This article is about the 1959 play. For other uses, see Becket (disambiguation).
|Written by||Jean Anouilh|
King Henry II
King Louis VII
Pope Alexander III
Eleanor of Aquitaine
|Date premiered||8 October 1959|
|Place premiered||St. James Theatre|
|Setting||Twelfth century Europe|
Becket or The Honour of God (French: Becket ou l'honneur de Dieu) is a play written in French by Jean Anouilh. It is a depiction of the conflict between Thomas Becket and King Henry II of England leading to Becket's assassination in 1170. It contains many historical inaccuracies, which the author acknowledged.
Anouilh's interpretation of the historical story, though often ironic, is more straightforward than T. S. Eliot's play on the same subject, Murder in the Cathedral, which was intended primarily as a religious treatment. However, there are one or two similarities in the interpretation.
In the introduction to the play, Anouilh explained that he based it on a chapter of an old book he had bought because its green binding looked good on his shelves. He and his wife read the 30 pages about Thomas Becket, and she urged him to write a play about Thomas. He did so, finishing the first part in only 15 days. It was not until he showed the finished play to a friend that he found out the old book he had based it on was historically incorrect in certain important aspects. Having built his play on Becket being Saxon (when he was actually a Norman whose family was from near Caen and was called Becquet, Bequet or Becket in Old Norman), Anouilh could not recast the play to accord with historical facts, so he decided to let it stand.
Aspects of the content that can safely be considered true are the conflicts between England and France, church and state, and the outline biography of Becket.
The play is a re-enactment of the conflicts between King Henry II and Thomas Becket as the latter (Henry's best friend) ascends to power, becoming the King’s enemy. Becket begins as a clever, but hedonistic, companion; as a result of being created Archbishop of Canterbury, he is transformed into an ascetic who does his best to preserve the rights of the church against the king's power.
Ultimately, Becket is slaughtered by several of the king's nobles; and lastly we find the king thrust into penance for the episcopicide.
The play was first performed at the Théâtre Montparnasse Gaston Baty in Paris on 8 October 1959 and on Broadway in 1960.
The original Broadway production premiered on 5 October 1960 at the St. James Theatre in a production by David Merrick, directed by Peter Glenville and starring Laurence Olivier as Thomas Becket and Anthony Quinn as King Henry II. The production was nominated for five Tony Awards and won four, including Best Play. The play later transferred to the Royale Theatre and then to the Hudson Theatre. During the run, Quinn and Olivier switched roles and Quinn played Becket to Olivier's King. In fact, Quinn left the production for a film, and director Glenville suggested a road tour with Olivier as Henry. Olivier happily acceded and Arthur Kennedy took on the role of Becket for the tour and brief return to Broadway, with Olivier playing Henry.
According to John Cottrell's biography of Laurence Olivier, however, Anthony Quinn was dismayed and angry when he read that Olivier was getting better reviews for his performance as Henry than Quinn had gotten, claiming that he would never have left the production if he had known that was going to happen. Even so, it was Quinn who was nominated for a Tony Award for his performance, while Olivier was overlooked.
The first London production was at the Aldwych Theatre on 11 July 1961, directed by Peter Hall for the Royal Shakespeare Company. Eric Porter played Becket and Christopher Plummer the King, with Gwen Ffrangcon-Davies, Peter Jeffrey, Diana Rigg, Ian Holm and Roy Dotrice in the cast. The play later transferred to the Globe Theatre. Plummer won the Evening Standard Award for his performance after taking over the part from Peter O'Toole, who broke his contract with the RSC before rehearsals began in order to take the lead in David Lean's film Lawrence of Arabia.
The play was revived in a new translation by Frederic Raphael and Stephen Raphael in October 1991 at the Haymarket Theatre with Derek Jacobi as Becket and Robert Lindsay as the King and again in October 2004 with Dougray Scott and Jasper Britton. The original English translation for the 1961 version (by Lucienne Hill) was revived at the Southwark Playhouse in September 2001 with Rupert Degas and Colin Salmon.
Main article: Becket (1964 film)
In 1964 the play was made into a successful film, starring Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton with John Gielgud, Donald Wolfit and Martita Hunt. Additional scenes were written by Edward Anhalt for the film. Anhalt won an Academy Award for his screenplay.
The film introduced a somewhat fictionalized plot element not in the original play. Rather than the main conflict between Becket and the King revolving around the Constitutions of Clarendon, as is depicted in the play, and as happened in real life, the film's dispute between Becket and Henry II centers on the assassination of an accused priest by the henchmen of Lord Gilbert, a nobleman and friend of King Henry, and Becket's excommunication of Gilbert as a result.
At the beginning of the movie's DVD commentary, Peter O'Toole relates his meeting with Anouilh in Paris a few years before the film was made because he was being considered for the play. Anouilh told him that he had been looking for an idea based on a rift in the leftist Théâtre National Populaire between the actors Gérard Philipe and Daniel Ivernel. He visited Canterbury and decided the Becket story would be a good vehicle. Philipe and Ivernel were cast as Becket and Henry respectively for the Paris première of the play, but Philipe died before rehearsals were completed.
Ukemi Productions has adapted the work into a radio play for BBC Radio 3. The play stars Toby Stephens as the King and David Morrissey as Becket, and was broadcast on 4 October 2009.
One of those historical events that has gained the weight of myth through its extraordinary and complicated circumstances, the murder of Thomas Becket is notable for more than the martyrdom it produced. Instead, the profundity of the experience derives from the themes of Becket's friendship with the English King Henry II, a relationship that in its dissolution touches on themes of class, power, and personality. It is important to understand the general idea of this story to best appreciate Eliot's play, since he would have assumed his audience was familiar with the story.
Thomas Becket was born to parents of moderate means in Cheapside, a poor London neighborhood, circa 1118. The world remained largely feudal at this time, meaning that the king ruled under the pretense of divine right, with the entire society below him organized around financial responsibility to him. The medieval feudal system was strictly hierarchical and the concept of social mobility had barely been breached.
Therefore, Becket's rise to power is extraordinary. His parents insisted he pursue an education, even sending him to a fashionable school in Paris. While this decision might have been inspired by concern over the then-tumultuous political situation in England, it also served to introduce Becket to the study of Latin and the classical texts that he would later rely on to secure his reputation.
The political situation in England was complicated. The royal line of succession had been in question for several years at this point and Henry, the young upstart from the Angevin line, was contending for the crown. Ultimately, through both warfare and characteristic subterfuge, he would both ensure the crown for himself and construct a powerful central authority.
After returning to England, Becket secured a few advantageous apprenticeships that ultimately earned him a post under Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury. In this position, Thomas revealed his political instinct and began to meet members of the highest levels of society and government. While never ordained as a priest, Thomas was introduced to the conventions of the clerical life, and certainly never lost the connection to the Church that he engendered at this point.
After he was crowned King, some of Henry II's most pressing concerns involved England's relationship with France. At the time, England included several provinces in the north of modern-day France. This property increased after Henry wed Eleanor of Acquaintance, who had already been married to the French king Louis but had her marriage annulled when he could not produce children. The many conflicts between Henry and Louis were partially ameliorated by the political advocacy of Thomas Becket.
Thomas was ten years Henry's senior and of a decidedly lower parentage, but their friendship and partnership grew quickly from this point. Henry named Thomas Chancellor, an administrative post that was in many ways second in power only the king, since the chancellor was responsible for enacting the laws and deciding the particulars of the kingdom. Though the extent of their friendship has potentially been exaggerated by time and a historical record influenced by the propagandistic purposes of their later schism, Thomas certainly enjoyed a high post in Henry's rule and was trusted like few others.
One of Henry's primary goals was to reinstate certain ancestral customs that his grandfather had enjoyed as king before the line of succession became confused. Among these customs was a consolidation of power under the King. As it stood, rule and management of England was organized under three classes: the ruling class (Henry and his court), the barons (aristocratic land-owners), and the Church. The medieval Church was extremely powerful, a political institution in its own right, and while the Pope only occasionally used explicit military power, the threat of excommunication stood as the ultimate punishment in this Christian world. To be excommunicated meant one was prohibited from entering heaven, and so rulers and peasants alike feared upsetting the Church's designs.
And yet the bishops of the Church were too free from secular control in Henry's eyes, even having their own courts and system of justice that was completely divorced from the king's courts. Therefore, Henry and Thomas endeavored together to consolidate power, a responsibility Thomas seems to have relished. Meanwhile, Thomas grew to develop fine tastes thanks to the money he had access to. He was known for his efficiency but also for his pride and sanctimony.
When Theobald, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Thomas's first mentor, died, Henry decided to nominate Thomas for the post. This was the most powerful religious position in England, the closet to the Pope that an Englishman could get. Thomas would then serve as both Chancellor and Archbishop, which would naturally consolidate the power of those two elements in the kingdom.
It was an incredibly prestigious opportunity for anyone, much less a low-born man like Thomas. And yet within less than a year after being named Archbishop in 1162, Thomas revealed a spiritual prerogative that was in stark contrast with Henry's desire. Whether Thomas was truly inspired by his new spiritual duties or saw a political purpose in opposing the king is open to historical debate. However, the friendship quickly began to dissolve as Thomas resigned the Chancellorship and then began to refuse Henry the access to the church courts that he requested. Thomas continued to claim that he was loyal to Henry above all others except God, which incensed the hothead, impetuous, arrogant king to no end.
The struggle persisted until Henry successfully manipulated Becket into signing a document that reinstated the ancestral customs during a meeting in Clarendon. Mortified at having been beaten, Thomas quickly organized those bishops loyal to him and tried to rectify the mistake, even though this meant maligning Henry's intentions. When Henry made clear he would use force to enact his will, Thomas gathered a few loyal subjects and fled the country for France, with whose king he remained close.
Not only was the friendship now gone, but it had devolved into hatred. For seven years, a series of political intrigues subsisted, with Thomas always seeking the support of Pope Alexander and the French King Louis, and Henry refusing to budge on his requests. Both had much to gain from a reconciliation: Henry's country stood in an ambiguous relationship to the Catholic Church, and Thomas no longer had access to the lands and income to which he had grown accustomed. During this period, Thomas's lifestyle grew far more ascetic, an element that contributed to his hagiography: many see him as growing more spiritual in turning away from the temptations of the physical world.
Ultimately, Henry felt that Thomas was an ungrateful, disloyal brat, while Thomas considered Henry a vicious tyrant whose desires to control the Church were sacrilege. When the political situation found Thomas with the upper hand, he used his power of excommunication to attack many of those who had betrayed him in England. Though he never explicitly excommunicated Henry, he did engender a situation whereby Henry was not officially able to have his son and heir coronated. This threat to the Angevin line of succession was a personal affront, since Thomas had been close to the prince from the latter's birth, and it brought Henry to the negotiating table.
A compromise was reached through the mediation of King Louis, but by the time Thomas set sail for England, he knew Henry would not honor his end of the bargain. Henry was certain to withhold the church lands he had seized, and would surely continue to press for control over church courts. Therefore, Thomas had to sail and travel incognito, not revealing his identity until he reached Canterbury to a great and raucous welcome from commoners who gathered at the risk of their own safety.
Immediately, Thomas raised the stakes, excommunicating more of Henry's close advisors with the Pope's blessing. Henry, realizing that both his pride and the legitimacy of his son's coronation were being questioned, uttered some version of these famous words during a meeting: "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?!" Though this was not an explicit order, and certainly in line with his documented temper, four of his lower-ranked knights heard this sentiment and set out to bolster their reputations by directly and forcefully confronting their liege's greatest professed enemy.
The four knights first confronted Thomas at the cathedral of Canterbury in a political argument, during which Thomas was openly contemptuous of them, despite their obvious drunkenness. They left and soon returned with more men, and when Thomas refused to leave with them, they brutally murdered him inside the cathedral, a great sacrilege considering the cathedral was holy ground.
In the aftermath of the murder, Thomas was quickly canonized as a saint and the spot of his murder became a near-instant pilgrimage site. Henry himself, though likely only concerned about his reputation and the potential of excommunication in the midst of his own unrelated political struggles, traveled there to be flogged in penance. He acknowledged both publicly and privately that his words inspired the murder, though he never admitted to officially giving the order. The number of eyewitness accounts to his spontaneous exclamation makes it likely that he did not intend Becket to be killed in this way. However, the fact that Henry would later imprison his own wife Eleanor for ten years shows that he was not disposed to show mercy.
The four knights all fled England within a few years, were excommunicated by the Pope, and eventually banished by Henry. The time it took him to banish them suggests that Henry had little personal remorse for the death of his old friend.
Since Becket's death, the cathedral at Canterbury has remained a pilgrimage site. In Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, the storytellers meet on their way to the site of Becket's murder, where they hope to secure mercy from God. Over time, Becket's body has been moved to a beautiful and impressive tomb in the cathedral.
The complicated personalities and exciting reversals of fortune that characterize this tale certainly leave some of its facts open to skepticism. Were Henry and Thomas really as close friends as dramatists would have us believe? Was Thomas really a holy, committed figure, or was he more of a rebellious iconoclast with a temper to match Henry's? Regardless of how one answers these questions, the story deserves attention as a symbol and a myth, which is very much what would have attracted a writer like Eliot to it.