Becket

Writers of historical drama take the liberty of creating fictional narratives based on actual events or characters in historical settings. In contrast to docudrama, factual accuracy is not a criterion for evaluating a historical play. In line with that liberty, Jean Anouilh’s play Becket or The Honor of God has an interesting story behind it. Anouilh inadvertently makes a mistake about Saint Thomas Becket’s background that made his play interesting in his own way. Anouilh buys a used copy of Augustin Thierry’s book The Conquest of England by the Normans, starts reading it leisurely, but is interrupted by routine chores and puts it aside. Sometime later his wife asks him for a book to read in bed and Anouilh recommends Thierry’s book, which he did not finish reading. Here is how Anouilh happened to write the play Becket: with tearful eyes, his wife says “Oh, how beautiful it is! Why don’t you make a play of it? It’s absolutely you!” (Anouilh 6). He writes the play in fifteen days and gives it to one of his historian friends. To his surprise, his friend says Becket was a Norman but the character in Anouilh’s play is portrayed as a Saxon, which is historically a mistake. Anouilh, however, never corrected this mistake because it required rewriting of a large portion of the play. That said, in the Introduction to the play, he acknowledges this mistake and welcomes the reader to a different portrayal of Saint Thomas à Becket which turned out to be one of a kind. Becket is Henry’s confidant to the extent that the King appoints him Chancellor of England. Becket can’t believe it and thinks the King is joking, but the die is cast. Henry promotes Becket to Archbishop of Canterbury to have more control over the Church. The King’s minion-barons are not in good terms with him at the beginning, but Becket’s wise and skillful management of affairs leads to the King’s and his men’s admiration of the Chancellor’s wit and finesse. Conflicts begin to rise. The major disagreement between Becket and Henry is the legal rights of the clergy. Becket argues that if a church official commits a crime, it’s the Church that has the jurisdiction over the matter, while the King considers this the right of the State of England. Becket insists that he cannot serve God and the King at once, which infuriates the King. Whether Becket, once a libertine, can serve as a man of God or he cannot get rid of his past, whether he chooses to serve the king or the Church, whether he succeeds to serve as a devoted Archbishop while remaining loyal to the King, and what happens to these close friends after Becket’s promotion are uncovered by the author’s skillful character development through the story. Anouilh portrays the excruciating dilemma of King Henry’s love of Becket that clashes with his ambitions and interests. There are interesting scenes showing Becket’s efforts to discipline the ruthless, promiscuous King, such as introducing fork as an eating tool. An impressive characteristic of Anouilh’s language in the play is the balanced use of humor and solemnity to portray the characters, a significant signature of Anouilh that distinguishes his delicate hybrid genre compared to the classical comedy-tragedy dichotomy. This book may appeal to drama lovers, students of Theater and Dramatic Arts, and specially to the interested researchers and critics who have read Christopher Fry’s Curtmantle and T.S. Eliot’s Murder in the Cathedral. A comparative study of these three plays may reveal which characterization better portrays Becket as an Episcopal body and his relationship with King Henry II. Happy reading!

If William Shakespeare had lived in our time, he would’ve written plays similar to “Becket.” Indeed, “Becket” reminds me of “Julius Caesar”—simple, direct, with unforgettable characters undone by their life decisions. It’s a play that grabs you immediately and holds you to the closing scene, of bitterest irony. It’s a play that reads like a well-crafted novel. In the Introduction, the author, Jean Anouilh, writes: “I am not a serious man, I wrote ‘Becket’ by chance.” By chance he laid his hands on a very old copy of “The Conquest of England by the Normans” (by Augustin Thierry, “an historian of the Romantic school,” says Anouilh) and happened upon the 30 or so pages that tell the story of Becket. “I was dazzled,” he writes. “I had expected to find a saint . . . and I found a man.” Dazzled as he was, it was his wife who encouraged him to take up his pen and create a play. “Oh, how beautiful it is. Why don’t you make a play of it. It’s absolutely you!” It’s a drama of friendship between two men, between a king and his friend, his companion in pleasure and in work. “(T)his is what had gripped me about the story,”says Anouilh, “this friend who he could not cease to love though he became his worst enemy the night he was named archbishop. . . .” To quote the Bible, Becket could not serve both "God and mammon"--thus the conflict that drives the story. Becket could not serve both the English king and the Catholic church. Once appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket’s whole-hearted devotion to Henry II was redirected from serving the king to serving God. The English king was at first confused, then angry, and could not forgive Becket’s change of devotion. To compound matters, Henry II had appointed Becket Archbishop for political reasons—to fatten the English treasury. Having switched loyalties, Becket could not help but block such a scheme. Friendship, humor, honor, irony, betrayal—it’s all here. Be dazzled—read the play, even if you’ve seen the movie.

Very good condition and super quick delivery. Thank you.

An engrossing play. A must read.

This play is a favorite subject of mine, and the play itself is skillfully written and very entertaining. Having seen the movie more than once and now read the play, I wonder if Henry might have been better if his actions & dialog toward the end seemed less of a tantrum and more considered. He undergoes his own transformation alongside Beckett, but the play depicts him as progressing from cunning, child-like, hedonistic, and happy, to cunning, child-like, hedonistic, and disappointed. Yet, some of the dialog toward the end suggests he is less of a child and now more of a sober king, still ruthless but perhaps less cheerful about it. But other parts of his dialog at the end still suggest being child-like. This is one of the themes of the play, of course, to contrast Henry being enmired in worldly concerns while Beckett is free of such, and had made himself free of such, even before his spirit ascends. But maybe Henry could have been shown as ending up worldly, but also more of an adult and melancholy.

Book is better and shorter than the movie

Great value. Quick shipping. Thank you!

One of my all-time favorites! And the film brought it so vividly to life. R it for yourself and see ead

A classic play, beautifully written. Made into a fine film with Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton.

This remarkable piece of Theatre Literature translated in English language was originally titled 'Becket ou l'honneur de Dieu' (by Jean Anouilh). Also it was the basis for the script of the famous Movie 'Becket' (1964) with Burton + O'Toole.

Parfait état du livre. Très bonne pièce de Jean Anouilh que je recommande pour son analyse sur les rapports d'amitié.

What arrived was not a translation of Becket by Raphael and Raphael, as depicted, but an earlier translation by Lucienne Hill, with a different cover. I was able to use it, and for a second-hand book, it was in excellent condition, but it was annoying not to receive the translation I was expecting.