Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Richard II
Another chronological change Shakespeare makes is that when in 3.2 he has Harry Percy tender his services to Bolingbroke as "tender, raw, and young," in historical fact he was 35, a ripe age for that time (a year or so older than Richard), and the veteran of many years of fighting. But S wanted to use him in Henry IV as being not much older than Prince Harry, so he distorts his age here, also.
Zeke: Please see my response in the Tea Room thread as I don't want to 'hijack' poor old Richard II:).
Everyman: I agree that Harvey was OTT about Richard but he was pro-Plantagenet and probably a catholic - the Oxford Companion no doubt tries to sit on an academic fence which perhaps Shakespeare was trying to do, which is very difficult with British history. However, given that Shakespeare was also trying to please the Tudors I think we still have to take quite a lot of what he writes with a pinch of salt. (We should be good at pomp and ceremony - we have had 500 years - post Cromwellian - practice and have seen the need for it when republicanism has reared its rebellious head - as under Queen Victoria, when we invented even more rituals. It is noticeable that the British public are often more inclined to defend the rituals than they are to defend the monarchy itself, which shows the value of them to stable government. The Romans also knew the value of 'bread and circuses' and sometimes ours seems in danger of becoming that - a substitute for sound government policies:(. )
Back to Richard II: IMO all of the additions Shakespeare makes to his play are primarily intended to show how terrible the crime of rebellion is against a legitimate ruler. Although Richard is incompetent at managing the affairs of the realm, he is legitimate; he has right on his side, and, therefore, he has one of the qualifications that make a successful ruler. What Richard is lacking is the ability to make shrewd political decisions. His ineffectiveness is shown in Holinshed's Chronicles but to a far lesser extent than in the play. Many additions Shakespeare makes to Richard II are designed to emphasize Richard’s divine right, but so too are many passages added that bring to light Richard’s flaws in the area of governance. Subsequently, the additions illustrate that Richard is not the best possible ruler because he does not have the combination of legitimacy and political savvy.
Holinshed reports that Richard II banishes Bolingbroke because Bolingbroke cannot solve his quarrel with Mowbray peacefully. It seems a necessary decision in the Chronicles - Richard desires to end the argument, and no other motive of Richard is implied. But in the play, Richard makes the following speech after Bolingbroke is banished that impugns his motives behind the removal of Bolingbroke:
He is our cousin, cousin; but ‘tis
doubt,
When time shall call him home from banishment,
Whether our kinsman come to see his friends.
Ourself and Bushy here, Bagot and Green,
Observ’d his courtship to the common people-
How he did seem to dive into their hearts
With humble and familiar courtesy; . . .
As were our England in reversion his,
And he our subjects’ next degree in hope. (I.iv.19-36)
There is also a Machievellian element to Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard: It is apparent that Richard’s motivation in the play for banishing Bolingbroke is jealousy and although severely punishing a man so beloved by the people for a minor offense is political folly, Richard does not seem to take this into consideration. He shows his weakness as a ruler by allowing his emotions to shape his decisions. This above passage illustrates that Richard has not been able to interact effectively with the English people; he has done nothing to gain their support. This estrangement from the common people is politically disastrous. The necessity of having the support of the common people is the basis of several chapters in Machiavelli’s The Prince. In both the play and the Prince we see that the ability to influence public opinion is the key to political success, a concept that Richard cannot grasp because of his overwhelming belief in the DRK.
Holinshed’s Chronicles recount how Richard had to ‘farme the realm’ and impose blank charters on the people as a source of revenue: 'And the charters were sent abroad into all shires of the realme, whereby great grudge and murmuring arose among the people . . .'. Holinshed does not say for what purpose Richard used the money. Shakespeare, however, adds the following passage:
Richard. We will ourself in person to this war;
And, for our coffers, with too great a court,
. . .We are enforc’d to farme our royal realme,
The revenue whereof shall furnish us
Our affairs in hand. If that come short,
Our substitutes at home shall have blank charters . . .(I, iv, 41-48)
To take the money of his already poverty-stricken subjects and use it to finance the war in Ireland is a politically-disastrous decision. Machiavelli writes that confiscating the property of his subjects frivolously is the worst mistake a ruler can make. It is likely no coincidence that Shakespeare chooses to emphasize Richard’s use of the money for a cause so unacceptable to the people.
Richard’s lack of political ability is also the basis for the inclusion of a speech by York in the play. In Holinshed’s Chronicles, it is reported that York was displeased with Richard, but the reason why he was displeased are not given. In Richard II however, Shakespeare provides us with this information, giving a detailed account of Richard’s faults:
York. [Richard’s ear:] is stopp’d with other flattering sounds,
As praises, of whose taste the wise are fond,
Lascivious meters, to whose venom sound
The open ear of youth doth always listen-
Report of fashions in proud Italy,
Whose manners still our tardy apish nation
Limps after in base imitation. . . .
. . . there’s no respect how vile-
That is not quickly buzz’d into his ears.(II.i.17-30)
A few lines later, Gaunt reaffirms this description of the effeminate king:
... Thy deathbed is no lesser than thy land,
Wherein thou liest in reputation sick;
... A thousand flatterers sit within thy crown,
Whose compass is no bigger then thy head . . .
O, had thy grandsire with a prophet’s eye
Seen how his son’s son should destroy his sons,
From forth thy reach he would have laid thy shame,
Deposing thee before thou wert possess’d. . . .(II.i.93-107)
It is possible that these speeches were added by Shakespeare for purely dramatic purposes, but, more plausibly, the lines spoken by York and Gaunt were inserted to illuminate the political foibles of Richard, a ruler supposedly led by self-serving flatterers, and more concerned with fashion than public opinion or the good of the realm. These passages echo the words of Machiavelli:
What will make [the ruler:] despised is being considered inconstant, frivolous, effeminate, pusillanimous, and irresolute: a ruler must avoid contempt as if it were a reef. He should contrive that his actions should display grandeur, courage, seriousness and strength . . . A ruler who succeeds in creating such an image of himself will enjoy a fine reputation; and it will be difficult to plot against him or to attack him. . . A ruler will effectively protect himself from this danger if he avoids incurring hatred and contempt, and keeps the people satisfied with him. It is essential to do this.
Richard believed that his status as anointed king was the only attribute needed to govern successfully, and so he made no effort to display those traits that both the Prince and the play deem vital. Through greed, complacency, and naivete, Richard loses the support of the populous and incurs their contempt,leaving himself vulnerable to plots and attacks.
I think Machiavelli also says something to the effect that if you are decide to take out a rival, you better take him out all the way; never leave him an opening to strike back.
Yes, which I guess is Bolingbroke's position. Machievelli believed that to hold power governments must be able to take action resolutely, not wavering or always seeking the middle way.This online book gives some interesting insights into Shakespeare's possible use of Machievellian precepts:-
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qX...
It is not known whether Shakespeare read Machievelli but his work was certainly well known and written about by other Elizabethan authors.
Now let's enjoy some theatre: Here are both Ian McKellen's and Fiona Shaw's deposition scenes from Richard II, with enlightening comments from the director - I found Fiona Shaw very compelling:-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7-i1M...
The scene with the last words of John of Gaunt from the Globe theatre are very good too:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NI3a_...
And young Derek Jacobi playing Richard's death scene at the end of the same production is very moving:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GExwDo...
This article explains what Shakespeare meant by 'perspectives' and how they work. The term is in Bushy's lines that begin with "Each substance of a grief hath twenty shadows, / Which shows like grief itself, but is not so"(2.2). The "Perspective Glass" in Shakespeare's Richard II. Allan Shickman. Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 18, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1978), pp. 217-228.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/450358
I consider Act 3 Scene 2 the turning point of the play, but it has been some time since I have looked closely at it. I did so last evening, and my overall impression was one of disappointment in Shakespeare's handling of the events. Basically, I don't think he offered nearly enough psychological justification for Richard's crumbling in 143ffWhat must the king do now? must he submit?
The king shall do it: must he be deposed?
The king shall be contented: must he lose
The name of king? o' God's name, let it go:
I'll give my jewels for a set of beads,
My gorgeous palace for a hermitage,
My gay apparel for an almsman's gown,
My figured goblets for a dish of wood,
My sceptre for a palmer's walking staff,
My subjects for a pair of carved saints
And my large kingdom for a little grave,
A little little grave, an obscure grave;
Or I'll be buried in the king's highway,
Some way of common trade, where subjects' feet
May hourly trample on their sovereign's head;
For on my heart they tread now whilst I live;
And buried once, why not upon my head?
It's glorious language, a magnificently written speech -- but why does Richard fold at this point? Northumberland has just represented that Bolingbroke will give up his insurrection if Richard will just return the lands he had no legal right to take in the first place:
His coming hither hath no further scope
Than for his lineal royalties and to beg
Enfranchisement immediate on his kn ees:
Which on thy royal party granted once,
His glittering arms he will commend to rust,
His barbed steeds to stables, and his heart
To faithful service of your majesty.
This swears he, as he is a prince, is just;
And, as I am a gentleman, I credit him.
There seems to be no reason to disbelieve Northumberland, does there? Richard then agrees:
Northumberland, say thus the king returns:
His noble cousin is right welcome hither;
And all the number of his fair demands
Shall be accomplish'd without contradiction:
With all the gracious utterance thou hast
Speak to his gentle hearing kind commends.
He then turns to Aumerle and says
We do debase ourselves, cousin, do we not,
To look so poorly and to speak so fair?
Shall we call back Northumberland, and send
Defiance to the traitor, and so die?
But Aumerle says
No, good my lord; let's fight with gentle words
Till time lend friends and friends their helpful swords.
That's very sensible advice. Richard is presently vastly outnumbered, but in the past he has had enemies rise up from within England and has managed to rally forces around him and defeat them -- that's why Gloucester wound up in prison in France. So why the sudden change of heart? It seems that he doesn't want to be king any more, but he recognizes that changing his mind and sending defiance to Bolingbroke will lead to his death. Yes, he has a short speech in which he berates himself for giving in, but still, isn't it better to live to fight another day, to rally his forces and restore his power?
But as soon as Northumberland comes back, before he can even open his mouth, Richard capitulates with the first speech quoted above.
Why? Does Shakespeare lay an adequate groundwork for this? I don't see it. I do see that Richard has been going back and forth earlier in the scene, alternating between hope and despair almost to a degree of manic-depressiveness, but still, I don't see Shakespeare making an adequate case for the total capitulation.
I realize that Shakespeare is circumscribed by history -- Holingshead makes clear that Richard does in fact capitulate -- but did the real Richard capitulate after having apparently survived the crisis at least for the moment and being offered the chance for the moment to retain his crown and try to restore his authority and power?
I love the language. I love the power of the scene. But I don't think a proper case for the capitulation has been made.
@Everyman, re: capitulation.
I am pretty much persuaded that Shakespeare's Richard (not to say the historical Richard) is presented as someone who was good a the role play of kingship, but lacked skill or interest in actually being a leader.
Previously, I cited a comment that he loves language for its own sake, but fails to use language to move people to his cause. Indeed, he wallows in his self pitying language as you pointed out.
Shakespeare seems to be setting up a stark antithesis between a fading politics of dynasty and a "modern" politics where (against a backdrop of claims to legitimacy) powerful forces will contend for preeminence.
Following the abdication, something changes in Richard. I am looking forward to seeing what you, Madge and others think of his development once imprisoned.
I am pretty much persuaded that Shakespeare's Richard (not to say the historical Richard) is presented as someone who was good a the role play of kingship, but lacked skill or interest in actually being a leader.
Previously, I cited a comment that he loves language for its own sake, but fails to use language to move people to his cause. Indeed, he wallows in his self pitying language as you pointed out.
Shakespeare seems to be setting up a stark antithesis between a fading politics of dynasty and a "modern" politics where (against a backdrop of claims to legitimacy) powerful forces will contend for preeminence.
Following the abdication, something changes in Richard. I am looking forward to seeing what you, Madge and others think of his development once imprisoned.
Yes, the Fiona Shaw theatre extract shows the vacillation of Richard and it rather bears out Harvey's point about his state of mind at this point in his life, following the death of his Queen, although later historians have questioned his 'madness', seeing that as Bolingbroke's propaganda. Deep unhappiness at the death of his young Queen and soulmate, coupled with scheming nobles all around him, might have made him unsure of his future as king. Apparently he surrendered to Bolingbroke at Flint castle upon his return from Ireland and promised to abdicate if his life was spared. Parliament then met and accused him of tyranny and mismanagement and subsequently accepted his resignation. His 'capitulation' seems to be because he feared his life was in danger (which it was!). There was then a plot against Bolingbroke by earls wishing to restore Richard, which is probably why Henry let him die - perhaps by starvation at Pontefract Castle or perhaps by the sword, the records are unclear.Here is a podcast about Richard II's character, suggesting that he was the victim of Bolingbroke's later 'spin' and quoting evidence that Richard was popular until the end of his life but that Bolingbroke, aided by Arundel, was very repressive:-
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/po...
Here is another 'alternative' piece with some lovely photos, which also suggests that Shakespeare took on Bolingbroke's lies about Richard:-
http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Richard_...
Fascinating YouTube clip of McKellan and Shaw interspersing their portrayals of the abdication scene with commentary from the director. Thanks Madge.
I find opposite gender casting in Shakespeare very interesting. (And no one can complain that it's not proper to do so, since, of course, all the female parts were originally played by boys.) I saw a local production of Julius Caesar that made creative use of it and, a couple of years ago, an all female performance of Macbeth. In both cases the actors talked about how the emotions and dynamics shifted when they played "out of gender."
I think this clip illustrates it perfectly. Sir Ian and Fiona Shaw are both compelling actors; but their Richard's are totally different in ways that two men's portrayals couldn't be.
I find opposite gender casting in Shakespeare very interesting. (And no one can complain that it's not proper to do so, since, of course, all the female parts were originally played by boys.) I saw a local production of Julius Caesar that made creative use of it and, a couple of years ago, an all female performance of Macbeth. In both cases the actors talked about how the emotions and dynamics shifted when they played "out of gender."
I think this clip illustrates it perfectly. Sir Ian and Fiona Shaw are both compelling actors; but their Richard's are totally different in ways that two men's portrayals couldn't be.
Zeke wrote: "I find opposite gender casting in Shakespeare very interesting. (And no one can complain that it's not proper to do so, since, of course, all the female parts were originally played by boys.)"
I hardly think that having young boys (pre-bearded, with still high voices) playing women, and having adult women playing men are equivalent. It may be interesting, but the right to complain remains intact. :)
Point taken E-man. But, on the other hand, the imagination required to inhabit the part was probably even greater for those youngsters. I am amazed that Shakespeare felt they had the talent to inhabit such complex women as Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth.
In our time, where there are no such restrictions, I think that performances should be judged upon the quality of the acting, not the gender. If we just listened to Fiona Shaw, I doubt we would know her gender anyway. A good actor should be able to transcend gender/age and no doubt this is what some of the young boys of Shakespeare's time did, with the help of producers etc. In any case, to enjoy any performance we need to do as Coleridge advised and engage in : 'That willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith'. Both the actors and the audience enter into a conspiracy of 'poetic faith' when watching any play, as do readers: 'When the reader/viewer becomes involved in the artist’s work and, even though s/he knows that none of the events or person recorded in the story can actually occur, s/he “lets it happen” and can thereby enjoy a stronger bond with the mind of the artist.' (Coleridge 1817.) I found this piece about the play's portrayal of the abdication:
'In addition to the moral implications of Richard's and Bolingbroke's actions, modern critics are concerned with the issues in the play related to Elizabethan politics. Of particular interest is the scene in which Richard, in front of Bolingbroke and Parliament, gives up the crown to Bolingbroke. This scene (IV.i), commonly known as the deposition or abdication scene, was not printed in any of the Elizabethan editions or reprints of Richard II. It finally appeared in the fourth quarto of 1608, during the early reign of James I. Many critics, including Janet Clare (1990), maintain that evidence exists to support the contention that the scene was excised from print and performance due to its depiction of the deposition and usurpation of a legitimate monarch. While acknowledging that it is conjecture as to whether or not the scene was officially censored out of the play [by the Master of the Revels:], Cyndia Susan Clegg (1997) contends that it is unlikely that the scene was excised for the reasons most often given by critics: due to parallels between the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the misrule of Richard, or due to the dangers of the dramatic portrayal of political rebellion during the 1590s. Rather, Clegg argues, the scene may have been viewed as subversive and was therefore censored because it portrays a Parliament that urges, rather than simply consents to, Richard's abdication. Clegg explains that this implies that Parliament may act without the King, that Parliament, in fact, presides over the King and may dictate terms to him.' [Which, of course, only became the case after the Civil War, when DRK was publicly challenged.:]
Everyman wrote: "Basically, I don't think he offered nearly enough psychological justification for Richard's crumbling..."There are a lot of events going on behind the scenes which potentially diminish Richard's hold on the throne. Richard was absent, campaigning in Ireland as well as delayed so that he wasn't around when a change in English/French relations sent Bolingbroke into England where the latter meant to claim his rightful patrimony. Without obstacles to this ambition, with many supporters, and with Richard's outward cooperation, Bolingbroke then sought to exceed his just claim: "I'll ascend the regal throne"(4.1).
Henry Percy (Northumberland) first informs Richard that Bolingbroke wants restitution, Richard's granting it, then returns with a second request--the king come to Bolingbroke. Richard suspects Bolingbroke's intentions to usurp the throne, saying
Down, down I come; like glistering Phaethon,This request and Richard's response to it are not in the nature of things. The speech also symbolizes Richard's divinely ordained fall from kingship when Phaethon, driving Helios's chariot, plunges toward the earth, and the Sun god must destroy his son to preserve the earth.
Wanting the manage of unruly jades.
In the base court? Base court, where kings grow base,
To come at traitors' calls and do them grace.
In the base court? Come down? Down, court!
down, king!
For night-owls shriek where mounting larks
should sing.(3.3)
Richard is thus aware of the political intrigue afoot, acquiescing nonetheless to his teary(?) kinsman as if the two of them were in a friendly competition, but for the time being cooperates, consenting not only to Bolingbroke's right and lawful claim of inheritance but to his merited and political claim of kingship, which will deny the DRK whereby Richard is king and Bolingbroke is cutting in line--
Well you deserve: they well deserve to have,Bolingbroke then leads the king to London.
That know the strong'st and surest way to get.(3.3)
Well you deserve: they well deserve to have,
That know the strong'st and surest way to get.(3.3)
Asmah notes a sentence that could well serve as the epigram for the entire set of history plays. From Henry IV to Henry VII mighty forces will struggle to meet this standard. And individual characters (notably Henry IV himself) will wonder if it is reflects God's will--or his punishment.
That know the strong'st and surest way to get.(3.3)
Asmah notes a sentence that could well serve as the epigram for the entire set of history plays. From Henry IV to Henry VII mighty forces will struggle to meet this standard. And individual characters (notably Henry IV himself) will wonder if it is reflects God's will--or his punishment.
Zeke wrote: "Point taken E-man. But, on the other hand, the imagination required to inhabit the part was probably even greater for those youngsters. I am amazed that Shakespeare felt they had the talent to inha..."Children grew up much faster back then. When the life expectancy was only in the 30s or so, you didn't have the luxury of hanging out in high school until 18, and then spending four or more years in a college fraternity. Most children were working full time by the age of 12, if not before. And probably most of these actors had been singing in church choirs from the age maybe of six or seven and receiving voice and deportment training from that.
I agree that it must have taken a fairly special young actor to play the complex parts, but I'm not surprised that there were some young actors around who could handle it.
Asmah wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Basically, I don't think he offered nearly enough psychological justification for Richard's crumbling..."There are a lot of events going on behind the scenes which potentially di..."
Those are all good points, Asmah, but they all happen after the scene I was writing about, 3.2, where Richard informally accepts defeat and gives the victory to Bolingbroke. The actual abdication doesn't take place until 4.1, as you note, but it seems to me that the decision is made back in 3.2, and my point was that at that stage in the play I'm not satisfied that Shakespeare has given adequate justification for Richard giving up, especially since at that point Northumberland has assured Richard that Bolingbroke only wants his property restored and is willing to return to being a good subject. Whether or not we believe Northumberland, or believe that Bolingbroke is lying to him and he's reporting honestly to Richard, doesn't I think matter. What matters, at least to me, is that at the point where Richard gives up it appears that he has won and he can remain king as long as he returns what he unlawfully took.
I agree that Shakespeare has given inadequate justification for Richard's abdication. My reading is that Richard was fed up with kingship and the plots which had surrounded him since childhood, so opted for a quieter life! Act 5 Scene I, where he parts from his (second) wife, is a very telling one IMO. I note that in Act 5 Scene a catholic conspiracy to kill the king is hinted at:-
(Duke of York to his wife):
Thou fond mad woman
Wilt thou conceal a dark conspiracy
A dozen of them here have ta'en sacrament
And interchangeably set down their hands
To kill the king at Oxford
This brings to mind the Gunpowder plot to blow up King James in Parliament in which a relative of Shakespeare was implicated. Again, a link in the play to the reign of the Tudors.
Trivia: It is not generally known that the last King of England who was forced to abdicate, Edward VIII, tried to appeal to the British people via the BBC but was opposed by Prime Minister Baldwin's government:-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2707489...
Under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701 (following the Glorious Revolution) no British monarch can marry without the consent of Parliament.
Although the official reasons for the government's objection were that Wallis Simpson was a twice divorced woman, it is now thought that it was their support for Nazi Germany which was the root of the problem. It is alleged that President Roosevelt knew of Wallis Simpson's Nazi sympathies and placed her under surveillance:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2074100...
As with Richard II, we may never know the truth of the matter.
More trivia: Pontefract or 'Pomfret', where Richard was imprisoned, is famous for its liquorice 'Pontefract cakes', which are stamped with an image of the castle. They are one of my favourite sweets!
http://www.sweetsandrock.com/prods/li...
Gosh Madge, when I clicked on the link for the sweets, it said they were out of stock. You must REALLY like them!
Am I the only one here who finds the Richard of Act V rather appealing?
Am I the only one here who finds the Richard of Act V rather appealing?
Everyman wrote: "Those are all good points, Asmah, but they all happen after the scene I was writing about, 3.2, where Richard informally accepts defeat and gives the victory to Bolingbroke. ..."The text of http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardii/... makes 3.2 Richard's return from Ireland and the news updates from the Earl of Salisbury and Sir Stephen Scroop. Richard is essentially secure of his mettle and his divine right, when he steps onto the English isle. The first bits of news alarm him, but he recovers his equanimity and courage. The successive waves of bad news however drown him in his "woe":
KING RICHARD IIThis small extract exemplifies only the end of 3.2, but Richard's psychological transition, before Northumberland comes to him asking for Bolingbroke's patrimony, fills up the whole scene.
Thou chidest me well: proud Bolingbroke, I come
To change blows with thee for our day of doom.
This ague fit of fear is over-blown;
An easy task it is to win our own.
Say, Scroop, where lies our uncle with his power?
Speak sweetly, man, although thy looks be sour.
SIR STEPHEN SCROOP
...
Your uncle York is join'd with Bolingbroke,
And all your northern castles yielded up,
And all your southern gentlemen in arms
Upon his party.
KING RICHARD II
Thou hast said enough.
Beshrew thee, cousin, which didst lead me forth
To DUKE OF AUMERLE
Of that sweet way I was in to despair!
What say you now? what comfort have we now?
By heaven, I'll hate him everlastingly
That bids me be of comfort any more.
Go to Flint castle: there I'll pine away;
A king, woe's slave, shall kingly woe obey.
That power I have, discharge; and let them go
To ear the land that hath some hope to grow,
For I have none: let no man speak again
To alter this, for counsel is but vain.
DUKE OF AUMERLE
My liege, one word.
KING RICHARD II
He does me double wrong
That wounds me with the flatteries of his tongue.
Discharge my followers: let them hence away,
From Richard's night to Bolingbroke's fair day.(3.2)
Zeke: Do you mean Act V Scene 5? I find the bit about his horse very touching:KING RICHARD II
Rode he on Barbary? Tell me, gentle friend,
How went he under him?
Groom
So proudly as if he disdain'd the ground.
KING RICHARD II
So proud that Bolingbroke was on his back!
That jade hath eat bread from my royal hand;
This hand hath made him proud with clapping him.
Would he not stumble? would he not fall down,
Since pride must have a fall, and break the neck
Of that proud man that did usurp his back?
Forgiveness, horse! why do I rail on thee,
Since thou, created to be awed by man,
Wast born to bear? I was not made a horse;
And yet I bear a burthen like an ass,
Spurr'd, gall'd and tired by jouncing Bolingbroke.
Again, you get the feeling that he is utterly fed up with Bolingbroke's plotting even though he shortly defends his life by fighting those who came to kill him. (Shakespeare has him fight here but the records do not show that he put up a fight - indeed he may have been too weak because some reports say that he died of starvation.)
I was actually referring to the long speech immediately before his exchange with the groom. In addition to its beautiful poetry we witness a remarkable change in Richard: his kingdom shrunken the the size of a single cell, with no audience to play for any more, he turns inward, creates a world and discovers himself. I believe this is why it is important that Shakespeare has him die fighting: he "redeemed" himself as a man once he stopped play-acting King.
And for because the world is populous
And here is not a creature but myself,
I cannot do it; yet I'll hammer it out.
[Great antitheses--populace/alone; world/cell;I cannot/I will-- followed by a memorable image of a forge. A contrast to Richard's generative use of his isolation is offered by James Dickey writing about E.A. Robinson: "The self consuming furnace that the brain can become in isolation."]
.......
Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am: then crushing penury
Persuades me I was better when a king;
Then am I king'd again: and by and by
Think that I am unking'd by Bolingbroke,
And straight am nothing: but whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased
With being nothing.
[This is a far cry from the bathos of "Let us speak of the death of kings. In this remarkable soliloquy of self-discovery and self-invention, Richard seems to acquire the Stoic virtue of understanding that all that is important is to be found within oneself.:]
And for because the world is populous
And here is not a creature but myself,
I cannot do it; yet I'll hammer it out.
[Great antitheses--populace/alone; world/cell;I cannot/I will-- followed by a memorable image of a forge. A contrast to Richard's generative use of his isolation is offered by James Dickey writing about E.A. Robinson: "The self consuming furnace that the brain can become in isolation."]
.......
Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am: then crushing penury
Persuades me I was better when a king;
Then am I king'd again: and by and by
Think that I am unking'd by Bolingbroke,
And straight am nothing: but whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased
With being nothing.
[This is a far cry from the bathos of "Let us speak of the death of kings. In this remarkable soliloquy of self-discovery and self-invention, Richard seems to acquire the Stoic virtue of understanding that all that is important is to be found within oneself.:]
Great insights Zeke - thanks. I like your Stoic comparison. There are some really great speeches in this play and yet it is a little known one.
Madge: Really enjoyed the lecture about Richard that you linked to. Two things that struck me in light of conversations here.
Aristotle's distinction between a King (serves the interests of his people) and a tyrant (serves his own interests) was widely accepted. I guess this means that there could be an argument that DRK does not excuse tyranny.
Also, that there was quite a substantial literature of guidance for rulers. Richard would have been exposed to it all. What I didn't know was the Machiavelli's The Prince stood in contrast to the mainstream of guidance.
Lastly, I had no idea Aumerle was such a key character in all of this.
Aristotle's distinction between a King (serves the interests of his people) and a tyrant (serves his own interests) was widely accepted. I guess this means that there could be an argument that DRK does not excuse tyranny.
Also, that there was quite a substantial literature of guidance for rulers. Richard would have been exposed to it all. What I didn't know was the Machiavelli's The Prince stood in contrast to the mainstream of guidance.
Lastly, I had no idea Aumerle was such a key character in all of this.
Last Words. Quite a contrast:
Richard III. I'll hear no more: die, prophet in thy speech:
[Stabs him:]
For this amongst the rest, was I ordain'd.
Henry VI. Ay, and for much more slaughter after this.
.....
King Richard II. How now! what means death in this rude assault?
Villain, thy own hand yields thy death's instrument.
[Snatching an axe from a Servant and killing him:]
Go thou, and fill another room in hell.
[He kills another. Then Exton strikes him down:]
That hand shall burn in never-quenching fire
That staggers thus my person. Exton, thy fierce hand
Hath with the king's blood stain'd the king's own land.
Mount, mount, my soul! thy seat is up on high;
Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward, here to die.
God forgive my sins, and pardon thee!
Richard III. I'll hear no more: die, prophet in thy speech:
[Stabs him:]
For this amongst the rest, was I ordain'd.
Henry VI. Ay, and for much more slaughter after this.
.....
King Richard II. How now! what means death in this rude assault?
Villain, thy own hand yields thy death's instrument.
[Snatching an axe from a Servant and killing him:]
Go thou, and fill another room in hell.
[He kills another. Then Exton strikes him down:]
That hand shall burn in never-quenching fire
That staggers thus my person. Exton, thy fierce hand
Hath with the king's blood stain'd the king's own land.
Mount, mount, my soul! thy seat is up on high;
Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward, here to die.
God forgive my sins, and pardon thee!
As one would expect, the victorious King gets the last word in the play. However, as often in Shakespeare, the tone is not triumphant.
Henry IV. Lords, I protest, my soul is full of woe,
That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow:
Come, mourn with me for that I do lament,
And put on sullen black incontinent:
I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,
To wash this blood off from my guilty hand:
March sadly after; grace my mournings here;
In weeping after this untimely bier.
I wonder how sincere Henry is here. One hint is that the first words of the next play pick up right where this one ends off.
Henry IV. So shaken as we are, so wan with care,
Find we a time for frighted peace to pant,
And breathe short-winded accents of new broils
To be commenced in strands afar remote.
No more the thirsty entrance of this soil
Shall daub her lips with her own children's blood;
Nor more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs
Of hostile paces: those opposed eyes,
...
Therefore, friends,
As far as to the sepulchre of Christ,
Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross
We are impressed and engaged to fight,
Forthwith a power of English shall we levy;
Whose arms were moulded in their mothers' womb
To chase these pagans in those holy fields
Over whose acres walk'd those blessed feet
Which fourteen hundred years ago were nail'd
For our advantage on the bitter cross.
But this our purpose now is twelve month old,
And bootless 'tis to tell you we will go:
Of course he doesn't get to go on Crusade. Gaunt's prophecy comes true and England's soil is covered with lots of British blood. The closest Henry comes to the Promised Land is that he dies in a room called "Jerusalem."
Henry IV. Lords, I protest, my soul is full of woe,
That blood should sprinkle me to make me grow:
Come, mourn with me for that I do lament,
And put on sullen black incontinent:
I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,
To wash this blood off from my guilty hand:
March sadly after; grace my mournings here;
In weeping after this untimely bier.
I wonder how sincere Henry is here. One hint is that the first words of the next play pick up right where this one ends off.
Henry IV. So shaken as we are, so wan with care,
Find we a time for frighted peace to pant,
And breathe short-winded accents of new broils
To be commenced in strands afar remote.
No more the thirsty entrance of this soil
Shall daub her lips with her own children's blood;
Nor more shall trenching war channel her fields,
Nor bruise her flowerets with the armed hoofs
Of hostile paces: those opposed eyes,
...
Therefore, friends,
As far as to the sepulchre of Christ,
Whose soldier now, under whose blessed cross
We are impressed and engaged to fight,
Forthwith a power of English shall we levy;
Whose arms were moulded in their mothers' womb
To chase these pagans in those holy fields
Over whose acres walk'd those blessed feet
Which fourteen hundred years ago were nail'd
For our advantage on the bitter cross.
But this our purpose now is twelve month old,
And bootless 'tis to tell you we will go:
Of course he doesn't get to go on Crusade. Gaunt's prophecy comes true and England's soil is covered with lots of British blood. The closest Henry comes to the Promised Land is that he dies in a room called "Jerusalem."
Everyman wrote: "Asmah wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Basically, I don't think he offered nearly enough psychological justification for Richard's crumbling..."I've been a shameless lurker here, very much enjoying the high-level, helpful dialogue.
Everyman's point about Shakespeare providing insufficient psychological justification for Richard's quickness to yield is addressed, although indirectly, in an interesting essay that follows the text of the play in my paperback "Folger Shakespeare Library" copy of Richard II. The essay is titled "Richard II: A Modern Perspective" and it is by Harry Berger, Jr. I looked for an online version so I could post a link, but struck out.
Berger's thesis is an extension of what he says is a modern interpretation of Richard II--a skeptical view of the Tudor doctrine of the divinely appointed king. This modern interpretation, Berger says, focuses on the unflattering characterization of Richard. Berger: "It is easy to concur with the claim that if Richard is an advocate for divine right he is unconvincing."
Berger goes on to argue, instead, that Richard is not an advocate for DRK but a critic, "not as one who means simply to assert the ideology but as one who mocks and undermines it." Berger develops this thesis over 30 pages and I won't try here to summarize his whole argument. Here, though, is his prefatory paragraph before he starts the main body of his argument (in which he provides ample supportive citations to the text):
"...I shall try to show that Richard entertains the idea of getting deposed well before deposition becomes a clear and definite option for Bolingbroke, who is neither consistently nor decisively committed to usurpation until Richard forces him in 3.3 to commit himself (see 206-7 and 214-18). Though Richard doesn't move to abdicate until 4.1, when he adopts Bolingbroke as his heir (112-18), he finds his cousin impressively qualified to be his usurper, and he proceeds to goad and in effect seduce him into performing that service."
So, if you accept Berger's thesis, you necessarily avoid Everyman's concern about Richard's "crumbling" having insufficient psychological justification. Berger cites to "several points in the first two acts" where Richard "cheerfully demonstrates his lawlessness," and suggests that Richard's later "appeals to the rhetoric of divinely ordained kingship in Acts 3 and 4 can hardly be accepted at face value." And (last quote I'll share here): "...there are many clues that although he [Richard:] may deem himself beyond forgiveness, he is interested in punishment, and that he is prepared to subject any conviction of invulnerability to earthly powers to a serious test."
Thanks to this group for fortifying me to be able to work through Berger's interesting essay. And I thoroughly enjoyed the stunning power of WS's language in R II. Much of the rich language has been quoted in previous posts--great! Richard II will resonate with me for some time, I'm sure!
Gosh Mark! Very interesting. I hope you will come out of lurk mode and join in the discussion of Paradise Lost.
Zeke wrote: "I wonder how sincere Henry is here. One hint is that the first words of the next play pick up right where this one ends off."Frankly, I think not very. I believe that he thinks that England is much better off with him as king than it would have been if Richard had remained king. He seems to me, like almost all who seek supreme power, to be highly vested in his own competence and right.
Wat I miss in Henry, and perhaps it's because of incompetent reading on my part, is any indication from him that he thinks he was Divinely led to overthrow Richard. He does say, 4.1.115, "In God's name I'll ascend the throne," but he doing something in Gods and doing it with God's authority are two very different things. Then in 5.3.130 he says to the Duchess of York of her son Aumerle, "I pardon him, as God shall pardon me." But he never says what God will pardon him for -- is it for overthrowing a divinely authorized monarch? If he rules by Divine right, why does God need to pardon him? And as Zeke has quoted, at the very end of the play, he will go to the Holy Land to wash Richard's blood off his guilty hand.
Thus, while Richard clearly believes in the Divine Right of Kings and the Divine appointment of Kings, Bolingbroke/Henry IV doesn't seem to give even lip service to this concept. He doesn't ever say "by God's sweet Grace I do accept this Crown," or "With God's approval have I ta'en this throne," or anything else that would even remotely suggest that he believes that his succession is in any way Divinely approved or ordained.
This is such a dramatic difference between Richard and Henry on this point that I think it has to be intentional.
Mark wrote: "I've been a shameless lurker here, very much enjoying the high-level, helpful dialogue."And contributing to it an excellent summary of an interesting essay -- thanks.
Now that you've unlurked, I hope you stay unlurked for the rest of this discussion and for Paradise Lost!
I think perhaps we need to take a step back on this whole business of Divine Right of Kings business. After listening to Madge's podcast on it, and reading the comments here, I for one am a bit confused.
Since we will be dealing with it again in Paradise Lost, in both metaphorical and narrative terms, I'd like to understand it better. A few issues rolling around in my mind:
1. The historical period matters a lot. Shakespeare is writing in the 1590s at a high point in Elizabeth's rule (though amidst anxiety about her successor). But he is writing about a usurpation 200 years previously which led to 100 years of civil strife. Milton will be writing on the threshold (?) of a republican government.
2. At which periods (if any) did Divine Right imply infallibility? The lecture Madge linked us to stressed wide acceptance of a distinction between kingship and tyranny?
3. As with the Pope, evidence on the ground would clearly have shown various rulers to be far from Godly in their behavior. All were dealing with powerful and ambitious nobles (to say nothing of other Christian countries competing for dominance). It makes me feel like the custom may have been pretty superficial--kind of like when our legislators refer to each other as "my distinguished colleague and friend," while they really despise each other and do everything they can to undermine the opposition.
4. The Kings, themselves, don't seem to feel much connection to God. Both Henry IV and Henry V have striking soliloquys about the loneliness and burdens of ruling. Henry VI, the only one remotely connected to divinity is both inept and disinterested in ruling.
Perhaps the Duke of Gloucster (Richard III) describes the true situation (or at least what it evolved to) at the end of VIHenry3 when he says:
"I have no brother, I am like no brother;
And this word 'love,' which graybeards call divine,
Be resident in men like one another
And not in me: I am myself alone."
Since we will be dealing with it again in Paradise Lost, in both metaphorical and narrative terms, I'd like to understand it better. A few issues rolling around in my mind:
1. The historical period matters a lot. Shakespeare is writing in the 1590s at a high point in Elizabeth's rule (though amidst anxiety about her successor). But he is writing about a usurpation 200 years previously which led to 100 years of civil strife. Milton will be writing on the threshold (?) of a republican government.
2. At which periods (if any) did Divine Right imply infallibility? The lecture Madge linked us to stressed wide acceptance of a distinction between kingship and tyranny?
3. As with the Pope, evidence on the ground would clearly have shown various rulers to be far from Godly in their behavior. All were dealing with powerful and ambitious nobles (to say nothing of other Christian countries competing for dominance). It makes me feel like the custom may have been pretty superficial--kind of like when our legislators refer to each other as "my distinguished colleague and friend," while they really despise each other and do everything they can to undermine the opposition.
4. The Kings, themselves, don't seem to feel much connection to God. Both Henry IV and Henry V have striking soliloquys about the loneliness and burdens of ruling. Henry VI, the only one remotely connected to divinity is both inept and disinterested in ruling.
Perhaps the Duke of Gloucster (Richard III) describes the true situation (or at least what it evolved to) at the end of VIHenry3 when he says:
"I have no brother, I am like no brother;
And this word 'love,' which graybeards call divine,
Be resident in men like one another
And not in me: I am myself alone."
Everyman wrote: "Thus, while Richard clearly believes in the Divine Right of Kings and the Divine appointment of Kings, Bolingbroke/Henry IV doesn't seem to give even lip service to this concept."Richard certainly has a number of lines where he invokes a divine source for the legitimacy of his throne and actions, but I think it is arguable as to whether he fully believes that he is God's chosen Ruler (or maybe whether he fully believes he deserves to be such). I'm biased a bit by the Berger essay I mentioned in my previous post, though I'm not sure I fully accept his argument. Berger argues that "Richard's utterance vibrates with a range of parodic and sarcastic tones" when he "invokes the assistance of stones and angels" as in the statements following the diatribe against Bolingbroke in Act 3:
"Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king.
The breath of wordly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord.
For every man that Bolingbroke hath pressed
To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel. Then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right." (3.2.55-63)
Though I'm not sure I want to go as far as Berger argues--that Richard throughout is consciously mocking and criticizing DRK--I don't think Shakespeare wants us to take Richard's claims of divine authority at face value. Richard has shown himself to be more tyrannical than kingly in the DRK sense. He's weak and arbitrary and self-serving (e.g., when he banished Mowbray and Bolingbroke rather than allow the judicial battle process to possibly expose him to official judgment of complicity in Gloucester's death).
I do think Everyman is right about Bolingbroke/Henry being a contrast to Richard in not invoking (or, as Everyman notes, only superficially paying lip service to) divine authority. Though both main characters are flawed in multiple and different ways (the Bard refuses to give us an easy call to make on their relative merit), maybe Shakespeare wants us to compare them and, in turn, make a judgment on DRK.
So who is the better man/deputy of God--Richard or Henry? Maybe if you pick Henry, you need to lose the "deputy of God" part.
With a couple of hours of further thought (and with Mark's post 86) I would append one further speculation to my post 85.
5. Fear and uncertainty. From our modern viewpoint it must be hard to even imagine the existential fears that people in 1600 might have felt. And far more so in 1400 or 1200 with even less science or exploration of the world than in Shakespeare's time. What is an eclipse? A belief in witches and spirits. and angels and demons.
Some comfort might be found in the Great Chain of Being; this order for the universe, the animal kingdom, society and families may have been the only source of comfort to be had. And, it seems to me, the DRK might play into that.
I disagree with Mark that Shakespeare is offering us a chance to compare worldviews. He is an entertainer not a teacher. My guess is that since he lived under a strong Monarch, descendent of Henry IV, he is hedging his bets.
5. Fear and uncertainty. From our modern viewpoint it must be hard to even imagine the existential fears that people in 1600 might have felt. And far more so in 1400 or 1200 with even less science or exploration of the world than in Shakespeare's time. What is an eclipse? A belief in witches and spirits. and angels and demons.
Some comfort might be found in the Great Chain of Being; this order for the universe, the animal kingdom, society and families may have been the only source of comfort to be had. And, it seems to me, the DRK might play into that.
I disagree with Mark that Shakespeare is offering us a chance to compare worldviews. He is an entertainer not a teacher. My guess is that since he lived under a strong Monarch, descendent of Henry IV, he is hedging his bets.
Zeke wrote: "The historical period matters a lot. Shakespeare is writing in the 1590s at a high point in Elizabeth's rule (though amidst anxiety about her successor). But he is writing about a usurpation 200 years previously which led to 100 years of civil strife. Milton will be writing on the threshold (?) of a republican government. "Yes, the historical period matters a lot, but to clarify a bit, PL was initially published in 1667, seven years after the monarch was restored in 1660, so it was after the period of the Cromwellian Protectorate (I'm not sure I would call it republican, but that's a minor matter). I'm not clear on exactly when Milton started writing PL -- he had the intent to write an epic when he was quite young, but I don't think he started writing it until after 1660, but I could be wrong on that. But at any rate, it was published well after the restoration. (No, I don't have this stuff on the top of my head, but I have good resources to look things up!)
I think the problem we face here regarding DRK is that we are living in an age where we cannot comprehend such a belief and we are reading a play written in a period which had begun to question it but which is about a period when it was unquestioned!! We (and Shakespeare!) need to be in Richard's moccasins to see the picture as it was seen then. Medieval thinkers in Richard III's time believed in The Great Chain of Being and that everything in the world was hierarchically ordered: God had created an ordered hierarchy with angels at its summit, men immediately below them and above animals, which were in turn above plants. The social hierachy from peasants through gentlemen to the king at the top fitted into the same pattern. It therefore followed that only God could judge whether a King was being tyrannical or not and only God could cause him to be deposed. It was a sin for the subjects of even the most evil and incompetent monarchs to disobey them, a sin which would mean such subjects would go to hell for their blasphemy against God's appointed ruler.
By this token, God had already judged the deposition when this play was performed and the subsequent fate of Bolingbroke and the other plotters told the 'truth' - that they came to no good end and that England was plunged into turmoil as a result of their 'sin'. At the end of Shakespeare's Henry V the Chorus laments, as a reminder of the tumultous reign of Henry IV (Bolingbroke):-
'Thus farre with rough, and all-vnable Pen,
Our bending Author hath pursu'd the Story,
In little roome confining mightie men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time: but in that small, most greatly liued
This Starre of England. Fortune made his Sword;
By which, the Worlds best Garden he atchieued:
And of it left his Sonne Imperiall Lord.
Henry the Sixt, in Infant Bands crown'd King
Of France and England, did this King succeed:
Whose State so many had the managing,
That they lost France, and made his England bleed:
Which oft our Stage hath showne; and for their sake,
In your faire minds let this acceptance take.'
Henry IV spent much of his reign defending himself against plots, rebellions and assassination attempts. He died of a skin disease, possibly leprosy, which medieval people saw as a curse from God. When Shakespeare wrote Richard II and his audience listened to it, they would know of these things and their judgement of the deposition would undoubtedly be that Bolingbroke got his 'comeuppance'. This would also suit Elizabeth I who, when reviewing the archives of Richard II, reportedly said 'I am Richard II, know ye not that?'
Thanks E-man. Can't wait to dive into PL and it's many associations to this stuff. (How about: "Compare and contrast Satan and Richard III.") Did you have that in mind when you chose Richard II for the interim read?
Madge, you stated better what I was trying to open up. And in so-doing, made me aware that Shakespeare's histories probably had no interest in making his audiences really understand how his characters experienced these things; "in [the character's moccasins" so to speak.
He is writing to legitimize the way things have turned out. If that was all his distortions did, they would be of little interest to anyone except historiographers. But, ironically, he is among the least judgmental playwrights or novelists the language has ever seen. He portrays complex, and human characters. And, in this way, his plays are compelling even to those who can't tell a white rose from a red.
Madge, you stated better what I was trying to open up. And in so-doing, made me aware that Shakespeare's histories probably had no interest in making his audiences really understand how his characters experienced these things; "in [the character's moccasins" so to speak.
He is writing to legitimize the way things have turned out. If that was all his distortions did, they would be of little interest to anyone except historiographers. But, ironically, he is among the least judgmental playwrights or novelists the language has ever seen. He portrays complex, and human characters. And, in this way, his plays are compelling even to those who can't tell a white rose from a red.
Thanks Zeke. I agree that Shakespeare was not judgemental. Coming from a catholic family in an age where you could be killed for being a catholic or associating with them, he did did his very best to sit on the fence.Potted history PL: John Milton was indeed a republican, and a fervent one. He worked for Cromwell as Secretary of Foreign Tongues, and as a political pamphleteer throughout the Protectorate. In 1649 he wrote two tracts justifying Charles' execution and in 1660, whilst in hiding from the King's men, wrote a third tract in favour of a republic - a Commonwealth. At the time of the Restoration, after a warrant was issued by the King for his arrest, he was forced to go into hiding and his books were publicly burned. He had ceased to fully support Oliver Cromwell's son Richard and the Purged Parliament under General Monck (who sought to restore the monarchy) but he continued to support other Republicans like John Streater and Robert Overton, arguing their cause in his political pamphlet The Ready and Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth published in February 1660, a month before the Restoration. This work was a final plea to stop the restoration of the monarchy and promoted the establishment of a Republic. When the King was returned in March, he republished the pamphlet in both April and May 1660, which was why he had to go into hiding with Sir . The pamphlet contained the following about monarchy:-
'I denie not but that ther may be such a king, who may regard the common good before his own, may have no vitious favourite, may hearken only to the wisest and incorruptest of his Parlament: but this rarely happ'ns in a monarchie not elective; and it behoves not a wise nation to committ the summ of thir well-being, the whole of thir safetie to fortune. And admitt, that monarchy of it self may be convenient to some nations, yet to us who have thrown it out, received back again, it cannot be prove pernicious.'
With the monarchy about to be restored, Milton predicted that[3:]
'...if we return to kingship, and soon repent, (as undoubtedly we shall, when we begin to find the old encroachments coming on by little and little upon our consciences, which must necessarily proceed from king and bishop united inseparably in one interest,) we may be forced perhaps to fight over again all that we have fought, and spend over again all that we have spent.'
In particular, Milton feared that a future King 'must be ador'd like a Demigod, with a dissolute and haughtie court about him, of vast expence and luxurie, masks and revels" and fill the court with debauchery.'
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=co...
Milton's view of monarchy and the decadence of it is emphasised in PL when he links Satan to the monarchy and points out that the pre-fallen Adam is able to act without the pomp of a court. In an argument aginst the Divine Right of Kings he argues that it would be a sin against God to bring back the monarchy. But more of that later....:)
Although PL was published in a quarto edition in 1667, after the Restoration, Milton dictated part of the 10 books to his aides between 1655-58, when the Commonwealth/Republic was beginning to 'fall', although he did not start 'earnestly' on the work until 1661 when he dictated it to his daughters. He supervised the second publication just before his death in 1674.
NB: From Wikipedia: 'Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good [which is what Cromwell and the New Model Army/Puritans sought to make:]. Historically, it has sometimes been synonmous with 'republic'.' Also from Wikipedia: 'A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have a part in its government' - which was the case with Cromwell's Commonwealth.
If we haven't officially transitioned to PL yet, allow me to solicit some help understanding scenes 5.2 and 5.3 in Richard II. I was shocked at the Duke of York's vehemence in calling for his son Aumerle's execution for treason for his role in the plot against Henry, discovered by York when he found the paper with details of it in Aumerle's pocket. The maternal pleadings of the Duchess asking Henry to pardon her son seem natural and understandable. The Duke's lust to see his traitorous son killed seems outrageous.
I would presume that York started with a normal paternal instinct with regard to his son. Is there something to the fact that York had previously supported Richard, and he may be compensating for his own guilt about abandoning Richard (i.e., he won't be disloyal a second time, even when full loyalty calls him to beg for his traitorous son's head)? Do others think York is over the top? The duchess, at 5.3.115-20, asks if York suspects Aumerle is a bastard and not his son, but insists he is York's son. Is that a red herring, or are we to find justification for York's vehemence in that possibility?
At the start of 5.3, Henry gripes briefly about his own unthrifty/"dissolute" and whoring son, but seems to have an appropriate parental concern for him despite his frustration. After referring to his son, at 5.3.20, "as dissolute as desperate," Henry says "Yet through both I see some sparks of better hope which elder years my happily bring forth."
Am I reaching to find a message about the corrupting force of blind allegiance to a king? Does this contrast between Henry's humanity and willingness to forgive his son (at least, his ability to anticipate his son living to change) and to pardon Aumerle, versus York's coldness in calling for his son's head fit somewhere in the DRK discussion we've been having? I suspect so, but I haven't sorted it all out.
Mark: You may be interested in these thoughts from a British Shakespearean actor who recently played Aumerle at The Globe Theatre, London. He writes about the character he plays and his relationship to his father, the Duke of York, whom he says will always put allegiance to the king over his own son:-http://www.globelink.org/resourcecent...
I think allegiance to your king/queen is rather like a soldier's allegiance in the army, which would also be put above that of the family. I don't know whether allegiance was sworn to Richard II but allegiance to the Queen is certainly sworn by soldiers in the British army today.
http://www.globelink.org/resourcecent...
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/brit...
I know that Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, Richard I's mother, took oaths of allegiance to King Richard when she strengthened the army in opposition to King John's preparation for an armed invasion from France and such oaths have been in existence since 1066 when the invading King William (the Conqueror) took oaths from the Anglo-Norman barons after he defeated the English King Harold. In extremis I think such oaths supercede loyalty to your own family.
The more I read R2 the less I agree with Berger's thesis that he is mocking the Divine Right of Kings. According to the Oxford Companion of British History, the DRK "was taken for granted in early modern Europe," and not really questioned until the French wars of religion in the late 16thC (more than a century after R2's reign). James 6th insistence on the DRK "alarmed his English subjects after 1603," and the theory rose and fell in popular belief, but "only after the Glorious Revolution [1688-89:] did it become irrelevant."
With R2's reign ending in 1400, and the play R2 written in (or before) 1595, it would be very unusual for R2 himself to have questioned the theory, and quite a challenge (and danger) for S himself in the later years of Elizabeth's reign to have mocked it.
Without further support for Berger's theory, I can't agree with his interpretation. It's interesting, and I really appreciate Mark's bringing it forward, in part because it made me re-read and think more deeply about that aspect of the play, but in the end I still think R2 and S were both serious about the DRK, not mocking it.
Zeke wrote: "Thanks E-man. Can't wait to dive into PL and it's many associations to this stuff. (How about: "Compare and contrast Satan and Richard III.") Did you have that in mind when you chose Richard II for..."I'm greatly looking forward to your posts on Satan and R3! :)
Maybe Satan and Bolinbroke, both rebels against authority, but with different outcomes. (But what if, like R2, God had been tired of reigning, and the vast multitude of angels had resented his authoritarian rule and gone over to Satan? Would Satan have made a better God than Bolingbroke made a king?
But no, that's not why I chose R2. I wanted to do a Shakespeare, but not one that most people had already studied to death in school or college. I hadn't read R2 for several years, wanted a chance to re-read and discuss it with the group (being moderator, I get to be a bit selfish in choosing things I want to read for interim readings!), and hoped it would make for a good discussion (which it certainly has).
Mark wrote: "I was shocked at the Duke of York's vehemence in calling for his son Aumerle's execution for treason for his role in the plot against Henry, discovered by York when he found the paper with details of it in Aumerle's pocket. The maternal pleadings of the Duchess asking Henry to pardon her son seem natural and understandable. The Duke's lust to see his traitorous son killed seems outrageous. "It doesn't surprise me at all, frankly. This was a much more brutal age than ours; keep in mind that there are two instances in this play alone where parties call for a duel to the death to establish who is telling the truth.
I agree that York's position is a bit questionable, given his own desertion of Richard for Henry. But I'm not surprised that his loyalty to the king would overcome family love.
Don't you think that there are parents today who, if they found that their children were actively and seriously involved in a plot to assassinate the President, or planning a Columbine-style massacre, would turn their children in to the authorities?
This wasn't some small thing Aumerle was involved in, but rank treason, the attempt to overthrow and assassinate the King.
MadgeUK wrote: "Mark: You may be interested in these thoughts from a British Shakespearean actor who recently played Aumerle at The Globe Theatre, London. He writes about the character he plays and his relationship to his father, the Duke of York, whom he says will always put allegiance to the king over his own son:-http://www.globelink.org/resourcecentre/... "
That's a great find, Madge.
I really like these thoughts from the actor:
"Later in Act V, when the Duchess arrives and begs the King for Aumerle's life, against the wishes of her husband, these family relationships are now central to this story. It would be unheard of for a lady, even a Duchess, to go against the wishes of her husband in the presence of the King (she pleads for Aumerle's life), and even more unheard of to then refuse a Royal command, (to stand up), three times. Her son is threatened; such is the extremity of the situation that any sense of etiquette goes out the window. I think one of the questions underpinning the play as a whole is to what extent should loyalty to the crown, or any authority to which you have sworn allegiance, affect your reaction to a particular situation. We’re only just starting to find answers to this question, but at that particular moment, loyalty to the crown and loyalty to the head of the family are swept away by hers, and Aumerle’s, desperation."
He's right, of course, that a key -- perhaps the key --question the play raises is what obligation of loyalty there is to one's king, and what makes a king legitimate or illegitimate.
Yes, this is maybe the message which Shakespeare wants to leave with his audience, one that perhaps was on the minds of the audiences of the time when Queen Elizabeth was ageing and without an heir. It isn't a message which can be stated overtly because that would be treason but it can be left in the air as a talking point at after theatre suppers! Here is another quote from Wikipedia regarding the historical context of Richard II:-
'The play was performed and published late in the reign of the childless Elizabeth I of England, at a time when the queen's age made the succession an important political concern. The historical parallels in the succession of Richard II were not intended as political comment on the contemporary situation, with the weak Richard II analogous to Queen Elizabeth and an implicit argument in favour of her replacement by a monarch capable of creating a stable dynasty, but lawyers investigating John Hayward's history of Henry IV, a book partly based on Richard II, chose to make this connection. It was fortunate for Shakespeare that Hayward had dedicated his version to Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex: when Essex was arrested for rebellion in February 1601 Hayward had already been imprisoned, solely to strengthen the case being assembled against the earl, for "incitement to the deposing of the Queen", otherwise Shakespeare too may have lost his liberty over the affair.
'Shakespeare's play appears to have played a minor role in the events surrounding the final downfall of Essex. On 7 February 1601, just before the uprising, supporters of the Earl of Essex, among them Charles and Joscelyn Percy (younger brothers of the Earl of Northumberland), paid for a performance at the Globe Theatre on the eve of their armed rebellion. By this agreement, reported at the trial of Essex by the Chamberlain's Men actor Augustine Phillips, the conspirators paid the company forty shillings "above the ordinary" (i. e., above their usual rate) to stage this play, which the players felt was too old and "out of use" to attract a large audience. Eleven of Essex's supporters attended the Saturday performance....The Chamberlain's Men do not appear to have suffered at all for their association with the Essex group; they performed for the Queen on Shrove Tuesday in 1601, the day before Essex's execution.'
Great--it is a real privilege to part of a 21st Century online analog to those Elizabethan after-theatre suppers Madge mentioned. Add me, Madge, to the list of those thanking you for all of the wonderful resources giving us the historical context for Richard II. You are very generous.It seems almost self-evident that any thoughtful reader of WS (and, George Eliot, Milton, etc.) would be obliged to try to understand the historical and cultural context for his works. But do any of the rest of you ever feel that the historical context can be limiting or constraining in some sense? Maybe this is only my problem and I need to mature as a reader of great literature. And I understand how historical context, setting, etc., can truly be liberating--in the sense of helping to gain understanding of the author's sometimes nuanced meaning that can only be gained by knowing the context. Certainly, my enjoyment of RII has been greatly enhanced by all the contributions of history and context.
I guess I want my Shakespeare to soar above the limitations of his time and place and speak universal truths to me about the human condition. I believe he does that, but I fear I can't resist being guilty of the sin Madge gently and articulately described several posts back--I'm tending to apply my 21st Century sensibilities to 16th Century WS writing about a time 200 years prior.
Some quick examples of my struggle:
--I want to read RII as a condemnation or at least a criticism of DRK, despite the political environment that might have made it dangerous for WS to publicly take that position.
--I don't want to temper my outrage at York's vehement call for his own son's execution, despite Everyman's undoubtedly accurate assessment that the historical context would make it understandable that a Duke would act that way. (By the way, EMan, I think a parent of a Columbine perpetrator might turn his son in, but would be tortured and conflicted, rather than begging on bended knee for execution).
I guess I have a romanticized idea that Shakespeare's genius allowed him to transcend his time and place, and create works of universal truth. And then I'm not fully aware of my own biases (e.g., kings are mere flawed humans and not deputies of God; a father would never have such blind allegiance to his king that York showed; etc.) that cause me to impute to WS an intent to make points that my sensibilities welcome.
Perhaps I need more discipline to read within the logical limits of the historical context, but I'm not sure I want to.
Mark wrote: "But do any of the rest of you ever feel that the historical context can be limiting or constraining in some sense? "I think I understand what you're saying. I don't see the historical context as limiting because I use that only as part of the process of understanding and using the work. If I read only in the historical context, you would be absolutely right. But I think it's a two-fold process. "This is what the book would most likely have meant to its original readers. Now that I have that background, what does the book mean to me as a modern reader?"
Any book is -- must be -- a product of its times. But a classic is a classic because it speaks not only to but beyond its own age and has lessons and meanings relevant to readers hundreds or thousands of years later.
BTW, in 2.2, where Isabella is told that Worcester has resigned his stewardship and gone over to Bolingbroke, S just uses his title, and doesn't happen to mention that he was Thomas Percy, Northumberland's younger brother and uncle of Harry Percy. No wonder he wasn't ready to call them traitors, but broke with Richard and joined the rebels (though in historical fact he did so only after it looked as though the rebellion would succeed.)
Most of the action is taking place within one or two extended families, which makes it all very convoluted, but we who don't know the family histories lose some of this subtlety.