A Comparative of William of Newburgh and Gervase of Canterbury's Account of the Death of Thomas Becket While both sources recount the death of Thomas Becket, William of Newburgh’s account is much more thorough than Gervase of Canterbury’s account. Unlike Gervase, instead of just focusing on the murder itself, William explains the events leading up to and surrounding Becket’s death, which adds more credence to his description.
Gervase of Canterbury concentrates solely on Becket’s murder and conveys Becket as a brave martyr. He portrays Becket as fearless as exemplified through his inclusion of Becket’s conversation with his murderers before his death. According to Gervase, Becket stated, “I am no traitor; nor will I depart, wretched man!” Moreover, Gervase explains that Becket defended his followers and his church by saying, “I forbid you, under the threat of an anathema, from touching one of my followers. As for me, I willingly embrace death provided only that the church obtain liberty and peace at the price of my blood.” By highlighting Becket’s bravery and devotion to the Church, Gervase is able to paint Becket in a favorable light. Readers are inclined to sympathize with Becket and view him as a victim of the king’s brutality. Even though Gervase does not directly mention King Henry II, by including the murder’s statement—“Knights of the king, let us go; he is dead!”— he implies the king’s involvement in the murder. Finally, the last part of Gervase’s account is a eulogy to Becket and describes him as a saint. This final praise leaves readers with the sense that Becket was a great man.
Despite Gervase’s complimentary description of Becket, readers should view his account with skepticism. As the introduction explains, Gervase knew Becket, therefore, his admiration for Becket could stem from the fact that they were acquaintances. Also, Gervase was a monk, William was a churchman too, but as a chronicler, he wrote differently so he could have felt a particular attachment to Becket as a result of their shared faith and devotion to the church. Moreover, readers should be skeptical of Gervase’s report because he excludes details surrounding the murder such as the murderer’s motives and Becket’s dispute with the King.
William of Newburgh’s account is much more critical of Becket. He describes Becket as reputable but explains that when Becket became Archbishop of Canterbury, “he on a sudden exhibited such a change in his habit and manners.” This description depicts Becket as capricious and causes readers to become wary of his character. Even though William condemns Becket’s changing character, he is equally critical of King Henry II. He writes, “The king of England, was furiously enraged at his absence; and, giving way to unbridled passion more than became a king, took an unbecoming and pitiful kind of revenge.” “Unbecoming” and “pitiful” are not flattering adjectives. One would find his account more credible than Gervase’s description because William fairly includes criticisms for both Becket and Henry II, which makes him seem unbiased.
Furthermore, while William censures both Becket and Henry II’s actions, he finds areas to praise as well. For example, he explains that King Henry II’s desire to include the clergy under the jurisdiction of the King’s courts was warranted. William states, “the bishops however, [were more]… anxious rather to maintain the liberties or rights of the clergy than to correct and root out their vices.” He explains that the bishops had committed immoral acts but rather than rectify their misconduct, they would rather protect their power. Moreover, like Gervase he describes Becket’s bravery: “When, from his determination to brave every danger, he did not acquiesce, on the forcible and tumultuous approach of his enemies.” Through highlighting both leaders’ positive and negative aspects, William lends more credibility to his account.
While William’s account is much less biased than Gervase’s account, readers should also be wary of his descriptions. Makes him an even better source since he was a churchman, but as a chronicler he also probably had ties to the king. His tone towards the Church is harsh, which suggests that he may have possessed a distrust for Church leaders. For example, he warns:
Although holy men are to be loved and commended by us, who are so sensible of our great inferiority, still we are not bound to love or praise them for actions, in which they either do, or have shown the weakness or their human nature; but merely, for such as we are bound implicitly to imitate.

He implies that he does not believe people should venerate and imitate all holy men because they too are human. His prejudice against the Church could have influenced his feelings towards Becket.
Since Gervase wrote his account five years after William, his positive bias towards Becket reflects the lasting legacy of the murder. And desire to promote the cult. People viewed Becket as a martyr and accused King Henry II of being responsible for his death. William reflects on this widespread opinion and states, “Indeed, the report of such a dreadful outrage, quickly pervading every district of the western world, sullied the illustrious king of England, and so obscured his fair fame among Christian potentates.” King Henry II, therefore, was unable to clear his name and people would henceforth blame him for Becket’s death.