How Does Shakespeare’s Richard II? Essay Example

with many other instances, in the conversation between John of Gaunt, one of Richard's discontented uncles, and the Duke of York.Despite Richard's lineage and 'divinity' he is criticised for his youthful impatience and economic exploitation of the lords, both are factors that suggest bad governing. Gaunt:"(Kings are) Feared by their breed, and famous by their birth." (II.I.52). "(To Richard) Landlord of England are you now, not King". (II.I.104). York: "The king is come, deal mildly with his youth. Young hot colts being raged do rage the more". (II.I.69-70).

The importance of Gaunt's words are heightened by the fact that they are his last; it was a commonly held view amongst the Elizabethan's that a dying mans words were prognostic6.By having a dying man criticise Richard's inherited reign, Shakespeare is reinforcing the attack.It is clear that hereditary rule has led to jealousy and inappropriate government from the outset. This jealousy has a violent reciprocal effect and it establishes the stimulus for the first action of the play; when Henry Bolingbroke accuses Thomas Mowbray of murdering Richard's uncle, The Duke of Gloucester. Bolingbroke:"Further I say, and further will maintain, That he did plot the Duke of Gloucester's death". (I.I.98-100)

The genealogical significance of this murder is rooted in the fact that Gloucester was a potential threat to Richard's power, because he too was undone by Richard's coronation. York alludes to the fact that Richard himself had ordered the execution.The truth of this is still under debate. York:"The king (would) cut off my head with my brother's" (II.II.102-103). Despite, or maybe because of, his familiar relation to Mowbray and Bolingbroke Richard asks them to swear on the King's sword not

to rebel against him and his decision to banish them both. Richard:"Return again and take an oath with thee/ (Never) To plot, contrive, or complot any ill" (I.III.178&189).

For our purposes this act signifies two important things; firstly that Richard's political power is in doubt, otherwise his decree would have been enough, and secondly that Richard is aware of it. Not only are Richard's ability as a ruler and authenticity being questioned in the play, so is the second constituent of his kingship, his Divinity. The second part of my essay is concerned with tracing the progression of Richard's divinity from Act 1 to 5.

In Act I we can explore aspects of Richard's divinity through an examination of action and language.Richard acts as god's representative on earth, or in John of Gaunts words "God's Substitute".In the duel between Bolingbroke and Mowbray it is clear from the outset that individual talents would have little or no part to play in the outcome, the battle had transcended mortal restrictions and taken on a more metaphysical importance. It became a chivalric fight in which truth and justice will decide the winner.The interaction of Richard in the fight is similar to that of God in the biblical tale Bolingbroke makes an allusion to in his attack on Mowbray. Bolingbroke:"(Gloucesters) blood, like sacrificing Abel's cries". (I.I.106).

Only Richard can stop or decide this battle on earth, in the same way only God can decide good or evil in heaven. In Cain and Abel's instance the punishment was banishment from his land, in Mowbray and Bolingbrokes case, the same. God: "You will be a restless wanderer on the earth"(Genesis IV.IV.12). Richard:"We banish you

from our territories (to) tread the stranger paths" (I.III.139&143). Bolingbroke's response is a very relevant line from the lord's prayer: Bolingbroke "Your will be done (On Earth as it is in Heaven)" (I.III.144).

The language employed by Richard and those who address him also reinforces his divinity. Bolingbroke sums up the power of Richard's language perfectly in the phrase "Such is the breath of kings". Richard, as do all monarchs, refers to himself in the plural8.The reason for this is that the King was said to be composed of two halves, the body natural and the body politic; coronation being the act of unification. The body natural is human and fallible, the body politic divine and infallible.

It would appear then at this stage Richard's body natural is being seriously criticised by most parties, but as yet his body politic is unblemished. In-keeping with the Romantic tradition, Act III scene two, explores Richard's inner emotions. Having been overthrown by Bolingbroke and his supporters, Richard must now concede his un-kingly fallibility. Richard:"I live with bread, like you feel want Taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus, How can you say to me I am a king." (III.II.167).

As was the case between Bolingbroke and Mowbray, Richard's fate lays in the hands of god.Having lost, Richard beginstoquestionhisown spirituality, and in doing so question his own political legitimacy. Despite this self doubt; in the following scene Richard relies on the divinity of his political office to substantiate his worth.Having been proven to be administratively incompetent, he attempts to prove himself worthy by virtue of the fact that his position is divinely ordained. Richard:"(If I am not your king) show us the hand

of god/ For well we know no hand of blood and bone Can grip the handle of our sceptre". (III.III.78-80)

Act Five scenes five and six, provide us with a huge insight into the state of politics once Richard has been forced to abdicate.As I have said before the king, whoever it may be at the time, should refer to himself in the plural. It is important, then, to note that Richard ceases to do so. This can be interpreted as an acknowledgement by Richard that his political kingship is not sacredly ordained and for this reason that he should have been more prudent and less extravagant. However, in the following scene we see that neither does King Henry Bolingbroke also refrains form using the royal 'we'. Bolingbroke:"High sparks of honour in thee have I seen/ Though I did wish him dead, I hate the murderer." (V.VI.29&39-40).

No form of political consensus is reached; Richard forsakes the divinity of kingship whilst Bolingbroke maintains his respect for it by not employing the royal 'we'. The political complexity of Richard II leads to no consensus; and in this way it offers us more of a critique than a criticism of monarchical politics9. I have suggested that Richard II is being subtly employed to comment on Elizabeth I.The choice of Richard II is based on the similarities between the two monarchs. Due to the Queen's celibacy, around which a cult was formed, there was a debate raging in Shakespeare's time about who was to succeed her; as was the case with Richard.

The detrimental effect of placing importance in sycophantic, and duplicitous courtiers was also an issue that Elizabeth was, or

rather should have been, concerned about. Elizabeth was aware of the potential of the play to incite rebellion, and so the deposition scene was removed from the production, whether or not she was conscious of Shakespeare's intent is another matter.Richard II seeks to dramatise political history by enlightening the audience, and potentially the Queen herself, as to the flaws of an autocratic monarchy. This notion is encapsulated by Richard's ominously moralistic realisation: "I wasted time, now time doth waste me".

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Figgis, John Neville. The Divine Right of Kings, Harper and Row, Ed. John Neville, 3rd Edition, 1965, New York.
2. Keeble, N.H.Shakespeare's Richard II, York Press, Ed. Jeffares, A., 13th Edition, 1997, Singapore.
3. Shakespeare, William. Richard II, Penguin Press, Ed. Stanley Wells, 2nd Edition, 1997, London.
4. Walters, Scott. Richard II, The Underlying Issues, Ed. Scott Walters, 1st Edition, 1998, San Francisco.