Printable View
: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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh, you're going to get a few nasty PM's about this one, Virgil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Sure, what about Richard II do you want to talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
hahaha....if they peek into this thread he sure will. He deserves it, too!:lol:Quote:
Oh, you're going to get a few nasty PM's about this one, Virgil.
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.Quote:
Sure, what about Richard II do you want to talk about?
No, I didn't think you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
That's the thing, though. If Virgil's right, they're not deep enough to peek into this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh, that's good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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.Quote:
That's the thing, though. If Virgil's right, they're not deep enough to peek into this discussion.
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.:(Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
Bit of background history coming up. :yawnb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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. :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. :)