How does the Common Man enable the audience to understand the complexities of More’s character? Though A Man for All Seasons in itself is a complicated and sustained view into the lives of those surviving in England under a corrupt system, the Common Man is a vital element in the play that documents the inner struggles of a man torn between ‘political realities’ of the day and his faith and knowledge of his own character. By acting as a make shift chorus, the Common Man is able to persuade the audience to remain detached in order to consider the many layered, multi-dimensional More and to consider his motivation and reasoning for his action of remaining ‘silent’. The Common Man also allows and encourages a very dramatic contrast of character between More and himself, along with what would seem characters of ‘all seasons’ in Rich and the State. By lacking in character development, the Common Man is able to successfully communicate the intricacies of More’s concise and important construction. From the beginning of the play, opening with a grand declaration of ‘the Sixteenth Century is the century of the common man’, the audience is immediately aware of his importance in not only beginning, but in the unfolding of events as a sort of commentator as the play progresses. He is meant, as suggested by his distinctive label of ‘the common man’ and his seemingly unidentifiable ‘black’ bit of cloth for a costume, to represent a jack-of-all-trades, a shapeshifter. Most importantly, he is a physical presence on stage that communicates directly with the audience – a constant reminder that this play is not meant to be regarded in the hearts of those watching, but with the heads. He often foreshadows events, offering a suggestion that there will be ‘something that [More] want to keep; and he’ll be out of practice’ which in itself does not communicate very much on its own, but allows the audience to critically consider the decisions that More makes – such as the ‘appearance’ that would come with accepting a ‘bribe’ – without following too closely specific charges in what would otherwise be an unknown plot. For the whole play, while often occupying character, he encourages the audience to remain detached and focussed on More’s character as intelligent and informed individuals, which allows for a greater understanding of More’s ‘silence’, his voyage down an unchartered ‘channel’ and the impact of his resistance in the state and his family. The Common Man also allows for an obvious contrast in character. Just as More is described as ‘a man for all seasons’in his ‘steadfast’ belief in himself and in the path he has chosen in not bending to the marriage, the Common Man also represents a form of complete understanding in himself – while he does not possess the integrity that greatly influences More’s character, he has an inherent will to survive, and in his own way, is steadfast in making sure he succeeds. Though cast as the disloyal ‘steward’, the unsympathetic ‘jailer’, the Common Man is looked upon as having mostly no hand in More’s final sentence – he is merely a man trying to make the best of his disadvantage. In this way, his sort of unbiased, rather objective character with only one will to survive, provides a necessary contrast against More’s seemingly ineffectual character that opposes ‘political realities’ that were ‘inflicted’ on him. His faith in the law, where he finds ‘safety’ is ultimately proved corrupt, and does nothing to keep the power of the state from effectively ‘[seeking his] blood’. The Common Man’s faith remains in his own abilities, labour and not in the ‘theories’ that More does. This contrast, and the ultimate success of the State, and the Common Man over Sir Thomas forces the audience to consider the faults and flaws of all characters, and the effect had changes been made. Though Richard Rich, Cromwell, and the State do ultimately succeed in getting their consent by death of More, the Common Man also encourages the audience to contrast their actions with his own, untainted survival. The scheming Cromwell, the ‘King’s ear’ that sees ‘things’ happen when the King needs it done, is proved to surrender any integrity that may be similar to the character of More. However, his pre-determination to further his own standard of living and status is quite similar to that of the Common Man, who sees nothing outside his immediate goals. However, these similarities are clearly lacking in Rich, who surrenders both integrity and a ‘friendship’ to satisfy his greed and to provide security for his weak character. Once again, the audience is encouraged to weigh these similarities and differences to determine who the blame should fall upon, who should be left without a faded character and how they would act themselves if they were any one of the individuals that consist of the case. Though his character is lacking the perfect development of mind as a lead character would illustrate – Sir Thomas More being an excellent example – his major purpose in the play is to act as a device, a mechanism that begins a series of reactions that takes place within the audience. By acting as a chorus, the audience is left to focus on the character complexities without being affected by emotion of the characters. However, the development that the Common Man does possess, his sole desire to survive from day to day, is used as a sort of generic and objective standard which the audience is encouraged to see in order to fully develop an awareness of More’s character and themes and trial of which he ultimately failed.