1

THOMAS BECKET: HISTORICAL FIGURE AND CHARACTER

Thomas Becket is best known as a defender of papal authority in England, who

defied King Henry II and paid the price of martyrdom. He was highly revered in England

throughout the Middle Ages, and the famous work by Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales,

occurs as a group of pilgrims travel together across England to visit his tomb. The striking

thing about Becket's character, which made him a popular hero, was that he was appointed

to the position of Archbishop by Henry II, specifically so he could be "his man". Becket

had already served Henry II with great distinction as Chancellor, and Henry believed that

he would still control him as Archbishop, but instead, Becket became a genuinely devout

ascetic, a dedicated bishop, and served the church instead of the king, to the point of

martyrdom.

Thomas Becket was born in London, of Norman parents, towards the year 1118. He

was educated at Merton Priory and later in London and Paris. At the age of 22 he returned to

England and became a notary. In about 1142 he attracted the notice of Theobald, Archbishop

of Canterbury. He became his clerk, rising to the position of Archdeacon of Canterbury

in1154. Thomas Becket’s meeting with the king raised him from the position of a mere

nobody to that of the closest friend and companion of Henry II. The two were boon

companions and inseparable friends with the king relying upon Becket whom he had elevated

to the position of Chancellor of England second only to him in temporal power. It was

therefore only natural for Henry to think that Becket would support him whole heartedly in

his attempt to reform the laws of England particularly the ones governing the church. The

king firmly believed that as Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket would co-operate
 2

with his plans to teach criminal clerks a proper lesson. So in 1162 King Henry advanced him

to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury.

However, Henry’s calculations proved wrong. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas

Becket became a totally different person. The sensual man of the world was replaced by an

ascetic, firm believer. Archbishop Becket considered his duty towards to the Pope, the

church and God greater than his affection and loyalty towards the king. The King and the

Archbishop were well matched opponents familiar with each other’s strength and

weaknesses. Neither would concede a point to the other and yet Henry believed that Becket

would come around to his way thinking.

The animosity was simmering between these two erstwhile friends burst into the open

in the year 1164. A decade ago a clerk who had committed murder had escaped with a light

sentence having obtained the benefit of clergy. This had led to Henry’s attempt to revamp

and in some cases revoke the ancient customs that were followed as laws in England. Thus

Henry compiled the good customs that may be followed in England into a comprehensive

document. In this document he also listed a few clauses concerning reform in the church.

Among them there was one clause which said that cases tried in the Archbishop’s court could

not be sent to the papal court without the consent of the king. Another clause which was of

even greater significance was the one which said that clerks found guilty in the church court

should be dismissed from the church and handed over to the king to be punished in

accordance with the law of the land. A preliminary report of these reforms had obtained the

consent of the Archbishop. Therefore the king was confident that his reforms would become

the law of the land with the seal and blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He called the
 3

meeting of his council at the place called Clarendon in the year 1164 so that these reforms

called the Constitutions could be accepted by all as the law.

The Bishops demurred; Becket opposed. No one, he said should be punished twice for

the same offence; to unfrock a priest and then to hang him was to punish him twice. The

meeting at Clarendon came to an end in stalemate. So did another summoned by Henry at

Northampton. The battle of wills and wits raged between the king and the Archbishop. In

fear of his very life the Archbishop fled to France in 1164 were he remained in self exile for

six years. Henry pressed the king of France for his extradition; King Louis declined it on the

ground that ‘he had not fled because of having commited a crime, but because he feared

violence’. The pope at Becket’s entreaty condemned the Constitutions. A sort of stalemate

ensued. The battle continued to rage. The years and negotiations dragged on inconclusively.

The king seized the rich revenues of Canterbury; the Archbishop retaliated by

excommunicating the king and his ministers. Many persons, noble and the clergy tried to

patch up the differences, and as a result, the Archbishop returned to Canterbury in 1170 to a

people starved of spiritual comfort. He did not return as one willing to accept defeat at the

hands of the king but as crusader for the rights of the church. The very first act that Thomas

Becket carried out was to exert the exclusive privileges of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He

summoned the prelates of England including the Archbishop of York to obtain their

confession and repentance for having carried out or taken part in the coronation of Henry’s

son as the Crown Prince of England which was exclusive privilege of the Archbishop of

Canterbury. In addition he also excommunicated many of the nobles who had taken part in

the ceremony. Henry who was at that time visiting his lands in France erupted in anger at the

arrogance of the Archbishop. He is said to have demanded in fury if there was no person
 4

among his knights who would rid him of the turbulent priest. The words were no sooner out

of his mouth four of his knights took it upon themselves to carry out the king’s command.

They lost no time in crossing the English Channel and riding out to Canterbury where they

arrived in the evening of the 29th December 1170. It is reported by William of Canterbury

that Becket had earlier had a vision of his martyrdom- ‘ Lo! Four of the king’s satellites

rushing in upon me, broke the crown of my head with swords’. He was murdered on the

twenty-ninth of December, on the steps going down the transept, on the north side of his

cathedral, by Fitz Urse, de Traci, de Morville and Brito.

The coldblooded murder of the Archbishop sent shock waves all over Europe. The

Pope set aside Henry’s protestations of innocence and played the whole of England under

excommunication. It was a terrible time for the king and the country. Churches remained

closed and the priests idle. Those who were born were not baptized; those who entered into

marriage received no blessing from the priest. The priest was not allowed to perform his

office as shepherd and comforter. The country groaned and so did the king who was filled

with sorrow at having allowed his hasty tongue to deprive him of his best friend. When the

news of what had happened that afternoon was brought to King Henry, he was deeply

shocked and grieved. But now at last Becket's chief wish was fulfilled, and throughout

England, and before long throughout Europe, he was thought and spoken of, not only as the

greatest and best of men, but as a martyr, who had died rather than give in to what he

considered wrong; for no sooner was the archbishop dead than everyone declared that in all

the quarrels, he, and not the King, had been in the right. The King pleaded with the Pope for

mercy which the latter granted on condition that the offending clauses in the Constitutions of

Clarendon were withdrawn. Henry did so and in addition did penance for his sin by visiting
 5

the cathedral at Canterbury and submitting himself to severe flogging by the priests there.

Thus ended the first phase of the struggle between the king and the church with the

undisputed victory of the church over the king. For another four centuries the shadowy figure

of the Archbishop Thomas Becket of Canterbury gave criminous clerks the benefit of clergy.

The pope canonized Thomas Becket and he became St. Thomas of Canterbury, the

most popular saint in England to whose shrine people came from length and breadth of the

land. He was buried in the crypt of the cathedral, and here for very many years pilgrims used

to come from all parts of the world (even from Iceland) to kneel at the tomb of St. Thomas,

and do penance there, as was the custom in those days. A pilgrimage to Canterbury meant

absolution of one’s sins and even fulfilment of one’s desire as the shrine was supposed to

have miraculous powers. As the years passed by and Thomas Becket became part of the

legends of England, the pilgrimage to Canterbury took on the nature of a pleasure trip much

in the way that such trips are undertaken today. It was an occasion to visit new lands and

make new friends, the hope of absolution at the end of the journey was a bonus that was

thrown in. It was this that inspired Chauser- the father of English poetry- to enrich English

literature with an account of the stories told by pilgrims on their way from London to the

shrine of St. Thomas in Canterbury. The slow and ambling pace at which the pilgrims

proceeded to Canterbury has given the English language new verb ‘canter’.

The story of Thomas Becket is enshrined in literature by the play, Murder in

the Cathedral by the greatest writer of the twentieth century T. S. Eliot. Eliot tries to analyse

the thoughts that might have been in the mind of Archbishop when he returned to England in

1170 fully aware that his life would be at stake if he continued thwarting the king. Eliot

makes Becket face the greatest temptation of all- eternal fame through martyrdom. He
 6

overcomes this temptation by turning himself entirely to God. Some of the finest lines in

English poetry are to be found here, particularly the lines spoken by the women of

Canterbury who acts as the chorus. This play was written for and enacted at Canterbury

during Easter.

Murder in the Cathedral is a drama of a solitary man, who lost his will in god, and

finds freedom in submission to God. Wheel and will of god bring Becket to death. He rejects

three tempters while the fourth (unexpected) tempter shakes him. He has already thought of it

and he may die with the thought that he will be remembered. But the knowledge of the

consequences of an act kills the sanctity of the act. To turn on a light without knowing what

may happen is a moral act. His past presses him towards future. Wheel turns nothing

happens, “we do not know very much of the future...” Becket has to construct for himself a

martyrdom shrugging off the world. Tempters’ paraphrase “Man’s life is a cheat and a

disappointment”

The figure of Thomas Becket, as it emerges in Murder in the Cathedral is passive,

negative and completely lacking in emotional intensity. Thomas Becket has some

resemblance to the ideal tragic hero as delineated by Aristotle. He has a shortcoming;

however, the shortcoming does not cause his death. The tragic heroes of the earlier tragedies

‘fall’ because of an error of judgement or because of some flaw in character. But Thomas

though imperfect at the beginning of the play, achieves perfection of will before he dies.

After all, the fact that Thomas is to be a saint calls for perfection. In Eliot’s play the idea of

Thomas suffering a ‘tragic’ death (in the sense that, say, Othello is tragic) is nowhere

entertained. The ‘murder’ in the cathedral is not a murder; it is an act of redemption. All

thought of a fall-through-arrogance, all idea of a struggle at the character’s level is

 7

accordingly ignored and the dramatic effect is placed beyond all this in a context of religious

redemption.

Thomas, though achieving perfection through the purification of motives, comes

across as ‘human’. There is a flash of humour as he tells the third tempter: “proceed straight

forward”. In his first encounter with the four knights, we see him as a man facing men, rather

than as a saint purifying his relation with God. In this way, though generally speaking,

Thomas appears far removed from the petty affairs of ordinary humanity. Eliot has

succeeded in retaining some links between him and the humans who observe the enacting of

his fate.

It is not possible or practical to compare Thomas to the tragic heroes of Shakespeare,

such as Macbeth, Othello, and others. Shakespeare created his heroes to the greater glory of

Man; Eliot to the greater glory of God. Murder in the Cathedral is not a tragedy in the

conventional sense. A. G. George calls it an “existential drama”; it presents the mystery of

suffering and action. The characters are of varying degrees of consciousness and they are

presented with a situation in which they must make a choice. Thus Thomas has to choose,

and the choice will determine his future. Thomas chooses not to go back to France; he

chooses to affirm the rights of the church; his choices lead to his martyrdom. His deliberate

choice shows his greater level of spiritual awareness as compared to the chorus, the priests

and the kights. The drama lies in the interpretation made of the martyrdom by the chorus, the

priests, and the knights. If the audience accepts the knights’ interpretation, the result would

be tragic, according to Eliot for mankind.

The tragedy of Becket is a continuing tragedy, for in every age a Christ must be

crucified to atone for the sins of humanity. Murder in the Cathedral dramatizes Becket as a
 8

type of Christian hero conquering pride and attaining martyrdom. Thomas is an archetypal

figure who wrestles with an archetypal problem, the subtle temptations of the religious

conscience when it has set itself up against the State.

On a superficial level, if we see martyrdom as mere death, then Thomas’ dedication

can be seen as a foolish one- that is the knights’ interpretation. But martyrdom, as Thomas

explains in his sermon, is an act of redemption in which “rejoicing” and “pain” are fused.

Through a martyr’s death, mankind’s life is fructified. In such a context, one cannot call the

play a tragedy in the conventional sense- it becomes a “divine comedy”.

As far as Thomas is concerned, he is certainly not “active” in the conventional sense.

But his courage and determination and supreme subjugation of self-will cannot be

appreciated if one terms them “negative qualities.

He says:

Unbar the doors: throw open the door

I will not have the hours of prayer, the church of Christ

The sanctuary turned into a fortress.

The church shall protect her own, in her own way. (316-319)

The words do not appear to be negative or passive. They evidence a positive courage

and faith which cannot be left despised. Becket’s submitted will had the strength and

resilience of steel. Indeed, the quiet courage of

I am here.

No traitor to the king. I am priest

A Christian...

Ready to suffer with, my blood.

 9

...........................................

His blood given to buy my life

My blood given to pay for His death

My death for His death................................. (367-375)

cannot fail to impress the audience.

The Aristotelian concept of tragic hero is that of a man, who though good and just to a

great extent, has a flaw, which is some error or frailty (but no vice or depravity). Thomas

corresponds to this concept in that he is certainly not flawless. His pride and egoism are

definite flaws of human character. Yet, the similarity ends here, for the catastrophe in the

play does not result from the flaw. Thomas is able to realise his fault and overcome it.

Thomas is eventually a saint and sainthood implies perfection; whereas it is necessary for a

tragic hero to be imperfect, for that very imperfection is what ultimately causes his downfall.

He quite calmly faces his murderers and refuses to hide behind barred doors. He refuses to

escape and does nothing to save his life. Thomas appears to be too good to be an Aristotelian

tragic hero.

The action of the play is confirmed to the last days of Becket’s life. The struggle

within him is concentrated and given form in his conversation with the tempters. From the

speeches of the first three tempters we get to know the bare facts of Thomas’ early life; they

are there as temptations which throng his mind they cannot be dismissed as mere

recapitulation. They appeal to the senses; the lure of secular power, the idea of winning

against Henry in a political game are temptations he had experienced earlier and thus is able

to overcome more easily. Yet they have not entirely lost their power

The impossible is still temptation.......

 10

Voices under sleep, waking a dead world,

So that the mind may not be whole in the present.

Becket masters the first three temptations and then faces the fourth unexpected one of

the present. The temptation to do the right deed for the wrong reason, to become a martyr to

achieve personal glory is strong as well as shocking for Becket. The audience is not wholly

unprepared to find that Thomas possesses this spiritual pride; Eliot has given hints, firstly in

the words of the first priest which portrays Becket clearly as a proud man, and this comes out

against in Thomas’ rejection of temporal power. Pride implies the “setting up of the self

against the will of God”, and is the deadliest of sins. Thomas could not foresee this obstacle

to true martyrdom as he is blind to this weakness in himself. The words of the fourth tempter

shocks Thomas into the realisation of his mixed up motives for becoming a martyr- he has

been thinking of achieving the glory that comes with martyrdom which will exalt him to a

position above earthly kings and give him his final victory against Henry confident that his

cause is right, there is no deflecting him from this purpose. As he becomes aware of this

impurity in his motives, he is aghast and cries out:

Can I neither act nor suffer

without Perdition. (589-590)

Thomas has now to understand the words that he spoke to the chorus on his return.

The forth tempter throws them back at him:

You know and do not know, what it is to act and suffer.

You know and do not know, that action is suffering,

And suffering action. Neither does the agent suffer

Nor the patient act. But both are fixed

 11

In an eternal action, an eternal patience

To which all must consent that it may be willed

And which all must consent that may will it,

That the pattern may subsist, that the wheel may turn and still

Be forever still. (591-599)

While the priests and chorus and tempters counsel him to avert action, Thomas comes

to his awakening. The proposition which he intellectually asserted has now to become a

reality in his life. Only God’s will can be the criterion of right and wrong, action and

suffering. In supplanting God’s will with his own, in electing to be the centre of the wheel

without God, Becket will call upon his own head, whatever evils might ensue from his

choice.

Now he has to recognise that the only way in which he can reach the stillness at the

centre of the turning wheel is to yield to the mover, God. Only by extinction of self-will can

he avoid the mortal sin of pride. Action and suffering are distinct only on the circumference

of the wheel, in the area of physical appearance, but at the heart of reality, they merge into

one another. Now Thomas assents to losing his will in the will of god and achieves the

reconciliation of all irreconcilables. He is content that he “shall no longer act or suffer, to the

sword’s end’” for god’ not he’ is the only agent through whom good can proceed from evil;

what God wills brings neither pain nor suffering to the one who submits to it. It is with this

spirit or acceptance that he waits for the knights.

As Grover Smith says’ there are two aspect in which Thomas’s character can be seen.

Becket rejects the idea of conscious glory in martyrdom. In one sense this act is merely

intensification, a validation of his position as an appointed martyr. As such he can be seen as

 12

a character of static type. In another sense, he can also be seen as a person capable of

development; his moral struggle teaches him the meaning of martyrdom as the perfection of

will. Becket’s initial desire is imperfect; from this he rises to a greater good. Thomas faces

death boldly, a death which could have been avoided. He achieves the awareness that a true

martyr desires nothing- not even martyrdom. He must become a willing but passive

instrument of divine will. And in achieving this level of spiritual awareness he achieves a

position which is beyond earthly experience and thus he is a little remote.

Because Eliot was not writing a loose chronicle play, he offers little about the

Constitutions of Clarendon or the disputed coronation ceremony which were the chief bones

of contention between Becket, Henry, Pope, the Emperor and the king of France. He is

writing about a conflict between the material and spiritual worlds and he rapidly tells the

readers all they need to know of the historical situation in the exposition given by the three

priests, and by the herald who announces the return of the Archbishop to the Chorus, as the

action opens. The story of Thomas Becket is richly documented; there exists eleven eye-

witness accounts, written down immediately after the event, by the monks of Canterbury and

these are the sources on which Eliot drew for the facts of the case. He has treated the

evidence faithfully but selectively and what he has written is imagined and not invented.

Eliot has followed history until martyrdom is over; after that he abandons it and bring

forwards the knights to speak their apologies, whereas in history they stamped out of the

church shouting that they were king’s men.

Several similarities can be found between the historic Becket and the character in

Eliot’s play. Eliot’s Becket is a Christian figure, and cannot be said that he is “tragic” figure,

for at the still point of the wheel; all contradictions and irreconcilables are reconciled. The
 13

tragedy lies in the fact that mankind still requires a martyr in every age to die and atone for

its sins: to do so that it can get salvation. The historical Becket accepted martyrdom with

open hands and was later admitted to the canon of saints.