MIC

Question 1

PLOTTT

Answer 1

Eliot wrote his play for an audience expected to know the historical story of Thomas Becket and King Henry II. As such, a brief review of that story, contained in the “About Thomas Becket and King Henry II” section of the Note, will greatly aid comprehension of a summary.

Murder in the Cathedral opens in the Archbishop’s Hall, on December 2nd, 1170. A Chorus, comprised of women of Canterbury, has gathered at the cathedral with some premonition of a terrible event to come. In a long speech, they reflect on how their lives are defined by suffering, and then reflect on their archbishop, Thomas Becket. He has been been in exile from England for seven years, after a terrible clash with King Henry. The women worry that his return could make their lives more difficult by angering the king.
Three priests enter the hall, and they lament Thomas’s absence as well. They debate the ramifications of his potential return, and a Herald arrives, bringing news that Thomas has indeed returned to England and will soon arrive in Canterbury. The Herald quashes their hopes that his return indicates reconciliation with Henry, and confesses his own concern that violence is soon to follow the archbishop’s return.
Once the heralds leave, the priests reflect on Thomas’s time as Chancellor of England, when he served as secular administrator under Henry. The Chorus, listening to the priests discuss the matter, confesses its disappointment in his return, which they believe will bring them more suffering. They admit their lives are hard but also predictable, and they would rather “perish in quiet” than live through the turmoil of new political and spiritual upheaval (180).
The Second Priest insults them, and insists they pretend happiness to welcome Thomas. However, Thomas enters during this exchange, and stresses that the priest is mistaken to chide them, since they have some sense of the difficulty that awaits them. He stresses that all should submit to patience, since none can truly know God’s plans or intentions.
A series of tempters enter, one by one, and attempt to compromise Thomas’s integrity. The First Tempter reminds Thomas of the carefree, libertine ways of his youth, and tempts him to relinquish his responsibilities in favor of a more carefree life. The Second Tempter suggests Thomas reclaim the title of Chancellor, since he could do more good for the poor through a powerful political post than he could as a religious figure. The Third Tempter posits a progressive form of government, in which ruler and barons work together as “coalition.” In effect, he offers Thomas a chance to rule and break new ground in government. Thomas easily rejects all three tempters; after all, they are all forms of temptation that he had already rejected in his life.
A Fourth Tempter enters, and suggests the idea of martyrdom, which he notes would give Thomas the greatest dominion over his enemies. He would be remembered throughout the ages if he allowed himself to die for the Church, while his enemies would be judged and then forgotten by time. Thomas is shaken by this temptation, since it is something he has often entertained in his private moments. He recognizes that to die “for the wrong reason,” pride, would compromise the integrity of a martyrdom, so must overcome that impulse if his death is to have meaning.
While he considers the dilemma, all of the characters thus far mentioned (save the Herald) give a long address considering the uncertainty of life. When they finish, Thomas announces that his “way [is] clear” – he will not seek martyrdom from fame, but instead will willingly submit to God’s will. He has accepted his fate. Part I ends here.
Between Part I and Part II, Thomas Becket preaches a sermon in an Interlude, in which he restates the lesson he learns at the end of Part I. It is set in the cathedral on Christmas morning, 1170. In the sermon, Thomas considers the mystery of Christianity, which both mourns and celebrates the fact of Christ’s death – they mourn the world that make it necessary, while celebrating the sacrifice that enables others to transcend that world. He suggests that the appreciation of martyrs is a smaller version of that mystery, and defines “the true martyr [as] he who has become the instrument of God, who has lost his will in the will of God, not lost it but found it, for he has found freedom in his submission to God” (199). He closes his sermon by admitting he might not preach to this congregation again.
The first scene of Part II is set in the Archbishop’s Hall on December 29th, 1170. The terrified Chorus begins with an ominous address, after which four boorish knights enter. They insist they are there on Henry’s business from France, and demand an audience with Thomas despite attempts by the priests to distract them.
Thomas arrives, and is immediately insulted and chided by the knights for what they perceive as disloyalty towards Henry and misuse of the archbishopric to incite opposition to England. Thomas denies their interpretation of events, but also reveals a serenity and readiness to die when necessary. The knights attempt to attack him, but are interrupted by the priests. A more specific political argument follows, during which Thomas continues to deny their claims but also to insult them as overly concerned with petty, political matters. Angry, the knights threaten the priests with death if they let Becket escape, and then the knights leave.
The Chorus gives a brutal, evocative speech, and Thomas comforts them. He acknowledges that, by bearing necessary witness to the ritual of his death, their lives will grow more difficult but that they can likewise find comfort in recollection on having been here this fateful day.
As the knights approach again, the priests beg Thomas to flee, but he refuses to flee his fate. They force him from the hall and into the cathedral, against his protestations. As the scene changes, the women of the Chorus steel themselves for the death soon to follow.
The priests bar the doors, which the knights then begin to besiege it. When their arguments do not convince Thomas – who accuses them of thinking too much of cause-and-effect, rather than accepting God’s plan – the priests open the door and the knights enter. They are drunk, and demand Thomas lift all the excommunications he has put upon English rulers. He refuses, and they murder him. While Thomas is being murdered, the Chorus gives a long, desperate address lamenting the life they will now have to lead in the shadow of Thomas’s martyrdom.

After the murder is done, the four knights turn towards the audience and address them directly. They wish to explain themselves, and defend their actions. The First Knight admits he has no facility for argument, and so acts as an MC to introduce the other knights. The Second Knight admits he understands how the audience and history will hate them, but begs the audience to realize the knights were “disinterested” in the murder; they were merely following orders that were necessary for the good of England (216). The Third Knight presents a long, complex argument suggesting that Becket was guilty of betraying the English people, and hence was killed justly. The Fouth Knight suggests that Becket willed his own death by pursing martyrdom for the sake of pride, and hence is guilty of suicide, making the knights not guilty of murder.
Once the knights leave, the priests lament Thomas’s death, and worry about what the world will become. The Chorus gives the final speech, revealing that they have accepted their duty as Christians. They acknowledge that living up to the sacrifice Thomas made is difficult, but that they will be spiritually richer for undertaking it, and they beg mercy and forgiveness from Thomas and God.

Question 2

CHARACTERSS

Answer 2

Thomas
Thomas Becket is the Archbishop of Canterbury and former Chancellor of England. Historically, he stood up against Henry II’s demands that the Church subsume its authority to Henry’s secular power, and ultimately died for the cause. In the play, he is represented as an overly proud and sanctimonious man who nevertheless transcends his weakness to accept martyrdom as God’s will.
Chorus
The chorus of Murder in the Cathedral is comprised of the women of Canterbury. Poor, common, and plain, these women have lived a difficult but manageable life since Thomas was sent into exile seven years before the play begins. Though they are Catholic and respect the archbishop, they are also worried that his return will cause them a new level of spiritual burden. The play is very much an examination of the way they come to accept their spiritual responsibilities through the example of Thomas’s martyrdom.
Herald
A messenger who brings word that Thomas Becket has returned to England and will soon arrive in Canterbury. He has a premonition that Thomas’s return presages violence.
First Priest
A nameless priest of Canterbury, characterized by his excessive mournfulness and worry. He continually sees the situation of Becket’s return as one that can bring trouble for them and their country.

Second Priest
A nameless priest of Canterbury, characterized by his pragmatism. He examines Becket’s based on its political ramifications, and notes how Becket’s clash with Henry reflects issues of land ownership and power, rather than spiritual dominion.
Third Priest
A nameless priest of Canterbury, characterized by his patience. Whereas the other priests worry about how Becket’s return will change their lives, the Third Priest suggests that, as no human can understand the way the universe works, so should they remain patient and allow God to work His will upon the world.
First Tempter
The first man to tempt Thomas identifies himself as Old Tom. He is a friend from Becket’s early, carefree days, and he tempts Thomas with the possibility of relinquishing his responsibilities in favor of a more libertine lifestyle.
Second Tempter
The second man to tempt Thomas identifies himself as a political ally from Thomas’s days as Chancellor. He tempts Thomas to resume his role as Chancellor, arguing Thomas could do more good for the poor through secular power than he ever could as a priest.
Third Tempter
Thomas does not know the third tempter, who identifies himself as a simple baron. He tempts Thomas with the possibility of ruling the country via a coalition that would split control between the nominal ruler and the barons.
Fourth Tempter
The Fourth Tempter is unexpected. Using subtle arguments, he tempts Thomas with the possibility of courting martyrdom for the sake of his reputation and glory. His temptation is powerful because it touches on something Thomas has wished in his private moments. By denying this temptation, Thomas prepares himself to accept martyrdom for the right reason.
First Knight
Though none of the four knights are particularly individualized before Becket’s murder, the First Knight gives his name as Reginald Fitz Urse afterwards when he addresses the audience. He claims he is a not a man of eloquence, and so mostly serves as an MC during the knight’s speeches.
Second Knight
Though none of the four knights are particularly individualized before Becket’s murder, the Second Knight is introduced as William de Traci afterwards. He presents an emotional argument, asking for pity on the grounds that, though the knights committed the murder, they were “disinterested” and merely did what was necessary for the English people as ordered by their king.
Third Knight
Though none of the four knights are particularly individualized before Becket’s murder, the Third Knight is introduced as Hugh de Morville afterwards. He presents a long, detailed argument that Becket was guilty of great offenses against the English people, and hence was it legal to murder him.
Fourth Knight
Though none of the four knights are particularly individualized before Becket’s murder, the Fourth Knight is introduced as Richard Brito afterwards. He presents the most subtle argument, claiming that Becket essentially committed suicide by facilitating his murder, and hence are the knights innocent of the crime.
Henry
King Henry II, though not a speaking character in the play, is a large influence on the action. Historically, he was a impetuous King who wanted to subsume the various factions of English power under the crown, and the most contentious of these was the church, led in England by Thomas Becket. The knights arrive in his name, and he is cited frequently by those in the play who try to understand Becket’s past and character.
Pope
Though not a speaking character in the play, Pope Alexander figures prominently. Historically, he was protecting Thomas Becket at the time of this play, allowing the archbishop to announce excommunications upon the English church. His protection was one of the many barriers between Thomas Henry and it gives Thomas a defense against the knights.

Question 3

THEMES

Answer 3

Martyrdom
One of the most explicit philosophies Eliot explores is what constitutes a true Christian martyr. As Thomas explains in his Interlude sermon, a martyr is not merely one who dies for God, but rather is one who allows himself to be “the instrument of God” (199). He argues that a martyr is not made by accident, but rather by God’s will. Thomas’s journey in Part I is marked by his acceptance that he wants to seek martyrdom for the sake of his pride and worldly glory, and then his subsequent willingness to rid himself of those desires to die solely for God’s cause. Further, the play explores martyrdom in terms of how it impacts the true believers who come afterwards. The Chorus must come to terms with the fact that a martyr’s death saddles them with a burden to validate the sacrifice through their own lives. In many ways, a true martyr must die as Christ did – because God wills it – and those Christians who follow are expected to subsume their own lives in service of God for that reason.
Time
The question of time runs throughout the entire play, and informs the theology behind Thomas’s recognition of his role as a martyr. Time is presented as an Earthly, human concern in the play. Time leads humans to think of events in terms of cause and effect, and to therefore make decisions on the basis of efficiency and outcome. However, to consider anything from this perspective allows a person to justify his actions, so that the distinction between good and evil is blurred. Thomas considers that his decision – to willingly submit himself to be an instrument of God’s will – is a decision made outside of time. It is not made for its effect, and in fact cannot be understood by any human, since no human can understand God. Thomas suggests that from God’s perspective, the limitations of time do not apply. The play proposes that humans are tormented by the difficulties and complications that time puts upon us, whereas ridding ourselves of our personalities in order to be God’s instrument allows us to transcend those limitations.
“The wheel”
“The wheel” was a common image in medieval theology, and helps to understand the ideas at work in [Murder in the Cathedral]. Associated primarily with medieval thinker Boethius, the wheel image posits that God sits at the center of a large wheel, and hence understands the system behind its rotations. Humans, who live at various places along the edge of the wheel, are confounded by those rotations and cannot glimpse the order behind them. Thus, serenity comes in accepting that we can never understand the workings of the universe and should instead endeavor to transcend our humanity so as to deserve God’s protection after death.
Thomas enters the play prepared to seek martyrdom for Earthly reasons, but learns that he must simply submit himself to God’s control. In effect, he has to rid himself of his Earthly ambitions because they are necessarily flawed. Those ambitions cannot possibly take the universe into account. One of the lessons Thomas learns – and which he teaches the Chorus through his example – is that our lives of suffering and difficulty are illusions that we over-value. We can never understand them, and so we should not dwell on them. Instead, we should focus on pleasing He who sits at the center of the wheel, in faith that He knows why and how the wheel turns, and will reward us for our faith in a way we could never reward ourselves because of our limited perspectives.

Politics
Eliot aimed to craft a play built around ritual rather than around human psychology, and yet the story of Thomas Becket is too heavily political to support a solely theological framework. Politics in the play is present throughout, from the exposition given by the priests before Becket arrives to the arguments the knights made back to Thomas and directly to the audience. To some extent, these political elements are there to round out the story, to give an informed audience its expected details. However, the political arguments also represent the aspect of Thomas’s personality that he must overcome in order to be worthy of true martyrdom. By acknowledging Thomas’s political nature and past, Eliot endows him with a palpable quality that the audience will see him overcome. He wishes to be God’s instrument, and so refuses to concern himself with political questions. Interestingly, Thomas cannot help himself from engaging in some political banter with the knights in Part II, which suggests that no person can ever fully rid himself of his personality; he can only endeavor to do so up to the limits of his humanity.
In terms of the Chorus, the complicated politics stand in stark contrast to the reality of their everyday lives. They are interested in politics only in so far as it keeps rulers from complicated the suffering of their daily toil. By emphasizing the Chorus so strongly in the midst of such a political story, Eliot implicitly suggests that the nuances of politics are less valuable and spiritual than the community of Christians who attempt to please God through their simple, everyday lives.
Suffering
“Suffering” in the play has two meanings.
In its most common usage, suffering means “to undergo pain or distress.” The horrific imagery of the Chorus speeches, as well as the detail they give about their daily toil, stresses how much suffering they undergo. Because of this suffering, they wish mostly be left alone. Eliot’s ultimate message, of course, is that for true spiritual fulfillment, we must not simply retreat into our Eartlhy suffering, but rather overcome it and devote ourselves to serving as God’s instruments. However, the extent to which he presents extreme suffering as a fact of life certainly informs the play’s messages.
However, “suffering” is also quite manifest through the dichotomy Thomas presents between “action” and “suffering.” In this context, suffering is best defined in terms of patience and waiting. From this definition, the theme is less about overcoming physical distress and more about remaining patient in the face of worldly events that we cannot understand. Thomas suggests that some people act to change their fates, while some simply wait to see what happens. His perfect middle road is an active patience, an active choice to be submissive before God’s will.
Opposites
In a variety of ways, Eliot explores the theme of opposites: elements that contain a contradiction within them. The most explicit manifestation of the theme is the mystery of Christ’s death, which is paralleled in the death of martyrs. As Thomas explains in his Interlude sermon, Christians both celebrate and mourn these deaths. They mourn the wicked world that makes those deaths necessary, while celebrating the bravery and glory of the individuals who make the sacrifice. Likewise, there is a contradiction in what the Chorus is encouraged to accept in the play. They are promised a greater, more fulfilling existence if they accept their burden in validating the sacrifices of martyrs, but this burden also makes their lives more difficult. They cannot simply retire into their suffering, but must more directly confront the limitations and difficulties of the physical world. Finally, Eliot explores opposites through the Chorus’s speeches, especially in Part II, in which they continually posit elements that are both positive and negative at once.
Responsibility
There are two emotional journeys in the play: that of Thomas and that of the Chorus. Both of these journeys entail accepting responsibility for spiritual transcendence. Thomas must accept that his responsibility is greater than that which he owes to himself. He enters the play prepared for martyrdom, but for the wrong reason, to bolster his own pride and reputation. His journey in Part I entails him realizing that he must die as God’s instrument, so as to not waste the death. His responsibility to his Church means he must rid himself of personality and be submissive to God.
However, the Chorus has a much more complex obligation. As they note many times, they are powerless as commoners to impact their world. Instead, they merely hope for minimal interference into their already-difficult lives of toil and struggle. What they prefer at the beginning of the play is an existence of “living and partly living,” a miserable but predictable life in which they are not forced to take any responsibility for anything other than their immediate survivals. They even hope Thomas will not return, since that will potentially make their lives more difficult by forcing them to become more involved. They prefer to be complacent. Thomas poses a life wherein they have a share of the “eternal burden,” where a martyrdom is meaningless without an audience or congregation to sanctify it and validate it through their lives. The Chorus is frightened of the potential for being engaged and responsible, since a life of passion requires them to more directly confront the iniquity of the world. Their journey in the play is learning that their spiritual fulfillment will be greater even if their physical challenges intensify, and so they accept their responsibility and ask God and Thomas to help them.

Question 4

QUOTES

Answer 4

Seven years and the summer is over
Seven years since the Archbishop left us,
He who was always kind to his people.
But it would not be well if he should return.
King rules or barons rule;
We have suffered various oppression,
But mostly we are left to our own devices,
And we are content if we are left alone.
Chorus, p. 176
Here, the Chorus reveals their complicated feelings about Thomas and the Church. While they do lament his absence of seven years, noting that he was good to them, they worry about his return. What concerns them most of all is the hope that their lives, already marred by suffering, will not grow more complicated. They do not consider themselves immersed in the political world of kings and barons, and worry that any controversy Thomas stirs up by returning will cause them trouble. This attitude – of miserable complacency over spiritual responsibility – is what will change for them through the ritual of Thomas’s sacrifice.

For good or ill, let the wheel turn.
The wheel has been still, these seven years, and no good.
For ill or good, let the wheel turn.
For who knows the end of good or evil?
Third Priest, p. 179
Here, the Third Priest introduces the concept of the wheel, and the theme of patience, when he chides the other two priests for conjecturing so excitedly and anxiously about the effects of Thomas’s impending return. He is calmer than they, and stresses that they do not understand the way God runs the world. He invokes the image of the wheel, which in medieval theology represented how God sat the center of a moving wheel while humans were on the edges. Therefore, God understood the meaning and cause of rotations, whereas humans were disoriented by its movement. Stipulating this as truth, the Third Priest insists they ought show patience and faith rather than concerning themselves with potential Earthly causes beyond their control. This philosophy is similar to that which Thomas will manifest in his martyrdom.

Seven years we have lived quietly,
Succeeded in avoiding notice,
Living and partly living.
There have been oppression and luxury,
There have been poverty and license,
There has been minor injustice.
Yet we have gone on living,
Living and partly living.
Chorus, p. 180
Here, the Chorus expands upon the extent of its complacency, and begin to expand on the level of suffering they bear. The women of Canterbury admit that their lives are complacent and unhappy – they must accept that their lives are comprised of "partly living." Their persistence is less from strength than from necessity. Their pains are terrible but predictable. Because of this attitude, all things – "oppression and luxury" – are shades of the same lingering trouble. What is interesting is that the Chorus accepts this, and is more terrified of the opposite option, which Thomas's death will give: the option to live a fuller, more engaged and passionate life devoted to God. The cost of this second option would be more pain, since they would have to confront the iniquity of the world head-on.

They know and do not know, what it is to act or suffer.
They know and do not know, that acting is suffering
And suffering is action. Neither does the actor suffer
Nor the patient act. But both are fixed
In an eternal action, an eternal patience
To which all must consent that it may be willed
And which all must suffer that they may will it,
That the pattern may subsist, for the pattern is the action
And the suffering, that the wheel may turn and still
Be forever still.
Thomas, p. 182
Thomas spells out one of the play’s main issues and conflicts when he chides the Second Priest for speaking harshly to the Chorus right before his entrance. In the quote, he proposes a dichotomy between acting and suffering. The former is action, best understood as an individual’s attempt to influence his own fate. The second is suffering, best defined as “patience to endure” rather than as a sensation of pain. It implies the defeated person, much as the women of the Chorus are, who simply assumes that what will come will come. Thomas stresses that these two opposites are interlinked in the order of the universe, and invokes the concept of the wheel to suggest that God alone understands its structure. Ultimately, he will accept in Part I a mindset of active patience, one in which he actively wills himself to be submissive to God’s will. By fully embracing the contradiction, he comes closer to transcending the limits of human existence, thereby coming closer to the serene existence God enjoys at the center of the wheel.

Real power
Is purchased at price of a certain submission.
Your spiritual power is earthly perdition.
Power is present, for him who will wield.
Thomas, p. 186
Thomas easily repudiates all of the first three tempters, but in this response to the Second Tempter, he explains the serenity that allows him to so easily ignore them. He stresses a dichotomy between power and submission. The Second Tempter has offered him palpable power, by suggesting he reclaim the mantle of Chancellor. However, Thomas suggests that real power is inexorably linked with “submission.” Active power must involve passive submission; the opposites must be embraced. He admits that spiritual power means a difficult life on Earth, but that spiritual power is uncompromised. He is no longer interested in the trappings of Earthly power, which is why he can so easily defeat the Tempters who offer him worldly temptations. He wishes to “wield” the greater Power known only to he who makes himself available as God’s instrument.

Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain:
Temptation shall not come in this kind again.
The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.
Thomas, p. 196
The dramatic crux of Part I occurs in silence for the protagonist. As the Chorus, Priests, and Tempters speak together about the uncertainty of life, Thomas retreats into himself to consider the Fourth Tempter’s promise that he could find glory if he wills martyrdom for himself. When he speaks again, beginning a long speech with the above lines, he has firmly committed to dying for the right reason. Thomas’s arc in the play (which completes in Part I) is to first acknowledge that his pride is leading him towards “the right deed for the wrong reason,” and then to rid himself of the ‘self,’ the personality, that is keeping him from being God’s instrument. Once he speaks these words, Thomas will not be waylaid from his purpose, and the Chorus becomes dramatically more important.

Have I not known, not known
What was coming to be? It was here, in the kitchen, in the passage,
In the mews in the barn in the byre in the market place
In our veins our bowels our skulls as well
As well as in the plottings of potentates
As well as in the consultations of powers.
What is woven on the loom of fate
What is woven in the councils of princes
Is woven also in our veins, our brains,
Is woven like a pattern of living worms
In the guts of the women of Canterbury.
Chorus, p. 208
One quality Eliot gains by appropriating the structure of Greek tragedy for Murder in the Cathedral is that it evokes the idea of fate, which he uses to reinforce the play’s meaning. Here, in an Act II speech of despair as the murder approaches, the Chorus acknowledges that Thomas’s impending martyrdom was known to them, in spirit if not in detail, which suggests that it was an inevitable occurrence. This imbues it with a mythic power that raises the stakes for this Chorus who must decide whether to dedicate their lives towards being worthy of the sacrifice. They also stress the existence of fate by suggesting that all humanity is small and powerless against these greater forces. What they have felt in their “guts” is the same feeling that haunts princes. What makes it most complicated of all is that Thomas’s death is of course a marvelous Christian sacrifice, and yet it is also a terrible event worthy of being compared to “a pattern of living worms.” As Thomas explains in his Interlude sermon, in martyrdom lies both the cause for celebration and mourning.

You think me reckless, desperate and mad.
You argue by results, as this world does,
To settle if an act be good or bad.
You defer to the fact. For every life and every act
Consequence of good and evil can be shown.
And as in time results of many deeds are blended
So good and evil in the end become confounded.
It is not in time that my death shall be known;
It is out of time that my decision is taken
If you call that decision
To which my whole being gives entire consent.
I give my life
To the Law of God above the Law of Man.
Thomas, p. 212
Thomas frequently stresses that his decision to accept an active patience by making himself God’s instrument is a decision out of time. He is not hemmed in by the limitation of time that humans, on the exterior edge of the wheel, must confront. Here, as he chides the priests for insisting he hide from the knights, he further details the Earthly structure that he wishes to repudiate. He notes how humans tend to see events in terms of their effects, and to justify whatever happens by its purpose. This focus on efficiency over goodness leads to rationalization, wherein “many deeds are blended” and a human can justify his behavior based on its outcome. The attack has particular resonance considering how well it aligns with the political behavior that has defined Thomas’s career as both Chancellor and Archbishop. Thomas wishes to rid himself of such limiting thoughts, and attempts to transcend to a higher plane of awareness. The first step, however, is to ignore “the Law of Man,” which is too limited to achieve true goodness.

The speakers who have preceded me, to say nothing of our leader, Reginald Fitz Urse, have all spoken very much to the point. I have nothing to add along their particular lines of argument. What I have to say may be put in the form of a question: Who killed the Archbishop?
Fourth Knight, p. 218
In his direct address to the audience after the Archbishop’s murder, the Fourth Knight provides a representative example of the rationalizations and cause/effect political systems that Thomas wishes to repudiate by allowing himself to be martyred as God’s tool. All four of the knights speak in prose (as opposed to the usual verse) to convince the audience that they are logically not guilty of Thomas’s murder, but the Fourth Knight’s argument is the most subtle. This conforms to the subtle arguments of the Fourth Tempter, with whom the character would have been double-cast. There is a fascinating disconnect between the Fourth Knight’s suggestion – “Who killed the Archbishop?” – and what the audience only moments ago saw enacted on stage. What Eliot is doing is allowing the knights to tempt the audience, to give the audiences a chance to repudiate these logical, political, cause/effect reasoning that Thomas repudiated, to disavow the relativism of modernity in favor of a more serene and pure faith.

Forgive us, O Lord, we acknowledge ourselves as type of the common man,
Of the men and women who shut the door and sit by the fire;
Who fear the blessing of God, the loneliness of the night of God, the surrender required, the deprivation inflicted;
Who fear the injustice of men less than the justice of God…
…Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.
Blessed Thomas, pray for us.
Chorus, p. 221
In its final address, the Chorus reveals that it has indeed changed through the play. At the beginning, the women were most concerned with maintaining their status quo, which involved much suffering but was predictable; it allowed them to ignore the larger world. Through Thomas’s example, they have recognized and accepted their share of the “eternal burden” – they must endeavor to confront the iniquity of the world and allow themselves to be God’s instruments. In their final speech, their only bright and positive speech in the play, they acknowledge their previous shortcomings – they feared “the injustice of men less than the justice of God” – and promise to attempt better. However, they know that most men and women lack the fortitude of Christ or even of Thomas, and that they will need the forgiveness and mercy of both figures.