Customer Reviews

Richard II (Folger Shakespeare Library)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I ordered a number of copies of this book -- the New Folger Library edition of Richard II -- for use by members of a Shakespeare reaeding group in Tbilisi, Georgia (that's the country, not the state), most of whose members are not native speakers of English. For this purpose the Foger edition, with notes on the page facing each page of text, was very useful -- more useful, I think, than the Arden edition, whose critical apparatus is very copious but often gets in the way. And in a few cases I found the Folger's notes more accurate and informative. Harry Berger's concluding essay, however, is not so good. It argues a thesis that I find somewhat implausible and one-sided in its reading of the play, so especially for the new student it is not very useful. But coming at the end of the text it is easy to ignore.

Shakespeare can be tough--tough, but well worthwhile---and this book does a good job of presenting Shakespeare in a manner and form that is not overpowering to the reader....

Provides just enough insight and history to aid the reader in understanding, but doesn't overpower the reader with unnecessary "book learning." The real impact of Shakespeare, however, is in the play itself...this book adds to the play and doesn't detract from it by an overpowering explanation or presentation.

Good effort. Barbara Mowat's work is always good.

Many Shakespearean plays (and this one in particular) are especially engaging since they can be interpreted in various ways.

Taking the events at face value, we could accept Richard's explanation that spilling English blood (even the blood of a thief and a traitor) would be unacceptable and preventing it would justify sending both Bolingbroke and Mowbray (at least one of whom is innocent) into exile; that stealing Bolingbroke's inheritance was to cover the expenses of the Irish wars; that in response to Bolingbroke's demands to return his inheritance, Richard had no alternative but to give away the kingdom, or that Bolingbroke needed to be convinced to accept the crown.

We could also engage the historic context to help elucidate the play. Both Bolingbroke and Mowbray were part of the Lords Appellant, a group which in the past plotted to wrestle power from the king, which would make their banishment a bit more consequential. It would also explain why Richard made the two swear that they would not plot against him while abroad. It would add color to the murder of Gloucester, the leader of the group.

Or we could read the play as largely a game of pretense. Throughout the play, Bolingbroke claims allegiance to the king. But in fact he may have always harbored hopes of taking over the kingdom. His loyalty did not prevent him from speaking with the people of England as if he were the king, or from killing Richard's friends, or from accepting the crown. His royal ambition would give another reason for his banishment and would provide another explanation for Richard's usurping his inheritance. In addition, Richard's punishing a rebel son of the loyal Gaunt would provide a contrast to (and an explanation for being used in the play of) Bolingbroke's clemency towards Aumerle, a rebel son of the loyal York.

Bolingbroke accuses Mowbray of Gloucester's murder, theft and all the treasons in England of the past 18 years. In reality, this may be an indirect challenge to the king. Old Gaunt, Bolingbroke's father, knew that Glocester's death was Richard's making. Gaunt's son Bollingbroke may have been privy to this knowledge as well. Alleged Mowbray's theft could be a proxy for Richard's robbing the people of England through excessive taxes.

Bolingbroke's game of pretense at providing rationale for the duel is matched by Richard's game of pretense at providing rationale for Bolingbroke's exile. When Bolingbroke demands his inheritance to be restituted, Richard breaks this game of pretense by giving away the kingdom. He can't pretend to be the king anymore and doesn't want Bolingbroke to pretend that he is not interested in the crown.

At the end of these meanderings, Richard reveals unsettling but fascinating complexity of character, in which crudeness of a tyrant gradually makes room for frailty, sadness and poetry of a human.

This is chronologically the first of the four "Henriad" Shakespeare plays, along with "Henry IV Part 1," "Henry IV Part 2," and "Henry V," yet I read it last. Normally, I like to read things in order, but this time I was glad I got to it late. You need to know the backstory, or in this case frontstory, in order to appreciate "Richard II."

Richard is king of England at the dawn of the 15th century, a firm believer in the notion of royalty as manifestation of divine will. He runs his kingdom in an arrogant, high-handed manner, not sweating the anger he provokes. He will always be king, he believes, and doesn't worry about blowback while disinheriting a noble he previously exiled for petty cause: "Not all the water in the rough rude sea/Can wash the balm off from an anointed king."

The play is one of Shakespeare's more political works, contrasting Richard's lazy claim of divine favor with Bolingbroke, later to become Henry IV, a scrapper who works to win over lords and commoners alike. It's a fascinating dual portrait, especially when looking forward to the tough-nosed but stabilizing figure of Henry IV and the inspiring Henry V. You can see Richard II showing us why Great Britain needed the Henrys to come along when they did.

Shakespeare's approach here takes hits from some critics for being too pat and rhymey. Actually, I found his language here to be quite beautiful and engaging, with not just the last few lines of scenes but entire colloquies done in rhyme. Deep ruminations about death and the natural order of things lend ballast to the play; so too do metaphoric observations about gardening and heavenly bodies as they pertain to kingly rule. You have a classic speech in John of Gaunt's soliloquy on England ("this sceptered isle") and one that should be better noted, Richard II's melancholic inventory of his jail cell ("I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.")

If only the plot or characters were more galvanizing. The first act draws us very slowly into the story with Bolingbroke and another knight challenging each other to a duel, having it arranged, and then Richard calling it off. Richard loses his kingdom offstage as it were, after a legacy of misrule that we hear much about but only glimpse in action. The last two acts are pretty much just crossing the t's and dotting the i's, while dramatic tension largely dissipates by Act III.

Richard II is our only memorable character, but his chronic whining makes him hard to care about, and he lacks the kind of gravitas you expect from a tragic Shakespearean hero. (Though a history, it's actually entitled "The Tragedy of Richard II.") In an essay in the Folger edition, Harry Berger Jr. claims Richard II actually seeks his own overthrow. I don't agree, yet I'm stuck for a better explanation. His actions and non-actions in this play make him hard to relate to, understand, or care about.

"Richard II" was first printed in 1597 but is believed to have been written prior to the Henry IV/V plays. I suspect otherwise. There's allusions here to Prince Hal's wanton lifestyle and the fate of various characters from those later plays that suggest to me that Shakespeare was working backwards, using "Richard II" as a kind of prequel examination of what is the core theme of the later plays. The highlights of "Richard II", episodic scenes where a group of nobles challenge each other to an endless series of duels and a father begging a king to execute his disloyal son, appear designed to point out the need for orderly society.

There's a lot of chaos in the play, maybe too much. I enjoyed reading "Richard II" despite the flaws, but would recommend it only to people who have read one or more of the other "Henriad" plays first.

I purchased this book for a college class. The book came timely and was in excellent condition, just as the seller said it would be. The notes about the play and Shakespeare's life/time are very helpful in understanding the play.

Poor packaging. Covers were crinkled and folded when I received it. Should have just bought a used book since it probably would have been in the same condition.

King Richard is forced to make an ugly decision about an argument between two of his noble subjects. He tries to come up with a balanced solution for the best interests of the realm, and lives to regret it. Bolingbroke is exiled, rather than killed, but returns to usurp the throne.

Complex and dour but with a passion for England, this was a very enjoyable one. Richard wasn't especially likeable, but despite his unpleasantness, he inspired a degree of sympathy. Bolingbroke was the noble, conqueror returning from exile imposed by the mean old king, but wasn't someone a body could feel sympathy for. The story was taken from English history, with some artistic liberties. Throughout, there was a love for England regardless of and frequently despite the rulers. As much about the people in the play, it is about how Britons feel about their land.

I enjoyed it even though I generally prefer his comedies.

E. M. Van Court