Richard II - Act IV

[Scheherazade]

Please post your comments and questions in this thread.

Scene I (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/14/)

[Krauq]

Just to clarify in big letters:

THIS IS THE ACT IV DISCUSSION


All those wandering here from the Act III thread have now found where to post their comments on Act IV

I hope they'll post a summary. It's been so long since I read the play that I can hardly remember what happens in Act IV.

[MissScarlett]

Act III ended with the garden scene. Act IV consists of only one long, extended scene.

Bolingbroke and his party return to London from Wales with the captured party of Richard II. Bolingbroke calls on Bagot to give testimony regarding his conspiracy with Richard to kill the Duke of Gloucester. Bagot incriminates Aumerle, while Aumerle vehemently denies having anything to do with the duke’s murder. Aumerle challenges Bagot to a duel, while Lord Fitzwater, Lord Percy, and others throw down the gauntlet against Aumerle, however Lord Surrey is on Aumerle’s side.

Eventually, this is stopped when Bolingbroke says he wants to bring the Duke of Norfolk back from exile (Richard was the one who exiled him). Bolingbroke believes that the duke will know the real answer as to who was responsible for the Duke of Gloucester’s murder. This plan is interrupted, however, when the Bishop of Carlisle tells everyone that the duke is dead (died in the Crusades).

The Duke of York interrupts everything to say the Richard has agreed to abdicate the throne in favor of Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke agrees to this, but the Bishop of Carlisle condemns him and warns him of the consequences of overthrowing a rightful king. He warns Bolingbroke that if he seizes the crown from Richard, generations of Englishmen will suffer on blood-soaked English soil. Northumberland arrests Carlisle for treason.

Bolingbroke, not to be deterred, summons Richard, so that he may hand over his crown and scepter. Richard enters and delivers a long monologue. Northumberland hands him a list of his crimes, but Richard refuses it. Richard asks for a mirror to help him decide who he really is, then when he can’t, he throws it to the floor, breaking it.

Richard asks to be allowed to go into exile freely, but Bolingbroke refuses (well, he doesn’t really say) and commands that he be taken to the Tower of London. Bolingbroke sets the date of his own coronation, then leaves. The Bishop of Carlisle, the Abbot of Westminster, and Aumerle speak together, conspiring against Bolingbroke.

I mistakenly discussed part of Act IV in the Act III thread. Richard’s speech, when he gives he crown and scepter to Bolingbroke, but can’t abdicate the actual kingship. Sorry. I do not know how that happened. When Virgil said to go on to Act IV, I actually did go on to Act IV, but I wasn't aware that we had separate threads for each act, and I'm certainly not blaming Virgil. It was just a misunderstanding on my part, but we've actually discussed much of Act IV in the Act III thread. I'm sorry for any confusion I've created.

[Janine]

[CENTER]Just to clarify in big letters:

I hope they'll post a summary. It's been so long since I read the play that I can hardly remember what happens in Act IV.

:lol::lol::lol:You guys are really cracking me up! I needed this laugh today...so thanks, Krauq for posting the announcement of this Act in bold "6" point size...even the blindest of us, probably me:eek:, can read this without any trouble. Thanks for posting that summary, MissScarlett. I think maybe, even though we did discuss aspects from this act in III we can now add to those and other details of Act IV; then pretty rapidly move onto Act V. Cheerup, MissScarlett, I just posted in Act III, but I guess my typing skills were invane. I didn't say much of any importance anyway, so don't worry about it. Mainly, I said we should move onto this thread.

MissScarlett, stop blaming yourself! It was no one's fault we posted early on Act IV, in the Act III thread. Even worse was when I jumped ahead to the Act V thread. I get just as confused in these Shakespeare discussions threads as you, and I have been here awhile; so you would think I would know by now.

[MissScarlett]

LOL I didn't realize there were different threads for the different acts, Janine. That's how I got so confused. Virgil said, "Move on," so I did, but in the same thread. Well, I think I've got it straight now.

[Virgil]

Hahaha, yes each act is a separate thread. I will have to refresh my memory of Act IV before I comment. Hopefully act IV will be quick snce it only has one scene.

[Quark]

Hopefully act IV will be quick since it only has one scene.

and because apparently we've already been talking about it for a while


thanks, Krauq for posting the announcement of this Act in bold "6" point size...even the blindest of us, probably me:eek:, can read this without any trouble.

I didn't want anyone to miss the thread, and nothing says Act IV quite like a giant, bolded superscript that says "ACT IV!"

Oh, and I responded to your long post in the Act III if you didn't catch that.


Act III ended with the garden scene. Act IV consists of only one long, extended scene.

Thanks for the summary. Now I remember what's going on.


I'm sorry for any confusion I've created

No there wasn't any confusion. It was just humorous, that's all. I think when we do Henry IV we should just stay in the Act I thread for the whole play.

[Janine]

and because apparently we've already been talking about it for a while

haha Quark...V is a little behind again; he said he is reading four books (something like that)....well, I want to review the summary myself and then bring up some parts of the one scene we did maybe gloss over a bit in the last thread.


I didn't want anyone to miss the thread, and nothing says Act IV quite like a giant, bolded superscript that says "ACT IV!"

You mean the elusive doppelgander didn't want us to miss this very important thread. It certainly was a bold superscript!


Oh, and I responded to your long post in the Act III if you didn't catch that.
Oh, thanks...I will go look now...I hadn't noticed it. Glad you told me.


Thanks for the summary. Now I remember what's going on.
That was really good. Thanks from me, too. That really helps lay out the Act for us.


No there wasn't any confusion. It was just humorous, that's all. I think when we do Henry IV we should just stay in the Act I thread for the whole play.

I've been laughing my fool head off at all of us!:lol: I think now I am the biggest fool of all and wondered why each month the Shakespeare discussion seemed to trail off and die out in Act I. Obviously, I just wasn't finding the other threads. So how many years have I been here now?...duh....:(

[MissScarlett]

I wasn't aware each act had its own thread for discussion, either, Janine, but at least I can plead the case that I've only been here a few weeks. ;)

Don't worry about it a bit. I think we've both got it down now. I think we were too caught up in our Sony players and period pieces, don't you? ;)

[Janine]

I wasn't aware each act had its own thread for discussion, either, Janine, but at least I can plead the case that I've only been here a few weeks. ;)

Don't worry about it a bit. I think we've both got it down now. I think we were too caught up in our Sony players and period pieces, don't you? ;)

:lol: Definitely! In fact, I am just now trying to decide which film to watch tonight. Such a huge decision.

[MissScarlett]

I was going to watch "Much Ado About Nothing," but I may be too tired. I might just go to sleep, instead.

We have Richard, Act IV (see I've got it now!) tomorrow! :)

[Janine]

I was going to watch "Much Ado About Nothing," but I may be too tired. I might just go to sleep, instead.

:lol:Ditto, I started watching that the other night. I needed a dose of Ken. Oh sleep well.:)


We have Richard, Act IV (see I've got it now!) tomorrow! :)
As far as I know we are in Act IV right now...or are we in a parallel universe?

[MissScarlett]

We're in Act IV, Janine, but my goodness, who am I to know? :lol:

[Janine]

:alien:...twilight zone.........haha.....fading away now....Sony:eek2:....eloping in space with Ken....:D

[MissScarlett]

The beginning of this long scene is reminiscent of Act I, scene i, when Bolingbroke and Mowbray challenged each other to a duel and were both banished by Richard for doing so. However, now we know more about why Richard banished Bolingbroke - because Bolingbroke knew Richard was the driving force behind the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. And with this, I think, Shakespeare shows us he does believe in the divine anointing of kings. Bolingbroke will pay dearly for usurping a rightful king, even if he was also a murderer. And Bolingbroke will become, at least in part, responsible for Richard's murder. Usurping a rightful king, even if that king was not a good king, had grave consequences.

[Janine]

I will get back here soon; I haven't been too attentive lately. Maybe tonight, I should re-watch the play on my Sony. I just had so many other online things to attend to and catchup with. See you all soon.

[Virgil]

The beginning of this long scene is reminiscent of Act I, scene i, when Bolingbroke and Mowbray challenged each other to a duel and were both banished by Richard for doing so. However, now we know more about why Richard banished Bolingbroke - because Bolingbroke knew Richard was the driving force behind the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. And with this, I think, Shakespeare shows us he does believe in the divine anointing of kings. Bolingbroke will pay dearly for usurping a rightful king, even if he was also a murderer. And Bolingbroke will become, at least in part, responsible for Richard's murder. Usurping a rightful king, even if that king was not a good king, had grave consequences.

Yes it does remind us of Act I, but now we do have a contrast. We do see Bolingbroke as a better leader, in control. But there is something very disturbing about this. Is anyone bothered by the way Ampourle (sp?) is treated? Is he guilty or innocent? I'll have to get back with details later.

[MissScarlett]

Virgil, you mean Aumerle, right? I was disturbed by the way he was treated as well.

I, myself, am not sure if he's guilty or innocent. I don't think the answer is going to be clear, either. But I, too, have to go back and read the play again.

After we finish with this, I have something to say about the Bishop of Carlisle.

[Janine]

Ampourle? Is he the son who was pardoned by Bollingbroke, when his parents pleaded for his life? If so, I didn't quite get the jist of that part either. I kept thinking if he was threatening the life of Bollingbroke, 'why then did B pardon him and send him on his merry way?' To me that whole scene was confusing. I just decided to pop the movie into my new player for my TV and view it tonight in it's entirety (been procrastinating long enough). I can concentrate on it more fully then.

[MissScarlett]

Aumerle's father wanted him condemned, Janine, but his mother was pleading with Bolingbroke to pardon him, which he eventually did. I'm not clear on that scene, either.

[Janine]

Aumerle's father wanted him condemned, Janine, but his mother was pleading with Bolingbroke to pardon him, which he eventually did. I'm not clear on that scene, either.

I completely re-watched the play last night and indeed Aumerle is the young man I was thinking of. His father wanted him condemned and his mother begged to have him cleared or pardoned from his conspiracy plot to overthow and kill Henry. Now I was not at all clear on the purpose of this scene either. For on thing the argument between the husband and wife is portrayed rather with tinges of humor in this production which further confuses me. Why would someone who threatened Bollingbroke's life be so easily pardoned by him without as much as a reprimand or some type of punishment to set him straight? It made no sense to me why Henry banished the priest from his sight, who only railed at him and here he lets a prospective murderer go. Yes, very confusing and I wish someone would shed some light on the this whole scene.

In re-watching this play, I realised how intricate and difficult this play really is; just to comprehend everything that's going on and then to discuss it is a real challenge.

[Quark]

Why would someone who threatened Bollingbroke's life be so easily pardoned by him without as much as a reprimand or some type of punishment to set him straight?

And what about him pardoning Norfolk? The whole play was set forward by Henry attacking Norfolk. Why is he suddenly reconciled to him? Henry's sudden tolerance in Act IV and V is a little confusing. It isn't unusual for the new king to forgive his adversaries in a Shakespeare play (it happens in a few I think), but then why does Henry arrest the bishop? I, too, am in the dark about this one.

[Janine]

And what about him pardoning Norfolk? The whole play was set forward by Henry attacking Norfolk. Why is he suddenly reconciled to him? Henry's sudden tolerance in Act IV and V is a little confusing. It isn't unusual for the new king to forgive his adversaries in a Shakespeare play (it happens in a few I think), but then why does Henry arrest the bishop? I, too, am in the dark about this one.

Hi Quark, oh, good, then it was not just me or MissScarlett who was confused about these acts. I noted a lot of things last night while watching the play over again. This time I was all ears to the poetry, and the deeper meanings such as the symbolism of 'gardens'. This BBC production makes Richard look oftimes even snide or as if he is laughing down at people, making light of things and fun of others; such as the scene way back, when Gaunt is dying. He's quite unlikable at this period of the play in my eyes.

But back to this pardoning suddenly of several people, all of who threaten his newly self-appointed statis of King; to this aspect I am totally miffed. The scene in this particular play production, portrays Bollingbroke even making a frustrated, sort of comical jester, at the end of that act when the mother, father and son depart...it's like he is saying 'what next?'. The whole scene would be expected to be a very grave, dire, serious scene of particular importance, but instead it even comes off comical. If you recall the scene in "Henry V", when realising the 3 traitors are in the midst of his officers, prior to setting sail for France, he immediately brought this intended teason to everyone's attention. If you do recall that scene, either saw the film or read the play, the punishment for these crimes was dire, and these guys had been his childhood friends. They were all sent to their deaths, after he railed at them with deepest anger for about 10 mins. Assination plots were common those days amongst royalty; therefore, I could not believe that Bollingbroke so easily let the son off the hook and free to go. He didn't even mention restraining him in anyway. He held in his hands a letter that confirmed A's part in the plot - stark proof. He stated that he intended to go after the others, but let the son off the hook. It just seemed so strange. The other pardon you mention, as well. Of courses the youth was his cousin, his blood. I was thinking of how in the beginning, during the first challenging of Bollingbroke and Mobray, Richard exclaimed to Mobray he could speak just as freely in the court even though he, the King (R), was related in blood (cousin) to Bollingbroke; he said it didn't matter, he would be partical and that he considered them equal, as far as 'fairness' was concerned and their 'love' toward himself (Richard), But then later, when he banished them both, he was much stricter with Mobray's banishment, than he was with Bollingbroke's. Mobray was to never return to England again, where as Bollingbroke could return after a set amount of years. Richard seemed to say one thing and then do another. Now it seems Henry is inconsistent, too; he is inconsistent in the way he pardons some and condemns others. I don't know what to think, quite honestly. At the end, he does not condemn the murderer of Richard either, but he does banish him. Maybe Virgil has some thoughts on all of this.

[MissScarlett]

Aumerle, I think was at first accused of conspiring with Richard to kill Thomas, Duke of Gloucester. This is why Bolingbroke banishes him, I think.

Then, I'm a little confused, too.

[Janine]

Aumerle, I think was at first accused of conspiring with Richard to kill Thomas, Duke of Gloucester. This is why Bolingbroke banishes him, I think.

Then, I'm a little confused, too.

MissScarlett, aren't you thinking of Mobray, not Aumerle? In my previous post I meant Mobray was banished forever from England, yet Bollingbroke's banishment was for a limited amount of time only. Boy, this play is confusing. I often tend to lose track of the various names, especially since some characters have several titles, names such as Bollingbroke, Henry, etc. I should have a list printed out.

[Virgil]

Ok now I've re-read Act IV sufficiently and I'll put out my thoughts on the Aumerle mini scene.

We all see how the supporters of Bolingbroke all gang up on him and accuse him of killing Gloucester. First it's actually Bagot, a former Richard supporter who accuses him. And then Fitwater and Percy and another Lord. And they bear some sort of witness to Aumerle speaking of it. There is no question that this scene recalls the very openning of the play when Bolingbroke and Mowbray accuse each other. And of course we see the contrast between how Richard handles that crises and how Bolingbroke; Richard's handling leads to fight and banishments and initiates the events that ultimately bring Richard down. Here they seem to resolve toward a sense of justice, or at least justice is differed until the actual facts come out. And Bolingbroke's skill as a leader is what seems to be the difference. But what about Aumerle. He certainly sided with Richard, and we would think he's guilty. But Fitzwater actually pulls the rug from under the galvanizing impetus to get Aumerle. Suurey turns around and accuses Fitzwater of lying and conspiring to get Aumerle.


DUKE OF AUMERLE
Who sets me else? by heaven, I'll throw at all:
I have a thousand spirits in one breast,
To answer twenty thousand such as you.

DUKE OF SURREY
My Lord Fitzwater, I do remember well
The very time Aumerle and you did talk.

LORD FITZWATER
'Tis very true: you were in presence then;
And you can witness with me this is true.

DUKE OF SURREY
As false, by heaven, as heaven itself is true.

LORD FITZWATER
Surrey, thou liest.

DUKE OF SURREY
Dishonourable boy!
That lie shall lie so heavy on my sword,
That it shall render vengeance and revenge
Till thou the lie-giver and that lie do lie
In earth as quiet as thy father's skull:
In proof whereof, there is my honour's pawn;
Engage it to the trial, if thou darest.

LORD FITZWATER
How fondly dost thou spur a forward horse!
If I dare eat, or drink, or breathe, or live,
I dare meet Surrey in a wilderness,
And spit upon him, whilst I say he lies,
And lies, and lies: there is my bond of faith,
To tie thee to my strong correction.
As I intend to thrive in this new world,
Aumerle is guilty of my true appeal:
Besides, I heard the banish'd Norfolk say
That thou, Aumerle, didst send two of thy men
To execute the noble duke at Calais.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Some honest Christian trust me with a gage
That Norfolk lies: here do I throw down this,
If he may be repeal'd, to try his honour.



Do we know who's telling the truth? No, I don't unless I missed something. My sympathy goes to Aumerle. When four people accuse you of murder and you deny it vigorously and then one other person comes forward to substantiate your defense, you tend to believe the accused is falsely judged, especially if that fellow is older and the accusers are young ("dishonourable boy" Surrey says to Fitzwater). I do here, though again I have no idea. What is important I think is that camps are being generated, and the camps could undermine the stability of the kingdom. But Bolingbroke handles it masterly:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
These differences shall all rest under gage
Till Norfolk be repeal'd: repeal'd he shall be,
And, though mine enemy, restored again
To all his lands and signories: when he's return'd,
Against Aumerle we will enforce his trial.

He's not going to throw Aumerle under, even though it's in his interest to get rid of Aumerle (and I can't help feel that this whole thing is a concoction from Bolingbroke himself) but refrains until evidence comes in. Unlike Richard who let things fester, acted impulsively, and played with the subject's lives, Bolingbroke follows a wiser course.

[Janine]

Wooo, Virgil, you have lost me in all those secondary characters. I will have to do some serious reviewing of those parts when they were cooking up the conspiracy. I can't answer anything you wrote now and am going out later on. I did read it (once) last night but it needs more reading and studying. Maybe some online notes on this part would help me sort all of this out. I am planning on going out for awhile later this afternoon and early this evening to a few stores. Be back later.

[MissScarlett]

MissScarlett, aren't you thinking of Mobray, not Aumerle? In my previous post I meant Mobray was banished forever from England, yet Bollingbroke's banishment was for a limited amount of time only. Boy, this play is confusing. I often tend to lose track of the various names, especially since some characters have several titles, names such as Bollingbroke, Henry, etc. I should have a list printed out.

Honestly, I do not know, Janine. I feel Aumerle is innocent of what Bolingbroke accuses him of, though in Act V his father, the Duke of York does find out Aumerle is guilty of conspiring to kill Bolingbroke. But it is confusing.

[Quark]

There is no question that this scene recalls the very openning of the play when Bolingbroke and Mowbray accuse each other.

No question, indeed. The parallel is pretty strong. The only difference I see between this scene and the very first in the play is that this one has a note of absurdity in it. There's something comical in how the simple accusation that starts Act IV devolves into a chaos of minor characters yelling "thou liest!" Okay, no, it isn't laugh out loud funny, but I think it's a little less dignified than the very formal proceeding between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. I think this is supposed to show how there can be no honor and order now that they've deposed a king. As the Bishop explains (and it is explanation since most of what he says comes true), "Peace shall go sleep with the Turk and infidels/ And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars" (139-40). One can only find honor and peace in barbarous east which is where Norfolk dies in a blaze of glory. The court which used to be peaceful is replaced with tumult. Hence, the chaotic dispute in Act IV.


And of course we see the contrast between how Richard handles that crises and how Bolingbroke; Richard's handling leads to fight and banishments and initiates the events that ultimately bring Richard down. Here they seem to resolve toward a sense of justice, or at least justice is differed until the actual facts come out. And Bolingbroke's skill as a leader is what seems to be the difference.

Yeah, this is a good analysis. I might be a little wary of calling Bolingbroke just, but he's certainly a stronger leader.


My sympathy goes to Aumerle. When four people accuse you of murder and you deny it vigorously and then one other person comes forward to substantiate your defense, you tend to believe the accused is falsely judged, especially if that fellow is older and the accusers are young ("dishonourable boy" Surrey says to Fitzwater).

I particularly like the way Aumerle responds: "Who sets me else? By heaven, I'll throw at all!" I love the careless defiance of it. Next time I sense people are ganging up on me on LitNet I'll have to use that. "I'll throw at all!"


The scene in this particular play production, portrays Bollingbroke even making a frustrated, sort of comical jester, at the end of that act when the mother, father and son depart...it's like he is saying 'what next?'. The whole scene would be expected to be a very grave, dire, serious scene of particular importance, but instead it even comes off comical.

Henry even comments on the comedy of it. The episode does seem to stick out, though. I don't have a good explanation for it--other than maybe Shakespeare thought things were getting a little too serious. It also shows how Bolingbroke's rule is going to work. We see more of Henry being both decisive and generous when others might not be.


Now it seems Henry is inconsistent, too; he is inconsistent in the way he pardons some and condemns others.

This is part of why I hesitate to call Henry just. His decisions don't seem to have any logic behind them. The criteria applied to one case is dropped in another.


I feel Aumerle is innocent of what Bolingbroke accuses him of, though in Act V his father, the Duke of York does find out Aumerle is guilty of conspiring to kill Bolingbroke.

I'm not sure one way or another about Aumerle killing Gloucester. I haven't read anything in my intro blurb about the actual killing and I'm too lazy at this point to do any research on it, but I tend to think that Aumerle is innocent for all the reasons everyone's brought up. Also, it's Bagot who first accuses Aumerle, and Bagot is one of those untrustworthy characters who had been corrupting Richard before the play started.

[Virgil]

No question, indeed. The parallel is pretty strong. The only difference I see between this scene and the very first in the play is that this one has a note of absurdity in it. There's something comical in how the simple accusation that starts Act IV devolves into a chaos of minor characters yelling "thou liest!" Okay, no, it isn't laugh out loud funny, but I think it's a little less dignified than the very formal proceeding between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. I think this is supposed to show how there can be no honor and order now that they've deposed a king. As the Bishop explains (and it is explanation since most of what he says comes true), "Peace shall go sleep with the Turk and infidels/ And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars" (139-40). One can only find honor and peace in barbarous east which is where Norfolk dies in a blaze of glory. The court which used to be peaceful is replaced with tumult. Hence, the chaotic dispute in Act IV.

Agreed. And there is something comical about it. I don't know if it was intended to be funny but it is.


Yeah, this is a good analysis. I might be a little wary of calling Bolingbroke just, but he's certainly a stronger leader.
Oh I don't think I called him just. I thought I've implied that he's Machiavelian through out this.


I particularly like the way Aumerle responds: "Who sets me else? By heaven, I'll throw at all!" I love the careless defiance of it. Next time I sense people are ganging up on me on LitNet I'll have to use that. "I'll throw at all!"
:lol::lol: That is so funny. I will have to do the same. While I was reading all I could think was what other choice did Aumerle have but to fight. Actually the thought just occurred to me. This is what one would have expected of Richard. But Richard gives up without fight at all, not even a defense of his person. Aumerle here is in stark contrast to Richard and that is no accident. Shakespeare wanted us to have this contrast.


Henry even comments on the comedy of it. The episode does seem to stick out, though. I don't have a good explanation for it--other than maybe Shakespeare thought things were getting a little too serious. It also shows how Bolingbroke's rule is going to work. We see more of Henry being both decisive and generous when others might not be.
I think that this scene serves as contrast as I said above.


This is part of why I hesitate to call Henry just. His decisions don't seem to have any logic behind them. The criteria applied to one case is dropped in another.
I think the criteria is whether he will get to win the crown.


I'm not sure one way or another about Aumerle killing Gloucester. I haven't read anything in my intro blurb about the actual killing and I'm too lazy at this point to do any research on it, but I tend to think that Aumerle is innocent for all the reasons everyone's brought up. Also, it's Bagot who first accuses Aumerle, and Bagot is one of those untrustworthy characters who had been corrupting Richard before the play started.
I don't think we know. It's completely ambiguous.

[Quark]

Agreed. And there is something comical about it. I don't know if it was intended to be funny but it is.

No, it isn't quite funny--at least not hilariously so--but it is rather absurd. It's like those arguments where everyone is talking over each other and the conversation just becomes noise.


Oh I don't think I called him just. I thought I've implied that he's Machiavelian through out this.

Machiavelian is a good word. Maybe a little strong, but yeah he's certainly ambitious and scheming.


:lol::lol: That is so funny. I will have to do the same. While I was reading all I could think was what other choice did Aumerle have but to fight.

I suppose there really wasn't any other option for Aumerle. I just like the way he loses his head in indignation, and the great retort he comes back with: "I have a thousand spirits... to answer twenty thousand such as you".


Actually the thought just occurred to me. This is what one would have expected of Richard. But Richard gives up without fight at all, not even a defense of his person. Aumerle here is in stark contrast to Richard and that is no accident. Shakespeare wanted us to have this contrast.

It is a contrast. Aumerle is not taking this sitting down as Richard would.


I don't think we know. It's completely ambiguous.

Hopelessly ambiguous, maybe. For me it doesn't matter so much. The scene works whether Aumerle is a guilty or not. It's the atmosphere of contention that's important, and not any individual charge.

Thankfully Henry IV doesn't have this much back story. I think we'll have a little easier time with that one.

[Virgil]

Two fnal points about Act IV. First the transition of the Kingship from Richard to Bolingbroke is done in a ceromony with a religious context. This notion of ceremony has been suggested in several places in the play. I think here it reaches a climax with both men holding the crown and moving it from one man to the other. Notice the language:

KING RICHARD II
Alack, why am I sent for to a king,
Before I have shook off the regal thoughts
Wherewith I reign'd? I hardly yet have learn'd
To insinuate, flatter, bow, and bend my limbs:
Give sorrow leave awhile to tutor me
To this submission. Yet I well remember
The favours of these men: were they not mine?
Did they not sometime cry, 'all hail!' to me?
So Judas did to Christ: but he, in twelve,
Found truth in all but one: I, in twelve thousand, none.
God save the king! Will no man say amen?
Am I both priest and clerk? well then, amen.
God save the king! although I be not he;
And yet, amen, if heaven do think him me.
To do what service am I sent for hither?

Priest, clerk, Christ, amen, heaven. And further down:

KING RICHARD II
Ay, no; no, ay; for I must nothing be;
Therefore no no, for I resign to thee.
Now mark me, how I will undo myself;
I give this heavy weight from off my head
And this unwieldy sceptre from my hand,
The pride of kingly sway from out my heart;
With mine own tears I wash away my balm,
With mine own hands I give away my crown,
With mine own tongue deny my sacred state,
With mine own breath release all duty's rites:
All pomp and majesty I do forswear;
My manors, rents, revenues I forego;
My acts, decrees, and statutes I deny:
God pardon all oaths that are broke to me!
God keep all vows unbroke that swear to thee!
Make me, that nothing have, with nothing grieved,
And thou with all pleased, that hast all achieved!
Long mayst thou live in Richard's seat to sit,
And soon lie Richard in an earthly pit!
God save King Harry, unking'd Richard says,
And send him many years of sunshine days!
What more remains?
Rites, pomp, balm, sacred state. All language of ceremony. And at the end when the two clergymen are discussing what transpired they again talk in language of ceremony:

Abbot
A woeful pageant have we here beheld.

BISHOP OF CARLISLE
The woe's to come; the children yet unborn.
Shall feel this day as sharp to them as thorn.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
You holy clergymen, is there no plot
To rid the realm of this pernicious blot?

Abbot
My lord,
Before I freely speak my mind herein,
You shall not only take the sacrament
To bury mine intents, but also to effect
Whatever I shall happen to devise.
I see your brows are full of discontent,
Your hearts of sorrow and your eyes of tears:
Come home with me to supper; and I'll lay
A plot shall show us all a merry day.
Perhaps a black mass sort of ceremony, depending on one's point of view.

One other pont I wanted to make about Act IV. I truly feel pity for Richard. He certainly has not been a good king, but I feel his pain. Sure there is self pity but when he is forced to read and acknowledge his flaws his reaction is heart felt.

NORTHUMBERLAND
No more, but that you read
These accusations and these grievous crimes
Committed by your person and your followers
Against the state and profit of this land;
That, by confessing them, the souls of men
May deem that you are worthily deposed.

KING RICHARD II
Must I do so? and must I ravel out
My weaved-up folly? Gentle Northumberland,
If thy offences were upon record,
Would it not shame thee in so fair a troop
To read a lecture of them? If thou wouldst,
There shouldst thou find one heinous article,
Containing the deposing of a king
And cracking the strong warrant of an oath,
Mark'd with a blot, damn'd in the book of heaven:
Nay, all of you that stand and look upon,
Whilst that my wretchedness doth bait myself,
Though some of you with Pilate wash your hands
Showing an outward pity; yet you Pilates
Have here deliver'd me to my sour cross,
And water cannot wash away your sin.

NORTHUMBERLAND
My lord, dispatch; read o'er these articles.

KING RICHARD II
Mine eyes are full of tears, I cannot see:
And yet salt water blinds them not so much
But they can see a sort of traitors here.
Nay, if I turn mine eyes upon myself,
I find myself a traitor with the rest;
For I have given here my soul's consent
To undeck the pompous body of a king;
Made glory base and sovereignty a slave,
Proud majesty a subject, state a peasant.

NORTHUMBERLAND
My lord,--

KING RICHARD II
No lord of thine, thou haught insulting man,
Nor no man's lord; I have no name, no title,
No, not that name was given me at the font,
But 'tis usurp'd: alack the heavy day,
That I have worn so many winters out,
And know not now what name to call myself!
O that I were a mockery king of snow,
Standing before the sun of Bolingbroke,
To melt myself away in water-drops!
Good king, great king, and yet not greatly good,
An if my word be sterling yet in England,
Let it command a mirror hither straight,
That it may show me what a face I have,
Since it is bankrupt of his majesty.
My sympathies go completely over to Richard here. And where did his imprisonment come from. Seems like it was not part of the deal and a complete shock to Richard. Perhaps he was bamboozled. The whole thing is sad and I lost any liking for Bolingbroke.

I guess we can move on to Act V if poeple wish. Scarlett was going to talk about the Bishop's prophesy. If any one wants to pick up on that given that Scarlett will no longer be with us, go ahead.

[Quark]

Two fnal points about Act IV.

My god, you have more? I thought you were going to duck out of the Act IV discussion pretty early when you said "Hopefully act IV will be quick since it only has one scene." I'm game for anything, of course, but I do want to get through Act IV and V soon since we got the Henry IV threads already set up.

[Virgil]

Well, now I'm done with Act IV. :D

[Quark]

Well, now I'm done with Act IV. :D

I'll try to respond before I sign off tonight.

[Janine]

Wooo, hold up, guys! I just realised there is one big significant thing I wish to point out about this act and the succession scene. Didn't Henry and his subjects request that Richard sign a document confessing the offenses he committed during his rule? It seemed, that after he refuses to do this, then rants and raves on about it in disgust and self-pity bordering on martyism (sp?); that is when Bollingbroke sits listening for a time patiently and then he does abruptly send Richard off to the tower to be detained. I don't think it was ever Bollingbroke's intention of murdering Richard, although it was stated by one person, the murderer, that he had wished it and would rather Richard were dead. However, 'wishing' something does not make one the murderer. I felt at the end, that Henry was actually shocked and regretful, that Richard were indeed brought to him in this cofin. At least that is how the expressions read in the movie verison of the play I am watching and that does follow the text pretty closely. Interpretation, of course is individual. We can discuss the ending in that respective thread.

[Quark]

Rites, pomp, balm, sacred state. All language of ceremony. And at the end when the two clergymen are discussing what transpired they again talk in language of ceremony:

That's a good observation. The language seems to be reinforcing what Henry is trying to effect in this scene: a ceremonious transfer of power.


One other pont I wanted to make about Act IV. I truly feel pity for Richard. He certainly has not been a good king, but I feel his pain. Sure there is self pity but when he is forced to read and acknowledge his flaws his reaction is heart felt.

My sympathies go completely over to Richard here.

I don't really like either of the characters in this scene. Henry is a little too glib and Richard is throwing a fit. Neither of them is particularly appealing. Later in the play I do become more sympathetic to Richard, though.


And where did his imprisonment come from. Seems like it was not part of the deal and a complete shock to Richard. Perhaps he was bamboozled. The whole thing is sad and I lost any liking for Bolingbroke

I think Richard would be bamboozled by just about anything at this point. He's quite unhinged here. Henry imprisons him because he needs Richard to justify the transfer of power. If he didn't people might not accept Henry as the new King.


I don't think it was ever Bollingbroke's intention of murdering Richard, although it was stated by one person, the murderer, that he had wished it and would rather Richard were dead. However, 'wishing' something does not make one the murderer. I felt at the end, that Henry was actually shocked and regretful, that Richard were indeed brought to him in this cofin. At least that is how the expressions read in the movie verison of the play I am watching and that does follow the text pretty closely. Interpretation, of course is individual. We can discuss the ending in that respective thread.

No, I don't believe Henry was really trying to murder Richard. As I was saying above, the imprisonment has more to do with coercing Richard into accepting Henry's terms than it does with murder. Richard's death does come as an unwelcome shock to Henry, and I don't think his remorse is feigned at the end.

[Virgil]

I don't really like either of the characters in this scene. Henry is a little too glib and Richard is throwing a fit. Neither of them is particularly appealing. Later in the play I do become more sympathetic to Richard, though.

Throwing a fit? He's being forced to abdicate the thrown. Except for death there can be nothing worse, and to many death may have been the preferred option.


I think Richard would be bamboozled by just about anything at this point. He's quite unhinged here. Henry imprisons him because he needs Richard to justify the transfer of power. If he didn't people might not accept Henry as the new King.
Yes, but I think Henry plotted this all along. There was nothing Richard could do that would satisfy a new king. If Richard were banished, as he expects and is promised and parallels the Act I banishments of Bolingbroke and Mowbray, Richard could come back with a new army and retake the thrown like Bolingbroke just did, and he would have the divine right argument that could galvanize the public. No matter what Richard signs, it's just a piece of paper and he could later claim he was forced to sign it. No Richard must die and Henry knows it and carries it out very machiavellian.


No, I don't believe Henry was really trying to murder Richard. As I was saying above, the imprisonment has more to do with coercing Richard into accepting Henry's terms than it does with murder. Richard's death does come as an unwelcome shock to Henry, and I don't think his remorse is feigned at the end.
You two give Henry too much credit. To take the crown requires deviousness. Period. You can either believe every thing magically falls into his lap or he manipulates the situation for his gain. I'm cynical here.

[Janine]

Whoa! Are we still on Act IV? Should I answer these comments later tonight? or tomorrow? I hope everyone did not progress to Act V and leave me standing here in the dust.

[Quark]

I don't know if we're on any Act right now. I think we may just be pausing right now. I've got a lot to do for the end of the semester and probably won't be able to post anything sizable for another nine or ten days. I'd like to get a chance to say something on Act V, though.

[Virgil]

I will conclude my thoughts this week on Act V. There's not that much left to say. Quark post your Act V thoughts on the Act V thread, not here.

[Janine]

I will conclude my thoughts this week on Act V. There's not that much left to say. Quark post your Act V thoughts on the Act V thread, not here.

Virgil, but your post, before this one, seemed to just sit there and no one really answered it; I had wanted to respond before we went onto Act V. Should I do so today? Whoa, we are swamped in the L thread now. Have a bit of turn-out or what? I am trying to catch up there myself, with responses to posts. I was glad to see you show up and post; good points you brought out. It is so hot here, I am ready to keel over. It is over 90 F today and I can open only one window upstairs; no AC yet. Needless to say, I don't know how long I will hold up on this computer either; it generates it's own heat; so I may have to shut down early tonight.

[Virgil]

Oh feel free to Janine. I won't post anything for a few days.

[Janine]

Oh feel free to Janine. I won't post anything for a few days.

Ok, good; maybe this heat will be gone by then. I can hardly think; I feel dizzy and delerious. It's this still air, no circulation upstairs and it's totally humid. I did get three back windows open finally; but they are half screens, so it is not doing much good. Thanks for giving me a few days on my response to your comment above. It will most likely be brief, anyway.