Tag Archives: richard II

Richard II

Posted on by

Like others, I found the text somewhat difficult to understand because of the archaic terminology, but the plot is really not that difficult – especially for a person who is interested in politics. Basically, two nobles are embroiled in a fight over who is more loyal to the Crown. There is some rather violent and bitter language, such as Bolingbroke’s promise to tear out his own tongue and “spit it bleeding” in Mowbray’s face rather than withdraw from the fight. Who doesn’t love this kind of violence and passion? I enjoyed the biblical allusion to Cain and Abel, where the blood cries out from beneath the earth. There are other religious references like “miscreant,” “innocent souls,” “rites of knighthood,” “defend my soul from such deep sin,” and “our sacred blood.” While the plot is enjoyable, I definitely need some work on understanding the language. Shakespeare, after all, is no easy read.

Richard-Related Ramblings

Posted on by

I’m going to follow a trend here and say that I, too, experience difficulty while reading the works of William Shakespeare. The only difference with me is that I never realized it. I’ve only ever read the convenient copies with translations every couple of pages and other helping tools in the front and/or back of the book. I love Shakespeare’s plays and devoured them in high school, but every time I had those super-books. I never realized how much I needed them. This time I downloaded the play (it’s public domain- totally legal!). My copy is straight Shakespeare. No assistance here. It’s pretty rough.

As for the story, I think I like it. Richard’s sneaky plot with the banishment and Gaunt’s wealth surprised me and increased my interest. As in media, if it bleeds it leads. The story catches your attention first with the pending duel (for honor? really?) and then with the money scheme. The Duke of York was greatly opposed to seizing the wealth, saying: “You pluck a thousand dangers on your head,/ You lose a thousand well-disposed hearts.” This, as well as the Queen’s premonitions, is major foreshadowing indicating the downfall of Richard II.

I also want to put in as a light side note that in the heat of their argument, Bolingbroke and Mowbray threw down their hoods to invite a fight, as opposed to the traditional glove-smack. I would like to see a film in which they throw down their hoods. I think it would be an interesting sight. They also say ‘spake’ instead of ‘spoke’. Thought you ought to know.

Richard: Hero or Villain?

Posted on by

I’ve always found Shakespeare difficult to read but ultimately rewarding in the end, and so far Richard II hasn’t changed my perception. I think the sudden change in King Richard’s character in the first two acts is really interesting. At first, Richard seems like everything one would expect from a king. He is fair and compassionate in letting Bullingbrook and Mowbray each say their piece without showing any partiality and seems genuinely aggrieved when they resort to a duel. Later, in what seems like a demonstration of wise leadership, he banishes both men instead of shedding blood (though it’s debatable whether exile is a more favorable sentence) and shows mercy to Gaunt, lessening his misery by shortening his son Bullingbrook’s banishment.

It’s only after this scene that we see Richard’s true nature. We learn of his plan to fund Irish wars using the money from Gaunt’s estate after his death, even though the money rightfully belongs to Bullingbrook. Not even Gaunt’s deathbed accusations and insults can guilt Richard into doing the right thing. He’s almost Machiavellian in the respect that he will do what he sees fit for his country whether or not it’s morally sound. This sort of hubris usually leads to some formidable tragedies in drama, so it will be interesting to see what troubles come to King Richard.