ThursdayNext : www.jasperfforde.com
A discussion of all things Thursday !
My kingdom for a horse
Posted by: Bart Odom (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date: March 18, 2002 01:09PM
<HTML>It is surprising to me that Thursday Next, ostensibly an expert on Shakespeare, holds the common misinterpretation of Richard III's exclamation, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!", namely that Richard is here "offer[ing] to swap his kingdom for" a horse (p. 185). This reading makes no sense. Why on earth would Richard offer to swap his kingdom for a horse, since he only needs a horse in order to save his kingdom? Richard is not offering a swap, but is lamenting the cruel irony that it is for want of a horse that his kingdom will be lost. "A horse, a horse, my kingdom [will be lost] for [want of] a horse!" Either Next or the otherwise erudite Mr. Fforde should have known better.</HTML>
Re: My kingdom for a horse
Posted by: talpianna (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: March 19, 2002 06:05AM
<HTML>He needs a horse to save his life--he's surrounded by enemies!</HTML>
Re: My kingdom for a horse
Posted by: Bart Odom (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date: March 19, 2002 01:30PM
<HTML>Before anyone else points it out, I am aware of the usual view--that Richard would merely like to save his own hide, and would give up everything he's fought so hard to attain just to get a horse on which to run away. However, I do not find that this interpretation does justice to Richard's character. That such a man, who has conspired, schemed, and murdered to get the throne, a man who has already put himself at risk of his life by going onto the battlefield in the first place, for the sole purpose of saving his kingdom, would then just give it all up and turn tail and run, I simply do not find credible.</HTML>
Re: My kingdom for a horse
Posted by: Bart Odom (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date: March 19, 2002 08:03PM
<HTML>Moreover, the reason Richard was surrounded by enemies at the battle of Bosworth Field is that he charged up a hill, alone, towards Henry Tudor, and came within a sword's length of killing the usurper before being killed himself by Henry's retainers. Hardly the action of a man looking to make a quick getaway on a pricey horse.</HTML>
Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: Jasper Fforde (---.no-dns-yet.ntli.net)
Date: March 20, 2002 09:15AM
<HTML>Mr Odom is absolutely correct; Richard means precisely that - he's already killed five Richmonds and needs the sixth to win the day and complete his Richmond 'Boxed set'. For want of a horse he has, indeed, lost not only his kingdom but a dynasty. Bummer. Trouble is, when I'm writing I often alter the sense of a situation to make silly jokes work, and the pink pantomime horse joke (which I thought quite appealing) would actually make no sense at all to the presumably very knowledgeable audience in Thursday's world. So I think I took the line literally to be able to make sense of the the gag, in much the same way as I probably would have taken the "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" line literally: "He's under the window, dummy!" when in fact Juliet is no more asking where Romeo is than Richard is willing to swap his entire kingdom for a good tip at the 4:20 at Haydock Park. Mind you, I've always wondered why Juliet didn't ask: "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Montague?" which is closer to what she is really asking. Any ideas, anyone?
Jasper Fforde</HTML>
Jasper Fforde</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: talpianna (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: March 21, 2002 04:40AM
<HTML>The obvious reason is that "Romeo" is a more euphonious sound than "Montague": alternatively, although we pronounce both names with the same scansion, it is possible that they were not so pronounced in Shakespeare's day. Where is Robert MacNeil when we really need him?
BTW, Bart, you are interpreting the character of Shakespeare's Richard in terms of the real king--not a good idea because Shakespeare was busily engaged in slandering him.
Incidentally, what Richard really yelled when he charged the Tudor standard was "Treason! Treason!"--fair comment since his reserve cavalry wing, under the command of Lord Stanley, had just entered the battle on the Tudor side. Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry Tudor. Richard's main character flaw in real life seems to have been a tendency to forgive too many enemies, and always the wrong ones.</HTML>
BTW, Bart, you are interpreting the character of Shakespeare's Richard in terms of the real king--not a good idea because Shakespeare was busily engaged in slandering him.
Incidentally, what Richard really yelled when he charged the Tudor standard was "Treason! Treason!"--fair comment since his reserve cavalry wing, under the command of Lord Stanley, had just entered the battle on the Tudor side. Stanley was married to Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry Tudor. Richard's main character flaw in real life seems to have been a tendency to forgive too many enemies, and always the wrong ones.</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: Bart Odom (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date: March 21, 2002 01:34PM
<HTML>Tal, I believe I am interpreting Richard according to Shakespeare's version. I certainly recognize the considerable difference between them. However, for reasons I adduced above I do not believe the "give me a horse to save my hide" interpretation holds water. Shakespeare's Richard was above all else ambitious, and his ambition trumped all other considerations, even those of his personal safety. Your "give me a horse so I can rally my troops" interpretation is clever, but really not logically coherent. One does not say, for example, "I'd give up my family just to get a sword so I can save my family".</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: Jedidiah (---.jcu.edu.au)
Date: March 21, 2002 08:42PM
<HTML>Coming from the point of view of a 3rd year law student, I would just suggest that Richard was saying just that, "I'll swap this kingdom I've worked so hard for for a horse! (So that I can save said kingdom, of course)." My reasoning is thus: Richard is ambitious, as Mr Odom said. He'd do anything to secure his kingdom. So there are two reasons for his horse swap statement.
1. He's an unscrupulous piece of work who does mean what he says but is just hoping that some poor sap will take him at his work and give him a horse. He has no intention to hold up his end of the bargin.
2. Richard is an educated man and may know a little of the English Common Law. The "My kingdom for a horse!" line is an invitation to treat, and as it does not specify any specifics (ie. the definition of kingdom, for a start) it could be considered puff and nonsense and therefore not a valid offer. No offer, no contract. On the other hand, Richard might've heard of the idea that oral contracts are difficult to enforce and in some cases aren't binding. So on getting his horse he wouldn't have to give over the kingdom later, even if he had survived the battle.
Not that Shakespeare or Richard III would've been thinking along these lines, but in an alternate universe...you never know! ;)</HTML>
1. He's an unscrupulous piece of work who does mean what he says but is just hoping that some poor sap will take him at his work and give him a horse. He has no intention to hold up his end of the bargin.
2. Richard is an educated man and may know a little of the English Common Law. The "My kingdom for a horse!" line is an invitation to treat, and as it does not specify any specifics (ie. the definition of kingdom, for a start) it could be considered puff and nonsense and therefore not a valid offer. No offer, no contract. On the other hand, Richard might've heard of the idea that oral contracts are difficult to enforce and in some cases aren't binding. So on getting his horse he wouldn't have to give over the kingdom later, even if he had survived the battle.
Not that Shakespeare or Richard III would've been thinking along these lines, but in an alternate universe...you never know! ;)</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: Bart Odom (---.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net)
Date: March 22, 2002 06:09PM
<HTML>Not to beat a dead horse, so to speak, but to all you naysayers out there I would like to observe that Richard himself denies the "swap my kingdom for a horse" interpretation in the play itself. After Richard first says "A horse etc", Catesby, taking Richard to be desiring escape, says, "Withdraw, my lord, I'll help you to a horse." Richard immediately reproves Catesby thus: "Slave, I have set my life upon a cast/And I will stand the hazard of the die." That is, Richard is committed to his course, come what may. He desires not escape, but laments that for want of a horse he will be unable to find and slay the sixth, and genuine, Richmond, and will therefore lose his kingdom.</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: Jedidiah (---.jcu.edu.au)
Date: March 23, 2002 11:59AM
<HTML>Of course, I wasn't saying that he wanted to escape. I was just pointing out that while he propsed swaping his kingdom for a horse, he didn't propose to honour the oral contract.
Not, in the end that having a horse actually did Richard any good...</HTML>
Not, in the end that having a horse actually did Richard any good...</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: talpianna (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: March 24, 2002 09:36AM
<HTML>Jasper, I think you have omitted an important element of Richard's effort to bag Richmonds--with six, you get eggrolls.</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: Sid (---.server.ntl.com)
Date: August 12, 2002 11:56PM
<HTML>I am a HUGE Shakespeare fan (which I am constantly teased about at school) and so don't really care what he meant, just that his language was so beautiful, but John Julius Norwich in Shakespeare's Kings says:
"Scene v, apart from containing the most famous line in the play-twice delivered-serves to emphasize the King's valour in battle as he determinedly seeks out Richmond to engage him in single combat.It also suggests that the latter protected himself by dressing a number of others in similar armour" -this did not actually happen in the Battle of Bosworth acoriding to historians, but I am all for poetic license. I hope this helped a little, if not sorry for rambling,
Sid.</HTML>
"Scene v, apart from containing the most famous line in the play-twice delivered-serves to emphasize the King's valour in battle as he determinedly seeks out Richmond to engage him in single combat.It also suggests that the latter protected himself by dressing a number of others in similar armour" -this did not actually happen in the Battle of Bosworth acoriding to historians, but I am all for poetic license. I hope this helped a little, if not sorry for rambling,
Sid.</HTML>
Re: Horses and Kingdoms and Montagues
Posted by: poetscientistdrinker (---.cache.pol.co.uk)
Date: September 08, 2002 10:13PM
<HTML>Why the hell have intelligent people like this foresaken the Fforum for idiots like me, filling up page after page with useless waffle? Come back, all is forgiven!
btw Mr Fforde, most relationships that are totally unsuitable can be explained through the magic influence of 'alcohol'...
I guess in a position where 'Montague' is pretty much an insult, Juliet wasn't going to ask him why he was one.
Also interesting that in recent Beckham related headlines wherefore got turned into 'Why for', even though it means exactly the same thing.</HTML>
btw Mr Fforde, most relationships that are totally unsuitable can be explained through the magic influence of 'alcohol'...
I guess in a position where 'Montague' is pretty much an insult, Juliet wasn't going to ask him why he was one.
Also interesting that in recent Beckham related headlines wherefore got turned into 'Why for', even though it means exactly the same thing.</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.