Printable View
I guess no one has said anything yet in the Act III thread. This is a great Act, especially the two middle scenes.
I'm just going to post something on the first two scenes tonight.
Only one thing I wanted to point out in scene 1, the execution of Bushy and Green. Is the execution justified? On what grounds exactly are they executed? Certainly they were the King's cohorts and they did help him in the stealing of Bolingbroke's lands, but does the punishment exceed the crimes. Here is Bolingbroke's case against them:
So they broke a few windows, and misled the King. Death seems a harsh punishment to me. It's not even clear that they even did these things. This really shows the ruthlessness of Bolingbroke, a Machiavellian nature. Kind of reminds me of Henry V where he executes Bardolph, though that's ven worse becasue Bardolph was Hal's friend at one time.Quote:
HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Bring forth these men.
Bushy and Green, I will not vex your souls--
Since presently your souls must part your bodies--
With too much urging your pernicious lives,
For 'twere no charity; yet, to wash your blood
From off my hands, here in the view of men
I will unfold some causes of your deaths.
You have misled a prince, a royal king,
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments,
By you unhappied and disfigured clean:
You have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.
Myself, a prince by fortune of my birth,
Near to the king in blood, and near in love
Till you did make him misinterpret me,
Have stoop'd my neck under your injuries,
And sigh'd my English breath in foreign clouds,
Eating the bitter bread of banishment;
Whilst you have fed upon my signories,
Dispark'd my parks and fell'd my forest woods,
From my own windows torn my household coat,
Razed out my imprese, leaving me no sign,
Save men's opinions and my living blood,
To show the world I am a gentleman.
This and much more, much more than twice all this,
Condemns you to the death. See them deliver'd over
To execution and the hand of death.
Also anyone wonder how the names Bushy and Green fit into the Garden motif that runs through the play? It's an interesting connection but I can't really think of anything.
Now Scene 2 is fabulous. It shows the psychological nature of the King Richard, just how incapable his nature is to lead and just his lack of being in touch with reality. I'm going to quote a sucession of speeches he makes. Please appreciate the gorgeous poetry that comes out of his mouth.
The first speech we have richard finally arrive in England after being in Ireland:
Notice the garden of eden allusions that runs through it, nettles and flowers and even a snake. The gist of his speech though is that the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers. And then he is informed of Bolingbroke's success and he follows it this:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Needs must I like it well: I weep for joy
To stand upon my kingdom once again.
Dear earth, I do salute thee with my hand,
Though rebels wound thee with their horses' hoofs:
As a long-parted mother with her child
Plays fondly with her tears and smiles in meeting,
So, weeping, smiling, greet I thee, my earth,
And do thee favours with my royal hands.
Feed not thy sovereign's foe, my gentle earth,
Nor with thy sweets comfort his ravenous sense;
But let thy spiders, that suck up thy venom,
And heavy-gaited toads lie in their way,
Doing annoyance to the treacherous feet
Which with usurping steps do trample thee:
Yield stinging nettles to mine enemies;
And when they from thy bosom pluck a flower,
Guard it, I pray thee, with a lurking adder
Whose double tongue may with a mortal touch
Throw death upon thy sovereign's enemies.
Mock not my senseless conjuration, lords:
This earth shall have a feeling and these stones
Prove armed soldiers, ere her native king
Shall falter under foul rebellion's arms.
He is following up with the same point as the previous speech but notice how etherial it has become: "terrestial ball," "behind the globe," "wandering with the antipodes," "the breath of worldly men," and the final concluding lines, "God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay/A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,/Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right." Angels fighting and heaven guarding the right. Is that in tune with reality? And how about "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king?" How different from Henrys IV and V, who know that a King is really just a man with a ceremonial crown. Richard seems to think that he can't be touched, at least not in this speech. Then he is informed at how serious his situation really is and he sinks into quick depression:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Discomfortable cousin! know'st thou not
That when the searching eye of heaven is hid,
Behind the globe, that lights the lower world,
Then thieves and robbers range abroad unseen
In murders and in outrage, boldly here;
But when from under this terrestrial ball
He fires the proud tops of the eastern pines
And darts his light through every guilty hole,
Then murders, treasons and detested sins,
The cloak of night being pluck'd from off their backs,
Stand bare and naked, trembling at themselves?
So when this thief, this traitor, Bolingbroke,
Who all this while hath revell'd in the night
Whilst we were wandering with the antipodes,
Shall see us rising in our throne, the east,
His treasons will sit blushing in his face,
Not able to endure the sight of day,
But self-affrighted tremble at his sin.
Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd
To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.
And Aumerle quickly reassures him and notice Richard's change:Quote:
DUKE OF AUMERLE
Comfort, my liege; why looks your grace so pale?
KING RICHARD II
But now the blood of twenty thousand men
Did triumph in my face, and they are fled;
And, till so much blood thither come again,
Have I not reason to look pale and dead?
All souls that will be safe fly from my side,
For time hath set a blot upon my pride.
Just like that Richard has returned to his self glorifying bombast, "are we not high?" The switch between the speeches is amazing. From depression to aggrandizement, from self pity to self glorification. I'm not saying that richard is bi-polar, but there is a part of his psyche that is lurching from one extreme to another. Notice how he goes from the anger of believing Bushy and Green have betrayed him to the depression from the impression that Bolingbroke is unconquorerable. And the his great speech starting from his not knowing what has happened to York:Quote:
DUKE OF AUMERLE
Comfort, my liege; remember who you are.
KING RICHARD II
I had forgot myself; am I not king?
Awake, thou coward majesty! thou sleepest.
Is not the king's name twenty thousand names?
Arm, arm, my name! a puny subject strikes
At thy great glory. Look not to the ground,
Ye favourites of a king: are we not high?
High be our thoughts: I know my uncle York
Hath power enough to serve our turn. But who comes here?
Instead of either coming up with a plan, either militarily or for negotiating a truce, or just skipping town, we see him drop into deep despair and drop into some self pitying paralysis, even perversely elaborating on the fall of Kings. These lines are worthy of repeating:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
No matter where; of comfort no man speak:
Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,
Let's choose executors and talk of wills:
And yet not so, for what can we bequeath
Save our deposed bodies to the ground?
Our lands, our lives and all are Bolingbroke's,
And nothing can we call our own but death
And that small model of the barren earth
Which serves as paste and cover to our bones.
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood
With solemn reverence: throw away respect,
Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,
For you have but mistook me all this while:
I live with bread like you, feel want,
Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?
I must also highlight the ceremonial theme that I discussed in Act I that is brought back with these lines, "Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood/With solemn reverence: throw away respect,/Tradition, form and ceremonious duty." Remember the power of a King is endowed through ceremony and the act of Richard's demise and Bolingbroke's rise is a ceremonial process.Quote:
For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings;
How some have been deposed; some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd;
All murder'd: for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
The Bishop and Amerle then try to buck him up and get him to lead:
And with that Richard lurches back to self aggrandizement:Quote:
BISHOP OF CARLISLE
My lord, wise men ne'er sit and wail their woes,
But presently prevent the ways to wail.
To fear the foe, since fear oppresseth strength,
Gives in your weakness strength unto your foe,
And so your follies fight against yourself.
Fear and be slain; no worse can come to fight:
And fight and die is death destroying death;
Where fearing dying pays death servile breath.
DUKE OF AUMERLE
My father hath a power; inquire of him
And learn to make a body of a limb.
only to be followed back with despair:Quote:
KING RICHARD II
Thou chidest me well: proud Bolingbroke, I come
To change blows with thee for our day of doom.
This ague fit of fear is over-blown;
An easy task it is to win our own.
Say, Scroop, where lies our uncle with his power?
Speak sweetly, man, although thy looks be sour.
What an incredible psychological scene. We finally see Richard's problems, a sort of attention deficit disorder, an airy self aggrandizement, self pity, despair, and finally a defeatist attitude. He has practically quit without even trying, without a fight. Compare how MacBeth decides to end it when it became clear his fate was evident. You who don't care for this play perhaps have not noticed the psychological depth of the Richard character. He goes from Kingly security as right to despair. And that language is just gorgeous.Quote:
Of that sweet way I was in to despair!
What say you now? what comfort have we now?
By heaven, I'll hate him everlastingly
That bids me be of comfort any more.
Go to Flint castle: there I'll pine away;
A king, woe's slave, shall kingly woe obey.
That power I have, discharge; and let them go
To ear the land that hath some hope to grow,
For I have none: let no man speak again
To alter this, for counsel is but vain.
I have to read your entire post more carefully, Virgil, and think about it because you've brought up many thought-provoking points.
Regarding Bushy and Greene, I think Shakespeare is foreshadowing a little here, if foreshadowing is the right word. The execution of Bushy and Greene shows us that the balance of power is tipping from Richard to Bolingbroke. I think this balance of power certainly comes to the fore in the beginning of Act III when Richard arrives back in Wales from Ireland. He (Richard) realizes that he has already, for all practical concerns, lost the throne to Bolingbroke. At least he eventually does. He gives up, but in his giving up, some of Shakespeare's most exquisite poetry is showcased (again, not the right word, but all I can think of at this time). The play, I think, is at its most eloquent from Act III on.
I don't think the execution of Bushy and Greene was truly justified - all they were guilty of was remaining loyal to their own king, however Bolingbroke has the audacity of accusing them of misleading the king!
Why were they executed? According to Bolingbroke, they were executed because they lied to and misled Richard, who Bolingbroke is hypocritically calling, at this time, a good man. However, the real reason they were executed is so Bolingbroke could weaken Richard and make inroads himself toward taking the crown.
The beginning of Act III, for me, shows us the hypocrisy of political maneuverings, how everyone lies to everyone else. In Richard's England, truthfulness in politics was a rare thing.
Continued, after I read Virgil's post more carefully:
When, in Act III, scene ii, Richard returns from Ireland and realizes that he has, for all practical effects, lost the crown to Bolingbroke, he still might not accept the reality of his situation, but he is, at least, aware that he will lose the crown, and he turns from self-aggrandizement to despair. Eventually. This despair marks the point at which Richard (Shakespeare) produces some of the most gorgeous poetry ever written, and the reason I don’t place this play below the others. Richard’s character may be difficult to like and admire and almost impossible to empathize with, and as the play progresses, he becomes more and more out of touch with reality, but he’s not without enormous depth. In fact, I consider Richard one of Shakespeare’s most eloquent characters, perhaps the most eloquent. No, he does not transcend his play like Hamlet, but his eloquence is unrivaled, I think.
I think Richard’s speeches go back and forth between self-aggrandizement and despair, between reality and detachment because Shakespeare is asking us if a king is someone who is anointed or is someone who simply has the political power to maneuver himself into that position.
Contrast these two speeches of Richard’s:
Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose/The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd/To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,/God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay/A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.
In the speech above, Richard is implying that he is a king anointed by God, himself, a glorious angel even, and no earthly man, including Bolingbroke, will be able to depose him.
But Richard doesn’t adhere to this belief all the time. His speeches change dramatically once he falls into despair:
Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood/With solemn reverence: throw away respect,/Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,/For you have but mistook me all this while:/I live with bread like you, feel want,/Taste grief, need friends: subjected thus,
How can you say to me, I am a king?
Where just shortly before, Richard considered himself anointed by God, an angel even, who no one could depose, now, in the speech above, he believes that mortals have mistook him and that he, too, is a mortal, who “lives with bread…feels want…tastes grief…needs friends.”
These two speeches contrast Richard’s swings in mood perfectly, I think. (And I know you quoted some of the above already, Virgil, and already pointed it out.)
As for the allusions to nature, I have an opinion, but I’ll wait until we discuss the garden scene, which I love, to comment on that.
Yes. I had not picked up on this until this read. I had always read the play Richard incompetant and bad/Bolingbroke competant and good. I don't think Bolingbroke is all that decent a character, even though he's been unjustly banished. Scene 3, when we get to it, I was going to ask the question, just how innocent or ambitious is Bolingbroke? Is he just after some justice or the whole crown itself? Let's put off that question for a few days yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
Certainly we need to figure out what Shakespeare means by the nature of king-hood.Quote:
I think Richard’s speeches go back and forth between self-aggrandizement and despair, between reality and detachment because Shakespeare is asking us if a king is someone who is anointed or is someone who simply has the political power to maneuver himself into that position.
Yes, I don't think Richard himself is clear to himself. He would like to believe in the ideal, but even he talks about the death of Kings.Quote:
In the speech above, Richard is implying that he is a king anointed by God, himself, a glorious angel even, and no earthly man, including Bolingbroke, will be able to depose him.
But Richard doesn’t adhere to this belief all the time. His speeches change dramatically once he falls into despair:
Yes, this is what I'm saying about his grasp of reality. There is an incredible psychological conflict going on, not just beteen his notion of king, but just of his grasp of reality.Quote:
Where just shortly before, Richard considered himself anointed by God, an angel even, who no one could depose, now, in the speech above, he believes that mortals have mistook him and that he, too, is a mortal, who “lives with bread…feels want…tastes grief…needs friends.”
I think we pretty much agree here. :)Quote:
These two speeches contrast Richard’s swings in mood perfectly, I think. (And I know you quoted some of the above already, Virgil, and already pointed it out.)
Oh great. I have questions on the whole garden motif and it comes to a head in that scene. I can't say I truely understand it. I'll be waiting. ;) Hey great to have you in on our discussion Scarlett.Quote:
As for the allusions to nature, I have an opinion, but I’ll wait until we discuss the garden scene, which I love, to comment on that.
Hi Virgil and MissScarlett, I have read both of your post and found them quite interesting. I will comment briefly on some points Virgil made first.
I am still a bit foggy on just what Bushy and Green did. It seems many lines of the text/poetry indicated what these actions may have been, but don't specifically name them; for instance:Quote:
Only one thing I wanted to point out in scene 1, the execution of Bushy and Green. Is the execution justified? On what grounds exactly are they executed? Certainly they were the King's cohorts and they did help him in the stealing of Bolingbroke's lands, but does the punishment exceed the crimes. Here is Bolingbroke's case against them:
So they broke a few windows, and misled the King. Death seems a harsh punishment to me. It's not even clear that they even did these things. This really shows the ruthlessness of Bolingbroke, a Machiavellian nature. Kind of reminds me of Henry V where he executes Bardolph, though that's ven worse becasue Bardolph was Hal's friend at one time.
Could someone explain this part to me, especially concerning the queen? Did she cheat on Richard or did Richard cheat on her with these two men? Or did they simply corrupt Richard's mind and lead him away from marital fidelity? It certainly seems quite suggestive to me, or do I have a dirty mind? In the play, I am watching Richard is portrayed rather effeminine and I have heard interpretations leading to this conclusion. I also will be anxious now to take a closer look at that 'garden' scene. When I first watched/read it, It seemed to me to possess a lot of hidden symbolism. I think their crimes were a little more serious than 'breaking a few windows.'Quote:
You have misled a prince, a royal king,
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments,
By you unhappied and disfigured clean:
You have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.
As far as Henry and Bardolph is concerned, that was a very key moment in the play. Henry had just announced prior that there be no taking of property or upbraiding of the citizens of France or strict punishment would be the result; this adverse type of action by the English troops would not be tolerated. He could make no exceptions. He had made the order and in order to show his strength of character and principle he had to execute Bardolph. The tragedy was that Bardolph had been his friend. I think the fact that Ancient Pistol does not condemn Henry for this action shows Henry did the right and upstanding thing in executing Bardolph. It breaks my heart everything I come to that part but it was a necessary part of the play. In some ways it was another turning point for Henry, initiating him into full manhood and King status. I don't think you can compare the two instances as anything alike.
I can't wait to hear your take on that part, Miss Scarlett. I too am so glad you joined the discussion; you see already to add so much. You are very perceptive.Quote:
Also anyone wonder how the names Bushy and Green fit into the Garden motif that runs through the play? It's an interesting connection but I can't really think of anything.
Yes, I fully agree. In the prison scenes, when Richard is alone you get a recurance of these thoughts and he flip-flops back and forth between both sides of the coin - being a mere human being and being a God annointed King.Quote:
Now Scene 2 is fabulous. It shows the psychological nature of the King Richard, just how incapable his nature is to lead and just his lack of being in touch with reality. I'm going to quote a sucession of speeches he makes. Please appreciate the gorgeous poetry that comes out of his mouth.
That is really interesting. I hadn't thought of those references before. Can you further explain your statement "the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers", Virgil?Quote:
Notice the garden of eden allusions that runs through it, nettles and flowers and even a snake. The gist of his speech though is that the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers. And then he is informed of Bolingbroke's success and he follows it this:
I think now he is realising he does not have long to live. He has worked through his thought patterns and now worked up this point. He must have some type of forbodding; don't you imagine? Yes, his attitude is quite different than Henry IV and V's. In Henry V, Henry is humble when he wins the battle of Agincort against such impossible odds and continuously reminds his troups they have to look to God who won the battle for them. He assumes his title as King and yet gives God all the credit for deciding the English will win. Unlike, Richard, who is into his own sense of glorification, pomp and ceremony; until he is brought down to earth by his imprissonment; however he is never actually brought down since he holds onto this idea that he will surely be an angel when he dies.Quote:
He is following up with the same point as the previous speech but notice how etherial it has become: "terrestial ball," "behind the globe," "wandering with the antipodes," "the breath of worldly men," and the final concluding lines, "God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay/A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,/Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right." Angels fighting and heaven guarding the right. Is that in tune with reality? And how about "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king?" How different from Henrys IV and V, who know that a King is really just a man with a ceremonial crown. Richard seems to think that he can't be touched, at least not in this speech. Then he is informed at how serious his situation really is and he sinks into quick depression:
Exactly. This seems ingrained in the personality of Richard. He is sort of manic at times in that he has a lot of delusions of grandeur, even when things are not looking too good for him. But mostly, I think this is like the 'fall of man, the fall of a King'. It just works through many stages to culminate to the death scene.Quote:
And Aumerle quickly reassures him and notice Richard's change:
Just like that Richard has returned to his self glorifying bombast, "are we not high?" The switch between the speeches is amazing. From depression to aggrandizement, from self pity to self glorification. I'm not saying that richard is bi-polar, but there is a part of his psyche that is lurching from one extreme to another. Notice how he goes from the anger of believing Bushy and Green have betrayed him to the depression from the impression that Bolingbroke is unconquorerable. And the his great speech starting from his not knowing what has happened to York:
Right you are. He does fall into a pitying paralysis and therefore he can't be pragmatic. He is stuck in this dark hole of despair. Even these scenes somehow feel claustophobic to me.Quote:
Instead of either coming up with a plan, either militarily or for negotiating a truce, or just skipping town, we see him drop into deep despair and drop into some self pitying paralysis, even perversely elaborating on the fall of Kings. These lines are worthy of repeating:
True.Quote:
I must also highlight the ceremonial theme that I discussed in Act I that is brought back with these lines, "Cover your heads and mock not flesh and blood/With solemn reverence: throw away respect,/Tradition, form and ceremonious duty." Remember the power of a King is endowed through ceremony and the act of Richard's demise and Bolingbroke's rise is a ceremonial process.
This is not my favorite history, which is true, but I do appreciate the psychological depth of it and the beautiful poetry. The parts where Richard is working out in his mind the fact he is the anointed king and yet merely flesh and blood and a man interest me greatly and are very reminescent of my favorite soliloquey in Henry V when he walks through the camp at night contemplating his place as King in the natural work and order of things. I think the speeches have some similarily. However, I find Richard's more uneven and more changable than Henry's. Richard also feels sorry for himself often which I find a bit annoying. He is a weak king whereas Henry is a strong presense in the play that will follow. I forget the order now. Which of the two plays came first in writing? The fact that Henry V admits that his father did Richard wrong and Henry has been trying to atone for the sins of his father also add proof to the fact that Shakespeare would not have seen either character in this play as totally good. I had tended to see Bollingbroke as more noble but now I am very much questioning his motifs. As you point out now in the text, it seems that Bushy and Green have lead Richard away from being noble and helped to weaken his reign as king and as husband to his wife. I am wondering why Shakespeare did not make it a little more specific as to what the two men actually did to bring about Richard's demise.Quote:
What an incredible psychological scene. We finally see Richard's problems, a sort of attention deficit disorder, an airy self aggrandizement, self pity, despair, and finally a defeatist attitude. He has practically quit without even trying, without a fight. Compare how MacBeth decides to end it when it became clear his fate was evident. You who don't care for this play perhaps have not noticed the psychological depth of the Richard character. He goes from Kingly security as right to despair. And that language is just gorgeous.
This is true " He goes from Kingly security as right to despair" and the poetry is gorgeous.
Hi Virgil and Janine, I agree with what both of you have said.
I was thinking about the play when I was out today. I think, Janine, that while you and I appreciate the gorgeousness of the poetry as does Virgil, we find it more difficult to get emotionally involved with the characters because the two big dramatic elements - Richard's abdication and his eventual murder aren't dramatized so much as poeticized, if you know what I mean. The gorgeous poetry, in many ways, distances us from the characters. Still, I wouldn't change this play for anything. It's Shakespeare!
Yes, that is it exactly; you pegged it perfectly. I just can't connect with Richard on a personal level. It might be that the poetry is actually getting in my way of connecting with his human character or maybe I am tired of hearing his sniveling and his elevated image of himself at times. I don't really connect to any of the characters in this particular play, so that is why I can't really honestly get emotionally involved in it, as I do in other Shakespeare plays. Of course you are right - it's still a fine play - afterall it is Shakespeare!Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
Oh good. I'm wondering where Quark disappeared to again. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You know I've felt that way too and I've come to the conclusion that the charges are trumped up. I think the pont here is to show Bolingbroke's ruthlessness.Quote:
I am still a bit foggy on just what Bushy and Green did. It seems many lines of the text/poetry indicated what these actions may have been, but don't specifically name them; for instance:
I frankly don't get it either.Quote:
Could someone explain this part to me, especially concerning the queen? Did she cheat on Richard or did Richard cheat on her with these two men? Or did they simply corrupt Richard's mind and lead him away from marital fidelity? It certainly seems quite suggestive to me, or do I have a dirty mind?
Yes, of course, but worthy of death? No I don't see it.Quote:
In the play, I am watching Richard is portrayed rather effeminine and I have heard interpretations leading to this conclusion. I also will be anxious now to take a closer look at that 'garden' scene. When I first watched/read it, It seemed to me to possess a lot of hidden symbolism. I think their crimes were a little more serious than 'breaking a few windows.'
There are differences for sure, but I think both are executions more to show the leader's power than actual execution of justice.Quote:
As far as Henry and Bardolph is concerned, that was a very key moment in the play. Henry had just announced prior that there be no taking of property or upbraiding of the citizens of France or strict punishment would be the result; this adverse type of action by the English troops would not be tolerated. He could make no exceptions. He had made the order and in order to show his strength of character and principle he had to execute Bardolph. The tragedy was that Bardolph had been his friend. I think the fact that Ancient Pistol does not condemn Henry for this action shows Henry did the right and upstanding thing in executing Bardolph. It breaks my heart everything I come to that part but it was a necessary part of the play. In some ways it was another turning point for Henry, initiating him into full manhood and King status. I don't think you can compare the two instances as anything alike.
I'm waiting too. :DQuote:
I can't wait to hear your take on that part, Miss Scarlett. I too am so glad you joined the discussion; you see already to add so much. You are very perceptive.
That is a really good phrase, if I say so myself. :D Perhaps the spirit of Richard or Shakespeare got into me. ;) I actually was inaccurate in what I meant to say. I meant that to Richard the earth appears to be in league with divinity. He sees the earth as part of the ceremony that endows him with divine right.Quote:
That is really interesting. I hadn't thought of those references before. Can you further explain your statement "the earth is in league with divinity to protect the sacred right of Kings from usurpers", Virgil?
I agree with everything there Janine. :)Quote:
I think now he is realising he does not have long to live. He has worked through his thought patterns and now worked up this point. He must have some type of forbodding; don't you imagine? Yes, his attitude is quite different than Henry IV and V's. In Henry V, Henry is humble when he wins the battle of Agincort against such impossible odds and continuously reminds his troups they have to look to God who won the battle for them. He assumes his title as King and yet gives God all the credit for deciding the English will win. Unlike, Richard, who is into his own sense of glorification, pomp and ceremony; until he is brought down to earth by his imprissonment; however he is never actually brought down since he holds onto this idea that he will surely be an angel when he dies.
Oh good point on the fall of man and the fall of a king. Perhaps that's the connection with the garden of eden that I don't understand.Quote:
Exactly. This seems ingrained in the personality of Richard. He is sort of manic at times in that he has a lot of delusions of grandeur, even when things are not looking too good for him. But mostly, I think this is like the 'fall of man, the fall of a King'. It just works through many stages to culminate to the death scene.
Well, I hope you've gotten a greater appreciation of it. The psychological depth of Richard rivals that of Hamlet.Quote:
This is not my favorite history, which is true, but I do appreciate the psychological depth of it and the beautiful poetry. The parts where Richard is working out in his mind the fact he is the anointed king and yet merely flesh and blood and a man interest me greatly and are very reminescent of my favorite soliloquey in Henry V when he walks through the camp at night contemplating his place as King in the natural work and order of things. I think the speeches have some similarily. However, I find Richard's more uneven and more changable than Henry's. Richard also feels sorry for himself often which I find a bit annoying. He is a weak king whereas Henry is a strong presense in the play that will follow. I forget the order now. Which of the two plays came first in writing? The fact that Henry V admits that his father did Richard wrong and Henry has been trying to atone for the sins of his father also add proof to the fact that Shakespeare would not have seen either character in this play as totally good. I had tended to see Bollingbroke as more noble but now I am very much questioning his motifs. As you point out now in the text, it seems that Bushy and Green have lead Richard away from being noble and helped to weaken his reign as king and as husband to his wife. I am wondering why Shakespeare did not make it a little more specific as to what the two men actually did to bring about Richard's demise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
On this I have to disagree with you ladies. I don't think it's the poetry. Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet has such great poetry too. I think it's the dramatic movement of the Acts that don't quite lead into each other. Perhaps at the end of our discussion I'll elaborate. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Perhaps. But how can you even compare "Romeo and Juliet" to the characters in this play? One connects emotionally right away with them both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Just saw your other post. Going now to read it.
Just read it and agree with all practicually; maybe not the Bardolf part exactly. I think that was justified since Henry warned that would be the outcome - hanging. He was bound by his word.
To this statement: "Well, I hope you've gotten a greater appreciation of it." Yes. I never didn't appreciate the poetry or the play exactly, yet it is far from a favorite.
But to this statement following it - "The psychological depth of Richard rivals that of Hamlet."....NO way!!!
:lol::lol: I knew that would get your ears up. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, and I knew you were doing it to aggravate me! haha :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I agree with Janine on this one. While Richard is a deep character, though totally self-absorbed, he's certainly no Hamlet. Not in my eyes. Hamlet transcends his play, Richard does not. I think this play also lacks the wit of the other plays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
What they literally did is perhaps not so egregious, but within the play Bushy and Green are the real villains. They represent everything that's corrupted and selfish in Richard. Gaunt's final words in Act II lay all this out better than it's summarized in Act III. Good thing, too, otherwise the audience would get bored if it were all rehashed again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
Virgil, you've given a pretty good characterization of Richard here. He vacillates between two extremes throughout Act III, and this flipping back and forth will eventually cause him to unhinge later in the play. The final half of the play is quite psychological.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I agree that Richard's lyricism does give us a better idea of Richard's mental state, and that there's much psychology in the later Acts. But, I don't know if that necessarily makes Richard a great character who could rival those from Hamlet. In order for something to be psychologically interesting, it has to be psychological as well as interesting. We do get to see into Richard's mind, but what we find there isn't particularly engaging. His predicament--while being highly psychological--doesn't really correspond to what we actually experience. In Act III, Richard seems more like a caricature of two behaviors: defeatism and self-aggrandizement. I think his growth from one Act to another is interesting, but the individual scenes just seem too divorced from reality. When I think about great psychological characters (a Raskilnokov or Milton's Satan) I notice that they're not just portraits of certain conditions, but they're also people I can relate to. Richard and Bolingbroke are not. Partly, this comes from the fact that their motives and personalities are so suspect. Bolingbroke is a conniving politician, and Richard is a condescending buffoon (in Act I). Raskilnokov, on the other hand, is someone trying to be good to his family and society. He's just been twisted into thinking that the only way he can do that is through crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think you've hit on something good here. It's the moments when there's a change in Richard's character that he's interesting. When he starts to despair, or when his former pride reasserts itself, or when he finally decides to take Action in Act V are all great moments for Richard. Richard may be one of Shakespeare's best "round" characters. In that, his growth during the play is really interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
I think it's the last option you mentioned. Bolingbroke is saying that Bushy and Green perverted Richard. This goes back to what Gaunt brought up in Act II. They might not be as much of instigators as Bolingbroke claims they are, but they certainly were partners in crime with Richard during his extravagant former days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Hahaha....Virgil, you just mention 'Quark's' name and he appears -presto! I do it all the time in Chekhov or Lawrence and 'Quark' perks up; suddenly appears out of nowhere.
Hi Quark, we missed you.:D I liked you comments above - very well thought out. I see 3 of us are now of the same mind-set concerning "Hamlet." I can't even see a comparison between the two characters and the two plays, nor R&J. I think though that maybe Virgil was just kidding about H and trying to get my dander up again. He has fun doing that.
I will try and answer more to your post, later on, Quark.
:lol: All ganging up on me again. I didn't say that this play was as great as the play Hamlet (though you know I find Hamlet a little over rated as a play, but still great). I said that the character of Richard II has as much depth as the character of Hamlet. Plus as I get older, Hamlet is a boy to me. I prefer the psychology of mature men.
:lol::lol::lol:Always trying any angle to weedle you way out of a tight situation. You are too funny, V....'prefer the psychology of a mature man'...like you are are so mature yourself flirting with these 'young' ones on Litnet.:lol::lol::lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I don't think Richard was that old psychologically. I like the play primarily for its gorgeous poetry, but I have to disagree with Virgil here and say I don't think Richard is as deep as Hamlet. Richard gets shorted by many, and he does have depth, that I can't deny. He's just no transcendent Hamlet. ;)
I feel 'the force' is with us, MissScarlett, :lol:...poor Virgil....don't let it worry you, he loves this opposition. ;) I agree; there may be depth within Richard; but there is no 'transcendent' quality, as is seen within Hamlet's character. I don't find myself pondering much after watching "Richard II", but "Hamlet" will not leave my mind ever. I wonder how old Richard is suppose to be in this play. I don't think many kings back then lived long lives. Some say Hamlet is played by too old an actor, but I heard it said that actually Hamlet is suppose to in his early 30's, according to Shakespeare research. I am not sure how scholars know this fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
I think the association between Hamlet and adolescence has more to do with Hamlet's behavior and qualities rather than his actual age. He's ironic, sarcastic, overly reflective. These are some of the things we usually associate with sulky teenagers. I don't know if Richard's qualities necessarily line up with middle age, though. I can't say he really resembles anything that I know, and that's mainly my objection to his character--he isn't particularly realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh Quark. You haven't met enough middle age men.
That's exactly why Hamlet has irritated me as I've gotten older. Teens just annoy me. Frankly I don't find the concerns of teens all that deep. ;) Just check around lit net. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Waaaaa:bawling:...I don't see my beloved 'Hamlet' as a teenie bopper. Geez, guys can't you lay off the guy? But seriously, why don't we get back on track and discuss "Richard II" - the actual play that this thread is dedicated to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well I think there's more to Hamlet than just teenage sullenness. He's also incredibly perceptive and witty. It would really be a shallow reading to write him off as the "teenie bopper" that Janine brought up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh, you're going to get a few nasty PM's about this one, Virgil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Sure, what about Richard II do you want to talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh Quark, I hope you realise I didn't call Hamlet a 'teenie bopper'. I agree with you - he is perceptive and exceedingly witty at times. He is crafty in a good way, too. He has a lot of depth and is very complex. I love Hamlet and am forever fascinated with his character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
hahaha....if they peek into this thread he sure will. He deserves it, too!:lol:Quote:
Oh, you're going to get a few nasty PM's about this one, Virgil.
Yes, I think we got slightly off-track, don't you? I guess that is our main objective here - discussing the play "Richard II"...we are committed now to continue.Quote:
Sure, what about Richard II do you want to talk about?
No, I didn't think you did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
That's the thing, though. If Virgil's right, they're not deep enough to peek into this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Well it's hard coming up with one intelligent comment after another on a difficult play. It expends that "brain energy" which Virgil felt so depleted of earlier. Sometimes a break is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I suppose, but it's up to you to continue since you said you were going to comment on my "very well thought out" post. Didn't I do my part?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Oh, that's good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
haha...how true....but some of them are pretty deep compared to the stuff I read in high school....I have to hand it to these kids nowdays....reading "War and Peace" that early on. I haven't even accomplished it yet.Quote:
That's the thing, though. If Virgil's right, they're not deep enough to peek into this discussion.
How true...I am just kidding with you guys. I thought it all was rather humorous and good breather indeed. Besides I need to either re-watch the play or read more of it. I forget now where I left off.:(Quote:
Well it's hard coming up with one intelligent comment after another on a difficult play. It expends that "brain energy" which Virgil felt so depleted of earlier. Sometimes a break is good.
Oh gosh, I am sorry, Quark, that was my fault. I will check back and see what I missed tomorrow or by Friday, ok? Lately I have not been concentrating too well.Quote:
I suppose, but it's up to you to continue since you said you were going to comment on my "very well thought out" post. Didn't I do my part?
Bit of background history coming up. :yawnb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Richard died when he was about thirty-three: I say 'about' because nobody is sure exactly when he died (that's not a spoiler for Act V, is it?) That means Richard is in his early thirties during the early action of the play (which historically took place over two/three years).
What I feel is interesting about Richard's character is his background which is not really mentioned in the play but would have been known as 'general knowledge' by the first audiences: he became King at the age of ten, too young to rule in his own right, so there was a Regency, supposedly controlled by a group of twelve nobles but in fact as time went on, dominated by John of Gaunt for much of the time, later by the Duke of Gloucester. I've always felt the autocratic Richard who will not be councelled to wiser moves is a product of his youth when older, supposedly wiser, men controlled him, usually for the purposes of extending their own power. Richard lacked the example of a strong, wise man on which to model himself: his father, the Black Prince, who died when he was still a baby, was the Golden Boy of his age, popular at all levels of the kingdom, successful in battle and considered charming, chivalrous and brave. No doubt, Richard was compared unfavourably to his illustrious father and what a model to have to live up to! It's hardly surprising he wanted to be his own man but he had been ill-prepared for the role of King. Marrying into the French royal family - he wed his second wife, Isabella, when he was thirty - he adopted French tastes and attitudes, including the Divine Right of Kings, which would hardly have gone down well in an England that had been fighting France on and off for a good number of years.
I think his intervention in the duel in Act I is a direct echo of an incident in Richard's youth: when he was fourteen, there was a popular uprising in protest against the Poll Tax introduced by Gaunt to raise money for what was seen as the extravagence of the war with France and court excesses. It became known as the Peasants' Revolt and some hundred thousand angry men marched on London. The young king rode out to meet the Essex contingent at Mile End, perilously close to the city of London, and promised them that he would personally redress their grievances, a foolhardy but nevertheless courageous action. The next day, things turned nasty when the Kent contingent burned Gaunt's palace, the Savoy, burned Temple Bar, the entry to the City, opened prisons, broke into the Tower, killed the Archbishop of Canterbury and turned their attention to the Court. Their leader, Wat Tyler, was killed by the Lord Mayor of London, and for a while things looked very ugly. The King once again rode out and spoke to the mob, riding into their ranks crying that he would be their leader, promising again to address their grievances and once again restoring order: the Golden Father seemed to have sired a Golden Son. If only Richard had capitalised on this popular goodwill, the outcome of history might have been very different. But he was a boy, his Regents would not allow him to make good his promises (though Gaunt slipped into the background after this) and so Richard was perceived to have reneged on his word. I can't help feeling that the affair marked him for life: the Richard of the play seems to believe he is an authorative figure and never realises that a king must be as good as his word, that loyalty has to be earned not demanded.
Hope this lengthy lecture throws a bit of light on Richard. :)
Wow, kasie, thanks! I was under the impression that Richard wed Isabelle when she was just a child. I did know she was French. Thanks again for the background information.
Regarding the garden scene, I think the garden is symbolic of England, herself. Richard's favorites were Bushy and Greene, names associated with nature. It seems like such a simple scene, but I think it's really a terrific metaphor: England as a garden choked with weeds.
I'll have to go through the scene and see what metaphors I can find, but I wanted to throw the idea out there and see what the rest of you thought of it.
kasie, I agree with MissScarlett, this information is very vital to further understanding Richard. I find now I feel he is a real person and not some mere 'wishy-washy' figure, who we know nothing much about. I, for one, support any background information both on historical works or on authors themselves, if they are writing something based on their own stories or actual stories of others they knew. I think it helps emensely in fully understanding how a person gets to the point or period at which we encounter them in a particular piece of literature. Therefore, thanks so much for taking the time to look all this up and post it. I agree that at the time of this play most of England would be aware of Richard II's background. Up until now we have only been in the dark about it. Now this makes the play make more sense; at least, it does to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
For me, the garden scene is almost entirely metaphorical, and I think it's some of the best metaphor Shakespeare ever wrote.
When the queen and her ladies-in-waiting hide, the queen says they should expect to hear talk of politics, but I, for one, was surprised to read such aristocratic, metaphorical speech from a gardener and his assistant. Did gardeners, etc. really speak that way during Elizabethan times? I don't know. Certainly they were aware of the political situation.
Throughout the entire play, Shakespeare has used the natural world (Bushy and Greene, for example) to symbolize England and Richard, and I don't think this was at all unusual for the times. During Elizabethan times, people had to contend with the forces of nature and the changing seasons so much more than we do now. Their tie to nature was greater and nature played a far bigger role in their lives.
I think when the gardener and his assistant talk about "binding up the royal apricocks" they are really talking about Richard, himself, and Bushy and Greene. Bushy and Greene have caused Richard to "Stoope with oppression of their prodigal weight."
The gardener continues to refer to Bushy and Greene when he tells his assistant to "Go thou and like an executioner/Cut off the too fast growing sprays,/That look too lofty in our commonwealth./All must be even in our government."
Bushy and Greene have overstepped their bounds with Richard and misled him, and they have, in fact, been executed.
Amazingly, the gardener's assistant replies in language even more metaphorical than the gardener's when he asks why he should bother when "our sea-walled garden" (England) is "full of weeds," "chok'd up," "unprun'd," "ruin'd," "disordered," and "swarming with caterpillars?"
So Bushy and Greene have gone from being "too fast growing sprays" of flowers to out and out weeds destroying both Richard and England, herself.
When the gardener next speaks, he speaks, I think, again of Richard as a tree, who has suffered a "disordered spring" and has now reached the "fall of leaf," an allusion, of course, to Richard's coming abdication and perhaps even to his eventual murder. The gardener seems to blame Bushy and Greene for Richard's problems - "That seemed in eating him to hold him up." The gardener also seems to allude to Bolingbroke and his execution of Bushy and Greene and the eventual destruction of Richard in the "fall of leaf" when he compares Bushy and Greene to a gardener who would not only destroy the weeds that are choking a tree, but also destroy the tree, itself.
At this point, the queen makes her presence known and seems both surprised and alarmed, something I found surprising. I thought queens knew just about everything regarding royal politics, but maybe not. I have to admit, I don't completely understand the queen's parting words, "for telling me these news of woe,/Pray God the plants thou graft'st may never grow." Does she mean Bushy and Greene? Or is she referring to Richard's loss of the crown?
The gardener then plants "a bank of rue, sour herb of grace," where Isabel's tears have fallen, the rue, I think, symbolizing her sorrow, and again, a link to nature.
I love metaphor, so for me, the garden scene in Richard II is one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. I may not be right in all of my interpretation, but that's what discussion is for, to learn. :)
You're right, MissS, she was a bride at seven, a widow at eleven and dead herself at twenty - a short, sad life.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
I'd like to comment on the garden scene but have not time at the moment to re-read it and gather my thoughts.
The background is always helpful. I think much of the first Act depends on our recognizing Richard's faults without having them spelled out. As for Richard's early years, it is interesting to see how his lack of power during his formative years may have lead him to dwell on it too much during his later life. I'm not sure about your characterization of Gaunt, though. You say that Gaunt was a poor role model for Richard, but this doesn't quite fit with the play. It may be historically accurate, but within the play Gaunt is an exemplary statesman who would have been an excellent role model for Richard. It's Bushy and Green who are seen as the corrupting influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by kasie
I think you're right with your interpretation. The garden conversation is an extended metaphor for Richard's misrule, and the symbolism continues outside of this scene into the rest of the play. We've already seen some of it in Act II when Gaunt says: "This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,/ Dear for her reputation through the world,/ Is now leas'd out--I die pronouncing it--/Like to a tenement or pelting farm" (57-60). The imagery continues and expands in this Act with the garden scene and the movements of Richard and Bolingbroke through the wilds of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
This is really excellent. I think you pegged it all very accurately, MissS. You need to give yourself more credit. I think what you wrote is excellent and makes things very clear. I recall when I watched the scene on my DVD of the play the first time, I did note there was a lot of symbolism I had to go back to eventually and interpret, referring directly to the text. I was somewhat like you, thinking at first, do gardeners really talk like this at that time in history? It seemed a strange scene to me and totally intentional on the author's part to inject into the play at this key moment to help us better understand the whole situation with Busy and Green. The procrastinator that I am never got back to that key garden scene; however at the time, I realised there was a lot to it than first meets the eye. I like the way you have interpreted the various parts; we certainly do learn by discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
Quark, from what I have read concerning other history plays, I think Shakespeare, basing these plays on historic fact, leaves himself a wide margin for creativity and often does not follow the history to the letter. I think this is the case with the character of Gaunt. Also, Gaunt is tied to Bollingbroke, so we see him in the light of a foe and yet at this time we see Richard at his weakest moments in his reign. In the weak shadow of Richard, we see Gaunt as a strong character in contrast and also a great orator. I really was dubious as to what Gaunt was truly like before this time. I didn't get a fully-fleshed out view of this character at all, from the limited amount of text; again, it may have been obstructed by his long flowery speeches or maybe it is my own short-comings in interpreting this complex text.
Thank you very much for that background Kasie. It was a pleasure to read and it is definitely pertinent to the play.
Scarlett, thanks for getting the discussion going on scene 4. I'll have some comments after I relook at the scene. But I do wish to say something on scene 3 before we move on. It will have to wait until tomorrow though.
First let me say, thanks for this Scarlett. I'm glad you stated this and you made it very clear. I'll comment to you statements below.
I found it fairly credible. You be surprised at how common speech by the most uneducated person uses metaphors and analogies. Granted it may be unreflectively done, but still common speech uses all sorts of conceits. That's how idioms develop.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissScarlett
I fully agree. Once I started looking for them, it seems like every scene to this point has some sort of green land/garden allusion.Quote:
Throughout the entire play, Shakespeare has used the natural world (Bushy and Greene, for example) to symbolize England and Richard, and I don't think this was at all unusual for the times. During Elizabethan times, people had to contend with the forces of nature and the changing seasons so much more than we do now. Their tie to nature was greater and nature played a far bigger role in their lives.
I think when the gardener and his assistant talk about "binding up the royal apricocks" they are really talking about Richard, himself, and Bushy and Greene. Bushy and Greene have caused Richard to "Stoope with oppression of their prodigal weight."
So then, the cleaning out of Richard's henchmen is a sort of spring pruning in a garden.Quote:
The gardener continues to refer to Bushy and Greene when he tells his assistant to "Go thou and like an executioner/Cut off the too fast growing sprays,/That look too lofty in our commonwealth./All must be even in our government."
Bushy and Greene have overstepped their bounds with Richard and misled him, and they have, in fact, been executed.
Amazingly, the gardener's assistant replies in language even more metaphorical than the gardener's when he asks why he should bother when "our sea-walled garden" (England) is "full of weeds," "chok'd up," "unprun'd," "ruin'd," "disordered," and "swarming with caterpillars?"
So Bushy and Greene have gone from being "too fast growing sprays" of flowers to out and out weeds destroying both Richard and England, herself.
There are two problems though that I see with the analogy. First is that by cutting off Richard, then you are not exactly prunning, but killing the plant.Quote:
When the gardener next speaks, he speaks, I think, again of Richard as a tree, who has suffered a "disordered spring" and has now reached the "fall of leaf," an allusion, of course, to Richard's coming abdication and perhaps even to his eventual murder. The gardener seems to blame Bushy and Greene for Richard's problems - "That seemed in eating him to hold him up." The gardener also seems to allude to Bolingbroke and his execution of Bushy and Greene and the eventual destruction of Richard in the "fall of leaf" when he compares Bushy and Greene to a gardener who would not only destroy the weeds that are choking a tree, but also destroy the tree, itself.
Which brings me to my second issue, how does the prunning in the garden fit with the garden of eden motif that also runs through the play, though perhaps less tangible. Notice what the Queen says in this scene:Quote:
At this point, the queen makes her presence known and seems both surprised and alarmed, something I found surprising. I thought queens knew just about everything regarding royal politics, but maybe not. I have to admit, I don't completely understand the queen's parting words, "for telling me these news of woe,/Pray God the plants thou graft'st may never grow." Does she mean Bushy and Greene? Or is she referring to Richard's loss of the crown?
The gardener then plants "a bank of rue, sour herb of grace," where Isabel's tears have fallen, the rue, I think, symbolizing her sorrow, and again, a link to nature.
Is Shakespeare mixing metaphors? Is Bolingbroke the snake that enters the garden and causes the fall of Richard? How does Shakespeare tie these two metaphors together? Or does he? This is what has bothered me about the garden metaphor since it was brought up.Quote:
Thou, old Adam's likeness, set to dress this garden,
How dares thy harsh rude tongue sound this unpleasing news?
What Eve, what serpent, hath suggested thee
To make a second fall of cursed man?
It is a very nice scene. :)Quote:
I love metaphor, so for me, the garden scene in Richard II is one of my favorite scenes in all of Shakespeare. I may not be right in all of my interpretation, but that's what discussion is for, to learn. :)
Some of the symbolism is a little murky. It's a little hard to keep track of who's a plant and who's a weed. Here, though, I think the Queen is talking about the news of Richard's demise. She's saying that the knowledge of Richard's downfall is like that knowledge from the apple. I don't know if it the analogy here extends to what's going on with Bolingbroke, Bushy, Green, and the rest of the cast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Quark, you make me burst out laughing at this last line...who's a plant and who's a weed...haha.... I am a bit murky myself on this one. I must watch that garden scene again tonight....and Virgil, indeed, isn't the tree cut down when Richard is stabbed? or am I missing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
That is what I thought also, but it will good to hear Miss Scarlett'scomments to Virgil's post above. I must admit I am taking a less active role in this discussion but I am reading everything.Quote:
Here, though, I think the Queen is talking about the news of Richard's demise. She's saying that the knowledge of Richard's downfall is like that knowledge from the apple. I don't know if it the analogy here extends to what's going on with Bolingbroke, Bushy, Green, and the rest of the cast.
I vaguely remember something like that. Of course, it's been so long since I read the play that I can only vaguely remember anything. Really, if we keep going with the discussion, I'm going to have to reread this thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
oh, no...I didn't mean it specifically or 'text-wise'; I have no idea if there is a tree reference in that death scene but it would be interesting if there was one. I just left a message in your profile page for help. Using 'search' I can't find the thread for Richard II - Act IV. I can't understand why it does not come up, unless it is listed differently. HELP!Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
It's there, but no one has posted in it yet. I'm not sure we're through with Act III. Virgil wanted to say something more about the first three scenes, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine