Pruning Politics

The Garden in Act 3 scene 4 enters us into a feminine realm, as seen by its occupants the Queen and first lady. This environment provides a relief from the masculine politics seen in the pervious scene, when Bolingbroke returns to the court with treasonous intentions. The garden is not so much a direct escape from affairs of state, but provides a different lens to view the events through.

The Gardener and his assistant step into the scene as the first commoners of the play, giving their two cents about the change in power. Using gardening discourse to explicate metaphor of the Richards place on the throne, the Gardner says, “Go, bind thou up young dangling apricots/ which, like unruly children, make their sire/ stoop with oppression of their prodigal weight./ Give some supportance to the bending twigs.” (3.4.30-33). The apricots in this quotation represent the fruits of King Richards rule, made heavy through the treasonous contempt of the court. Likewise the fruits need to be supported, which the Gardener tends to. “Go thou, and like an executioner/Cut off the heads of too fast growing sprays,/That look too lofty in our commonwealth:/All must be even in our government." (33-36) We can see how the gardener represents the “natural” sense of order in royal power. His pruning and tending of the garden is an allegory for maintaining political sanctity in an otherwise chaotic wildness (anarchy).

This notion is continued with: “noisome weeds which without profit suck the soils fertility from whole flowers” (3.4.39-40). The weeds are Bolingbroke and his men, who are invasive species endangering the “whole flowers”. The mentioning of “soils fertility” connects the idea of Land explore in class, that England is a holy place that nourishes the royal lineage. In replying to the request to de-weed the garden, the First man pans out enlarge the frame of the subject: “Why should we in the compass of a pale/ Keep law and form and due proportion/…When our sea-walled garden, the whole land,/ Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked up” (3.4.41-45) The “sea-walled garden” alludes to England, likewise bordered by the oceans. This quotation calls to question why should they put effort in taming nature that’s so easily corrupted. The names “Bushy” and “Greene” are too relevant in the discourse of nature, and they’re deaths suggest the end of fecundity in Richard reign. The Gardener provides a seasonal metaphor of Richard: “He that hath suffered this disordered spring/Hath now himself met with the fall of leaf” (3.4.50-51). The tree’s experience with a “disordered spring” leads to “fall of leaf”, foreshadows the inevitable winter (death) to come for Richard.

The Gardner provides an idealistic notion of how power should be monitored: “We at time of year/ Do wound the bark, the skin of our fruit-trees,/ Lest, being over-proud in sap and blood,/ With too much riches it confound itself” (3.4.60-63) The “over-proud in sap and blood” is Richard, who is too confident in his inherited role as King. This idea that the shedding of blood, in both a literal and familial sense– is all apart of maintaining the balance of a garden (or England). The Gardener’s paradoxical view on “the order of nature” vs. “tending to nature” provides a different means to understand the politics of the play through.

Darkness cannot survive in the light

Richard had to be killed. If he wasn’t dead he couldn’t truly hand over all his power. Like we discussed in class, this surrendering of power was not something that ever happened. The fact that there were two kings for a brief time is almost like having two Gods. This goes against one of the commandments. It is not for either of the men to decide who has the power as king. It is no one but Gods place to decide. Richard and Henry are terrible examples for the country and drastic action must take place. The satanic ritual that strips Richard is a foreshadowing of what his fate brings. He goes from being closest to God as king, to turning to darkness completely.

 Earlier in the play we see Richard hesitant to give up the thrown. In 4.1.195 Richard goes through the motions of stripping himself of his kingdom. To strip himself of power, he goes through the ceremony of becoming king backwards. This is very satanic. These two kings are supposedly ordained by the Lord, yet they are involved in a very dark ceremony. They are going against God by taking it upon themselves to change power. The satanic ceremony assures us that what they are doing is very much man-made and not involved with any holy order. The ceremony is disrespectful and leads to fatality and darkness for Richard. It also puts Henrys faith to the test. As king, Henry has a very important decision to make. Life versus death.

 Richard really struggles with the exchange of power. After his dark ritual he laments that he doesn’t know who he is. He has lost his title and he has lost God. In 4.1.257, Richard asks for a looking-glass, or a mirror. He wants to see his reflection and hopefully figure out who he is if he isn’t king. His ego is huge in this scene and he couldn’t be any farther from God. He doesn’t mention got at all between 4.1.265 and 4.1.290.

Richards’ true colors are reveled after he looses his title. Richard was able to hide behind his title of king and after he was stripped of his title we can see his true intentions. If Richard wasn’t killed in the end of the play then the darkness would have remained. Henry received the power from Richard and was able to make the decision to have him killed. Henry knew there couldn’t be two kings.

In the last scene of the play we see King Henry describing how he feels about his cousins death. We are never told if Henry definitely has Richard killed, but we do see the way Henry deals with it. He never lashes out at Exton he simply shows concern and dismisses him and his men. It is clear that Henry takes blame for the death, “To wash this blood off of my guilty hand” (5.6.50). Even if it wasn’t he who actually killed Richard he is still guilty. He wanted Richard dead to restore the order. The play gets very dark before this scene. Henry restores hope when he introduces God back in in 5.6.45-52. He speaks directly to God in the last lines of the play. Richard also speaks in verse which places more power behind his words and the message the audience receives.

Disorder Ensues

Acts IV and V of Richard II are saturated with foreboding warnings. They are rich with imagery of disorder and chaos, which lead to the murder of Richard at the end of Act V. To begin, the Bishop of Carlisle states: “And, if you crown [Bolingbroke], let me prophesy/ The blood of English shall manure the ground,” as well as, “And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars/ Shall kin with kin and kind with kind confound” (4.1.127-132). This is the ultimate image of society caving in on itself, literally falling to disgrace with noble British blood turning to manure on a once solid ground. It depicts family and countrymen at war with each other with nothing to unite them. It is utter chaos; it would confound the common people who have lived their lives guided by tradition –the tradition of the King’s divine right. The instability depicted in the Bishop’s warning prevails as the scene continues. In lines 176-179 Richard states, that he and Bolingbroke are like two buckets…“The emptier ever dancing in the air,/ the other down, unseen, full of water… Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.” Richard compares his and Bolingbroke’s desire for the crown to a well of water. Bolingbroke is the bucket that has risen, while Richard is the bucket sinking heavily toward the ground. However, despite the fact that Bolingbroke is mounted “up on high,” he is described as “The emptier ever dancing in the air,” which does not sound promising. He is empty –light-weight and dangling—as well as “dancing in the air” as if there is nothing to ground him; he could be knocked down at any moment. In both quotes, the English people's relationship with the physical land is deteriorating with manure and the image of the new king dangling up in the air, far from the land he rules over. These ominous quotes come right before the crown is handed over to Bolingbroke.

Once the crown is handed over, we begin to see disorder actually ensue. Richard breaks a mirror right after parting with the crown. The glass shatters violently as he no longer recognizes his face; he feels instability and disruption internally. This parallels the disruption of order in the nation. In Act V, Richard and the Queen are separated and the tradition of marriage violated. The Queen inquires: “Must we be divided? Must we part?” (5.1. 81) while Richard exclaims in anger at this violation. Immediately following, the Duke of York’s family is broken apart by disagreement about allegiance to the king. York, whose son has conspired to kill Bolingbroke, says, “Mine honor lives when his dishonor dies” (5.3.68); meanwhile, the Duchess of York pleads for her son's pardon. The scene is chaotic and the family burdened with dysfunction, no longer strong with loyalty and shared blood. York goes so far as to say, “Against them both my true joints bended be.” (5.3.96). A final piece of evidence for the disruption of order is the murder of Richard due to a convoluted exchange between Bolingbroke and a servant. Bolingbroke’s actions parallel those of Richard’s, and now we must question whether or not Bolingbroke was actually justified in taking the crown from a divinely chosen king. The disruption of order has begun on a small scale, within the royal family, but it's implied that it will spread throughout the nation with the new King’s immediate involvement in murder (whether it was his intention or not).

Richard & Water

I’m interested in the way Richard uses water images in his deposition towards the end of 4.1. First, from 172-179, Richard describes the “golden crown,” or the throne, as “like a deep well/That owes two buckets filling one another,/the emptier ever dancing in the air,/The other down, unseen, and full of water./That bucket down and full of tears am I,/Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.” This image took me by surprise—I assumed the “emptier ever dancing” bucket was supposed to be a representation of Richard, because he is losing his control and has nothing to keep him grounded. By my logic, Bolingbroke would be the full bucket, weighed down with the burden of being a king, and of being a part of Richard’s dubious legacy. Reversed, the way Richard intends it, the images do make sense—Bolingbroke now holds the highest rank possible in his country and has a great deal of freedom along with it (“the emptier ever dancing in the air,” again), and Richard is weighed down with disappointment, guilt, and any other emotions to which he ambiguously pretends.

To me, the two images are interchangeable. I think this is indicative of Richard’s ambiguous characterization. I should preface: I am pretty suspicious of Richard at this point (maybe because I’m looking for some excitement in this play!). Is he remorseful? Is he deceptive? The interchangeability, and I would argue, instability, of Richard’s language in this passage is open to interpretation. I have two guesses: his language is contrived, because his expression of emotion lacks truth or hides truth, or his language is the result of just not having a way with words.

Northumberland interrupts Richard’s speech three times, to ask him to read aloud the articles about his crimes. Richard responds with water images in lines 227-231, 233-236, and 247-252: (1) “…Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/Have here delivered me to my sour cross,/And water cannot wash away your sin.” (2) “Mine eyes are full of tears; I cannot see./And yet salt water blinds them not so much/But they can see a sort of traitors here….” (3) “…But ‘tis usurped. Alack the heavy day,/That I have worn so many winters out/And know not now what name to call myself/O, that I were a mockery of snow,/Standing before the sun of Bolingbroke/To melt myself away in water-drops!...”

In these three passages, Richard is using water images to: compare the act of washing one’s hands to being a (his) traitor; describe the clarity with which he see his traitors despite his tears; and express a desire—that he be “a mockery of snow,” able to melt away. Richard is using water images rather arbitrarily in these passages, and they lack the emotive, sympathetic effect that Richard intends for them. Water can be used to paint Richard’s comrades in a poor light and to paint Richard in a sympathetic light. But since its meaning is inconsistent in these passages, the water image means nothing at all. Richard’s use of the water image is more important, because it is consistent with his character: he makes everything, even language, work for him—or, at least, he tries.

King of Discontent

In Act five, scene five, Richard II, imprisoned and no longer king, is alone onstage. His soliloquy in the beginning of the scene expresses his loneliness and his reflections on how he spent his life. The most important element of his reflection is his understanding of his own thoughts and his sense of self. He uses the term thought (or thoughts) is eight times in lines 1 to 66 alone. He describes the creation of his thoughts through his “brain” being “the female to [his] soul” which is “the father” (lines 6-7). His brain and soul mate and “beget/ A generation of still-breeding thoughts” and that “these same thoughts people” the world (lines 7-9). It is interesting that Richard II uses a metaphor of thoughts being birthed by his mind, because these thoughts become both his only heir and the only thing he leaves behind after death because Bolingbroke took his title, freedom, crown, and any chance of a legacy.

Richard II speech continues discussing thoughts, and the evils inherent in them. He explains that “no thought is contented” like that “the people of [the] world” are not content (lines 10-11). He also states that good thoughts, or “thoughts of things divine” are corrupted by “scruples” and contradict themselves (lines 12-13). Richard uses the discontent in the being of thoughts to introduce and explain the discontent within him. He describes himself as “sometimes…king,” then a “beggar,” and then “king’d again” (lines 32-36). All of this by means of his own brain and thoughts, and then he is finally “unking’d by Bolingbroke” (line 37). This way he is as confused and separated as his thoughts were earlier in the speech. After all of this, he declares himself to be “nothing,” and his discontent shall continue until man is capable of being content “with being nothing” (lines 38-41). The entire speech becomes a discussion of his grief at losing his crown, which made him everything he was. By being forced to give his crown away, Richard made himself nothing, which he cannot be content with. His own thoughts are at war with his pride, vanity, and idea of self because they point out what he has lost.

The music that Richard hears leads him into a discussion of keeping time, which is Richard’s way of coming to terms with the time he wasted while he was king, and now imprisoned, sees the time wasting him. After describing himself as a clock, depicts Bolingbroke as being the “Jack of the clock” which strikes his “heart, which is the bell,” and that Richard’s “time/ runs posting on in Bolingbroke’s proud joy” (line56-60). The metaphor of the clock and time reveal Richard’s understanding that he is subjected under Bolingbroke” This also, in the action of Bolingbroke striking Richard’s heart like a bell, shows that Richard is pained by Bolingbroke’s position over him.

Blood Versus Justice

In scene five, act three of Richard II we witness Bolingbroke, now King Henry, make his first difficult decision as King.

Prior to this scene, we learn than Aumerle, now named “Rutland” has committed a horrible crime. Aumerle’s father, the Duke of York, discovers a letter adorning Aumerle’s neck. Although Aumerle attempts to hid the note from his father, York eventually reads it. After retrieving the note, York learns that Aumerle is among a group of individuals who are planning the assassination of King Henry.

York’s reaction to Aumerle’s action struck me as very peculiar. As a present day reader, I would expect York’s loyalty to be to his son rather than to the King. However, we do not see this. York responds to the letter saying “Treason, foul treason! Villain, traitor, slave” (5.2 72). 

The Duke of York completely ignores the familial ties that he has to his son. This scene directly influences the argument of blood versus justice, and which is more important. It is clear that the Duke of York finds it more important to remain loyal to one’s leader, rather than one’s kin. These values completely contrast the values of the Duchess of York. She begs the Duke of York to not tell the King of Aumerle’s unlawful actions. The Duchess of York’s plea to maintain her son’s innocence can be seen when she says: “Why York, what whilt thou do?/ Will thou not hid the trespass of thine own?/ Have we more sons? Or are we like to have”? (5.2 88-90). 

It is obvious after reading this passage of what the Duchess of York palces importance on. Although she may have a great deal of admiration and respect for her leader, King Henry, it is clear that her loyalty belongs to her son. This idea of unconditional love for one’s child, regardless of their actions, greatly contradicts the opinion of the Duke of York. 

Regardless of the pleas of his wife, York decides to take immediate action and report Aumerle’s crime to the King at once. In order to attempt to save his life, both Aumerle and the Duchess of York flee to visit King Henry as well. It is here that the Duke of York begs King Henry to execute Aumerle for the crime of plotting the assassination of the King. At the same time, the Duchess of York is begging the King to spare her son’s life. Once again, the struggle between blood versus justice is clearly illustrated in this passage. Ultimately, King Henry chooses to spare Aumerle’s life, but decides the other individuals involved in the crime will be executed. This decision brings up the question, which is more important to King Henry, blood or justice? 

Do Kings Cry?

While reading the fourth act of this play I am struck with several uncertainties. First of all, we are brought, again, to the ongoing debate of Divine King vs. “Elected King”. Bolingbroke is once again attempting to take Richard off of the throne and deem himself as rightful King of England. We understand that during this time period, the King was seen as the agent for God, someone who is easily accessible to the deity so that the subjects can have one line connecting them to the man above. Bolingbroke is attempting to break this long known tradition and within this scene we understand that to justify his reasons for taking Richard off of the throne include a list of crimes against the kingdom “That by confessing them, the souls of men/ May deem that you are worthily deposed.” (line 216-217) Richard at this point says that his eyes are full of tears and he cannot possibly read this list of crimes that he has so committed. He gives endless reasons for why he should not read this list, however his reasons are met by Bolingbroke.

A looking-glass is called for so that Richard may “see” himself. This is where I am faced with another uncertainty. While, I am not sure as to whether or not it would be proper for Richard to have the crown taken away from him due to the long standing Divine tradition; I am also unsure as to whether or not Richard is right for the thrown at all, and if not maybe he should have the crown taken away from him. He gives excuse after excuse that he cannot read this list, which would make it seem that he does want to keep the crown/his kingdom. However, when he looks into the glass he is ashamed by what he sees and upon shattering that glass, I can assume, gives up the throne. There seems to be little fight within Richard and that concerns me. A king requires one to be strong, specifically strong-willed. For most of the back-half of this play Richard has seemed more of a weak character and his kingdom seems to be easily ripped of his hands, regardless of the Divine right that he supposedly has. Reading towards the end of this play and seeing Bolingbroke, aka King Henry IV take the crown. I am still uncertain as to whether or not I am upset by this long standing tradition being so easily broken. While I do understand that tradition is important, specifically religious tradition within that time period, I did not seem to root for Richard as I believe I should have. So I pose the question to the class: Do you think Richard deserved to have his crown taken away from him (aka he should have fought more) or perhaps was this out of his power and we do not blame Richard for the rise of King Henry IV?

Bolingbroke v. Richard: How should we feel?

      Throughout the play, I wasn't sure how to feel about Bolingbroke. In the beginning of the play, he is returning from a six year exile that Richard sentenced him to after an argument between him and Mowbray. When he is gone, his father passes away. Richard uses Bolingbroke's inheritance for the impending war on the Irish. When Richard leaves his land due to the war, Bolingbroke assembles an army and takes over a portion of Richards land. The people of England are angry at the way Richard is running the country, and as a result are loyal to Bolingbroke; "The King's grown bankrupt like a broken man" (2.1.258). Upon Richards return he learns that he has few followers left. When Richard realizes this, he knows that there could be a battle and in an effort to avoid it, promises Bolingbroke the throne; "Cousin, I am too young to be your father, Though you are old enough to be my heir. What you will have I'll give, and willing too; For do we must what force will have us do" (3.4.202-206). Shortly after Bolingbroke claims the throne, he forces King Richard to separate his wife; "Queen: And must we be divided? Must we part? Richard: Ay, hand from hand, my love, and heart from heart" (5.1.81-82). While being held prisoner, Exton, a man very loyal to the King, murders Richard; "Hath with the kings blood stained the King's own land. Mount, mount, my soul; thy seat is up on high, Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward, here to die" (5.5.110-112). Exton kills Richard without King Henry ordering him to because he knew the King's hatred for Richard; "Exton, I thank thee not, for thou hast wrought A deed of slander with thy fatal hand...Though I did wish him dead, I hate the murderer, love him murdered. The guilt of conscience take thou for thy labour" (5.6.34-41). Even though King Henry feels guilty that Richard was murdered he is still happy he is dead.
         Throughout the play, it is evident that readers may not have a clear understanding of the two characters. Richard has done wrong to his country and to Bolingbroke by stealing money that was not his to have. Bolingbroke, however, practically forced Richard into giving him the thrown, just to force him to leave his wife and keep him prisoner. How are readers supposed to feel towards Richard and Bolingbroke? Both men have done horrible things to other people, especially to each other (Arguably one more than the other). I, for one, am still not set on how I feel about the two men. Both have done wrong, and as we all know too well- two wrongs don't make a right!

The Duel of Morality

Rirchard the 2nd seems to mediate on the power of the duel.  Two people have a disagreement and figure it out by putting their lives on the line for what they believe.  And the argument is usually about which moral values hold more weight: Law or Religion.  While one thrives the other diminishes causing this interesting battle in Richard.  In the first act we see Richard have to deal with the duel of Bolingbroke and Mowbray.  The confrontation rises from Bolingbroke knowing that Mowbray had a part in the murder of the Kings uncle.  The King himself interferes with their dispute because he has broken both the law and the religious aspect of morality by being apart of the plan to kill his uncle, banishing two noblemen because they know about his underlying tie to the murder, and his lack of care for the law to be acted out on these two noblemen.  He is above the law but he is also trying to be above God.  And at that point he has a "duel with God", because his beliefs are based in Religion but he goes against his ideas to keep himself in power.  But obviously this backfires.

So to bring it back to Act 4 and 5, when Bolingbroke brings Richard in for trial and the barrage of gages are thrown the real purpose of the duel is shown.  And that is that they don't have much of a purpose they are more symbolic than actual.  The duel is a simple one on one showdown but here everyone throws their gauges at once vying for power and attention.  They are like small dogs barking very loudly and are trying to look very scary but everyone knows they wouldn't burst a grape in a food fight.  Also Shakespeare has it so none of them ever duel and both duels are reflections upon the Kings.  Richard is hiding from his past and uses the duel to procrastinate his demise.  While on the other hand Bolingbroke uses this duel to set the tone for his reign by not allowing it to have the weight it should.  He just puts off all their duels because he wants Mobray to come and give his account but Mobray is dead and Shakespeare doesn’t even have the King give his sentencing about why he stopped the duels and what shall become of these arguments.  But later on in Act 5 scene 2, we see the son of the Duke of York and he lost his title seemingly due to King Henry's judgment.  He as a King seems much more prepared and at ease with power while we see Richard decay quicker and quicker as his whole identity was King.  The duel is supposed to be law but it is dealing with religious values here so it's power demises.  Shakespeare does this to question society at this time and to wonder why everyone follows and no one leads, except for maybe Bolingbroke, but we shall see how much of a leader he is coming up in the next play.   

Divine Right in Act 4

In class, the idea of whether Bolingbroke breaks with divine right or if he is nobly protecting his country has been much discussed.  I think this is an interesting problem that the play presents so the reader is conflicted as to what side of the argument they find themselves on.  The last two acts of Richard II include support for Richard’s divine right to the throne.  Bolingbroke and his men are all traitors towards God according to supportive lines in the text.  In Act 4, the Bishop of Carlisle, a religious figure whom the audience can assume as a man of God, opposes Bolingbroke becoming King.  He knows, or has a vision, of the fateful events that are to come: “My lord of Hereford here, whom you call king,/ Is a foul traitor to proud Hereford’s king;/ And, if you crown him, let me prophesy/ The blood of English shall manure the ground,/ And future ages groan for this foul act”(4.1.125-129).  Shakespeare obviously knew of the Wars of the Roses and could write Carlisle as a sort of prophetic figure.  The reader sees a person associated with God foretelling negative events that the Kingship of Bolingbroke will arise.  This all stems from the Duke not following with England’s method of divine right. Richard II may not have been the best King for England, but according to the bishop, King Henry will not be any better for the country. 

                Shakespeare cleverly gives Richard lines that connect to Christ and his traitor/disciple Judas.  This religious subject would have been known to the majority of Shakespeare’s audience and is something that further conveys the severity of Bolingbroke’s usurpation.  Shakespeare essentially implies that, by knocking Richard off the throne, it is akin to Judas giving Jesus to the Romans.  The religious theme of divine right, something that Jesus epitomizes as he was sent from God to do a mission, is further supported by instances in the acts.  “Yet I well remember/ The favours of these men.  Were they not mine?/ Did they not sometime cry ‘All hail!’ to me?/ So Judas did to Christ.  But He in twelve/ Found truth in all but one; I, in twelve thousand, none” reveals how Richard associates Bolingbroke and his company as primary traitors to his divine kingship, just as the betrayal of Christ was a divine moment (4.1.158-162).  Another biblical association made by Richard occurs later in the same act.  He associates his usurpers to that of Pilate, the judge of Christ, who stated that he was not responsible for Christ’s death, even though he enabled it to occur.  That is exactly how Richard views his foes acting:  “Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/ Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/ Have here deliver me to my sour cross,/ And water cannot wash away your sin” (4.1.229-232).  Richard believes that something as sacred as divine right cannot merely be taken away and the opposition have their sins forgiven.  The severity of disorder in the customary, religious based practice of Kings is not a thing to be trifled with, according to the religious Carlisle and kingly Richard II. 

Finally a HAPPY woman in Richard II

While reading Richard II, it became evident to me that this was a male dominant play.  Unlike the last two plays we’d read, the women character’s appearances were few and far between.  In addition, when the women in this play were highlighted, they never accomplished their objectives or achieved what they set out for.    

For example, in 1.2, we meet our first female character, The Duchess of Gloucester.  In this scene she is trying to persuade John of Gaunt to avenge his brother’s death.  “In suff’ring thus thy brother to be slaughtered/Thou show’st the naked pathway to thy life,/Teaching stern murder how to butcher thee./That which in mean men we entitle patience/Is pale cold cowardice in noble breasts./What shall I say? To safeguard thine own life/The best way is to venge my Gloucester’s death” (1.2.30-36) Clearly, she is going through great pains to gain justice for her murdered husband.  Despite her efforts, John of Gaunt refuses to help her in her quest for revenge.  Defeated, she leaves with these final words: “Desolate, Desolate will I hence and die./The last leave of thee takes my weeping eye” (1.2.73-74).  After her failed objective, The Duchess of Gloucester gives up on life and retires to die.

Similarly, Queen Isabel tragically does not obtain what she wishes for.  In 3.4, The Queen eneters the garden in an effort to cheer up and find peace of mind.  Despite her attendants’ efforts at distracting her, she cannot take her mind off of her woes.  Then, instead of finding a remedy, she overhears the fate of her husband, which sends her even further into despair: “What, was I born to this, that my sad look/Should grace the triumph of great Bolingbroke?/Gard’ner, for telling me these news of woe,/Pray God the plants thou graft’st may never grow” (3.4.99-102).  In 5.1, The Queen suggests anything she can so that she and Richard can remain together.  This too, however, is to no avail.  Our last image of the Queen is a banished and devastated wife saying a final goodbye to her fallen husband.  Needless to say, things did not go according to her wishes.

Finally, in 5.2, we meet the one female in this play who valiantly succeeds in her mission: The Duchess of York.  After discovering that Aumerle is involved in an assassination plot against King Henry, Duke of York is adament about turning his son into the authorites.  Dutchess of York makes it her mission to do everything in her power to save her only son and bloodline.  In doing so, she abandons her husband’s side and, at one point, even orders her son to “Strike him [York]” (5.2.87).  At the end of the scene, she exclaims with extreme confidence: “Spur, post, and get before him to the King,/And beg thy pardon ere he do accuse thee./I’ll not be long behind—though I be old,/I doubt not but to ride as fast as York—/And never will I rise up from the ground/Till Bolingbroke have pardoned thee” (5.2.112-17).  When King Henry is confronted with both York and the Duchess, he is ultimately moved by The Duchess’ relentless pleads for her son’s pardon.  Her success in achieving her goal marks her as the only successful female in this play—a feat that I consider worth noting!     

Richard, A Weak King?

Sam Montagna

Shakespeare II

Professor Mulready

5 March 2012

Richard, A Weak King?

A typical king is supposed to be strong enough to be able to handle the struggles of his people. The king is divinely chosen and has the ultimate power over his people. To go against the king was to go against God. However, what if the king is not right for the job? Is overthrowing him going against God? Or is God appointing a new king in favor of the old one? It is clear that Richard has power, but is he necessarily cut out for his job? Richard has ultimate power but does he cross the line when he aims to seize Hereford's inheritance to pay for the war in Ireland? Does it make him a coward to banish the two men who may know the truth about the Duke of Gloucester's death? Or is he just protecting himself in the only way he can? A king and leader should be clear about his motives to keep the loyalty of his people. After his plan to fight Ireland failed and his power and faith in himself dwindled quickly after banishing Bolingbroke and Mowbray. Bolingbroke comes back to England after being exiled to reclaim his inheritance and Richard does nothing about it. He, instead, names Bolingbroke his heir. Richard then makes a speech similar to Shylock's speech from The Merchant of Venice. Richard declares himself no different than any other man even though he is king. Richard states “I live with bread, like you; feel want, taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus, how can you say to me I am a king?” (1016.171-173). This statement is true for every king but Richard admits it. In other people's or other kings' eyes, that confession may make him less of a king. Richard's humanity can be viewed as a weakness and it can justify why he is, in fact, weak. Richard gives up his throne without any fight. History states that a king will typically defend his throne to the death. Richard hands it over and wishes Bolingbroke “many years of sunshine days” (1028.211). These actions mean that either Richard was not a good king, realized that his time was up and went gracefully or he simply did not want to fight for his throne, especially since Bolingbroke was gaining so much leverage. This event reminds me of the Glorious Revolution which occurs in England. The crown changes hand without bloodshed. This behavior is far from king-like, however. Richard can be considered the King of England who did not act like a king.

Richard the Deposed Drama King?

            Act four is only comprised of one scene, and even though a few different things happen within this scene it is safe to say the most significant event is Richard’s resignation as king, and his crowning of Bolingbroke to rule in his place.  When Richard enters the scene he expresses a melancholy demeanor as he speaks of how short a time he has had to adapt to his transition from king to subject, stating “I hardly yet have learned / To insinuate, flatter, bow, and bend my knee” (4.1.155-56).  He insists that he should be given more time to deal with the sorrow he feels from falling from his position of absolute authority to a humbled state of submission.  When he questions why he has been brought before Bolingbroke York reminds him that it is his duty to perform the ceremony of crowning a new king.  Richard holds the crown in his hands and speaks to Bolingbroke with words of self-pity, describing how the crown is like a deep well.  As Bolingbroke’s bucket becomes “the emptier ever dancing in the air,” Richard’s bucket becomes “down, unseen, and full of tears” (4.1.176-77).  When Bolingbroke questions his willingness to resign Richard says that he is giving up his crown, but not his grief at losing it.  This back and forth exchange between Richard and Bolingbroke seems like an attempt to delay the inevitable, but finally Richard hands over the crown and his sceptre.  When Richard asks what more there is to do, Northumberland states that he must confess to the accusations and crimes he and his followers committed during his kingship.  Richard argues that he should not have to give a public reading of his acts of wrongdoing as it would shame him, and he is already feeling miserable about being deposed.  Northumberland insists upon reading them, to which the Richard replies “Mine eyes are full of tears; I cannot see,” (4.1.234).  Richard seems to play out his grief in an overly dramatic way that doesn’t seem to suit the proper demeanor of a king.  Richard becomes even more melodramatic as he comments on Northumberland referring to him as “lord” and exclaims that he is no lord of his, but furthermore that he is “no man’s lord” (4.1.245).  He no longer has a name or a title. 

            Richard’s request to have a mirror brought to him only emphasizes his over dramatic reaction to his resignation.  He looks at his image reflected in the glass and rambles on about how he cannot believe he had so quickly lost his royal authority and king status.  He looks at his face and recalls his glory days:

                        Was this face the face

                        That every day under his household roof

                        Did keep ten thousand men? Was this the face

                        That like the sun did make beholders wink?

                        Is this the face which faced so many follies,

                        That was at last outfaced by Bolingbroke?

                        A brittle glory shineth in this face,

                        As brittle as the glory is the face.  (4.1.271-78)

Richard then shatters the glass, exclaiming how his deep sorrow destroyed his face.  Bolingbroke suggests that the darkness of his sorrow, not the sorrow itself, is behind the destruction of the resigned king’s face. 

            This entire moment within the scene may have been intended to make me feel compassion toward Richard, but in actuality it made me dislike him more.  His behavior was very unbecoming of someone who had once been a king, and yet can we even truly say he ever possessed the qualities of an honorable king?  His self-pity and overdramatic reaction to his grief over his resignation in this part of the scene make clear to us just how weak Richard was from the very beginning.  The truth is that the loss of power he laments for he never truly possessed.  The only type of king Richard can rightfully be called is a Drama King. 

                        

Hypocrisy, Religion, and Bad Politics

As I read through Richard II, the hypocrisy of the lives of 14^th century nobles glares outward at me.  King Richard II and his nobility all seem to hide behind this idea of their divine enthronement. Richard II refers to god numerous times throughout the play while being involved in murdering a member of his own family and destroying the life of Bolingbroke. Richard exhibits little emotion towards the death of his own uncle, John of Gaunt. Richard essentially decides to steal Bolingbroke entire inheritance, merely so he is able to spend lavishly while at war with Ireland. The Duke of York even tells Richard that he has gone too far by stealing Bolingbroke’s estate to use for war, to little affect: “Did not the one deserve to have an heir?/Is not his heir a well-deserving son?”(2.1.194-195). Richard is disgusted with the way Bolingbroke seems to treat the lower classes with respect, as indicated in the following: “What reverence he did throw away on slaves/Wooing poor craftsmen with the craft of smiles/And patient under bearing of his fortune,/As ‘twere to banish their affects with him.” (2.1.26-29). All of the aforementioned things are in direct conflict with any kind of religious teachings that King Richard would have had at the time. I think it is interesting how many of these characters clearly have a belief and fear of god, yet only live by certain principles when it is most convenient for them. Richard seems to be completely out of touch in regards to having respect for his elders, the lower class, and his own family. His own hubris has left him completely blinded to the fact that one cannot treat others with so little regard and expect to receive zero negative consequences.

I believe that Shakespeare is using this negative behavior of Richard not only as commentary on a code of conduct for kings, but is also describing the dangers religion may have if misconstrued by people in power. This is a reoccurring theme throughout history; we have often seen leaders destroying or neglecting the lives of their citizens under the grounds of religious zeal. Although Richard does not murder thousands, he still commits many atrocious acts against his own family.  Shakespeare may also be commenting on the dangers of absolute power. The old saying “absolute power, corrupts absolutely” comes to mind to me throughout the play. This poses an important question that I believe Shakespeare is encouraging the reader to take a look at: Can any one man truly handle that much power for period of time? If history or this play tells us anything, the definitive answer is no.

King Dick

While reading the first section of Richard the Second, i discovered that Richard is not the nicest individual. You find out very quickly that Richard has many character flaws. He is envious, self involved, lavish, and pretty disrespectful. It becomes clear within the first few scenes that Richard was involved in the murder of his own uncle Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester. This is hinted at by Mowbray in the first scene when he is accused of the murder by Bolingbroke, then stated outright by the Dutchess of Gloucester when she is speaking to John of Gaunt. Richard is clever enough to keep the plot a secret by having Mowbray exiled for life later when he stops Mowbray and Bolingbroke from dueling.

The stopping of the duel is important because it shows Richard demonstrating his power because all he needs to do is drop his staff. He does not need to speak out, but only preform this slight motion. This also goes against tradition which is a major aspect of the text. The first scene was the traditional way of settling a dispute by having a duel, but Richard interrupts tradition so he can profit in different ways. He exiles Mowbray so that he can never admit that Richard was involved in the plot to kill Gloucester, then exiles Bolingbroke for 6 months for a number of reasons. In the next scene Richard describes Bolingbroke's departure with apparent jealousy. The common people all seem to love Bolingbroke, wishing him goodbye. Richard says, "As were our England in reversion his, And he our subjects' next degree in hope" (Act 1 Scene 4 Line 34). This line reveals Richard's fear of what the common people think, and his envy over his cousin's popularity. It is possible that he banished him in hopes that the people would forget about him while he was gone, and so it would be easier for Richard to steal his inheritance.

In the next act John of Gaunt dies, but not before giving Richard a piece of his mind. "Now He that made me knows I see thee ill: Ill in myself to see, and in thee seeing ill" (Act. 2 Scene 1 line 93). Ealier he discussed with York his displeasure over Richard renting out properties for money, which he should never need to do. Now he directly accuses Richard of murdering Gloucester, and Richard does not deny these facts. When Gaunt dies, Richard is not at all sad about the loss of his uncle. In fact he is happy because now he can steal his cousin's inheritance to spend on a costly war with Ireland. This scene shows the cruel and plotting side of Richard who will go to great lengths to get what he wants.

Richard has numerous characteristics that make him a bad king and just a bad person in general. I am curious to see what lengths he will go to later on in the play.

Family Feuds

Bonds are a very important theme in Shakespeare’s plays and one of these bonds that may be overlooked is the bond of family. Although we come across bonds that have to do with business transactions and friendship, family bonds are just as important and integral to Shakespeare’s society as is any other bond. Not only does it shape a characters mind and mission, but it leads them to take extreme actions against humankind.
In Richard II a lot of what the audience is accustomed to in Shakespearean literature is again brought to attention. In the play we are introduced to two characters that have a long feud reigning amongst them and they have come together to deal with this old grudge in the most subtle of ways. Shakespeare has included these types of feuds in many of his plays such as Romeo and Juliet and although the younger generation sees past the grudges, the older folks never seem to stop nursing old feuds. As Mowbray states, “The bitter clamor of two eager tongues, / Can arbitrate this cause betwixt us twain; / The blood is hot that must be cool’d for this.” (pg 806), of how even after so long the blood is still “hot” with fresh anger. The feuds amid the English era were very common among royalty and weren’t just concerned with the people involved but generations and generations afterwards. This reminds me of the tribal system in certain areas of the middle east where these kinds of battles are still common. I believe it is important for us, as readers, to look deeper into the realms of these family feuds and why families are so bound to one another just because of blood. Although in the present day western world we are not so much concerned with the trials and tribulations of previous family grudges (well not so much anyway), there may be a reflection of how we have managed to burst out of the seams of family bonds through the readings of these plays. The two characters in Shakespeares play, Bullingbrook and Mowbray, show resilience to mending ways without a fight. For example, Bullingbrook asserts, “Look what I speak, my life shall prove it true; […] Besides I say, and will in battle prove, / Or here or elsewhere to the furthest verge” (pg 806), which leads him to have a glorified version of revenge and justification which can only take place through battles and sacrificing his own life. Not once does Bullingbrook furnish Mowbray with room for mercy and coming to an agreement; his mission is clear and he will do anything to make sure that his is not denied his rights. Not surprisingly, the bond of Bullingbrook’s family is far dearer to him than even his own life.