T.Written in 1935 for the Canterbury Festival, the play does not merely recount a chronological sequence of events; it dissects the internal architecture of a saint’s final hours. S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral stands as a towering achievement in 20th-century verse drama, transforming the historical assassination of Archbishop Thomas Becket into a profound meditation on martyrdom, spiritual pride, and the intersection of temporal power and divine will. Understanding the plot requires looking beyond the physical action on stage to the psychological and theological currents that drive the protagonist toward his inevitable fate.
The Historical Context and Dramatic Premise
Before the curtain rises, the audience must grasp the volatile backdrop of 1170 England. In practice, king Henry II and his former Chancellor, Thomas Becket, are locked in a bitter struggle over the rights of the Church versus the authority of the Crown. Becket, once the King’s closest companion, has undergone a radical spiritual conversion upon becoming Archbishop. He now defends ecclesiastical privilege—specifically the right of the Church to try its own clerics in spiritual courts—against the King’s Constitutions of Clarendon Small thing, real impact..
The play opens not with the King, but with the Chorus of the Women of Canterbury. On the flip side, they function as the collective voice of the common people, anxious, weary, and sensing a disturbance in the natural order. Their opening lines establish the atmosphere: a "living and partly living" existence, waiting for something they cannot name but fear deeply. This sets the tone for a drama where the internal state of the characters matters more than external political maneuvering Simple, but easy to overlook..
Part One: The Archbishop’s Return and the Tempters
The first part of the play covers Becket’s return to Canterbury after seven years of exile in France. The structure mimics a classical Greek tragedy, utilizing the Chorus and three Priests to debate the implications of his arrival. The Priests represent institutional caution; they worry about the political fallout, the safety of the Archbishop, and the stability of the Church’s property. They urge flight or compromise And that's really what it comes down to. Which is the point..
The dramatic core of Part One is the sequence of the Four Tempters. Here's the thing — this is where the "plot" shifts from external history to internal spiritual warfare. Becket confronts not armed knights, but seductive arguments designed for his specific personality and past.
- The First Tempter offers sensual pleasure and worldly success. He reminds Becket of his youth—wine, wit, and the King’s favor. "Go back to the King... / The easy man lives to eat the best dinners." Becket dismisses this easily; his asceticism is genuine, and the pleasures of the past hold no sway over his current austerity.
- The Second Tempter offers temporal power through political maneuvering. He suggests Becket resume the Chancellorship, wield real authority, and "guide the state" to protect the Church. This is the temptation of political realism—doing a little evil for a greater good. Becket rejects the confusion of spiritual and temporal swords: "Power obtained by guile... is not power."
- The Third Tempter represents the baronial faction / revolutionary resistance. He proposes an alliance with the barons to overthrow the King’s tyranny. This appeals to a desire for justice and order, but Becket sees it as treason and factionalism. He refuses to become a pawn in a political game, stating, "No one shall say that I betrayed a King."
- The Fourth Tempter delivers the most dangerous blow: the temptation of spiritual pride and the glory of martyrdom. He whispers the seductive logic of seeking death for the wrong reason: "You hold the keys of heaven and hell... / Seek the way of martyrdom, make yourself the lowest / On earth, to be high in heaven."
This fourth temptation is the crucible of the play. Becket realizes that desiring martyrdom for the sake of eternal glory is the ultimate sin—it turns the sacrifice into a transaction, a bargain with God. Here's the thing — his resolution is the theological keystone of the drama: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: / To do the right deed for the wrong reason. " He accepts that he must not seek death, nor flee it, but simply submit to God’s will, becoming an instrument rather than an actor.
The Interlude: The Christmas Sermon
Between the two parts, Eliot inserts a sermon delivered by Becket on Christmas Morning, 1170. Still, this is not a pause in the action but a deepening of it. Preaching on the text "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you," Becket redefines the Christian concept of peace. It is not the absence of conflict, nor a political treaty, but a spiritual alignment with the divine will.
He speaks of the "peace of the martyr," noting that the Church celebrates the birth of Christ and the martyrdom of St. Think about it: stephen on consecutive days. Which means this juxtaposition reveals the pattern: joy and suffering are inseparable in the Christian mystery. He tells the congregation (and the audience) that a martyr is not merely a good Christian who dies, but one who has become "the instrument of God," having lost his will in the will of God. The sermon serves as Becket’s public declaration of his resolved state. It is the calm eye of the storm before the violence of Part Two.
Part Two: The Knights and the Murder
The tone shifts abruptly in Part Two. Consider this: they are not portrayed as villainous caricatures but as bureaucrats of violence, men "doing a job. The poetic, meditative atmosphere is shattered by the arrival of Four Knights—Reginald Fitz Urse, William de Traci, Hugh de Morville, and Richard Brito. " They represent the banality of evil and the machinery of the state And that's really what it comes down to..
The confrontation in the Archbishop’s Hall is a clash of languages. Consider this: the Knights speak in prose—legalistic, procedural, cynical, and political. Even so, they accuse Becket of treason, excommunicating bishops, and stirring up rebellion. They demand he absolve the bishops and submit to the King’s justice. On top of that, becket replies in verse—spiritual, absolute, and unyielding. He refuses to absolve the bishops unless they repent, and he refuses to acknowledge the King’s jurisdiction over spiritual matters Took long enough..
The Priests beg Becket to flee, to hide in the crypt, to bar the doors. Becket refuses. He orders the doors unbarred. "I am not in danger: only near to death." This distinction is vital. He has moved beyond the calculus of safety. The murder itself is staged with ritualistic starkness. The Knights kill him at the altar steps, the sacred space violated by secular steel Turns out it matters..
As Becket falls, he commends his cause and the Church to God. The Knights, remarkably, remain on stage to address the audience directly. They break the fourth wall, offering apologetics for the state. They argue they acted out of duty, patriotism, and necessity to maintain order. They claim Becket was an egoist who sought martyrdom. This post-murder justification forces the audience to confront the seductive logic of the "reasonable" world that always persecutes the saint.
It sounds simple, but the gap is usually here.
The Chorus’s Lament and Transformation
Following the murder, the Chorus of the Women of Canterbury delivers a powerful, agonized lament. "We did not wish anything to happen... / We acknowledged the private catastrophe." They recognize their own desire for the "quiet season," their fear of disruption, and their failure to protect the Archbishop. They are no longer passive observers; they are complicit. Their speech moves from horror to a terrifying realization of the cost of redemption: **"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church Took long enough..
They beg for forgiveness, not just for the Knights, but for themselves—for their apathy, their
