Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Our next interim reading is Richard II. A wonderful and too often overlooked play.

We don't usually do separate threads on our interim readings, so I'm not going to set up threads for individual acts unless things get going hot and heavy, but I suggest that we informally give each act a few days for itself before moving further into the play. Maybe something like:

Act 1 -- May 19-20
Acts 1-2 - May 21-22
Acts 1-3 - May 23-24
Acts 1-4 - May 25-26
Whole Play - May 27 on

Zeke suggested three weeks for the discussion, and nobody dissented, so lets do that -- the discussion then to run through June 8, and Paradise Lost to start June 9.

So -- on to the late 14th century we go!

Pete Saccio has a wonderful book, Shakespeare's English Kings, which I recommend to any Shakespeare lover. It gives the historical background which would have been as familiar to his audiences as the Revolutionary War and Civil War are to Americans.

For example, many American readers of Richard II may not realize that at the time the play opens, he had been reigning for 21 year (though not all of those as an adult, since he was 10 when he ascended to the throne (his father, eldest son of King Edward III, had died a year earlier, but he ascended to the throne after his grandfather instead of any of his uncles, including several who are characters in or get mentioned in the play.)

The play deals with just the last two years of his reign.

Richard was actually a fairly cultivated monarch for his times. He replaced the militant emphasis of his grandfather's court with a more arts and culture centered court. (His grandfather probably would not have stopped the duel between Bolingbroke and Mowbray.) He was a patron of Chaucer; he is considered to have been intelligent and well read.

He probably would have been more successful as a scholar than as a king.

Here is a BBC summary of Richard II's reign:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic...

And the official version:-

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheM...

When John of Gaunt attempts to cheer up his exiled son, Henry Bolingbroke, by advising him to make the best of circumstances, to imagine a positive scenario, Henry, who is of a different mind and practical disposition, counters his father, complaining that such favorable circumstances would make the present so much more unbearable.

JOHN OF GAUNT

All places that the eye of heaven visits
Are to a wise man ports and happy havens.
Teach thy necessity to reason thus;
There is no virtue like necessity.
Think not the king did banish thee,
But thou the king. Woe doth the heavier sit,
Where it perceives it is but faintly borne.
Go, say I sent thee forth to purchase honour
And not the king exiled thee; or suppose
Devouring pestilence hangs in our air
And thou art flying to a fresher clime:
Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it
To lie that way thou go'st, not whence thou comest:
Suppose the singing birds musicians,
The grass whereon thou tread'st the presence strew'd,
The flowers fair ladies, and thy steps no more
Than a delightful measure or a dance;
For gnarling sorrow hath less power to bite
The man that mocks at it and sets it light.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE

O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse:
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.
(1.3)

Asmah wrote: "When John of Gaunt attempts to cheer up his exiled son, Henry Bolingbroke, by advising him to make the best of circumstances, to imagine a positive scenario, Henry, who is of a different mind and p..."

Thanks for bringing up those two passages. They are favorite passages of mine from this play.

They present starkly different views of how to deal with adversity. I'm curious, of the people here, which approach do you think would be more likely to prevail with you if you were put in a similar situation?

Everyman wrote: "passages....present starkly different views of how to deal with adversity..."

This is what we nowadays call the 'glass half full or glass half empty' scenario and we do often see people with the former approach leading happier lives because they have the good sense, or temperament, to 'mock' their adversity and 'look on the bright side of life', as the song goes.

The Coventry Lists of Act I Scene 3 refer to a jousting tournament and these are still held at Warwick Castle, Coventry (which has a wonderful display of medieval armoury):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVsV7G...

From being the innocent boy king displayed in the Wilton Diptych [below:],in Shakespeare's Richard II, Act 1 Scene 4. we now see a tyrant who is pleased to see his old protector, John of Gaunt, dying so that his wealth can go to the crown and finance the war with Ireland Richard had rashly embarked upon:

'Now put it God, in the physician's mind
To help him [Gaunt:] to his grave immediately!
The lining of his coffers shall make coats
To deck our soldiers in these Irish wars' (1.4.62)

Gaunt's wealth should have been inherited by Bolingbrooke, so this action bodes ill for the King, as we shall see.

http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/pai...

Richard II was a keen collector of precious objects and his profligate spending caused him to raise heavy taxes, which alienated his people. In the 1990s a 'treasure roll' was found which listed the enormous number of jewels and plate which were in his possession and which were used at his magnificent court. His interest in art and literature was considered 'un-kingly' and added to his reputation of being a weak king, as portrayed by Shakespeare.

http://www.history.ac.uk/richardII/

Interesting Asmah. I haven't started reading yet (procrastination I think because I have trouble with this type of literature) but This verse comes to my mind:

Ecclesiastes 3:1

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.

MadgeUK wrote: "Richard II was a keen collector of precious objects and his profligate spending caused him to raise heavy taxes, which alienated his people. In the 1990s a 'treasure roll' was found which listed the enormous number of jewels and plate which were in his possession and which were used at his magnificent court. His interest in art and literature was considered 'un-kingly' and added to his reputation of being a weak king,"

One commentator has said that the real problem with his taxation was not so much the taxes, but that they went for luxuries instead of important things like wars. He basically gave away much of the English conquests in France rather than go to war over them, which the populace would have been more willing to pay for.

I'm not historian enough to know whether this is an accurate assessment, but it seems to fit with S's Richard.

I notice that there are way more male characters than female in this reading.

That is so Everyman although wars with Ireland were always unpopular. When reading Richard II we need to remember that Shakespeare was writing in the reign of Elizabeth I and the Tudors went to great lengths to discredit the former Plantaganets.

Shakespeare’s portrayal of Gaunt is one of the few instances where he dramatically alters the source material of Holinshed. Shakespeare probably altered the character of Gaunt found in Holinshed to embody true patriotism and Tudor doctrine because Queen Elizabeth traced her lineage directly back to Gaunt. In the Chronicles, Gaunt is a 'disorderly and rapacious magnate' but in Richard II, Gaunt is the voice of reason, wisdom, and, above all, patriotism. In many of his speeches in the play, Gaunt emphatically expounds the importance of the Divine Right of Kings which was extremely important to the Tudors who were thought by some to have usurped the throne and who, under Henry VIII, had broken away from the 'true' catholic church.

In Holinshed’s Chronicles, Richard steals Bolingbroke’s property, and Holinshed mentions that "this hard dealing was much disliked by all the nobilitie, and cried out against of the meaner sort; but namelie the duke of York was therewith sore mooued . . ." Shakespeare, however, embellishes what is found in the Chronicles and creates a speech by York designed to forewarn Richard that his decision to confiscate Bolingbroke’s land will have dire consequences. Shakespeare, living in the reign of a Queen whose right to rule was constantly challenged, is at pains to emphasise that plotting against a King who is divinely ordained will have disastrous consequences but at the same time, this King (a Plantagenet) did not rule England's garden as well as did Elizabeth:-

'...When our sea-walled garden, the whole land,
Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers chok’d up,
Her fruit trees all unprun’d, and her hedges ruin’d,
Her knots disorder’d, and her wholesome herbs
Swarming with caterpillars.' (III.iv.40-46)

This passage captures both the central moral message of the play, and the deep sadness that Richard’s subjects feel as Richard allows England to deteriorate. The servants, in keeping with the play’s message that the deposition of a king is always wrong, do not condone the usurpation, they simply wish things had been different:

Gardner: ... Bolingbroke
Hath seized the wasteful king. O, what pity is it
That he had not so trimm’d and dress’d his land
As we this garden! We at time of year
Do wound the bark, the skin of our fruit trees,
Lest, being overproud in sap and blood,
With too much riches it confound itself.
Had he done so to great and growing men,
They might have liv’d to bear and he to taste
Their fruits of duty.(III.iv.53-63)

The only recourse for the Gardner and Servant is to ponder how life would be different if Richard had put the needs of the people before his own. Richard’s selfishness and lack of political sophistication have thrown the country into crisis, and will cost him dear. We therefore see that Shakespeare’s changes serve to illustrate both the importance of Richard’s status as an anointed king but also the disastrous consequences that result from his inability to make shrewd political decisions.

MadgeUK wrote: "In many of his speeches in the play, Gaunt emphatically expounds the importance of the Divine Right of Kings which was extremely important to the Tudors who were thought by some to have usurped the throne and who, under Henry VIII, had broken away from the 'true' catholic church. "

That's a highly relevant point, because Shakespeare took a great risk showing the deposition and murder of a ruler when Elizabeth's claim on the throne was a bit suspect. Suggesting that there might be justification for deposing and killing a ruler will always get the dander of a ruler up (just in the past few days the Secret service felt the need to interview and question a math teacher who in a math problem had asked the students to calculate what angle a rifle should be aimed to shoot the President. He thought he was just making the problem more interesting. The government considered it a possible threat.)

I understand that until after Elizabeth's death the final scenes of Richard's death were omitted from the playscripts. I'm not sure whether they were put on the stage or not. But clearly, it was a sensitive issue. (One we'll also get into with Milton, who got into even more trouble for actively advocating regicide!)

At one level this exchange between Bolingbroke and his father is, indeed, about "glass half full vs glass half empty" approaches to adversity. But I think it is also about more than that.

Shakespeare's plays, especially the early ones, frequently allude to Stoic philosophy. Characters either counsel or practice it (or fail to) and either thrive or suffer for doing so. The foundation of Stoic philosophy (to the limited extent that I understand it) is that there are "Gods" that have ordered the world and that, therefore, whatever happens in it is "right." Virtue consists in controlling the only thing that matters: one's internal state and response to events. Everything external is of no importance since it is outside of one's control; disease, insults, hunger, exile, or even execution, are irrelevant.

As one Stoic, sentenced to death, says,"You can kill me but you cannot harm me."

This is the perspective John of Gaunt counsels. On the other hand, Bolingbroke is explicit in rejecting it. He insists that a wound must be lanced lest it fester. His actions throughout the play will be consistent with this attitude. He doesn't really epitomize the more modern conception that we can (should) shape our own fate, but he is on the way. Ironically, in the final act, a different character will implement, and benefit from, John of Gaunt's advice.

The deeper --and in my opinion, more important--significance of this exchange has to do with legitimacy and order in the world. As I noted, the Stoics believed that Nature was always "right" because ordered by the gods. One of the greatest Stoic philosophers --and my favorite-- was actually the Emperor! Even as ruler, Marcus Aurelius understood the limits of his power; or, more precisely, the dimensions of it.

The Elizabethans believed that the King was God's designated representative. Hence, the divine right of kings, about which Madge can tell us more. In Richard's time they would have believed that winning the duel would reflect God's judgment of which claimant was in the right. However, from an institutional perspective, Richard is well within his prerogatives in stopping the fight and choosing to pass judgment himself. (What it says about him from a leadership or disposition perspective is something else entirely.)

But what happens when a ruler rules badly or unwisely? If he or she is divinely endorsed, no resistance is legitimate. A Stoic response would be the only constructive one possible.

John of Gaunt will make a relevant prophetic speech in the next act. I believe we can discuss that beginning in a day or so.

Zeke wrote: "At one level this exchange between Bolingbroke and his father is, indeed, about "glass half full vs glass half empty" approaches to adversity. But I think it is also about more than that."

Excellent post. I agree that the passage is much richer than just glass half full or half empty. (As one engineer said, the real answer is that the glass is neither half full or half empty, but that it's just twice as big as it needs to be.)

You've given a nice summary of the Stoic philosophy, but I'm still thinking over whether I agree that this is what Gaunt is really saying.

Stoicism, it seems to me, is mostly about acceptance. More a sort of "roll with the punches" philosophy, if we're translating Shakespeare into modern pop psychobabble. :)

But isn't Gaunt saying more than that? What he seems to me to be saying is not so much just to accept and submit to fate, but to take a different approach to his situation. Not to think of himself as having been banished, which is thinking negatively about his situation, but
"Go, say I sent thee forth to purchase honour
And not the king exiled thee;..."

It's the mental switch from viewing what happens to one not as adversity but as opportunity. Not "look what fate did to me" so much as "look what I'm doing to fate." Which isn't the way I read Seneca, Aurelius, and the other stoics. If Caesar throws you into the arena with a wild bull, Stoicism I think says accept being gored; Gaunt says become a bullfighter and draw the cheers of the crowd and the adoration of the maidens.

It is true that Renaissance scholars and authors were influenced by Stoicism and one of the most widely read texts of the day was Cicero's De Officiis. Erasmus published a popular coat-pocket edition in 1501 and wrote that "...three books be almost sufficient to make a perfect and excellent governour, Plato's Works, Aristotle's Ethics, and Cicero's De Officiis". Religious leaders of the Renaissance gave the latter book a preeminent place in moral education. King James wrote Basilikon Doron [King's Gift, 1503) for his son Henry, which is modelled upon De Officiis, a text which was widely studied in 16th century grammar schools like the one in Stratford which Shakespeare attended. It is perhaps significant that Shakespeare's tragedies are concerned with problems of governing, and most of his comedies have a King or Duke who restores order at the end.

Whereas modern scholars tend to see Stoicism as an ascetic suppression of emotion in order to reach a state of calm, almost Buddhist in nature, Cicero and Seneca devoted themselves to the welfare of their families, friends, neighbours. They did not seak 'peace' or 'enlightenment' but sought to fulfil their obligations to their fellow men and this was also the Renaissance view. In the words of Hamlet, which perhaps echo those of Gaunt, they chose not to let "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" force them into a cowardly retreat from active life but with Cicero and Seneca to "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them", which I think is the point Everyman is making.

Both of you enrich my comments about Stoicism, and I agree with you both. E-man: I think the Stoic thrown into the ring would fight the bull but would care not a whit whether the crowd cheered or the maidens adored.

I recognized that Gaunt was not a pure example of Stoic philosophy, but I wanted to use it as a bridge to the broader issue of where authority is vested; is it in heaven, in a King or in an individual. Gaunt is advising his son to accept the King's authority but to exercise autonomy in how he responds to it.

Zeke wrote: "Gaunt is advising his son to accept the King's authority but to exercise autonomy in how he responds to it. "

Yes, Gaunt is advising him to accept the banishment, though I'm not sure that "accept" is the best term -- he doesn't have much choice, does he? But is he really advising his son to accept the King's authority? Or just to accept reality? If, indeed, there's a difference -- but it may make a difference because, now that we can open up Act 2, accepting the King's authority would mean accepting the seizure of his lands and property, wouldn't it? So if that's what Gaunt was really advising, then Bolingbrook rejected his father's advice.

John of Gaunt's speech in Act II rewards a close reading. It is a prophetic speech; it strikes me he plays the role of the soothsayer in Julius Caesar. As in that play, the ruler dismisses the prophetic voice.

Whatever religious doctrine they believed, Elizabethans agreed that there is a divinely directed order to the universe--a "great chain of being," with each creature, and each individual, playing an assigned role. This divine ordering (called "degree") is famously described by Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida"

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;
........
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.

His son exiled over a land dispute, John castigates Richard. His tone is similarly prophetic.

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear'd by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.

When we finish reading the play we can discuss whether the prophecy points to Richard's demise or to the strife that will follow it.

Zeke wrote: "John of Gaunt's speech in Act II rewards a close reading. It is a prophetic speech; it strikes me he plays the role of the soothsayer in Julius Caesar. As in that play, the ruler dismisses the prop..."

Another reason that the second speech stood out was its remarkably long sentence. A google seach said that it is the most patriotic speech of Britain and that the speech is named for its opening line, "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle".

Gaunt afterward makes another speech, describing the ways in which his surname also defines his body. Gaunt describes
-the body of an elderly man
-the burden of grief taking away his appetite
-his active life spent with England's affairs
-the lack of time with his children
-his shape that fits the narrow grave
-his bag of bones fit for the contents of a grave.

JOHN OF GAUNT

O how that name befits my composition!
Old Gaunt indeed, and gaunt in being old:
Within me grief hath kept a tedious fast;
And who abstains from meat that is not gaunt?
For sleeping England long time have I watch'd;
Watching breeds leanness, leanness is all gaunt:
The pleasure that some fathers feed upon,
Is my strict fast; I mean, my children's looks;
And therein fasting, hast thou made me gaunt:
Gaunt am I for the grave, gaunt as a grave,
Whose hollow womb inherits nought but bones. (2.1)

Yes, several lines from this patriotic speech are still often used in songs and speeches in the UK. The BBC currently runs a history series called 'This Sceptred Isle'.

'This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise;
This fortress, built by nature for herself,
Against infection, and the hand of war;
This happy breed of men, this little world;
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands;
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.'

We all quote Shakespeare much more than we realise (even Americans!) and Bill Bryson's book 'The Mother Tongue' gives many instances of this.

Reviewing this Act, I found myself thinking of some of our friends who have written that they are encountering the play for the first time, or that they are challenged by Shakespeare's language. It can be especially hard to sort it out on the printed page. I offer I a couple of ideas...

BBC televised the history plays in chronological order. It is now out on DVD as a set called "Shakespeare's English Kings." Each play is broken into two shorter programs. They are excellent (and have subtitles) and perhaps a local library has them to borrow. An added bonus: a young Sean Connery as Harry Percy.

Second, something I read once has stuck with me. When we watch a detective show or a thriller movie, we don't worry about keeping all the details straight. ("Was that guy a police inspector or a captain? I can't remember if he's the one they called 'Bunko' or if that was his partner?") We follow the dramatic flow and trust the director to point us to the critical moments--as Shakespeare will do very well in Acts IV and V.

I think the crux of Richard's predicament is summed up neatly in two lines spoken by Ross--who, by the way, I had to look up to remind myself that he is a follower of Bolingbroke.

The commons hath he pilled with grievous taxes,
And quite lost their hearts. The nobles hath he fined
For ancient quarrels,and quite lost their hearts.

Shakespeare's leaders (Julius Caesar, Coriolanus, King John, Henry VI) often have a fraught relationship with the what Baghot, later in this act calls "the wavering commons."
[for their love:]
Lies in their purses; and whoso empties them,
By so much fills their hearts with deadly hate.

As for the nobles, I suspect that as near peers, and often relatives, they never wholly bought into the concept of the divine right of a king. In the coming acts we will see how Bolingbroke skillfully takes advantage of both of Richard's problems.

As for the back and forth loyalty of some of the characters and the comparisons of Shakespeare's plot and actual history, leave those for subsequent readings. I feel confident that once the bug bites you, you will return to the play over and over and find deeper levels of pleasure and richness in it. For now, for what it's worth, concentrate on the dynamic of the two main characters as they rise and fall. And observe the consequences for each of them--and for England.

LOL. Only an American could think that nobles did not 'buy into' the Divine Right of Kings! The Puritan Fathers live on.:):)

The Divine Right of Kings was a very powerful religious belief in Medieval and Renaissance times and people had the same faith in it as in God himself, who, it was thought, ordained it. Its importance to the plots of several of Shakespeare's plays, including Richard II, are discussed in this radio broadcast:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0080xph

This is what James VI & I wrote in the Basilikon Doron (mentioned in the above programme)
about the Divine Right of Kings:-

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjdivine...

King James, a scholar and a theologian, wrote extensively about the Divine Right of Kings. If anyone dared to question a king it was blasphemy. Even if a king behaved badly (as Richard II does) no-one should criticise him as he is answerable only to God. The whole play turns on this idea and the consequences of deposing a king. Shakespeare's life would have been on the line if his plays had undermined the principle of it. King James wrote:-

'The state of monarchy is the supreme thing on Earth...As to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so it is treason in subjects to dispute what a king may do...A good king will frame his actions to the law, yet he is not bound thereto but of his own goodwill.' (from True Law of Free Monarchies by James I of England.)

James passed on his firm belief in the Divine Right of Kings to his son Charles I, whose equally strong belief in it brought him into dispute with the Puritans, who were beginning to question it and to have ideas about equality under God. It was this insistence upon his 'divine' rights which eventually brought about Charles I's execution in 1649 by the Puritan Parliament of Oliver Cromwell. (We will learn more about the Puritans, DR and Charles I when we read Paradise Lost.)

Madge, I take your comments with appreciation and look forward to listening to that radio show. But I note that your discussion focuses on King James and his successors. Obviously, this is contemporary for Shakespeare (though several years later than the writing of Richard II)and two hundred thirty years later than the events of the play.

Frankly, the picture I had in my mind when I wrote that was of the barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. I have a hard time imagining them viewing him as divinely ordained in any practical sense.

Zeke wrote: "Madge, I take your comments with appreciation and look forward to listening to that radio show. But I note that your discussion focuses on King James and his successors. Obviously, this is contempo..."

Yes, I meant to comment that Shakespeare was of course writing of a different period 200 years earlier but he would still be mindful of not upsetting his Tudor Queen, who also ruled by Divine Right and was mindful of the fact that her father Henry VII, had broken with Rome. Shakespeare often used the reigns of Elizabeth and James as allegories in his plays, seeking to show them in a better light than their predecessors. Elizabeth's right to rule was challenged several times, not least by James' mother, Mary Queen of Scots, and she reportedly suffered agonies for condemning another 'divine' queen to death.

The arguments surrounding the divine right of kings to rule, as formulated by the Medieval Church - St Augustine and others - do not preclude the ability of nobles to challenge them if they are tyrannical. The nobles who dealt with King John would have believed that they were doing right in the sight of God, because he was oppressing his people. They were not, in any case, disputing his right to rule. Just as Gaunt and Bolingbroke think they are right. The argument goes that 'time will tell' whether they are right or not and history shows, for instance, that the deposition of Richard led to the 'punishment' of the 100 years war which followed and to the slow decline of England's fortunes. This is the sort of argument that the supporters of 'divine right' would have used right up until the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, when the idea was virtually abandoned.

Madge: The argument goes that 'time will tell' whether they are right or not and history shows, for instance, that the deposition of Richard led to the 'punishment' of the 100 years war which followed and to the slow decline of England's fortunes. This is the sort of argument that the supporters of 'divine right' would have used right up until the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, when the idea was virtually abandoned.

One benefit from Richard's deposition was that we got seven fantastic plays demonstrating the retribution John of Gaunt predicts in this one!

Could you explain a bit about the way the monarch was supposed to have healing powers? If I am not mistaken, King James was big on this. Seems to me it would be a pretty risky thing to try to domonstrate. What was the "out clause?"

LOL.

They were all big on this! European Kings and Queens, because of their 'divinity' were thought to have the power to heal by the 'laying on of hands', just as Jesus supposedly did. In particular, they were credited with curing scrofula, known as the King's Evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrofula...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scr...

I don't know, but I guess the 'out' clause would be that the person had been too evil and therefore could not be redeemed. That some thought they were cured would be due to multifarious factors, as with all 'miracles', not least, mass hysteria as large crowds gathered around the King/Queen when these ceremonies were performed:

http://home.ix.netcom.com/~kiyoweap/m...

The garden scene of 3.4 is striking because its tone though woeful occurs in a garden where peaceful nature and dutiful attention soften the sharp edge of combative personalities. The first interpretation of the scene details the changing symbolism throughout the passage:

http://www.cyberpat.com/shakes/garden...

The second specifically mentions Shakespeare's symbolism about the Garden of Eden:

Allegory
The garden scene ... is a political allegory. The gardener compares the garden to the kingdom and explains that the rules for tending the garden should be applied to tending the kingdom. The good ruler is like a good gardener. This allegory lends weight to the imagery found in the play generally, of the correspondence between the natural and the human world.

Another level of meaning is supplied when the queen refers to the gardener as "old Adam's likeness." This allusion to the Book of Genesis suggests that England is like the garden of Eden that has been spoiled by the transgressions of the king. It puts in mind the famous speech by Gaunt in Act 2 scene 1, in which he refers to England as "This other Eden, demi-paradise." The dying Gaunt is the representative of the old order in England that is dying, due to Richard's folly. The ruin of the kingdom is like another fall of man.
--source: http://www.novelguide.com/RichardII/m...

The brusqueness with which Bollingroke dispatches Bushey and Green seems to reflect his character.

My mind is blanking on which play has a King trick his opponents into condemning themselves. Could it be Richard III? If so, a nice little set of bookends.

For me, Act III scene 2 is the crux of the play. It is in this scene that we see Richard capitulate and assume a new identity--despite Carlisle's efforts, and the fact that Bollingbroke has not demanded anything more than the return of his properties.

We get a clue of what is to come in his first speech, as he spurns the royal "we" and refers to himself as "I."

His vacillation as Carlisle tries to buck him up is evident from the tone of his speeches. Mark van Doren notes that, while Richard is always a poet, he is a vicious, rhetorical one after the pep talks, and a self-conscious, lyrical one when he considers the true state of his affairs. (Harold Goddard notes that the Bishop of Carlise is one of Shakespeare's few churchmen of high character.)

However, despite a brief (halfhearted) rally after his marvelous "Let's talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs" speech, when he learns that his uncle Duke of York has deserted him, the game (of power) is up, and a new development (of character) has begun. It is reflected in his language.

Van Doren: Now that he has [sorrow and woe:] he will honor nothing else; he will do nothing but compose fine, tender, heartbreaking lines, nothing but improvise endless variations on rich, resonant theme of his personal woe."

I don't entirely agree with that, but I must hold my reservation for later in the discussion.

For now it's enough to note that in the chiastic (a design like an X where one character rises as another falls) structure of the play, this is where the lines cross.

I started this discussion of this pivotal scene by mentioning the significance of a transition from a two letter word to a one letter word. And then wrote a bit more about the changing nature of his poetry in the scene. If Richard has a tragic flaw, it may be found in language as well. Richard loves language. But he does not know how to use language. Stephen Booth calls it his inability to "distinguish the manipulation of words from the manipulation of things."

Unfortunately, not to say tragically, for Richard, his adversary has the opposite traits: plain spoken but a master manipulator.

Asmah wrote: "The garden scene of 3.4 is striking because its tone though woeful occurs in a garden where peaceful nature and dutiful attention soften the sharp edge of combative personalities."

Yes, Asmah, that's one of the best scenes, IMO, that Shakespeare wrote. The double and triple levels of meaning are wonderful.

Yes, I had commented above on the garden scene and its relevance to England, gardens and Queen Elizabeth I. Extracts are oft quoted over here and the image of England as a garden is an enduring one. Elizabethans were very fond of formal knot gardens which represented order and harmony:-

http://www.timetravel-britain.com/art...

http://daintyballerina.blogspot.com/2...


Nowadays England is a land of garden shows and garden centres too!!:). The Chelsea Flower Show is on this week and tickets are sold out. Here are some highlights from last year:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/chelsea/

This was my first reading of Richard II, (In fact is was the first Shakespeare I've read since high school) and I really enjoyed it. I took similar advice to Zeke's from a few posts earlier and just read the play through without worrying too much about the minutiae. I was pleasantly suprised by how easy I found it to read.

I'm a little confused though as to why Bolingbroke was banished in the first place. It seems to be a little extreme as far as punishments go. Is there more going on here or was he banished simply for accusing Mowbray?

Eliza: Glad you enjoyed the play and found my advice helpful. Others may have different opinions, but for me, the issue is that Mowbray and Brollinbroke are accusing each other of treason. It's really a device to lead to the "God will decide" combat that Richard will interfere with.

By the way, I am originally from Pennsylvania and know how pretty your "neck of the woods" is.

Eliza wrote: "I'm a little confused though as to why Bolingbroke was banished in the first place. It seems to be a little extreme as far as punishments go. Is there more going on here or was he banished simply for accusing Mowbray? "

Yes, there was a lot going on. Shakespeare's audience would have been well versed in the history, which is why S doesn't bother to explain it, but of course American readers today don't get that grounding.

I'm no expert in the age, here's what I understand. Bolingbrook, was a first cousin of Richard -- his father, also Richard, was elder brother of Gaunt, both sons of King Edward III, and when the father Richard died before his father, his son, our Richard II, was in line for the throne. But this was just one interpretation of the law of legitimacy, and in former years Gaunt, the eldest surviving son of Edward III, would have been in line for the throne, and his son, Bolingbrook, would have succeeded his father.

Richard came to the throne at 10, but of course a 10 year old can’t rule, so Gaunt and his other uncles were essentially the rulers. Presumably they wouldn’t have been delighted to give up their power as Richard got older, though I don’t know that for a fact.

Thomas of Woodstock (who made Richard create him Duke of Gloucester, which is what S calls him in the play), Gaunt’s younger brother, was apparently much more capable than Gaunt, and from what I read because the functional ruler during Richard’s minority. He apparently formed an anti-monarchial party in Parliament, and when Richard opposed him threatened to depose Richard (Richard was about 18 at the time). Bolingbrook was part of Thomas’s party, and if Thomas had succeeded in deposing Richard, Bolingbrook would have stood in line for the throne, Richard at that point being childless. (Actually, there was a son ahead of Gaunt, Lionel, and Richard intended to leave the throne to Lionel’s children, which was strictly correct, even though they lacked the wealth and prestige of Gaunt. This would put Bolingbrook even further out of the line to the throne.)

Thus, some ten years or so before the play began, Bolingbrook had shown himself both ambitious and willing to ally himself with a party seeking to depose Richard and go for the throne himself.

Over the years, Richard, who was actually a fairly able politician, gathered strength, persuaded many of the lords to come over to his side, and when in 1387, a year before the start of the play, Thomas tried again, Richard had the stronger party and had Thomas arrested and sent to France.

Mowbray had been part of Thomas’s party, but Richard persuaded him to change sides, and he was sent to be jailor of Thomas (Gloucester), who as a king’s son couldn’t just be despatched willy nilly, but had to be brought to trial. But while in prison under Mowbray’s care, he died. Mowbray realized that he was in a perilous position, and sought help from Bolingbrook, but B turned on him and, as we see, accused him of treason.

So at the point that the play starts, both Mowbray and Bolingbrook are dangers to Richard. So it makes perfect sense that he would want them both out of the way.

This is what I glean from some of my background reading. But I don't know how reliable all this really is -- court politics then make modern politics look like child's play.

Anyhow, hope this helps some.

In Act I Bolingbrook is hinting that Mowbray killed Gloucester, heir to the throne, under the King's orders which would have been a treasonable act and against God's law by the 'rules' of the DRK. The tournament at Coventry between Bolingbrook and Mowbray ('Go I to fight: truth hath a quiet breast' (I:III) was meant to reveal Mowbray's complicity as, under the rules of chivalry, God would punish the sinner by defeat. Richard, fearful that the truth will come out, halts the tournament and banishes them both - which proves to be a serious error of judgement, as Mowbray predicts: 'And all too soon, I fear, the king shall rue'...

Again, all this hinges on the DRK, as well as on the personal ambitions of Bolingbroke and Mowbray et al. Richard has supposedly had an heir to the throne killed and has therefore committed a sin in the eyes of God, so should be punished.

At the time when this play was performed the ageing Queen Elizabeth did not have an heir so a reference to the death of an heir was a telling one for Elizabethans, who feared anarchy if one was not named before her death. She had already executed one legitimate heir to the throne, Mary Queen of Scots, a Stuart, what would happen to Mary's son James Stuart? Would another Tudor or Plantagenet rise up to claim the throne? Which one of the possible contenders was God's anointed? These questions lay heavy on the minds of Elizabethans and so the politics in this play would have seemed very relevant, and ominous, to them.

A glance at this chart showing the possible heirs to the throne in Elizabeth I's time will show what a thorny problem this was:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

All four of Shakespeare's plays about kings are concerned with the questions of kingship, authority and order, which act as a metaphor for his own times. In his second history cycle, beginning with Richard II, Shakespeare places emphasis on the whole issue of the DRK and what happens if things go wrong. As we have seen, this right may be forfeited by the king's failure to rule wisely or if the throne was usurped in the first place. Technically, Henry Bolingbrook, though obviously an ambitious man, is neither a usurper nor a rebel because Richard freely abdicates, which presumably means he is no longer a king under divine dispensation- so why does Henry feel so bad about it...?

I strongly feel that Shakespeare is doing a Tudor hatchet job on Richard II and am going to look more closely at the actual history. I will report back:).

Madge, thanks for the link to Melvyn Bragg's program on DRK. I listen to him frequently and enjoy the erudite conversation. You Brits have it all over us Yanks when it comes to intelligent conversation and radio.

It reinforced my sense that Shakespeare is writing more from his contemporary perspective than from history. It would be interesting to see what Hollingshed has to say on the subject.

It also got me excited about what I will learn about Cromwell and the Restoration in our upcoming discussion. I was struck by the paradoxical ways in which it developed as a way for Protestant monarchs to supplant the influence of Popes. (Which was not yet an issue in Richard's time.) Also, the way Charles I became an instant martyr following his execution.

Thanks again.

Everyman: Richard came to the throne at 10, but of course a 10 year old can’t rule, so Gaunt and his other uncles were essentially the rulers. Presumably they wouldn’t have been delighted to give up their power as Richard got older, though I don’t know that for a fact.

From the Geneva Bible, which Shakespeare would have been using, I believe,

Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a {h} child, and thy princes {i} eat in the morning!

(h) That is, without wisdom and counsel.

(i) Are given to their lusts and pleasures.

I finally beat Laurele to a Biblical reference!!
Eccelsiastes 10.16

One of the notes I made in my book says: Contrast two weak boy Kings: Richard II and Henry VI. Henry saw his limitations and tried to stand aside. Richard thought he could play act his way through as he did as a boy--while others ruled.

Sacchio seems to agree. He says, [Despite showing personal courage on several occasions:]his reign never fully recovered from its inception. Surrounded as he was by powerful, not to say greedy uncles and cousins, Richard the child was perforce submissive, and Richard the adult tyrannically vengeful."

In III.3 the thing that perplexes me is how quickly Richard crumbles. True he must know his predicament. But Bollingbroke never demands the crown; Richard offers it.

* Henry IV. Stand all apart,
And show fair duty to his majesty.
[He kneels down:]
My gracious lord,—

* King Richard II. Fair cousin, you debase your princely knee
To make the base earth proud with kissing it:
Me rather had my heart might feel your love
Than my unpleased eye see your courtesy.
Up, cousin, up; your heart is up, I know,
Thus high at least, although your knee be low.

* Henry IV. My gracious lord, I come but for mine own.

* King Richard II. Your own is yours, and I am yours, and all.

* Henry IV. So far be mine, my most redoubted lord,
As my true service shall deserve your love.

* King Richard II. Well you deserve: they well deserve to have,
That know the strong'st and surest way to get.

MadgeUK wrote: "In Act I Bolingbrook is hinting that Mowbray killed Gloucester, heir to the throne, under the King's orders which would have been a treasonable act and against God's law by the 'rules' of the DRK. ..."

Which is a large part of why Richard is so eager to get him out of England.

MadgeUK wrote: "I strongly feel that Shakespeare is doing a Tudor hatchet job on Richard II and am going to look more closely at the actual history. I will report back:). "

The real hatched job he does, of course, is on Richard III. I'm not sure I would call what he does to Richard II a hatched job, but he is certainly conscious of the concern about succession of Elizabeth, and so is treading gently on the legitimacy of deposing a ruler. He needs to paint Richard in the worst light to justify his deposition and show that he isn't really in favor of deposing a monarch unless he really, really deserves it (which Elizabeth, of course, is sure and whomever she names as her heir don't).

Zeke wrote: "In III.3 the thing that perplexes me is how quickly Richard crumbles. True he must know his predicament. But Bollingbroke never demands the crown; Richard offers it."

But he knows it's over, doesn't he? Might as well be as graceful about it as you can. Also, it may have been that the thought that if he gave the crown voluntarily Bollingbroke would spare his life, whereas if he made Bollingbroke seize it, he might have done so by dispatching Richard. Just a speculation, but maybe something in it?

When reading British history from the time of Henry VIII onwards always remember that historians will tend to take either the Catholic or Protestant side of the argument. Elizabeth and James were Protestants fighting off the incursion and influence of catholic nations like Spain and France. Mary I ('Bloody Mary'), their sister, was a catholic trying to do the opposite and this dichotomy continued until the Glorious Revolution when the strong Protestant monarchs, William and Mary, were 'imported' from Holland, which finally put an end to our catholic monarchs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/...

Historians, however, still tend to support one side or the other so it is best to bear this in mind. Similarly, there will be a divide between republicanism and monarchy - those who agree with Cromwell and the (Protestant) Puritans beheading of Charles Stuart and those who agree with the Catholic Stuart succession.

Therefore, histories of the Plantagenets/Stuarts are coloured by those who agreed with Henry VIII's break with Rome and those who do not. Froissart's history was much more sympathetic to Richard II than Holinshed's, for instance but Shakespeare followed Holinshed for both Richard II and III because it favoured the Tudors.

Re Shakespeare's hatchet job: Dr John Harvey, British historian and pro-Plantagenet monarchist, writes of Richard II:

'...he represented in the most personal manner the supreme case for divine Kingship. His insistence upon the sacred and indisoluble nature of the regality conferred on him by his consecration, and upon the maintenance in full of the rights of the Crown, was due to his prescience of the nature of all that would follow, once this barrier was swept away. It is neither sentimentality nor romanticism to see in Richard a highly intelligent and supremely cultured man, fully abreast of the high intellectual attainments of his age, and gifted with a greater insight than most men, even most sovereigns, into the essential character of government....We [should:] picture Richard II as a superman [of his age:], wiser and better equipped than ourselves......It is probable that Europe proper has not, since the fourteenth century, seen any individual capable of appreciating Richard at his proper value....Richard deserves the special credit of perceiving, in the midst of a world gone mad with warfare, the one overruling necessity was peace. '

Harvey calls Bolingbroke and his friends '"the war party"; those who could see nothing but the crushing of France as a worthy aim, backed by ambitious men of big business in the City of London. Whatever may be the facts of the Duke of Gloucester's death at Calais, Richard, Earl of Arundel, deserves no sympathy, for he had throughout been the villain of the piece, acting with cruelty and malice, steadily plotting the downfall of the King and the King's policy....Throughout the reign we are astonished by the cruelty, ill faith, and irrational treachery of the great men and of the King's own close relatives. The consistent plotting of Gloucester, the double-dealing of Norfolk, the abominable treachery of Henry Bolingbroke himself; all are in such sorry contrast to the cultural and artistic glories, and the long forbearance of the King.'

However, after the death of his dearly beloved Queen, Harvey writes that Richard became 'an unbalanced neurotic' and the bitterness of his personal loss, added to the senseless opposition of which he was the victim, clouded the King's judgement....Faith in his own divine right seems to be the only satisfactory explanation of some of his actions.' (It is these actions and the King's lack of judgement, and not upon the overall beneficience of his reign, that Shakespeare appears to concentrate.)

BTW Richard II is also credited with the invention of the handkerchief: 'little pieces made for giving to the lord King for carrying in his hand to wipe and cleanse his nose'. The evidence that Richard was an individual of the highest sensibility is abundant and undoubted but it is wrong to think of him as a dilettante for he was both a thoughtful statesman and a man of action of great physical and moral courage.'

But of course, 'the play's the thing' and we must suspend our disbelief when reading the play and take Shakespeare's interpretation at face value.


Everyman: Of Richard III, pro-Plantagenet Harvey writes: 'The character of the last Plantagenet King, Richard III, is the most enigmatic of all, for the careful propaganda of the Tudor dynasty makes it impossible to reach absolute certainty as to any of the crucial transactions of his career. Holinshed, influenced by Tudor tales, was 'the foundation for Shakespeare's plays, which, one after another, build up an overpowering sense of horrifying wickedness, redeemed only by physical courage. The patient research called forth by controversy has at any rate disproved many of these legends.'

More history:) - it was the State Opening of Parliament yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A668eS...

And here is some historical background for those who may be interested:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhWZ9...

Interesting, thanks all.

MadgeUK wrote: "When reading British history from the time of Henry VIII onwards always remember that historians will tend to take either the Catholic or Protestant side of the argument. "

Which makes Shakespeare particularly fascinating, because he seemed to veer between the two points of view almost at random.

Such a beautiful game!

MadgeUK wrote: "More history:) - it was the State Opening of Parliament yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A668eS...

And here is some historical background for those who may be interested:-

http://www...."

MadgeUK wrote: "Re Shakespeare's hatchet job: Dr John Harvey, British historian and pro-Plantagenet monarchist, writes of Richard II:..."

I think Harvey may overstated the case for Richard a bit. The Oxford Companion to British History notes that his reign was characterized by "political ineptitude." He did show considerable personal courage in facing down Wat Tyler in the Peasant's Revolt (but the fact that they felt the need to revolt in the first place doesn't suggest a highly successful administration), but beyond that he seems to have been more of a Chamberlain than a Churchill, though the OC also says that his administration was "conducted by means of threats and fear."

His high level of culture that Harvey mentions was, from the sources I read, largely imported from the continent, particularly France, and his lavish spending on culture was one of the reasons the treasury was in such bad shape that he had to confiscate Gaunt's property to fund his expedition to Wales.

I'm not sure that Shakespeare really got it as far wrong as Harvey seems to suggest.

MadgeUK wrote: "More history:) - it was the State Opening of Parliament yesterday:"

There is no doubt that the British are the best in the world when it comes to putting on a political ceremonial pageant. Nobody else even comes close.

Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "More history:) - it was the State Opening of Parliament yesterday:"

There is no doubt that the British are the best in the world when it comes to putting on a political ceremonial ..."

Something that really impressed me the first time I crossed the pond: In England, I saw the real jewels; in France, only faux.

Everyman: But he knows it's over, doesn't he? Might as well be as graceful about it as you can.

Indeed, I've been looking forward to this scene ever since Act I where John of Gaunt is giving his advice to Henry about exile. Ironic that it is Richard who ends up following the advice.

Madge: More history:) - it was the State Opening of Parliament yesterday:

Striking (at least to me) that after renouncing the Catholic Church there remains the need for "secular" pageant and ritual. Cromwell aside, it seems like Britain never really did shake its heritage.

Also, on the DRK issue, I smiled last week when the Queen had to "invite" Cameron to form a government and give Brown permission to step down.

However, I can't resist one of my favorite quotations from quintessentially American Ralph Waldo Emerson: "Once we had wooden chalices and golden preachers; now we have golden chalices and wooden preachers." (But I really don't mean that critically Madge. It's far more universal than the opening of Parliament.)