Gloucester's Alleged Confession

Hume claims that the truth of Gloucester's confession "may be entirely depended on"--that it was "genuine, and obtained without violence."

His evidence is this: In the first parliament of Henry IV, Judge Rickhill, who brought the confession over from Calais, was tried on the charge of fabricating the confession, but was acquitted, even though "Glocester's party was prevalent."

To Hume, Rickhill's acquittal "may even appear marvellous, considering the times." (Hume believed him to be innocent.)

Alliance with France

But Hume does admit that Richard's alliance with France may have played a part--and this does not reflect well on Richard:

"[Glocester's] aversion to the French truce and alliance was public and avowed; and that court, which had now a great influence over the king, pushed him to provide for his own safety, by punishing the traiterous designs of his uncle."

So Richard murdered Gloucester at the urging of the king of France?!

The Guilt of the Duke of Gloucester

Hume gives a couple of possible reasons that might have at least somewhat justified Richard's murder of Gloucester.

1. Froissart reports a scheme to depose Richard and place Roger Mortimer, whom Richard had named as his successor, upon the throne. Mortimer allegedly declined and so Gloucester schemed to divide the kingdom in four parts and bestown them upon himself, his two brothers, and the earl of Arundel.

"The king, it is said, being informed of these designes, saw that either his own ruin or that of Glocester was inevitable; and he resolved, by a hasty blow, to prevent the execution of such destructrive projects."

2. Right before his execution, Gloucester allegedly made a confession and Hume is convinced that the report of this confession is genuine.

In this supposed confession, Gloucester allegedly confessed to the following crimes:

1. Speaking contemptuously of the king's person and his government
2. Deliberating concerning the lawfulness of throwing off his allegiance to him
3. Took part in a secret conference, where his deposition was proposed, talked of, and determined.

Hume concludes that the plot was not so far advanced as to justify Richard in taking such drastic action as he proceeded to take: "It is reasonable to think, that his schemes were not so far advanced as to make him resolve on putting them immediately into execution. The danger, probably, was still too distant to render a desperate remedy entirely necessary for the security of government."

Richard's Character

1396:

According to Hume, Richard's "personal character brought him into contempt....Indolent, profuse [i.e. "spending or giving freely and in large amount, often to excess"], addicted to low pleasures; he spent his whole time in feasting and jollity, and dissipated, in idle show, or in bounties to favourites of no reputation, that revenue which the people expected to see him employ in enterprizes directed to public honour and advantage."

Richard II's Alliance with France

1396: Hume says that Richard agreed to marry the daughter of King Charles of France "chiefly that he might fortify himself by this alliance, against the enterprizes of his uncles and the incurable turbulence as well as inconstancy of his barons."

The Inexorable Tyrant

To Hume, it is Gloucester who is "the inexorable tyrant." He describes Gloucester in this way after Gloucester refuses to pardon Simon Burley, even after queen Anne pleads with him on her knees for three hours.

The Accusation of the Five

1388: The Duke of Gloucester and his party became aware that the king was plotting against them and decided to strike first.

They armed themselves and confronted Richard in London. They sent four messengers to the king: the archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Lovel, Lord Cobham, and Lord Devereux. Through these messengers they demanded that the king should deliver up to them "the persons who had seduced him by their pernicious counsel."

A few days later, they accused the following men of being enemies of the state:

1. The archbishop of York
2. The duke of Ireland
3. The earl of Suffolk
4. Sir Robert Tresilian
5. Sir Nicholos Brembre

The duke of Ireland raised forces and tried to oppose the Duke and his party, but was defeated. The duke of Gloucester then appeared with 40,000 men and compelled Richard to summon a parliament. This provided Gloucester and his party with an opportunity, as Hume puts it, "by observing a few legal forms, to take vengeance on all their enemies."

Five men came forward in parliament to bring accusations against the five counsellors:

1. The duke of Gloucester
2. The earl of Derby
3. The earl of Arundel
4. The earl of Warwic
5. The earl of Nottingham.

The proceedings, says Hume, "were well suited to the violence and iniquity of the times." Brembre, the only one of the accused who was in custody, was sentenced to death after only the appearance of a trial in the house of lords (whom, says Hume, were not by law his proper judges).

He was executed along with Tresilian, who had been apprehended in the meantime.

Hume sees these men as being not guilty of any of the accusations against them, but rather as being men who faithfully defended their king first against the unlawful commission established by Gloucester and his party and then against the detention of the king against his will. To Hume, the actions of the accusers and the judges in parliament were "without any regard to reason, justice, or humanity."

(Hume says that "the royal prerogative was invaded by the commission." You can see why Americans didn't especially like Hume's version of the English history, as I think Forrest McDonald points out.)

The Reply of the Judges

1387: "The king...was in reality dethroned," says Hume.

To regain his power, the king first tried to get an election of men who would take his side in the house of commons (seeing that this body "appeared now of weight in the constitution"). This attempt failed, because the sheriffs were mostly appointed by his uncles.

The king then turned to some judges, who turned out to be willing to condemn as unlawful the impeachment of de la Pole and the establishment of the council.

The judges were:

1. Sir Robert Tresilian, chief justice of the King's Bench
2. Sir Robert Belknappe. chief justice of the Common Pleas
3. Sir John Cary, chief baron of the Exchequer
4. Holt
5. Fulthorpe
6. Bourg (three inferior justices)
7. Lockton, serjeant at law

These judges declared (quoting Hume):

1. The late commission was derogatory to the royalty and prerogative of the king
2. Those who procured it, or advised the king to consent to it, were punishable with death
3. Those who necessitated and compelled him were guilty of treason
4. Those were equally criminal who should persevere in maintaining it
5. The king has he right of dissolving parliaments at pleasure
6. The Parliament, while it sits, must first proceed upon the king's business (that is, grant him the money he wants without first getting him to agree to their demands)
7. This assembly cannot without his consent impeach any of his ministers and judges.

Hume comments that except for the last two, all of these determinations appear justifiable. In a note, he says that a Parliament in the time of Edward III got Edward to agree to make his ministers to stand down from office on the third day of every session in order that accusations might be brought against them, which implies that ministers cannot be impeached while in office. Hume also notes that Henry IV insisted that it was an established usage of Parliament "to go first through the king's business in granting supplies"--which was ironic because this was one of the charges that Henry brought against Richard when he deposed him.

"So ill grounded were most of the imputations thrown on the unhappy Richard!"

The Council of 14

By 1386, the barons were fed up with the influence that Robert de Vere had over the king. Prior to de Vere coming along, Richard was under the control of his uncles. According to Hume, Richard's "violent temper" made it impossible for him to stand this control any more, especially that of the Duke of Gloucester.

The barons, listed by Hume as

1. Moubray earl of Nottingham, the mareschal
2. Fitz-Alan earl of Arundel
3. Piercy earl of Northumberland
4. Montacute earl of Salisbury
5. Beauchamp earl of Warwic

are described as being "all connected with each other, and with the princes, by friendship or alliance, and still more by their common antipathy to those who had eclipsed them in the king's favour and confidence."

They decide on two steps. First, the impeach and remove from office Michael de la Pole, the chancellor. (In the course of this, a member of Parliament called for the record of the deposition of Edward II, "a plain intimation of the fate, which Richard, if he continued refractory, had reason to expect from them."

Second, they established a council of 14, to rule for a year, which in effect was a temporary deposition of Richard. It was clear, says Hume, that the barons intended to extend the power of this council indefinitely into the future. All of the members were of the party of the Duke of Gloucester, with the exception of Nevil, Archbishop of York.

Richard's Poor Character

In Hume: the Scottish campaign of 1385 provides an example of Richard's poor character.

While Richard leads an army into Scotland, the Scottish troops invade England and lay waste to Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Lancashire.

Richard's advisers urge him to lead his troops to the west in order to encounter the Scots as they returned to Scotland. But Richard is impatient to return to England, so that he can "enjoy his usual pleasures and amusements." This impatience "outweighed every consideration."

Hume concludes this segment by observing how the English "regretted the indolence and levity of their king."

Why the People Rebelled

A biography of Wat Tyler, described as a hero of the people (from the New York Times, October 28, 1852, with references to Hume and Froissart!)

1381. “The faint dawn of the arts and of good government in that age, had excited the minds of the populace, in different states of Europe, to wish for a better condition, and to murmur against those chains, which the laws, enacted by the haughty nobility and gentry, had so long imposed upon them. The commotions of the people in Flanders, the mutiny of the peasants in France, were the natural effects of this growing spirit of independence; and the report of these events, being brought into England, where personal slavery, as we learn from Froissard, was more general than in any other country in Europe, had prepared the minds of the multitude for an insurrection.” (Hume, History of England, Vol. 2, Ch. 17)

If we put what Froissart and Hume say together, I think we get an idea of why the people rebelled. Froissart speaks of how comfortable the people were becoming. Hume speaks of the "faint dawn of...good government in that age." These two things go hand in hand. When there is good government, that is, a government that protects person and property, then people prosper--even the most humble.

As I understand it, the relationship between lord and serf originally made some sense. The lord was able to protect the serf and the serf was in need of protection. There was originally no effective central government to protect person and property. The king was not yet sufficiently powerful to provide that protection. So the lord protected the serf and in exchange the serf provided certain services--such as planting, harvesting, etc. It was a roughly fair exchange.

But as government became more effective and more able to provide effective justice, the people turned more to the king for the kind of protection they used to get from their lords, the nobility. Once this happens, then the feudal system no longer makes and sense and loses all appearance of fairness. The serfs serve their lord and receive nothing in return. It is a system that the lords naturally want to maintain, but it is clearly unjust. So the peasants have good reason to rise up against it.

They simply want to be paid for their work and to rent their land from their lord--in other words, to participate in a fair exchange for what they give and for what they receive. The article from the NY Times noted above emphasizes the justice of the peasants' cause and regards Wat Tyler as a hero.

(It also looks forward in time--that is, from 1381--to Cade's rebellion, which if I remember correctly is dramatized by Shakespeare in Henry VI.)

Thoughts on the Constitutional Convention

In his speech of June 25 (Madison's Notes), Pinkney describes the inhabitants of the US as a people that lack a noble class and a royal class, so all that remains is the common people. There is in his opinion then no need for a branch of government that corresponds to the nobility and the royalty (that is, a permanent senate and executive).

If this is so, then the dream of the peasants that Froissart describes is fulfilled in the US

Was the Duke of Gloucester There?

Froissart: "All this season the earl of Buckingham [i.e. Thomas of Woodstock] was in Wales, for there he had fair heritages by reason of his wife, who was daughter to the earl of Northumberland and Hereford; but the voice was all through London how he was among these people. And some said certainly how they had seen him there among them; and all was because there was one Thomas in their company, a man of the county of Cambridge, that was very like the earl."

It is worth noting that there was a rumor that the Duke of Gloucester took part in this rebellion. Later on, Gloucester did seek to get the people on his side against the king and perhaps the king believed the rumor of Gloucester's part in the rebellion and later held it against him, among Gloucester's other offenses.

A side note: there is a theory that Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale is really about the murder of Gloucester--and that the name of the murderer was Nicholas Colfox. See here for a discussion of this theory.

Froissart on the Peasant's Revolt

Book II, ch. 73.

"While these conferences were going forward, there happened in England great commotions among the lower ranks of the people, by which England was near ruined without resource. Never was a country in such jeopardy as was this at that period, and all through the too great comfort of the commonalty. Rebellion was stirred up, as it was formerly done in France by the Jacques Bons-hommes, who did much evil, and sore troubled the kingdom of France. It is marvellous from what a trifle this pestilence raged in England. In order that it may serve as an example to mankind, I will speak of all that was done, from the information I had at the time on the subject."

Apparently Froissart thinks that the reason why the common people rebelled is that they were enjoying "too great comfort" (or "ease and riches," as it is put in another translation). He sees no good foundation for the mischief that they caused.

"It is customary in England, as in several other countries, for the nobility to have great privileges over the commonalty, whom they keep in bondage; that is to say, they are bound by law and custom to plough the lands of gentleman, to harvest the grain, to carry it home to the barn, to thrash and winnow it: they are also bound to harvest the hay and carry it home. All these services they are obliged to perform for their lords, and many more in England than in other countries. The prelates and the gentlemen are thus served. In the counties of Kent, Essex, Sussex and Bedford, these services are more oppressive than in all the rest of the kingdom.
The evil-disposed in these districts began to rise, saying, they were too severely oppressed; that at the beginning of the world there were no slaves, and that no one ought to be treated as such, unless he had committed treason against his lord, as Lucifer had done against God: but they had done no such thing, for they were neither angels nor spirits, but men formed after the same likeness with their lords, who treated them as beasts. This they would not longer bear, but had determined to be free, and if they laboured or did any other works for their lords, they would be paid for it."

Note: a bondman or villein was "a member of a class of partially free persons under the feudal system, who were serfs with respect to their lord but had the rights and privileges of freemen with respect to others."

So these serfs were like slaves in relation to their lords, doing all of the planting and harvesting of the lord's crops, chopping the wood for their homes, etc.--all without pay.

Revolution in the Name of the People

Hume speaks of the common man's lack of liberty in his discussion of the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 and Froissart elobarates on this as well. If anyone had a reason to overthrow the government during the reign of Richard II, it was the people. But a revolution in the name of the people would have to wait until 1776.

Hume's Richard II--Dangerous Wars

"Edward had left his grandson involved in many dangerous wars." These were:

1. The kingdom of Castile was hostile toward England on account of the Duke of Lancaster's "pretensions to the crown" of Castile.

2. Scotland's alliance with France meant that any conflict with one would mean conflict with both.

3. The war with France continued, but was not prosecuted with much enthusiasm.

In 1378, Sir Hugh Calverly set fire to Boulogne and the duke of Lancaster conducted an army into Brittany.

In 1380, the Duke of Glocester "scrupled not, with his small army, to enter into the heart of France," but "this enterprize also proved in the issue unsuccessful, and made no impression upon the enemy."

The costs involved in these enterprizes, along with "the usual want of oeconomy attending a minority," put a strain on the treasury. As a result, Parliament instituted a new and unusual tax.

"This imposition prouced a mutiny, which was singular in its circumstances." The common people rose up in revolt.

Hume's Richard II: Note on the Commons

In an a note in the appendix, Hume discusses two acts of the House of Commons, which he uses to illustrate the growing authority and spirit of liberty in the commons.

First, in the fifth year of Richard's reign (1382), the commons lodge complaints against:

1. The government about the king's person
2. The king's court
3. The excessive number of the king's servants
4. The abuses in the Chancery, King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer
5. "Grievous oppressions in the country, by the great multitudes of maintainers of quarrels who behaved themselves like kings in the country, so as there was very little law or right"
6. Other things, which they said were the cause of the late commotions under Wat Tyler.

The fifth complaint makes it sound as if the English countryside in Richard's time was a little like the wild west.

Hume sums this up as a description of "irregular government." By this, I suppose he means a government that does not promote justice by punishing wrongdoers and making things safe for the rest; but also a government that itself does not do what is right, and itself is a source of harm and injustice to the people.

In any case, Hume identifies this irregular government as the cause of three harms:

1. The licentiousness of the great--that is, the barons were lawless and harmed one another and the people.
2. The turbulency of the people. This is a favorite word of Hume's and it seems to mean an unwillingness to submit to proper authority and so to act lawlessly and badly; and even a willingness to overthrow the existing authorities, the existing order of things. (At the beginning of this chapter, the barons are described as having a turbulent spirit in a weak reign.)
3. The tyranny of princes--by this word, I suppose Hume is referring to Edward's sons (and other princes in previous reigns, because the statement is general).

Hume's summary of all this: "If subjects would enjoy liberty, and kings security, the laws must be executed."

I think this means that the commons and lords will only enjoy the protection and security provided by good government and will not be harmed by government if the laws are executed; and if the laws are not executed, then the lords and commons will be unhappy and will start wishing to get rid of the king; and so the king's position will not be secure. This is precisely what happens in Richard's reign.

The second example has to do with the decision of commons to suspend for a time certain revenues that had been granted to the king, just to make sure that the king would not claim them as his due.

Hume describes this action as revealing "an accuracy and a jealousy of liberty, which we should little expect in those rude times." By liberty, Hume here seems to mean a condition in which the life, liberty, and property of the subjects are not harmed by government and in this case, the king.

He also describes the times of Richard as "rude" and Hume will return to this thought several times in his discussion of Richard's reign. By rude, he seems to mean especially a condition in which there is an absence or just a small amount of liberty.

Freedom of Speech in Hume's Richard II

The commons choose Peter de la Mare as their first speaker. Hume describes de la Mare as being "the same person that had been imprisoned and detained in custody by the late king for his freedom of speech, in attacking the mistress and the ministers of that prince."

In another place, Hume speaks of freedom of speech as a way of keeping rulers within their proper bounds and it may be that de la Mare's criticisms were an example of this. It would be helpful to see what the criticisms were in this case and whether or not they were justified.

In any case, Hume understands this choice of de la Mare as revealing a "spirit of liberty" in the commons, which is presumably a good thing.

That it is a good thing is confirmed by how Hume concludes his discussion of the commons: "In the other parliaments called during the minority, the commons still discover a strong spirit of freedom and a sense of their own authority, which without breeding any disturbance, tended to secure their independence and that of the people."

This ability to correct abuses in government was a way of keeping the king's government from harming the people and also a way of gettting the king's government to protect the people.

Hume's Richard II: The Council

(By the way, I checked and saw today that Richard was born in 1366 and became king in 1377, at the age of 11, as Hume notes.)

The original 9 members of the council appointed by the Lords consisted of:

1. The Bishop of London
2. The Bishop of Carlisle
3. The Bishop of Salisbury
4. The Earl of March
5. The Earl of Stafford
6. Sir Richard de Stafford
7. Sir Henry le Scrope
8. Sir John Devereux
9. Sir Hugh Segrave

These men received authority to serve for a year. This system continued for a number of years. According to Hume, however, the three brothers--Gaunt, York, and Glocester, were the real rulers and especially Gaunt, "who was in reality the regent."

Hume's Richard II: House of Commons

Hume continues:

Edward had failed to arrange a form of government to act during Richard's minority, so it was necessary for Parliament to come up with a plan.

The house of commons took the lead and asked the lords to appoint a council to rule until Richard was ready. The lords appointed a council of 11, as requested, to serve for a year.

Hume notes that the commons had started to become more powerful throughout the reign of Edward III and this continued during the minority of Richard II.

This house was becoming so active that it became necessary for the first time for them to choose a speaker. They chose Peter de la Mare, who had been imprisoned during the reign of Edward III for speaking badly of Edward's mistress and ministers.

This choice indicated that they intended to continue speaking out against abuses--it "discovered a spirit of liberty in the commons," as Hume puts it. They realized, however, that they were not yet powerful enough to be involved in selecting a council and this is why they were content to ask the lords to do so.

They also asked the lords to choose some good men to watch over the king and make sure that he grew up in a virtuous way. The lords declined to this.

The commons made two requests of the king.

First, they asked that the king would stop the lords from "forming illegal confederacies, and supporting each other, as well as men of inferior rank, in the violations of law and justice." This request received a "general and obliging answer."

Then, they proposed that they, along with the lords, would have the power to appoint the ministers of the king during his minority. This request was denied, but Hume says that it served their purpose simply to "advance their pretensions...of interposing in these more important matters of state."

Turbulent Spirit

Hume says that the order of the dukes is often subject to a "turbulent spirit" when there is a weak king.

Turbulent means disorderly. I think Hume's first priority is a political order in which people can live their lives in peace, without being harmed by others or by government. Tumult and turbulence are a threat to that order. A weak reign in itself is probably a threat to this good order, because a weak king will not be able to execute the laws and promote justice. But the turbulence of the dukes is an additional threat.

In the history of Richard, a weak king, the turbulent spirit of the Duke of Glocester and then later that of Hereford will lead to Richard's downfall.

Richard as Landlord

I would like to understand better one of Gaunt's criticisms of Richard (we are back in Shakespeare now, in Act II, scene 1).

In his final speech, Gaunt describes England as being "leased out...like a pelting farm. England...is now bound in with shame, with inky blots and rotten parchment bonds."

Then later, Gaunt says

Why, cousin, wert thou regent of the world,
It were a shame to let this land by lease;
But for thy world enjoying but this land,
Is it not more than shame to shame it so?
Landlord of England art thou now, not king:
Thy state of law is bondslave to the law

To what is Gaunt referring? In what way is Richard letting England by lease and in what sense is he landlord, not king, of England?

Hume's Richard II

I think it will be worthwhile to sketch out how Hume understands Richard's reign. Is Shakespeare's understanding of Richard as profound as Hume's? We shall see.

Hume describes the beginning of Richard's reign as a time of good order, not because of anything about Richard, who was only a "boy of eleven years of age," but because of other factors.

Edward III had been "a sovereign of consummate wisdom and experience" and during his long reign the barons had been taught "the habits of order and obedience." This persisted for a time into Richard's reign.

There was something else that kept in check the "turbulent spirit, to which that order [i.e. the barons], in a weak reign, was so often subject": "the authority of the king's three uncles, the dukes of Lancaster, York, and Glocester."

As for the ambition of these three dukes, this was kept in check by a number of conditions. First, Richard was clearly the rightful heir to the throne and this was declared in Parliament. Second, the people had been well disposed to Richard's father, the Black Prince, and they were well disposed to Richard on his account. Third, the other brothers could be expected to oppose any one of them who sought to act upon "dangerous designs."

The characters of the brothers themselves made them unlikely at that time at least to challenge Richard's authority. Lancaster "was neither of an enterprizing spirit, nor of a popular and engaging temper." "York was indolent, unactive, and of slender capacity." Glocester alone had the requisite qualities of being "turbulent, bold, and popular." The fact that he was the youngest of the three, however, led to his being "restrained by the power and authority of his elder brothers"--at least for the time being.

Lascivious Metres

What kind of music did Richard listen to? As York describes it, it sounds like the same kind of music that young people listen to today and apparently always:

"Lascivious metres, to whose venom sound the open ear of youth doth always listen." (II.i.19)

It sounds as if this is music that makes young people want to have promiscuous sex (to put it bluntly)--or otherwise lead them into immorality. It is a poisonous sound that young people like to hear.

Richard is unwilling to listen to wise counsel. What else, other than lascivious metres, is he willing to listen to?

Praises, for one.

The latest fashions in clothing, for another: "Report of fashions in proud Italy, whose manners still our tardy apish nation limps after in base imitation."

And finally, any meaningless fad that has caught peoples' fancy: "Where doth the world thrust forth a vanity (so be it new, there's no respect how vile) that is not quickly buzzed into his ears?"

Richard's will is in rebellion against his wit (or reason) and that is why he will not listen to wise counsel, until it is too late: "Then all too late comes counsel to be heard where will doth mutiny with wit's regard."

Richard insists on doing things as he wishes, on choosing his own way, and this will lead to his downfall.

The King in Council

The King does not banish Hereford and Mowbray by his own arbitrary decision. The decision to banish them is made in consultation with a council and one of the members of this council is John of Gaunt himself (Hereford's father):

...Draw near,
And list what with our council we have done.
(I.iii.123ff.)

Thy son is banish'd upon good advice,
Whereto thy tongue a party-verdict gave:
Why at our justice seem'st thou then to lour?

Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour.
You urged me as a judge; but I had rather
You would have bid me argue like a father.
(I.iii.233)

If I remember correctly, a council was established by Parliament to handle the question of Bolingbroke's accusation against Mowbray. Presumably the council that Richard consults with here is the same council. At any rate, it shows Richard acting within legal or semi-legal forms in the banishment of these two, so it is not an act of arbitrary power, as I suggested before. (I say semi-legal, because I think it was unusual for Parliament to delegate a power of this sort to a council.)

Richard's Extravagance

We will ourself in person to this war:
And, for our coffers, with too great a court
And liberal largess, are grown somewhat light,
We are inforced to farm our royal realm;
The revenue whereof shall furnish us
For our affairs in hand: if that come short,
Our substitutes at home shall have blank charters;
Whereto, when they shall know what men are rich,
They shall subscribe them for large sums of gold
And send them after to supply our wants;
For we will make for Ireland presently.

Richard is low on funds, not because he has spent it on wars, as his grandfather did, but as a result of having "too great a court and liberal largess." That is, because he has spent it on himself and on his favorites.

To raise revenues for his war in Ireland, Richard has to resort to oppressive measures. He sells the right to collect taxes and forces loans from the wealthy. If Richard had lived more moderately, it would not have been necessary to oppress his people. If the money had been used productively, that would have been tolerable. But to oppress the people in order to indulge one's own extravagances is a bad practice for a king.

Gaunt the Prophet, Part 2

Alas, the part I had in Woodstock's blood
Doth more solicit me than your exclaims,
To stir against the butchers of his life!
But since correction lieth in those hands
Which made the fault that we cannot correct,
Put we our quarrel to the will of heaven;
Who, when they see the hours ripe on earth,
Will rain hot vengeance on offenders' heads.
(I.ii.1-8)

Gaunt here recognizes that Richard himself is responsible for Gloucester's death--he "made the fault that we cannot correct." Since Gaunt is powerless to do anything about it, on account of his allegiance to the man who is responsible for his brother's death, he leaves it to God to punish Richard. At the proper time, God will "rain hot vengeance" on Richard's head.

This points forward to the downfall of Richard, which though a crime on the part of those who accomplish it, is nevertheless the woe due to Richard for his own sins.

(This reminds me of how God regards kingdoms like Babylon in the writings of the prophets: these nations are instruments that God uses to chasten or punish his people, but are nevertheless blameworthy for what they do to Israel, because what they are doing is wrong in itself.)

Sacred Blood

The sacredness of the king's blood is the central idea of the opening of this play.

Mowbray hesitates to answer the charges against him, because his accuser is a close relation of the king. (Bolingbroke is Richard's "father's brother's son," as Richard describes it.) But "setting aside his high blood's royalty, and let him be no kinsman to my liege, I do defy him" (I.i.58ff.)

Bolingbroke, for his part, is willing to "lay aside my high blood's royalty." He does not want any special treatment in the judging of his accusation, but claims to accuse Mowbray "in the devotion of a subject's love" (I.i.31).

Richard assures Mowbray that he will be an impartial judge, not showing Bolingbroke any preference on account of their shared blood:

Mowbray, impartial are our eyes and ears:
Were he my brother, nay, my kingdom's heir,
As he is but my father's brother's son,
Now, by my sceptre's awe, I make a vow,
Such neighbour nearness to our sacred blood
Should nothing privilege him, nor partialize
The unstooping firmness of my upright soul:
He is our subject, Mowbray; so art thou:
Free speech and fearless I to thee allow.

Richard not only assures Mowbray, but vows "by my sceptre's awe" to be impartial in judgment.

In this speech, Richard makes a distinction between his blood and Bolingbroke's. They both share the blood of Edward III, by different father's, but only Richard's blood is "sacred"--because only Richard is in the line of descent to be king. Bolinbroke's blood has "neighbor nearness" to Richard's, but that is all. He is "but my father's brother's son."

This establishes an important point of the play: Richard is the only person who has the right to be king, whatever his faults may be. The only legitimate king is the person who has the sacred blood of a king. It does not matter that Bolingbroke or Gloucester might make a better king, because no matter how capable they are or how near they are to the king in blood, only Richard has the sacred blood of a king.

Where is God?

When Richard returns from Ireland, both he and Carlisle express confidence that God can and will defend Richard in the possession of his throne.

Carlisle is certain, at least, that God can defend Richard:

Fear not, my lord: that Power that made you king
Hath power to keep you king in spite of all.
(III.ii.27-28)

There is some caution, though, in Carlisle's speech. It is possible for men to neglect the means that God offers, to refuse "Heaven's offer...the proffered means of succor and redress."

Richard is confident--too confident we would say, knowing the final outcome--that God will certainly preserve him in his throne no matter what:

Not all the water in the rough rude sea
Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
The breath of worldly men cannot depose
The deputy elected by the Lord:
For every man that Bolingbroke hath press'd
To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown,
God for his Richard hath in heavenly pay
A glorious angel: then, if angels fight,
Weak men must fall, for heaven still guards the right.
(III.i.54-62)

Richard is God's anointed, the "deputy elected by the Lord." If this is so, then no moral man can depose him, for "heaven still guards the right." Yet Richard is wrong. God does not defend him and this becomes increasingly apparent to Richard as the scene goes on.

(After Richard is deposed and made to walk through London and follow after Bolingbroke, the Duke of York tells his wife that "heaven hath a hand in these events, to whose high will we bound our calm contents" (V.ii.37-38).

Political Prophets

As we have seen, the Bishop of Carlisle prophesies that if Bolingbroke is permitted to usurp the throne, England will suffer the tragedy of civil war. This prophecy is fulfilled in English history in the War of the Roses and in Shakespeare's telling of it in the three parts of Henry VI.

There is a similar prophetic tradition in American history and, in particular, in relation to the sin of slavery. At the Constitutional Convention, George Mason prophesied that if the US persevered in the sin of slavery, it would somehow in the course of time come to experience a "national calamity", as an expression of divine wrath:


“Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities” (George Mason, Constitutional Convention, Madison’s Notes, August 22,1787)

Thomas Jefferson likewise prophesied that God's wrath would fall upon the Americans for the sin of slavery:

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my county when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.” (Thomas Jefferson, Query XVIII, Notes on the State of Virginia)

In both prophecies, these men recognize the evil character of slavery and recognize that this sin will bring God's wrath upon its practitioners, because they are violating the rights of other human beings, rights that "are of the gift of God."

It is hard not to consider the American civil war, in which 600,000 Americans died, as the fulfillment of these prophecies. At any rate, Abraham Lincoln understood the calamity of the civil war as an expression of God's just punishment upon the United States for persevering in such a horrible sin:

“The Almighty has His own purposes. ‘Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!’ If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and south, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God will that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.” (Lincoln, Second Inaugural, 1865)

Carlisle prophesies (in Shakespeare at least) that fatal consequences will follow upon the deposing of a rightful king. Mason and Jefferson prophesy that fatal consequences will follow upon the national sin of slavery. In both cases the prophecies come to pass and, in the case of the American civil war, Lincoln recognizes the coming of God's judgment . Perhaps in the histories of nations as well as in the lives of individuals, predictable consequences follow upon actions that are morally right or wrong.

Richard II and Calais

Rightly or wrongly, the US government has used the military base at Guantanamo Bay to detain people it believes to be terrorists. The fact that it is not on US soil makes it easier to set aside the question of whether or not these detainees are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution.

Calais plays a similar though not identical purpose in the story of Richard and the Duke of Gloucester. Gloucester is arrested in London and then quickly taken to Calais, an English possession in what is now France. It is worth considering why Gloucester was imprisoned in Calais.

In his History of England, David Hume says that Gloucester is taken to Calais because this is the only place that the duke, "by reason of his numerous partizans...could safely be detained in custody" (II.XVII.308). In other words, if people found out that Gloucester was imprisoned in London, they would have risen up against Richard and demanded that Gloucester be released. But they would be helpless to free him if he were imprisoned in Calais.

In the play Thomas of Woodstock, the author suggests that the purpose of imprisoning Gloucester (that is, Woodstock) in Calais is to prevent people from knowing what happened to him. One of Richard's evil counselors, Sir Henry Greene, is the one who advises it:

...So clappe hime under haches,
hoyst sayles & secrettly convay hime out ath Realme to Callys.
And so by this meanes ye shall prevent all mischeife,
For neither of your uncles nor any of the kingdome,
Shall know whats become of hime.

The author of this play is more inclined than Hume to view Richard as a tyrant. The act of secretly imprisoning one's political enemies is a charactertistic mark of tyrannical governments, as the gulags of the former Soviet Union attest. Blackstone sees this kind of wrongful imprisonment as the most dangerous threat of all to liberty:

‘To bereave a man of life or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, as quoted by Hamilton in Federalist 84)

After quoting this passage from Blackstone, Hamilton comments that this is precisely what makes the writ of habeas corpus so important: "And as a remedy for this fatal evil he is everywhere peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls 'the BULWARK of the British Constitution'"

So, by Blackstone's standards (and those of the Founders), Richard's action of "secretly hurring" Gloucester to jail, "where his sufferings are unknown" is a "dangerous engine of arbitrary government" and precisely the kind of action that the British and US Constitutions are designed to guard against. This again marks Richard as the kind of king who deserves to be overthrown.

The Perplexity of York

If I know how or which way to order these affairs
Thus thrust disorderly into my hands,
Never believe me. Both are my kinsmen:
The one is my sovereign, whom both my oath
And duty bids defend; the other again
Is my kinsman, whom the king hath wrong'd,
Whom conscience and my kindred bids to right.
Well, somewhat we must do....
(II.ii.109-116)

York is torn between two competing demands of justice. As a subject of the king and as the one left in charge while the king is in Ireland, York must defend the king against Hereford's usurpation. Yet he is sensitive to the fact that the king has greatly wronged Hereford and that he has a moral duty to do whatever is in his power to right that wrong. He never seems to take a stand on either principle and ends up simply muddling through.

Richard and Magna Carta

“No freeman shall be arrested, imprisoned, dispossessed of his estate, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him except by lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land.” (Clause 39 of Magna Charta, Great Britain, 1215)

Shakespeare's Richard violates just about every provision of this clause. He "arrested, imprisoned" and "destroyed" the Duke of Gloucester without the "lawful judgment of his peers or the law of the land"; he banished the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Hereford; and he dispossessed the Duke of Hereford of his estate.

"A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. " So says the Declaration of Independence. These words could apply to Richard as well, as could these words from the Declaration: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."

At this point, however, Shakespeare and the Founders diverge. The Americans see the tryanny of the King as givng them a right and even a duty to "throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." If, however, we take Carlisle as expressing the view of Shakespeare, there is no right to throw off even a tyrannical government: "What subject can give sentence on his king?" (IV.i.21)

Who Murdered the Duke of Gloucester? Part 5

For someone who never appears in the play, the Duke of Gloucester and his murder comes up again and again.

Right before Bolingbroke is crowned, the subject is resumed. Bolingbroke asks Bagot to come forward and reveal who persuaded King Richard to have Gloucester put to death:

Now, Bagot, freely speak thy mind;
What thou dost know of noble Gloucester's death,
Who wrought it with the king, and who perform'd
The bloody office of his timeless end.
(IV.i.3-5)

Bagot comes forward and accuses the Duke of Aumerle, the son of the Duke of York, of being responsible for the deed:

My Lord Aumerle, I know your daring tongue
Scorns to unsay what once it hath deliver'd.
In that dead time when Gloucester's death was plotted,
I heard you say, 'Is not my arm of length,
That reacheth from the restful English court
As far as Calais, to mine uncle's head?'
(IV.i.813)

After Aumerle denies the charge, Lord Fitzwater comes forward and accuses Aumerle as well:

By that fair sun which shows me where thou stand'st,
I heard thee say, and vauntingly thou spakest it
That thou wert cause of noble Gloucester's death.
(IV.i.35-37)

After Henry Percy and another lord join in Bagot's accusation of Aumerle and the Duke of Surrey tries to refute it, Lord Fitzwater adds another detail to the plot against Gloucester:

As I intend to thrive in this new world,
Aumerle is guilty of my true appeal:
Besides, I heard the banish'd Norfolk say
That thou, Aumerle, didst send two of thy men
To execute the noble duke at Calais.
(IV.i.78)

Aumerle then accuses Norfolk of lying and asks Bolingbroke to recall Norfolk so that he may have the opportunity to refute him, but Carlisle informs them that Norfolk is dead. The bishop describes Norfolk as fighting for "Jesu Christ" and finally giving his "pure soul unto his captain, Christ" (IV.i.93, 99). This adds credibility to Norfolk's words, as does Norfolk's earlier denial:

...For Gloucester's death,
I slew him not; but to my own disgrace
Neglected my sworn duty in that case.
(I.i.132-134)

This most likely means that Norfolk's sin was to permit the two executioners sent by Aumerle to murder Gloucester rather than protect him in while he was in custody.

This part of the scene ends with the new king telling the accusers and the accused that he will set a date for their trial by battle.

Why does the subject of Gloucester's death come up again? Presumably to remind us of the wrongs of the king who is about to be dethroned.

Carlisle the Prophet

Marry. God forbid!
Worst in this royal presence may I speak,
Yet best beseeming me to speak the truth.
Would God that any in this noble presence
Were enough noble to be upright judge
Of noble Richard! then true noblesse would
Learn him forbearance from so foul a wrong.
What subject can give sentence on his king?
And who sits here that is not Richard's subject?
Thieves are not judged but they are by to hear,
Although apparent guilt be seen in them;
And shall the figure of God's majesty,
His captain, steward, deputy-elect,
Anointed, crowned, planted many years,
Be judged by subject and inferior breath,
And he himself not present? O, forfend it, God,
That in a Christian climate souls refined
Should show so heinous, black, obscene a deed!
I speak to subjects, and a subject speaks,
Stirr'd up by God, thus boldly for his king:
My Lord of Hereford here, whom you call king,
Is a foul traitor to proud Hereford's king:
And if you crown him, let me prophesy:
The blood of English shall manure the ground,
And future ages groan for this foul act....
(IV.i.114-138)

At the moment that Bolingbroke is about to ascend the throne, Carlisle interrupts and tries to make plain to all concerned what a wicked thing it is to depose a king. In fact, Carlisle cannot find enough words to describe how wrong it is. It is "so foul a wrong"; "so heinous, black, obscene a deed"; Hereford is a "foul traitor" and crowning him would be a "foul act." As Carlisle understands it, it is morally wrong to depose a King, no matter what his guilt. "What subject can give sentence on his king?"

Why is it so wrong? For the same reason that Gaunt thought it was wrong. As Carlisle puts it, the king is "the figure of God's majesty, His captain, steward, deputy elect, anointed, crowned, planted many years." To rise up against the king is to rise up against God.

So wrong is this act that its consequences will be nothing less than catastrophic. Carlise speaks as a prophet and prophesies the bloody civil war that later generations will call the War of the Roses. These events do, in fact, follow this action and are the subject of the plays that cover the period 1399-1485 (Richard II, Henry IV parts 1 and 2, Henry V, Henry VI parts 1,2, and 3, and Richard III). Carlisle is a true prophet and this suggests that his understanding of the deposition of Richard is the true one, as Shakespeare understands it: no matter what the king's crimes, it is always wrong to depose a king.

(After Richard surrenders his crown, the abbot remarks how sad a scene it was. Carlisle responds by repeating his prophecy: "The woe's to come. The children yet unborn shall feel this day as sharp to them as thorn" (IV.i.22-23).)

York the Prophet

...my liege, farewell:
What will ensue hereof, there's none can tell;
But by bad courses may be understood
That their events can never fall out good.

Richard seizes the goods of John of Gaunt upon his death, even though Bolingbroke the heir is still living. These words are York's response to the King's theft.

(This is the last of of the King's great sins: first he deprived Gloucester of life without due process of law; then he deprived Bolingbroke and Mowbray of liberty without due process of law (by banishing them); and now he deprives Gaunt of his estate--again without due process of law.)

York does not claim to be a prophet, but he understands that there is a law of consequences in this world. Bad consequences follow upon wrong actions and so the consequences that will follow upon Richard's bad actions will not be good.

Gaunt the Prophet

Methinks I am a prophet new inspired
And thus expiring do foretell of him:
His rash fierce blaze of riot cannot last,
For violent fires soon burn out themselves;
Small showers last long, but sudden storms are short;
He tires betimes that spurs too fast betimes;
With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder:
Light vanity, insatiate cormorant,
Consuming means, soon preys upon itself.
(II.i.31-39)

Gaunt here explicitly describes himself as a prophet and foretells Richard's fall. There is nothing supernatural about the prophecy. Gaunt sees that the vicious and irresponsible way in which Richard lives cannot be sustained and can only end in his ruin. This is the case with all human beings, including and perhaps especially kings.

If there were any possibility of Richard changing his ways, then this end could be avoided. But the King, as York makes clear, is unwilling to even listen to the suggestion that he needs to change: "Vex not yourself nor strive with your breath, for all in vain comes counsel to his ear...it is stopped with other, flattering sounds" (II.i.3-4, 17).

Norfolk the Prophet

No, Bolingbroke: if ever I were traitor,
My name be blotted from the book of life,
And I from heaven banish'd as from hence!
But what thou art, God, thou, and I do know;
And all too soon, I fear, the king shall rue.
(I.iii.201-205)

The Duke of Norfolk is the first to foresee Richard's fall. There are two indications here of Norfolk's innocence of the charges against him. First is the strong oath he takes, his prayer that he may be eternally damned if he is guilty. The second is that he is right about Hereford. The King does in fact live to regret what Bolingbroke is--namely, a bad man who is aiming at the throne. Norfolk knows that he himself is true to Richard and Bolingbroke false. He suspects that Bolingbroke's next victim will be the King.

Sacred Person of the King

"In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that kingdom, than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give. Without this, there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive department an idea inadmissible in a free government" (Federalist 70).

This statement from Publius is helpful in understanding the history of Richard. Accusations of wrong-doing cannot rightly be made against the king, but it is permisible to accuse those who are advising the king. The feud between Richard and Gloucesester goes back to the time when Gloucester impeached the king's advisers for their bad counsel. McKisack: "To Gloucester's plea for mercy [Richard] replied that he should have just so much mercy as he himself had shown to Simon Burley, for whom the queen had interceded on her knees" (479).

Who Murdered the Duke of Gloucester? Part 4

O, had thy grandsire with a prophet's eye
Seen how his son's son should destroy his sons,
From forth thy reach he would have laid thy shame,
Deposing thee before thou wert possess'd,
Which art possess'd now to depose thyself.
(I.ii.104-107)

That blood already, like the pelican,
Hast thou tapp'd out and drunkenly caroused:
My brother Gloucester, plain well-meaning soul,
Whom fair befal in heaven 'mongst happy souls!
May be a precedent and witness good
That thou respect'st not spilling Edward's blood.
(II.i.124-131)

(These speeches occur before York's and should have been discussed first).

Just before his death, John of Gaunt again accuses Richard of Gloucester's murder--and this time to his face.

Who Murdered the Duke of Gloucester? Part 3

His hands were guilty of no kindred blood,
But bloody with the enemies of his kin.
O Richard! York is too far gone with grief,
Or else he never would compare between.
(II.i.82-85)

The Duke of York, the last living son of Edward III, is perhaps the central character of the play--at least when it comes to the question of how one must respond to a despotic king. He falls between Gaunt and Bolingbroke in his response to Richard. As we have seen, Gaunt is unwilling to challenge Richard no matter how great his sin. Bolingbroke, as we will see, is the one who dares to overthrow a King who has gone too far. York wavers between the two.

York begins this speech by rehearsing Richard's wrongs and the first among them is the death of Gloucester. He ends it by comparing Richard to his father, the Black Prince, the first of Edward's sons. The comparison is not a favorable one and the last point of comparison contains the final reference to Gloucester's death: "[Your father's] hands were guilty of no kindred blood, but bloody with the enemies of his kin." So York's answer to the question of who murdered the Duke of Gloucester is this: it was King Richard.

Yet it is not this, but Richard's decision to seize Gaunt's goods upon his death (and so disinherit Bolingbroke) that brings York to the point of not being able to stand any more of Richard's wrongdoing:

How long shall I be patient? ah, how long
Shall tender duty make me suffer wrong?...
If you do wrongfully seize Hereford's rights...
[You] prick my tender patience, to those thoughts
Which honour and allegiance cannot think.
(II.i.63-64, 201, 207-208)

The thoughts that honor and allegiance cannot think are thoughts of treason, assassination, and the deposing of a tyrannical king. York is as yet unwilling to think such thoughts and, though he will later yield to Bolingbroke upon his return, he remains true to the same idea of kingship as Gaunt (and, I will argue, as Shakespeare himself). When Bolingbroke overthrows Richard, we can dismiss his action as self-seeking and so it does not provide any compelling justification for the overthrow of an unjust king (such as we find in the Declaration). Yet in York's response to Richard--the response of a good man who has nothing to gain by Richard's overthrow--we see a real challenge to the idea that the king is inviolable: when a king is as bad as Richard, how can it not be right to overthrow such a king?

(York later speaks again of the King's role in Gloucester's death, right after hearing the news of the death of Gloucester's wife:

...I would to God,
So my untruth had not provoked him to it,
The king had cut off my head with my brother's.
(II.ii.100-102)

Who Murdered the Duke of Gloucester? Part 2

God's is the quarrel; for God's substitute,
His deputy anointed in His sight,
Hath caused his death: the which if wrongfully,
Let heaven revenge; for I may never lift
An angry arm against His minister.
(I.ii.37-41)

These are the words of John of Gaunt, King Richard's uncle and the brother of Thomas of Woodstock, the Duke of Gloucester. It is in this scene that we see the importance of Gloucester's death: it is for Shakespeare the outstanding example of Richard's badness as a king and the best argument for his overthrow.

John of Gaunt, as we see here, knows Richard to be responsible for Gloucester's death. He denies, however, that he or anyone else has the right to take up arms against Richard for this or any other crime. No matter what Richard's sins, to kill or depose him would be itself great sin, because Richard is "God's subsitute, His deputy in His sight" and "His minister." If Richard is guilty of his brother's murder, then it is for God alone to avenge it. (At the beginning of the scene, Gaunt says in the same vein, "Put we our quarrel to the will of heaven; Who, when they see the hours ripe on earth, Will rain hot vengeance on offenders' heads" (I.ii.6-8).

We can tell from the words of the Duke of Gloucester's widow in this same scene that she believes that Mowbray was a party to her husband's murder. She hopes that he, at least, will get his just deserts at the hands of Bolingbroke:

O, sit my husband's wrongs on Hereford's spear,
That it may enter butcher Mowbray's breast!
Or, if misfortune miss the first career,
Be Mowbray's sins so heavy in his bosom,
They may break his foaming courser's back,
And throw the rider headlong in the lists,
A caitiff recreant to my cousin Hereford!
(I.ii.47-52)

It is in the grief of the Duchess of Gloucester ("Desolate, desolate will I hence and die") that we see how bad a king Richard really is.

Who Murdered the Duke of Gloucester? Part 1

Further I say and further will maintain
Upon his bad life to make all this good,
That he did plot the Duke of Gloucester's death,
Suggest his soon-believing adversaries,
And consequently, like a traitor coward,
Sluiced out his innocent soul through streams of blood:
Which blood, like sacrificing Abel's, cries,
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth,
To me for justice and rough chastisement;
And, by the glorious worth of my descent,
This arm shall do it, or this life be spent.
(I.i.98-108)

This is the first mention in the play of Gloucester's death. Here it is the Duke of Hereford, Henry Bolingbroke, who accuses Thomas Mowbray, the Duke of Norfolk of his murder. Mowbray, for his part, denies it: "For Gloucester's death, I slew him not; but to my own disgrace neglected my sworn duty in that case" (I.i.132-134). It's not clear what Mowbray means when he says that he neglected his duty, but perhaps it has to do with failing to provide Gloucester adequate protection while awaiting his trial for treason. (Mowbray was in command at Calais, where Gloucester was imprisoned).

Historically, there may be something to Bolingbroke's accusation, but with a twist. May McKisack suggests that it was King Richard himself, "not daring to have [Gloucester] produced in Parliament," who was responsible for ordering Gloucester's murder--and Norfolk "was party to the crime" (The Fourteenth Century, 482). In the next scene, we see that this is, in fact, the view that Shakespeare takes of Gloucester's death.

Richard II and the Declaration

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

It is hard for a lover of liberty, in the American sense, who is also a lover of Shakespeare, to admit that Shakespeare would probably disagree with nearly every word of the American Declaration of Independence. Not, of course, because he was English, but because of his understanding of politics. This became evident to me as I watched a BBC production of Richard II.

Richard II, as Shakespeare portrays him, is clearly a tyrant. This is especially evident from a speech given by the Duke of York, who implies at least that Richard is responsible for the death of his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester. For this and other actions of Richard, this would seem to be a case when the principles of the Declaration would justify overthrowing him and establishing in his place a ruler who would not harm his subjects.

Yet the rest of the play indicates that Shakespeare does not see Richard's overthrow as justifiable. In fact, as can be seen from the speech of the Bishop of Carlisle, Shakespeare views the calamity that befalls England in the civil war to come as the consequence of the sin of Richard's overthrow.

In the posts that follow, I hope to discuss this in greater detail and gain a better understanding of Shakespeare's political thought.