Here is another Shakespeare History, which I read out of order. I should have read this one first and then Richard II, but this one was buried at the back of my Riverside Shakespeare. And it may not have actually been written by the Bard, or maybe only pieces of it was written by him. Either way it was a historical play that had its good moments and its irrelevant moments (Act II).
This play starts off, as many do, with the king of England deciding that he is the true heir of France. So he decides to take it by force. I suppose force is heir to everything. After all up to then all the heirs to the throne of England are there because they were heir to William the Conqueror, who took the land by force. So that was Act I, which was basically, "I own France, here I go."
Act II This entire act is irrelevant to the first act. It is Edward III wooing the wife of Salisbury. Both are already married, and this episode feels like something torn from the middle ages. Edward goes up to the father of Salisbury's wife and says, as his king, "grant me one boon". "OK". "Woo your daughter for me". Of course this is awkward for the father of his married daughter. Anyways this is Act II, which ultimately has the king change his mind because of the honor of the daughter.
The other three acts are war and negotiation. There is one part that I find a little stupid. It is this, Edward III's son, Edward the Black Prince is in a difficult spot and looks to have certain death. What does his father do? Does he offer aid for his son to save him? No! He says something historical like, "If he can fight through this it will further increase his glory. Otherwise he will have an honorable burial." At this point it threw up my arms in bewilderment. What father speaks thus? Sometimes its ok not to follow the medieval accounts closely, as many of them are innacurate. Especially when it comes to an anecdote that has a moral purpose, such as Edward III's response to his son being in danger. It sounds cool, but is really unrealistic/unbelievable. I may have changed that part. But then again this adds to the glory of England.
Overall this play seemed episodic and lacked an overall cohesion. The introduction said that its overall structure was one of lessons for a prince, which when you read it is somewhat apparent. I didn't really enjoy it that much. The characters all felt the same.
I didn't even know about this play!
ReplyDeleteI don't think this play is part of many anthologies because the authorship is disputed. He may have only written part of it, which may explain the disjointed quality.
ReplyDelete