Richard II - Act I

[Virgil]

What does one make of Richard II in the first act? The first act is essentially devoted to the dispute between Bolingbroke and Mawbrey. In the first scene we see them dispute Mawbrey's treason which ultimately reaches the two challenging each other to a duel and the third scene where they set up to joust and fight. But each time Richard has the most odd reactions. In the first scen he seems to act as judge:

KING RICHARD II
We thank you both: yet one but flatters us,
As well appeareth by the cause you come;
Namely to appeal each other of high treason.
Cousin of Hereford, what dost thou object
Against the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray?

And Bolingbroke explains his charge and throws his challenge, and then Richard turns to Mawbrey

KING RICHARD II
How high a pitch his resolution soars!
Thomas of Norfolk, what say'st thou to this?

And Mawbrey takes on the challenge, and Richard tries to be objective

KING RICHARD II
Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.

And when the two men in conflict agree to a fight, Richard aborts it:

KING RICHARD II
Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be ruled 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.
Good uncle, let this end where it begun;
We'll calm the Duke of Norfolk, you your son.

"Forgive" and "forget"? Wait a second. These rough men have made challenges and accusations. They aren't children, they're knights who have insulted each other through their accusations. There must be a resolution. Mawbrey says it first:

THOMAS MOWBRAY
Myself I throw, dread sovereign, at thy foot.
My life thou shalt command, but not my shame:
The one my duty owes; but my fair name,
Despite of death that lives upon my grave,
To dark dishonour's use thou shalt not have.
I am disgraced, impeach'd and baffled here,
Pierced to the soul with slander's venom'd spear,
The which no balm can cure but his heart-blood
Which breathed this poison.

And then Richard heavy handed says

KING RICHARD II
Rage must be withstood:
Give me his gage: lions make leopards tame.

In effect, Richard is saying "I am king and I have the right to to tame you." He is not allowing these men to work out their grivences. And then just like that, he changes his mind and allows them to fight:

KING RICHARD II
We were not born to sue, but to command;
Which since we cannot do to make you friends,
Be ready, as your lives shall answer it,
At Coventry, upon Saint Lambert's day:
There shall your swords and lances arbitrate
The swelling difference of your settled hate:
Since we can not atone you, we shall see
Justice design the victor's chivalry.
Lord marshal, command our officers at arms
Be ready to direct these home alarms.

So how has Richard handled this? He has violated the honor of both men and then reversed himself anyway and allowed them to fight anyway. So he has looked bad in both respects. I'll speak about the fight in Scene III tomorrow.

[papayahed]

So how has Richard handled this? He has violated the honor of both men and then reversed himself anyway and allowed them to fight anyway. So he has looked bad in both respects. I'll speak about the fight in Scene III tomorrow.

I got the impression that Richard tried to get them to solve their differences and when he saw that wasn't going to work he's going to let them fight.

Not to mention he's in a bit of a sticky wicket himself since he may have had a hand in the omurder as well.

[Virgil]

I got the impression that Richard tried to get them to solve their differences and when he saw that wasn't going to work he's going to let them fight.

Not to mention he's in a bit of a sticky wicket himself since he may have had a hand in the omurder as well.

Perhaps in our everyday modern life one might feel that Richard is being reasonable. But in the era of knghts and unbridaled manhood I think Richard comes across as wishy washy, weak, and not in command. Scene III of this act doubles up on the very same thing - Richard's wishy-washyness.

[Janine]

Perhaps in our everyday modern life one might feel that Richard is being reasonable. But in the era of knghts and unbridaled manhood I think Richard comes across as wishy washy, weak, and not in command. Scene III of this act doubles up on the very same thing - Richard's wishy-washyness.

I agree with you; my impression of Richard at first, was of fairness and a sort of 'peace-keeper'; but now I think he is quite wishy-washy, mamby bambish, actually; he doesn't seem firm in anyway, in any type of commitment to ruling. Back then, when so much emphasis is placed on the 'Divine Right of Kings', Richard comes off as sort of pansy to me; he is even sort of sleezy in the production, I have been viewing (BBC). I wasn't quite sure how to take his actions: first to the argument and as to the challenge itself. To me his actions were rather irratic and strange, to say the least. I did not like him banishing Bollingbroke and felt he was being quite harsh and very unfair. Exactly what are Richard's motives in doing so? It also seemed so rash and unpreditable a verdict.

Ok, also I am not real clear on what the argument actually originally there was between Mowbray and Bollingbroke. Can someone fill me in on this part?

[Janine]

posted twice by mistake....oops....

[sofia82]

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!

I miss you, so much Janine! Happy to be here to participate ans esp with you. I try to handle both... though I have not so much free time Unfortunately the book is the collection of Shakespeare's plays and I cannot take it with myself

[sofia82]

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

happy to hear that ...

[lugdunum]

Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.

So, if I've understood properly:

Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).

It must be noted that apparently, this isn't the first time that Mowbray tries to kill/harm someone of the "Royal family" since he says in scene 1 (v. 135 - 138):

For you, my noble Lord of Lancaster,
The honourable father to my foe
Once did I lay an ambush for your life,
A trespass that doth vex my grieved soul

Act I, scene 1 opens on Bolingbroke accusing Mowbray and M. defending himself.
Richard II is apparently trying to bring peace between the 2 of them: (v. 115 - 123):

Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.

(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)

But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....

I have to say that I agree with Virgil and Janine on Richard coming across as "wishy washy" and him making decisions without really thinking twice about their consequences.

Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
Scene 2, v 4-6:

But since correction lieth in those hands
Which made the fault that we cannot correct,
Put we our quarrel to the will of heaven;

and v. 37 - 41:

God's is the quarrel; for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caused his death: the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift
An angry arm against His minister.

So can we understand that it was Richard who was behind Gloucester's death? That would explain 2 things:
1/ the part where Mowbray says in scene 3 (v. 148-152) after hearing his punishment:

A heavy sentence, my most sovereign liege,
And all unlook'd for from your highness' mouth:
A dearer merit, not so deep a maim
As to be cast forth in the common air,
Have I deserved at your highness' hands.

and 2/ why R. is punishing M. so harshly and sending him into exile forever without having proof of whether he's innocent or not and telling both Mowbray and Bolingbroke to: (sc. 3, v. 174-182)

Swear by the duty that you owe to God--
Our part therein we banish with yourselves--
To keep the oath that we administer:
You never shall, so help you truth and God!
Embrace each other's love in banishment;
Nor never look upon each other's face;
Nor never write, regreet, nor reconcile
This louring tempest of your home-bred hate;
Nor never by advised purpose meet
To plot, contrive, or complot any ill
'Gainst us, our state, our subjects, or our land.

...because he's too scared that M. will confess or betray him.

What do you all think?

[Janine]

Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.

So, if I've understood properly:

Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).

It must be noted that apparently, this isn't the first time that Mowbray tries to kill/harm someone of the "Royal family" since he says in scene 1 (v. 135 - 138):


Act I, scene 1 opens on Bolingbroke accusing Mowbray and M. defending himself.
Richard II is apparently trying to bring peace between the 2 of them: (v. 115 - 123):


(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)

But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....

I have to say that I agree with Virgil and Janine on Richard coming across as "wishy washy" and him making decisions without really thinking twice about their consequences.

Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).
I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):
Scene 2, v 4-6:

and v. 37 - 41:


So can we understand that it was Richard who was behind Gloucester's death? That would explain 2 things:
1/ the part where Mowbray says in scene 3 (v. 148-152) after hearing his punishment:


and 2/ why R. is punishing M. so harshly and sending him into exile forever without having proof of whether he's innocent or not and telling both Mowbray and Bolingbroke to: (sc. 3, v. 174-182)



...because he's too scared that M. will confess or betray him.

What do you all think?

I think you are 'right on' with your analysis, lugdunam, I would agree with all, or most of what you say; much of this has cleared up my own confusion. Thanks for writing all this and pointing out specific passages. I didn't get a chance to view the play again but hopefully will do so tonight. I read a little of the text but then fell asleep.

To this part I think Richard is merely stating that Bollingbroke is not his brother and successor to his throne, but rather further removed, being his cousin and so Richard puts him on par statis-wise with Mowbray.

(BTW, I found it quite ironic that R. would say "my kingdom's heir" when talking about Bolingbroke the future Henry IV.....)

[Virgil]

Finished Act I and I've really enjoyed it.

So, if I've understood properly:

Thomas, Duke of Gloucester (brother of Gaunt and uncle of both Richard and Bolingbroke) has been killed and Bolingbroke is accusing Thomas Mowbray (Duke of Norfolk).

Yes, and there is also the charge in Scene II from the Duchess that Richard himself is suspected of being complicit in the murder. But I'm not sure that's ever established as fact. If so, it really makes Mawbrey's banishment incomprehensible.

But R.ll fails to bring peace and agrees to letting them fight.
And then, on the day of the fight, he waits until the end of the "preliminaries" when the fight has just started to call it off and decide (out of nowhere) that instead of the fight he'd rather punish both of them and send them into exile, B. for 10 years (then reducing it to 6???) and the other for good. What a weird decision that was....

Entirely weird. And I think this is what Shakespeare is trying to establish in the first act, that and initiating the story line that will bring Bolinbroke in conflict with R.II.

Then there is Gaunt, who someone said (Jozanny or Quark?)before is not really taking part in the debate (except at the end when he tries to reduce his son's exile even more).

I found some interesting information on Gaunt today. Apparently Gaunt was not the patriotic character in real life, at least as outlined in the History that Shakespeare used as his source. But since he was in the direct lineage of Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare apparently made him come off as a loyal vassel.

I'm not sure whether he is not taking part because of his personality or rather because he doesn't think that Mowbrey is really 100% guilty. Twice during Act I, he says that the king himself is guilty and that they should let God decide on that issue (hence him letting the fight happen):

The central question of the play becomes is it justified to over throw a King and defy divine right of rulership even if the king is incompetant?

Given that it's already late this evening, and since I replied to this, I will post on Scene III tomorrow night.

[Quark]

It's good to see so much action in the discussion, and it's also good to see you've picked an interesting place to start. Teasing out the qualities and past of the protagonist is always an excellent way to start. I would agree with Virgil when he says that the King is "wishy-washy." Richard's lack of resolve leads quite a bit to his downfall. I would like to go more into his involvement with the Gloucester affair. It's a little late for me post something tonight, but I hope to write a good response before I go out for lunch tomorrow.

[Quark]

Yes, and there is also the charge in Scene II from the Duchess that Richard himself is suspected of being complicit in the murder. But I'm not sure that's ever established as fact.

It is interesting how much Shakespeare avoids the issue, but it probably would have been widely acknowledges that Richard was, at least, partially responsible for the death of Gloucester. The second scene reveals this a little, but the play doesn't dwell on the fact much at all. I think this may have something to do with the way the history plays love to include twisted and complex backstories, so that the outcome of the play depends on how the characters spin what has happened. We, the audience, and all the characters in this play could see the King as being entirely responsible for his own demise, or we could also see Bolingbroke as a ruthless aggressor--it all depends on perspective. This means that the main characters of the play have a great power to affect others through manipulation of the past and present. It also means that characters will view the world quite differently depending on their mood. Since there isn't a set of agreed upon facts, each character has to come to their own conclusions, and these might easily be affected by their own personality or mental state. The audience of Shakespeare's plays probably did have a more agreed upon sense of the situation, but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.

[Janine]

It is interesting how much Shakespeare avoids the issue, but it probably would have been widely acknowledges that Richard was, at least, partially responsible for the death of Gloucester. The second scene reveals this a little, but the play doesn't dwell on the fact much at all. I think this may have something to do with the way the history plays love to include twisted and complex backstories, so that the outcome of the play depends on how the characters spin what has happened. We, the audience, and all the characters in this play could see the King as being entirely responsible for his own demise, or we could also see Bolingbroke as a ruthless aggressor--it all depends on perspective. This means that the main characters of the play have a great power to affect others through manipulation of the past and present. It also means that characters will view the world quite differently depending on their mood. Since there isn't a set of agreed upon facts, each character has to come to their own conclusions, and these might easily be affected by their own personality or mental state. The audience of Shakespeare's plays probably did have a more agreed upon sense of the situation, but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.

That is a good way of putting it, Quark. I entirely see your point. I read a little more of the play last night, but I am way behind all of you, I am sure, even though I did view Act I on BBC DVD. I will try and catch up this weekend. Meanwhile, I am behind the scenes here and reading all comments; so far, I think the discussion is going well.

[lugdunum]

This means that the main characters of the play have a great power to affect others through manipulation of the past and present. It also means that characters will view the world quite differently depending on their mood. Since there isn't a set of agreed upon facts, each character has to come to their own conclusions, and these might easily be affected by their own personality or mental state.

yes! but the lack of facts makes it a bit confusing because we (or at least I ) can't understaand why Richard if he doesn't know anything about the murder would send Mowbray into exile for life.... But anyway, I agree with you when you say:

but I think Shakespeare is playing up the ambiguity to give his characters more power over the narrative and also to expose their personalities and emotions.

On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me ) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?

For example: scene 1, v 104-109:

Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.

v 105 onwards is the the reformulation of the Bible:

Genesis, 4.10
The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.

I'm on to Act II and will make some comments on the other thread.

[Quark]

yes! but the lack of facts makes it a bit confusing because we (or at least I ) can't understaand why Richard if he doesn't know anything about the murder would send Mowbray into exile for life

Remember that Richard sends them into exile not for specific crimes, but rather to protect the kingdom. The King fears what open violence between these two would harm England's peace:

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' sword;
And for we think the eagle-winged pride
Of sky-aspiring and ambitious thoughts,
With rival-hating envy, set on you
To wake our peace, which in our country's cradle
Draws the sweet infant breath of gentle sleep;
Which so roused up with boisterous untuned drums,
With harsh resounding trumpets' dreadful bray,
And grating shock of wrathful iron arms,
Might from our quiet confines fright fair peace
And make us wade even in our kindred's blood,
Therefore, we banish you our territories (i. 125-38)

Also, it should be noted that Mowbray is accused of more than just Gloucester's death. Bullingbrook claims that he also wasted money that was supposed to go to the army in "lewd employments" (i. 90)

We are pretty certain, though, that Richard was involved in Gloucester's death. Gaunt tells the duchess that:

God's is the quarrel, for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caus'd his death, the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge, for I may never lift
An angry arm against his minister. (ii. 37-41)

"God's substitute" refers to the Divine Right of the King.

On another issue, I've noted (or rather the footnotes of my book have noted for me ) that there are a few biblical references. As I've said before, I'm a Shakespeare illiterate and was wondering if this was a common thing in his plays...?

I don't know if there are any more in this play than what's usual for Renaissance drama, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were more. People often say that this play is more formal than other of Shakespeare's works. Biblical references might be part of that formality.