THOMAS BECKETT HISTORICAL FIGURE AND CHARACTER.docx

1

THOMAS BECKET: HISTORICAL FIGURE AND CHARACTER Thomas Becket is best known as a defender of papal authority. He was highly revered in England throughout the Middle Ages. 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. 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 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

2

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 of thinking. The animosity that was simmering between these two erstwhile friends burst into the open in the year 1164. A meeting of king‟s council was called at the place called Clarendon in the year 1164 so that the reforms in laws of England particularly the ones governing the church called the Constitutions could be accepted by all. The Bishops demurred; Becket opposed. 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 where 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 committed a crime, but because he feared violence‟. The pope at Becket‟s entreaty condemned the Constitutions. 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

3

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 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 four knights-Fitz Urse, de Traci, de Morville and Brito. The murder of the Archbishop sent shock waves all over Europe. When the news of what had happened 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

4

everyone declared that in all the quarrels, he, and not the King, had been in the right. 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 one of the most influential poet critic of the twentieth century, T. S. Eliot. T. S. Eliot was born in St. Louis, Missouri. He went to school at Harvard and, after graduating, lived in England. It was here that he was employed as a schoolmaster, a bank clerk, and a literary editor for a publishing house called Faber & Faber. After working there for a number of years he became

5

a director. Eliot's poetry shows the growth of a poet with devout religious views, but Eliot was always careful not to become a religious poet. He believed that the power of poetry as a „religious force‟ was limited. However, the plays Murder in the Cathedral and The Family Reunion are viewed as Christian apologies. History is based on fact. Fact is often regarded with indifference; it is not bound by any moral code. In his play, Murder in the Cathedral, T.S. Eliot explores the morality and emotions that took place in a historical occurrence. In a battle between church and state, Eliot describes a spiritual battle, and the courage it takes to fulfil the will of God. Archbishop Thomas Becket is the protagonist in this play. At one point, Becket was loyal only to the crown. He served King Henry faithfully as a chancellor, and participated in a close friendship with the monarch. However, this friendship is the source of Becket's struggle in the play. As chancellor, Becket regards the church harshly and with a stern hand; as a result, King Henry names Becket as Archbishop when his predecessor dies. Henry feels that it is an excellent strategy to keep a friend in the church and, in doing so; he could maintain some control over church. To the king's dismay, Thomas undergoes a drastic change almost immediately after assuming the office. Becket turns to service, and begins to put his spirituality before his faithful devotion to the crown. Becket's conversion became an immediate annoyance to King Henry. Becket‟s actions angered the King and he is said to have demanded in fury if there was no person among his knights who would get rid the turbulent priest.

6

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 crowd his mind. 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. 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. 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)

7

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 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, 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. Now Thomas agrees to loose 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. 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

8

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. In Eliot‟s play the idea of Thomas suffering a „tragic‟ death 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 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‟. 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. The play 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 knights.

9

Murder in the Cathedral dramatizes Becket as a type of Christian hero conquering pride and attaining martyrdom. Thomas is an archetypal figure who wrestles with an archetypal problem. On a superficial level, if we see martyrdom as mere death, then Becket‟s martyrdom can be seen as a foolish one. But martyrdom, as Thomas explains in his sermon, is an act of redemption in which “rejoicing” and “pain” are fused. In such a context, one cannot call the play a tragedy in the conventional sense. 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) Becket commanded the priests to unbar the door even though he knew that the knights were going to kill him. He wasn‟t scared but accepted his death as the will of God. Those doors could have kept him safe, but he knew that the entrance to the house of the Lord should never be shut and bolted. 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. The Aristotelian concept of the 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. Thomas

10

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. There are two aspect in which Becket‟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 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

11

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. The historical Becket accepted martyrdom with open hands and was later admitted to the canon of saints. He was greatly admired during his life time and even after his death. Throughout England, and 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. 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. Eliot‟s Becket is a man with all the faults and flaws. He is not just a tragic figure or a Christian hero but a human who suffered a lot partly due to his own choices and partly due to the circumstances and surrounding situations.