Why was Thomas Becket murdered?
Thomas Becket was born in London in the 1120s and had Norman parents[1]. His parents were Matilda and Gilbert Beket, who was a prosperous merchant and a citizen of London. He was born in a large house in Cheapside, which was, at the time, the centre of the city[2]. He studied in London and then later at Paris, starting out his career as a city (London) clerk and accountant in the service of the sheriffs. Three years later, he became a member of Archbishop Theobald’s household and was accompanied by influential figures including the political philosopher John of Salisbury and several future bishops1. Under Theobald, Becket was entrusted with important missions to Rome and was sent to Bologna and Auxerre to study canon law, and in 1154, he became Archdeacon of Canterbury[3].
Only three months after, Theobald recommended Thomas Becket to King Henry II to become chancellor. Becket elicited his abilities upon assuming the role; razing castles, repairing the Tower of London and raising troops in the war. Becket became a companion and a close friend to Henry; their relationship extended the English court – not only did he help the King in his policies to strengthen the powers of the monarchy, even when that policy went against the church1, Becket also distanced himself from the view that he was a secular man by accompanying the king in achieving non-political pleasures[4].
“It was a cold day and when the king noticed an old man coming towards them, poor and clad in a thin and ragged coat. "Do you see that man? How poor he is, how frail, and how scantily clad! Would it not be an act of charity to give him a thick warm cloak?" Becket agreed and the king replied: "You shall have the credit for this act of charity" and then attempted to strip his chancellor of his new "scarlet and grey" cloak. After a brief struggle Becket reluctantly allowed the king to overcome him. "The king then explained what had happened to his attendants and they all laughed loudly".” [5]
The passage above describes an account of Thomas Becket, who, upon being asked to donate to the ‘poor’, ‘frail’ and ‘scantily clad’ old man, was first willing and keen. But upon realising that it was his cloak to be given, Becket became reluctant – perhaps due to the low temperatures, however definitely due to the fact that he cared more for his own welfare. This is important to note, as this displays his non-secular attitude prior to his consecration.
Theobald of Bec died in 1162, which prompted Henry to choose Becket as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, probably due to the fact that they were close friends. This also angered many leading churchmen who attested that Becket had never been a priest, and had a reputation as a cruel military commander (when he fought against the French king Louis VII). The churchmen also claimed that Becket would not be an independent leader of the church.
Becket initially refused the post, realising that Henry would impose policies against the Church and that Becket would be expected by Henry to accept the policy while also being expected, by the Church, to oppose Henry. Nonetheless, Henry insisted and Becket was ordained priest on 2nd June 1162, and consecrated bishop the next day5.
Thomas Becket experienced a change of character upon becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury, as Archbishop he was strict to make sure that he observed church law properly. He wore a penitential hair shirt under his vestments and had his underlings flog him frequently. More importantly, he and Henry were to engage in a quarrel over the question of the supremacy of ecclesiastical courts[6].
The Constitutions of Clarendon were what followed; Henry issued 16 articles in January 1164 which defined the church–state relations in England. It was also designed to restrict ecclesiastical privileges and curb the power of the church courts[7]. The following is clause three of the constitutions, which states that:
"3. Clerks charged and accused of any matter, summoned by the king's justice, shall come into his court to answer there to whatever it shall seem to the king's court should be answered there; and in the church court to what it seems should be answered there; however the king's justice shall send into the court of holy Church for the purpose of seeing how the matter shall be treated there. And if the clerk be convicted or confess, the church ought not to protect him further[8]."
This clause became famous for offending the Church the most, it explains how the ecclesiastical court will try criminal clerks and be able to extract “what it seems should be answered there” (Henry then specifies later that a royal official [“the king’s justice shall send into…”] will be present at the case). Then if the clerk is found guilty he should be sentenced in a secular court. Surely, this offended the Church and one of its most devout followers; Thomas Becket.
Thomas Becket, along with other bishops, was reluctant to follow this clause and another, though they (Becket and the rest of the Church) generally accepted the customs of King Henry. As a result, in August 1164, Becket tried to go to France without the royal consent, which was forbidden by the Constitutions. He was then caught, and then indicted on 6 October 1164 at the king’s court on different charges. One of which was Becket’s failure to address a suit brought against him, by nobleman John Marshal, concerning property that Becket had confiscated. Once at the council, Becket was found guilty of ignoring the court summons and was procured, under pressure from fellow bishops, to accept the sentence of confiscation of all non-landed property which was under the pleasure of the king. The king then incurred further charges and asked for an account of Becket's expenditure during his term as chancellor. Another charge was that he was not fulfilling his oath (which he, and other bishops, swore to the king at Clarendon) to observe the Constitutions. Becket replied that he was not prepared to answer those charges and was thus found guilty of both. The archbishop refused to accept the sentence, and fled Northampton and took sanctuary[9]. It seems here that the trial of Becket was at a disadvantage; the fact that he was very close to Henry during Becket’s term as chancellor meant that Henry knew the sorts of activities and materials Becket had purchased. This allowed Henry to scrutinise his former companion on his spending as the former chancellor. Not only that, the fact that Becket was tried under royal jurisdiction most probably meant that the justices were ruling in favour of the king, who, evidently, closely followed the trial of Becket. Following the trial, Becket fled to France, where he remained for about six years while the conflict between church and state continued[10]. In 1170 he returned to England upon reconciliation, which was reached with the aid of the pope. He immediately infuriated Henry once again by excommunicating those bishops who had prudently supported the king during Becket's exile6.
On return, Becket preached from the cathedral on Christmas Day 1170. Thomas again displayed his stormy temperament through the excommunication of some of his fellow bishops, who were given positions under Henry. Henry was infuriated when he heard of this outburst and is said to have uttered the fateful words “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!” Four of Henry’s knights took this as literal summon and left for Canterbury immediately. They reached Canterbury Cathedral on December 29th, where they found Becket hearing Vespers before the High Altar. One of the knights approached him and struck Becket on the shoulder with the flat of his sword. It seems that the knights did not at first intend to kill Becket, but as he stood firm after the first blow, the four attacked and butchered him. It is recorded that they cracked open his skull spilling his brains onto the cathedral floor[11].
Henry was severely affected by the murder, and his reputation suffered greatly. He appeared to have been devastated (they had after all once been close friends) and isolated himself in his room and refused all food. Henry was not, based on remorse, excommunicated by the pope, who himself was horrified by the murder and the terms of agreement and penance imposed on him were not as harsh as expected. Henry, out of sympathy, had no choice but to submit the ‘criminous clerks’ back to the ecclesiastical authorities, and he was compelled to revoke the clauses in the Constitutions of Clarendon. The rest of the articles remained law and later became part of the common law of England. He also remained on reasonable working terms with the pope and his bishops for the remainder of his reign[12]. In 1174, to further display his remorse, Henry walked barefoot to Canterbury Cathedral (to the tomb of Thomas Becket) and allowed the monks to whip him[13].
The Becket affair ended Henry’s formal attempt to define in law the boundary line between secular and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. This resulted in the dealing of every future conflict in law to be dealt item by item by means of a new writ, the royal Writ of Prohibition. This could be issued to prevent a matter being decided in the ecclesiastical courts but, at the same time, allowed to be tried under canon law if the matter was something considered to be in the province of the church such as a marriage portion or the execution of a dead man’s testament12.
The following passage is taken from W.L Warren and concerns the Writ of Prohibition issued by Henry:
“The Writ of Prohibition was Henry’s major contribution to the avoidance of open conflict between Church and State in the matter of competing jurisdictions. It produced what Maitland has called ‘a ragged and unscientific frontier’ between the courts, instead of the clear line which Henry had attempted to lay down in the Constitutions of Clarendon. This marked a retreat, but it was a retreat from his youthful distaste for ambiguity rather than from his basic objective. Henry had learned to be flexible…
It left the initiative in the hands of the King without forcing the clergy to the humiliation of abandoning established claims. Henry II was not accused of deviousness without cause; but the practice of prohibition, while undoubtedly vexatious to the clergy, stopped just short of being intolerable. Nothing indeed could be said to typify more clearly the policy and methods of Henry II than the Writ of Prohibition[14].”
This meant that, in the future, the line between the state and ecclesiastical court jurisdictions was never properly defined, or imposed as planned. This meant that the courts under the king and the church had to deal with every case on a fact and nature-sensitive basis, rather than by a once-and-for-all law which would have bound the two jurisdictions.
The death of Thomas Becket was the result of the unexpected and most certainly, unforeseeable (for Henry, at least) ecclesiastical-secular quarrel between to former companions who had once enjoyed the benefits of a well-established and prosperous friendship. The king’s supposed words which presumably prompted the knights to go down and slaughter the archbishop definitely backfired on Henry who, not only lost a friend, but also his reputation to the widely religious medieval population and more importantly, his determination to define the English jurisdiction and separate the state from the Church as a means of bringing justice to the ‘clerical criminals’ and feudal unity, which was restricted by the immense power of the Church in the medieval period.
REFERENCES
[1] Britannica: ‘Saint Thomas Becket’
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Thomas-Becket (Accessed 20 February 2017)
[2] Frank Barlow, 1990. Thomas Becket. Reprint Edition. University of California Press. Page 10
[3] Wikipedia: ‘Thomas Becket’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket (Accessed 20 February 2017)
[4] New World Encyclopedia: ‘Thomas Becket’
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Thomas_Becket (Accessed 20 February 2017)
[5]Spartacus Educational: ‘Thomas Becket’
http://spartacus-educational.com/NORbeckett.htm (Accessed 20 February 2017)
[6] Britain Express: ‘Henry II and Thomas a Becket’
http://www.britainexpress.com/History/Henry_II_and_Thomas_a_Becket.htm (Accessed 21 February 2017)
[7]Britannica: ‘Constitutions of Clarendon’
https://www.britannica.com/event/Constitutions-of-Clarendon (Accessed 21 February 2017)
[8] Constitution Society: ‘Consitution of Clarendon 1164’
http://www.constitution.org/eng/consclar.htm (Accessed 21 February 2017)
[9] Frank Barlow, 1990. Thomas Becket. Reprint Edition. University of California Press. Pages 108-114
[10] Northamptonshire Timeline: ‘1164AD Trial of Thomas A Becket at Northampton Castle’
http://www.northamptonshiretimeline.com/scene/1164-thomas-becket/ (Accessed 21 February 2017)
[11] Historic UK: ‘Thomas Becket’
http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Thomas-Becket/ (Accessed 23 February 2017)
[12] The History of Law Blog: ‘The Constitutions of Clarendon and the Becket affair’
http://historyoflaw.co.uk/constitutions-of-clarendon-becket-affair/ (Accessed 23 February 2017)
[13] BBC Bitesize: ‘Thomas Becket and Henry II’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ks3/history/middle_ages/thomas_becket_henry_ii/revision/5/
(Accessed 23 February 2017)
[14] W. L. Warren, 1977. Henry II (English Monarchs). Paperback Edition. University of California Press. Page 549