William Shakespeare: A Critical Study. Georg Brandes

as his first attempt at independent treatment of a historical theme, and it rises far above the play which served as its model.

      The action follows pretty faithfully the course of history as the poet found it in Holinshed's Chronicle. The character of the Queen, however, is quite unhistorical, being evidently invented by Shakespeare for the sake of having a woman in his play. He wanted to gain sympathy for Richard through his wife's devotion to him, and saw an opportunity for pathos in her parting from him when he is thrown into prison. In 1398, when the play opens, Isabella of France was not yet ten years old, though she had nominally been married to Richard in 1396. Finally, the King's end, fighting bravely, sword in hand, is not historical: he was starved to death in prison, in order that his body might be exhibited without any wound.

      Shakespeare has vouchsafed no indication to facilitate the spectators' understanding of the characters in this play. Their action often takes us by surprise. But Swinburne has done Shakespeare a great wrong in making this a reason for praising Marlowe at his expense, and exalting the subordinate characters in Edward II. as consistent pieces of character-drawing, while he represents as inconsistent and obscure such a personage as Shakespeare's York. We may admit that in the opening scene Norfolk's figure is not quite clear, but here all obscurity ends. York is self-contradictory, unprincipled, vacillating, composite, and incoherent, but in no sense obscure. He in the first place upbraids the King with his faults, then accepts at his hands an office of the highest confidence, then betrays the King's trust, while he at the same time overwhelms the rebel Bolingbroke with reproaches, then admires the King's greatness in his fall, then hastens his dethronement, and finally, in virtuous indignation over Aumerle's plots against the new King, rushes to him to assure him of his fidelity and to clamour for the blood of his own son. There lies at the root of this conception a profound political bitterness and an early-acquired experience. Shakespeare must have studied attentively that portion of English history which lay nearest to him, the shufflings and vacillations that went on under Mary and Elizabeth, in order to have received so deep an impression of the pitifulness of political instability.

      The character of old John of Gaunt, loyal to his King, but still more to his country, gives Shakespeare his first opportunity for expressing his exultation over England's greatness and his pride in being an Englishman. He places in the mouth of the dying Gaunt a superbly lyrical outburst of patriotism, deploring Richard's reckless and tyrannical policy. All comparison with Marlowe is here at an end. Shakespeare's own voice makes itself clearly heard in the rhetoric of this speech, which, with its self-controlled vehemence, its equipoise in unrest, soars high above Marlowe's wild magniloquence. In the thunderous tones of old Gaunt's invective against the King who has mortgaged his English realm, we can hear all the patriotic enthusiasm of young England in the days of Elizabeth:—

      "This royal throne of kings, this sceptr'd isle,

       This earth of majesty, this 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 happier lands;

       This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

       This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,

       Fear'd by their breed, and famous by their birth,

       . . . . . . . . . .

       This land of such dear souls, this dear, dear land,

       Dear for her reputation through the world,

       Is now leas'd out, I die pronouncing it,

       Like to a tenement, or pelting farm.

       England, bound in with the triumphant sea,

       Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege

       Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,

       With inky blots, and rotten parchment bonds:

       That England, that was wont to conquer others,

       Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

       Ah! would the scandal vanish with my life,

       How happy then were my ensuing death!" (ii. I).

      Here we have indeed the roar of the young lion, the vibration of Shakespeare's own voice.

      But it is upon the leading character of the play that the poet has centred all his strength; and he has succeeded in giving a vivid and many-sided picture of the Black Prince's degenerate but interesting son. As the protagonist of a tragedy, however, Richard has exactly the same defects as Marlowe's Edward. In the first half of the play he so repels the spectator' that nothing he can do in the second half suffices to obliterate the unfavourable impression. Not only has he, before the opening of the piece, committed such thoughtless and politically indefensible acts as have proved him unworthy of the great position he holds, but he behaves with such insolence to the dying Gaunt, and, after his uncle's death, displays such a low and despicable rapacity, that he can no longer appeal, as he does, to his personal right. It is true that the right of which he holds himself an embodiment is very different from the common earthly rights which he has overridden. He is religiously, dogmatically convinced of his inviolability as a king by the grace of God. But since this conviction, in his days of prosperity, has brought with it no sense of correlative duties to the crown he wears, it cannot touch the reader's sympathies as it ought to for the sake of the general effect.

      We see the hand of the beginner in the way in which the poet here leaves characters and events to speak for themselves without any attempt to range them in a general scheme of perspective. He conceals himself too entirely behind his work. As there is no gleam of humour in the play, so, too, there is no guiding and harmonising sense of style.

      It is from the moment that the tide begins to turn against Richard that he becomes interesting as a psychological study. After the manner of weak characters, he is alternately downcast and overweening. Very characteristically, he at one place answers Bolingbroke's question whether he is content to resign the crown: "Ay, no;—no, ay." In these syllables we see the whole man. But his temperament was highly poetical, and misfortune reveals in him a vein of reverie. He is sometimes profound to the point of paradox, sometimes fantastically overwrought to the verge of superstitious insanity (see, for instance, Act iii. 3). His brooding melancholy sometimes reminds us of Hamlet's—

      "Of comfort no man speak:

       Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;

       Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes

       Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.

       Let's choose executors, and talk of wills:

       . . . . . . . .

       For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground,

       And tell sad stories of the death of kings:—How

       some have been depos'd, some slain in war,

       Some haunted by the ghosts they have depos'd.

       Some poison'd by their wives, some sleeping kill'd,

       All murder'd:—for within the hollow crown,

       That rounds the mortal temples of a king,

       Keeps Death his court, and there the antick sits,

       Scoffing his state, and grinning at his pomp;

       Allowing him a breath, a little scene,

       To monarchise, be fear'd, and kill with looks" (iii. 2).

      In these moods of depression, in which Richard gives his wit and intellect free play, he knows very well that a king is only a human being like any one else:—

      "For you have but mistook me all this while:

       I live with bread like you,