Richard II - Act I

[Virgil]

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 there was not enough evidence to condemn the King, but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.

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.

Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.

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:

I think it's because you're reading the words and not seeing the action played out. Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9...eature=related

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:
Quote:

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:
Quote:

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

This leads me into my analysis of Act 1 Scene 3. What I will say about that scene is that the fight is a ritualized ceremony and to some degree alludes to the central ceremony of Christianity, the re-enactment of Christ as sacrifice at Sunday mass. Richard II on one level is a sacrificial being.

[Quark]

I think there was not enough evidence to condemn the King

Gaunt actually makes it pretty clear that Richard did have a hand in Gloucester's death. I posted a bit of scene ii just before you posted. If you look back at that, Gaunt seems to believe that Richard is guilty. The contemporary understanding is also that Richard had Gloucester killed while he was in prison. Most likely, Shakespeare's audience would have been aware of this.

but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.

It does make us question Richard more. He comes off rather hypocritical in this scene, since he's punishing Mowbray for a crime that he himself was involved in. I was just noticing that Shakespeare lets this play in the background, and one would expect that it would be quite central.

Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.

You're right that our sympathies are almost always directed one way or another, but it's not always certain what the situation actually is. Much of it depends on how the characters' pasts are viewed. Take some of those you brought up. In Richard III, clearly the title character is not the one the audience is pulling for, but we are not exactly sure what to make of the current rulers (particularly the queen) when the play begins. Shakespeare makes the Queen look like an upstart in the first Act of the play--so much so that he bends history to have Queen Margaret appear somewhere she couldn't possibly have been. The old Queen appears so that she can rail at the new royalty. This complicates matters. Since the play is all about Richmond taking over and restoring order and benevolence to the English throne, complicating the relationship between Richard III and the rulers of Act I helps build up the demand for Richmond's arrival. Similarly, in Richard II, so much of which is a character sketch of a poor King, it helps if Richard's faults are minimized (but not entirely overlooked) early on so that the audience can watch as he becomes slowly less and less kinglike. In this way our perspective of the past is manipulated to show off Richard's character--and also the power which Richard wields. You're right that there isn't anything ambiguous about this, but at the same time I would say that Shakespeare is not being entirely direct about what is going on here. And, he's avoiding a certain part of the history for a reason.

[Virgil]

Ok, Act 1, Scene 3. The scene is a ritualized ceremony. Look at how it opens:

SCENE III. The lists at Coventry.

Enter the Lord Marshal and the DUKE OF AUMERLE
Lord Marshal
My Lord Aumerle, is Harry Hereford arm'd?

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Yea, at all points; and longs to enter in.

Lord Marshal
The Duke of Norfolk, sprightfully and bold,
Stays but the summons of the appellant's trumpet.

DUKE OF AUMERLE
Why, then, the champions are prepared, and stay
For nothing but his majesty's approach.

The trumpets sound, and KING RICHARD enters with his nobles, JOHN OF GAUNT, BUSHY, BAGOT, GREEN, and others. When they are set, enter THOMAS MOWBRAY in arms, defendant, with a Herald

KING RICHARD II
Marshal, demand of yonder champion
The cause of his arrival here in arms:
Ask him his name and orderly proceed
To swear him in the justice of his cause.

A Marshall summons the combatants, trumpets sound, and the King demands the cause, even though he's the one who set it up in scene 1. Then he says to ask their names (of course he knows who is fighting) and to "orderly proceed" and to swear to justice. This is a formal ritual which the King and everyone attending are enacting. And so the ritual proceeds:

Lord Marshal
What is thy name? and wherefore comest thou hither,
Before King Richard in his royal lists?
Against whom comest thou? and what's thy quarrel?
Speak like a true knight, so defend thee heaven!

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby
Am I; who ready here do stand in arms,
To prove, by God's grace and my body's valour,
In lists, on Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk,
That he is a traitor, foul and dangerous,
To God of heaven, King Richard and to me;
And as I truly fight, defend me heaven!

Lord Marshal
On pain of death, no person be so bold
Or daring-hardy as to touch the lists,
Except the marshal and such officers
Appointed to direct these fair designs.

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Lord marshal, let me kiss my sovereign's hand,
And bow my knee before his majesty:
For Mowbray and myself are like two men
That vow a long and weary pilgrimage;
Then let us take a ceremonious leave
And loving farewell of our several friends.

Lord Marshal
The appellant in all duty greets your highness,
And craves to kiss your hand and take his leave.

KING RICHARD II
We will descend and fold him in our arms.
Cousin of Hereford, as thy cause is right,
So be thy fortune in this royal fight!
Farewell, my blood; which if to-day thou shed,
Lament we may, but not revenge thee dead.

The Marshal stipulates "on pain of death"
that only he and the King an direct the fight, the kissing of the soverign's hand, the very acct of decided right by fighting - all these are ritual actions. And notice what Richard says in that last quote: "Farewell, my blood; which if to-day thou shed,/Lament we may, but not revenge thee dead." My goodness doesn't that echo Christ's words at the last supper? And then after some dialogue, the ritual continues:

KING RICHARD II
Farewell, my lord: securely I espy
Virtue with valour couched in thine eye.
Order the trial, marshal, and begin.

Lord Marshal
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby,
Receive thy lance; and God defend the right!

HENRY BOLINGBROKE
Strong as a tower in hope, I cry amen.

Lord Marshal
Go bear this lance to Thomas, Duke of Norfolk.

First Herald
Harry of Hereford, Lancaster and Derby,
Stands here for God, his sovereign and himself,
On pain to be found false and recreant,
To prove the Duke of Norfolk, Thomas Mowbray,
A traitor to his God, his king and him;
And dares him to set forward to the fight.

Second Herald
Here standeth Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk,
On pain to be found false and recreant,
Both to defend himself and to approve
Henry of Hereford, Lancaster, and Derby,
To God, his sovereign and to him disloyal;
Courageously and with a free desire
Attending but the signal to begin.

The ceremony becomes more elaborate, heralds speak for each combatant, and the fight is imminent. Trumpets sound and they are about to charge and then the King stops the ceremony:

Lord Marshal
Sound, trumpets; and set forward, combatants.

A charge sounded

Stay, the king hath thrown his warder down.

KING RICHARD II
Let them lay by their helmets and their spears,
And both return back to their chairs again:
Withdraw with us: and let the trumpets sound
While we return these dukes what we decree.

A long flourish

Draw near,
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' 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:
You, cousin Hereford, upon pain of life,
Till twice five summers have enrich'd our fields
Shall not regreet our fair dominions,
But tread the stranger paths of banishment.

The King changes his mind and instead of a ritualistic fight decides on simple banishment. Why? He cannot carry out the ceremony. He is incapable. In Roman Catholicism a priest is endowed with the capability to transform bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ through the ritualized ceremony of transubstantiation. Only he has such power. Here the King has the power through this ritual to have the two men shed blood to resolve the conflict that will cleanse the kingdom of its sin. It will be a new day, a forgotten of past sin once one of the combatants die. But the King aborts the ceremony and therefore leaving the sin to fester and justifying his dethrownment. A prest is endowed by God for his power of transubstantiation; the King is endowed by God to have divine right of rule. If he can't carry out the power of ritual the justification of divine right disappears.

[Janine]

I think there was not enough evidence to condemn the King, but I think Shakespeare wanted to keep this in the minds of the audience. I think it adds to the justification for Richard's dethrownment, but given that historically it was not a point of contention he could not overtly dramatise it. He had to follow history to some degree.

I am kind of jumping in here, hope you don't mind, V. I know you directed your post to several others; they can answer it, too. I think you may be right, Virgil. From what I have observed often the Queen herself would attend these plays and I think Shakespeare had to strike a sort of compromise, in order to present some of the actual facts, yet see how far he could bend them to create a hightened sense of drama in his plays. At that time I think the audience would have been aware of the actual history, especially the Queen and court, so I think he was justified in basing the plays on history but perhaps playing down some aspects of the plays for his own plot structures.

Which plays are those? I've read Richard II, Richard III, Henry IV Parts 1 &2 and Henry V and I don't think Shakespeare was hedging his bets on who the audience should favor. I think he was quite explicit.

Virgil,I read all those too, plus King John and Henry VI...I never got to Henry VIII, mostly because I was so familiar with his story already. I loved the history plays but it has been awhile since I read them, maybe about 2 yrs. I wish I had been engaged in a discussion group then; that would have been great.

Which way you see Shakespeare as being explicit in the audience's favor?

I think it's because you're reading the words and not seeing the action played out. Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9...eature=related

I agree with Virgil on this point. I have been watching this same play and then I read the first couple scenes and I think watching I am getting way more out of the play by the inflections and tones and expressions of the characters. This version is excellent. I am watching the same Derek Jacobi version by the BBC, thanks to a generous friend who lent it to me. I also recently viewed on Youtube another version, with a woman actor playing Richard. In watching a commentary and interview on that version, I got an entirely different bend to the play's interpretation; this lead me to believe this play could perhaps be interpreted in different ways, depending on how it is played out on the stage.

This leads me into my analysis of Act 1 Scene 3. What I will say about that scene is that the fight is a ritualized ceremony and to some degree alludes to the central ceremony of Christianity, the re-enactment of Christ as sacrifice at Sunday mass. Richard II on one level is a sacrificial being.

That is an interesting. I have to consider this more clearly while reading through those exact passages again. I do think that Richard is a sacrifice, in order for Henry to acquire the throne; it just had to be that way, with the outcome as his death to finalize all for Henry. Much later on in "Henry V", Henry, the son, prays in the night camp and brings up the fact to God, that he has 'built two chantries to the memory of Richard" to atone for his father's wrong doing towards Richard.


Quote by Quark

It does make us question Richard more. He comes off rather hypocritical in this scene, since he's punishing Mowbray for a crime that he himself was involved in. I was just noticing that Shakespeare lets this play in the background, and one would expect that it would be quite central.

I only wanted to comment now on this part of your post, Quark.

That might explain why he is puts the heavier judgement on Mowbray; perhaps he can't wait to get him out of his sight; because he would be a threat to Richard directly, in exposing the truth about taking part in the death of Gloucester. Also, Mowbray may mirror the evil in Richard, this part of himself that made him take part or instigate Gloucester's death. In this way, it is as if Richard cannot really tolerate himself, while looking on a fellow conspirator. I kept wondering why he banished Mowbray for life and Henry only for a space of so many years. He is either contradicting his own admission that the court and he, as King, was imparial, even though he is linked in blood to Henry or he is looking to his own self-interest entirely. I tend to think it the second reason. I think, even though Richard is a weak king he is very crafty as well. This also might explain why he so abruptly stops the challenge and then banishes both contenders. It seems to me now to have been deliberate to lead them up to the very point of challenge and then pull something so strange. The shock of it was quite dramatic and to benefit Richard and glorify him as a peace-keeper; however in the next scene he expresses just the opposite in waging war with Ireland. This banishment is strange though in another way; doesn't Richard realise the threat that Henry poses to his crown, especially if he does leave and then gathers his own army to come overthrough Richard? Perhaps Richard is so full of himself he cannot believe he could be overthrown by his cousin.

I am going now to watch more of the play; getting late.

[Quark]

Ha, you keep posting over me Virgil.

[Virgil]

Gaunt actually makes it pretty clear that Richard did have a hand in Gloucester's death. I posted a bit of scene ii just before you posted. If you look back at that, Gaunt seems to believe that Richard is guilty. The contemporary understanding is also that Richard had Gloucester killed while he was in prison. Most likely, Shakespeare's audience would have been aware of this.

Yes, but that isn't evidence. This is hearsay. To charge a King you pretty much have to catch him in the act.

You're right that our sympathies are almost always directed one way or another, but it's not always certain what the situation actually is. Much of it depends on how the characters' pasts are viewed. Take some of those you brought up. In Richard III, clearly the title character is not the one the audience is pulling for, but we are not exactly sure what to make of the current rulers (particularly the queen) when the play begins. Shakespeare makes the Queen look like an upstart in the first Act of the play--so much so that he bends history to have Queen Margaret appear somewhere she couldn't possibly have been. The old Queen appears so that she can rail at the new royalty. This complicates matters. Since the play is all about Richmond taking over and restoring order and benevolence to the English throne, complicating the relationship between Richard III and the rulers of Act I helps build up the demand for Richmond's arrival. Similarly, in Richard II, so much of which is a character sketch of a poor King, it helps if Richard's faults are minimized (but not entirely overlooked) early on so that the audience can watch as he becomes slowly less and less kinglike. In this way our perspective of the past is manipulated to show off Richard's character--and also the power which Richard wields. You're right that there isn't anything ambiguous about this, but at the same time I would say that Shakespeare is not being entirely direct about what is going on here. And, he's avoiding a certain part of the history for a reason.

Hmm, ok, but I think in the cases you are siting Shakespeare is creating a sense of suspense as to what is going to happen, but I do think he is clear as to with whom the moral arguments rests.

[Virgil]

I am kind of jumping in here, hope you don't mind, V. I know you directed your post to several others; they can answer it, too.

Thanks Janine. I wasn't ignoring you, but responding to the others seemed more pressing.

I think you may be right, Virgil. From what I have observed often the Queen herself would attend these plays and I think Shakespeare had to strike a sort of compromise, in order to present some of the actual facts, yet see how far he could bend them to create a hightened sense of drama in his plays. At that time I think the audience would have been aware of the actual history, especially the Queen and court, so I think he was justified in basing the plays on history but perhaps playing down some aspects of the plays for his own plot structures.

I would agree with that.

Virgil,I read all those too, plus King John and Henry VI...I never got to Henry VIII, mostly because I was so familiar with his story already. I loved the history plays but it has been awhile since I read them, maybe about 2 yrs. I wish I had been engaged in a discussion group then; that would have been great.

Which way you see Shakespeare as being explicit in the audience's favor?

My point to Quark was that I don't think Shakespeare is that ambiguous with what his sympathies and his themes in the history plays. We'll have to take on each play to discuss them. I'm not capable of speaking of the details of each play without re-reading them.

That is an interesting. I have to consider this more clearly while reading through those exact passages again. I do think that Richard is a sacrifice, in order for Henry to acquire the throne; it just had to be that way, with the outcome as his death to finalize all for Henry. Much later on in "Henry V", Henry, the son, prays in the night camp and brings up the fact, to God himself, that he has 'built two chantries to the memory of Richard" to atone for his father's wrong doing towards Richard.

I think that the use of ceremony and ritual is critical to many of Shakespeare's plays. Read my post above as to how he uses it in this play. This is one of the reasons I have always felt that Shakespeare was a closet Catholic.

[Quark]

Yes, but that isn't evidence. This is hearsay. To charge a King you pretty much have to catch him in the act.

You've set the bar pretty high for evidence, but I think I can come close. First, it seems like scholars have concluded that Shakespeare worked from either the Hall or Hollinshed's histories to construct these plays. In their histories, Richard appears almost as a murderer. Most likely, Richard didn't kill the man himself, but he probably did direct someone else to do it. Also, Gaunt doesn't just divulge this information to the Duchess. He repeats it to Richard himself: "O had thy grandsire with a prophet's eye/ Seen how his son's son should destroy his sons" (II, i. 104-05). He says this in a speech which includes a few other prescient observations, and it seems unlikely that Shakespeare would slip a falsehood in with a speech which is supposed to be revealing of what's to come.

Hmm, ok, but I think in the cases you are siting Shakespeare is creating a sense of suspense as to what is going to happen, but I do think he is clear as to with whom the moral arguments rests.

Yeah, I didn't think what I was saying was that controversial. Is anyone really surprised he's perhaps downplaying some things and overplaying others to make the story better?

My point to Quark was that I don't think Shakespeare is that ambiguous with what his sympathies and his themes in the history plays

Right, I just said that Shakespeare is clearly directing our sympathies to one side or another, and that he isn't being ambiguous.

[lugdunum]

First, it seems like scholars have concluded that Shakespeare worked from either the Hall or Hollinshed's histories to construct these plays. In their histories, Richard appears almost as a murderer. Most likely, Richard didn't kill the man himself, but he probably did direct someone else to do it.

yes, I've read that too. And if I'm not mistaken, according to Hollinshed's history, it was R. who told Mowbray to kill Gloucester. Mowbray refused at irst and R. had to threaten him to do it. I'll look more into that later.

Thanks Virgil for the link to the video, Im sure it will be both helpful and entertaining. I'll watch that this week end.

[Janine]

In watching my DVD, I got up to the part where Richard is getting ready to hand over his crown to Bollingbroke. Does anyone know what scene this is and in which act? In my reading, I am still pretty far behind.

[Quark]

Here's a video of the scene and Derek Jacobi and the actor who plays Mawbray project hidden secrets in the way they act it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkz9...eature=related

Thanks for the link, Virgil. I'll have to take a look at some of the performances.

In watching my DVD, I got up to the part where Richard is getting ready to hand over his crown to Bollingbroke. Does anyone know what scene this is and in which act? In my reading, I am still pretty far behind.

I'm sure you're past this by now, but I think he hands over the crown in Act IV. It's toward the beginning--probably the first scene.

[lugdunum]

I was going to watch the video this week end but then figured would read the whole play first. Am halfway through Act III.
BTW I am really enjoying this play!

[Janine]

Thanks for the link, Virgil. I'll have to take a look at some of the performances.

I'm sure you're past this by now, but I think he hands over the crown in Act IV. It's toward the beginning--probably the first scene.

Ok, good, I am getting there then. I had the DVD running the other day on my computer, while I was doing household chores: I listened again to parts I had already viewed. I will watch some more tonight. I don't usually drag viewings out like this but I don't find this play so easily comprehended, as far as the text is concerned. I understand that, most or all, of this particular play has been written in the higher style of English; if you notice, there is not much humor or lower class peasant life in the play; I haven't encountered any so far...the play deals mainly with the court. Some of the other history plays do feature characters from the lower classes and so they add humor and pathos and they speak in the dialect of the lower classes. In this play, I notice much more poetry and formal language, especially rhyming. I think this makes this play's text a little harder to understand fully. It needs a few readings.

My reading is a still a bit behind my viewing; everytime I start to read I get in about 2 pages and fall asleep; I think I have 'winteritis'. I read up to Gaunt dying last night. I thought that Richard was really mean and cold to poor Gaunt in his last moments. Also, he makes the remark that his physician should aid him to death. In essense, then he is murdering him off, right (?) so he can cease his 'gold lined coffer' and his lands - nice guy Richard is. Immediately after he hears of Gaunt's death, he shows no remorse and instead sort of jokes and then turns his sites to the rebels in Ireland. Is Richard showing his true colors now? I was a little confused as to why he was so unfeeling about old Gaunt. Then it brings up the thought to me as to why he so suddenly banished the two men feuding, especially Bollingbroke. I can see he wanted him totally out of the picture. Didn't Bollingbroke, from the start, pose a direct thread to Richard's throne?

Hope all this makes some sense. You would think, my being on my second reading, I would understand this play a little better than I feel I do.

[Quark]

Ok, good, I am getting there then. I had the DVD running the other day on my computer, while I was doing household chores: I listened again to parts I had already viewed. I will watch some more tonight.

Which version of the play are you watching? Is it anything good?

In this play, I notice much more poetry and formal language, especially rhyming. I think this makes this play's text a little harder to understand fully. It needs a few readings.

Oh, that's funny. I'm actually having an easier time with the formal, refined speech of Shakespeare's kings than I usually do with his comic characters. The lower-class farce and upper-class repartee are usually jammed with so many Renaissance colloquialisms and odd, witty constructions that I find myself reading more footnote than dialogue.

I thought that Richard was really mean and cold to poor Gaunt in his last moments. Also, he makes the remark that his physician should aid him to death. In essense, then he is murdering him off, right (?) so he can cease his 'gold lined coffer' and his lands - nice guy Richard is. Immediately after he hears of Gaunt's death, he shows no remorse and instead sort of jokes and then turns his sites to the rebels in Ireland. Is Richard showing his true colors now?

I think Shakespeare is trying to expose Richard's faults, and make Bullingbrook look better in this scene. The line you refer to is not just evil-sounding in itself. It's made even more disgusting by the comparison being drawn between Richard and Bullingbrook. Right before saying that he wishes Gaunt dead, he acknowledges Bullingbrook's popularity with the people. Unlike Richard, Bullingbrook curries favors with the crowd by showing sympathy. The king, however, looks down on them contemptuously and uses his power to levy taxes. Not only is Richard despicable in this moment because he eagerly anticipates Gaunt's death, but he looks even worse next to the depiction of the kind-hearted Bullingbrook.

To me, though, this is a little over-the-top. I think we could have gotten the idea without portraying Richard in such a negative light.

Then it brings up the thought to me as to why he so suddenly banished the two men feuding, especially Bollingbroke. I can see he wanted him totally out of the picture. Didn't Bollingbroke, from the start, pose a direct thread to Richard's throne?

I wonder about this, too. Reading this again, I'm noticing a lot more subtext in the first act that I didn't notice the first time through. Richard isn't acting as just a peacekeeper in these early scenes. The subtext seems to imply that he's really just protecting himself, and, since he's got the throne, no one is going to challenge him about it.

[Janine]

Which version of the play are you watching? Is it anything good?

Quark, it is the BBC & Time-Life version; comes in Shakespeare sets; you can purchase them on Amazon. A very good friend lend me his History play set; it's very nice. This play is fantastic! I finished viewing it tonight. It stars Derek Jacobi as Richard II; you can't get a better performance than that. He was truly phenomenal. I was spellbound in some of the scenes - very intense. I am not sure of the other actor's names, but the guy who played Henry was quite good, as well. It followed the text explicitly I believe. I had to watch it on my computer, so I took in it in installments; would have been better in one sitting, although it was quite long. My DVD player is not playing right, so I just ordered a new one.

Oh, that's funny. I'm actually having an easier time with the formal, refined speech of Shakespeare's kings than I usually do with his comic characters. The lower-class farce and upper-class repartee are usually jammed with so many Renaissance colloquialisms and odd, witty constructions that I find myself reading more footnote than dialogue.

That is true, but I have encountered less formal text than in this play; it seems there is a lot of formality since it mostly all takes place at court. I didn't necessarily mean the peasants verses the court speech (although I did say that) - that contrast is a little extreme. If you read other plays such as Hamlet, Othello, or even some of the other history plays, I feel there is less court speech, less formality, even though they were royalty or high of birth or subjects to the king. An example would have been Henry V. I even find Hamlet less flowery than Richard II. I guess it is more the embellishments and high poetry, I am pointing to. I find that makes it harder to understand. Richard is a great one for embellishing his speech. He is rather flamboyant in this production that I have been watching; then when he is imprisoned, he is more intensely intraverted and reflective. He seems to go through many stages, emotions, attitudes, etc...I am still not sure exactly what to make of him.

I think Shakespeare is trying to expose Richard's faults, and make Bullingbrook look better in this scene. The line you refer to is not just evil-sounding in itself. It's made even more disgusting by the comparison being drawn between Richard and Bullingbrook. Right before saying that he wishes Gaunt dead, he acknowledges Bullingbrook's popularity with the people. Unlike Richard, Bullingbrook curries favors with the crowd by showing sympathy. The king, however, looks down on them contemptuously and uses his power to levy taxes. Not only is Richard despicable in this moment because he eagerly anticipates Gaunt's death, but he looks even worse next to the depiction of the kind-hearted Bullingbrook.

Exactly. I have to admit my sympathies keep turning to Bollingbroke. I can't muster up a lot of sympathy for Richard. I feel he brought a lot of this on himself and even to the end he does not admit it. He would not read the offenses after handing over his crown. He did not hand it over willingly at first, as I thought he vowed he would; he made a grand show of it. He seemed to make a real exhibition of his emotions and it felt a bit dramatic and overdone to me. I understand about the 'divine right of kings' and how he felt; how totally crushed he was to relinquish the crown and his title; he knows nothing else and he is broken at the end. I think he was more crushed though to give up his power to Bollingbroke; he has been very much into the pomp and ceremony of his office. Richard was not a good king in my eyes; he seemed weak and lacking and even cruel and crafty. I really can't say I liked him very much thoughout the play. I tried to find some sympathy for him, because I do think he is a complex character, but I admit I really didn't feel a lot for him in the end. Maybe I am looking at it from the wrong perspective. Are we suppose to feel sympathy for him?

To me, though, this is a little over-the-top. I think we could have gotten the idea without portraying Richard in such a negative light.

Perhaps. Was the historic Richard like this? I am a little confused still about this play and will probably play it over again and just listen to it. I am still reading the text, also. I must admit it is not my favorite of the history plays. I find it 'problematic' in some respects. Maybe, I just don't understand it fully.

I wonder about this, too. Reading this again, I'm noticing a lot more subtext in the first act that I didn't notice the first time through. Richard isn't acting as just a peacekeeper in these early scenes. The subtext seems to imply that he's really just protecting himself, and, since he's got the throne, no one is going to challenge him about it.

That is how I am viewing it. I don't think he is just being a nice guy here, a peacemaker. Something seemed 'off' to me from the beginning. I kept mistrusting his motifs. He seemed a rather self-centered and I thought he is really looking out for himself; I especially thought it when he suddenly banished the two men. That seemed too unreal to me, to come from someone with a sense of fairness; it contadicted his first display of benevolence. He wanted them both out of his way, I believe. When you view the play being staged, you can see these subtlies in the expressions and attitudes of the actors; now that may be only one interpretation, but Shakespeare leaves it open for the actors, since he does not say how they are expressing themselves within the play form. If it were a screenplay, it would state that, but this is rudimentary and simplified, so you have to decide on how the subtext would play out within each character.