Richard II - Act I

[Scheherazade]

Please post your questions and comments in this thread.

Scene I

Scene II

Scene III

Scene IV

[Quark]

The first Act appears filled with argument: Bolingbroke and Mowbray's recriminations, the duchess and Gaunt disagreeing over revenge and justice, etc. Another of the interesting arguments follows Bolingbroke's banishment. After hearing his sentence, Bolingbroke consults with his father:

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: Nay, rather, every tedious stride I make
Will but remember me what a deal of world
I wander from the jewels that I love.
Must I not serve a long apprenticehood [270]
To foreign passages, and in the end,
Having my freedom, boast of nothing else
But that I was a journeyman to grief?

JOHN OF GAUNT: All places that the eye of heaven visits
Are to a wise man ports and happy havens. [275]
Teach thy necessity to reason thus;
There is no virtue like necessity.
Think not the king did banish thee,
But thou the king. Woe doth the heavier sit,
Where it perceives it is but faintly borne. [280]
Go, say I sent thee forth to purchase honour
And not the king exiled thee; or suppose
Devouring pestilence hangs in our air
And thou art flying to a fresher clime:
Look, what thy soul holds dear, imagine it [285]
To lie that way thou go'st, not whence thou comest:
Suppose the singing birds musicians,
The grass whereon thou tread'st the presence strew¹d,
The flowers fair ladies, and thy steps no more
Than a delightful measure or a dance; [290]
For gnarling sorrow hath less power to bite
The man that mocks at it and sets it light.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite [295]
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse: [300]
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.

JOHN OF GAUNT: Come, come, my son, I'll bring thee on thy way:
Had I thy youth and cause, I would not stay.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: Then, England's ground, farewell; sweet soil, adieu; [305]
My mother, and my nurse, that bears me yet!
Where'er I wander, boast of this I can,
Though banish'd, yet a trueborn Englishman.

(I, iii)

Henry's father believes that imagining better circumstances would improve his son's exile, while Bullingbrook thinks that fantasizing would only lead to more misery. Later in the play this argument gets reiterated by the Queen and Sir John Bushy. Who do you agree with? Does imagination only cause pain by tantalizing us with impossibilities or does it help us escape grief?

[Jozanny]

Well, this is just a preliminary statement, and I could be wrong, as
1. I have not read any Shakespeare for a number of years
2. Never studied R2 under an instructor

That said, I get the sense that Bolingbroke is seeing things in Mowbray's actions which aren't there to be had, and if Richard had been a little more astute he might have seen that Bolingbroke was like the proverbial bull in the china shop, and done something to protect himself by sending the future H4 off to kill the French, or whatever.

Bolingbroke's charges, in other words, are really an indicator of his ambition toward the throne itself. That is what I see. I mean, first Mowbray snivels and says but the king knows very well he owed me, and then he is pissed and wants to kill his accuser. I don't really see much of an Iago in his character, although he does admit to laxity of a sort.

Second, Richard's and Gaunt's attempts to parley peace between the two dukes seem almost deliberately insubtantial, no? A signal that R2 has his head in the clouds and abstracts himself to the point of ineffectiveness? He doesn't really make an argument to counterpoint Bolingbroke, or even to assure Mowbray. He simply says make peace, and when that isn't enough, concedes the joust. Then we move to the Dutchess upbraiding Gaunt, in which I agree with Quark that recrimination is paramount in the opening scenes, but Shakespeare is pretty much always about recrimination.

The Coventry scene is a bit stilted, in my estimation, but again points to a certain flawed logic in R2's operating method, since one cannot govern through mere pagentry.

[Jozanny]

As I posted in the Shakespeare Winter thread, I did read R2 before. It isn't a masterwork, and a rereading doesn't detract from my sense of a certain stilted formalism which is a little too careful in its evenness, but I think the play as a whole touches upon something that makes Hamlet have one of the greatest dialectic tensions in all literature, which is, a certain cerebral reflection over and above acting--and this may be a pun on William's part, once removed, in the sense that acting is both taking action and playing the part of a character.

Act 1 seems to be about those loathe to act (R2 himself, Gaunt) and those who are quite willing to accept the consequence of bloodshed (Bolingbroke, Mowbray)

In the edition I am reading, for ease on my eyes, I don't have the verse numbers, but this is Richard in the opening after Bolingbroke gives vent:

KING RICHARD.

Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be rul'd by me;
Let's purge this choler without letting blood:
This we prescribe, though no physician;
Deep malice makes too deep incision:
Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed,
Our doctors say this is no month to bleed.

And again at Coventry:

And list what with our council we have done.
For that our kingdom's earth should not be soil'd
With that dear blood which it hath fostered;
And for our eyes do hate the dire aspect
Of civil wounds plough'd up with neighbours' swords;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,

Not that I mean to jump ahead of myself, but if memory serves, this is both Richard's doom, that he literally thinks of himself as a metaphor, and Bolingbroke's *flaw* that costs him his conscience. Bolingbroke does not like the price it cost him to take the power of the throne, because he gains it as a consequence of acting--which only his son Prince Hal can rectify because Hal acts justly. He does not have to kill a king to grow into being a just king, thus the heady victorious *high* that is the play of Henry the Fifth.

An interesting conceit to ponder, as we go along.

[mayneverhave]

HENRY BOLINGBROKE: O, who can hold a fire in his hand
By thinking on the frosty Caucasus?
Or cloy the hungry edge of appetite [295]
By bare imagination of a feast?
Or wallow naked in December snow
By thinking on fantastic summer's heat?
O, no! the apprehension of the good
Gives but the greater feeling to the worse: [300]
Fell sorrow's tooth doth never rankle more
Than when he bites, but lanceth not the sore.

This is, indeed, the kernel of Bolingbroke's (Henry IV) character.

The play as a whole discusses the nature of kingship, the legitmacy of kings, and the divine right of kings. Although Henry's son (Prince Hal) is more of the Machiavellian than his father, Bolingbroke is placed in the role of the usurper, the de facto king, in contrast to Richard as the de jure king.

Richard's ineptitude at ruling is immediately established in the first act. He is king in name only - a man whose identity is so wrapped up in his kingship, and so convinced of his divine right, that it prevents him from doing what not only is most effective for his people, but for himself. It is one thing to forgive a powerhungry ruler that does all he can to secure for himself more power, but it is impossible to feel sorry for a man that can neither rule justly nor tyranically.

The first scene establishes the antithetical nature of the play, with the two nobleman arguing with each other in very formal blank verse. It is important to note that nearly the entire play is in verse (there is no Falstaff to speak in prose in this play), and that is important (although slightly boring) to the play's conflict taking place in the upper echelons of society.

Bolingbroke's speech - that I quoted above - establishes him as the realist. Richard, however, is a poor king but a good poet. For Richard, it would not be absurd to think that one could "hold a fire in his hand / By thinking" - as we'll see later when Richard attempts to summon up the earth to help him in disposing of Bolingbroke.

[Quark]

Richard's and Gaunt's attempts to parley peace between the two dukes seem almost deliberately insubtantial, no?

They do, but I chalked that up to the neccesities of the play and not to anything in Richard or Gaunt. A long back-and-forth between these characters over the issue might get boring. I think Shakespeare accelerated the scene merely to get past this moment as fast as possible. All that needs to be established is that Mowbray and Bolingbroke won't be reconciled, and the scene does that effectively--even if it makes Richard and Gaunt appear a little quick to move on.

I think the play as a whole touches upon something that makes Hamlet have one of the greatest dialectic tensions in all literature, which is, a certain cerebral reflection over and above [I]acting

There is something abstract about Richard, but I wouldn't say he's too cerebral. In a sense, he might not be cerebral enough. Remember, that he does take action, but he often fails to recognize how the means through which he acts disrupts the ends which he's trying to achieve. Richard wants to quell the Irish revolt to keep England secure, but he simultaneously endangers his kingdom by taxing it to fight his war. Bolingbroke and Mowbray threaten violence, so the King intervenes for the sake of peace, but he doesn't realize that their grudge could disrupt more than their joust. In both cases, Richard acts, but he doesn't take into account the consequences--which perhaps a more cerebral king would.

Act 1 seems to be about those loathe to act (R2 himself, Gaunt) and those who are quite willing to accept the consequence of bloodshed (Bolingbroke, Mowbray)

I like your grouping of Richard and Gaunt. There is something similar about them. I wouldn't quite say it's passivity, though. Like I pointed out above, Richard is decisive. Also, he isn't afraid of bloodshed. After all, he plans on going to war soon after Act I.

The play as a whole discusses the nature of kingship, the legitmacy of kings, and the divine right of kings. Although Henry's son (Prince Hal) is more of the Machiavellian than his father, Bolingbroke is placed in the role of the usurper, the de facto king, in contrast to Richard as the de jure king.

Richard's ineptitude at ruling is immediately established in the first act. He is king in name only - a man whose identity is so wrapped up in his kingship, and so convinced of his divine right, that it prevents him from doing what not only is most effective for his people, but for himself. It is one thing to forgive a powerhungry ruler that does all he can to secure for himself more power, but it is impossible to feel sorry for a man that can neither rule justly nor tyranically.

As an inept, divinely-chosen king, how much sympathy do you suppose we're supposed to have with him? I agree with both the points you make, but they're at odds with each other. Do we concentrate on his poor rule or on his kingship?

It is important to note that nearly the entire play is in verse (there is no Falstaff to speak in prose in this play), and that is important (although slightly boring) to the play's conflict taking place in the upper echelons of society.

Act I is a little stiff. The other Acts are not quite so bad, though.

Bolingbroke's speech - that I quoted above - establishes him as the realist. Richard, however, is a poor king but a good poet.

I think this is true and it goes along with what Jozanny was saying above. Richard is too removed--perhaps that's a better word than cerebral. He--and Gaunt, I would say--don't appear to appreciate the situation.

[Virgil]

I will start reading this tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along.

[Janine]

I will start reading this tonight. Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along.

Finally, someone shows up for the discussion, yeah. I watched Act I of the play twice now on BBC DVD; will probably repeat a third time, if you will be commenting on it soon, Virgil. I will try to watch it tomorrow night. It is good so far, but I am not clear on some of the text. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me. Also I am not yet sure what to make of Richard or his true intentions. I don't find this play the easiest of the histories to fully understand. I could use you help.

[Quark]

How's it going guys? I think it's been a while since I've said hi. Is the L thread still going?

Perhaps tomorrow I may comment on Act I. I hope others are reading along.

I don't know if anyone is still around--we really didn't have that much participation to begin with, either--so, I can't say if you'll get much of a discussion going. I check in occasionally and would respond if you post something. The play is better than I remember it being, and I think there's plenty worth talking about in Act I.

It is good so far, but I am not clear on some of the text. Maybe you can shed some light on that for me.

Which parts are you unsure about? Post some of the text, and we can try to muddle our way through it.

[Janine]

How's it going guys? I think it's been a while since I've said hi. Is the L thread still going?

Quark, how great to see you again! I thought you might eventually surface. We took a break in the L thread - probably start up again in March. Meanwhile, I have been discussing Ibsen plays with Gladys. We basically discussed "Ghosts", a very mind-boggling, but interesting and fine play.
Also, I read so may rave reviews on Ken Branagh's stage performance of Ivanov, that I had to read the actual play finally. It was quite interesting; the ending was a shocker. I wish to once again, listen to all of the short story on my CD's. I hope we can get something going again in that thread. Quark, I actually miss old Chekhov afterall... haha.

I don't know if anyone is still around--we really didn't have that much participation to begin with, either--so, I can't say if you'll get much of a discussion going. I check in occasionally and would respond if you post something. The play is better than I remember it being, and I think there's plenty worth talking about in Act I.

As usual, it looked like it fizzled out. Where are all the countless people who voted on it and against Richard III (which I wanted to discuss)? Ok, well here is the remedy: I will try and watch the play tomorrow night. I can view the one from the BBC set, since someone nice lent it to me; they know who they are - thanks. Then you and Virgil can post some commentary; it only takes a few of us brainy people (haha) to get this discussion back on track.

Which parts are you unsure about? Post some of the text, and we can try to muddle our way through it.

I will let you know. I will check the full text online and post some parts. It is too late now. I can post something after I watch the play again - say Wed or Wed night would be good. See you then, and we can all muddle through together, J.

[lugdunum]

I am starting TONIGHT! Promise!

[Janine]

I am starting TONIGHT! Promise!

Yes! Another good discusser! Glad you found the thread again, lugdunum. This should be a great discussion afterall.

[sofia82]

When I want to start something, I become so busy it is funny! By the way I am reading Othello, and as I've just started, I can read it later and read Richard II but not before Sunday, I have to go on a journey As I return, I start.

[Janine]

When I want to start something, I become so busy it is funny! By the way I am reading Othello, and as I've just started, I can read it later and read Richard II but not before Sunday, I have to go on a journey As I return, I start.

Hi Sophia, my good friend; it is great to see your here and possibly going to participate. I have missed you. I love the play "Othello"...that one is so exciting it goes pretty quickly. Maybe you can accomplish both, who knows. Enjoy your journey!

[Virgil]

When I want to start something, I become so busy it is funny! By the way I am reading Othello, and as I've just started, I can read it later and read Richard II but not before Sunday, I have to go on a journey As I return, I start.

No problem Sophia. I'm sure we'll still be discussing this next week.