45. Thomas Sterns Eliot. Murder in the Cathedral.

BIRTH:

Thomas Stearns Eliot. September 26, 1888 in Missouri. Father, Henry Ware Eliot, the president of the Hydraulic Brick Company. Mother, Charlotte Champe Stearns, volunteer at the Humanity Club of St. Louis. was a teacher. At the time of Eliot’s birth, his parents were in their mid-forties siblings were already grown.

EDUCATION:

attended Harvard University; left with a masters and undergraduate degrees. Returned to Harvard to receive a doctorate degree in philosophy. Toured the continent after Harvard. 1915 married first wife, Vivienne Haigh-Wood. 1917 began working at Lloyd’s bank in London. 1925 left the bank to work at a publishing firm. 1927 converted to Anglicanism, dropped U.S. citizenship, became a British subject. 1933 separated from Vivienne. Vivienne’s possible affair with Bertrand Russell? Avoiding all but one meeting with her between 1932 and her death in 1947. 1948 won Nobel prize. 1957 married Esme Valerie Fletcher. Had been his secretary at the publishing house since 1949. 37 years his junior (he was nearly 70, she was 32). Preserved his literary legacy after Eliot’s death. In 1965, he died of emphysema (tüdőtágulás) in London at the age of seventy-seven. 1983 won two posthumous Tony Awards for “Cats”. Modern life is chaotic, futile (felületes), fragmentary (töredékes). Eliot argues that modern poetry “must be difficult” to match the intricacy (bonyolultság) of modern experience. Poetry should reflect this fragmentary nature of life: “ The poet must become more and more comprehensive, more allusive (utaló, célzó), more indirect, in order to force, to dislocate if necessary, language into his meaning”. This nature of life should be projected, not analyzed. A poem should be an organic thing in itself, a made object. Once it is finished, the poet will no longer have control of it. It should be judged, analyzed by itself without the interference of the poet’s personal influence and intentional elements and other elements. Use the past to serve the present and future “simultaneous order”, how the past, present, future interrelate. Sometimes at the same time, borrow from authors that are: remote in time, alien in language, diverse in interest, use the past to underscore what is missing from the present.

Style/Technique

disconnected images/symbols, literary allusions/references; Sometimes VERY obscure!!! (sötét, bizonytalan) highly expressive meter, rhythm of free verses, metaphysical whimsical (furcsa, szeszélyes) images/whims, flexible tone.

Murder in the Cathedral

Genre of work: Drama. Type of Plot: Religious chronicle. Time of plot: 1170. Locale: Canterbury, England. First presented: was written for the Canterbury Festival in June, 1935. Format of drama: mostly in poetic form, with effective expression by the chorus (Eliot believed that for contemporary drama to be most effective, it had to be written in poetry.) The archbishop’s sermon is in prose. The anachronistic (korszerűtlen) speeches of justification by the knights are written in prose. Eliot links devices derived from the Greeks – the chorus, static action, and Aristotelian purgation – with his profound commitment to the Anglo-Catholic liturgy. The play in many ways resembles a medieval morality play whose purpose was to enlighten as well as entertain. The drama is an impartial representation. T.S. Eliot shows the politics, both temporal and churchly, which lay behind the murder; he presents the archbishop as a man torn between acting and suffering. The play, dealing with an individual's stand against authority, was written at the time of rising Fascism in Central Europe, and can be taken as an outcry to individuals in affected countries to stand firm against the Nazi regime's perversion and subversion of the ideals of the Christian Church.

Plot

Part I

The women of Canterbury have been instinctively drawn to the cathedral by fear of danger and the need to bear witness. Becket had been gone for seven years. In his absence, the poor had suffered oppression. During this time, the women had tried to keep their households in order and safe. The priests knew that the struggle for power was at hand (Henry II vs. the Church). All were wondering if the archbishop and the king had been reconciled (kibékít). A herald tells of a hasty (elsietett) compromise and that Becket had said that the king would not see him again. After the herald left, all expressed pessimism. Many thought that it would be better if the king were stronger OR Becket weaker. They were glad that Becket was returning home to them. The women thought that Becket should return to France – he could still be their spiritual leader but be safe. Becket arrives and speaks to the priests and the women. Becket tells them of the difficulties that he has had due to the rebellious bishops and barons wanting him dead. He had been spied on and had his letters intercepted. At Sandwich, he had barely escaped from his enemies. Reminds Becket of when he was chancellor – not archbishop. As chancellor, Becket had known worldly pleasure and worldly success. For Becket to avoid his present hard fate, The First Tempter suggests to Becket to relax his severity and dignity, to be friendly, and to overlook disagreeable principles. Becket is strong in his refusal. Tempts Becket with having lasting power as chancellor again. While Becket was chancellor, the king commanded, but the chancellor (Becket) ruled. Becket asks about rebellious bishops whom he had excommunicated and barons whose privileges he had revoked. The Second Tempter is confident that the rebellious bishops and the excommunicated barons would be able to be controlled if Becket were chancellor again with the king’s power behind him. Becket again had the strength to say no. Easier to deal with than the 1^st and 2^nd. Represented a clique that wanted to overthrow the throne. The Third Tempter tells Becket that if Becket would lead them, the clique would make the power of the Church supreme – the barons and the bishops would be ruled by the Church – not the king. Becket said no. Unexpected. Showed Becket how he could have eternal glory. If Becket continues on his present course, he will become a martyr and a saint, to dwell forevermore in the presence of God. Becket’s dilemma: no matter if he acted or suffered, he would sin against his religion. Early on Christmas morning, Becket preaches a sermon on peace. Christ left us his peace, but not peace as the world thinks of it. Spiritual peace did not necessarily mean England at peace with other countries or the barons at peace with the king.

Part II

Christmas time has passed. Four knights come to Canterbury on urgent business. They refuse all hospitality. They state charges against Becket, saying that he owes all of his influence to the king. The knights try to attack Becket, but the priests and the attendants prevent the attack. The charges that Becket had gone to France to get the King of France and then the pope’s support are promoted in public. King Henry is portrayed to the public as permitting Becket’s return with Becket repaying him by excommunicating the bishops who had crowned the young prince which put the legality of the coronation in doubt. The knights pronounce Becket’s sentence: he and his followers must leave English soil. Becket’s reply: He would never leave England again; he was only carrying out the pope’s orders in excommunicating the bishops. In the cathedral, the knights slew Becket.

The knights give their rationales: It may look like four against one, but… The four knights would NOT benefit from the murder. The king, for reasons of state, would deplore the incident, and the knights would at least be banished from England. It was really hard for a good churchman to kill an archbishop.

The knights’ rationales continued: Since Becket had been an able chancellor, the king had hoped, in elevating him to the archbishopric, to unite temporal and spiritual rule and to bring order to a troubled kingdom. As soon as Becket was elevated, he became more priestly than the priests AND refused to follow the king’s orders.

The knights’ rationales continued: Becket had become egotistical. Becket had prophesied his death in England. Becket was determined to suffer a martyr’s fate. The public should conclude that Becket had committed suicide while of an unsound mind. After the knights left, the priests and populace mourned. Their only solace was that so long as men will die for faith, the Church will be supreme.