POTM: King John... "Five Moons"
Greg Reynolds
HUBERT: My lord, they say five moons were seen to-night;
Four fixed, and the fifth did whirl about
The other four in wondrous motion.
KING JOHN: Five moons!
HUBERT: Old men and beldams in the streets
Do prophesy upon it dangerously:
Young Arthur's death is common in their mouths:
And when they talk of him, they shake their heads
And whisper one another in the ear;
And he that speaks doth gripe the hearer's wrist,
Whilst he that hears makes fearful action,
With wrinkled brows, with nods, with rolling eyes.
I saw a smith stand with his hammer, thus,
The whilst his iron did on the anvil cool,
With open mouth swallowing a tailor's news;
Who, with his shears and measure in his hand,
Standing on slippers, which his nimble haste
Had falsely thrust upon contrary feet,
Told of a many thousand warlike French
That were embattailed and rank'd in Kent:
Another lean unwash'd artificer
Cuts off his tale and talks of Arthur's death.
+++++
What are the five moons? (Beldams are old ugly women, hags.)
Since the analogy goes nowhere else, and since seeing
five moons is not factual, here is an interpretation:
There are five claimants to the throne of England by this point
of the play.
John has taken the throne (though it was granted to him
in the will of his brother, Richard the Lion Heart which is not
mentioned in the play and it is debatable whether Richard can
name his successor) and his own mother Elinor backs his claim.
Arthur is the legitimate son of Richard, and his mother,
the widow of Richard, Constance, has pleaded for the
coronation of her son, Arthur, since the beginning.
Philip Faulconbridge is the obvious son of Richard the
Lion Heart--everyone agrees he looks just like him,
even more so than does Arthur. But Philip was not
the child of Richard's queen (Constance?), and is illegitimate.
King Philip of France has arrived to plead the case for
Arthur, but we see he is not loyal to Arthur and deals
him out by the 4th Act, allowing us to believe that
King Philip is in it for himself.
The Dauphin, Lewis, King Philip's son, is brought into the
mix as a peace gesture to marry Blanch, the neice of
John, thereby uniting England and France. When the
peace is instead broken, Dauphin Lewis still presses his case that
his marriage to Blanch (we don't see them wed and it is
a messy gathering with a wedding party that dissolves into
war) has given him England.
So there are the five moons, and it is presumably Arthur,
at present believed dead (and soon to be dead accidentally
anyway) who is the moon whirling about in wonder. Or
is it John, who is confusing both his own lords and the French,
who is the whirling moon?
Is there another explanation of the five moons?
Greg Reynolds
Peter Farey
The story of the five moons appeared in Shakespeare's
source, Holinshed, although he described it thus:
"About the moneth of December, there were seene in the
prouince of Yorke fiue moones, one in the east, the
second in the west, the third in the north, the fourth
in the south, and the fift as it were set in the
middest of the other, hauing manie stars about it, and
went fiue or six times incompassing the other, as it
were the space of one houre, and shortly after
vanished awaie..." (163.i)
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
James Doyle
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote in message
news:3F6BCCCD...@core.com...
Arthur and Constance are the son and wife respectively of Geoffrey, Duke of
Brittany - brother to Richard and John. He was younger than Richard, but
older than John, hence Arthur's supposed prior claim over John. He died
before the birth of Arthur (which may have been a quibble used by John to
justify his own position?).
>
> Philip Faulconbridge is the obvious son of Richard the
> Lion Heart--everyone agrees he looks just like him,
> even more so than does Arthur. But Philip was not
> the child of Richard's queen (Constance?), and is illegitimate.
Richard's queen was Berengaria of Navarre (bring back queens with names like
Berengaria, I say!)
The marriage was 'probably never consummated' (Brewer's British Royalty, p.
300), and Berengaria's brother had 'probnably been one of Richard's early
lovers' (ibid.)
>
> King Philip of France has arrived to plead the case for
> Arthur, but we see he is not loyal to Arthur and deals
> him out by the 4th Act, allowing us to believe that
> King Philip is in it for himself.
>
> The Dauphin, Lewis, King Philip's son, is brought into the
> mix as a peace gesture to marry Blanch, the neice of
> John, thereby uniting England and France. When the
> peace is instead broken, Dauphin Lewis still presses his case that
> his marriage to Blanch (we don't see them wed and it is
> a messy gathering with a wedding party that dissolves into
> war) has given him England.
>
> So there are the five moons, and it is presumably Arthur,
> at present believed dead (and soon to be dead accidentally
> anyway) who is the moon whirling about in wonder. Or
> is it John, who is confusing both his own lords and the French,
> who is the whirling moon?
>
> Is there another explanation of the five moons?
>
>
> Greg Reynolds
>
Seems like possibly the best explanation I've heard. Thanks, Greg
James
Symposium1
writes:
>Is there another explanation of the five moons?
Riverside has a note:
<<"About the moneth of December [1200]," says Holinshed (Bullough, IV, 29),
"there were seene in the province of Yorke five moones, one in the east, the
second in the west, the third in the north, the fourth in the south, and the
fifth as it were set in the middest of the other, having manie stars about
it.">>
But, beyond that, I like your idea of making it figurative, certainly in the
vein of the three suns in 3 Henry VI.
The moon, however, would get its light from a sun. Would Richard be the "sunne"
of all these five? I kind of want to think of the sun as Henry II.
Could it also be an image of John as the moon in the center, caught between
various forces -- kind of like the surrounded city earlier in the play?
I tend to think of John and Richard III as having some things in common. Is
John's "deformity" an utter lack of charisma?
I do have a strange fondness for this play, despite its weaknesses. The Bastard
is irresistable theater to me. Also I think it forces us to accept the
limitations of staging the battle scenes; they are more tableaux than action. I
admire how the BBC version seemed to embrace that representational quality and
had soundstage backdrops so fake looking they seemed pulled out of Elizabethan
art.
I recall with pleasure the production I saw at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival
in 2001, which was also the last time I saw ASF's Ray Chambers in a starring
role as John, and the last look at John Preston, who played The Bastard.
-- Ann
Greg Reynolds
> In article <3F6BCCCD...@core.com>, Greg Reynolds <eve...@core.com>
> writes:
>
> >Is there another explanation of the five moons?
>
> Riverside has a note:
>
> <<"About the moneth of December [1200]," says Holinshed (Bullough, IV, 29),
> "there were seene in the province of Yorke five moones, one in the east, the
> second in the west, the third in the north, the fourth in the south, and the
> fifth as it were set in the middest of the other, having manie stars about
> it.">>
Wow.
This is sure a sideswipe at astrology. Seen in a province only? Five?
And a sun with many stars around it?
Was this believed by Holinshed (I doubt)?
Thanks Ann.
> But, beyond that, I like your idea of making it figurative, certainly in the
> vein of the three suns in 3 Henry VI.
>
> The moon, however, would get its light from a sun. Would Richard be the "sunne"
> of all these five? I kind of want to think of the sun as Henry II.
Richard as in Richard I?
Well now, if there can be five moons, one from each direction, do we
really expect the witnesses to know they reflect light from a sun?
But, okay, the death of the prior king is the only catalyst.
Or as you say, the "reflection" of the next king.
> Could it also be an image of John as the moon in the center, caught between
> various forces -- kind of like the surrounded city earlier in the play?
Not in that he IS one of the forces (and there are only two).
> I tend to think of John and Richard III as having some things in common. Is
> John's "deformity" an utter lack of charisma?
Can't say utter lack because:
His mother is very loyal to him; was she that loyal to Coeur de Lion, we
don't know, but she is not that loyal to Arthur, her grandson.
Somehow, the bastard is ultraloyal to John as well. I thought the entire
play that the Bastard was in it for final victory, but he exacted only one
revenge early (Austria) and that was enough to hold him over.
> I do have a strange fondness for this play, despite its weaknesses.
I don't. I can't figure out why it was written or for whom. Wouldn't
Richard I make the better tale?
> The Bastard
> is irresistable theater to me.
That I agree. He is absolutely the most equipped, the bravest, the most
knowledgable, the most daring AND the most loyal figure in the play.
And what he truly wants in his heart is England's peace and dignity (after
he got his own vengeance squared away).
> Also I think it forces us to accept the
> limitations of staging the battle scenes; they are more tableaux than action.
Yes. Shakespeare DID put that into period, where kings could go discuss
the battle before deciding to fight it, where representatives of the enemy
could walk in, vow to fight to the death, and have a cup of tea on the way out.
> I admire how the BBC version seemed to embrace that representational
> quality and had soundstage backdrops so fake looking they seemed
> pulled out of Elizabethan art.
Maybe I better pursue my objective of last year and rent, rent, rent DVDs all winter.
> I recall with pleasure the production I saw at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival
> in 2001, which was also the last time I saw ASF's Ray Chambers in a starring
> role as John, and the last look at John Preston, who played The Bastard.
I can see this in March at Chicago Shakespeare Theater (Barbara Gaines directing).
Greg Reynolds
Symposium1
writes:
>I can see this in March at Chicago Shakespeare Theater (Barbara Gaines
>directing).
You are absolutely responsible for notifying me when she directs Troilus and
Cressida again. :) Having missed the one in the early 90s, I promised myself I
would try to see it.
--Ann