Editing Richard II (play) (section)

== 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 Richard II's fall and the rise of Bolingbroke, later known as Henry IV.<ref name = riverside>''The Riverside Shakespeare: Second Edition.'' Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, 845.</ref> Critic John R. Elliott Jr. notes that this play can be distinguished from the other history plays because it has an ulterior political purpose. Shakespearean tragedy's normal structure 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 Richard's fate that are resolved in the future plays of the ''Richard II''–''Henry V'' tetralogy.<ref>{{cite journal|first=John R. Jr. |last=Elliott|title=History and Tragedy in ''Richard II''|journal=SEL: Studies in English Literature 1500–1900|volume=8|issue=2|date=Spring 1968|pages=253–271| doi=10.2307/449658 | jstor=449658 }}</ref>

The 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 statecraft, arguing that not only bloodline but also intellect and political skill qualify a king.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Hugh M.|last=Richmond|title=Personal Identity and Literary Personae: A Study in Historical Psychology|journal=PMLA|volume=90|issue=2|date=March 1975|pages=214–217}}</ref> Richard believes that as king he is chosen and guided by God: not subject to human frailty, he is entitled to absolute authority over his subjects. Elliott argues that this conceited notion of his role ultimately leads to Richard's failure, adding that Bolingbroke's ability to relate and speak with the middle and lower classes allows him to take the throne.<ref>Elliott 253–267.</ref>

Although it is largely historically accurate, ''Richard II'' is a tragedy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Elliott |first=John Rn |date=1968 |title=History and Tragedy in Richard II |journal=Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages=253–271 |doi=10.2307/449658 |jstor=449658 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/449658 }}</ref> ''Richard II'' follows the arc of most of Shakespeare's tragedies: a series of catastrophes lead to a death, which resolves in forgiveness. A long line of mistakes, mostly on the part of Richard himself, lead to his incarceration and murder. But when his body is presented to Henry IV, the now-king declares, "although I did wish him dead, I hate the murderer, love the murderèd."<ref>William Shakespeare, ''The complete works of William'' ''Shakespeare.'' 2nd ed. (London: Amaranth press, 1985), Richard II, Act V, scene VI, lines 39-40 (pg. 399).</ref> This line affords Richard absolution and cements this play's place among Shakespeare's tragedies.

Unusually for Shakespeare, ''Richard II'' is written entirely in [[Verse (poetry)|verse]], one of only four of his plays, the others being ''[[King John (play)|King John]]'' and the [[Henry VI, Part 1|first]] and [[Henry VI, Part 3|third]] parts of ''Henry VI''. There are also great differences in the characters' use of language. Traditionally, Shakespeare  distinguishes social classes by having the upper classes speak in poetry while the lower classes speak in prose. In ''Richard II'', there is no prose, but Richard uses flowery, [[metaphor]]ical language in his speeches, whereas Bolingbroke, also of the noble class, uses a more plain and direct language. Besides the usual [[blank verse]] (unrhymed pentameters), there are long stretches of [[heroic couplet]]s (pairs of rhymed [[Iambic pentameter|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 delineate Richard's character as analytical rather than active. He always speaks in tropes, using analogies such as the sun as a symbol of his kingly status. Richard is obsessed with symbols: his crown, the symbol of his royal power, is of more concern to him than his actual kingly duties.<ref name = riverside/>

===Historical context===
[[File:Richard II King of England.jpg|thumb|Coronation portrait of Richard II at [[Westminster Abbey]], mid 1390s|upright=1.25]]

The play was performed and published late in the reign of [[Elizabeth I of England|Elizabeth I]], at a time when the queen's advanced age made 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,<ref name="bate256" /> 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 (historian)|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'', made this connection. Samuel Schoenbaum contests that Hayward had written his work before ''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.<ref name="Shoenbaum101">{{cite book|last=Schoenbaum|first=Samuel|author-link=Samuel Schoenbaum|title=Richard II and the realities of Power|publisher=Cambridge|location=Cambridge|year=2004|pages=101–102|isbn=0-521-83623-9}}</ref> Hayward 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.<ref name="bate256">{{cite book|last=Bate|first=Jonathan|author-link=Jonathan Bate|title=Soul of the Age|publisher=Penguin|location=London|year=2008|pages=256–286|isbn=978-0-670-91482-1}}</ref>

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 [[Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland|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 [[Lord Chamberlain's Men|Chamberlain's Men]] actor [[Augustine Phillips]], the conspirators paid the company forty [[shilling]]s "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.<ref name="bate256" /> 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 Lord 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.<ref name="bate256" />

===Themes and motifs===

====''The King's Two Bodies''====
In his analysis of medieval [[political theology]], ''[[The King's Two Bodies|The King’s Two Bodies]]'', [[Ernst Kantorowicz]] describes medieval kings as containing two bodies: a body natural, and a [[Body politic#In statehood|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.<ref name = kantorowicz>Kantorowicz, H. Ernst. ''The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology''. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1957, 24–31.</ref>

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.<ref name = kantorowicz/> 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.<ref>Thompson, Karl F. "Richard II, Martyr." ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' 8.2 (Spring 1957), 159–166. {{JSTOR |2866958}}</ref>

====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 [[Niccolò Machiavelli#The Prince|Machiavellian philosophy]] may be seen in Bolingbroke.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ribner |first1=Irving |title=Bolingbroke, A True Machiavellian |journal=[[Modern Language Quarterly]] |date=1 June 1948 |volume=9 |issue=2 |pages=177–184 |doi=10.1215/00267929-9-2-177}}</ref> 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 with 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.<ref>Newlin, T. Jeanne. ''Richard II: Critical Essays''. New York: Garland Publishing Inc, 1984, 95–103.</ref> 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.