Richard II - Act V

[Scheherazade]

Please post your comments and questions in this thread.

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

Scene V

Scene VI

[Quark]

Did he [Richard] shed all his self-importance by Act V? I might agree about his timidiy but not sure about self-importance; even in his dying words he seemed to feel he was great and going to his just award. Richard always seemed a little too self-righteous to me; but maybe that is just how I perceived it.

Maybe he doesn't entirely lose his self-importance, but it certainly is shaken. In opening of scene v. he realizes that the title he so cherished can't satisfy him, and that he should stop worrying about whether he be king or commoner: "But what e'er I be,/ Nor I, nor any man that but man is,/ With nothing shall be pleas'd, till he be eas'd/ With being nothing" (38-41). This is quite a change from the Richard of Act I who looked down upon the "slaves" and "common people". In Act V, Richard does continue to believe he is kingly in some sense--after all, he tells his murderer that "King's blood" has "stain'd the King's own land" (110). Yet, I think we're supposed to agree with this to a degree. It isn't just Richard who believes that he is still kingly. Exton says that Richard was "full of valure as of royal blood" (113) and Henry renounces Exton when he produces the former king's body. Richard's very last words show that he hasn't completely given up on his position as king, but I think that he has realized that kingship isn't as important as he once believed. In that sense, he has lost his self-importance. While he doesn't give up on being king, he's discovered that being king isn't as exulted of a position as he thought.

[Janine]

Maybe he doesn't entirely lose his self-importance, but it certainly is shaken. In opening of scene v. he realizes that the title he so cherished can't satisfy him, and that he should stop worrying about whether he be king or commoner: "But what e'er I be,/ Nor I, nor any man that but man is,/ With nothing shall be pleas'd, till he be eas'd/ With being nothing" (38-41). This is quite a change from the Richard of Act I who looked down upon the "slaves" and "common people". In Act V, Richard does continue to believe he is kingly in some sense--after all, he tells his murderer that "King's blood" has "stain'd the King's own land" (110). Yet, I think we're supposed to agree with this to a degree. It isn't just Richard who believes that he is still kingly. Exton says that Richard was "full of valure as of royal blood" (113) and Henry renounces Exton when he produces the former king's body. Richard's very last words show that he hasn't completely given up on his position as king, but I think that he has realized that kingship isn't as important as he once believed. In that sense, he has lost his self-importance. While he doesn't give up on being king, he's discovered that being king isn't as exulted of a position as he thought.

I do agree with most of what you have written here but I have to stop to ask myself how I would feel if I were in Richard's position. Now standing back form the play I think that Richard is in a state of great shock, knowing he has to give up his crown to his cousin, Henry. In this way when he is going through the actually motions of giving up his kingship I think he he acting from pure emotion and his actions and thoughts are not always logical or ordered. Even in the prison when he goes on and on talking to himself there is a sort of insanity to it. He is not really in the same frame of mind as we saw earlier on in the play. He has digressed to a sort of surreal state. He doesn't seem to know exactly where he is or that he will be most certainly be killed. It feels to me, than when he is prison in the tower, that he is in a sort of 'limbo' type state of mind. I don't know if realistically he did really come down from his pedestal to be 'common' again and not kingly. I think that would truly be hard to throw off after all those years of thinking oneself exalted. He rather acts out a lot of self-pity. I think when he dies and speaks out about still being exalted and being the true king and his place will be set in heaven it shows he never really gave up that crown. He was trying to work it out in prison within his own mind and being but I don't think he truly came to terms with it. Then at the moment of his death he takes it back and cherishes his kingly state. I could be way off here, Quark, but that is just my own impression of this act and these scenes.

[Virgil]

Wow, you guys are up to Act V? What happened to Acts II, III, IV?

[Janine]

Wow, you guys are up to Act V? What happened to Acts II, III, IV?

Not really, V; don't assume that yet! I just mentioned something that happened in this act and Quark said he answered in this thread. I am pretty far behind you guys, anyway. I think I am still on Act I (mentally) but I did watch the whole production. I only read up to Act II, I think. I am chipping away at it slowly.

[Quark]

I think when he dies and speaks out about still being exalted and being the true king and his place will be set in heaven it shows he never really gave up that crown. He was trying to work it out in prison within his own mind and being but I don't think he truly came to terms with it. Then at the moment of his death he takes it back and cherishes his kingly state. I could be way off here, Quark, but that is just my own impression of this act and these scenes.

Yeah, I thought about this too, and it's part of why I mentioned this was a difficult passage to figure out. This last speech of his does sort of sound like the self-pitying Richard that we've already seen a lot of, only now he's slightly crazed. But, what makes me think that something else is going on here is that he's rejecting both his kingly state and his "beggar" state in favor of a third option: being just a "man". He says: "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" (32-36). It's the contemplation of this loop which is making him miserable in the previous Acts. Here, though, he breaks out of the cycle by thinking of himself as a "man": "But what e'er I be,/ Nor I, nor any man that but man is,/ With nothing shall be pleas'd, till he be eas'd/ With being nothing" (38-41). This is a third option unlike the other two which Richard has toyed around with before, so I distinguish the musing he's doing here from the exercise in self-pity that had been doing before.

I could be wrong, though. It's been a while now since I've read the play all the way through.

Wow, you guys are up to Act V? What happened to Acts II, III, IV?

Oh, we're just skipping them. That would be funny. No, actually Janine just mentioned something about Act V, and I thought my response should go here.

[Virgil]

There are two things I wish to highlight in Act V. I'll just do the first in this post.

What is the culpability of Bolingbroke in Richard's death? We have this from scene 4.

EXTON
Didst thou not mark the king, what words he spake,
'Have I no friend will rid me of this living fear?'
Was it not so?

Servant
These were his very words.

EXTON
'Have I no friend?' quoth he: he spake it twice,
And urged it twice together, did he not?

Servant
He did.

EXTON
And speaking it, he wistly look'd on me,
And who should say, 'I would thou wert the man'
That would divorce this terror from my heart;'
Meaning the king at Pomfret. Come, let's go:
I am the king's friend, and will rid his foe.

They are quoting the now King Bolingbroke. But in the last scene (scene 6), when Bolingbroke finds out we get this.

EXTON
Great king, within this coffin I present
Thy buried fear: herein all breathless lies
The mightiest of thy greatest enemies,
Richard of Bordeaux, by me hither brought.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Exton, I thank thee not; for thou hast wrought
A deed of slander with thy fatal hand
Upon my head and all this famous land.

EXTON
From your own mouth, my lord, did I this deed.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
They love not poison that do poison need,
Nor do I thee: though I did wish him dead,
I hate the murderer, love him murdered.
The guilt of conscience take thou for thy labour,
But neither my good word nor princely favour:
With Cain go wander through shades of night,
And never show thy head by day nor light.
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.

So Bolingbroke is shocked at the murder. Well, he's been kind of coy about all this from Act III and beyond. And isn't a murder that Richard was accused of the initiation of all the hostilities? Has Exton done for Richard what Mowbray did for Richard prior to the beginning of the play? I've mentioned the possibility that Bolingbroke is machiavellian, secretly manipulating the events for his gain. Or are the events fortuitive for him? The question I think we are brought to is whether Bolingbroke has manipulated the events for him to become King or whether Providence (i.e. God's will) has worked the events in his favor. I think you know my opinion at this point, but is it what Shakespeare intended? A good question.

Interersting also how that scene 6 is arranged. We see a stream of announcements of how all the King's enemies have been captured and beheaded. Oxford, Salisbury, Blunt, Kent, Brocas, Seely, the Abbot, and now Carlise will meet his fate. And Bolingbroke is in a state of gratitude over this.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
We thank thee, gentle Percy, for thy pains;
And to thy worth will add right worthy gains.

and

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Thy pains, Fitzwater, shall not be forgot;
Right noble is thy merit, well I wot.

and

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Carlisle, this is your doom:
Choose out some secret place, some reverend room,
More than thou hast, and with it joy thy life;
So as thou livest in peace, die free from strife:
For though mine enemy thou hast ever been,
High sparks of honour in thee have I seen.

There is no compassion or mercy here. To consolidate power he has had to kill his rivals, and that is a necessary thing. And the death of Richard is another final step in his consolidation. It too is necessary. If Richard's death vilates a religious code, then Bolingbroke feels the need for some sort of penance. "I'll make a voyage to the Holy Land,/To wash this blood off from my guilty hand". He seems to think he's guilty of something.

Ok, the the other thing I wish to highlight is Richard's death scene, especially that marvelous, marvelous solioquy. Next time.

[Janine]

Glad to see you back, Virgil; so now we are in Act V officially, right? I am sorry to say I somehow hurt my left hand/thumb last night while sleeping; I have no idea what I did. I think I either pulled something or broke a bone; hope it is the first, and resting will help it heal. I can only type a little, so I will wait till Quark replies, ok? Of course, I can read, so I can do something. It's mainly my thumb, so I can type a little with left hand, but it's painful. I will have to slow up today.

[Quark]

I can only type a little, so I will wait till Quark replies

I suppose I should apologize for making you wait so long, but I am back now. I finally finished my work for this semester--nothing but four months of luxurious, lazy leisure until next fall. I'll try to post more on these threads now that I have time.

What is the culpability of Bolingbroke in Richard's death?

As I said in Act IV, I don't think there is any reason to assume that Bolingbroke was trying to kill Richard. The imprisonment is more about coercion than murder. Bolingbroke is trying to force Richard into relinquishing the throne. Once he has that, Richard is rather irrelevant. The murder comes as a surprise to Bolingbroke. If Bolingbroke wanted Richard dead, he did so secretly.


And, by the way, has anyone moved on to Henry IV, yet?

[Virgil]

As I said in Act IV, I don't think there is any reason to assume that Bolingbroke was trying to kill Richard. The imprisonment is more about coercion than murder. Bolingbroke is trying to force Richard into relinquishing the throne. Once he has that, Richard is rather irrelevant. The murder comes as a surprise to Bolingbroke. If Bolingbroke wanted Richard dead, he did so secretly.

I don't think it's that simple Quark. He is imprisoned on the King's orders. The King does blurt out he wishes Richard was dead. And circumstances conveniently come together for Bolingbroke to be king and to have Richard killed. Like I said elsewhere, Richard has to die or there is always the possibility of a counter insurgency, just like when Bolingbroke was exiled and came back. Richard could be exiled, gather forces as a rightful king and retake the crown.

And, by the way, has anyone moved on to Henry IV, yet?

No I'm holding off on that for a while. I'm too tied up.

[Quark]

I don't think it's that simple Quark.

No, it probably isn't. I think Bolingbroke's intentions and motivations in this play are very open to debate. Bolingbroke doesn't telegraph what he's going to do so much as many of Shakespeare's other great characters. Richard III soliloquizes everything he has planned and why he's doing it, but we don't get anything like that from Bolingbroke. What we know about him is much less certain. We had a long discussion about the point at which he decided to take the crown, and I think you could have another discussion about whether he wanted Richard II dead. I was just saying that I don't think that Bolingbroke is culpable. Even if he did tacitly support Exton, I don't think that makes him culpable. Bolingbroke did create the situation for Exton to murder Richard, but again that doesn't make him culpable. Imagine I have an ailing relative about to die who promised me everything they have when they finally expire. Someone might overhear all this and decide that if they murder my relative that I would be happy and share the inheritance with them. If they did murder my relative, I wouldn't be responsible for the death--even if I really wanted my relative to die. I think the same logic applies here. Bolingbroke may have wanted Richard dead (one would have to prove this), but that doesn't necessarily make Bolingbroke culpable. The only way he becomes culpable is if someone can prove that he somehow maneuvered Exton into killing Richard. I don't remember him doing that, but it's been a while since I read the play.

[Janine]

No, it probably isn't. I think Bolingbroke's intentions and motivations in this play are very open to debate. Bolingbroke doesn't telegraph what he's going to do so much as many of Shakespeare's other great characters. Richard III soliloquizes everything he has planned and why he's doing it, but we don't get anything like that from Bolingbroke. What we know about him is much less certain. We had a long discussion about the point at which he decided to take the crown, and I think you could have another discussion about whether he wanted Richard II dead. I was just saying that I don't think that Bolingbroke is culpable. Even if he did tacitly support Exton, I don't think that makes him culpable. Bolingbroke did create the situation for Exton to murder Richard, but again that doesn't make him culpable. Imagine I have an ailing relative about to die who promised me everything they have when they finally expire. Someone might overhear all this and decide that if they murder my relative that I would be happy and share the inheritance with them. If they did murder my relative, I wouldn't be responsible for the death--even if I really wanted my relative to die. I think the same logic applies here. Bolingbroke may have wanted Richard dead (one would have to prove this), but that doesn't necessarily make Bolingbroke culpable. The only way he becomes culpable is if someone can prove that he somehow maneuvered Exton into killing Richard. I don't remember him doing that, but it's been a while since I read the play.

I have wondering where everyone was on this play or if you had all moved onto "Henry IV", which I was no way ready for. So anyway, welcome back Quark! I am glad to hear you will now have three months of leisurely living. You worked hard and deserve it. I was about to ask Virgil what had happened to this discussion. You always seem to read my mind, Quark. I just wonder where you ran off to or mention you name in here and bingo - you appear like magic! I was also wondering about our poor old Chekhov short story discussion group. I will address that later in that thread.

Virgil, I noticed when we first started this discussion you assumed right off the guilt of Bollingbroke and you stubbornly have stuck to that notion throughout. Obviously, you see this issue that way. I don't think anything can sway you from that idea. I don't see it as the simple and I don't think that Bollingbroke outwardly had Richard slain. Did you view the play on the BBC set. I definitely gather or get the impression of the opposite. I agree with Quark in what he said above. It may be that his death is emminent with the attitudes within the court at this time but why would Bollingbroke have Richard killed and if he did so; in the beginning there are lines that indicate that Richard had Old Gaunt hassened to his death, in order to secure his lands and title. Bollingbroke might have even had the right to kill Richard in that case, to avenge his father, had he been aware of it. I don't think Richard so spotless. I don't see where in the text, Bollingbroke told anyone to kill Richard. One might say it would be better if the Richard were dead, then they would not have to deal with this nearly impossible or frustrating situation; but to say Richard was an out and out murderer; I don't go along with that. He was not happy at the end of the play, when they brought him the body. Sure, this solved his problem, but he also knew this would create more strife and problems for him in his future reign. The murderer did not do Bollingbroke any favors here; which later on is proven in Henry IV.

Quark, I like you analogy and I would have to agree with you on this question of Bollingbroke having Richard murdered.

[Virgil]

No, it probably isn't. I think Bolingbroke's intentions and motivations in this play are very open to debate.

I think we can agree there. We can each speculate, and I assume it would be up to the director on how to project the slant.

I have wondering where everyone was on this play or if you had all moved onto "Henry IV", which I was no way ready for.

Janine you were the one who said to hold off on this. I was waiting for you to comment on what I said. Like I said back a few posts, I have one more comment on this play. I'll make it over the weekend.

Virgil, I noticed when we first started this discussion you assumed right off the guilt of Bollingbroke and you stubbornly have stuck to that notion throughout. Obviously, you see this issue that way. I don't think anything can sway you from that idea.

I stubbornly do.

I don't see it as the simple and I don't think that Bollingbroke outwardly had Richard slain. Did you view the play on the BBC set. I definitely gather or get the impression of the opposite.

Well, that that director's slant. I don't remember watching it.

I agree with Quark in what he said above. It may be that his death is emminent with the attitudes within the court at this time but why would Bollingbroke have Richard killed and if he did so; in the beginning there are lines that indicate that Richard had Old Gaunt hassened to his death, in order to secure his lands and title. Bollingbroke might have even had the right to kill Richard in that case, to avenge his father, had he been aware of it. I don't think Richard so spotless. I don't see where in the text, Bollingbroke told anyone to kill Richard. One might say it would be better if the Richard were dead, then they would not have to deal with this nearly impossible or frustrating situation; but to say Richard was an out and out murderer; I don't go along with that. He was not happy at the end of the play, when they brought him the body. Sure, this solved his problem, but he also knew this would create more strife and problems for him in his future reign. The murderer did not do Bollingbroke any favors here; which later on is proven in Henry IV.

Hey, that's the majority opinion. I just see it a little differently. Things just majically fall into place for Bolingbroke to be King. To perfect for my taste.

[Quark]

I was also wondering about our poor old Chekhov short story discussion group. I will address that later in that thread.

I'll have to check that out. I did plan to get the thread going again soon.

I don't see where in the text, Bollingbroke told anyone to kill Richard. One might say it would be better if the Richard were dead, then they would not have to deal with this nearly impossible or frustrating situation; but to say Richard was an out and out murderer; I don't go along with that.

I don't think any of us would suggest that Bolingbroke directly told Exton to murder Richard--not even "stubborn" Virgil. But, there is a grey area between ordering a murder and being completely innocent. Bolingbroke probably falls somewhere in this grey area. Clearly, he set up the situation for Exton to stab Richard. He also showed the court how much of a problem Richard is. He may have encouraged Exton between scenes, as well. I suppose one could argue that he also ordered Exton to kill Richard in between scenes, but I think this goes against what we know about Bolingbroke and this play in general. I'll say more about this below.

He was not happy at the end of the play, when they brought him the body. Sure, this solved his problem, but he also knew this would create more strife and problems for him in his future reign. The murderer did not do Bollingbroke any favors here; which later on is proven in Henry IV.

Yeah, this is makes Bolingbroke appear less guilty. He could be feigning shock and remorse here, but it seems unlikely given what we know about these characters. Bolingbroke is supposed to be the good leader that Richard never was, and it's unlikely that Shakespeare would have Bolingbroke act like Richard in the end. It was Richard who ordered murders and then blamed others. Bolingbroke probably wouldn't be doing the same thing. That would make this a very pessimistic play. All that would have happened then is that one corrupt ruler was replaced by another corrupt ruler. I don't think that's what's going on here. Instead, I would say that the play is more about a mislead king who tempts fate too many times and is finally defeated by a better leader. Unfortunately, though, it takes an unlawful transfer of power to get Richard and Bolingbroke in their rightful places, and this sets off waves of violence and retribution in the following plays. That violence is foretold by the bishop, and Richard's death is just the first of many. If we see Richard's death this way, it's hard to say that Bolingbroke was guilty. The violence is blowback for Bolingbroke more than it is his intent.

Hey, that's the majority opinion. I just see it a little differently. Things just majically fall into place for Bolingbroke to be King. To perfect for my taste.

Bolingbroke certainly seized the throne intentionally, but that doesn't mean he killed Richard intentionally. He has the kingship already when Richard is killed.

I have one more comment on this play. I'll make it over the weekend.

I hope it's about Richard's last scene. It's still one of my favorites from the play.

[Janine]

Where's Petrarch these days? No doubt she could set us straight on this play; seeing she knows so much about Shakespeare. Anybody try reading any critical analysis online? I should try to find some.

Virgil, dear YES, you are stubborn!

I am sorry, I didn't realise everyone was waiting for me to reply. I got so involved in the very 'involved' Lawrence discussion this month; I just lost track. I can't seem to keep up with everything lately. I am overwhelmed to some degree.

Yes, Quark, let me know about the Chekhov. Nightshade wrote me and wishes to be in the Lawrence group next story we do but I told her we might alternate with Chekhov. Then she said she might be interested in Chekhov, too. Of course, the rate we are discussing the L story we might be there the whole summer; we have so many new contributors; but I am not complaining one bit. This discussion has been truly interesting. I was hoping we could discuss "The Trouseau" - remember? You are right though. The short story is not in that book or in my other older book, that was my father's; but I do have the audio CD, which I enjoy emensely...and the text is online, correct?

Will we be progressing now to the final act VI?