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.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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?
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.
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.
Friday, May 23, 2008
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.
"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.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
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.)
...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.)
Friday, May 16, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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.)
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.
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.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
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).
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
