This post started as a discussion inspired by
Hockaday’s interpretation of scene 4 of Act 3. We watched their video on the
same day we were discussing the Scrivener’s words in Act 3 scene 6. We first
focused on Hockaday’s interpretation of Hastings, and we could not help but
acknowledge the grossness of his
character (lines 11-12 of the Scrivener scene). Could the Scrivener’s words apply to all characters of the play? We
also focused on the character of Stanley (a.k.a. Derby) who also was featured
in the Hockaday video. Following the Scrivener, he struck us as a character who - while not gross -
might be characterized as less than bold (we went with the Folger edition's word choice here for line 13 of the Scrivener scene: Yet who so bold but says he sees it not?)
The discussion gave
birth to the following reflection:
-Shanna
L. reading Act 3 scene 6
In Act 3 Scene 6 of Shakespeare’s Richard III, a
Scrivener says, “Who is so gross that cannot see this palpable device? Yet who
so bold but says he sees it not?” The Scrivener is one of the few characters in
the play to realize Richard III’s plan. This one short speech given by the
Scrivener is so important that it could possibly change our view on the rest of
the play. Going back to Act 1 scene 2 where Richard manipulated Lady Anne, our
original thoughts were that Richard eventually “wooed” Lady Anne into marriage
with only his words. However, the Scrivener’s comments make us think twice:
maybe instead of wooing her, it was Lady Anne’s lack of courage to stand up to
him. Or perhaps she’s “gross” in the
Shakespearean sense. Maybe Richard doesn’t have as much power as is presumed;
maybe the people are scared of him and don’t know how to act or don’t know how
to react, and Anne is one of our first examples of this.
-Paul
DF
The Scrivener
asks the reader to note the sequence of events, making clear it was just five
hours ago that Hastings was an innocent man, free of charge. The Scrivener is
basically asking who is so stupid that they can't see the games being played,
or if they do see the games, who is so self-centered that they will lie or
remain silent to protect themselves? I think this shows the essence to Richard’s
power. He holds influence over people and gets away with schemes even if they
see through his façade; most characters are too worried about themselves to do
anything about it. The noblemen of the play – due to ego or grossness – fail to
see Richard's true self, thus allowing his influence to remain dominant.
Clarence and Hastings, however, thought Richard loved them and didn't listen to
the warnings given to them. Hastings and Clarence in this instance could be
characterized not as cowardly but as simply “gross.” Hastings, though, seems to
best fit the category of “grossness” the best of all; he’s like the horror
movie character that goes in the dark basement alone even with the obvious
knowledge that the killer is on the loose.
-Angelique S.
With the video above, we wanted to emphasize this notion that Hastings may be the quintessential “gross” character, for he egregiously ignores several signs that might have been able to save his life: signs such as Stanley’s dream and his horse stumbling 3 times as he headed towards the tower. Through his naivety and joy from finding out that Rivers and others were executed, he also misses one key point: Rivers, Dorset, AND Hastings, himself, were all cursed by Margaret to die early deaths. However, Hastings ignores these signs, until the very end, just before his execution. Buckingham could be considered “gross” as well; although he collaborates with Richard III, he is unable to see that from even the slightest ‘betrayal’, Richard is ready to backstab Buckingham. This is later confirmed when Buckingham hesitates to kill the young princes, prompting Richard to refuse to give him the title of earl of Hereford.
-Jason N.
Ok, so what
about characters that do see through Richard’s machinations but are “less than
bold” to say so? Does this accurately describe Stanly of Derby for instance?
Stanley is a
character that sees through Richard's plots and “dangerous inductions,” but
does not challenge him because he fears what Richard could do to him. We can
see in scene 2 of Act 3 that Stanley is aware that Richard is evil when he
sends a messenger to Hastings to warn him after he had a nightmare involving
Richard. Another instance where we see Stanley encouraging someone to run away
and hide from Richard is in scene 1 of Act 4 when he is talking to Queen
Elizabeth saying, "Take all the swift advantage of the hours / You shall
have letters from me to my son / In your behalf, to meet you on the way / Be
not ta'er tardy by unwise delay" (4.1.49-52). Again and again we observe
Stanley worrying about what is to become of him when Richard ascends to power,
but he never mentions anything about it in public. Some of us interpret Stanley
as trying to go unnoticed by Richard in an attempt to save himself and at the
same time not be on Richard's side. Therefore, Stanley is "less than
bold" as we see him sneaking around and warning people about Richard while
being discreet so not to raise suspicion from Richard.Another character who proves “not so bold” is the Mayor, and this is seen best in his dealings with Richard and Buckingham on the matters of Hasting’s death and the supposed bastardy of Edward IV in scenes 5 and 7 of Act 3. Interestingly, the common people may be boldest of all as they “spake not a word” in scene 7, refusing to hail Richard as the new king. One thing is for sure, the commoner are anything but gross.
-Meagan, Lexi, and Chase
We wanted to end
this post with a question: if the Scrivener’s dichotomy of grossness and cowardliness
explains the reactions of most characters in the play, how do we explain the
women such as Margaret and the Duchess of York who do see Richard’s evil AND do
have the boldness to say so? Why does it fall on deaf ears?Thanks Hockaday for inspiring this discussion by directing our attention to the behaviors of Hastings and Stanley of Derby!
-Oakridge
Seventh Period
No comments:
Post a Comment