Edward II: Act 1, Scene 4 Summary & Analysis

Mortimer's greatest flaw is his pride, which eventually becomes outright hubris as his power grows later in the play. Mortimer hasn't reached those heights of arrogance at this point in the play, but it's striking that he assumes that his own name will make a particularly lasting impression on Edward. Throughout the play, Mortimer’s motives are a complicated mix between wanting to protect his country and personal ambition and desire for power.

Edward's words and actions in this scene seem designed to antagonize the nobility; he not only seats Gaveston on his own level, but also comments directly on the nobles' discontented expressions. Presumably, this is a power play meant to demonstrate Edward's absolute authority. It backfires, however, and instead leads into another dispute about where power truly lies. Although Kent once more supports Edward's royal prerogative to do as he pleases, the nobles clearly feel that Edward's responsibilities to them supersede his personal desires. This in turn has implications for what one considers treasonous, or (as in this passage) whom one considers a traitor. If, for instance, treason is mostly about betraying the best interests of the country, it's possible to describe Gaveston as a traitor despite his personal loyalty to Edward.

The same questions about loyalty and legitimacy that emerged in the previous section continue to play out in this exchange. Lancaster, for instance, hints that the nobles view Edward's claim to rule as dependent on his skill at ruling. Meanwhile, Edward's claim that the nobles' actions amount to an assault on their king reflect his belief that any defiance of his wishes constitutes treason. It also, however, speaks to the degree to which Edward identifies with Gaveston—so much so that he views himself and Gaveston as one and the same person. Finally, the exchange gets to the heart of the controversy surrounding Gaveston's social status. Edward defends elevating Gaveston above the nobility on the grounds that Gaveston is his "minion" ("favorite," but with a sexual undertone). This, however, is exactly why the nobles oppose Gaveston: his power stems from a relationship of choice (with Edward) rather than from birthright, and therefore undermines the social order that gives the nobles their own power.

Canterbury's intervention presents another twist on the idea that rebellion against the king might be justified in some circumstances. Since medieval England was a deeply Catholic society, a ruler who was excommunicated—barred from participation in the Catholic sacraments, which were considered necessary for salvation—would lose much of his legitimacy. In fact, since obeying a ruler who had been excommunicated could theoretically jeopardize the nobles' own souls, Edward's excommunication would relieve his subjects of their obligations to him.

The fact that Edward values Gaveston in large part for his personal devotion is telling, because it speaks to Edward's own tendency to prioritize his personal relationships over everything else. This arguably makes Edward unsuited to ruling, assuming that a ruler's first responsibility is to safeguard the country's well-being. This, however, is a relatively modern idea: medieval notions of responsibility, for instance, were much more intertwined with personal relationships. Perhaps for this reason, Gaveston and Edward's personal loyalty to one another appears in the play in a relatively sympathetic light.

Pembroke and Mortimer Junior's exchange about the common people is typical of the play's broader depiction of civic duty. On the one hand, many characters (e.g. Mortimer Junior) justify their actions as necessary for the overall good of the country. However, it is never entirely clear whether these expressions of patriotism are genuine: Mortimer Senior's response here, for instance, suggests that the well-being of the common people is little more than a pretext for the nobility to pursue their own goals.

Once again, Edward defends the idea that, as king, his power should be virtually unchecked—in this case, by the Pope. Because Edward is once more positioning himself against the Catholic Church, however, his speech would likely have played well with a Protestant Elizabethan audience that was itself generally fervently anti-Catholic. His scorn for the "superstitious" practices of the Church, for instance, reflects a then common Protestant critique of Catholicism.

Edward's description of feeling "banished" from himself is in one sense simply a way of conveying the depth of his attachment to Gaveston. Within the context of the nobles' allegations of "brainsickness," however, it could also imply mental instability: Edward's sense of himself is disturbed or divided.

As he does here, Edward frequently resolves to remain silent only to then immediately begin speaking again. Besides indicating Edward's generally indecisive nature, these moments suggest that he is very literally "all talk": no matter how desperate the situation, he does not seem able to stop speaking long enough to act. With that said, the play ultimately vindicates Edward's preference for language over action by allowing him to "speak through" his son, Edward III, at the end of the play and after Edward II’s own death.

Edward's open contempt for Isabella is another way in which his relationship with Gaveston threatens to destabilize the social order—not so much because it violates his marriage vows, but because Isabella is the sister of the King of France. Their marriage is therefore a political alliance, and Edward's mistreatment of her could conceivably threaten the relationship between the two countries. That said, it is clearly the personal betrayal that is uppermost in Isabella's mind, since she describes Gaveston as having stolen her husband's affection from her. Under the circumstances, this presumably makes the accusations of infidelity especially galling to Isabella, and it seems likely that her later affair with Mortimer is motivated at least in part by spite.

Although Isabella eventually participates in the rebellion against her husband, her first impulse is toward self-destruction: she wishes she had died before Edward abandoned her. This sets her apart from the English nobility, who from the start direct their anger and violence outward, toward Gaveston and the King. Isabella's passivity here may partly reflect the limitations she faces due to her gender, but it also links her—ironically—to her husband, who tends to lament his situation rather than address it with action. This becomes especially clear when Isabella talks about "filling the earth with her sighs," as if simply speaking about her grief will change the situation.

Isabella's private conversation with Mortimer Junior is the first hint as to the change that will take place in her character over the course of the play. Since Mortimer returns from the conversation convinced that Gaveston should be recalled so that he can be killed, it seems likely that ease of assassination was one of the "reasons" Isabella cited in making her case. It's interesting, however, that Marlowe chooses not to reveal the details of what passes between Mortimer and Isabella in this scene—particularly because he elsewhere does use asides to depict private exchanges.

Mortimer Senior's determination to support his nephew even in an action he himself considers unwise speaks to how deep ties of blood run in this society: questions about the overall good of the country go out the window when family loyalty is on the line. Meanwhile, the nobles' debate about the effect Isabella's words are likely to have introduces a new wrinkle to the play's treatment of language. If it is in fact Isabella who proposes killing Gaveston, her words are the catalyst for much of the violence that follows.

As he outlines his plan to kill Gaveston, Mortimer Junior again argues that he is acting out of a sense of patriotism. Interestingly, however, he also suggests that murdering Gaveston is a way of serving the King. Given Edward's feelings for Gaveston, this is obviously not true in any straightforward sense, and it's possible that Mortimer doesn't truly care about helping Edward anyway. That said, the basic threat that Gaveston poses to the social hierarchy is arguably just as much an issue for the King as it is for the nobility. Gaveston is a commoner who has become powerful by currying favor rather than inheriting a title, and the monarchy is of course also an inherited position — so any destabilization of the tradition of inherited power could be seen as a threat to the role of the King.

Mortimer's words here contradict what he has earlier claimed about the lawfulness of revolting against an unlawful king. Now, he suggests that no amount of ill-treatment ("howsoever we have borne it out") negates the fact that the actions the nobles are discussing are in fact treason. This again points to the play's ambivalence toward royal legitimacy: on the one hand, Edward does shirk some of his responsibilities as king, but on the other, even the most outspoken of his critics realizes that contradicting the king is a serious mater. In fact, Mortimer might not be so eager to rebel if he were not so sure he had the backing of the common people. His certainty, however, rests on the idea that they too will perceive Gaveston as a threat to the social status quo: his description of Gaveston as a "night-grown mushroom" is another jab at Gaveston's desire to rise above his allotted station in life.

Edward's grief over Gaveston's exile seems to have caused his mental state to deteriorate somewhat: he describes his mind as "giddy," and says he is "frantic" for Gaveston. This is in keeping with his earlier description of feeling "banished from himself" as a result of separation from Gaveston, and again suggests that  he may suffer from some form of mental instability or division. His moods are certainly unstable: because Edward views everything and everyone through the prism of his relationship with Gaveston, he goes from accusing his wife of adultery to showering her with gifts over the course of a few lines.  

Edward's brief reconciliation with the nobles offers a glimpse into what a working relationship between the monarchy and the nobility would be like. Although Isabella has her own reasons for encouraging this development, her remark that it is the nobility's "love" for the king that makes him "rich and strong" does reflect a historical truth about the English monarchy. Because the Magna Carta placed some limits on royal power, compromise and cooperation with the nobility became necessary for English kings.

Edward's desire for Gaveston to marry Lady Margaret might seem odd, assuming the relationship between the two men is romantic. Margaret, however, is a member of the royal family, so marriage to her will give Gaveston more formal standing at court. In fact, by bringing Gaveston into the royal family, Edward is quite literally doing what the nobles have feared all along: undermining the traditional system of inherited rank by elevating a commoner to noble status.

This conversation between the two Mortimers is likely the play's most detailed exploration of the nobility's true feelings about Gaveston, and some elements of it are surprising, given the date the play was written. Gaveston's homosexuality is in and of itself only a minor concern to Mortimer Junior, and his uncle goes so far as to advise a live-and-let-live approach. That said, Mortimer Junior does take issue with Gaveston's sexual behavior as part of a broader pattern of "otherness": in his speech, he implicitly associates Gaveston's sexuality with both his low birth and his foreignness (Gaveston has a fondness, for instance, for Italian fashions). In other words, Mortimer sees Gaveston as an alien and threatening presence on multiple levels, but first and foremost on grounds of rank. His comments about Gaveston's spending, for instance, seem to imply that someone less "basely born" would not risk destabilizing the country in the way that Gaveston is doing (i.e. by driving soldiers to "mutiny").