What do you think?
Rate this book
The Chapel of the Thorn
"The Chapel of the Thorn" is a two-act verse play by Charles Williams (188-61945). In this tightly-woven dramatic poem, priests contend for control of a sacred relic, but an inherent syncretism and ambiguity leave the conflict open-ended. Its themes of spiritual tension, sacred vs. secular power, and just war are as relevant for the 21st century as they were for the 20th.
147 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1912
About the author
Charles Williams
84 books398 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Please see: Charles Williams
Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website
Please see: Charles Williams
Charles Walter Stansby Williams is probably best known, to those who have heard of him, as a leading member (albeit for a short time) of the Oxford literary group, the "Inklings", whose chief figures were C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. He was, however, a figure of enormous interest in his own right: a prolific author of plays, fantasy novels (strikingly different in kind from those of his friends), poetry, theology, biography and criticism. — the Charles Williams Society website
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 11, 2017
An early play by Charles Williams, long thought to have been lost, and edited and prepared for publication by Sørina Higgins, who has also written a comprehensive introduction. There is also a preface by Grevel Lundop who has written a biography of Charles Williams, Charles Williams:the Third Inkling.
I began reading it two years ago, and began with the introductory material, which I think was a mistake. The book was mislaid in a reorganisation of our bookshelves, and so when I rediscovered it I began again, but this time reading the play itself, and saving the commentary for afterwards. And I'm glad I did, because the play speaks for itself, and it is perhaps better to read it without too many preconceptions.
It is set in an unnamed country, which has recently been evangelised by Christian missionaries, but pagan ideas have not been forgotten. The action of the play takes place at a crossroads, in front of a chapel which has a relic of a thorn from Christ's crown of thorns. Beyond the chapel is a cliff, and below the cliff can be heard the waves breaking.
The crossroads is also symbolic of the four social groups or forces represented in the play. One road leads to a new monastery, whose abbot and prior want the relic for the monastery. Another leads to a seaside village, whose parish church the chapel is. They earn their living by fishing and farming, and find life hard. The villagers are also aware that the chapel is the burial place of their semi-divine folk hero, Druhild. Two roads lead to the capital, the secular city, the seat of secular power. One road is rough and winding and follows the coast, the other is smooth and direct.
The priest of the chapel wants to keep the relic there, but the abbot of the monastery enlists the secular power of the king to help him seize it. The villagers are in two minds, and at one point are inclined to support Joachim, the local priest. The drama plays out between characters representing these four forces..
The play was written about 1912, and only published a century later, I don't know if it has been performed since it was published, but it would be quite easy to perform, or could even be done as a simple play reading.
The explanatory material (which takes up more space than the play itself) is useful. Sørina Higgins compares it with Charles William's other work, and gives informatuion on his personal background, which is useful in helping to understand the play, though I don't always agree with her conclusions.
Because of its setting, in a place where Christian missionaries were still active, and people were between Christianity and paganism, I found it useful as a missiologist, and if I were teaching missiology to live students (most of my previous teaching was by distance education) I might incorporate a reading of it in my course, as it raises many missiological issues, and could provoke useful discussions.
I began reading it two years ago, and began with the introductory material, which I think was a mistake. The book was mislaid in a reorganisation of our bookshelves, and so when I rediscovered it I began again, but this time reading the play itself, and saving the commentary for afterwards. And I'm glad I did, because the play speaks for itself, and it is perhaps better to read it without too many preconceptions.
It is set in an unnamed country, which has recently been evangelised by Christian missionaries, but pagan ideas have not been forgotten. The action of the play takes place at a crossroads, in front of a chapel which has a relic of a thorn from Christ's crown of thorns. Beyond the chapel is a cliff, and below the cliff can be heard the waves breaking.
The crossroads is also symbolic of the four social groups or forces represented in the play. One road leads to a new monastery, whose abbot and prior want the relic for the monastery. Another leads to a seaside village, whose parish church the chapel is. They earn their living by fishing and farming, and find life hard. The villagers are also aware that the chapel is the burial place of their semi-divine folk hero, Druhild. Two roads lead to the capital, the secular city, the seat of secular power. One road is rough and winding and follows the coast, the other is smooth and direct.
The priest of the chapel wants to keep the relic there, but the abbot of the monastery enlists the secular power of the king to help him seize it. The villagers are in two minds, and at one point are inclined to support Joachim, the local priest. The drama plays out between characters representing these four forces..
The play was written about 1912, and only published a century later, I don't know if it has been performed since it was published, but it would be quite easy to perform, or could even be done as a simple play reading.
The explanatory material (which takes up more space than the play itself) is useful. Sørina Higgins compares it with Charles William's other work, and gives informatuion on his personal background, which is useful in helping to understand the play, though I don't always agree with her conclusions.
Because of its setting, in a place where Christian missionaries were still active, and people were between Christianity and paganism, I found it useful as a missiologist, and if I were teaching missiology to live students (most of my previous teaching was by distance education) I might incorporate a reading of it in my course, as it raises many missiological issues, and could provoke useful discussions.
March 17, 2015
Reading Charles Williams has always made me feel as if I stood on a threshold between two worlds, or, rather, in a shadow dappled wood where those worlds exist together; and though I am aware of the distinction between the two, just as I am of the difference between the sunlight and the shadow, I know equally well that both are integral to a larger realm. It is the same feeling I get when I read Sir Launfal, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, or Pearl, because it is the same world, though (perhaps) at a different time, a world of testing and possibility, a world of spirit and love, a world of restraint and license. The Chapel of the Thorn also seems to take place in just such a world.
Written in 1912 and never before published, The Chapel of the Thorn dramatizes the conflict between two churchmen over a relic or ‘hallow’ of the crown of thorns worn by Christ during the Passion. On the one side is old Joachim, a mystic and teacher, longtime guardian of the relic and keeper of its chapel; on the other is Innocent, abbot of the newly built monastery, emissary of the pope, who both advises and dominates Constantine, king of the land. Joachim believes in only a direct personal relationship with God as the path to salvation; Innocent believes that we humans are not up to the challenge of such a path, and advocates for the power and laws of the Church as necessary guides.
This conflict is further complicated by the recent ‘conversion’ of this land to Christianity after the expulsion of the old religion’s priest-bards, one of whom, Amael, returns to woo the people and challenge both Joachim and Innocent with his religion of gods and heroes. The common folk of the village, moreover, are mostly outward adherents of Christianity, remaining dedicated in their hearts to the old faith and its customs. They know better than any the difficulty of belief in a world where the will of the divine is often inscrutable. Their opposition to the abbot springs from the presence beneath the Chapel of the tomb of one of the heroes of the old religion (a hero prophesied to return again), and from their fear that the abbot will force them to abandon their most cherished customs. Then, too, there is Michael, the young assistant of Joachim, who longs for the epic life that Amael represents; and a mysterious, nameless woman who repeatedly appears to pray to the Virgin Mary for the life of her sick child. And in the end there is no clear victor among the contending parties, and no clear notion of where the poet’s sympathies lie. That may finally be the point, to leave the reader thoughtful and alone in a dappled wood where worlds coexist.
With the various issues and parties involved Sørina Higgins deals thoroughly and deftly, not only exploring Williams’s life and writings for clues to understanding what he was about in The Chapel of the Thorn, but also showing how it may serve as an introduction to Williams’s later, more mature works. Sørina Higgins is also judicious in accomplishing these ends, not allowing some theoretical approach to dictate her understanding of the text, but rather embracing the text as the prerequisite to both understanding and theory. There is also a final section in the introduction in which Higgins nicely summarizes Williams’s growth as a poet between this play and Taliessin through Logres a quarter of a century later. She has done a service to the study of Williams’s works and thought.
For the reader the difficulty in this text lies beyond the editor’s control. Williams was often expressing theological ideas with which many of us are unfamiliar in a convoluted and archaic poetical language. But rereading repays our efforts, as it almost always does, and with the improved grasp that a second reading brings, the beauty of the poetry and the beauty of Williams’s handling of his subject become even clearer. I look forward to a third reading.
November 3, 2015
Very interesting early work by Williams, the member of the Inklings best considered by his peers. Action is condensed in a night and a morning, where representatives of the mystical church (a local priest), of hierarchical Romanism (an abbot), of temporal power (then-future emperor Constantine), heathenism (a druid) and folk traditions (pagan villagers notionally incorporated into the church) contend for a relic kept in a chapel build on soil hallowed by a heathen hero.
More accessible for non-native English readers than other poetry and theology by Williams, also needs less familiarity with the matter of Britain.
More accessible for non-native English readers than other poetry and theology by Williams, also needs less familiarity with the matter of Britain.
November 13, 2015
Here's an excellent review of "The Chapel of the Thorn" in "The Journal of Inklings Studies": https://inklings-studies.org/.
September 8, 2023
This is the first (known) play written by Charles Williams (the Inkling, not the American crime writer), but was not published during his lifetime. It's also the first of his fifteen plays I have read -- not counting the Masques he wrote for his employer.
The titular Chapel contains what just about everyone in the play is quite convinced is a piece of (or maybe the whole) the Crown of Thorns put on Jesus' head prior to His crucifixion; nor does the play ever hint that it might not be. The time is an afternoon and the next morning, sometime betwen the third and fifth century CE -- at any rate, Rome has not yet fallen.
The Chapel is watched over by an elderly priest named Joachim, and his apprentice Michael, who dreams of seeing the world and winning glory. Joachim, one of three main characters, is a bit out of touch with the mainstream of the Church. The chapel has clearly been there ("there" being on a highroad on a seacliff) for some time. There were, earlier, three priests, but two were carried off by a pestilence.
The mainstream and authority of the Church is represented by Innocent, the Abbot of the much more recent monastery of St. Cyprian. Innocent is a Justicer and advisor to the local king (named Constantine), who has but recently returned from the wars -- just what wars is never stated. Abbot Innocent is determined to bring the holy relic from the Chapel to his monastery, and build a wall around the Chapel.
The townsfolk, nominally Christian, are still pagan in much of their belief and practice. The Chapel is built over the grave of their mythic hero, who they say will one day return. They absolutely do not want the Chapel walled in, and Joachim counts on them to fight against the monks when they come to take the Thorn.
The pagan faith, then, is represented by Amael, a bard and priest of the Old Gods. He and his kind have been banned from, well, whatever kingdom this is, but has returned for a visit and to cheer and sing for the villagers. He becomes involved in the debates of Joachim and Innocent, mostly mocking both their positions and "the white Christ." He tempts Michael to sail away with him in the ships of Gorlias.
And that's pretty much the whole play. There are other characters, and quite a number of incidents involving them, but they all serve to illustrate the three-way conflict of Joachim, Innocent, and Amael.
As one might expect from Williams, a great deal of the dialogue involves theological matters. Joachim represents Christian freedom, and believes that Innocent and the Church hierarchy are -- my words -- putting Christ in a cage. Innocent representsChristian obedience, and believes that Joachim's ideas about freedom are dangerous to the common folk. Amael, of course, represents the traditional beliefs of his people. All three put their arguments clearly and well, and no real conclusion is reached as between these points of view. Williams is content to state the cases and let the readers, or audience, should the play be staged, reach their own conclusions.
The entire text of the play (excepting stage directions and such) is in blank iambic pentameter, with some variations, especially when someone sings. Williams handles the meter deftly, for the most part, such that you can easily hear it in your head as you read, mostly without making the speeches come out stiff. Williams was, to be sure, no Shakespeare, but the comparison to Shakespeare's pentameter is irresistable, and Williams clearly has Shakespeare before him as a model, though surely not the only one: indeed, a better comparison might be Marlowe.
Still, I can see why the play went unpublished in his lifetime. It is in many ways a very static thing. People come, people go, and people talk and sing; there is _almost_ no other stage business in the entire thing.
The play is, however, less than half the volume fo the book. There is a Preface, by Grevel Lindop; a long Introduction by Sørina Higgins, who is the editor of the book; detailed textual notes; an Appendix, of roughly equal length to the Introduction, by David Llewellyn Dodds; and a reasonably-sized Bibliography. Note: the Introduction gives, in bits and pieces, a thorough account of the plot of the play; those who care about spoilers -- yes, despite its static character, spoilers are possible -- are well-advised to read the play before the Introduction.
The titular Chapel contains what just about everyone in the play is quite convinced is a piece of (or maybe the whole) the Crown of Thorns put on Jesus' head prior to His crucifixion; nor does the play ever hint that it might not be. The time is an afternoon and the next morning, sometime betwen the third and fifth century CE -- at any rate, Rome has not yet fallen.
The Chapel is watched over by an elderly priest named Joachim, and his apprentice Michael, who dreams of seeing the world and winning glory. Joachim, one of three main characters, is a bit out of touch with the mainstream of the Church. The chapel has clearly been there ("there" being on a highroad on a seacliff) for some time. There were, earlier, three priests, but two were carried off by a pestilence.
The mainstream and authority of the Church is represented by Innocent, the Abbot of the much more recent monastery of St. Cyprian. Innocent is a Justicer and advisor to the local king (named Constantine), who has but recently returned from the wars -- just what wars is never stated. Abbot Innocent is determined to bring the holy relic from the Chapel to his monastery, and build a wall around the Chapel.
The townsfolk, nominally Christian, are still pagan in much of their belief and practice. The Chapel is built over the grave of their mythic hero, who they say will one day return. They absolutely do not want the Chapel walled in, and Joachim counts on them to fight against the monks when they come to take the Thorn.
The pagan faith, then, is represented by Amael, a bard and priest of the Old Gods. He and his kind have been banned from, well, whatever kingdom this is, but has returned for a visit and to cheer and sing for the villagers. He becomes involved in the debates of Joachim and Innocent, mostly mocking both their positions and "the white Christ." He tempts Michael to sail away with him in the ships of Gorlias.
And that's pretty much the whole play. There are other characters, and quite a number of incidents involving them, but they all serve to illustrate the three-way conflict of Joachim, Innocent, and Amael.
As one might expect from Williams, a great deal of the dialogue involves theological matters. Joachim represents Christian freedom, and believes that Innocent and the Church hierarchy are -- my words -- putting Christ in a cage. Innocent representsChristian obedience, and believes that Joachim's ideas about freedom are dangerous to the common folk. Amael, of course, represents the traditional beliefs of his people. All three put their arguments clearly and well, and no real conclusion is reached as between these points of view. Williams is content to state the cases and let the readers, or audience, should the play be staged, reach their own conclusions.
The entire text of the play (excepting stage directions and such) is in blank iambic pentameter, with some variations, especially when someone sings. Williams handles the meter deftly, for the most part, such that you can easily hear it in your head as you read, mostly without making the speeches come out stiff. Williams was, to be sure, no Shakespeare, but the comparison to Shakespeare's pentameter is irresistable, and Williams clearly has Shakespeare before him as a model, though surely not the only one: indeed, a better comparison might be Marlowe.
Still, I can see why the play went unpublished in his lifetime. It is in many ways a very static thing. People come, people go, and people talk and sing; there is _almost_ no other stage business in the entire thing.
The play is, however, less than half the volume fo the book. There is a Preface, by Grevel Lindop; a long Introduction by Sørina Higgins, who is the editor of the book; detailed textual notes; an Appendix, of roughly equal length to the Introduction, by David Llewellyn Dodds; and a reasonably-sized Bibliography. Note: the Introduction gives, in bits and pieces, a thorough account of the plot of the play; those who care about spoilers -- yes, despite its static character, spoilers are possible -- are well-advised to read the play before the Introduction.
backburner
August 15, 2025August 14, 2025: Have to set this on the backburner as I have lost it! 😩
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews