Richard II - Act II

[Scheherazade]

Please post your comments and questions in this thread.


Scene I (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/6/)


Scene II (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/7/)


Scene III (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/8/)


Scene IV (http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/richardII/9/)

[lugdunum]

I've finished Act II and must say that my opinion of RII is getting worse and worse. Not only did he come across as wishy washy as Virgil said, but he's also selfish and so full of himself! and, may I add, not the best at making the right decisions!

I particularly liked that part:

KING RICHARD II
Can sick men play so nicely with their names?

JOHN OF GAUNT
No, misery makes sport to mock itself:
Since thou dost seek to kill my name in me,
I mock my name, great king, to flatter thee.

KING RICHARD II
Should dying men flatter with those that live?

JOHN OF GAUNT
No, no, men living flatter those that die.

KING RICHARD II
Thou, now a-dying, say'st thou flatterest me.

JOHN OF GAUNT
O, no! thou diest, though I the sicker be.

KING RICHARD II
I am in health, I breathe, and see thee ill.

JOHN OF GAUNT
Now He that made me knows I see thee ill;
Ill in myself to see, and in thee seeing ill.
Thy death-bed is no lesser than thy land
Wherein thou liest in reputation sick;
And thou, too careless patient as thou art,
Commit'st thy anointed body to the cure
Of those physicians that first wounded thee:
A thousand flatterers sit within thy crown,
Whose compass is no bigger than thy head;
And yet, incaged in so small a verge,
The waste is no whit lesser than thy land.
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,
Which art possess'd now to depose thyself.
Why, cousin, wert thou regent of the world,
It were a shame to let this land by lease;
But for thy world enjoying but this land,
Is it not more than shame to shame it so?
Landlord of England art thou now, not king:
Thy state of law is bondslave to the law; And thou--

KING RICHARD II
A lunatic lean-witted fool,
Presuming on an ague's privilege,
Darest with thy frozen admonition
Make pale our cheek, chasing the royal blood
With fury from his native residence.
Now, by my seat's right royal majesty,
Wert thou not brother to great Edward's son,
This tongue that runs so roundly in thy head
Should run thy head from thy unreverent shoulders.

JOHN OF GAUNT
O, spare me not, my brother Edward's son,
For that I was his father Edward's son;
That blood already, like the pelican,
Hast thou tapp'd out and drunkenly caroused:
My brother Gloucester, plain well-meaning soul,
Whom fair befal in heaven 'mongst happy souls!
May be a precedent and witness good
That thou respect'st not spilling Edward's blood:
Join with the present sickness that I have;
And thy unkindness be like crooked age,
To crop at once a too long wither'd flower.
Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee!
These words hereafter thy tormentors be!
Convey me to my bed, then to my grave:
Love they to live that love and honour have.

I realize it's a long quote but I just enjoyed the whole passage. I really like Gaunt, at least in that part (and if it wasn't for what Virgil mentioned, that in real history, Gaunt wasn't exactly the most loyal kind...)

But anyway, first I liked the little jokes about flattering the King because Richard seems to be the kind to listen to people flattering him all day without ever asking himself whether it may or may not be true.

Then I like the play on words with "ill": I don't see well, I'm sick end I see evil in you

And finally I like the part where RII loses it and calls the other lunatic lean-witted fool. I think that we can see R.'s real nature there, someone so full of himself that he cannot stand any negative remarks.
And then later on, we'll discover his methids to get money and we'll realize what kind of King he is.

Just one doubt though, the Duke of York, who's side is he on? Because it's not very clear to me. Can someone explain? Or maybe we find out later?

[mayneverhave]

Just one doubt though, the Duke of York, who's side is he on? Because it's not very clear to me. Can someone explain? Or maybe we find out later?

The Duke of York's loyalties fluctuate during the play - as you'll see later. What Shakespeare is doing with York is a microcosm of the play's broader theme, that of the justification of the kingship. As Richard remains the de jure king and Henry steps up as the de facto king, York's dilemma becomes the play's dilemma.

[Quark]

Just one doubt though, the Duke of York, who's side is he on?

The Duke of York's loyalties fluctuate during the play - as you'll see later. What Shakespeare is doing with York is a microcosm of the play's broader theme, that of the justification of the kingship. As Richard remains the de jure king and Henry steps up as the de facto king, York's dilemma becomes the play's dilemma.

I think mayneverhave is right to say that York's position changes throughout the play. He begins act two as a staunch defender of Richard, but by the end he's accepted Bullingbrook as king. In this, York reflects the change in power from one leader to the other. He even shows up at important moments when Bullingbrook is gaining influence: the landing of the rebels, the exchange of the crown, and the new king's first appearance in society. While York's sympathies appear to be with Richard, he feels powerless to stop Bullingbrook's rebellion. Instead of resisting the change, he decides to "remain as neuter" (II, iii 159). One might see this as the fatal flaw of not only York, but also of Richard and his group. Gaunt, Richard, and York all seem to lack resolve. When ill-fortune befalls them, it completely unmans them and they can't react. As mayneverhas points out, there is a dilemma over who has the right to rule, but York doesn't contemplate the situation and react. Rather, he merely gives in because he's outnumbered. This is where I may disagree with mayneverhas when he says that York "fluctuates" and is a "microcosm" of the dilemma. I don't think York fluctuates, but instead reflect the shift in power of the two kings--which is pretty much a steady move one way. Nor do I think he is a "microcosm" of the dilemma, because this would give too much weight to a character who doesn't have much to say in this play. York's role is rather functional, and I don't think he has much to add to the themes.

[Virgil]

It took me three reads of Act II to get it, but i finally have got it. For those that are having trouble here's a thumbnail of it:
Scene 1 - We see through Gaunt's eyes the deterioration of the state; Gaunt dies and Richard takes his assests.
Scene 2 - We learn that Richard has gone off to Ireland, even though the kingdom is in dissolution; we learn that Bolingbroke has come back to reclaim his father's property in violation of his banishment.
Scene 3 - Bolingbroke has returned and is coordinating his forces to challenge the king.
Scene 4 - The King's absence has weakened his support, even instilling a thought that he is dead.

As we can see the Richard II is a screw up. :D

There are a number of places to highlight. Perhaps I'll come back with more, but I think in this post I would like to highlight the fine speeches of Gaunt in scene 1. He is a dying man and he knows it and whatever the time gap that has occured between Acts 1 & 2 may be, in the iterim he has completely lost respect for Richard. Obviously the kingdom is falling apart and its through Richard's mismanagement. The scen opens with the two wise men of the play, Gaunt and York. Throughout these quotes, please admire the brilliant poetry that Shakespeare puts in Gaunt's mouth.


JOHN OF GAUNT
Will the king come, that I may breathe my last
In wholesome counsel to his unstaid youth?

DUKE OF YORK
Vex not yourself, nor strive not with your breath;
For all in vain comes counsel to his ear.

JOHN OF GAUNT
O, but they say the tongues of dying men
Enforce attention like deep harmony:
Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain,
For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain.
He that no more must say is listen'd more
Than they whom youth and ease have taught to glose;
More are men's ends mark'd than their lives before:
The setting sun, and music at the close,
As the last taste of sweets, is sweetest last,
Writ in remembrance more than things long past:
Though Richard my life's counsel would not hear,
My death's sad tale may yet undeaf his ear.

Gaunt is going to speak the truth because there is nothing left that the King can do to him: "Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain,/For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain." But even in the end he wishes to help the King: "My death's sad tale may yet undeaf his ear."

Gaunt continues and this contains one of Shakespeare's greatest passages:

JOHN OF GAUNT
Methinks I am a prophet new inspired
And thus expiring do foretell of him:
His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,
For violent fires soon burn out themselves;
Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;
He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;
With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:
Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,
Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.
This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,
Fear'd by their breed and famous by their birth,
Renowned for their deeds as far from home,
For Christian service and true chivalry,
As is the sepulchre in stubborn Jewry,
Of the world's ransom, blessed Mary's Son,
This land of such dear souls, this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself.
Ah, would the scandal vanish with my life,
How happy then were my ensuing death!
This is one of the most patriotic speeches ever put into a character's mouth: "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,/This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,/This other Eden, demi-paradise..." If he could die to end the dissolution it would be a happy death. Clearly a shame has come over England. What is the cause of the shame is not clear to me. Unfortunately Shakespeare doesn't show here but tells and an abstract telling at that. We saw in Act 1 Richard's incompetance and moral weakness. But we have to assume that it has only gotten worse, to the point where Gaunt will confront the king. And he does so:

DUKE OF YORK
The king is come: deal mildly with his youth;
For young hot colts being raged do rage the more.

QUEEN
How fares our noble uncle, Lancaster?

KING RICHARD II
What comfort, man? how is't with aged Gaunt?

JOHN OF GAUNT
O how that name befits my composition!
Old Gaunt indeed, and gaunt in being old:
Within me grief hath kept a tedious fast;
And who abstains from meat that is not gaunt?
For sleeping England long time have I watch'd;
Watching breeds leanness, leanness is all gaunt:
The pleasure that some fathers feed upon,
Is my strict fast; I mean, my children's looks;
And therein fasting, hast thou made me gaunt:
Gaunt am I for the grave, gaunt as a grave,
Whose hollow womb inherits nought but bones.
I love the wonderful puns on the word "gaunt." And he says he has watched England for a long time. And then Gaunt challenges the King, saying that though sick it is the King who is actually dying:

KING RICHARD II
Thou, now a-dying, say'st thou flatterest me.

JOHN OF GAUNT
O, no! thou diest, though I the sicker be.

KING RICHARD II
I am in health, I breathe, and see thee ill.

JOHN OF GAUNT
Now He that made me knows I see thee ill;
Ill in myself to see, and in thee seeing ill.
Thy death-bed is no lesser than thy land
Wherein thou liest in reputation sick;
And thou, too careless patient as thou art,
Commit'st thy anointed body to the cure
Of those physicians that first wounded thee:
A thousand flatterers sit within thy crown,
Whose compass is no bigger than thy head;
And yet, incaged in so small a verge,
The waste is no whit lesser than thy land.
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,
Which art possess'd now to depose thyself.
Why, cousin, wert thou regent of the world,
It were a shame to let this land by lease;
But for thy world enjoying but this land,
Is it not more than shame to shame it so?
Landlord of England art thou now, not king:
Thy state of law is bondslave to the law; And thou--
Gaunt tells the King that actually the King is on death's bed, a reversal of positions, or perhaps a parallel of positions. It's the "thousand flatterers" that swell the King's head and the land has suffered. Intersting choice of words here:

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,
Which art possess'd now to depose thyself.
On the one hand Gaunt is talking about Richard's forefathers, but the suggestion of "depose" has been articulated and this becomes a sort of prophesy. And the King, furious, cuts him off:

KING RICHARD II
A lunatic lean-witted fool,
Presuming on an ague's privilege,
Darest with thy frozen admonition
Make pale our cheek, chasing the royal blood
With fury from his native residence.
Now, by my seat's right royal majesty,
Wert thou not brother to great Edward's son,
This tongue that runs so roundly in thy head
Should run thy head from thy unreverent shoulders.
And Gaunt in his fianl speech says his last words with pride and honor:

JOHN OF GAUNT
O, spare me not, my brother Edward's son,
For that I was his father Edward's son;
That blood already, like the pelican,
Hast thou tapp'd out and drunkenly caroused:
My brother Gloucester, plain well-meaning soul,
Whom fair befal in heaven 'mongst happy souls!
May be a precedent and witness good
That thou respect'st not spilling Edward's blood:
Join with the present sickness that I have;
And thy unkindness be like crooked age,
To crop at once a too long wither'd flower.
Live in thy shame, but die not shame with thee!
These words hereafter thy tormentors be!
Convey me to my bed, then to my grave:
Love they to live that love and honour have.
He calls him the bloody murderer of his brother, that was held mute in Act 1. I'm not quite sure I understand that last line, but I take it as he has maintained his honor.

[Janine]

Finally I found the thread extension for Act II. I will comment later, tomorrow night (hopefully); but so far, I agree with most that I have read in this new thread. It is late now and I am merely putting in a quick appearance before I head for bed.

[Quark]

but I think in this post I would like to highlight the fine speeches of Gaunt in scene 1.

Throughout these quotes, please admire the brilliant poetry that Shakespeare puts in Gaunt's mouth

You're right to point out the wonderful lines in the first scene. It is "brilliant poetry", and, while I usually dislike saying something is the best part of a story, I do think this is one of the better scenes. Richard's final scene is also good, as well.


Gaunt is going to speak the truth because there is nothing left that the King can do to him: "Where words are scarce, they are seldom spent in vain,/For they breathe truth that breathe their words in pain." But even in the end he wishes to help the King: "My death's sad tale may yet undeaf his ear."

That's true, but I think Gaunt also finds his voice here because of the sobering effect of his coming death. In what you quoted above he draws a connection between "truth" and "pain". Also, he notices that his "words are scarce" which makes them "seldom spent in vain". Like Richard, Gaunt needs a disaster to make him realize the situation and try to act. His coming death is like Richard's loss of the kingdom in that it rescues them from their false notions. Gaunt drops his passive, forbearing attitude of Act I, and Richard will eventually follow this lead in Act V.


This is one of the most patriotic speeches ever put into a character's mouth

I hadn't actually thought of it in that sense--after all, Gaunt is chewing out the king--but it is, in the end, a very loyal speech about England. The late John of Gaunt sees Richard as a blemish on what is otherwise a noble and powerful England.


Clearly a shame has come over England. What is the cause of the shame is not clear to me. Unfortunately Shakespeare doesn't show here but tells and an abstract telling at that.

York's dialogue gives some of it away, but for the rest you have to go to Shakespeare's sources. I'll try to post more on this tomorrow.


He calls him the bloody murderer of his brother, that was held mute in Act 1. I'm not quite sure I understand that last line, but I take it as he has maintained his honor.

I think he means the opposite actually. Gaunt believes that only those who believe in their own honor can want to live. And, since he's sacrificed his honor to go along with Richard, he doesn't want to live anymore.

[Virgil]

You're right to point out the wonderful lines in the first scene. It is "brilliant poetry", and, while I usually dislike saying something is the best part of a story, I do think this is one of the better scenes. Richard's final scene is also good, as well.

Actually I think the whole play is filled with gorgeous poetry. I think Shakespeare out did himself in this one.


That's true, but I think Gaunt also finds his voice here because of the sobering effect of his coming death.
Well, that's what I meant. We're saying the same thing.


I think he means the opposite actually. Gaunt believes that only those who believe in their own honor can want to live. And, since he's sacrificed his honor to go along with Richard, he doesn't want to live anymore.
Oh I think you got that right. Thanks for untangling that for me. :)

[Quark]

Actually I think the whole play is filled with gorgeous poetry. I think Shakespeare out did himself in this one.

You and I may disagree on this one. I think there are some great parts, but there are also a few points where I wish things would have moved a little quicker. The last half of the first scene in Act II goes on for 150 lines but we don't really learn that much in them. It further explores Richard's shortcomings (that's probably not strong enough of a word) and tells us something about the problems that are on the horizon for him. One would think, though, that Richard's shortcomings had already been established and don't need to dwell on this part about Gaunt. If you think it's important, then it's worth a mention. Does it really need to be acted out like this? I think we get it: Richard's not a good king. Usually, Shakespeare is good at explaining a lot to the audience in a very compressed space, but here it seems unnecessarily wordy. This is just one complaint, but I think there are others that one could make. That isn't to say that it's awful or something like that. It's rather to point out that some parts of the play are better than others, and I think the beginning of this first scene is one of the better parts.

[Virgil]

But Quark, you complain about everything but the poetry. All I mentioned was the poetry was gorgeous in this play. I did not say it was perfect as a work of drama.

[Janine]

But Quark, you complain about everything but the poetry. All I mentioned was the poetry was gorgeous in this play. I did not say it was perfect as a work of drama.

Are you guys going to start duking it out like real men!? haha....;)

I think I see Quark's point to some extend here. I have some difficulty with this play myself. I guess I am impatient with it and that is really my own deficiency. I have a hard time with Shakespeares long poems such as "The Rape of Lucrea"...afterawhile I get totally lost and bored with the long passages of poetry. I think epic poetry is your thing Virgil from your other studies and discussion on this forum. It is not everyone's bag though. I find this play difficult because I think the long passages of gorgeus poetry are wonderful alone but in the context of the play they tend to distract for me from the plot development. It is probably just a matter of how one perceives poetry or a play like this one. Do you know where it falls in the cannon of Shakespeare's work. Was it an earlier play? I took it he wrote the histories in order but that very well might not be the case. Richard II is a fine play indeed but I just find it a harder one for myself to fully grasp the full and underlining meanings.

[Virgil]

My thing is all poetry *holds his head up so that his nose is in the air* not just epic poetry. :p :D I think this play is a little harder to read. Perhaps the poetic diction makes it so. Does that make it harder? Perhaps. But Hamlet also has such poetic diction. I think it's just this story doesn't grab you like that of Hamlet.

Here's a chronological list of Shakespeare's plays:


Henry VI pt 1,2,3 1589-92
Richard III 1592-93
The Comedy of Errors 1592-93
Titus Andronicus 1593-94
The Taming Of The Shrew 1593-94
The Two Gentlemen Of Verona 1594-95
Romeo And Juliet 1594-95
Love's Labor's Lost 1594-95
A Midsummer Night's Dream 1595-96
Richard II 1595-96
King John 1596-97
The Merchant Of Venice 1596-97
Henry IV pt 1,2 1597-98
Henry V 1598-99
Much Ado About Nothing 1598-99
Julius Caesar 1599-1600
As You Like It 1599-1600
The Merry Wives Of Windsor 1600-01
Hamlet 1600-01
Troilus and Cressida 1601-02
Twelfth Night 1601-02
All's Well That Ends Well 1602-03
Measure for Measure 1604-05
Othello 1604-05
King Lear 1605-06
Macbeth 1605-06
Antony and Cleopatra 1606-07
Coriolanus 1607-08
Timon of Athens 1607-08
Pericles 1608-09
Cymbeline 1609-10
The Winter's Tale 1610-11
The Tempest 1610-11
Henry VIII 1612-13

Richard II is after Romeo and Juliet (another play with gorgeous poetry) and before the great tragedies.

[Quark]

But Quark, you complain about everything but the poetry. All I mentioned was the poetry was gorgeous in this play. I did not say it was perfect as a work of drama.

Oh, my mistake. Let me take a few steps back and try this again. I'm still going to say, though, that it's a rather uneven work--even when considering the poetry. Take the two challenge scenes (one in I, i. and the other in IV, i.). They're a little dry and repetitive--lots of "thou liest". That's not to mention all the hyperbole. Poetic exaggeration can be enjoyable when it's fully explored--like it is with lyrics--but when the combatant are nobles with all their self-possession it never really goes anywhere. They cut off their hyperbole before it can really say anything and it's just an exaggeration. What Mowbray says to the king is revealing of the poetry in general during these scenes: "the fair reverence of your Highness curbs me/ From giving reins and spurs to my free speech" (54-55). Images and tropes are taken up for a line and then abandoned.

Of course, it's still pretty enjoyable, and there are some great lines here and there. I just think the that there other parts of the play which have a little more to offer.


Do you know where it falls in the cannon of Shakespeare's work. Was it an earlier play? I took it he wrote the histories in order but that very well might not be the case. Richard II is a fine play indeed but I just find it a harder one for myself to fully grasp the full and underlining meanings.

Richard II is after Romeo and Juliet (another play with gorgeous poetry) and before the great tragedies.

I was wondering when this was written, too, but I'm a little unclear how we got on this. Are you guys trying to figure out the play's quality by when he composed it?

[Janine]

I was wondering when this was written, too, but I'm a little unclear how we got on this. Are you guys trying to figure out the play's quality by when he composed it?


Oh, Quark, I am the one who asked the question and Virgil listed the chronological order in which they were written; thanks for that, Virgil. I wasn't wasn't really questioning the play's quality, but perhaps just wondering how experienced the playwright was at this time, how developed his plays were by then. I am sure, R II is considered by scholars, as a fine example of Shakespeare's history plays. It just does not grab me personally, like "Hamlet" as Virgil pointed out. Not just "Hamlet", but quite a number of other S plays do grab my attention immediately. The Henry plays I like very much; for one thing, we have a cast of colorful characters in those, the tavern (bawdy house) and the peasants. I think this play - Richard II encompasses only the upper class basically; so that, I don't have that connection with the commoners who are involved with the royalty, which give one that instant connection.

[Janine]

My thing is all poetry *holds his head up so that his nose is in the air* not just epic poetry. :p :D I think this play is a little harder to read. Perhaps the poetic diction makes it so. Does that make it harder? Perhaps. But Hamlet also has such poetic diction. I think it's just this story doesn't grab you like that of Hamlet.

Here's a chronological list of Shakespeare's plays:

Haha - yes you are a poetry snob! haha:lol: You said it now, not me! ;) Right, this story doesn't really grab me the same as the others I have read, even some of the other history plays.


Richard II is after Romeo and Juliet (another play with gorgeous poetry) and before the great tragedies.

Yeah, but I think both Hamlet and Romeo are romantic figures that are very appealing. I think that Henry V is romantic, also. I think that Richard II is not at all a romantic figure. Since I am a hopeless romantic, perhaps that is what I find lacking in this play for my tastes. There isn't much going on between male and females in this play. Only one scene where Richard and his queen part, can I recall much of an interchange and to me it was just ok, nothing to compare with the complexity of the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia or of Romeo and Juliet.

[Quark]

The Henry plays I like very much; for one thing, we have a cast of colorful characters in those, the tavern (bawdy house) and the peasants. I think this play - Richard II encompasses only the upper class basically; so that, I don't have that connection with the commoners who are involved with the royalty, which give one that instant connection.

Yeah, Richard II does leave you gasping for variety, but I still think there are some wonderful parts of this play. The beginning of this Act, the end of the last Act, Richard's landing in England, his demise, all are great moments. Even when the story doesn't move you, though, Virgil is right that there is the language. It might not be the greatest of Shakespeare's works, but it still works for me. Now the last play you guys did, Merry Wives of Windsor, I could never make it through.

[Janine]

Yeah, Richard II does leave you gasping for variety, but I still think there are some wonderful parts of this play. The beginning of this Act, the end of the last Act, Richard's landing in England, his demise, all are great moments. Even when the story doesn't move you, though, Virgil is right that there is the language. It might not be the greatest of Shakespeare's works, but it still works for me. Now the last play you guys did, Merry Wives of Windsor, I could never make it through.

Yes, I do agree; there are some fine moments indeed; but it is just not my favorite of the plays so far.

I got lost in the last play we did; I couldn't make it past Act I. I think that one was so much nonsense and old world wit, that I could not comprehend it fully, so it lost a lot for me in understanding. It was just too hard to wade through; now that one was heavy on the peasant jargon.

I think Richard II would appeal more to men than to women.

[Quark]

I think Richard II would appeal more to men than to women.

You mean the play, right? Not the character.

[Virgil]

It's actually a very intellectual play. It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. I know that's not current political issue (where do you think Obama stands on it :p) but was important in Shakespeware's day. Not only that we have the subject of a King who is dissolute and would rather party than rule responsibly. This contrasts with Bolingbroke who as Henry IV is all business and no play. Finally when we get to Henry V (as Prince Hal) we have the potential of Hal caught between Richard II and Henry IV in personality. He ultimately has to reject the part of him that wants to become like Richard II and be responsible.

[Janine]

It's actually a very intellectual play.

Well, excuse me! ;):lol: I guess I'm not that intellectual enough to appreciate this play. Seriously though, I get all of that, about 'Divine Right of Kings'; that is a big part of "Henry V", too. Kings back then, were nearly akin to the pope, having belief in a direct line to God. By the way, Shakespeare scholar, Virgil, my good friend (except when he brings up the O word in a negative light - see quote below), the word is spelled 'divine' - I even checked it in spell-check to be sure. You know me, I can't spell worth a darn either, but I would think you would know that from "Dante's Divine Comedy."


It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. I know that's not current political issue (where do you think Obama stands on it :p) but was important in Shakespeware's day.


Not only that we have the subject of a King who is dissolute and would rather party than rule responsibly. This contrasts with Bolingbroke who as Henry IV is all business and no play. Finally when we get to Henry V (as Prince Hal) we have the potential of Hal caught between Richard II and Henry IV in personality. He ultimately has to reject the part of him that wants to become like Richard II and be responsible.


Funny, he sounds a little like Hamlet's uncle and Jabobi has played both roles effectively. Yes, he would rather party. Yes, Henry V likes to be in contact with the tavern low lifes and party as well. He is torn between his own humanity and his kingly calling. That is what always fascinates me about that play and his heartfelt speeches, even the ones all the way up to the big battle scene. That is an interesting analogy between Richard and Henry IV - hadn't thought of it before - I had thought more of Henry V's own family tree, being related to the Black Prince of Wales. That is even mentioned in the play after the battle has been won. I can't quite picture Henry being anything like Richard, quite honestly. Henry is too upstanding and honest and straightforward and fair. You are attacking my Henry now. I love the character of Henry V! He was even on the Romantic Character Pole thread list and I voted for him, among about a half a dozen others. I don't really find Richard II romantic at all. Maybe I am just not seeing it or something.

[Virgil]

Well, excuse me! ;):lol: I guess I'm not that intellectual enough to appreciate this play. Seriously though, I get all of that, about 'Divine Right of Kings'; that is a big part of "Henry V", too. Kings back then, were nearly akin to the pope, having belief in a direct line to God. By the way, Shakespeare scholar, Virgil, my good friend (except when he brings up the O word in a negative light - see quote below), the word is spelled 'divine' - I even checked it in spell-check to be sure. You know me, I can't spell worth a darn either, but I would think you would know that from "Dante's Divine Comedy."

:lol: Yeah I keep mispelling it and I've now confused myself. I actually spelled it correctly but thought it looked wrong and changed it. :blush:

So you don't think O has flip flopped on this issue too? :p :lol:


Funny, he sounds a little like Hamlet's uncle and Jabobi has played both roles effectively. Yes, he would rather party. Yes, Henry V likes to be in contact with the tavern low lifes and party as well. He is torn between his own humanity and his kingly calling. That is what always fascinates me about that play and his heartfelt speeches, even the ones all the way up to the big battle scene. That is an interesting analogy between Richard and Henry IV - hadn't thought of it before - I had thought more of Henry V's own family tree, being related to the Black Prince of Wales. That is even mentioned in the play after the battle has been won. I can't quite picture Henry being anything like Richard, quite honestly. Henry is too upstanding and honest and straightforward and fair. You are attacking my Henry now. I love the character of Henry V! He was even on the Romantic Character Pole thread list and I voted for him, among about a half a dozen others. I don't really find Richard II romantic at all. Maybe I am just not seeing it or something.
I didn't mean to say that Hal was like Richard. If it came out that way let me refine it. Hal is caught in between the two possibilities. There exists a potential for him to become a Richard. Actually his father worries to death about the possibility. But it's obviously not Hal and as he matures rejects it out right. I think when he hangs his old friend Bardolph (? I think that's who it was) it shows he is deadly serious and has not feelings for the play life.

[Janine]

:lol: Yeah I keep mispelling it and I've now confused myself. I actually spelled it correctly but thought it looked wrong and changed it. :blush:

You, of all people, the *nose in the air* guy who loves poetry, epic or otherwise...:lol: I wouldn't have brought it up, but I started to notice you repeating that spelling error more than a few times. Thought I would spare you more typos or wrong spellings.


So you don't think O has flip flopped on this issue too? :p :lol:I refuse to discuss POLITICS with YOU! That is my final word.



I didn't mean to say that Hal was like Richard. If it came out that way let me refine it. Hal is caught in between the two possibilities. There exists a potential for him to become a Richard. Actually his father worries to death about the possibility. But it's obviously not Hal and as he matures rejects it out right. I think when he hangs his old friend Bardolph (? I think that's who it was) it shows he is deadly serious and has not feelings for the play life.

Right, I agree. Now I see what you are driving at. In that striking scene Henry had to enforce his own law and Bardolph was a prime example of that and a key moment in the play; his friend was almost like a sacrifice to his honor and kingly devotion. Personally, I found that one of the most heartbreaking, yet breath-taking moment in the play; especially seeing it played out on film. It was a great movie moment. It tore me up knowing what Henry was going through at that moment. It was not an easy thing for Hal to enforce. That was the turning point in the play. God, I love that play and you know I love the movie. I have seen it now about 30 times! haha....and you know why, a young KB plays Henry...:lol: I thought it was his finest role.

[wessexgirl]

It's actually a very intellectual play. It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. .

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

[Virgil]

[QUOTE=Virgil;685046]:lol: Yeah I keep mispelling it and I've now confused myself. I actually spelled it correctly but thought it looked wrong and changed it. :blush:

You, of all people, the *nose in the air* guy who loves poetry, epic or otherwise...:lol: I wouldn't have brought it up, but I started to notice you repeating that spelling error more than a few times. Thought I would spare you more typos or wrong spellings.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:My nose is no longer in the air. :blush:



I refuse to disguss POLITICS with YOU! That is my final word.
Ok, ok. But I was not really discussing politics. I was kidding around.

[Virgil]

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

I agree Wessex. It is superb, and the poetry is some of Shakespeare's best. I think the tension of overturning a king is lost on today world. Oh what has this society come too. :p

[Janine]

[QUOTE=Janine;685050]
:lol::lol::lol::lol:My nose is no longer in the air. :blush:
Oh good I brought you back down to earth! haha



Ok, ok. But I was not really discussing politics. I was kidding around.
Not funny. I have been noticing comments seeping into other threads, not just this one. Better to be silent than get in trouble.;)

[wessexgirl]

It's actually a very intellectual play. It concerns the political decsion of removing the King of a country and defying Devine Right of Kings. .

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

[Janine]

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff. As Virgil points out, it deals with the notion of kingship and the overturning of natural order, (the divine right of kings to rule, whether they're fit to rule or not). I believe this was performed for the conspirators the night before the Essex rebellion, where he tried to overthrow Elizabeth. A very telling choice from a man who was formerly her favourite. The symbolism would not have been lost on her. He lost his head.

It is a beautiful, wonderful play, one which I have not read in a while, but I don't see it as an inferior work. It would have been deeply shocking to the populace of the time, questioning the authority of a king, and we see the repercussions on Bolingbroke, later to become Henry 1V, in the following plays. All of his troubles ("Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown...."), can be hinted at because of his usurpation of Richard. He may have won in this play, but he pays a high price, and cannot be allowed to enjoy his success. His relations with his unruly son Hal, who he sees as waiting in the wings for his death, (literally grabbing the crown too hastily before his father is dead, echoing his own snatching of the crown from Richard), while behaving like a commoner with his tavern cronies, blight his life, and the power of a monarch is seen as a hollow victory. We get a sense of the "rightness" of monarchy again when Hal accedes to the throne, and transforms into Henry V, a noble and valiant king. The nobility has had to skip a generation, before things are in their natural order again.

It is a superb play.

Well, I don't dispute any of this; I really don't. The play is just not my personal favorite, but when I set out to read the history plays, I find this play is vital to understanding the full content of the other plays to follow. You are right in the fact, that seizing the crown from Richard sets in motion a lot of future events and deep feelings of unrest and even guilt. It does take a full generational leap to come to terms with Richard's death and dethronement. This is a very good point,Wessexgirl. Also, no doubt, you see it from a different perspective than I would, living in England and knowing the history of the monarchs. I love the story of Essex and Elizabeth. I once listened to a detailed history of the monarchs, and one thing certainly stood out the most to me, and that was how countless times, monarchs were overthrown and the crown was seized; so Richard II is not the first to experienced this, am I correct?

I also don't dispute, that this is a very fine play - really excellent. There is hardly a Shakespeare play, I would consider inferior. They are all great, but they all are different and some may appeal to one person more than another. I think that is all I was saying.

"England being a garden," - isn't this also mentioned in Henry V? It is at the end of the play with the Chorus projecting to us into the future history, that his son, after aquiring the crown after Henry V's intimely and early death, the young son's kingdom was managed by too many, causing the ruin of this most perfect garden, "making his England bleed". I am not sure of the exact quote and I am too lazy to look it up. If I find it, I will edit this. In one sense then, it reverts back to the other house finally taking over - thus the results of the "War of the Roses" is further explored in "Richard III."

I found the exact quote after I mangled the idea above. Here it is in the Epilogue:


EPILOGUE

Enter Chorus

Chorus
Thus far, with rough and all-unable pen,
Our bending author hath pursued the story,
In little room confining mighty men,
Mangling by starts the full course of their glory.
Small time, but in that small most greatly lived
This star of England: Fortune made his sword;
By which the world's best garden be achieved,
And of it left his son imperial lord.
Henry the Sixth, 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 shown; and, for their sake,
In your fair minds let this acceptance take.

Exit

Again the tables are turned; that is what I find so exciting about these history plays.

[Virgil]

Oops, Wessex. Somehow you posted the same thing twice.

[Janine]

Oops, Wessex. Somehow you posted the same thing twice.

I noticed that. I thought I was seeing double.:eek2:

[Quark]

It was dynamite! For all it's powerful and beautiful poetry and imagery, much of which relates to nature and England being a garden, untended by the ineffectual Richard, it was explosive stuff.

I like that you think garden symbolism is powerful and beautiful. It is, of course. I've just never heard anyone call it "explosive stuff". When you talk about it, though, are you referring to the garden scene in Act III or do you think it's throughout the play? It's been a while since I've read the play all the way through, so I can't exactly remember all the imagery. I know Richard calls upon nature to fight with him against his enemies when he lands, and that Henry is hiding out in the wilds weed-like. Is there more?

[Janine]

I like that you think garden symbolism is powerful and beautiful. It is, of course. I've just never heard anyone call it "explosive stuff". When you talk about it, though, are you referring to the garden scene in Act III or do you think it's throughout the play? It's been a while since I've read the play all the way through, so I can't exactly remember all the imagery. I know Richard calls upon nature to fight with him against his enemies when he lands, and that Henry is hiding out in the wilds weed-like. Is there more?

Am I lost again? I wondered if there was a Richard II Act III, thread that I am somehow missing out on.

[Virgil]

Sorry I haven't been deligent here. I've had a very busy period at work and I was just too tired to really think through threads that require brain energy.

But there are a couople of more points I wanted to highlight about Act II before I move on.

In scene 2, the Duke of York is faced with the disintegration of the kingdom while the King is away:

God for his mercy! what a tide of woes
Comes rushing on this woeful land at once!
I know not what to do: I would to God,
So my untruth had not provoked him to it,
The king had cut off my head with my brother's.
What, are there no posts dispatch'd for Ireland?
How shall we do for money for these wars?
Come, sister,--cousin, I would say--pray, pardon me.
Go, fellow, get thee home, provide some carts
And bring away the armour that is there.

Exit Servant

Gentlemen, will you go muster men?
If I know how or which way to order these affairs
Thus thrust disorderly into my hands,
Never believe me. Both are my kinsmen:
The one is my sovereign, whom both my oath
And duty bids defend; the other again
Is my kinsman, whom the king hath wrong'd,
Whom conscience and my kindred bids to right.
Well, somewhat we must do. Come, cousin, I'll
Dispose of you.
Gentlemen, go, muster up your men,
And meet me presently at Berkeley.
I should to Plashy too;
But time will not permit: all is uneven,
And every thing is left at six and seven.
His nephew Bolingbroke has re-entered the kingdom despite the banishment. And York feels the tension of a tough decision, support the King or Bolingbroke.
Both are my kinsmen:

The one is my sovereign, whom both my oath
And duty bids defend; the other again
Is my kinsman, whom the king hath wrong'd,
Whom conscience and my kindred bids to right.
I think this squares the conflict face to face for the first time: it's the King's right of power versuses the justice of Bolingbroke's cause.

And in scene III, York meets up with Bolingbroke and asks him why he has violated his banishment agreement.

DUKE OF YORK
Tut, tut!
Grace me no grace, nor uncle me no uncle:
I am no traitor's uncle; and that word 'grace.'
In an ungracious mouth is but profane.
Why have those banish'd and forbidden legs
Dared once to touch a dust of England's ground?
But then more 'why?' why have they dared to march
So many miles upon her peaceful bosom,
Frighting her pale-faced villages with war
And ostentation of despised arms?
Comest thou because the anointed king is hence?
Why, foolish boy, the king is left behind,
And in my loyal bosom lies his power.
Were I but now the lord of such hot youth
As when brave Gaunt, thy father, and myself
Rescued the Black Prince, that young Mars of men,
From forth the ranks of many thousand French,
O, then how quickly should this arm of mine.
Now prisoner to the palsy, chastise thee
And minister correction to thy fault!

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
My gracious uncle, let me know my fault:
On what condition stands it and wherein?

DUKE OF YORK
Even in condition of the worst degree,
In gross rebellion and detested treason:
Thou art a banish'd man, and here art come
Before the expiration of thy time,
In braving arms against thy sovereign.
And Bolingbroke provides an answer:


HENRY BOLINGBROKE
As I was banish'd, I was banish'd Hereford;
But as I come, I come for Lancaster.
And, noble uncle, I beseech your grace
Look on my wrongs with an indifferent eye:
You are my father, for methinks in you
I see old Gaunt alive; O, then, my father,
Will you permit that I shall stand condemn'd
A wandering vagabond; my rights and royalties
Pluck'd from my arms perforce and given away
To upstart unthrifts? Wherefore was I born?
If that my cousin king be King of England,
It must be granted I am Duke of Lancaster.
You have a son, Aumerle, my noble cousin;
Had you first died, and he been thus trod down,
He should have found his uncle Gaunt a father,
To rouse his wrongs and chase them to the bay.
I am denied to sue my livery here,
And yet my letters-patents give me leave:
My father's goods are all distrain'd and sold,
And these and all are all amiss employ'd.
What would you have me do? I am a subject,
And I challenge law: attorneys are denied me;
And therefore, personally I lay my claim
To my inheritance of free descent.
Bolingbroke rationalizes that he comes not as Duke of Hereford, in which title he was banished, but that since his father's death he is now Duke of Lancaster (the title has changed) and he comes in that name and the banishment does not apply. That is the legal maneuvering, but really he is coming to claim his father's property from which the King has attempted to appropriate.

And finally we have a brief dialogue in scene 4 where a captain and the Earl of Salisbury discuss the state of the kingdom. The King has been so absent from the immediate needs that the Captain is actually surprised that he is alive.

Captain
'Tis thought the king is dead; we will not stay.
The bay-trees in our country are all wither'd
And meteors fright the fixed stars of heaven;
The pale-faced moon looks bloody on the earth
And lean-look'd prophets whisper fearful change;
Rich men look sad and ruffians dance and leap,
The one in fear to lose what they enjoy,
The other to enjoy by rage and war:
These signs forerun the death or fall of kings.
Farewell: our countrymen are gone and fled,
As well assured Richard their king is dead.
Richard's army has dispersed because they think him dead. So how will Richard fight? We see with just what incompetence Richard has led. And the earl follows with a short soliloquy:

EARL OF SALISBURY
Ah, Richard, with the eyes of heavy mind
I see thy glory like a shooting star
Fall to the base earth from the firmament.
Thy sun sets weeping in the lowly west,
Witnessing storms to come, woe and unrest:
Thy friends are fled to wait upon thy foes,
And crossly to thy good all fortune goes.
"I see thy glory as a shooting star/fall to the base earth from the firmament." That line characterizes Richard's fall. It's sort of mythological, connected to the heavens and the gods. Richard is etherial, from the sky, incapable of dealing with the base earthly realities. He went to conquor Ireland for the glory of the heavens, but he neglected his immediate realities. Bolingbroke does not think of the heavens; he thinks of the earth.

[Janine]

Sorry I haven't been deligent here. I've had a very busy period at work and I was just too tired to really think through threads that require brain energy.

Understandable. I feel sort of the same way lately. Maybe, I took on too much at once and then just hit a blank wall all of a sudden out of sheer fatique. Once I stopped, I could not get started again. I did read two Lawrence short stories this week, just preparing for our next (hopefully) spring discussion. Other than that I have not been reading very much. I need to finish up reading Richard and watch the play again. It is on my to do list.


But there are a couople of more points I wanted to highlight about Act II before I move on.

In scene 2, the Duke of York is faced with the disintegration of the kingdom while the King is away:

Yes, York seems to be right smack in the middle of all this and questioning his own loyalties. It is a good point to bring up.


His nephew Bolingbroke has re-entered the kingdom despite the banishment. And York feels the tension of a tough decision, support the King or Bolingbroke.
Both are my kinsmen:

That is right - they both are related. I think this cousin/uncle thing makes this whole play more complicated, don't you? As they say "blood is thicker than water". York is in a quantry as to whom he should support at this time. He has seen wrong done to Bolingbroke but he has been loyal to his king and country for a long time now. It must be hard for him to break out of that type thinking especially 'the divine right of kings' mode of thinking at that time.


I think this squares the conflict face to face for the first time: it's the King's right of power versuses the justice of Bolingbroke's cause.

That is a very good way of putting it, Virgil. That makes it a lot clearer to me now.


And in scene III, York meets up with Bolingbroke and asks him why he has violated his banishment agreement.

And Bolingbroke provides an answer:

Bolingbroke rationalizes that he comes not as Duke of Hereford, in which title he was banished, but that since his father's death he is now Duke of Lancaster (the title has changed) and he comes in that name and the banishment does not apply. That is the legal maneuvering, but really he is coming to claim his father's property from which the King has attempted to appropriate.

Good point. I was a little foggy on this part of the play; now this seems clearer to me, as well. Good point; the legal maneuvering is key.


And finally we have a brief dialogue in scene 4 where a captain and the Earl of Salisbury discuss the state of the kingdom. The King has been so absent from the immediate needs that the Captain is actually surprised that he is alive.

Yes, I noticed that remark about him being alive and wondered why he presumed him dead. I suppose, having gone off for a timely period to fight the rebels in Ireland one can see how he and others would make the assumption. Plus, I think in a stage production, one would not get a keen sense of just how much time has gone by since Richard left England on his campaign.


Richard's army has dispersed because they think him dead. So how will Richard fight? We see with just what incompetence Richard has led. And the earl follows with a short soliloquy:

Yes, that is a good sign of lack of leadership - the mere fact they can't find him and presume he is dead. A competent strong king would be larger than life and a huge presence to his troups.


"I see thy glory as a shooting star/fall to the base earth from the firmament." That line characterizes Richard's fall. It's sort of mythological, connected to the heavens and the gods. Richard is etherial, from the sky, incapable of dealing with the base earthly realities. He went to conquor Ireland for the glory of the heavens, but he neglected his immediate realities. Bolingbroke does not think of the heavens; he thinks of the earth.

I like this soliloquoy very much. It forshadows the coming events and the fate of Richard, and yes, I like the way also it is "sort of mythological, connected to the heavens and the gods." Your next remarks after this line is perfect and describes Richard well. Richard's mind is in the poetry and the heavenly aspects of kingly rule; whereas, Bollingbroke is more down-to-earth and with the people; more a natural ruler of all. I think that Richard is more an elevated type king injoying his own magnificence and pomp but not seeing past his own countenence to the common people. Where Richard's view is narrow, Bollingbroke's view is much broader. He sees the whole picture. Richard can hardly see beyond the court.

[MissScarlett]

Can anyone join the discussion, or are you a closed group? Thanks!

[Janine]

Can anyone join the discussion, or are you a closed group? Thanks!

Absolutely! Please do join in. We need discussers badly.
Welcome to the forum and to this group, MissScarlett.

[MissScarlett]

Thank you! I didn't know if posters had to be invited to the groups or not. I love Shakespeare and I love Richard II, but it's not the play I'm most knowledgeable about, however I'll do my best. Thank you so much.

[MissScarlett]

I just joined in, so please take my comments for what they're worth.

I agree with the poster who said the play is filled with gorgeous poetry. I think this is one of Shakespeare's most lyrical plays. In fact, Harold Bloom called it one of a trilogy of lyrical plays, the other two being Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. In fact, I think Bloom called it an extended metaphysical lyric.

While I love the gorgeous poetry of the play, I do find the play uneven. The fault, I think lies in the characters and our lack of involvement with them. We can't really empathize with any of them - Richard or Bolingbroke - so we aren't emotionally involved.

I think Richard would have been a great poet had his subject matter been something other than himself and his own dilemmas and problems. He's so focused on himself he loses sight of the bigger picture and what makes poetry truly great. However, the last three acts, I think, are dependent on the gorgeousness of the language, much of it Richard's.

[MissScarlett]

Am I lost again? I wondered if there was a Richard II Act III, thread that I am somehow missing out on.

Reading through the posts, I wondered that, too. I thought the garden scene was Act III, scene iv.

[Janine]

Reading through the posts, I wondered that, too. I thought the garden scene was Act III, scene iv.

Hi MissScarlett, I agree with everything you said. I think another member quoted Bloom or mentioned his review of this play. I think someone did mention the garden scene prematurely, but I was just concerned we had moved onto Act III, because no one was posting for a number of days and I thought I had missed the boat again - that maybe they had moved onto the next Act and I was not aware of it; happens to me in these Shakespeare discussion threads too often. But apparently, that was not yet the case. We are moving like snails in this discussion (as usual) so stay with us. I really haven't finished reading the actual play. I watched the BBC DVD of the play with Derek Jacobi; a fine performance and close enough to the actual text. I guess I am about half-way through the reading. I also want to view the film again, because it is quite good and makes things more clear to me.

I do agree with this remark you made:


While I love the gorgeous poetry of the play, I do find the play uneven. The fault, I think lies in the characters and our lack of involvement with them. We can't really empathize with any of them - Richard or Bolingbroke - so we aren't emotionally involved.

I think this is the problem I have been having with this particular play. I read it years back, but recall being bored with it and not sure why. I saw it as a preliminary to move onward to the history plays that interested me more. I now do agree that the poetry is gorgeous and well constructed but the thing is I just can't connect on a personal level to any of the characters. That is a big problem for me. I usually really enjoy that connection. I could fully connect with Henry V from his first appearance in Henry IV. I could even connect in an odd way to Richard III, with him it was this fascination with his evil ways. I just feel like with Richard II I can't find anything there to connect to. He is so self-absorbed.


While I love the gorgeous poetry of the play, I do find the play uneven. The fault, I think lies in the characters and our lack of involvement with them. We can't really empathize with any of them - Richard or Bolingbroke - so we aren't emotionally involved.

[Quark]

I think this squares the conflict face to face for the first time: it's the King's right of power versuses the justice of Bolingbroke's cause.

And in scene III, York meets up with Bolingbroke and asks him why he has violated his banishment agreement.

Yeah, this is a key moment. We've known for a while now that there was going to be a confrontation and that we would have to ask ourselves who should rule, but Bolingbroke's landing is the event that finally forces the issue. York, though, seems to unload this responsibility. He quickly gives in because he doesn't think his decision would change matters any.


Bolingbroke rationalizes that he comes not as Duke of Hereford, in which title he was banished, but that since his father's death he is now Duke of Lancaster (the title has changed) and he comes in that name and the banishment does not apply. That is the legal maneuvering, but really he is coming to claim his father's property from which the King has attempted to appropriate.

"Maneuvering" is a good way to put it. Henry is twisting the letter of law in order to evade the spirit of the law.

Of course, the entire discussion is a polite cover for the reality of the situaion: Bolingbroke is taking the castle by force. Quibbling over the legality of Bolingbroke's return seems besides the point when he has an overwhelming army. This scene reminds me of the opening of the play when Richard is condemning someone for a crime that he, himself, had a hand in. No one bothers to raise objections because he's in power. Similarly, when Henry has control he tries to gloss over his own crimes.


"I see thy glory as a shooting star/fall to the base earth from the firmament." That line characterizes Richard's fall. It's sort of mythological, connected to the heavens and the gods. Richard is etherial, from the sky, incapable of dealing with the base earthly realities. He went to conquor Ireland for the glory of the heavens, but he neglected his immediate realities. Bolingbroke does not think of the heavens; he thinks of the earth.

I think that Richard is more an elevated type king injoying his own magnificence and pomp but not seeing past his own countenence to the common people. Where Richard's view is narrow, Bollingbroke's view is much broader. He sees the whole picture. Richard can hardly see beyond the court.

I think you're right about the difference between Richard and Bolingbroke. One is rather enterprising, and the other is absorbed in his own thoughts.


The fault, I think lies in the characters and our lack of involvement with them. We can't really empathize with any of them - Richard or Bolingbroke - so we aren't emotionally involved.

The question of sympathies has been raised a few times, and I don't know if we've come to any conclusions yet. You're right that we really can't empathize with either of the kings throughout the play. Each of them commit crimes. Both characters' personality are hard to empathize with. Richard is self-absorbed, and Henry is self-righteous. Richard's theft is pretty galling, but Henry's craftiness seems kind of untrustworthy. I would say, though, that there are situation where I find myself sympathizing with one character or another. When Richard banishes Bolingbroke and confiscates his property, I think Henry is the more sympathetic character. But, when Richard is stabbed at the conclusion, the former king seems more sympathetic. I would say that neither character is able to sustain our empathy, but each has his moments.

[Virgil]

I just joined in, so please take my comments for what they're worth.

I agree with the poster who said the play is filled with gorgeous poetry. I think this is one of Shakespeare's most lyrical plays. In fact, Harold Bloom called it one of a trilogy of lyrical plays, the other two being Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night's Dream. In fact, I think Bloom called it an extended metaphysical lyric.

While I love the gorgeous poetry of the play, I do find the play uneven. The fault, I think lies in the characters and our lack of involvement with them. We can't really empathize with any of them - Richard or Bolingbroke - so we aren't emotionally involved.

I think Richard would have been a great poet had his subject matter been something other than himself and his own dilemmas and problems. He's so focused on himself he loses sight of the bigger picture and what makes poetry truly great. However, the last three acts, I think, are dependent on the gorgeousness of the language, much of it Richard's.
Welcome to the discussion Miss Scarlett and welcome to lit net. You make some good points. I guess you guys (Janine, Quark, and now you) have convinced me that the play is a notch below Shakespeare's great ones, but don't forget this is a history play. And frankly as Quark points out later, we do gain greater and greater empathy for Richard as the play moves along. He was a terrible King, but did he have to die? Unfortunately I'm afraid the answer will be yes. But we'll get to that.


When Richard banishes Bolingbroke and confiscates his property, I think Henry is the more sympathetic character. But, when Richard is stabbed at the conclusion, the former king seems more sympathetic. I would say that neither character is able to sustain our empathy, but each has his moments.
Yes that is a good observation. I feel that way too. We also gain greater sympathy for Richard through his language. The lyricism of it endears us to him, but it also shows he is not constituted to be king.

Well, I'll be on Act III tomorrow.

[MissScarlett]

I agree with all three of you, though the gorgeousness of the poetry causes me not to place the play below Shakespeares' others. I think it's just different.

Our sympathies do sway back and forth from Richard to Bolingbroke, I think, but I agree, there's no one we can really latch on to, no outcome to really hope for. For this reason, I find I'm a little bored with this play from time to time, too. I do think it picks up in Act III.

I need to read the play again, too.

[Janine]

I will answer more later in here but for now, where is Act III; I have hunted for it before but can't seem to find it anywhere. Does a thread even exist dedicated to Act III?

[Virgil]

I agree with all three of you, though the gorgeousness of the poetry causes me not to place the play below Shakespeares' others. I think it's just different.

Our sympathies do sway back and forth from Richard to Bolingbroke, I think, but I agree, there's no one we can really latch on to, no outcome to really hope for. For this reason, I find I'm a little bored with this play from time to time, too. I do think it picks up in Act III.

I need to read the play again, too.

Scarlett, my opionion is much closer to yours than to that of the other two.

Janine, I'll send you the link, but really all you have to do is go to the Shakespeare Discussion Group forum.

[MissScarlett]

Thank you, Virgil. We'll be discussing Act III tonight? I'll go read it again.