What struck me about reading Richard II
was that the overthrow of the king was contrived and executed while maintaining
throughout a façade of respect and flattery towards Richard. Bolingbroke could
land an army and march it through England by claiming that it was for the benefit
of the king that he did it, evening convincing fence sitters like the Duke of
York of his loyalist intentions. When Northumberland left off king from the
name of Richard, the Duke of York rebuked him for the lack of respect. Ultimately
the crown was won by the hollow but respectful bowing of Bolingbroke’s knee,
even as he claimed that the crown was not his intent.
Although it seemed that all the rebels had
just reasons to want the king disposed, it is fascinating that in the England
of Richard’s and then Shakespeare’s time, the regency was so important to their
nation and culture that they could not dispose of a king without pretending to
not be disposing him. The idea that God had place the king with “right royal
majesty” to rule meant that any act against him would be an act against England
and God. Therefore, it required a very careful choice of words and very careful
set of professed motivations to try to overthrow an unjust king. Accordingly,
the rebellion is enacted not against the king, because “the king is not himself
but basely led by flatterers,” and is instead acted against the flatters who take
the blame for the baseness surrounding the king. This careful negotiating of
dangerous waters to avoid the appearance of treason mirrors the situation of
Shakespeare himself, who had to be very careful about how he displayed this
toppling of a monarch in order to not appear to suggest the toppling of his own
monarch Elizabeth. The situation of defiance under the rhetoric of loyalty creates
much of the drama and intrigue of the play, especially when viewed from the
fact that the Romp Parliament would be executing Charles I only fifty years
after the play was written using the same tactic of deference to the king. The
play becomes a look into a fascinating historical development in the English
nation that ends in regicide.
Yeah, I noticed this, too, as I was reading! When he is bemoaning the accusations, John of Gaunt defers to king's judgment because he believes God appointed him to reign: "Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift an angry arm against his minister." That demonstrates the country's common belief of the king's divine appointment; Bolingbroke then, by that belief, commits treason not only against the crown but against God as well.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you are arguing that Shakespeare intentionally planted the seeds of usurpation through Richard II. I find that difficult to embrace, as Shakespeare rarely involved himself in any real way with political and social unrest. Instead, he liked to comment and judge and provoke questions. However, Elizabeth was still queen when Richard II was released, and Shakespeare was loyal (even if he didn't embrace the cult of love surrounding her). I have a hard time seeing the play as revolutionary propoganda.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it as revolutionary propaganda. Far from it. What I am saying is that Shakespeare writes in a time when this issue of divine appointment is become more and more complicated and that, because he is a naturalistic writer, he is able to express that complicated situation in his work. I think that Shakespeare was very loyal to Elizabeth, which is why it is fascinating that he can express those sentiments in his characters while still defending the crown at the same time.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo true. I don't know if the live version did this too, but in the BBC version, Bolingbroke was SO respectful of Richard and never seemed to even want the crown until Richard offers to step down. It makes you wonder what might have happened if Richard had put up more of a fight...
ReplyDelete