• In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Richard II - Act 3

#135: Dec. - Jan. 2015 (Fiction)
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

Richard II, Act 3

Please use this thread for discussing Richard II, Act 3.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

I mentioned Bushy, Bagot, and Green earlier. Not realizing that two of them meet untimely ends in the beginning of Act 3

Back in Act 1, King Richard speaks to the Duke of Aumerle who has just returned from seeing Henry off to the borders of England. He then speaks candidly about his suspicions . . .

Ourself and Bushy, Bagot here, and Green,
Observed his [Henry’s] courtship to the common people,
Act 1.4

So Bushy, Bagot, and Green are the King’s 'yes' men who have been telling the King to keep watch on Henry because he's out schmoozing—stealing the hearts of the people. Something maybe Richard should have been doing.

Bushy, Bagot, and Green are: Sir John Bushy, Sir John Bagot, and Sir Henry Green. I don’t know if they're based on real people or not. I suspect not. Asimov says the three were originally hangers-on of Thomas of Gloucester, the guy who Richard had murdered before the action of this play.

“It was natural for Richard II, and for many another king both before and after, to seek for advisers among the lesser nobility or the middle class. Such men had no power of their own and therefore had to be intensely loyal to the king, for they had nowhere else to turn . . .

With Bushy, Bagot, and Green . . . there was no need for Richard to feel any uneasiness. They were country gentry with no power of their own and with full awareness of the hostility of the higher nobility. Only in King Richard could they find safety, let alone power, and only to King Richard would they be loyal.”

Sure enough, as soon as pendulum swings the other way, Henry Bolingbroke has Bush and Green executed. Interestingly enough, Henry blames the two men for poisoning the King’s mind and also for causing . . .

. . . a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.

There’s some major hypocrisy at play here because Henry ends up doing far worse damage to King Richard, actually making Bushy, Bagot, and Green’s warnings come true.

Bagot is the only one of the three who doesn’t get executed. Remember in Act 2, he tells Bushy and Green that the three of them will never see each other again and that he is running away to Ireland.

There are a couple of references to caterpillars here in Act 3. Bolingbroke refers to Bushy and Green as the "caterpillars of the commonwealth," meaning they're parasites who are devouring or destroying England. And we see the caterpillar metaphor used again later in the garden scene.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

Here's Bolingbroke's full speech from this first scene in Act 3. Henry's anger is quite evident. But I wonder how sincere he is. Isn't he just paving the way to the crown? I guess one of the biggest questions in this play is whether or not Henry had the crown in mind all along, or did he initially just want to recover his father's estate, his rightful inheritance.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

Bring forth these men.
Bushy and Green, I will not vex your souls--
Since presently your souls must part your bodies--
With too much urging your pernicious lives,
For 'twere no charity; yet, to wash your blood
From off my hands, here in the view of men
I will unfold some causes of your deaths.
You have misled a prince, a royal king,
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments,
By you unhappied and disfigured clean:
You have in manner with your sinful hours
Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,
Broke the possession of a royal bed
And stain'd the beauty of a fair queen's cheeks
With tears drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs.
Myself, a prince by fortune of my birth,
Near to the king in blood, and near in love
Till you did make him misinterpret me,
Have stoop'd my neck under your injuries,
And sigh'd my English breath in foreign clouds,
Eating the bitter bread of banishment;
Whilst you have fed upon my signories,
Dispark'd my parks and fell'd my forest woods,
From my own windows torn my household coat,
Razed out my imprese, leaving me no sign,
Save men's opinions and my living blood,
To show the world I am a gentleman.
This and much more, much more than twice all this,
Condemns you to the death. See them deliver'd over
To execution and the hand of death.
Act 3.1
-Geo
Question everything
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

geo wrote:
So Bushy, Bagot, and Green are the King’s 'yes' men
Shakespeare gives a telling picture of the calibre of these 3 men back in Act II. The Duke of York, aware that his forces have become practically non-existent, manfully resolves to do what he can to defend the king. However hopeless the situation, he has determined to face it.
He issues his orders to Bushy, Green and Bagot:
"Gentlemen, go, muster up your men,
And meet me presently at Berkeley."

Even though they're men who have been made by the king, and who will be nothing without him, they ignore their orders and flee for their lives. I can imagine the contempt the Duke of York felt for them as he faced Bolingbroke's armies alone at Berkeley Castle.
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

geo wrote: I guess one of the biggest questions in this play is whether or not Henry had the crown in mind all along, or did he initially just want to recover his father's estate, his rightful inheritance.
I find this section very confusing. In the speech you quote, Bolingbroke on the face of it is just berating Bushy and Green for being a bad influence on the king and causing the rift between the king and himself which led to his exile and losses. All of which fits in with the idea of Bolingbroke wanting to do no more than have the injustice removed. Everything he says up to his meeting with Richard fits in with this picture.
I don't understand why Richard didn't just grant him his rights back, and then continue to be king. Henry might not have made a move. Instead Richard just surrenders without being asked: "Your own is yours, and I am yours and all."
I'm going - "Richard, mate, shut up! What are you doing?" I mean he's only just said to Aumerle:
"Shall we call back Northumberland, and send
Defiance to the traitor, and so die?"

Of course that would have been silly, but the next option would have surely been, as the king, to grant Bolingbroke's suit. Instead of which he just crumbles and surrenders the crown. Whatever Henry had in mind, it would have been hard not to accept the offer at that point.
I guess what I'm saying is that on the evidence that Shakespeare gives us, Bolingbroke is really only intent on pursuing his rights, until the king offers him the crown on a plate.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

jetsam wrote:
geo wrote: I guess one of the biggest questions in this play is whether or not Henry had the crown in mind all along, or did he initially just want to recover his father's estate, his rightful inheritance.
I find this section very confusing. In the speech you quote, Bolingbroke on the face of it is just berating Bushy and Green for being a bad influence on the king and causing the rift between the king and himself which led to his exile and losses. All of which fits in with the idea of Bolingbroke wanting to do no more than have the injustice removed. Everything he says up to his meeting with Richard fits in with this picture.
I don't understand why Richard didn't just grant him his rights back, and then continue to be king. Henry might not have made a move. Instead Richard just surrenders without being asked: "Your own is yours, and I am yours and all."
I'm going - "Richard, mate, shut up! What are you doing?" I mean he's only just said to Aumerle:
"Shall we call back Northumberland, and send
Defiance to the traitor, and so die?"

Of course that would have been silly, but the next option would have surely been, as the king, to grant Bolingbroke's suit. Instead of which he just crumbles and surrenders the crown. Whatever Henry had in mind, it would have been hard not to accept the offer at that point.
I guess what I'm saying is that on the evidence that Shakespeare gives us, Bolingbroke is really only intent on pursuing his rights, until the king offers him the crown on a plate.
Hi Jetsam, It is confusing.It's difficult to assess historically what Bolingbroke's aims were and at what point the crown itself was his goal.
The seizing of Bolingbroke's inheritance was catastrophic for Richard. The king became increasingly hardline in dealing with enemies real and imagined.
The Duke of York reproves Richard for his illegal actions. I suspect Shakespeare is contrasting York with Bushy and and co. They are the self interested caterpillars who can not be trusted, and Richard is showing he recognises some real integrity in York in making him vice regent in his absence to defend his realm.
But it's now too late for Richard.
Bushy and co see that parliament both peers and commons are opposed to Richard.This raises the question of the validity of Richard's rule without parliament's consent.
York has a quandary. He accuses Bolingbroke of treason simply for disobeying the royal dictat of banishment. Bolingbroke protests the illegality and subversive aspect to Richard seizing his lands. York wants to uphold the divine right of the king but cannot gainsay the justice of Bolingbroke's case.
The tide has completely turned against Richard and York knows he cannot successfully defend Richard's crown and bows to the inevitable.
It's worth adding that after Richard seized the lands of Henry B. he also extended his banishment to being permanent.
He left Bolingbroke little choice but to act militarily if he was to recover his rights.
I suspect Bolingbroke could not help but see that the national mood was ripe to be rid of Richard as an unjust ruler and all events seem to conspire against Richard militarily.
Richard apparently saw that he was defeated and fled disguised as a priest of all things. Interesting choice here.
It seems he did not just resign voluntarily but when captured and held in the tower of London was pressurised to do this.
I doubt Richard could have just okayed the restoration of Bolingbroke's lands and remained king. By and large the country itself had had enough of Richard and events took on a life of their own, it seems.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 423 times
Been thanked: 591 times

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

jetsam wrote:





geo wrote:

I guess one of the biggest questions in this play is whether or not Henry had the crown in mind all along, or did he initially just want to recover his father's estate, his rightful inheritance.




I find this section very confusing. In the speech you quote, Bolingbroke on the face of it is just berating Bushy and Green for being a bad influence on the king and causing the rift between the king and himself which led to his exile and losses. All of which fits in with the idea of Bolingbroke wanting to do no more than have the injustice removed. Everything he says up to his meeting with Richard fits in with this picture.
I don't understand why Richard didn't just grant him his rights back, and then continue to be king. Henry might not have made a move. Instead Richard just surrenders without being asked: "Your own is yours, and I am yours and all."
I'm going - "Richard, mate, shut up! What are you doing?" I mean he's only just said to Aumerle:
"Shall we call back Northumberland, and send
Defiance to the traitor, and so die?"

Of course that would have been silly, but the next option would have surely been, as the king, to grant Bolingbroke's suit. Instead of which he just crumbles and surrenders the crown. Whatever Henry had in mind, it would have been hard not to accept the offer at that point.
I guess what I'm saying is that on the evidence that Shakespeare gives us, Bolingbroke is really only intent on pursuing his rights, until the king offers him the crown on a plate.



Hi Jetsam, It is confusing.It's difficult to assess historically what Bolingbroke's aims were and at what point the crown itself was his goal.
The seizing of Bolingbroke's inheritance was catastrophic for Richard. The king became increasingly hardline in dealing with enemies real and imagined.
The Duke of York reproves Richard for his illegal actions. I suspect Shakespeare is contrasting York with Bushy and and co. They are the self interested caterpillars who can not be trusted, and Richard is showing he recognises some real integrity in York in making him vice regent in his absence to defend his realm.
But it's now too late for Richard.
Bushy and co see that parliament both peers and commons are opposed to Richard.This raises the question of the validity of Richard's rule without parliament's consent.
York has a quandary. He accuses Bolingbroke of treason simply for disobeying the royal dictat of banishment. Bolingbroke protests the illegality and subversive aspect to Richard seizing his lands. York wants to uphold the divine right of the king but cannot gainsay the justice of Bolingbroke's case.
The tide has completely turned against Richard and York knows he cannot successfully defend Richard's crown and bows to the inevitable.
It's worth adding that after Richard seized the lands of Henry B. he also extended his banishment to being permanent.
He left Bolingbroke little choice but to act militarily if he was to recover his rights.
I suspect Bolingbroke could not help but see that the national mood was ripe to be rid of Richard as an unjust ruler and all events seem to conspire against Richard militarily.
Richard apparently saw that he was defeated and fled disguised as a priest of all things. Interesting choice here.
It seems he did not just resign voluntarily but when captured and held in the tower of London was pressurised to do this.
I doubt Richard could have just okayed the restoration of Bolingbroke's lands and remained king. By and large the country itself had had enough of Richard and events took on a life of their own, it seems.


Pardon my having mostly just lurked during this discussion, its certainly well informed from you three.

Something that could also be considered maybe; the clannish nature of the Scottish border rule.
By that I mean the disputes between border control and its associated wealth, for instance The Percy family was cut out of Border Wardenship all together by Richard and Gaunt for reasons of mistrust and greed, (Harold Bloom describes Gaunt as a robber baron).
The Percy's want to be Border Wardens, which may be reason for their support of Bolingbroke, This Percy influence could extend to putting the idea of deposition of Richard in Bolingbroke's ear. (just an idea)
Then there's the Douglas clan, also cut out of Border Wardenship, (again the work of Richard and Gaunt), also a good reason for Douglas support of Bolingbroke, (again just an idea).
John of Gaunt is a vital part of the strangeness of the story, even though his is a very wealthy family, he is not very highly regarded as a military thinker, military honors go to his father and brother, (Both dead I believe) Wiki doesn't paint a very pleasant picture of him. (Gaunt) His interest is wealth for the crown and himself, hence cutting out both the Percy's and Douglas's, So why support the usurper? I think they understand the popularity of Bolingbroke, and have persuaded themselves to hitch to his wagon for access to border wealth in the hopes of deposing Henry 4 at some future date.(just playing on the same ideas).

The world hates a weak leader, but whats interesting is that its typically the people that surround a leader that contribute to the fall, success and failure rarely are entirely the result of a solo act.
One of the reasons I'm enjoying the plays is that its not just reading the playes themselves, its reading the history behind them as well. I've ordered a copy of George Macdonald Fraser's "The Steel Bonnet", even though it doesn't deal directly with the part of history we're discussing it does deal with Scottish Border History of the times, its seems like it might be a good read, also I'm just an enormous fan of the "Flashman" series of books.( sorry for the digression).

In reading act 3 I'm fascinated by the grace behind the horror of deposition.
Gardner:
And Bolingbroke
Hath seized the wasteful king. O, what pity is it
That he had not so trimmed and dressed his land
As we this garden! We at time of year
Do wound the bark, the skin of our fruit trees,
Lest, being overproud in sap and blood,
With too much riches it confound itself.
Had he done so to great and growing men,
They might have lived to bear and he to taste
Their fruits of duty. Superfluous branches
We lop away, that bearing boughs may live.
Had he done so, himself had borne the crown,
Which waste of idle hours hath quite thrown down.
























jetsam
Reply with quote Post Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:28 am

Re: Richard II - Act 3
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

jetsam wrote:. . . I guess what I'm saying is that on the evidence that Shakespeare gives us, Bolingbroke is really only intent on pursuing his rights, until the king offers him the crown on a plate.
I get this idea as well. So instead of focusing on Henry's motives, let's turn and look at Richard.

So far, King Richard firmly believes his reign is endorsed by God and that only God can take it away. He says:

Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
Act 3.2

He calls for God to come down and, if not smite Henry outright, at least make his life very difficult. Throw some heavy-gaited toads down, a poisonous snake or two. He speaks metaphorically in this passage and arrogantly. His belief in his own infallibility shows much hubris.

King Richard II
. . . Feed not thy sovereign's foe, my gentle earth,
Nor with thy sweets comfort his ravenous sense;
But let thy spiders, that suck up thy venom,
And heavy-gaited toads lie in their way,
Doing annoyance to the treacherous feet
Which with usurping steps do trample thee:
Yield stinging nettles to mine enemies;
And when they from thy bosom pluck a flower,
Guard it, I pray thee, with a lurking adder
Whose double tongue may with a mortal touch
Throw death upon thy sovereign's enemies. . . .
Act 3.2

I believe Henry does come with only the goal of restoring his titles and estates. But when push comes to shove, by subjecting the King to his demands, he ultimately makes a mockery of the institution. And Richard sees that the kingship now as hopelessly tainted, the divine rights of kings a false doctrine. Richard's whole world crashes down around him.

KING RICHARD II
O God, O God! that e'er this tongue of mine,
That laid the sentence of dread banishment
On yon proud man, should take it off again
With words of sooth! O that I were as great
As is my grief, or lesser than my name!
Or that I could forget what I have been,
Or not remember what I must be now!
Swell'st thou, proud heart? I'll give thee scope to beat,
Since foes have scope to beat both thee and me.
Act 3.2

I believe one of Richard's advisers tells him to give Henry what he wants and someday he will be in a better position to turn things around. But Richard wants nothing of the sullied and tainted institution. This has to be the most tragic moment of the play and we sympathize with Richard for the first time and hate Henry for what he has done. If Henry can dictate the terms of his banishment and restoration of titles and demands, the kingship means nothing any more. When Bolingbroke bends down on his knee in front of the King, Richard sees the gesture as empty and meaningless. He knows Henry can easily demand the crown as well, and so he gives it up willingly. It means nothing any more. If it seems that Richard has rolled over and given up without a fight, this is why.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:It is confusing.It's difficult to assess historically what Bolingbroke's aims were and at what point the crown itself was his goal.
The seizing of Bolingbroke's inheritance was catastrophic for Richard. The king became increasingly hardline in dealing with enemies real and imagined.
The Duke of York reproves Richard for his illegal actions. I suspect Shakespeare is contrasting York with Bushy and and co. They are the self interested caterpillars who can not be trusted, and Richard is showing he recognises some real integrity in York in making him vice regent in his absence to defend his realm.
But it's now too late for Richard..
Hi Flann,, as you say, Richard has already alienated much of the nobility, but seizing Gaunt's lands and titles was probably the last straw.
Taylor wrote:In reading act 3 I'm fascinated by the grace behind the horror of deposition.
Gardner:
And Bolingbroke
Hath seized the wasteful king. O, what pity is it
That he had not so trimmed and dressed his land
As we this garden! We at time of year
Do wound the bark, the skin of our fruit trees,
Lest, being overproud in sap and blood,
With too much riches it confound itself.
Had he done so to great and growing men,
They might have lived to bear and he to taste
Their fruits of duty. Superfluous branches
We lop away, that bearing boughs may live.
Had he done so, himself had borne the crown,
Which waste of idle hours hath quite thrown down.
The gardener here shows that even a common person (the Everyman character) can see how Richard has squandered his resources, contributing to his own downfall. Ironically, he knows more than even the Queen. She is the last person to learn that her King has been deposed.
-Geo
Question everything
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 3

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: He left Bolingbroke little choice but to act militarily if he was to recover his rights.
I suspect Bolingbroke could not help but see that the national mood was ripe to be rid of Richard as an unjust ruler and all events seem to conspire against Richard militarily.
Richard apparently saw that he was defeated and fled disguised as a priest of all things. Interesting choice here.
It seems he did not just resign voluntarily but when captured and held in the tower of London was pressurised to do this.
I doubt Richard could have just okayed the restoration of Bolingbroke's lands and remained king. By and large the country itself had had enough of Richard and events took on a life of their own, it seems.
geo wrote: I believe one of Richard's advisers tells him to give Henry what he wants and someday he will be in a better position to turn things around. But Richard wants nothing of the sullied and tainted institution. This has to be the most tragic moment of the play and we sympathize with Richard for the first time and hate Henry for what he has done. If Henry can dictate the terms of his banishment and restoration of titles and demands, the kingship means nothing any more. When Bolingbroke bends down on his knee in front of the King, Richard sees the gesture as empty and meaningless. He knows Henry can easily demand the crown as well, and so he gives it up willingly. It means nothing any more. If it seems that Richard has rolled over and given up without a fight, this is why.
Thanks you two for working through this with me - I think it's worth the effort because because the story sort of turns on it, and it's a tricky area. I feel more comfortable with the issues now.
Flann, why the surprise at the priest disguise?
Post Reply

Return to “King Henry IV, Part 1 (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series) (Pt. 1) - by William Shakespeare”