• In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

Richard II - Act 2

#135: Dec. - Jan. 2015 (Fiction)
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

An interesting point is that in "Henry IV", Lord Northumberland, Harry Percy and the others protest that they only supported Bolingbroke in the first place in order to restore him to his rightful inheritance - not to overthrow Richard. They used this argument to justify their later rebellion against Bolingbroke as king. However here in Act 2 we have Northumberland , after complaining about the "most degenerate king", declare:

"If then we shall shake off our slavish yoke,
Imp out our drooping country's broken wing,
Redeem from broking pawn the blemish'd crown,
Wipe off the dust that hides our sceptre's gilt
And make high majesty look like itself,
Away with me in post to Ravenspurgh;
But if you faint, as fearing to do so,
Stay and be secret, and myself will go.
ROSS
To horse, to horse! urge doubts to them that fear.
WILLOUGHBY
Hold out my horse, and I will first be there."

There seems little doubt here that they're much more interested in overthrowing the king than in restoring Bolingbroke's lands, however much they try to wriggle their way out of it later.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

Hi Jetsam, Lots of interesting ideas in your posts.
jetsam wrote:There seems little doubt here that they're much more interested in overthrowing the king than in restoring Bolingbroke's lands, however much they try to wriggle their way out of it later.
They were only too willing to avail of the opportunity to overthrow Richard.
From the very outset the spectre of revolution follows Richard. There's the Peasant's revolt with it's radical egalitarian threat to the traditional orders of rights and privileges based on birth and the structures maintaining this order whether monarchy,church or traditional received law.
The king alone would be exempt, but there is just another small step to the monarchy itself being abolished once all underpinning it is removed.
The Lords appellant rebellion is couched in the language of the court favourites misleading the young king to act contrary to their rights through taxation for selfish ends.
The executions of many of these is a direct revolutionary challenge to the rule of the king himself though framed in such a way as to excuse the king of direct blame for this.
Again there is an underlying threat that should Richard pursue such a course he would not always be excused in this way.
Richard's response is to put down these threats violently and continue in the same vein as his early advisers.
As Bevington points out, Richard himself subverts the traditional order of bloodline based patrimony, by illegally seizing Bolingbroke's inheritance.Could not his own rights be next?
And Gaunt's charge is one of further subversion of the 'natural' almost divine order by turning the monarch into a landlord and the subjects mere tenants bled dry by the parasites and caterpillars of the king.
Richard doesn't inspire loyalty but tries to enforce it.
The Welsh given their history would be extremely ambivalent about 'loyalty' to any English king, least of all one like Richard.
I think Shakespeare suggests this by the rumour of Richard's death being enough to send them all home.No one waits around longer than necessary to check this information.
There is something pathetic about Richard's conjuring the earth to fight for his kingdom.No flesh and blood will and Richard realises this grim reality but seeks fleeting hope in the aura of his divine prerogative.
All he now has left to cling to,it seems.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

Just touching on the divine right of kings from a biblical perspective.
In the new testament both Paul and Peter write requiring obedience by Christians to "the powers that be" as being ordained by God for the maintenance of law and order.Whoever resists then, resists the ordinance of God.
In the old testament there is the theocracy Israel,with kings anointed by prophets. These kings though could be challenged by the prophets as God's mouthpiece, and even removed from power as King Saul was, though he retained some protection as the anointed of God.
Of course in the new testament,Christ's kingdom is "not of this world" but a spiritual kingdom defined by obedience to the rule of Christ as revealed in his teachings.
Over time this distinction became blurred with the rising power of bishops and popes who colluded with or opposed kings and pretenders for largely political,financial and personal gain.
This resembled black farce at times with feudal lords murdering and deposing local kings and then being welcomed in Rome by a Pope who anointed them ceremonially as defenders of "Christendom." It might be an heir of a king or it might be a usurper.

In England at the time of Richard this was the model. The arch-bishop of Canterbury would anoint the king ceremonially. Of course kings could appoint or depose arch-bishops.
In any event the perception was rooted in the theocratic model of Israel, but without a prophet to challenge the king it provided carte blanche to these kings to act with impunity protected by the distorted concept itself.
Ultimately there is no guaranteed divine protection for worldly kings, and it's a kind of self deception by Richard to presume he can act oppressively and every thing will still be fine.
An oppressive emperor or king could not be overthrown by Christians who took the new testament seriously. Nevertheless, not everyone thought this way and history is littered with revolutions and coups.
Gaunt gives voice to his view of England as especially blessed and another Eden favoured by nature and God.
Richard though from this perspective, is destroying and polluting this garden with caterpillars and weeds and betraying his role as anointed preserver of a sacred trust.
Disastrously for Richard, even in this world where the king is perceived as anointed by God, even this can not salvage his crown. Such tragically, is the measure of his misrule.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: . . . In England at the time of Richard this was the model. The arch-bishop of Canterbury would anoint the king ceremonially. Of course kings could appoint or depose arch-bishops.
In any event the perception was rooted in the theocratic model of Israel, but without a prophet to challenge the king it provided carte blanche to these kings to act with impunity protected by the distorted concept itself.
Great comments!

As Flann says here, the divine right of kings is an idea that goes way back. In Shakespeare's time, they still held a view that goes back to the Greeks that everything has its proper place and the world has a proper order. On the Great Chain of Being, God and angels were above men, and men were above animals, animals were above plants, etc. Importantly, a King held a special place as a divine being, but he was also human. Sound familiar? I think Bevington touches on this duality in the introduction.

The final scene in Act 2 bears special notice. And it's short enough that I'll just quote it in its entirety.
SCENE IV. A camp in Wales.
Enter EARL OF SALISBURY and a Welsh Captain

Captain
My lord of Salisbury, we have stay'd ten days,
And hardly kept our countrymen together,
And yet we hear no tidings from the king;
Therefore we will disperse ourselves: farewell.

EARL OF SALISBURY
Stay yet another day, thou trusty Welshman:
The king reposeth all his confidence in thee.

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.

Exit

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.

Exit
This scene is just a conversation between a Welsh captain and the Earl of Salisbury, but one that shows the cosmic significance of a King being deposed, representing a shift in the Great Chain and a world that suddenly goes topsy turvy.

Meteors occlude the stars, the moon appears bloody, rich men look sad and ruffians dance and leap. These are all bad omens foreshadowing Richard's fall to the "base earth." The two men naturally assume that Richard is already dead, and maybe he is in a way.

I've always enjoyed Shakespeare's cosmic viewpoint, using astronomical metaphors to show that we are all connected in an orderly universe. Bad things happen if that natural order is disrupted. The two men in this scene know that there will be storms to come, woe and unrest . . .

We see very similar themes in Macbeth and Hamlet and King Lear. When kings fall, there's going to be hell on earth. It's possible that Shakespeare is propagandizing to some extent, playing up to Elizabeth's (and later King James') divinity. Making it clear that deposing monarchs is a very bad idea. But if so, the Bard propagandizes so well and poetically.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

geo wrote:We see very similar themes in Macbeth and Hamlet and King Lear. When kings fall, there's going to be hell on earth. It's possible that Shakespeare is propagandizing to some extent, playing up to Elizabeth's (and later King James') divinity. Making it clear that deposing monarchs is a very bad idea. But if so, the Bard propagandizes so well and poetically.
Hi Geo, I suppose as a working playwright Shakespeare had to know which side his bread was buttered on.
I think he is quite detached generally and acutely observant of human behaviour.
I'm sure you know that Elizabeth's court censored parts of Richard the second, as they construed it as dangerously subversive to the monarchy.So is it propaganda or the expression of real characters in that culture and time?
Even the soaring patriotic rhetoric of Gaunt's speech is counter weighted by Gaunt's consideration of the conquest of other nations and peoples as glorious.
I doubt Shakespeare would have shared this view of war and conquest.
One of the lords,I forget who, complains against Richard's ill gotten,farmed revenues contrasted with the loot they had extracted nobly by "blows!"
The beauty of the thing is the wholehearted conviction of various characters,however right, wrong or misguided they may be, which lends a natural eloquence to their speeches,I think.
Thanks for your thoughts here Geo and Jetsam. It's good to get different perspectives and thought provoking ideas.

Interesting the comparison between Gaunt and Churchill's speeches. The B.B.C. at one point used Gaunt's speech as part of their coverage to inspire England's attempts to succeed in the recent soccer world cup.
Maybe they would have done better with Churchill's.
We shall fight them on the football fields! Red cards all round,I fear.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

jetsam wrote:It's the kind of speech you think Winston Churchill might have made. In fact one of Churchill's best known speeches copied its structure from this speech, as well as echoing its strong patriotism and sense of defending an island realm.
"...we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender".
Thanks for this by the way. I'm familiar with this speech by Churchill. I used to use it as an example of anaphora—(repetition of a word or group of words at the beginning of items in a series). This repetition works to emphasize certain points and also to evoke passion (pathos). I had no idea that it was modeled after Shakespeare. And in this play too! Very cool!
-Geo
Question everything
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote: Red cards all round,I fear.
v. funny Flann, I had to chuckle
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

geo wrote: It's possible that Shakespeare is propagandizing to some extent, playing up to Elizabeth's (and later King James') divinity. Making it clear that deposing monarchs is a very bad idea. But if so, the Bard propagandizes so well and poetically.
I once worked on a newspaper in a monarchy that was, to put it delicately, more absolute than constitutional. One thing you had to be very careful about was stories about kings. Running a story about an incompetent king would be bad enough. Running one about overthrowing a king would be unthinkable. As a result I've always felt that Shakespeare was unusually brave with Richard II, and Elizabeth and her minders unexpectedly tolerant.

I was interested to read Flann's comment that there had been some censorship - I hadn't been aware of that. But still, cutting off Shakespeare's lines here and there doesn't really change the thrust of the story, and is a much milder reaction than cutting off his head.
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

geo wrote: Asimov says ...
The comments by Asimov you keep referring to jogged a memory of coming across a big book on Shakespeare by Asimov in a library about 20 years ago and thinking - that looks interesting, maybe I should follow it up - and then promptly forgetting all about it. There was a similar book on the Bible too, I think. Anyway, judging from your comments, it sounds pretty useful - this time I won't forget to check it out. Thanks for the reminder.
jetsam
Master Debater
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 11:53 am
9
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Richard II - Act 2

Unread post

geo wrote: SCENE IV. A camp in Wales.
Enter EARL OF SALISBURY and a Welsh Captain

This scene is just a conversation between a Welsh captain and the Earl of Salisbury, but one that shows the cosmic significance of a King being deposed, representing a shift in the Great Chain and a world that suddenly goes topsy turvy.
Meteors occlude the stars, the moon appears bloody, rich men look sad and ruffians dance and leap.
I enjoyed reading this segment again here, and I too always enjoy Shakespeare in this mode. But Shakespeare is also capable of poking a bit of fun at this stuff. There's that wonderful passage in Henry IV between Glendower and Harry Percy where Glendower keeps calling up images of meteors, earthquakes and shooting stars, stampeding animals and spirits from the depths, all to impress young Percy, and Percy won't have a bar of it, treating it all as so much mumbo jumbo. Very amusing scene.
Post Reply

Return to “King Henry IV, Part 1 (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series) (Pt. 1) - by William Shakespeare”