32 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
All You Ever Need to Know About Thomas Becket, June 14, 2005
Frank Barlow set out to write the definitive Becket biography. Mission accomplished. Thomas Becket, the 12th century english politican/archbishop/martyr/saint, rose from semi-obscurity to become chancellor of england under Henry II and then became Archbishop of Canterbury. After becoming Archbishop, he promptly got into it with the King (his buddy) over whether religious clerks could be subject to the king's punishment (among other issues), fled to France and spend five years arguing with Henry II over who was right and who was wrong.
Upon his long awaited arrival in England to resume his position as Archbishop, he was promptly murdered by some over zealous nights. The rest, as they say, is history. He was soon made a saint because his blood had miraculous healing properties(eww.)
Barlow knows his primary and secondary sources. When the sources are unclear, he says so. When the sources are absent, he tells you. It is clear that Barlow is not overburdened with a love of Becket or King Henry. His understanding of 12th century politics and religion (really the two were inseperable) is unimpeachable.
In summation, I found this book just as interesting for its portrait of 12th century society (albeit the elite side of society) as for the story of Thomas Becket. I doubt I will ever read another book about Becket after reading this one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 16 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A good book for an outstanding character, July 19, 2007
This review is from: Thomas Becket (Hardcover)
The author has read all documents, all letters and memoranda, all notes and chronicles from eye-witnesses and other people around Thomas Becket. Maybe even too much or too many. He tries to rebuild a full biography with all personal intentions and meanings from this imbroglio and forest of testimonies. He succeeds quite well, though at times he seems to be overwhelmed with details. Yet he clears up a few facts. Becket was of Norman extract by both his parents and his father was a merchant in London. Jean Anouilh's myth of a Saxon father and a Saracen mother is clearly ousted. The book is also clear about Thomas Becket's life. He sure was the friend of Henry II, in spite or because of a ten years age difference. But this did not mean he took part in Henry's drinking and womanizing. In fact he appears to be a very serious and tedious person who does not really like the pleasures of life, even if, as the Chancellor, he is obliged to have an apparently ritzy life. The point is he was a good Chancellor and had a good influence on Henry, though as the Chancellor, he had no real power, except on church services for the King and the copying service of the crown. He probably taught Henry his job and kept him within some limits. When he was the Chancellor he did all he could to impose and improve the King's power, and limit and contain the Church's. He forced the Church to accept to pay the various taxes the King needed for his wars. But Henry tricked him. Was it with his agreement or against his will? We will never know. Henry appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the church in England. This enabled Thomas Becket to finally lead the life of austerity and rule-governed behavior he desired. He was able to wear the monastic underwear under his archiepiscopal dress. This will determine in his new life intransigence and exaction for himself and the others, including the king. He became the best defender of the church and refused the king's power in the judicial field that was encroaching on the church's courts of justice. He refused criminal clerks to be tried by lay royal or feudal courts, monks who became such to escape serfdom to be in any way recaptured, and his appointing priests to be in any way questioned by local feudal barons. The book though never enters the question of the contradiction between Saxons and Normans. The author uses the word English and we do not know if he means Saxons or Normans born in England. Barlow thus avoids questioning the main problem of that time: the colonization of England by the Normans and the integration of the Saxons in the new emerging English society. From this moment though Thomas Becket became Henry's archenemy. The king will do all he can to destroy him. Thomas Becket will go in exile and use the French church and the Pope to get a reconciliation, though he must have thought it was a foolish bargain knowing the king the way he did. But he accepted against all odds to go back to Canterbury where he will be assassinated within days after his return, just after Christmas 1170 in the cathedral itself. This death will start a popular pilgrimage and myth, and the King will come on his own repentance pilgrimage there in 1174 in order to recapture the support of the Church in England against the rebellion led by his eldest son he had had the carelessness to have crowned before his own death, though against the will of the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket in exile at the time. Actually on this question, in this situation the book is by far too short concerning the role of Eleanor of Aquitaine, his wife. But the main shortcoming of the book is that his conclusion is factually right but historically short. Thomas Becket will have helped the church to stand against old feudal customs imposed onto the church, thus appearing as if defending the freedom of the church, what will appear later in the Magna Carta, and yet that made the church stand against the King in his attempt to build a more centralized political order with one single tax system and one single royal judicial system. And at that level the King is going in the right direction since such reforms are needed to guarantee equality to all and a more centralized society, a less divided and exploded society, in a way one "rule of law" in the whole kingdom. This will also appear in the Magna Carta, though less clearly and it will take a few centuries for it to become a reality. These two directions, civil liberties and a more unified just and fair territory and political system, will be the very basis of the political organization that will finally emerge, for the first time in the western world, after the Glorious Revolution. Barlow does not see this perspective though he notes the great improvements that will appear in the judicial system after Thomas Becket's death, the church essentially yielding to the King's justice.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine & University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not A Very Likable Saint.., March 28, 2010
I'll weigh in as the curmudgeon of this group of reviewers. I just finished this Barlow book, having read a few others (I have other ones I've reviewed), and had a heck of a time finishing this one. I'll go on record as saying that I think Frank Barlow is a master of the part of historiography and historical research that bores many scholars to tears: he PORES over every possible document, gleaning what he can out of the contents. He is a document archeologist. He also weaves together various accounts of his subjects from often contradictory sources, and he does a good, if tedious job of it. He tells us when documents should be there but are no longer extant, and he gives us the appropriate back-story behind some of the record-keepers' possible motivations.
That said, in this book, as in other Barlow studies, the scholar reveals his pro-Catholic Church approach to the subject matter, which isn't bad, per se, but sometimes I feel the author takes a rather official, approved view of his subject matter. This may be more my interpretation as opposed to fact, but the idea has suggested itself in the past, and this book, unfortunately, reinforced my earlier opinions. This doesn't mean Barlow's research is flawed or inappropriately relayed, but it does get a little frustrating when you want the historian to go deeper to the obvious follow-up questions, and yet holds himself back. Like I said, this is more my opinion and observation, so take the criticism with a grain of salt. I also didn't lower my rating because of it, as it is an unsubstantiated subjective observation.
I would like a writer of better quality than myself to work out a less-biased appraisal of Becket. With all due respect to Dr Coulardeau (see other reviews) of the Sorbonne, I don't know that I agree Becket is an "exceptional" character, if by exceptional he means the saint is praiseworthy. The record, hagiographic a**kissing aside, does not support the views that Becket was a likeable fellow: he seemed to forget where he came from (ie his coming from low-born status) when he was the chancellor of Henry II. He was never particularly pious prior to his becoming a priest, then arch-bishop later the same day. In fact, as chancellor, he fought enthusiastically for Henry's anti-clerical policies, exemplified later by the Council of Clarendon.
I found it ironic, though Frank Barlow doesn't, that the reasons behind Becket's "martyrdom", Henry's arguments for his authority over the Church, were worked out originally by Chancellor Becket, then fought against voraciously and fatally by Archbishop Becket. Many people suffered for Becket's stance, and the man is quite cruel in his lack of humility and empathy for those he pains.
Why shouldn't the King have been offended? Why shouldn't his clerks have hated the exile they were in? Why shouldn't the pope have hated the archbishop's stubborn refusal to be diplomatic? Why shouldn't lifelong ecclesiastics have hated his ignorance of the Church or of Becket's meteoric rise against ALL common sense? Why shouldn't Henry the Young King (son of Henry II) have been frustrated by an ingrate who refused to perform his coronation, but insisted on his sole right to consecrate a king of England? Whew? This guy is all about himself, if I may say so. And it hurts to read...
In fact, I have to agree with the contemporary assessment of Becket that he was disloyal and inflexible to a man who recognized him as a brother, elevated him for his aptitude from the lower ranks, then bent here and there to accomadate his old chancellor's changing values when he became archbishop. As a Catholic I risk a certain amount of censure for saying this, but Becket seems to offer no justification for his martyrdom other than pride. Barlow has a hard time reconciling the fact that Becket was martyred for his stiff-backed defense of the Church's (ie HIS) rights over the King of England's claims. Becket went from fine-dining, nice clothes, proximity to power, hawking with the king, with whom he was on indecorously intimate terms, to a prideful view of himself as an anointee of God, rather than an appointee of the King and the Holy Father in Rome.
Becket was not well liked by all his clerks; he was barely tolerated by pope Alexander; he was known for sumptuous feasts as archbishop, and he mocked monks for their austerity. Later all this was accounted a ruse by a very holy man who was martyred for love of the Church. Well, I call BS, because it becomes obvious from the record that Thomas Becket was an average chancellor, though a wary and accomplished lawyer; he was a terrible scholar by his contemporaries' accounts (his own clerks had good-natured fun at the archbishop's expense, though most admired his willingness to learn things like spoken Latin. A good thing for an archbishop, right? So how come he didn't speak it well already if he was so smart as to become chancellor of England?)
In fact Becket emerges from the records as a less-than-likable guy. He is one of those folks who can get so self-righteous on principle, as opposed to any generally worthwhile reason, and who eagerly yet ironically suffers for the opinions of others. I think his condition may have bordered on paranoid schizophrenia. He may have required medication, or at least therapy. An honest account from his confessor, the closest we'll get to meeting Thomas' analyst, Robert of Merton, would be highly illuminating.
He clearly places himself above others, even his own friends, such as the King of England. He displays contempt for King Louis, Pope Alexander, his own clerks, his monks at Christ Church, Canterbury, and, ultimately, his own work as chancellor. To me, he seems like he's a person who wants conflict for the sake of a good dust-up, and that smacks of vanity and pride, two serious sins. He was a yuppie lawyer, to put it in modern parlance, and he definitely never lost sight of himself in all he did. His motto should have been: What does Thomas like?
So if you need the information about Becket, read this book; Frank Barlow, while a little biased from a Church and English point-of-view, is a very good researcher, and keeps his eyes on the prize amidst a lot of confusing information. But if you want a careful analysis of Becket, and his relationship with King Henry, and its impact on the English Catholic world-view, you might look elsewhere.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
