Richard II (play)
The
Life and Death of King Richard the Second,
commonly called Richard II, 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.
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
- King Richard II
- John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster – Richard's uncle
- Duke of York – Richard's uncle
- Duke of Aumerle – York's son
- Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk
- Queen – Richard's wife (an unnamed composite of his first wife, Anne of Bohemia, and his second, Isabella of Valois, who was still a child at the time of his death)
- Duchess of York – York's wife (an unnamed composite of York's first wife, Infanta Isabella of Castile, and his second, Joan Holland)
- Duchess of Gloucester – widow of Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, uncle to the king
Rebels
- Henry Bolingbroke – Duke of Hereford, son of John of Gaunt, later King Henry IV
- Earl of Northumberland
- Henry 'Hotspur' Percy – Northumberland's son
- Lord Ross
- Lord Willoughby
- Lord Fitzwater
- Sir Piers Exton
Richard's
allies
- Duke of Surrey
- Earl of Salisbury
- Lord Berkeley
- Bushy – favourite of Richard
- Bagot – favourite of Richard
- Green – favourite of Richard
- Bishop of Carlisle
- Abbot of Westminster
- Sir Stephen Scroop
William le Scrope,
1st Earl of Wiltshire, featured in Thomas of Woodstock (as Sir Thomas Scroop), is an off-stage character referred
to as "The Earl of Wiltshire."
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
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, having been requested to arbitrate a dispute between Thomas Mowbray and Richard's cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, later Henry IV, who has accused Mowbray of squandering money given to him
by Richard for the king's soldiers and of murdering Bolingbroke's uncle, the Duke of Gloucester. Bolingbroke's father, John
of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, meanwhile,
believes it was Richard himself who was responsible for his brother's murder.
After several attempts to calm both men, Richard acquiesces and it is
determined that the matter be resolved in the established method of trial
by battle between Bolingbroke and Mowbray,
despite the objections of Gaunt.
The
tournament scene is very formal with a long, ceremonial introduction, but as
the combatants are about to fight, Richard interrupts and sentences both to
banishment from England. Bolingbroke is originally sentenced to ten years'
banishment, but Richard reduces this to six years upon seeing John of Gaunt's
grieving face, while Mowbray is banished permanently. The king's decision can
be seen as the first mistake in a series leading eventually to his overthrow
and death, since it is an error which highlights many of his character flaws,
displaying as it does indecisiveness (in terms of whether to allow the duel to
go ahead), abruptness (Richard waits until the last possible moment to cancel
the duel), and arbitrariness (there is no apparent reason why Bolingbroke
should be allowed to return and Mowbray not). In addition, the decision fails
to dispel the suspicions surrounding Richard's involvement in the death of the
Duke of Gloucester – in fact, by handling the situation so high-handedly and
offering no coherent explanation for his reasoning, Richard only manages to
appear more guilty. Mowbray predicts that the king will sooner or later fall 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 (belonging by rights to his son, Bolingbroke) to fund war in Ireland, of
taxing the commoners, and of fining the nobles for crimes committed by their ancestors.
They then help Bolingbroke to return secretly to England, with a plan to
overthrow Richard II. There remain, however, subjects who continue faithful to
the king, among them Bushy, Bagot, Green and the Duke
of Aumerle (son of the Duke of York), cousin of both Richard and Bolingbroke. When King Richard
leaves England to attend to the war in Ireland, Bolingbroke seizes the
opportunity to assemble an army and invades the north coast of England.
Executing both Bushy and Green, he wins over the Duke of York, whom Richard has
left in charge of his government in his absence.
Upon
Richard's return, Bolingbroke not only reclaims his lands but lays claim to the
very throne. Crowning himself King Henry IV,
he has Richard taken prisoner 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 while executing 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 him. King Henry
repudiates the murderer and vows to journey to Jerusalem to cleanse himself of
his part in Richard's death.
Sources
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. 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.
Date and text
The
earliest recorded performance of Richard II was a private one, in Canon
Row, the house of Edward Hoby,
on 9 December 1595. 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 Shakespeare 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 scant 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
Structure and language
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. 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.
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. 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. Elliott
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.
Unusually
for Shakespeare, Richard II is written entirely in verse, and this is one of only four plays of his which are, the
others being King John
and the first
and third
parts of Henry VI. It thus 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. 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.
Historical context
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,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. 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.
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. 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.
Themes and motifs
The King's Two Bodies
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.
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. 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.
The rise of a Machiavellian king
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 reigns 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. 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.
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
On
9 December 1595, Sir Robert Cecil enjoyed "K. Richard" at Sir Edward Hoby's house
in Canon Row, and it might have been Shakespeare's Richard II, although
some suspected that it was a different play, a painting, or a historical
document.
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).
It
is said that on 30 September 1607, the crew of Capt. William Keeling acted Richard
II aboard the British East India Company ship The Red Dragon, off Sierra
Leone, but the authenticity of this
record is doubted.
The
play was performed at the Globe on 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.
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. 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. In the
1968–1970 seasons of the Prospect Theatre Company, Ian McKellen
made a breakthrough performance as Richard, opposite Timothy
West as Bolingbroke. The production,
directed by Richard Cottrell,
toured Britain and Europe, featuring in the Edinburgh Festival
in 1969 and on BBC TV
in 1970. 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. 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 as a man. 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.
Additionally
the role was played by Mark
Rylance at the Globe Theatre in 2003. An
often overlooked production, the lead actor handles the character in, as The
Guardian noted, perhaps the most vulnerable way ever seen. The play returned to
the Globe in 2015 with Charles Edwards 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.
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. It has
been released as a Cineplex Odeon
special worldwide movie event. Tennant reprised the role for his U.S. stage
debut, at BAM, in April 2016.
The
Almeida Theatre,
Islington, London, produced the play with Simon Russell Beale
in the lead role in 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment