Printable View
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.
Are we done with Act III yet, or is there something left to say?
I think we should move onto Act IV!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Well if no one posts soon we'll go ahead to the next Act, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krauq
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.
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.
Krauq and I are very much the same person. I was just going to pieces like Richard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
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/for...776#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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I have a suggestion for you, Quark. You could let your 'doppelganger' go onto 'Henry IV.' :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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:
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:Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
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:
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:
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."Quote:
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.
And when Northumberland comes back and before he even hears what he has to say Richard has already convinced himself to give it up:Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
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.
And Northumberland notes Richard's mental state to Bolingbroke:Quote:
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.
I take that comment as telling Bolingbroke, sh,sh, he's going to abdicate, play it right. And Richard abdicate:Quote:
NORTHUMBERLAND
Sorrow and grief of heart
Makes him speak fondly, like a frantic man
Yet he is come.
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."Quote:
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.
A fascinating scene if you ask me.
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
Yes, and references to England as a garden are all over the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:DQuote:
A dancing banana? really Virgil...haha
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",Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Chorus
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.Quote:
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.
:banana::banana::banana::lol:Quote:
:D
FunnyQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
You guys are too much. ;) Yeah, it was only an internal dancing banana. On the outside he was cool as a cucumber. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
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.Quote:
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."
I think your next post qualifies this statement. I'll respond there.Quote:
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!
Yes. Completely agree.Quote:
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.
Pragmatic and in control of himself are what distinguishes Bolingbroke. Yes down-to-earth, if you mean realist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
Anyway I'm ready for Act IV.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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".Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Yes. Completely agree.
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.Quote:
Pragmatic and in control of himself are what distinguishes Bolingbroke. Yes down-to-earth, if you mean realist.
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!Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I agree with you, and this is a history, not a true tragedy despite its title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I’d like to read it, too, Janine, simply because I haven’t made up my mind for sure as yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yeah, we've been on Act III for a while now. I'm ready for the next part of the play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Very good point. I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Haven't we been talking about Act IV? We need to move to Act V.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
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."
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.
Actually we've been talking about Act III Scarlet.
Virgil we can move on; but first let me comment on MissScarlett's and Quark's comments.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
I’d like to read it, too, Janine, simply because I haven’t made up my mind for sure as yet.
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.Quote:
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.
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'.Quote:
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.”
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?Quote:
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.
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:
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.
Quote by Quark
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.Quote:
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.
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.
I must have unknowingly skipped ahead. The abdication is in Act IV. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Virgil, you posted this some time back. Are you sure we're not supposed to be moving on to Act V?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
haha.....maybe we are all mixed up. What act are we on anyway? I am lost:confused:. This thread does say Act III.Quote:
Virgil, you posted this some time back. Are you sure we're not supposed to be moving on to Act V?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Janine, here's Act V:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
We agree entirely too much! ;) Just kidding again! :lol:Quote:
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.
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? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
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/sha.../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?Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=40829
When we move onto Act IV, we'll abandon this thread and move into the one I just linked to.