Printable View
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