Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Discuss the history and background of the plays here.

Mentioned in our earlier thread, but worth repeating, are these two titles on the historical background: John Julius Norwich, Shakespeare's Kings: The Great Plays and the History of England in the Middle Ages: 1337-1485 and Peter Saccio, Shakespeare's English Kings: History, Chronicle, and Drama.

Interesting as these books are though, there is the question whether the 'history plays' are more historic than, say, Macbeth or Lear. Is history their true subject, or just a pretext to develop another great story (or metaphor)?

I say, "Thank you, Wendel, for mentioning it again." If my library system has either of those, I'll put in a request and browse a bit. I really like background information.

The first time I read Richard II, I read it stand-alone. And I viewed Richard as naturally ... overbearing... even for a king who has fully embraced the divinely-appointed ruler belief.


But I re-read it when I was going to go see the play. And at that time I picked up a copy of "Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare."

And then I had to re-think Richard psychologically. Asimov writes that Richard become king at the age of 10. As he was a boy king, he was dominated by his uncles who really ruled (John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock). According to Asimov, Richard had really only managed to shake free from their influence the last few years of his life.

I thought about that... to be king... but without real power for so many, many years... and then to finally have it. To finally be able to exercise the powers of being a divinely-appointed king...

IF Richard is indeed acting imperviously in the opening scene---and to me, he seems to be--- I think I can understand that. God has FINALLY put the power in his hands. Where it was SUPPOSED to be.

Anyway...I enjoyed thinking about it.

Wendel wrote: "Interesting as these books are though, there is the question whether the 'history plays' are more historic than, say, Macbeth or Lear. Is history their true subject, or just a pretext to develop another great story (or metaphor)?

I say, Let them be both.

It may be interesting for people to keep in mind that these history plays actually exist simultaneously in three separate historical times.

First, of course, is the time of the narrative. While he conflates events and characters and omits incidents, Shakespeare is relating historical events.

However, second, and of equal or greater importance, is the historical period when the play was written and performed. What is his audience to make of the "meaning" of the history? Perhaps later we can discuss what Queen Elizabeth meant when she said, "You know I am Richard II."

Finally, as we read/watch the play, we do so with our knowledge of how history played out, and pondering how its themes relate to and illuminate issues in our own historical times.

I realize that this tripartite division applies to many works of art. However, I think it is particularly pertinent to these plays.

In another thread Wendel raised the important theme of sin and redemption. Moving it to this thread, I want to ask about the implication that Richard is to blame for a murder many years before the start of the play. I confess that my knowledge of this "pre-"history is sketchy at best. Perhaps someone can summarize clearly. As I see it the questions are these:

1. Who was murdered?
2. How was he related (or not) to Richard?
3. How did this affect the ascension of Richard to the throne?

This might also be a good place for us to learn who the Black Prince was and how he fits into our story.

Zeke,

The person being spoken about is Thomas of Woodstock, the 1st Duke of Gloucester, also the uncle of Richard II. According to Wikipedia he was the leader of a group called the "Lords Appellant" who were attempting to take power from Richard II. Eventually he was imprisoned and under guard by Thomas de Mowbray who we also meet in the first act of this play. It was during this time that he was murdered.

Remember that Richard II came to power as a 10 year old boy and as mentioned in another thread, he was manipulated by his elders who wanted control themselves. Only in his later years was he able to exercise any real authority.

At the time of the play's release in 1595 the current monarch was Queen Elizabeth who did not yet have a biological heir nor had she appointed one in case of her death.

Many rival factions were vying for her affections in the hope of having an heir appointed from their ranks. Elizabeth however, was aware that making a choice for one was in fact making a choice against the others and feared inciting trouble.

Adelle wrote: "I thought about that... to be king... but without real power for so many, many years... and then to finally have it. To finally be able to exercise the powers of being a divinely-appointed king... "

Nice point.

Zeke wrote: "It may be interesting for people to keep in mind that these history plays actually exist simultaneously in three separate historical times."

Absolutely.

I understand that there was some concern about playing it before Elizabeth because of the issue of a prospective tussle over her successor because she had no son.

.
For reference:
.
1377 King Richard II (grandson of Edward III, son of the Black Prince)....1377-1399
1399 King Henry IV (grandson of Edward III, son of John of Gaunt)....1399-1413
1413 King Henry V (son of Henry IV)....1413-1422
1422 King Henry VI (son of Henry V)....1422-1461
1461 King Edward IV ( youngest son of Edward III )....1461-1483
1483 King Richard III....1483-1485
(uncle of the usurped boy king Edward V, one of the Princes in the Tower,
who was the son of King Edward IV)
1485 Henry VII (grandson of Henry V)....1485-1509
1509 Henry VIII ( son of Henry VII)....1509-1547
1547 Edward VI (Henry's son by Jane Seymour)....1547-1553
1553 Mary (Henry's daughter by Queen Katherine of Aragon)....1553-1558
1558 Elizabeth I (Henry's daughter by Anne Boleyn)....1558-1603

http://www.datesandevents.org/people-...

See msg 16 for corrections from Pip!

1199 King John (fifth son of Henry II) 1199-1216

1216 King Henry III (son of John) 1216-1272

1272 King Edward I (son of Henry III) 1272-1307

1307 King Edward II (son of Edward I) 1307-1327

1327 King Edward III (son of Edward II) 1327-1377

1377 King Richard II (grandson of Edward III, son of the Black Prince) 1377-1399

The shortcoming of a list like this, is that it leaves out various uncles (and aunts). Note that Richard is grandson of the preceding king; and therein lies the tale.

Zeke wrote: "The shortcoming of a list like this, is that it leaves out various uncles (and aunts). Note that Richard is grandson of the preceding king; and therein lies the tale. "


Thank you, Zeke! I debated whether to post back to King John!

I agree with you about all that is missing. I want an overlay of a lot of people and events. Hopefully I can lay my hands on one of my favorite historical chronology books while we are doing this.

Dates for the plays are, according to this source (first production on left, printing on right):

1590-91... Henry VI, Part II...1594?
1590-91... Henry VI, Part III..1594?
1591-92... Henry VI, Part I....1623
1592-93... Richard III.........1597
1595-96... Richard II..........1597
1596-97... King John...........1623
1597-98... Henry IV, Part I....1598
1597-98... Henry IV, Part II...1600
1598-99... Henry V.............1600
1612-13... Henry VIII..........1623

A great deal of controversy exists about these dates and I suspect people here will have comments where particularly relevant. Intended this as a first order of magnitude sense of the dating. A little over a ten year span. Henry VIII appears to be after the death of Queen Elizabeth I.

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/key...

Links from each play lead to additional information.

By 1590 England was far enough into the long reign of QE1 that the country was certainly concerned about succession.

Lily wrote: ".
For reference:
.
1377 King Richard II (grandson of Edward III, son of the Black Prince)....1377-1399
1399 King Henry IV (grandson of Edward III, son of John of Gaunt)....1399-1413
1413 King Hen..."

Lily, it's the website you quote from that's got it wrong, not you, but...

Edward IV was the second son of Richard Duke of York and Cecily Neville. He was therefore Edward III's great-great-grandson, not his son.

Nor was Henry VII the grandson of Henry V; his grandfather Owen Tudor (probably) married the Henry V's widow, Catherine of Valois and they had two sons, Edmund and Jasper, the former being Henry VII's father.

Everyman wrote: "I understand there was some concern about playing it before Elizabeth because of the issue of a prospective tussle over her successor because she had no son."

I also imagine that any play dealing with the overthrow of an anointed monarch would have been dangerous too, especially considering how her grandfather, Henry VII, came by the crown...

On the other hand, John of Gaunt is key: we have to see him (and his heir Bolingbroke) in a favourable light because he was Henry Tudor's frail link to the succession and his claim to the throne. John was Elizabeth's right to be queen.

....And re doing away with anointed monarch, had Elizabeth had Mary QoS executed by the time the play was written? I need to check my dates.

Yes, she had. Ten years earlier. Dangerous ground even so.

Pip wrote: "Yes, she had. Ten years earlier. Dangerous ground even so."

February, 1587?

Pip -- I made a link to your corrections @16 in my post @12. Thank you for your comments/knowledge/scholarship! I'm not even going to try to untangle. If anything, I would simplify to the bare dates, enough to give a some sense of relative place in time.

Lily wrote: "Pip wrote: "Yes, she had. Ten years earlier. Dangerous ground even so."

February, 1587?

Pip -- I made a link to your corrections @16 in my post @12. Thank you for your comments/knowledge/schola..."

Yes, Feb 1587 :-))

You're right about keeping things as simple as possible - I was just just showing off really with Ed IV.
I think Henry VII's dodgy claim to the throne is important though - Elizabeth was the fifth Tudor, but still only 3rd generation. And apart from Mary QoS (already despatched) she still had plenty of rivals knocking about the court. If her grandfather Henry VII HAD been Henry V's grandson, there would have been little contest. If you were a Lancastrian, anyway ;-))

A few dates outlining Richards career:

1367 born in Bordeaux
1377 crowned king after his grandfather’s death, effective reign by various court factions
1381 Peasants’ Revolt
1383 Richard's party in power, his friend De la Pole (Suffolk) chancellor
1386 John of Gaunt departs for the continent (hoping to win the crown of Aragon), leaving his brother Woodstock (Gloucester) leader of the opposition
1386/87 struggle between Richard and the opposition ends with his defeat
1387/89 Lords Appellant rule, Richard’s favorites killed and exiled
1389 return of John of Gaunt leads to a sort of compromise
1394/95 Richard strengthens his position by a successful war in Ireland
1397 Gloucester and other magnates arrested and killed
1397 Mowbray and Bolingbroke exiled
1399 death of John of Gaunt, his son Bolingbroke disinherited and now banished for life
1399 Richard back in Ireland, Bolingbroke lands in Yorkshire
1400 Richard dies (age 33)

Richard was no warrior like his grandfather and grandson, and the magnates may have felt that attitude to question their raison d’être. On the other hand, it has also been suggested that Richard was averse to a major war because he feared it would strengthen the lords.

To compensate his lack of war-won prestige, Richard stressed the sacred aspects of kingship, the importance of court procedure (he was the first English king addressed as 'Majesty') and he loved pomp & circumstance. This display had both a material (for Richard’s treasures see: http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/in...) and a cultural side (he collected not only jewelry, but also books).

His court is often considered somewhat 'feminine’ and 'foreign’ (he was - happily - married to Anne of Bohemia and there were more than a few expensive foreign ladies in prominent positions). Richard's special interest in fashion may also have been suspect (he is credited with the invention of both the handkerchief and that most masculine garment, the codpiece).

PS: Anne died in 1394, two years later Richard remarried. The new queen was Isabella, daughter of the French king. She was at the time six years of age, so her appearance in the play is fantasy. Shakespeare too, could not do without a female star (played by a boy).

Wendell: To compensate his lack of war-won prestige, Richard stressed the sacred aspects of kingship, the importance of court procedure (he was the first English king addressed as 'Majesty') and he loved pomp & circumstance.

Wendell,and others, probably know far more about this topic than I do. My sense is that there is a transition occurring in the view of royalty from the Middle Ages (when the play occurs) to the Renaissance (when it was written). If I have it right, in the Middle Ages the king may have been the dominant lord, but there was not a sense that an ineffective king had some kind of right to be obeyed. Indeed, a weak or capricious king would be challenged. The king's legitimacy was, in a sense, endowed by his subjects. King John (Magna Carta) would be an example of this.

The idea of a "divine right" of kings, or of the king having two bodies came later. In this later conception, the king's mortal body could die but his political body continued on through the succession. This is why the contentions about whose line was the legitimate one were so intense.

If my superficial understanding is correct, this play reflects the tension between two conceptions of royalty. Richard represents the sacred perspective (at least in his own mind) and Bolingbroke is a "modern" politician though he is actually harking back to an older vision of royalty.

It's only that I recently read Norwich, Zeke. I'm not a mediaevalist.

But I think your observation makes sense, even if it seems also true that there was, from Shakespeare's point of view, a certain nostalgia for the (imagined) good old days when crafty politicians like Bolingbroke would never have dreamt of removing an anointed king.

And the idea that kings were more than just war leaders goes far back - medieval kings were thought to have healing powers and spend considerable time 'touching' sick subjects.

Richard wasn't a warrior but he wasn't lacking in courage on occasion, such as confronting the peasants during the revolt. I think though, based on his actions later in life, that this stemmed from, or strengthened his belief in, the divine right of kings or similar feeling. He was a boy king and this reportedly grated on him and he marched into parliament and confronted them winning the right to be King in reality. Again I think this came from his over weaning belief in his own majesty.

He had favourites who were disliked, always dangerous, and showed no desire to reform. It is charitable to say that it was because he was young; he was old enough to do many other things he wanted.

I don't think he was 'evil' as such, my view of Richard has always been that he was spoiled, immature, lacking in judgement and overwhelmingly convinced in his untouchable status as king. An absolutely fatal combination.

Peter Saccio: "Although Richard stayed on the throne for twenty two years, distinguishing himself in several causes by great personal courage, he never fully recovered from the circumstances of its [his reign's]inception. Surrounded as he was by powerful, not to say greedy uncles and cousins, Richard the child was perforce submissive, and Richard the adult tyrannically vengeful."

Wendel wrote: "A few dates outlining Richards career:

"

One thing this points out is that Richard's grasp on the throne was never all that secure. He was a child when he was crowned, so he got to act as though he were a real king without having any real power. Then there was the Peasant's Revolt against his authority, then for awhile he was effectively deposed in favor of the Lords Appellant. Even after he retained power, some of his opponents were still around and still powerful. So his hold on the crown was pretty tenuous throughout his reign.

Act I, Scene II, the Duchess of Gloucester:

"Farewell, old Gaunt: thy sometimes brother's wife,
With her companion grief must end her life [54] ...

"Therefore commend me; let him [Edmund, Duke of York] not come there,
To seek out sorrow that dwells every where.
Desolate, desolate, will I hence and die:
The last leave of thee takes my weeping eye [71]"

The Duchess died the following year, age 33.

Act I, Scene III. The Lists at Coventry.

"My Lord Aumerle, is Harry Hereford arm'd?"

Lord Aumerle (Edward) is the son of Edmund, Duke of York.
He is 25 years old.
He is a firm supporter of Richard.
Following the death/murder? of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, Edward was given most of Gloucester's estates and at that time was given the title Duke of Aumerle (Albemarle)

Act I, Scene III. "the frost Caucasus" [295]

"The Caucasus was the name of a mountain in Greek mythology, one that was placed on the eastern edge of their known world, on the eastern shores of the Black Sea--where a whole range of peaks are now known as the Caucasian Mountains in consequence. Mount Caucasus was imagined to be higher and therefore colder than any other mountain on earth, and it can be used, poetically, to symbolize ultimate cold" (from Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare, p 275)

Act I, Scene III.

"Ourself and Bushy, Bagot here and Green" [23]

Sir John Bushy, Sir John Bagot, and Sir Henry Green.
When Thomas of Gloucester lived, they had been on his side. With Gloucester dead, Richard brought them to his own side.

Shifty loyalties in this play.

One last background from Act I.

Richard had led an army into Ireland in 1394.
He had the army there...but really...he settled matters through distribution of titles and land.
On his return to England in 1395 "he found himself welcomed as a conquering hero."

In 1398, one of the primary Irish signers of the peace agreement, tore up "the paper he had signed... [and] even engineered the assassination of the English viceroy, Roger de Mortimer" (Asimov, 277)

Zeke wrote: "Note that Richard is grandson of the preceding king; and therein lies the tale.


Chosen by the king [Edward III] himself:

Christmas feast at Windsor 1376. "Richard's father, the Black Prince, was dying and would not live long enough to reign. The boy, Richard, must be recognized as the rightful heir. Edward had all his magnates to swear to uphold Richard as their 'only lawful lord and undoubted sovereign.' Now, at the Christmas banquet, Edward exalted the prince by placing him at his side at the high table, so that no one in the huge hall could mistake his status as heir....

His grandfather had given him a place of honor on many ceremonial occasions....

After the crowning, Richard was lifted high on the shoulders of one of his knights and carried, wearing his full regalia, through cheering crowds to the palace" (from Royal Panoply, Carolly Erickson, p 91-92)

{Quite a heady experience for a 9-year-old.}




Everyone is familiar, probably, with the story of how 14-year-old Richard rode out to calm the riots (houses had been broken into, churches had been plundered, buildings in London burned, severed heads impaled on pikes... even "the private apartments of the king's mother" had been broken into and looted).

Richard rode out, "Sirs, will you kill your king?" he shouted. "I am your captain. Follow me."

And they did. "And afterward, when he rode through Essex and Hertfordshire, supervising the trials and brutal punishment of the rebels (for he had no intention of genuinely granting them amnesty or ending serfdom; his promises had been a ruse) (p93).




"Richard thought highly of himself, and demanded, as his grandfather never had, that others kneel before him. He lashed out, verbally and physically at anyone who criticized him" (93).


1390, crops failed. 1391, famine. Plague in some towns. "The king, his treasury depleted, refused to cut back on his expenditures." He borrowed money and hosted elaborate tournaments (96).



In 1394 when his wife Anne died, "he ordered the palace where she died, Sheen Manor, torn down, so that not a single brick or stone was left standing" (96).






Royal Panoply: Brief Lives of the English Monarchs

Adelle wrote: "In 1394 when his wife Anne died, "he ordered the palace where she died, Sheen Manor, torn down, so that not a single brick or stone was left standing" (96)."

That would certainly deter me from inviting him over for lunch!

Adelle wrote: "Act I, Scene III. The Lists at Coventry.

"My Lord Aumerle, is Harry Hereford arm'd?"

Lord Aumerle (Edward) is the son of Edmund, Duke of York.
He is 25 years old.
He is a firm supporter of Ri..."

Adelle, I thought that, although Shakespeare shows him as a supporter of Richard, that he actually immediately defaulted to Bolingbroke when he arrived in England? Please forgive me if I read wrong.

Although have never followed closely, most things I have read in recent years have suggested that Shakespeare characterized Richard II in his play so as to make the political points he desired in his contemporary world rather than to provide historical accuracy -- still cannot really distinguish what is key to the arguments!

Lily wrote: "Although have never followed closely, most things I have read in recent years have suggested that Shakespeare characterized Richard II in his play so as to make the political points he desired in h..."

I have read this also, only that Shakespeare didn't just follow this in Richard II, but that he does it in all of his history plays. I haven't read enough Shakespeare to know. Although, if I am correct about Aumerle and the above observation is true, I wonder how changing his role in Richard's life helped put his point across?

@ 36 Genni wrote, "Adelle, I thought that, although Shakespeare shows him as a supporter of Richard, that he actually immediately defaulted to Bolingbroke when he arrived in England? Please forgive me if I read wrong."

I looks to me as though you're pretty much right. Maybe not "immediately"...but really quickly if I'm reading the history sites rights. (??)

Shakespeare has Aumerle supporting Richard almost to the end.

This site seems to say that Aumerele supported Richard...and then at some non-defined time defaulted, as you say, to Bolingbroke. http://www.shakespeareandhistory.com/...


And this site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_o...

has Aumerle accompanying Richard to Ireland in May... but going over to Bolingbroke towards the end of July or early August --- after his own father, the Duke of York, went over to Bolingbroke.

From wikipdia:

In May 1399 Aumale accompanied King Richard to Ireland, and in the King's absence, Bolingbroke landed, towards the end of June, near Ravenspur, Yorkshire, with a small band of exiles. During the following three weeks Bolingbroke's forces were augmented by loyal Lancastrian supporters and were soon joined by the most powerful of the northern magnates, the Earls of Northumberland and Westmorland. King Richard's fatal decision to divide his army while still in Ireland has been attributed to advice from Aumale. The King sent some of his troops on ahead to North Wales under the command of the Earl of Salisbury, and about 19 July arrived at Milford Haven in South Wales with the rest of his forces. News of the strength of Bolingbroke's army then caused the King to desert the troops which were with him and travel to North Wales in an attempt to join Salisbury. However Salisbury's troops, having heard rumours of the King's death, had dispersed, and the army left behind by the King did so as well. Although he could have made his escape by sea, the King ensnared himself in negotiations with Bolingbroke. Meanwhile Aumale's father, Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, who had been left in charge of the kingdom during King Richard's absence, and had raised an army on hearing of Bolingbroke's landing in Yorkshire, capitulated to Bolingbroke at Berkeley on 27 July. Aumale speedily deserted to Bolingbroke as well, and was reportedly wearing Bolingbroke's livery when he was among those sent by Bolingbroke to the King at Flint Castle.[8]

Hope that is helpful.
"

So basically, we read Shakespeare not as history but as drama loosely based on some historical people and facts.

Everyman wrote: "So basically, we read Shakespeare not as history but as drama loosely based on some historical people and facts."

And yet, for his audiences, many of whom were illiterate and had no reliable source of history, how many took Shakespeare's history as gospel? Certainly his view of Richard III, although we're not reading it in this set, became the gold standard even though factually it is highly questionable.

Everyman wrote: "And yet, for his audiences, many of whom were illiterate and had no reliable source of history, how many took Shakespeare's history as gospel? Certainly his view of Richard III, although we're not reading it in this set, became the gold standard even though factually it is highly questionable.


I was wondering along similar lines. I was supposing that there might well have been a little oral history passed down from generation to generation...

That probably people would have known the names of the books of the Bible... (?) and the names of the kings... possible a few major events.... And if the stories were built around a few actual and known events... it would make the whole story more believable... ("The best lies are half truths." "Half a truth is often a great lie." Etc.)

Even today when one could actually find a reputable source for much information... misinformation abounds.

LOL... I remember that I wouldn't let my little daughter go see the movie "101 Dalmatians" until after I had read the book to her --- I wanted her to know the "real" story before the movie skewered her view.

So many movies and TV movies are labeled "based on true events." What exactly does that mean? And how often do viewers simply take the movie as true?

With movies and plays... the immediacy of the visuals and the hooks of well-crafted lines make THAT version more memorable. And after we have remembered it often enough, it acquires a degree of "truthiness."

Regarding Richard III. Years back I gave my niece two books: "The Sunne in Splendor" (in which Richard didn't have his nephews killed/ and ... "The Princes in the Tower"... which leaned heavily toward, yes... for practical reasons he practically had to and probably did.)

In the introduction to "The Princes in the Tower," if I remember correctly, Allison Weir wrote something to the effect that history is written by the winners... and thus the narrative of Richard III was written when Henry VII was on the throne.

Little bits of info I thought interesting with respect to Act II. Information from Asimov. Longish. No spoilers. I just liked this stuff. I plan to focus more on the play itself for the other plays of the Henriad. (view spoiler)[

Act II, Scene i, Lines 17-23:

No, it is stopped with other flattering sounds;
As praises -- of whose taste [even] the wise are fond--
Lascivious meters, to whose venom sound
The open ear of youth doth always listen;
Report of fashions in proud Italy
Whose manners still our tardy-apish nation
Limps after in base imitation."

Someone had written earlier (apologies... I don't recall who it was) ... that there were three timelines to consider... What happened in the time of Richard II... What was happening in Shakespeare's time.

Asimov writes that "the reference to Italy is anachronistic and is more nearly an expression of Shakespeare's own nationalism rather than of York's in 1399" (279) .... that the Renaissance of Italy didn't really reach England until the 16th century.

Asimov writes that Gaunt's "this England" speech, too, is somewhat anachronistic. That during Richard's time, England was not on the defensive "against the envy of less happier lands."

"In Gaunt's time, the English armies had won heady victory over France and had interfered effectively in Spanish affairs" (281). Indeed, we see Richard II taking an army to Scotland, to Ireland.

But in SHAKESPEARE'S time... in 1588... Spain had sent the Spanish Armada against England.





Towards our assistance we do seize to us
The plate, coin, revenues, and moveables
Whereof our uncle Gaunt did stand possessed161-63


Apparently... that estate should have gone immediately to Henry Bolingbroke... unless Bolingbroke were guilty of treason... and no one had accused him of treason when he was exiled.

And apparently this was a huge factor in Bolingbroke's support... if Richard could simply take Bolingbroke's estate... then Richard could take that of any of his nobles.

Asimov writes, "All kinds of tyranny might be endured as long as money, property, revenues are held sacred" (284). And I think of what an important role the economy plays in elections today. "It's the economy, stupid."


This, I thought, was worth knowing:

The Queen wants to know why Northumberland, etc., have not been declared traitors.

Green replies, "We have; whereupon the Earl of Worcester/ Hath broken his staff, resigned his stewardship,/ And all the household servants fled with him/ To Bolingbroke" Act II, scene ii, 58-61.

Asimov writes that the Earl of Worcester... was Thomas Percy... Northumberland's younger brother. "Rather than name his brother and nephew traitors, he joined their company" (289).




And the last bit of info from Act II I liked... because I found it so sadly poignant ...


Act II, scene ii, 117-18:

Richard must make a stand. York says:

"Gentlemen, go muster up your men,
And meet me presently at Berkeley"

Berkeley. Ten miles from the Welsh border.

"It was here, only seventy years before, that the King's great-grandfather, Edward II, was brutally murdered after HIS deposition" (289). Yes... Richard was deposed there, nor did he die there... but if one knew something of Edward II's story and knew the end of Richard II... this would cast such a dark shadow.

(hide spoiler)]

Thanks, Adelle, for all your comments.

I noticed my library has the Asimov comments. Based on your readings, I may go back and borrow it!

I finally watched a BBC version of Richard II tonight. I ended wondering what history is it worth learning (at this stage in my life -- younger, I wouldn't have asked).

You're so welcome. Just interesting bits. But pros and cons.

Asimov's information enriched the play for me. HOWEVER. .. I read Asimov before I saw the play last year. He interspersed his information with analysis and interpretation... which once read can't easily be put aside. I have tried to omit that from my posts.

I don't want to read him regarding the rest of the plays until after I have read the play and wrestled with the plays themselves. I want to try to do some close reading.

Adelle wrote: "Everyman wrote: "And yet, for his audiences, many of whom were illiterate and had no reliable source of history, how many took Shakespeare's history as gospel? Certainly his view of Richard III, al..."

Ack! The Sunne in Splendor is one of my favorite fictional works! And how funny, I followed it up with Weir's book also to see the opposing view.

Thank you for the notes from Asimov. Great notes. You have done far more reading than I have. I am not even sure why the bit about Aumerle stood out to me because honestly, I am having a hard time keeping both the characters from the play and their real life counterparts straight!

Genni wrote: keeping both the characters from the play and their real life counterparts straight!
"

LOL, there is that, isn't there? And then, too, as in War and Peace, everyone seems to have more than one name, more than one title.

Patrice wrote: "Why does the queen say that the Tower of London was constructed by Julius Caesar? I just looked it up and according to Wiki it was constructed in 1078 by William the Conquerer."

According to Asimov, the LEGEND was that it had first been built by Julius Ceasar. He adds that although the Tower had a dreadful reputation in Shakespeare's day, that during Richard's time it didn't.

Aside, I haven't read it, but there's a book that came out relatively recently on that subject.

Tower: An Epic History of the Tower of London

Genni wrote: . The Sunne in Splendor is one of my favorite fictional works!

I loved it too. I always tended to think of Edward as a JFK character---better looking, more charming, the role of leader, wanting women in his life; and Richard as RFK...smaller, darker, but the fighter.

Adelle wrote: "I loved it too. I always tended to think of Edward as a JFK character---better looking, more charming, the role of lea..."

Nice! I had not thought of that. :-)

I agree that Asimov can be very much worth reading, but I also agree with Adelle that it's best to read him after reading (or seeing) the play, so you have something to measure his analysis against. Usually I agree with his views, but not always. But he's always interesting!

An amazing man when you consider all the genres he wrote very capably in. Biology, science fiction, literary criticism (in addition to his Guide to Shakespeare, he wrote an annotated version of Paradise Lost which I read during our discussion of that book), mysteries (his Black Widow mysteries are great fun), science textbooks and serious scientific works including astronomy, chemistry, and biology, history, Biblical commentary, and various other works. Amazingly prolific in many, many areas.

Everyman wrote: "I agree that Asimov can be very much worth reading, but I also agree with Adelle that it's best to read him after reading (or seeing) the play, so you have something to measure his analysis against..."

Prolific. Wasn't he though! Did you read Stephen King's Tommyknockers? When I read of people who do what seems like more than mere humans can do... I always think of The Talisman...

And that there's maybe a body or two out in the barn serving as batteries.

I like Asimov because I couldn't do that much background research myself...and he hands it to me on a platter all nice and readable.

But not a meal for the Sprats.

Jack Sprat could eat no fat,
His wife could eat no lean;
And so between the two of them
They licked the platter clean.

With Asimov, I can't seem to separate the lean (the facts) from the fat (the analysis).

His facts -- which are wonderful --- are woven into his interpretations... so I've tried to stay away from commenting much on Richard II the play... too much of my take on Richard is overshadowed by Asimov's.


(Ha ha! There may be a Gloucester involved. http://www.rhymes.org.uk/jack_sprat.htm)