Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This thread is for general discussion of the play -- events, characters, relationships, etc. It's open to anything you have to say about the play.

Moved from Reading schedule thread where it was originally posted in response to something Wendel said.

Sin and redemption indeed Wendel. But, for me the perplexing questions are: Whose sin? And what price redemption? Is redemption even possible. We may have many provisional answers to these questions as we work through the plays. But it won't be until the end that anything like a conclusive answer will be offered by Shakespeare. And, to make matters even more intriguing, that answer will be undermined by possibly being agitprop. Or not.

IMO The beginning of the play is supposed to be a very tense scene full of silent accusations. Based on my further readings:

Mowbray and Henry Bolingbrook were members of the small group of Lords Appellant, a new group of aristocratic reformers who were seeking to remove Richard II's trusted advisors. Richard had come to the throne at the age of 10 and, since John of Gaunt was the richest and most influential man around, he could have ruled England as a regent. Fearing his authority, a number of members of Richard's court came in and acted as his advisors. Later on, Richard also elevated some individuals of more modest backgrounds, which incensed the entrenched nobility.

The Lords Appellant charged some of Richard's advisors with treason and launched a war against Richard. Mowbray and Bolingbrook won and forced Richard to kill his advisors. Henry Bolingbrook's father, John of Gaunt, also returned to Richard's court to clean up the mess, while making sure to protect his son from Richard's inevitable backlash. Hence, you can sense Gaunt's overlord-like tone throughout Act 1.

So Richard, basically starting off with a clean slate, starts mending his relationships again. He and Mowbray become tight, and Richard (likely) sends him off to do some revenge-work.

So at the beginning, Mowbray is basically begging Richard II to come clean on his complicity in the murder of the Duke of Gloucester, the leader of the Lords Appellant and a prisoner in an area that Mowbray oversees. Mowbray obviously doesn't want to duel over this favor to Richard, and you can hear it in his more personal tone. Honestly, it's more than a little suspicious that Richard appoints Mowbray the Duke of Norfolk at right around the time that the Duke of Gloucester dies in one of Mowbray's own jails.

When Henry is accusing Mowbray of those deeds, he's also accusing King Richard.

There's probably some double-meaning at the very beginning of the play in Mowbray's speech:

First, the fair reverence of your highness curbs me
From giving reins and spurs to my free speech;
Which else would post until it had return'd
These terms of treason doubled down his throat.

Keep in mind all three are related in some way, so these are cousins killing cousins. Cousins declaring war on cousins. If you were Richard, wouldn't you want to send away these "friends" who declared war on you, killed your friends, and then came back as if nothing happened?

The resolution to this whole angle occurs toward the end of the play:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Why, bishop, is Norfolk dead?

BISHOP OF CARLISLE
As surely as I live, my lord.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Sweet peace conduct his sweet soul to the bosom
Of good old Abraham! Lords appellants,
Your differences shall all rest under gage
Till we assign you to your days of trial.

---------------

My read on the whole situation is that Richard II was not corrupt. Not evil. Just entirely too aloof. He was King from the age of 10, lost his trusted advisors, and had a more machiavellian cast of advisors thrust upon him. Don't believe the Elizabethan hype about the rise of Henry IV being anything more than power usurpation.

Mike wrote: "My read on the whole situation is that Richard II was not corrupt. Not evil. Just entirely too aloof. ."

Neither corrupt nor evil, I agree. But I suggest incompetent more than aloof. Indecisive, as shown by the arbitrary change in Bolingbrook's exile. And very unwise in some of his decisions; he overtaxed the people, which is, I take it, part of why they were quite ready to cleave to Bolingbrook, who presented himself as a populist. (The Peasant's Revolt was a response to perceived excessive taxation; granted, Richard was only 14 at the time and not really, presumably, making decisions, but he was nonetheless the king under which all this was happening. And he continued the exactions even after the revolt was crushed.)

And it was tremendously unwise to strip Bolingbrook of all his goods and possessions, when his father was still alive and he was only banished for six years.

Richard may have been a good and well meaning man, but it seems to me that he was not a good king.

Everyman: And it was tremendously unwise to strip Bolingbrook of all his goods and possessions, when his father was still alive and he was only banished for six years.

A small nit to pick here. Perhaps it happened this way in history, but in the play it seems Richard takes advantage of John of Gaunt's death to enrich himself and fund his war in Ireland. See the end of Act II scene 1.

An excellent example of his views of the poor or commoners can be seen in how he expects to pay for his war in Ireland.

1.4 42-52


We will ourself in person to this war:
And, for our coffers, with too great a court
And liberal largess, are grown somewhat light,
We are inforced to farm our royal realm;
The revenue whereof shall furnish us
For our affairs in hand: if that come short,
Our substitutes at home shall have blank charters;
Whereto, when they shall know what men are rich,
They shall subscribe them for large sums of gold
And send them after to supply our wants;
For we will make for Ireland presently.


He proposes to first take money from the general public and only if that is not sufficient does he plan to begin taking from the nobles.

An irony (if I understood it right) is that one of the charges against Mowbry is that he pocketed money intended for the raising of an army.

By the way, without creating a spoiler of any import, this way of raising armies will be satirized through Falstaff in one of the later plays (can't recall which one).

Zeke wrote: "A small nit to pick here. Perhaps it happened this way in history, but in the play it seems Richard takes advantage of John of Gaunt's death to enrich himself and fund his war in Ireland. See the end of Act II scene 1. "

Yes, but since Bolingbrook was his son and heir, and ascended to the title of Duke of Lancaster, it didn't hurt Gaunt, but was really robbing Bolingbrook.

Yes. But my quibble was with the words "while his father was still alive."

On your important point I agree whole heartedly.

Another thought about your message @4. You call Richard's change in Bolingbroke's exile arbitrary. I think all of his choices in this incident bear scrutiny. For example, why is his sentence of Mowbry a life long exile? Is it because Mowbry knows something Richard doesn't want made public? Does he give Bolingbroke a lesser sentence because they are related?

In both cases I suspect so. This would make his choices foolhardy but not arbitrary.

It may be useful to recall that in medieval times the practice of trial by battle was taken very seriously. God was presumed to guide the hand of the victor validating his claim. The loser was presumed guilty--not to mention dead.

Thus, the stakes are high for Richard. Presumably he would prefer Bolingbroke win. However, he cannot count on the outcome.

Or, perhaps he is so deluded about his own hold on power that he feels he can stage his act of what he considers magnanimity; and so blind to political reality that he cannot imagine the consequences.

John wrote: "He proposes to first take money from the general public and only if that is not sufficient does he plan to begin taking from the nobles."

I would have done the exact same thing. The Lancasters and Yorks are more a threat than Joe Six Mead. He put down the Peasant Revolt, but was defeated by the nobles.

His big issue is that he didn't reform the fiscal system after the Revolt.

Richard is convinced that his rule is anointed by god so perhaps he views any decision that he makes as equivalent to the will of god.

Another interesting note is that Thomas de Mowbray was a Captain at the prison where the Duke of Gloucester was murdered. The killing took place on the 9th September 1397 and Mowbray was promoted to Duke of Norfolk on the 29th of September 1397.

Mike wrote: "His big issue is that he didn't reform the fiscal system after the Revolt. "

True, the system should have been reformed. But he was only 14 or so at the time. So it's hard for me, at least, to blame him. But he was the king, so his name got attached to everything, so he got the blame even if it was hardly fair by our, or at least my, standards.

John wrote: "Richard is convinced that his rule is anointed by god so perhaps he views any decision that he makes as equivalent to the will of god.."

Good point. Or at least approved by God.

Patrice wrote: "He compares himself to Jesus. Says he had only one Judas out of 12 while he had 12,000."

He does, or Shakespeare's words have him do so?

Lily wrote: "Patrice wrote: "He compares himself to Jesus. Says he had only one Judas out of 12 while he had 12,000."

He does, or Shakespeare's words have him do so?"

I think that although it's useful, if not important, to recognize that these are historical figures with historical backgrounds, still we know that Shakespeare was willing to be loose with history when it suited his dramatic purposes, so I think we need to assume that we're talking about Shakespeare's Richard unless the context makes it clear otherwise.

Patrice wrote: "...Of course I meant Shakespea..."

Didn't mean to be snippy, if that's how I came across, but as Eman says @16, Shakespeare was willing to be loose with history when it suited his dramatic purposes. While Richard II may well have said this or something similar, somehow this was a case that particularly struck me as using poetic license for effect.

Shakespeare is everywhere - we quote him all the time without being aware of it.

I bought my father a poster from The Globe with a whole heap of Shakespearean quotes that had entered our common language. It was quite amazing to see them all. Some of course were ones I knew even at that young age but not these 'laughing myself into stiches', 'suspecting foul play', 'giving the devil his due', 'without rhyme or reason', 'thinking it high time', 'it being a forgone conclusion', 'living in a fools paradise' and many many many more.

Here it is - the internet is just wonderful.

On Quoting Shakespeare
If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger; if your wish is farther to the thought; if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise -why, be that as it may, the more fool you , for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut tut! For goodness' sake! What the dickens! But me no buts! - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.

Nicola wrote: "Here it is - the internet is just wonderful.

On Quoting Shakespeare
If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more si..."

I wonder for how many of those Shakespeare is quoting (paraphrasing?) whomever. Still, the list is fun.

Although lots of the phrases in the King James Bible come from earlier translations like Tyndale and the Bishops Bible

Patrice wrote: "Every time you pin one down, you discover someone said it before. But as you say, they are fun...."

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Eccl...

Try Ecc1:10

Talk about foretelling the nihilism of later times?

On quoting Shakespeare....

There is a phrase of description I like. It is called the "Polonius Fallacy." It is named for the character in Hamlet who sends his son abroad to attend university with a speech laden with bromides about behavior--none of which he practices in his own life.

It refers to the way people (e.g. speechifying politicians) grab famous lines of Shakespeare from a quotations book and then misuse them; out of context the words mean something different than what the character intended.

I'm sorry that it's too early in the morning here for me to think of a good example.

Patrice wrote: Someone once said that they didn't like Hamlet...too many cliches. ..."

That is classic!

Patrice wrote: "Nicola wrote: "Here it is - the internet is just wonderful.

On Quoting Shakespeare
If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you clai..."

I'm sure it will be - the delight of Shakespeare is that he recorded what must have been common sayings and now those sayings are still present in our day.

Some he no doubt invented himself, like the words he apparently made up, or so the legend goes.

Patrice wrote: "Lily wrote: "Nicola wrote: "Here it is - the internet is just wonderful.

On Quoting Shakespeare
If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare..."

Yes true. I'd be prepared to put some money on some of them being his originally his though. Things like 'your wish being father to the thought'.

One thing that drives me crazy is when people quote the following Hamlet line:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

and use it as a pithy response to philosophical discussions. In the play, it's a response to Horatio's surprise at seeing the ghost of the King, and not a response to his doubt. Horatio ends up accepting and including the apparition into his belief system when he swears to speak nothing of the experience.

So glad you raised the issue of Richard's character Patrice. I don't think you are "missing" anything at all. I agree that in the start of the play he is just as you describe him. As the play unfolds, I think the journey of his self discovery is its most interesting aspect. Whether it will make you "like" him any better will be interesting to see.

Patrice wrote: "I'm feeling a bit confused about his character. .."

Perhaps (...) In the Italy of Machiavelli's time ... there were but city-states, yes? And armed factions struggling for control. So... (1) if a man managed to gain control, it would have been primarily through his own efforts and the aid of his supporters, yes? And to keep control, he would need to make his subjects and his supporters think him capable---not loved, not necessarily respected on a personal level...but respected as one capable of governing. (2) and such a man would control only a small area.

But in Richard's case... no spoilers, but looks lengthy (view spoiler)[

Richard is King of England---an entire country--- by right of birth. Richard never had to earn anything... he was king at 10. Probably (this is all supposition---so correct me if you think it far afield)... probably he was told from youth that the would be king... that he was to be king because God Himself had chosen Richard for that position... He would, it seems to me, feel quite entitled. He is SUPPOSED to be the king.


However... with his uncles Thomas of Woodstock and John of Gaunt having wielded most of the actual power... and Richard knowing it... I would think that Richard would have felt bitterness... Why do THEY have the strong armed forces? Why do THEY, particularly John, have the money. (John of Gaunt was supposedly the richest man in England.) Why would God make Richard king, but not put the appropriate power and wealth into his hands?

Surely, I suppose, Richard's favorites ... dependent on Richard as they were ... would tell him things like "YOU should have the money, the power, etc."

A few years previous (1387), Richard had tried to move out from under Thomas of Woodstock's power. He was unsuccessful. Thomas "appealed/accused" Richard's friends of treason. Richard was forced to call a Parliament and several of Richard's friends/favorites were executed as a result. And Thomas became even more powerful.

As Wendel pointed out, Richard is the grandson of Edward III--who had strengthened England's grip on Scotland and Wales. He is the son of the Black Prince---"he was idolized by the English for his victories."


With that bloodline, perhaps, Richard thought that if he only had the money and the power HE, too, would be successful. ("If I'd had the wealth and power, I could-a been a contender.")

And now Thomas of Woodstock is conveniently dead. Possibly on secret orders from Richard himself. Richard finally has the power. (Has had it for a year or two.)

Richard addresses his uncle: "Old John of Gaunt, time-honored Lancaster"

John of Gaunt is 58. Even if Gaunt is "old" by the standards of the time, Richard addressing his uncle as "old John of Gaunt" seems rather a put-down to me. That "time-honored".... a second allusion to Gaunt's age.

And that Lancaster bit...seems to be turning the knife. Gaunt is Lancaster through his marriage to his first wife. He is wealthy through his first wife. The throne, I think Richard is implying, is never going to go to a Lancaster... (Richard, without heirs, planned to leave the crown to the descendants of Lionel. The Black Prince had been the 1st son of Edward III; Lionel had been the 2nd; John the 4th)

And Richard alludes to Lancaster's "bold son." The future of John of Gaunt's son is in Richard's hands too. How wonderful that must have made Richard feel.

(hide spoiler)]

Anyway... just thoughts.

Thank you--- and it's what everyone does here... tries to engage with what we're reading. But really, I do like background ... so I'm glad that background is one of the perspectives with which we're looking at this play.

Coincidentally, my thoughts went right to Machiavelli also. He had some interesting things to say about raising government revenues to finance wars. Basically, his criticism was that:

1. It makes no sense to be fiscally conservative without bragging about it. Abstaining from revenue collection without having the reputation for it gains you no points with the populace, plus it makes you weak against foreign powers.
2. Given the option between being permanently high levels of taxation and a system where you don't over-collect but are forced to raise large numbers of funds for wars, it makes more sense to keep high levels of taxation. Keeping the levels steady doesn't arouse temporary anger and it keeps the government coffers full. Thinking contemporarily, the US's top marginal tax rate was 90% in 1950. Now, it's 35%. If that number were to budge even an inch, people would pitch a fit.

Richard's issue is that he's held hostage by an extravagant court, one not of his choosing, whose expenditures have drained the treasury of funds needed to wage war.

Since attention has rightly been called to Richard's self pity, I want to mention another aspect that I think informs the character. At least in the play, he is very much a play-actor calling attention to himself and inhabiting the role of a king without actually demonstrating kingly attributes. This is very much evident in the ceremonial trial of Mowbry and Bolingbroke.

I think it also deepens our understanding of the early scenes of self pity. When he first arrives back in England to face the threat from Bolingbroke, he expresses his self image in highly stylized speech.

So when this thief, this traitor, Bolingbroke,
Who all this while hath revell'd in the night
Whilst we were wandering with the antipodes,
Shall see us rising in our throne, the east,
His treasons will sit blushing in his face,
Not able to endure the sight of day,
But self-affrighted tremble at his sin.
Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd
To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.

[Note the additional references to the sun and use of golden to describe the crown.]

However, as soon as Salisbury delivers bad news he succumbs to self pity. But it takes only a line from Aumerle to remind him of his role, and he is ready to resume it:

I had forgot myself; am I not king?
Awake, thou coward majesty! thou sleepest.
Is not the king's name twenty thousand names?
Arm, arm, my name! a puny subject strikes
At thy great glory. Look not to the ground,
Ye favourites of a king: are we not high?

The whipsaw continues as Scroop delivers more bad news. This leads to the famous speech about the "hollow crown." But my point here is that even after this Carlisle does not need much time to reinforce Richard's role play as King.

Thou chidest me well: proud Bolingbroke, I come
To change blows with thee for our day of doom.
This ague fit of fear is over-blown;
An easy task it is to win our own.

Only to then see it dissipate again:

Go to Flint castle: there I'll pine away;
A king, woe's slave, shall kingly woe obey.
That power I have, discharge; and let them go
To ear the land that hath some hope to grow,
For I have none: let no man speak again
To alter this, for counsel is but vain.

Duke of Aumerle. My liege, one word.

King Richard II. He does me double wrong
That wounds me with the flatteries of his tongue.
Discharge my followers: let them hence away,
From Richard's night to Bolingbroke's fair day.

I think this back and forth is very well done. In one scene we see the two competing sides of Richard expressed. The point, as I see it, is that we still don't really know Richard; nor does he know himself. He will continue to fluctuate between self pity and kingly role play. To me, part of the greatness of this play is how the dichotomy is resolved. But that comes late in the play so we can discuss it later.

When I come across lines such as Act I, Scene III, "and this mine arm, To prove him, defending of myself"

I think immediately of the Aeneid, "by my right arm"

What is the "second" version you are watching Patrice? I am familiar with Hollow Crown and Age of Kings. Are there others?

I thought Elizabeth and Shakespeare were tight.

Anyhoo, I spent a good while hashing out the Houses after watching The Hollow Crown. Richard II was a Plantaganet, which was the main family. Yorks and Lancasters were cadet branches. Henry IV was a Lancastrian, as were his son and grandson. Edward IV, a Yorkist, was ascended to the throne through battle, followed by a brief spell of rule by the Lancastrian Henry VI. Edward IV regained the crown and passed it on to Edward V, another member of the House of York. Edward's protector was Richard, Duke of Gloucester, who promptly nullified Edward's claim to the throne and imprisoned Edward and his brother (see the Princes in the Tower legend). Richard of Gloucester became Richard III. Richard III lost to Henry VII, which ended the war. Henry VII was Elizabeth's grandfather. There's a rumor that the all of the Henriad was a "present" of sorts to Queen Elizabeth, as Elizabeth's royal claim is staked on the validity of Henry IV's ascendency to the crown.

I tend to believe that, considering the power and influence of Elizabeth in that period, that any criticisms of the Henrys are going to be treated with kid gloves, and that the Plantagenets and Yorks are going to be vilified beyond what actually happened in history. That's why I tend to temper any overly positive reading of the Lancastrians (and Tudors) and overly negative reading of Richards II and III, and Edwards IV and V.

Why on earth does Richard roll over so easily for Bolingbroke? In Act III.2 Westmoreland presents Bolingbroke's demands. His position (whether genuine or not is an open question) is that all he seeks is return of his lands and entitlements. Richard accedes. But upon Westmoreland's return, before Westmoreland has a chance to say even one word, Richard has basically abdicated the crown!

Why doesn't he put the burden back on Bolingbroke by challenging him to accept the return of his property and become the loyal subject he has claimed to be?

Often in Shakespeare's plays the third act provides the turning point, or crux, of the play. This is particularly evident in this play. It has been described as a chiastic structure; an X-like design where one character's rise crosses another's demise.

Clearly, III.2 presents the moment where modern politics overtakes the old sense of order. But, in dramatic terms, the question remains for me: why does Richard roll over so easily?

Zeke wrote: "Why on earth does Richard roll over so easily for Bolingbroke? In Act III.2 Westmoreland presents Bolingbroke's demands. His position (whether genuine or not is an open question) is that all he see..."

That's a good question. He did seem to simply fold.

Some musings on possible explanations:

No spoilers. Lots of supposition. (view spoiler)[

Do you think that perhaps Richard was so psychologically enmeshed with the ... theatrical ... image he had of himself??

His early memories of the ornate ceremonies (with Edward III... with himself on important occasions right there at the center?

The images/stories he would have grown up with concerning his grandfather Edward III and his father the Black Prince? Possibly positive images only, perhaps embellished? Richard growing up being told of their accomplishments ... without being told of the struggles and adversity they had had to bring to the fight?

Maybe Richard at 14 didn't ride out bravely to confront the peasants. Maybe he was certain of his chosen place---who would dare to touch the king. Certain of how kingly he would look riding out there... Certain that the image of a brave young king would be all that was needed? And it was.

That over-the-top theatrical grand gesture of burning down the place... to the last brick... where his wife had died. What an image!


In Act III, scene ii, line 40+, Richard doesn't speak of his forces fighting the forces of Bolingbroke. He speaks of his image confronting the image of Bolingbroke.

Knowst thou not
That when the searching eye of heaven is hid...

So when this thief, this traitor, Bolingbroke,
Who all this while hath revell'd in the night
Shall see us rising in our throne, the east,
His treasons will sit blushing in his face,
Not able to endure the sight of day,
But self-affrighted tremble at his sin.

Salisbury enters bearing disheartening facts. The image just established by Richard's finely worded speech has been disturbed. An image of the invincibility of kings. An invincibility which requires no action beyond that of the king showing himself.

Richard seemingly has no middle ground. He's on top of the world or he's cravenly abject.

It almost seems he would rather embrace the dramatic image of himself as pitiable and stripped of all than to make the fight he needs to make. Mmmm... Another possible thought... Perhaps Richard abhors actual confrontation???

When Richard had first taken an army to Ireland, he didn't engage in military confrontation... he gave out titles and land... and returned to England wearing the image of a successful king.

Richard didn't confront Thomas Duke of Gloucester directly.

Richard staged an elaborate show ... with an audience ... to hear and resolve the situation betwixt Bolingbroke and Mowbray. And he calls it off before it begins, dealing with neither the charges of Bolingbroke nor the countercharges of Mowbray, both of whom have voiced serious allegations.

And Richard burnishes---at least to himself--- his image as a generous sovereign... exile, not execution... and he shortens Bolingbroke's sentence. Richard rids himself of two who may be dangerous to him ... (Mowbray knows too much; Bolingbroke is too close to the throne and may have aspirations).... Richard does this without having to take the real action that should be required ...

Once arrived back on English soil, Richard "should" have acted quickly to move his forces to join those Salisbury has raised. (It was Salisbury, wasn't it???) But inexplicably, he didn't. He stays and plays with Ah-woe-is-me-and-am-I-not-a-pitiful-sight images.


Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth," etc.
Act II, scene ii.

He seems to simple collapse.

He seems to need his fellows to prop him up repeatedly in the face of adversity.

Car: Act III, scene ii, puts forth that there are still resources. All is NOT lost.

And Richard, "Thou chidest me well"... but he continues to avoid reality... He's back to the image of himself as invincible. "This ague fit of fear is over-blown; An easy task it is to win our own." Act III, scene ii, 190.

Richard knows that Bolingbroke is after more than the mere restoration of his lands and title. He KNOWS.

Zeke's right. Why did Richard cave?

Was he so taken with the image of Bolingbroke kneeling, reinforcing his image of himself as the rightful king?

B: Henry Bolingbroke
On both his knees doth kiss King Richard's hand Act III, scene II, 34-35.

This is, of course, all supposition.

But think on this. Perhaps Bolingbroke, Richard's cousin, knows well his king. Knows, perhaps, that Richard is either up and full of his importance absolute... or he is down and despondent ... For Bolingbroke says, Act III, scene iii, line 61:

Tell Richard I'm on my knees... and then...

"mark King Richard how he looks."

The king's self-image, Bolingbroke knows, will be viewable in his outward looks, his outward image.

Bolingbroke: Be he fire, I'll be the yielding water.

Richard holds himself up as kingly and proud. Bolingbroke says the pretty, pretty words Richard longs to hear. Bolingbroke presents the image of a loyal supplicant, a faithful servant.

Richard KNOWS this to be not true.

To Aumerle: "Shall we call back Northumberland, and send/ Defiance to the traitor, and so die?"


But he somehow can't bring himself to act. And goes from regal majesty to low, low I-am-nothingness:

"What says King Bolingbroke? will his majesty
Give Richard leave to live till Richard die?"

Well... anyway, thanks Zeke... It was fun wondering WHY Richard rolled over so easily.

(hide spoiler)]

I can't picture Richard as a turn-the-other-cheek kind of guy. :-)

I don't think Richard sees himself as Christ in a literal sense. However, he does see himself as God's appointed sovereign. Literally. He believes in the "Great Chain of Being" as the divinely ordained natural order of hierarchy. The chain starts with God and proceeds downward through all species and elements to the minerals in the earth.

Our Classical specialists can explain this much better than I can, so I will defer to them. However, it's importance to Shakespeare and to his time is significant. The Greeks' theory was further developed by the Christians of the Middle Ages (to buttress their place in the earthly hierarch?) and was well known to Shakespeare. Indeed, the theme of transition from medieval to modern that permeates Richard the Second has to do with the tenuousness of the theory in Shakespeare's time (not so much in Rchard's time).

There is a speech in another play, Troilus and Cresida that is well known as a poetic statement of the importance of the Great Chain of Being or, as Ulysses terms it, proper "degree." He is arguing that the problems of the Greek army come not from the Trojans strengths but from the failure of the Greeks to maintain discipline. It can be found in Act I scene 3

The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre
Observe degree, priority and place,
Insisture, course, proportion, season, form,
Office and custom, in all line of order;
And therefore is the glorious planet Sol
In noble eminence enthroned and sphered
Amidst the other; whose medicinable eye
Corrects the ill aspects of planets evil,
And posts like the commandment of a king, Sans cheque to good and bad: but when the planets
In evil mixture to disorder wander,
What plagues and what portents! what mutiny!
What raging of the sea! shaking of earth!
Commotion in the winds! frights, changes, horrors,
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate
The unity and married calm of states
Quite from their fixure! O, when degree is shaked,
Which is the ladder to all high designs,
Then enterprise is sick! How could communities,
Degrees in schools and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
But by degree, stand in authentic place?
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters
Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores
And make a sop of all this solid globe:
Strength should be lord of imbecility,
And the rude son should strike his father dead:
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides,
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then every thing includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself. Great Agamemnon,
This chaos, when degree is suffocate,
Follows the choking.
And this neglection of degree it is
That by a pace goes backward, with a purpose
It hath to climb. The general's disdain'd
By him one step below, he by the next,
That next by him beneath; so every step,
Exampled by the first pace that is sick
Of his superior, grows to an envious fever
Of pale and bloodless emulation:
And 'tis this fever that keeps Troy on foot,
Not her own sinews. To end a tale of length,
Troy in our weakness stands, not in her strength.

In my opinion, this was purely to protect the legitimacy of the Tudors. The way Shakespeare wrote the play leaves a) Henry IV innocent of intrigue, and b) Richard's resignation as entirely voluntary.

From the Jacobites to the Carlists to the Legitimists to the Orleanists, early European parties were more concerned with the legitimacy of rule than purely philosophical opinion.

Really enjoyed your speculation Adelle. I'm not sure there was anything in there that would qualify as a true spoiler, and I hope lots of people read the whole thing.

A couple of your thoughts made me think anew about aspects of this.

1. The way Richard uses the image of the throne in opposition to Bolingbroke instead of himself. And, here again, we have sun imagery.

So when this thief, this traitor, Bolingbroke,
Who all this while hath revell'd in the night
Shall see us rising in our throne, the east,
His treasons will sit blushing in his face,
Not able to endure the sight of day,
But self-affrighted tremble at his sin.

2. "Richard has no middle ground." I wonder if this is not a key difference between successful leaders and those who crash and burn.

3. I am not sure I understand how you are so sure that Richard KNOWS that Bolingbroke is after more than restoration. Even if he does (and, again, I don't see this)I still think the smart play would have been to call his bluff on this.

Thanks for the interesting analysis.

Anyone else notice all the rhymed couplets? I'm used to seeing one at the end of a speech to make a snappy exit, but in this play the characters often leave blank verse behind and start rhyming most of their lines. I wonder why.

I did notice that. I asked myself the same question. What significance is there in the rhymed lines? Hopefully someone has a theory.

(I loved them.)

Act IV, scene i, line 105-ish.

York arrives and says that Richard is handing over the throne. "Ascend his throne, descending now from him;
And long live Henry, fourth of that name!"

And Henry responds, "In God's name, I'll ascend the regal throne."

Now that Henry is going to sit on the throne, it seems he wants the throne and king again revered... and wants to stress that he is now God's choice.... He wants that established.

Adelle wrote: "I did notice that. I asked myself the same question. What significance is there in the rhymed lines? Hopefully someone has a theory.

(I loved them.)"

Most of Shakespeare's plays mix rhyme and prose. Often the nobles speak in verse and commoners in prose. Richard II is the exception to this rule. Even the gardener speaks in verse. Why might this be? I have a theory, although I cannot prove it.

At the time of the writing of this play, Christopher Marlowe was a great competitor of Shakespeare's. Although he does not show Shakespeare's acuity or sensitivity to human nature, he sure could write a line of iambic pentameter. I've read a few of his plays and I agree with the critics who claim they have great forward propulsion due to the power of the verse.

It could be that we have Shakespeare showing off here. Perhaps?

It would make more sense to have Bolingbroke, for example, speak more in blank verse or even prose. But, for whatever reason, Shakespeare does not choose to do this.

It could also be that this whole play is about artifice and Richard as star of his own play-within-a-play. I happen to like the poetry and the rhyming couplets. However, I think we will see when we get to Henry IV that the variety (to say nothing of the quality and even beauty of Shakespeare's prose passages) will make for a more rounded experience. Take that Christopher Marlowe.

Zeke wrote: (3) I am not sure I understand how you are so sure that Richard KNOWS that Bolingbroke is after more than restoration. Even if he does (and, again, I don't see this)I still think the smart play would have been to call his bluff on this.
"

Well ... I may have overstressed that. But ... here's my reasoning:

In Act III, scene ii, line 50: His treason will sit blushing in his face ... I'm thinking it would be an offense for Bolingbroke to have returned to England before the 6 years of banishment were over... but not a treasonable offense... for treason, I'm thinking Bolingbroke must be wanting to overthrow the king... so here it looked to me as though Richard knew/...ok..."thought" that Bolingbroke was after the crown.

line 98: Strives Bolingbroke to be as great as we? a nice rhetorical line that suggests that Richard ... thinks... that Henry is after the crown.


And then... it's all old Englishy... but in scene III, line 95-ish, it reads to me as though Richard is saying that Henry is after the crown.

he [Henry} is come to open
The purple testament of bleeding war;
But ere the crown he looks for live in peace,
Ten thousand bloody crowns of mothers' sons
Shall ill become the flower of England's face..."


And that last aside to Aumerle. Act III, scene iii, line 129-30.

Richard has said that he welcomes Bolingbroke.

Northumberland, say thus the king returns:
His noble cousin is right welcome hither;
And all the number of his fair demands...

It all sounds very accommodating... as though Richard is accepting that Bolingbroke is only there for his Lancaster land and title.

But to paraphrase Dr. Seuss: He said and said and said those words. He said them but he lied them.

I say that because Richard closes that commentary with Northumberland by saying... to Aumerle... We do debase ourselves, cousin, do we not

He turns to Aumerle,

To look so poorly and to speak so fair?

Shall we call back Northumberland, and send
Defiance to the traitor, and so die?

Which I take as Richard "knowing"/... OK.... "thinking/believing" ... that Henry is a traitor... a traitor who would be willing to kill Richard...

Which... it seems to me means that Richard does think Henry is after the crown.


Anyway... I could be mistaken...but that's why I think Richard knows.

You added: "I still think the smart play would have been to call his bluff on this."

Me, too. At least up in the castle he wouldn't have been in Henry's physical custody. If Richard doesn't really believe Henry's words, why would he really believe himself to be safe in Henry's custody?

Patrice wrote: "The date I found for Richard II was 1595 and for the King James Bible 1611. So "whither thou goest" must have been in Richard II first!"

Not necessarily. Both Shakespeare and the King James Bible drew significantly from the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560. According to the website linked below, which confirms what I have heard a number of times before, "William Shakespeare quotes hundreds of times in his plays from the Geneva translation of the Bible." And "Examination of the 1611 King James Bible shows clearly that its translators were influenced much more by the Geneva Bible, than by any other source."

So that passage may well have been in the Geneva Bible and borrowed first by Shakespeare and later by the King James Bible translators.

Source: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-eng...

Zeke wrote: "@43 discussing 3.2: The whipsaw continues as Scroop delivers more bad news."

Great word for it, whipsaw. I found that scene fascinating, as Richard bounces back and forth between acting kingly and despairing. Shakespeare didn't have the psychological language we have today, but it seems to me a reasonably good argument for what used to be called manic-depressive behavior.

Adelle wrote: "York arrives and says that Richard is handing over the throne. "Ascend his throne, descending now from him;
And long live Henry, fourth of that name!"

And Henry responds, "In God's name, I'll ascend the regal throne."

Now that Henry is going to sit on the throne, it seems he wants the throne and king again revered... and wants to stress that he is now God's choice.... He wants that established. "

Well noted. He came as a populist, but he accepts the crown as divinely approved.

Adelle wrote: "Zeke wrote: (3) I am not sure I understand how you are so sure that Richard KNOWS that Bolingbroke is after more than restoration. Even if he does (and, again, I don't see this)I still think the sm..."

Another great post. I'm really appreciating your analyses and comments.

Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "The date I found for Richard II was 1595 and for the King James Bible 1611. So "whither thou goest" must have been in Richard II first!"

Not necessarily. Both Shakespeare and th..."

Thank you. Also, many quotations we ascribe to Shakespeare may well have appeared in other guise in earlier tongues/languages.