Although this play of 1950 was Eliot's first full-length comedy, he had made an earlier stab at the genre in the 1920s: "Sweeney Agonistes," a first-rate work that unfortunately remained unfinished and is now included in collections of Eliot's poetry. "Sweeney" was a jazzy, dark comedy with originality and verve; by comparison, "The Cocktail Party" is tepid indeed.

Even judged on its own merits, however, this play falls short. The first half is enjoyable enough: an unusually well-written English drawing-room comedy with serious overtones. The play begins to fall apart with the bizarre sessions of pseudo-psychotherapy in Act 2, and degenerates into overt Christian flag-waving by the final scene.

Yet the play is still well worth reading. It is more accessible that Eliot's earlier plays and was a surprise hit on Broadway when it first opened. It is still occasionally revived today; one production featured Nancy Walker in the plum role of Julia, a seemingly scatterbrained older woman. ("Salvation! The quicker picker-upper!")

In a world of appearances, a new species of peace-makers has been invented. The priest of old has disappeared. The psychiatrist has replaced him. He is there to listen to secrets, to sort out situations and to propose solutions to human problems. The very few that are worth it can become the saints of today, going to foreign desolate countries and helping people out of their difficulties, fighting poverty and diseases, bringing the christian faith to pagan people, living in suffering and dire hardship. The others are helped to adapt to our society, to be successful in this society without feeling the remorse or the fear that come along with it. They just become adaptable, supple enough to fit in a deeply dishumanized society. The psychiatrist is the go-between for such people.

This play is surrealistic and yet perfectly descriptive of reality. It is full of a new type of poetry, his poetry of love and hate, of a new type of drama, his drama of conflict-solving. T. S. Eliot manages to shift from the most superficial bourgeois drama to the deepest and serenest tragedy turned comedy. The path of these people is tragic in a way, but it ends in beauty or at least in harmony.

Yet I think T.S. Eliot would have been better inspired if he had gotten away from this bourgeois aristocratic society that is nothing but vain cocktail parties and superfluous appearances. The great poet he is could have been a better playwright.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

I am personally not a fan of Eliot, due to the fact that I, most unfortunately, started off with "The Wasteland", which is, as I am sure anyone reading this review will know, is not exactly an easy read, especially at age 12. However, "The Cocktail Party" seems to grasp me still, days after I have finished reading it. It is such a witty, humorous comedy that mocks the modern ages, and pretty much everyone who seems to be a part of this insane, chaotic world (at least as I understood it). I recommend this for anyone looking a good book to do a book report on, or someone looking for the meaning of life and/or in need of serious 'ponder' over the universe in a philosophical, poetic, aesthetic way.

This book is an English translation of a classic German work written by David Strauss in the middle of the nineteenth century; most of the translation was done by the well-known novelist George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans). This is no lightweight monograph: Strauss is a scholar who draws on the relevant ancient sources and sprinkles his text with quotations in Greek, Latin and, to a lesser extent, Hebrew. However, only rarely does the argument turn on a lexical or grammatical peculiarity of one of these languages.

Strauss was one of the first theologians to perform a systematic analysis of the text of the New Testament from an essentially modern viewpoint. (For example, he does not believe in the existence of angels or demons.) Strauss works his way through the NT, taking each event or story as it occurs and subjecting it to a painstaking analysis. He relentlessly, one might even say mercilessly, exposes contradictions and inconsistencies in the NT text, considering and eliminating one-by-one all the attempts of conservative theologians to reconcile the irreconcilable. As Albert Schweitzer wrote in "The Quest for the Historical Jesus", Strauss's arguments "filled in the death-certificates of a whole series of explanations which, at first sight, have all the air of being alive, but are not really so."

Thus most of the book is still relevant, because it explodes harmonizing explanations that are still found today in popular Christian literature. However, there can be no doubt that Strauss is too single-minded in his desire to reduce everything in the NT to myth.

The book shows its age; for example, Strauss is of the opinion that Mark is little more than an abridgment of Matthew and Luke, although it is widely held today that Mark in fact has precedence. Almost all of Strauss's references to his contemporaries are to other German scholars, and the majority of these references are now difficult if not impossible to find. (It's easier to find the ancient works cited, such as those by Origen, Augustine, etc.) The book unfortunately lacks an index, and, considering the book's bulk, it is often very difficult indeed to find out if and where Strauss treats a particular NT story.

Albert Schweitzer said that there are two broad epochs of Bible Study - the period before David Strauss and the period after David Strauss. Strauss belongs to the 18th and 19th century German Protestant rationalist theological movement that tried to explain all the miracles of the Bible 'rationally'. The movement begins about 1776 with H. Reimarus and continues with J. Herder, K. Barhrdt, K. Venturini, H. Paulus, GWF Hegel and F. Schleiermacher. However, it is not ordinarily noted, but Hegel and Schleiermacher were in disagreement on just about everything, and David Strauss as a student of Schleiermacher, not Hegel.

Strauss' troubles began when he crossed the line and used Hegel's name. Hegel was the most famous philosopher of the day, and Strauss decided to drop his name in the marketing of his book. Wrong move. Hegelians, led by Bruno Bauer, hotly contested Strauss' claims to use their mentors name. In his follow-up to this book, IN DEFENSE OF MY LIFE OF JESUS AGAINST THE HEGELIANS (1838), Strauss contradicted himself -- he admitted that Hegel himself would not recognize his writing as representative of Hegel's theology. Ultimately, Strauss ended up alone.

Strauss was the world's first 'demythologizer' and that is saying a great since most 20th century theology centers around demythologization -- even late Catholic theology.

But let's set the record straight -- Strauss was hardly influenced by Hegel at all -- his real strength came from Schleiermacher. (Schleiermacher had his own method of triads.) Strauss tried to capitalize on Hegel's popularity and in fact this worked -- Strauss' book became a best-seller in 1835 and Strauss lived on the royalties for the rest of his life. However, he never wrote a best-seller after this one.

I would point out that Strauss no longer has the last word in Bible criticisms; for example, he did not see the logic in the Marcan Hypothesis, while most every other scholar since 1840 has accepted it. His defense of the priority of JOHN is quite weak. His quest for the historical Jesus was almost nil. His analysis of the mind-set of the Gospel Communities themselves, or of the Gospel authors themselves, was elementary.

Strauss did not create in a vacuum, nor may we say that he had no peers. In many ways his fame was fueled by a fiction, and he did significant damage to Hegelians by obscuring their actual and already complex theological nuances.

I liked this book and I recommend it. One needs to know Strauss before one can be fully fluent in, say, the Jesus Seminar and its authors. I think it is a necessary starting point for today's Bible scholar. To some degree I must agree with Albert Schweitzer: there are two broad epochs of Bible study -- the period before David Strauss and the period after David Strauss.

Strauss's 1835 Life of Jesus is a classic work which was the first to systematically examine the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life with the express purpose of trying to determine what is "mythical" as opposed to historical in them. The criteria he used to make this distinction are substantially the same as those used by critical scholars today, starting with a fundamental conviction that events in the Gospels which require a suspension of ordinary physical laws (walking on water, stilling storms, raising the dead, healing the blind) cannot be accepted as historical but should be understood as myths added to the narrative to bolster the early Church's claims of Jesus' divine commission. In Strauss's day, it was fashionable for rationalist scholars to try to provide naturalistic explanations for miraculous happenings. Strauss effectively demolishes their arguments by showing that they do not fit the plain sense of the texts and are usually harder to swallow than simple belief in the miracle itself.

To a modern student of critical historical Jesus literature, Strauss's approach to the texts will seem naïve. There is little in his exegesis that takes into account evolving strains of tradition reflected in the texts, rather he reads them as literally as possible, pointing out difficulties and inconsistencies that arise, particularly when more than one evangelist reports the same incident. He also demolishes, often with wry wit, the still popular tactic of claiming that if different Gospels report what sounds like the same incident, but these accounts are irreconcilable, then the only explanation is that there was more than one incident of the kind, for example, Jesus must have cleansed the temple in Jerusalem on two separate occasions since the synoptics place this immediately prior to the passion, while John places it early in Jesus' career. Strauss's detailed analyses are still very much to the point in dealing with conservative apologists, such as Gleason Archer, who maintain in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that everything in the Gospels presented as historical fact must be true, regardless of the contortions needed to reconcile the accounts.

There are probably few books that can compare with Strauss's in being very well known and often referred to, but never in fact read. Fortunately, Sigler Press now has an excellent inexpensive edition in print, so readers can see for themselves, in George Eliot's superb translation, what put critical Jesus scholarship on the scholarly map and also cost Strauss his career as a theology professor. While not an "easy read," Life of Jesus is remarkably accessible. Yes, it sometimes quotes Latin, Greek and Hebrew without translation, but if you have your New Testament handy, as you should when you read it, it's pretty easy to follow the references, especially with the additional aids provided by Peter Hodgson, editor of the Sigler edition. It also, thankfully, at 800 pages, is not a work that needs to be read cover to cover. The discussions of individual events are largely self-contained, and can be read with great profit on their own. Life of Jesus deserves a place in every thinking Christian's library, as well as in the library of those interested in the history of critical scholarly research.

I am a serious cook with a large cookbook library. I am a Southerner who made my first biscuits and gravy at age 5. This book is a not-so-well done re-hash of other Foxfires and sorely disappointing. It is difficult to use as a cookbook-more poignant than useful. Also a tad light on recipes. A much better book from North Georgia (Southern Appalachia, like the Foxfire series) is Smokehouse Ham, Spoon Bread & Scuppernong Wine: The Folklore and Art of Southern Appalachian Cooking. I use this one a lot, enjoy reading the stories, and frequently give it as gift to visiting Yankees. Plus it has the wit, charm, and authenticity so sadly missing from the Foxfire Cookbook.

Got this as a gift and what a treat it is proving to be. It is a book that is really helping me broaden my homesteading skills and I adore the running dialogue and photographs that show the how to's and bring back wonderful memories of growing up.

The recipes are good and easy and delicious and I like the discussion of how to dress out livestock and wild game as well as how to make crock pickles and things like sauerkraut which I love doing. I also like, but some people may be turned off by the meat section that deals with waste not want not, and how to make use of most of the animal one slaughters. Something my family knew well when I was growing up.

This is also a good book is someone simply wants to learn about how self sufficiency works and how most people used to live, especially in rural areas.

It is my favorite and most usable of all the Foxfire books.

I have bought many, many cookbooks not for cooking, but for reading. My favorite format in cookbooks are those where text is woven with recipes; it 'fleshes out' the recipes.

Anyone who has derived pleasure from reading the Foxfire series over the years will also want to buy this one. It follows the general Foxfire format, specialized for cooking. It will be of particular value for those young people interested in cooking. As becomes apparent, cooking in this country used to be quite different from what we consider it now. For most Americans, by the end of WW II kitchens had been transformed by the addition of running water and gas/electric powered appliances. My grandparents didn't get electricity in their rural location until 1948. Before then, there was a kerosene-powered refrigerator, gasoline-powered washer, and wood stove. It took longer for many in the Appalachian region, and 'old' cooking methods continued to be used. Fixing chicken, for example, meant killing and plucking, not going to the grocery store!

History always becomes more immediate when it can be related to 'real' people. The characters in this book come to life with the sensitive narration, and only grow in depth with re-reading.

I've tried some of the recipes in this book, especially those related to baking. All have worked well. Mere recipes, though, can't communicate the commitment and love that these people have given to their efforts.

This is a great book to read, and a good pathway to cooking methods of our ancestors. Comprehensive, and an excellent buy!

Ever driven down Highway 84 and been amazed by the scenery of the Columbia River?
Ever curious about how the Columbia became the Columbia?
Ever seen a giant bolder in the Willamette Valley and wondered how it got there.
Can you imagine the sea level four hundred feet above Portland?
You think you know, but you have no idea.
Until you read this book! (Or hear about it from a friend.)

This book excellently explains why the eastern half of the State of Washington and the lower Columbia valley are so curiously carved. It also shows how a truly observant scientist works, even though his vindication may be slow in coming. While some persons might wish for more color photographs, I believe the black and white format, particularly in the Grand Coulee region, better shows the power and scope of the floods that carved these otherworldly channels from bare lava rock. The drawing of a typical Bretz flood has to be seen firsthand to be believed. Another exemplary book on the geology of the West. Don't see Grand Coulee or the Columbia Gorge without reading this book.

I've lived in the Walla Walla River Basin for a little over a year. After reading this book, the surrounding area became more alive. This book tells of fascinating events that took place several thousand years ago that created many of the local landmarks. It makes my travels more interesting and personal as I recognize features described in this book. If your a highly educated geologists searching for some real meat, this book is not for you. For the rest of us, this book is written in easy to understand terms. If you live in the Northwest, it's a must read.

Really boring and some of the author's words were more confusing than any mathematical equation. I was very disappointed with this one.

I enjoyed reading this book very much. The first two chapters are out of this world. They provide a factual, easy-to-read account of the development of physics, and cosmology in particular. Although history of scientific ideas in the political context is one of my specialties, I found these chapters educational. Everything is laid out in such a way that it is easy to understand which scientist made which contribution to the development of our understanding of the universe.

The only reservation I had about this book is that it has its dogmatic moments, for example when the authors claim that the theory of evolution is not a "theory," but something above it, because it has been "proved." One of the authors is a practicing attorney, which may be the reason for this approach. Scientific theories are not "proved" the way mathematical theorems are, or the way one proves things in a court of law. Scientific theories are always tentative, provisional, hypothetical. Science includes facts. For example that a coin can land in three ways: hads, tails, or (incredibly) on its side. This is not a theory, but a fact, and it can certainly not be "disproved." If the authors want to call evolution a fact, they are free to do so. But science is not a court of law--it does not prove things.

This book is excellent for anyone who is curious about science but had teachers and professors who made science as boring as possible. It includes one of the best explanations of Relativity I have found.

I am a college student who happens to be interested in the Modernist period of literature. I really enjoy T.S. Eliot's poetry, but like many others, agree that reading it can be a tedious and laborious project to undertake. This is what makes it wonderful though, isn't it? Southam's book really gives a reader new perspectives and may even validate thoughts that one may have about "The Waste Land" and other poetry written by Eliot. The way that Southam uses language to give insight into the poetry is really easy to understand and a pleasure to read whether you are interested for academics or pleasure.

I am a student, and had to present an explication of T.S. Eliot's _The Waste Land_. This work of Eliot's is entrenched in laborious detail that takes the reader from the text to the footnotes again and again. It becomes quite confusing and a bit irritating at times. This book, _The Selected Poems of T.S. Eliot_, was extremely helpful in that it construes Eliot's use of footnotes, and the allusions made within the work. It helps to clarify the questions lingering in the reader's mind, and allows for a more critical reading of the poem. I found it to be an insightful aid to my presentation, and would recommend it to anyone who desires an indepth study on any of Eliot's work.

First of all, this is a very difficult and laborious book to read. But it will be a very fulfilling experience for those who are seriously interested in poetry. Reading this book certainly shows us the range of allusions that T. S. Eliot used in his compositions. The variety of texts that T. S. Eliot mentions in "The Wasteland" reveals us the depth of spiritual struggle that the author has went through in order to write the poem. There are references to the Bible, eastern philosophy, literature from the antiquity to the present. There are also reference to some earlier writings by the author. Reading the commentary has shown me the richness to T. S. Eliot's writings that are otherwise difficult to see. With the careful analysis of "The Waste Land, one sees that it is not simply about a struggle of modern life, but it encompasses wide range of philosophy and literature that are involved in the spiritual struggle one must face in this modern world.

This is a short treatise, based on a series of lectures. Its objective is to identify the interactions between economic, social and political structures, technology, the objectives of warfare, and the ways war are thought. It covers European warfare from the middle ages through World War II. The book is replete with insights and interesting generalizations. Yet, for a short book, I still found myself getting bogged down in details of 16th and 17th century political history: perhaps had I a better background I would have enjoyed the politics as kind of a quick review, but I think Howard emphasizes political details too much in several of his chapters, while not focusing sufficiently on tactics and technology. As it happened, immediately prior to reading Howard, I had read about 40 pages of Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World: Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics by Simon Anglim et al and found this terrific, almost indispensable background (I would not recommend the rest of that book so highly).

A very good, very quick military history overview - hits all the main points without belaboring any, gives the reader a good list of authors to look at after finishing Howard.

Regarding this book, I'd go opposite of the last reviewer. I'm not certain that any more than a prefunctory grasp of European history is necessary to make this book worthwhile. It is a small tome (165 pp); it provides a clear and simple diagram of the ways that war has changed as society has changed, and how war itself has changed society.

Howard provides the clear and erudite prose that befits a man who will probably be remembered as one of the class military historians of the last century. I recommend this book as an introduction to military tactics and history; with it, Earle or Paret's 'Makers of Modern Strategy' and John Keegan's 'A History of War' at least an outline of questions to investigate will start to form.....

This book was a little difficult to understand especially if you don't comprehend the way Shakespeare wrote his plays. You should really research the story of Thomas Becket before reading this also. The story starts off as a celebration of the returning of the Archibishop after being gone for seven years. As you read on it gets a little more interesting. If you like action or suspense there is plenty of it in the second half of this play. When two of the King's knights have a confrontation with the Archbishop Thomas Becket, the following day the knights return with orders to kill the Archbishop due to the disagreements he had with the king such as the disagreement of the coronation of the king's son, overall this was an okay book, though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

This 1935 play is a gem in English drama.

First, the tone, the style, the poetry are purely shakespearian. It gives the play a power it would otherwise never have. The biblical inspiration is not at all clear or direct. There are four tempters and temptations whereas Jesus only had three temptations and one tempter.

The play does not only recall the martyrdom of Thomas Becket. It shows he probably sinned, committed the sin of pride or vanity, though with the best intention : to establish the church as the supreme ruler. Yet this event is also the first fight between the English crown and the church, a fight that will culminate under Henry VIII with the creation of the Church of England.

The play is also a clear argumentation in favor of that extreme act for several reasons. One, sympathy for the underdog is not justice. Two, the killers were absolutely disinterested and were to be banished after the act. Three, this murder was necessary to strengthen the King's power, hence the country. Four, Thomas was a « monster of egotism » verging into mania and he committed « suicide while of unsound mind ».

But the play is a lot wider than that. It defends the simple people who suffer all the time. It defends those who possess some fraction of truth, for which it is worth dying if necessary. It advocates the most total and radical freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom to defend one's ideas to the bitter and bloody end that society will necessarily impose.

Finally it shows that England has three levels of power : the King, the barons and the church, and one level of constant fear and suffering, the people, the labourers. Here the church is curbed to the King's power. Later on the King's power will be curbed to the barons' power with John Landless, and that will be the beginning of parliamentary power, of democracy. Thomas Becket refuses to go that way, hence slowing down history by strengthening the King only and leading England into centuries of strife among barons and between two families to control the throne as the only source and center of power. Parliamentarism will only succeed fully in the seventeenth century. Thomas Becket's choice could have been different, from a political point of view that he refuses from the very start.

Was it a sacrifice for nothing ? We can ask the question because the people will go on suffering for ever and ever, no matter what, in this vision of history.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

T. S. Eliot's short play, Murder in the Cathedral, was originally written for the Canterbury festival and tells the story of the murder of Archbishop Thomas Beckett (1118-70) by Henry II's henchmen. It is essentially an extended lyrical consideration of the proper residence of temporal and spiritual power, of the obligations of religious believers to the commands of the State, and of the possibility that piety can be selfish unto sin.

Beckett is one of the more interesting characters from history. Rising from a lowly birth in the Cheapside section of London, largely thanks to the patronage of Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1154 he became both archdeacon of Canterbury and Henry's chancellor. Theobald expected him to defend the prerogatives of the Church, but instead he became fast friends with Henry, partook of a sybaritic lifestyle, and extended the power of the State at the expense of the Church. So when Theobald was succeeded by Beckett, Henry expected to have a compliant ally running the Church, but instead Beckett adopted an ascetic lifestyle and became a fearsome defender of the rights of the Church. After dividing on many minor issues, matters came to a head when Henry tried exerting the authority of Crown courts to punish clerics who had been convicted by ecclesiastical courts. Henry determined to reign him in, put Beckett on trial for misappropriating funds while serving as Chancellor, and Beckett was forced to flee to France.

The play opens as Beckett returns to Canterbury in December of 1170, after seven years in exile. Four Tempters approach him, separately, and offer him reasons why he should cease to resist Henry. The first Tempter offers the prospect of physical safety if he will go along to get along :

The safest beast is not the one that roars most loud, This was not the way of the King our master! You were not used to be so hard upon sinners When they were your friends. Be easy, man! The easy man lives to eat the best dinners. Take a friend's advice. Leave well alone, Or your goose may be cooked and eaten to the bone.

The second offers worldly power, riches and fame in the service of the King :

King commands. Chancellor richly rules, This is a sentence not taught in schools. To set down the great, protect the poor, Beneath the throne of God can man do more? Disarm the ruffian, strengthen the laws, Rule for the good of the better cause, Dispensing justice make all even, Is thrive on earth, and perhaps in heaven.

The third offers him an alliance with the barons and the opportunity to work against the King :

For a powerful party Which has turned its eyes in your direction-- To gain from you, your Lordship asks. For us, Church favour would be an advantage, Blessing of Pope powerful protection In the fight for liberty. You, my Lord, In being with us, would fight a good stroke At once, for England and for Rome, Ending the tyrannous jurisdiction Of king's court over bishop's court, Of king's court over baron's court.

The final Tempter, who may be the Devil himself, offers Beckett the chance to supplant the King, but with a caveat :

Fare forward to the end. all other ways are closed to you Except the way already chosen. But what is pleasure, kingly rule, Or rule of men beneath a king, With craft in corners, stealthy stratagem, To general grasp of spiritual power? Man oppressed by sin, since Adam fell-- You hold the keys of heaven and hell. Power to bind and loose : bind, Thomas, bin, King and bishop under your heel. King, emperor, bishop, baron, king : Uncertain mastery of melting armies, War, plague, and revolution, New conspiracies, broken pacts; To be master or servant within an hour, This is the course of temporal power. The Old King shall know it, when at last breath, No sons, no empire, he bites broken teeth. You hold the skein : wind, Thomas, wind The thread of eternal life and death. You hold this power, hold it.

THOMAS :

Supreme, in this land?

TEMPTER :

Supreme, but for one.

And so Beckett resists this blandishment just as he has the others, but then the fourth Tempter cannily tempts him with his own dream, the desire for martyrdom :

What can compare with glory of Saints Dwelling forever in presence of God? What earthly glory, of king or emperor, what earthly pride, that is not poverty Compared with richness of heavenly grandeur? Seek the way of martyrdom, make yourself the lowest On earth, to be high in heaven. And see far off below you, where the gulf is fixed, Your persecutors, in timeless torment, Parched passion, beyond expiation.

Here Thomas Beckett realizes the peril of his own soul :

Now is my way clear, now is the meaning plain: Temptation shall not come in this kind again. The last temptation is the greatest treason To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

If he selfishly seeks martyrdom out of a personal desire for immortality, rather than selflessly accepting the risk of death while defending what he believes is right, then he will commit treason against the very Lord he is supposedly serving.

In Part Two of the play Beckett is confronted and murdered by Four Knights, acting at the behest, explicit or otherwise, of Henry. Beckett had further antagonized Henry, upon his return, by opposing the coronation of Henry's son. This prompted the King to his infamous utterance : "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" On December 29, 1170, four knights of his court assassinated Beckett inside the Canterbury cathedral, turning an already heinous act into a cause celebre throughout Christendom. Eliot uses this section of the play to explore the possibility that Beckett was actually wrong in his argument with Henry.

In their initial confrontation the Knights are quite worked up, but Beckett answers reasonably :

THE THREE KNIGHTS :

You are the Archbishop in revolt against the King; in rebellion to the King and the law of the land; You are the Archbishop who was made by the King; whom he set in your place to carry out his command. You are his servant, his tool, and his jack, You wore his favors on your back, You had your honours all from his hand; from him you had the power, the seal and the ring. This is the man who was the tradesman's son : the back- stairs brat who was born in Cheapside; This is the creature that crawled upon the King; swollen with blood and swollen with pride. Creeping out of the London dirt, Crawling up like a louse on your shirt, The man who cheated, swindled, lied; broke his oath and betrayed his King.

THOMAS :

This is not true. Both before and after I received the ring I have been a loyal subject to the King. Saving my order, I am at his command, As his most faithful vassal in the land.

But is that "Saving my order" which sticks in the craw of royalists, the idea that Beckett owes a higher duty to the Church, on some things, than to the Crown. Just as the Knights are about to strike him down they are interrupted by some priests and Beckett has time to prepare himself for the now inevitable end, though the priests urge him to hide :

PRIESTS (Severally) :

My Lord you must not stop here. To the minster. Through the cloister. No time to waste. They are com- ing back, armed. To the altar, to the altar.

THOMAS :

All my life they have been coming, these feet. All my life I have waited. Death will come only when I am worthy, And if I am worthy, there is no danger. I have therefore only to make perfect my will.

Beckett can now sense that he is approaching the proper attitude of selflessness, that he is truly accepting martyrdom in defense of the ideas and ideals of the Church, rather than selfishly seeking martyrdom for personal reasons of fame and glory. So when the Knights return and the priests propose barring the doors, he says :

Unbar the doors! throw open the doors! I will not have the house of prayer, the church of Christ, The sanctuary, turned into a fortress. The Church shall protect her own, in her own way, not As oak and stone; stone and oak decay, Give no stay, but the Church shall endure. The church shall be open, even to our enemies. Open the door!

Indeed, so long as the Church stood for a higher set of ideals, separate from petty political concerns, it did endure and served a vital function in society. This endurance depended on the willingness of men like Beckett to sacrifice their all for these ideals, eschewing political power and wealth and running the risk of offending the temporal powers.

Eliot, however, does not leave it at that. He also allows the murd

It reminds me of a tabloid newspaper. I thought the price was a little high for what I got, as other books offer the same content and do not cost as much. I think the author could have spent his talents working on another subject. Like I say, it is okay, but be prepared for a rehash of what has already been published.

i grew up in florida, and i opened this book up and it was right to a page with a story that I personally know is true. pg. 165- port st. lucie story. brought back really bad memories. if youre from florida, and you heard about a crazy scandal, chances it will be here. oh- check out page 129- used to work with that sicko- another port st. lucie story. yikes.

found the book to be very funny. got a great laugh at the welcome to floirda sign :)