History

“Despair and die!” (Multiple people, multiple times, Richard III, Act V, Scene iii)

PASSAGE / LANGUAGE COMPARISON ANALYSIS

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover, To entertain these fair well-spoken days, I am determined to prove a villain And hate the idle pleasures of these days. Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous, By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams, To set my brother Clarence and the king In deadly hate the one against the other: And if King Edward be as true and just As I am subtle, false and treacherous… -Richard III, I.i.28-37

Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full height. On, on, you noblest English. Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument: Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you. Be copy now to men of grosser blood, And teach them how to war. -Henry V, III.i.15-25

In these two parts of speeches by Richard and Henry, the many differences between them becomes obvious. Richard’s speech reveals to the audience what an evil, twisted man he is. He admits that he is “subtle, false, and treacherous”, that he plans to make his brothers hate each other, and that he actually WANTS to be an evil person. Henry’s speech is meant to encourage the soldiers who are going to be fighting for his rightful land in France against tremendous odds. Henry wants everyone to believe that they are the best, the most fabulous soldiers of all time; Richard wants everyone beneath him and wants them to know it. Henry calls upon patriotism and family pride, while Richard schemes to screw with the ruling class and kill his family. These speeches show that Richard and Henry are on totally opposite ends of the spectrum in almost every way.

COMMENTARY ON THE GENRE

The histories were not quite as interesting for me. In order to make sense of the play and the relationships between the characters, a lot of background reading had to be done. I prefer being able to simply pick up a book and read and enjoy it without having to perform research in order to understand the characters.

PERSONAL REFLECTION

I found Richard III to be more entertaining. With Henry, you knew what was going to happen- because he was portrayed as the hero type, it was obvious that he was going to overcome great adversity and win whatever game he was playing. With Richard, you never knew if someone would finally say, “You’re a scumbag who lied and murdered his way to the crown.” The hope of someone exposing Richard for what he was made Richard III more fun to read, even though I despised Richard as a character.