Murder in the Cathedral

The plot of Murder in the Cathedral concerns a historical disagreement between a secular leader and a religious leader. King Henry II represents earthly power, while Archbishop Thomas Becket represents spiritual power. The secular, earthly power of King Henry is that of day-to-day governance in England. The political world, for example, is firmly rooted in the realm of earthly power, and the king ruled over this earthly world with supreme authority. Notably, the characters in the play condemn the fleeting, temporary nature of earthly power. Kings inevitably die and are replaced, and this reality renders earthly power transient at best. Thus, any laws made by earthly powers can be unmade by the next king. This transient form of power is contrasted with the permanence and immortality of spiritual power. Because religious laws are believed to be derived from God, they are said to endure beyond the life of any one person. However, although the religious laws are portrayed as more enduring, they are also thought to be infinitely more complex and incomprehensible because they belong to a divine world that exists beyond the understanding of mere humans. Thus, the characters’ lives are spent navigating the comprehensible but transient earthly laws and the permanent but inscrutable spiritual laws that govern their world, and the disagreement between Becket and the king derives from a long disagreement over which realm is more important.

When the four tempters enter the stage, they appeal to Becket to change his mind about his imminent martyrdom. They are aware of conflict between spiritual and earthly matters, and each tempter appeals to a different facet of this debate. For the first tempter, religious power builds on secular power, acting as a beautiful and inscrutable adornment. For this reason, he appeals to Becket to use his role as archbishop to glorify the secular power of the king rather than the eternal power of God. For the second tempter, this will not work. He appeals to Becket’s former role as Chancellor, believing that Becket possessed more real, effective power in this role than he ever could as an archbishop or a martyr. The argument of the third tempter is that religious power is merely an extension of earthly power; this stance is meant to suggest that Becket could inspire a coup against the king. Ironically, the tactics fourth tempter contrast with those of the second tempter and are the most closely tailored to Becket’s remaining earthly ambitions, for he slyly urges Becket to devote himself to religion in order to gain personal glory as a martyr. The fact that the tempters each make different but equally powerful arguments illustrates the nuances inherent in the debate between earthly and religious matters.

The knights’ confrontation with Becket is also a manifestation of this debate, for they accuse him of betraying the king and thereby betraying earthly power in favor of religious power. The knights derive their power and status from the king and see Becket’s affront to the crown an affront to their own authority as well. Rather than arguing for a balance between earthly and religious power, the violence of the knights brings a sudden, sharp end to the debate but does not win the argument, for Becket agrees with the knights, but not necessarily in the way that they might expect. By cutting him down, they have made him a martyr, ironically imbuing him with powers that transcend those of a king. Thus, the conclusion of the play emphasizes the importance of the immortal martyrdom of the religious over the temporary brutality of earthly powers. Ultimately, the knights are merely puppets of fate, beholden to the very spiritual powers they condemn in favor of the fleeting, unthinking earthly powers.