Audience's Reaction?

So far during our readings for Shakespeare II, the plays have taken place away from England: Merchant of Venice in Venice, Italy and Measure for Measure in Vienna, Austria. Even during class this concept of taking place away from England has been a main idea in order for Shakespeare to distance himself away from the issues he raises to avoid conflicts with the people and rulers of England. Unlike the other two, his history play, Richard II takes place right in England. Obviously this is due to the fact that this play is supposed to be based on real events, but I wonder how the people took to Shakespeare’s view of what happened in the past?

In our society, history is constantly being made into books, movies, and plays. For example, the movie Pearl Harbor is based on real events but twisted into a love story in order to make it more appealing to audiences. Now I’ll be the first to admit my knowledge of European history is not very good, but Shakespeare had to have altered the content of the play a little bit in order to appeal to his own audiences. Such as the dramatized plot in Act 1 scene 4 for gaining money to go to war, as Richard says, “We are enforced to farm our royal realm, / the revenue whereof shall furnish us / for our affairs in hand” (1:4 lines 44-46) combined with the spectacular timing for Bushy to come with the news of John of Gaunt’s failing health. I realize that this idea probably did happen, but did it happen exactly like this, or is this something Shakespeare created to produce irony and to set the stage for later in the play?

But if the play was based in England and on England’s royalty, how did Shakespeare not get into trouble with this, especially since it seems as if the way Richard is portrayed here is not in a good light? From what I got from the reading it sounds as if Richard wants to get money from the wealthy people and then pay the wealthy people back with the taxes from the common people. Would that not make him a very unpopular king with the commoners? I’m not too sure whether or not he was considered to be a good or bad king yet, but it sounds like an unpopular idea to me. Would the audiences of this play agree that this is a bad idea and cheer Shakespeare on, or would the current King of England take offense to the idea that Shakespeare could be criticizing the past royal families? I know that Shakespeare writes plays on several of England’s kings, but after our discussion in class of him trying to avoid trouble and association, why did he become brave and create these plays? It makes me wonder that if he were alive and savvy to what was going on in America at any given time, what kind of plays and about which presidents would he write?

Gaunt's Dying Words: an Exercize in Close Reading

John of Gaunt is a terrific character, if only because he makes a clever play on his name by way of insulting the king in 2.1. He argues that Richard II has made him "gaunt" by exiling his son, Bolingbroke, and forcing him to fast for want of looking on his child and heir: "And therein fasting, hast thou made me gaunt./ Gaunt am I for the grave, gaunt as a grave,/ Whose hollow womb inherits naught but bones" (2.1.81-3) He, like Queen Margaret in Richard III, with her curses and prophecies, is sepulchral even in life and fulfills the purpose of foreshadowing doom. The image of Gaunt, withered but fierce, on his deathbed denouncing the king and predicting the end of his legacy is a wonderful image that, I imagine, is a pleasure for film and stage directors to bring to life.
As is the case with Queen Margaret, Gaunt's predictions that the king's greed and thirst for power will be his undoing, are fulfilled. "[Thou] art possessed now to despose thyself," he says after foretelling the king's imminent demise, later adding, "Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee" (2.1.138, 136). We can see from the genealogy chart in the front cover of the anthology that Richard II does in fact die and fail to produce an heir. (What a spoiler.)
But this is something that readers and theater-goers are lusting to see play out. Richard II is a lousy king, to say the least. He covertly orchestrates his uncle's assassination, banishes his cousin from the country, steals that cousin's inheritance for the purpose of funding a war on Ireland, and imposes unfair taxation and "blank bonds" on his people (also for the war). Gaunt is justified in calling him dishonorable. In his soliloquy on page 998 in the Norton, Gaunt makes the case that Richard II is defacing England's heritage and reputation with his irresponsible ruling. Gaunt disposes endless praise upon the country, calling it an Edenic "demi-paradise" (42), a fortress "defensive...against less happier lands" (48-9), and, somewhat ironically, renowned for its chivalry (as exemplified in the Crusades, which are now touted at the Greatest Failure in History). Sure, Gaunt might have an over-romanticized image of England, but this is all by way of contrast to the neglect Richard II shows the land and his subjects. He is completely wrapped up in his own agenda.
I don't know about you all, but the big question in my mind right now is how anyone would name his or her son after Richard II and expect things to go well. It's as if Richard II's faults are compounded by time and result in the total abomination that is Richard III generations later. He too chokes his own legacy with greed and blood-lust. But just as Richard III was somewhat possible to sympathize with, for his physical deformity and outcast status, I predict that Richard II will also prove to have some redeeming, or at least pitiable, qualities. And I also predict that Gaunt's ghost, either in memory or in body, will haunt the rest of the play.