william-shakespeare

Villains – and evil

/ Geoffrey Gibson / Leave a comment

[This was posted before the recent U S election.  It is set out again because every word bears on how our worst fears have been realised since Trump took office.  In The New York Times, Thomas Friedman said the question is whether Trump is the dupe of Putin or a Mafia don running a protection racket.]

There is no such thing as evil.  It is not something that you can sprinkle on or detect in your fish and chips.  Rather, it is a label that we attach to some forms of conduct.  And what we usually have in mind are people who are ready, willing and able to hurt or kill other people for the sake of it – or, as the saying goes, for the hell of it.  There may be no other apparent motive.  The pickpocket, the drug dealer, the rapist, the blackmailer, the vengeful husband, the neo-Nazi – they all have a motive.  But the villain?

At the beginning of his lecture on Richard III, W H Auden said there is a difference between a criminal and what we call a villain.  ‘The villain is an extremely conscious person and commits a crime consciously and for its own sake.’  The leading examples in Shakespeare, apart from Richard III, are Aaron in Titus Andronicus, and Iago in Othello.

In ordinary language, an evil person is one who wants to do wrong by others.  Such a person gets called a villain.  That word has apparently come down to us from villein, the equivalent of the serf at the bottom of the medieval social ladder.  Brewer (Dictionary of Phrase and Fable) says that the notion of ‘rascality, wickedness and worthlessness now associated with villainis a result of aristocratic condescension and sense of superiority’.  That is very English.  (The editor cites a passage from the opening scene of As You Like It, where both meanings are in play in the one sentence.)

There is, at least in our literature, another type of villain, if I may be permitted that term.  Some characters are so made that they cannot stand goodness.  When in Paradise Lost, Satan comes across Adam and Eve, he ‘felt how awful goodness is’.  (And if Satan is not entitled to have a view on evil, no one is.)  Iago saw in Cassio a kind of ‘daily beauty’ that unsettled him.  The most gross example is John Claggart in Billy Budd – especially in the libretto of the opera.  Claggart is unmanned by the simple goodness of Billy. 

O beauty, o handsomeness, goodness!  
Would that I never encountered you!  
Would that I lived in my own world always,  
in that depravity to which I was born.  
There I found peace of a sort, there I established  
an order such as reigns in Hell…….
Having seen you, what choice remains to me?  
None, none! I’m doomed to annihilate you,  
I’m vowed to your destruction. ….
No, you cannot escape!  
With hate and envy, I’m stronger than love….

There is more.

But when we come to look at Richard III, we will see that some bad actors are driven by pure envy in looking at what others get in life that is certainly denied to them.  Iago drove Othello to be jealous of what he thought Cassio was up to with his wife, but Iago envied Cassio for his good fortune and success in life.  In the grizzly argot of our time, Iago, a man of ‘other ranks’ bitterly resented the elites.

In papers called Richard and Adolf and The Seduction of Seduction, I have looked at some of these issues, but here I wish to focus on what the play Richard III may tell us now about the phenomenon of Donald Trump.

But, first, I want to say something about the best-known character of Shakespeare – Sir John Falstaff.  Not in any order, Falstaff is a coward, a liar, a fraud, a womaniser, a drunk, and a rotten fat skunk.  And he is this playwright’s most popular and enduring character.  One reason is that he said things and did things to offend and upset the Establishment in ways that we would like to be able to do.  He put the boot into knighthood and chivalry as surely as Cervantes did with Don Quixote.  He was the champion of those who had missed out. 

Well, if you go to a MAGA rally, you will not find too many people successful in a profession, government, academe, or business.  (Nor will you find any at the bottom of the scale, sleeping rough.)

And we might here telegraph a warning about the significance of Falstaff.  Dr Johnson said the character was loaded with faults, ‘and with those faults that naturally produce contempt.’  But he concluded his remarks:

The moral to be drawn from this representation is that no man is more dangerous that he that with a will to corrupt hath the power to please; and that neither wit nor honesty ought to think themselves safe with such a companion when they see Henry seduced by Falstaff.  (My emphasis.)

I see the seduction as the other way around, but the point remains.  What is it that attracts us to some complete ratbags?  How do we get sucked in – conned?

In discussing Richard III, Dr Johnson said that Shakespeare was careful to suggest that the wickedness of Richard proceeded from his deformity – and from the ‘envy that rose at the comparison of his own person with others, and which incited him to disturb the pleasures that he could not enjoy’.  There is a lot of that in the Austrian corporal who was rejected by both Vienna and the German High Command.  But at the beginning of Richard III, in his opening speech, Richard says that with all his obvious defects, he is ‘determined to prove a villain.’  The author had paved the way in the prior play (Henry VI, Part III, 3.2 and 5.6), when Richard told us that he can smile and murder while he smiles – which he later does while stabbing a king to death, while saying that he has ‘neither, pity, love, nor fear…. I am myself alone.’  By the end of the preceding play, Richard had happily compared himself to Judas – and you can’t go lower than that.

Here then is the triumph of the ego in the ultimate smiling assassin.  Now, that is a title that we would award to Vladimir Putin rather than Donald Trump, but that does not mean that we may not get some guidance on how to deal with the latter, from the insights into our humanity of the greatest playwright the world has known.

Here are some points of resemblance and distinction.

Each comes from a background that is on any view ‘privileged’ – and each knows little about the rest of the world, and each cares even less.  Neither really cares for anybody else.  The self is all in all.

Each is in his own way childlike.  Each has a view of the world that is at best superficial.  Neither could imagine a world without himself.  Nothing in the world is relevant unless it relates to him.  Somehow. the ordinary rules do not apply to him.

Each disdains anything remotely resembling book learning.

Richard, like Trump, did not care for others, but he could seduce them.  In this they both resemble Don Giovanni.  The seducer is amoral and it’s as if their victims had some sort of death wish.  If these seducers have any conscience, and it is a real issue for both, it just does not work.

Conscience is but a word that cowards use,

Devised at first to keep the strong in awe;

Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law!  (Richard III, 5.3.310-312)

That is the credo of the fascist.

People rarely get close or remain close to either of them.  They are mostly front.  Their egos do not allow much time out for others.  If someone breaks through, it is just a matter of time before they are ejected – with extreme prejudice.  Buckingham was Richard’s most loyal supporter in winning the crown.  When he feels the rift, he is ‘off while my fearful head is on’ (4.2.121).  With Trump, the rift comes when the lackey gets caught, and Trump drops him cold – and in the slammer.

You could not reason with either.  They create their own reality.  Both resemble spoiled children who never learned better, or grown up.

They enjoy the game of plotting to get power.  They are born gamblers.  Why not?  They take huge risks because they don’t mind if others get hurt.  But they are very bad on the job when they get it.  They were not made for responsibility in government – or anything else.  In this and other respects, they are like spoiled children who have not known what it is to be accountable.

Revenge for them is very personal.  This is because the loyalty they expect is very personal.  People owe loyalty not to the office or the nation, but to the leader personally.  This was the great error of the German High Command in dealing with Adolf Hitler, and it is the beginning of the shredding of anything like the rule of law.  What you get is personal power of someone above the law.  The old term was ‘tyrant’.

There was a beautiful example with the singer, Taylor Swift.  She was a threat because she might prove more popular than Trump.  And she had backed the other side.  Trump said there was ‘no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden’ and would never be ‘disloyal to the man who made her so much money’.  Congress had passed an act giving financial aid to singers, but to Trump, it never gets above the personal.  In Darkness at Noon, by Arthur Koestler, the last chapter is headed ‘The Grammatical Fiction.’  There is no such thing as ‘I’.  In the world of Donald Trump – and Richard III – it is the other way around.  There is ego – and that is that.  The Oxford English Dictionary happily defines egomania as ‘the insanity of self-exaltation’. 

The personal nature of the rule, and the grubby means by which these people come to power, feeds on and promotes division and conflict, and simple hate.  They are a form of cancer on the community.  Indeed, that is the underlying thread of these plays leading to and from the Wars of the Roses.  Trump just went one further by denying that he had ever lost power.

These people appeal to those who feel they have missed out in the race of life.  This is more Trump’s schtick than that of Richard.  The scenes where Richard says that he has to be enlisted for the benefit of the common weal are frankly comical – but, in truth, no more incredible than what Trump’s ‘base’ salutes him for.  His followers think that they have been treated unfairly, and that this gives them a moral right to seek retribution.  And they are quick to identify those who they think should answer for their ill treatment – although they do not use the word ‘scapegoats.’  Their leaders go along with this.  It brings the loudest cheers at the rallies.  This is more like Jack Cade than Richard.  The oppressed believe that their leader is the one to look after them, and preserve what they have managed to retain from the wreckage wrought by their opponents.

They both play rough.  They know no other way.  They just ride roughshod over any doubter or opponent who gets in their way.  Bluff is built into their persona.  And if you are going to lie, lie big.  It is as if there is nothing left solid in the relative ether, and people have always preferred fiction to history.  This braggadocio is just another part of the intimidation, and it is always the scheme of the dictator to involve as many as possible in the dirty work, so that they get locked in by their own complicity.  There is the sleight of hand of those we used to call mountebanks.  Here is Brewer on mountebank:

A vendor of quack medicines at fairs…who attracts the crowd by his tricks and antics; hence any charlatan or self-advertising pretender.  The bank, or bench, was the counter on which traders displayed their goods, and street vendors used to mount on their bank to patter to the public.

That description brings us from the post-medieval morality plays and commedia dell’arte to Richard III – and it is also very apt for a MAGA rally.

Now for some differences. 

Richard was a worthy soldier in battle, and prepared to do his own murders.  But Richard does not delude himself as Trump appears to do.  On the contrary, he takes great pride in his machinations and the pure malice that drives them.  When he seduces Anne, a process that is revolting, he challenges the audience to come with him.  He is celebrating a win for the misfits.  ‘And yet to win her, all the world to nothing’ (1.2.237) Auden said (in 1946) of the opening monologue of Richard that it was ‘not unlike Adolf Hitler’s speech to his General Staff on 23 August 1939 in its utter lack of self-deception.’  That is a remarkable analogy.  Some were more than troubled by the apocalyptic and brazen tripe of Trump in his (first) inaugural.  Was this the same nation that gave the world Abraham Lincoln? 

Auden also said that Richard was not ambitious in the ordinary sense of that term.  ‘He’s not interested in becoming king for the position of power, but because becoming king is so difficult.’  Well, others might put differently that description of the pursuit of the prize. 

But we come now to the bad news.  Dr Johnson, as we saw, warned against the dangers in succumbing to the whiles of Falstaff.  Sir Anthony Quayle played Falstaff and fairly described him as ‘frankly vicious.’  Why do we fall for him?

The problem is that Richard takes the audience with him and at least in part seduces the audience.  I referred above to the old morality plays.  They appeared in England in the 15th and 16th centuries – to set up the triumph of virtue over vice.  Vice was a central character – generally named after a particular vice, like pride or greed, who wore a cap with asses’ ears (so prefiguring Bottom). 

Richard expressly makes a reference to Vice.  ‘Thus, like the formal Vice, Iniquity, I moralise two meanings in one word’ (3.1.82-83).  I need to set out what Tony Tanner says here in full.

The Vice was the self-avowed mischief-maker, if not chaos-bringer, and we should remember that one of his Satanic privileges was to inveigle the audience into laughing at evil.  The figure of the Vice was clearly invaluable to Shakespeare when it came to depicting inexplicable evil, evil which seems gratuitous, unmotivated, simply for its own sake.  From any point of view, Richard’s behaviour is profoundly irrational, and is finally both horrifying and incomprehensible even to his closest accomplices (in fact, no one is close to him at all; simply some accompany him further into his evils than others.)  Richard is, as he has told us, an expert Machiavel; he is also a Senecan tyrant and a Marlovian villain (closest to Barabbas in The Jew of Malta).  But he is primarily a Vice.  However – and this is crucial – he is a Vice who acquires (no matter how foully) the legitimate robes of a king.

Those insights round off this discussion.  ‘Chaos-bringer’ is so apt.  And remember just how vicious, how horrifying, Richard is.  The murderer of the children is unmanned by this ‘most arch deed of piteous massacre’ (4.3.2).  The king can hardly wait until after supper to hear ‘the process of their death.’

It is then that we recall that the playwright has subjected us to hours of flirtation with our taste for violence and deceit.  It is followed by a set piece of our theatre – the judgment of the Furies, the mother and two wronged queens, one of whom is a world authority on cursing.  We need to remember that Richard got to the crown not by guile or rebellion, but by murder in cold blood.  It makes The Godfather look pale – but we get a kick out of that, too.

So, as we watch in trepidation the possible revival of Donald Trump, despite all his offences against humanity, we should ask again – just why do we fall for some kinds of ratbag? 

And while doing so, we might recall that it does not require anything like the incandescent genius of Shakespeare, or the craftiness of Satan, to induce our undoing.  And despite his trysts with the ghosts, Richard goes down swinging, like Don Giovanni, but sans cheval.  And there were some in the cinema who cheered him on even there.

May I finally say something about the condition of the United States now?  In discussing Julius Caesar, Auden said that Rome was not doomed by the passions of selfish individuals, but ‘by an intellectual and spiritual failure of nerve that made the society incapable of dealing with its situation’   Angela Merkel said that ‘Sometimes my greatest fear is that we have somehow lost the inner strength to stand up for our way of life’.  The phrase ‘inner strength’ catches the eye.  A German man called Stephen Haffner lived through the twenties and thirties and the rise of Hitler.  He described the failure of Germany in very simple terms as a kind of ‘nervous breakdown’ that flowed from the want of a ‘solid inner kernel.’

The only thing that is missing is what in animals is called ‘breeding’.  This is a solid inner kernel that cannot be shaken by external pressures and forces, something noble and steely, a reserve of pride, principle and dignity to be drawn on in the hour of trial….  At the moment of truth, when other nations rise spontaneously to the occasion, the Germans collectively and limply collapsed.  They yielded and capitulated, and suffered a nervous breakdown…

That is just how major battles and sporting events are won and lost.  Sadly, it does not help either us or the U S that we have seen it all before.

Richard II

/ Geoffrey Gibson / Leave a comment

Richard II has been one of my favourite plays for more than fifty years – when I first heard Gielgud in the lead.  The reasons are set out in the note below, which I wrote more than ten years ago for a book on Shakespeare. 

After listening to the play for the nth time, I ordered a book The Reign of Richard II.  It is a collection of papers given at the University of York on subjects like A Personal Portrait, The Chivalry, His Sense of English History, and His Reputation.

Two things struck me about the papers.  First, many commentators, who are historians, felt happy about looking at the psychological or psychoanalytic aspects of this medieval king and evaluating the evidence and conclusions. 

Secondly, and much more remarkably, no one saw fit to mention how Shakespeare saw this character.  This unmatched genius could see inside us and our history, but no one at this conference thought Shakespeare was worth mentioning. 

What about Divine Right?  How do you square that with the barons putting their king under contract in 1215?  Were the references to Pilate and Judas justified?  What other aspects of the passion play do we have here?  Opinions may differ on whether Shakespeare painted Bolingbroke as shifty – I think he did – but is clear that Shakespeare saw this usurpation as an infection that would culminate in the Wars of the Roses.  Did Shakespeare get it right or was he just wrong?

This silence is at the university very odd.  But there is an upside.  Here is an extract of the psychoanalysis.

The most plausible way of reconciling the opposites in the king’s character is to see Richard’s character as essentially narcissistic – a condition in which only the person himself – his own body, his own needs and feelings – are experienced as fully real.   Generally, a narcissistic person achieves a sense of security in his own subjective conviction of his perfection.  This is a condition characteristic of rulers with a high sense of mission, and having an obsessive interest in the trappings of power.  Its sufferers have ‘an appetite for self-worship.’  It finally detaches its victims from reality so that they become cocooned from the outside world by groups of yes-men and by physical isolation, which was Richard’s eventual fate.  By the final years of his reign, there can be little doubt that Richard’s grasp on reality was becoming weaker.

The author of the paper from which that quote is taken went on to say that Richard was ‘vengeful’ and ‘reacted very badly and very aggressively, to any criticism made of him’.  ‘The general attitude [of low confidence] is…. domineering, attacking, hostile, blaming, mistrustful, status-seeking, and punitive.’

Well, we now have the AI model of that narcissist in Donald Trump.  One difference is that he would never abdicate.  Rather, he would not accept being deposed – even when done with due process of law.

Otherwise, as the book says, there is nothing new under the sun.  Which make the omission of reference to Shakespeare even more remarkable.

The play is called ‘The Tragedy of Richard II.’  It is certainly a tragedy, and it is in my view the most operatic play ever written.  Of course, Churchill reveled in it.  It is a rolling twenty-one-gun salute to the majesty of the English language and history.

(Set out below is my earlier note of more than ten years ago.  Since then, Opus Arte has released its version at the Globe, which is not as mangled as many are there now, and the RSC has released the version with David Tennant directed by Greg Doran.  Sadly, they sent Tennant out as a rampant hairy queen desperate to be debagged, and in so doing trashed the whole play.)

RICHARD II
AN EFFEMINATE ROYAL IN A PASSION PLAY

In this man’s reign began this fatal strife

The bloody argument whereof we treat
That dearly costs so many a prince’s life

And spoil’d the weak and ev’n consumed the great

(Daniel, Civil Wars)

Jussi Bjoerling is frequently said to have been the most popular tenor of the last century.  He had a clear, high, lyric tone that still sounds as pure as silver. (Caruso was more golden and chiaroscuro.)  Some have the same sensation listening to Richard II, of a clear, high lyric tone that sounds as pure as silver.

This play evokes our sense of opera in another way.  Most composers like to load up their operas with big arias for their big singers.  Puccini did it so that his guns could really unleash themselves in a way that highbrows think is shameless, but that the rest of us enjoy shamelessly.  A few people know Vissi d’Arte; many have heard Un Bel Di; but everyone knows Nessun Dorma.  

Shakespeare loaded this play up with set pieces for the big guns of the stage, so that listening to the recording featuring John Gielgud as Richard and Leo McKern as John of Gaunt has for some about the same impact as coming to terms with an ’86 Grange.

Richard was the last of the Plantagenets.  He took by succession and Divine Right.  His misrule and weakness led to his being deposed, and so to generations of civil strife.
A medieval king was the fountain of justice.  At the beginning of this play, this King breaches his obligations in that position fundamentally– twice.

The King failed to follow the established legal process to rule on a dispute between two of his barons.  They were entitled to and did seek under the common law of England trial by battle of the issue between them.  One of the parties, Bolingbroke, the future Henry IV, says:

Look what I speak, my life shall prove it true. (1.1.87)
He has another charge:
… and I will in battle prove. (1.1.92)

The second charge related to the murder of a duke. This was a sensitive charge since the King, the judge if you like, had given orders for the murder.  Well, for whatever reason, Richard intervened after a massive display of chivalry, and stopped the combat, a form of judicial duel.  He banished both of the litigants, but Bolingbroke and his family for a lesser time.  The King had therefore made enemies of two families by interfering with the due process of the law.  Bolingbroke laments his exile:

How long a time lies in one little word.
Four lagging winters and four wanton springs
End in a word – such is the breath of kings. (1.3.212-214)

As the second scene of the play shows, the supporters of the King include those who are under a duty to avenge the death of the murdered duke.  How do you fight a judicial duel with the substitute of God?  How can the King try a case that involves one of his political assassinations?

The second mistake of Richard was to confiscate the property that had belonged to the father of Bolingbroke, John of Gaunt, after his death.  This was illegal.  (Richard needed funds for a foreign war – this has long been an incentive to illegality.)  In doing this, Richard was breaking the laws of inheritance– but these laws are the source of his own title.  York says just this:

Take Hereford’s rights away, and take from time
His charters and his customary rights,
Let not tomorrow then ensue today;
Be not thyself. For how art thou not a King
But by fair sequence and succession. (2.1.195-199)

As a result of these two great fallings off by the King, Bolingbroke returns to England.  He says he does so just to claim his own private rights and not to claim the crown, but Bolingbroke– who does not show us his mind by a soliloquy– is as evasive about his intention as a modern politician is when thinking of challenging for the leadership of the party. After he had become King, he was to say:

Though then, God knows, I had no such intent

But that necessity so bowed the state,
That I and greatness were compelled to kiss. (2 Henry IV, 3.1.72-74)
From the time when Richard returns to Ireland, it is all downhill. As Tony Tanner remarked:
Perhaps … he can already see the writing on the wall; but to a certain, quite distinct extent, he himself is doing the writing.

Here is some of the high poetry of this failed king.
… I weep for joy
To stand upon my kingdom once again.
Dear earth, I do salute thee with my hand;
Though rebels wound thee with their horses’ hoofs. (3.2.4-7)

So when this thief, this traitor, Bolingbroke,
Who all this while hath revelled in the night
Whilst we were wand’ring with the Antipodes
Shall see us rising in our throne, the east,
His treasons will sit blushing in his face,
Not able to endure the sight of day,
But self-affrighted tremble at his sin.
Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord.
For every man that Bolingbroke hath pressed
To shift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel; then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for Heaven still guards the right. (3.2.47-62)

 No matter where– of comfort no man speaks.
Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs.
Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow in the bosom of the earth.
Let’s choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can be bequeath
Save our deposèd bodies to the ground?
Our lands, our lives, and all are Bolingbroke’s;
And nothing can we call our own, but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God’s sake let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings:
How some have been deposed, some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping killed
All murdered – for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keep Death his court, and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchise, be feared, and kill with looks
Infusing him with self and vain conceit
As if this flesh that walls about our life
Were brass impregnable;, and, humoured thus,
Comes at the last, and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell King! (3.2.144-170)

He is very up and down. He rallies and then he falls.  Here is a rally:
Yet know, my master, God omnipotent,
Is mustering in his clouds on our behalf
Armies of pestilence, and they shall strike
Your children yet unborn and unbegot
That lift your vassal hands against my head,
And threat the glory of my precious Crown.
Tell Bolingbroke– for yon methinks he stands –
That every stride he takes upon my land
Is dangerous treason.  He has come to open
The purple testament of bleeding war … (3.3.84-93)

But he gives in. Here is a real down.
What must the King do now? Must he submit?
The King shall do it. Must he be deposed?
The King shall be contented. Must he lose
The name of King? A God’s name, let it go.
I’ll give my jewels for a set of beads;
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage;
My gay apparel for an almsman’s gown;
My figured goblets for a dish of wood;
My sceptre for a palmer’s walking staff;
My subjects for a pair of carved saints;
And my large kingdom for a little grave,
A little, little grave, an obscure grave … (3.3.142-153)

Has the theatre – the theatre– ever known language of such silver grace?  When in Act 4, Richard formally surrenders the Crown, his disillusion takes him to a different tone.

Now, mark me how I will undo myself.
I give this heavy weight from off my head,
And this unwieldy sceptre from my hand,
The pride of kingly sway from out my heart;
With mine own tears I wash away my balm,
With my own hands I give away my crown,
With my own tongue deny my sacred state,
With mine own breath release all duteous oaths;
All pomp and majesty I do forswear … (4.1.202-210)

He calls for a mirror:
… Was this the face
That, like the sun, did make beholders wink?
Was this the face that faced so many follies,
And was at last outfaced by Bolingbroke?
A brittle glory shineth in this face,
As brittle as the glory is the face,
[Throws glass down]
For there it is, cracked in a hundred shivers.
Mark, silent King, the moral of this sport:
How soon my sorrow hath destroyed my face. (4.1.283-290)

Richard, the actor, starts to comment on his own performance:
… Say that again.
‘The shadow of my sorrow’? Ha, let’s see.
‘Tis very true, my grief lies all within … (4.1.292-294)

Richard is now the very picture of self-centred self-pity, but his subsequent murder haunts Henry IV and the nation as a whole for the rest of this series of plays.

It is not surprising that Elizabeth did not like this play being performed.  Dethroning a king is a not a good precedent. (Verdi had to convert the murdered king of The Masked Ball to a Governor of Boston to get it performed.)  Medieval kings were the Lord’s Anointed, and it was almost inevitable that Richard would see himself as some Christ-like figure betrayed by Judas and arraigned by Pilate.  Indeed, some see in this play Richard enduring the Stations of the Cross.

He loses it completely, as we now say, at times, as shown by his shift in pronouns in:
I had forgot myself: am I not King?
Awake, thou coward majesty! Thou sleepest.
Is not the King’s name twenty thousand names?
Arm my name!  A puny subject strikes
At thy great glory.  Look not to the ground,
Ye favourites of a king, are we not high?
High be our thoughts. (3.2.83-9)

Bolingbroke has shown his intention to take control by executing his opponents before he was crowned. He said that ‘to wash your blood / From off my hands’ (3.1.5-7) he will say why they die. Richard refers to:

… some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands. (4.1.238)

And right at the end, Bolingbroke, now the King, says:
I’ll make a voyage to the Holy Land,
To wash this blood from off my guilty hand. (5.6.49-50)

Going on a Crusade was a way of doing penance and getting remission from sins for those who subscribed to the medieval church, which was everyone in the Middle Ages.  This was all still real to Elizabethan audiences.  For us, Richard is a shallow man not up to his job – 10 for noblesse; 0 for oblige.  Richard had a weak, effeminate, showman side.  Coleridge said Shakespeare did not mean to represent Richard as ‘a vulgar debauchee, but merely as a wantonness in feminine shew, feminine friendism, intensely woman-like love of those immediately about him, mistaking the delight of being loved by him for love for him.’

Coleridge also said that Richard endeavoured to ‘shelter himself from that which is around him by a cloud of his own thoughts’ and went on:

Throughout his whole career may be noticed the most rapid transitions – from the highest insolence to the lowest humility – from hope to despair, from the extravagance of love to the agonies of resentment, and from pretended resignation to the bitterest reproaches.  The whole is joined with the utmost richness and copiousness of thought, and were there an actor capable of representing Richard, the part would delight us more than any other of Shakespeare’s masterpieces – with perhaps, the single exception of King Lear.

We may agree with Coleridge, especially since we found the actor capable of representing Richard.  For people who love language and care for history, Richard II is the play. The best way to take this play is with the Gielgud recording.  Derek Jacobi did not under-camp the role in the BBC production.

We should not leave this play without referring to some of its most famous lines:
This royal throne of kings, this scept’red isle,
This earth of majesty, the seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise
This fortress built by nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happy lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England, This nurse, this teaming womb of royal kings … (2.1.40 – 51)

It is by such things that nations are formed and history is made. The author has as good a title as any to be called the greatest historian of his own nation.

Macaulay on Shakespeare

/ Geoffrey Gibson / Leave a comment

Macaulay was rarely shy about hoisting his standard.

Perhaps no person can be a poet, or can even enjoy poetry, without a certain unsoundness of mind…. By poetry we mean the art of employing words in such a manner as to produce an illusion on the imagination, the art of doing by means of words what the painter does by means of colours.  (You will see Debussy put beside Impressionist painters like Monet for a similar analogy.) …. Truth indeed is essential to poetry.  The reasonings are just; but the premises are false.  (I do not follow that.)

…. it is the constant manner of Shakespeare to represent the human mind as lying, not under the absolute dominion of one despotic propensity, but under a mixed government, in which a hundred powers balance each other.  Admirable as he was in all parts of his art, we most admire him for this, that while he has left us a greater number of striking portraits than all other dramatists put together, he has scarcely left us a single caricature.

That is a useful reminder not to apply labels to any of the output of this genius.

But it is not by speeches of self-analysis, however great they may be in force and spirit, that the great masters of human nature have portrayed human beings…Shakespeare never tells us that in the mind of Iago, everything that is beautiful and endearing was associated with some filthy and debasing idea.

That looks spot on about Iago – and John Claggart in Billy Budd.

Macaulay did of course have notorious prejudices – against, say, Marlborough and Penn.  (He got himself tied up in knots over Glencoe because his pin-up boy, William of Orange, signed the warrant.) 

And he could show his prejudices in discussing letters, as in this pearler:

The conversation between Brutus and Cassius in the First Act of Julius Caesar is worth the whole French drama ten times over, while the working up of Brutus by Cassius, the stirring of the mob by Antony, and – above all – the dispute and reconciliation of the two generals, are things far beyond the reach of any other poet that ever lived.

Whoa!  Steady, Tom.  That is just the kind of thing that made de Gaulle so hard to handle.

And your reference to reconciliation may have suited the Victorian epoch, but the parts you first mention are immediately followed by the scene where the inflamed mob massacres an innocent poet, and then there is the scene where the not so innocent conspirators settle their hit lists.  I know of no more gripping theatre on our stage.  It is simply breathtaking.

Shakespeare’s Kings in Their Time

/ Geoffrey Gibson / Leave a comment

It was always yet the trick of the English nation if they have a good thing to make it common.

Death, as the Psalmist saith, is certain to all; all shall die.  How a good yoke of Bullocks at Stamforth Fair?

Shakespeare wrote his ten English history plays when it suited him.  It is instructive to view both the history of England and his development in the chronological order of the plays.  (The references to the shows are to those on Arkangel.)

King John (1199-1216)

(c1596)

This is a vitally medieval play – the king against his barons; the French against the English; and God and his Church over all.  We may as well be on Mars – but for the humanity of the playwright.  It is about perfidy and treachery on high – a favourite theme in drama. 

But the actors that get to us are not noble –the Bastard ( the son of Richard Coeur de Lion), Hubert, and the Papal Legate (Pandulph) – put there to fire up a Tudor Protestant audience (and the modern one I was in when in London once).  Constance is a pain.  (Very unlike Connie in The Godfather.)   The bastard is like a Greek chorus on the nobles – and he prefigures the politician.  Hubert is humanity in the raw – and an English man to boot.

King John is a rat.  He is the epitome of weakness – he urges brutal murder – and then he blames the chosen killer – who has had to defy ‘superior orders’.  The king is one of God’s gifts to the English – provocative but containable.  (The Stuarts in embryo.)  He would lead ineluctably to rebellion and Magna Carta – the foundation of the rule of law. 

Bill Nighy as Pandulph is insidiously malicious – like a gliding taipan in uncut grass.  The intervention of a foreign potentate will come to an end in the last of these history plays, Henry VIII.  The ‘supremacy’ vainly asserted by King John is a reality under King Harry.  What a difference a king makes. 

This  play is in my view sadly very underrated as theatre.  It  is high political drama.

Richard II (1377-1399)

(c1595)

Possibly because the first recording of Shakespeare that I bought had Sir John Gielgud in this role, it has remained very high in my favourites.  It has the aural beauty of Iussi Björling.  As a passion play, it has the pathetic majesty of The Saint Matthew Passion.  (And the recording has Leo McKern groaning that this other Eden is ‘now leased out’ – King John had hocked the kingdom to the Vatican.)

Another weak king is brought to heel – this time terminally, by deposition and death.  Put to one side the law – if a medieval English king did not measure up, he risked being deposed – on a good day.  It is the familiar story of a weak king surrounded by flatterers.  The play starts with full medieval chivalry – that would be detonated in the next play.  The last Plantagenet aborts the process of the law and then unlawfully seizes the property of one side.  This is the dilemma of the whole series – if you take the law into your own hands, how do you stop someone doing the same to you?  ‘How are you a king but by fair sequence and succession?’

Bolingbroke reminds me of the Inquisitor of El Greco – shifty.  And with him we now get populism and a new world.  He is seen to court the commons – ‘Off goes his bonnet to an oyster wench.’  Dead right.  He is the first spin doctor.  He will school his son in stealing ‘all courtesy from heaven’ – and young Harry will be a ready pupil in or out of the stews of London.  We will even get the phrase ‘vile politician’.  When the coup is complete, the rebels prefigure the Inquisition and Stalin.  They want to give a ‘confession’ to the Commons.  The flatterers had said that the love of the Commons ‘lies in their purses’ – how very modern!   And this is another play where a ‘misunderstanding’ leads to the execution of a king or an heir. 

But here is pathos not seen since the Greeks – in the most operatic play ever written.  Rupert Graves grows into the role as the hero softens in his crashing descent.

Henry IV (1399-1413)

(c1597; c1599)

The whole world has changed.  In the second scene of the first of these two plays – which many say are the best this playwright put on the stage – it explodes with the entrance of his most famous character, Sir John Falstaff – and theatre would never be the same again.  Falstaff is fat, old, a liar, a coward, a drunk, a thief, and a womaniser – and that’s on a good day.  But the audience loves him.  He is the living repudiation of honour and chivalry, and he arrived at about the same time as Don Quixote, who was on a similar mission.  But he has that most priceless attribute on the stage – he endears himself to the audience.

So does Percy Hotspur, that most feisty son of Northumberland (who had taunted Richard II, while Percy mocked the heir apparent).  He carries the audience with his reckless energy: he embodies the old world of chivalry.  He is in truth a hero, of the kind Wagner never got close to.  And he too rushes like a torrent to his inevitable death.  Percy also stands for the provincial nobility and the seeds of the Wars of the Roses.  ‘An if we live, we live to tread on kings’.

There is very little that is endearing about Prince Hal.  He is cold and calculating.  He will use Falstaff and his rough mates and others in the taverns until it suits him to drop them.  He is two faced, and in some cultures repudiating a mate is the ultimate crime.  Percy calls him a ‘vile politician’ – ‘a fawning greyhound’ who proffers ‘a candy deal of courtesy.’  Falstaff said Hal is ‘essentially mad without seeming so’.  Auden did not hold back.  He says ‘Hal has no self.’  Auden compares the ‘scoundrel’ Henry V with Richard III.  ‘Hal is the type who becomes a college president, a government head, and one hates their guts.’  Boy – does that ring a bell! 

At least Hal is honest.  ‘I’ll so offend to make offence a skill.’  Say hullo to Boris.  Hotspur?  ‘It were an easy leap to pluck bright honor from  the pale-faced moon.’  Falstaff?  ‘What is honor?  A word.’

Richard Griffith and Alan Cox are up for the leads and the tavern scene is a triumph.

Those who seek to exculpate Hal for his premeditated betrayal of Falstaff are blinded by the poetry, and forget that the object of the game for Shakespeare was to give the audience a great show – one that tells big truths.  If Hal stands for chivalry, was not Falstaff right to repudiate it?  And might we say the same for Hotspur, who seemed to think more of his horse than Kate and who resembles the crazy Siegfried as he staggers laughing to his doom?

In Part I, we get stews and pubs like those in Measure for Measure.  In Part II, we get the middle class and landed gentry like those in Merry Wives of Windsor.  We are a very long way from King John and the feudal barons, and the word ‘feudal’ was not in use then – and Rome is nowhere in sight. 

The whole mood is now autumnal.  ‘We have heard the chimes at midnight.’  (And somehow, I see the gaze of Orson Welles flickering in the firelight.)  And another son of Bolingbroke breaks his word in a way that would have thrilled Hitler, before we get to the scene of the transmission of the Crown – and there are not many scenes as strong as that.

Someone said that watching Shakespeare was like touching the face of God.  Falstaff is a paternal Master of Fun with roots in commedia.  But, as Sir Anthony Quayle said, he is also ‘frankly vicious.’  Well, he is human and so are we.  That I think led Tony Tanner to say that we ‘invariably feel a spasm of pleasure and liberation when someone blows the gaffe on human nature as Falstaff so often, consciously or subconsciously, does.’

That’s when you hear the chimes at midnight.  It is pure alchemy.  Which is to say: it is beyond analysis. It is, like the Pieta, what it is.

(Opera-goers might note that the Falstaff of Verdi, my favourite of his operas, is not that of these plays, but the watered down and worn-down version of Merry Wives of Windsor – a rom.com that the poets turn their noses up on.)

But there remains the conundrum of Falstaff.  He trades in human souls.  He figures that only three of his 150 ragamuffins will survive the battle.  The Hostess complains that she has been ‘fubbed off, fubbed off, and fubbed off.’  The truth is that Falstaff rides roughshod over the whole lot of them.  All chivalry is gone.  It was at best a pretty conceit to soften the brutality of the ethnic cleansing of the Crusades.

Donald Trump could have modelled himself on Sir John.  If you are going to lie, lie big.  The more you outrage the Establishment, the more popular you shall be.  He gets away with things quite out of our reach.  We should forever bear in mind the caution of Dr Johnson. 

The moral to be drawn is that no man is more dangerous than he that with a will to corrupt hath the power to please ;and that neither wit nor honesty ought to think themselves safe with such a companion when they see Henry seduced by Falstaff.

Or vice versa.

And at the end – there is a new player.  ‘Now call we our high court of Parliament.’  And the next play begins with power brokers discussing a bill in the Commons.  The political landscape is shifting massively.

Henry V (1413-1422)

(c1599)

Prince Hal is now King Henry.  As promised, he has cast off Falstaff et al and he is justly blamed for Falstaff’s death.  He and the Holy Church are fit to prey on each other.  The Church will fund a war of national pride.  Honour.  This leads to posturing on both sides.  And tennis balls.  And bloody carnage.

The puppeteer can now play deadly games with traitors before issuing blood-red threats of war crimes before the gates of Harfleur.  Then he presides over the death of Bardolph with sickening hypocrisy.  ‘I know you not old man’ becomes ‘We would have all such offenders so cut off.’  Then he does commit a war crime by ordering the killing of prisoners.  Olivier and Branagh left that out.  For Olivier and Churchill, the Second World War was the reason: I am not sure for Branagh.  Those who do not paint the full picture leave us with Kiplingesque jingoism that is not Shakespeare, no matter how much it warms the cockles at home.  Auden thought ‘the most brutal scene in Shakespeare is Henry’s wooing of Katherine’, and I know what he means.

The scene of the death of Falstaff comes from the gutter.  It is wonderful theatre.  No other playwright has claimed this range.  And at the end, Harry still plays games with those beneath him.  Narcissus to the end.

Henry VI (1422-1461, 1470-1471)

(c1592- 1596)

‘The cease of majesty’.  These three plays are about the weakest king, and the strongest queen, my favourite character, Queen Margaret, the She Wolf of France, especially as played by the immortal Dame Peggy Ashcroft.  (A younger David Tennant is just right as this pathetic young king – like a lost child late for Sunday School.)

But somehow the times are out of joint.  Perhaps here the sequence of composition asserts itself and we seem to be going backward.  There is a jolt – a palpable jolt.  The fingerprints of the Church pervade.  Crashing warrior barons clash with each other and crash out of France.  A champion woman is cruelly treated because she is French – an English failing, and not this author’s high point.  It all feels so medieval.  There are king-makers whom no king can ignore.  And, then, for the first time, we see the masses rise up in the rebellion of Jack Cade: about three hundred years before the French Revolution.  (And that sounds about right on the scales of history.)

But above all, we see the inhuman misery of a weak monarchy and a grizzly civil war, that people I respect simply cannot bear to listen to.  It is like Mad Max.  The Wars of the Roses will be the last hoorah of the magnates.  Next, the English will celebrate Religious Home Rule in the Reformation, and the Stuart kings will cede sovereignty to Parliament. 

Perhaps my editor may forgive me for quoting my favourite lines of Queen Maragaret once again hissed out by Peggy Ashcroft.

Where are your mess of sons to back you now?
The wanton Edward, and the lusty George?
And where’s that valiant crook-back prodigy,
Dicky your boy, that with his grumbling voice
Was wont to cheer his dad in mutinies?
Or, with the rest, where is your darling Rutland?

They would have blushed at that out the outer at Windy Hill or Victoria Park in 1948, the year of the blood premiership.  Even Quentin Tarantino might pause.  This is a long way from Midsummer night’s Dream, and this playwright is nothing if not rounded.

Taken as a whole, the three plays are I think sadly underestimated.  There is plenty of blood and guts.  Kings and nobles were in the front in the wars, but this was a time when winners could cut the heads off their enemies and display them in triumph.  In that they were savages.  Kings and nobles were merely human – but, like the rest of us, capable of dragging us back to the primeval slime. 

There are family or tribal vendettas like those in The Godfather.  The howling protests of the father and son in Part II have no parallel on our stage.  Chivalry?  A ‘gigolot wench’ looks with contempt at the ‘stinking and fly-blown’ corpse of a noble – who had murdered a child in cold blood. 

The plays are intensely political – and politics are about people, not policies.  It was only a matter of  time before the playwright let sex rear its potent head.  There is wall to wall duplicity – and faction, and grinding discord in the caucus.  One faction resorts to murder; another incites the mob to rebellion.  If you cannot get rid of your opponent lawfully, do what you must for the good of the state – or for your party – or for yourself.  What is the upshot of that policy?  ‘I am myself alone.’  And he is the subject of the last of this quartet of plays.

Richard III (1483-1485)

(c1597)

At the start of Act 4 in Part III, we see a bitchy split in the York brothers when Edward IV puts his sex drive before the crown.  Clarence defects.  Richard gives notice of future horrors.  Judas had nothing on him – played by David Troughton with lascivious malice.  ‘I am myself alone…Counting myself but bad til I be best.’

From weakness at the top and chaos below, to evil and misery everywhere.  The trouble is that this evil king sucks us the audience in with him.  The style and ambience are all so different.  This man lives for conflict – that is his oxygen: a small-scale Napoleon or Hitler or Trump.  He will be the last unguided missile to sit on the English throne, and the earth sighs with relief at his inevitable fall. 

This Richard has at least two things in common with Donald Trump.  First, his ego does not allow for a superego, or conscience.  Secondly, and relatedly, ‘he hath no friends but what are friends for fear / Which in his dearest need will fly from him.’  It is just a matter of time before someone who gets too close is cut off – with extreme prejudice.  ‘Richard loves Richard, that is I am I.’

Franco, the Caudillo, used to read through the sentences of death of his enemies while taking his coffee after a meal, often in the presence of his personal priest.   He would write an ‘E’ against those he decided should be executed, and a ‘C’ when commuting the sentence.  For those he considered needed to be made a conspicuous example, he wrote ‘garrote y prensa’ (garrotting and press coverage).  Richard wanted to be told after supper in detail how the two infant princes died – after which he will again be ‘a jolly thriving wooer’.  Well, you could not levy that charge against Hitler, but the psychotic paring is there – and it all gets a bit too much.  The dramatic technique is evolving, but I still prefer the regal tragedy of Richard II.

But this author and producer has now found his feet, and he knows how to play with us.  If you can go the distance with the whole play, it is worth it.  It has about it the aura of an ancient Greek family cursed by fate, with discarded queens hissing curses from a barbed wire fence.  In that way, it is utterly timeless, as is the remark that all power corrupts. 

Plus ça change….

Henry VIII (1509-1547)

(c1613)

Home waters at last as in Yes, Minister – power, greed, corruption, deceit – and pure bullshit.  Above all , put not your trust in princes. 

The king has imposed a tax that makes him unpopular.  Naturally, he blames his first minister, and tells him to fix it.  In turn, the first minister, Wolsey, summons a flack: ‘let it be noised that through our intercession this relief comes.’  Sir Humphrey Appleby, eat your heart out.

It is a play of people falling from a great height, pushed by a randy British bulldog, not much of a rock to build a church on.  ‘Then in a moment, see how soon this mightiness meets misery.’  Given that the Armada and Guy Fawkes were well within living memory, Queen Katherine (Jane Lapotare as I saw it at Stratford and heard on Arkangel) is extraordinarily generously dealt with by Shakespeare, and the authors do not shy away from the issue of the impact of Harry’s sex drive on this world-shaking constitutional issue.  It is masked by high ceremony, that the English are so good at.  Buckingham feels ‘the long divorce of steel’, and the Queen and the Cardinal go their ways to God. 

Timothy West was made to play Cardinal Wolsey.  This ‘holy fox’ is the archetype of the modern politician.  He intrigues with the Vatican to prevent the king marrying Lady Anne, ‘a spleeny Lutheran’ – and he gets caught, and sacked.  When told of the appointment of Sir Thomas More: ‘That’s somewhat sudden.’  When told of the marriage of Anne: ‘There was the weight that pulled me down.’  In the end, he might resemble an up-market Paroles.  The kind Griffith, Katherine’s usher, said of him after his death: ‘His overthrow heaped happiness upon him/ For then and not until then, he felt himself.’  That is very Shakespeare – as is the remark about Cranmer – ‘He has strangled language /In his tears.’

Paul Jesson plays Henry VIII as a vicious manipulator, a man who fancies dark corners.  He reminds me of Churchill on Stalin – as I recall, it was to the effect that he smiled like a crocodile.  (I was told never to get between one and the water; with Putin, you steer clear of sixth floor windows.)  Lytton Strachey said that ‘the Defender of the Faith combined in a peculiar manner the unpleasant vices of meanness and brutality; no! he made the Reformation – he saved England – he was a demi-god.’  It would be left to a daughter to put a humane face on the House of God.

But Archbishop Cranmer survives in a great scene when the king puts the gutless plotters to shame.  It is wonderful theatre when the accused shows his accusers the royal seal.  It could be an ALP caucus in 1948 or a Liberal Party caucus in 2024.  And it is not kind to one of those leading the posse – Sir Thomas More – who would have to be axed before he could be ensainted.  (Which Rome was inclined to do for those killed by English kings.  Henry VIII was furious about their treatment of Becket.)

The king does not get his son, but the now Stuart audience gets a ritual salute to the birth of the daughter, Elizabeth Gloriana.  OK – this is propaganda, butto my mind, this play, although not intended as such, sits well as the epilogue of a great historical cycle.

And if you look back at this motley of kings, there is no stand-out.  This playwright was not there to glorify his kings – although his warmth to the realm is everywhere.  Rather, he is there to show us not just English kings, but the humanity in all of us.  And no one else has got even close.

I am forever reminded of that remark of Richard Burton, when he referred to the ‘staggering compassion’ of William Shakespeare.  The full comment in the diary was –

What chance combination of genes went to the making of that towering imagination, that brilliant gift of words, that staggering compassion, that understanding of all human frailty, that total absence of pomposity, that wit, that pun, that joy in words and the later agony.  It seems that he wrote everything worth writing and the rest of his fraternity have merely fugued on his million themes….