Richard II (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Facsimile of the first page of The life and death of King Richard the Second from the First Folio, published in 1623

King Richard the Second is a history play by William Shakespeare believed to have been written in approximately 1595. It is based on the life of King Richard II of England (ruled 1377–1399) and is the first part of a tetralogy, referred to by some scholars as the Henriad, followed by three plays concerning Richard's successors: Henry IV, Part 1; Henry IV, Part 2; and Henry V. It may not have been written as a stand-alone work.[citation needed]

Although the First Folio (1623) edition of Shakespeare's works lists the play as a history play, the earlier Quarto edition of 1597 calls it The tragedie of King Richard the second.

Characters[edit]

Rebels

Richard's allies

Others

  • Lord Marshal (post held in 1399 by Duke of Surrey, though this is not recognised in the play)
  • Welsh captain
  • Two heralds
  • Gardener
  • Gardener's man
  • Queen's ladies
  • Keeper – jailer at Pomfret prison
  • Groom
  • Attendants, lords, soldiers, messengers, etc.

Synopsis[edit]

The play spans only the last two years of Richard's life, from 1398 to 1400. The first Act begins with King Richard sitting majestically on his throne in full state. We learn that Henry Bolingbroke, Richard's cousin, is having a dispute with Thomas Mowbray, and they both want the king to act as judge. The subject of the quarrel is Bolingbroke's accusation that Mowbray had squandered monies given to him by Richard for the King's soldiers. Bolingbroke also accuses Mowbray of the recent murder of the Duke of Gloucester, although John of Gaunt—Gloucester's brother and Bolingbroke's father—believes that Richard himself was responsible for the murder. After several attempts to calm both men, Richard acquiesces and Bolingbroke and Mowbray challenge each other to a duel, over the objections of both Richard and Gaunt.

The tournament scene is very formal with a long, ceremonial introduction. But Richard interrupts the duel at the very beginning and sentences both men to banishment from England. Bolingbroke is originally sentenced to leave for ten years, but Richard changes this to six years, whereas Mowbray is banished forever. The king's decision can be seen as the first mistake in a series that will lead eventually to his overthrow and death. Indeed, Mowbray predicts that the king will fall sooner or later at the hands of Bolingbroke.

John of Gaunt dies and Richard II seizes all of his land and money. This angers the nobility, who accuse Richard of wasting England's money, of taking Gaunt's money (which rightfully belongs to Bolingbroke) to fund a war in Ireland, of taxing the commoners, and of fining the nobles for crimes their ancestors committed. Next, they help Bolingbroke secretly return to England and plan to overthrow Richard II. However, there remain some subjects faithful to Richard, among them Bushy, Bagot, Green and the Duke of Aumerle (son of the Duke of York), cousin of both Richard and Bolingbroke. King Richard leaves England to administer the war in Ireland, and Bolingbroke takes the opportunity to assemble an army and invade the north coast of England. He executes Bushy and Green, and wins over the Duke of York, whom Richard has left in charge of his government during his absence.

When Richard returns, Bolingbroke first claims his land back but then additionally claims the throne. He crowns himself King Henry IV and Richard is taken into prison to the castle of Pomfret. Aumerle and others plan a rebellion against the new king, but York discovers his son's treachery and reveals it to Henry, who spares Aumerle as a result of the intercession of the Duchess of York but executes the other conspirators. After interpreting King Henry's "living fear" as a reference to the still-living Richard, an ambitious nobleman (Exton) goes to the prison and murders the former king. King Henry repudiates the murderer and vows to journey to Jerusalem to cleanse himself of his part in Richard's death.

Sources[edit]

Shakespeare's primary source for Richard II, as for most of his chronicle histories, was Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles; the publication of the second edition in 1587 provides a terminus post quem for the play.[2] Edward Hall's The Union of the Two Illustrious Families of Lancaster and York appears also to have been consulted, and scholars have also supposed Shakespeare familiar with Samuel Daniel's poem on the civil wars.

A somewhat more complicated case is presented by the anonymous play sometimes known as The First Part of Richard II. This play, which exists in one incomplete manuscript copy (at the British Museum) is subtitled Thomas of Woodstock, and it is by this name that scholars since F. S. Boas have usually called it. This play treats the events leading up to the start of Shakespeare's play (though the two texts do not have identical characters). This closeness, along with the anonymity of the manuscript, has led certain scholars to attribute all or part of the play to Shakespeare, though many critics view this play as a secondary influence on Shakespeare, not as his work.[3]

Date and text[edit]

Title page of Richard II, from the fifth quarto, published in 1615.

The play was entered into the Register of the Stationers Company on 29 August 1597 by the bookseller Andrew Wise; the first quarto was published by him later that year, printed by Valentine Simmes. The second and third quartos followed in 1598 – the only time a Shakespearean play was printed in three editions in two years. Q4 followed in 1608, and Q5 in 1615. The play was next published in the First Folio in 1623.

Richard II exists in a number of variations. The quartos vary to some degree from one another, and the folio presents further differences. The first three quartos (printed in 1597 and 1598, commonly assumed to have been prepared from Shakespeare's holograph) lack the deposition scene. The fourth quarto, published in 1608, includes a version of the deposition scene shorter than the one later printed, presumably from a prompt-book, in the 1623 First Folio. The scanty evidence makes explaining these differences largely conjectural. Traditionally, it has been supposed that the quartos lack the deposition scene because of censorship, either from the playhouse or by the Master of the Revels Edmund Tylney and that the Folio version may better reflect Shakespeare's original intentions. There is no external evidence for this hypothesis, however, and the title page of the 1608 quarto refers to a "lately acted" deposition scene (although, again, this could be due to earlier censorship which was later relaxed).

Analysis and criticism[edit]

Structure and language[edit]

The play is divided into five acts and its structure is as formal as its language. It has a double complementary plot describing the fall of Richard II and the rise of Bolingbroke, later known as Henry IV.[4] Critic John R. Elliott Jr. notes that this particular history play can be distinguished from the other history plays because it contains an ulterior political purpose. The normal structure of Shakespearean tragedy is modified to portray a central political theme: the rise of Bolingbroke to the throne and the conflict between Richard and Bolingbroke over the kingship. In acts IV and V, Shakespeare includes incidents irrelevant to the fate of Richard, which are later resolved in the future plays of the Richard II-Henry V tetralogy.[5]

Literary critic Hugh M. Richmond notes that Richard's beliefs about the Divine Right of Kings tend to fall more in line with the medieval view of the throne. Bolingbroke on the other hand represents a more modern view of the throne, arguing that not only bloodline but also intellect and political savvy contribute to the makings of a good king.[6] Richard believes that as king he is chosen and guided by God, that he is not subject to human frailty, and that the English people are his to do with as he pleases. Elliott argues that this mistaken notion of his role as king ultimately leads to Richard's failure. Elliot goes on further to point out that it is Bolingbroke's ability to relate and speak with those of the middle and lower classes that allows him to take the throne.[7]

Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written entirely in verse, and this is one of only two plays of his which are, the other being King John. In Richard II besides the usual blank verse (unrhymed pentameters) there are long stretches of heroic couplets (pairs of rhymed pentameters). The play contains a number of memorable metaphors, including the extended comparison of England with a garden in Act III, Scene iv and of its reigning king to a lion or to the sun in Act IV.

The language of Richard II is more eloquent than that of the earlier history plays, and serves to set the tone and themes of the play. Shakespeare uses lengthy verses, metaphors, similes, and soliloquies to reflect Richard's character as a man who likes to analyse situations rather than act upon them. He always speaks in tropes using analogies such as the sun as a symbol of his kingly status. Richard places great emphasis on symbols which govern his behaviour. His crown serves as a symbol of his royal power and is of more concern to him than his actual kingly duties.[8]

Unlike Shakespeare's other history plays, Richard II contains no prose. There are also great differences in the use of language amongst the characters. Traditionally, Shakespeare uses prose to distinguish social classes- the upper class generally speaks in poetry while the lower classes speak in prose. In Richard II, where there is no prose, Richard uses flowery, metaphorical language in his speeches whereas Bolingbroke, who is also of the noble class, uses a more plain and direct language.

Historical context[edit]

Portrait Richard II of England, mid 1390s (Westminster Abbey)

The play was performed and published late in the reign of the childless Elizabeth I of England, at a time when the queen's advanced age made the succession an important political concern. The historical parallels in the succession of Richard II may not have been intended as political comment on the contemporary situation,[9] with the weak Richard II analogous to Queen Elizabeth and an implicit argument in favour of her replacement by a monarch capable of creating a stable dynasty, but lawyers investigating John Hayward's historical work, The First Part of the Life and Raigne of King Henrie IV, a book previously believed to have taken from Shakespeare's Richard II, chose to make this connection. Samuel Schoenbaum contests that Hayward had written his work prior to Richard II, joking that "there is nothing like a hypothetical manuscript to resolve an awkwardness of chronology", as Hayward noted he had written the work several years before its publication.[10] Hayward had dedicated his version to Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex and when Essex was arrested for rebellion in February 1601 Hayward had already been imprisoned, to strengthen the case against the earl for "incitement to the deposing of the Queen". That Hayward had made his dedication was fortunate for Shakespeare, otherwise he too might have lost his liberty over the affair.[9]

Shakespeare's play appears to have played a minor role in the events surrounding the final downfall of Essex. On 7 February 1601, just before the uprising, supporters of the Earl of Essex, among them Charles and Joscelyn Percy (younger brothers of the Earl of Northumberland), paid for a performance at the Globe Theatre on the eve of their armed rebellion. By this agreement, reported at the trial of Essex by the Chamberlain's Men actor Augustine Phillips, the conspirators paid the company forty shillings "above the ordinary" (i.e., above their usual rate) to stage this play, which the players felt was too old and "out of use" to attract a large audience.[9] Eleven of Essex's supporters attended the Saturday performance.

Elizabeth was aware of the political ramifications of the story of Richard II: according to a well-known but dubious anecdote, in August 1601 she was reviewing historical documents relating to the reign of Richard II when she supposedly remarked to her archivist William Lambarde, "I am Richard II, know ye not that?" In the same historical report the Queen is said to have complained that the play was performed forty times in "open streets and houses" but there is no extant evidence to corroborate this tale. At any rate, the Chamberlain's Men do not appear to have suffered for their association with the Essex group; but they were commanded to perform it for the Queen on Shrove Tuesday in 1601, the day before Essex's execution.[9] She knew they had favoured Essex, but, then, so had she - once.

Themes and motifs[edit]

The King's Two Bodies[edit]

In his analysis of medieval political theology, The King’s Two Bodies, Ernst Kantorowicz describes medieval Kings as containing two bodies: a body natural, and a body politic. The theme of the King's two bodies is pertinent throughout Richard II, from the exile of Bolingbroke to the deposition of King Richard II. The body natural is a mortal body, subject to all the weaknesses of mortal human beings. On the other hand, the body politic is a spiritual body which cannot be affected by mortal infirmities such as disease and old age. These two bodies form one indivisible unit, with the body politic superior to the body natural.[11]

Many critics agree that in Richard II, this central theme of the king's two bodies unfolds in three main scenes: the scenes at the Coast of Wales, at Flint Castle, and at Westminster. At the coast of Wales, Richard has just returned from a trip to Ireland and kisses the soil of England, demonstrating his kingly attachment to his Kingdom. This image of kingship gradually fades as Bolingbroke's rebellion continues. Richard starts to forget his kingly nature as his mind becomes occupied by the rebellion. This change is portrayed in the scene at Flint Castle during which the unity of the two bodies disintegrates and the king starts to use more poetic and symbolic language. Richard's body politic has been shaken as his followers have joined Bolingbroke's army, diminishing Richard's military capacity. He has been forced to give up his jewels, losing his kingly appearance. He loses his temper at Bolingbroke, but then regains his composure as he starts to remember his divine side. At Flint castle, Richard is determined to hang onto his kingship even though the title no longer fits his appearance. However at Westminster the image of the divine kingship is supported by the Bishop of Carlisle rather than Richard, who at this point is becoming mentally unstable as his authority slips away. Biblical references are used to liken the humbled king to the humbled Christ. The names of Judas and Pilate are used to further extend this comparison. Before Richard is sent to his death, he "un-kings" himself by giving away his crown, sceptre, and the balm that is used to anoint a king to the throne. The mirror scene is the final end to the dual personality. After examining his plain physical appearance, Richard shatters the mirror on the ground and thus relinquishes his past and present as king. Stripped of his former glory, Richard finally releases his body politic and retires to his body natural and his own inner thoughts and griefs.[12] Critic J. Dover Wilson notes that Richard's double nature as man and martyr is the dilemma that runs through the play eventually leading to Richard's death. Richard acts the part of a royal martyr, and due to the spilling of his blood, England continually undergoes civil war for the next two generations.[13]

The rise of a Machiavellian king[edit]

The play ends with the rise of Bolingbroke to the throne, marking the start of a new era in England. According to historical research, an English translation of Machiavelli's The Prince might have existed as early as 1585, influencing the reign of the kings of England. Critic Irving Ribner notes that a manifestation of Machiavellian philosophy may be seen in Bolingbroke. Machiavelli wrote The Prince during a time of political chaos in Italy, and writes down a formula by which a leader can lead the country out of turmoil and return it to prosperity. Bolingbroke seems to be a leader coming into power at a time England is in turmoil, and follows closely the formula stated by Machiavelli. At the start of Richard II Bolingbroke accuses Mowbray and ulteriorly attacks the government of King Richard. He keeps Northumberland by his side as a tool to control certain constituents. From the minute Bolingbroke comes into power, he destroys the faithful supporters of Richard such as Bushy, Green and the Earl of Wiltshire. Also, Bolingbroke is highly concerned with the maintenance of legality to the kingdom, an important principle of Machiavellian philosophy, and therefore makes Richard surrender his crown and physical accessories to erase any doubt as to the real heir to the throne. Machiavelli also states that the deposed king must be killed, and Bolingbroke therefore kills Richard, showing his extreme cruelty to secure his kingly title. Since Bolingbroke is a disciple of the Machiavellian philosophy he cannot do the killing himself and employs Pierce of Exton for the killing of the deposed king and his ex-friend whose use is no longer needed. Yet, Irving Ribner still notes a few incidents where Bolingbroke does not follow true Machiavellian philosophy, such as his failure to destroy Aumerle, but such incidents are minuscule compared to the bigger events of the play. Even Bolingbroke's last statement follows Machiavellian philosophy as he alludes to making a voyage to the Holy Land, since Machiavellian philosophy states rulers must appear pious.[14] Therefore, this particular play can be viewed as a turning point in the history of England as the throne is taken over by a more commanding king in comparison to King Richard II.

Performance history[edit]

Richard II has one of the most detailed and unusual performance histories of all the plays of the Shakespearean canon.

  • The earliest recorded performance was on 9 December 1595, when Sir Robert Cecil watched it at Sir Edward Hoby's house in Canon Row. Such specially-commissioned private performances were not unusual for Shakespeare's company.
  • Another commissioned performance of a different type occurred at the Globe Theatre on 7 Feb. 1601. This was the performance paid for by supporters of the Earl of Essex's planned revolt (see Historical Context above).
  • On 30 September 1607, among the oddest of all early performances: the crew of Capt. William Keeling acted Richard II aboard the British East India Company ship The Red Dragon, off Sierra Leone.
  • The play was performed two days in a row at the Globe on 11 and 12 June 1631.

The play retained its political charge in the Restoration: a 1680 adaptation at Drury Lane by Nahum Tate was suppressed for its perceived political implications. Tate attempted to mask his version, called The Sicilian Usurper, with a foreign setting; he attempted to blunt his criticism of the Stuart court by highlighting Richard's noble qualities and downplaying his weaknesses. Neither expedient prevented the play from being "silenc'd on the third day," as Tate wrote in his preface. Lewis Theobald staged a successful and less troubled adaptation in 1719 at Lincoln's Inn Fields; Shakespeare's original version was revived at Covent Garden in 1738.[15]

The play had limited popularity in the early twentieth century, but John Gielgud exploded onto the world's theatrical consciousness, through his performance as Richard at the Old Vic Theatre in 1929, returning to the character in 1937 and 1953 in what ultimately was considered as the definitive performance of the role.[citation needed] Another legendary Richard was Maurice Evans, who first played the role at the Old Vic in 1934 and then created a sensation in his 1937 Broadway performance, revived it in New York in 1940 and then immortalised it on television for the Hallmark Hall of Fame in 1954. In England, Paul Scofield, who played it at the Old Vic in 1952, was considered the definitive Richard of more modern times.[16] In 1974, Ian Richardson and Richard Pasco alternated the roles of Richard and Bolingbroke in a production from John Barton at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre: thirty years later this was still a standard by which performances were being judged.[17] One of the most accessible versions was the 1978 television production by the BBC of the play, shown as part of "The Shakespeare Plays" (a several years-long project to put all of Shakespeare's plays on tape). This version, still available on DVD, starred Derek Jacobi as Richard, with John Gielgud making an appearance as John of Gaunt. In 1997, Fiona Shaw played the role in drag.[18] More recently, the play was staged by Trevor Nunn in modern costume at the Old Vic in 2005, with Kevin Spacey in the title role, and by Michael Grandage at the Donmar Warehouse in 2011-12 with Eddie Redmayne in the title role.

In summer 2012, BBC Two broadcast a filmed adaptation together with other plays in the Henriad under the series title The Hollow Crown with Ben Whishaw as Richard II.[19]

No film version for cinema release has ever been made; however, the 1949 film Train of Events includes a sub-plot featuring an amateur dramatics society performing the last scenes of Richard II.

The Royal Shakespeare Company produced the play with David Tennant in the lead role in 2013.[20] It has been released as a Cineplex Odeon special worldwide movie event.[21]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Forker page 507 note 24. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2013-12-12. 
  2. ^ Gurr (1990: 55)
  3. ^ Shapiro, I. A. "Richard II or Richard III or..." Shakespeare Quarterly 9 )1958): 206
  4. ^ The Riverside Shakespeare: Second Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, 845.
  5. ^ Elliott, John R. "History and Tragedy in Richard II"Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, Vol. 8, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (Spring, 1968), 253–271.
  6. ^ Richmond, Hugh M. "Personal Identity and Literary Personae: A Study in Historical Psychology,"PMLA 90.2 (Mar. 1975), 214–217.
  7. ^ Elliott 253–267.
  8. ^ Riverside 845.
  9. ^ a b c d Bate, Jonathan (2008). Soul of the Age. London: Penguin. pp. 256–286. ISBN 978-0-670-91482-1. 
  10. ^ Schoenbaum, Samuel (2004). Richard II and the realities of Power. Cambrdige: Cambridge. pp. 101–102. ISBN 0-521-83623-9. 
  11. ^ Kantorowicz, H. Ernst. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957, 24–31.
  12. ^ Kantorowicz 24–31.
  13. ^ Thompson, Karl F. "Richard II, Martyr." Shakespeare Quarterly 8.2 (Spring 1957), 159–166.[1]
  14. ^ Newlin, T. Jeanne. Richard II: Critical Essays. New York: Garland Publishing Inc, 1984, 95–103.
  15. ^ F. E. Halliday, A Shakespeare Companion 1564–1964, Baltimore, Penguin, 1964; pp. 262 and 412-13.
  16. ^ "Paul Scofield: Oscar-winning actor whose phenomenal range was unmatched in his generation". The Independent (London). 21 March 2008. 
  17. ^ Coveney, Michael (6 October 2005). "A king with a PM's problems". The Independent (UK). Retrieved 1 June 2009. "the greatest RSC productions...the best ever was John Barton's with Ian Richardson and Richard Pasco" 
  18. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120016/
  19. ^ "The Hollow Crown: Richard II". BBC Media Centre. Retrieved 2012-06-15. 
  20. ^ "David Tennant to play Richard II in RSC's winter season". BBC News. 23 January 2013. 
  21. ^ http://www.cineplex.com/Events/Shakespeare

Bibliography[edit]

Editions of Richard II[edit]

  • Bate, Jonathan and Rasmussen, Eric (eds.), Richard II (The RSC Shakespeare; London: Macmillan, 2010)
  • Black, Matthew W. (ed.) The Tragedy of King Richard the Second (The Pelican Shakespeare; London, Penguin, 1957; revised edition 1970)
  • Dawson, Anthony B. and Yachnin, Paul (eds.) Richard II (The Oxford Shakespeare; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)
  • Dolan, Frances E. (ed.) Richard II (The Pelican Shakespeare, 2nd edition; London, Penguin, 2000)
  • Dover Wilson, John (ed.) Richard II (The New Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939; 2nd edition, 1951)
  • Edmondson, Paul (ed.) Richard II (The New Penguin Shakespeare 2nd edition; London: Penguin, 2008)
  • Evans, G. Blakemore (ed.) The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974; 2nd edn., 1997)
  • Forker, Charles R. (ed.) King Richard II (The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd Series; London: Arden, 2002)
  • Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E. and Maus, Katharine Eisaman (eds.) The Norton Shakespeare: Based on the Oxford Shakespeare (London: Norton, 1997)
  • Gurr, Andrew (ed.) King Richard II (The Cambridge Shakespeare; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984; 2nd edition 2003)
  • Muir, Kenneth (ed.) Richard II (Signet Classic Shakespeare; New York: Signet, 1963; revised edition, 1988; 2nd revised edition 1999)
  • Powell, Ivor B. (ed.) King Richard II (The Arden Shakespeare, 1st Series; London: Arden, 1912)
  • Ure, Peter (ed.) King Richard II (The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd Series; London: Arden, 1956)
  • Wells, Stanley (ed.) Richard II (The New Penguin Shakespeare; London: Penguin, 1969; revised edition 1997)
  • Wells, Stanley; Taylor, Gary; Jowett, John and Montgomery, William (eds.) The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986; 2nd edn., 2005)
  • Werstine, Paul and Mowat, Barbara A. (eds.) Richard II (Folger Shakespeare Library; Washington: Simon & Schuster, 1996)

Secondary sources[edit]

  • Barroll, Leeds. "A New History for Shakespeare and His Time." Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (1988), 441–4.
  • Bergeron, David. "The Deposition Scene in Richard II." Renaissance Papers 1974, 31–7.
  • Bullough, Geoffrey. "Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare". Early English History Plays: Henry VI Richard III Richard II, volume III, Routledge: London, New York, 1960.
  • Huke, Ivan and Perkins, Derek. Richard II: Literature Revision Notes and Examples. Celtic Revision Aids. 1981. ISBN 0-17-751304-7.
  • Chambers, E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 Volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.
  • Rose, Alexander. Kings in the North – The House of Percy in British History. Phoenix/Orion Books Ltd, 2002, ISBN 1-84212-485-4
  • Smitd, Kristian. Unconformities in Shakespeare's History Plays, St. Martin's Press: New York, 1993.
  • Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays, Chatto&Windus: London,1944.of Virginia

See also[edit]

External links[edit]