Talk:Richard II (play)

Separate article?

[moved from Talk:Plot and brief characterisation of Richard II when that article was moved here]

Why is this a separate article from Richard II, and doesn't it need to be edited to sound more like an encyclopedia article than a homework assignment? -- isis 12:26 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

This stuff is odd, and probably oughtn't to be in the article:

Plot and brief characterisation of Richard II

Richard II belongs to William Shakespeare's history plays. Due to this, Shakespeare took many information about the circumstances of the king's deposition from chronicles written by Raphael Holinshed and Edward Hall which helped him to present the events in a greater detail. In contrast to the other history plays, Shakespeare puts a greater emphasis on the characters and their language and not so much on the action itself. He tries to present the inner conflicts of the characters and because of this he wants to point out the contrast between the protagonist Richard and his antagonist Henry Bullingbrook, the later Henry IV.

The whole story deals with the deposition of the king. Mowbray and Bullingbrook accuse each other of being traitors. Richard, the king, banishes both and only allows Bullingbrook, his cousin, to return. Meanwhile Bullingbrook's father, Old John of Gaunt has died and Richard takes all his lands in order to finance his wars against Ireland. Because of this, nearly the whole nobility switches sides because they are afraid that Richard could take their lands too. Bullingbrook gets to know this news as well and with the support of the English nobility he contrives to return. Moreover, the barons want him to become the new king and want Richard's deposition. Instead of taking the warnings of those who favour him seriously, Richard does not believe them.

The duke of York, who rules the country during the absence of the king ,wants both sides to talk to each other but once Richard has realised how bad his situation is, he falls into deep despair. According to this, Bullingbrook becomes the new king and his nemesis is killed.

Richard has the reputation of being a weak king throughout the play. This argument is supported by several examples where he cannot present himself as the ideal king for the England of the time. The king is marked by a certain corruptness towards his nobility. This can be noticed right from the start. Richard paid Mowbray to kill the Duke of Gloucester, his own uncle. However, the king has no intention to take over the responsibilty for his command and he does not say a single word during the accusation of the two men. In order to live his reign in security, he banishes both men. Although Mowbray reminds him of his order, the king ignores him (I.I.132-134).

This accusation is not fully understandable for the reader because Shakespeare withholds the historical facts, and these facts are not mentioned in the further progress of the play.

On the contrary, Richard regards himself as a great king. He believes that he was appointed by God himself to rule the country and due to this no one can do him any harm because God is his "personal" defender (III.II.54-57). This view is supported by several images, verbal pictures, which help to emphasise what is said. Richard calls himself a "lion", the most powerful animal, which has the connotation of being the king among such.

After his return from Ireland, Richard compares himself with the rising of the bright and radiating sun which disperses all dark adversaries. This is actually the problem of the whole play: Richard is too convinced of himself and does not want to see that reality looks different to his imagination.

Richard lives in his own world of imagination and because of this his passivity can be explained. He simply refuses to act and once he has realised that reality looks totally different, it is too late and he cannot reverse the wheel of fortune, although Bullingbrook has no intention of dethroning Richard at first. He only wants to restore his honour and get his inherited lands back.

An important aspect of the play is its language. The popularity of the history play has been achieved by the language. It is even more important than the action itself because the characters can be analysed via their words rather than their action. This is especially the case when the reader takes a closer look at the protagonist Richard. He is the passive character of the play and a lot of information is gained by his words and not because of his actions.

He speaks in the whole play in a melodious verse and this is supported by images. They are mostly taken from the four elements. Richard himself is compared with fire, the strongest element. On the reverse side, his nemesis is compared with water. This suggests that they contradict each other. While they are speaking, the air is noticeable, it can be said that it is responsible for the neutrality between the fire and the water. The earth is represented by the country itself which is going to be destroyed by the fire, the king. In the progress of the play the positions of the main characters change and because of Richard's deposition, Bullingbrook gains the connotation of the fire.

Not only because of these facts, Richard II belongs to Shakespeare's great works. Taking a closer look at the characters or the language, one can notice the highly stylised manner of its presentation.

I think the article without the stuff is perfectly good, and this stuff really isn't very much like an encyclopedia article. john 03:42 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sources/Footnotes

I think this is an excellent article on Richard II. I just think it could benefit from using footnotes connecting the existing citations to non-plot based areas of the article, such as the Historical Context section. While I've heard the Elizabeth quotations before, for example, it would be beneficial to see where the quotations were pulled from so those less familiar would be able to investigate the material further. I'm not doubting the information; I just think someone more familiar to the references than I could go through and footnote the sources to make this article better.--Trentsketch (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth's quote ("I am Richard II, know ye not that?") appears in Ernst Kanterowicz, The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology (Princeton University Press, 1957), 41. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.228.141 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Spellings

The Arden Shakespeare copy of Richard II, spells Green and Scroop with an E on the end. Does it matter which is used? --TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Some editors use the spellings of the First Folio (a page from which is illustrated in the article) and these have the e for Scroope and Greene. This isn't an infallible starting point, however: for example, "Bushy" often appears there as "Bushie", which is never used.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Had wondered whether the lack of "e" was an americanism --TimothyJacobson (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

I see a contradiction here. In "Structure and language", the article says "not only bloodline but also intellect and political savvy contribute to the makings of a good king.", suggesting that Richard II was lacking these qualities. Later, in the fourth paragraph, we read that "Richard's character as a man who likes to analyze situations rather than act upon them." It seems to me that here Richard is presented as a man possessing intellect, since he is able to analyze situations. You don't use bloodline to do that. So, does anyone have any clue what's going on here? --Alexander (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Performance

I did a minimal edit, changing 'production' to 'project', as the word was misleading. I should have done more really. The project was known as The BBC Shakespeare, not The Shakespeare Plays.

And I doubt whether Gielgud really put himself on the map with his first Richard in 1929. The Old Vic was very unfashionable then. It was surely his modern Richard in "Richard of Bordeaux", in the West End, that changed everything.

Rogersansom (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

Is this the same work as "The Life and Death of Richard the Second"? If same, which title is the "official" one? --KpoT (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the article's lead image: "The Life and Death of Richard the Second". --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

So then why isn't this article given the real full title instead of a short name? --KpoT (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Because "article titles are based on the ...name... most frequently used" and "shorter titles are generally preferred to longer ones" --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"The rise of a Machiavellian king" section should be removed

"The rise of a Machiavellian king" section contains only one footnote and reads like a college essay by an ignorant student. The reference is to nine pages of an obscure anthology, and in no way explains which -- if any -- points in the section are attributed.

I have removed two of the stupider statements in the sophomore English class essay, but the whole should be deleted, particularly given the disproportion of these eight pages of an anthology compared to the dozens of equally or more valid sources on the play.

Richard II and Donald Trump

I've just read a fascinating online piece by Eliot Cohen, published on 5 October this year in The Atlantic, under the title 'The Feckless King The president’s fall has come, and it has a Shakespearean flavor': https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/trump-shakespeare/616612/. Cohen argues that there are some striking similarities between Trump and the way that Shakespeare develops the character of Richard II. The Shakespearean comparison has become even more relevant now that Trump has lost the election, and his refusal to concede defeat. I am wondering whether there might be some space to reference this interpretation within this article on the play? Perhaps a mention of contemporary applications of Richard II? I would be interested to hear what other editors think. HistoryEditor3 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Shakespeare writes on blank verse normally

This article is very good indeed, and motivates me to suggest an improvement:-

The statement "Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written entirely in verse,..." is not quite accurate, and needs amending to:

"Unusually for Shakespeare, Richard II is written in rhyming verse, whereas normally Shakespeare writes mostly in blank verse, iambic pentameters (five beats)."

Plays like Romeo and Juliet likewise have immortal rhyming verse.Andysoh (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)