Robert Bolt deliberately chose a subject that would prove to be difficult for other authors but Bolt managed to get round this and write about it in a very skilful way. The problems that this play may have posed for Bolt would've been how to compress several years of history into a few hours of theatre and the idea that it is highly unlikely that a play which was written in the late twentieth century about a political argument in the fifteenth century, five hundred years earlier, would be appealing to an audience. Bolt wanted the audience to go home thinking and in my opinion they would have. Bolt does this by the wide range of dramatic skills that he used.
             One of the key themes of the play that Robert Bolt is trying to get across to us is the idea that "No man can serve two masters", this is proven true since both the Common Man and Sir Thomas More are not able to serve two masters. In the play the Spanish Ambassador Chapuys says to the steward (Common Man) "No man can serve two masters" Within the play this statement is proven true for all the characters, especially for the Common Man and Sir Thomas More. The Common Man, shows himself time and again that he truly serves one master and that master is himself; whereas with More attempts to serve two masters. More attempts to serve King Henry of England, and God. By the end of the play it is shown that More cannot serve two masters despite all his efforts. Robert Bolt uses the sub text given off by the play and only actually writes this one statement in the play showing us that the audience have to have a large degree of understanding and intelligence to get this point across. This theme leads on to "Every man has his price" where Robert Bolt is trying to show us that not all people can be won over with bribes and corruption. In the play Rich is easily bribed whereas Sir Thomas More isn't. Sir Thomas More advises Rich not to go down the same profession as him. This could be Robert Bo...