week 5 seminar 5 - richard ii

RICHARD II

Read and/or watch the play and familiarise yourself with the narrative, structure, characters, and stylistic tone.

Consider the following questions:

1. Stylistically, what is different about this play from others we’ve read so far?

• Richard II is written entirely in verse. Even lower-status characters speak in poetry, giving the play a highly formal and lyrical quality.

• Richard II has a deeply poetic and reflective tone, especially in Richard’s soliloquies about kingship, fate, and identity. It focuses on internal psychological conflict rather than external action.

• Unlike Shakespeare’s other histories and tragedies, Richard II has little physical action—most of the conflict is verbal and political. The drama unfolds through speeches and persuasion rather than direct confrontations.

• Richard II uses elaborate metaphors, symbolism (e.g., the garden scene as a metaphor for England’s decline), and a sense of ritual.

• Richard II is a poetic, introspective, and tragic figure who transforms from an arrogant king to a reflective, almost mystical prisoner.

2. Where do your sympathies lie in this play? For Richard or for Bolingbroke? Do they move over the course of the play? If so, how is this achieved and why?

Act I-II

• At the start of the play, Richard is difficult to sympathize with. He is an arrogant and irresponsible ruler—he unjustly banishes Bolingbroke, seizes John of Gaunt’s inheritance, and appears detached from the realities of leadership. His language is full of divine right rhetoric, but his actions show a failure to live up to it.

• Bolingbroke, in contrast, seems like the more rational and pragmatic figure. His cause is just: he is merely trying to reclaim what is lawfully his. He speaks in plain, direct terms, reinforcing his role as a practical and capable leader.

Act III

• When Richard returns from Ireland and realizes he is losing power, he undergoes a dramatic transformation. His language becomes more poetic, introspective, and filled with self-doubt.

• In the famous “hollow crown” speech (Act 3, Scene 2), Richard begins to see his own mortality and frailty, marking the start of his tragic downfall.

• His public abdication in Act 4, where he plays out his own humiliation in front of the court, is heart-wrenching. He speaks in lyrical, self-pitying tones, turning himself into a tragic figure.

• Bolingbroke, by contrast, becomes colder and more politically calculating. His rise seems inevitable, but he lacks the poetic soul that Richard develops.

Act IV-V

• By the final acts, Richard is no longer just a fallen king—he has become a reflective, almost poetic martyr. In his prison soliloquy (Act 5, Scene 5), he contemplates identity, time, and fate, showing a depth of self-awareness that he lacked as king. His murder feels cruel and unjust, making him a true tragic figure.

• Meanwhile, Bolingbroke, now King Henry IV, seems burdened by guilt. His rise is not celebrated—it is shadowed by the consequences of his ambition. His reign begins with unease, foreshadowing future turmoil in Henry IV, Part 1.

3. Do you think Richard deserves to be deposed? What do you think of the arguments presented first for Bolingbroke’s return and then for the usurpation? Are they consistent?

Does Richard Deserve to be deposed?

• Unjustly banishes Bolingbroke.

• Seizes John of Gaunt’s inheritance, violating property rights.

• Squanders England’s wealth on personal extravagance and unpopular wars.

• Surrounds himself with flatterers and fails to command respect from his nobles.

Arguments for Bolingbroke’s Return

• He was unfairly exiled.

• His inheritance has been stolen.

• He has a right to return and claim what is his.

Arguments for the Usurpation—Are They Consistent?

• Richard is not just unjust—he is unfit to rule.

• England is suffering under Richard’s mismanagement, and a stronger leader is needed.

• The people and the nobles support Bolingbroke, making his rule practically legitimate.

The Problem of Legitimacy

• Richard was a poor ruler, but he was still the legitimate king.

• Bolingbroke is more capable, but his rise to power is built on an act of rebellion.

• The deposition solves one crisis but sows the seeds for future conflict.

4. Is Richard an accomplice in his own downfall? If so, how? What features or traits in his character enable Bolingbroke’s ascent? Like last week, is there a connection between what makes Richard a bad king and what makes him a captivating character?

Richard’s Detachment from Political Reality

• He banishes Bolingbroke too easily in Act 1.

• He seizes Gaunt’s inheritance despite warnings that this will alienate his nobles.

• He leaves for Ireland at a critical moment, allowing Bolingbroke to gain power.

Richard’s Theatricality and Self-Dramatization

• In Act 3, when he realizes his support is crumbling, he speaks of himself in metaphors of decay (“I live with bread like you, feel want, taste grief, need friends”).

• In Act 4, during his abdication, he turns the moment into an extended piece of theater, stretching out the ritual by asking for a mirror to see his fallen self.

• This obsession with the idea of kingship rather than the act of ruling makes him dramatically fascinating but politically doomed.

The Link Between His Flaws and His Charisma

• What makes Richard a bad king—his poetic detachment, his passivity, and his self-absorption—also makes him the most mesmerizing character in the play. He has a lyrical, almost tragic beauty in his downfall that Bolingbroke lacks. Bolingbroke is effective but cold, while Richard, for all his failings, has a deep, almost philosophical awareness of his fate.

• In this sense, Richard’s downfall is not just a political event—it is a transformation into something larger than himself. His self-destruction turns him from an inept ruler into a tragic philosopher, making him unforgettable even as he loses his crown.

5. How is authority characterised in this play? What poetic imagery is used to describe what’s right or wrong with England and the crown? Do you think gender performance and/or sexuality plays a role in this?
Authority as Divine Yet Fragile

• Richard sees kingship as an unquestionable, God-given status. He believes that because he is anointed, his power cannot be taken away. However, Shakespeare shows how authority is actually built on perception, loyalty, and political strength.

• Richard invokes religious imagery to justify his rule:

  • “Not all the water in the rough rude sea

    Can wash the balm off from an anointed king.” (3.2.54-55)

• He sees himself as sacred, but this belief blinds him to the realities of political power—his divine status does not protect him when he loses the support of his nobles.

• Bolingbroke, on the other hand, presents authority as something earned and maintained through action. His power comes not from divine anointment but from pragmatism, military strength, and political alliances. This contrast shows the shift in the play from medieval, sacred kingship to a more Machiavellian, realpolitik approach.

Poetic Imagery of England and the Crown

• England as a Garden

  • In Act 3, Scene 4, the Gardener criticizes Richard’s rule, comparing the state to an overgrown, mismanaged garden:

> “Her fruit trees all unpruned, her hedges ruined,

> Her knots disordered, and her wholesome herbs

> Swarming with caterpillars.” (3.4.44-46)

• This suggests that Richard has failed in his duty to cultivate and care for England, allowing corruption and disorder to spread. The idea of England as a body that must be tended aligns with the Renaissance belief in the king as a gardener, responsible for maintaining order.

• The Crown as a Hollow Burden

  • Richard, in his downfall, describes the crown not as a symbol of power but as a hollow, fragile object:

> “For within the hollow crown

> That rounds the mortal temples of a king

> Keeps Death his court.” (3.2.160-162)

• Here, the crown is a trap—something that gives the illusion of power but actually brings suffering and inevitable mortality. This imagery highlights the emptiness of Richard’s kingship and foreshadows his downfall.

• Disease and Corruption

• There are several references to England as sick or diseased under Richard’s rule:

  • Gaunt calls England a once-glorious land now “leased out” and “bound in shallows” (2.1.61-62), implying that Richard has sold away its honor.

  • The idea that Richard’s mismanagement has allowed England to “rot” suggests that kingship is not just symbolic but has real consequences for the nation's well-being.

• Gender Performance and Sexuality in Power

  • Richard’s characterization has long been read in terms of gender performance, particularly in contrast to Bolingbroke’s masculine, militaristic authority.

• Richard’s Theatricality and “Feminine” Power

  • Richard’s rule is marked by performance, poetic reflection, and emotional display, traits that, in Elizabethan society, were often coded as “feminine.”

  • He engages in highly performative moments (e.g., asking for a mirror in Act 4 to see his fallen self).

  • He weeps and laments his fate, embracing a passive, poetic suffering rather than taking action.

  • His self-presentation contrasts with Bolingbroke’s decisive, military-driven masculinity.

  • This contrast reinforces the idea that Richard’s downfall is tied to his inability to perform traditional masculinity. While Bolingbroke embodies a practical, forceful ruler, Richard leans into an aestheticized, tragic, and even martyr-like role—a form of kingship that is less effective but deeply compelling as a character.

• Sexuality and Kingship

  • Some scholars have also pointed to homoerotic undertones in Richard’s relationships with his favorites (Bushy, Bagot, and Green). Their close, possibly intimate bond sets them apart from the more traditionally masculine, militaristic nobility like Bolingbroke. The accusation that Richard is too attached to his flatterers carries an implicit suggestion that he is “unmanly,” further undermining his authority in the eyes of his nobles.

6. How does this play explore the difference between law and politics and/or legitimacy and authority? At what points do these concepts work in harmony; at what points do they collapse? How and why?

Law vs. Politics: When Justice and Power Diverge

• Richard Violates the Law (Act 1, Scene 3 & Act 2, Scene 1)

  • Richard initially seems to uphold the law when he oversees the trial-by-combat between Bolingbroke and Mowbray. However, he interrupts the legal process and exiles both men, showing that his political will overrides legal proceedings.

  • Later, he seizes John of Gaunt’s lands after his death, violating the very laws of inheritance that give kings legitimacy. This move turns even Richard’s loyal supporters (like the Duke of York) against him because it sets a precedent that law can be ignored for political gain.

  • This is the first major sign that Richard is undermining his own legitimacy by allowing political expediency to override legal tradition.

• Bolingbroke’s Return: Lawful or Political? (Act 2, Scene 3)

  • Bolingbroke claims to return only to reclaim his rightful inheritance, which gives his cause a legal basis. However, his growing support and military presence show that his real strength comes from political backing, not law.

  • When York confronts him, he says:

    “Make me but servitor to your highness’ pleasure,

    If not, I’ll use the advantage of my power.” (2.3.113-114)

  • This moment exposes the thin veil of legality over Bolingbroke’s actions—he appeals to law, but ultimately, power is what matters.

  • Law serves as a justification for action, but politics determines the outcome.

Legitimacy vs. Authority: Divine Right vs. Practical Rule

• Richard is legitimate by birth and divine ordination, but Bolingbroke is the one with real authority. Shakespeare examines this gap, showing how political strength often outweighs legal claims.

• The Hollow Crown Speech (Act 3, Scene 2)

  • Richard still believes in his divine legitimacy, but his authority is gone. He realizes that kingship is not enough if it is not enforced by power:

    “For God’s substitute,

    His deputy anointed in His sight,

    Hath caused his death, the which if wrongfully,

    Let Heaven revenge.” (3.2.36-39)

  • He clings to the idea that legitimacy is inviolable, but the reality is that Bolingbroke’s authority is growing. Richard’s fatalism—his belief that divine justice will prevail—makes him unable to fight for his own rule.

  • Richard loses power because he sees kingship as a divine right rather than a role that requires active leadership.

• The Forced Abdication (Act 4, Scene 1)

  • Bolingbroke forces Richard to abdicate in public, but Richard turns it into a theatrical spectacle, emphasizing that kingship is not something that can simply be handed over like an object:

    “I give this heavy weight from off my head…

    But with my own tears wash away my balm.” (4.1.194-200)

  • Even as he is deposed, Richard still claims a moral superiority over Bolingbroke. However, this does not stop the inevitable transfer of power.

  • This is the moment where legitimacy and authority completely separate: Richard remains the lawful king in his mind, but Bolingbroke has taken control.

Where Law and Politics Work in Harmony (Or Fall Apart)

• Moments of Alignment (When Law and Politics Reinforce Each Other)

  • Before the play begins: Richard is both the legal and political ruler. His legitimacy and authority are in harmony.

  • Bolingbroke’s return to reclaim his inheritance: His legal right to his father’s lands gives his political movement credibility.

• Moments of Collapse (When Law and Politics Clash)

  • Richard seizing Gaunt’s inheritance: He is still the lawful king, but by breaking property laws, he loses support.

  • Richard’s forced abdication: He is still the legitimate king, but politically powerless.

  • Bolingbroke becoming Henry IV: He has full authority but lacks an undisputed legal claim. This foreshadows the instability of his reign in Henry IV, Part 1.

• Richard II explores how power is not just about legal right but about maintaining control. Shakespeare forces us to question whether rulers are truly chosen by divine will or whether authority is simply the result of political strength.