Responding to Hockaday and the Question of Moral Integrity in Act One

This is a response to the posting linked here.

Here at The Oakridge School, first period English class had a rich discussion on the concept of moral integrity thanks to the post by Ashley Grey from The Hockaday School. Our discussion focused on two statements from her piece, namely that “[Anne] ruins her moral integrity by accepting [Richard’s] ring” and that “[Elizabeth] slightly compromises her moral integrity in her verbal spar with Richard and Margaret.” We discussed these ideas at length yesterday (thank you Ashley Grey!!), and here’s some ideas we came up with:

We had mixed reactions about Anne. Some of us agreed that Anne loses her moral integrity by accepting Richard’s ring while others urged us to consider whether she had a real choice at that moment in time. Some in first period suggested that the moment she’s presented with an actual choice is when Richard offers his sword. Richard tells her in that exchange, “Take up the sword again, or take up me” (1.2.210), and we interpreted this to mean that if she does not marry him, her only option is to kill him then and there – meaning that when she’s faced with the request to take the ring there is no real option not to do it.  We thought that integrity as a concept entails choice, and with that in mind we wondered whether her choice not to kill Richard (she does say, “I will not be thy executioner”) is where she compromises her moral integrity. Here’s what we wrote:

Tierney: I believe that Anne may indeed be a very moral woman that was just confused by Richard's words in a time when it’s hard to think clearly. Richard, being the mastermind that he is, tried to “woo” her during a time of mourning. This is also what causes her unwillingness to kill Richard in scene 2. Although killing Richard could’ve been a very helpful deed to all characters in the play, her mourning state of mind actually makes possible her higher moral stance to choose not to act out violently.

Shelby: Yes, I don't think Anne betrayed her moral position when she chose not to kill Richard. Even after Richard killed both her husband and father-in-law, she didn't want to kill him herself. What I like about Anne is that she keeps up with Richard in his attempts at verbal conquest and when he then tests her willingness to confront him with physical power, she refuses to do it. Perhaps Anne, after seeing what happens when other people are killed, wished to break the cycle of the logic of violence and vengeance which was destroying the Yorks and Lancasters. Could she have accepted the ring for this reason? Was it for peace? Although killing Richard might have saved many people down the line Anne had no way of knowing this and she upheld her moral principles as best she could. In my opinion, because she chooses not to act violently, she has no real choice when offered the ring, and her integrity remains unblemished.

Some of us disagreed with Tierney’s and Shelby’s interpretation here.

Richard gives Anne the choice to take his life

David: No, I think Anne's decision not to kill Richard does betray her moral integrity. Yes, killing someone is wrong, and her refusal to kill could be read as moral. The death of Richard, however, proves to be necessary and it would have prevented much pain and grief that will come in the later Acts. Also, her reason for not killing Richard might be deeper. The Hockaday posting rightly claims that she is not an unintelligent person. One can see that in the way she keeps up with Richard’s verbal discourse. Perhaps she does see that Richard is a way to reach power. She might be thinking that keeping Richard alive saves her from falling from her social position, and helps her gain power. Therefore, I agree that this proves all the more the case when Anne accepts Richard's ring. She might have been flustered and in a state of mouring, but maybe she is just looking for a way to gain power and influence.

Caleb: The fact that Anne chose not to kill Richard, at first glance, shows that she is indeed moral. Not killing someone when you know that they murdered your father-in-law and husband shows restraint and moral integrity. Or does it? Anne could have been aware of the fact that she was out of power, and if she married Richard, she'd be back in the loop. This would mean that Anne was indeed lacking in morality. Little does Anne know that no matter what the cause of her actions, she still fell into the palm of Richard's hand. She doesn't seem aware that Richard plans on killing her. If she had killed Richard when he had given her the chance, she would've prevented a lot of grief and trouble for everyone, but her mind was either too focused on getting back into power or too fixed – impractically speaking – on being morally righteous as a nonviolent Christian.

We spent a lot of time in class also discussing the statement made about Elizabeth in scene 3 of Act 1, and we didn’t disagree with the idea that Elizabeth’s verbal alliances with Richard against Margaret “slightly compromise her moral integrity.” Our discussion, however, quickly shifted to Margaret and the verbal power she wields in her curses against Richard and Elizabeth.

Kourtnei: There is no doubt that Queen Margaret is bitter and angry. This is a result of not only Richard III killing her husband and son, but also because in killing them, Richard removed her from power. As Hockaday points out, Queen Margaret does not even slightly attempt to hide her dislike for Richard verbally speaking. She announces that she despises him. One would think that her obvious dislike for Richard would be her main outlet of aggression and bitterness, but rather than this being the case, Queen Margaret instead targets everyone, instead of just Richard. In doing this, she turns people against her, almost forcing them to side with Richard. Does this destroy her moral cause of trying to oppose Richard’s agenda? Instead, Margaret’s words end up turning everyone against HER rather than Richard.

The point made by Kourtnei got us thinking about the moral position of Margaret in Act 1, and we immediately made note (as many critics have) that she functions much like a “moral chorus” does in Greek tragedies. Her position remains steadfast and consistent expressing constant disapproval of the feuding factions of post-Lancastrian England. And then Elizabeth (a student from 1st period)reminded us of the irony of our reading:

Richard conflicts with Queen Margaret

Elizabeth:  A posting by Greenhill reminded us that there are three Henry VI plays that come before Richard III. When you consider her role in the tetralogy, it becomes clear that Queen Margaret is known as a ruthless and manipulative woman that will do anything to seize power. She will also do anything to get back at Richard for killing her son. And Richard did perform this act, but we also must think about Margaret's actions in the Henry VI plays. Margaret killed Richard's father after humiliating him on the battlefield. She’s proven that she’ll do anything for power. This prompts us to ask about the source of her bitterness: is it Richard’s villainy, her loss of family, or is it the loss of power? She wants so badly to be in power but she no longer has a path to the throne.  Like Richard, she does not like being in the shadow of other’s glory, and like Richard, she has murdered other people’s loved ones. This makes Margaret and Richard's arguments more valid, meaningful, and complex because we know the reasons why they have so much hatred for each other. This also makes her role as moral chorus ironic as she has no moral grounds for condemning the other characters.

We were fascinated by this question of moral integrity, and we thank Ashley Grey of The Hockaday School for directing our conversation this way. As we reflected on the conversation, we noticed that we were most motivated to find evidence for defending the integrity of Anne, but some of us remain staunch defenders of Ms. Grey’s assessment that such integrity gets ruined when she takes the ring…

Thank you Hockaday School!