“As Bolingbroke returns to overthrow King Richard, we can imagine the
smell of sweaty horses and leather.” –Dr. McNamara
Richard II is very different from any other Shakespeare
play I’ve ever read in three major ways. 1. With all the different names used for the people of the
court, it’s very easy to get confused. 2. Women played the smallest role I’ve
seen yet in a play. I think that may be because it is a history play and the
major players from this time period were men. 3. I knew it was a highly lyrical
play, but the long speeches and monologues were so beautifully written and
complexly patterned that I sometimes forgot that I was reading a play. It often
felt more like poetry than storyline, which I really enjoyed.
I’d like to do a few unconventional things with this
convoluted text so that I can maximize my understanding of it. First, I am
going to untangle the bewildering names, roles, and relationships of the most
important characters.
--King Richard II
is married to Queen Isabella.
--Richard is behind the assassination of his uncle, Thomas of Woodstock/Duke of Gloucester,
who is survived by his wife the Duchess
of Gloucester.
--Richard’s uncle and the Duke of Gloucester’s older brother,
John of Gaunt/Duke of Lancaster,
dies during the play. His son is Harry
Bolingbroke/Duke of Hereford, who becomes King Henry IV when he takes the throne from King Richard, who is
his cousin.
--The Duke of York is
also a brother of the late Duke of Gloucester and John of Gaunt, which means
that he is the third uncle of Richard in the play. His wife is the Duchess of York and their son is the Duke of Aumerle/Aumerle.
--Thomas Mowbray/Duke
of Norfolk is a nobleman who Richard banishes early in the play.
--Percy/Earl of
Northumberland seems to be Bolingbroke’s right hand man. His son is young Harry Percy.
That clarifies things! Secondly, I’d like to address some of
the comments made by my peers in our discussion. I don’t always get a chance to
evaluate or respond to their comments so I’d like to give my input on their
insights.
Laura made the
comment that King Richard seems to fear John of Gaunt.
--I agree with Laura. King Richard probably fears all of his
uncles to some extent because of they have a blood tie to the throne and more
age and experience than he does. The textual evidence for this is subtle.
Richard’s actions support her argument more than his words. After John of Gaunt
dies, Richard seizes the lands and inheritance that should have gone to Gaunt’s
son, Bolingbroke. This action shows that Richard holds no real respect for his
uncle; however, while Gaunt was alive, he shortened Bolingbroke’s sentence from
ten to six years to pacify him. Since he clearly didn’t make this change out of
respect, it follows that he likely did it out of an underlying fear or concern
of Gaunt’s retribution.
Leslie explored
Shakespeare’s depiction of the title characters of Richard II of The Tragedy of Richard the Second, and
Julius Caesar of The Tragedy of Julius
Caesar. Though both rulers are betrayed, Richard II does not display his sorrow
in a way that produces a pivotal moment of tension and anguish like Julius
Caesar’s last words to Brutus, “Et tu, Brute?” (3.1.76). In class, we
acknowledged the truth of her statement but did not explore why this difference
exists. Richard II acknowledges that he is partially responsible for his tragic
fate: “O God, O God, that e’er this tongue of mine,/That laid the sentence of
dread banishment/On yon proud man, should take it off again” (3.3.132-134). A gradual swelling of tension precedes
Richard II’s deposition rather than the shocking abruptness of Julius Caesar’s
assassination. Though Shakespeare does not give Richard II the “Et tu, Brute?”
moment, he does give Richard II ample time to explore his fate in gorgeous
lyrical dialogue. The difference between the two men’s lines shows that Richard
II’s fall from grace is complicated by the remorse he expresses for his past
misdeeds.
Trey introduced
what he termed the “cynical approach” to the Bishop of Carlisle. During Act
Four Scene One, the bishop expels a passionate denunciation of Bolingbroke’s
ascension to the throne and overthrow of King Richard II. Trey commented that
the bishop’s intentions were probably selfishly motivated. Before his comment,
I had assumed that the bishop defends divine right in this scene because of his
devout belief in the role of God in the British monarchy. Trey’s comment is
quite shrewd. In fact, I think it makes more sense that the bishop would be
vocal here because he is concerned about the lessening of his own power in the
court rather than simply sticking up for the holiness of the monarchy. Ample
textual evidence supports the bishop’s ulterior motives. The tone of the
bishop’s address seems too heated and furious for a holy man. He begins the
speech with the informal curse, “Marry, God forbid!” (4.1.105). Before his
furious prophecy/curse, he uses God to give his words authority. He refers to
God five times in the first twenty lines of his address. By doing this, the
clever bishop creates the impression that godliness is his utmost concern.
Beneath this pretension, however, is a furious contempt for the usurpers that
goes beyond mere religious concerns. He makes the vile prophecy that “the blood
of English shall manure the ground” and that “disorder, horror, fear, and
mutiny/Shall here inhabit” (4.1.128-134). These bitter words are too strong to convey
only his concern for the practice of divine right. The bishop’s bitterness
derives from his knowledge that he will have less sway beneath the pragmatic
leadership of Bolingbroke. For me, Northumberland’s response further confirms
the bishop’s duplicitousness. He immediately disregards the lengthy discourse
and calmly orders the bishop’s arrest. He realizes the bishop’s sees beyond the
bishop’s guise and realizes that the bishop is concerned with his own access to
power.
No comments:
Post a Comment