Discussion Question #12

Originally Posted by Karen 22nd April 2004



In Scene 7, Rochester and the Wits, break up the King's sundial. We
know this is a historically correct fact.

As I read the lines about "kings and kingdoms tumble down" I
couldn't help but put it to the old kiddie song "London Bridge is
falling down." ANyone else hear that in their head?

OK, Rochester says-- "Time is but dust, and Kings, and me also, the body maggoting so soon after I was godlike and sturdy. My legs ache
in the morning and my brain is the dinner of a slow ruminating
beast." So, what do we make of this?

Nancy


I believe Rochester is speaking of the passing of time and realizing
how short one's time to live actually is. He realizes he is going to
die. No matter what we may be or accomplish when we are alive we all
meet the same end. In the last line he is speaking of his syphillis
and how it is degenerating his body.

Catching up on the past couple of days I love that we are all
interested to know more about the women in the story. Interesting as
well Karen that you have not been able to find more information on
them. Maybe that will some of the "extra" in the movie version.
Hope so!

Helen

I actually thought of Humpty Dumpty.

JP


I thought it was interesting that after the destruction of Charles'
symbolically, the scene ends with Rochester meeting Barrie and
telling her that there was nothing there prior to her arrival. He
really does not like royals in general, and Charles in particular.
The line "I must always go too far, you see, it is my genius to go
too far," seems to say to me that it is not enough for him to
ridicule - that only salves the irritation/desire. It is his need in
life to take things as far as he is able to, because that is the only
way he is satisfied; hence the complete destruction of the sundial,
rather than just damaging it. Maybe he thinks Charles is already
damaged but needs to be eliminated. Help - I am not sure of this.

Karen

There is quite a bit known about Lizzy Barry as she went on to "fame"
in the theater world. BUT, Lady ELizabeth died 13 months after her
husband did. I've not spent a ton of ton researching her and their
children, there were 4, we know 2 lived to be adults and to marry,
but I haven't read much about what happenen to either of Rochester's
children later in life. We know that his daughter with Lizzy died as
a young teen, at 12 or 13. Who raised Rochester and Elizabeth's
children is still unknown to me.

Karen

I hadn't though if it in quite that way..........Rochester does seem
to have been a guy who was anti-royalist? And suffered being banished
in the tower over it!

Ellen


Although I've re-read scene seven, I'm just not getting
it. Love what others have written though. Will try to read it
again and maybe something will get through that little blue bonnet
of mine.

Karen


Ellen, maybe if you could tell us what's your stumbling block, we
could help you? Or email me and I'll help you work it through! Be
glad to!

Ellen


Well for one thing, were there two different conversations going on
at the same time? It seems like Rochester and Sackville were
discussing Nelly, and Downs was talking about his conversation with
the king to whomever would listen. Is that right Karen? Another
thing: I don't mean to sound thick headed, but could you explain
the conversation between Elizabeth and Johnny? I don't understand
what Johnny means by "no, not here. There was nothing here till
now" when Elizabeth asks him "was there not something here at one
time? Some monument?"

Helen

Did Rochester have any siblings?

I perceive him to be not only anti-royalist, but anti-establishment as we use to say in the 1960s.

JP


This information is from "Rochester's Letters", edited by Treglown.

Wilmot had two step-brothers from his mother's first marriage to Sir
Henry Lee, who died in 1639. Wilmot's mother took over raising
Wilmot's children after E. Malet and their only son died. Wilmot's
father and older step-brother both died in 1658, followed by the
other step-brother in 1667. This left Wilmot's mother with 5
fatherless granddaughters to raise.

Hope this helps some

Karen

Yes, they are on a rampage of drunken distruction, aimed, it seems at
a prize possesion of the King's, the sundial. And there are many
conversations at the same time. Try and picture the scene as it
would be in a movie or play and you will have many characters
speaking rapidly at each other and at no on in particular, as we do
in real life. And at the same time the Wits are continuing to smash
the sundial to bits (along with speaking their lines. They are doing
it perhaps in defiance of the King and what the Monarch stands for
and maybe just in plain defiance or hatred, maybe jealousy of the
King himself? See you are on the right track!!

I think that he means his love for Lizzie. That really, there
was "nothing here til now" because this is when he perhaps realizes
that he has this love for her. He and Lizzie are there now, the
King's sundial is no more, only the two of them.

Does that help at all? Y'all are really "on it" I don't think you
trust that you are.

JP


Treglown also indicates that it is possible that Wilmot took his
daughter, Betty, by Barry from her care on the pretext of her being
unfit to look after her. Barry apparently had a number of flings
with some of Wilmot's friends, and Wilmot's bitterness was reflected
in his letters to Barry. That he took Betty is not known for sure,
but it is suspected and events could support that. There is no
mention of when the daughter was returned, either. It is noted that
from April 1678 through 1679 E.B. appeared in only a few roles, which
indicates that she may have lost Wilmot's patronage.

Again, hope this is helpful. This would definitely be a tangent for
the movie to include.

Karen

Some? SOME????? This helps a ton!! Thanks JP!! Now I can scratch
a "to do" off of the "to do" list. This is really interesting, the
poor woman, raising all those girls!!! Thanks again!