Murder In The Cathedral Murder in the Cathedral I believe the conflict and change within the main character, Thomas Beckett, was very drastic. Thomas went from running away from his problems, to facing them and ultimate killing himself because of it. At the beginning of the play Thomas was running away from people that wanted to kill him or hurt him, because of his belief that the king didnt have power over the church. Throughout the play, Thomas questioned himself on why he was doing what he was doing, and in the end he decided that if death was coming he couldnt cheat it. I admire Thomas on how made his final decision based on what he truly believed. Thomass final decision, was what he believed in.
I think that if he was content with his decision and if he felt that it was the best choice, than I am happy for him and dont disagree that he should have waited for the knights to calm down. I think that the personification of the Tempters helped a great deal in the play. I feel that the tempters helped the reader understand why Thomas did what he did and they also helped the reader understand and put Thomas thoughts in order of importance to him. I liked it how they described how Thomas could have so much and be happy if he would just go along with the king, instead of against him. I feel that without the tempters, the play wouldnt have shown the reader the reason behind Thomass decisions.
I feel that the significance of the Christmas Sermon was to tell the people that he would probably be leaving them and it would be his last sermon. Thomas talked about how a martyr is a special thing and that only special people that will remembered forever receive that great honor. To me, it seemed as though he thought maybe he would be a martyr or that he might not because of his reasons behind the decisions he made, either way he wanted the people to remember him. I think that the reason why the playwright chose not to have the king appear, is because there was no real need for him. The kings thoughts and decisions were well spoken by other people that relayed messages for the king. Whatever the king wanted said or done, he could and would have others do it for him.
I dont think that it would be believable for the king to visit Thomas, either. I think that a king wouldnt be dumb enough to go out among people that loved Thomas and confront him. I think that the chorus was very important, because they predicted the future. Like at the beginning, when they said someone will die and that the people did fine without Thomas. Also, toward the end of the play, they also foresee Thomass death in the cathedral.
Without the chorus, I think things would definitely have come as a shock to the reader and there would have been more to question. Overall, the chorus did help set some scenes up, but I think the play may have been more interesting without them. I think the reason for the knights explanation was very simple, to protect themselves and to help the reader understand that it was not necessarily a good thing they did even if it was their job. I also feel that they did it to explain that it was, in some ways, good for the people also. His death would bring everything divided together, because there would not be anyone against the kings plan. The knights also explained to the people that Thomas had a chance for a good life and harmony, but he through it away. They tell the people that Thomas is the one that messed with the harmony and changed things for the worse.
Overall, I liked the play, but as I said earlier, it was to predictable and they almost told you what was going to happen before it did. I liked it how Thomas stuck to his beliefs and based his decisions on what he thought was right, no matter what happened. Finally, I also liked it, because it showed me why church and state should be separated. It put it into perspective and proved that it isnt a good idea. I think this story should be used as an example in history classes when discussing the separation of church and state and how they became different. Book Reports.