to Sir Thomas after her death,
which occurred before I546 1 ; it then fell to the Crown and was
leased to William Honynge for twenty-one years; in 1551 the
reversion of Gobions was granted to the Princess Elizabeth for
life.

William and Margaret Roper settled down at Butclose; they
no doubt had to adapt the New Building as a residence, but,
although it was a small property, they preferred Chelsea to the
Roper house at Eltham; this was due, it is reasonable to assume, to
the precious associations it had for Margaret. The great house
and grounds had passed into the hands of William Paulet, after-
wards Marquis of Winchester ; Butclose was at least a corner of the
Chelsea home.

John More lost the lands his father had intended for him. He
had been reminded in his father's last letter that "he hath great
1 She was buried at Northaw (Herts.).

114 MARGARET ROPER

cause" to be grateful to his wife Anne Cresacre; she had inherited
her father's property at Barnbrough in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, where she and her husband, as his grandson Cresacre
wrote, "enjoyed a competent living to keep him out of a needy
life". They seemed to have remained at Chelsea for several years;
it is not known where they lived; perhaps they joined the Ropers.
There were eight children seven sons and one daughter. Thomas
and Augustine, the first two of the sons, were born before their
grandfather's death, and are mentioned at the end of his last letter.
He and Margaret Roper were godparents to Thomas.

The king and Cromwell had believed that the executions of
John Fisher and Thomas More would frighten others from
opposing the king's will; certainly no other leaders in the Church
or the state followed their example. The Pilgrimage of Grace in
1536 was not primarily a protest against the Supremacy but that
was one of an accumulation of grievances, not all of which were
religious; stress was put on the dissolution of the smaller monas-
teries and the threat to the greater. In putting down the Rising,
the Duke of Norfolk took the opportunity to hang John Roches-
ter and James Wai worth, two of die London Carthusians who had
been sent to the Charterhouse at Hull; there is no evidence that
they had any part whatever in the Rising. They suffered on n
May 1537. As if to complete the destruction of the London Car-
thusians, a few days later four of the monks with six laybrothers
were sent to Newgate prison. They were never tried, but were
starved to death. They were kept so fast chained that they could
not feed themselves nor attend to their own needs. Margaret
Clement heard of their distress and, by bribing the gaoler, went
to their help in the guise of a milkmaid. The pail on her head
contained not milk but food; she fed the prisoners with her own
hands and she tended them as best she could. As the Carthusians
did not die off as quickly as was expected, inquiries were made
and her charitable work was ended. She made one more attempt,
this time trying to get at them from the roof, but it proved hope-
less. Seven of the prisoners died one by one during June, another
in August, and the ninth in September; some kind of nourish-
ment must have been given the tenth, the laybrother William

BUTCLOSE 115

Home, for he survived until 1540 when he was hanged at Ty-
burn. He was the only one of the ten to be brought to trial.

It was to be expected that after this practical expression of her
sympathies, the authorities kept an eye on Margaret Clement,
and, inevitably, on Margaret Roper as well for the two were
known to be as sisters. Evidence of this suspicion is provided in
the Council's interrogation of Sir Geoffrey Pole in October 1538.
He was the youngest son of Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, and
the younger brother of Reginald Pole. The eldest son, Henry,
Lord Montague, and Sir Geoffrey were sent to the Tower in
August 1538. The real cause of this was the king's anger at the
appointment of his bitter critic, Reginald Pole, as Cardinal Legate
to England; there was also the consideration that the Poles repre-
sented the Yorkist claim to the throne; Prince Edward had been
born in 1537. Sir Geoffrey yielded under the seven interrogations
to which he was submitted, and he provided sufficient "evidence"
to bring his eldest brother, and ultimately his mother, to the block.
His unhappy story is relevant here on account of the questions
that were put to him.

A long list was prepared, but it is not certain that they were
asked, nor, if they were, how he answered. Five of the questions
referred to the two Margarets.

Item, how often within these 12 months or 2 years you have
been in company with Mistress Roper or Mistress Clement,
and at what places you have met with them?

Of what matters you have most often communed when they
have wished for this change?

The "change" presumably means changing the dynasty.

What communication you have had with either of them
touching the death of Sir Thomas More and others, and the
causes of the same?

Who hath been present at any of your conferences?

Have you heard of any letters, writings, or books sent to
them or their friends touching this matter?

Il6 MARGARET ROPER

The answer to another question has been recorded. "And
further he sayeth that within a twelvemonths he hath heard
Mistress Roper and Mistress Clement say that they liked not this
plucking down of abbeys, images and pilgrimages, and prayed
God to send a change."

There is no record of any action having been taken against the
two Margarets as a result of Sir Geoffrey Pole's statements, nor
is there any other evidence that they knew him.

The education of her children would be an important concern
for Margaret Roper; she would have recollections of her own
childhood as a guide. There were two boys and three girls. It has
already been noted that the eldest surviving son was born in
1534; his younger brother was named Anthony. It has already
been suggested that the three daughters were older than the sons.
Harpsfield gives us one glimpse of her with her children.

To her children she was a double mother as one not content
to bring them forth only into the world, but instructing them
also herself in virtue and learning. At what time her husband
was upon a certain displeasure taken against him in King
Henry's days sent to the Tower, certain sent from the king
to search her house, upon a sudden running upon her, found
her, not puling and lamenting but full busily teaching her
children, whom they, finding nothing astonished at their
message, and finding also beside this her constancy, such
gravity and wisdom in her talk as they little looked for, were
themselves much astonished, and were in great admiration,
neither could afterwards speak too much good of her, as partly
myself have heard at the mouth of one of them.

At a later date, Margaret Roper tried to persuade Roger Ascham
to become a tutor to her children. We learn this from a letter
dated 1 5 January 1554 from him to Mistress Clarke, who was Mary
Roper; her first husband was Stephen Clarke of whom nothing
else is known. Ascham wrote :

Yes, I am he whom, some years ago, your mother, Margaret
Roper, a woman most worthy of such a father, tried to lure

BUTCLOSE 117

from Cambridge to the house of Lady Alington. She asked me
to teach Greek and Latin to you and the other children. At that
time I could not bear to be separated under any conditions
from the University. It is a real pleasure to me to recall your
mother's desire.

It is impossible to date this invitation. The reference to Lady
Alington adds interest to the letter. The Alingtons at this time
may have been at their manor at Horseheath, Cambridge, and
not at Halesworth in Suffolk, and the letter implies that Margaret
Roper had gone to stay there for a while with her children.

This incident serves as another warning against too great a
simplification of the problems people had to face at that time.
We tend to see a straightforward conflict between Catholicism
and Protestantism. Those who lived through the religious turmoil
of that period must have been often more bewildered than en-
lightened. Roger Ascham was a supporter of the reformers nor
did he conceal his sympathies; indeed, his strong opposition to
papal claims nearly lost him his fellowship at St. John's to which
he was admitted in 1534. Yet, Margaret Roper could consider him
as tutor to her children. The confusion (as we should regard it)
in men's minds is further illustrated by the fact that Ascham got
his fellowship owing to the "goodness and fatherly discretion"
of Dr. Nicholas Metcalfe, the Master of St. John's, who had been
Archdeacon to Bishop John Fisher at Rochester and one of his
closest disciples; he resigned the mastership in 1537 rather than
take the oath to the Supremacy. Yet he supported Ascham's
claims to a fellowship.

Margaret Roper "full busily teaching her children" would make
an agreeable scene with which to close the drama of her life, but
her last few years were to bring acute distress as first one and then
another of her family came under the menace of the law. The
full story of those matters cannot be told; the biographer like
the historian is dependent on the fortuitous survival of documents;
these are more likely to record the end of a story than to tell us the
course of events. All that we can do is to tell as much as is known;
the rest is a matter of speculation.

Il8 MARGARET ROPER

The first member of the More family to suffer was Giles Heron,
the husband of Cecily, Margaret Roper's youngest sister. The
exact nature of his offence is not known; there is a vague reference
to plotting with Sir Thomas More in 1534, but as he was the last
man to encourage any form of intrigue, there could not have
been any substance in such a charge. It was added that Heron had
turned a man named Lyons out of his farm; but this was not
evidence of treason. It was not until five years later that proceed-
ings were taken against Giles Heron whose fate seems to have
been of particular interest to Thomas Cromwell. His "Remem-
brances" contain several references in 1539 and 1540, such as,
"Touching Giles Heron and what is to be done with him for as
much as there is but one witness", and, "Giles Heron's offence."
He was committed to the Tower on 6 July 1539 for treason.
The man Lyons nourished his grudge against Giles Heron and he
appears again in 1539 and 1540 as an active adversary, and man-
aged to get Giles's four brothers put into prison; they were later
released, but the records give no hint of anything that could be
described as treason. Heron was not brought to trial but attainted
of high treason in Parliament on 12 April 1540. This seems a
curious procedure to adopt against a man who was not a holder of
any office in the state, nor indeed one of any prominence or in-
fluence. Perhaps it had not been possible to find the second wit-
ness necessary for a trial in court. The details of the attainder do
not throw any light on the offence ; such official phrases as "sundry
detestable and abominable treasons" tell us nothing. A further
unusual feature of the case was that Giles Heron was kept in the
Tower for four months after his attainder before execution. The
fall of Thomas Cromwell during this period did not bring a
reprieve.

Giles Heron was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn on
4 August 1540. Six others suffered at the same time, among them
William Home, the last of the Carthusians who had been suc-
coured by Margaret Clement in 1537. Two of the others were a
priest, Edmund Brindholme, and a layman, Clement Philpot,
both of Calais, who were alleged to have plotted to betray the
town on behalf of Cardinal Pole; their two names are among

BUTCLOSE Up

those of 116 martyrs whose cause is still in progress. William
Home has been beatified. There has never been any suggestion
that Giles Heron's claims to martyrdom should be considered;
the evidence brought against him no longer exists, so we remain
in ignorance of the grounds of his condemnation and execution.
Nor do we know anything further of Cecily Heron. The lands
at Wanstead and Walthamstow that had been confiscated on her
husband's attainder were restored to their eldest son Thomas in
1 5 54 ; he had a brother Edmund and a sister Joan.

No other members of the More family appear to have been
implicated with Giles Heron, but within a few years the net was
closing round them. This was in connection with what is usually
called the Plot of the Prebendaries of Canterbury Cathedral
against Cranmer, but its ramifications spread far wider than the
name suggests. The first rumblings of the affair were heard in
1541. It was partly, as far as the Prebendaries were concerned, a
protest against Cranmer 's attitude towards them; when the Cath-
edral Chapter was reconstituted he would have preferred the
money needed to support the Prebendaries (he thought them a
lot of idle fellows) to be used more effectively in promoting
true religion. He tried to even things up by getting a few appoin-
ted who were of his mind. The larger charge was that Cranmer
was encouraging the spread of heresy in Kent and in this the
Prebendaries had the support of some of the County Magistrates.
If the reader were to study the ninety pages devoted to this affair
in Letters and Papers (Henry VIII. 18. i.) he would not fail to sense
the state of incertitude into which so many had fallen; instruc-
tions and admonitions issued by Cromwell or Cranmer were
often half-understood or misunderstood, and as they filtered down
to the commonalty, so they became cruder or even incompre-
hensible. The reader would also realize the strong undercurrent
of opposition to what one preacher called "newfangells". When
the complaints reached the Council it was thought sufficiently
serious a matter for the king's consideration; he, with grim par-
tiality, told Cranmer himself to carry out an investigation with
the aid of any colleagues he liked to name.

Among the lists of questions to be put to the witnesses was one

120 MARGARET ROPER

asking, "what communication by word or writing you had
with . . .", then followed a list of names including those of
William Roper, John Heywood, John More, German Gardiner
and John Bekynsaw. A later list added the name of John Clement.
Unfortunately none of the evidence recorded includes the replies
to this question, so we do not know why these persons were
particularized.

A passage from Harpsfield was quoted earlier in this chapter
in which reference was made to William Roper's imprisonment
in the Tower. The record reads :

29 February 1543 brought into the King by Sir Richard
Southwell, one of the General Surveyors, for the fine of William
Roper, being in the Tower, 100.

In a later passage Harpsfield gave the reason for the imprison-
ment; "for relieving by his alms a notable learned man, Master
Beckenshawe". John Beckenshawe (Bekynsaw, Bekinsale) was an
Oxford scholar who had gone to Paris about 1531 to teach Greek
at the Sorbonne; he returned to England in 1538 and it must have
been about that time that Roper aided him. He was accused of
plotting with Cardinal Pole in 1537 in Paris. Beckenshawe sub-
mitted and was pardoned and in 1546 wrote a book vehemently
defending the king's Supremacy; for this he received a pension
of 25. It is said that he returned to the Church before his death.

The scraps of information available do not give any hint of
the nature of the connection between members of the More circle
and the opponents of Cranmer. William Roper's territorial and
official links with Kent, especially with St. Dunstan's, Canterbury,
would explain any association he may have had with this "Plot",
but his name comes only in the question quoted above; after that
it drops out, as does that of John Clement.

For want of more information, all we can do here is to set out
in order the official records.

The first is the finding of the jury at a trial at Westminster on
15 February 1544.

The jury say upon their oath that John Heywood, late of
London, gentleman, John Ireland, late of Eltham in the county

BUTCLOSE 121

of Kent, clerk, John Larke, late of Chelsea in the county of
Middlesex, clerk, and German Gardiner, late of Southwark in
the county of Surrey, gentleman,

Then follows the usual charge of having "maliciously and trait-
orously" attempted to deprive the king of his title of "Supreme
Head of the English and Irish Church/' The addition of "Irish"
was in consequence of Henry's assumption of the title of King of
Ireland in 1540. A verdict of guilty was given and the prisoners
were condemned to the death of a traitor. Something further will
be said of them presently. We can now turn to the case of William
Daunce, Margaret Roper's brother-in-law. All we know is the
following record:

William Daunce of Cashiobury, Herts, alias late of Canons,
Middlesex, alias of London. Pardon of all treasonable words
against the king's Supremacy, concealments of treason, and
treasonable conversations with John More or others con-
cerning the king, the kingdom, and certain prophecies; with
restoration of goods. Greenwich, 24 April, 36 Hen. VIII.
[1544].

The only clue we have to the significance of "certain pro-
phecies" is that John Heron, brother of Giles, had been under
suspicion in 1540 for "his practice of astronomy and necro-
mancie"; he was brought before the Council and after his ack-
nowledging "his folly in using of fantastical practices in astron-
omy, was set at liberty and was bound in a recognisance of one
hundred marks."

John More of Chelsea, Middlesex, alias of Barnbrough,
Yorks, alias of London. Pardon of all treasonable words with
the detestable traitors, John Eldrington, German Gardiner,
John Bekynsale, John Heywood, William Daunce, John Larke,
clerk, John Ireland, clerk, Roger Ireland, clerk, and any others,
in wishing ill to the king and arguing against the king's suprem-
acy, and all concealments of treasons of which he has been
accused; with restoration of goods. Greenwich, 24 April,
36Hen.Vffl.[i544J. 1

1 L.P.i.No. 4 44(5).

122 MARGARET ROPER

It has already been noted that Bekynsaw submitted; this was
in May 1544. John Heywood, the husband of Joan Rastell, Mar-
garet Roper's niece, did not submit until the very day set for the
execution, 7 March; it is said that it was not until he was actually
on the hurdle that he gave way; he received his pardon on 26
June, and on 6 July, at St. Paul's Cross, clad in a white gown, he
made his public recantation.

German Gardiner was a relative of Bishop Stephen Gardiner
and served him in some secretarial position. The Bishop had in
fact encouraged the movement against Cranmer. German Gar-
diner must have been known in the More circle for a tract of his,
an attack on the heresies of John Frith, was published in 1534 by
William Rastell. 1 In his last speech at Tyburn he declared that he
had been fortified by the examples of the Carthusians and of
Bishop John Fisher and Sir Thomas More.

John Larke, who also suffered, had been parish priest at Chelsea
from 1530. He declared that he was following in the steps of his
former parishioner. It is not difficult to imagine the distress that
Margaret Roper must have undergone at the execution of a priest
so closely associated with her father and herself.

John Ireland, the third of these martyrs, had been a chaplain
about 1535 to a chantry at St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, founded by
William Roper's great-grandfather for Masses to be said at the
altar of St. Nicholas for the souls of the Roper family. As Ireland
was officially described as "of Eltham", he may have later be-
come a chaplain at Well Hall. 2

Margaret Roper could not have passed unscathed through the
long drawn-out months of these tragic events. Her husband does
not seem to have been in any serious danger, but her brother
escaped Tyburn only by submitting himself to authority; her
niece's husband came within sight of the gallows before he too
submitted; a brother-in-law, her parish priest and a family chap-
lain were hanged, drawn and quartered.

1 Gcrmen Gardynarc, A Letter of a yonge gentylman (S.T.C. 1 1594).

2 John Ireland has wrongly been described as chaplain to Sir Thomas More;
this was probably a confused version of the fact that he was a chaplain to the
Ropers at Eltham. Sec Rev. L. E. Whatmore, "Blessed John Ireland'*, Southward
Record, Aug. 1945.

BUTCLOSB 123

Her last years were full of sorrow in contrast to those earlier
years in Bucklersbury and Chelsea when her father's favourite
word "merry" so truly described that warm family life.

Margaret Roper died at Christmas 1544. She was in her for-
tieth year. She was buried in the vault at Chelsea Old Church
where, twelve years earlier, her mother's body had been rein-
terred when her father set up the monument with his epitaph.

What kind of portrait of Margaret Roper emerges from these
pages? The materials are lacking for a finished painting, but some
characteristics are clearly defined.

Her portraits do not suggest the "lively beauty" of which
Richard Hyrde spoke; the coif and the gable head-dress of the
period concealed the hair and gave a baldish effect that must have
ruined a face that was really attractive. Of one thing there can be
no doubt; the broad, high forehead is that of a woman of marked
intelligence. There is one serious defect in nearly all Holbein's
portraits; you can turn the pages of an album of his paintings
without finding one person with a cheerful expression. It is true the
times were grim, but not as grim as that ! Even the rightly praised
portrait of Sir Thomas More fails to hint at a sense of humour
the expression is sombre. We cannot therefore deduce too much
from the grave face in Holbein's portraits of Margaret Roper.

In an anonymous account of More's execution, she is described
in these words : "a woman of exceptional grace of figure combined
with great dignity of bearing, resembling her father in discern-
ment, manners and learning." The writer was evidently giving an
impression of someone he knew personally. As Margaret cer-
tainly did not resemble her father in features, it may be assumed
that she took after her mother.

There are very few references to her personal characteristics.
"You could never," wrote her father, "endure to be decked out
in another's finery." This suggests a certain delicacy and indepen-
dence of feeling. Harpsfield, as we have noted, spoke of her calm-
ness of demeanour when the house was searched during her
husband's imprisonment; that was the report of one of those
present at the time. To this can be added die determination and

124 MARGARET ROPER

perseverance she showed in persuading Thomas Cromwell to
allow her to visit her father in the Tower.

Much has been said in these pages of her learning, but a note
on her command of English may be added. The main evidence for
this is the long letter to Alice Alington giving an account of the
discussion with her father in the Tower. While it is true that the
substance of this was largely supplied by her father, the actual
composition under the circumstances must have been Margaret's
own work. It should not be measured with later developments in
English prose, but with contemporary writing. A re-reading of
the last few pages of that letter illustrates her ability, not unlike
her father's, to tell a story and to write convincing dialogue.

The abiding impression, however, of this record is of the
strong affection that united father and daughter. Of this their
letters are convincing evidence. The conclusion of one may be
recalled; ". . . my children and family, among whom none is
more dear to me than yourself, my beloved daughter." And it
will be remembered that when she was desperately ill, her father
declared, "if it had pleased God at that time to have taken [her]
to his mercy, he would never have meddled with worldly
matters after."

Stronger even than the human affection was the bond of a deep
religious faith. William Roper recalled that each of her meetings
with her father in the Tower began with the recitation of the
Penitential Psalms and the Litanies, and, here again, their letters
are witnesses of the primacy each gave to the faith.

Yet, in spite of this perfect concord of mind and spirit, Mar-
garet retained her independence of judgment. It was not in her
father's nature to dominate or dictate, but it would not have been
surprising had his daughter followed him with complete sub-
missiveness. The most notable example of this liberty of decision
is shown in her disagreement on the question of the oath. "She
used great vehemence and obsecration" was the statement made
by More in his last interrogation. Only in his second letter did
he show any distress at Margaret's attempt to get him to recon-
sider his position. After that, he carefully avoided the main issue,

m/v* nf

BUTCLOSE 125

opinion was real, but it meant no loss of affection; indeed the love
each bore the other may even have been strengthened in the
argument for there was complete faith between them.

So we come to that last letter.

"I cumber you good Margaret much ... I never liked your
manner toward me better than when you kissed me last."

CHAPTER VIII
WILLIAM ROPER

"IT'VTTlLLiAM ROPER was nearly fifty years of age when Mar-
\ \ I garet died. He did not marry again, though that would
\ y have been according to the custom of the period,
especially as his eldest son, Thomas, was only eleven years old.
The fact that he did not remarry was sufficiently unusual for it
to be recorded in his epitaph. There is no information about him
during the two remaining years of the king's life, but after
Henry's death at the end of January 1547, and with the accession
of his ten-year-old son Edward, Roper seems to have reorganized
his affairs. In April, he and William Rastell leased the tenancy of
Crosby Place from Sir Thomas More's old friend Antonio Bon-
visi. Two months later, Bonvisi conveyed the property in trust
to Richard Heywood and John Webb, both of whom had been
present at More's trial; it was to them that Roper owed his know-
ledge of it. Richard Heywood, brother of John Heywood, was
Roper's partner in the office of Prothonotary ; it may be presumed
that John Webb was also a lawyer.

Crosby Place was not just the hall (now re-erected on Sir
Thomas More's estate) but included dwelling houses and other
buildings. William Roper seems to have made it his town house
or office as there is no later reference connecting him with Chel-
sea. Well Hall, Eltham, which was only five miles from London
Bridge, was the family home, and the children would probably
live there. We know little of their education after their mother's
death; Thomas matriculated at Louvain on 20 July 1547, but
nothing further is known of his studies there; he entered Lin-
coln's Inn about 1552. Mary, to whom Ascham wrote the letter
of 1554 quoted in the last chapter, had further instruction in
Greek from John Morwen of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
During Edward's reign she made a translation of the Ecclesiastical

WILLIAM ROPER 127

History of Eusebius, the first book into Latin and the first five into
English. 1 She also translated into English her grandfather's Treatise
on the Passion which he had written (partly in Latin) in the Tower
but had been unable to finish. This was included in the 1557
edition of More's English Works. Mary Roper had evidently in-
herited her mother's devotion to learning.

William Rastell had given up printing after his uncle's exe-
cution and had entered Lincoln's Inn; he was called to the Bar in
1539 and soon made his mark as a lawyer. In 1544 he married
Winifred Clement, the eldest daughter of John and Margaret
Clement; in the same year, John Clement became President of the
College of Physicians.

William Roper probably severed his connection with Chelsea
when in September 1547 he granted the reversion of Butclose to
Sir William Paulet, now Lord St. John and Lord Chancellor, who
already held the main part of the More estate. The record reads:
"reversion of a messuage and pightal or close of land called But-
close in Chelsea, with the houses, barn and garden which William
Roper esquire now holds for life, rent free, by the gift of Thomas
More attainted." Both Paulet and Roper were long-lived. Paulet
(as Marquis of Winchester) was nearly ninety when he died 2 ; his
Chelsea property went to his daughter Anne who married Greg-
ory Fiennes, Lord Dacre of the South. He died before her and
there were no children. On her death in 1595 she left the former
More estate to Lord Burghley.

John More died in 1547; the last official reference to him
describes him as "of Chelsea"; it is not known whether he ever
went to Barnbrough. Nor do we know the date of Lady Alice
More's death; in 1550 she would have been about eighty years of
age. 3

Henry VIII's wishes for the government during his son's

1 The copy she presented to Queen Mary is in the British Museum.

2 He held office under Henry, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth. When he was
asked in his old age how he had managed to survive all the changes in religion,
he answered, "I was born of the willow, not the oak."

8 It is not improbable that they were both buried in the More vault at Chelsea.
The epitaph on the monument implies that More expected that his second wife
would be buried there.

128 MARGARET ROPER

minority were set aside, and state affairs came under the control
of the boy's uncle, Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford (Duke of
Somerset) who was Protestant in his outlook; Church affairs were
directed by Thomas Cranmer. The issue of new Injunctions in
July 1547 clearly indicated the direction in which religious policy
was to move; among the provisions, it was ordered that regular
sermons against "the Bishop of Rome's usurped power" must be
preached, and that images and other signs of "superstition"
were to be removed.

Catholics were not as yet directly penalized, but as worship
according to age-long custom became more and more difficult,
they could not but be apprehensive of the future. The removal
and burning of the rood from many a church was a symbol of
what was to come. A new "Order of Communion" was issued
in March 1548 and in January of the following year an Act of
Uniformity imposed the use of the new Book of Common
Prayer.

The members of the More circle must have discussed these
happenings time and time again. It was becoming increasingly
difficult to practise their religion, and it was to become impossible
to do so openly. A question was already being posed that became
more difficult to answer as the years passed: how were their
children to be brought up in the Catholic faith? This may explain
why Roper sent his eldest son to Louvain. The solution for some
was to leave England and begin life anew in a Catholic country.
This was a desperate measure; it meant not only parting from rela-
tives and friends and breaking home associations, but it was a
penal offence to leave the country without licence. In spite of these
grave hardships, several of the More circle decided to go to the
Spanish Netherlands. They made what arrangements they could
to safeguard their possessions by conveyances to trustees, as Bon-
visi had done with Crosby Place, and by other means devised by
the skilled lawyers in the group, but these provisions were to
prove unavailing.

John Clement was the first to leave; this was in July 1549; he
was followed two months later by Bonvisi. Margaret Clement
with the children joined her husband in October. William Rastell

WILLIAM ROPER I2p

and his wife crossed in December. They settled at Louvain where
they were joined by other refugees including Nicholas Harpsfield,
the future biographer of Sir Thomas More. As soon as the news
of this flight was known, the city sheriffs confiscated Crosby
Place and The Barge as forfeited to the king.

William Roper did not leave the country; he seems to have
avoided drawing attention to himself; this was not difficult during
the six years of Edward's reign as the rivalries within the Council
made a thorough-going application of any policy impracticable.
It was a more lawless period than England, especially London, had
known for two generations. We may ask why Roper did not
follow the example of the Clements and Rastells, but this question
cannot be answered because the scraps of knowledge we have of
him at this period do not provide the material on which to base
any judgment. The flight of the Clements and Rastells was excep-
tional during the reign of Edward VI; there was a greater ex-
patriation during the reign of Elizabeth.

With the accession of Mary Tudor in July 1553, it was possible
for the exiles to return, but is was a sad homecoming for William
Rastell. His wife Winifred died at Louvain on 17 July 1553 and
was buried in St. Peter's. Her epitaph described her as "not
learned in the Latin tongue, sufficiently versed in Greek, but not
inferior to anyone in character and holiness of life." She was only
twenty-six years of age, and there were no children. William
Rastell made gifts in her memory to the chapel of Lincoln's Inn,
and arranged for Masses to be said in perpetuity for the "souls
of Winifred Rastell and of all her parents, kinsfolk and
friends." 1

The returned exiles eventually got back their property. John
Clement was anxious about the fate of his valuable library 2 as
well as other possessions such as "a table [painted panel] of Sir
Thomas More's face" valued at forty shillings. He took up again
his work as a doctor and served in various capacities in the College
of Physicians. The Patent Rolls record under the date 8 May 1554

1 Abolished 16 August 1581, as a "stupid abomination and superstition".

2 For an account of his library, see A. W. Reed's article, "John Clement and
his books", The Library, March, 1926.

MARGARET ROPER

a "grant during pleasure to Thomas Clement M.A., son of John
Clement, M.D., of an annuity of XJ 20 -" 1

William Rastell became a sergeant-at-law in 1555, and a judge
of the Queen's Bench in 1558. He and William Roper were made
freemen of Canterbury in 1555, and represented it in the Parlia-
ments of 1555 and 1558. Roper had been appointed sheriff of
Kent in 1553, and had represented Rochester in the Parliament of
1554-

After the death of Stephen Clarke, her first husband, Mary
Roper married James Basset, youngest son of Sir John Basset of
Umberleigh, Devon. He had for twelve years been in the service
of Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. He went into exile
during the reign of Edward VI; we do not know whether he
joined the group at Louvain, but he may have done so, for this
would have brought him on his return to the knowledge of
William Roper and his daughter Mary. Basset became a gentle-
man of the chamber to Queen Mary and his wife one of her ladies
in waiting. He died a few months before the queen.

The new reign meant that it was again safe to speak openly of
Sir Thomas More. William Rastell had long planned to publish
his uncle's works, and with this in mind he had gathered together
all the manuscripts and letters that could be found; he must have
got many of them from his cousin Margaret Roper. It is probable
that when he went into exile he took these precious papers with
him. On his return he arranged for Richard Tottel to print More's
Dialogue of Comfort in Tribulation and this was published in Nov-
ember 1553; it was Towel's first book. The preparation of the
English Works took several years as Rastell had his legal duties to
carry out. He himself had been a skilled printer during his uncle's
lifetime, and he had a high standard of workmanship; he could
therefore supervise production with an expert's eye. The result is
a fine folio of nearly fifteen hundred pages. The title page states
that the book was ' 'printed at London at the costs and charges of
John Cawood, John Waly and Richard Tottell." Waly was a lead-

1 There is no record of Thomas Clement having been at Oxford and Cam-
bridge; nor do we know the reason for the annuity; he may have had some
position at Court.

WILLIAM ROPER 131

ing bookseller; John Cawood was the Queen's printer but he was
responsible for only a small part of the book, most of which was
printed by Richard Tottel. In spite of the statement of the title
page, the printers did not bear the whole of the considerable cost.
It is known that Mary Basset contributed, and probably her father
did so.

The dedication was to Queen Mary and in it Rastell explained
his purpose. Not all of Sir Thomas More's works had been printed
and those that had appeared during his lifetime were in several
volumes which would in time "perish and utterly vanish", so

I did diligently collect and gather together as many of those
his works, books, letters, and other writings, printed and im-
printed in the English tongue as I could come by, and the same
(certain years in the evil world past, keeping in my hands, very
surely and safely) now lately caused to be imprinted in this one
volume, to the intent, not only that every man that will now in
our days, may have and take commodity by them, but also that
they may be preserved for the profit likewise of our posterity.

The words within the brackets are significant. The work, he
noted, was finished on the last day of April 1557.

The little band of exiles must have discussed the plans for pub-
lishing the works of Sir Thomas More. They could not know
when this would be possible; should the boy-king of England live
the normal span, it might be many years before such hopes could
be fulfilled; perhaps the book might have to be printed at Louvain
as was the folio edition of the Latin Works published in Eliza-
beth's reign. No doubt they would also discuss the need for an
account of Sir Thomas More's life and the reasons for his martyr-
dom. William Rastell may have begun writing his own book
which covered the lives of both Bishop John Fisher and Sir
Thomas More; it is a great loss that only some pages of the part
referring to the Bishop have been preserved. It would be impor-
tant to get the testimony of William Roper who had lived for so
many years in More's company; it was he who later selected
Nicholas Harpsfield for writing the book on More, and it was

132 MARGARET ROPER

perhaps at Harpsfield's suggestion that William Roper "set forth
such matters touching his life as I could at this present call to
remembrance/' He apologized because "very many notable
things (not meet to have been forgotten) through negligence and
long continuance of time are slipped out of my mind." He did
not write a biography in our present sense of the term, but he
recorded a series of recollections and vivid memories, so vivid that
some of the scenes are as sharp as a dramatic performance before
our eyes. Harpsfield in his turn wove these memories into his
biography the first of its kind in our language. Roper's book is
unique; had he been a practised writer he might have produced a
longer book, but instead he has given us in his own artless fashion
an imperishable portrait of one of the greatest of Englishmen.
He has done something else that may be overlooked. There is
another portrait in his book that of his wife. There is no set
account of her; she comes to his memory time and time again as
he recalls what she told him. Slight as are the personal references,
he conveys a sense of his deep love for her. His account, for
instance, of her last meeting with her father is animated by some-
thing more than pathos of the occasion; it reveals a sensitiveness
to the emotions that agitated father and daughter that could only
have come from shared affection. It is difficult to believe that he
himself was not present, as indeed he may well have been; the
scene made such an impression on him that twenty years later
every detail remained clear in his memory. 1 It is instructive to
compare Roper's account of this last meeting with that by Harps-
field, who, while following Roper's wording to a great degree,
could change the key by such an introduction as, "This good,
loving and tender daughter, the jewel of the English matrons of
our time. , ."

Roper makes several references to "a great book" of More's
works; this suggests that when he was writing, Rastell's book was
nearly finished. 2 Queen Mary died the year after that folio was
published, but neither Roper's book nor Harpsfield's was in print

1 It may be noted that Roper never intrudes himself; he brings himself into
the picture only when he has a definite place.
1 Roper's own copy is in the library of St John's College, Oxford,

WILLIAM ROPER 133

before her death. It is probable that Harpsfield's manuscript was
not then finished and, as will be noted later, there are indications
that he finished it, or revised it, during the twelve years he spent
with his brother in the Fleet prison during Elizabeth's reign.
Both books were circulated in manuscript form; Roper's was first
printed, in a poor text, in 1626, but Harpsfield's had to wait until
1932 before it was published in full.

Queen Mary and Cardinal Pole died on 17 November 1558.
Catholics could not but regard the accession of Elizabeth with
foreboding. At first there was no active attack on Catholicism.
William Cecil's attitude seems to have been that, with the dying
out of the priests and the enforcement of uniformity of worship
in the parish churches, Catholicism itself would die out. Two Acts
passed early in 1559 defined the position; the first was the Act of
Supremacy which gave the queen the title of "supreme gov-
ernor ... as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as
temporal," and imposed an oath "upon the evangelist" on all who
held office in the realm. By this "all foreign jurisdictions, powers,
superiorities, and authorities" were renounced a clause obviously
aimed at Papal authority. William Roper, as Prothonotary, must
have taken this oath. The Act of Uniformity imposed the use of
the Book of Common Prayer; "any manner of parson, vicar, or
other whatsoever minister" who used prayers or administered
sacraments contrary to those laid down was liable to imprison-
ment; there were provisions against those who spoke against the
new order; finally, all had to attend their parish churches or be
fined twelve pence for each absence. Catholics were in a difficult
position; there was no one to give them authoritative advice; most
of the priests had accepted the changes; all their bishops, save one,
were in prison or under constraint; the normal organization of the
Church had vanished overnight. Some Catholics took the oath;
many attended their parish churches; some priests, having con-
ducted the Prayer Book service in the parish church, then said
Mass privately for the faithful Catholics. For a decade the situ-
ation was chaotic.

We get a glimpse of William Roper at the beginning of the
reign in connection with Abbot Feckenham (John Homan) of

134 MARGARET ROPER

Westminster. The monastery was restored in 1556 to a brief life
of three years. We learn that Thomas Brampston, a novice, left
the monastery at its second dissolution for the house of "Mr.
Roper at Eltham." Later this young man was given a place at St.
John's College, Oxford, 1 by its founder Sir Thomas White who
numbered among his close friends both Abbot Feckenham and
William Roper. From another source it is known that, during
Edward VTs reign, Roper contributed twenty shillings to a loan
fund established by Feckenham at Solihull, Warwickshire, where
he had been vicar. Sir Thomas White, a staunch Catholic, had
been Lord Mayor of London in 1553-4 and had been largely
responsible for holding the city steady during Wyatt's rebellion.
He poured out his wealth in many charitable trusts, in scholarships
at schools and in founding his College. White appointed Sir
William Cordell, Master of the Rolls, and William Roper visitors
for life of St. John's College. Roper would no doubt be present
at the burial of his friend in the chapel of St. John's in January
1567. The eulogy was delivered by Edmund Campion; two other
members of the College were probably present the chaplain,
Cuthbert Mayne, and Gregory Martin; two future martyrs and
the translator of the Rheims New Testament. The puritanical
Bishop of Winchester tried to get both visitors removed during
Elizabeth's reign, but without success.

Mention was made at the beginning of the last chapter of a
lawsuit in 1561 brought against Roper concerning lands in Batter-
sea that had belonged to Sir Thomas More. The dispute was with
Henry Roy den who claimed that a lease of the property had been
granted to him during the reign of Edward VI. Roper replied by
presenting a later lease made to him in the reign of Queen Mary,
and it was on the strength of this that he had driven out Royden's
cattle. As "my farm in Battersea" is mentioned in Roper's will, it
seems that he retained possession. The long list in that will of
estates in many parts of the country indicates the wealth he accum-
ulated in addition to his inherited property. His earlier dispute

1 Thomas Brampston became a Fellow of St John's; he went to Douay in 1584,
and returned to England as a priest in 1586. See J. McCann and C. Cary-Elwes,
Ampkforth and its Origins (1952), pp. 279 and 284.

WILLIAM ROPER 135

with Lady Alice More over the same property in Battersea sug-
gests that he was a stubborn defender of his rights even when it
meant, as we should think, a misbecoming wrangle with the
widow of his father-in-law. It was a litigious time, and it is not
surprising that some lawyers became very wealthy; they reaped
the rich harvest of the sale and resale of Church lands, in which
few Catholics scrupled to share, but there were also incessant
appeals to the law occasioned by attainders, confiscations and
restorations; the Tudor period was an Elysium for lawyers, and
William Roper seems to have enjoyed the opportunities the times
put in his way.

In I563 1 the penalties for refusing the oath laid down in the Act
of Supremacy were made more severe, involving loss of property,
and for a second offence, condemnation as a traitor. At the same
time the net was spread wider and the oath was extended to mem-
bers of Parliament, lawyers, university students taking a degree,
and schoolmasters. William Rastell and the Clements left the
country for the second time at the beginning of I563 2 ; they may
have had warning of the legislation planned for the new Parlia-
ment, but without that they would have found the increasing
obstructions to Catholic worship to be unbearable. The very word
"Mass" was banned and altars had become tables. John Heywood
and his wife, William RastelTs sister, followed a year later. They
settled at first at Louvain. In 1565 John Harris and his wife (Dor-
othy Colley, Margaret Roper's former maid) and their children
also went into exile. Harris was able to maintain his family as a
teacher of Latin and Greek, and after the English College was
founded at Douay, he settled there and served the College, going
with it to Rheims. His arrival in the Netherlands was important;
he brought with him many of Sir Thomas More's letters. When
Thomas Stapleton, another exile, more than twenty years later
came to write his life of More, he acknowledgedt hat"nothing has

x Lady Alice Alington died in 1563; she was buried in Horseheath Church,
Cambridgeshire on 20 September. Sir Giles Alington died in 1586 in his eighty-
sixth year. There is a monument to them in the church.

* William Rastell, John Clement and his son Thomas matriculated at Louvain
in 1563. The reason for this is not known; it may have been to give a status in the
University. See Vocht, Ada Thomae Mori, p. 109.
M.H. 10

136 MARGARET ROPER

helped me more that Harris's manuscript collections, including
many of More's letters written in the martyr's own hand, all of
which Mr. Harris's widow had handed to me." 1

It is tempting to say more of these English exiles, but the sub-
ject would take us too far afield to be dealt with here; a few notes
must suffice. William Rastell died on n November 1579 and was
buried at St. Peter's, Louvain, where his wife had been buried
twenty-six years earlier. Margaret Clement died at Mechlin on
6 July 1570, and her husband two years later; they were buried
in St. Rumbold's Church. Their daughter Margaret was to be
prioress of St. Ursula's, Louvain, for nearly forty years. Thomas
Clement seems to have settled at Louvain; a son, Caesar, became
Dean of St. Gudula's, Brussels. John Harris died at Namur on
II November 1579; his widow returned to Douay, and was alive
in 1588. Their daughter, Ann, married John Fowler, a former
Fellow of New College, Oxford, the notable printer of Antwerp
and Louvain. John Heywood died at Louvain in 1 5 80 when he was
well over eighty years of age. His sons, Ellis and Jasper, were dis-
tinguished Jesuits.

The extension of the application of the oath of 1563 did not
affect William Roper; it has already been pointed out that he must
have taken the oath under the 1559 Act, and if he attended his
parish church for the sake of outward conformity, he was doing
what the majority of Catholics were doing; they still lacked
authoritative guidance on how to act. Those like Roper, who were
fortunate enough to have more than one place of residence,
particularly if this included one in London, could avoid church-
going more easily than those who lived under the eyes of their
churchwardens.

William Roper remained an active member of Lincoln's Inn,
and occupied various positions of responsibility in its conduct.
Both his sons> Thomas and Anthony, became lawyers, and the
records of Lincoln's Inn show that on i July 1565, William Roper

obtained admission to his own Chamber for his sons, Thomas
and Anthony, Fellows of this House, and afterwards for

1 It is not known what happened to these manuscripts. One would have
expected them to find a home at Douay.

WILLIAM ROPER 137

William Dawtrey, his daughter's [Margaret's] son, who was
thus junior, and not able to claim benefit thereof against the
other two. 1

Crosby Place and five tenements there were sold to Alderman
William Bond in 1566; this ended the tenancy of William Roper
and Richard Hey wood; they returned to the Inn; on 19 August
1567 they were "admitted to the two east chambers beneath in
the middle rooms of the new building/' Richard Hey wood died
in 1570, and William Roper retained his chamber until 1574 when
he was over seventy-five years of age.

It was not until 1568, as far as the records reveal, that he began
to get into serious trouble for being a Catholic. He was called
before the Privy Council on 8 July of that year.

Submission of William Roper before the Lords of the Privy
Council for having relieved with money certain persons who
have departed out of the realm, and who, with others, have
printed books against the Queen's supremacy and government.

There is much behind that statement. The reference to books
written abroad by Catholics concerns what may be called the first
phase of the Catholic response to Elizabethan religious policy.
A group of learned exiles, most of them Oxford scholars, took
up their pens and vindicated Catholic claims. Among them were
William Allen, of Oriel College, and three who had passed from
Winchester College to New College John Rastell, SJ., 2 Thomas
Harding and Thomas Stapleton. Part of their attack was directed
against Bishop Jewel's Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, a very influ-
ential book which was translated into English by Francis Bacon's
mother. William Allen wrote his Defence and Declaration of the
Catholic Church's Doctrine (1564) and Stapleton's books included
his translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History (1565), which he

1 An entry in the Black Books of Lincoln's Inn dated n Nov. 1575 states that
Anthony Roper and William Dawtrey were warned that they "are spared from
the expulsion of the Fellowship of this House until the end of Hilary term next,
so that they in the mean time receive the Communion in Lincoln's Inn." As
Elizabeth Dawtrey is not mentioned in her father's will (only Margaret's name
is given) it may be presumed that she died before her father.

8 Of Gloucester. No relation of William Rastell.

138 MARGARET ROPER

dedicated to Queen Elizabeth to remind her "in what faith your
noble Realm was Christened." To get such books printed and then
to arrange for smuggling them into England and distributed was
an expensive business. It was for this purpose that financial help
was sought from well-to-do Catholics. The government was soon
alive to the threat of such publications for these books were not the
work of hack pamphleteers but of men who were the equals or the
superiors in learning of official apologists. Somehow it was dis-
covered that William Roper had contributed to this publications
fund, and it was for this reason that he was brought before the
Council.

The year 1 568 has another significance, for it was then that the
second phase of the Catholic response opened. William Allen
founded the English College and Seminary at Douay (Douai) in
that year. It is highly probable that William Roper contributed to
the support of the College. This could explain why it was that a
month after his death a Solemn Requiem was sung at Douay for
the repose of his soul; the brief entry in the College Diary stated
that he would be "missed most greatly by all Catholics living here
and in England," which surely implies that he was regarded by
William Allen as one of their benefactors.

Harpsfield praised William Roper as "the singular helper and
patron of all Catholics, to relieve and aid them in distress, espec-
ially such as either were imprisoned or otherwise troubled for
the Catholic faith . . . But his great alms reacheth to all kinds of
poor and needy persons." 1 Ro. Ba., the unidentified author of a
later life of More (written about 1600), elaborated Harpsfield's
tribute. "His ordinary alms, as yet to be seen in his book of ac-
counts, amounted yearly to ^1000; his extraordinaries were as
much, and sometimes more, sometimes two, three, four thousand
pound a year." These are fantastic figures; some manuscripts
reduce the 'thousands' to 'hundreds' which would be reasonable,
but would still represent a considerable sum in Tudor values.

1 Tills statement and the acknowledgment in the dedication of the "great bene-
fits and charges employed and heaped upon me' 1 by William Roper, suggests
that Harpsfield revised his manuscript during the twelve years he and his brother
were in the Fleet prison. He may have supported them during these years. There
was no earlier period when Harpsfield would have needed such 'charges'.

WILLIAM ROPER 139

'His book of accounts' no longer exists, and it is not possible to
do more than mention benefactions that have come to light.
Anthony a Wood, writing in the seventeenth century, remarked
on Roper's generous almsgiving. One example of his concern
for prisoners was his gift of property to the Company of Parish
Clerks on condition that they provided yearly grants to four City
prisons for bread or coals for the prisoners.

In November 1569 the magistrates for the Eltham area reported
to the Council that William Roper had entered into a bond "to
be of good behaviour" relative to the Act of Uniformity. This
meant that he had been reported for failing to attend his parish
church. A London diocesan return of recusants for 1577 included a
list of those members of Lincoln's Inn "who upon suspicion had
of their religion were appointed to receive the Communion . . .
but have not yet done the same." The list includes the name of
William Roper, who, it was thought, had "a yearly revenue of
^1000", and also "Thomas Roper, his eldest son one of the two
Prothonotaries of the Queen's Bench; Anthony Roper, his
brother, clerk of the papers in the same court," and "Philip Basset
son and heir of Mis. Basset, 1 late of the Privy Chamber."

The recusancy of the Ropers awaits investigation. One indi-
cation concerns the church of St. John's, Eltham. The advowson
belonged to the Roper family, but in 1635 Sir William Roper
(William Roper's grandson) was inhibited as a convicted recusant
from presenting to the vacant living; his son, Anthony, was later
also inhibited for the same reason. On both occasions the presen-
tations were made by the Convocation of Oxford University.

Another instance of Roper's concern for Catholic prisoners
occurred in the last year of his life. Thomas Sherwood, a Lon-
doner, was arrested on suspicion of being a Catholic, and, as he
refused to take the oath, he was sent to the Tower and there

1 Mary (Roper) Basset died on 20 March 1572; her father was an executor of
her will. She left "a ring that was my grandfather More's" to her eldest son
Philip (For him, see Ro. Ba., pp. 301-2). Her younger son, Charles, was one of
the young men who helped Persons and Campion on their English mission. He
was in the Marshalsea for a time. He left England in 1581 and entered the English
College, Rome, on 8 Oct. In 1584 he went to Rheims for reasons of health, and
seems to have died there in 1585. Fr. Persons had a very high opinion of him.
(Sec Index, C.R.S., voL 39).

140 MARGARET ROPER

tortured, and put into one of the fouler dungeons. A contemporary
account records that "when a Catholic gentleman, pitying his
extreme sufferings, had, by means of another prisoner, conveyed
to Mr. Sherwood's keeper some money for the use of the prisoner,
the money was by the keeper returned the next day because the
Lieutenant of the Tower would not suffer the prisoner to have the
benefit of any such alms." Father Robert Persons identified "a
Catholic gentleman" as "Mr. Roper, son-in-law to Sir Thomas
More." Thomas Sherwood suffered at Tyburn on 7 February
1578.

William Roper made his will on 10 January 1577; his chief
executors were Sir Christopher Wray, Lord Chief Justice, and
Edmund Plowden a prudent combination of a conformist and
a steadfast Catholic. The will mentions estates in Kent, Middlesex,
Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, London and Canterbury, but there
is no reference to any property at Chelsea. He made generous
provision for his clerks and servants, and he left .40 for the bene-
fit of prisoners of the Queen's Bench. He left 5 to the parish
church at Chelsea "if I be buried there." An earlier sentence reads,
"And my body to be buried at Chelsea in the County of Middle-
sex in the vault with the body of my dearly beloved wife (whose
soul our Lord pardon), where my father-in-law, Sir Thomas More
(whose soul Jesus bless), did mind to be buried." 1 It is not known
why his wishes were not respected.

William Roper died on 4 January 1578 and was buried in the
family vault at St. Dunstan's, Canterbury.

1 This sentence disposes of two conjectures which have been made from time
to time, even recently: (a) that Margaret Roper was buried at St. Dunstan's, and
(6) that Sir Thomas More's body was brought from the Tower and reburied at
Chelsea. So William Roper 'had a mind to be buried* at Chelsea but was not.

APPENDIX I

NOTES ON THE ILLUSTRATIONS

I. The More Family Group.

This sketch for the large painting was probably given to Erasmus by Holbein
in 1528. It is now in the Kunstsammlung, Basle. Reading from left to right,
the Latin notes give the following information.
"Elizabeth Daunce, daughter of Thomas More, in her 2ist year."
"Margaret Giggs, wife of Clement, fellow pupil and relation of the daughters

of Thomas More, in her 22nd year/*
"John More, father, in his 76th year."
"Anne Cresacre, wife of John More, in her I5th year."
"Thomas More in his 50th year."

"John More, son of Thomas, in his ipth year."

"Henry Patenson, fool of Thomas More, in his 40th year."

"Cecily Heron, daughter of Thomas More, in her 2Oth year."

"Margaret Roper, daughter of Thomas More, in her 22nd year."

"Alice, wife of Thomas More, in her 57th year."

For a detailed study of this sketch, with reproductions of the preliminary

studies and of two of the painted versions, see my Saint Thomas More.

II. Margaret Roper.

Not by Holbein ; a copy of a lost original, or based on the large painted group ;
a wooden panel, 25^ in. X 19 J in.

HI. Title page of "Treatise on the Paternoster"
The woodcut was one that had been used by Wynkyn de Worde.

IV. Holograph letter from Margaret Roper to Erasmus.

As noted in the text, this is the only known example of Margaret Roper's
hand.

The portion shown reads, with abbreviations expanded, "Margareta Ropera
Eruditiss. Theologo D. Erasmo Ro. S.P.D. Quam illud boni plerunque acci-
dere soleat gratissimum quo subito quis atque insperato fruatur, id ego nuper,
vir omnium eruditissime, verissimum experta sum; quumlitteras tuas non
minus eligantes quam amantes, certosque studiosi animi tui erga patrem
omnemque eius familiam testes, Quirinus tuus mihi traderet. Quae quanto
magis venerunt insperatae, tanto merito maiorem menti meae voluptatem

142 APPENDIX I

intulere. Neque enim aut sperare aut cxpectare poteram ut tarn multis
necessariis studiis assidue accupadssimus, morbis turn acribus misere perpetuo
agitatus seniique molestia confectus, mihi unquam "

V & VI. Margaret and William Roper.

Miniatures by Holbein, mounted as pendants; watercolour on card. The
reproductions are the same size as the originals. The problems raised by the
ages given are referred to in the text. If Margaret Roper's age is correctly
given, then the miniatures (presumably painted at the same time as a pair)
were painted in, the year of Sir Thomas More's martyrdom or very shortly
afterwards. According to the ages given, William Roper was twelve years
older than Margaret; this would make him 85 at the time of his death.

APPENDIX II

GENEALOGIES

A. More

B. Roper

C. Rastell, Clement, Heywood

Note: These are not complete genealogies; a number of names have been
omitted; most of those given are of persons mentioned in this book.

A
MORE

3

H

O
Q

EDMI

THO

rh

1"

.

n

THOMAS=J
1531-1606

B
ROPER

I

3 o-

c

RASTELL

CLEMENT

HEYWOOD

us

" U J

<

o ^

w

w

-S i

00 <X<
< J^

:.a

2

INDEX

MR. Margaret Roper

Adages, 56

JEsop's fables, 74-5, 80-2

Alington, Alice, see Middleton, Alice

Alington, Giles, 51; marriage, 34; lands,

61; death, 135*1

Allen, William (Cardinal), 137, 138
Ammonio, Andrew, 7
Apologye, 60, 62
Arthur, Thomas, 51
Ascham, Roger, 116-17
Audley, Sir Thomas, 73-5, 80-3

Barge, The, 4-5, 44, 67, 129

Barking (All Hallows) Church, 109, no

Barnbrough, 14, 114, 127

Barton, Elizabeth (Nun of Kent), 64

Basset, Charles (grandson of M.R.), I39n

Basset, James, 130

Basset, Mary, see Roper, Mary

Basset, Philip (grandson of M.R.), 139

Battersea, 113, 134-5

Beaufort, Lady Margaret, 19

Beckenshawe, John, 120-1

Benson, William (Abbot of Westminster),

67

Berthelet, Thomas, 39
Boethius, 23, 82

Boleyn, Anne, 59, 62, 72, 93, 99
Bonvisi, Antonio, 44, 126
Bouge, Father John, 9
Brampston, Thomas, 134
Brindholme, Ven. Edmund, 118
Bucklersbury, 4, n, 67
Bude, Guillaume, 28
Burghley, Lord, 45, 127, 133
Butclose, 61, 113, 127

Campion, Blessed Edmund, 134
Canterbury, 130; Plot of Prebendaries,

119-20; see St Dunstan's
Carthusians, 101-2, 114, 118-19, 122
Catherine of Aragon, 12, 19, 58
Cawood, John, 130-1
Chelsea; T.M.'s estate, 44-7, 123, 127;

Old Church More monument and

vault, 8, 46, 60, 140
Christian Woman, Instruction of a, 14, 19,

26
Clarke, Stephen, 130

T.M. = St. Thomas More

Clement, Caesar (grandson of John

Clement), 136

Clement, John, 13, 21, 41, 34, 67; sus-
pected, 120; ist exile, 128; return, 129;

2nd exile, 135; death, 136
Clement, Margaret (daughter of John), 136
Clement, Margaret (wife of John), see

Giggs, Margaret

Clement, Thomas (son of John), 130, 136
Clement, Winifred (daughter of John) ;

marriage, 127; death, 129
Coke, Anne, 40-1
Coke, John; The Debate, 40
Colet, Dean John, 13
Colley, Dorothy; marriage, 68; visits T.M.

in Tower, 106-8; burial of T.M., 109-

10; T.M.'s letters, 135
Colloquies, 6, 56
Colt, Jane, 2-4; account by Erasmus, 6;

T.M.'s tribute, 8; death, 7
Common Prayer, Book of, 128, 133
Confutation, 62
Cordell, Sir William, 134
Coster, John, 41
Council, General, 88-90
Cranmer, Thomas, 62, 119, 128
Cresacre, Anne, 14, 107; T.M.'s hair

shirt, 48
Cromwell, Thomas; M.R. and, 68, 102;

T.M. and, 71-2, 80, 93 ; Giles Heron and,

118

Crosby Place, 44, 126, 137
Croxton, Thomas, 51

Dandie, Robert, 47
Danvers House, 6in
Daunce, William; marriage, 34; M.P., 59;

lands, 61; trial, etc., 121
Dawtrey, William (grandson of M.R.),

137

Debate, The, 40

Dialogue Concerning Heresies, 57
Dialogue of Comfort, 130
Douay, 135, 136, 138
Drew, Master, 13, 23

Edward VI, 126-7, 131
Eldrington, John, 121
Elizabeth I, 113, 133, 138

INDEX

Eltham; Well Hall, 30, 122, 126

English Works (T.M.), 68, 75, 98, 130-1

Epigrammata, 22

Erasmus; meetings with T.M., 5-6, 47; on
Jane More, 6; on Dame Alice, 9; on
M.R., 28; dedications, 37, 38; on Chel-
sea, 46; letter to M.R., 53-4. Books:
Adages, 56; Colloquies, 6, 56; Nux, 38;
Praise of Folly, 56, 82; Precatio dotninica,
38

Faber, John, 46

Feckenham, Abbot, 133-4

Fisher, St. John, 39, 50, 64, 70,93, 117; the

oath, 67, 74, 83-4; Tower, 68, 100;

burial, 108-10
Four Last Things, 40
Fowler, John, 136

Gardiner, Blessed Germain, 120; martyr,

I2I-2

Gardiner, Bishop Stephen, 122

Giggs, Margaret, 10, 14, 47, 51-2 ; algorism,
27; learning, 34, 40-1; marriage to John
Clement, 35; at The Barge, 67; last
meeting with T.M., 106; at T.M.'s
martyrdom, 109; Carthusians, 114-15;
suspected, 115-17; ist exile, 128; return,
129; 2nd exile, 135; death, 136

Gilles, Peter, 13

Gobions, 2, 113

Gonell, William, 13-14, 47; T.M.'s letter
to, 14-18

Grynaeus, Simon, 63

Haile, Blessed John, 101

Haleswofth, 74, 117

Harding, Thomas, 137

Harpsfield, Nicholas, I, 31, 129, 132-3, 138

Harris, Ann, 136

Harris, Dorothy, see Colley, Dorothy

Harris, John, 68, 135; death, 136

Henry VIII, 12, 19, 93; at Chelsea, 48-9;

divorce, 58-9; marriage to Anne Boleyn,

62; T.M.'s attitude towards, 78, 108
Heron, Giles; marriage, 34; M.P., 59;

lands, 61; trial, etc., 118-19
Heywood, John, 104; trial, etc., 120-1;

exile, 135

Heywood, Richard, 105, 126; death, 137
Holbein, Hans, i, 14, 47; at Chelsea, 52-3;

2nd visit to England, 112; portraits of

M.R., 53, 123, 141

Home, Blessed William, 114-15, 118-19
Horseheath, 117, 13571
Hyrde, Richard, 14; Christian Woman,

14, 19, 26; tribute to M.R., 39-40, 44

Immaculate Conception, 89
Ireland, Blessed John, 121-2

Jewel, Bishop John, 137
Kratzer, Nicholas, 13-14, 23

Larke, Blessed John, 47, 122
Lincoln's Inn, 31, 127, 129, 136-7, 139
Louvain, 126, 129, 135-6
Luther, Martin, 31

Martin Gregory, 134

Mary I, 129, 130, 131; death, 132-3

Mayne, Blessed Cuthbert, 134

Metcalfe, Nicholas, 117

Middleton, Alice (T.M.'s step-daughter),
10, 14, 117; marriages, 34; and Audley,
73; letter to M.R., 74-5; death, 135*1

Moravian Burial Ground, 44-5

More, Dame Alice (T.M.'s wife), 9-10, 14,
45; fire at Chelsea, 57-8; appeal to king,
98-9; visits T.M. in Tower, 100-1;
annuity, 113; quarrel with Roper, 113;
T.M.'s affection for, 10, 101 ; death, 127

More, Cecily (T.M.'s daughter), 7, 14,
118-19; marriage, 34

More, Elizabeth (T.M.'s daughter), 7, 14,
107; marriage, 34

More, Sir John (T.M.'s father), 2-3, 30

More, John (T.M.'s son), 7, 14, 21, 47, 49;
dedications to, 38, 63; translation of
book, 63 ; last meeting with T.M. , 105-8 ;
sons, 107; loss of lands, 113-14; trial,
etc., 1 20-i ; death, 127

More, Margaret, see Roper, Margaret

More, St. Thomas; marriage, 1-4; children,
7; friendliness of king, 12, 48-9; his
"school", 14-27; embassy to Bruges, 35;
Chelsea, 44; hair shirt, 48, 106; embassy
to Cambrai, 57-8; fire at Chelsea, 57;
Lord Chancellor, 48, 59; the divorce,
58-9; resignation, 59-60; income, 60-1;
coronation of Anne Boleyn, 62; Nun of
Kent, 64-6; oath, 67-8; Westminster
monastery, 67; Tower, 68; harsher
imprisonment, 99; Carthusians, 101-2;
M.R.'s attitude to oath, 69, 76-98, 103;
last meeting, 105-6; martyrdom and
burial, 108-9; 140^; his head, iio-n
Books : Apologye, 60, 62; Confutation, 62;
Dialogue Concerning Heresies, 57; Dia-
logue of Comfort, 130; Epigrammata, 22;
Four Last Things, 40; Treatise on the
Passion, 127; Utopia, 13, 28
Letters: to his "school", 20, 22, 23; to
M.R., 21, 32, 35, 67, 69, 73, loo, 101,
106; from M.R., 70, 99

New Building, 46, 56; see Butclose
Norfolk, 3rd Duke of, 48
Norris, Henry, 99
Nux, 38

INDEX

149

Oath (Succession), 64, 66-8, 70, 74, 76-
98, 103, 133, 136

Pace, Richard, 9

Palsgrave, John, 49

Passion, Treatise on the, 127

Patenson, Henry, 47, 94

Paternoster, Devout Treatise upon the, i ,

38-43
Paulet, William (Marquis of Winchester),

113, 127

Penitential Psalms, 47, 76, 124
Persons, Robert, S. J., 13971, 140
Philpot, Yen. Clement, 118
Picus, John (Earl of Mirandola), 3-4
Piepowders, Court of, 85
Plowden, Edmund, 140
Pole, Sir Geoffrey, 115
Pole, Henry (Lord Montague), 115
Pole, Blessed Margaret (Countess of

Salisbury), 115
Pole, Reginald (Cardinal), 28, 118, 120,

133

Pope, Thomas, 108
Praise of Folly, 56, 82
Precatio dominica, 38
Prester John, 63

Quintilian, 25-6, 36

Rastell, Joan (T.M.'s niece), 104, 122

Rastell, John (T.M.'s brother-in-law),
49, 52;M.P.,59

Rastell, John, SJ., 137

Rastell, William (T.M.'s nephew); printer,
62-3, 122; T.M.'sEnglish Works, 68, 75,
98, 130-1; marriage, 127; lawyer, 127,
130; ist exile, 128-9; return, 129; judge
andM.P., 130; 2nd exile, 135; death, 136

Reynolds, Blessed Richard, 101

Roper, Anthony (M.R.'s son), 38, 136,
137, 139

Roper, Anthony (M.R.'s great grandson),
139

Roper, Elizabeth (M.R.'s daughter), 39,
HO

Roper, Margaret; birth, i; marriage, 30;
children, 36-8, 116-17; Paternoster, i,
38-43; her learning, 40-1; Four Last
Things, 40; sweating sickness, 56; the
oath, 68, 76-98, 103; visits T.M. in
Tower, 72, 73, 76, 100; last meeting, 105,
125, 1 32; T.M.'s burial, 108-10; his head,
Iio-ii; before Council, 112; Butclose,
n 3; suspected, 1 15-16; character, 123-5;
death and burial, 123, 140/3
Letters: to T.M., 70, 99; to Alice Aling-
ton, 76-98; to Erasmus, 54-5, 141-2;
from T.M., 21, 32, 35, 67, 69, 73, 100,
101, 106; from Erasmus, 53-4

Roper, Margaret (M.R. f s daughter), 38;

her son, 137
Roper, Mary (M.R.'s daughter), 38; her

learning, 126-7; marriages, 130; death,

Roper, Thomas (M.R.'s son), 38 ; Louvain,
126; Lincoln's Inn, 126, 136, 139

Roper, William; birth and pedigree, 30;
marriage, 30; Prothonotary, 30, 68, 105,
126, 133, 139; protestantism, 31-2; at
Chelsea, 50-2; M.P., 59, 130; lands, 61,
134, 140; Battersea, 113, 135; suspected,
120; fined, 120; Crosby Hall, 126; leaves
Chelsea, 127; Life of More, 131-2; oath,
133, 136; Abbot Feckenham, 133-4;
St. John's College, Oxford, 134; sub-
mission, 137; alms, 138-40; church
attendance, 136, 139; Thomas Sherwood,
139; will, death and burial, 140;
Requiem, 138

Roper, Sir William (M.R.'s grandson), 139

St. Dunstan's, Canterbury, no, 120, 122,

140

St. John's, Oxford, 134
St. Peter ad Vincula, joo, 109
"School", T.M.'s, 19, 38; letters to, 20 22,

23

Sherwood, Blessed Thomas, 139-40
Sloane, Sir Hans, 44

Smyth, Walter; Twelve Merry Jests, 49-52
Stapleton, Thomas; Tres Thomae, i, 12;

Bede, 137-8; T M.'s letters, 19, 135
Staverton, Frances (T.M.'s niece), 14, 38
Stow, John, 4-5

Succession, Act of (1534), 66, 73, 93-4
Supremacy, Act of; (1534), 93-4, 98;

(J559), 133

Talesius, Quirin, 47, 54

Tottel, Richard, 130-1

Treason Act (1534), 98

Tres Thomae, i, 12

Tunstall, Bishop Cuthbert, 34, 39, 54, 57-8,

62; arithmetic, 27; oath, 64, 70
Twelve Merry Jests, 49-52

Utopia, 13, 28

Veysey, Bishop John, 35
Vives, J. L., 14, 19, 25-6

Waley, John, 130

White, Sir Thomas, 134

Wolsey, Cardinal, 13, 39, 50; fable of rain,

80-1

Women, education of, 18-19
Wood, John i, 49, 68, 71
Wray, Sir Christopher, 140