Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Richard III, Act 4 & 5, June 1
date
newest »
newest »
Rather quiet here in act 4 - the discussion part I mean. In the play murders fowl abound as do Queens being querelous, cursing and crying.I can't help but see the 'queens' including Anne (about to queened to Richard) as men dressed up as women and in a way that you know that they are men dressed up as women. So all the cursing and carrying on I imagine to be in caricature and overblown (falsetto voice etc. and so a bit of a joke).
And then there is the oddness of newly kinged Richard talking with a page about who he might hire to do some dirty business for him. Suspension of belief there for me. And then the name Terrel is given and he promptly appears and agrees to do the evil deed of offing children in the tower.
Scene 3 act 4 enter Terrel
Terrel|: "The tyrannous act is done, -
The most arch deed of piteous massacre
that ever yet this land was guilty of...."
It's the killing of royal children (Richard's nephews actually) that Terrel finds so infamous. Murder is one thing but murder of 'royal' children is another matter.
And here I'm thinking that he's done the murders himself, but no he's got two named, hapless, not really up to the job blokes with the very specific names of Forrest and Dighton, to do the dirty work. How curious. There has got to be some in-joke here. No?
What's it all about Alfie?
Good insights, James.I'm up to Act V now.
I'm really grateful to Martin for giving me a copy , as it's a play I've been meaning to read for ages and my library doesn't have a print copy, even in the 'reserved stock', but I have found the play a bit dismal to read, perhaps because there isn't an effective opposition to Richard until the end. Also, for some reason , I'm not enjoying the dark humour of his villainy.
A question might be Lucinda, why this dark humor about villainy? What is point is Shakespeare trying to make?I can say that it's one of my least favourite Shakespeare plays. Maybe I_m not getting it.
Great opening lines though, even if they are ambiguous.
Yes I too have been reading the first few scenes of Act 5. It's turning into a morality play I think. The bad guy gets done in the end.
It makes the aristocrats and upper class look like hapless ammoral twats, and the poor people/the masses/various functionaries, to be hopeless fools to follow the idiots in charge just because they declare 'I'm in charge'.
By the way have you ever thought of buying a complete Shakespeare? I have 3. They can be quite cheap though they do make for a heavier read.
Mod
Strange coincidence...but the last few times we have done a group reading, my wifi and cable service has gone off. I just got it fixed. So...back
Good insights James. I really am going to have to ponder on this idea of a kind of dark humour. I don'tthink I would have thought about that. And our suggestion that the names of the actualmurderes seem so whimsical. I want to do some looking into those names.
I don't think this is the greatest play....for action or passion.
I really do see it as a study in a person like...and here comes Dickens. When you point out those name sJames, the first thing I thought of was Dickens characters. Obvi Dickens has adopted the use of whimsical, layered naming from Shakespeare...but by Dickens we now know to watch for it.
So...what I see is a study of a personality.. We would call it a personality disporder in the USA these days. Richard is a classic narsicist. And I think he is also what we would today label... "incel"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
I don't see this as a morality play but rather the examination of evil. Or the examination of damaged mind.
Personality disorder.
It doesn't matter if it's "true" or not because the truth is we are being warned of how a malignant personality can slide into society and no one stands up against it. They manuevuer the fact that it takes people so long to find out ow duplicitous they are...they can perform evil within a community. (or office, workplace, family)
I think the reason the "royals" are discussed is because in ancient societies, especially in UK...royalty is connected to god. It is a spiritual post. When the king is sick, the land is sick (R3 and Hamlet as good examples...and King Arthur legends)
So to kill a royal is to involve oneself with the gods and take on the repercussions of the gods in pay back.
Candy wrote: "So to kill a royal is to involve oneself with the gods and take on the repercussions of the gods in pay back."I think this belief began to lose ground (among the English, anyway) right around the time Shakespeare was writing his plays. He could safely consider regicide if the murdering was between royals, particularly two royal houses - as we have with Richard III. But Shakespeare would have to wait until Elizabeth I was dead before he could seriously tackle the killing of a sitting royal (with any given narrative) absent of that sort of national conflict, the first of which - under James I - was The Scottish Play. (There's an excellent 3 part doc by James Shapiro on Shakespeare under James I called, The King and The Playwright, on YouTube that I highly recommend.)
Elizabeth I, herself, just before Shakespeare burst on the London scene had to wrestle with signing the death warrant of her first cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, who she had held in close confinement for nearly 20 years. The killing of a crowned head was a serious act with religious and political consequences, the contemporary impact of which was lessened if, in this case, a playwright could chalk it up to "civil war". But he always had to be careful about the manner in which he presented it, regardless. Under King James the specter of witchcraft and factional conspiracy (like the very real "Gunpowder Plot" against James) made it easier to present a play which considered regicide provided, as you put it, "the repercussions of the gods in payback" was the outcome. James was very much an advocate of The Divine Right of Kings. And you can certainly trace vestiges of that moral dictum down to present day dramatic entertainment where antagonists and protagonists alike almost never get away with eliminating any figure holding the supreme seat of authority.
In Richard III the arc of this moral universe swings inevitably back in the direction of justice , not merely the hands of those from whom the earthly seat of power was wrestled (The House of Lancaster). It's the case Shakespeare had to make for Richmond (and The Tudor line - of which Elizabeth I was), which superseded any consideration of superior strategy or strength in fighting numbers for the new king.
It isn't always clear what justice is in real life, much less in Shakespeare, but I'd say with this play he makes a case for justice setting England back on track rather than question its validity which he would certainly do in later plays.
Interesting comments, Candy and Marlin.I suppose a 'personality disorder' sums it up, Candy; and I suppose, too, as you suggest, a lot of Dickens' characters behaved like caricatures and seem to have mental health problems of one sort or another.
And as you say, the belief is hinted at that if you kill a ruler then you have challanged the gods (unless you are another ruler).
And Richard had killed Henry VI.
As you say, Marlin, this HAD to be a piece of Tudor propoganda - or I supose very likely Shakespeare might have 'had the question' put to him in the Tower - ie, been subject to a spot of torture for treasonous views. I suppose that is one of the reasons why Richard III is depicted almost as a pantomime villain.
Lucinda, it's interesting that you mention pantomime. That crossed my mind as well. At times I could almost see the crowd booing and hissing every time Richard stepped on stage to share his latest evil plans. And Candy, it does strike me as well as a study of a personality disorder. Richard reminds me of some folks I've met over the course of my career who seemed at least on the road to psychopathy. Thankfully they didn't have ready access to arms. I can't imagine living in a world where such a person would have (almost) absolute power, and widely be believed to be divinely ordained.
Well, Act IV, Scene 4 is surely one of the longest and most unwieldy scenes in the entire play (imo). Of course, we can't forget that it was Heminges and Condell, two of Shakespeare's former fellow players, who more-than-likely divided their version of Richard III into acts and scenes for the 1623 edition of the First Folio, long after the play was initially performed. Little to none of these divisions probably existed in Shakespeare's initial drafts. But I'd argue that this scene is one of the most crucial in the play because if it doesn't come off well the audience, knowing what the ending will bring, could lose interest and turn to other distractions. Richard almost has too much to do: Suffer the curses of the royal women (which involves more than just passive listening as he and his band (playing flourishes) banter with the bitter Duchess); win the cooperation of the vexed Queen Elizabeth, whose daughter's hand will secure the continued legitimacy of Richard's throne and then gather and ready forces for the upcoming confrontation with Richmond, including the questioning of the chief threat to his throne, Lord Stanley.Shakespeare pulls out all the stops, utilizing the best aspects of his craft, including all we have seen up to this point in his arsenal rhetorical devices to hold the audience's interest as he raises the stakes for Richard in his fight to maintain power in England. How successful do you all feel he is with scene 4? Does it really work? Is it too long? Does it exhaust your patience or make you lean forward with anticipation of the calamitous final act? (There is a scene 5 which follows but at 19 lines it's much more of a detail of exposition than dramatic development - and probably not by Shakespeare, himself.)
Interesting, Marlin. I dont' think I read this scene with sufficient attention, because I
felt it fell a long way below Shakespeare's normal standard.
Maybe I was underestimating what he was depicting; I don't know.
I'm not sure exactly what Shakespeare is depicting: are there undercurrents at play?
Is he depicting Richard suceeding -or Richard thinking he has succeeded - but for the unknown facto - the unknown factor being Queen Elizabeth's duplicity.
After all, she was wily enough in 'Henry Vi' Part iii to get Edward to make her his queen. Has she been so weakened by grief that she just caves in, or has she got an ulterior motive? Is she humouring him?
What he proposes is incestuous in the UK now and surely must have been forbidden by the church then because they opposed far less close degrees of relationship and I suppose Richard plans a papal dispensation.
I don't feel as if Edward's 'Bess' has been won over. I can't believe
any natural mother could forgive him for killing off her two boys, and she seems to have promised her daugher to Richmond a the same time (though I may have misssed something).
Oh, I think Richard is absolutely succeeding in convincing Elizabeth that her and the country's best interests lie with his proposed marriage to her daughter, Lucinda. Whether or not she likes it is another matter. Richard -If I did take the kingdom from your sons,
To make amends, Ill give it to your daughter.
If I have kill'd the issue of your womb,
To quicken your increase, I will beget
Mine issue of your blood upon your daughter
A grandam's name is little less in love
Than is the doting title of a mother;
They are as children but one step below,
Even of your mettle, of your very blood;
Of an one pain, save for a night of groans
Endured of her, for whom you bid like sorrow.
Your children were vexation to your youth,
But mine shall be a comfort to your age.
The loss you have is but a son being king,
And by that loss your daughter is made queen.
I cannot make you what amends I would,
Therefore accept such kindness as I can.
Dorset your son, that with a fearful soul
Leads discontented steps in foreign soil,
This fair alliance quickly shall call home
To high promotions and great dignity:
The king, that calls your beauteous daughter wife.
Familiarly shall call thy Dorset brother;
Again shall you be mother to a king,
And all the ruins of distressful times
Repair'd with double riches of content.
What! we have many goodly days to see:
The liquid drops of tears that you have shed
Shall come again, transform'd to orient pearl,
Advantaging their loan with interest
Of ten times double gain of happiness.
And a bit later...
In her consists my happiness and thine;
Without her, follows to this land and me,
To thee, herself, and many a Christian soul,
Death, desolation, ruin and decay:
It cannot be avoided but by this;
It will not be avoided but by this.
Therefore, good mother,--I must can you so--
Be the attorney of my love to her:
Plead what I will be, not what I have been;
Not my deserts, but what I will deserve:
Urge the necessity and state of times,
And be not peevish-fond in great designs.
Richard has not lost any of the wit and craftiness that we saw in the first act - and he makes a valid argument for the safety of the kingdom with his continued reign and potential marriage. I have two movie versions of the play on DVD where the performance of the exchange between Elizabeth and Richard is one of the best moments in the 1983 BBC film but cut altogether in the Laurence Olivier 1955 version. I think the absence of the continued tension between Richard and the bereaved royal women is a serious weakness in the Olivier film. To minimize that aspect of the play to almost nothing is to remove one of its strongest characteristics. Structurally, I see the Elizabeth/Richard segment as kind of mirror of the Anne/Richard wooing scene where Richard's argument and one line exchanges with both women contain some of the best wit and verbal sparring in the play and is quite similar to the type of rhetorical play contained in Shakespeare's sonnets. To me it's where Shakespeare is unmistakably Shakespeare (not Marlowe, Jonson, de Vere, Queen Elizabeth I or any of the other myriad supposed Shakespeare "authors").
And no, Lucinda, I don't feel Elizabeth is humoring Richard, especially after this:
QUEEN ELIZABETH
Shall I be tempted of the devil thus?
KING RICHARD III
Ay, if the devil tempt thee to do good.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
Shall I forget myself to be myself?
KING RICHARD III
Ay, if yourself's remembrance wrong yourself.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
But thou didst kill my children.
KING RICHARD III
But in your daughter's womb I bury them:
Where in that nest of spicery they shall breed
Selves of themselves, to your recomforture.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
Shall I go win my daughter to thy will?
KING RICHARD III
And be a happy mother by the deed.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
I go. Write to me very shortly.
And you shall understand from me her mind.
KING RICHARD III
Bear her my true love's kiss; and so, farewell.
We (the audience) may not be persuaded by his charm by this point in the play but, clearly, Elizabeth feels she still has something to gain by the proposal. She knows he's foul but she's also (as you allude to above) a decidedly political player. It's the player in Elizabeth to which Richard appeals here as opposed to the lover in Anne to which he appealed in Act II, although the method and figurative language is startingly similar.
Intrigiuing, Marlin. Perhaps it is the only way to safeguard the remains of her family, and meanwhile she hopes that Richmond will overthrow Richard?
Lucinda wrote: "Intrigiuing, Marlin. Perhaps it is the only way to safeguard the remains of her family, and meanwhile she hopes that Richmond will overthrow Richard?"Oh yeah, I think she's definitely doing the expedient thing. Unless I've made a glaring omission it seems we never really know her mind, other than her obvious hatred of Richard. She seems the most opaque of the royal women who figure the most prominently in the play. I found it odd, for instance, that at the top of IV. iv, Shakespeare has her ask Margaret how to curse. Then, later in the scene, he has her spar admirably well with the deft Richard. Is that what she ultimately she wants? Is that her ultimate objective in the play? To get it on with another king ? Forgive the crude euphemism but what else are we to think? After Edward dies she, like almost all the women, seem to dangle by the wayside with nothing in particular to do but rail against king. What is there in the language or narrative that would lead us to make assumptions about their hopes in any direction?
Except Margaret. Margaret, at least, tells us from the git that she wants to see Richard's head on a stick.
I know what you mean, Marlin. I suppose here, as everywhere where things do not have a satisfactory conclusion, we wonder if some lines were lost, given that to retrieve the plays we had such unsatisfactory sources as those of the prompter. One would expect a re-appearance of the widows- or at least a reference to them, but it doesn't happen. I agree she is hard to interpret. She clearly uses Edward's infatuation earlier, while others speak very harshly about her being a (comparatively) low born widow with a family by her first husband as well as by Edward, who by the standards of the time was getting on. Later she seems more of a conventional figure, anxious for the king's health, then a grieving widow and bereaved mother. This seems to be hard to reconcile with her taking up with another man, though perhaps she might if he was powerful, to protect her family, though I assume she was seen as 'aged' and beyond such goings on by the standards of the time. I assume Margaret is meant to be some sort of morality figure of vengeance, or some such image - a woman twisted by rage and ill wishing her enemies - a pagan would say 'the dark side of the goddess' has been brought out in her through the murders of her husband and particularly, her son. I suppose that 'O kill me too' was the last of her humanity. Elizabeth doesn't seem to want to emulate her at first, but those words you quote seem to show her wavering. The Duchess of York just seems to be ineffectual here. I am sorry to say I have forgotten what her role was in the three parts of Henry Vi, though I only read them a couple of years ago.
Well, since I've talked so much about the royal women in the play I thought I'd pass along a link to the 1983 BBC film version of Richard III to which I've often referred and which, as this program synopsis notes, includes the women's parts in full. It's a free streaming version uploaded in 5 parts
here
. Even if it's not to your taste everyone here should probably give it a single go. Cheers.
Marlin wrote: "Well, since I've talked so much about the royal women in the play I thought I'd pass along a link to the 1983 BBC film version of Richard III to which I've often referred and which, as this program..."Thank you, Marlin, what a great resource. It is very interesting to see different interpretations of any Shakespeare play.
When I have a moment, I will certainly look it up.
Clari wrote: "Marlin wrote: "Well, since I've talked so much about the royal women in the play I thought I'd pass along a link to the 1983 BBC film version of Richard III to which I've often referred and which, ..."You're Welcome. You know I just realized it was directed by a woman (Jane Howell). And while that should not make any substantial difference - apparently it does.
Mod
You're Welcome.
Mod
I am going to agree it's not as strong a "play" with verse, excitement...as other Shakespeare's plays. I think now its not a very good play.
BUT I am sticking with my feeling of what an incredible character Richard is and has been created by Shakespeare...worth it for that.
To earlier comments I made about the karma of killing a king, or royalty. I believe Marlin you said that mystical belief was dying out by Shakespeares' times?
I did find in Act 4 however that this discussion...suggests to me the kind of power and mysticism I feel was still active....
(and also...how else to explain the fascination British citizens feel about their royalty? In Canada we arenot so fond of the Windsors...working to release any grip they have on our autonomy. Although the wohoke world is fascinated by portrayal of pwer and wealth...see popularity of THE CROWN)
KING RICHARD III
Wrong not her birth, she is of royal blood.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
To save her life, I'll say she is not so.
KING RICHARD III
Her life is only safest in her birth.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
And only in that safety died her brothers.
KING RICHARD III
Lo, at their births good stars were opposite.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
No, to their lives bad friends were contrary.
KING RICHARD III
All unavoided is the doom of destiny.
QUEEN ELIZABETH
True, when avoided grace makes destiny:
My babes were destined to a fairer death,
If grace had bless'd thee with a fairer life.
Candy wrote: "I did find in Act 4 however that this discussion...suggests to me the kind of power and mysticism I feel was still active....(and also...how else to explain the fascination British citizens feel about their royalty? In Canada we arenot so fond of the Windsors...working to release any grip they have on our autonomy. Although the wohoke world is fascinated by portrayal of pwer and wealth...see popularity of THE CROWN)
"
There's no question that to this day the royal family is still revered in England but I'd argue that the mysticism you speak of which was associated with English royalty was gone long before Shakespeare wrote Richard III; in fact, before Henry VIII broke with Rome and the Catholic Church to form the Anglican Church. At the time of the play's writing the political power that Elizabeth wielded united the realm but she was hardly regarded in the same vein as Jesus Christ or even The Pope (as I believe you may have suggested earlier) like some of the previous monarchs had been viewed. There's also the omnipresence of Parliament in England which had real power by the age of Elizabeth I. In fact, in another 55 years after Richard III premiered the country would witness the first public beheading of an English king, Charles I, when The English Revolution overturned the monarchy altogether. So, I don't argue that the monarchy had lost its hold on the loyalty and/or reverence of its subjects but that it certainly did not have the power of inspiration and awe that it once did as Shakespeare's messing about with its legitimacy confirms. And I'm not making the case that Shakespeare is questioning its validity (that, I don't think he ever did) but he certainly is questioning who is justified in claiming it.
Can you imagine him writing this sort of play in just a few reigns earlier, say, under Henry VIII (No way could he and his company have performed it under Mary I!). That council, which had to deal with a monarch whose behavior and suspicions put even his own wives' lives in jeopardy, would never brook this type of entertainment. So it must be said that Elizabeth's purposeful broadening (toleration?) of the cultural scene in England was a definite boon for artists of all kinds. It had much to do with the real burgeoning of what is now regarded as The English Renaissance, though I suspect it was more "common sense" on her part not "to make a window of men's souls". I'm sure she knew that the kind of unquestioning loyalty or obsequiousness that Shakespeare suggests King Richard demanded of his subjects (once he came to the throne) at that point in English history was bound to backfire.
Hi, all. Now I am nearly caught back up with the forum.Having disposed of most of the potential opposition and competition, and wielding convoluted and unconvincing arguments about the illegitimacy of the late King Edward and his heirs, but lauding his own pure lineage, and with, if not the enthusiastic endorsement of the London governmental structure, at least its lack of objection (though the mayor is his lackey), Richard of Gloucester has seized the throne of England. Now he consolidates his power, but triggers backlash. And so we have Act IV.
I agree with James that it is quite a task to keep the queens straight. I find myself turning back to the Dramatis Personae; and also consulting the occasional footnote that character A is also called B. I remember the old supposed vendor tout at baseball games, "You can't tell the players without a scorecard!"
Marlin, I did find Act IV a coming-together of issues, and setting-up for the play's culminating action; and Scene 4 to be a bit "busy" and cumbersome. If, indeed, I were editing this Act, I'd have divvied up Scene 4 into three, the first consisting of the queens' confrontations, the second comprising Richard's schmoozing of Elizabeth, and the third the arrival of messengers and the issuing of orders for Richard's army to move into position,
Also, Marlin, I like your comments on Shakespeare's superlative use of language; I couldn't have better myself expressed my pleasure in the verbal duels between Richard and Anne, among the queens, and between Richard and Elizabeth. It is like fighter planes in combat, circling and dipping and flying ever higher as each warrior seeks the advantage..
As you well say, Candy, I, too, see this play as an exploration of a diseased personality. And I also see the responses, or lack of them, of the royals, their failure to coalesce an effective counterweight to Richard, as their slowness to recognize his duplicity, perhaps granting him a pass because he is one of their kind; plus general befuddlement, and division among their previously contending houses, while Richard operates with drive and assurance toward a definitive goal,
As for whether this drama turns out to be a morality play, in the end Richard has to be defeated, not necessarily to affirm justice, human or divine, but because, whatever Shakespeare's sometimes historical inaccuracies, the outcome has to be what ultimately happened in actuality: the Tudor dynasty.
Here is my summary of Act IV, with a little commentary following. I recommend viewing it on the Goodreads site, as the all-clumped-together format emails we receive do not display the essential line spacings.
Act IV: The body count rises
SCENE 1
QE: Where are you off to?
ANNE: The Tower, to see the princes.
QE: We'll all go together.
TOWER TENDER: No, the king said you can't visit them.
QE: The king? Who's that?
TT: I mean the Lord Protector.
QE: The Lord protect him from that kingly title. I'm their mom; how can he stop me from seeing them?
STANLEY: Anne, you must go right away to be crowned as Richard's queen.
ANNE: In Act I Scene 2, I cursed Richard's wife, should he ever marry. Oops. Now I am she. I am living out the curse. Irony.
QE: Run away to France and take refuge with Richmond.
STANLEY: That's a good idea. I've give you a passport.
SCENE 2
RICHARD: I'm sorta king now. But I have rivals. Prince Edward still lives. Hint, hint.
BUCKINGHAM: Duh.
RICHARD: I mean I want you to kill the princes, bozo. And I want it done ASAP.
BUCKINGHAM: Let me think it over.
CATESBY: The king is angry about this waffling, and Buckingham is oblivious.
RICHARD: (I'll get some low-lifes to do it, then.) Hey, page, do you know anybody who will bump someone off for pay?
PAGE: There's this ambitious but poor dude Tyrrel. He'll do it.
RICHARD: I've heard of him somewhere. Go call him. (Buckingham isn't trustworthy anymore.)
STANLEY: The opposition seems to be coming together.
RICHARD: Catesby, spread the news that my queen Anne is sick. [Catesby leaves.] I'll get rid of Anne, eliminate the princes, then marry their sister to cement my position. I'm so much steeped in blood already, that, what the hell. Tyrrel, go kill the princes, and I will pay you well.
BUCKINGHAM: I've thought it over.
RICHARD: Never mind, I have other fish to fry now. Stanley, Richmond is your nephew. Watch him, and your wife. I'm holding you accountable for any espionage.
BUCKINGHAM: Remember what you promised to give me for supporting you, that earldom, and dead King Edward's goodies? I want it.
RICHARD: Hmm, there was a prophecy that Richmond would be king...Go away, Bucky, you bother me.
BUCKINGHAM: I backed the wrong horse.
SCENE 3
TYRREL: The tyrannous and bloody act is done, the most piteous massacre that ever this land was guilty of. I couldn't bring myself to do it personally, so I farmed it out to two hit-men, and even they felt bad about it. Which didn't stop them.
RICHARD [enters]: Tyrrel, do you have good news for me?
TYRREL: It is done. Be happy.
RICHARD: Did you see for sure that the princes were dead?
TYRREL: I did, but I don't know where the Tower chaplain buried them.
RICHARD: You can tell me the details after supper. Think about what you'd like as your reward, and I'll give it to you then. I've cleared away my rivals; now to woo QE's daughter before Richmond gets her.
RATCLIFFE: Bad news - Buckingham is raising an army, and others are joining Richmond.
RICHARD: Go assemle my forces. I'll strike before either of them is ready.
SCENE 4
MARGARET: I've been watching events unfold. This isn't over. I will join the counter-strike gathering in France.
QE: Lamentation for the dead princes, my babies.
DUCHESS: Likewise.
MARGARET: And how about my dead husband, holy Henry. It's Richard's fault - and kinda your fault for bearing him.
EVERBODY: I want revenge on Richard.
QE: Margaret, you said the time would come when I'd ask you to help me curse that bottled spider, that foul toad. Please do.
MARGARET: I belittled you before; I told you so.* Anyway, do this: Pine away day and night. Compare your former happiness with your present woe. Think your kids were sweeter than they were, and that their murderer is worse than he is.
RICHARD [comes by with his entourage]: What's this interruption of my procession? I'm in a hurry.
DUCHESS and QE: J'accuse.
DUCHESS: You were a wayward toddler, a wild schoolboy, an unruly youth, an insufferable man in his prime, and now a blood-soaked old man. I will never speak to you again after this. I curse you, and pray for your enemies' success in the coming conflict. Bloody you are, and bloody will be your end.
QE: Amen to that.
RICHARD: Don't go yet. I have something to say to you. You have a daughter.
QE: Must she die like her brothers?
RICHARD and QE: The Shakespearian back-and-forth.
RICHARD: I'll make up for it. You'll forget all the bad you think I've done to you. I want to marry your daughter. She will be queen.
QE: You must be joking. Why would she accept you? You had her brothers and uncles killed.
RICHARD: I did it for love of her, to clear the way. I will make amends by giving the kingdom I snatched from your sons to your daughter instead. Then she and I will beget lots of kids, and you will be a doted-on granny. I'll patch things up with Richmond. I will crush Buckingham's rebellion. I will be Caesar and she will be my Cleopatra. We'll all live happily ever after. Go tell this to your daughter.
QE and RICHARD: Lengthy word duel. Puns proliferate. Point/counter-point.
RICHARD: The union will bring peace to the land. I will be deserving of your daughter. Tell her that.
QE: OK, I'll talk to her, and let you know what she thinks.
RICHARD [thought bubble]: Fickle woman!
RATCLIFFE: Richmond is coming with an amphibious force. Some of the people expect Buckingham's troops to link up with his.
STANLEY: Yep, Richard is launching an invasion.
RICHARD: I question your loyalty, Stanley. Prove it by mustering your retainers. But leave your son as my hostage.
MESSENGERS 1 and 2: The rebellion is growing.
MESSENGER 3: But a storm and flood have hindered Buckingham's army.
MESSENGER 4: A storm dispersed Richmond's fleet. He sent a scout boat looking for Buckingham's force. Not finding it, he turned tail back to France.
RICHARD: Good. Now we'll stamp out the last of the rebels here at home.
CATESBY: We've captured Buckingham. That's the good news. Richmond has established a beachhead. That's the bad news.
RICHARD: Let's deploy to take on Richmond.
SCENE 5
STANLEY: Tell Richmond my young son is being held hostage, so I will have to be circumspect, but I will switch sides at the proper tactical moment. Also tell him that Elizabeth says she's hip on him marrying her daughter.
PRIEST: Got it.
*As Lucinda also notes.
In Scene 4, when tutoring her in the psychology of cursing, Queen Margaret advises Queen Elizabeth to imagine Richard to be fouler than he is. Given how foul he really is, that would be hard to do.
Elizabeth seems simply pragmatic, not taken in by any assertion of Richard's love for her daughter; the marriage would give Elizabeth and her surviving family a chance at a revival of power. She is playing both sides, offering the eligible daughter to Richmond as well.
When Richard says he will make up for offing Elizabeth's sons by supplying her with grandchildren, I marvel at what poor psychology this is; Richard is usually more deft. Yes, there may be new family joys for Elizabeth. But that cannot erase the sense of grief at the loss of those murdered. I think of the Book of Job in the Hebrew scriptures. As part of Yahweh's permission to the Accuser (Satan) to test Job's devotion, God allows Job's sons and daughters to be wiped out in a house collapse caused by a violent desert wind. After Job's testing is over, God restores Job's fortunes, and Job fathers other children. Nice; but surely the sense of loss of the originals would not be compensated for. There can be no "replacements."
Richard's words to Elizabeth about her daughter, and making excuse for his arranging to kill the princes, also remind me of a comics entry by cartoonist Ruben Bolling, in the "Tom the Dancing Bug" strip, for 13 May (you can view it here: https://www.gocomics.com/super-fun-pa...). In "The Lion KIng," by this parody, after Simba (Swahili word for "lion"; the Disney crew certainly put a lot of thought into selecting the name for this character, ha) defeats Scar and takes over the pride, the first thing he does is "kill all the cubs to accelerate the females' reproductive readiness."
Contradictory reports from the messengers well reflect the fog of war.
Stanley strikes me as a weak figure throughout the play, until he finally gets up the gumption to support Richmond, even though he must do so carefully, since his son is hostage.
Candy wrote: " I think now its not a very good play..."Sorry, Candy, if this has been covered in other threads that I haven't had time to catch up with yet, but why don't you think it is very good?
I've seen it performed on a couple of occasions and it is always absolutely magnetic with the audience enthralled.
Tom wrote: "As for whether this drama turns out to be a morality play, in the end Richard has to be defeated, not necessarily to affirm justice, human or divine, but because, whatever Shakespeare's sometimes historical inaccuracies, the outcome has to be what ultimately happened in actuality: the Tudor dynasty."This is, well, obvious Tom, but I think the point in terms of Shakespeare crafting a dramatic narrative (as well as honoring the victorious Tudor line) is to justify the legitimacy of Richmond's claim to the throne, in part, by making a monster of Richard, invoking a universal sense of justice which ultimately transcends blood lines so that, in the end, we end up with an undisputed king of England. Shakespeare may not have convinced every audience member that this was real history but he was certainly going to create a compelling story. It isn't the world of The Game of Thrones, for instance, where morality is ambiguous at best. Anyone can come up with a scenario which will eventually end in the downfall of Richard but, imo, the manner in which Shakespeare makes it seem morally inevitable is one of the chief characteristics which distinguishes this account of Yorkish king.
It would interesting if we had an account of how the young Henry addressed his forces before descending on Richard's troops but Shakespeare has him paint the picture fairly plain:
More than I have said, loving countrymen,
The leisure and enforcement of the time
Forbids to dwell upon: yet remember this,
God and our good cause fight upon our side;
The prayers of holy saints and wronged souls,
Like high-rear'd bulwarks, stand before our faces;
Richard except, those whom we fight against
Had rather have us win than him they follow:
For what is he they follow? truly, gentlemen,
A bloody tyrant and a homicide;
One raised in blood, and one in blood establish'd;
One that made means to come by what he hath,
And slaughter'd those that were the means to help him;
Abase foul stone, made precious by the foil
Of England's chair, where he is falsely set;
One that hath ever been God's enemy:
Then, if you fight against God's enemy,
God will in justice ward you as his soldiers;
If you do sweat to put a tyrant down,
You sleep in peace, the tyrant being slain;
If you do fight against your country's foes,
Your country's fat shall pay your pains the hire;
If you do fight in safeguard of your wives,
Your wives shall welcome home the conquerors;
If you do free your children from the sword,
Your children's children quit it in your age.
Then, in the name of God and all these rights,
Advance your standards, draw your willing swords.
For me, the ransom of my bold attempt
Shall be this cold corpse on the earth's cold face;
But if I thrive, the gain of my attempt
The least of you shall share his part thereof.
Sound drums and trumpets boldly and cheerfully;
God and Saint George! Richmond and victory!
Not much ambiguity there. You're either on the side of the good (soon to be) King Henry or you're with the devil. Shakespeare didn't have to lay it on so thick if all he wanted to do was recreate a simple siege scene. But the entire play has led up to this moment of comeuppance for Richard and Henry is playing it for all its worth.
Marlin wrote: "Tom wrote: "As for whether this drama turns out to be a morality play, in the end Richard has to be defeated, not necessarily to affirm justice, human or divine, but because, whatever Shakespeare's..."My assumption has always been that he had to paint Richard III as a villain to legetimise his current monarch, Elizabeth, has the Tudor claim to the throne can be viewed as a little dubious. But watching the whole chain of history plays I always got the sense it is violence begets violence and Richard is created by the earlier brutality of the Lancasters when they were in the ascendancy.
Clari wrote: "My assumption has always been that he had to paint Richard III has a villain to legetimise his current monarch, Elizabeth, has the Tudor claim to the throne can be viewed as a little dubious. But watching the whole chain of history plays I always got the sense it is violence begets violence and Richard is created by the earlier brutality of the Lancasters when they were in the ascendancy."Yeah, "legitimizing" the Tudor line was a point about Shakespeare's crafting of the history narratives we touched on a bit earlier in the discussion. However, I never considered how Richard's reign might be viewed as a kind of dramatic consequence of the Wars of The Roses. As a Yorkish king it's even more remote for me to see his reign as a culmination of Lancastrian brutality, at least as Shakespeare wrote the history. Could you elucidate? Richard's main aim (in Richard III, anyway) seems to me to be reforming what he sees as weakness in his own house, with himself, in particular, as its head.
I have been musing about ex-queen Elizabeth's telling Richard that she will think over his proposal re: her daughter. I don't think now, as I did before, that she is actually considering it, as a family survival measure. She knows armed conflict is coming on, with Buckingham and with Richmond, or both in allied array; and she is stalling Richard until the outcome of combat is clear.Comparing the wooing of Anne in Act I Scene 2 with this wooing-by-proxy is common among readers/watchers of the play. In the first, there are more protestations of love, plus the theatrics of use-my-sword-to-kill-me; the latter seems finally to pivot on the idea of bringing peace to the kingdom. Both are occasions for Shakespeare to display his virtuosity with language, so I like them.
To answer the question of what people get from Shakespeare, then, I enjoy Shakespeare for the language, and for the characters. I am fascinated at what language can do, enjoy a well-crafted piece of writing or speech, relish puns and wordplay. (I taught cross-cultural studies in China for most of a decade. Putonghua, or "Mandarin," is full of this kind of thing.)
And then there are the characters. I do not have to approve of their doings or empathize with them, as long as they are entertaining. A villain can serve the purpose. (From a different era, I savor, for example, the mad but thinking-big Goldfinger in the Bond film with that title.)
Personality is destiny, as the Greeks suggested, and as actual life occasionally seems to confirm (although all too often in justice is not done, retribution is deferred, as Hamlet observed, karma must play out in another turn of the wheel). I like "Richard III," bleak as it may seem, because Richard is so deliciously ambitious and malicious.
As protagonist, Richard utterly dominates the play. (Yes, this is obvious. I state it because it underscores my enjoyment of Tricky Dick. The inevitability of Richard's downfall that I noted earlier, and which was dismissed as obvious, undercuts speculations about the moral/propaganda intent of the play.) While Richard's nastiness seems insufficiently motivated, as was observed early in our discussion - he was bullied as a kid, and is still belittled for his poor looks, but is that enough to make a monster - I have kept interested awaiting what dastardly deed he will do, or engage others to do, next. But also in the peeks into his mind that we receive from his asides and thoughts to himself. We have more insights into his thinking and emotions than any other character. Sadly, he has no change of heart or character development, except a continuing slide into self-absorption, finally a kind of paranoia, and in Act V, self-pity.
I wanted to see the ghostly visitations Richard has on the eve of battle as the product of conscience, rather than supernatural manifestation; but Shakespeare does treat those apparitions as ghosts. And even by my wishing them to be subconscious objects, they could as easily be the result of hidden fear of the battle's outcome - never mind Richard's voiced confidence in the numerical superiority of his army (and tacitly his experience as a soldier and commander) - as pangs of regret.
Most of the male characters, who could otherwise be competition or opposition to Richard - Clarence, Rivers, Grey, Hastings - are eliminated fairly early on, so we don't know much of what's going on in their heads, either through their actions or direct disclosure. Buckingham's rebellion takes place off-stage, as does the gathering of forces in France. Richmond comes into his own as a character only with the invasion and culminating battle. Stanley is a bit player until his defection to Richmond toward the end. The women, the queens, have their moments in the limelight, but they are defined by their relationships to the men, and, other than uttering curses and invective, have little power to influence affairs. (Although perhaps their curses can be seen as simmering in Richard's unconscious, if the ghosts are interpreted as psychological instead of paranormal phenomena.)
Except for the princes, and certainly the young Duke of York is a spoiled child, no one is blameless, either by what they have done in the civil war, or for what they fail to do to thwart Richard's rise. (Buddhist philosophy and several Christian liturgies speak of mea culpa both for things done and things left undone.) There is no character, again except for the princely heir, for whom I have sympathy, and no character that I find relatable. But that doesn't detract from the fun for me.
Marlin wrote: "As a Yorkish king it's even more remote for me to see his reign as a culmination of Lancastrian brutality."In the Henry Vi plays we see a complete lack of mercy in the Lancasters, Margaret of Anjou in particular is the She-Wolf of France. Richard's father and brother are slain (I think I remember in the BBC version they have a young Richard witnessing the slaughter of his family). I always got a sense that it shows how the wheel of fortune turns, whoever is in charge is pitiless to their victims, but then their side loses and they are the one crying.
Also the history of the time with nobles, including Richard's brother, Clarence, continually swapping sides, there is an atmosphere where you cannot trust anyone, and only the vicious can survive.
Sorry if this has all been discussed before, I am fairly new to the group and leapt in with the current discussion hoping to have time to read back over previous threads when I have more time :D
Tom wrote: "(I taught cross-cultural studies in China for most of a decade. Putonghua, or "Mandarin," is full of this kind of thing.).."That sounds like a very fascinating comparison to make, how different cultures in different eras address the same issues.
Tom wrote: "As protagonist, Richard utterly dominates the play. (Yes, this is obvious. I state it because it underscores my enjoyment of Tricky Dick. The inevitability of Richard's downfall that I noted earlier, and which was dismissed as obvious, undercuts speculations about the moral/propaganda intent of the play."It wasn't a dismissal. But you can hardly avoid the centrality of a character whose name graces the title. My point was twofold; one, with Richard, Shakespeare has not created a character beyond the kind of stock villain that, as you point out, we see to this day in entertainment to warrant fascination outside of the narrative; two, the central intrigue which involves Richard's villainy is absolutely buffeted by the moral play and distinguish it from any run-of-the-mill change of regime melodrama. And all this is done through Shakespeare's marvelous use of language. That's the real attraction of the play to me and what's really at the play's center. I think it's wonderful that Richard has grabbed a hold of your imagination but outside of what Shakespeare does with the character through language, to me, we really have little more than a royal jerk.
Clari wrote: "In the Henry Vi plays we see a complete lack of mercy in the Lancasters, ..."Ah. There seems to be little to none of it (the "bloody Lancasters") in Richard III. The houses appear to me to have been equally bloody in retrospect. Are saying that Elizabethans (and Shakespeare fans who know the plays) watch/hear the play with that impression in mind? Interesting.
Marlin wrote: "Are saying that Elizabethans (and Shakespeare fans who know the plays) watch/hear the play with that impression in mind? Interesting. ."It gives a different perspective, if you watch the play as an individual piece, or as part of the wider history cycle. It is definitely interesting to me to see the journey from Richard II to Richard III across wars with France and civil war.
There are readings (contrary to mine that Richard III is a villain to justify the Tudor line) that together they are a very subversive comment on current Early Modern politics showing how tenuous the hold on the crown is in contrast to the idea of the divine right of kings.
Mod
I can not believe it but I've come around slightly to the camp that this was an unfair portrayal of the real R3. That is may actually be a portrayal of a different royal at the time, but it was too dangerous for S to be pointing a finger at....Fernando Stanley? I can't seem to find an essay I have around here arguing that Stanley, who funded some of S's plays...might be the real persona portrayed. It rather convinced me though.
Not that it matters......
I think that Clari...this is one of the most powerful portraits of an ill person.. a malignant mind and it is so good. I think maybe I've read the play too many tmimes and it reads differently to me now?
I definately think it is a valuable play...even if it's no longer one of my favorites.
Welcome!!!!
I couldn't create a fifth topic header for some reason so for now...both Act 4 and 5 happen here...