This is one of Paul Hogarth's covers for the Penguin editions, the ones we'd read in school. Not all his covers were as on the nose as this. While Richard the Second doesn't really cut it as a saint I think this run's is a better loser than the First Run's. I didn't want him to be showing
Bolingbroke up this time so much as showing him the ropes, showing him round the sausage factory, guiding Bolingbroke's hands over the levers. (I only realised while editing that the "Norfolk" mentioned, who died in Venice, is Thomas Mowbray, the Duke of Norfolk banished in Act One. I wonder what he died of.) Here's Act Four again. At one point I say "off my hand" instead of "off my head" but what are you gonna do...
For someone claiming he wanted nothing but his inheritance back, plates and all, Bolingbroke is awfully quick to accept the crown from Richard. I get being outraged about his (late father's) lands and title being seized by the King, but I feel like I could have done with a few lines from Henry showing us how we went from that to "On Wednesday next we solemnly set down our coronation". (I mean, of course his allies wouldn't have settled for anything less, but Henry is surprisingly reticent as a character, even more so when compared to Richard's fondness for monologuing.)
I've tried looking up this play's connection with the Essex's Rebellion, and apparently it was written six years before that happened. Meaning Shakespeare didn't originally mean Richard and Bolingbroke to stand for Elizabeth and Devereux - unless the rebellion had been a long time in the making, and Shakespeare was a supporter of Essex's all along? Either way, I can't see Bolingbroke as the hero of this story, no matter how much of an a-hole Richard had been throughout his reign. (Maybe that's the whole point, that this isn't so much a story about Richard and Henry as individuals, as it is about Kings and power and death. I just don't know.)
Yes, it was written before Essex' rebellion, and Shakespeare already had a series of plays concerning the ensuing civil war - the Wars of the Roses - unde his belt. I don't think he'd ever have dared write something specifically commissioned for a rebellion. But Elizabeth was close to death and without an heir. England was not looking particularly stable.
For someone claiming he wanted nothing but his inheritance back, plates and all, Bolingbroke is awfully quick to accept the crown from Richard. I get being outraged about his (late father's) lands and title being seized by the King, but I feel like I could have done with a few lines from Henry showing us how we went from that to "On Wednesday next we solemnly set down our coronation". (I mean, of course his allies wouldn't have settled for anything less, but Henry is surprisingly reticent as a character, even more so when compared to Richard's fondness for monologuing.)
ReplyDeleteI've tried looking up this play's connection with the Essex's Rebellion, and apparently it was written six years before that happened. Meaning Shakespeare didn't originally mean Richard and Bolingbroke to stand for Elizabeth and Devereux - unless the rebellion had been a long time in the making, and Shakespeare was a supporter of Essex's all along? Either way, I can't see Bolingbroke as the hero of this story, no matter how much of an a-hole Richard had been throughout his reign. (Maybe that's the whole point, that this isn't so much a story about Richard and Henry as individuals, as it is about Kings and power and death. I just don't know.)
Yes, it was written before Essex' rebellion, and Shakespeare already had a series of plays concerning the ensuing civil war - the Wars of the Roses - unde his belt. I don't think he'd ever have dared write something specifically commissioned for a rebellion. But Elizabeth was close to death and without an heir. England was not looking particularly stable.
ReplyDelete