Ghent University Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

CONTEMPORARY ADAPTATIONS OF SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA:

THE LANGUAGE USE IN AND RECEPTION OF TEN OORLOG

BY TOM LANOYE AND LUK PERCEVAL

Supervisor: Paper submitted in partial fulfilment of prof. dr. Sandro Jung the requirements for the degree of “Master in de Taal- en Letterkunde: Engels - Italiaans” by Inneke Plasschaert

2010 - 2011 Table of Contents

1. Acknowledgements 5

2. Introduction 6

3. A short history of BMCie and Ten Oorlog 7

3.1. The birth of BMCie 7

3.2. Perceval's master project: Ten Oorlog 11

4. Journalism and the reception of Ten Oorlog 14

4.1. Introduction 14

4.2. Journalism and Ten Oorlog 14

4.3. The academic response to Ten Oorlog 20

4.4. Ten Oorlog abroad: journalism and Schlachten! 23

4.5. Conclusion 24

5. The linguistic evolution in Ten Oorlog 26

5.1. An introduction to Ten Oorlog 26

5.2. Richaar Deuzième 29

5.2.1. Introduction: Shakespeare's Richard II 29

5.2.2. Internal language conflicts: Richaar 30

5.2.3. External language conflicts: Richaar, Bolingbroke,

Jan van Gent, Northumberland, York 36

5.2.4. Conclusion 40

5.3. Hendrik Vier 42

5.3.1. Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry IV (part I & II) 42

5.3.2. Internal language conflicts: Hendrik Vier, La Falstaff 43

2 5.3.3. External language conflicts: Hendrik Vier, Roste,

Westmoreland, La Falstaff, Henk 44

5.3.4. Conclusion 49

5.4. Hendrik de Vijfden 51

5.4.1. Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry V 51

5.4.2. Internal language conflicts: La Falstaff, Hendrik de Vijfden 51

5.4.3. External language conflicts: Hendrik de Vijfden, his army,

the French court 54

5.4.4. Conclusion 58

5.5. Margaretha di Napoli 59

5.5.1. Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry VI (part I & II) 59

5.5.2. Internal language conflicts: Hendrik VI, Margaretha 61

5.5.3. External language conflicts: Hendrik VI, Leonora, York 65

5.5.4. Conclusion 68

5.6. Edwaar the King 69

5.6.1. Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry VI (part III) 69

5.6.2. Internal language conflicts: Edwaar the King, Hendrik VI 70

5.6.3. External language conflicts: Warwick, Buckingham, Sjors 72

5.6.4. Conclusion 75

5.7. Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde 77

5.7.1. Introduction: Shakespeare's Richard III 77

5.7.2. Internal language conflicts: Risjaar 78

5.7.3. External language conflicts: the women, the ghosts,

Buckingham, Richmond 81

3 5.7.4. Conclusion 87

6. Conclusion 88

7. Bibliography 91

8. Appendix 97

8.1. Comparison of the dramatis personae of the original plays

and Ten Oorlog 97

8.1.1. Richaar Deuzième 97

8.1.2. Hendrik Vier 99

8.1.3. Hendrik de Vijfden 102

8.1.4. Margaretha di Napoli 104

8.1.5. Edwaar the King 109

8.1.6. Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde 111

8.2. Family tree of the characters in Ten Oorlog 113

8.3. List of actors who performed in Ten Oorlog 114

8.4. List of performances of Ten Oorlog 118

8.5. Photographs from the performances of Ten Oorlog 121

4 1. Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, professor

Sandro Jung, for giving me the opportunity and the benefit of the doubt to write my thesis about a subject I personally am interested in.

My parents, for giving me the opportunity to study what I am interested in, which is not as obvious for everyone, and for supporting me for the past four years.

Luk Perceval, adapter/director of Ten Oorlog, for sharing his thoughts concerning the media phenomenon that surrounded Ten Oorlog in a telephone conversation, thus providing me with a different outlook on the situation.

Annick Verstraeten, from Toneelhuis Antwerpen, for giving me the opportunity to look into the archives of the BMCie, for providing me with articles and videos, and for her incredible enthusiasm and love of theater.

Matthias Peulders, one of the scarce mathematicians who enjoy theater, for sharing my enthusiasm about Ten Oorlog and for supporting me in every way he could.

My fellow students for making the past four years unforgettable.

Thank you.

5 2. Introduction

Shakespeare's plays have remained popular ever since their production. Through the ages, theater groups have continued to adapt and perform Shakespeare. In Belgium, the adaptations by Jan Decorte, Jan Lauwers & Needcompany and Peter Verhelst are quite well known because of their unique ways of approaching the Shakespearean theater.

These Shakespearean adaptations have been appearing since the late seventies, and continue to do so. In 1997, however, another unique Shakespearean adaptation was staged: Ten Oorlog. It had been adapted and staged by a writer and director who had not adapted Shakespeare's plays before. Ten Oorlog was different from the other adaptations in many ways, but the most outstanding difference was probably the fact that it was a marathon production. With Ten Oorlog, Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval did not adapt just one of Shakespeare's plays, but eight of them, which resulted in ten hours of theater. Such a performance was unseen in Belgian theaters up to 1997.

Ten Oorlog was treated as an unparalleled event by the press as well. An astounding number of articles and reports has been published concerning Ten Oorlog between 1995 and 2000. All of them emphasized the extraordinary character of the production in similar ways. In the first part of this thesis, I will discuss the journalistic response to Ten Oorlog and how it contributed to the hype surrounding the play. In the second part of this thesis, I will discuss one of Ten Oorlog's most distinctive characteristics, namely the language use. The six plays of Ten Oorlog are characterized by a linguistic development which underlines the evolution of the plot line, thus stressing again how exceptional Ten Oorlog is when compared to other Belgian theater productions.

6 3. A short history of Blauwe Maandag Compagnie and Ten Oorlog

3.1 The birth of Blauwe Maandag Compagnie

Luk Perceval, the driving force behind the Blauwe Maandag Compagnie, started his theater career in 1980 after graduating from the Conservatory of Antwerp, where he was inspired by Dora Van der Groen. For four years, he worked as an actor at the

Koninklijke Nederlandse Schouwburg (KNS) in Antwerp but was unhappy with the KNS and its approach to theater. According to Perceval, actors were treated as puppets and could not rehearse creatively:

“After five years at the KNS I was mentally and physically ill. I could hardly get up in

the morning because the idea of having to rehearse another day without the least form of

creativity paralyzed me. As a puppet I could 'serve' in historical reconstructions,

surrounded by quenched and cynical colleagues.”1

Unable to continue working in such conditions, Perceval decided to leave the KNS after a number of discussions and established the Blauwe Maandag Compagnie2 together with

Guy Joosten, whom he met during his years as an assistant at the Conservatory of

Antwerp. BMCie meant the end of Perceval's career as an actor and the beginning of his career as a director.

On the 14th of June, 1984, BMCie premiered with De geschiedenis van Don

Quichot door Cide Hamete Benengeli, waarin verhaald wordt hetgeen men erin zal ervaren3, although Perceval and some actors had not yet officially resigned from the

1 Luk Perceval. Accidenten. 1993, p 1. As quoted in: Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 19-20. My translation. 2 Literally translated in English: Blue Monday Company. The name was inspired by a remark of the older actors at the KNS. They said Perceval and his fellow young actors were “only a blue Monday in theater”, meaning they would only last for a very short time. 3 Translation: The history of Don Quichot by Cide Hamete Benengeli, which will narrate what one will experience in it. Adaptation of Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quijote by Perceval. Première: 14th of June, 1984.

7 KNS. Of course all the discussions and internal problems of the KNS failed to remain internal and caused a general curiosity and commotion concerning the newly established company, which was skilfully used by BMCie to sell their plays. From their very first staging onwards, BMCie managed to use the media to their advantage. With press conferences, strong reactions against contemporary theater, open rehearsals and other events, they managed to keep the press, and thus the audience, interested. With Don

Quichot, BMCie established its name from the start. Although artistically the future looked positive, the financial situation was not as promising. It was only in 1987-1988 that BMCie first received a grant from the Flemish government. The new influx of finances gave Perceval the possibility to invest in staffing, including Gommer Van

Rousselt and Stefaan De Ruyck. Meanwhile, Perceval managed to have the BMCie performing abroad in the Netherlands, thus initiating their international career.

In 1988, BMCie started working on De Meeuw4. It was crucial that this performance would be a success, because the financing of this production did not leave any money for a second chance. Aware of the stakes and able to manipulate the press,

Perceval organized open rehearsals for journalists. All articles published after these rehearsals praised the performance, thus turning De Meeuw into a media phenomenon.

De Meeuw had one important negative consequence too: because of this enormous success, BMCie gradually became considered a mainstream theater group. This meant that the smaller alternative theater houses no longer could or wanted to host them, while performing at the big theater houses was just as impossible. No matter how successful De

Meeuw had been, it did not help BMCie to find a stage to perform.

4 The Gull, originally written by Anton Tsjechov, was adapted by Perceval and Gommer Van Rousselt for BMCie's production. Première: 2nd of November, 1988.

8 In search of a stage to perform, Perceval proposed a fusion between the BMCie and the Koninklijke Vlaamse Schouwburg (KVS)5 in Brussels, which was looking for a new director. Unfortunately, his proposal was declined, but soon another possibility was offered by the city of Antwerp. An old train station would make a useful artistic space for

BMCie, but the building had to be restored and BMCie had to finance this restoration partially. No matter how great the opportunity was, the financial situation did not allow the theater group to go through with the investment. As neither Brussels nor Antwerp seemed to be able or willing to host the BMCie, Perceval moved his group to the Vooruit in Ghent at the beginning of 1992. There, BMCie started to cooperate with writer Arne

Sierens, which resulted in the production Boste, premiered in February 1992. Boste did not receive as much attention from the press as BMCie's previous productions.

In 1992-1993, Perceval turned to post-Shakespearean drama and decided to perform Vittoria Corombona, an adaptation of the 17th -century play The White Devil by

John Webster. Unfortunately, the production had to be canceled because director Van

Dousselaere refused to finish the play. The financial consequences were significant: business director De Ruyck predicted that it would take about 3 years of successful productions to make up for this loss. The newspapers however continued to praise

BMCie, stating that

“showing that the pressure to produce and already closed performance contracts were

subordinate to the artistic quality, BMCie has once again contributed an important lesson

to the Flemish theater scene”6.

5 Literally translated: the Royal Flemish Theatre. 6 Edward Van Heer. “Afgelasten is een kunst.” Knack, 11 Nov. 1992. As quoted in: Geert Sels. Accidenten van een zaalwachter. Luk Perceval. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 2005) 184. My translation.

9 At the beginning of 1993, Perceval is ready to start making up for the loss of

Vittoria Corombona and starts working on All For Love by John Dryden, translated by

Benno Barnard. During the rehearsing process of this performance, Tom Lanoye makes his debut at the BMCie. Together with Barnard, he learnt to work with iambic pentameters – a newly acquired skill he will bring to perfection while writing Ten Oorlog.

Although All For Love was not received by the audience in any special way, it was important for the future developments of BMCie. With All For Love, Perceval no longer focused on specifically Flemish situations but started to develop a more general view of life and the world. It was also cyclical in structure and narrated the story from one character's point of view.

In November 1993, Joko Fête Son Anniversaire, an adaptation of Roland Topor's story from 1969, combined some elements of Perceval's personal life with a multidisciplinary approach. With Joko, Perceval managed to stage the play from one character's point of view, Joko himself, by partially presenting the stage as a rather empty mental space. The play shows a state of being instead of a specific story. In October 1994,

Perceval staged O'Neill by Lars Norén in which previously presented themes were further developed, but the play was not considered very high profile. After O'Neill, Perceval took a three-year break to contemplate the future of the BMCie as well as his personal future.

He realized that the BMCie could not go on forever and was considering to accept offers from German theaters. It was during this three-year break that Perceval's ideas concerning Ten Oorlog took shape.

10 3.2 Perceval's master project: Ten Oorlog

The final play produced by the BMCie was at the same time one of the biggest projects Flemish theaters had ever seen. Perceval's adventure with Shakespeare's plays started around 1992, when he wanted to stage Richard III. While reading the play, however, Perceval realized that Richard III was the ending of a bigger story. He then read the other plays7 and realized he had to stage them all together. In order to realize this immense project, the Shakespearean texts needed to be adapted and shortened. While

Perceval himself started cutting and pasting in the Dutch translations by Courteaux to create a general outline, he asked the Flemish writer Tom Lanoye whether he would be interested in translating and adapting the plays. However, Lanoye was not immediately as convinced as Perceval of the prospective success of the project. According to him, some plays were not as well written as others8, while the story could be confusing as well:

“[...] I found myself in a maze. Regularly I lost track of the storyline, not just because

there are a lot of characters, but because most of those characters had three or four

names, after their county, their first name, their last name, nickname […]”9

Eventually Perceval's numerous attempts of convincing Lanoye paid off. For two years,

Lanoye ceased writing columns to focus on the theater adaptation. One particular insight helped him tremendously:

“[I discovered] why the English have such trouble with adapting Shakespeare. It is

because they are stuck to a historical reality […]. To us, Kent is a pack of cigarettes or

somewhere something in England, but to the English it is a historical icon. To us, Gloster

[sic] is something way more abstract than to the English, and also more exotic. Having

discovered this, I started feeling more free, I started playing with it. All of a sudden I

realized that I could leave the historical perspective behind to look what lies beneath.”10 7 Richard II, Henry IV (parts I and II), Henry V, and all three parts of Henry VI. 8 In an interview Lanoye mentions Henry VI. (Steven Heene. “Stroomopwaarts in liters blauw bloed.” De Morgen 24 Oct. 1997.) 9 Laurens De Keyzer. “Als een ruïne die je opgraaft.” De Standaard 24 Oct. 1997. My translation. 10 Laurens De Keyzer. “Als een ruïne die je opgraaft.” De Standaard 24 Oct. 1997. My translation.

11 By leaving behind the historical perspective, Lanoye and Perceval managed to reveal some of the universal themes that were hidden below Shakespeare's contemporary setting. Concerning the result of the process of adapting, Perceval mentioned:

“By attempting to make the original plays more topical, we have actually revealed their

timelessness: we are not that different from the people Shakespeare described all those

centuries ago.”11

Perceval accentuated the major universal themes he recognized in the plays, while

Lanoye managed to rewrite the plays in such a way that not only a thematic but also a linguistic evolution could be recognized.

After two years of writing, the rehearsal process could finally start. In the summer of 1996, the original seventeen actors read the texts for the first time. In order to manage such a large project, Perceval adjusted his directing methods, but not all actors approved of his new and more intensive techniques. One of the factors causing discussions among the group was Perceval's compulsory meditation before the rehearsal. Actors started to feel tired before the rehearsal actually started, and they protested. Many actors also stated they had troubles with Perceval's new approach and the difficulty of staging characters while taking into account the bigger story. After Pieter Embrechts had left a few months earlier, Karlijn Sileghem, Stany Crets, Peter Van Den Begin and Guy Van Sande decided to quit in December 1996. All three men had been performing leading roles. Perceval did not give up, however. Els Ingeborg Smits, one of the actresses, stated that in the middle of the crisis, Perceval yelled that “the royal tragedies will be performed, even if I have to do it alone”12. The roles were rearranged so that many actors would perform two

11 Luk Perceval. Telephone interview. 10 Aug. 2011. 12 Ingrid Harms. “Ook Els Ingeborg Smits trok 'Ten Oorlog'.” Vrij Nederland 22 Nov. 1997. My translation.

12 characters that were however linked, thereby emphasizing the cyclical structure of the play. As time passed, the actors learned to deal with the play creatively while the performance continued to grow. On the 9th of November, 1997, the first official try-out took place, followed by the official premiere on the 22nd of November, 1997. Spectators could choose to see all three parts together in a marathon performance or one part per evening for three consecutive evenings. It was no miracle Ten Oorlog received copious attention from the press; it was, after all, a unique project of unseen dimensions in

Flanders.

13 4. Journalism and the reception of Ten Oorlog

4.1 Introduction

According to Susan Bennett in her book Theatre Audiences, theater can be defined as “an event which relies on the physical presence of an audience to confirm its cultural status”13. After the physical presence, however, the cultural status of a theater performance continues to be defined through publications in newspapers and magazines.

Around the time of the Ten Oorlog premiere, the incredibly massive project that concluded the history of the BMCie received abundant attention from the Belgian as well as the international press. This journalistic attention was not only due to the drastic adaptation of the text but also because of Ten Oorlog's special status as an event and not only as a theater performance. By studying both articles published in public journals as well as in academic publications, I will attempt to provide an account of how journalism has presented the project and how it has affected the promotion and reception of Ten

Oorlog.

4.2 Journalism and Ten Oorlog

From very early on in the process, Ten Oorlog received a lot of attention from the press. Articles concerning Perceval's master project started to appear many years before the performances and continued to appear through the years, reporting the progress or difficulties the ambitious undertaking faced. In 1995, an article appeared in which

Perceval mentioned he had already been working on his Shakespeare project for three years.14 Two years before the premiere, this newspaper already referred to Ten Oorlog as a “monster project”. The unusually premature interest in the theater performance has

13 Susan Bennett. Theatre Audiences. A Theory of Production and Reception. (New York: Routledge, 1990) 192. 14 Filip Decruynaere. “Blauwe Maandag in afzondering voor Shakespeare.” Het Volk 2-3 Sept. 1995.

14 undoubtedly influenced the eventual reviews of the performance. In the following years, the press continued to pay attention to the progress of the play by publishing articles concerning the departure of some of the actors and the long rehearsing period. By focusing on the development of the play in the years before its staging, the newspapers generated immense interest, so that by the time the performances started, most articles continued to focus on Ten Oorlog as an event and not as a theater production. Long before the production premiered, the mythification of Ten Oorlog had already begun. In his diary of the rehearsals, Wim Opbrouck stated on the 6th of November, 1997 that “a conversation with journalists gives me the awkward feeling that the bear has not been killed yet, but his skin has been sold a long time”15.

When looking into both national and international journal reviews of Ten Oorlog, it becomes clear that all of them are characterized by the copious use of superlatives.

Statements such as “[Ten Oorlog is] one of the most ambitious projects of the Low Lands' theater history”16, “[Ten Oorlog is] the theater event of the Nineties”17 or “[Ten Oorlog is] one of the most controversial and innovative European theater productions in recent years”18 were no exceptions in the articles following the premiere. What is striking, however, is that these strong statements were hardly ever supported by a well-constructed account describing why the production had earned all those superlatives. On the contrary, most articles did not even provide any information on the performance at all. A factual report of the actor's performances and the overall impression of the play seemed to be replaced by a number of other topics discussed in these so-called reviews. The majority

15 “Wij zijn de flandriens van het theater. 'Ten Oorlog' intiem: het dagboek van acteur Wim Opbrouck.” De Standaard 27 Feb. 1998. My translation. 16 Johan Thielemans. “De lange mars.” Theatermaker Nov. 1997. My translation. 17 Nicole Bliek. “'A fokking piece of klotepaard'.” Algemeen Dagblad 24 Nov. 1997. My translation. 18 Paul Goossens. “De kroon op het werk. Een bericht uit Salzburg.” Knack 4 Aug. 1999. My translation.

15 of the reviewers' attention was spent on the history of the project. This extract from Het

Parool, a Dutch newspaper, published on the 14th of November 199719 illustrates this tendency:

“Saturday the 22nd of November the Flemish theater group the Blauwe Maandag

Compagnie will stage the premiere of Ten Oorlog, the twelve hours long version of eight

of Shakespeare's histories. The group has rehearsed for fifteen months; in the process six

of the seventeen actors quit and during the first complete try-out, last Saturday, leading

actress Els Dottermans got severely injured.”20

The opening lines of this article clearly focus on Ten Oorlog as an event, and not as a theater production. It tries to grasp the reader's attention by focusing on the dimensions of the project; the copious use of numbers can be seen as an attempt to impress the reader.

Most articles attempting to gain the reader's attention failed to present a thorough analysis of the performance. Another example, showing even less subtlety in its listing of mere numeric facts, follows:

“After more than two years of preparation, after fifteen months of rehearsing, after

troubles in the group because of people who no longer could deal with the project, after

financial problems, after the injury of actress Els Dottermans and after all the necessary

artistic and psychic difficulties that are characteristic of theater productions, the moment

had finally arrived: the theater marathon of Shakespeare's plays of the Wars of the Roses

[...]”21

These excerpts from reviews reflect one of the conclusions of Coppieters' study as described in Bennett's book. According to Coppieters, audiences make “categorical remarks, describing the show in terms of its difference from what was usually available”22. The reviews of Ten Oorlog reveal a similar tendency: journalists have 19 The article was published even before the official premiere of Ten Oorlog, which took place the 22nd of November 1997. 20 Maartje Somers. “Shakespeare in de blender.” Het Parool 14 Nov. 1997. My translation. 21 Tuur Devens. “Heldere en boeiende theatermarathon.” De Bond 5 Dec. 1997. My translation 22 Susan Bennett. Theatre Audiences. A Theory of Production and Reception. (New York: Routledge, 1990) 97.

16 distinguished Ten Oorlog from other theater productions because of its exceptional production situation rather than because of the qualities of the staging itself.

Following the copious use of superlatives, these articles continued to discuss the original plays briefly, after which they elaborated on the tripartite structure of the adaptation and repeated the general themes mentioned by the performance leaflet. An analysis of the performance, generally considered the main theme of a review, was often missing. Or, as professor Jürgen Pieters stated: “most Flemish journalists were quite enthusiastic, but did not seem to know why”23. The unmotivated enthusiasm did not seem to be limited to journalists however; one article stated that the jury of the Océ Podiumprijs “lacked words to justify their choice”24.

Apart from the content of the articles, the lay-out also revealed some particular characteristics. Most articles published around the time of the premiere occupied almost one complete page25 and made extensive use of photographs. One newspaper published a large photograph of the curtain call on its front page. The image of the bowing actors and the standing audience is a very powerful one, as it communicates the audience's approval of the performance. It can be argued that, by publishing photographs of the readers' peers expressing approval of the performance, the newspapers are advertising rather than analyzing Ten Oorlog. Publishing photographs of the performances also generated curiosity instead of offering an insight into the production.26

In a telephone interview I conducted with Luk Perceval, he shared his views on the journalistic reactions to Ten Oorlog:

23 Jürgen Pieters. “Shakespeare als medespeler. De geschiedenis volgens Tom Lanoye en Luk Perceval.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 130. My translation. 24 “Ten Oorlog... en gewonnen.” De Tijd 21 Feb. 1998. My translation. 25 Some newspapers even added appendixes concerning Ten Oorlog, filled with phtotographs, interviews and diaries of actors. 26 See appendix, p. 121.

17 “It was a shock to me. The reactions showed that the main concern was not what had

been achieved by a relatively small theater group, or the story we had wanted to

communicate, but the event. I was in shock. The reactions were disappointing and

disillusioning.”27

Perceval underlined that “everything written about a production can never be commensurate with the time period that was necessary to produce the performance”28.

According to him, the main reason for these differences of opinion is the fact that not everyone perceives a theater production in the same way. He identifies three perception groups that are involved with a theater production: the inner circle, who produces the performance, and an outer circle of viewers, which consists of the press and the spectators. All groups involved have a different outlook on the theater performance, which evidently results in very different opinions. The consequences of the extensive journalistic attention were not unnoticed by the producers either. Perceval remembers people camping in front of the theater at Rotterdam to get tickets for a sold-out performance, as well as spectators who started crying when the first marathon could not be performed completely because actress Els Dottermans was hospitalized. Even after

Ten Oorlog, when Perceval was working on other productions, the memory of Ten

Oorlog did not disappear from collective memory:

“In the years that followed after Ten Oorlog, journalists came to watch my performances

in search of the sequel of Ten Oorlog. Unfortunately for them, one of the main

characteristics of my work is that I continuously try to renew, that I try to avoid

repetition. In the years following Ten Oorlog, that was not considered a quality of my

work; the press even reproached me because of it.”29

27 Luk Perceval. Telephone interview. 10 Aug. 2011. 28 Luk Perceval. Telephone interview. 10 Aug. 2011. 29 Luk Perceval. Telephone interview. 10 Aug. 2011.

18 One of the few articles that did offer a critical outlook on Ten Oorlog was “Pulp

Shakespeare”, written by Frank Albers and published in De Morgen on 4 December 1997, only two weeks after the premiere. Unlike all other reviews and articles, Albers is not as enthusiastic as his colleagues. On the contrary: he identified the general superficiality of the publications by stating among other things that

“The fact that the critics publicly use platitudes […] indicates that only a few original

things can be said about Ten Oorlog, while at the same time illustrating the immense need

to agree: this is the production we all have been waiting for.”30

Albers' conclusion that the long period of anticipation had influenced the reviews is not unrealistic, given the many statements related to Ten Oorlog's production process as quoted above. One of the reasons for the necessity of accepting Ten Oorlog as a success identified by Albers is a kind of millennium crisis. By quoting statements such as“Ten

Oorlog shows that in the world to come, theater will have its own place and is able to change like a chameleon along with the evolving society”31 from other newspapers, he again identified the apparent need to accept Ten Oorlog as the theatrical masterpiece the nineties failed to offer up to 1997. In his article Shakespeare als medespeler, professor

Pieters also stated that 1997 was “the year of the farewell to the theater”32 because of the debates concerning the relationship between the theater and its topicality. Furthermore, professor Pieters seems to agree with Albers concerning the lack of critical response to

Ten Oorlog by stating that “there were plenty of cries and screams, but truly critical reflections were long in coming”33.

30 Frank Albers. “Pulp Shakespeare.” De Morgen 4 Dec. 1997. My translation. 31 Citation from Vrij Nederland as quoted by Frank Albers in “Pulp Shakespeare.” De Morgen 4 Dec. 1997. My translation. 32 Jürgen Pieters. “Shakespeare als medespeler. De geschiedenis volgens Tom Lanoye en Luk Perceval.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 130. My translation. 33 Jürgen Pieters. “Shakespeare als medespeler. De geschiedenis volgens Tom Lanoye en Luk Perceval.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 131. My translation.

19 Although Albers deserves the merit of having produced one of the only thorough personal analyses that have been published in the months following the premiere, his account is colored by a particular influence: Shakespeare's. He mentions some choices that bothered him in the BMCie version, such as the portrayal of the women and the added intertextual references as well as the language use in the adaptation of Richard III.

Albers states “I did know these plays by Shakespeare a bit but still I sometimes lost the thread in this simplified version”34. Thus, Albers accentuates another important question that can be found in the academic publications linked to Ten Oorlog as well, namely: is this 'within the limits' of 'acceptable' adaptations of Shakespearean theater? Where should the line be drawn between adaptations of Shakespearean theater and theater loosely based on Shakespeare's work? Is this to be decided by the writer/director or by the audience, and based on what criteria? Obviously, such questions cannot be answered with one objective answer, as they question personal preferences. It is striking, however, that some other (mostly academic) articles do bring up the issue.

4.3 The academic response to Ten Oorlog

The academic publications concerning Ten Oorlog display a similar tendency of describing Ten Oorlog with a number of superlatives. The introduction to the special edition of Documenta, completely dedicated to Ten Oorlog, presents Ten Oorlog as “the most important theater event of the past season and maybe even of the past years in

Flanders”35 but also as “an extraordinary event”36. However, some academic articles seem to display a dislike similar to Albers'. In professor Jozef De Vos' article Shakespeare's

'history plays' als 'groot verhaal' for example, professor De Vos states that “the large

34 Frank Albers. “Pulp Shakespeare.” De Morgen 4 Dec. 1997. My translation. 35 Jozef De Vos. “Woord vooraf.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 99. My translation. 36 Jozef De Vos. “Woord vooraf.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 99. My translation.

20 dimensions of this project enforce respect and admiration”37, but his analysis of Ten

Oorlog reveals a dissatisfaction with some of the adapted elements. In some cases, this dissatisfaction seems to be based solely on the difference between Ten Oorlog and

Shakespeare's original work, rather than on discrepancies identified in Ten Oorlog itself.

One of these dissatisfactions is that, according to professor De Vos, Risjaar

Moddderfokker den Derde “presents Richard unilaterally as a monster”38, while the image of the clever politician and actor has disappeared from the adaptation. He goes on to state that Richaar Deuzième displays “Richard II as a whimsical queer, which prevents him of becoming a truly tragic character”39. As a cause for these adapted elements, professor De

Vos only identifies a “tendency of undermining or trivializing”40.

What is important in this context, is how “adaptation” can be defined. According to the Longman dictionary, an adaptation can be defined as “the process of changing something to make it suitable for a new situation”41, while “to adapt” is defined as “to change something to make it suitable for a different purpose”42. These are vague definitions; there is no account of what changes are accepted when adapting, or what kind of different purpose an adaptation can serve. Thus, these definitions imply a great deal of freedom concerning an actual adaptation. Adapters can create an adaptation according to their wishes and ideas. As there is no exact definition of what an adaptation should be or which characteristics are pivotal for an adaptation, many different opinions concerning

37 Jozef De Vos. “Ten Oorlog: Shakespeare's 'history plays' als 'groot verhaal'.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 106. My translation. 38 Jozef De Vos. “Ten Oorlog: Shakespeare's 'history plays' als 'groot verhaal'.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 109. My translation. 39 Jozef De Vos. “Ten Oorlog: Shakespeare's 'history plays' als 'groot verhaal'.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 109. My translation. 40 Jozef De Vos. “Ten Oorlog: Shakespeare's 'history plays' als 'groot verhaal'.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 109. My translation. 41 “Adaptation.” Def. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. ed. 2007. 42 “Adapt.” Def. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. ed. 2007.

21 the matter are possible, not only by adapters but also by the spectators. As De Vos' remarks reveal, his idea of what an adaptation should be is fairly different from the adaptation Perceval and Lanoye have created. De Vos seems to expect that adapting a play only entails an innovation to guarantee comprehensibility; such an adaptation would remain as close as possible to the original, both in text as in staging, while only allowing modifications that enhance understandability. Perceval and Lanoye, however, have adapted Shakespeare's plays severely. They did not only apply adjustments to improve comprehensibility; they adapted the original plays to add their own views to Ten Oorlog.

In his article, professor De Vos failed to recognize the possible goals of Perceval and Lanoye. De Vos had only looked at Ten Oorlog from his personal point of view, i.e. expecting an adaptation that remains faithful to the original. He seems to refuse to recognize the intentions of the adapters, albeit their statements in many interviews as well as in the performance leaflet. More than once, both Perceval and Lanoye had stated that their goal was to create an “impression of seven hundred years of humanity”, as the performance leaflet states. Lanoye or Perceval have never declared that it was their goal to reproduce Shakespeare's plays faithfully; their adaptation was announced as “after

Shakespeare” and not as an exact translation of Shakespeare's work. This subtle difference is extremely important when studying Ten Oorlog. As a viewer or reader, one should keep in mind that many forms of adaptations are possible. One should observe the characters with attention to their importance for accentuating the overall goal of Ten

Oorlog instead of the differences between them and their Shakespearean ancestors. The quote by Camille Paglia, which functions as a motto of the first part of Ten Oorlog, can be linked to the difficult relationship between the adaptation and the original as well.

22 Camille Paglia states that “by drawing a bead on the classics and by getting rid of the dust, we can both corrupt as well as redeem them”43. To say Ten Oorlog only has corrupted the classics, would be too little credit for what is generally considered one of the most courageous undertakings of Flemish theater.

4.4 Ten Oorlog abroad: journalism and Schlachten!

The German version of Ten Oorlog, entitled Schlachten!, generated a lot of journalistic responses as well. In contrast to the unmotivated excitement in Belgium, however, the Austrian and German responses were not as unanimously enthusiastic. Just like Ten Oorlog was written in a language that consciously uses Flemish words and references, its translation Schlachten! uses idioms strongly influenced by German history44. At the Salzburger Festspiele, where the premiere of Schlachten! took place on the 25th of July 1999, the performance was announced as an “ingenious and thrilling fast forward through theater history”45. It seemed as if the storm of superlatives that was omnipresent after the Belgian premiere of Ten Oorlog would return for its German translation. However, Schlachten! was not as unanimously accepted and celebrated as its

Dutch predecessor. After the premiere at the Salzburger Festspiele, the applause was mixed with some clamor. The press responses were strongly opposed as well: most newspapers agreed Schlachten! was a unique theater event, while other newspapers such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published only a highly destructive critique.

43 Quote by Camille Paglia, as quoted in: Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval, Ten Oorlog, (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 6. 44 The opening lines of Ten Oorlog have been translated in German as “Mein weiser greiser Ohm, Johann von Gent, / Des Adlerschwingen das erlauchte Nest / Von Lancaster wie einen Schatz beschirmen, [...]”. By using words such as “Adlerschwingen”, which clearly echo former traumas, Schlachten! is inextricably linked with Germany and German history, just like Ten Oorlog's language revealed a connection with Flanders. Quote from Schlachten! taken from: Kester Freriks. “My fokking Krone für ein Pferd!” NRC Handelsblad 6 Aug. 1999. 45 As quoted in: Steven Heene. “Het mes in de lade.” De Morgen 28 Aug. 1998.

23 Schlachten! was more controversial than Ten Oorlog, mainly because of the Austrian conservative political party and the elections that would follow three months after

Schlachten!. During the opening ceremony, former president of Austria Thomas Klestil had already focused on the importance of tradition instead of avant-garde. Schlachten!, as a misfit among the other performances at the Salzburger Festspiele because of its magnitude and history, was never far away from the eye of the storm. The commotion continued when the play was shortly forbidden for children under sixteen because of the nudity and violence. The Belgian press continued to publish articles about Schlachten! as well. The uproar caused by Ten Oorlog two years earlier had not been forgotten. In the telephone interview, Perceval mentioned as well that Schlachten! is still not forgotten today:

“Even today, there are still people that come to me to talk about Schlachten!, stating that

they did not see it, but that they know someone who did. It continues to live on.”46

4.5 Conclusion

Ten Oorlog has been widely discussed in the press both in Belgium and abroad.

By copiously using superlatives, the reviews and articles displayed a strong need to approve of Perceval's master project. This need to agree seemed to have sprung from the characteristics of Ten Oorlog: both the long production process and difficulties as well as the extreme goal of performing eight plays in ten hours generated a true mythification and motivated both viewers and journalists to approve of the play. The strong interest and journalistic excitement was accentuated by special appendixes to newspapers and the use of photographs from the performances. Although most articles displayed an unmotivated excitement, some journalists did manage to reflect critically about Ten Oorlog. Albers'

46 Perceval, Luk. Telephone interview. 10 Aug. 2011.

24 “Pulp Shakespeare” was by far the most critical article concerning Ten Oorlog. Not only did Albers reflect about the performance itself, he also identified the unmotivated unanimous excitement and the lack of thorough analyses. In his article in the special edition of Documenta, professor Pieters agreed with Albers concerning the lack of critical response to Ten Oorlog. Academic publications, however, also show traces of admiration for the project, but also sometimes seem to reveal a tendency to compare Ten Oorlog too much with its Shakespearean ancestors. German and Austrian newspapers did not as unanimously agree as the Belgian newspapers. The text of Schlachten! contained a number of references linked to the German past that were not appreciated by everyone in the audience.

Overall, BMCie's successful history, the dimensions of the Ten Oorlog project as well as the personalities of Perceval and Lanoye influenced the reception of Ten Oorlog. The press was blinded by the extent of the undertaking and the names of the artists involved.

The opportunity of producing a critical response went unnoticed because of all the fuss.

Or, as professor Pieters describes it:

“[...] in the first phase, most journalists and critics were in such a way occupied with

reflections concerning the media event that Ten Oorlog was, that they forgot that the

artists primarily had intended to produce a theater performance”47.

47 Jürgen Pieters. “A la guerre comme à la guerre. Monografie over 'Ten Oorlog'.” De Standaard 24 June 1999.

25 5. The linguistic evolution in Ten Oorlog

5.1 An introduction to Ten Oorlog

Ten Oorlog consists of three parts: In de naam van de Vader en de Zoon48, Zie de

Dienstmaagd des Heren49 and En verlos ons van het Kwade50. Each part contains two plays: In de naam van de Vader en de Zoon consists of Richaar Deuzième and Hendrik

Vier, Zie de Dienstmaagd des Heren contains Hendrik de Vijfden and Margaretha di

Napoli, and En verlos ons van het Kwade contains Edwaar the King and Risjaar

Modderfokker den Derde. Each play written by Lanoye is based on approximately one of

Shakespeare's plays about the Wars of the Roses. Richaar Deuzième is an adaptation of

The Tragedy of King Richard the Second and Hendrik Vier is an adaptation of The

History of Henry the Fourth, both parts I and II. Hendrik de Vijfden is an adaptation of

Shakespeare's The Life of Henry the Fifth, while Margaretha di Napoli is a rather drastic adaptation of Henry VI, both parts I and II and the first act of part III. The remaining acts of Henry VI, part III, have been adapted to create Edwaar the King, while Risjaar

Modderfokker den Derde is based on The Tragedy of King Richard the Third.

A general theme can be identified in each of the three parts. As the title reveals, the central theme in In de naam van de Vader en de Zoon is the relationship between fathers and sons. In Richaar Deuzième, both the father-son relationships between Jan van

Gent and Bolingbroke and between York and Aumale are important. In Hendrik Vier the father-son relationship is even more prominent, as the difficult relationship between father Hendrik Vier and son Henk leads to the death of the king. In the second part, Zie de Dienstmaagd des Heren, the most outstanding change is the presence of women.

48 Can be translated as In the name of the Father and the Son. 49 Can be translated as Behold the Handmaid of the Lord. 50 Can be translated as And deliver us from Evil.

26 Whereas the previous part was characterized by a conflict between generations, the second part is characterized by a battle between the sexes. The women become more important. In Hendrik de Vijfden, womanhood is represented by La Falstaff, who has taken the role of the chorus. In Margaretha di Napoli, the presence of the women becomes even more prominent. The two only women of the play, Leonora and

Margaretha, are extremely important. From his childhood onwards, Hendrik, the future king, has been influenced by his aunt Leonora who attempts to obtain more power through her relationship with Hendrik. His wife, Margaretha, however, is an even greater danger to the kingdom. She is much more powerful than Hendrik and manages to create disputes between all men in his court to obtain her goals. In the third part, En verlos ons van het Kwade, self-destruction gains the upper hand. Or, as Perceval himself states:

“Summarized: the individual in a frame inspired by the west and Catholicism, dominated

by a moral of guilt and penance. Where the individual continuously fights with the

urging of good and evil.”51

In Edwaar the King, Edwaar shows traces of egoism but the most striking example of self-destruction is without a doubt the protagonist of Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, who will kill everyone in his court only to commit suicide.

One of the most remarkable characteristics of the plays is the linguistic evolution they contain. In each play, one particular language style, usually defined by the ruler, is the most important. Given that in each play a different ruler is the main protagonist, each play is characterized by a particular language use, thus creating a linguistic evolution that runs through Ten Oorlog. In all plays, specific language utterances emphasize the relationships between particular characters and groups as well as reflect specific features

51 Laurens De Keyzer. “Als een ruïne die je opgraaft.” De Standaard 24 Oct. 1997.

27 of certain characters. In the following discourse on the language use in the plays, the language utterances that emphasize the relationships between particular characters and groups will be referred to as external language conflicts, while the language utterances that reflect specific features of certain characters will be referred to as internal language conflicts. In what follows, I will discuss the language use of all six plays of Ten Oorlog.

28 5.2 Richaar Deuzième

5.2.1 Introduction: Shakespeare's Richard II

Shakespeare's The Tragedy of King Richard the Second was published for the first time as a Quarto in 1597 and as a Folio in 1623. It narrates the events that lead to the end of Richard's reign. Richard the Second is king because of hereditary right and is not able to take political action. He is an almighty king who gets away with anything, even with murder. The play begins with a dispute between Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas

Mowbray, who accuse each other of having murdered the duke of Gloucester; although, from very early on in the play it becomes clear that Richard II himself might have been responsible for the death of his uncle. The dispute leads to a duel but eventually ends without bloodshed but with the exile of both men. Bolingbroke is banished for six years, and Mowbray forever. When John of Gaunt dies soon after the exile of his son, Richard II seizes all of his land and money to fund a war against Ireland. Although he could get away with murder, his entourage does not tolerate his infringement of property rights.

Property was extremely important; it distinguished the noblemen from the “men of no name”52. When Bolingbroke returns early from his exile, several noblemen decide to help him to overthrow Richard II. When Richard II returns from Ireland, he is confronted with

Bolingbroke's presence, who claims not only his land but the throne as well. Richard surrenders without much resistance, thus again underlining his inability of taking political action, and Bolingbroke is crowned King Henry IV. Richard II is taken to prison where he is eventually killed.

For Richaar Deuzième, Perceval and Lanoye did not offer much change to the original tragedy of Richard II. Some minor changes have taken place: for example,

52 Stephen Greenblatt et al. The Norton Shakespeare. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008) 976.

29 Richaar is killed by food poisoning and not by being struck with a weapon. Another striking difference is that Shakespeare's Queen is a young woman, while Lanoye's La

Reine is a child. In this case, Richaar Deuzième is more historically correct, as the real first queen consort of Richard II, Anne of Bohemia, was only sixteen years old when they married. Concerning the characters, Richaar Deuzième only has 14 parts, while The

Tragedy of Richard the Second contains more than 30 parts.53

5.2.2 Internal language conflicts: Richaar

Richaar Deuzième is characterized by his language. He uses an archaic Dutch, full of metaphors, internal rhymes and other literary tropes, as well as French interjections and catch phrases. This linguistic game underlines his position in the world and his view on reality. His language expresses his identity more than his clothes or actions, and will change as his position in society changes as well. An example of the importance of

Richaar's language can be found already at the very beginning of the play, in scene 1 of act I, where Richaar's replies betray his love for poetic language in his description of his uncle Jan van Gent:

Richaar Deuzième Mijn wijze grijze oom, mijn Jan van Gent,

Wiens trouwe vleugels het aloude nest

Van Lancaster beschermen lijk een schat,54

Whereas Shakespeare's Richard II only describes John of Gaunt as a “time-honoured

Lancaster”55, Perceval and Lanoye underline Richaar's extensive use of poetic language in the way Richaar uses a very poetic language to welcome Jan van Gent. This elegant and magniloquent use of language underlines the unassailability of his superior position.

53 See appendix, p. 97. 54 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 11. 55 Stephen Greenblatt et al. The Norton Shakespeare. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008) 983.

30 He is a king by hereditary right, as God's ambassador on earth, and nothing can take away his power. In the following plays, other kings, whose reigns are not protected by hereditary right, will use a more straightforward language to give voice to their ability of taking political action. Richaar's reign did not depend on his actions, as he was God's ambassador, so expressing his political talent was unnecessary.

In Allen treft eenzelfde lot, Joost Houtman states that Richaar's language illustrates that he is completely in balance with his surroundings at the beginning of the play.

Houtman considers Richaar a king who is able to combine the body politic and the body natural without any problems.56 As the play continues, his superior position will start to falter as Bolingbroke tries to take over the power, and this will be reflected in Richaar's language as well. In the fourth act, Bolingbroke, who has taken over power, calls for

Richaar to be crowned. The monologue Richaar speaks when he arrives on stage illustrates the link between language and power as well as Richaar's difficulty to deal with the loss of his superior position:

Richaar Deuzième Het mangelt mij, Messieurs, aan zeggingskracht

Om te vertolken hóe zeer in de wolken

Uw bede mij niet heeft gebracht, uw roep –

Als groep! – om mij, een doodgewone vent,

Ovationeel op 't voortoneel te halen

Voor – tja, wat? Een encore? Een Grand Finale?

Weet: ik betreed de bühne sans rancune

En zweer, de tout mon cœur et corps: Gij waart –

Behalve mijn decor – een puik publiek, mais...

Hoe kan een man lijk ik verschijnen voor

56 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 53.

31 Een vorst, terwijl de taal waarmee ik zelf

Als koning commandeerde, mij nog steeds

Bestorven in de mond ligt? Voor de rol

Van worm vind ík geen woorden; geen souffleur

Leest zo'n horreur, en zelf kan ik helaas

Mij letterlijk geen klap nog memoreren

Van uw gevlei, uw veinzen, bukken, likken...57

Richaar openly expresses his difficulty to stand before the new king and talk because he only knows the language of kings and does not know how to talk as a servant. This way,

Perceval and Lanoye underline the importance of language and its link with power. After years of expressing his royal desires, Richaar is now unable to use language to express himself otherwise. His language used to be the symbol of his power but has now become useless and worthless, as he has no more power to express. His language use was inextricably linked to his identity, and now the latter has changed, the former is no longer able to express who Richaar is exactly. Shakespeare's Richard does not focus on the power of language in the original monologue. He does express he has not learned how to behave in front of a king, as he used to be the king, but he does not focus on language in particular as Richaar does in his monologue.

Other examples of the link between language and identity can be found in Richaar

Deuzième as well. In act I, scene 4, where Mowbray expresses his grief for being exiled:

Mowbray […] Wat deed ik, dat gij mij 't geweld aandoet

Mijn wonderzoete moedertaal t' ontberen,

De spraak die ik al zoveel jaren spreek?

In wat voor hellegat zal ik belanden,

Ten prooi aan vreemde zinnen en gebaren?

Welk nut zal vanaf nu mijn tong nog hebben?

57 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 51-53. My emphasis.

32 Behalve dat van snaarloze gitaar –

Gevangenzittend in mijn mond, een kerker,

Mijn lippen en gebit een dubbel valhek?

Uw vonnis is een woordeloze dood.

Laat me mijn taal, berooft me van mijn brood.58

In retrospect, Mowbray's plea for his language, stating that his exile is a “death without words”, seems to be an interesting omen of Richaar's own fate at the end of the play.

As Richaar's kingdom falls apart, so does his language. Houtman states that from very early on in the play, Richaar starts to lose his ability to combine the body politic and the body natural, meaning that he starts to experience difficulties concerning his status as a ruler. According to Houtman, Richaar then loses contact with reality, which is expressed in his language through subtle hints, such as:

Richaar Deuzième […] Gedurfd, fel, pertinent –

En niet gespeend van redenaarstalent...59

In these references to rhetorics and theater, Houtman recognizes a Richaar who is losing touch with reality, who destroys the link between the signifier and the signified as described by De Saussure.60 De Saussure stated that there is no reality outside of language, and Houtman places Richaar in this discourse. Richaar loses contact with reality, which is reflected in his language.

I hold a different view. The growing references to eloquence and theater do not indicate that Richaar is losing touch with reality, but rather that he is discovering reality, namely that the superior position he considers obvious is not as unchangeable as he would expect. As a king, he is part of the immense theater production that is his court. As

58 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 23. My emphasis. 59 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 11. 60 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 54.

33 Bolingbroke takes over power, Richaar's kingdom falls apart. These references to rhetoric and the theater thus can be seen as symbols of Richaar's new look on reality. By referring to elements of eloquence and theater, Richaar is using his language to expose the theatrical illusion to the reader or viewer, causing them to experience a similar unsettlement; i.e. the sudden realization that what one considered reality, is in reality a well-crafted illusion. Richaar's power, as well as the theater production the audience is seeing, can be considered such an illusion.

Other examples of references to the theater by Richaar can be found in the first scene of the third act, where Richaar exclaims “Het stuk is uit; de monarchie morsdood.”61 after Carlisle and Aumale inform him on Bolingbroke's plans. Two replies further, Richaar describes his power as a farce (“Mijn macht en kracht een schijnvertoning”62). Richaar's monologue before the coronation of Bolingbroke contains a number of references to the theater as well. Richaar refers to the proscenium, an encore, the theater, the scenery, the audience and a prompter, as well as describing his new position in society as a role. Thus, he underlines the statement that as the play continues, he has to face the ongoing destruction of his kingdom. Even when in prison at the end of the play as well as at the end of his life, Richaar describes the walls of his cell as his audience, his “chers spectateurs”63. Until the very end, poetry and wordplay are more important to Richaar than taking political action. It is exactly this devotion to the artistic that causes him to lose his kingdom.

Richaar's passion for poetry and art also expresses itself through the use of existing poems. At the beginning of the second act, Richaar recites “Tabula Rasa” by Paul

61 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 43. 62 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 43. 63 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 61.

34 Snoek, a Belgian 20th - century experimental poet, in which Richaar seems to recognize his own desire, i.e. to be

Een overgouden man, geschapen om

Zijn schoonheid en om anders niets.64

When locked up in the tower, Richaar recites “Waiting for the barbarians”, written in

1904 by the Greek poet Kaváfis. According to Houtman, this poem reflects Richaar's own internal battle as well as the conflict between him and Bolingbroke (which will be discussed below). The use of these existing poems can be considered an attempt of escaping one's own reality as well.

Richaar Deuzième's archaic Dutch is mixed with French words and sentences.

According to Houtman, the use of French is a symbol of Richaar's superior social position and status.65 French catch phrases are present from the very beginning: the play is no longer called Richard the Second, but Richaar Deuzième. The use of French to underline Richaar's superiority starts with his name and will continue in his language use.

Although the fact that Richaar's French underlines his superiority is a valid point, there are some French interjections that cannot be explained solely as an expression of superiority. After Mowbray and Bolingbroke's arguments concerning the murder of duke

Gloster, Richaar starts his reply to Bolingbroke with “Mon Dieu, neveu! Vous êtes un peu nerveux.”66. Two scenes later, the ongoing discussion is again interrupted by a short discussion between La Reine and Richaar:

La Reine (fluistert lief in Richaars oor) Richaar,

Je vous en prie, laissez-moi faire pipi.

64 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 26. 65 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 52-53. 66 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 13.

35 Richaar Deuzième (fluistert terug) Ma chère enfant,

N'attends que pour un tout petit instant.67

The banality and ridicule of these intermezzos in an otherwise serious and aggressive situation cannot be explained by merely stating that the French refers to Richaar's superior position. Both replies can be considered comical because of the use of French, the rhymes (internal in the first example and in La Reine's lines, end rhyme in Richaar's reply) and the subject. Having taken this into account, I consider these intermezzos as attempts of underlining Richaar's view on the world. By allowing such replies, Richaar seems to be implying that the ongoing situation which will lead to the exile of Mowbray and Bolingbroke is not as serious as it may be perceived. Richaar cannot see the consequences of this exile and does not see any reason why not to ridicule a situation, thinking that it cannot affect him, as he is God's ambassador on earth. At this point,

Richaar does not realize that this conflict eventually might be a threat to his power. By adding these intermezzos, Richaar minimalizes the importance of the events and emphasizes his own superiority, thus underlining his inability of being a true king.

5.2.3 External language conflicts: Richaar, Bolingbroke, Jan van Gent, Northumberland,

York

Language is not only an important factor to express certain characteristics of particular roles, it can also be used to express the relationship between certain characters.

Several external language conflicts can be recognized in Richaar Deuzième. The most obvious one is of course the relationship between Richaar and Bolingbroke, but also the relationships Richaar – Jan van Gent, Richaar – Northumberland and Bolingbroke – York can be considered interesting.

67 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 20.

36 The most obvious conflictive relationship reflected by particular language utterances is the relationship between Richaar, the ruler, and Bolingbroke, his nephew who takes over the kingdom. The differences between their language uses are numerous.

As previously stated, Richaar uses an archaic Dutch full of metaphors, rhymes and literary tropes, while Bolingbroke's Dutch is more down-to-earth, and structured in rhyming two-line couplets. He does not use metaphors but simply says what has to be said. The striking difference between their language uses can be considered a symbol of the differences between their personalities and their reign: Richaar was king by hereditary right and did not care for taking action, while Bolingbroke (as a king called Hendrik Vier) has obtained his power by taking action and is a king with a political vision rather than just an artistic one. When placing two replies next to each other, the differences can be seen clearly:

Bolingbroke […] 'De erfgenaam van Jan van Gent is daar.

Hij kust geknield de hand van Vorst Richaar,

Die hij nog steeds – zo goed lijk vroeger – dient,

Oprecht getrouw als leenman, neef en vriend.

Hij legt zijn macht en wapens aan uw voet,

Vooropgesteld dat gij zijn ban herroept,

Hem in zijn hertogstitel confirmeert

En zijn bezit en land restitueert. [...]'68

Bolingbroke expresses clearly what he wants, while Richaar continuously covers his true message in metaphors and wordplay:

Richaar Deuzième Mon Dieu, mon Dieu! Dat ooit die tong van mij,

Die gindse pauwetrotse man bedolf

Onder het wrede vonnis van zijn ban, 68 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 44.

37 Die vloek weer van hem af zou moeten likken,

Met suswoordjes! […]69

Bolingbroke's down-to-earth language use is a symbol of the new royal power that is spreading. From now on, seizing political power is more important than birthright, or as

Bolingbroke states: “Geen vorst laat zich gebieden door gebeden”70.

Other interesting relationships are the ones between the kings and their followers.

The relationship between Richaar and Jan van Gent, for example, provides a good example of an external language conflict as well. At the beginning of the play, it becomes clear that Jan van Gent is like a father to Richaar, who asks him for advice from the very first sentences onwards. This connection between them is expressed through their language, as their replies rhyme:

Richaar Deuzième […] Verzoening preken past een man op jaren.

Jan van Gent Zoon, gooit die handschoen neer, komt tot bedaren

En geeft aan uw gehoorzaamheid gehoor.

Richaar Deuzième Aan u houd ik hetzelfde voorbeeld voor.71

Northumberland's language betrays a similar tendency. While serving Richaar, he attempts to use a language as archaic and pompous as Richaar's:

Northumberland Treedt nader altegader! Houdt u klaar

Voor het gevaarlijkste gevecht van 't jaar!

Wellicht het goddelijkste godsgericht

Van heel ons tijdelijke tijdgewricht!

De fijnste, soevereinste strubbeling!

Niet één zo majestatisch handgemeen!72

By the end of the second act, Northumberland however has chosen to fight alongside 69 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 45. 70 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 51. 71 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 15. My emphasis. 72 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 18-19.

38 Bolingbroke. His language use is now no longer archaic and pompous, but down-to-earth, just like his new master:

Northumberland Niets. Tenzij het lezen

Van deze aanklacht, vol met gruweldaden

Door u begaan en door uw volgelingen,

Tegen de staat en 't nut van 't algemeen.

Opdat, door deze biecht, het volk beseft:

Hij is met recht en reden afgezet.73

The same shift can be identified in the language of the duke of York. The duke of York supports king Richaar, but not without some resistance. He respects and obeys him because he is king, but he does recognize that Richaar makes mistakes as well:

York Neef!

Noch het vermoorden van Gloster, mijn broer,

Noch de verbanning van neef Bolingbroke,

Noch de kwetsuur van mijn vernedering,

Noch het oneervol zuchten van mijn land,

Heeft ooit mijn lijdzaam aangezicht verzuurd

Of mij doen fronsen voor uw vorst'lijk aanschijn –

[…] Uw pa was

Mijn oudstgeboren broer, de Zwarte Prins;

[…]

Hij fulmineerde echter tegen Frankrijk,

Nooit tegen zijn familie. […]

Nooit kleefde aan zijn hand het bloed van broers -

Daar kleefde bloed van onze erfvijanden.74

When the duke of York meets Bolingbroke, who returned from his exile to seize power,

York objects. He remains true to his king, Richaar, but not for long. After a discussion

73 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 53. 74 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 32.

39 with Bolingbroke, York allows him to spend the night in his castle. Answering

Bolingbroke, then, York uses the same rhyming two-line couplets that are characteristic of Bolingbroke's language. Bolingbroke becomes more and more powerful, and the language of his bystanders betrays this:

York Maar vraagt niets méér, want ik blijf aan de kant!

Ik breek niet graag de wetten van ons land.

Vijand noch vriend, zo zijt ge welgekomen –

Wat reddeloos is, kan ik niet voorkomen.75

5.2.4 Conclusion

Not only Richaar's identity and ideas are expressed through his language use, but also the relationships between the different characters. Richaar's pompously articulated speech acts underline his interest in arts and his disinterest in true politics. Throughout the play, the language use also underlines his loss of power as Bolingbroke tries to seize the throne. The striking differences between the language use of Richaar and Bolingbroke echo the differences between their ideas of politics as well. Richaar's archaic language of metaphors reveals his love for the artistic and his disinterest in taking action, while

Bolingbroke's straightforward rhyming two-line couplets illustrate his ability to seize power and rule like a true king. Other minor characters also adjust their language as their ideas and allies change: Jan van Gent's support for Richaar is reflected in their mutually rhyming sentences, while Northumberland's sudden switch from archaic to straightforward Dutch betrays the end of his alliance with Richaar and the beginning of a new one with Bolingbroke. The duke of York's subtle rhyming lines at the end of the second act are another example of how language use underlines the relationships between

75 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 38.

40 the characters in Richaar Deuzième. The archaic Dutch underlines the mythical character of the first play of the Ten Oorlog cycle, in which language will continue to evolve as society changes.

41 5.3 Hendrik Vier

5.3.1 Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry IV (part I & II)

Shakespeare's The History of Henry the Fourth (part I) was published as a Quarto for the first time in 1598 and as a Folio in 1623. The first Quarto of The Second Part of

Henry the Fourth was published in 1600, while the first Folio dates from 1623. Part I illustrates how king Henry IV would like to undertake a crusade to the Holy Land but is prevented from doing so by the rebellions in Scotland and Wales, while even a bigger threat arises: Edmund Mortimer claims to be the rightful heir of Richard II. Although the political problems are enough trouble for Henry IV, his family life is not flawless either.

He worries about the behavior of his son and heir, prince Harry (known as Hal), who spends too much time in bars with low companions such as Sir John Falstaff. The rebellion the Percys plot against king Henry IV leads to a great battle at Shrewsbury, where prince Hal defeats Hotspur and wins back his father's approval. Part I of Henry IV ends after the battle at Shrewsbury, where one battle has been won, but others remain to be fought.

At the beginning of Henry IV, part II, the rebels have suffered a major defeat at

Shrewsbury, but several rebels continue to wage war against Henry IV. The rebels fight the ill king at the Forest of Gaultree, where prince John, the king's second son, has them arrested and executed. In the mean time, king Henry IV, who had become increasingly ill, worries about what will happen when his irresponsible son Hal becomes king. After an angry speech of his father, however, prince Hal vows that he will be a responsible king.

Henry IV then forgives him and dies, and Hal is crowned king Henry V. After the crowning, Henry V completely rejects Falstaff, thus abjuring his previous immaturity and presenting himself as a true king. Part II of Henry IV contains a great deal of comical

42 scenes as well, situated around the entourage of Falstaff and Mistress Quickly.

Hendrik Vier is based on both the first and the second part of Shakespeare's Henry

IV, but the plays are adapted drastically. Both plays are combined to form one play, and this of course entails a drastic adaptation of the play's storyline. The most striking difference is the fact that the political story is almost completely absent. In Hendrik Vier, the Welsh situation with Glyndŵr is not discussed and the situation with Percy and

Mortimer only occupies two scenes. Concerning the political plot line, Lanoye stated in an interview that he had simplified the political story by situating all forms of rebellion in

Ireland, just like all brides would come from France76. The primary focus of Hendrik Vier is the conflict between father and son, just like the title of the first part of Ten Oorlog's trilogy indicates: In de naam van de Vader en de Zoon. The development of Henk and his repulsion of his previous irresponsibility is the main topic of the play. Just like in Richaar

Deuzième, the parts have been drastically reduced as well: from the more than 40 different parts in both parts of Shakespeare's Henry IV, 13 remain in Hendrik Vier.77

5.3.2 Internal language conflicts: Hendrik Vier, La Falstaff

As mentioned in the discussion of Richaar Deuzième, Hendrik Vier uses rhyming two-line couplets to express himself. Using these couplets, he distinguishes himself clearly from Richaar, implying that a new reign has started. His royal name underlines the straightforwardness of his language as well: Hendrik Vier.

One of the most intriguing characters of Hendrik Vier is La Falstaff. The fat

76 Margaretha is the only bride who does not come from France, but from Italy, which Lanoye considers a superlative of France. 77 See appendix, p. 99.

43 knight that added some humor to both the first and the second part of Shakespeare's

Henry IV is now a transvestite, whose feminine touch is underlined by the addition of

“La” to his name. La Falstaff's language can be best studied in comparison to Hendrik and Henk, and will therefore be discussed below.

5.3.3 External language conflicts: Hendrik Vier, Roste, Westmoreland, La Falstaff, Henk

Just like York adjusted his language use to Bolingbroke's in act II, scene 4 of

Richaar Deuzième, the allies of the crown adjust their language to their king in Hendrik

Vier as well. This phenomenon occurs frequently from the very first act onwards. In the first act, Roste returns to Hendrik Vier after having given Richaar the poisoned meal that killed him. As Hendrik Vier had commanded the murder, Roste expects to be welcomed as a hero, but the opposite took place:

Roste (op) O Grote Leidsman, O Machtige Gids

Van God: ik schenk u deze kist. Uw angst

Ligt hier, verslagen lijk een ademloze.

Van al uw tegenstanders de meest boze:

Richaar uw neef, door mij hierheen gebracht.

Hendrik Vier Ik dank u niet, meneer. Gij hebt volbracht:

Een catastrofe, door uw kwade hand

Op mij geladen en op heel het land.

Roste Hemelse Mentor en Meester van Volk

En Staat! Op uw bevel is dit geschied.

Hendrik Vier Wie gif behoeft, bemint het daarom niet.

Venijn: verdwijnt! Al wou ik dan zijn dood,

Ik haat zijn doder en verlang diens dood.78

When entering, Roste addresses the king with extensive descriptions, written with capital

78 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 69. My emphasis.

44 letters, as will do the other followers of the king in the rest of the play as well. This extensive use of capital letters and compliments thus can be recognized as a language use typical of the king's allies. Another interesting element to be found in the opening lines of the play, is the fact that Hendrik's replies rhyme with Roste's lines, while Roste does not rhyme with Hendrik's replies. This can be considered a reference to their discussion: Roste feels betrayed as the king will now punish him for murdering Richaar, although he was ordered to do so. Therefore, he refuses to rhyme with the king, thus underlining his discontent. On the other hand Hendrik Vier, being king, cannot admit in public he is pleased with the murder, but seems to express his satisfaction by rhyming with Roste's lines. Thus, Hendrik seems to imply he is happy with Roste's actions and the murder of Richaar.

Westmoreland, another ally of Hendrik Vier, also expresses his loyalty through his language. Just like Roste, he addresses the king with elaborate descriptions in capital letters:

Westmoreland (diep buigend) O Grote Hendrik Vier,

Volmaakte Vorst en Heerser, vol van gratie,

Verheven Gids en Vader van de Natie:

't Verheugt mij u te mogen melden dat

De Bende van De Tien uit Ossewad –

Tien ratten die u naar het leven stonden –

Gevat is, en geheel en al ontbonden.

Hendrik Vier Ik dank u, heer Westmoreland, onomwonden.

Smijt hun onthoofde lijk maar voor de honden;

Ge hebt u kundig van uw taak gekweten,

Uw moeite zal niet licht worden vergeten.

45 Gij stondt reeds hoog maar stijgt nu nog in rang;

Ik dank u, in de naam van 't landsbelang.79

Westmoreland also tries to imitate the king's speech by speaking in rhyming two-line couplets. Hendrik Vier confirms the alliance between them by rhyming with

Westmoreland's lines, just like Richaar Deuzième rhymed with Jan van Gent.

As mentioned above, the character of La Falstaff can be best studied in relation to

Henk, the son of Hendrik Vier, and Hendrik Vier himself. In act I, scene 1 La Falstaff sings a Latin version of the Hail Mary. This can be considered the first sign of the troubled relationship between Hendrik Vier and La Falstaff. As Houtman states,

“Hendrik cleverly uses platitudes from Christian vocabulary: guilt, moral, ethics... His

language is completely undermined by the underground figure La Falstaff. This

transvestite also uses a language with platitudes from the Bible, but undermines these

with parody.”80

At the end of act I, scene 1, La Falstaff parodies the poem “Het Schrijverke” by Guido

Gezelle, a Flemish poet and Roman Catholic priest. By doing so, he seems to be parodying Hendrik Vier himself81, as he is a pious Catholic as well and has just declared to undertake a crusade to the Holy Land. Language does not only underline the connections between the characters but also accentuates their differences. While La

Falstaff parodies Gezelle, Henk completes the lines:

La Falstaff […] Gij stijft lijk een paal in het water staat

Gij stijft en gij spuit en 't is weg;

Geen Christen verstaat, waar dat toch op slaat

Och, stijveke, zeg het mij, zeg!

79 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 70. My emphasis. 80 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 104. My translation. 81 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 104.

46 Henk giechelt) Zijn 't pisserkes waar ge van stijven moet?

Zijn 't kuttekes waar ge van stijft?

La Falstaff Zijn 't eikels of gatjes of mondjes zoet,

Of kraters, waarvan dat ge stijft? […]82

This alliance between La Falstaff and Henk is what bothers Hendrik Vier the most. His son Henk is completely controlled by La Falstaff, which is expressed by the intertwinement of their lines. In the first act, Henk does not produce a single autonomous speech act. He simply repeats and replies La Falstaff:

La Falstaff (vertederd) Echtig en techtig?

Henk Echtig en techtig.83

In the second act, Hendrik Vier expresses his discontent with Henk's behavior with an aggressive monologue, stating that such behavior is unacceptable for a man of royal descent. Hendrik would have preferred Percy as his son, whom he describes as

Henk's “opposite on every level: persistence, willpower, honor and libido”84. Henk does show to understand his father's message:

Henk (lange stilte) Vergeeft me, vader, wat ik heb misdaan.

Ik wil... Ik zal... Meer mezelf zijn, voortaan.85

Henk tries to talk like his father, in rhyming two-line couplets. His lines reveal the difficulty he faces to do so: he is doubting how to start his sentence, and his quickly added rhyme exposes his difficulty of applying his father's style.86 Henk's next reply reveals he is not able to speak like his father. Instead of using rhyming two-line couplets,

Henk continues to rhyme:

82 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 73. 83 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 70. 84 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 79. My translation. 85 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 78. 86 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 104.

47 Henk Wat men ook zegt van mij: ik ben niet laf.

Geeft mij mijn boete – ik die aanstoot gaf.

Veroordeelt mij, maakt met mijn schuld komaf,

Ontneemt mij alles waar ik ooit om gaf.

Mijn privileges? Ik zie ervan af,

In ruil voor ballingschap of bedelstraf,

Voor dwangarbeid of gevangenisstraf...

Het is mij om het even. Neemt mijn leven. Af.87

When Hendrik Vier leaves the scene, Henk uses for the first time his own language to express himself:

Henk De kop van Percy zal mijn schuld vereffenen,

Zijn vege lijf, zijn vel, mijn schande delgen.

Er komt een dag, een glorieuze dag,

Waarop ik vóór u sta en zeg: 'Hier ben ik,

Pa! Luistert, kijkt mij aan. Ik ben uw zoon!'88

He is no longer rhyming like his father or parodying Christian elements like La Falstaff.

These lines are Henk's “first linguistic steps to power”89. It is only after having killed

Percy, who gained more respect from Hendrik Vier than Henk himself, and after Hendrik

Vier had almost died, that Henk verbalizes his own thoughts for the first time. Although

Henk's words do not praise his father, Hendrik Vier expresses his satisfaction:

Henkdrik Vier (grijnst) Prima, Henk. Eindelijk spreekt gij de taal

Der prinsen. Streng, niet zwak of familiaal.

[…]

Al bloedt mijn hart van vader bij uw woorden,

De Vorst in mij hoort hemelse akkoorden.90

87 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 79. My emphasis. 88 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 80. 89 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 105. My translation. 90 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 98. My ermphasis.

48 Hendrik Vier is proud his son finally speaks as a king should speak, according to him.

Henk is no longer influenced by La Falstaff and does not try to imitate his father anymore. He is capable of using his own language now, which indicates he is ready to take over his father's kingdom as well. The final act of the play underlines Henk's (now king Hendrik de Vijfden) independence and separation from previous influences:

Hendrik de Vijfden Meneer.

Ik heb u en uw zeden bestudeerd

Gelijk een vreemde taal. Haar spraaknuances

Leert men het best door eerst de schuttingwoorden

Te zoeken, proeven en memoriseren

Waarna die tot geen ander nut meer strekken

Dan om gekend te zijn en dus vermeden.

Gij schonkt mij als object van observatie

Een ongehoorde woordenschat, die ik

Het liefst begraven zie. […]91

Speaking to La Falstaff, Hendrik de Vijfden describes La Falstaff's behavior as a language he no longer wants to use himself or wants to hear within his kingdom. He even addresses La Falstaff as “meneer”, thus creating a distance between himself and his former best friend, and accentuating his newly acquired independence. The dismissal of

La Falstaff symbolizes Hendrik de Vijfden's rupture with his previous behavior. His language, just like his character, has matured, thus enabling him to become king.

5.3.4 Conclusion

In Richaar Deuzième, the king's language is the criterion for the language use of the other characters, and Hendrik Vier is not different in this respect. The allies of king

91 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 100.

49 Hendrik Vier attempt to use the same rhyming two-line couplets that are typical of the king's speech, like Westmoreland. Although language is primarily used to express the alliances between characters, it can also accentuate the difficulties between them. In this case, the language use of La Falstaff can be considered exemplary. La Falstaff parodies catholic texts and references, and thus seems to be criticizing Hendrik's catholic references and his wish to go on a crusade. The character of La Falstaff also has a considerable influence on the young Henk, which is revealed by their intertwined language utterances as well. When Henk learns to produce his own speech utterances, his speech acts underline the end of this alliance and the beginning of his reign as king

Hendrik de Vijfden.

50 5.4 Hendrik de Vijfden

5.4.1 Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry V

Shakespeare's The Life of Henry the Fifth was first published as a Quarto in 1600 and as a Folio in 1623. The play evolves around Henry V's invasion of France, caused by an insult sent to him by the French Dauphin. Before his fleet sets sail, Henry V discovers that three of his allies were conspiring against his life, and he orders they should be executed. He then sets sail with his army for France. In France, the English army first conquers the town of Harfleur, but the climax of the play and of the war against France is the famous battle of Agincourt. The English were outnumbered but miraculously won the battle and the French surrendered. Henry V will eventually marry Catherine, the daughter of the French king, thus uniting the two kingdoms.

Although Perceval and Lanoye remain close to the original with Hendrik de

Vijfden, some minor changes can be noticed. As in the previous plays, the scenes with low characters are cut. Still, in Hendrik de Vijfden the lower classes seem to have a voice through the songs of the army. Any comical scenes have disappeared, as well as the scene where king Henry V disguises himself as a common man to find out what his people think of him. The chorus scenes are absent from Hendrik de Vijfden as well, but are replaced with monologues by La Falstaff. Only 17 parts remain of the original 42 parts.92

5.4.2 Internal language conflicts: La Falstaff, Hendrik de Vijfden

Before discussing the title character, I will discuss the previously most important companion of king Hendrik de Vijfden: La Falstaff. Although Falstaff is dead before

Shakespeare's Henry V begins, in Ten Oorlog's Hendrik de Vijfden the transvestite still

92 See appendix, p. 102.

51 plays an important role, functioning as a chorus and reciting prologues and epilogues. La

Falstaff opens the play with a monologue that immediately reveals his language use has evolved since Hendrik Vier:

La Falstaff Was ik niet ik, La Falstaff,

Was ik niet ik, maar Muze van het Vuur;

Kon ik, als vlam, verzengend stijgen naar

De hoogste hemel der verbeeldingskracht –

Ik nam geen vrede met dit vals theater.93

When comparing La Falstaff's speech acts with her previous utterances, the differences are striking. He is no longer using vulgar language nor parodying Catholic stories.

Houtman recognizes in La Falstaff's new language use the ghost of the old Richaar; a comparison which is underlined by the fact that the actor who played Richaar also played

La Falstaff in the stagings of Ten Oorlog. When studying the differences between La

Falstaff's new language and Hendrik de Vijfden's straightforward Flemish, Houtman also perceives a repetition of the conflict between Richaar Deuzième and Bolingbroke.94 This again underlines the circularity of history which is one of Perceval's main themes in Ten

Oorlog. The contrast between La Falstaff's language utterances and Hendrik de Vijfden's language use can be considered an echo of the radical rupture of their friendship at the end of Hendrik Vier. At the same time, though, La Falstaff remains on stage during the complete play, while commenting on the action. This might indicate that La Falstaff remains important to Hendrik de Vijfden. La Falstaff's former influence will never completely disappear from Hendrik's mind.

Hendrik Vier's language was considerably more to the point than Richaar

93 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 107. 94 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 106.

52 Deuzième's language, but Hendrik de Vijfden is even more straightforward. As noted at the end of Hendrik Vier, Hendrik de Vijfden drops his father's rhyming two-line couplets and develops his own type of language use. In the third play of Ten Oorlog, Hendrik de

Vijfden's style becomes clear. Hendrik de Vijfden is a man of the people, and his aggressive and direct language emphasizes his connection with lowest classes of society.

He speaks Dutch, but adds typically Flemish words:

Hendrik de Vijfden Mannen! Bestorm die bres, bespring die scheur,

Verover haar of vul haar met uw lijken.

Beleefd zijn en voorzichtig is voor wijven.

Wij staan voor heter vuren dan een stoof.

Wij doen wat elke vent zou doen wanneer

De blauwe bonen om zijn oren fluiten:

Hij rolt zijn spieren, steekt zijn hart in brand,

Verzuipt zijn goed fatsoen in razernij.

Erop, erin, erover, trotse troepen!95

The Flemish words spread throughout his language and accentuate his connection with his infantry. For Richaar Deuzième and Hendrik Vier, only the scenes concerning the nobility were used; the lower classes of society did not have a voice in those plays. In

Hendrik de Vijfden, this is different. In this play, the normal soldiers have a voice. Their songs are added to the text:

Het leger (zingend) En op de tet

Van ons Mariette

Daar hebben ze tsjoepen op gezet

Om aan te draaien

Om aan te draaien...96

At the end of this scene, Hendrik de Vijfden even incites the singing:

95 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 127. My emphasis. 96 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 120.

53 Hendrik de Vijfden Houzee! Steek de trompet en roer de trom!

Het leger (inschepend) En op de tet

Van ons Mariette

Daar hebben ze tsjoepen op gezet

Om aan te draaien

Om aan te draaien...97

By adding these songs full of typically Flemish words and by showing that Hendrik de

Vijfden even motivates the singing, his position as a soldier-king among his people is intensified.

5.4.3 External language conflicts: Hendrik de Vijfden, his army, the French court

When attacking France, Hendrik's power is underlined by the conflict between his language use and the with French words infected language of the French court:

Dauphin Mon Père et Roi, laat ons geen tijd perdéren.

Wij moeten met le tout van onze troepen

Ons als een luipaard op zijn flanken werpen.98

By mixing French and Dutch, the French court's political discussions are comical instead of serious and threatening. This way, their power is undermined. To the reader or viewer, this court does not seem powerful. This is emphasized by another example:

Charles VI Wij bieden hem la paix et réconciti...

La réconciliti... Récon... Verzoening.99

The French king is unable to pronounce his own language correctly. As language is a symbol of power in Ten Oorlog, these pronunciation difficulties again undermine the authority of the French court. Hendrik de Vijfden also clearly mocks their language:

Hendrik de Vijfden (stilte) Heb dank voor zijn present en uw presentie,

97 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 124. 98 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 125. 99 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 125.

54 En meld hem dat zijn ballen mij bevallen.

Hij zoekt plaisanterie? Ik zal weldra,

Op Franse grond, mij graag laten verleiden

Tot een gepast partijtje jeu de boules.100

By using French wordplay to refer to his future attack of France, Hendrik de Vijfden again accentuates his own strength in language, and thus his potency as a king.

Houtman states that Hendrik de Vijfden's language appears increasingly powerful because of the weak language of the French court. According to Houtman, as Hendrik de

Vijfden is only powerful in relation to the weaker, his power is built on sand. 101 Although

Houtman's point can be considered valid, I do not consider Hendrik's power completely based on the weakness of his opponents. Detached from the French court and their language utterances, Hendrik still uses a powerful, straightforward Dutch that reveals a bigger political determination than for example Richaar's language utterances. His power is magnified by the French weakness, but not created by it. Hendrik de Vijfden displays a clear focus on politics and war. Hendrik's first words in the play highlight this focus:

Hendrik de Vijfden […] God weet hoevelen, nu nog kerngezond,

Hun bloed ooit moeten storten bij het zoeken

Naar wat u ons zult vragen na te jagen.

Wee uw gebeente als u ons durft te spannen

Voor de verkeerde kar, en wees vervloekt

Als wij ons oorlogszwaard te vroeg ontbloten.102

Hendrik's speech reveals he focuses only on war and politics, unlike his predecessors

Richaar, who only cared for arts, and Hendrik Vier, who was completely obsessed by his

100Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 117. 101Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 107. My translation. 102Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 110.

55 son's behavior. The French court does not focus completely on the conflict either. Before the second battle, which they will eventually lose, they talk about their armor and joke about the resemblances between horses and women instead of discussing their tactics for the fight.

After the victory at Harfleur, the language of the English army subtly enters the

French court when the French princess Catherine sings one of the army's songs:

Catherine De Schele Vanderlinde liep wat mank

Want zijne prul was wel ne meter lank...

Zijn kloten waren zo terribel heet

Hij maakte er zijn eten op gereed...

Als Vanderlinde eens een poepslag dee

Dan poepten de geburen mee...

Maar zijne kop was nog niet van zijn lijf

Of zijne meter stond weer stijf...103

The fact that Catherine already uses this Flemish Dutch seems to be an omen of the

English court's eventual victory and her marriage to Hendrik de Vijfden. She does not ridicule the soldiers' song but simply repeats it. In this sense, her use of the opponent's language is different from Hendrik de Vijfden's use of French. He was mocking his opponent's language while she simply repeats it without adding value judgments. Again, language underlines the relationships of power.

Within the British nobility, the allegiance owed by some noblemen to the king is accentuated by their speech acts as well. Just like Westmoreland adjusted his language to

103Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 131. The poem about Schele Vanderlinde which is used by Lanoye is said to be a song written by Willem Elsschot in his student days.

56 Hendrik Vier, he now expresses his obedience to Hendrik de Vijfden through his language use:

Westmoreland […] Zijn vriendje Pieter, schildknaap van mijn broer.

Het rostje, en de dikke, en de kleine. […]104

By using Flemish words instead of Dutch ones, Westmoreland attempts to speak as

Hendrik does to express his loyalty to his lord. At the end of the fifth act, language's aptitude to verbalize power is again emphasized:

Westmoreland Koning van Frankrijk, zult u vanaf heden

Op alle officiële perkamenten

Uw titel voeren, direct vergezeld

Van deze toevoeging, en wel in 't Frans:

Notre très cher fils Henri,

Roy105 d'Angleterre,

Héritier de France?

Charles VI Evidemment, en zelfs in het Latijn:

Praeclarissimus filius noster Henricus,

Rex Angliae,

Haeres Franciae... Voilà!106

By describing Hendrik's possible titles after marrying Catherine in both French and Latin,

Westmoreland and Charles VI identify language as inevitably linked to and as a symbol of power. Their words convince Hendrik de Vijfden of the benefits of marrying

Catherine. Hendrik does not consider the new lands nor the wealth as benefits; his new titles are what persuade him. The more languages are involved and the more one is capable of using languages, the more power one has.

104Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 147. My emphasis. 105 In Old French, “roy” instead of “roi” meant king. 106 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 150.

57 5.4.4 Conclusion

Like his predecessors before him, Hendrik de Vijfden has developed his own language style, characterized by a straightforwardness and the use of Flemish words.

Whereas in the previous play he was still very influenced by his father and La Falstaff, his language utterances now reveal he is completely independent. His good relationship with the people is underlined by the presence of the army's songs. When Catherine starts singing one of these army's songs, it accentuates Hendrik's spreading power. The fact that speech acts reflect power becomes even more clear at the end, when Hendrik is convinced to marry Catherine not based on wealth or land but based on the titles he will then possess. Next to Hendrik, other roles are characterized through language as well: the

French court is ridiculed because of the French mixed through their language and their impossibility to pronounce it correctly, and Westmoreland's allegiance to the king is underlined by his use of Flemish words. Another interesting presence is La Falstaff, who functions as a chorus and seems to be highlighting the circularity of history. Although La

Falstaff and Hendrik were good friends in the previous play, their separation at the end of

Hendrik Vier is underlined in Hendrik de Vijfden by the striking dissimilarities between their languages: Hendrik's straightforward Flemish is very different from La Falstaff's

Dutch that is seemingly influenced by Richaar.

58 5.5 Margaretha di Napoli

5.5.1 Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry VI (part I & II)

Margaretha di Napoli is based on Henry VI, part I and II and the first act of part

III. The First Part of Henry the Sixth was originally published as a Folio in 1623. The

Second Part of Henry VI107 was also published as a Folio in 1623, but this Folio was preceded by a few Quarto editions of which the first one was published in 1594. The third part of Henry VI108 was published as an Octavo volume in 1595, after which a few Quarto editions followed. This third part was also published as a Folio in 1623.

The first part of Henry VI starts with the funeral of Henry V and messengers stating there are problems in France. The Dauphin Charles has been crowned king and

Talbot, the English hero, has been taken prisoner. The English noblemen try to reorganize the kingdom and prepare the new young king, Henry VI, to cope with the troubles abroad. Gloucester, uncle of the new king, will rule the kingdom as a Protector until

Henry VI is old enough to take over. Soon, the noblemen quarrel among them, thus weakening the kingdom and distracting the attention from the problems in France.

Gloucester is accused of trying to take over the kingdom, while Plantagenet is attempting to regain his birthright. The conflicts between the Lancasters and the Yorks continue. In

France, the French are assisted by Joan of Arc, but she is trialled and burnt by York and

Warwick. After letters of the pope, both sides agree to a truce to stop the massacre of citizens. In battle, Suffolk had captured Margaret, the daughter of the duke of Anjou. He falls in love with her, but as he is already married he cannot woo her. Instead, he decides to woo her for Henry, and asks her father if he will consent to her marriage to the English

107 Also known as The First Part of the Contention of the Two Famous Houses of York and Lancaster. 108 Also known as The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York and the Good King Henry the Sixth.

59 king. Although Henry was already engaged to a relative of the French king, he decides to marry Margaret although this union does not offer any advantages. Suffolk, who aims to influence the king through her, is pleased with Henry VI's choice.

The second part of Henry VI starts with the marriage between king Henry VI and

Margaret. Gloucester's credibility is undermined by the witchcraft his wife Eleanor is involved in. Together with Winchester and Somerset, Suffolk then tries to bring about

Gloucester's ruin and eventually kills him after which he is banished, which horrifies

Margaret. Suffolk leaves and is killed by pirates. His head is sent back to Margaret.

Meanwhile, the duke of York tries to claim the throne, as he is a descendant from Edward

III. The nobility chooses sides and a battle at St. Albans is fought. After the battle,

Margaret convinces Henry VI to flee to London. Ten Oorlog's Margaretha di Napoli ends after Margaretha abandons Henry VI, as occurs in the first act of the third part of Henry

VI.

Just like both parts of Henry IV were adapted drastically to be combined as one play (Hendrik Vier), both parts of Henry VI have been modified severely by Perceval and

Lanoye. In Hendrik Vier the political story remained quite absent, and the same is true for

Margaretha di Napoli. The internal quarrels among the noblemen, Henry's incapability of being king and Margaret's seizure of the power are the most important themes of the play.

The story of the battles in France with Joan of Arc is only represented in the games of the little Hendrik and is strongly simplified. Of the more than 65 parts in both original plays,

15 remain in Margaretha di Napoli.109

109 See appendix, p. 104.

60 5.5.2 Internal language conflicts: Hendrik VI, Margaretha

When Margaretha di Napoli starts, the future king Hendrik VI is standing before his dead parents as a boy. Although his age is not indicated in the dramatis personae or staging directions, his youth is revealed by his language utterance:

Hendrik (met een grafrede die hij duidelijk nog niet kan lezen)

Liefste mama, liefste papa. Tussen de woordjes van

deze brief, zitten kussen warm en lief. Als ik de brief

nu opendoe, vliegen al de kusjes naar u toe.110

Not only Hendrik's simple speech act but also the way his lines are structured, underline his youth. Unlike all the other characters in this play and the previous plays, Hendrik's lines are not structured as a poem. It is quite possible that for adult roles, these lines would have been structured in a way that would accentuate the rhyme, such as: “Liefste mama, liefste papa. / Tussen de woordjes van deze brief, / zitten kussen warm en lief. /

Als ik de brief nu opendoe, / vliegen al de kusjes naar u toe”. Hendrik's inability to recognize the language's capacities and to use more difficult words, emphasize his youth and his inability to be king. As language was a symbol of power in the other plays, this language use reveals Hendrik is not capable of being in power. It is striking that in his dreams, where he plays the Dauphin, Hendrik is capable of constructing complex language utterances. Houtman sees this as an attempt to flee from reality. In his imagination, Hendrik can deal with situations that he cannot grasp in reality.111

Hendrik's language does evolve. As the play continues, his reading texts become more difficult, showing he is growing older and that little by little, he is becoming more capable of using language, which also implies he will soon be able to hold power and act

110 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 155. 111 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 107.

61 as a true king as well. Hendrik's first language utterance after his crowning is strikingly different from his previous lines:

Hendrik VI Zwijg! (stilte; de koning verbijt z'n tranen)

Bedenk toch waar we ons bevinden, vrienden!

In een vreemd land, te midden van een volk

Dat snel ontvlambaar en hysterisch is.

Is 't zo dat wij gewonnen geven wat

Mijn vader met zijn bloed gewonnen heeft?

Bevecht elkaar niet langer maar span samen. […] 112

Although the stage directions reveal that Hendrik VI is still only a child, Hendrik VI is now speaking as his predecessors did before him. This seems to accentuate he is now ready to behave as a true king. Exeter even underlines the value of Hendrik VI's words:

Exeter Mijn Vorst, u hebt mij dunkt niet slecht gesproken.113

Exeter's choice of words underlines the value of language. He does not merely state that the king's message was valuable, but stresses the king “did not speak badly”, thus focusing on the language utterance rather than on the message it contained and again emphasizing the inextricable connection between language and power. Immediately after

Hendrik VI's first powerful language utterance, however, his disinterest and incapability of focusing on the important discussions is revealed. Hendrik immediately returns to reading while the discussion continues among the nobility. He reacts when questions are asked, but he is not completely focused:

Hendrik VI (lezend) Ja, doe dat maar. […]114

Hendrik's absence in important discussions will become typical and eventually help

Margaretha to become more powerful. Although Hendrik managed to produce one

112 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 171. 113 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 172. My emphasis. 114 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 172.

62 powerful language utterance, other discussions reveal he is incapable of continuing to produce such utterances. In act III, scene 2, Hendrik VI is involved in a discussion with

Suffolk, who immediately gains the upper hand:

Hendrik VI Maar goede vriend, mijn tante heeft gezegd

Over Ghislaine D'Armagnac...

Suffolk Vertrouw geen vrouw als criticus van vrouwen! […]

Hendrik VI (onthutst) Het schijnt dat zij een grote bruidsschat heeft...

Suffolk Dat is 't ultiem bewijs van wat ik zeg! […]

Hendrik VI Maar bisschop Winchester en nonkel Gloster...

Suffolk Wat weten twee bejaarden van de liefde? […]

Hendrik VI Ik weet het niet... Ik... Alles is verward en...115

Suffolk knows how to use language to obtain what he wants; he knows language is a tool of power and uses this against the weak Hendrik VI. Hendrik VI cannot finish one sentence and every word he says is countered by one of Suffolk's argumentations.

Although Hendrik VI is king, the noblemen are the ones who hold power, as they have learned how to use language while Hendrik VI did not.

Unable to deal with reality or with the nobility, Hendrik VI flees in religion. An example can be found in act III, scene 5, where Hendrik and the nobility go hunting:

Hendrik VI (tegen Gloster) Ach oom, hoe fel schoot uw valk niet omhoog,

En wat een vlucht, ver boven die van ons!

Zo ziet u maar, God werkt in al zijn schepselen. […]

Suffolk Geen wonder dat het beest van de Protector

Nog hoger dan de hoogste toren klapwiekt:

Het kent het steile streven van zijn meester. […]

Winchester Ohlala: Gloster zoekt het hoger dan

115 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 180.

63 De wolken.

Gloster U dan niet, mijn beste bisschop?

Wilt ú niet kunnen vliegen naar de hemel?

Hendrik VI De hemel, ja, die poort van hoop en glorie, […]116

While discussing, the noblemen use religious references to talk about Gloster's and

Winchester's want of the crown, Hendrik only recognizes the religious references and does not see what they are implying. He is losing touch with reality and flees in his religious language, just like Richaar Deuzième fled reality by using a theatrical language.

His input no longer matters in the political discussions. Richaar's flight from reality however was motivated by a disinterest, while Hendrik's flight is motivated by incapability.

Margaretha's language utterances, on the other hand, accentuate the difference between her and her husband. Unlike Hendrik's, her language utterances reveal power: she talks like the men usually do in Ten Oorlog. She takes over the power her husband cannot control. Following the scene mentioned above, where Hendrik fails to recognize the sarcasm of the noblemen and fails to end the discussion, Margaretha reacts for the first time as a man:

Margaretha In Godsnaam, heren! (stilte) Eerbied voor de kroon!117

Margaretha speaks where the king should have spoken. No woman in Ten Oorlog reacts as Margaretha does; a woman simply would not interrupt a discussion among men with such powerful words. The general astonishment following these words, underlined by the staging directions, accentuates the general improbability of such utterances by women.

Margaretha is taking over power, as Hendrik fails to control his kingdom. As Houtman118

116 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 192. 117 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 193. 118 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van

64 already stated, Hendrik's penultimate words of the play underline the differences between him and Margaretha while referring to language:

Hendrik VI Toen jij voor 't eerst aan mij en aan dit hof

Verscheen, sprak jij dezelfde taal als ik.119

Margaretha is not present in the play from the beginning, but very soon she takes over power. The play even carries her name, and not the king's name, which again stresses her power and Hendrik's incapability as a ruler.

5.5.3 External language conflicts: Hendrik VI, Leonora, York

One of the most interesting external language conflicts in Margaretha di Napoli is the relationship between Hendrik VI and his aunt Leonora. When his parents deceased,

Leonora nursed Hendrik, which produced an intimate relationship between Leonora and

Hendrik. Houtman120 states that the structure of their conversations, based on questions and answers, resembles the conversations between La Falstaff and the young Henk in

Hendrik Vier:

Leonora (ze aait hem) Jij laat je tanteke nooit in de steek?

Hendrik (huilt bijna) Dat zeg ik toch: nee, nooit...

Leonora En zul je ooit

Naar vreemde mensen en meneren luisteren,

In plaats van naar je tante?

Hendrik Nee.

Leonora Nooit?

Hendrik Nee!121

Houtman states that Hendrik completely depends on Leonora to establish power through

Halewyck, 1999) 109. 119 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 236. 120 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 107. 121 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 167.

65 speech acts, which is accentuated by utterances such as:

Hendrik Zeg dat ze stoppen...

Zeg dat ze moeten stoppen, tanteke!122

As a child, Hendrik himself had no power in the presence of the court and needed the adult Leonora to realize his wishes. As an adult, Hendrik VI unfortunately continues to be incapable of wielding power. Margaretha controls the nobility while Hendrik is ignored.

As an adult, Leonora's influence remains present:

Leonora Hendrik? (neemt de vorst het boek af)

Hendrik VI Maar, tanteke! Ik was juist goed aan 't lezen!123

Although Hendrik VI just commanded to start a war against the French Dauphin, by speaking as a true king should, he immediately relapses in his childish language when

Leonora addresses him. This seems to imply that, although Hendrik VI is officially king, his aunt Leonora still exerts a great influence on him.

When Leonora is accused of witchcraft, Hendrik's close relationship with her has to end as she has compromised against God, whom Hendrik worships excessively.

Although he is crying, Hendrik no longer addresses Leonora in the childish language that was typical for their conversations, and he does not even call her “tanteke”:

Hendrik VI (tranerig; maar ook tegen zijn natuur in streng)

Treed nader, Leonora, vrouw van Gloster.

Leonora Toe, Hendrik, lieve jongen, spreek niet zo,

Niet op die toon: ik ben je tanteke. […]

Hendrik VI (nog emotioneler door haar woorden) Mevrouw,

In 't oog van God en ons is uw schuld groot.

De straf die door de wet voor deze zonde

122 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 167. 123 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 173.

66 En ook door God bepaald wordt, is: de dood.

Leonora Hendrikske, kijk naar mij, ik ben het: tanteke...124

Leonora immediately asks Hendrik “not to speak in such a way”, thus underlining the striking differences between these language utterances and the previous communication between Hendrik and Leonora. By using words such as “Hendrikske” and “tanteke”,

Leonora refers to their previous friendship in order to avoid punishment. Hendrik in his turn no longer calls his aunt “tanteke” but addresses her as “mevrouw”, thus bringing their previous alliance to an end. This calls to mind the situation between La Falstaff and

Hendrik de Vijfden; when Hendrik de Vijfden forswore his friendship with La Falstaff, he addressed his previous friend as “meneer”125, which indicated the end of their friendship.

In all plays previously discussed, it was not unlikely for the nobility to adjust their language to the king's language utterances, thus accentuating their allegiance to the lord.

In Margaretha di Napoli, however, none of the noblemen adjust their language to

Hendrik VI. Although Hendrik VI is king, he has no power; his queen Margaretha proves to be much more powerful. As Hendrik VI has no power, the nobility has nothing to gain by adjusting their language utterances to his to express their allegiance. The adjustment of their language is not a symbol of respect for the king's royal position; it is only an attempt of gaining advantages. However, in the third scene of the third act, York seems to be adjusting his language to the king's utterances while taking not to but about Hendrik

VI:

York Suffolk bedisselt ginds het schertsverdrag,

De edellieden knikken hier van ja

En Hendrikske weent dikke waterlanders

124 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 196. My emphasis. 125 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 100.

67 Omdat hij twee superbe hertogdommen

Mag ruilen voor een arme luis met tieten.126

When describing Hendrik, York uses the childish word “waterlanders” and calls the already crowned Hendrik VI “Hendrikske”. By doing so, York seems to be using the language Hendrik used as a child to emphasize that, although he is crowned now, he remains a child in behavior. The adjustment of language is in this case no example of the expression of allegiance, but an attempt of mocking Hendrik VI's immaturity and his weak reign.

5.5.4 Conclusion

In Margaretha di Napoli, language is primarily used to underline Hendrik VI's incapability. His childhood was controlled by his aunt Leonora, without whose presence

Hendrik had no power. When growing up, however, Hendrik's incapability of acting as a genuine king does not seize. He hardly manages to produce any powerful language utterances, and is quickly overthrown in discussions. Incapable of coping with the difficult political situation and the internal disturbances among the nobility, Hendrik VI loses touch with reality and is interested only in religion. Queen Margaretha meanwhile becomes more powerful and produces language utterances that can be considered rather masculine as they radiate power. Hendrik VI's weakness is accentuated by the lack of external language conflicts in Margaretha di Napoli. As Hendrik VI has no true power, it is useless for the nobility to flatter him by adjusting their language utterances. As the example of York shows, the nobility rather adjusts its language to ridicule the king than out of respect for his royal position. Hendrik VI turns out to be a feeble-minded king, incapable of carrying the weight of the crown, which is reflected in various speech acts.

126 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 187. My emphasis.

68 5.6 Edwaar the King

5.6.1 Introduction: Shakespeare's Henry VI (part III)

The third part of Henry VI, also known as Richard Duke of York, was first published as an Octavo volume in 1595. In 1600, the first Quarto appeared and in 1623 the first Folio was published, which was about a thousand lines longer than the previous editions. The play begins when Henry VI and Margaret are pursued by the Yorkists from the battlefield of St. Albans. Edward of York then takes the crown, which leads to a confrontation with Henry's followers. Threatened, Henry VI agrees to the proposal that he will remain king until his death, after which the crown will pass to the house of York, thus disinheriting his son, prince Edward. Displeased with his decision, Margaret manages to convince Henry's followers to abandon him and join her in her war against the Yorkists. The first confrontation between both parties takes place at York's castle at

Wakefield, where York loses the battle and his youngest son Rutland is murdered. York himself is captured and taunted by Clifford and Margaret with a handkerchief covered with his son's blood. After being crowned with a paper crown, York eventually is killed.

At the second battle of St. Albans, Warwick's army is defeated by Margaret's after which

Henry VI, pressured by Margaret, returns to London to revoke his deal with York. In the meantime, George of York has decided to join Warwick's cause, as well as Warwick's younger brother Montague. With their new group, the Yorkists win the battle of Towton.

Edward of York then is proclaimed king, George of York becomes Duke of Clarence and

Richard Duke of Gloucester. In asides and soliloquies, Richard from now on starts revealing his plans to rise to power and seize the crown from his brother. Following the battle of Towton, Warwick goes to France in an attempt to convince king Louis XI's sister

Bona to marry Edward to unite both nations through marriage. The French court has just

69 accepted the marriage when a messenger reports that Edward has engaged with the widowed Lady Grey. Angered by Edward's reckless behavior, Warwick then joins

Margaret's side and engages his daughter with Margaret's son. George and Montague follow Warwick, after which the French troops invade England, take Edward prisoner and restore Henry to the throne. Edward however manages to escape with some help and reorganizes his forces. At the battle of Barnet, the Yorkists win the fight, and Henry VI is imprisoned in the Tower. At the subsequent battle of Tewkesbury, the Yorkists defeat the

Lancastrians by capturing Margaret, prince Edward, and two of their noblemen. Margaret is banished and prince Edward is killed. At this point, Richard goes to London to kill

Henry VI while king Edward of York celebrates the end of the wars, unaware of Richard's ignoble plans.

While writing Edwaar the King, Perceval and Lanoye have respected

Shakespeare's original plot line. Some scenes are cut and some minor adjustments can be recognized, but overall the original and the adaptation are rather alike. The most striking difference between both plays is the language use, which will be discussed below. The more than 40 characters from Richard Duke of York are reduced to 15 parts in Edwaar the King.127

5.6.2 Internal language conflicts: Edwaar the King, Hendrik VI

The language use of Ten Oorlog's third part, En Verlos Ons Van Het Kwade, is very different from the previous plays. The final two plays are characterized by a combination of Dutch and English, infested with some Flemish words as well, which is spoken by the three York brothers Edwaar, Risjaar and Sjors, who call themselves

127 See appendix, p. 109.

70 “bruurs”. In Edwaar the King, the most prominent character of the York clan is Edwaar himself. Edwaar's language utterances can be considered both comical as well as aggressive. In his combination of English and Dutch a lot of intertextual references can be recognized. Houtman states that Edwaar's use of references such as “Pump up the jam!”128 or “We are the house of the three rising suns”129 can be considered an attempt to involve the audience in the play, thus underlining the relationship between the media and power.130 Houtman also states that this combination of Dutch and English symbolizes a stronger connection to reality, but according to me, his speech acts and the references they contain rather illustrate his incapability of recognizing his reality, i.e. that he has to keep in mind the consequences of his actions for the kingdom.

Edwaar's aggressive and comical language use seems to underline his recklessness and his inability of undertaking actions that do not only please him but that are good for the kingdom as well. An example can be found in act I, scene 1, when Edwaar shows to be more interested in a prostitute than in the political questions Warwick is discussing:

Warwick (vol gêne) Edwaar, het spijt me dat ik u moet storen,

Maar... wat wilt u dat er gebeurt met Hendrik

Wanneer die sukkel in onz' handen valt?

Edwaar (vrijt voort) O, what the fók! Just bust his balls or break

His back or chop him up like chickenshit

Or paint the town red met zijn ingewanden.

Warwick Laat hem gevangenzetten, dood hem niet.

Zolang hij leeft, heeft hij geen ergenis

Te geef, dus kan zijn zoon de kroon niet eisen. […]131 128 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 250. 129 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 245. 130 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 111. 131 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 249.

71 Another example of Edwaar's incapability of being king is his choice to marry the widowed Lady Grey, instead of the sister of the French king, Bona. When Warwick suggests Edwaar should marry Bona to unite both kingdoms, Edwaar's priorities show that he is more interested in women than in politics. He even calls Bona “Boner”. 132 By adapting the French princess' name to a sexually loaded word, Edwaar accentuates his own disinterest in politics and his incapability to act according to the needs of the kingdom.

The previous plays all started when a king had deceased, but in Edwaar the King

Henry VI is still alive. His inability to express power has not changed; in Edwaar the

King, Henry VI is even less capable of being assertive than in Margaretha di Napoli. In scene 1 of act I, his presence almost goes unnoticed:

Hendrik VI Ik smeek u: maak geen ruzie! Stop!

Margaretha Wel, kies

Dan eindelijk eens kant, of hou je kop.133

Nothing is left of Hendrik VI's former limited royal power. Margaretha's responses to his utterances are even more aggressive than in Margaretha di Napoli; she no longer attempts to hide her dislike of Henry VI and her desire to seize the throne for her son Edward.

Hendrik VI can only express himself fully in monologues that illustrate his loss of power.

5.6.3 External language conflicts: Warwick, Buckingham, Sjors

The most obvious linguistic differences in Edwaar the King can be found in the confrontation between the York clan and Margaretha's group. The Dutch and English used by the “bruurs” of York differs a great deal from the straightforward but traditional

132 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 250. 133 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 246.

72 Dutch Margaretha already used in Margaretha di Napoli. The differences between them are not only accentuated by their speech acts, but also by the names of the people belonging to their clans. In Shakespeare's plays, both the son of York and Margaretha's son are called Edward; in Ten Oorlog, York's son is called Edwaar while Margaretha's son remains Edward. Thus, Perceval and Lanoye continue to express the differences between their language utterances in their names.

The previous plays have revealed the tendency of the nobility to adjust their language to the language use of their superiors, and Edwaar the King is not different in this respect. The first character that uses language to express his allegiance to one of both parties is Warwick. At the beginning of the play, Warwick supports the cause of the York brothers and tries to adopt their language:

Warwick Het was dat wijf uit Napels, Margaretha,

Die teef die zeikt en kotst op Koning Hendrik,

De hoer die zich Vorstin en vrouw durft noemen,

De snol die, zwanger van haar dode minnaar,

Zich al liet dekken door haar nieuwe vrijer – […]134

When Edwaar asks him to explain who killed his father, the old York, Warwick attempts to use the typical language of the York brothers, but he does not succeed completely.

Instead of mixing English and Dutch, Warwick's utterance is characterized by a vulgar and sexist use of Dutch. Warwick fails to imitate the brothers' language utterances. His inability to do so seems to anticipate his later allegiance to Margaretha. After Edwaar has married Lady Gray instead of Bona, Warwick decides to support Margaretha:

Warwick […] Nobele Margaretha, mijn Vorstin:

Laat ons de oude wrok nu toch vergeten.

134 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 243.

73 Ik ben voortaan uw onderdaan, uw dienaar.

Ik wreek het kwaad dat Bona is gedaan

En plaats de kroon opnieuw op Hendriks hoofd.135

Taken into account his new allegiance, the previously vulgar and sexist language has disappeared. Warwick now adjusts his language to Margaretha's utterances in a straightforward but normal Dutch.

Another character that adjusts his language is Buckingham. Buckingham, who previously supported Margaretha, has now declared allegiance to Risjaar. This allegiance is expressed quite subtly; Buckingham does not mention explicitly when he starts supporting Risjaar's cause but his speech acts betray him. All of a sudden, Buckingham's language utterances resemble those of the York brothers:

Buckingham One thing's for sure: his gang is Margaretha's.

(trapt de man)

Risjaar Hey!

Can you get satisfaction, beste vriend?

Edwaar Waar zit ze nu, uw fokking muis en maarschalk

Margaretha?

Sjors Waar blijft die teef to cover your sweet ass?

Buckingham Waar blijft de bloddie bitch to save your soul?136

As the play continues, Buckingham continues to use the brothers' language style.

In Edwaar the King, a rupture between the York brothers themselves cannot yet be perceived, except in scene 5 of act II, where Sjors chooses to join Warwick and adjusts his language use to Warwick's utterances. When he decides to return to his brothers' clan,

135 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 262. 136 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 249.

74 Sjors uses both language styles in one monologue:

Sjors (trillend) Wat zeg je, schoonpapa? Denk je dat ik

Zo bot ben, zo brutaal tegennatuurlijk

Dat ik de dodelijkste oorlogstuigen

Tegen mijn bruur en wettig Koning richt?

Ik smijt het huis niet plat waarvan mijn pa

De stenen met zijn bloed aaneengekleefd heeft.

De misstap die ik heb begaan makes me

Zo duvels dol en driest van spijt, that you

Bring me in a vendetta kind of mood!

Don't ever – where or when – meet me again,

Or I will hang ya by the balls and blast ya.

Edwaar:

To you I turn myself met rode kaken.

Forgive me, bruur, ik zal mijn leven beteren; […]137

Sjors not only accentuates his allegiance to his brothers by what he is saying, but also in the way he is expressing himself. Sjors' temporary absence is, however, not an actual rupture between the brothers. The real rupture will occur at the end of the play, when

Risjaar starts to express his desire to separate from his brothers and seize the crown. Just like his brothers, Risjaar uses a combination of Dutch and English, but the comical touch that characterizes the utterances of both Edwaar and Sjors has disappeared in Risjaar's speech. He no longer wishes to be part of their group, stating that “I have no bruurs! I am not like a bruur!”138. From that moment on, the three York brothers are no longer a unity.

5.6.4 Conclusion

In the third part of Ten Oorlog, a combination of English and Dutch has become

137 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 270. 138 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 277.

75 the new language of power, spoken by the sons of York. However, Edwaar, the self- proclaimed king, does not manage to use speech acts to maintain power. His language utterances are comical and aggressive but reveal a lack of interest in governing the country. The differences between the language use of the brothers of York and the language utterances of Margaretha's followers construct the main external language conflict of the play. Based on these two language uses, the characters express their allegiance to one of both parties as well as reveal their changing opinions. Warwick attempts to imitate the brothers' language utterances but switches to Margaretha's after being humiliated by Edwaar's reckless behavior. Buckingham, after having supported

Margaretha in the previous play, now turns to Risjaar and adjusts his speech acts to

Risjaar's speech acts. Sjors verbalizes the most obvious encounter between both language styles when he decides to leave Warwick and join his brothers again. Although he uses a new language of power, Edwaar's reign is no different from the previous dominions. Just like his predecessors, he is incapable of ruling the kingdom, and unintentionally reflects this in his language.

76 5.7 Risjaar Modderfokker Den Derde

5.7.1 Introduction: Shakespeare's Richard III

Shakespeare's The Tragedy of King Richard the Third was first published in 1597 as a Quarto and in 1623 as a Folio. This play concludes the narration of the conflicts between the families of York and Lancaster. The play describes how Richard of York seizes the crown from his brother by killing almost everyone in court. Richard convinces

Lady Anne to marry him, although she knows he murdered her first husband. He also has his brother Clarence executed and shifts the guilt to Edward IV, who becomes sick and dies. Richard has now become Lord Protector of England, and is in charge until Edward's oldest son is old enough to take the crown. Richard then starts killing the noblemen who are loyal to the princes, among which Lord Hastings and the kinsmen of Queen Elizabeth, their mother. As the queen and the princes are now unprotected, Lord Buckingham,

Richard's ally, starts a campaign to have Richard crowned. Meanwhile, Richard imprisons both princes in the Tower and sends hired murderers to kill them as well. However,

Richard's actions do not only cause the common people to loathe him, but also alienate his few allies. Buckingham and many other noblemen join the opposing forces that are uniting in France, led by the earl of Richmond, a descendant of the Lancaster family. In the meantime, Richard continues to undertake aggressive actions to remain king. He has his wife, Queen Anne, murdered in order to marry Elizabeth, the dead king Edward's daughter, which would secure his claim to the throne. However, her mother, Queen

Elizabeth, manages to forestall Richard and is attempting to marry her daughter to

Richmond. Richmond and his troops then invade England. The night before the battle,

Richard is haunted in a dream by the ghosts of all those whom he has murdered. They state that he will die the next day. In the battle, Richard is killed and Richmond is

77 crowned King Henry VII. He then marries the young Elizabeth to unite both houses of

Lancaster and York.

In Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, Perceval and Lanoye have respected

Shakespeare's original plot line, but just like the other plays of the Ten Oorlog cycle, the play as well as the cast are shortened. Of the more than 40 characters in Richard III, 18 speaking characters remain in the adaptation.139 The most remarkable alteration made is probably the character of Richmond. In Richard III, Richmond is a grown man who appears several times in the play. He is a realistic threat to Richard's power and is thus a true opponent. In Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, Richmond is a child that appears only once in the play; i.e. after Risjaar's death. By staging Richmond as a child, Perceval and

Lanoye render harmless the only threat to Risjaar. This way, they accentuate Risjaar's self-destruction; he is his own opponent. The paranoia following all his actions is what drives him mad and what eventually motivates him to commit suicide in Ten Oorlog. In

Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, Risjaar is staged as a victim of power and of his own actions, rather than as a victim of Richmond's power.

5.7.2 Internal language conflicts: Risjaar

From the very first scene onwards, it becomes clear that Risjaar's language is no longer identical to the language of his brothers:

Risjaar Now is the fokking winter van de walg

Gesmolten tot een hotte zotte zomer,

Dankzij dat zonnekind van bruur Edwaar.

Showers of doom that hung above our heads,

Zijn in de oceaan z'n kut begraven. 139 See appendix, p. 111.

78 In onz' coiffuur plakt rijstpap met confetti

En doelloos roest ons harnas aan de muur.140

The combination of Dutch and English spoken by the brothers in Edwaar the King was comical and tried to involve the audience by using intertextual references, whereas

Risjaar's language has become aggressive and difficult. All comical elements have left his language utterances. Houtman describes it as “an alienating language”141 and as “a degeneration of power and of Risjaar himself”142.

Language is no longer just an expression of power; it has become a weapon in the quest of maintaining power. In Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, language is the main weapon used in conflicts. In act II, scene 1, Edwaar's death is inflicted by Risjaar's language:

Risjaar […] – but never did

I sign the execution of a bruur...

Edwaar Will you miljaardefokking bloddie shit

Just stop repeating what the fok I did – […]

Risjaar […] But hell:

I never put my poot op dat bevel...

Edwaar Shut up, gedrochtelijke bochelbastard, […]143

After having murdered Sjors, Risjaar's tale of his death is what kills Edwaar. Edwaar asks

Risjaar several times to stop mentioning Sjors' death, but Risjaar continues. This dialogue seems to be the direct cause of Edwaar's heart attack. Edwaar's death can thus be seen as

Risjaar's first linguistic murder. Risjaar clearly uses language to wield power and to

140 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 283. 141 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 113. 142 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 114. 143 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 307. My emphasis.

79 achieve his goals. In this sense, his language is a symbol of his ability to organize his actions more successfully, as opposed to his predecessors whose language uses only illustrated their impossibility of understanding reality. Risjaar accentuates the importance of language several times as well.

Eventually, Risjaar's language starts to break down as well. In the second scene of act IV, after having murdered Edwaar's children, Risjaar's language for the first time shows signs of decay. Haunted by his past actions, he becomes incapable of constructing sentences:

Risjaar (huilt) Godbloddiemodderfokking ranzig rottenis

Of alabaster arms vol merg en innocence...

So blow it... modderfokking... virgin ass...

Vol suck my dick gedachten uitgekotst...

O God: de gruwel... Misdaad wreed en bloedig

Ooit in dit land gepleegd... Het is volbracht... […]

Bevrijd... van time en taal... [...]144

Although he will continue to murder after this scene, this monologue can be considered the first indication of Risjaar's linguistic degeneration. He even explicitly states he wants to be liberated from time and language, thus accentuating the power of language and its iron grip on reality and human lives. In act V, scene 1, another example can be found:

Risjaar […] (lacht) Bring me

Good news... Een kattendarm, een spons, een worm

De tafelen van flesh and dreams

Gevilde aangezichten

Truffels of the mind

The taste of smiles and shit

144 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 322.

80 O sunny buildings (huilt) […]145

These are the first indications of the internal language conflict that will finally cause

Risjaar's death. Houtman states that this internal conflict can be seen as a consequence of the curses of the women, but also as the ultimate culmination of the psychological wars between the previous kings and their crowns. Risjaar's language starts to fall apart after his crowning, which seems to imply that Risjaar is unable to hold power, although he had wanted it for a very long time. His language will turn against him.146 In Ten Oorlog, history repeats itself play after play.

5.7.3 External language conflicts: the women, the ghosts, Buckingham, Richmond

Just like Risjaar used language utterances to cause Edwaar's death, other characters attempt to attack Risjaar through speech acts as well. In Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, the women seem to be Risjaar's omnipresent antagonists. Anna, Margaretha,

Elizabeth and the duchess of York unite in language in an attempt to defeat Risjaar. Their language utterances are very different from Risjaar's, as they do not combine English and

Dutch. From the very beginning, the war between the women and Risjaar is fought solely by using language. The first feminine antagonist is Anna, Warwick's daughter who was married to Margaretha's son Edward. When they meet, Anna immediately attacks Risjaar with words:

Anna Verdwijn!

Geschubde Satan, val ons niet meer lastig.

Jij maakte van mijn wereld jouw inferno,

Jij vulde mij met vloeken en verwensing.

Kijk, mannen, kijk! De wonden van mijn Edward

145 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 334. 146 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 117.

81 Openen hun gestolde mond en bloeden...

Schaam je dood, sterf, verknipte klomp misvormdheid. […]147

Anna tries to attack Risjaar through language by offending him. She even states that his presence causes her to curse, thus accentuating the important role of language in the conflict. In one of Risjaar's answers, he underlines the importance of language as well, by describing their conversation as a cruel “war of words”148.

In the next scene, Margaretha is the one to stand up to Risjaar. She curses him in her monologues:

Margaretha […] Aan iedereen die ooggetuige was

Van hoe mijn zoon met zwaarden werd doorboord:

Niet één van jullie maakt zijn oude dag mee

Maar wordt verpletterd door zijn lot...

Risjaar Now cut your crap, vervloekte ouwe kut.149

In Risjaar's answer to Margaretha's verbal attack, one can recognize Edwaar's attempt of silencing Risjaar in scene 1 of act II. Although he tries to remain in control of the conversation, Risjaar is not completely at ease after Margaretha's utterances. He has used language as a weapon and seems to be afraid that Margaretha's words might have the same consequences as his utterances had before.

In the first scene of act V, the surviving women unite against Risjaar. Again, language is the instrument of power. Elisabeth explicitly asks Margaretha for help concerning cursing Risjaar.

Elisabeth Jij hebt voorspeld dat eens het uur zou komen

147 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 287. 148 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 289. 149 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 297.

82 Dat ik jou smeken zou om mij te leren

Dat zwijn, die gifbultkikker te verwensen. […]

U bent ervaren in vervloeken.

Toe, leer mij hoe ik vijanden verwens... […]

Mijn tong is bot – o, slijp haar met úw woorden.150

Risjaar's death is characterized by language as well. Before his death, Risjaar dreams of all the people he killed. Sjors, Edwaar, Rivers, Anna and his nephews talk to him in his dreams, thus using their language as a weapon against Risjaar:

Sjors Risjaar – hier zijn je modderfokking bruurs.

Edwaar Wij wegen morgen heavy on your soul. […]

Rivers Risjaar –

Zwaar zal ik morgen wegen op je ziel. […]

Anna Risjaar –

[…] Denk morgen tijdens je gevecht aan mij,

Verlies je wapen – wanhoop en crepeer.

Prinsjes Nonkel Risjaar – droom!

[…] Laat ons als lood zijn op je hart, Risjaar,

Dat je met paard en al mag zinken in

De modder, in de schaamte, in de schande.

Je neefjes bidden: wanhoop en crepeer.151

By repeating certain phrases, such as “we will weigh heavy on your soul” or “wanhoop en crepeer”, the choir of ghosts seems to add a mystical value to language, which enforces their verbal power against Risjaar. The printed text states Risjaar stabs himself to death, but in the staged production he does not. In the staging, Risjaar simply passes away after his monologue, which again emphasizes the power of language utterances.

150 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 327-328. 151 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 338-339.

83 Eventually, Risjaar loses everyone around him, including his only ally,

Buckingham. In Edwaar the King, Buckingham had pledged allegiance to Risjaar which was expressed subtly by his transition to the language of the “bruurs”. In scene 2 of act

IV of the final play, Buckingham ends his allegiance with Risjaar after the latter does not keep his promise. Suddenly, Buckingham's language changes:

Buckingham Heb ik hem daarvoor King gemaakt? Betaalt

Hij mijn respect en trouwe dienst met stront?

Heeft Margaretha het mij niet voorspeld?

Blijf uit zijn buurt, verbrand je niet aan hem...

Vergeet het lot van Rivers niet, van Anna,

Van Warwick, Sjors, Edwaar, van iedereen!

Ik vlucht naar Richmond, nu ik het nog kan.152

Buckingham has abandoned the combination of English and Dutch, and now uses a language style that has stood in direct opposition to the language of the “bruurs” since the beginning of Edwaar the King. His new language resembles the language of the other antagonists of Risjaar, thus implying that this might be the new language of power that is about to arise. In the speeches of war that precede Risjaar's destruction in the final scene, the differences between Buckingham's language utterances and Risjaar's speech acts are accentuated:

Buckingham Het wreed en dol, bloeddorstig everzwijn

Dat onze grond – van wei tot wijngaard – omwroet,

Ons bloed, nog warm, wil slurpen uit het stof,

Een trog zoekt in ons leeggeschraapt karkas,

Dit vuile varken nadert en wil vechten.

Wel, dát hij komt – hij botst op onze moed:

152 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 324.

84 Wij bieden hem het hoofd en slaan hem neer! […]

Risjaar Mijn beste buddies... Members of my gang...

Mean modderfokkers of my super high

Fantastic kakofonisch war machine...

Remember wat voor vlees we in de kuip hebben!

Some modderfokking schurft van overseas. […]153

The contrast between both language utterances could hardly have been bigger. The final pages of Ten Oorlog again stress language's role as an instrument of power.

Important characters linked to the rise of a new language of power are the children, as they will be the kings and noblemen of tomorrow. In act III, scene 1, Risjaar's conversation with his nephews clearly accentuates the differences between their language uses. Like in the previous plays, the language use underlines the perceptual differences:

Richard van York Edwaar!

Kroonprins Edwaar Richard, m'n kleine broer! Hoe gaat het, jongen?

Richard van York Goed, majesteit – moet ik je nu zo noemen?

Kroonprins Edwaar Voorlopig heet ik nog Edwaar – punt, uit.

Maar na mijn kroning zal ik sire heten.

Risjaar And until then your bruur has uitverkoren,

As place to play and laugh and sleep: de Toren.154

Unlike their father and uncles, the princes do not use a combination of Dutch and English but a natural kind of Dutch. Their different language use accentuates that they belong to a new generation that will have a different outlook on reality and power than its predecessors. Although Risjaar murders his nephews, the language of the new generation eventually triumphs with Richmond. Richmond, symbol the resistance against Risjaar, does not appear in the play until after Risjaar's death. He is the one character Risjaar 153 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 336-337. 154 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 312.

85 fears, but he turns out to be a child. Richmond's lines conclude the play and the Ten

Oorlog cycle:

Richmond (zingt) Eén, twee, drie, vier

Hoedje van, hoedje van

Eén, twee, drie, vier

Hoedje van papier

Eén, twee, drie, vier

Hoedje van, hoedje van

Eén, twee, drie,...155

Richmond is singing a children's song that does not echo in any way the language of the bruurs or their predecessors, implying that a new language of power will arise again.

Although Richmond's presence might imply the end of the destructive cycle Ten Oorlog has described, Houtman pays attention to the fact that Richmond is not alone when he enters the stage. According to Houtman, Richmond is accompanied by Buckingham, who carries with him the memory of a complicated and aggressive political past, which seems to imply that the old mechanisms of power will affect Richmond as well.156 In the staged version of Ten Oorlog, the future does not look bright, as history seems to be bound to repeat itself. This cyclical repetition is one of Perceval's main themes that has been present since the beginning of Ten Oorlog. In the printed version, however, Richmond is not accompanied by Buckingham but by the duchess of York. Although Houtman does not mention this, it is an important difference as the duchess of York is one of the characters that has stood up to Risjaar throughout the play. This way, she can be considered a symbol of resistance as well. Her presence at Richmond's side thus can imply that there is hope for the future; that history might not be completely bound to

155 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 342. 156 Joost Houtman. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens. (Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999) 136.

86 repeat itself.

5.7.4 Conclusion

Whereas language has been incredibly important in all plays discussed, it is only in Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde that it becomes a true weapon of power. Risjaar's language resembles the language of his brothers but has become a lot more aggressive.

The comical references that Edwaar's mix of English and Dutch contained are absolutely inexistent in Risjaar's language. Risjaar uses language utterances as weapons with which he manages to kill his brother Edwaar. Soon, Risjaar himself is attacked by language as well. The women unite as antagonists against Risjaar by using speech acts to attack him.

It is through Risjaar's language utterances as well that it becomes clear that his power is decaying. Risjaar gradually becomes incapable of constructing full sentences, which implies he is no longer able to hold power. While Risjaar's language continues to decay, the linguistic opposition against him increases. Buckingham adapts his language use to the opposition, and the princes' language utterances reveal a drastic linguistic contrast as well. Risjaar's fate is the same as that of his predecessors: once the crown has been seized, the ability to utilize language gradually disappears, leaving the kings to be destroyed by their opponents or by themselves in some cases. Throughout Ten Oorlog, language has been used and abused as an instrument and as an indicator of power. In

Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde, it even became a true weapon.

87 6. Conclusion

There is no doubt about it: all characteristics of Ten Oorlog accentuate its uniqueness both as a theater performance and as a printed text. The staged production was not only unequaled because of its intrinsic characteristics such as the length of the repetition process, the duration of the performance and both the artistic as well as the practical difficulties that characterized the project; its uniqueness was also magnified by the journalistic response. Both journalists in Belgium and abroad have described Ten

Oorlog as a unique project of unseen dimensions on the Flemish stage. The most striking element of most articles, however, was the unmotivated enthusiasm about Ten Oorlog.

Unique, unprecedented, grand and majestic are just some of the adjectives used by the newspapers. Nevertheless, most newspapers never presented a thorough analysis to support their extreme use of adjectives. One of the few critical articles was “Pulp

Shakespeare”, in which Albers underlined the general consensus concerning Ten Oorlog and the apparent need of most reviewers to approve of the performance. That was indeed the general tendency: the performance had been discussed for such a long time that disapproving of it did not seem an option. Most journalists were awed by the event Ten

Oorlog was: the rehearsals lasted for almost two years, while actors left and got injured and financial problems had to be averted. These elements, combined with the presence of lauded artists Perceval and Lanoye, caused the journalists to pay more attention to the event-like qualities of Ten Oorlog than to the performance itself. Ten Oorlog had become a media phenomenon even before its premiere.

The immense characteristics of the performance and the surrounding events were not the only factors that distinguished Ten Oorlog from other theater productions; the text

88 itself was remarkably innovative as well. Not only were Shakespeare's eight original plays of the Wars of the Roses drastically shortened; the language used by the characters in Ten Oorlog hardly shows resemblances with the original language uses of

Shakespeare's characters. Tom Lanoye managed to include a linguistic evolution to accentuate the evolution of the plot line. In each of the six plays, language utterances are used to underline traits of characters or discussions between characters. The language uses of all six kings determine the speech acts of their courts, while at the same time accentuating their outlook on politics. Richaar Deuzième's language underlines his position as an ambassador of God; his language displays his disinterest in politics and ruling his kingdom. His language and the disinterest it communicates stands in strong contrast to the language of his successor, king Hendrik Vier. Hendrik Vier was the first king who did not obtain the crown because of hereditary rights; in order to remain king, he had to prove he was able to be a good ruler. By using rhyming two-line couplets he expresses his messages in a straightforward way, thus underlining his ability to rule efficiently. His son, king Hendrik de Vijfden, developed his own language use not characterized by rhyme but by the use of Flemish words which accentuate his straightforwardness. As Hendrik de Vijfden died while his son, the future Hendrik VI, was only a child, the latter's language use is not influenced by his father's speech.

Hendrik VI's language only underlines his inability to rule; the true ruling power is his wife Margaretha di Napoli. Although she is a woman, her language utterances are as straightforward as those of a king. During Hendrik VI's reign, she is the one who holds power. After Hendrik VI's reign the power is seized by Edwaar, a son of York, who shares a particular language use with his brothers. By using a mix of Dutch and English, Edwaar displays his ability of using eloquent speech acts to convince his listeners while at the

89 same time underlining his inability and disinterest in ruling. His brother Risjaar succeeds him, and although he continues to use the same mix of Dutch and English, there is no trace of humor left in his language. His language only expresses his cruelty and will eventually characterize his death. With Risjaar's death, the negative spiral of power comes to an end. Just like the court, language has been completely destructed.

Ten Oorlog has proven that the media phenomenon was not unmerited. To this day, it is an unparalleled production on all levels, from the production process to the printed text, that can definitely be considered a triumph of Belgian theater. Lanoye and

Perceval have managed to create a work of art with not only a development in plot line but a development in language use as well. Or, as Risjaar states in Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde:

Risjaar One thing I'll teach de wereld, willens nillens:

There is tremendous poetry in killings.157

157 Tom Lanoye and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. (Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005) 304.

90 7. Bibliography

7.1 Primary bibliography

Lanoye, Tom and Luk Perceval. Ten Oorlog. Amsterdam: Prometheus, 2005.

Greenblatt, Stephen, et al. The Norton Shakespeare. New York:W. W. Norton &

Company, 2008.

7.2 Secondary works

“Adapt.” Def. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. ed. 2007.

“Adaptation.” Def. 2. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. ed. 2007.

Bennett, Susan. Theatre Audiences. A Theory of Production and Reception. New York:

Routledge, 1990.

Blauwe Maandag Compagnie. Seizoen 97-98. Ten Oorlog. Voor het Pensioen. Gent. 10.1

(1997).

Blauwe Maandag Compagnie. Ten Oorlog. Programme leaflet. Gent: 1997.

Brook, Peter. There are no secrets. Thoughts on Acting and Theatre. London: Methuen

Drama, 1995.

Calderwood, James L. Shakespearean Metadrama: the Argument of the Play in Titus

Andronicus, Love's Labour's Lost, Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and

Richard II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971.

Carlson, Marvin. Speaking in Tongues. Languages at Play in the Theatre. Michigan:

University of Michigan Press, 2006.

De Vos, Jozef. “Ten Oorlog doorgelicht: Jozef De Vos in gesprek met Tom Lanoye en Luc

Joosten.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 111-128.

De Vos, Jozef. “Ten Oorlog: Shakespeare's 'history plays' als 'groot verhaal'.” Documenta

91 16.2 (1998): 101-110.

Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. London: Methuen Drama, 1975.

Hillaert, Wouter. “Klare taal. Het politieke theater van Tom Lanoye.” Ons Erfdeel 51.2

(2007): 114-121.

Hoenselaars, Ton and A. Luis Pujante. Four Hundred Years of Shakespeare in Europe.

Cranbury: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp., 2003.

Hoenselaars, Ton. Shakespeare and the Language of Translation. London: Arden

Shakespeare, 2004.

Hoenselaars, Ton. Shakespeare's History Plays. Performance, Translation and Adaptation in Britain and Abroad. Cambridge: University Press, 2004.

Homan, Sidney. Shakespeare's Theater of Presence. London and Toronto: Associated

University Presses, 1986.

Houtman, Joost. Allen treft eenzelfde lot. Ten Oorlog, een verhaal over Macht en Mens.

Leuven: Van Halewyck, 1999.

Houtman, Joost. Wie slaapt vangt geen vis. Luk Perceval over theater en leven. Leuven:

Van Halewyck, 2001.

Perceval, Luk. Telephone interview. 10 Aug. 2011.

Pieters, Jürgen. “Shakespeare als medespeler. De geschiedenis volgens Tom Lanoye en

Luk Perceval.” Documenta 16.2 (1998): 129-145.

Sels, Geert. Accidenten van een zaalwachter. Luk Perceval. Leuven: Van Halewyck,

2005.

Stalpaert, Christel. “Something is Rotten on the Stage of Flanders: Postdramatic

Shakespeare in Contemporary Flemish Theatre.” Contemporary Theatre Review. 20.4

(2010): 437-448.

92 Tindemans, Klaas. Van Blauwe Maandag Compagnie tot Het Toneelhuis. Een verhaal in manifesten. Gent: Imschoot, 1998.

Van den Dries, Luk. “Luk Perceval.” Kritisch Theater Lexicon. 2001. Vlaams Theater

Instituut. 22 February 2011.

PercevalNL_online%5B1%5D.pdf>.

Van Istendael, Geert. “Een taal, een taal! Mijn Shakespeare voor een taal!” Documenta

16.2 (1998): 147-152.

7.3 Articles

Albers, Frank. “Gulielmus Shakspere, dilettant.” De Morgen 24 Oct. 1997.

Albers, Frank. “Pulp Shakespeare.” De Morgen 4 Dec. 1997.

“Amboβ Shakespeare. Schlagende Geschichte: Alle Königsdramen in Rotterdam.”

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 27 Jan. 1998.

Anthonissen, Peter and Steven Heene. “Het kwaad in de breedte.” De Morgen 24 Nov.

1997.

Arteel, Roger. “Uit de stilte en de aarde.” Knack 5 Nov. 1997.

Bliek, Nicole. “'A fokking piece of klotepaard'.” Algemeen Dagblad 24 Nov. 1997.

Cuyt, Martine. “Helft koningen stapt op bij Blauwe Maandag. Koningsstukken van

Blauwe Maandag dreigen drama te worden.” Gazet van Antwerpen 28 Dec. 1996.

Decruynaere, Filip. “Blauwe Maandag in afzondering voor Shakespeare.” Het Volk 2-3

Sept. 1995.

De Feyter, Johan. “Ten Oorlog. Van alle tijden. Interview met Tom Lanoye.” De Scene

Nov. 1997.

De Keyzer, Laurens. “Als een ruïne die je opgraaft.” De Standaard 24 Oct. 1997.

93 Devens, Tuur. “Heldere en boeiende theatermarathon.” De Bond 5 Dec. 1997.

Freriks, Kester. “Ik haat je!” NRC Handelsblad 12 Feb. 1999.

Freriks, Kester. “Lanoye: 'Misschien moet ik blij zijn met de rel.'” NRC Handelsblad 3

Aug. 1999.

Freriks, Kester. “My fokking Krone für ein Pferd!” NRC Handelsblad 6 Aug. 1999.

Freriks, Kester. “Ten Oorlog in Napels aan de Noordzee.” NRC Handelsblad 8 Jan. 1998.

Goossens, Paul. “De kroon op het werk. Een bericht uit Salzburg.” Knack 4 Aug. 1999.

Goossens, Paul. “Zoeken naar het geheim. Een bericht uit Hamburg.” Knack 3 Mar. 1999.

Harms, Ingrid. “Ook Els Ingeborg Smits trok 'Ten Oorlog'.” Vrij Nederland 22 Nov.

1997.

Heene, Steven. “Een geoliede, soms te cleane oorlogsmachine.” De Morgen 27 July

1999.

Heene, Steven. “De kroon op het slachtwerk in Salzburg.” De Morgen 27 July 1999.

Heene, Steven. “Duitse en Oostenrijkse pers reageert verdeeld op 'Schlachten!'” De

Morgen 29 July 1999.

Heene, Steven. “Duitse theaterkritiek kiest voor 'Schlachten!'” De Morgen 30 Aug. 2000.

Heene, Steven. “Het mes in de lade.” De Morgen 28 Aug. 1998.

Heene, Steven. “'Schlachten!' bekroond op Theatertreffen.” De Morgen 22 May 2000.

Heene, Steven. “Stroomopwaarts in liters blauw bloed.” De Morgen 24 Oct. 1997.

Heene, Steven. “Ten Oorlog is brood en spelen.” De Morgen 24 Nov. 1997.

Heene, Steven. “'Ten Oorlog' krijgt Vlaamse Cultuurprijs voor Toneelletterkunde.” De

Morgen 6 June 2000.

Hellinga, Gerben. “Ten oorlog.” Vrij Nederland 29 Nov. 1997.

“Jeugd mag toch naar 'Schlachten!'” NRC Handelsblad 3 Aug. 1999.

94 “Kinderen mogen toch naar Schlachten!” De Morgen 4 Aug. 1999.

“Koningsdrama's Blauwe Maandag Cie komen toch niet in het gedrang.” De Morgen 28

Dec. 1996.

Korteweg, Ariejan. “België heeft een stroomstoot nodig.” Volkskrant 21 Nov. 1997.

Kottman, Pieter. “Compassie met Risjaar Modderfokker III.” NRC Handelsblad 24 Nov.

1997.

Kottman, Pieter. “Het gaat om de scherven.” NRC Handelsblad 28 Nov. 1997.

Martens, Dirk. “'Ik begon uit ijdelheid en riep toen om hulp.'” De Gentenaar 29 Oct.

1997.

Martens, Dirk. “Ten oorlog, de droom van Perceval.” Het Nieuwsblad 11 Sept. 1997.

Pieters, Jürgen. “A la guerre comme à la guerre. Monografie over 'Ten Oorlog'.” De

Standaard 24 June 1999.

Racquet, Erika. “Het wordt fantastisch.” De Tijd/Weekend 24 July 1999.

Rijser, David. “Shakespeare's pluriforme heelal.” NRC Handelsblad 19 Dec. 1997.

Ruyters, Marc and Gerrit Six. “Dit is ónze Shakespeare.” Tijd-Cultuur 5 Nov. 1997.

“'Schlachten' niet voor kinderen.” De Standaard 2 Aug. 1999.

Sels, Geert. “Ieder zijn strijd. De veldslagen van Blauwe Maandag Compagnie.” De

Standaard 24 Oct. 1997.

Sels, Geert. “Vorst? Vazal? Paljas?” De Standaard 24 Nov. 1997.

Six, Gerrit. “De oorlog gaat verder.” Tijd-Cultuur 19 Nov. 1997.

Somers, Maartje. “Shakespeare in de blender.” Het Parool 14 Nov. 1997.

Temmerman, Jan. “Herrie rond 'Schlachten!' in Salzburg.” De Morgen 2 Aug. 1999.

Temmerman, Jan. “'Schlachten!' verboden voor jongeren.” De Morgen 2 Aug. 1999.

“Ten Oorlog... en gewonnen.” De Tijd 21 Feb. 1998.

95 “'Ten Oorlog' intiem: het dagboek van acteur Wim Opbrouck. Wij zijn de flandriens van het theater.” De Standaard 27 Feb. 1998.

Thielemans, Johan. “De lange mars.” Theatermaker Nov. 1997.

Thielemans, Johan. “Shake, shake that spear.” Kunst&Cultuur Jan. 1998.

Van der Speeten, Geert. “Ook pers gemengd over 'Schlachten!'” De Standaard 28 July

1999.

Van der Speeten, Geert. “Te vrijblijvend! Jullie hebben publiek nodig.” De Standaard 24

Oct. 1997.

Zonneveld, Loek. “Een kroon voor Lanoye.” De Groene Amsterdammer 26 Nov. 1997.

Zonneveld, Loek. “'Mijn fokking kroon voor maar één paard.” Theatermaker Nov. 1997.

Zwaan, Karel. “Wankel koningshoofd. Passie en ontroering in Shakespeare-marathon

'Ten Oorlog'.” R'Uit Magazine Jan. 1998.

All photographs in the appendix were taken from the website of deSingel International

Arts Campus

4202856151/>, except for the second photograph, which is taken from the website of

Vooruit . All photographs were made by Corneel Maria

Ryckeboer.

96 8. Appendix

8. 1 Comparison of the dramatis personae of the original plays and Ten Oorlog

8.1.1 Richaar Deuzième

The Tragedy of King Richard the Second Richaar Deuzième

King Richard II Le Roi Richaar Deuzième The Queen, his wife La Reine John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster Jan van Gent Harry Bolingbroke, later King Henry IV Hendrik Bolingbroke Duchess of Gloucester Hertogin Gloster Duke of York Hertog van York Duchess of York / Duke of Aumerle Aumale Thomas Mowbray Thomas Mowbray Green, follower of King Richard II Greene Bagot, follower of King Richard II / Bushy, follower of King Richard II Bushy Percy, earl of Northumberland Northumberland Harry Percy / Lord Ross Roste Lord Willoughby / Earl of Salisbury / Bishop of Carlisle Carlisle Sir Stephen Scrope / Lord Berkeley / Lord Fitzwalter / Duke of Surrey / Abbot of Westminster / Sir Piers Exton / Lord Marshal / Heralds / Captain of the Welsh army / Ladies attending the Queen / Gardener /

97 Gardener's Men / Exton's Men / Keeper of the prison at Pomfret / Groom of King Richard's stable Stalknecht Lords, soldiers, attendants /

98 8.1.2 Hendrik Vier

The History of Henry the Fourth, part I Hendrik Vier

King Henry IV Hendrik Vier Prince Harry, known as Hal Henk Lord John of Lancaster / Earl of Westmorland Westmoreland Sir Walter Blunt / Earl of Worcester / Percy, earl of Northumberland Northumberland Henry Percy, known as Hotspur Percy Kate, Lady Percy Kaat Lord Edmund Mortimer / Lady Mortimer / Owain Glyndŵr / Earl of Douglas / Sir Richard Vernon / Scrope, archbishop of York De aartsbisschop Sir Michael / Sir John Falstaff La Falstaff Edward (Ned) Poins / Bardolph / Peto / Mistress Quickly / Francis / Vintner / Gadshill / Carriers / Chamberlain / Ostler / Travellers / Sheriff / Messengers / Servant / Lords, soldiers /

99 / Lady Northumberland / Roste / Drie opstandelingen

The Second Part of Henry the Fourth Hendrik Vier

Rumour, the presenter / Epilogue / King Henry IV Hendrik Vier Prince Harry Henk Prince John of Lancaster / Humphrey, duke of Gloucester / Thomas, duke of Clarence / Percy, earl of Northumberland Northumberland Lady Northumberland Lady Northumberland Lady Percy Kaat Travers / Morton / Scrope, archbishop of York De aartsbisschop Lord Bardolph / Thomas, lord Mowbray / Lord Hastings / Sir John Coleville / Lord chief justice / His servant / Gower / Sir John Falstaff La Falstaff His page / Randolph / Poins / Ensign Pistol / Peto / Mistress Quickly /

100 Doll Tearsheet / Snare / Fang / Neville, earl of Warwick / Earl of Surrey / Earl of Westmorland Westmoreland Harcourt / Sir John Blunt / Robert Shallow / Silence / Davy / Ralph Mouldy / Simon Shadow / Thomas Wart / Francis Feeble / Peter Bullcalf / Porter / Drawers / Beadles / Grooms / Messenger / Sneak and other musicians / Lord chief justice's men, soldiers and / attendants / Drie opstandelingen / Roste / Percy

101 8.1.3 Hendrik de Vijfden

The Life of Henry the Fifth Hendrik de Vijfden

Chorus / King Harry V of England Hendrik de Vijfden Duke of Gloucester Gloster Duke of Clarence Lancaster Duke of Exeter Exeter Duke of York Graaf van York Salisbury / Westmorland Westmoreland Warwick / Archbishop of Canterbury De aartsbisschop Bishop of Ely Een bisschop Richard, earl of Cambridge / Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham Scroop van Marke Sir Thomas Grey Thomas Grey Pistol / Nim / Bardolph / Boy / Hostess, formerly Mistress Quickly / Captain Gower / Captain Fluellen / Captain Macmorris / Captain Jamy / Sir Thomas Erpingham / John Bates / Alexander Court / Michael Williams / Herald / King Charles VI of France Charles VI Isabel / The Dauphin Dauphin Catherine Catherine

102 Alice / The constable of France De Connétable van Frankrijk Duke of Bourbon / Duke of Orléans / Duke of Berri / Lord Rambures / Lord Grandpré / Duke of Burgundy / Montjoy Montjoy Governor of Harfleur De gouverneur van Harfleur French ambassadors to England / / La Falstaff

103 8.1.4 Margaretha di Napoli

The First Part of Henry the Sixth Margaretha di Napoli

King Henry VI Hendrik, the crown prince and later king

Hendrik VI (and in his games the Dauphin) Duke of Gloucester, Lord Protector Hugo Gloster Duke of Bedford Jan Lancaster Duke of Exeter Exeter Bishop of Winchester Bisschop Winchester Duke of Somerset Somerset Richard Plantagenet, later Duke of York York Earl of Warwick Warwick Earl of Salisbury / Earl of Suffolk Suffolk Lord Talbot Talbot (only present in the games of

Hendrik, where Lord Talbot is performed

by Hugo Gloster) John Talbot / Edmund Mortimer / Sir William Glasdale / Sir Thomas Gargrave / Sir John Fastolf / Sir William Lucy / Woodville, Lieutenant of the Tower of /

London Mayor of London / Vernon / Basset / A lawyer / A legate and ambassadors / Messengers, warders and keepers of the /

Tower of London, servingmen, officers,

104 captains, soldiers, heralds, watch Charles, Dauphin of France Dauphin (only present in the games of

Hendrik, where the Dauphin is performed

by Hendrik himself) René, Duke of Anjou / Margaret Margaretha di Napoli Duke of Alençon / Bastard of Orléans / Duke of Burgundy / General of the French garrison at Bordeaux / Countess of Auvergne / Master gunner of Orléans / A boy, his son / Joan la Pucelle Pucelle (only present in the games of

Hendrik, where Pucelle is performed by

Leonora) A shepherd / Porter, French sergeant, French sentinels, De stadhouder van Parijs

French scout, French herald, the Governor of Paris, fiends and soldiers / Leonora, wife of Hugo Gloster (and

Pucelle in the games of Hendrik) / Buckingham / Schoon Rolandke / Hume

105 The First Part of the Contention of the Two

Famous Houses of York and Lancaster

(The Second Part of Henry VI) Margaretha di Napoli

King Henry VI Hendrik VI Queen Margaret Margaretha di Napoli William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk Suffolk Duke Humphrey of Gloucester Hugo Gloster Dame Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Leonora

Gloucester Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester Bisschop Winchester Duke of Buckingham Buckingham Duke of Somerset Somerset Old Lord Clifford / Young Clifford / Duke of York York Edward, earl of March / Crookback Richard / Earl of Salisbury / Earl of Warwick Warwick Two or three petitioners / Thomas Horner / Peter Thump / Three neighbours / Three prentices / Sir John Hume Hume John Southwell / Margery Jordan / Roger Bolingbroke / Asnath / Simon Simpcox / Simpcox's wife / The mayor of Saint Albans / Aldernmen of Saint Albans /

106 A beadle of Saint Albans / Townsmen of Saint Albans / Gloucester's servants / Two sheriffs of London / Sir John Stanley / Herald / Two murderers / Commons / Captain of a ship / Master of that ship / The master's mate / Walter Whitmore / Two gentlemen / Jack Cade / Dick the butcher / Smith the weaver / A sawyer / John / Rebels / Emmanuel, the clerk of Chatham / Sir Humphrey Stafford / Stafford's brother / Lord Saye / Lord Scales / Matthew Gough / A sergeant / Three or four citizens of London / Alexander Iden / Vaux / A post / Messengers / A soldier / Attendants, guards, servants, soldiers, / falconers

107 / Schoon Rolandke / Jan Lancaster / Exeter / De stadhouder van Parijs

108 8.1.5 Edwaar the King

The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of

York and the Good King Henry the Sixth Edwaar the King

King Henry VI Hendrik VI Queen Margaret Margaretha Prince Edward Kroonprins Edward Duke of Somerset Somerset Duke of Exeter / Earl of Northumberland / Earl of Westmorland / Lord Clifford / Lord Stafford / Somerville / Henry, earl of Richmond / A soldier / A huntsman / Earl of Warwick Warwick Marquis of Montague / Earl of Oxford / Lord Hastings / Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York / Edward, Duke of York and king Edward IV Edwaar Lady Gray Elisabeth Earl Rivers / George, Duke of Clarence Sjors Richard, Duke of Gloucester Risjaar Earl of Rutland (in Margaretha di Napoli: Schoon

Rolandke) Rutland's tutor / Sir John Mortimer / Sir Hugh Mortimer / Duke of Norfolk / Sir William Stanley /

109 Earl of Pembroke / Sir John Montgomery / A nobleman / Two gamekeepers / Three watchmen / Lieutenant of the Tower / King Louis Le Roi Louis Lady Bona Bona Lord Bourbon / A soldier / A second soldier / Mayor of Coventry / Mayor of York / Aldermen of York / Soldiers, messengers, and attendants Een bode / Anna / De hertogin-weduwe van York / Buckingham

110 8.1.6 Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde

The Tragedy of King Richard the Third Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde

King Edward IV Edwaar the King Duchess of York Hertogin van York (in Edwaar the King:

De hertogin-weduwe van York) Prince Edward Kroonprins Edwaar Richard, the young duke of York Richard van York George, duke of Clarence Sjors Richard, duke of Gloucester, later king Risjaar

Richard III Clarence's son / Clarence's daughter / Queen Elizabeth Elisabeth Anthony Woodeville, Earl Rivers Rivers Marquis of Dorset / Lord Gray / Sir Thomas Vaughan / Ghost of king Henry VI / Queen Margaret Margaretha di Napoli Ghost of Prince Edward / Lady Anne Lady Anna William, Lord Hastings / Lord Stanley Graaf Stanley Henry, Earl of Richmond Richmond Earl of Oxford / Sir James Blunt / Sir Walter Herbert / Duke of Buckingham Buckingham Duke of Norfolk / Sir Richard Ratcliffe Ratcliffe Sir William Catesby / Sir James Tyrrell / Two murderers /

111 A page / Cardinal / Bishop of Ely / John, a priest / Sir Christopher / Sir Robert Brackenbury, Lieutenant of the /

Tower Lord Mayor of London De burgemeester van Londen A scrivener / Hastings / Sheriff / Aldermen and citizens / Attendants, two bishops, messengers, Bewaker, bode, lijkkistdragers soldiers / Margaretha van York

112 8.2 Family tree of the characters in Ten Oorlog

As published in the programme leaflet of Ten Oorlog.

113 8.3 List of actors who performed in Ten Oorlog

Note: The dramatis personae below is the one from the staged production; taken from the programme leaflet. It differs from the dramatis personae of the printed text, which was compared to the original plays in 8.1. The programme leaflet also mentions that in the staged production, Hendrik de Vijfden will be performed after Richaar

Deuzième and Hendrik Vier as the third play of the first part of the Ten Oorlog cycle. The second part contained only Margaretha di Napoli. In the printed text, Hendrik de Vijfden is the first play of the second part.

Richaar Deuzième

LE ROI RICHAAR DEUZIÈME Wim Opbrouck

LA REINE Kyoko Scholiers

HERTOGIN GLOSTER Els Ingeborg Smits

JAN VAN GENT Peter Seynaeve

HENDRIK BOLINGBROKE Vic De Wachter

HERTOG VAN YORK Jan Decleir

AUMALE Koen van Kaam

THOMAS MOWBRAY Johan Heldenbergh

BUSHY Johan Heldenbergh

GREENE Reinhilde Decleir

CARLISLE Peter Seynaeve

NORTHUMBERLAND Lucas Van den Eynde

ROSTE Jakob Beks

STALKNECHT Reinhilde Decleir

114 Hendrik Vier

HENDRIK VIER Vic De Wachter

HENK Jakob Beks

LA FALSTAFF Wim Opbrouck

PERCY Lucas Van den Eynde

WESTMORELAND Johan Heldenbergh

ROSTE Jakob Beks

Hendrik de Vijfden

HENDRIK DE VIJFDEN Jakob Beks

LA FALSTAFF Wim Opbrouck

SCROOP VAN MARKE Johan Heldenbergh

THOMAS GREY NORTHUMBERLAND Lucas Van den Eynde

GRAAF VAN YORK Koen van Kaam

CHARLES VI Vic De Wachter

DAUPHIN Els Dottermans

CATHERINE Ariane van Vliet

MONTJOY Peter Seynaeve

Margaretha di Napoli

MARGARETHA DI NAPOLI Ariane van Vliet

HENDRIK Peter Seynaeve

HUGO GLOSTER Vic De Wachter

115 LEONORA Els Dottermans

BISSCHOP WINCHESTER Jan Decleir

SOMERSET Jakob Beks

BUCKINGHAM Johan Heldenbergh

SUFFOLK Lucas Van den Eynde

YORK Koen van Kaam

WARWICK Wim Opbrouck

SCHOON ROLANDKE Francis Gahide

Edwaar the King

EDWAAR Lucas Van den Eynde

SJORS Koen van Kaam

RISJAAR Jan Decleir

WARWICK Wim Opbrouck

ANNA Els Dottermans

BUCKINGHAM Johan Heldenbergh

ELISABETH Els Ingeborg Smits

HENDRIK VI Peter Seynaeve

MARGARETHA Ariane van Vliet

KROONPRINS EDWARD Nico Sturm

SOMERSET Jakob Beks

LE ROI LOUIS Vic De Wachter

BONA Reinhilde Decleir

116 Risjaar Modderfokker den Derde

RISJAAR Jan Decleir

SJORS Koen van Kaam

EDWAAR THE KING Lucas Van den Eynde

ELISABETH Els Ingeborg Smits

RIVERS Vic De Wachter

KROONPRINS EDWAAR Gilles De Schryver / Dennis Laenen /

Frédéric Lamberts

RICHARD VAN YORK Gilles De Schryver / Dennis Laenen /

Frédéric Lamberts

MARGARETHA VAN YORK Hélène Flaam / Maaike Koets /

Marie-Line Van Lysebeth

HERTOGIN VAN YORK Reinhilde Decleir

LADY ANNA Els Dottermans

MARGARETHA DI NAPOLI Ariane van Vliet

BUCKINGHAM Johan Heldenbergh

RATCLIFFE Wim Opbrouck

GRAAF STANLEY Jakob Beks

DE BURGEMEESTER VAN LONDEN Peter Seynaeve

117 8.4 List of performances of Ten Oorlog

9 Nov. 1997 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit 12 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 13 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit 14 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 16 Nov. 1997 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit 19 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 20 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit 21 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 22 Nov. 1997 2 p.m. Premiere Ghent Vooruit 27 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part I Antwerp deSingel 28 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part I Antwerp deSingel 29 Nov. 1997 8 p.m. Part I Antwerp deSingel 30 Nov. 1997 2 p.m. Marathon Antwerp deSingel 3 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part II Antwerp deSingel 4 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part II Antwerp deSingel 5 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part II Antwerp deSingel 6 Dec. 1997 2 p.m. Marathon Antwerp deSingel 10 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part III Antwerp deSingel 11 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part III Antwerp deSingel 12 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part III Antwerp deSingel 13 Dec. 1997 2 p.m. Marathon Antwerp deSingel 17 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part I Antwerp deSingel 18 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part II Antwerp deSingel 19 Dec. 1997 8 p.m. Part III Antwerp deSingel 20 Dec. 1997 2 p.m. Marathon Antwerp deSingel 7 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 8 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 9 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 10 Jan. 1998 12 a.m. Marathon Rotterdam Rotterdamse

118 Schouwburg 14 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 15 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 16 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 17 Jan. 1998 12 a.m. Marathon Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 21 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 22 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 23 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 24 Jan. 1998 12 a.m. Marathon Rotterdam Rotterdamse

Schouwburg 28 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 29 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 30 Jan. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 1 Feb. 1998 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit 4 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit 5 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit 6 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit 7 Feb. 1998 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit 11 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 12 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 13 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 15 Feb. 1998 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit 18 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 19 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit

119 20 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 21 Feb. 1998 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit 25 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part I Ghent Vooruit 26 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part II Ghent Vooruit 27 Feb. 1998 8 p.m. Part III Ghent Vooruit 1 Mar. 1998 2 p.m. Marathon Ghent Vooruit

120 8.5 Photographs from the performances of Ten Oorlog

Wim Opbrouck and Kyoko Scholiers

121 Lucas Van den Eynde and Els Ingeborg Smits

122 Peter Seynaeve and Wim Opbrouck

123 Jan Decleir, Lucas Van den Eynde and Koen van Kaam

124 Ariane van Vliet and Koen van Kaam

125 Ariane van Vliet

126 Jan Decleir and Peter Seynaeve

127 Ariane van Vliet and Jan Decleir

128 Jan Decleir and Kyoko Scholiers

129