Edward II

In some previous posts I noted that I had read in several places that Shakespeare's early work was influenced by interaction with his contemporary, Christopher Marlowe. I had certainly known about Marlowe, but had never knew much about him, nor had I read any of his works. That changed last night when I finished Marlowe's one English history play, "Edward II."

The historical Edward II was probably one of England's worse kings - catering to favorites, in conflict with his nobles to the point of the Civil War. The end result was Edward's deposition in favor of his son, Edward III who would go on to be a great medieval king. Interestingly Edward II's, father and his son were both great English kings. After his deposition, Edward II was brutally murdered, for medieval kings giving up the crown usually meant giving up one's life as well.

The first two acts of Marlowe's play focus on the conflict between Edward and his nobles over the kings favorite - Gaveson - a relationship that Marlowe makes pretty clear was homosexual in nature. What struck me about these first two acts was the frenetic nature of the pace - Gaveson is recalled from exile, barely arrives and is exiled again, just leaves for exile and is recalled again and then on his return is condemned and executed. Trying to visualize it on the stage made me feel like it would be like watching a movie where the film is being shown at too fast a speed - sort of like the Keystone Cops.

In fact, that was sort of my reaction to the first four acts - they were episodic in nature at a pace that seemed to allow little time to develop anything in any depth. Surprisingly all of this seemed to change in Act V. At this point Edward has been deposed and is in prison while his queen and Mortimer are plotting his murder. All of the sudden the action seemed to slow down, creating drama about the events and making Edward appear almost sympathetic which is no small feat. There are similarities between the both the historical and the dramatic Edward II and Richard II. I have always found Richard II to be about as unsympathetic a character as there is, but Edward goes even beyond that with his obsessions first with Gaveson and then with Spencer.

One of the things I noticed in reading the introduction to the play was critical commentary suggesting that "Edward II" is really not a history play because it doesn't address any of the issues typical of that genre. Rather it is the story of people who just happen to be in those positions - perhaps if the characters weren't kings and nobles, nobody would care. I think there is something in that view of the play. I didn't come away feeling I had learned anything about kingship or leadership as I do in Shakespeare's plays. The lessons appear to have more to do with the dangers of obsessions with someone or something. Edward II's obsessions seem extreme, but that may be artistic license to make a point. In any event I came away with another reminder of the importance of balance in one's life - an important lesson for anyone, king or not.