There are Americans with only the most fragile grasp of their native language who, when they hear the opening lines of Richard III’s famous soliloquy:
“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York”
persist in misunderstanding it as asserting that this is now
the winter of our discontent.
I think of this every time I encounter the Supreme Court’s
misconstrual of the Second Amendment
63 comments:
I'm one of those american's that have a fragile grasp of learned class language. Yet I find the use of the second amendment as a reason for all to be armed to the teeth with guns, all types of guns, a perversion of what our cultural life can be like. Is the gun lobby the, "well regulated militia",the toxic distortion of social life in america? For me it is the cancer on our social life. Yet without reading Richard lll's soliloquy and having an understanding, I fail to grasp its meaning.
So who, then, was the son of York to whom we owe our glorious summer?
The son of York refers to Richard III himself, the younger brother of Edward IV, both grandsons of Richard of York, who contested the right of Henry VI to the English throne. The Houses of York (represented by the White Rose) and Lancaster (represented by the Red Rose) were all descendants of Edward III, who started the Hundred Years War by invading France and defeating the French at the Battle of Crecy, in which Edward’s III’s son, the Black Prince, was ordered by his father to “earn his spurs” at the tender age of 16 by commanding an English contingent. (The Black Prince appears as a character in the movie A Knight’s Tale, which used rock and roll music as a background.) The House of Lancaster prevailed, and the two houses were united by Henry Tudor, Henry VII, ending the Plantagenet line of English kings, begun by Henry II, to begin the Tudor line, ending with Queen Elizabeth I. My favorite series of books about English history are the superbly written six books by Thomas Costain, which traces the reigns of the entire Plantagenet line in easily readable, vibrant prose. For those interested in English history, I highly recommend it. (It is out of print, but I believe used copies are available on Amazon.)
The confusion of the 2nd Amendment derives from the ambiguous referent of the term “the people,” Does it refer to the people who form the existing “well regulated militia,” or all of the people, who potentially could become a “well regulated militia,” J. Scalia opted for the latter; J. Stevens for the former.
The other day, for some reason, I was thinking of these lines from Henry IV Pt 1:
I'll so offend to make offense a skill,
Redeeming time when men think least I will.
That shd be graspable by anyone who understands Yoda's syntax in Star Wars, e.g., "Difficult to see, the future is."
I think you've got that wrong, AA. The words RPW quoted occur right at the beginning of the play where the stage directions read "Enter Richard, Duke of Gloucester, alone." Richard proceeds to pronounce brief but bitter envy of his brother, the new king, Edward,including, "He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber/To the lascivious pleasing of a lute./But I that am not shaped for sportive tricks,/ . . ." Richard then goes on to describe himself and his plans to be the villain. All very horrid and very Tudorian, as befits a playright dependent upon appeasing and appealing to Elizabeth, the grandaughter, on one side, of Henry Tudor. (I think it's Josephine Tey's detective novel, "Daughter of Time," which tries to salvage Richard's reputation. Aware of the plawright's trashing of the real Macbeth, Olivier's film of Richard III turned me into a Ricardian.)
To further support my point, to quote from warsroses.blogspot.com, "Although history has closely identified the house of YORK with the white rose emblem, the favorite personal badge of EDWARD IV was the Sun in Splendor or the bright golden sunburst." Shakespeare would certainly have known that. The badge apparently derived from a meteorological phenomenon that appeared in the sky to Edward, then earl of March, before the Battle of MORTIMER’S CROSS in February 1461."
By the way, a great many genealogists are aware that an enormous number of people are descended from Edward III, among them the actor Benedict Cumberbatch (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150325082445.htm )
Sorry, I messed up my quotation. "Shakespeare would certainly have known that" are my words and they should have been placed after "1461."
James Wilson,
I have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that the play Richard III begins before Richard has ascended to the throne does not mean that the words “son of York” do not refer to him. As a matter of historical record, Richard III did in fact ascend to the throne, after, allegedly, having Edward IV’s son, Edward V, imprisoned in the Tower of London and murdered. By the end of the play, Richard has become king (after all, the play is titled “Richard III”), and losing the Battle of Bosworth Field to Henry Tudor, desperately cries out, “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.” Richard III was not a Tudor, and Shakespeare surely knew that as well. He was the last Plantagenet king.
I just checked, and the Costain series consists of four, not six, books. All four are available as used copies on Thrift Books, at
https://www.thriftbooks.com/a/thomas-b-costain/254530/
Costain was also the author of The Silver Chalice, in the movie version of which Paul Newman starred in his first leading role. He thought that his performance was so poor that he took out newspaper ads advising people not to see it.
I thought I was being quite clear, AA. That’s one of my usual failings, I suppose. (But I certainly said nothing that could be taken to imply that I took Richard to be a Tudor.)
However, to try again: The words “son of York” in the quoted passage from the play refer not to Richard himself (no matter that he was also a son of York). They refer to his brother, Edward, as the flood of words that follow the quoted passage make quite clear. The fact that Edward favored the sunburst symbol I take to be an oblique reference: summer = sun. Richard was being bitterly ironic when he referred to the glorious summer. It was, as his soliloquy makes very clear, not much of a summer for him. The new reign was simply a reminder to him of how much he didn’t fit in to all the cheerfulness and celebration. It presented him with new problems to be overcome so that his ambitions might be fulfilled.
But to repeat the simple point: the opening words of the play, “son of York” do not refer to himself but to his brother. I learned that in high school.
I think james wilson is right, at least according to the textual footnote for that line in The Pelican Shakespeare edition of the play, ed. Peter Holland. The note says the "son of York" is "Edward IV,...([Richard] punning on the sun in Edward's emblem)." I also think that makes sense in the context of the soliloquy.
P.s. I posted the above before seeing james wilson's reply.
Well, it turns out that all four of us are wrong (including Prof. Wolff), because the opening line does not refer to "the son of York," but to "the sun of York." With this corrections, the "sun of York" does refer to Richard's brother, Edward IV.
Thanks for the correction. But some of us were more wrong than others?
But wait! I wrote too soon. I retract some of my last. The Folger Shakespeare version of the play says "son of York". https://shakespeare.folger.edu/shakespeares-works/richard-iii/entire-play/
My copy of the play, “23 Plays edited by Thomas Marc Parratt,” states “sun of York[,]” Moreover, in an introduction to the play, the editor states that the Folio version is replete with errors: “This Folio text is by no means perfect. It omits a few authentic lines, reproduces some of the misprints of Q6, and somewhat imperfectly expunges oaths in accordance with the law of 1606.”
So, we have all been equally mistaken.
It’s all very complicated. But I think I was resorting to literary principles in my argument.
James P. Hammersmith, “ “This Son of Yorke”: Textual and Literary Criticism Again,” “Shakespeare Quarterly vol. 37 (3) Autumn 1986
“Perhaps it is time again to put in a word in favor of the exercise of literary judgment in coping with textual problems and in making editorial decisions, though G. Thomas Tanselle’s lucid and persuasive essay on the need to combine literary and textual criticism appeared not so long ago that it should already have passed out of memory. Still, the questions with which Tanselle grappled are complicated even further when a scholarly editor undertakes to produce a modern reading edition of an early work, for the decisions made for an old-spelling edition must sometimes be re-thought for a moderrnized edition. I am persuaded that Tanselle’s principles apply in both cases, but in that of a modernized edition the scale may have tipped even further in the direction of critical judgment. What I have in mind here is the problem of words which are both substantive variants and spelling variants in early modern English. I plan to argue a specific case, namely that it is impossible, in a modernized edition, to know what to do with all the “sons” and “suns” in the texts of Richard III on the basis of “pure” textual principles, and, moreover, that without resort to literary principles the decisions reached for an old-spelling edition will not only mislead the reader of a modernized text but will misrepresent Shakespeare as well.” [My typing since I was blocked from copying and pasting the original.]
It's pretty clear from the context of the soliloquy, as j Wilson pointed out, that whether it's "son" or "sun," the referent is Edward IV. "Glorious summer" is either sarcasm or bitter irony, as j w said.
Plus we know that Shakespeare liked puns. And though I cd be wrong on this, I don't think his characters often refer to themselves in the third person in soliloquies, which wd also cut vs its being Richard referring to himself.
P.s.
Just to reiterate, puns and wordplay are ubiquitous in Shakespeare. So I wd think that wd need to factor in.
Seems like even our esteemed Scotus elite agree with the plain 'elementary english' interpretation of the 2nd amendment that the vast majority of Americans agree with.
If you don't like it, you're free to leave for somewhere less free! Being a sore loser, beating one's head against the wall must be tiring!
Anonymous,
Have you even read District of Columbia v. Heller? I bet not.
Well, here’s your chance. But you will have to focus and stay awake – it’s 157 pp. long.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
James Wilson and LFC,
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse (pun intended), history and the context of Richard’s soliloquy make clear that whether the phrase is “son of York,” or “sun of York,” the reference is to Richard, not Edward. Edward died in 1483. The opening scene of the play takes place the prior year, 1482. At this point in Edward’s life, the once tall and stalwart Edward, the victor of the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, was in frail health and unable to engage in combat. In 1482, Edward sent his younger brother, Richard, to Scotland, to install the Duke of Albany as King of Scotland, replacing James III. After capturing Edinburgh Castle, Richard returned to England. In the opening soliloquy, Richard is referring to his victory in Scotland, stating that the victory in Scotland “is the winter of our discontent [i.e., end of], made glorious summer by this ‘sun’ or ‘son’ of York.” The “winter of our discontent” also refers also to the end of his own discontent, living in the shadow of his older profligate and licentious brother, Edward. All of the following lines – “Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths; Our bruised arms hung up for monuments; Our stern alarums chang’d to merry meetings …” refer to Richard’s victories in Scotland, not Edward’s military victories. After Edward ascended to the throne after the Battle of Tewkesbury, Edward did not engage in military combat. He relied on his younger brother, Richard, to do that. So Richard is patting himself on the back for this “son” or “sun” of York having brought glorious summer to England. In the meantime, he states that while he, Richard, has brought the end to their discontent by his victories in Scotland, “He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.” Yes, the “he’ in question is Edward. But the “he” cannot refer to the “son of York” in the opening lines, because that son of York is responsible for the military victories in Scotland which have brought “glorious summer” to England, ending both England’s and Richard’s discontent. Given that Edward had no military victories in 1482, and Richard did, this is the only interpretation which makes both historical and literary sense, regardless what you may have leaned in high school.
I rest my case.
AA
Lines 9 through 12 read (from the pb Pelican ed., which is easier to handle than the hardcover complete Shakespeare ed. that I happen to have):
Grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front,
And now, instead of mounting barbèd steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
If you read these lines carefully, you'll see that "grim-visaged war" is equated with the "he" who now capers nimbly, etc. So since Edward is the one capering nimbly, Edward, in the context of these lines, must also be "grim-visaged war," i.e., the one who has won the victories. No other reading really makes, istm, grammatical, syntactical, literary (pick your word) sense.
Now this may indeed contradict the historical facts as you have outlined them, but Shakespeare was often not concerned with fidelity to the facts of history. Often he was more concerned w pleasing his audience or patrons or w the demands/requirements of his dramatic art as he saw them.
From a site called bardweb.net:
"It's amazing how much of Richard III has been taken at face value since the play was first performed. In taking his cue from the works of Sir Thomas More and Holinshed, Shakespeare at best is two steps removed from historical accuracy. First, Shakespeare is a dramatist taking a certain amount of license in creating popular entertainment. Second, Shakespeare had a limited pool of source material upon which to draw, written largely to legitimize the reign of Henry VII, who might otherwise be seen as much the same usurper as Richard. Add to the situation that Shakespeare was writing during the reign of Henry VII's granddaughter, and it seems difficult to treat Richard III as historical scholarship.
"As in contemporary times, however, the worst 'history' can often make the best story. Historically, Richard was not deformed, did not have a withered arm, and introduced a number of legal reforms. Yet critics, actors, and audiences remain enthralled by the glib, manipulative hunchback who self consciously revels in his machinations."
A "well regulated" militia is one that has regular bowel movements.
No, LFC, you are misinterpreting lines 10-12. All of the prior lines, 1-8, refer to Richard’s victories in Scotland. The last line, “Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.” ends with a period, and refers to Richard’s exploits in Scotland. The next line begins a new passage, “Grim-visag’d War hath smooth’d his wrinkled front; And now, instead of mounting barbed steeds To fright the souls of fearful adversaries ,,” refers to Edward’s past victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury. This is clear, otherwise Richard is simultaneously praising the same person for the victories referred to in the previous lines, and then claiming that that same person is not longer able or willing to engage in “mounting barbed steeds.” These lines cannot refer to the same person. Richard is comparing Edward’s heroic past military success to his current military inaction, while he, Richard, has brought new military success to England.
The commentary in your subsequent comment that Shakespeare sometimes ignored historical facts does not entail that he did so in the opening soliloquy of Richard III. He surely was aware of Richard’s success in the field of combat and his expedition in Scotland. Moreover, the person deserving credit for “our brows bound with victorious wreaths” cannot be the same person whose “wrinkled front” has been “smooth’d” by “Grim-visag’d War” and “instead of mounting barbed steeds To fright the souls of fearful adversaries [which Richard had recently done in Scotland], He capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber …. .”
It took me a few tries to parse that passage, presumably because I'm no native speaker. But I think your assertion that most people interpret it to say "it is winter now" can be more easily attributed to the fact that they aren't used to reading poetry than to some misunderstanding of elementary English (which are different things).
I myself do not understand the purpose of poetry, I don't see the supposed aesthetic value.
Just about the only work in the English language written in this style that I've read completely is Ozymandias. It's only 14 lines long, but that's still enough to contain bits I can't piece together.
AA
You are too hung up on this Scotland business, I think.
"Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths" might refer to Richard's victories in Scotland (I don't know), but that does not entail that he is the referent of the "son of York". Why not? Because "now is the winter of discontent/Made glorious summer by this son of York" could mean "now we are happy [or supposed to be happy] because Edward is on the throne." And it's "our brows," "ourbruisèd arms" etc.: our, not , so he cd be referring to a collective triumph of his family, even if he was the instrument of it, no?
Also, how do you know precisely what facts Shakespeare was aware of? Is it in Holinshed? How do you know what year the opening of the play is set in? Also, if Shakespeare knew that Edward was in such frail health that he couldn't fight, would S. have him "caper[ing] nimbly in a lady's chamber"? Or maybe he did know that fact (Edward's frailty), but ignored it?
If you just read the lines, I think the reading that I and j. wilson advocate better comports with what's on the page. You know the historical background much better than I do, but as I say, S. didn't give a **** about the historical record when it didn't suit him to.
If you can find some authoritative commentary backing up your reading, that wd be nice.
correction:
should read "our, not mine"
I don’t know where you get your history, AA. But should you go to nothing grander and more reputable than Wikipedia and search on James III [of Scotland] you’ll encounter the following: “Meanwhile, the English army, unable to take Edinburgh Castle, ran out of money and returned to England . . .”
More reputably, a detailed account of the history of attempts to capture the Castle—“the most besieged place in Great Britain, and one of the most beleaguered places in the world” (p. 43; David H. Caldwell, National Museums of Scotlnd, “Edinburgh castle under siege 1093-1544,” J. Sydney Soc. Scot. Hist., vol. 16, 43-66 (September 2016) )—makes no mention of the Castle being captured by Richard (pp. 61-62 of ). So much for your assertion that Richard captured Edinburgh Castle. And your attempt to use that false claim to buttress your initial misinterpretation . . . Words fail me. And then to go on to yet more obvious error: that Richard’s winter of discontent was come to an end, etc. etc. etc. just doesn’t make any sense given what he goes on to say.
More generally, why can’t you just admit that you proferred an easily refuted intepretation of Richard’s soliloquy and move on. We surely don’t need a whole lot more potted history replete with errors. I won’t go so far as to accuse you of cultural appropriation, but being Scottish/British, I find such “history” as annoying as I imagine you find potted populistic histories of the USA annoying.
F. Lengyel’s comment is a welcome relief.
Also, "grim-visaged war hath smoothed his wrinkled front" obviously seems to connect to "our dreadful marches" becoming "delightful measures."
So why would "dreadful marches" refer to Scotland but "grim-visaged war" refer to completely different battles, namely Barnet and Tewkesbury? Is it possible? I guess so, but it wouldn't make a lot of literary sense. You have to read the lines, not superimpose your knowledge of historical facts that S. didn't care about.
P.s. alleged historical facts (thank you, j. w.)
But see Mike Huemer on Shakespeare:
"If you wanted to expose students to some literature that they’ll get something out of, it seems to me that it would be important that they at least be able to understand the literal meaning of the sentences in it. I’ve seen Shakespeare performed, and I can’t understand what the hell these people are saying. If I can’t understand it, most students have no hope.
I don’t know if people really talked like that in Britain 400 years ago, but they don’t talk that way today, and normal (modern) English speakers can’t be expected to follow it. It’s a little better than giving students a play written in Chinese and somehow hoping they’ll learn a lot from it."
https://fakenous.net/?p=2186
You don't need to agree with the entirety of Huemer's post to accept that judging a native English speaker's facility with the language based on if they can properly interpret Shakespeare is probably not fair or appropriate or meaningful.
LFC and James Wilson,
Edward ascended to the throne after his victory at the Battle of Tewkesbury, May 4, 1471. He died on April 9, 1483. In the play, Edward’s death occurs in Act II, Scene III. If, as you claim, LFC, that in his soliloquy Richard is celebrating Edward’s victory at Tewkesbury, then 12 years must transpire between Act I and Act II. Certainly a playwright’s use of literary license could account for such time passage, but there are no indications in the transition from Act I to Act II that some 12 years has transpired. That the play begins shortly before Edward’s death makes more sense.
James Wilson, Edinburgh castle was recaptured by James III after Richard returned to England. And if we are going to rely on Wikipedia for our historical information, there is this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_invasion_of_Scotland_(1482): “Edward IV wrote to Pope Sixtus IV on 25 August describing the campaign in Scotland, explaining that Richard had spared all the citizens of Edingburgh, helped by the intercession of Albany, who was restored to his estates by the power of the English army.” Moreover, regarding Edward’s ability to “caper nimbly in a lady’s chamber” in 1482, one year before his death, is consistent with his reputation throughout his life of being promiscuous and licentious. His profligacy would not be inconsistent with his inability to engage in military combat, something he assigned to Richard after he became king.
Neither of you can explain how the “son of York,” whoever he is, could in the same speech praise whoever was responsible for the “brows bound with victorious wreaths” as the same person who contemporaneously “now, instead of mounting barbed steeds To fright the souls of fearful adversaries, He capers nimbly in a lady’s chambers.” The two contemporaneous event could not be attributed to the same person.
I therefore submit that, whoever Richard is referring to as “the son of York” or “the sun of York,” it is at best ambiguous, and the conclusion that he is referring to himself, and not his older brother, has support both in the historical record and in the context that Richard is referring to two different people.
I happened to provide a more respectable reference than wikipedia, AA, and even stated that in what I wrote. Did I deny that Richard was in Edinburgh? No. But capturing the Castle??? And it certainly wasn't retaken from him by James, as you now seem to imply. But it would, it seems, not suit your style of argument to acknowledge precisely what others say or historical facts.
Enough of this nonsense. I am, however, led back to the wisdom of RPW's opening remarks: when encountering egregious misinterpretations of Richard's soliloquy, "I think of this every time I encounter the Supreme Court’s misconstrual of the Second Amendment." Perhaps this criticism deserves broader application.
You, know, James Wilson, in generally every dispute, each participant accuses the other of being unreasonably stubborn. I at lest have indicated that to whom Richard is referring as the "son" or "sun" of York is ambiguous. Nothing you have written has removed that ambiguity. I am reminded of a statement uttered by the actor Charles Durning in the movie "Home For The Holidays': "Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one, and everyone thinks the other fellow's stinks."
AA, I think you're very wrong in holding it to be ambiguous.
You first asserted that Richard was referring to himself.
Then when caught out in that mistake, which you have never really acknowledged, you decide you'll try to make the case--using a lot of historically inaccurate and irrelevant "evidence"--that maybe the reference is ambiguous (though you never quite give up on your initial claim).
And when you're called out on that, you simply repeat your errors. And you want me to offer you a way out of your errors by agreeing with you--which I most certainly do not--that it's ambiguous who Richard was referring to.
I just plain think you're wrong with respect to both your claims. And I think I've indicated in several places where your "evidence" isn't worth much.
As I said before, enough of this nonsense.
So ... um ... how about that Second Amendment?
James Wilson,
Yes, enough of your nonsense. Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one, and everyone believes the other guy's stinks.
Anonymous,
I posted the link to the Heller decision above. Why don't you read it for yourself?
Another Anonymous: "The son of York refers to Richard III himself"
AHAHAHAHAHAHA
Re Huemer
For students coming to a Shakespeare play for the first time, I wd think the teacher or prof wd have them read it first. Once the play has been grasped on the page, seeing it performed well can be v rewarding. Shakespeare is not that difficult to understand after some background about the language etc is in hand. (The plays vary of course, w some being more accessible on first reading or viewing than others.)
This is sort of separate from the question of how to gauge a native speaker's facility w the language.
This thread is a truly remarkable display of the tendencies of self-described 'intellectuals'. lol.
Why doesn't someone email Shakespeare and ask him what he meant?
I've heard that he answers all his emails.
I've heard that Shakespeare is a hoax and didn't really exist. Fake news!
His Twitter account is still active though!
You’re partly right, Anonymous @ 4:35. But a lwyyer who often lectures everyone on the law just failed to pass the Wolff test. He should hang up his briefs.
Shakespeare doent do e-mails. he twitters
According to G. Blakemore Evans, textual editor of The Riverside Shakespeare, Richard III presents sever textual difficulties; none-the-less, the "son of York" refers to Edward IV.
A "well regulated militia" is well regulated by the government, whose thorough and exhaustive regulations, filling volume after volume, include mandatory liability insurance for gun owners scattered among volumes 3, 16, 17, 42, 165, 453, 7695, 187643, and an addendum to volume 2,093,987 book 4, appendix 13, not to mention bills pending and withdrawn, or the excursus on negative externalities touched upon in volume 11 and elaborated in volumes 23 through 37, beginning with section 4.8.4.3 in volume 23 and alternating among the odd and even numbered subsections following, at increasing intervals. I trust you are all very familiar with the glossator Pedantus the Elder, who recalls by way of Platitudinus the sole extant fragment of the Gonadology, a two-volume work attributed to the obscure, ancient Greco-Roman poet Testiclies.
English is not my native language and there are dozens of translations of Richard III into my language, but that Richard means Edward when he speaks of the "Sun of York" becomes unambiguously clear when he continues a few sentences: "...He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute. But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks..."
Here at the latest it becomes clear who is "I" and who is "this sun of York".
Der Satz des 2. Amendments ist einfach sehr schlecht formuliert. Wer Juristen mit politischen Interessen kennt könnte darin eine Absicht vermuten.
Well, then, Adam, how do you explain the following:
Richard appears solo on the stage, i.e., by himself, and begins his soliloquy, in the first sentence of which he states, “this son [or sun] of York.” The word “this” in English, like “dieser” in German, is a demonstrative adjective that points to something. Since Richard is the only person on the stage, to whom or what is he pointing, other than himself? He is saying that he, the only person on the stage, is the “son” or “sun” of York. Now, you might respond that he is pointing theoretically to someone or something that is not on the stage with him, but how would the observers of the play know who that is – since there were several sons of York, six to be precise – Edward, Richard, George, Edmund, William and John. Moreover, still, no one has answered my question regarding how can the same person be the person who has just recently prevailed in combat, but, at the same time (i.e., the same “now” in the first line as in the 10th line) “instead of mounting barbed steeds … capers nimbly in a lady’s chamber …”
Sigh.
Someone forget to take their meds this week?
AA
I don't see the difficulty. As I've said before, I don't think S's concern is fidelity to the historical record.
Try putting aside everything except the soliloquy itself, just as an experiment, so to speak. Then one what you've got is a little capsule story involving someone, let's call him X, who has recently (whatever "recently" means, and it cd be quite elastic) won military victories and, with the victories secured, has decided to turn his attention from the battlefield to the bed chamber(s), from "dreadful marches" to "delightful measures" (i.e., stately dances, as one editor glosses it).
You keep saying this can't be the same person, that there have to be two X's, but I don't understand why. You seem to be taking the word "now" to mean "at this very instant," as if in English you can't say "now I've finished this and am starting that." But of course you can say that in English, and it makes perfect sense. "Now let's go to the theater" does not mean, or does not have to mean, "in this very instant let's drop everything we're doing and go to the theater"; it can mean "let's proceed, in a non-hasty way, to finish making ourselves presentable, and then let's walk to the subway [or get in the car, whatever], and go to the theater."
I think this is my last comment on this, since as j w said, enough is enough.
AA,
are you really suggesting that a speaker cannot refer to an object that is not physically present in the context of his speech? Especially since (see my quote) he later states that he does not mean himself with Sun (or Son) of York? Ohh AA! what confusion of language ;)
Macbeth: "What is this dagger that I see before me?" [sorry if that's not verbatim, but it's close]
Of course there is no dagger; he's hallucinating, i.e. referring to an object that is not there, and which the audience knows is not there.
P s. Not that Richard is hallucinating, but you get the point.
LFC,
As an attorney, I see a lot of this kind of specious reasoning by adversaries trying desperately to defend their obviously liable clients by coming up with one frivolous defense after another, until their game of cards falls apart.
In order for the “son of York” to be Edward rather than Richard, the proponents of this argument have to explain all of the following: the use of the demonstrative adjective “this” when Richard is on the stage by himself, and is obviously not hallucinating; when there were six sons of York that he could have been referring to other than himself, but then, which one?; when after the Battle of Tewkesbury, Edward never engaged in military combat, but left that to Richard; when Richard is celebrating a recent military victory that only he could have engaged in, because Edward was constantly too busy dallying in the bed chambers of the ladies in waiting, being untrue to his wife, Elizabeth of Woodville; when the language of the soliloquy clearly refers to two different people, one who was recently victorious in battle - who could only have been Richard, unless the soliloquy occurs shortly after the Battle of Tewkesbury, but then how do you explain the 12 years that must elapse between Act I, Scene I, and Act II, Scene III, the death of Edward, when no mention of such a temporal transition occurs at the beginning of Act II? Shakespeare was fully aware of the historical events he was writing about, and would not have postulated a ridiculous alternative that has Richard, alone on the stage, using the demonstrative adjective “this” and celebrating not his own military victory, but that of his licentious older brother who could not have accomplished, and did not accomplish, such a victory after the Battle of Tewkesbury.
Applying Occam’s razor, there is only one explanation that adequately accounts for all of the above - both the historical facts and the language of the soliloquy – that Richard is referring to himself and praising himself for his recent military victories, while his older brother engages in constant philandering, so that, finally, Richard, the despised humpback, can emerge from his discontent and celebrate the glorious new summer that he has earned by virtue of his military success. Those who insist, in the face of all of the holes in their alternative claim that Richard, standing alone on the stage, is referring to his older brother, must ignore all of the above inconsistencies in order to reject the more apt explanation that Richard is referring to himself. Yes, I agree, enough is enough.
Lord, have mercy.
AA, may you never develop a hunchback.
Just a reminder... ^^^ this is the same guy who would lecture the Supreme Court about how they got Heller wrong. LOL.
Thank God for our Constitutional Republic that protects our rights against such idiocy and obfuscation.
To Anonymous:
For once, I agree with Another Anonymous: SCOTUS did get Heller wrong.... badly wrong... by misconstruing the plain text of the Second Amendment.... "Well-ordered militias" are not constituted by teenage boys shooting up schools.
"Well-ordered militias" are not constituted by teenage boys shooting up schools.
…
Nice straw man!
To Anonymous....
Not really.... just hyperbole to make the needed point.
The un-hyperbolic truth is that all the school shootings in since Columbine involve guns that were bought legally.... under the Court's current "interpretation" of the Second Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
To David’s point, unless a well regulated State militia included everyone living in the State – which it never did – the Second Amendment should be interpreted as stating:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people [in a well regulated State Militia] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A claim that adding language which is not already there is impermissible would contradict the fact that the use of the word “law” in the First Amendment is not restricted to making “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …” but includes enforcing any administrative regulation, or policy or practice which has the same effect as a law.
Anonymous of December 14, 2021 at 12:40 PM may have been referring to me or to AA. To preempt any confusion, and to ensure that the animadversions of the Anonymous of December 14, 2021 at 12:40 PM apply to me, either singly or jointly, or in any convex combination thereof, I agree with AA's reading of the Second Amendment and of Heller.
Thank you F Lengyel, that's the kindest thing anybody has written about me on this blog in the last 7 days.
By the way, "humpback" and "hunchback" are synonymous.
Post a Comment