close
A Discussion Characters’ Selfhood/ Social Status as Tragic Cause in EdwardⅡ
There are many elements leads to tragic misfortune or death in the tragedy includes fate, selfhood, tragic flaw, and so on. For instance, Oedipus the King is a typical tragedy which is caused by the fate and character’s selfhood with tragic flaw. In some critic’s interpretation, EdwardⅡ likes one of Marlowe’s play, Doctor Faustus, is a tragedy about the quest for selfhood. But I also think in this play, character’s social status also results in their tragic ending. Hence, in this paper, I would like to quote some critics’ views to reveal which is the cause for this tragedy: selfhood or social status.
First of all, I would like to talk about character’s selfhood. In the tragedy, some character’s selfhoods often accompany with his/her tragic flaw, and his/her tragic flaw leads into his/her misfortune. I would like to use the definition on tragic flaw from A Glossary of Literary Terms. According to A Glossary of Literary Terms, “ tragic flaw (One common form of hamartia in Greek tragedies was hubris, that “pride’’ or overweening self-confidence which leads a protagonist to disregard a divine warning to violate an important moral law)” (322). In this tragedy, the protagonist, Edward II is proud; he disregards the suggestion from his councilor. For example, his councilor and his younger brother all suggest him to banish his minion, Gaveston out of the kingdom but he refuses. Aristotle portrays these characters whose personality accompanies with the tragic flaw as the tragic hero. In A Glossary of Literary Terms’s view, Aristotle refers tragic hero:
Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is “better than we are,” in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led by his hamartia－his “error of judgment,’’ or , as it is often though less literally translated, his tragic flaw. (322)
I would like to talk about character’s selfhood and focus on two characters, the protagonist, Edward II, the king, and his younger brother Kent. There is a key shift on their selfhood between these two characters. At first, I would like to refer the protagonist’s selfhood with tragic flaw and his realization. Edward II is a king who wants to be a king, uses his authority to rule over his people and fulfills his pleasure and desire. We can found Edward’s proudness to be a king from the dialogue:
EDWARD. Nay, then lay violent hands upon your king.
Here, Mortimer, sit thou in Edward’s throne;
Warwick and Lancaster, wear you my crown.
Was ever king thus overruled as I? (1.4.35-8)
In my own interpretation, it shows Edward II warns his councilors, Mortimer Junior, Warwick and Lancaster that their behaviors threaten his throne. Even he uses “overrule” to show he is a stubborn person, he doesn’t want to listen people’s advices, he doesn’t want to someone denies his decision. In this play, Edward decides to make his minion, Gaveston stay in the kingdom but his councilor all refuses his request. Also we can found Edward is a tyrant from the dialogue about the bishop of Coventry refuses to follow king’s expectation:
EDWARD. Throw off his golden mitre, rend his stole,
And in the channel christen him anew. (1.1.187-88)
EDWARD. No, spare his life, but seize upon his goods.
Be thou lord bishop, and receive his rents,
And make him serve thee as thy chaplain.
I give him thee; here, use him as thou wilt.
GAVESTON. He shall to prison, and there die in bolts.
EDWARD. Ay, to the Tower, the Fleet, or where thou wilt.
BISHOP OF COVENTRY. For this offence be thou accursed
Of God. (1.1.192-98)
Edward II is a king but he doesn’t like to carry out his obligations and responsibilities for his people. We can found it from the dialogue between Mortimer Junior and Edward II while Mortimer Junior requests Edward II to pay the ransom for his uncle, Mortimer Senior who fights for him and be a captive:
MORTIMER JUNIOR. Mine uncle’s taken prisoner by the Scots.
EDWARD. Then ransom him.
LANCASTER. ’Twas in your wars: you should ransom
Him. (2.2.139-41)
EDWARD. Quiet yourself; you shall have the broad seal
To gather for him thoroughout the realm. (2.2.144-45)
I found Edward II is a king who is partial to his minion and disregards his councilor even if his councilor works hard for him. I would like to quote the dialogue which shows Edward II is extravagant and give many treasures to his minion to get his homosexual love:
EDWARD. (To GAVESTON) Thy worth, sweet friend, is far above
my gifts,
Therefore to equal it, receive my heart. (1.1.161-62)
EDWARD. Is Edward pleased with kingly regiment.
Fear’st thou thy person? Thou shalt have a guard.
Wants thou gold? Go to my treasury.
Wouldst thou be loved and feared? Receive my seal, (1.1.165-68)
We can found Edward is a partial king between the councilor and the minion’s case. In my own interpretation, Edward’s selfhood with tragic flaw includes proudness, stubbornness, arrogance, tyrannicalness, selfishness, irresponsibility, and partialness. According to Ian McAdam, “The kingdom does not really interest Edward at all, and he is soon willing to leave the “sharing” of the realm to others’’ (210). In McAdam’s view, “Edward II is portrayed as a child for he never achieves the stature necessary for him to commit a real tragic error, and his career involves the sense of incongruity of a child forced to take on the role of tragic hero” (210). In McAdam’s interpretation, “The king displays an odd combination of naivete and willfulness, behaving, as critics remark, like a spoiled child’’ (223). For McAdam, “The crown is in his eyes only a symbol of comfort and privilege to which he clings, rather than a reminder of the responsibility he has abused” to show why I have mentioned before about Edward II who would like to use his authority as the king rather than his obligations as the king (223). In addition to, I would like to refer Edward’s realization about him is aware of him doing something wrong while he is seized by the group of noble:
EDWARD. That wrongs their liege and sovereign, England’s king.
O Gaveston, it is for thee that I am wronged;
For me, both thou and both the Spencers died,
And for your sakes a thousand wrongs I’ll take.
The Spencers’ ghosts, whatever they remain, (5.3.40-4)
In McAdam’s view, “This dramatic technique is in itself significant, for Edward’s failure to speak for himself (here symbolic) underlines his later failure at self-assertion, at establishing an integrated, independent self” (209). In my own interpretation, Edward II’s misfortune caused by himself, his tragic flaw on disregarding all suggestion which deny his determination, and his blind insistence on making Gaveston stay in his kingdom.
Not only Edward II has tragic flaw on his selfhood but also his younger brother, Kent who also has his moral and intellectual confusion on his selfhood. But at first, I would like to talk about Kent’s standpoint between his brother and the councilor. In the beginning, Kent supports his older brother, King Edward II to oppose the group of noble:
KENT. Yet dare you brave the King unto his faces?
Brother, revenge it; and let these their heads
Preach upon poles for trespass of their tongues. (1.1.116-18)
But Kent changes his standpoint while his advice is refused by his brother, Edward II after Kent found his brother refuses to pay the ransom to save his councilor, Mortimer Senior who fights for him. We can found this dialogue between Kent and Edward II:
KENT. My lord, I see you love to Gaveston
Will be the ruin of the realm and you,
For now the wrathful nobles threaten wars;
And therefore, brother, banish him forever. (2.2.205-08)
KENT. Ay, and it grieves me that I favoured him.
EDWARD. Traitor, be gone; whine thou with Mortimer.
KENT. So will I, rather than with Gaveston. (2.2.210-12)
KENT. No marvel though thou scorn thy noble peers,
When I thy brother am rejected thus. (2.2.214-15)
In my own interpretation, Kent is disappointed about his brother’s behaviors including disregards his councilor and neglects his precious advice. So Kent goes to the group of noble to compete against his brother, Edward II. In this play, the playwright, Christopher Marlowe changes Kent’s name into Edmund to show he is abandoned by his brother. Perhaps I should say he goes and seeks help from the group of noble. It is easily to make the reader get attention from his artful alteration. We can found Kent’s standpoint is totally different than before, from this dialogue:
EDMUND. A brother－no, a butcher of thy friends－
Proud Edward, dost thou banish me thy presence? (4.1.4-5)
EDMUND. And certify what Edward’s looseness is.
Unnatural king, to slaughter noblemen
And cherish flatterers. Mortimer, I stay
Thy sweet escape; stand gracious, gloomy night
To his device. (4.1.7-10)
Until Kent found Mortimer Junior’s ambition, he determines to save his older brother, King Edward II leave out of the prison. In this dialogue, Kent’s name change also shows his original standpoint on supporting the king coming back. We can found Kent’s standpoint is totally different than before from this dialogue:
KENT. This way he fled, but I am come too late.
Edward, alas, my heart relents for thee.
Proud traitor Mortimer, why dost thou chase
Thy lawful king, thy sovereign, with thy sword?
(Addressing himself) Vile wretch, and why hast thou,
of all unkind,
Borne arms against thy brother and thy king?
Rain showers of vengeance on my cursed head, (4.6.1-6)
In this dialogue, we can found that now Kent is pity for his brother, and regrets for he leaves his older brother before and anger to the leader of the group of noble, Mortimer Junior who opposes the king even seizes the king. But Kent also shows his wisdom to save his brother on this dialogue:
KENT. Edward, this Mortimer aims at thy life;
O fly him then! But Edmund, calm this rage;
Dissemble or thou diest, for Mortimer (4.6.10-12)
KENT. Mortimer shall know that he hath wronged me.
Hence will I haste to Kenilworth Castle
And rescue aged Edward from his foes,
To be revenged on Mortimer and thee. (5.2.117-20)
According to James Voss, Kent’s moral and intellectual confusion shows:
At each stage Kent’s perception seem justified he abandons Edward only when he feels that the king has gone too far in favoring Gaveston, and he experiences remorse only when he recognizes Mortimer’s True ambitions. Yet taken together, Kent’s perceptions of the ‘unnaturalness’ of each side’s position reveal the impossibility of choosing between them, at least within the conceptual framework of the traditional world view. (527)
In Voss’s view, “Kent suffers because the categories through which he views reality produce contradictory perceptions which lead him to act first in one way, and then in another. His own behavior comes to represent for him the lack of coherence in the world” (527).
In my own view, the tragic cause for Edward II and Kent’s misfortune is their selfhood with a tragic flaw. Also in my own interpretation, Edward II and Kent may be regarded as a tragic hero. Because these two characters also make mistakes lead into their tragic misfortune. For instances, Edward II makes a wrong choice about making Gaveston stay in the kingdom. According to MaAdam, “The moral sensitivity and emotional involvement make one “impractical” or ineffectual as an actor. Yet while both brothers are weak actors, the charity and concern in Kent’s character are contrasted with Edward’s self-involvement” (223).
Besides, I would like to talk about the social status as the tragic cause. In this play, it shows many conflicts between the group of noble and King’s minion. I would like to choose two characters to explore including Gaveston is the representative of King’s minion who is low-birth and Mortimer Junior is the representative of King’s councilor who is noble. And I would like to deal with my second topic through explore how the social status on Gaveston and Mortimer Junior lead into their misfortune.
Firstly, I would like to talk about the social status of Gaveston and influences of his presence at Edward II’s court. Gaveston is a peasant who is banished from the kingdom of England by the former king, Edward II’s father. But he comes back the kingdom with the support of Edward II. King’s councilors all look down on his social status even that is one of the reason why King’s councilors hate him even intends to kill him. Although his social status is low-birth the King gives the higher status to him because of his homosexual love. In the dialogue, it shows Edward II intends to create many titles to his minion, Gaveston to higher than the noble:
EDWARD. I here create thee Lord High Chamberlain,
Chief Secretary to the state and me,
Earl of Cornwall, King and Lord of Man.
GAVESTON. My lord, these titles far exceed my worth.
KENT. Brother, the least of these may well suffice
For one of greater birth than Gaveston. (1.1.154-59)
What’s more, I would like to talk about influences of his presence at Edward II’s court. In my own view, the presence of Gaveston is the latent threat to the noble. According to Voss, “The presence of Gaveston at Edward’s side threatens the ‘natural’ order of the kingdom, the network of commitments uniting the king and his peers in bonds of personal affection and respect and mutual” (519). In Voss’s view, “Gaveston’s presence at Edward’s side is seen as a threat, then, to the principle of inherited rank and power that supports the continuing influence and prestige of the traditional nobility in state life” (520). Hence, Gaveston’s tragic cause is the status includes his original status and his status as King’s minion due to his presence is latent threat to the noble and traditional conventions like the principle of rank.
In the second part, I would like to talk about the social status as tragic cause on Mortimer Junior. Mortimer Junior is a noble, as King’s councilor. Like the other’s councilor, his responsibility is suggests some advice to the King and joins the war for the King. But his advices are refused by the King due to the presence of Gaveston, his status is threatened. The noble as a king’s councilor must preserve the traditional convention. In this dialogue, it shows Mortimer Junior would like to prevent their traditional rule from the former dynasty:
MORTIMER JUNIOR. Mine uncle here, this earl, and I
myself
Were sworn to your father at his death,
That he should ne’er return into the realm:
And know, my lord, ere I will break my oath, (1.1.81-4)
In the beginning, Mortimer Junior is faithful to the king, his duty but the king, Edward II always disregards his advice even refuses to give some ransoms to him to save his uncle, Mortimer Senior. So Mortimer Junior is despair and determines to overthrow the king who deserted him.
In my own view, the tragic cause for Gaveston and Mortimer Junior’s misfortune is their social status and status for the king. Gaveston’s tragic misfortune due to him is king’s minion but Mortimer Junior’s tragic misfortune due to him is king’s councilor who is deserted even disregard by the king.
In my conclusion, in my own interpretation, perhaps there are two tragic causes leads to their misfortune, but I also think the social status is the fatal reason to result in these characters’ misfortune in this play. Because in this play, Edward II’s social status is King, Kent is King’s brother, Mortimer Junior is King’s councilor, and Gaveston is King’s minion. So their misfortune mainly cause by their social status. If they’re not relates to King and works in the court in the kingdom, perhaps they won’t get this misfortune.
Works Cited
Abrams, M.H. “Tragedy.’’ Def. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th. ed. 1999. Print.
Marlowe, Christopher. Edward II. The Routledge Anthology of Renaissance Drama. Ed. Simon Barker and Hilary Hinds. London: Routledge, 2003. 114-58. Print.
McAdam, Ian. “Edward II and the Illusion of Integrity.” Studies in Philology 92.2 (1995): 203-29. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 June 2012.
Voss, James. “Edward II: Marlowe’s Historical Tragedy.” English Studies 63.6 (1982): 517-30. Web. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 June 2012.
There are many elements leads to tragic misfortune or death in the tragedy includes fate, selfhood, tragic flaw, and so on. For instance, Oedipus the King is a typical tragedy which is caused by the fate and character’s selfhood with tragic flaw. In some critic’s interpretation, EdwardⅡ likes one of Marlowe’s play, Doctor Faustus, is a tragedy about the quest for selfhood. But I also think in this play, character’s social status also results in their tragic ending. Hence, in this paper, I would like to quote some critics’ views to reveal which is the cause for this tragedy: selfhood or social status.
First of all, I would like to talk about character’s selfhood. In the tragedy, some character’s selfhoods often accompany with his/her tragic flaw, and his/her tragic flaw leads into his/her misfortune. I would like to use the definition on tragic flaw from A Glossary of Literary Terms. According to A Glossary of Literary Terms, “ tragic flaw (One common form of hamartia in Greek tragedies was hubris, that “pride’’ or overweening self-confidence which leads a protagonist to disregard a divine warning to violate an important moral law)” (322). In this tragedy, the protagonist, Edward II is proud; he disregards the suggestion from his councilor. For example, his councilor and his younger brother all suggest him to banish his minion, Gaveston out of the kingdom but he refuses. Aristotle portrays these characters whose personality accompanies with the tragic flaw as the tragic hero. In A Glossary of Literary Terms’s view, Aristotle refers tragic hero:
Aristotle says that the tragic hero will most effectively evoke both our pity and terror if he is neither thoroughly good nor thoroughly bad but a mixture of both; and also that this tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is “better than we are,” in the sense that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is exhibited as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of his mistaken choice of an action, to which he is led by his hamartia－his “error of judgment,’’ or , as it is often though less literally translated, his tragic flaw. (322)
I would like to talk about character’s selfhood and focus on two characters, the protagonist, Edward II, the king, and his younger brother Kent. There is a key shift on their selfhood between these two characters. At first, I would like to refer the protagonist’s selfhood with tragic flaw and his realization. Edward II is a king who wants to be a king, uses his authority to rule over his people and fulfills his pleasure and desire. We can found Edward’s proudness to be a king from the dialogue:
EDWARD. Nay, then lay violent hands upon your king.
Here, Mortimer, sit thou in Edward’s throne;
Warwick and Lancaster, wear you my crown.
Was ever king thus overruled as I? (1.4.35-8)
In my own interpretation, it shows Edward II warns his councilors, Mortimer Junior, Warwick and Lancaster that their behaviors threaten his throne. Even he uses “overrule” to show he is a stubborn person, he doesn’t want to listen people’s advices, he doesn’t want to someone denies his decision. In this play, Edward decides to make his minion, Gaveston stay in the kingdom but his councilor all refuses his request. Also we can found Edward is a tyrant from the dialogue about the bishop of Coventry refuses to follow king’s expectation:
EDWARD. Throw off his golden mitre, rend his stole,
And in the channel christen him anew. (1.1.187-88)
EDWARD. No, spare his life, but seize upon his goods.
Be thou lord bishop, and receive his rents,
And make him serve thee as thy chaplain.
I give him thee; here, use him as thou wilt.
GAVESTON. He shall to prison, and there die in bolts.
EDWARD. Ay, to the Tower, the Fleet, or where thou wilt.
BISHOP OF COVENTRY. For this offence be thou accursed
Of God. (1.1.192-98)
Edward II is a king but he doesn’t like to carry out his obligations and responsibilities for his people. We can found it from the dialogue between Mortimer Junior and Edward II while Mortimer Junior requests Edward II to pay the ransom for his uncle, Mortimer Senior who fights for him and be a captive:
MORTIMER JUNIOR. Mine uncle’s taken prisoner by the Scots.
EDWARD. Then ransom him.
LANCASTER. ’Twas in your wars: you should ransom
Him. (2.2.139-41)
EDWARD. Quiet yourself; you shall have the broad seal
To gather for him thoroughout the realm. (2.2.144-45)
I found Edward II is a king who is partial to his minion and disregards his councilor even if his councilor works hard for him. I would like to quote the dialogue which shows Edward II is extravagant and give many treasures to his minion to get his homosexual love:
EDWARD. (To GAVESTON) Thy worth, sweet friend, is far above
my gifts,
Therefore to equal it, receive my heart. (1.1.161-62)
EDWARD. Is Edward pleased with kingly regiment.
Fear’st thou thy person? Thou shalt have a guard.
Wants thou gold? Go to my treasury.
Wouldst thou be loved and feared? Receive my seal, (1.1.165-68)
We can found Edward is a partial king between the councilor and the minion’s case. In my own interpretation, Edward’s selfhood with tragic flaw includes proudness, stubbornness, arrogance, tyrannicalness, selfishness, irresponsibility, and partialness. According to Ian McAdam, “The kingdom does not really interest Edward at all, and he is soon willing to leave the “sharing” of the realm to others’’ (210). In McAdam’s view, “Edward II is portrayed as a child for he never achieves the stature necessary for him to commit a real tragic error, and his career involves the sense of incongruity of a child forced to take on the role of tragic hero” (210). In McAdam’s interpretation, “The king displays an odd combination of naivete and willfulness, behaving, as critics remark, like a spoiled child’’ (223). For McAdam, “The crown is in his eyes only a symbol of comfort and privilege to which he clings, rather than a reminder of the responsibility he has abused” to show why I have mentioned before about Edward II who would like to use his authority as the king rather than his obligations as the king (223). In addition to, I would like to refer Edward’s realization about him is aware of him doing something wrong while he is seized by the group of noble:
EDWARD. That wrongs their liege and sovereign, England’s king.
O Gaveston, it is for thee that I am wronged;
For me, both thou and both the Spencers died,
And for your sakes a thousand wrongs I’ll take.
The Spencers’ ghosts, whatever they remain, (5.3.40-4)
In McAdam’s view, “This dramatic technique is in itself significant, for Edward’s failure to speak for himself (here symbolic) underlines his later failure at self-assertion, at establishing an integrated, independent self” (209). In my own interpretation, Edward II’s misfortune caused by himself, his tragic flaw on disregarding all suggestion which deny his determination, and his blind insistence on making Gaveston stay in his kingdom.
Not only Edward II has tragic flaw on his selfhood but also his younger brother, Kent who also has his moral and intellectual confusion on his selfhood. But at first, I would like to talk about Kent’s standpoint between his brother and the councilor. In the beginning, Kent supports his older brother, King Edward II to oppose the group of noble:
KENT. Yet dare you brave the King unto his faces?
Brother, revenge it; and let these their heads
Preach upon poles for trespass of their tongues. (1.1.116-18)
But Kent changes his standpoint while his advice is refused by his brother, Edward II after Kent found his brother refuses to pay the ransom to save his councilor, Mortimer Senior who fights for him. We can found this dialogue between Kent and Edward II:
KENT. My lord, I see you love to Gaveston
Will be the ruin of the realm and you,
For now the wrathful nobles threaten wars;
And therefore, brother, banish him forever. (2.2.205-08)
KENT. Ay, and it grieves me that I favoured him.
EDWARD. Traitor, be gone; whine thou with Mortimer.
KENT. So will I, rather than with Gaveston. (2.2.210-12)
KENT. No marvel though thou scorn thy noble peers,
When I thy brother am rejected thus. (2.2.214-15)
In my own interpretation, Kent is disappointed about his brother’s behaviors including disregards his councilor and neglects his precious advice. So Kent goes to the group of noble to compete against his brother, Edward II. In this play, the playwright, Christopher Marlowe changes Kent’s name into Edmund to show he is abandoned by his brother. Perhaps I should say he goes and seeks help from the group of noble. It is easily to make the reader get attention from his artful alteration. We can found Kent’s standpoint is totally different than before, from this dialogue:
EDMUND. A brother－no, a butcher of thy friends－
Proud Edward, dost thou banish me thy presence? (4.1.4-5)
EDMUND. And certify what Edward’s looseness is.
Unnatural king, to slaughter noblemen
And cherish flatterers. Mortimer, I stay
Thy sweet escape; stand gracious, gloomy night
To his device. (4.1.7-10)
Until Kent found Mortimer Junior’s ambition, he determines to save his older brother, King Edward II leave out of the prison. In this dialogue, Kent’s name change also shows his original standpoint on supporting the king coming back. We can found Kent’s standpoint is totally different than before from this dialogue:
KENT. This way he fled, but I am come too late.
Edward, alas, my heart relents for thee.
Proud traitor Mortimer, why dost thou chase
Thy lawful king, thy sovereign, with thy sword?
(Addressing himself) Vile wretch, and why hast thou,
of all unkind,
Borne arms against thy brother and thy king?
Rain showers of vengeance on my cursed head, (4.6.1-6)
In this dialogue, we can found that now Kent is pity for his brother, and regrets for he leaves his older brother before and anger to the leader of the group of noble, Mortimer Junior who opposes the king even seizes the king. But Kent also shows his wisdom to save his brother on this dialogue:
KENT. Edward, this Mortimer aims at thy life;
O fly him then! But Edmund, calm this rage;
Dissemble or thou diest, for Mortimer (4.6.10-12)
KENT. Mortimer shall know that he hath wronged me.
Hence will I haste to Kenilworth Castle
And rescue aged Edward from his foes,
To be revenged on Mortimer and thee. (5.2.117-20)
According to James Voss, Kent’s moral and intellectual confusion shows:
At each stage Kent’s perception seem justified he abandons Edward only when he feels that the king has gone too far in favoring Gaveston, and he experiences remorse only when he recognizes Mortimer’s True ambitions. Yet taken together, Kent’s perceptions of the ‘unnaturalness’ of each side’s position reveal the impossibility of choosing between them, at least within the conceptual framework of the traditional world view. (527)
In Voss’s view, “Kent suffers because the categories through which he views reality produce contradictory perceptions which lead him to act first in one way, and then in another. His own behavior comes to represent for him the lack of coherence in the world” (527).
In my own view, the tragic cause for Edward II and Kent’s misfortune is their selfhood with a tragic flaw. Also in my own interpretation, Edward II and Kent may be regarded as a tragic hero. Because these two characters also make mistakes lead into their tragic misfortune. For instances, Edward II makes a wrong choice about making Gaveston stay in the kingdom. According to MaAdam, “The moral sensitivity and emotional involvement make one “impractical” or ineffectual as an actor. Yet while both brothers are weak actors, the charity and concern in Kent’s character are contrasted with Edward’s self-involvement” (223).
Besides, I would like to talk about the social status as the tragic cause. In this play, it shows many conflicts between the group of noble and King’s minion. I would like to choose two characters to explore including Gaveston is the representative of King’s minion who is low-birth and Mortimer Junior is the representative of King’s councilor who is noble. And I would like to deal with my second topic through explore how the social status on Gaveston and Mortimer Junior lead into their misfortune.
Firstly, I would like to talk about the social status of Gaveston and influences of his presence at Edward II’s court. Gaveston is a peasant who is banished from the kingdom of England by the former king, Edward II’s father. But he comes back the kingdom with the support of Edward II. King’s councilors all look down on his social status even that is one of the reason why King’s councilors hate him even intends to kill him. Although his social status is low-birth the King gives the higher status to him because of his homosexual love. In the dialogue, it shows Edward II intends to create many titles to his minion, Gaveston to higher than the noble:
EDWARD. I here create thee Lord High Chamberlain,
Chief Secretary to the state and me,
Earl of Cornwall, King and Lord of Man.
GAVESTON. My lord, these titles far exceed my worth.
KENT. Brother, the least of these may well suffice
For one of greater birth than Gaveston. (1.1.154-59)
What’s more, I would like to talk about influences of his presence at Edward II’s court. In my own view, the presence of Gaveston is the latent threat to the noble. According to Voss, “The presence of Gaveston at Edward’s side threatens the ‘natural’ order of the kingdom, the network of commitments uniting the king and his peers in bonds of personal affection and respect and mutual” (519). In Voss’s view, “Gaveston’s presence at Edward’s side is seen as a threat, then, to the principle of inherited rank and power that supports the continuing influence and prestige of the traditional nobility in state life” (520). Hence, Gaveston’s tragic cause is the status includes his original status and his status as King’s minion due to his presence is latent threat to the noble and traditional conventions like the principle of rank.
In the second part, I would like to talk about the social status as tragic cause on Mortimer Junior. Mortimer Junior is a noble, as King’s councilor. Like the other’s councilor, his responsibility is suggests some advice to the King and joins the war for the King. But his advices are refused by the King due to the presence of Gaveston, his status is threatened. The noble as a king’s councilor must preserve the traditional convention. In this dialogue, it shows Mortimer Junior would like to prevent their traditional rule from the former dynasty:
MORTIMER JUNIOR. Mine uncle here, this earl, and I
myself
Were sworn to your father at his death,
That he should ne’er return into the realm:
And know, my lord, ere I will break my oath, (1.1.81-4)
In the beginning, Mortimer Junior is faithful to the king, his duty but the king, Edward II always disregards his advice even refuses to give some ransoms to him to save his uncle, Mortimer Senior. So Mortimer Junior is despair and determines to overthrow the king who deserted him.
In my own view, the tragic cause for Gaveston and Mortimer Junior’s misfortune is their social status and status for the king. Gaveston’s tragic misfortune due to him is king’s minion but Mortimer Junior’s tragic misfortune due to him is king’s councilor who is deserted even disregard by the king.
In my conclusion, in my own interpretation, perhaps there are two tragic causes leads to their misfortune, but I also think the social status is the fatal reason to result in these characters’ misfortune in this play. Because in this play, Edward II’s social status is King, Kent is King’s brother, Mortimer Junior is King’s councilor, and Gaveston is King’s minion. So their misfortune mainly cause by their social status. If they’re not relates to King and works in the court in the kingdom, perhaps they won’t get this misfortune.
Works Cited
Abrams, M.H. “Tragedy.’’ Def. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 7th. ed. 1999. Print.
Marlowe, Christopher. Edward II. The Routledge Anthology of Renaissance Drama. Ed. Simon Barker and Hilary Hinds. London: Routledge, 2003. 114-58. Print.
McAdam, Ian. “Edward II and the Illusion of Integrity.” Studies in Philology 92.2 (1995): 203-29. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 June 2012.
Voss, James. “Edward II: Marlowe’s Historical Tragedy.” English Studies 63.6 (1982): 517-30. Web. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 June 2012.
全站熱搜
留言列表
{{ article.title }}