Consider a few of the arguments raised. “The spirit of the people is not broken, sir; the will to win is still there and we have a first-rate army”—which reads painfully like an extract from a leading article in, say, 1918. “When the late King and the Prince of Wales gained such spectacular victories in France they were opposed to a conscript and unwilling army. To-day France…has a well-paid and voluntary army.” “I should lay waste France and kill forty thousand men.” Flow do these remarks chime with the military conditions of Richard’s day? When Edward III first declared war, he got his men by what were called Commissions of Array, orders to each shire to send a contingent, which was partly volunteer and partly conscript: later he hired at very low cost “companies” of professional soldiers, under private leaders who made war a very profitable thing by living on plunder and ransoms. The French relied at first on the feudal array, entirely a voluntary force after the first forty days: when the feudal force went down twice before the English archer, they adopted the English system of hiring the free companies. Whether you had a “first-rate army” or not depended on how many companies you could raise and by no means could it be regarded as a national army. Radcot Bridge was fought between the private armies of Vere and of the Appellants. Similarly the numbers engaged were small; and both armies preferred to take prisoners for whom a ransom was paid than to kill outright. Richard’s remark is only possible if he is thinking of all the consequences in starvation and
The carrion in the bush with throte ycorven A thousand slain and not of qualm ystorven [Chaucer: Knight’s Tale]
in the devastated lands, and even then he has multiplied Chaucer’s estimate by forty. All this of course is open to criticism; a historical play, one might argue, should at least be accurate. The criticism has been met by Bernard Shaw in his preface to St. Joan, a. play which one might conjecture to have had some influence on the style of Gordon Daviot’s play. There is the same racy dialogue and the same modernism in ideas. Joan talks, for instance, of “petting lap-dogs and sucking sugar-sticks,” of actions for “breach of promise,” while a long disquisition on Nationalism is placed in the mouth of one of the characters. Shaw defends all this by saying “the things I represent these…exponents of the drama as saying are the things they would actually have said if they had known what they were really doing.” What he means is that with the wealth of historical research at our disposal we can look objectively at the Middle Ages and see better than they could the underlying value of their thoughts and actions, and what we see is best expressed in terms of our own ideas. Only so can the dramatist bring home to the great bulk of playgoers all for which a drama of a bygone age may stand—in Richard of Bordeaux for the clash of outlook between post-war youth with its insistence on beauty, culture and the arts of peace, and the veterans of the war era with their stereotyped arguments about preparedness, the will to win, trade advantages and so on. When you do bring it home this most pathetic of stories in the history of English kingship ceases to be the dry bones of history but becomes a very real and very human story.
_The Play was produced originally by the Arts Theatre Club for two
special performances. It was subsequently presented by Howard Wyndham and
Bronson Albery at the NEW THEATRE, with the following cast:_
_Fair Page, Maudelyn_ RICHARD AINLEY
_Dark Page_ GORDON GLENNON
_Richard II_ JOHN GIELGUD
_Anne of Bohemia, his Queen_ GWEN FFRANÇON-DAVIES
_Duke of Gloucester, Thomas of Woodstock_ ERIC STANLEY
_Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt_ BEN WEBSTER
_Sir Simon Burley, the King's tutor_ GEORGE HOWE
_Duke of York_ KINSEY PELLE
_Michael de la Pole, Chancellor_ H. R. HIGNETT
_Earl of Arundel_ FREDERICK LLOYD
_Robert de Vert, Earl of Oxford_ FRANCIS LISTER
_Mary Bohlen, Countess of Derby_ MARGARET WEBSTER
_Agnes Launcekron_ BARBARA DILLON
_Henry, Earl of Derby, Bolingbroke, Son of Lancaster_ HENRY MOLLISON
_Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham_ DONALD WOLFIT
_Sir John Montague_ WALTER HUDD
_John Madelyn, Secretary_ RICHARD AINLEY
_Edward, Earl of Rutland, Aumerle, Son of York_ CLEMENT MCCALLIN
_A Waiting-woman_ MARGOT MACALASTER
_Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury_ REYNER BARTON
_A man in the street_ ANDREW CHURCHMAN
_A second_ ALFRED HARRIS
_A third_ GEORGE HOWE
_Woman with loaves_ MARGERY PHIPPS-WALKER
_Woman with vegetables_ MARGARET WEBSTER
_First Page_ GORDON GLENNON
_Second Page_ BRYAN COLEMAN
_Lord Derby's Page_ KENNETH BALL
(_By arrangement
with Miss Italia Conti_)
_Doctor_ RALPH TRUMAN
_The Play Produced by JOHN GIELGUD_
CHARACTERS
(_In order of their appearance_)
FAIR PAGE, MAUDELYN
DARK PAGE
RICHARD, KING OF ENGLAND
ANNE, THE QUEEN
THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK, DUKE OF GLOUCESTER
JOHN OF GAUNT, DUKE OF LANCASTER
SIR SIMON BURLEY
EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OF YORK
MICHAEL DE LA POLE, Chancellor of England
RICHARD, EARL OF ARUNDEL
THOMAS ARUNDEL, Archbishop of Canterbury
ROBERT DE VERE, EARL OF OXFORD
MARY, COUNTESS OF DERBY
AGNES LAUNCEKRON, the Queen's waiting-woman
HENRY, EARL OF DERBY
THOMAS MOWBRAY, EARL OF NOTTINGHAM
MAUDELYN, the King's secretary
SIR JOHN MONTAGUE
EDWARD, EARL OF RUTLAND
A WAITING-WOMAN
DOCTOR
A MAN IN THE STREET
SECOND MAN
THIRD MAN
WOMAN WITH LOAVES
WOMAN WITH VEGETABLES
FIRST PAGE
SECOND PAGE
LORD DERBY'S PAGE
SCENES
ACT I
SCENE I. A corridor in the Royal Palace of Westminster, February 1385
SCENE II. The council chamber in the Palace
SCENE III. A room in the Palace, the same night
SCENE IV. A room in the Royal Palace at Eltham, autumn 1386
SCENE V. A room in the Tower of London, a month later
ACT II
SCENE I. A room in the Royal Palace of Sheen, three years later
SCENE II. The same, two years later
SCENE III. A street in London
SCENE IV. A gallery overlooking the Great Hall at Westminster, three years later
SCENE V.
1 comment