Richard II - Act IV

[Janine]

I will get back here soon; I haven't been too attentive lately. Maybe tonight, I should re-watch the play on my Sony. I just had so many other online things to attend to and catchup with. See you all soon.

[Virgil]

The beginning of this long scene is reminiscent of Act I, scene i, when Bolingbroke and Mowbray challenged each other to a duel and were both banished by Richard for doing so. However, now we know more about why Richard banished Bolingbroke - because Bolingbroke knew Richard was the driving force behind the murder of the Duke of Gloucester. And with this, I think, Shakespeare shows us he does believe in the divine anointing of kings. Bolingbroke will pay dearly for usurping a rightful king, even if he was also a murderer. And Bolingbroke will become, at least in part, responsible for Richard's murder. Usurping a rightful king, even if that king was not a good king, had grave consequences.

Yes it does remind us of Act I, but now we do have a contrast. We do see Bolingbroke as a better leader, in control. But there is something very disturbing about this. Is anyone bothered by the way Ampourle (sp?) is treated? Is he guilty or innocent? I'll have to get back with details later.

[MissScarlett]

Virgil, you mean Aumerle, right? I was disturbed by the way he was treated as well.

I, myself, am not sure if he's guilty or innocent. I don't think the answer is going to be clear, either. But I, too, have to go back and read the play again.

After we finish with this, I have something to say about the Bishop of Carlisle.

[Janine]

Ampourle? Is he the son who was pardoned by Bollingbroke, when his parents pleaded for his life? If so, I didn't quite get the jist of that part either. I kept thinking if he was threatening the life of Bollingbroke, 'why then did B pardon him and send him on his merry way?' To me that whole scene was confusing. I just decided to pop the movie into my new player for my TV and view it tonight in it's entirety (been procrastinating long enough). I can concentrate on it more fully then.

[MissScarlett]

Aumerle's father wanted him condemned, Janine, but his mother was pleading with Bolingbroke to pardon him, which he eventually did. I'm not clear on that scene, either.

[Janine]

Aumerle's father wanted him condemned, Janine, but his mother was pleading with Bolingbroke to pardon him, which he eventually did. I'm not clear on that scene, either.

I completely re-watched the play last night and indeed Aumerle is the young man I was thinking of. His father wanted him condemned and his mother begged to have him cleared or pardoned from his conspiracy plot to overthow and kill Henry. Now I was not at all clear on the purpose of this scene either. For on thing the argument between the husband and wife is portrayed rather with tinges of humor in this production which further confuses me. Why would someone who threatened Bollingbroke's life be so easily pardoned by him without as much as a reprimand or some type of punishment to set him straight? It made no sense to me why Henry banished the priest from his sight, who only railed at him and here he lets a prospective murderer go. Yes, very confusing and I wish someone would shed some light on the this whole scene.

In re-watching this play, I realised how intricate and difficult this play really is; just to comprehend everything that's going on and then to discuss it is a real challenge.

[Quark]

Why would someone who threatened Bollingbroke's life be so easily pardoned by him without as much as a reprimand or some type of punishment to set him straight?

And what about him pardoning Norfolk? The whole play was set forward by Henry attacking Norfolk. Why is he suddenly reconciled to him? Henry's sudden tolerance in Act IV and V is a little confusing. It isn't unusual for the new king to forgive his adversaries in a Shakespeare play (it happens in a few I think), but then why does Henry arrest the bishop? I, too, am in the dark about this one.

[Janine]

And what about him pardoning Norfolk? The whole play was set forward by Henry attacking Norfolk. Why is he suddenly reconciled to him? Henry's sudden tolerance in Act IV and V is a little confusing. It isn't unusual for the new king to forgive his adversaries in a Shakespeare play (it happens in a few I think), but then why does Henry arrest the bishop? I, too, am in the dark about this one.

Hi Quark, oh, good, then it was not just me or MissScarlett who was confused about these acts. I noted a lot of things last night while watching the play over again. This time I was all ears to the poetry, and the deeper meanings such as the symbolism of 'gardens'. This BBC production makes Richard look oftimes even snide or as if he is laughing down at people, making light of things and fun of others; such as the scene way back, when Gaunt is dying. He's quite unlikable at this period of the play in my eyes.

But back to this pardoning suddenly of several people, all of who threaten his newly self-appointed statis of King; to this aspect I am totally miffed. The scene in this particular play production, portrays Bollingbroke even making a frustrated, sort of comical jester, at the end of that act when the mother, father and son depart...it's like he is saying 'what next?'. The whole scene would be expected to be a very grave, dire, serious scene of particular importance, but instead it even comes off comical. If you recall the scene in "Henry V", when realising the 3 traitors are in the midst of his officers, prior to setting sail for France, he immediately brought this intended teason to everyone's attention. If you do recall that scene, either saw the film or read the play, the punishment for these crimes was dire, and these guys had been his childhood friends. They were all sent to their deaths, after he railed at them with deepest anger for about 10 mins. Assination plots were common those days amongst royalty; therefore, I could not believe that Bollingbroke so easily let the son off the hook and free to go. He didn't even mention restraining him in anyway. He held in his hands a letter that confirmed A's part in the plot - stark proof. He stated that he intended to go after the others, but let the son off the hook. It just seemed so strange. The other pardon you mention, as well. Of courses the youth was his cousin, his blood. I was thinking of how in the beginning, during the first challenging of Bollingbroke and Mobray, Richard exclaimed to Mobray he could speak just as freely in the court even though he, the King (R), was related in blood (cousin) to Bollingbroke; he said it didn't matter, he would be partical and that he considered them equal, as far as 'fairness' was concerned and their 'love' toward himself (Richard), But then later, when he banished them both, he was much stricter with Mobray's banishment, than he was with Bollingbroke's. Mobray was to never return to England again, where as Bollingbroke could return after a set amount of years. Richard seemed to say one thing and then do another. Now it seems Henry is inconsistent, too; he is inconsistent in the way he pardons some and condemns others. I don't know what to think, quite honestly. At the end, he does not condemn the murderer of Richard either, but he does banish him. Maybe Virgil has some thoughts on all of this.

[MissScarlett]

Aumerle, I think was at first accused of conspiring with Richard to kill Thomas, Duke of Gloucester. This is why Bolingbroke banishes him, I think.

Then, I'm a little confused, too.

[Janine]

Aumerle, I think was at first accused of conspiring with Richard to kill Thomas, Duke of Gloucester. This is why Bolingbroke banishes him, I think.

Then, I'm a little confused, too.

MissScarlett, aren't you thinking of Mobray, not Aumerle? In my previous post I meant Mobray was banished forever from England, yet Bollingbroke's banishment was for a limited amount of time only. Boy, this play is confusing. I often tend to lose track of the various names, especially since some characters have several titles, names such as Bollingbroke, Henry, etc. I should have a list printed out.

[Virgil]

Ok now I've re-read Act IV sufficiently and I'll put out my thoughts on the Aumerle mini scene.

We all see how the supporters of Bolingbroke all gang up on him and accuse him of killing Gloucester. First it's actually Bagot, a former Richard supporter who accuses him. And then Fitwater and Percy and another Lord. And they bear some sort of witness to Aumerle speaking of it. There is no question that this scene recalls the very openning of the play when Bolingbroke and Mowbray accuse each other. And of course we see the contrast between how Richard handles that crises and how Bolingbroke; Richard's handling leads to fight and banishments and initiates the events that ultimately bring Richard down. Here they seem to resolve toward a sense of justice, or at least justice is differed until the actual facts come out. And Bolingbroke's skill as a leader is what seems to be the difference. But what about Aumerle. He certainly sided with Richard, and we would think he's guilty. But Fitzwater actually pulls the rug from under the galvanizing impetus to get Aumerle. Suurey turns around and accuses Fitzwater of lying and conspiring to get Aumerle.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Who sets me else? by heaven, I'll throw at all:
I have a thousand spirits in one breast,
To answer twenty thousand such as you.

DUKE OF SURREY
My Lord Fitzwater, I do remember well
The very time Aumerle and you did talk.

LORD FITZWATER
'Tis very true: you were in presence then;
And you can witness with me this is true.

DUKE OF SURREY
As false, by heaven, as heaven itself is true.

LORD FITZWATER
Surrey, thou liest.

DUKE OF SURREY
Dishonourable boy!
That lie shall lie so heavy on my sword,
That it shall render vengeance and revenge
Till thou the lie-giver and that lie do lie
In earth as quiet as thy father's skull:
In proof whereof, there is my honour's pawn;
Engage it to the trial, if thou darest.

LORD FITZWATER
How fondly dost thou spur a forward horse!
If I dare eat, or drink, or breathe, or live,
I dare meet Surrey in a wilderness,
And spit upon him, whilst I say he lies,
And lies, and lies: there is my bond of faith,
To tie thee to my strong correction.
As I intend to thrive in this new world,
Aumerle is guilty of my true appeal:
Besides, I heard the banish'd Norfolk say
That thou, Aumerle, didst send two of thy men
To execute the noble duke at Calais.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Some honest Christian trust me with a gage
That Norfolk lies: here do I throw down this,
If he may be repeal'd, to try his honour.

Do we know who's telling the truth? No, I don't unless I missed something. My sympathy goes to Aumerle. When four people accuse you of murder and you deny it vigorously and then one other person comes forward to substantiate your defense, you tend to believe the accused is falsely judged, especially if that fellow is older and the accusers are young ("dishonourable boy" Surrey says to Fitzwater). I do here, though again I have no idea. What is important I think is that camps are being generated, and the camps could undermine the stability of the kingdom. But Bolingbroke handles it masterly:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
These differences shall all rest under gage
Till Norfolk be repeal'd: repeal'd he shall be,
And, though mine enemy, restored again
To all his lands and signories: when he's return'd,
Against Aumerle we will enforce his trial.

He's not going to throw Aumerle under, even though it's in his interest to get rid of Aumerle (and I can't help feel that this whole thing is a concoction from Bolingbroke himself) but refrains until evidence comes in. Unlike Richard who let things fester, acted impulsively, and played with the subject's lives, Bolingbroke follows a wiser course.

[Janine]

Wooo, Virgil, you have lost me in all those secondary characters. I will have to do some serious reviewing of those parts when they were cooking up the conspiracy. I can't answer anything you wrote now and am going out later on. I did read it (once) last night but it needs more reading and studying. Maybe some online notes on this part would help me sort all of this out. I am planning on going out for awhile later this afternoon and early this evening to a few stores. Be back later.

[MissScarlett]

MissScarlett, aren't you thinking of Mobray, not Aumerle? In my previous post I meant Mobray was banished forever from England, yet Bollingbroke's banishment was for a limited amount of time only. Boy, this play is confusing. I often tend to lose track of the various names, especially since some characters have several titles, names such as Bollingbroke, Henry, etc. I should have a list printed out.

Honestly, I do not know, Janine. I feel Aumerle is innocent of what Bolingbroke accuses him of, though in Act V his father, the Duke of York does find out Aumerle is guilty of conspiring to kill Bolingbroke. But it is confusing.

[Quark]

There is no question that this scene recalls the very openning of the play when Bolingbroke and Mowbray accuse each other.

No question, indeed. The parallel is pretty strong. The only difference I see between this scene and the very first in the play is that this one has a note of absurdity in it. There's something comical in how the simple accusation that starts Act IV devolves into a chaos of minor characters yelling "thou liest!" Okay, no, it isn't laugh out loud funny, but I think it's a little less dignified than the very formal proceeding between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. I think this is supposed to show how there can be no honor and order now that they've deposed a king. As the Bishop explains (and it is explanation since most of what he says comes true), "Peace shall go sleep with the Turk and infidels/ And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars" (139-40). One can only find honor and peace in barbarous east which is where Norfolk dies in a blaze of glory. The court which used to be peaceful is replaced with tumult. Hence, the chaotic dispute in Act IV.

And of course we see the contrast between how Richard handles that crises and how Bolingbroke; Richard's handling leads to fight and banishments and initiates the events that ultimately bring Richard down. Here they seem to resolve toward a sense of justice, or at least justice is differed until the actual facts come out. And Bolingbroke's skill as a leader is what seems to be the difference.

Yeah, this is a good analysis. I might be a little wary of calling Bolingbroke just, but he's certainly a stronger leader.

My sympathy goes to Aumerle. When four people accuse you of murder and you deny it vigorously and then one other person comes forward to substantiate your defense, you tend to believe the accused is falsely judged, especially if that fellow is older and the accusers are young ("dishonourable boy" Surrey says to Fitzwater).

I particularly like the way Aumerle responds: "Who sets me else? By heaven, I'll throw at all!" I love the careless defiance of it. Next time I sense people are ganging up on me on LitNet I'll have to use that. "I'll throw at all!"

The scene in this particular play production, portrays Bollingbroke even making a frustrated, sort of comical jester, at the end of that act when the mother, father and son depart...it's like he is saying 'what next?'. The whole scene would be expected to be a very grave, dire, serious scene of particular importance, but instead it even comes off comical.

Henry even comments on the comedy of it. The episode does seem to stick out, though. I don't have a good explanation for it--other than maybe Shakespeare thought things were getting a little too serious. It also shows how Bolingbroke's rule is going to work. We see more of Henry being both decisive and generous when others might not be.

Now it seems Henry is inconsistent, too; he is inconsistent in the way he pardons some and condemns others.

This is part of why I hesitate to call Henry just. His decisions don't seem to have any logic behind them. The criteria applied to one case is dropped in another.

I feel Aumerle is innocent of what Bolingbroke accuses him of, though in Act V his father, the Duke of York does find out Aumerle is guilty of conspiring to kill Bolingbroke.

I'm not sure one way or another about Aumerle killing Gloucester. I haven't read anything in my intro blurb about the actual killing and I'm too lazy at this point to do any research on it, but I tend to think that Aumerle is innocent for all the reasons everyone's brought up. Also, it's Bagot who first accuses Aumerle, and Bagot is one of those untrustworthy characters who had been corrupting Richard before the play started.

[Virgil]

No question, indeed. The parallel is pretty strong. The only difference I see between this scene and the very first in the play is that this one has a note of absurdity in it. There's something comical in how the simple accusation that starts Act IV devolves into a chaos of minor characters yelling "thou liest!" Okay, no, it isn't laugh out loud funny, but I think it's a little less dignified than the very formal proceeding between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. I think this is supposed to show how there can be no honor and order now that they've deposed a king. As the Bishop explains (and it is explanation since most of what he says comes true), "Peace shall go sleep with the Turk and infidels/ And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars" (139-40). One can only find honor and peace in barbarous east which is where Norfolk dies in a blaze of glory. The court which used to be peaceful is replaced with tumult. Hence, the chaotic dispute in Act IV.

Agreed. And there is something comical about it. I don't know if it was intended to be funny but it is.

Yeah, this is a good analysis. I might be a little wary of calling Bolingbroke just, but he's certainly a stronger leader.

Oh I don't think I called him just. I thought I've implied that he's Machiavelian through out this.

I particularly like the way Aumerle responds: "Who sets me else? By heaven, I'll throw at all!" I love the careless defiance of it. Next time I sense people are ganging up on me on LitNet I'll have to use that. "I'll throw at all!"

That is so funny. I will have to do the same. While I was reading all I could think was what other choice did Aumerle have but to fight. Actually the thought just occurred to me. This is what one would have expected of Richard. But Richard gives up without fight at all, not even a defense of his person. Aumerle here is in stark contrast to Richard and that is no accident. Shakespeare wanted us to have this contrast.

Henry even comments on the comedy of it. The episode does seem to stick out, though. I don't have a good explanation for it--other than maybe Shakespeare thought things were getting a little too serious. It also shows how Bolingbroke's rule is going to work. We see more of Henry being both decisive and generous when others might not be.

I think that this scene serves as contrast as I said above.

This is part of why I hesitate to call Henry just. His decisions don't seem to have any logic behind them. The criteria applied to one case is dropped in another.

I think the criteria is whether he will get to win the crown.

I'm not sure one way or another about Aumerle killing Gloucester. I haven't read anything in my intro blurb about the actual killing and I'm too lazy at this point to do any research on it, but I tend to think that Aumerle is innocent for all the reasons everyone's brought up. Also, it's Bagot who first accuses Aumerle, and Bagot is one of those untrustworthy characters who had been corrupting Richard before the play started.

I don't think we know. It's completely ambiguous.