Printable View
The first Act appears filled with argument: Bolingbroke and Mowbray's recriminations, the duchess and Gaunt disagreeing over revenge and justice, etc. Another of the interesting arguments follows Bolingbroke's banishment. After hearing his sentence, Bolingbroke consults with his father:
HENRY BOLINGBROKE: Nay, rather, every tedious stride I make
Will but remember me what a deal of world
I wander from the jewels that I love.
Must I not serve a long apprenticehood [270]
To foreign passages, and in the end,
Having my freedom, boast of nothing else
But that I was a journeyman to grief?
JOHN OF GAUNT: All places that the eye of heaven visits
Are to a wise man ports and happy havens. [275]
Teach thy necessity to reason thus;
There is no virtue like necessity.
Think not the king did banish thee,
But thou the king. Woe doth the heavier sit,
Where it perceives it is but faintly borne. [280]
Go, say I sent thee forth to purchase honour
And not the king exiled thee; or suppose
Devouring pestilence hangs in our air
And thou art flying to a fresher clime:
Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it [285]
To lie that way thou go'st, not whence thou comest:
Suppose the singing birds musicians,
The grass whereon thou tread'st the presence strewąd,
The flowers fair ladies, and thy steps no more
Than a delightful measure or a dance; [290]
For gnarling sorrow hath less power to bite
The man that mocks at it and sets it light.
HENRY BOLINGBROKE: O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite [295]
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse: [300]
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.
JOHN OF GAUNT: Come, come, my son, I'll bring thee on thy way:
Had I thy youth and cause, I would not stay.
HENRY BOLINGBROKE: Then, England's ground, farewell; sweet soil, adieu; [305]
My mother, and my nurse, that bears me yet!
Where'er I wander, boast of this I can,
Though banish'd, yet a trueborn Englishman.
(I, iii)
Henry's father believes that imagining better circumstances would improve his son's exile, while Bullingbrook thinks that fantasizing would only lead to more misery. Later in the play this argument gets reiterated by the Queen and Sir John Bushy. Who do you agree with? Does imagination only cause pain by tantalizing us with impossibilities or does it help us escape grief?
Well, this is just a preliminary statement, and I could be wrong, as
1. I have not read any Shakespeare for a number of years
2. Never studied R2 under an instructor
That said, I get the sense that Bolingbroke is seeing things in Mowbray's actions which aren't there to be had, and if Richard had been a little more astute he might have seen that Bolingbroke was like the proverbial bull in the china shop, and done something to protect himself by sending the future H4 off to kill the French, or whatever.
Bolingbroke's charges, in other words, are really an indicator of his ambition toward the throne itself. That is what I see. I mean, first Mowbray snivels and says but the king knows very well he owed me, and then he is pissed and wants to kill his accuser. I don't really see much of an Iago in his character, although he does admit to laxity of a sort.
Second, Richard's and Gaunt's attempts to parley peace between the two dukes seem almost deliberately insubtantial, no? A signal that R2 has his head in the clouds and abstracts himself to the point of ineffectiveness? He doesn't really make an argument to counterpoint Bolingbroke, or even to assure Mowbray. He simply says make peace, and when that isn't enough, concedes the joust. Then we move to the Dutchess upbraiding Gaunt, in which I agree with Quark that recrimination is paramount in the opening scenes, but Shakespeare is pretty much always about recrimination.
The Coventry scene is a bit stilted, in my estimation, but again points to a certain flawed logic in R2's operating method, since one cannot govern through mere pagentry.
As I posted in the Shakespeare Winter thread, I did read R2 before. It isn't a masterwork, and a rereading doesn't detract from my sense of a certain stilted formalism which is a little too careful in its evenness, but I think the play as a whole touches upon something that makes Hamlet have one of the greatest dialectic tensions in all literature, which is, a certain cerebral reflection over and above acting--and this may be a pun on William's part, once removed, in the sense that acting is both taking action and playing the part of a character.
Act 1 seems to be about those loathe to act (R2 himself, Gaunt) and those who are quite willing to accept the consequence of bloodshed (Bolingbroke, Mowbray)
In the edition I am reading, for ease on my eyes, I don't have the verse numbers, but this is Richard in the opening after Bolingbroke gives vent:
And again at Coventry:Quote:
KING RICHARD.
Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be rul'd by me;
Let's purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision:
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed,
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed.
Not that I mean to jump ahead of myself, but if memory serves, this is both Richard's doom, that he literally thinks of himself as a metaphor, and Bolingbroke's *flaw* that costs him his conscience. Bolingbroke does not like the price it cost him to take the power of the throne, because he gains it as a consequence of acting--which only his son Prince Hal can rectify because Hal acts justly. He does not have to kill a king to grow into being a just king, thus the heady victorious *high* that is the play of Henry the Fifth.Quote:
And list what with our council we have done.
For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' swords;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,
An interesting conceit to ponder, as we go along.
This is, indeed, the kernel of Bolingbroke's (Henry IV) character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
The play as a whole discusses the nature of kingship, the legitmacy of kings, and the divine right of kings. Although Henry's son (Prince Hal) is more of the Machiavellian than his father, Bolingbroke is placed in the role of the usurper, the de facto king, in contrast to Richard as the de jure king.
Richard's ineptitude at ruling is immediately established in the first act. He is king in name only - a man whose identity is so wrapped up in his kingship, and so convinced of his divine right, that it prevents him from doing what not only is most effective for his people, but for himself. It is one thing to forgive a powerhungry ruler that does all he can to secure for himself more power, but it is impossible to feel sorry for a man that can neither rule justly nor tyranically.
The first scene establishes the antithetical nature of the play, with the two nobleman arguing with each other in very formal blank verse. It is important to note that nearly the entire play is in verse (there is no Falstaff to speak in prose in this play), and that is important (although slightly boring) to the play's conflict taking place in the upper echelons of society.
Bolingbroke's speech - that I quoted above - establishes him as the realist. Richard, however, is a poor king but a good poet. For Richard, it would not be absurd to think that one could "hold a fire in his hand / By thinking" - as we'll see later when Richard attempts to summon up the earth to help him in disposing of Bolingbroke.
They do, but I chalked that up to the neccesities of the play and not to anything in Richard or Gaunt. A long back-and-forth between these characters over the issue might get boring. I think Shakespeare accelerated the scene merely to get past this moment as fast as possible. All that needs to be established is that Mowbray and Bolingbroke won't be reconciled, and the scene does that effectively--even if it makes Richard and Gaunt appear a little quick to move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
There is something abstract about Richard, but I wouldn't say he's too cerebral. In a sense, he might not be cerebral enough. Remember, that he does take action, but he often fails to recognize how the means through which he acts disrupts the ends which he's trying to achieve. Richard wants to quell the Irish revolt to keep England secure, but he simultaneously endangers his kingdom by taxing it to fight his war. Bolingbroke and Mowbray threaten violence, so the King intervenes for the sake of peace, but he doesn't realize that their grudge could disrupt more than their joust. In both cases, Richard acts, but he doesn't take into account the consequences--which perhaps a more cerebral king would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I like your grouping of Richard and Gaunt. There is something similar about them. I wouldn't quite say it's passivity, though. Like I pointed out above, Richard is decisive. Also, he isn't afraid of bloodshed. After all, he plans on going to war soon after Act I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
As an inept, divinely-chosen king, how much sympathy do you suppose we're supposed to have with him? I agree with both the points you make, but they're at odds with each other. Do we concentrate on his poor rule or on his kingship?Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Act I is a little stiff. The other Acts are not quite so bad, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I think this is true and it goes along with what Jozanny was saying above. Richard is too removed--perhaps that's a better word than cerebral. He--and Gaunt, I would say--don't appear to appreciate the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
I will start reading this tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along. :)
Finally, someone shows up for the discussion, yeah. I watched Act I of the play twice now on BBC DVD; will probably repeat a third time, if you will be commenting on it soon, Virgil. I will try to watch it tomorrow night. It is good so far, but I am not clear on some of the text. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me. Also I am not yet sure what to make of Richard or his true intentions. I don't find this play the easiest of the histories to fully understand. I could use you help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
How's it going guys? I think it's been a while since I've said hi. Is the L thread still going?
I don't know if anyone is still around--we really didn't have that much participation to begin with, either--so, I can't say if you'll get much of a discussion going. I check in occasionally and would respond if you post something. The play is better than I remember it being, and I think there's plenty worth talking about in Act I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Which parts are you unsure about? Post some of the text, and we can try to muddle our way through it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quark, how great to see you again! I thought you might eventually surface. We took a break in the L thread - probably start up again in March. Meanwhile, I have been discussing Ibsen plays with Gladys. We basically discussed "Ghosts", a very mind-boggling, but interesting and fine play.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Also, I read so may rave reviews on Ken Branagh's stage performance of Ivanov, that I had to read the actual play finally. It was quite interesting; the ending was a shocker. I wish to once again, listen to all of the short story on my CD's. I hope we can get something going again in that thread. Quark, I actually miss old Chekhov afterall... haha.
As usual, it looked like it fizzled out. Where are all the countless people who voted on it and against Richard III (which I wanted to discuss:()? Ok, well here is the remedy: I will try and watch the play tomorrow night. I can view the one from the BBC set, since someone nice lent it to me; they know who they are - thanks. Then you and Virgil can post some commentary; it only takes a few of us brainy people (haha) to get this discussion back on track.Quote:
I don't know if anyone is still around--we really didn't have that much participation to begin with, either--so, I can't say if you'll get much of a discussion going. I check in occasionally and would respond if you post something. The play is better than I remember it being, and I think there's plenty worth talking about in Act I.
I will let you know. I will check the full text online and post some parts. It is too late now. I can post something after I watch the play again - say Wed or Wed night would be good. See you then, and we can all muddle through together, J.:)Quote:
Which parts are you unsure about? Post some of the text, and we can try to muddle our way through it.
I am starting TONIGHT! Promise!
Yes! Another good discusser! Glad you found the thread again, lugdunum. This should be a great discussion afterall.:thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
When I want to start something, I become so busy it is funny! By the way I am reading Othello, and as I've just started, I can read it later and read Richard II but not before Sunday, I have to go on a journey As I return, I start.
Hi Sophia, my good friend; it is great to see your here and possibly going to participate. I have missed you. I love the play "Othello"...that one is so exciting it goes pretty quickly. Maybe you can accomplish both, who knows. Enjoy your journey!Quote:
Originally Posted by sofia82
No problem Sophia. I'm sure we'll still be discussing this next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by sofia82
What does one make of Richard II in the first act? The first act is essentially devoted to the dispute between Bolingbroke and Mawbrey. In the first scene we see them dispute Mawbrey's treason which ultimately reaches the two challenging each other to a duel and the third scene where they set up to joust and fight. But each time Richard has the most odd reactions. In the first scen he seems to act as judge:
And Bolingbroke explains his charge and throws his challenge, and then Richard turns to MawbreyQuote:
KING RICHARD II
We thank you both: yet one but flatters us,
As well appeareth by the cause you come;
Namely to appeal each other of high treason.
Cousin of Hereford, what dost thou object
Against the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray?
And Mawbrey takes on the challenge, and Richard tries to be objectiveQuote:
KING RICHARD II
How high a pitch his resolution soars!
Thomas of Norfolk, what say'st thou to this?
And when the two men in conflict agree to a fight, Richard aborts it:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.
"Forgive" and "forget"? Wait a second. These rough men have made challenges and accusations. They aren't children, they're knights who have insulted each other through their accusations. There must be a resolution. Mawbrey says it first:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be ruled by me;
Let's purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision;
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed;
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed.
Good uncle, let this end where it begun;
We'll calm the Duke of Norfolk, you your son.
And then Richard heavy handed saysQuote:
THOMAS MOWBRAY
Myself I throw, dread sovereign, at thy foot.
My life thou shalt command, but not my shame:
The one my duty owes; but my fair name,
Despite of death that lives upon my grave,
To dark dishonour's use thou shalt not have.
I am disgraced, impeach'd and baffled here,
Pierced to the soul with slander's venom'd spear,
The which no balm can cure but his heart-blood
Which breathed this poison.
In effect, Richard is saying "I am king and I have the right to to tame you." He is not allowing these men to work out their grivences. And then just like that, he changes his mind and allows them to fight:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Rage must be withstood:
Give me his gage: lions make leopards tame.
So how has Richard handled this? He has violated the honor of both men and then reversed himself anyway and allowed them to fight anyway. So he has looked bad in both respects. I'll speak about the fight in Scene III tomorrow.Quote:
KING RICHARD II
We were not born to sue, but to command;
Which since we cannot do to make you friends,
Be ready, as your lives shall answer it,
At Coventry, upon Saint Lambert's day:
There shall your swords and lances arbitrate
The swelling difference of your settled hate:
Since we can not atone you, we shall see
Justice design the victor's chivalry.
Lord marshal, command our officers at arms
Be ready to direct these home alarms.
I got the impression that Richard tried to get them to solve their differences and when he saw that wasn't going to work he's going to let them fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Not to mention he's in a bit of a sticky wicket himself since he may have had a hand in the omurder as well.
Perhaps in our everyday modern life one might feel that Richard is being reasonable. But in the era of knghts and unbridaled manhood ;) I think Richard comes across as wishy washy, weak, and not in command. Scene III of this act doubles up on the very same thing - Richard's wishy-washyness.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I agree with you; my impression of Richard at first, was of fairness and a sort of 'peace-keeper'; but now I think he is quite wishy-washy, mamby bambish, actually; he doesn't seem firm in anyway, in any type of commitment to ruling. Back then, when so much emphasis is placed on the 'Divine Right of Kings', Richard comes off as sort of pansy to me; he is even sort of sleezy in the production, I have been viewing (BBC). I wasn't quite sure how to take his actions: first to the argument and as to the challenge itself. To me his actions were rather irratic and strange, to say the least. I did not like him banishing Bollingbroke and felt he was being quite harsh and very unfair. Exactly what are Richard's motives in doing so? It also seemed so rash and unpreditable a verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ok, also I am not real clear on what the argument actually originally there was between Mowbray and Bollingbroke. Can someone fill me in on this part?
posted twice by mistake....oops....
I miss you, so much Janine! Happy to be here to participate ans esp with you. I try to handle both... though I have not so much free time ;) Unfortunately the book is the collection of Shakespeare's plays and I cannot take it with myself :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
happy to hear that ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.
So, if I've understood properly:
Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).
It must be noted that apparently, this isn't the first time that Mowbray tries to kill/harm someone of the "Royal family" since he says in scene 1 (v. 135 - 138):
Act I, scene 1 opens on Bolingbroke accusing Mowbray and M. defending himself.Quote:
For you, my noble Lord of Lancaster,
The honourable father to my foe
Once did I lay an ambush for your life,
A trespass that doth vex my grieved soul
Richard II is apparently trying to bring peace between the 2 of them: (v. 115 - 123):
(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)Quote:
Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.
But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....
I have to say that I agree with Virgil and Janine on Richard coming across as "wishy washy" and him making decisions without really thinking twice about their consequences.
Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
Scene 2, v 4-6:
and v. 37 - 41:Quote:
But since correction lieth in those hands
Which made the fault that we cannot correct,
Put we our quarrel to the will of heaven;
So can we understand that it was Richard who was behind Gloucester's death? That would explain 2 things:Quote:
God's is the quarrel; for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caused his death: the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift
An angry arm against His minister.
1/ the part where Mowbray says in scene 3 (v. 148-152) after hearing his punishment:
and 2/ why R. is punishing M. so harshly and sending him into exile forever without having proof of whether he's innocent or not and telling both Mowbray and Bolingbroke to: (sc. 3, v. 174-182)Quote:
A heavy sentence, my most sovereign liege,
And all unlook'd for from your highness' mouth:
A dearer merit, not so deep a maim
As to be cast forth in the common air,
Have I deserved at your highness' hands.
...because he's too scared that M. will confess or betray him.Quote:
Swear by the duty that you owe to God--
Our part therein we banish with yourselves--
To keep the oath that we administer:
You never shall, so help you truth and God!
Embrace each other's love in banishment;
Nor never look upon each other's face;
Nor never write, regreet, nor reconcile
This louring tempest of your home-bred hate;
Nor never by advised purpose meet
To plot, contrive, or complot any ill
'Gainst us, our state, our subjects, or our land.
What do you all think? :idea:
I think you are 'right on' with your analysis, lugdunam, I would agree with all, or most of what you say; much of this has cleared up my own confusion. Thanks for writing all this and pointing out specific passages. I didn't get a chance to view the play again but hopefully will do so tonight. I read a little of the text but then fell asleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
To this part I think Richard is merely stating that Bollingbroke is not his brother and successor to his throne, but rather further removed, being his cousin and so Richard puts him on par statis-wise with Mowbray.
Quote:
(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)
Yes, and there is also the charge in Scene II from the Duchess that Richard himself is suspected of being complicit in the murder. But I'm not sure that's ever established as fact. If so, it really makes Mawbrey's banishment incomprehensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
Entirely weird. And I think this is what Shakespeare is trying to establish in the first act, that and initiating the story line that will bring Bolinbroke in conflict with R.II.Quote:
But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....
I found some interesting information on Gaunt today. Apparently Gaunt was not the patriotic character in real life, at least as outlined in the History that Shakespeare used as his source. But since he was in the direct lineage of Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare apparently made him come off as a loyal vassel.Quote:
Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
The central question of the play becomes is it justified to over throw a King and defy divine right of rulership even if the king is incompetant?Quote:
I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
Given that it's already late this evening, and since I replied to this, I will post on Scene III tomorrow night.
It's good to see so much action in the discussion, and it's also good to see you've picked an interesting place to start. Teasing out the qualities and past of the protagonist is always an excellent way to start. I would agree with Virgil when he says that the King is "wishy-washy." Richard's lack of resolve leads quite a bit to his downfall. I would like to go more into his involvement with the Gloucester affair. It's a little late for me post something tonight, but I hope to write a good response before I go out for lunch tomorrow.
It is interesting how much Shakespeare avoids the issue, but it probably would have been widely acknowledges that Richard was, at least, partially responsible for the death of Gloucester. The second scene reveals this a little, but the play doesn't dwell on the fact much at all. I think this may have something to do with the way the history plays love to include twisted and complex backstories, so that the outcome of the play depends on how the characters spin what has happened. We, the audience, and all the characters in this play could see the King as being entirely responsible for his own demise, or we could also see Bolingbroke as a ruthless aggressor--it all depends on perspective. This means that the main characters of the play have a great power to affect others through manipulation of the past and present. It also means that characters will view the world quite differently depending on their mood. Since there isn't a set of agreed upon facts, each character has to come to their own conclusions, and these might easily be affected by their own personality or mental state. The audience of Shakespeare's plays probably did have a more agreed upon sense of the situation, but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
That is a good way of putting it, Quark. I entirely see your point. I read a little more of the play last night, but I am way behind all of you, I am sure, even though I did view Act I on BBC DVD. I will try and catch up this weekend. Meanwhile, I am behind the scenes here and reading all comments; so far, I think the discussion is going well.:thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by Quark
yes! but the lack of facts makes it a bit confusing because we (or at least I ;)) can't understaand why Richard if he doesn't know anything about the murder would send Mowbray into exile for life.... But anyway, I agree with you when you say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me :p) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?Quote:
but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.
For example: scene 1, v 104-109:
v 105 onwards is the the reformulation of the Bible:Quote:
Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.
I'm on to Act II and will make some comments on the other thread.Quote:
Genesis, 4.10
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
Remember that Richard sends them into exile not for specific crimes, but rather to protect the kingdom. The King fears what open violence between these two would harm England's peace:Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
Also, it should be noted that Mowbray is accused of more than just Gloucester's death. Bullingbrook claims that he also wasted money that was supposed to go to the army in "lewd employments" (i. 90)Quote:
For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' sword;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,
With rival-hating envy, set on you
To wake our peace, which in our country's cradle
Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle sleep;
Which so roused up with boisterous untuned drums,
With harsh resounding trumpets' dreadful bray,
And grating shock of wrathful iron arms,
Might from our quiet confines fright fair peace
And make us wade even in our kindred's blood,
Therefore, we banish you our territories (i. 125-38)
We are pretty certain, though, that Richard was involved in Gloucester's death. Gaunt tells the duchess that:
"God's substitute" refers to the Divine Right of the King.Quote:
God's is the quarrel, for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caus'd his death, the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge, for I may never lift
An angry arm against his minister. (ii. 37-41)
I don't know if there are any more in this play than what's usual for Renaissance drama, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. People often say that this play is more formal than other of Shakespeare's works. Biblical references might be part of that formality.Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
I think there was not enough evidence to condemn the King, but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.Quote:
I think this may have something to do with the way the history plays love to include twisted and complex backstories, so that the outcome of the play depends on how the characters spin what has happened. We, the audience, and all the characters in this play could see the King as being entirely responsible for his own demise, or we could also see Bolingbroke as a ruthless aggressor--it all depends on perspective.
I think it's because you're reading the words and not seeing the action played out. Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:Quote:
Originally Posted by lugdunum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9...eature=related
Quote:
On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me :p) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?
For example: scene 1, v 104-109:
Quote:
Quote:
Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.
This leads me into my analysis of Act 1 Scene 3. What I will say about that scene is that the fight is a ritualized ceremony and to some degree alludes to the central ceremony of Christianity, the re-enactment of Christ as sacrifice at Sunday mass. Richard II on one level is a sacrificial being.Quote:
v 105 onwards is the the reformulation of the Bible:
Quote:
Quote:
Genesis, 4.10
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
Gaunt actually makes it pretty clear that Richard did have a hand in Gloucester's death. I posted a bit of scene ii just before you posted. If you look back at that, Gaunt seems to believe that Richard is guilty. The contemporary understanding is also that Richard had Gloucester killed while he was in prison. Most likely, Shakespeare's audience would have been aware of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It does make us question Richard more. He comes off rather hypocritical in this scene, since he's punishing Mowbray for a crime that he himself was involved in. I was just noticing that Shakespeare lets this play in the background, and one would expect that it would be quite central.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You're right that our sympathies are almost always directed one way or another, but it's not always certain what the situation actually is. Much of it depends on how the characters' pasts are viewed. Take some of those you brought up. In Richard III, clearly the title character is not the one the audience is pulling for, but we are not exactly sure what to make of the current rulers (particularly the queen) when the play begins. Shakespeare makes the Queen look like an upstart in the first Act of the play--so much so that he bends history to have Queen Margaret appear somewhere she couldn't possibly have been. The old Queen appears so that she can rail at the new royalty. This complicates matters. Since the play is all about Richmond taking over and restoring order and benevolence to the English throne, complicating the relationship between Richard III and the rulers of Act I helps build up the demand for Richmond's arrival. Similarly, in Richard II, so much of which is a character sketch of a poor King, it helps if Richard's faults are minimized (but not entirely overlooked) early on so that the audience can watch as he becomes slowly less and less kinglike. In this way our perspective of the past is manipulated to show off Richard's character--and also the power which Richard wields. You're right that there isn't anything ambiguous about this, but at the same time I would say that Shakespeare is not being entirely direct about what is going on here. And, he's avoiding a certain part of the history for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ok, Act 1, Scene 3. The scene is a ritualized ceremony. Look at how it opens:
A Marshall summons the combatants, trumpets sound, and the King demands the cause, even though he's the one who set it up in scene 1. Then he says to ask their names (of course he knows who is fighting) and to "orderly proceed" and to swear to justice. This is a formal ritual which the King and everyone attending are enacting. And so the ritual proceeds:Quote:
SCENE III. The lists at Coventry.
Enter the Lord Marshal and the DUKE OF AUMERLE
Lord Marshal
My Lord Aumerle, is Harry Hereford arm'd?
DUKE OF AUMERLE
Yea, at all points; and longs to enter in.
Lord Marshal
The Duke of Norfolk, sprightfully and bold,
Stays but the summons of the appellant's trumpet.
DUKE OF AUMERLE
Why, then, the champions are prepared, and stay
For nothing but his majesty's approach.
The trumpets sound, and KING RICHARD enters with his nobles, JOHN OF GAUNT, BUSHY, BAGOT, GREEN, and others. When they are set, enter THOMAS MOWBRAY in arms, defendant, with a Herald
KING RICHARD II
Marshal, demand of yonder champion
The cause of his arrival here in arms:
Ask him his name and orderly proceed
To swear him in the justice of his cause.
The Marshal stipulates "on pain of death"Quote:
Lord Marshal
What is thy name? and wherefore comest thou hither,
Before King Richard in his royal lists?
Against whom comest thou? and what's thy quarrel?
Speak like a true knight, so defend thee heaven!
HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby
Am I; who ready here do stand in arms,
To prove, by God's grace and my body's valour,
In lists, on Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk,
That he is a traitor, foul and dangerous,
To God of heaven, King Richard and to me;
And as I truly fight, defend me heaven!
Lord Marshal
On pain of death, no person be so bold
Or daring-hardy as to touch the lists,
Except the marshal and such officers
Appointed to direct these fair designs.
HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Lord marshal, let me kiss my sovereign's hand,
And bow my knee before his majesty:
For Mowbray and myself are like two men
That vow a long and weary pilgrimage;
Then let us take a ceremonious leave
And loving farewell of our several friends.
Lord Marshal
The appellant in all duty greets your highness,
And craves to kiss your hand and take his leave.
KING RICHARD II
We will descend and fold him in our arms.
Cousin of Hereford, as thy cause is right,
So be thy fortune in this royal fight!
Farewell, my blood; which if to-day thou shed,
Lament we may, but not revenge thee dead.
that only he and the King an direct the fight, the kissing of the soverign's hand, the very acct of decided right by fighting - all these are ritual actions. And notice what Richard says in that last quote: "Farewell, my blood; which if to-day thou shed,/Lament we may, but not revenge thee dead." My goodness doesn't that echo Christ's words at the last supper? And then after some dialogue, the ritual continues:
The ceremony becomes more elaborate, heralds speak for each combatant, and the fight is imminent. Trumpets sound and they are about to charge and then the King stops the ceremony:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Farewell, my lord: securely I espy
Virtue with valour couched in thine eye.
Order the trial, marshal, and begin.
Lord Marshal
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby,
Receive thy lance; and God defend the right!
HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Strong as a tower in hope, I cry amen.
Lord Marshal
Go bear this lance to Thomas, Duke of Norfolk.
First Herald
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby,
Stands here for God, his sovereign and himself,
On pain to be found false and recreant,
To prove the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray,
A traitor to his God, his king and him;
And dares him to set forward to the fight.
Second Herald
Here standeth Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk,
On pain to be found false and recreant,
Both to defend himself and to approve
Henry of Hereford, Lancaster, and Derby,
To God, his sovereign and to him disloyal;
Courageously and with a free desire
Attending but the signal to begin.
The King changes his mind and instead of a ritualistic fight decides on simple banishment. Why? He cannot carry out the ceremony. He is incapable. In Roman Catholicism a priest is endowed with the capability to transform bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ through the ritualized ceremony of transubstantiation. Only he has such power. Here the King has the power through this ritual to have the two men shed blood to resolve the conflict that will cleanse the kingdom of its sin. It will be a new day, a forgotten of past sin once one of the combatants die. But the King aborts the ceremony and therefore leaving the sin to fester and justifying his dethrownment. A prest is endowed by God for his power of transubstantiation; the King is endowed by God to have divine right of rule. If he can't carry out the power of ritual the justification of divine right disappears.Quote:
Lord Marshal
Sound, trumpets; and set forward, combatants.
A charge sounded
Stay, the king hath thrown his warder down.
KING RICHARD II
Let them lay by their helmets and their spears,
And both return back to their chairs again:
Withdraw with us: and let the trumpets sound
While we return these dukes what we decree.
A long flourish
Draw near,
And list what with our council we have done.
For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' sword;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,
With rival-hating envy, set on you
To wake our peace, which in our country's cradle
Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle sleep;
Which so roused up with boisterous untuned drums,
With harsh resounding trumpets' dreadful bray,
And grating shock of wrathful iron arms,
Might from our quiet confines fright fair peace
And make us wade even in our kindred's blood,
Therefore, we banish you our territories:
You, cousin Hereford, upon pain of life,
Till twice five summers have enrich'd our fields
Shall not regreet our fair dominions,
But tread the stranger paths of banishment.
I am kind of jumping in here, hope you don't mind, V. I know you directed your post to several others; they can answer it, too. I think you may be right, Virgil. From what I have observed often the Queen herself would attend these plays and I think Shakespeare had to strike a sort of compromise, in order to present some of the actual facts, yet see how far he could bend them to create a hightened sense of drama in his plays. At that time I think the audience would have been aware of the actual history, especially the Queen and court, so I think he was justified in basing the plays on history but perhaps playing down some aspects of the plays for his own plot structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Virgil,I read all those too, plus King John and Henry VI...I never got to Henry VIII, mostly because I was so familiar with his story already. I loved the history plays but it has been awhile since I read them, maybe about 2 yrs. I wish I had been engaged in a discussion group then; that would have been great.Quote:
Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.
Which way you see Shakespeare as being explicit in the audience's favor?
I agree with Virgil on this point. I have been watching this same play and then I read the first couple scenes and I think watching I am getting way more out of the play by the inflections and tones and expressions of the characters. This version is excellent. I am watching the same Derek Jacobi version by the BBC, thanks to a generous friend who lent it to me. I also recently viewed on Youtube another version, with a woman actor playing Richard. In watching a commentary and interview on that version, I got an entirely different bend to the play's interpretation; this lead me to believe this play could perhaps be interpreted in different ways, depending on how it is played out on the stage.Quote:
I think it's because you're reading the words and not seeing the action played out. Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9...eature=related
That is an interesting. I have to consider this more clearly while reading through those exact passages again. I do think that Richard is a sacrifice, in order for Henry to acquire the throne; it just had to be that way, with the outcome as his death to finalize all for Henry. Much later on in "Henry V", Henry, the son, prays in the night camp and brings up the fact to God, that he has 'built two chantries to the memory of Richard" to atone for his father's wrong doing towards Richard.Quote:
This leads me into my analysis of Act 1 Scene 3. What I will say about that scene is that the fight is a ritualized ceremony and to some degree alludes to the central ceremony of Christianity, the re-enactment of Christ as sacrifice at Sunday mass. Richard II on one level is a sacrificial being.
Quote by Quark
I only wanted to comment now on this part of your post, Quark.Quote:
It does make us question Richard more. He comes off rather hypocritical in this scene, since he's punishing Mowbray for a crime that he himself was involved in. I was just noticing that Shakespeare lets this play in the background, and one would expect that it would be quite central.
That might explain why he is puts the heavier judgement on Mowbray; perhaps he can't wait to get him out of his sight; because he would be a threat to Richard directly, in exposing the truth about taking part in the death of Gloucester. Also, Mowbray may mirror the evil in Richard, this part of himself that made him take part or instigate Gloucester's death. In this way, it is as if Richard cannot really tolerate himself, while looking on a fellow conspirator. I kept wondering why he banished Mowbray for life and Henry only for a space of so many years. He is either contradicting his own admission that the court and he, as King, was imparial, even though he is linked in blood to Henry or he is looking to his own self-interest entirely. I tend to think it the second reason. I think, even though Richard is a weak king he is very crafty as well. This also might explain why he so abruptly stops the challenge and then banishes both contenders. It seems to me now to have been deliberate to lead them up to the very point of challenge and then pull something so strange. The shock of it was quite dramatic and to benefit Richard and glorify him as a peace-keeper; however in the next scene he expresses just the opposite in waging war with Ireland. This banishment is strange though in another way; doesn't Richard realise the threat that Henry poses to his crown, especially if he does leave and then gathers his own army to come overthrough Richard? Perhaps Richard is so full of himself he cannot believe he could be overthrown by his cousin.
I am going now to watch more of the play; getting late.
Ha, you keep posting over me Virgil.
Yes, but that isn't evidence. This is hearsay. To charge a King you pretty much have to catch him in the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Hmm, ok, but I think in the cases you are siting Shakespeare is creating a sense of suspense as to what is going to happen, but I do think he is clear as to with whom the moral arguments rests.Quote:
You're right that our sympathies are almost always directed one way or another, but it's not always certain what the situation actually is. Much of it depends on how the characters' pasts are viewed. Take some of those you brought up. In Richard III, clearly the title character is not the one the audience is pulling for, but we are not exactly sure what to make of the current rulers (particularly the queen) when the play begins. Shakespeare makes the Queen look like an upstart in the first Act of the play--so much so that he bends history to have Queen Margaret appear somewhere she couldn't possibly have been. The old Queen appears so that she can rail at the new royalty. This complicates matters. Since the play is all about Richmond taking over and restoring order and benevolence to the English throne, complicating the relationship between Richard III and the rulers of Act I helps build up the demand for Richmond's arrival. Similarly, in Richard II, so much of which is a character sketch of a poor King, it helps if Richard's faults are minimized (but not entirely overlooked) early on so that the audience can watch as he becomes slowly less and less kinglike. In this way our perspective of the past is manipulated to show off Richard's character--and also the power which Richard wields. You're right that there isn't anything ambiguous about this, but at the same time I would say that Shakespeare is not being entirely direct about what is going on here. And, he's avoiding a certain part of the history for a reason.
Thanks Janine. I wasn't ignoring you, but responding to the others seemed more pressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I would agree with that.Quote:
I think you may be right, Virgil. From what I have observed often the Queen herself would attend these plays and I think Shakespeare had to strike a sort of compromise, in order to present some of the actual facts, yet see how far he could bend them to create a hightened sense of drama in his plays. At that time I think the audience would have been aware of the actual history, especially the Queen and court, so I think he was justified in basing the plays on history but perhaps playing down some aspects of the plays for his own plot structures.
My point to Quark was that I don't think Shakespeare is that ambiguous with what his sympathies and his themes in the history plays. We'll have to take on each play to discuss them. I'm not capable of speaking of the details of each play without re-reading them.Quote:
Virgil,I read all those too, plus King John and Henry VI...I never got to Henry VIII, mostly because I was so familiar with his story already. I loved the history plays but it has been awhile since I read them, maybe about 2 yrs. I wish I had been engaged in a discussion group then; that would have been great.
Which way you see Shakespeare as being explicit in the audience's favor?
I think that the use of ceremony and ritual is critical to many of Shakespeare's plays. Read my post above as to how he uses it in this play. This is one of the reasons I have always felt that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic.Quote:
That is an interesting. I have to consider this more clearly while reading through those exact passages again. I do think that Richard is a sacrifice, in order for Henry to acquire the throne; it just had to be that way, with the outcome as his death to finalize all for Henry. Much later on in "Henry V", Henry, the son, prays in the night camp and brings up the fact, to God himself, that he has 'built two chantries to the memory of Richard" to atone for his father's wrong doing towards Richard.
You've set the bar pretty high for evidence, but I think I can come close. First, it seems like scholars have concluded that Shakespeare worked from either the Hall or Hollinshed's histories to construct these plays. In their histories, Richard appears almost as a murderer. Most likely, Richard didn't kill the man himself, but he probably did direct someone else to do it. Also, Gaunt doesn't just divulge this information to the Duchess. He repeats it to Richard himself: "O had thy grandsire with a prophet's eye/ Seen how his son's son should destroy his sons" (II, i. 104-05). He says this in a speech which includes a few other prescient observations, and it seems unlikely that Shakespeare would slip a falsehood in with a speech which is supposed to be revealing of what's to come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yeah, I didn't think what I was saying was that controversial. Is anyone really surprised he's perhaps downplaying some things and overplaying others to make the story better?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Right, I just said that Shakespeare is clearly directing our sympathies to one side or another, and that he isn't being ambiguous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
yes, I've read that too. And if I'm not mistaken, according to Hollinshed's history, it was R. who told Mowbray to kill Gloucester. Mowbray refused at irst and R. had to threaten him to do it. I'll look more into that later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Thanks Virgil for the link to the video, Im sure it will be both helpful and entertaining. I'll watch that this week end.
In watching my DVD, I got up to the part where Richard is getting ready to hand over his crown to Bollingbroke. Does anyone know what scene this is and in which act? In my reading, I am still pretty far behind.