In Richard III, the wicked King Richard finds himself deserted by allies and close to despair on the field of the Battle of Bosworth. Desperate to survive and escape after his horse is slaughtered, Richard famously cries, "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" (V.vii)
As you might guess, no one pauses their York-hacking or Lancaster-slaying to discuss the finer points of such an arrangement. It may have something to do with King Richard's being a remarkably unpopular fellow, but also, the offer seems a bit fishy, doesn't it? How would an interested soldier press the king to keep such an agreement, particularly in an era which holds to the divine right of kings? And is there on the battlefield the proper time to sit unguarded and negotiate -- "right-o, Dick, is that your kingdom in perpetuity? I've got a wounded gelding and a shetland pony, do either of those fulfill the bargain?"
But hypothetically, imagine if a soldier from Richard's forces had stepped up to the challenge and given Richard his horse. Let's call this ambitious young cavalryman Bill. And suppose that by some miracle, Richard defeated his challenger Richmond (who in the play survives, becoming --SPOILERS -- King Henry VII) and retained his crown and kingdom. Would Bill then be able to claim England as his due in exchange for the horse?
My guess, by the power vested in me as a grad student in English, is no. I imagine that in order to be binding, some conditions need to be met. I'm pretty sure that written contracts require each party's signature, the date, and an enumeration of what goods and/or services are to be exchanged in order to be valid and binding. And, obviously, each party has to be able to consent -- sober, of age, not being coerced, etc. I don't know what constitutes a valid, enforceable oral agreement, but it seems there would need to be further discussion of what and when Bill and Richard would provide their respective parts. We couldn't be expected to prosecute everyone who's ever said "I'd kill for a cheeseburger" for murder, or cutting pounds of flesh from people who say "I'd give anything to meet Beyonce".
What if it weren't Bill, though? What if it were Richmond, who, seeing an easy way to depose Richard, offered the king his horse in exchange for the kingdom? After all, King Richard is aware that Richmond is dead serious about overthrowing him, so Richard couldn't claim he thought it was in jest. Would that be binding? If not (and I suspect not), what would be necessary to make a similar arrangement valid and enforceable?
No comments:
Post a Comment