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.

Richard vs. Bolingbroke

*This has probably been said before, but just as a forewarning, don't ever try to edit these posts in Microsoft Word first. The HTML won't let you post your blog until you go back and delete all the unnecessary formatting. It's extremely annoying.*

From the very beginnings of the play, it’s clear that tensions are high and not all is well in the world of Richard II. Subjects are feuding regularly, the king’s relatives are being mysteriously assassinated, and the king himself is as wishy-washy and vein as his kinsmen make him out to be behind his back (and in some cases, directly to his face). And in light of all this dysfunction, Shakespeare has included a character that initially seems to embody the ideal disposition of a successful monarch: Henry Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke is Richard’s cousin through his uncle, John of Gaunt, and though he’s not technically the heir to the throne of England, he is set to inherit much property and money upon his father’s death. Shakespeare juxtaposes these two characters in every way possible, through the eyes of the people, through exertions of power, and in conflict with each other.

In the first and second acts, we see many examples of the ways in which Richard rules over his kingdom. He goes back on his word, abuses his powers, and squanders much of the country’s money for his own gain. He also seems to have difficulty handling compromising situations without losing his temper. Moreover, in a familial sense, Richard barely acknowledges his relatives behind what he believes they can do for him. There is even significant implication that he may have been involved with the plot to murder his uncle, Thomas of Gloucester. Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is a much different yet equally complex character. He is well-known and respected by both the common people of England and the court (his family) alike; he seems to react well under pressure, and his abilities as a politician are unrivaled.

In Act I, Richard stops a duel between Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray, though he had previously given permission for it to occur. Here, in this very pivotal interaction between the cousins, Richard inadvertently sets the stage for the play’s main conflict. He goes back on his word, banishes his cousin, and in Bolingbroke, creates a clever enemy. Though we are not given any real evidence of where Bolingbroke’s true intentions lie thus far, I believe it is safe to say that Shakespeare wishes us to consider these two characters, and what they lend to the monarchy, to England, and to each of their own fates.

Richard II

So far I’ve enjoyed the first three acts of Richard II, and feel that they are a nice change of pace from the comedies we’ve read up until this point. At this point, however, I’ve still not been able to choose a side to root for, and the various family connections of people on both sides don’t make anything easier. I seem to be more inclined to be on Richard’s side, although it’s very possible that this is only because the play is named after him and he is the main character of the play. His character, however, does not seem to be the greatest person, as he openly admits that, should he need to, he has no problem filling out blank bank charters with a rich person’s name and collecting the money from them. He also takes inheritance that is not rightfully his from Bolingbroke after John of Gaunt dies.

One thing that surprised me a little in Act 3.2 was how nonchalantly women were put down. I always seem to forget how poorly women were treated throughout history and often get surprised when reading things such as this. Scrope even goes so far as to use the word “female” in place of “weak.” He also insults the men who would fight against the king by insinuating that they are young and girly by saying; “Boys with women’s voices/ strive to speak big” (3.2.109-110).

Something I’m becoming concerned with so far, though, is the amount of characters who keep coming about and their various titles. It seems like every time I get used to the character names, they either change or another character is thrown into the mix. I find it especially frustrating when there are characters such as “First Lady” and “Second Lady” or “Gardiner” (3.4) because we never get their names and they only have brief appearances in the play, at least so far. I find myself wondering whether or not characters such as these, and even some of the more prominent characters, are needed. Couldn’t Shakespeare have found some way around using so many characters? Especially characters that serve little to no purpose? We are told at the beginning of the Norton (the family tree) that Shakespeare combines certain characters, etc. so I would think that he put a fair amount of thought into which characters should be in the play, and which should be left out, so I guess it’s safe to assume that any characters in the play are there because Shakespeare wanted them to be. Sometimes it just seems slightly overwhelming.