The story of the murder of Archbishop Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral on 29th December 1170 is well known, as is the knowledge that the event gave rise to pilgrimages for centuries afterwards, the most famous being the fictional one that formed the basis of Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales more than 200 years later. However, some of the details of how the murder led to the pilgrimages may not be as well known.
Thomas Becket had been a good friend of King Henry II and he had served as the king’s chancellor before being appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. It had been Henry’s intention to have a placeman as archbishop who would keep the troublesome monks and priests under control, but Thomas took his duties as a churchman much more seriously than Henry had expected. When it came to the issue of whether men in holy orders should be subject to civil or ecclesiastical justice, Becket took the side of the Church, and this was what caused the rift between the two men that would eventually lead to Becket’s death.
Proof that Becket was in no way the king’s man, but a true churchman, came after his murder when his body was stripped of his bloodied vestments. It was found that Becket had been wearing a rough hair shirt that would have caused him considerable discomfort, as would irritation from the lice and maggots that infested the shirt. It was also revealed that Becket subjected himself to whipping up to three times a day, not for any masochistic pleasure but as a form of monastic mortification that was designed to focus the mind on spiritual matters.
The monks immediately felt that they were in the presence of a saint, and they took the precaution of gathering up as much of his spilled blood as they could.
Although news of the murder spread far and wide, the cult of Thomas did not really get going until after King Henry had made his own way to Canterbury to do penance. This did not happen until 1174, more than three years after the murder. This suggests that Henry’s remorse was by no means immediate and was only sparked by his conviction that the revolt of his sons Henry, Geoffrey and Richard was God’s judgment on him for his angry words that inspired Becket’s murderers.
Canterbury water
As part of his penance, Henry wore a hair shirt similar to that worn by Becket (though presumably without the maggots). He demanded that he be whipped by every bishop and monk who was present and he then rode back to London with a phial of water round his neck to which a drop of Becket’s blood had been added.
Thus was created “Canterbury water”. If the king could have his body and soul purged by a drop of the martyr’s blood, then why not ordinary people? Miraculous cures were claimed for Canterbury water, and everyone with a disability or ailment that confounded the doctors (which probably covered most things) believed that a journey to Canterbury to buy some of this holy relic would be a good investment of their time and money.
As might be supposed, the genuine article probably ran out of supply at a very early date, even supposing that any Canterbury water had been genuine in the first place. However, that did not stop the faithful from believing in the power of what they were given, and there were plenty of people around to sell them not only Canterbury water but all sorts of other trinkets that supposedly had a direct relationship to Thomas Becket.
One of the more colourful characters on Chaucer’s 14th century pilgrimage was a pardoner, this being a man who made his living from selling pardons from sin (signed by the Pope of course) and “holy relics”. Chaucer’s character is fictional, but the author knew that his contemporary readers would recognise him as just the sort of person they were likely to come across as he made his way to Canterbury to do some good business by fleecing gullible pilgrims.
The Becket shrine
The Becket shrine at Canterbury Cathedral became one of the best attended in Europe. The Pope declared Becket to be a saint in double-quick time (even before King Henry did his penance) and it became fashionable to make a pilgrimage to Canterbury. King Henry’s three daughters were all married to European royalty and they helped to spread the word.
England now had a home-grown saint, with royal approval, and was determined to cash in. As a result the shrine brought huge amounts of money to Canterbury, not to mention many gifts of precious stones that adorned the chapel where the shrine was placed. The income from the pilgrims allowed the cathedral to undertake a series of building repairs and extensions over the coming centuries that would transform it into one of Europe’s best cathedrals, albeit somewhat mixed in style.
The end for Becket’s shrine came in 1538 as part of the Dissolution of the Monasteries under King Henry VIII. It needed 26 carts to carry away all the treasure that had been left there by pilgrims during the preceding three and a half centuries.
“Cash in” is the key word here, and tourists are still getting fleeced everywhere in the world today, but in this part of the world at least the impulse to self-flagellate has mostly turned from the physical to the psychological. I think. At least most people seem to be making an effort to rise above it. Maybe.
You make a good point. I note the hesitations in your last line!
Nice story.Thank you very much.
I have not heard this story before, thanks for sharing the wealth of knowledge.
Another great historical post. Congratulations. You seem to write on just about every subject lately. I wish I could do that too. But anyway, thank you for a great revision on a part of England’s history which I remembered only vaguely.
Thanks! Yes – lots of things interest me. I have spent more than 40 years as a librarian, and part of the job is finding things out on behalf of enquirers. There are lots of interesting things to find out!
This was excellent! I learned a lot from this post. Great narrative history.
This was very interesting. I did know about Thomas a’ Becket, and his falling out with the king. I like the way you put it together.
Thanks. I note that you used the form “a’ Becket” – there is no evidence that he ever used this form, or that other contemporaries did. It looks to have been a Victorian introduction that is not used these days.
That is how I learned of him in history class…
A wonderful blog .. I like history.I watch the history of England on the historical channel.