In this play of challenge and debate, could it be possibly suggested that King Richard had a part to play in the murder of his uncle the Duke of Gloucester? Could the reader possibly pick up this assumption having known nothing about the play? These are all factors that one must find by reading in between the lines, noticing and understanding the silence that is exchanged. For the silence is just as important as the speech. Why is it assumed that King Richard II has anything to do with the murder? Let us review a scene from the play were Gaunt accuses Richard of being accountable for Gloucester’s death. “Gaunt: O, spare me not, my [brother] Edward’s son, For that I was his father Edward’s son, That blood already, like the pelican, Hast thou tapp’d out and drunkenly carous’d. My brother Gloucester, plain well-meaning soul, Whom fair befall in heaven ‘mongst happy souls, May be a president and witness good That thou respect’st not spilling Edwards blood.” (II.i) That passage simply states: You may be a king, but you could have respected my brother enough not to kill him. There is also another quote were Mowbray indirectly suggests that the King is also at fault. “Mow: O, let my sovereign turn away his face, And bid his ears a little while be deaf, Till I have told this slander of his blood, How God and good men hate so foul a liar.” (I.i) Yet with saying this remark about the King, he also begs for his innocence.
The Essay on The Mambo Kings Play Songs Of Love
The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love By: Oscar Hijuelo Harper Collins Publishers 1989 407 Pages (No Bibliography, Pics, Maps or Index) The book that I read was rather pornographic. It was a story about 2 brothers and 6 other people who put together a band and played in clubs almost every night. After playing their gigs, theyd go off and get drunk and then go sleep with about 4 different girls every ...
“Mine honor is my life, both grow in one, Take honor from me, and my life is done. Then, dear my liege, mine honor let me try; In that I live, and for that I will die.” (I.i) These passages indirectly state that King Richard II is at fault for the death of his uncle. But for the reader to see this they must break down the play and search for those “hidden meanings”. For the ordinary reader, who does not search, the text clearly states that the fight for innocence is distinctly between Bullingbrook and Mowbray. Such an example can be found in Act I: “Bull: That he [Mowbray] did plot the Duke of Gloucester’s death, Suggest his soon-believing adversaries, And consequently, like a traitor coward, Sluic’d his innocent soul through streams of blood.” The rest of the dialogue converses back and forth between Bullingbrook and Mowbray, each fighting for their own innocence. One will come to realize this by reading directly off the page and not looking for those “hidden meanings” and the silently spoken words.
The silence is just as important as the speech. One will never really know if King Richard II is at fault or not. Nevertheless, when King Richard II dies, the reader experiences an overwhelming sensation of dj vu. When Henry IV takes over as the new King, he precisely says: “K. Hen: Lords, I protest my soul is full of woe, That blood shall sprinkle me to make me grow. Come mourn with me for what I do lament, And put on sullen black incontinent. I’ll make a voyage to the Holy Land, To wash his [Richard’s] blood off from my guilty hand.
March sadly after, grace my mournings here; In weeping after this untimely bier.” (V.vi) After reading this act of conspiracy against King Richard II and after considering the fact that King Richard II might have killed his uncle, one may ask themselves a question; Is Henry IV just as guilty as King Richard II?.
