The Martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket of Canterbury

The martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket of Canterbury

Rachel P****

November 23rd 2015

Throughout the middle ages, martyrdom was a relatively common occurrence, as men and women sacrificed their lives for their values. The events surrounding the martyrdom, or more accurately murder, of Thomas Becket bring to light many controversial themes within society at this time. In a turbid time of unrest between the relations of church and state, Becket believed in the supremacy of the church, and ultimately lost his life for that belief. The relationship between Thomas Becket and King Henry II illuminates the balance of power between the sovereign ruler and the highest ecclesiastic position within England. As Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket held a massive position of power within society and the church, and he used this position to uphold the independence of ecclesiastic matters from state interests. Furthermore, he became a celebrated and distinguished saint to the people of all classes within England for centuries afterwards. Becket’s career is one of great intrigue, as the decisions he made resulted in the restriction of monarchal right within ecclesiastic matters and greatly impacted society at the time and centuries later. Furthermore, the murder of Becket at such a pivotal moment in his life draws to question what he could have accomplished if he were to have had the opportunity.

Thomas Becket was born to an English merchant and sheriff in Normandy in the year 1118. He displayed great promise from a young age, and was educated in Paris (Barlow 1990). After his education he was introduced to King Henry II, and they quickly became congenial friends, having many shared interests. Having already made Becket Chancellor and having no issues, Henry saw the opportunity to afford himself more control over ecclesiastic matters by placing his friend in the vacant position of Archbishop of Canterbury (Lehmberg and Meigs 2009). However, this strategy immediately revealed itself to be for naught, as Becket took the position more seriously than it seemed the king anticipated. Upon appointment to the position, Beckect transitioned from an outgoing courtier to a zealous and reserved clergyman (Scully 2000). Despite their previously close friendship, Becket made it clear that he could only properly serve one ruler, and he chose God. He abdicated his position as Chancellor to focus more of his time on ecclesiastic duties. This became especially prominent when the King proposed the Constitution of Clarendon in 1164, which restricted activities of the ecclesiastic tribunals (Lehmberg and Meigs 2009). The constitution also prevented the clergy from leaving England without permission from the king, and banned cleric appeals to the papal court (Scully 2000). Although Becket conceded that it mostly restated English customs, Becket would give no grounds and refused to accept this new piece of legislature.

Sensing tension, Becket fled to France for 6 years, until he and the king convened in Normandy where they seemed to reconcile. Becket decided to return to the cathedral at Canterbury, but before doing so, he excommunicated some notable prelates that supported the king. (Scully 2000). Henry, still in Normandy, was informed of this and in a fit of rage exclaimed: “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” (Barlow 1990). Four knights who overheard this took this as an opportunity to prove themselves to their king. The knights and their followers sped to Canterbury where they threatened Becket in his cathedral at Canterbury. Becket refused to be intimidated and ultimately was murdered within his own cathedral.

The people of Britain were outraged that an archbishop had been murdered within a place of sanctuary, apparently by orders of the king. Henry was immediately remorseful over what had occurred, and begged forgiveness from ecclesiastic community and the public at large. In atonement, he walked barefoot through the town of Canterbury (Lehmberg and Meigs 2009). This indicates the pressure the king was under by both the church and the people he ruled to be accountable for his actions. Furthermore, it is accepted the Henry was genuinely disturbed by these events, rather than simply trying to appease the public by showing repentance (Scully 2000). Henry II continued to visit Becket’s shrine nearly every year for the remainder of his life.

King Henry only gained the church’s true absolution when he agreed to abandon the Constitution of Clarendon. By this point, it can be argued that Becket’s martyrdom allowed him to obtain in death what he could not have done in life. It is very unlikely that Becket would actually have been able to permanently impede the induction of the Constitution. However, it is useful to consider what Becket may have gone on to do with his career if his life was not so cruelly cut short. As one of the few figures to stand against the king of England and demand the restriction of sovereign power, he could have gone on to make further influential decisions and actions. His position as Archbishop of Canterbury may have led him to revolutionizing the relationship between church and state in England or any other number of career paths.

Another such person who refused to bend to the will of a king, and whom Becket may have modeled his stance on monarchal power, was the medieval pope Hildebrand. Hildebrand was the pope during William the Conqueror’s reign, and he argued that only the church had the authority to offer people salvation, and that the church should be free of secular control and interference (Lehmberg and Meigs 2009). He adhered to the “Doctrine of Two Swords”, which suggested that the church should run alongside state, rather than being controlled by it. Hildebrand also wanted churches to be able to conduct their own courts for matters relating to clerical issues. William the Conqueror acquiesced to his demands, and thus the ecclesiastical courts of England were created (Lehmberg and Meigs 2009). Thomas Becket fought to uphold these principles and privileges, refusing to relinquish ecclesiastic independence.

Events such as those regarding Hildebrand may have ultimately led Becket to making the choices he did. Many weaker Archbishops would have relented to avoid angering the king and risk losing favor. Becket proved himself to be steadfast in his decisions throughout his entire career. As a Chancellor to the king, he was an effective strategist and very proficient at making beneficial political connections (Barlow 1990). As he ascended the rank of Archbishop, he relinquished his position as Chancellor to more effectively focus