Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speech. Show all posts

Monday, March 5, 2012

Richard & Water

I’m interested in the way Richard uses water images in his deposition towards the end of 4.1. First, from 172-179, Richard describes the “golden crown,” or the throne, as “like a deep well/That owes two buckets filling one another,/the emptier ever dancing in the air,/The other down, unseen, and full of water./That bucket down and full of tears am I,/Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.” This image took me by surprise—I assumed the “emptier ever dancing” bucket was supposed to be a representation of Richard, because he is losing his control and has nothing to keep him grounded. By my logic, Bolingbroke would be the full bucket, weighed down with the burden of being a king, and of being a part of Richard’s dubious legacy. Reversed, the way Richard intends it, the images do make sense—Bolingbroke now holds the highest rank possible in his country and has a great deal of freedom along with it (“the emptier ever dancing in the air,” again), and Richard is weighed down with disappointment, guilt, and any other emotions to which he ambiguously pretends.
To me, the two images are interchangeable. I think this is indicative of Richard’s ambiguous characterization. I should preface: I am pretty suspicious of Richard at this point (maybe because I’m looking for some excitement in this play!). Is he remorseful? Is he deceptive? The interchangeability, and I would argue, instability, of Richard’s language in this passage is open to interpretation. I have two guesses: his language is contrived, because his expression of emotion lacks truth or hides truth, or his language is the result of just not having a way with words.
Northumberland interrupts Richard’s speech three times, to ask him to read aloud the articles about his crimes. Richard responds with water images in lines 227-231, 233-236, and 247-252: (1) “…Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/Have here delivered me to my sour cross,/And water cannot wash away your sin.” (2) “Mine eyes are full of tears; I cannot see./And yet salt water blinds them not so much/But they can see a sort of traitors here….” (3) “…But ‘tis usurped. Alack the heavy day,/That I have worn so many winters out/And know not now what name to call myself/O, that I were a mockery of snow,/Standing before the sun of Bolingbroke/To melt myself away in water-drops!...”
In these three passages, Richard is using water images to: compare the act of washing one’s hands to being a (his) traitor; describe the clarity with which he see his traitors despite his tears; and express a desire—that he be “a mockery of snow,” able to melt away. Richard is using water images rather arbitrarily in these passages, and they lack the emotive, sympathetic effect that Richard intends for them. Water can be used to paint Richard’s comrades in a poor light and to paint Richard in a sympathetic light. But since its meaning is inconsistent in these passages, the water image means nothing at all. Richard’s use of the water image is more important, because it is consistent with his character: he makes everything, even language, work for him—or, at least, he tries.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Irony in Richard's Speech and Ability as a King

It is very interesting to me why Richard II acts as such a weak, inconsistent king, yet he speaks poetically and beautifully, delivering (arguably) some of the plays most eloquent speeches. He frequently cites anecdotal analogies and using other metaphors and symbols that are made because of his extensive knowledge of history and mythology. I'm aware that articulate speech and being a good king are different, but I think there's a definite reason as to why Shakespeare would implant such an odd irony in the play's central character.

His most recent, captivating speech occurs at the end of Act III scene ii, where he is expressing his feelings of death to Aumerle. It states, "For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground,/ And tell sad stories of the death of kings -/ How some have been deposed, some slain in war,/ Some haunted by the ghosts they have disposed,/ Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping killed,/ All murdered" (ln. 151-156). His sorrow is articulated very poetically, and it makes me wonder why he makes some horrible decisions yet can recollect on his mistakes in a profound way.

Perhaps is it simply to show what truly makes a good person and a good king. Simple articulation doesn't equate to good kingship. It could also be a critique on kings by Shakespeare, the opinion that politicians and kings speak poetically to create a facade; under all these flowery language lies dimwitted decision making and ill-favored fortunes. I'm assuming that this trend continues through the end of the play, and the two concluding acts may serve as more evidence for this particular aspect of the play.