Richard the Wizard

While reading the first act of Richard the III , the most prominent aspect is how Shakespeare uses language.  The word choice affects the imagery, alters the meaning and can make the ugliest sentiments an auditory delight.  

            In Richard’s speech in the opening act he refers to his deformity, “Unless to spy my shadow in the sun” (1.1.26). The use of the words “spy” and “shadow” resonates the darkness of his deformity but the last word, “sun” seems hopeful. Although he goes on to say in the next line, “And Decant on my own deformity” (1.1.27) which renders the sun at fault because it shows him his deformed shadow and provides him with opportunity to be miserable about his condition.  

            The exchange between Lady Anne and Richard is significant.  Her words toward him are harsh and her emotions are raw yet by the end, she has seemingly softens towards him. She repeatedly refers to him as a “devil” and he refutes her allegation that he not a beast because he does not pity anyone.  Richard blames his brother for her losses, than admits guilt to win her favor and blames her beauty as his motive. While the vibrant insults Lady Anne hurls at Richard are notable more importantly is that way Richard flips her accusations of him into some sort of compliment towards her. She wants revenge on him because he killed her husband but he tells her that he killed her husband to get her a better one, himself (1.2137-139)!  She refers to him as a “black magician” (1.2.34), in this conversation he seems to be a magician because he gets her from wanting him dead, to accepting a ring and agreeing to meet up with him at his estate.  As not having read the rest of the play, I am hoping she is in fact using him, not being used by him.

            Queen Margaret’s anger drives her sharply delivered wit.   Although, Richard flips her curse onto herself by getting her to say her own name afterwards.  It is another example of how Richard manipulates language/conversation to suit himself. Queen Margaret unleashes her rage on Queen Elizabeth, “Die, neither mother, wife, nor England’s queen.---“ (1.3.206).   The words of this line should way heavy on Queen Elizabeth because it represents a potentially huge void but she doesn’t speak until after Margaret leaves. She responds by saying she has never done her any wrong.   I wonder if this is representative of what kind of character Queen Elizabeth is as the play progresses. In the following passage Queen Margaret warns Queen Elizabeth:

Poor painted Queen, vain flourish of my fortune,

Why shrew’st thou sugar on that bottled spider

Whose deadly web ensnareth thee about?

The alliterative of “poor painted” followed by “queen” is moving. The association of queens with being poor and painted is not atypical.  The other dissimilarity between sugar and a spider is also effective tool of imagery.  

            Act 1 is constructed in such a way that I look forward to discovering more beautiful lines of imagery as the play progresses. I also want to know if Lady Anne truly falls for the evil wizard, Richard.  I am interested to learn if Queen Elizabeth it clueless, and the outcome of Queen Margaret’s prophesies.  

           

 

 

Margaret, Margaret, Margaret!

I applaud Queen Margaret for her witty, nasty comments towards Richard.  He honestly deserves whatever may come his way for what he has done.  It is clear the Queen Margaret has EVERY reason to be this shrewd woman who just insults everyone after all, both her husband and son have been killed.  Margaret says, “Out, devil! I remember them too well./ Thou killed’st my husband Henry in the Tower,/ And Edward, my poor son, at Tewkesbury” (I.III.118-120) while referring to Richard of Gloucester before she reveals herself to other characters.  During the initial asides, at first I was really aggravated by Margaret mainly because she keeps saying she deserves the thrown, and she is angered by everyone who has increased their royalty levels.  I feel like she is that haggard old woman who is miserable with her life.  I don’t mean to sound bitter about this, I know how painful it is to lose someone close in your family, but she was just extremely bitter, not even really saddened by the death of her family members.  These asides do enlighten me as a reader as to the inner workings of Margaret’s mind.  On top of this, I also believe the Margaret is the character who represents some aspect of the truth.  We can see this all because she isn’t afraid to speak out to anyone.  She has the gift of knowledge because she knows what is actually going on.  She believes that Richard should go to Hell or at least that is where she will, she calls him a “villain” as well implying a “well-born peasant” but I think it also has a double meaning that he is the evil person of the play (I.III.162).  

There are some very crude comments from Margaret as she insults Richard and even Queen Elizabeth.  I assume this scene is supposed to be taken seriously for all characters when Margaret calls them “wrangling pirates” (I.III. 158)  or call Richard a “dog” or “elvish-marked, abortive, rooting hog” (I.III.225)  I can’t help but laugh.  As I read these words, although she is an angry bitter woman, these words are just seething with hatred towards the other characters.  I think Margaret is the character who really heightens the drama in the scene and I have a feeling that things are going to become very intense when it comes to the controversy of who should really be queen.

One thing that I was also interested in was when they called Queen Margaret crazy, like Dorset who says “Dispute not with her: she is lunatic” (I.III.252) immediately calling out her on the remarks she has said.   I do not see her being crazy in any way, even River’s questions, “why she’s at liberty” which is basically saying why is Margaret free and not locked up within the walls of a confined cell.  After she leaves, Richard steps in and wins the crowd over and apologizes for what he has done to her and basically says he has been the cause of some of her madness and people think he is “Christian-like” for his comment (I.III.214).  This final point simply outraged me while I was reading.  There is no way that someone could consider Margaret to be crazy after losing her son and husband and ability to be in power.  Richard makes me angry and I already see how sneaky he is and how much power he has over everyone else with his smooth talking.  Did Richard’s “apology” anger anyone else, and does anyone think Margaret is really crazy?  I certainly don’t think she is crazy.  I believe she just is struggling with many different issues in her life at this time and doesn’t have an outlet for her pain and anger.

Gaunt's Dying Words: an Exercize in Close Reading

John of Gaunt is a terrific character, if only because he makes a clever play on his name by way of insulting the king in 2.1. He argues that Richard II has made him "gaunt" by exiling his son, Bolingbroke, and forcing him to fast for want of looking on his child and heir: "And therein fasting, hast thou made me gaunt./ Gaunt am I for the grave, gaunt as a grave,/ Whose hollow womb inherits naught but bones" (2.1.81-3) He, like Queen Margaret in Richard III, with her curses and prophecies, is sepulchral even in life and fulfills the purpose of foreshadowing doom. The image of Gaunt, withered but fierce, on his deathbed denouncing the king and predicting the end of his legacy is a wonderful image that, I imagine, is a pleasure for film and stage directors to bring to life.
As is the case with Queen Margaret, Gaunt's predictions that the king's greed and thirst for power will be his undoing, are fulfilled. "[Thou] art possessed now to despose thyself," he says after foretelling the king's imminent demise, later adding, "Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee" (2.1.138, 136). We can see from the genealogy chart in the front cover of the anthology that Richard II does in fact die and fail to produce an heir. (What a spoiler.)
But this is something that readers and theater-goers are lusting to see play out. Richard II is a lousy king, to say the least. He covertly orchestrates his uncle's assassination, banishes his cousin from the country, steals that cousin's inheritance for the purpose of funding a war on Ireland, and imposes unfair taxation and "blank bonds" on his people (also for the war). Gaunt is justified in calling him dishonorable. In his soliloquy on page 998 in the Norton, Gaunt makes the case that Richard II is defacing England's heritage and reputation with his irresponsible ruling. Gaunt disposes endless praise upon the country, calling it an Edenic "demi-paradise" (42), a fortress "defensive...against less happier lands" (48-9), and, somewhat ironically, renowned for its chivalry (as exemplified in the Crusades, which are now touted at the Greatest Failure in History). Sure, Gaunt might have an over-romanticized image of England, but this is all by way of contrast to the neglect Richard II shows the land and his subjects. He is completely wrapped up in his own agenda.
I don't know about you all, but the big question in my mind right now is how anyone would name his or her son after Richard II and expect things to go well. It's as if Richard II's faults are compounded by time and result in the total abomination that is Richard III generations later. He too chokes his own legacy with greed and blood-lust. But just as Richard III was somewhat possible to sympathize with, for his physical deformity and outcast status, I predict that Richard II will also prove to have some redeeming, or at least pitiable, qualities. And I also predict that Gaunt's ghost, either in memory or in body, will haunt the rest of the play.