Richard II - Act III

[Scheherazade]

Please post your comments and questions in this thread.

Scene I (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/10/)

Scene II (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/11/)

Scene III (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/12/)

Scene IV (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/13/)

[Virgil]

I guess no one has said anything yet in the Act III thread. This is a great Act, especially the two middle scenes.

I'm just going to post something on the first two scenes tonight.

Only one thing I wanted to point out in scene 1, the execution of Bushy and Green. Is the execution justified? On what grounds exactly are they executed? Certainly they were the King's cohorts and they did help him in the stealing of Bolingbroke's lands, but does the punishment exceed the crimes. Here is Bolingbroke's case against them:


HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Bring forth these men.
Bushy and Green, I will not vex your souls--
Since presently your souls must part your bodies--
With too much urging your pernicious lives,
For 'twere no charity; yet, to wash your blood
From off my hands, here in the view of men
I will unfold some causes of your deaths.
You have misled a prince, a royal king,
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments,
By you unhappied and disfigured clean:
You have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.
Myself, a prince by fortune of my birth,
Near to the king in blood, and near in love
Till you did make him misinterpret me,
Have stoop'd my neck under your injuries,
And sigh'd my English breath in foreign clouds,
Eating the bitter bread of banishment;
Whilst you have fed upon my signories,
Dispark'd my parks and fell'd my forest woods,
From my own windows torn my household coat,
Razed out my imprese, leaving me no sign,
Save men's opinions and my living blood,
To show the world I am a gentleman.
This and much more, much more than twice all this,
Condemns you to the death. See them deliver'd over
To execution and the hand of death.
So they broke a few windows, and misled the King. Death seems a harsh punishment to me. It's not even clear that they even did these things. This really shows the ruthlessness of Bolingbroke, a Machiavellian nature. Kind of reminds me of Henry V where he executes Bardolph, though that's ven worse becasue Bardolph was Hal's friend at one time.

Also anyone wonder how the names Bushy and Green fit into the Garden motif that runs through the play? It's an interesting connection but I can't really think of anything.

Now Scene 2 is fabulous. It shows the psychological nature of the King Richard, just how incapable his nature is to lead and just his lack of being in touch with reality. I'm going to quote a sucession of speeches he makes. Please appreciate the gorgeous poetry that comes out of his mouth.

The first speech we have richard finally arrive in England after being in Ireland:


KING RICHARD II
Needs must I like it well: I weep for joy
To stand upon my kingdom once again.
Dear earth, I do salute thee with my hand,
Though rebels wound thee with their horses' hoofs:
As a long-parted mother with her child
Plays fondly with her tears and smiles in meeting,
So, weeping, smiling, greet I thee, my earth,
And do thee favours with my royal hands.
Feed not thy sovereign's foe, my gentle earth,
Nor with thy sweets comfort his ravenous sense;
But let thy spiders, that suck up thy venom,
And heavy-gaited toads lie in their way,
Doing annoyance to the treacherous feet
Which with usurping steps do trample thee:
Yield stinging nettles to mine enemies;
And when they from thy bosom pluck a flower,
Guard it, I pray thee, with a lurking adder
Whose double tongue may with a mortal touch
Throw death upon thy sovereign's enemies.
Mock not my senseless conjuration, lords:
This earth shall have a feeling and these stones
Prove armed soldiers, ere her native king
Shall falter under foul rebellion's arms.
Notice the garden of eden allusions that runs through it, nettles and flowers and even a snake. The gist of his speech though is that the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers. And then he is informed of Bolingbroke's success and he follows it this:

KING RICHARD II
Discomfortable cousin! know'st thou not
That when the searching eye of heaven is hid,
Behind the globe, that lights the lower world,
Then thieves and robbers range abroad unseen
In murders and in outrage, boldly here;
But when from under this terrestrial ball
He fires the proud tops of the eastern pines
And darts his light through every guilty hole,
Then murders, treasons and detested sins,
The cloak of night being pluck'd from off their backs,
Stand bare and naked, trembling at themselves?
So when this thief, this traitor, Bolingbroke,
Who all this while hath revell'd in the night
Whilst we were wandering with the antipodes,
Shall see us rising in our throne, the east,
His treasons will sit blushing in his face,
Not able to endure the sight of day,
But self-affrighted tremble at his sin.
Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd
To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.
He is following up with the same point as the previous speech but notice how etherial it has become: "terrestial ball," "behind the globe," "wandering with the antipodes," "the breath of worldly men," and the final concluding lines, "God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay/A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,/Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right." Angels fighting and heaven guarding the right. Is that in tune with reality? And how about "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king?" How different from Henrys IV and V, who know that a King is really just a man with a ceremonial crown. Richard seems to think that he can't be touched, at least not in this speech. Then he is informed at how serious his situation really is and he sinks into quick depression:

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Comfort, my liege; why looks your grace so pale?

KING RICHARD II
But now the blood of twenty thousand men
Did triumph in my face, and they are fled;
And, till so much blood thither come again,
Have I not reason to look pale and dead?
All souls that will be safe fly from my side,
For time hath set a blot upon my pride.
And Aumerle quickly reassures him and notice Richard's change:


DUKE OF AUMERLE
Comfort, my liege; remember who you are.

KING RICHARD II
I had forgot myself; am I not king?
Awake, thou coward majesty! thou sleepest.
Is not the king's name twenty thousand names?
Arm, arm, my name! a puny subject strikes
At thy great glory. Look not to the ground,
Ye favourites of a king: are we not high?
High be our thoughts: I know my uncle York
Hath power enough to serve our turn. But who comes here?
Just like that Richard has returned to his self glorifying bombast, "are we not high?" The switch between the speeches is amazing. From depression to aggrandizement, from self pity to self glorification. I'm not saying that richard is bi-polar, but there is a part of his psyche that is lurching from one extreme to another. Notice how he goes from the anger of believing Bushy and Green have betrayed him to the depression from the impression that Bolingbroke is unconquorerable. And the his great speech starting from his not knowing what has happened to York:


KING RICHARD II
No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, our lives and all are Bolingbroke's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood
With solemn reverence: throw away respect,
Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,
For you have but mistook me all this while:
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?
Instead of either coming up with a plan, either militarily or for negotiating a truce, or just skipping town, we see him drop into deep despair and drop into some self pitying paralysis, even perversely elaborating on the fall of Kings. These lines are worthy of repeating:

For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
I must also highlight the ceremonial theme that I discussed in Act I that is brought back with these lines, "Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood/With solemn reverence: throw away respect,/Tradition, form and ceremonious duty." Remember the power of a King is endowed through ceremony and the act of Richard's demise and Bolingbroke's rise is a ceremonial process.

The Bishop and Amerle then try to buck him up and get him to lead:

BISHOP OF CARLISLE
My lord, wise men ne'er sit and wail their woes,
But presently prevent the ways to wail.
To fear the foe, since fear oppresseth strength,
Gives in your weakness strength unto your foe,
And so your follies fight against yourself.
Fear and be slain; no worse can come to fight:
And fight and die is death destroying death;
Where fearing dying pays death servile breath.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
My father hath a power; inquire of him
And learn to make a body of a limb.
And with that Richard lurches back to self aggrandizement:

KING RICHARD II
Thou chidest me well: proud Bolingbroke, I come
To change blows with thee for our day of doom.
This ague fit of fear is over-blown;
An easy task it is to win our own.
Say, Scroop, where lies our uncle with his power?
Speak sweetly, man, although thy looks be sour.
only to be followed back with despair:

Of that sweet way I was in to despair!
What say you now? what comfort have we now?
By heaven, I'll hate him everlastingly
That bids me be of comfort any more.
Go to Flint castle: there I'll pine away;
A king, woe's slave, shall kingly woe obey.
That power I have, discharge; and let them go
To ear the land that hath some hope to grow,
For I have none: let no man speak again
To alter this, for counsel is but vain.

What an incredible psychological scene. We finally see Richard's problems, a sort of attention deficit disorder, an airy self aggrandizement, self pity, despair, and finally a defeatist attitude. He has practically quit without even trying, without a fight. Compare how MacBeth decides to end it when it became clear his fate was evident. You who don't care for this play perhaps have not noticed the psychological depth of the Richard character. He goes from Kingly security as right to despair. And that language is just gorgeous.

[MissScarlett]

I have to read your entire post more carefully, Virgil, and think about it because you've brought up many thought-provoking points.

Regarding Bushy and Greene, I think Shakespeare is foreshadowing a little here, if foreshadowing is the right word. The execution of Bushy and Greene shows us that the balance of power is tipping from Richard to Bolingbroke. I think this balance of power certainly comes to the fore in the beginning of Act III when Richard arrives back in Wales from Ireland. He (Richard) realizes that he has already, for all practical concerns, lost the throne to Bolingbroke. At least he eventually does. He gives up, but in his giving up, some of Shakespeare's most exquisite poetry is showcased (again, not the right word, but all I can think of at this time). The play, I think, is at its most eloquent from Act III on.

I don't think the execution of Bushy and Greene was truly justified - all they were guilty of was remaining loyal to their own king, however Bolingbroke has the audacity of accusing them of misleading the king!

Why were they executed? According to Bolingbroke, they were executed because they lied to and misled Richard, who Bolingbroke is hypocritically calling, at this time, a good man. However, the real reason they were executed is so Bolingbroke could weaken Richard and make inroads himself toward taking the crown.

The beginning of Act III, for me, shows us the hypocrisy of political maneuverings, how everyone lies to everyone else. In Richard's England, truthfulness in politics was a rare thing.

Continued, after I read Virgil's post more carefully:

When, in Act III, scene ii, Richard returns from Ireland and realizes that he has, for all practical effects, lost the crown to Bolingbroke, he still might not accept the reality of his situation, but he is, at least, aware that he will lose the crown, and he turns from self-aggrandizement to despair. Eventually. This despair marks the point at which Richard (Shakespeare) produces some of the most gorgeous poetry ever written, and the reason I don’t place this play below the others. Richard’s character may be difficult to like and admire and almost impossible to empathize with, and as the play progresses, he becomes more and more out of touch with reality, but he’s not without enormous depth. In fact, I consider Richard one of Shakespeare’s most eloquent characters, perhaps the most eloquent. No, he does not transcend his play like Hamlet, but his eloquence is unrivaled, I think.

I think Richard’s speeches go back and forth between self-aggrandizement and despair, between reality and detachment because Shakespeare is asking us if a king is someone who is anointed or is someone who simply has the political power to maneuver himself into that position.

Contrast these two speeches of Richard’s:

Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose/The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd/To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,/God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay/A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.

In the speech above, Richard is implying that he is a king anointed by God, himself, a glorious angel even, and no earthly man, including Bolingbroke, will be able to depose him.

But Richard doesn’t adhere to this belief all the time. His speeches change dramatically once he falls into despair:

Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood/With solemn reverence: throw away respect,/Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,/For you have but mistook me all this while:/I live with bread like you, feel want,/Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?

Where just shortly before, Richard considered himself anointed by God, an angel even, who no one could depose, now, in the speech above, he believes that mortals have mistook him and that he, too, is a mortal, who “lives with bread…feels want…tastes grief…needs friends.”

These two speeches contrast Richard’s swings in mood perfectly, I think. (And I know you quoted some of the above already, Virgil, and already pointed it out.)

As for the allusions to nature, I have an opinion, but I’ll wait until we discuss the garden scene, which I love, to comment on that.

[Virgil]

I don't think the execution of Bushy and Greene was truly justified - all they were guilty of was remaining loyal to their own king, however Bolingbroke has the audacity of accusing them of misleading the king!

Why were they executed? According to Bolingbroke, they were executed because they lied to and misled Richard, who Bolingbroke is hypocritically calling, at this time, a good man. However, the real reason they were executed is so Bolingbroke could weaken Richard and make inroads himself toward taking the crown.

The beginning of Act III, for me, shows us the hypocrisy of political maneuverings, how everyone lies to everyone else. In Richard's England, truthfulness in politics was a rare thing.

Yes. I had not picked up on this until this read. I had always read the play Richard incompetant and bad/Bolingbroke competant and good. I don't think Bolingbroke is all that decent a character, even though he's been unjustly banished. Scene 3, when we get to it, I was going to ask the question, just how innocent or ambitious is Bolingbroke? Is he just after some justice or the whole crown itself? Let's put off that question for a few days yet.



I think Richard’s speeches go back and forth between self-aggrandizement and despair, between reality and detachment because Shakespeare is asking us if a king is someone who is anointed or is someone who simply has the political power to maneuver himself into that position.
Certainly we need to figure out what Shakespeare means by the nature of king-hood.


In the speech above, Richard is implying that he is a king anointed by God, himself, a glorious angel even, and no earthly man, including Bolingbroke, will be able to depose him.

But Richard doesn’t adhere to this belief all the time. His speeches change dramatically once he falls into despair:
Yes, I don't think Richard himself is clear to himself. He would like to believe in the ideal, but even he talks about the death of Kings.


Where just shortly before, Richard considered himself anointed by God, an angel even, who no one could depose, now, in the speech above, he believes that mortals have mistook him and that he, too, is a mortal, who “lives with bread…feels want…tastes grief…needs friends.”
Yes, this is what I'm saying about his grasp of reality. There is an incredible psychological conflict going on, not just beteen his notion of king, but just of his grasp of reality.


These two speeches contrast Richard’s swings in mood perfectly, I think. (And I know you quoted some of the above already, Virgil, and already pointed it out.)
I think we pretty much agree here. :)


As for the allusions to nature, I have an opinion, but I’ll wait until we discuss the garden scene, which I love, to comment on that.
Oh great. I have questions on the whole garden motif and it comes to a head in that scene. I can't say I truely understand it. I'll be waiting. ;) Hey great to have you in on our discussion Scarlett.

[Janine]

Hi Virgil and MissScarlett, I have read both of your post and found them quite interesting. I will comment briefly on some points Virgil made first.


Only one thing I wanted to point out in scene 1, the execution of Bushy and Green. Is the execution justified? On what grounds exactly are they executed? Certainly they were the King's cohorts and they did help him in the stealing of Bolingbroke's lands, but does the punishment exceed the crimes. Here is Bolingbroke's case against them:

So they broke a few windows, and misled the King. Death seems a harsh punishment to me. It's not even clear that they even did these things. This really shows the ruthlessness of Bolingbroke, a Machiavellian nature. Kind of reminds me of Henry V where he executes Bardolph, though that's ven worse becasue Bardolph was Hal's friend at one time.

I am still a bit foggy on just what Bushy and Green did. It seems many lines of the text/poetry indicated what these actions may have been, but don't specifically name them; for instance:


You have misled a prince, a royal king,
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments,
By you unhappied and disfigured clean:
You have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.

Could someone explain this part to me, especially concerning the queen? Did she cheat on Richard or did Richard cheat on her with these two men? Or did they simply corrupt Richard's mind and lead him away from marital fidelity? It certainly seems quite suggestive to me, or do I have a dirty mind? In the play, I am watching Richard is portrayed rather effeminine and I have heard interpretations leading to this conclusion. I also will be anxious now to take a closer look at that 'garden' scene. When I first watched/read it, It seemed to me to possess a lot of hidden symbolism. I think their crimes were a little more serious than 'breaking a few windows.'

As far as Henry and Bardolph is concerned, that was a very key moment in the play. Henry had just announced prior that there be no taking of property or upbraiding of the citizens of France or strict punishment would be the result; this adverse type of action by the English troops would not be tolerated. He could make no exceptions. He had made the order and in order to show his strength of character and principle he had to execute Bardolph. The tragedy was that Bardolph had been his friend. I think the fact that Ancient Pistol does not condemn Henry for this action shows Henry did the right and upstanding thing in executing Bardolph. It breaks my heart everything I come to that part but it was a necessary part of the play. In some ways it was another turning point for Henry, initiating him into full manhood and King status. I don't think you can compare the two instances as anything alike.


Also anyone wonder how the names Bushy and Green fit into the Garden motif that runs through the play? It's an interesting connection but I can't really think of anything.

I can't wait to hear your take on that part, Miss Scarlett. I too am so glad you joined the discussion; you see already to add so much. You are very perceptive.


Now Scene 2 is fabulous. It shows the psychological nature of the King Richard, just how incapable his nature is to lead and just his lack of being in touch with reality. I'm going to quote a sucession of speeches he makes. Please appreciate the gorgeous poetry that comes out of his mouth.

Yes, I fully agree. In the prison scenes, when Richard is alone you get a recurance of these thoughts and he flip-flops back and forth between both sides of the coin - being a mere human being and being a God annointed King.


Notice the garden of eden allusions that runs through it, nettles and flowers and even a snake. The gist of his speech though is that the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers. And then he is informed of Bolingbroke's success and he follows it this:

That is really interesting. I hadn't thought of those references before. Can you further explain your statement "the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers", Virgil?


He is following up with the same point as the previous speech but notice how etherial it has become: "terrestial ball," "behind the globe," "wandering with the antipodes," "the breath of worldly men," and the final concluding lines, "God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay/A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,/Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right." Angels fighting and heaven guarding the right. Is that in tune with reality? And how about "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king?" How different from Henrys IV and V, who know that a King is really just a man with a ceremonial crown. Richard seems to think that he can't be touched, at least not in this speech. Then he is informed at how serious his situation really is and he sinks into quick depression:

I think now he is realising he does not have long to live. He has worked through his thought patterns and now worked up this point. He must have some type of forbodding; don't you imagine? Yes, his attitude is quite different than Henry IV and V's. In Henry V, Henry is humble when he wins the battle of Agincort against such impossible odds and continuously reminds his troups they have to look to God who won the battle for them. He assumes his title as King and yet gives God all the credit for deciding the English will win. Unlike, Richard, who is into his own sense of glorification, pomp and ceremony; until he is brought down to earth by his imprissonment; however he is never actually brought down since he holds onto this idea that he will surely be an angel when he dies.


And Aumerle quickly reassures him and notice Richard's change:

Just like that Richard has returned to his self glorifying bombast, "are we not high?" The switch between the speeches is amazing. From depression to aggrandizement, from self pity to self glorification. I'm not saying that richard is bi-polar, but there is a part of his psyche that is lurching from one extreme to another. Notice how he goes from the anger of believing Bushy and Green have betrayed him to the depression from the impression that Bolingbroke is unconquorerable. And the his great speech starting from his not knowing what has happened to York:

Exactly. This seems ingrained in the personality of Richard. He is sort of manic at times in that he has a lot of delusions of grandeur, even when things are not looking too good for him. But mostly, I think this is like the 'fall of man, the fall of a King'. It just works through many stages to culminate to the death scene.


Instead of either coming up with a plan, either militarily or for negotiating a truce, or just skipping town, we see him drop into deep despair and drop into some self pitying paralysis, even perversely elaborating on the fall of Kings. These lines are worthy of repeating:

Right you are. He does fall into a pitying paralysis and therefore he can't be pragmatic. He is stuck in this dark hole of despair. Even these scenes somehow feel claustophobic to me.


I must also highlight the ceremonial theme that I discussed in Act I that is brought back with these lines, "Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood/With solemn reverence: throw away respect,/Tradition, form and ceremonious duty." Remember the power of a King is endowed through ceremony and the act of Richard's demise and Bolingbroke's rise is a ceremonial process.

True.


What an incredible psychological scene. We finally see Richard's problems, a sort of attention deficit disorder, an airy self aggrandizement, self pity, despair, and finally a defeatist attitude. He has practically quit without even trying, without a fight. Compare how MacBeth decides to end it when it became clear his fate was evident. You who don't care for this play perhaps have not noticed the psychological depth of the Richard character. He goes from Kingly security as right to despair. And that language is just gorgeous.

This is not my favorite history, which is true, but I do appreciate the psychological depth of it and the beautiful poetry. The parts where Richard is working out in his mind the fact he is the anointed king and yet merely flesh and blood and a man interest me greatly and are very reminescent of my favorite soliloquey in Henry V when he walks through the camp at night contemplating his place as King in the natural work and order of things. I think the speeches have some similarily. However, I find Richard's more uneven and more changable than Henry's. Richard also feels sorry for himself often which I find a bit annoying. He is a weak king whereas Henry is a strong presense in the play that will follow. I forget the order now. Which of the two plays came first in writing? The fact that Henry V admits that his father did Richard wrong and Henry has been trying to atone for the sins of his father also add proof to the fact that Shakespeare would not have seen either character in this play as totally good. I had tended to see Bollingbroke as more noble but now I am very much questioning his motifs. As you point out now in the text, it seems that Bushy and Green have lead Richard away from being noble and helped to weaken his reign as king and as husband to his wife. I am wondering why Shakespeare did not make it a little more specific as to what the two men actually did to bring about Richard's demise.

This is true " He goes from Kingly security as right to despair" and the poetry is gorgeous.

[MissScarlett]

Hi Virgil and Janine, I agree with what both of you have said.

I was thinking about the play when I was out today. I think, Janine, that while you and I appreciate the gorgeousness of the poetry as does Virgil, we find it more difficult to get emotionally involved with the characters because the two big dramatic elements - Richard's abdication and his eventual murder aren't dramatized so much as poeticized, if you know what I mean. The gorgeous poetry, in many ways, distances us from the characters. Still, I wouldn't change this play for anything. It's Shakespeare!

[Janine]

Hi Virgil and Janine, I agree with what both of you have said.

I was thinking about the play when I was out today. I think, Janine, that while you and I appreciate the gorgeousness of the poetry as does Virgil, we find it more difficult to get emotionally involved with the characters because the two big dramatic elements - Richard's abdication and his eventual murder aren't dramatized so much as poeticized, if you know what I mean. The gorgeous poetry, in many ways, distances us from the characters. Still, I wouldn't change this play for anything. It's Shakespeare!

Yes, that is it exactly; you pegged it perfectly. I just can't connect with Richard on a personal level. It might be that the poetry is actually getting in my way of connecting with his human character or maybe I am tired of hearing his sniveling and his elevated image of himself at times. I don't really connect to any of the characters in this particular play, so that is why I can't really honestly get emotionally involved in it, as I do in other Shakespeare plays. Of course you are right - it's still a fine play - afterall it is Shakespeare!

[Virgil]

Hi Virgil and MissScarlett, I have read both of your post and found them quite interesting. I will comment briefly on some points Virgil made first.

Oh good. I'm wondering where Quark disappeared to again. ;)


I am still a bit foggy on just what Bushy and Green did. It seems many lines of the text/poetry indicated what these actions may have been, but don't specifically name them; for instance:
You know I've felt that way too and I've come to the conclusion that the charges are trumped up. I think the pont here is to show Bolingbroke's ruthlessness.


Could someone explain this part to me, especially concerning the queen? Did she cheat on Richard or did Richard cheat on her with these two men? Or did they simply corrupt Richard's mind and lead him away from marital fidelity? It certainly seems quite suggestive to me, or do I have a dirty mind?
I frankly don't get it either.


In the play, I am watching Richard is portrayed rather effeminine and I have heard interpretations leading to this conclusion. I also will be anxious now to take a closer look at that 'garden' scene. When I first watched/read it, It seemed to me to possess a lot of hidden symbolism. I think their crimes were a little more serious than 'breaking a few windows.'
Yes, of course, but worthy of death? No I don't see it.


As far as Henry and Bardolph is concerned, that was a very key moment in the play. Henry had just announced prior that there be no taking of property or upbraiding of the citizens of France or strict punishment would be the result; this adverse type of action by the English troops would not be tolerated. He could make no exceptions. He had made the order and in order to show his strength of character and principle he had to execute Bardolph. The tragedy was that Bardolph had been his friend. I think the fact that Ancient Pistol does not condemn Henry for this action shows Henry did the right and upstanding thing in executing Bardolph. It breaks my heart everything I come to that part but it was a necessary part of the play. In some ways it was another turning point for Henry, initiating him into full manhood and King status. I don't think you can compare the two instances as anything alike.
There are differences for sure, but I think both are executions more to show the leader's power than actual execution of justice.


I can't wait to hear your take on that part, Miss Scarlett. I too am so glad you joined the discussion; you see already to add so much. You are very perceptive.
I'm waiting too. :D


That is really interesting. I hadn't thought of those references before. Can you further explain your statement "the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers", Virgil?
That is a really good phrase, if I say so myself. :D Perhaps the spirit of Richard or Shakespeare got into me. ;) I actually was inaccurate in what I meant to say. I meant that to Richard the earth appears to be in league with divinity. He sees the earth as part of the ceremony that endows him with divine right.


I think now he is realising he does not have long to live. He has worked through his thought patterns and now worked up this point. He must have some type of forbodding; don't you imagine? Yes, his attitude is quite different than Henry IV and V's. In Henry V, Henry is humble when he wins the battle of Agincort against such impossible odds and continuously reminds his troups they have to look to God who won the battle for them. He assumes his title as King and yet gives God all the credit for deciding the English will win. Unlike, Richard, who is into his own sense of glorification, pomp and ceremony; until he is brought down to earth by his imprissonment; however he is never actually brought down since he holds onto this idea that he will surely be an angel when he dies.
I agree with everything there Janine. :)


Exactly. This seems ingrained in the personality of Richard. He is sort of manic at times in that he has a lot of delusions of grandeur, even when things are not looking too good for him. But mostly, I think this is like the 'fall of man, the fall of a King'. It just works through many stages to culminate to the death scene.
Oh good point on the fall of man and the fall of a king. Perhaps that's the connection with the garden of eden that I don't understand.


This is not my favorite history, which is true, but I do appreciate the psychological depth of it and the beautiful poetry. The parts where Richard is working out in his mind the fact he is the anointed king and yet merely flesh and blood and a man interest me greatly and are very reminescent of my favorite soliloquey in Henry V when he walks through the camp at night contemplating his place as King in the natural work and order of things. I think the speeches have some similarily. However, I find Richard's more uneven and more changable than Henry's. Richard also feels sorry for himself often which I find a bit annoying. He is a weak king whereas Henry is a strong presense in the play that will follow. I forget the order now. Which of the two plays came first in writing? The fact that Henry V admits that his father did Richard wrong and Henry has been trying to atone for the sins of his father also add proof to the fact that Shakespeare would not have seen either character in this play as totally good. I had tended to see Bollingbroke as more noble but now I am very much questioning his motifs. As you point out now in the text, it seems that Bushy and Green have lead Richard away from being noble and helped to weaken his reign as king and as husband to his wife. I am wondering why Shakespeare did not make it a little more specific as to what the two men actually did to bring about Richard's demise.
Well, I hope you've gotten a greater appreciation of it. The psychological depth of Richard rivals that of Hamlet.

[Virgil]

Hi Virgil and Janine, I agree with what both of you have said.

I was thinking about the play when I was out today. I think, Janine, that while you and I appreciate the gorgeousness of the poetry as does Virgil, we find it more difficult to get emotionally involved with the characters because the two big dramatic elements - Richard's abdication and his eventual murder aren't dramatized so much as poeticized, if you know what I mean. The gorgeous poetry, in many ways, distances us from the characters. Still, I wouldn't change this play for anything. It's Shakespeare!


Yes, that is it exactly; you pegged it perfectly. I just can't connect with Richard on a personal level. It might be that the poetry is actually getting in my way of connecting with his human character or maybe I am tired of hearing his sniveling and his elevated image of himself at times. I don't really connect to any of the characters in this particular play, so that is why I can't really honestly get emotionally involved in it, as I do in other Shakespeare plays. Of course you are right - it's still a fine play - afterall it is Shakespeare!

On this I have to disagree with you ladies. I don't think it's the poetry. Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet has such great poetry too. I think it's the dramatic movement of the Acts that don't quite lead into each other. Perhaps at the end of our discussion I'll elaborate. :)

[Janine]

On this I have to disagree with you ladies. I don't think it's the poetry. Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet has such great poetry too. I think it's the dramatic movement of the Acts that don't quite lead into each other. Perhaps at the end of our discussion I'll elaborate. :)

Perhaps. But how can you even compare "Romeo and Juliet" to the characters in this play? One connects emotionally right away with them both.

Just saw your other post. Going now to read it.

Just read it and agree with all practicually; maybe not the Bardolf part exactly. I think that was justified since Henry warned that would be the outcome - hanging. He was bound by his word.

To this statement: "Well, I hope you've gotten a greater appreciation of it." Yes. I never didn't appreciate the poetry or the play exactly, yet it is far from a favorite.
But to this statement following it - "The psychological depth of Richard rivals that of Hamlet."....NO way!!!

[Virgil]

But to this statement following it - "The psychological depth of Richard rivals that of Hamlet."....NO way!!!

:lol::lol: I knew that would get your ears up. :D

[Janine]

:lol::lol: I knew that would get your ears up. :D

Yes, and I knew you were doing it to aggravate me! haha :lol:

[MissScarlett]

I agree with Janine on this one. While Richard is a deep character, though totally self-absorbed, he's certainly no Hamlet. Not in my eyes. Hamlet transcends his play, Richard does not. I think this play also lacks the wit of the other plays.

[Quark]

Only one thing I wanted to point out in scene 1, the execution of Bushy and Green. Is the execution justified?

I don't think the execution of Bushy and Greene was truly justified - all they were guilty of was remaining loyal to their own king, however Bolingbroke has the audacity of accusing them of misleading the king!

What they literally did is perhaps not so egregious, but within the play Bushy and Green are the real villains. They represent everything that's corrupted and selfish in Richard. Gaunt's final words in Act II lay all this out better than it's summarized in Act III. Good thing, too, otherwise the audience would get bored if it were all rehashed again.


Now Scene 2 is fabulous. It shows the psychological nature of the King Richard, just how incapable his nature is to lead and just his lack of being in touch with reality. I'm going to quote a sucession of speeches he makes.

Virgil, you've given a pretty good characterization of Richard here. He vacillates between two extremes throughout Act III, and this flipping back and forth will eventually cause him to unhinge later in the play. The final half of the play is quite psychological.


You who don't care for this play perhaps have not noticed the psychological depth of the Richard character. He goes from Kingly security as right to despair. And that language is just gorgeous.

We also gain greater sympathy for Richard through his language. The lyricism of it endears us to him, but it also shows he is not constituted to be king.

I agree that Richard's lyricism does give us a better idea of Richard's mental state, and that there's much psychology in the later Acts. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes Richard a great character who could rival those from Hamlet. In order for something to be psychologically interesting, it has to be psychological as well as interesting. We do get to see into Richard's mind, but what we find there isn't particularly engaging. His predicament--while being highly psychological--doesn't really correspond to what we actually experience. In Act III, Richard seems more like a caricature of two behaviors: defeatism and self-aggrandizement. I think his growth from one Act to another is interesting, but the individual scenes just seem too divorced from reality. When I think about great psychological characters (a Raskilnokov or Milton's Satan) I notice that they're not just portraits of certain conditions, but they're also people I can relate to. Richard and Bolingbroke are not. Partly, this comes from the fact that their motives and personalities are so suspect. Bolingbroke is a conniving politician, and Richard is a condescending buffoon (in Act I). Raskilnokov, on the other hand, is someone trying to be good to his family and society. He's just been twisted into thinking that the only way he can do that is through crime.


When, in Act III, scene ii, Richard returns from Ireland and realizes that he has, for all practical effects, lost the crown to Bolingbroke, he still might not accept the reality of his situation, but he is, at least, aware that he will lose the crown, and he turns from self-aggrandizement to despair. Eventually. This despair marks the point at which Richard (Shakespeare) produces some of the most gorgeous poetry ever written, and the reason I don’t place this play below the others. Richard’s character may be difficult to like and admire and almost impossible to empathize with, and as the play progresses, he becomes more and more out of touch with reality, but he’s not without enormous depth.

I think you've hit on something good here. It's the moments when there's a change in Richard's character that he's interesting. When he starts to despair, or when his former pride reasserts itself, or when he finally decides to take Action in Act V are all great moments for Richard. Richard may be one of Shakespeare's best "round" characters. In that, his growth during the play is really interesting.


Could someone explain this part to me, especially concerning the queen? Did she cheat on Richard or did Richard cheat on her with these two men? Or did they simply corrupt Richard's mind and lead him away from marital fidelity?

I think it's the last option you mentioned. Bolingbroke is saying that Bushy and Green perverted Richard. This goes back to what Gaunt brought up in Act II. They might not be as much of instigators as Bolingbroke claims they are, but they certainly were partners in crime with Richard during his extravagant former days.

[Janine]

Hahaha....Virgil, you just mention 'Quark's' name and he appears -presto! I do it all the time in Chekhov or Lawrence and 'Quark' perks up; suddenly appears out of nowhere.

Hi Quark, we missed you.:D I liked you comments above - very well thought out. I see 3 of us are now of the same mind-set concerning "Hamlet." I can't even see a comparison between the two characters and the two plays, nor R&J. I think though that maybe Virgil was just kidding about H and trying to get my dander up again. He has fun doing that.

I will try and answer more to your post, later on, Quark.

[Virgil]

:lol: All ganging up on me again. I didn't say that this play was as great as the play Hamlet (though you know I find Hamlet a little over rated as a play, but still great). I said that the character of Richard II has as much depth as the character of Hamlet. Plus as I get older, Hamlet is a boy to me. I prefer the psychology of mature men.

[Janine]

:lol: All ganging up on me again. I didn't say that this play was as great as the play Hamlet (though you know I find Hamlet a little over rated as a play, but still great). I said that the character of Richard II has as much depth as the character of Hamlet. Plus as I get older, Hamlet is a boy to me. I prefer the psychology of mature men.

:lol::lol::lol:Always trying any angle to weedle you way out of a tight situation. You are too funny, V....'prefer the psychology of a mature man'...like you are are so mature yourself flirting with these 'young' ones on Litnet.:lol::lol::lol:

[MissScarlett]

I don't think Richard was that old psychologically. I like the play primarily for its gorgeous poetry, but I have to disagree with Virgil here and say I don't think Richard is as deep as Hamlet. Richard gets shorted by many, and he does have depth, that I can't deny. He's just no transcendent Hamlet. ;)

[Janine]

I don't think Richard was that old psychologically. I like the play primarily for its gorgeous poetry, but I have to disagree with Virgil here and say I don't think Richard is as deep as Hamlet. Richard gets shorted by many, and he does have depth, that I can't deny. He's just no transcendent Hamlet. ;)

I feel 'the force' is with us, MissScarlett, :lol:...poor Virgil....don't let it worry you, he loves this opposition. ;) I agree; there may be depth within Richard; but there is no 'transcendent' quality, as is seen within Hamlet's character. I don't find myself pondering much after watching "Richard II", but "Hamlet" will not leave my mind ever. I wonder how old Richard is suppose to be in this play. I don't think many kings back then lived long lives. Some say Hamlet is played by too old an actor, but I heard it said that actually Hamlet is suppose to in his early 30's, according to Shakespeare research. I am not sure how scholars know this fact.

[Quark]

Some say Hamlet is played by too old an actor, but I heard it said that actually Hamlet is suppose to in his early 30's, according to Shakespeare research. I am not sure how scholars know this fact.

I think the association between Hamlet and adolescence has more to do with Hamlet's behavior and qualities rather than his actual age. He's ironic, sarcastic, overly reflective. These are some of the things we usually associate with sulky teenagers. I don't know if Richard's qualities necessarily line up with middle age, though. I can't say he really resembles anything that I know, and that's mainly my objection to his character--he isn't particularly realistic.

[Virgil]

Oh Quark. You haven't met enough middle age men.


I think the association between Hamlet and adolescence has more to do with Hamlet's behavior and qualities rather than his actual age. He's ironic, sarcastic, overly reflective. These are some of the things we usually associate with sulky teenagers.
That's exactly why Hamlet has irritated me as I've gotten older. Teens just annoy me. Frankly I don't find the concerns of teens all that deep. ;) Just check around lit net. :D

[Janine]

Oh Quark. You haven't met enough middle age men.


That's exactly why Hamlet has irritated me as I've gotten older. Teens just annoy me. Frankly I don't find the concerns of teens all that deep. ;) Just check around lit net. :D

Waaaaa:bawling:...I don't see my beloved 'Hamlet' as a teenie bopper. Geez, guys can't you lay off the guy? But seriously, why don't we get back on track and discuss "Richard II" - the actual play that this thread is dedicated to.

[Quark]

That's exactly why Hamlet has irritated me as I've gotten older. Teens just annoy me.

Well I think there's more to Hamlet than just teenage sullenness. He's also incredibly perceptive and witty. It would really be a shallow reading to write him off as the "teenie bopper" that Janine brought up.


Frankly I don't find the concerns of teens all that deep. ;) Just check around lit net. :D

Oh, you're going to get a few nasty PM's about this one, Virgil.


But seriously, why don't we get back on track and discuss "Richard II"

Sure, what about Richard II do you want to talk about?

[Janine]

Well I think there's more to Hamlet than just teenage sullenness. He's also incredibly perceptive and witty. It would really be a shallow reading to write him off as the "teenie bopper" that Janine brought up.

Oh Quark, I hope you realise I didn't call Hamlet a 'teenie bopper'. I agree with you - he is perceptive and exceedingly witty at times. He is crafty in a good way, too. He has a lot of depth and is very complex. I love Hamlet and am forever fascinated with his character.


Oh, you're going to get a few nasty PM's about this one, Virgil. hahaha....if they peek into this thread he sure will. He deserves it, too!:lol:


Sure, what about Richard II do you want to talk about?
Yes, I think we got slightly off-track, don't you? I guess that is our main objective here - discussing the play "Richard II"...we are committed now to continue.

[Quark]

Oh Quark, I hope you realise I didn't call Hamlet a 'teenie bopper'.

No, I didn't think you did.


hahaha....if they peek into this thread he sure will.

That's the thing, though. If Virgil's right, they're not deep enough to peek into this discussion.


Yes, I think we got direly off-track, don't you. I guess that is our main objective here - discussing the play "Richard II"

Well it's hard coming up with one intelligent comment after another on a difficult play. It expends that "brain energy" which Virgil felt so depleted of earlier. Sometimes a break is good.


...we are committed now to continue.

I suppose, but it's up to you to continue since you said you were going to comment on my "very well thought out" post. Didn't I do my part?

[Janine]

No, I didn't think you did. Oh, that's good.


That's the thing, though. If Virgil's right, they're not deep enough to peek into this discussion. haha...how true....but some of them are pretty deep compared to the stuff I read in high school....I have to hand it to these kids nowdays....reading "War and Peace" that early on. I haven't even accomplished it yet.


Well it's hard coming up with one intelligent comment after another on a difficult play. It expends that "brain energy" which Virgil felt so depleted of earlier. Sometimes a break is good.

How true...I am just kidding with you guys. I thought it all was rather humorous and good breather indeed. Besides I need to either re-watch the play or read more of it. I forget now where I left off.:(


I suppose, but it's up to you to continue since you said you were going to comment on my "very well thought out" post. Didn't I do my part?
Oh gosh, I am sorry, Quark, that was my fault. I will check back and see what I missed tomorrow or by Friday, ok? Lately I have not been concentrating too well.

[kasie]

... I wonder how old Richard is suppose to be in this play. I don't think many kings back then lived long lives....

Bit of background history coming up. :yawnb:

Richard died when he was about thirty-three: I say 'about' because nobody is sure exactly when he died (that's not a spoiler for Act V, is it?) That means Richard is in his early thirties during the early action of the play (which historically took place over two/three years).

What I feel is interesting about Richard's character is his background which is not really mentioned in the play but would have been known as 'general knowledge' by the first audiences: he became King at the age of ten, too young to rule in his own right, so there was a Regency, supposedly controlled by a group of twelve nobles but in fact as time went on, dominated by John of Gaunt for much of the time, later by the Duke of Gloucester. I've always felt the autocratic Richard who will not be councelled to wiser moves is a product of his youth when older, supposedly wiser, men controlled him, usually for the purposes of extending their own power. Richard lacked the example of a strong, wise man on which to model himself: his father, the Black Prince, who died when he was still a baby, was the Golden Boy of his age, popular at all levels of the kingdom, successful in battle and considered charming, chivalrous and brave. No doubt, Richard was compared unfavourably to his illustrious father and what a model to have to live up to! It's hardly surprising he wanted to be his own man but he had been ill-prepared for the role of King. Marrying into the French royal family - he wed his second wife, Isabella, when he was thirty - he adopted French tastes and attitudes, including the Divine Right of Kings, which would hardly have gone down well in an England that had been fighting France on and off for a good number of years.

I think his intervention in the duel in Act I is a direct echo of an incident in Richard's youth: when he was fourteen, there was a popular uprising in protest against the Poll Tax introduced by Gaunt to raise money for what was seen as the extravagence of the war with France and court excesses. It became known as the Peasants' Revolt and some hundred thousand angry men marched on London. The young king rode out to meet the Essex contingent at Mile End, perilously close to the city of London, and promised them that he would personally redress their grievances, a foolhardy but nevertheless courageous action. The next day, things turned nasty when the Kent contingent burned Gaunt's palace, the Savoy, burned Temple Bar, the entry to the City, opened prisons, broke into the Tower, killed the Archbishop of Canterbury and turned their attention to the Court. Their leader, Wat Tyler, was killed by the Lord Mayor of London, and for a while things looked very ugly. The King once again rode out and spoke to the mob, riding into their ranks crying that he would be their leader, promising again to address their grievances and once again restoring order: the Golden Father seemed to have sired a Golden Son. If only Richard had capitalised on this popular goodwill, the outcome of history might have been very different. But he was a boy, his Regents would not allow him to make good his promises (though Gaunt slipped into the background after this) and so Richard was perceived to have reneged on his word. I can't help feeling that the affair marked him for life: the Richard of the play seems to believe he is an authorative figure and never realises that a king must be as good as his word, that loyalty has to be earned not demanded.

Hope this lengthy lecture throws a bit of light on Richard. :)

[MissScarlett]

Wow, kasie, thanks! I was under the impression that Richard wed Isabelle when she was just a child. I did know she was French. Thanks again for the background information.

Regarding the garden scene, I think the garden is symbolic of England, herself. Richard's favorites were Bushy and Greene, names associated with nature. It seems like such a simple scene, but I think it's really a terrific metaphor: England as a garden choked with weeds.

I'll have to go through the scene and see what metaphors I can find, but I wanted to throw the idea out there and see what the rest of you thought of it.

[Janine]

Wow, kasie, thanks! I was under the impression that Richard wed Isabelle when she was just a child. I did know she was French. Thanks again for the background information.

Regarding the garden scene, I think the garden is symbolic of England, herself. Richard's favorites were Bushy and Greene, names associated with nature. It seems like such a simple scene, but I think it's really a terrific metaphor: England as a garden choked with weeds.

I'll have to go through the scene and see what metaphors I can find, but I wanted to throw the idea out there and see what the rest of you thought of it.

kasie, I agree with MissScarlett, this information is very vital to further understanding Richard. I find now I feel he is a real person and not some mere 'wishy-washy' figure, who we know nothing much about. I, for one, support any background information both on historical works or on authors themselves, if they are writing something based on their own stories or actual stories of others they knew. I think it helps emensely in fully understanding how a person gets to the point or period at which we encounter them in a particular piece of literature. Therefore, thanks so much for taking the time to look all this up and post it. I agree that at the time of this play most of England would be aware of Richard II's background. Up until now we have only been in the dark about it. Now this makes the play make more sense; at least, it does to me.

[MissScarlett]

For me, the garden scene is almost entirely metaphorical, and I think it's some of the best metaphor Shakespeare ever wrote.

When the queen and her ladies-in-waiting hide, the queen says they should expect to hear talk of politics, but I, for one, was surprised to read such aristocratic, metaphorical speech from a gardener and his assistant. Did gardeners, etc. really speak that way during Elizabethan times? I don't know. Certainly they were aware of the political situation.

Throughout the entire play, Shakespeare has used the natural world (Bushy and Greene, for example) to symbolize England and Richard, and I don't think this was at all unusual for the times. During Elizabethan times, people had to contend with the forces of nature and the changing seasons so much more than we do now. Their tie to nature was greater and nature played a far bigger role in their lives.

I think when the gardener and his assistant talk about "binding up the royal apricocks" they are really talking about Richard, himself, and Bushy and Greene. Bushy and Greene have caused Richard to "Stoope with oppression of their prodigal weight."

The gardener continues to refer to Bushy and Greene when he tells his assistant to "Go thou and like an executioner/Cut off the too fast growing sprays,/That look too lofty in our commonwealth./All must be even in our government."

Bushy and Greene have overstepped their bounds with Richard and misled him, and they have, in fact, been executed.

Amazingly, the gardener's assistant replies in language even more metaphorical than the gardener's when he asks why he should bother when "our sea-walled garden" (England) is "full of weeds," "chok'd up," "unprun'd," "ruin'd," "disordered," and "swarming with caterpillars?"

So Bushy and Greene have gone from being "too fast growing sprays" of flowers to out and out weeds destroying both Richard and England, herself.

When the gardener next speaks, he speaks, I think, again of Richard as a tree, who has suffered a "disordered spring" and has now reached the "fall of leaf," an allusion, of course, to Richard's coming abdication and perhaps even to his eventual murder. The gardener seems to blame Bushy and Greene for Richard's problems - "That seemed in eating him to hold him up." The gardener also seems to allude to Bolingbroke and his execution of Bushy and Greene and the eventual destruction of Richard in the "fall of leaf" when he compares Bushy and Greene to a gardener who would not only destroy the weeds that are choking a tree, but also destroy the tree, itself.

At this point, the queen makes her presence known and seems both surprised and alarmed, something I found surprising. I thought queens knew just about everything regarding royal politics, but maybe not. I have to admit, I don't completely understand the queen's parting words, "for telling me these news of woe,/Pray God the plants thou graft'st may never grow." Does she mean Bushy and Greene? Or is she referring to Richard's loss of the crown?

The gardener then plants "a bank of rue, sour herb of grace," where Isabel's tears have fallen, the rue, I think, symbolizing her sorrow, and again, a link to nature.

I love metaphor, so for me, the garden scene in Richard II is one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. I may not be right in all of my interpretation, but that's what discussion is for, to learn. :)

[kasie]

... I was under the impression that Richard wed Isabelle when she was just a child....

You're right, MissS, she was a bride at seven, a widow at eleven and dead herself at twenty - a short, sad life.

I'd like to comment on the garden scene but have not time at the moment to re-read it and gather my thoughts.

[Quark]

What I feel is interesting about Richard's character is his background which is not really mentioned in the play but would have been known as 'general knowledge' by the first audiences

The background is always helpful. I think much of the first Act depends on our recognizing Richard's faults without having them spelled out. As for Richard's early years, it is interesting to see how his lack of power during his formative years may have lead him to dwell on it too much during his later life. I'm not sure about your characterization of Gaunt, though. You say that Gaunt was a poor role model for Richard, but this doesn't quite fit with the play. It may be historically accurate, but within the play Gaunt is an exemplary statesman who would have been an excellent role model for Richard. It's Bushy and Green who are seen as the corrupting influence.


I love metaphor, so for me, the garden scene in Richard II is one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. I may not be right in all of my interpretation, but that's what discussion is for, to learn. :)

I think you're right with your interpretation. The garden conversation is an extended metaphor for Richard's misrule, and the symbolism continues outside of this scene into the rest of the play. We've already seen some of it in Act II when Gaunt says: "This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,/ Dear for her reputation through the world,/ Is now leas'd out--I die pronouncing it--/Like to a tenement or pelting farm" (57-60). The imagery continues and expands in this Act with the garden scene and the movements of Richard and Bolingbroke through the wilds of England.

[Janine]

For me, the garden scene is almost entirely metaphorical, and I think it's some of the best metaphor Shakespeare ever wrote.

When the queen and her ladies-in-waiting hide, the queen says they should expect to hear talk of politics, but I, for one, was surprised to read such aristocratic, metaphorical speech from a gardener and his assistant. Did gardeners, etc. really speak that way during Elizabethan times? I don't know. Certainly they were aware of the political situation.

Throughout the entire play, Shakespeare has used the natural world (Bushy and Greene, for example) to symbolize England and Richard, and I don't think this was at all unusual for the times. During Elizabethan times, people had to contend with the forces of nature and the changing seasons so much more than we do now. Their tie to nature was greater and nature played a far bigger role in their lives.

I think when the gardener and his assistant talk about "binding up the royal apricocks" they are really talking about Richard, himself, and Bushy and Greene. Bushy and Greene have caused Richard to "Stoope with oppression of their prodigal weight."

The gardener continues to refer to Bushy and Greene when he tells his assistant to "Go thou and like an executioner/Cut off the too fast growing sprays,/That look too lofty in our commonwealth./All must be even in our government."

Bushy and Greene have overstepped their bounds with Richard and misled him, and they have, in fact, been executed.

Amazingly, the gardener's assistant replies in language even more metaphorical than the gardener's when he asks why he should bother when "our sea-walled garden" (England) is "full of weeds," "chok'd up," "unprun'd," "ruin'd," "disordered," and "swarming with caterpillars?"

So Bushy and Greene have gone from being "too fast growing sprays" of flowers to out and out weeds destroying both Richard and England, herself.

When the gardener next speaks, he speaks, I think, again of Richard as a tree, who has suffered a "disordered spring" and has now reached the "fall of leaf," an allusion, of course, to Richard's coming abdication and perhaps even to his eventual murder. The gardener seems to blame Bushy and Greene for Richard's problems - "That seemed in eating him to hold him up." The gardener also seems to allude to Bolingbroke and his execution of Bushy and Greene and the eventual destruction of Richard in the "fall of leaf" when he compares Bushy and Greene to a gardener who would not only destroy the weeds that are choking a tree, but also destroy the tree, itself.

At this point, the queen makes her presence known and seems both surprised and alarmed, something I found surprising. I thought queens knew just about everything regarding royal politics, but maybe not. I have to admit, I don't completely understand the queen's parting words, "for telling me these news of woe,/Pray God the plants thou graft'st may never grow." Does she mean Bushy and Greene? Or is she referring to Richard's loss of the crown?

The gardener then plants "a bank of rue, sour herb of grace," where Isabel's tears have fallen, the rue, I think, symbolizing her sorrow, and again, a link to nature.

I love metaphor, so for me, the garden scene in Richard II is one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. I may not be right in all of my interpretation, but that's what discussion is for, to learn. :)

This is really excellent. I think you pegged it all very accurately, MissS. You need to give yourself more credit. I think what you wrote is excellent and makes things very clear. I recall when I watched the scene on my DVD of the play the first time, I did note there was a lot of symbolism I had to go back to eventually and interpret, referring directly to the text. I was somewhat like you, thinking at first, do gardeners really talk like this at that time in history? It seemed a strange scene to me and totally intentional on the author's part to inject into the play at this key moment to help us better understand the whole situation with Busy and Green. The procrastinator that I am never got back to that key garden scene; however at the time, I realised there was a lot to it than first meets the eye. I like the way you have interpreted the various parts; we certainly do learn by discussion.

Quark, from what I have read concerning other history plays, I think Shakespeare, basing these plays on historic fact, leaves himself a wide margin for creativity and often does not follow the history to the letter. I think this is the case with the character of Gaunt. Also, Gaunt is tied to Bollingbroke, so we see him in the light of a foe and yet at this time we see Richard at his weakest moments in his reign. In the weak shadow of Richard, we see Gaunt as a strong character in contrast and also a great orator. I really was dubious as to what Gaunt was truly like before this time. I didn't get a fully-fleshed out view of this character at all, from the limited amount of text; again, it may have been obstructed by his long flowery speeches or maybe it is my own short-comings in interpreting this complex text.

[Virgil]

Thank you very much for that background Kasie. It was a pleasure to read and it is definitely pertinent to the play.

Scarlett, thanks for getting the discussion going on scene 4. I'll have some comments after I relook at the scene. But I do wish to say something on scene 3 before we move on. It will have to wait until tomorrow though.

[Virgil]

First let me say, thanks for this Scarlett. I'm glad you stated this and you made it very clear. I'll comment to you statements below.


For me, the garden scene is almost entirely metaphorical, and I think it's some of the best metaphor Shakespeare ever wrote.

When the queen and her ladies-in-waiting hide, the queen says they should expect to hear talk of politics, but I, for one, was surprised to read such aristocratic, metaphorical speech from a gardener and his assistant. Did gardeners, etc. really speak that way during Elizabethan times? I don't know. Certainly they were aware of the political situation.

I found it fairly credible. You be surprised at how common speech by the most uneducated person uses metaphors and analogies. Granted it may be unreflectively done, but still common speech uses all sorts of conceits. That's how idioms develop.


Throughout the entire play, Shakespeare has used the natural world (Bushy and Greene, for example) to symbolize England and Richard, and I don't think this was at all unusual for the times. During Elizabethan times, people had to contend with the forces of nature and the changing seasons so much more than we do now. Their tie to nature was greater and nature played a far bigger role in their lives.

I think when the gardener and his assistant talk about "binding up the royal apricocks" they are really talking about Richard, himself, and Bushy and Greene. Bushy and Greene have caused Richard to "Stoope with oppression of their prodigal weight."
I fully agree. Once I started looking for them, it seems like every scene to this point has some sort of green land/garden allusion.


The gardener continues to refer to Bushy and Greene when he tells his assistant to "Go thou and like an executioner/Cut off the too fast growing sprays,/That look too lofty in our commonwealth./All must be even in our government."

Bushy and Greene have overstepped their bounds with Richard and misled him, and they have, in fact, been executed.

Amazingly, the gardener's assistant replies in language even more metaphorical than the gardener's when he asks why he should bother when "our sea-walled garden" (England) is "full of weeds," "chok'd up," "unprun'd," "ruin'd," "disordered," and "swarming with caterpillars?"

So Bushy and Greene have gone from being "too fast growing sprays" of flowers to out and out weeds destroying both Richard and England, herself.
So then, the cleaning out of Richard's henchmen is a sort of spring pruning in a garden.


When the gardener next speaks, he speaks, I think, again of Richard as a tree, who has suffered a "disordered spring" and has now reached the "fall of leaf," an allusion, of course, to Richard's coming abdication and perhaps even to his eventual murder. The gardener seems to blame Bushy and Greene for Richard's problems - "That seemed in eating him to hold him up." The gardener also seems to allude to Bolingbroke and his execution of Bushy and Greene and the eventual destruction of Richard in the "fall of leaf" when he compares Bushy and Greene to a gardener who would not only destroy the weeds that are choking a tree, but also destroy the tree, itself.
There are two problems though that I see with the analogy. First is that by cutting off Richard, then you are not exactly prunning, but killing the plant.


At this point, the queen makes her presence known and seems both surprised and alarmed, something I found surprising. I thought queens knew just about everything regarding royal politics, but maybe not. I have to admit, I don't completely understand the queen's parting words, "for telling me these news of woe,/Pray God the plants thou graft'st may never grow." Does she mean Bushy and Greene? Or is she referring to Richard's loss of the crown?

The gardener then plants "a bank of rue, sour herb of grace," where Isabel's tears have fallen, the rue, I think, symbolizing her sorrow, and again, a link to nature.
Which brings me to my second issue, how does the prunning in the garden fit with the garden of eden motif that also runs through the play, though perhaps less tangible. Notice what the Queen says in this scene:

Thou, old Adam's likeness, set to dress this garden,
How dares thy harsh rude tongue sound this unpleasing news?
What Eve, what serpent, hath suggested thee
To make a second fall of cursed man?
Is Shakespeare mixing metaphors? Is Bolingbroke the snake that enters the garden and causes the fall of Richard? How does Shakespeare tie these two metaphors together? Or does he? This is what has bothered me about the garden metaphor since it was brought up.


I love metaphor, so for me, the garden scene in Richard II is one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. I may not be right in all of my interpretation, but that's what discussion is for, to learn. :)
It is a very nice scene. :)

[Quark]

Is Shakespeare mixing metaphors? Is Bolingbroke the snake that enters the garden and causes the fall of Richard? How does Shakespeare tie these two metaphors together? Or does he? This is what has bothered me about the garden metaphor since it was brought up.

Some of the symbolism is a little murky. It's a little hard to keep track of who's a plant and who's a weed. Here, though, I think the Queen is talking about the news of Richard's demise. She's saying that the knowledge of Richard's downfall is like that knowledge from the apple. I don't know if it the analogy here extends to what's going on with Bolingbroke, Bushy, Green, and the rest of the cast.

[Janine]

Some of the symbolism is a little murky. It's a little hard to keep track of who's a plant and who's a weed.

Quark, you make me burst out laughing at this last line...who's a plant and who's a weed...haha.... I am a bit murky myself on this one. I must watch that garden scene again tonight....and Virgil, indeed, isn't the tree cut down when Richard is stabbed? or am I missing something?


Here, though, I think the Queen is talking about the news of Richard's demise. She's saying that the knowledge of Richard's downfall is like that knowledge from the apple. I don't know if it the analogy here extends to what's going on with Bolingbroke, Bushy, Green, and the rest of the cast.

That is what I thought also, but it will good to hear Miss Scarlett'scomments to Virgil's post above. I must admit I am taking a less active role in this discussion but I am reading everything.

[Quark]

I must watch that garden scene again tonight....and Virgil, indeed, isn't the tree cut down when Richard is stabbed? or am I missing something?

I vaguely remember something like that. Of course, it's been so long since I read the play that I can only vaguely remember anything. Really, if we keep going with the discussion, I'm going to have to reread this thing.

[Janine]

I vaguely remember something like that.

oh, no...I didn't mean it specifically or 'text-wise'; I have no idea if there is a tree reference in that death scene but it would be interesting if there was one. I just left a message in your profile page for help. Using 'search' I can't find the thread for Richard II - Act IV. I can't understand why it does not come up, unless it is listed differently. HELP!

[Quark]

I just left a message in your profile page for help. Using 'search' I can't find the thread for Richard II - Act IV. I can't understand why it does not come up, unless it is listed differently. HELP!

It's there, but no one has posted in it yet. I'm not sure we're through with Act III. Virgil wanted to say something more about the first three scenes, I think.

[MissScarlett]

Virgil, to me, the symbolism gets a little murky, too, but I think the gardener and the queen were alluding to Bushy and Greene when they talked of pruning and serpents. The gardener, at least, seemed to feel Richard's predicament was due to Bushy and Greene and not to Richard, himself.

[Quark]

Are we done with Act III yet, or is there something left to say?

[Krauq]

Are we done with Act III yet, or is there something left to say?

I think we should move onto Act IV!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Quark]

I think we should move onto Act IV!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well if no one posts soon we'll go ahead to the next Act, I guess.

[Janine]

hahah...who is the 'Evil Doppelganger?'....haha...he has your avy, Quark, in reverse! hahaa His user name is also an anagram of Quark (reverse spelling). I never miss a trick, do I? haha

Well welcome to the forum, Krauq.

Hey, all, let me know when we move onto Act IV.

[Virgil]

Go on to Act IV. What the heck are you waiting for? I'll catch up. :D

[MissScarlett]

I'll have to reread Act IV - tomorrow.

[Quark]

hahah...who is the 'Evil Doppelganger?'

Krauq and I are very much the same person. I was just going to pieces like Richard.


Go on to Act IV. What the heck are you waiting for? I'll catch up. :D

I'll have to reread Act IV - tomorrow.

I can post something tomorrow on Act IV. Today I have four classes and probably won't be back until late, though. Mondays and Wednesdays are long days for me.

[Virgil]

I'm sorry I've been on a business trip and not been able to participate. Hopefully I'll be home by the weekend. But how come none of you have voted for the next Shakespeare play to discuss: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=696776#post696776.

[Quark]

But how come none of you have voted for the next Shakespeare play to discuss: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=696776#post696776.

I voted a couple of days ago. Many of us piled on Henry IV in the late moments of the poll to break the tie. Scher already posted the threads for that discussion, so whenever we get bored with this play we can move over to another.

[Janine]

I voted a couple of days ago. Many of us piled on Henry IV in the late moments of the poll to break the tie. Scher already posted the threads for that discussion, so whenever we get bored with this play we can move over to another.

I have a suggestion for you, Quark. You could let your 'doppelganger' go onto 'Henry IV.' :lol:

[Virgil]

Ok I wanted to complete my Act III comments, and they pertain to scene 3.

I am completely fascinated in how Shakespeare deals with Bolingbroke's motives. Is Bolingbroke secretly striving to gain the kingship? Check out how York questions Bolingbroke at the beginning of the scene and Bolingbroke's response:


HENRY BOLINGBROKE
So that by this intelligence we learn
The Welshmen are dispersed, and Salisbury
Is gone to meet the king, who lately landed
With some few private friends upon this coast.

NORTHUMBERLAND
The news is very fair and good, my lord:
Richard not far from hence hath hid his head.

DUKE OF YORK
It would beseem the Lord Northumberland
To say 'King Richard:' alack the heavy day
When such a sacred king should hide his head.

NORTHUMBERLAND
Your grace mistakes; only to be brief
Left I his title out.

DUKE OF YORK
The time hath been,
Would you have been so brief with him, he would
Have been so brief with you, to shorten you,
For taking so the head, your whole head's length.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Mistake not, uncle, further than you should.

DUKE OF YORK
Take not, good cousin, further than you should.
Lest you mistake the heavens are o'er our heads.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
I know it, uncle, and oppose not myself
Against their will. But who comes here?
A sort of slip of the tongue by Northumberland leads York to suspect what may be going on. And Bolingbroke tells him to "mistake not uncle, further than you should." But York replies sharply, "Take not, good cousin, further than you should./Lest you mistake the heavens are o'er our heads." He suspects something is up. A little further down Bolingbroke articulates what his demands are:

Henry Bolingbroke
On both his knees doth kiss King Richard's hand
And sends allegiance and true faith of heart
To his most royal person, hither come
Even at his feet to lay my arms and power,
Provided that my banishment repeal'd
And lands restored again be freely granted:
If not, I'll use the advantage of my power
And lay the summer's dust with showers of blood
Rain'd from the wounds of slaughter'd Englishmen:
All he wants is his banishment repealled and his lands restored. So what's the problem? This indicates a man who is willing to negotiate. Bolingbroke has not been given the most lively of poetic language in the play but that image of showers of blood and a slaughtered Englishmen (his own people I might add) is extremely striking and I can't help but feel that Henry has a brutal machievllian (sp?) streak in him that is intent on taking the crown. In a play that has had some stirring patriotic speeches slaughtering your own countrymen sounds incrediblly unpatriotic, as if me saying I would slaughter American soldiers (God forbid the thought). It's just not a nice thing.

And if on the surface Bolingbroke is willing to negotiate, then why does Richard give up the crown without either a fight or an attempt at negotiation? It seems he could provide Bolingbroke with what he wants. The scene where they come on each other, Richard up on the castle wall and Bolingbroke below is a visually striking drama. And then Richard comes down, down to Bolingbrokes level is even more striking. At first Richard seems defiant:

We are amazed; and thus long have we stood
To watch the fearful bending of thy knee,

To NORTHUMBERLAND

Because we thought ourself thy lawful king:
And if we be, how dare thy joints forget
To pay their awful duty to our presence?
If we be not, show us the hand of God
That hath dismissed us from our stewardship;
For well we know, no hand of blood and bone
Can gripe the sacred handle of our sceptre,
Unless he do profane, steal, or usurp.
And though you think that all, as you have done,
Have torn their souls by turning them from us,
And we are barren and bereft of friends;
Yet know, my master, God omnipotent,
Is mustering in his clouds on our behalf
Armies of pestilence; and they shall strike
Your children yet unborn and unbegot,
That lift your vassal hands against my head
And threat the glory of my precious crown.
Tell Bolingbroke--for yond methinks he stands--
That every stride he makes upon my land
Is dangerous treason: he is come to open
The purple testament of bleeding war;
But ere the crown he looks for live in peace,
Ten thousand bloody crowns of mothers' sons
Shall ill become the flower of England's face,
Change the complexion of her maid-pale peace
To scarlet indignation and bedew
Her pastures' grass with faithful English blood.
But defiance turns to unreality. God is "mustering on his behalf?" Well, He isn't. [Side note: notice all the allusions to garden in that speech, flower, pasture, grass.] And though defiant for a speech, his "bi-polar" temperment quickly shifts even though Northumberland says Bolingbroke will be at the Kings "faithful service."

KING RICHARD II
O God, O God! that e'er this tongue of mine,
That laid the sentence of dread banishment
On yon proud man, should take it off again
With words of sooth! O that I were as great
As is my grief, or lesser than my name!
Or that I could forget what I have been,
Or not remember what I must be now!
Swell'st thou, proud heart? I'll give thee scope to beat,
Since foes have scope to beat both thee and me.
And when Northumberland comes back and before he even hears what he has to say Richard has already convinced himself to give it up:


KING RICHARD II
What must the king do now? must he submit?
The king shall do it: must he be deposed?
The king shall be contented: must he lose
The name of king? o' God's name, let it go:
I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
My sceptre for a palmer's walking staff,
My subjects for a pair of carved saints
And my large kingdom for a little grave,
A little little grave, an obscure grave;
Or I'll be buried in the king's highway,
Some way of common trade, where subjects' feet
May hourly trample on their sovereign's head;
For on my heart they tread now whilst I live;
And buried once, why not upon my head?
Aumerle, thou weep'st, my tender-hearted cousin!
We'll make foul weather with despised tears;
Our sighs and they shall lodge the summer corn,
And make a dearth in this revolting land.
Or shall we play the wantons with our woes,
And make some pretty match with shedding tears?
As thus, to drop them still upon one place,
Till they have fretted us a pair of graves
Within the earth; and, therein laid,--there lies
Two kinsmen digg'd their graves with weeping eyes.
Would not this ill do well? Well, well, I see
I talk but idly, and you laugh at me.
Most mighty prince, my Lord Northumberland,
What says King Bolingbroke? will his majesty
Give Richard leave to live till Richard die?
You make a leg, and Bolingbroke says ay.
Good God, all the self pity and reaches of imagination and lack of reality are seen here. And all Northumberland says is that Bolingbroke would like to talk with you. And Richard sees himself dethroned with this very action of coming down the castle:

KING RICHARD II
Down, down I come; like glistering Phaethon,
Wanting the manage of unruly jades.
In the base court? Base court, where kings grow base,
To come at traitors' calls and do them grace.
In the base court? Come down? Down, court!
down, king!
For night-owls shriek where mounting larks
should sing.
And Northumberland notes Richard's mental state to Bolingbroke:

NORTHUMBERLAND
Sorrow and grief of heart
Makes him speak fondly, like a frantic man
Yet he is come.
I take that comment as telling Bolingbroke, sh,sh, he's going to abdicate, play it right. And Richard abdicate:

KING RICHARD II
Fair cousin, you debase your princely knee
To make the base earth proud with kissing it:
Me rather had my heart might feel your love
Than my unpleased eye see your courtesy.
Up, cousin, up; your heart is up, I know,
Thus high at least, although your knee be low.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
My gracious lord, I come but for mine own.

KING RICHARD II
Your own is yours, and I am yours, and all.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
So far be mine, my most redoubted lord,
As my true service shall deserve your love.

KING RICHARD II
Well you deserve: they well deserve to have,
That know the strong'st and surest way to get.
Uncle, give me your hands: nay, dry your eyes;
Tears show their love, but want their remedies.
Cousin, I am too young to be your father,
Though you are old enough to be my heir.
What you will have, I'll give, and willing too;
For do we must what force will have us do.
Set on towards London, cousin, is it so?

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Yea, my good lord.

What made Richard give up without a fight or negotiation? Does he suspect that Bolingbroke is angling for the crown and no matter what Richard does he will seize the kingship from him? I suspect yes. Richard sees it as all futile. But was it futile? I don't really know. I think it may have been but I still would have fought to the end. Others in Shakespeare do. That last "Yea, my good lord" by Bolingbroke can almost be seen as a dancing banana :banana: yea! (I'm kidding somewhat ;)) And Richard cornered apparently concludes the scene with a pathetic "Then I must not say no."

A fascinating scene if you ask me.

[Janine]

Yes, I thought this the best scene in the play actually; although I like the scene that followed when he actually did hand over the crown. I did like how Richard was above and came down to the ground level - very significant I thought. I also thought he switched to a lot of self-pity and it was almost martyrdom; I refer to the part about being striped of all his finery and being buried in the road. Come on, surely he did not fathom that would come to be, whether he was dethroned or not. I felt he was going overboard at that juncture of the play. He is good at this self-pitying thing, whether the poetry be wonderful or not; it still comes off as self-absorption and -pity to me. I did find this part about Bollingbroke kneeling interesting as well and the comments that Richard mades to him at that moment. I also don't quite know why Richard so readily gives up the crown; although once in London, he puts on quite another show of self-pity when actually removing the crown from his head to bestow on Bollingbroke.

Glad you posted tonight, Virgil. You brought out a lot of good points. I read it all. I have to mull it all over now. Yes, there were some garden references, I noticed that....even here in the metaphor of the flower, her pasture's grass:

Shall ill become the flower of England's face,
Change the complexion of her maid-pale peace
To scarlet indignation and bedew
Her pastures' grass with faithful English blood.

A dancing banana? really Virgil...haha

[Virgil]

Glad you posted tonight, Virgil. You brought out a lot of good points. I read it all. I have to mull it all over now. Yes, there were some garden references, I noticed that....even here in the metaphor of the flower, her pasture's grass:

Shall ill become the flower of England's face,
Change the complexion of her maid-pale peace
To scarlet indignation and bedew
Her pastures' grass with faithful English blood.

Yes, and references to England as a garden are all over the play.


A dancing banana? really Virgil...haha
:D

[Janine]

Yes, and references to England as a garden are all over the play.

They are all over Shakespeare. I have heard that expression now in a number of the plays. I recall it at the end of "Henry V",

Chorus

Thus far, with rough and all-unable pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In little room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
This star of England: Fortune made his sword;
By which the world's best garden be achieved,
And of it left his son imperial lord.
Henry the Sixth, in infant bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this king succeed;
Whose state so many had the managing,
That they lost France and made his England bleed:
Which oft our stage hath shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take.

Interesting and ironic, since Henry V's father takes the crown from Richard and eventually under Henry V's grandchild's rulership, his managers make England bleed. I like how all the history plays tie in together. Also, I wondered if "The War of the Roses" was not representative of red blood/red roses.


:D:banana::banana::banana::lol:

[Quark]

That last "Yea, my good lord" by Bolingbroke can almost be seen as a dancing banana :banana:

Funny

Inwardly I'm sure he's all dancing banana, but on the outside he appears to be downplaying the whole affair--which creates a rather extreme contrast between the two characters. I'm not sure what emoticon one would use to express that exactly.

[Janine]

Funny

Inwardly I'm sure he's all dancing banana, but on the outside he appears to be downplaying the whole affair--which creates a rather extreme contrast between the two characters. I'm not sure what emoticon one would use to express that exactly.

:lol:Maybe this one - :brow: ...like 'I know the outcome, even if you don't all suspect!':lol::banana:

[Virgil]

Funny

Inwardly I'm sure he's all dancing banana, but on the outside he appears to be downplaying the whole affair--which creates a rather extreme contrast between the two characters. I'm not sure what emoticon one would use to express that exactly.


:lol:Maybe this one - :brow: ...like 'I know the outcome, even if you don't all suspect!':lol::banana:

You guys are too much. ;) Yeah, it was only an internal dancing banana. On the outside he was cool as a cucumber. :)

[MissScarlett]

I think that scene really shows us the differences between the two men - Richard and Bolingbroke. Richard is so ill-suited to be king, and believes, as was common during the time, that kings were divinely anointed. He surrounds himself will ill-chosen advisers, and when he does receive a piece of good advice, he ignores it. When confronted with a crises, he goes to pieces, though as the crises progresses, he produces better and better poetry.

Bolingbroke, on the other hand, never really announces that he wants or intends to be king, but I do believe he wanted to be king all along. And he's well-suited to be king, or at least better suited than poor Richard. He's shrewd, and he reacts with calmness and deliberation in a crises. He doesn't have Richard's gift for profound poetry, but then should a king possess such a gift? It's not necessary, where other things are.

The play is titled "The Tragedy of Richard II," and I think we have to ask ourselves what constitutes a Shakespearean tragedy, though I know this is properly classified as a history. In a Shakespearean tragedy, the main characters dies, but not before becoming more self-aware, more enlightened. Does Richard? I think he does to some degree, but not to the degree that the main characters in Shakespeare's real tragedies do. However, I don't think we can say that Richard learned nothing. He says, "I wasted time, and now time wastes me." He is at least becoming aware of his shortcomings, especially his shortcomings as king. Yet still he seems to cling to his belief that he has been anointed: "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm from an anointed king."

However, Richard still lives in dreamland, comparing himself to Christ: "So Judas did to Christ. But He in twelve/Found truth in all but one; I in twelve thousand, none." Pretty presumptuous of him! And when presented with a list of his crimes, he refuses to read it, saying: "Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/Have here delivered me to my sour cross." Again, pretty arrogant of Richard!

What I really found striking about this scene was the shift, the real shift, in power from Richard to Bolingbroke, and the fact that as Richard sinks deeper and deeper into despair, his command of language and poetry increases, becomes ever more brilliant.

[Janine]

I think that scene really shows us the differences between the two men - Richard and Bolingbroke. Richard is so ill-suited to be king, and believes, as was common during the time, that kings were divinely anointed. He surrounds himself will ill-chosen advisers, and when he does receive a piece of good advice, he ignores it. When confronted with a crises, he goes to pieces, though as the crises progresses, he produces better and better poetry.

Bolingbroke, on the other hand, never really announces that he wants or intends to be king, but I do believe he wanted to be king all along. And he's well-suited to be king, or at least better suited than poor Richard. He's shrewd, and he reacts with calmness and deliberation in a crises. He doesn't have Richard's gift for profound poetry, but then should a king possess such a gift? It's not necessary, where other things are.

The play is titled "The Tragedy of Richard II," and I think we have to ask ourselves what constitutes a Shakespearean tragedy, though I know this is properly classified as a history. In a Shakespearean tragedy, the main characters dies, but not before becoming more self-aware, more enlightened. Does Richard? I think he does to some degree, but not to the degree that the main characters in Shakespeare's real tragedies do. However, I don't think we can say that Richard learned nothing. He says, "I wasted time, and now time wastes me." He is at least becoming aware of his shortcomings, especially his shortcomings as king. Yet still he seems to cling to his belief that he has been anointed: "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm from an anointed king."

However, Richard still lives in dreamland, comparing himself to Christ: "So Judas did to Christ. But He in twelve/Found truth in all but one; I in twelve thousand, none." Pretty presumptuous of him! And when presented with a list of his crimes, he refuses to read it, saying: "Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/Have here delivered me to my sour cross." Again, pretty arrogant of Richard!

What I really found striking about this scene was the shift, the real shift, in power from Richard to Bolingbroke, and the fact that as Richard sinks deeper and deeper into despair, his command of language and poetry increases, becomes ever more brilliant.

MissScarlett, this is excellent. You have thought all this through carefully, sorted and turned it over in your mind and have come up with a lot of good ideas about the contrast of the two characters, and in a way you layed it out and simplified the whole idea of the story. I agree with all you have written and the idea of the increase in the poetry, his poetic flow of speech, as Richard becomes less able to handle is kingship; becomes less competent and down-trodden and finally dejected. I always said that sadness made for the best and deepest poetry and I think this proves it. As you said Bollingbroke has no need for poetic language or even grand flourishes. He is more down-to-earth and pragmatic than Richard. Richard has let his emotions run away with himself and now he is 'all emotion' with no direction and no restraint. Bollingbroke, on the other hand, does not let his emotions rule his actions. He keeps his head about him at all times and leads with his mind. He might be shrewd, but he is stronger than Richard and much more efficient, as befitting a true king.

[MissScarlett]

Thank you, Janine. :)

You know, I can't really blame poor Richard for comparing himself to Christ at times, although I know I did last night. Kings at that time truly did believe they were divinely anointed, so why should Richard be any different I asked myself.

Thanks so much for the comments on my post. I was very lazy about getting it done, I'm afraid.

[Virgil]

I think that scene really shows us the differences between the two men - Richard and Bolingbroke. Richard is so ill-suited to be king, and believes, as was common during the time, that kings were divinely anointed. He surrounds himself will ill-chosen advisers, and when he does receive a piece of good advice, he ignores it. When confronted with a crises, he goes to pieces, though as the crises progresses, he produces better and better poetry.

Bolingbroke, on the other hand, never really announces that he wants or intends to be king, but I do believe he wanted to be king all along. And he's well-suited to be king, or at least better suited than poor Richard. He's shrewd, and he reacts with calmness and deliberation in a crises. He doesn't have Richard's gift for profound poetry, but then should a king possess such a gift? It's not necessary, where other things are.

I have been arguing that Bolingbroke conives his way into the kingship, but some of the commentary I've read seem to think he stumbles into it. I can't help but disagree with the commentary. I think he manipulates his way to it.


The play is titled "The Tragedy of Richard II," and I think we have to ask ourselves what constitutes a Shakespearean tragedy, though I know this is properly classified as a history. In a Shakespearean tragedy, the main characters dies, but not before becoming more self-aware, more enlightened. Does Richard? I think he does to some degree, but not to the degree that the main characters in Shakespeare's real tragedies do. However, I don't think we can say that Richard learned nothing. He says, "I wasted time, and now time wastes me." He is at least becoming aware of his shortcomings, especially his shortcomings as king. Yet still he seems to cling to his belief that he has been anointed: "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm from an anointed king."
This is relatively early in Shakespeare career and before he wrote most of his classic tragedies. I do not think he had fully worked out what a tragedy was at this point yet. Perhaps he would look back on this play and adjust the tragedy form based on what worked and didn't in this play.


However, Richard still lives in dreamland, comparing himself to Christ: "So Judas did to Christ. But He in twelve/Found truth in all but one; I in twelve thousand, none." Pretty presumptuous of him! And when presented with a list of his crimes, he refuses to read it, saying: "Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/Have here delivered me to my sour cross." Again, pretty arrogant of Richard!
I think your next post qualifies this statement. I'll respond there.


What I really found striking about this scene was the shift, the real shift, in power from Richard to Bolingbroke, and the fact that as Richard sinks deeper and deeper into despair, his command of language and poetry increases, becomes ever more brilliant.
Yes. Completely agree.


MissScarlett, this is excellent. You have thought all this through carefully, sorted and turned it over in your mind and have come up with a lot of good ideas about the contrast of the two characters, and in a way you layed it out and simplified the whole idea of the story. I agree with all you have written and the idea of the increase in the poetry, his poetic flow of speech, as Richard becomes less able to handle is kingship; becomes less competent and down-trodden and finally dejected. I always said that sadness made for the best and deepest poetry and I think this proves it. As you said Bollingbroke has no need for poetic language or even grand flourishes. He is more down-to-earth and pragmatic than Richard. Richard has let his emotions run away with himself and now he is 'all emotion' with no direction and no restraint. Bollingbroke, on the other hand, does not let his emotions rule his actions. He keeps his head about him at all times and leads with his mind. He might be shrewd, but he is stronger than Richard and much more efficient, as befitting a true king.
Pragmatic and in control of himself are what distinguishes Bolingbroke. Yes down-to-earth, if you mean realist.


Thank you, Janine. :)

You know, I can't really blame poor Richard for comparing himself to Christ at times, although I know I did last night. Kings at that time truly did believe they were divinely anointed, so why should Richard be any different I asked myself.

Thanks so much for the comments on my post. I was very lazy about getting it done, I'm afraid.

I think the divine right theme is prominant in the play, but is Shakespeare scoffing at it? I used to think he supported it, but the reality in the play seems to toss aside the notion of divine right.

Anyway I'm ready for Act IV.

[Janine]

I have been arguing that Bolingbroke conives his way into the kingship, but some of the commentary I've read seem to think he stumbles into it. I can't help but disagree with the commentary. I think he manipulates his way to it.

Wait, Virgil, hold up a bit. I wish to comment on a few things here even though most is directed at MissScarlett's post and I certainly hope she over-rides mine and defends what she wrote if in opposition or that she comment further to your comments. Sorry for jumping in here. Virgil ,I am just curious what 'commentary' you are referring to. Is it commentary online I might also read or we can share with others here? I would like to see both sides of the coin and determine which I feel it is - manipulation or stumbling into the taking of the throne, before I decide for my own satisfaction.



This is relatively early in Shakespeare career and before he wrote most of his classic tragedies. I do not think he had fully worked out what a tragedy was at this point yet. Perhaps he would look back on this play and adjust the tragedy form based on what worked and didn't in this play.
Ok, I agree with this. How early was this play written again? There's eons of difference in the development from this play to "Hamlet" and even to some of the other history tragedies such as "Richard III".


Yes. Completely agree.

I agree also. Richard is more the poetic literary type, like you, Virgil and Bollingbroke is the hard 'realistic' not allowing his emotions, to get in his way towards the throne. I am not saying he is completely 'unemotional' throughout the play, because I felt quite bad for him being exiled and his speech right after; but it was not so flowery and poetic as it was reflective with tinges of anger towards Richard and his harsh sentence. Perhaps that is why, throughout the play, Richard is softer and more feminine-like in his poetic speech and Richard is more manly or masculine in his approach and attitude. The two make up a sort of completion of the other, but one must win out over the other in the end and Richard proves that he is not the capable king in the end. I saw a commentary on Youtube on the other production of this play and it actually explained this much less clumsily, than I am trying to do so. Richard was played by a woman actress; her name now eludes me, but she is a fine actress and pulled it off well. The commentary delved into this whole play of feminine/masculine aspects I have trying to explain. I will try to find that commentary. I thought it was quite interesting.


Pragmatic and in control of himself are what distinguishes Bolingbroke. Yes down-to-earth, if you mean realist.

Exactly, and what I expounded on above. One is the poet 'idealist' and one is the 'realist'. Makes perfect sense to me now, why this play is so bestrewed with much poetry, mostly spoken by Richard and his band of supporters. Bollingbroke is more salt-of-the-earth and too manly for long reflective speeches or flowery phrases. Richard is oft time wishy-washy and indecisive, while Bollingbroke is a 'doer' and does not waste his time in indecision. Richard has his head in the 'clouds of Heaven' and Bollingbroke has his 'feet planted firmly on the ground'. He has been robbed of his father's lands which are due him and he is out to take them back and reclaim his statis in the kingdom. Seizing the throne or appealing to Richard to hand it over, seems to me perfectly just, in the fact, he wants restitution for being robbed in more ways than just one: namely lose of father, lose of lands and worldly goods, lose of dignity and lose of his citizenship in England (being exiled). Who could really blame the guy? Put yourself in his shoes and see what you would do or how you would feel.


I think the divine right theme is prominant in the play, but is Shakespeare scoffing at it? I used to think he supported it, but the reality in the play seems to toss aside the notion of divine right.

Anyway I'm ready for Act IV.

So it seems to be and later it seems to me it is evident in the "Henry V" play. For one, Henry wishes to atone for Richard's untimely death, he also appeals to God's wisdom to determine the outcome of the battle; afterwards, as soon as they are victorious over the French, he commands his army to give thanks only to God for the outcome; take no credit for themselves. Although, Henry V feels his human qualities all too well (camp night scene), he accepts his kingship and embraces it, and he does feel his fate is in the hands of God and he has been ordained in the final scene to be instated as the rightful king of both lands. In some ways the notion of 'Divine Right of Kings' has come full circle by this later play, but not only that it has improved and developed in concept and been elevated, under Henry V's rule, since 'fairness' now plays into the equation. He takes qualities from both his father and his uncle in this respect. Personally, I love these history plays!

[MissScarlett]

I have been arguing that Bolingbroke conives his way into the kingship, but some of the commentary I've read seem to think he stumbles into it. I can't help but disagree with the commentary. I think he manipulates his way to it.

I tend to think Bolingbroke started out just wanting what was his rightful inheritance, then decided he wanted the whole pie, the kingship, but I’d have to look through the text again to satisfy myself.


This is relatively early in Shakespeare career and before he wrote most of his classic tragedies. I do not think he had fully worked out what a tragedy was at this point yet. Perhaps he would look back on this play and adjust the tragedy form based on what worked and didn't in this play.

I agree with you, and this is a history, not a true tragedy despite its title.


I think the divine right theme is prominant in the play, but is Shakespeare scoffing at it? I used to think he supported it, but the reality in the play seems to toss aside the notion of divine right.

It seem to me that Shakespeare was scoffing at the notion of divine right, or at least showing us that some kings, even if anointed, are not good kings at all.


Wait, Virgil, hold up a bit. I wish to comment on a few things here even though most is directed at MissScarlett's post and I certainly hope she over-rides mine and defends what she wrote if in opposition or that she comment further to your comments. Sorry for jumping in here. Virgil ,I am just curious what 'commentary' you are referring to. Is it commentary online I might also read or we can share with others here? I would like to see both sides of the coin and determine which I feel it is - manipulation or stumbling into the taking of the throne, before I decide for my own satisfaction.

I’d like to read it, too, Janine, simply because I haven’t made up my mind for sure as yet.


I agree also. Richard is more the poetic literary type, like you, Virgil and Bollingbroke is the hard 'realistic' not allowing his emotions, to get in his way towards the throne. I am not saying he is completely 'unemotional' throughout the play, because I felt quite bad for him being exiled and his speech right after; but it was not so flowery and poetic as it was reflective with tinges of anger towards Richard and his harsh sentence. Perhaps that is why, throughout the play, Richard is softer and more feminine-like in his poetic speech and Richard is more manly or masculine in his approach and attitude. The two make up a sort of completion of the other, but one must win out over the other in the end and Richard proves that he is not the capable king in the end.

I agree with you, Janine. Richard shows us that he’s a fine poet, but he’s so self-absorbed, so melancholy, he simply can’t rule. He has the makings of a first-rate poet, but he’s not even a second-rate king, though I didn’t wholly dislike him and doubt that you did, either.


Exactly, and what I expounded on above. One is the poet 'idealist' and one is the 'realist'. Makes perfect sense to me now, why this play is so bestrewed with much poetry, mostly spoken by Richard and his band of supporters. Bollingbroke is more salt-of-the-earth and too manly for long reflective speeches or flowery phrases. Richard is oft time wishy-washy and indecisive, while Bollingbroke is a 'doer' and does not waste his time in indecision. Richard has his head in the 'clouds of Heaven' and Bollingbroke has his 'feet planted firmly on the ground'. He has been robbed of his father's lands which are due him and he is out to take them back and reclaim his statis in the kingdom. Seizing the throne or appealing to Richard to hand it over, seems to me perfectly just, in the fact, he wants restitution for being robbed in more ways than just one: namely lose of father, lose of lands and worldly goods, lose of dignity and lose of his citizenship in England (being exiled). Who could really blame the guy? Put yourself in his shoes and see what you would do or how you would feel.

No, one can’t really blame Bolingbroke, though I did feel for Richard, too. I think the abdication ceremony is very telling. Richard hands over his crown and scepter, yet he still can’t quite give up without, not a fight, but some reluctance. When Bolingbroke asks Richard if he intends to abdicate, Richard says: “Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be;/Therefore no, no, for I resign to thee./Now mark me how I undo myself.”

I find that a little confusing. Does anyone else? I believe Richard is still alluding to the divine right, to the fact that he believes he’s been anointed. He’s willing to surrender his crown and scepter to Bolingbroke, but he cannot surrender what is not his – his divine right to be king. I don’t think Richard is waffling; I think he’s saying an anointed king can surrender his crown, but not his actual kingship.


Personally, I love these history plays!

I do, too, Janine. Of course, I love all of Shakespeare, as I know you do, but some people give the histories short shrift. I don’t think they should.

[Quark]

I tend to think Bolingbroke started out just wanting what was his rightful inheritance, then decided he wanted the whole pie, the kingship, but I’d have to look through the text again to satisfy myself.

I always thought those two goals were connected, though. It seems like he has to seize the throne if he wants his inheritance returned, or he at least has to threaten Richard's kingship. I don't think Richard would relinquish it willingly.


I think the divine right theme is prominant in the play, but is Shakespeare scoffing at it? I used to think he supported it, but the reality in the play seems to toss aside the notion of divine right.

I don't think Shakespeare is scoffing at it. God's chosen leader is being overthrown in the play, but Shakespeare makes clear that this is going to have dire consequences for England. The bishop of Carlisle warns them of "tumultous wars" and "disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny" that will result from this change of power (IV, i, 142). His prediction turns out to be true, too. The reign of Henry IV is fraught with violence and rebellion. Henry VI is murdered. In this play, then there's a religious official forecasting destruction for those who defy divine right.


I agree also. Richard is more the poetic literary type, like you, Virgil and Bollingbroke is the hard 'realistic' not allowing his emotions, to get in his way towards the throne. I am not saying he is completely 'unemotional' throughout the play, because I felt quite bad for him being exiled and his speech right after; but it was not so flowery and poetic as it was reflective with tinges of anger towards Richard and his harsh sentence. Perhaps that is why, throughout the play, Richard is softer and more feminine-like in his poetic speech and Richard is more manly or masculine in his approach and attitude. The two make up a sort of completion of the other, but one must win out over the other in the end and Richard proves that he is not the capable king in the end. I saw a commentary on Youtube on the other production of this play and it actually explained this much less clumsily, than I am trying to do so. Richard was played by a woman actress; her name now eludes me, but she is a fine actress and pulled it off well. The commentary delved into this whole play of feminine/masculine aspects I have trying to explain. I will try to find that commentary. I thought it was quite interesting.

I agree, Janine. The only thing I might add is that Bolingbroke is also quite a politician. This comes up more in Henry IV, but I think it's here too. He's very concerned about appearances, and he's very adept at portraying himself in positive ways. His legal maneuvering with York shows some of this. It's also apparent from everyone's reaction to his rule. Even though he's deposed the rightful ruler, the populace welcomes his arrival as King in Act V. Bolingbroke is great at controlling his image.


Anyway I'm ready for Act IV.

Yeah, we've been on Act III for a while now. I'm ready for the next part of the play.

[Virgil]

I don't think Shakespeare is scoffing at it. God's chosen leader is being overthrown in the play, but Shakespeare makes clear that this is going to have dire consequences for England. The bishop of Carlisle warns them of "tumultous wars" and "disorder, horror, fear, and mutiny" that will result from this change of power (IV, i, 142). His prediction turns out to be true, too. The reign of Henry IV is fraught with violence and rebellion. Henry VI is murdered. In this play, then there's a religious official forecasting destruction for those who defy divine right.


Very good point. I agree.

[MissScarlett]

Yeah, we've been on Act III for a while now. I'm ready for the next part of the play.

Haven't we been talking about Act IV? We need to move to Act V.

At first I thought Shakespeare was scoffing at the "divine right" of kingship, but now, I don't think so. I think Shakespeare was talking about divine right when he wrote these lines for Richard: "Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be;/Therefore no, no, for I resign to thee./Now mark me how I undo myself."

Richard can hand over his crown and scepter to Bolingbroke, but he can't really abdicate as king, having been divinely anointed.

We know Bolingbroke, as Henry IV, will split England into what become the War of the Roses, and I think Shakespeare foreshadows that in these lines: "Here cousin, seize the crown. On this side my hand, on that side thine."

[MissScarlett]

Is it okay to go ahead with Act V, or does someone still want to comment on Act IV? Janine, did you get all your Act IV thoughts in? I know you had some comments to make.

[Virgil]

Actually we've been talking about Act III Scarlet.

[Janine]

Virgil we can move on; but first let me comment on MissScarlett's and Quark's comments.


I tend to think Bolingbroke started out just wanting what was his rightful inheritance, then decided he wanted the whole pie, the kingship, but I’d have to look through the text again to satisfy myself.

I'm more inclined to be in agreement with Quark on this point; although, I do think when he arrived back in England, wasn't it believed at first that Richard was dead? I seem to recall that the general impression for among the populous was that Richard, having not returned from the uprising in Ireland was thought to be have been killed. I will have to watch that part again or read that text more closely. MissScarlett, I don't know if B wanted the whole pie; as Quark said, he had to take it, in order to get back his lands and re-establish his position of an Englishman and take back his title. By then, it was quite clear to all that Richard was no longer capable of ruling effectively.


I agree with you, and this is a history, not a true tragedy despite its title.


When I first read these plays, I thought to myself, "why do they call them histories?"; they do often fluctuate greatly from the actual historical facts; I recall further exploring this online, at the time. I though these plays mostly turned out to be tragedies. I wish they designated them as 'history/tragedies'; although, I guess "Henry V" would not be seen as a tragedy; but the last lines indicate tragedy to come. I once got a audio set from my library on the full history of the monarchs. One thing that stood out most while listening to it, was how many kings were overthrown for centuries and murdered. I don't think it was such a great thing to become king in those days and we think modern rulers jobs are dangerous.;) I don't think many ruling kings and queens lived too long.


It seem to me that Shakespeare was scoffing at the notion of divine right, or at least showing us that some kings, even if anointed, are not good kings at all.

I have to agree here again with Quark, in his post that followed yours. I don't think he ever scoffed at it. He may have questioned it at times, but I believe Shakespeare had great respect for rulers and yet he knew them to be all so human, as well. I think he simply presents the idea, 'Divine Right of Kings', as having it's rightful place in history.


I’d like to read it, too, Janine, simply because I haven’t made up my mind for sure as yet.

I admit, I need more careful reading on this play. My mind on all aspects is not made up 100%, either. I think another full viewing of the play on my little Sony player ;) will help greatly; then I will pay full attention.


I agree with you, Janine. Richard shows us that he’s a fine poet, but he’s so self-absorbed, so melancholy, he simply can’t rule. He has the makings of a first-rate poet, but he’s not even a second-rate king, though I didn’t wholly dislike him and doubt that you did, either.

Definitely, he is a poetic at heart and feels things deeply at times, although I felt him quite calous at other times during the play; like in regard to old Gaunt on his deathbed. He seemed defensive and flippant with him. Gaunt knew the score and foretold the future. He was quite prophetic in his remarks to Richard and Richard became totally defensive and harsh with Gaunt, when he heard these words. Richard let his emotions and anger run away with himself. He didn't reason the circumstances that would eventually befall him. He felt he was above all that. He is indeed a second-rate king. I didn't wholly dislike him, but neither could I warm up to him entirely. I felt somewhat sorry for him at certain moments in the play, but he overdid his appeals of self-absorbed sympathy and that pretty much annoyed me at times.


No, one can’t really blame Bolingbroke, though I did feel for Richard, too. I think the abdication ceremony is very telling. Richard hands over his crown and scepter, yet he still can’t quite give up without, not a fight, but some reluctance. When Bolingbroke asks Richard if he intends to abdicate, Richard says: “Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be;/Therefore no, no, for I resign to thee./Now mark me how I undo myself.”

Yes, he fluctuates so rapidly in that abdication ceremony. He is like a manic person there; suddenly set to give up the thrown and then taking it back and clutching it for dear life. He is so undecided at the final hour, one can feel for the way he feels then; he seems very confused and unresigned to the actual giving up of that crown/thrown. His whole 'self-image' is wrapped up in that crown. Without the crown, he doen't know who he is. Wasn't Richard crowned very young? This would explain that feeling of total despair he feels reliquishing the crown and his place in the world. He doesn't really know how to be a mere man; but indeed, he still thinks of himself as 'divine'; I am sure of it. The line, "mark me how I undo myself" is right on the mark. I believe beyond the abdication he is quite 'undone'.


I find that a little confusing. Does anyone else? I believe Richard is still alluding to the divine right, to the fact that he believes he’s been anointed. He’s willing to surrender his crown and scepter to Bolingbroke, but he cannot surrender what is not his – his divine right to be king. I don’t think Richard is waffling; I think he’s saying an anointed king can surrender his crown, but not his actual kingship.

At least, he believes this whole-heartedly, I would agree. He thinks still of himself as divine and connected directly to the angels. It's his self-image again and he can't part himself from this deeply ingrained self-image. As I said, he was crowned quite young - what else did he know? In this way, I do feel for him. What would be left for him, if not death?


I do, too, Janine. Of course, I love all of Shakespeare, as I know you do, but some people give the histories short shrift. I don’t think they should.

MissScarlett, I feel the histories are complex and very interesting. I love anything based on true events, so the histories ended up being some of my favorite plays. I actually surprised myself in that way, when I set out to read them, first time around. I think they are given 'short shift', as you say, and more people should read and explore them. They are wonderful plays!

Quote by Quark

I agree, Janine. The only thing I might add is that Bolingbroke is also quite a politician. This comes up more in Henry IV, but I think it's here too. He's very concerned about appearances, and he's very adept at portraying himself in positive ways. His legal maneuvering with York shows some of this. It's also apparent from everyone's reaction to his rule. Even though he's deposed the rightful ruler, the populace welcomes his arrival as King in Act V. Bolingbroke is great at controlling his image.

Excellent; good way of expressing this. I fully agree with you, Quark. Bollingbroke is indeed a politican and functions well as one. He is more 'presidental' than Richard; he's pragmatic and gets things done and he can lead. Richard is hampered by emotions and self-interest and his poetry/artistic side. Bollingbroke is the true warrior, while Richard is soft. That is quite evident in the scene, when the two opposing me want to wage a dual or joust. Richard can't abide the violence and so he exiles them; just get them out of his site and away from his kingdom! He can't deal with it. In this way, he avoids all authority. This is not ruling, not in those days. Here is where Richard first goes wrong. He makes a poor policital decision and from then on the plot is driven from this one huge mistake. I think this event fortells his downfall and then is further enhanced by old Gaunt's predictions.


Ok, I am ready to move onto the next Act, Virgil. Can someone supply me with the link? I cannot seem to get my "search" to work right these days. I must ask moderator why.


Edit: while you were all posting I was writing this long post; hope you can read it. I edited it 3 times now and this message won't show up for some dumb reason. I also refreshed the page and lost my whole post; but thank God it's here again. I have no idea what is going on.

[MissScarlett]

Actually we've been talking about Act III Scarlet.

I must have unknowingly skipped ahead. The abdication is in Act IV. Sorry.


Go on to Act IV. What the heck are you waiting for? I'll catch up. :D

Virgil, you posted this some time back. Are you sure we're not supposed to be moving on to Act V?

Janine, I found your post very insightful and enlightening, and after thinking about it, I agree with you and Quark - the only way Bolingbroke could obtain what was rightfully his was to overthrow Richard.

History was never my favorite subject, but I do love the histories of the kings and queens. However, when I started reading Shakespeare's histories, I felt much as you did, Janine - I was a little surprised by how much I loved them. I've come to love them more than the romances.

[Janine]

I must have unknowingly skipped ahead. The abdication is in Act IV. Sorry.

Don't worry about it; awhile back Quark and I skipped directly to Act V:lol:, Virgil want to know what was going on. I think we just didn't realise, we weren't that far yet. At anyrate, that part/thread of the discussion has been started. I even put it into my 'Subscribed Links'. At least I will find that one after we discuss Act IV.


Virgil, you posted this some time back. Are you sure we're not supposed to be moving on to Act V? haha.....maybe we are all mixed up. What act are we on anyway? I am lost:confused:. This thread does say Act III.


Janine, I found your post very insightful and enlightening, and after thinking about it, I agree with you and Quark - the only way Bolingbroke could obtain what was rightfully his was to overthrow Richard.

Then you do see it that way, too? Glad something I wrote above made some sense; basically I was just responding to yours and Quark's comments and agreeing or questioning.


History was never my favorite subject, but I do love the histories of the kings and queens. However, when I started reading Shakespeare's histories, I felt much as you did, Janine - I was a little surprised by how much I loved them. I've come to love them more than the romances.

Mine neither! In fact, in high school I quite hated it; seemed all they wanted us to study was US History and a bunch of dates. That did not interest me at all...now when it cames to the monarchs, I perked up and then after seeing Branagh's most excellent film "Henry V"; I determined to read all the histories in order, to get a better sense of what went on in the "Henry V" play. It was certainly an eye-opener and very rewarding and made me hungry to learn more history, basically English, but still history is quite fascinating worldwide.

Believe it or not, I favor all the serious Shakespeare plays over his comedy/romances. Somehow to me those get a little too silly at times, but they all do contain graver elements. I guess, I like the serious/tragic side of Shakespeare best. Funny, because I am normally the opposite in mood and being....mostly an optimist at heart.

[MissScarlett]

Janine, here's Act V:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40830

Either I'm going crazy (I don't rule it out), or we're on Act V. Act IV was the abdication of Richard, Act V begins with his goodbye to Isabel.

Let me know if I'm wrong. Or nuts! :lol:

I like the histories more than the romance/comedies, too. They can seem a little silly at times, if one can call Shakespeare silly. I greatly prefer the tragedies and the histories as you do.

[Janine]

Janine, here's Act V:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40830

Either I'm going crazy (I don't rule it out), or we're on Act V. Act IV was the abdication of Richard, Act V begins with his goodbye to Isabel.

Let me know if I'm wrong. Or nuts! :lol:

Yes indeed, you're nuts! :lol: ...just kidding with you. But if you look at the top of the page here you will see we are still on Act III. This is Act III thread unless you all already did Act IV and I just don't know about it. Where's Virgil,.......... hey Virgil, can you set us straight on this. We're confused! :confused:


I like the histories more than the romance/comedies, too. They can seem a little silly at times, if one can call Shakespeare silly. I greatly prefer the tragedies and the histories as you do.

We agree entirely too much! ;) Just kidding again! :lol:

[Virgil]

I'm here. You ladies are a little scatter brained. :p This is Act III. It says right on top of the page. :D

[Janine]

I'm here. You ladies are a little scatter brained. :p This is Act III. It says right on top of the page. :D

That's what I just said, silly. If you wish to move on, could you direct us scatter-brains to the thread of Act IV? ;)

[MissScarlett]

I'm here. You ladies are a little scatter brained. :p This is Act III. It says right on top of the page. :D

I see it says Act III at the top of the page, but I think we got ahead of ourselves in the discussion because the abdication scene is in Act IV.

How did we do that? :alien:

I am confused. :sick:

Here is Act IV, Janine, but I'd swear we already discussed that. Well, I did. Maybe I got ahead of myself. Did I? Was I the only one? I'm sorry if I was.

http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/14/

Maybe I'm in some alternate universe! LOL I hope not!

[Janine]

I see it says Act III at the top of the page, but I think we got ahead of ourselves in the discussion because the abdication scene is in Act IV.

How did we do that? :alien:

I am confused. :sick:

Here is Act IV, Janine, but I'd swear we already discussed that. Well, I did. Maybe I got ahead of myself. Did I? Was I the only one? I'm sorry if I was.

http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/14/

Maybe I'm in some alternate universe! LOL I hope not!

hahaah...stop worrying! No, most likely I am the one in the 'alternate universe'!!! It's so funny...I say that phrase all the time now. How did you know, MissS?

I think what happened is we had to point to that scene (Act IV) to explain some things that happened in Act III; who knows who first mentioned it. The poetry all ties in so it's hard to separate all the aspects of R's moodiness and melancoly. I think it's fine where we are now and if we revisit some of the stuff we already commented on it's better than skipping over it altogether.

Did anyone read my comments in my long post on last page, before we go onto Act IV? I don't need replys, but was not sure my post was even seen or noticed. It's now a page back.

[MissScarlett]

I read your post, Janine. I commented on some of the things.

Yes, the history is inaccurate, to some extent, but I still love the plays as much as you do, I think.

[Quark]

Richard can hand over his crown and scepter to Bolingbroke, but he can't really abdicate as king, having been divinely anointed.

That's an interesting point. I hadn't really thought about it that much, but it's true that Richard's vacillating might have less to do with his character and more to do with the nature of kingship. He could be struggling to find himself because he still is the king even though he doesn't possess the throne.


I do think when he arrived back in England, wasn't it believed at first that Richard was dead? I seem to recall that the general impression for among the populous was that Richard, having not returned from the uprising in Ireland was thought to be have been killed.

But did he know that when he decided to sail back to England? He probably decided what he was going to do before he set foot on land.


When I first read these plays, I thought to myself, "why do they call them histories?"; they do often fluctuate greatly from the actual historical facts; I recall further exploring this online, at the time. I though these plays mostly turned out to be tragedies. I wish they designated them as 'history/tragedies'; although, I guess "Henry V" would not be seen as a tragedy; but the last lines indicate tragedy to come. I once got a audio set from my library on the full history of the monarchs. One thing that stood out most while listening to it, was how many kings were overthrown for centuries and murdered. I don't think it was such a great thing to become king in those days and we think modern rulers jobs are dangerous.;) I don't think many ruling kings and queens lived too long.

Some of the histories are weird plays. What does one call Richard III? Is it really a tragedy? Is Henry V a comedy? This one is a little easier to figure out--it's decidely tragic--but some of the others are hard to classify.


He didn't reason the circumstances that would eventually befall him. He felt he was above all that.

Yeah, I think that's true. Early in the play he thinks he's invulnerable, and this makes it hard to come to terms with the rebellion. He doesn't know how to respond to a threat because he didn't think anyone could threaten him.


Here is Act IV, Janine, but I'd swear we already discussed that. Well, I did. Maybe I got ahead of myself. Did I? Was I the only one? I'm sorry if I was.

http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/14/

Maybe I'm in some alternate universe! LOL I hope not!

That link goes to the actual text of the play--good stuff, of course--but we're talking about the Richard II Act IV discussion thread. Each Act has its own thread. I'm not sure why we do it this way, but don't blame me. I had nothing to do with it. In any case, the Act IV thread is here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40829

When we move onto Act IV, we'll abandon this thread and move into the one I just linked to.

[MissScarlett]

I can't imagine what I'm missing here, as the garden scene ends Act III, and the abdication scene closes Act IV.

I can't understand how we can be discussing Act III, when we've discussed what's in Act IV.

I am now hopelessly confused. :(

Before we move on (or backwards), I just want to say something more about "divine right."

I do think Shakespeare believed wholeheartedly in it. One of the common threads that runs through all the history plays is: Is the King (or Queen) of England divinely anointed/appointed. Shakespeare seems to think yes, as he highlights the fact that the consequences of overthrowing or conspiring to overthrow a king or queen is subject to the most dire of consequences.

The reign of Henry IV was marked by lifelong problems, problem that could only be set right by Henry V. Even Richard II is haunted by the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. In some of the plays, like "Hamlet" and "Julius Caesar," for example, literal ghosts make their appearance.

I think Shakespeare was a firm believer that English kings and queens were divinely anointed.

[Quark]

I am now hopelessly confused. :(

I tend to do that to people.

Let me try again at this, though. If you follow this link it will take you to the
"Shakespeare Discussion Group":

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5895

There you should see a bunch of threads devoted to Henry IV, and then below that should be those holding the Richard II discussion. Scroll down and you'll see a thread that says "Richard II - Act IV". Click on that and it will bring you to this Act IV discussion. We're still in the Act III discussion thread at the moment, but we'll move to that other thread soon.


I can't imagine what I'm missing here, as the abdication scene closes Act IV.

I can't understand how we can be discussing Act III, when we've discussed what's in Act IV.

Oh, we can still talk about the other Acts. The admins aren't going to move posts about other Acts out of this thread. I can say something like "Act IV is really cool" without actually being in the Act IV thread. But, just because we talk about Act IV in this thread, doesn't mean that this is the Act IV thread. It still says "Richard II - Act III" above us.

[MissScarlett]

Thanks, Quark. Now, I see how I got confused. I started talking about Act IV in the Act III thread, then, being unfamiliar with how this works, started thinking we had formally moved on to Act IV and should be moving on to Act V.

Well, I'm straightened out now, thank goodness. LOL Yes, we're formally moving on to Act IV.

Thank you! :)

[Janine]

Glad you all sorted that out. MissScarlett, I can easily see how you would be confused, not knowing the discussion had been broken up into various thread acts.

So, I see the Easter group is reassembled; we may be the lonely-hearts club here;)...just kidding. I got back from dinner at my aunt's not long ago; it was very nice actually and now I plan to rest up and relax tonight, indulge myself in a movie or two, as someone has wisely adviced me.;) I'm sort of tired after all the good food; carrot cake was the best. Oddest thing, I had some interesting discussions with two young men (about 18-22) and then an old geezer friend of aunt's...see age means nothing. My two cousins were there and it's always good to see them and their teenage daughters. The whole affair was 'short and sweet', which suited my mood for the day; so I am thankful for that.

Thanks, Quark, for providing the link and how to get to the actual discussion thread. I can always locate the text link, but then I can't find the next actual 'discussion thread'....I have no idea why these plays is broken up into Acts for the discussion, but it seems to work ok, I guess. Remember though, Quark, how we both jumped into the Richard II Act V thread already, quite by accident...silly us:lol:. I just seriously, thought I had missed the boat and that you were all up to that point in the play, so I posted in there....silly me:lol: Well, now that I know where we all are headed next I am ready to progress to Act IV.