What would you have me do? I am a subject,

And I challenge the law:

Henry Bolingbroke    

King Richard The Second                    Act II, Scene iii, Line 119

Well this is a continuation of a bit of a speech that we touched on in an earlier post back in April. Here, if you can read that post it’ll give you a pretty good idea of what’s going on, and then I’ll give you Bolingbrokes’s full speech right here

As I was banish'd, I was banish'd Hereford;

But as I come, I come for Lancaster.
And, noble uncle, I beseech your grace
Look on my wrongs with an indifferent eye:
You are my father, for methinks in you
I see old Gaunt alive; O, then, my father,
Will you permit that I shall stand condemn'd
A wandering vagabond; my rights and royalties
Pluck'd from my arms perforce and given away
To upstart unthrifts? Wherefore was I born?
If that my cousin king be King of England,
It must be granted I am Duke of Lancaster.
You have a son, Aumerle, my noble cousin;
Had you first died, and he been thus trod down,
He should have found his uncle Gaunt a father,
To rouse his wrongs and chase them to the bay.
I am denied to sue my livery here,
And yet my letters-patents give me leave:
My father's goods are all distrain'd and sold,
And these and all are all amiss employ'd.
What would you have me do? I am a subject,
And I challenge law: attorneys are denied me;
And therefore, personally I lay my claim
To my inheritance of free descent.

 As you can see, Bolingbroke goes through quite a bit of very good argument here, and in the end, with today’s totally random line, he’s saying that he’s just doing what is legally his right to do. Now I’m not a lawyer but it certainly looks like Mr. Bolingbroke has a good argument. What do you think?

Here's a book on the American government. But I guess this wouldn't do Mr. Bolingbroke too much good since he was dealing with the laws of England, not America. Oh well.

Unthrifty Loveliness, why dost thou spend

Upon thyself thy beauty’s legacy

Narrator

Sonnet 4                               Line 1

Well this is one of those lines that doesn’t have any particularly hard words in it, and yet it would take a while to figure out exactly what Will is saying. But I’m not going to spend any time on this.

You see, I’m afraid I’m drawn back to last night’s line as I just can’t seem to get past the relevance of Iago, and his wickedness and his name calling, and I don’t think I fully finished my thought yesterday. I believe I’ve remarked more than once in past posts how I find it hard to believe that the rest of the people in the play are not able to see what a rat Iago is. It just seems to be so terribly obvious to me as the viewer/reader of the play. And I’ve been considering our current situation, the one I alluded to yesterday, and now it strikes me as to how true to real life the situation in Othello is. I look at the name-caller-in-chief and I realize that there are millions of people who actually can’t see him for what he is, and it brings a whole new level of meaning to Othello and Iago. I realize just how relevant Will’s works are in today’s world, especially now.

I thought I had more to say on it, but I guess it’s as simple as that. Okay, now I’m done. Thanks for listening.

Villainous Whore!

-Iago

Othello                              Act V, Scene ii, Line 230

Yes, this is our buddy Iago. And he’s talking to/about his wife, no less. This is very near the end of the play. His wife has just told Othello that it was Iago who gave the damn hanky to Cassio, and the whole plot is unraveling as everyone is realizing (finally!) that Iago is the rat. Iago will follow this line up by stabbing his wife and then taking off. Oh, he’s a beaut all right. What else is there to say about this line and this guy?

Iago's line today got me to realizing that it's just about always the less virtuous of us who are the ones to be calling other people names. And I was tempted to put the picture of the Name Caller in Chief. But then I realized that would make me no better. So I give you a blank pallet, and I leave today's picture up to you.

Only, my friends, I am yet unprovided

Of a pair of bases.

-Pericles

Pericles                               Act II, Scene i, Line 160

I had to do some searching on this one. This is Pericles talking to the fishermen. He’s just washed up on shore after being shipwrecked. He’s found out from these three fishermen he's just run into that there’s a Knight’s tourney about to take place at the local king’s court. Now the fishermen have just happened to have dragged up Pericles suit of armor in their fishing nets, so he’s ready to head for the tourney, except…

Only, my friends, I am yet unprovided

Of a pair of bases.

A pair of bases? Yeah, I didn’t know either. I thought maybe he was talking about shoes. Bases, or a pair of bases, was/were not in my usual Shakespeare glossary. So of course what does one do when one needs an answer? Of course; I googled it. I came up with ‘knee length skirt worn by a knight on horseback.’ Of course! He don’t have his skirt! But no worries. Second Fisherman’s going to give him his best gown to make a pair of bases. Whew, that was a close call!

No Bryan, that is not a knight’s pair of bases. I don’t care how many Budweisers you drink, that’s just an old lady’s skirt. (And yes, I’ve been aching to find a spot to use this picture.) 

In sign whereof I pluck a white rose.

-Lawyer

King Henry The Sixth Part I            Act II, Scene iv, Line 58

The Wars of the Roses. That’s what this is the start of. It’s the beginning of the wars fought for the English throne between the Yorks and the Lancasters. And it supposedly got its name because of this scene in a Shakespeare play where a bunch of Yorkists and Lancasterians were in a garden and they started picking roses to signify which side they were taking: a white rose for York and a red rose for Lancaster. Did this scene actually take place in real life? I doubt it. But it makes for good theater, doesn’t it? 

And by the way, I looked up the word 'whereof', and it’s a legit modern word. It means ‘of what’ or ‘of which’. And I think that’s a little funny since we use the word ‘where’ when we’re talking about ‘what’ or ‘which.’ Why don’t we say ‘whatof’ or ‘whichof’? It’s that crazy English language in action.

 

The storm, whereof these clouds are an indication, passed us by completely.