Richard II - Act 2
Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2015 10:32 am
Richard II, Act 2
Please use this thread for discussing Richard II, Act 2.
Please use this thread for discussing Richard II, Act 2.
That does seem to be a glaring historical anachronism Geo.geo wrote:The second act opens in Ely house, where the dying John of Gaunt hopes the King will soon arrive so he can regale him with advice. Gaunt tells York that the King will pay heed because words from a dying man "enforce attention like a deep harmony." But Gaunt pretty much ends up just pissing the King off and, after Gaunt dies (offscreen), and under protest from York and others, the King seizes Gaunt's "plate, his goods, his money, and his lands" to help pay for the war effort in Ireland.
Shakespeare really compresses the action in this play, but there seems a glaring problem with events here. Just after the King confiscates Gaunt's land, we learn that Henry has already launched an army with eight tall ships and three thousand men. Indeed, Henry has been waiting for the King to leave for Ireland before launching his attack. I thought that this was the impetus for Henry's attack all along, to recover his rightful inheritance. But Henry can't know that the King has disinherited him yet, can he? It just happened. Anyone else confused by this?
Thanks, as always, Flann. I think Bevington discusses the leasing issue either in the intro or in the annotations (of the version of the play that I'm reading). But this is a big deal, another "defining misrule" in Richard's reign. (I like how you phrase that.) Basically, the King is taking a percentage of the land leases to fund his various wars and other lavish expenditures. Sort of borrowing the money now and having to pay it back later at its full value. The King is basically running up his debt, kind of like most of our American presidents have done since Reagan.Flann 5 wrote:. . . Richard now for the last time repeats the defining misrule of his life, by seizing the fortune and lands of the late Gaunt for his Irish war and implementing another round of heavy taxation.
I think this is what Gaunt means by speaking of England as being leased and Richard as landlord not king.No one really owns their land but hold it so long as they cough up the taxes to Richard.
It's a big issue for Gaunt.Any other ideas about what Gaunt means by this leasing?
So Henry would have had plenty of time to hear about the King's dastardly deed and would have had time to assemble armies and wait for him to leave for Ireland before making his move.In the play it all seems to happen at once—John of Gaunt's death, the King's departure for Ireland, Bolingbroke's move. Actually . . . John of Gaunt died in February and the King departed in May. Bolingbroke made his move at the beginning of July 1399.
Thanks Geo,geo wrote:Thanks, as always, Flann. I think Bevington discusses the leasing issue either in the intro or in the annotations (of the version of the play that I'm reading). But this is a big deal, another "defining misrule" in Richard's reign. (I like how you phrase that.) Basically, the King is taking a percentage of the land leases to fund his various wars and other lavish expenditures. Sort of borrowing the money now and having to pay it back later at its full value. The King is basically running up his debt, kind of like most of our American presidents have done since Reagan.
I believe Gaunt makes a reference somewhere that the King is spending more now in peacetime than his predecessors did during war. The King himself says they are forced to "farm our royal realm."
That was John of Gaunt's lament that England has made "a shameful conquest of itself." It's a beautiful speech:Flann 5 wrote:A big gripe for Gaunt is that Richard waged war on his own royal relatives and not the hated French which Gaunt sees as a glorious thing in their history.
And historically Bolingbroke spent his brief exile in France where a coup took place, and the new regime disregarded the peace treaties with Richard and facilitated Bolingbroke's return to England in order to stir up trouble for Richard.
Not that he needed much help here as Richard did a good job of raising trouble for himself.
I sort of wonder why Richard didn't allow the duel between Mowbray and Bolingbroke to go ahead. Mowbray being a seasoned soldier it's not unlikely he would have killed Bolingbroke and that would have been the end of any threat to the crown from him.geo wrote:You can easily see that Henry has long been a thorn in Richard's side, and vice versa, and with that historical context we can understand Richard's motivations for stopping the duel and banishing Henry.
Yes, this is Shakespeare at his patriotic best - I'm going to quote from it as it's one of his most famous speeches and I want to point out a technique he uses in it - he uses repetition in a way that creates an emotional response in the reader or listener.We have Gaunt's romantic vision of England the sceptred isle and other Eden, contrasted with how he sees it sold to hock by Richard and his policies.
Great language and imagery from Shakespeare here which is really the beating heart of all his work.
Yes, I wondered this too - either way he would have got rid of one of them for good, and with a bit of luck it might have been Bolingbroke. Could have saved him a lot of troubleI sort of wonder why Richard didn't allow the duel between Mowbray and Bolingbroke to go ahead. Mowbray being a seasoned soldier it's not unlikely he would have killed Bolingbroke and that would have been the end of any threat to the crown from him.