My lord, I long to hear it at full.

Salisbury

King Henry The Sixth Part II                     Act II, Scene ii    Line 6

Lo, I present your grace a traitor’s head,

The head of Cade, whom I in combat slew.

Iden

King Henry The Sixth Part II                     Act V, Scene i     Line 66

Here we have a pair of lines from King Henry The Sixth Part II, and a pretty long post. Both lines are very much involved with the real life history that is at the heart of this play. And both manage to twist that history to good effect.

The first line is from early on in the play where Richard Plantagenet is explaining why he, Richard, has more right to the throne than Henry. That’s Salisbury, not the steak, talking to the Duke of York. What he wants to hear in full is the Duke’s explanation of his title to the English crown. I have to say that I long to hear it in full as well. What follows is York’s explanation of what’s gone on with the succession of the crown since Edward III. Now I’ve gone over an awful lot of this in this blog previously, so you readers should be somewhat familiar with this stuff. But I still find it interesting and I had no idea that Will took the time to explain this all out in significant detail in any of the plays. But he does, and here it is. The Duke of York speaking here is Richard III’s father. This guy here is going to make a play for the throne, but it will be his sons, Richard and Edward, who both end up being kings. 

Here’s Will’s explanation of Richard’s right to the throne, as told by Richard (Richard is York). 

YORK 

Then thus: Edward the Third, my lords, had seven sons: The first, Edward the Black Prince, Prince of Wales; The second, William of Hatfield, and the third, Lionel Duke of Clarence: next to whom Was John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster; The fifth was Edmund Langley, Duke of York; The sixth was Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester; William of Windsor was the seventh and last. Edward the Black Prince died before his father And left behind him Richard, his only son, Who after Edward the Third's death reign'd as king; Till Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, The eldest son and heir of John of Gaunt, Crown'd by the name of Henry the Fourth, Seized on the realm, deposed the rightful king, Sent his poor queen to France, from whence she came, And him to Pomfret; where, as all you know, Harmless Richard was murder'd traitorously.

WARWICK 

Father, the duke hath told the truth: Thus got the house of Lancaster the crown.

YORK 

Which now they hold by force and not by right; For Richard, the first son's heir, being dead, The issue of the next son should have reign'd.

SALISBURY 

But William of Hatfield died without an heir.

YORK

The third son, Duke of Clarence, from whose line I claimed the crown, had issue, Philippe, a daughter, Who married Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March: Edmund had issue, Roger Earl of March; Roger had issue, Edmund, Anne and Eleanor.

SALISBURY 

This Edmund, in the reign of Bolingbroke, As I have read, laid claim unto the crown; And, but for Owen Glendower, had been king, Who kept him in captivity till he died. But to the rest.

YORK 

His eldest sister, Anne, My mother, being heir unto the crown Married Richard Earl of Cambridge; who was son To Edmund Langley, Edward the Third's fifth son. By her I claim the kingdom: she was heir To Roger Earl of March, who was the son Of Edmund Mortimer, who married Philippe, Sole daughter unto Lionel Duke of Clarence: So, if the issue of the elder son Succeed before the younger, I am king.

 WARWICK

What plain proceeding is more plain than this? Henry doth claim the crown from John of Gaunt, The fourth son; York claims it from the third. Till Lionel's issue fails, his should not reign: It fails not yet, but flourishes in thee And in thy sons, fair slips of such a stock. Then, father Salisbury, kneel we together; And in this private plot be we the first That shall salute our rightful sovereign With honour of his birthright to the crown.

BOTH 

Long live our sovereign Richard, England's king!

Okay, so did you get all that? Yeah, it's definitely a little hard to follow, but York makes sense. He’s not making stuff up. And did you catch the fact that his father is the grandson of Edward III and his mother is the great-great granddaughter of this same Edward III? So the guy has a legitimate claim to the throne, arguably more legitimate than the guy sitting on the throne, but he's also got a legitimate claim to some very screwed up DNA from inbreeding. But I guess that's another issue.

In any event, it’s a pretty sure thing that the guys in this scene listening really didn’t need to be told this stuff. They knew these details. Will gave us this scene so that we, the audience, can understand all this. Remember, the action of this play (based on historical events) took place about 150 years before the year that this was written and performed. So that while the audience would have been familiar with this historical data, a quick brush up on the facts like this would have been helpful. And to a twenty first century American audience it would be indispensable (not that most of us follow all this ‘issue of Edmund, who was issue of Henry, issue of etc, etc, etc).

Now the speaker of today’s second Totally Random line is a fellow named Alexander Iden. Mr. Iden has a very small part in the play and this line is from much later in the play. It involves, of all things, a severed  head. Well then, it’s been a long time since we’ve had a severed head. Remember back in August when it seemed like we had a severed head every other day? We were lousy with severed heads. Ahhh, those were the good old days!  Anyway, this is the head of Jack Cade, a real life person who led a bit of a rebellion against the crown. Will uses Mr. Cade, or at least his head, to great theatrical effect here in Henry VI part II. I guess you would expect Jack Cade to be a real person since this is a history play. But it’s certain that not all of what Will presents in his history plays is pure historical fact. For one thing, there’s very little documentation of what was said by these historical figures, so Will is making up almost all of the dialogue. And if you read up on this stuff you’ll find that Will also gets a little bit creative with who was where, and when they were there. Occasionally he even makes up characters all together. But not Jack. And in fact, Jack was indeed caught by this Iden fellow in a garden (that’s played out in the scene before this one). But it appears that in true life Cade was dragged in dead but whole. It wasn’t until later that his head was lopped off. But it was good theatrics for Iden to walk in waving a severed head. Old Will was obviously a big fan of the severed head. And good theatrics.

 Today's two lines are both good examples of Will's use of theatrics. In the first one he's got a guy explaining stuff to two other guys what they already full well know (so that we the audience can learn it), and in the second one he's got a character waving a severed head around that was actually still attached to the body (so that we the audience can go 'Ahhhhhhh!!!'). Will: a true man of the theater.

This is me and my buddy doing some our own theatrics. But these theatrics are from about eight years ago and, you know, I'll be darned if I can remember what the heck we were trying to act out.

Pete: not so much a man of the theater.

No, Corin, being old, thou canst not guess;

Though in thy youth thou was’t as true a lover

As ever sigh'd upon a midnight pillow:

Silvius

As You Like It                                     Act II, Scene iv   Line 24

Repair thy wit, good youth, or it will fall

To cureless ruin.

Shylock

The Merchant Of Venice                                               Act IV, Scene i   Line 141

I'm giving you two lines today; two lines that back to back address youth versus old. The first one is a young man talking to an old man, and the second is an old man talking to a younger one.

The second quote is from one of Wills’ most famous characters: Shylock. He’s addressing one of Antonio’s friends who’s really just one of the peanut gallery in this, the courtroom scene. The friend, Gratiano, has just gone into a bit of a rant about what a schmuck Shylock is. And Shylock replies with

Till thou canst rail the seal from off my bond,
Thou but offend'st thy lungs to speak so loud:
Repair thy wit, good youth, or it will fall
To cureless ruin. I stand here for law.

A pretty reasonable, and mild response considering that Gratiano just called him a damn’d, inexecrable dog. All Shylock is saying is that unless you can change the contract with your rant, which you can’t, you might as well put a sock on it, because the law is on my side. And of course he’s right.

Now the bottom line is that Shylock has come down through the intervening centuries with a pretty bad rap. He’s often pictured in society as an evil character, when he’s really done nothing wrong. There was not one bit of deceit in the contract he signed with Antonio: pay the debt by the date on the contract or forfeit one pound of your flesh. It was right there in black and white and Antonio saw it when he signed the contract and took the money. Now the date has passed and Antonio’s not paid the debt. And everyone thinks that Shylock should give in. Why should he?

It’s an interesting question and one that is at the crux of one of the major plots of the play. It’s a question that you could spend a lifetime on. But nonetheless, with today’s line Shylock is simply pointing out what’s true to a young fellow who’s not as smart as he is.

So that’s an older fellow telling a younger one what’s what. The first Totally Random line today is from a young guy speaking to an older one. Silvius is in love with Phebe and right here he’s talking to an older fellow, Corin, about it. Corin’s trying to offer some advice on the matter, but young Silvius is convinced that Corin is too old to understand, and too old to remember what love is all about, and maybe just plain too old period. But it really is a great line, isn’t it?

Though in thy youth thou was’t as true a lover

As ever sigh'd upon a midnight pillow:

I think you’ve got to read it a few times to let it properly sink in, but it’s a beautiful line. It really is.

But putting the beauty aside, what do you think? Is he too old?

Well I think I’m a little biased on the side of Corin and Shylock. But maybe that’s just because I’m too old.

                                      That old vs young theme is as old as the hills. And them there hills is pretty old.

And whilst I at a banquet hold him sure,

I'll find some cunning practise out of hand,

To scatter and disperse the giddy Goths,

Or, at the least, make them his enemies.

 Tamora

Titus Andronicus                                              Act V, Scene ii    Line 77

This is a weird scene in a weird play. I think Tarzan will have abandoned his post nearby and be back up in the rafters by the end of this scene.

So Tamora, the queen of the Goths, who’s caused most of Titus’s troubles has come to Titus’s house with her two sons in tow. The three of them are in some sort of disguise, but we're not sure what they look like. The stage directions says simply 'disguised.' Whatever they're wearing, Titus recognizes them. No, they say, we’re not Tamora and her two sons, we’re revenge and murder and rape. And they think that Titus is so far over the edge that he will believe that. Titus, who isn’t that far over the edge, decides that he’ll go along with them and by doing so gets Tamora to leave her two sons with him. And as soon as she’s gone, out come the knives and the two sons’ throats are cut while Lavinia holds the basin with her stumps (remember; hands cut off by these same sons) as they bleed out into the basins. 

Today’s Totally Random line is Tamora talking to her two sons when Titus leaves the scene for a moment. She’s talking about how she’s going to get the Goths to turn against Titus while she’s at the banquet with him. What she doesn’t realize is that Titus will be feeding Tamora her two sons, without her knowing it, at that banquet.

Like I said, I think we'll be losing Tarzan again on this one.

Told you so. See him way up there and away from my desk on that log hanging against the wall?

Here's a closer up picture. We know you're not one of those Coriolanus actors buddy. You're not fooling anyone.

By thrusting out a torch from yonder tower; Which, once discern'd, shows that her meaning is,

No way to that, for weakness, which she enter'd.

Enter JOAN LA PUCELLE on the top, thrusting out a torch burning

Reigner

King Henry The Sixth Part One                   Act III, Scene ii     Line 23

I added the stage direction that  immediately follows today’s Totally Random line. We’ve been to this scene before, in fact I think more than once.  You’ll recall from an earlier post that JoanLa Pucelle snuck into the walled town with a few accomplices and now the rest of the French are waiting to be let into the town. The Bastard of Orleans (what a great name!) is talking to Reigner and has just asked him how Joan is gonna let them know where is the safe passage into the town and Reigner’s answer is today’s Totally Random line. Now I have to admit that the syntax in the latter part of this line is confusing. Reigner is saying ‘When we see her throw a torch out of that yonder tower it will show that her umm… um, that her meaning is, umm…  What?’  So there’s no words in that part, or in the whole sentence, that are difficult to understand on their own.  But still, this is one of those lines that I look at and I wonder if it’s just a big misprint. Maybe what’s his name, the publisher of The First Folio, Jaggard (okay, yes, I Googled it), maybe he just completely screwed up this line. He moved some words around, or left some out? Who knows? 

If you do any reading on that whole First Folio thing you’ll find that it’s really kind of a black hole. No one knows exactly what Heming and Condell used for a source document for the First Folio. There are guesses as to what they may have used, but no one really knows. These guys were in Will’s acting company, so did they have copies of the plays that Will had written and that the company had used to produce the plays? And if they did, whatever happened to those documents? Or did they come up with it some other way? For sure, nothing of what they used remains in existence today (that we know of). If you manage to find some of the original stuff written in Will’s hand, well then sir you can quit your job today because it would be worth millions. I find it fun to think about sometimes. Can you imagine finding some four hundred year old manuscripts that turned out to be in Will’s handwriting? You could write a really good story around this (if someone hasn’t already).

In the meantime, I guess Reignier was saying, um… Oh heck, I don’t know what he was saying but whatever he said the Frenchies figured out what it was because do manage to get in to the town. Okay? Or as Snape would say,

‘They justtt……………………………………. doooo.’ 

These are probably my two oldest books. Wanna know what they're worth? Maybe a dollar or two. Maybe a little more, but not much. Unfortunately they are not First Folios. Oh well.

There did this perjured goldsmith swear me down

That I this day of him received the chain,

Which, God he knows, I saw not:

The Comedy of Errors

Antipholus of Ephisus                                   Act V, Scene i     Line 144

What we have here, friends, is a continuation of a line that we posted on back in December. I’ll give you that line, the one intervening line, and today’s line, all together. And just for the record, we’ll be disqualifying the intervening line from further possible selection since we’ve got it here today. 

That goldsmith there, were he not pack'd with her,
Could witness it, for he was with me then;
Who parted with me to go fetch a chain,
Promising to bring it to the Porpentine,
Where Balthazar and I did dine together.
Our dinner done, and he not coming thither,
I went to seek him: in the street I met him
And in his company that gentleman.
There did this perjured goldsmith swear me down
That I this day of him received the chain,
Which, God he knows, I saw not:

As I noted back then, this is very near the end of the play and just before everyone in the play finally realizes that there’s two sets of twins. Of course this realization has to come at the very end because literally all of the comedy of this play involves the misunderstandings that are a result of not knowing that there are two sets of twins. There are less than one hundred lines in the play after this realization is made. But today’s line Is about two hundred lines before the end of the play, so the misunderstandings continue at this point. Obviously (or not), the goldsmith gave the chain to Antipholus of Syracuse, not Antipholus of Ephesus, and therein lies the humor. Again, typical Three’s Company stuff. I wonder if Jack Ritter, Joyce Dewitt, and Suzanne Somers realized how closely they were following in the tracks of Shakespearean actors. I’m thinking probably not.

This is my chain. I wear it all the time. It's not gold, or even silver. I'm not sure what it is, but it's definitely mine and it's hard to imagine anyone else ending up with it.

Enclosed were they with their enemies.

Third Messenger

 

King Henry The Sixth Part I                          Act I, scene i       Line 137

The Third Messenger is referring to the English fighting in France and being led by none other than the indomitable Talbot. But have no fear! You will notice that we’re at the very beginning of Henry VI Part I. And we know from many previous Random lines that The Talbot shows up all over the Henry VI plays. So we know that he’ll survive being surrounded. And we also know he’ll survive getting speared by a ‘base Walloon’ as described in the next two lines following this one. 

This is a picture of a helicopter dropping the candy needed for the Easter egg hunt, on a football field. In this case it became more of an Easter egg scramble. This was one of those ideas which may have looked good on someone's drawing board but... well you get the picture.

Anyway, I was looking for a picture of a hot air balloon to say that this is the closest I could come to a Walloon (and I don't even know what a Walloon is). But this helicopter is the closest I could come to a hot air balloon. So I'm not sure tonight's picture worked out a whole lot better than that smashed candy Easter egg hunt. Oh well, at least we know The Talbot is okay.

Now, trust me, were it not against our laws, Against my crown, my oath, my dignity, Which princes, would they, may not disannul,

My soul would sue as advocate for thee.

Duke Solinus

The Comedy Of Errors                    Act I, Scene i      Line 142

This is an interesting line, and it’s the very beginning of the play. The Duke is talking to Aegeon, who has been sentenced to death, and he's telling Aegeon that he'd like to help him but... oh well. Aegeon's crime? He’s a Syracusian who’s showed up in Ephesus ostensibly with the intent of trading. Now, to be clear, this is not the theme of this play, but it is a premise of the play. Aegeon will argue that he’s not a trader, but the sentence sticks. Oh don’t worry, this is a comedy and it’ll all turn out okay in the end. 

But what makes this particularly interesting is that I was reading a different text of one current world leader who spoke yesterday to congress, and I can’t help but draw parallels between him and the Duke above. This current fellow is intent on going backwards from globalization. He’s intent on restricting international trade, and he’s intent on restricting certain internationals from even entering our country based purely on where they’re coming from, and of course he wants to build a wall. Once again I cannot help but marvel at the relevance of this four hundred year old work. Back in the fall I was talking about how relevant Coriolanus was, taking into account the election that was going on. And now we’re right back to it. I wish I was teaching Shakespeare in class today. Yeah, I guess that’s where I should be. 

But I’m not

This is me about to go into my Gene Kelly impersonation. Relevance? Yes indeed. Can you see where I am in this picture? That's right, I'm on the Great Wall of China. No, really, I am. So since we're talking today (ever so briefly) about xenophobia and keeping foreigners out, what better example than the Great Wall. At least that's what I was thinking. And by the way, it really was quite the soft shoe that I demonstrated after this picture was taken. You'll just have to take my word for it.