Act 2.3- Questions to answer:
Who was Warwick’s brother?
Why are the Yorkists so defeated?
Why do they we decide to march again?
Notes:
This scene is actually the Battle of Ferrybridge, the last little failure before the Yorkist victory at Towton.
After doing a little research, I discovered that that scene is the prologue to the bloodiest battle of the Wars of the Roses which is why Shakespeare creates this touching moment where the Yorkist brothers unite before a ruinous battle. One question that is somewhat confusing in the play is the un named brother of Warwick who dies in this scene. Shakespeare introduces Warwick's brother the Marquess of Montegue in Act I, but this is clearly not the brother who dies, as Montegue appears later in the play. The brother in question is the Bastard of Salisbury, a figure who is just as obscure in history as he is in Shakespeare's play. I looked him up in Hall's chronicle, and he mentions this:
"The lord Clifforde determined with his light horsemen, to make an assaye to suche as kepte the passage of Ferybridge, and so de- parted from the great army on the Saturday before Palmsondaye, and early or his enemies were ware, gat the bridge, and slew the kepers of thesame, and al such as woulde withstand him. The lord Fitzwater hearyng the noyse, sodainly rose out of his bed, and vnarmed, with a pollax in his hande, thinking y it had byn a fray emogest his me, came doune to ap- peace thesame, but or he either began his tale, or knew what the matter meat, lie wasslayne,
and with hym the Bastard of Salisbury, brother to the erle of Warwycke, a valeaunt yong gentelman, and of great audacitie. When the erle of Warwycke was euformed of this feate, be like a man desperate, mouted on his Hackeney, and came blowyng to kyng Edward saying : syr I praye God haue mercy of their soules, which in the beginnyng of your enterprise, haili lost their lifes, and because I se no succors of the world, I remit the vengeaunce and punishment to God our creator and redemer, and with that lighted doune, and slewe his horse with his swourcle, saiyng : let him flic that wil, for surely I wil tary with him that wil tary with me, and kissed the crosse of his swourde."
I came to the conclusion that Shakespeare did not find this character important, just as Hall didn't. He is merely a device to inspire Warwick to fight even more fiercely. This is kind of like those scenes in Lord of the Rings where there are characters who don’t appear a lot, but their significance is great only because they die or sacrifice themselves.
Act II, Scene v
Greg, playing King Henry brought up an interesting problem- at the end of Henry's speech he conjures the image of a king in a "curious" bed being looked on by care, mistrust and treason. The problem is that the word used to mean "luxurious" or "made with care," but nowadays the word means inquisitive. Greg was concerned that the word might lose the intended meaning to a modern audience asked me to look up the other editions of the play. Sadly, Henry's speech is completely different in the Octavo edition so I could not find a replacement. I then looked up the word "curious" in the Oxford English Dictionary and I discovered that it also means "suspicious". I suspect that Shakespeare gave the word a double meaning and told Greg.
When I think of this image now, I imagine a man on his death-bed and to that end, I looked up medieval art of men on their death bed and I found this image:
It is a wood cut from the 1470 edition of "Ars Morendi," the art of dying. In this picture, demons tempt a dying man with crowns. I think this image helps sum up the fear of King Henry- how he has been forced to be king by fate, never gets to enjoy it, and eventually dies because of it.
IV. i
Another interesting question was why Marquess Montegue chooses to defect from Edward IV, and rejoin with his brother Warwick? I investigated Shakespeare's source material, Edward Hall's Chronicle. The source is vague about Montegue's defection, in fact, it seems Montegue managed to defect from Edward so cunningly that Edward didn't even know about it. The Arden editors suggest that essentially Shakespeare is sweeping Montegue's treachery under the rug for dramatic reasons. He seems to concentrate all the deceit in the play into the three Yorkist brothers. I have here reproduced a passage from Hall to show Montegue's arch after the marriage of Edward and Lady Grey.
Hall: …John, Marquess of Montacute, humbly
yelded hymself, and vowed to bee euer true to the kyng (as he had doen before tyme) whom
he with muche humanitie and faire woordes, did receiue and intertain, to the intent to flecte
and allure the hartes of other men, to ioyne and knit with him, against all hostilitie and
vtter enemies.
...Marques Montacutc, excusyng himself that
onely for feare of death, he declined to kyng Edwardes parte, whiche excuse was so ac-
cepted that he obteined his pardon, which, after was the destruccion, of him and his bro-
ther : For if he had manfully and appartly taken kyng Edwardes parte, surely he beyng an
open enemie, had much lesse hurted, then beyng a fained, false and a coloured frende :
for suche thynges as wee se before our iyes, we bee well ware of, and seldome thynges be-
fore k no wen, do vs any hurt or prejudice.
No comments:
Post a Comment