Rossella Vulcano

Domenica8579@alice.it

Marie Menzel

William Shakespeare's Richard II PHILGEIST_P_17318_18S

Summer Semester 17/18

Richard II and Bolingbroke; two sides of masculinity.

21/11/18

Words : 3010

King Richard the Second is a historical play written by William Shakespeare around 1595.

It describes only two years of Richard’s reign (1398-1400) by focusing on the Duke of Gloucester’s

murder and the crowning of Henry Bolingbroke as King Henry IV.

It is structured into five acts where there is no prose but blank verse and poetry, commonly used to

distinguish the upper class from the lower that use to prefer the prose.

Shakespeare’s play is a reenactment of Holished’s Chronicles which was, during 1587, the most

reliable historical source.

But his revision allows the reader to take part not only to a political battle but also to a struggle

between morality and human nature, by showing us the controversy between Richard’s mind and

Bolingbroke actions in the Elizabethan society.

Indeed, the entire play is based on this opposing pair, which is linked to a strong dichotomy of “social

person” also known as “ phantom templates i ”. It is the stipulation of a well-structured ideology

expressed by actions, words and images through which the characters gain the “illusion of depth ii”.

Shakespeare utilised them as two divergent points of view of the same concept: manhood during the

Elizabethan period.

Indeed, as Howard and Rackin underline, the play shows “ the binary opposition personalised in the

conflict between Bolingbroke and Richard that is implied in an early-modern ideology of masculine

and feminine (142) iii”.

Richard’s ‘famale passivity’ is constantly highlighted in the play from the very beginning. It starts

with Henry Bolingbroke’s appeal against Thomas Mowbray in front of the royal court. Mowbray is

accused of murdering Thomas Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester.

As a result, the two contenders decide to fight for showing who lies, by following the chivalry notion

and throwing their “gage”.

E. Amanda Mcvitty’s article, published at Journal of medival history (Volume 40, 2014), uses “ the

framework of homosociality to expand the analysis of gender in politically motivated cases of treason

where traitors were characterised as ‘false’ knights. In these cases, treason was conceived of as the

corruption of knightly manhood iv ”

But the reaction of the king is opposite:

Richard :Wrath-kindled gentlemen, be ruled by me;

Let's purge this choler without letting blood:

This we prescribe, though no physician;

Deep malice makes too deep incision;

Forget, forgive; conclude and be agreed;

Our doctors say this is no month to bleed

 (1.1.150-160)

In fact, his rhetorical zeal prevails always on actions or “physician”.

Richard is Shakespeare’s oratory masterpiece, his use of heroic couplet in a complex structure of

metaphor underlies his kingship belonging but even is effeminate passion for flattering.

It is renowned that Richard use to surround himself by brown-nosing advisors (like Bushy, Bagot,

and Green) who only tell him what he wants to hear.

Rejecting a battle and preferring to “ be agreed” was an unacceptable concept during Elisabethan age

which undermined the chalvry morality and the masculinity honour.

Therefore Bolingbroke’s response is a masculinity impetuous to fight :

O, God defend my soul from such deep sin!

Shall I seem crest-fall'n in my father's sight?

Or with pale beggar-fear impeach my height

Before this out-dared dastard? Ere my tongue

Shall wound my honour with such feeble wrong,

Or sound so base a parle, my teeth shall tear

(1.1.187)

“Bolingbroke’s metonymy creates a visual image of the inferiority of the tongue, speech, when

matched with the violent and powerful efforts of the teeth, action. In fact, he depicts the teeth as

actually conquering the dishonorable impulses of the tongue, an image which foreshadows

Bolingbroke’s own victory over Richard v ”.

Mowbray’s words express directly the difference between men’s battle and woman’s battle,which is

made by words. His expressions are directly referred to “words” which create “woman’s war”,

submitted to a more powerful impetuous :actions.

 Thomas Mowbray Let not my cold words here accuse my zeal:

Tis not the trial of a woman’s war,

The bitter clamour of two eager tongues,

Can arbitrate this cause betwixt us twain

(1.1.45-50)

The end of the scene is attested by Richard’s agreement who, unable of changing Mowbray’s and

Bolingbroke’s idea, changes his own.

His feminine volatility is highlighted more times during the third scene of the same act :

after the chivalrous pledge, Richard had “thrown is warmer down” and interrupted the combatants

in choosing their exile. For a second time, the king utilizes the power of words by banishing them,

rather than an action.

Richard : Uncle, even in the glasses of thine eyes

I see thy grieved heart: thy sad aspect

Hath from the number of his banish'd years

Pluck'd four away.

(1.3.215)

The characteristics that prevail are Richard’s unabilty to decide. In fact, he changes his mind about

the number of exile’s years for Bolingbroke, at first his banishment was supposed to last ten years

but later Richard banishes him for six years, this aspect leaves him incoherent but mostly a king

without authority.

The disparity between Bolingbroke and Richard is masterfully expressed by their reversed roles in

their England descriptions:

 Bolingbroke: Then, England’s ground, farewell; sweet soil, adieu;

My mother, and my nurse, that bears me yet!

Where’er I wander, boast of this I can,

Though banish’d, yet a trueborn Englishman.

(1.3.310)

After being banished, Bolingbroke describes himself as a child and as a grown man born in England.

His words outline the “active role” that his status enjoys . His male gender is bounded to his land as

a boy with his mother.

In the meantime when Richard returns from his military campaign against Ireland,he says:

Needs must I like it well: I weep for joy

To stand upon my kingdom once again.

Dear earth, I do salute thee with my hand,

Though rebels wound thee with their horses' hoofs:

As a long-parted mother with her child

(3.2.9)

From his speech the reader understands not only (se c'è un Not Only ci deve essere da qualche parte

his joy for the homecoming or his consternation for Bolingbroke’s rebellion but also the famale role

that the king plays in his own land.

The only action that Richard wants to peruse is crying, which is linked to a famale personality unable

to fight rather than to a male one.

Richard’s feminity is related also with his queerness and his sexual intemperance.

According to Vita Riccardi Secundi edited by Ed. by Stow, Jr., George B. Richard (University of
Pennsylvania Press,vi1977) is described as a prodigal king in his gifts, extravagant in his dress and

entertainments.

This Chronicles admits that he often indulged “in other excesses that are not to be named” (mane

totem no team in potacionibus et aliis non dicendisvii ).

These excesses are probably related to sexual desire or sodomy, even though ,it is important to

highlight that the concept of homosexuality and heterosexuality did not exist during Shakespeare’s

period. As a result, we cannot find any condemnation against homosexuality and sodomy does not

actually take place into the play rather we can find a specific definition of homoerotism.

In fact, the Renaissance English notion of womanish was deeply different from the modern one.

The manhood was not related to the biological sexuality rather but to the influence that the society

has to people. As consequence, the search for one’s one pleasure was considered a self-interested

action against the “collective masculinity viii”.

For this reason, Bolingbroke condemns Richard’s conduct :

Bolingbroke You have in manner with your sinful hours

Made a divorce betwixt his queen and him,

Broke the possession of a royal bed

And stain’d the beauty of a fair queen’s cheeks

(3.1.10-15)

Undoubtedly Bolingbroke’s argument is referred to the “excesses that are not to be named”. In fact,

there is no clear notion of “ sinful hours” and of what “made a divorce betwixt his queen and him”.

Regardless, this speech highlights the differences between the two protagonists’s temperament and

mostly Richard’s self-love.

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay “ Self-reliance” published in 1841 explains the slowly development

of individualism in society, history and how the term “self ” lost progressively its negative

connotations from a society invested into a collective point of view to a modern identity, which

promoted the individual’s self-actualization.

A second distopyan example of collective masculinity offered by Shakespeare is the Dauphin in

Henry V’s play.

He declares the importance of self-love as a value more admirable of “self-neglecting ix”:

“Self-love, my liege, is not so vile a sin as self-neglecting.” (Henry V, 2.4:73, 74)

The scene describes a dialogue between the Dauphin, son of the king of France Charles VI, his father

and an English ambassador regarding Henry’s throne legitimacy and it express the wrong attitude of

a monarch though a distopic example which admitted the importance of individualism.

Individualism was not acceptable in the Elizabethan period, it started to be considered a value just

during the XVIII century with the born of Enlightenment which stipulated the modern point of view.

Collective masculinity was the anchor for the Elizabethan society,whose structure was, as Micheal

McKeon defined in Historicizing Patriarchy , a “vertical hierarchy of interlocking rungs and a

horizontal differentiation of discrete interests x ”

Virtuous bonds as between a loyal knight with his king maintained the hierarchical structure of society

and confirme both as “masculine”in a patriarchal society.

Whereas, the bond between a man and a woman is horizontal, it does not connect the man with a

higher power.

As a result, men were considered effeminated not only because cowards and reluctant to fight, as

admitted before, but even for their steady interest to woman which overshadowed the community

duties and affairs.

“Collective masculinity” is a notion which outlines the importance of subjection in Shakespeare

society, where a man was supposed to give priority to king’s commands, to the needs of country and

to the word of God and to put his own needs and his family in the background.
The play’s second scene of the fifth act is impressive. Richard has been already overthrown by

Bolingbroke and the previous noble have to show loyalty to the new king in order to follow the

hierarchical organization.

But the Duke of Aumerle, York’s son, plots against Henry IV.

As consequence, York begins a sudden race to inform his new king by accusing his own son of

treason. Even though he is aware of condemning to death his one son, York wants to follow the

society’s rules and respect his masculinity and his honor by pushing aside his family needs in order

to obey to his new king.

Bolingbroke as the male character follows and respect the notion of collective masculinity,

the most important example is the bond between him and Henry Percy,a loyal and bold soldier.

They declare their love through the homoerotic language which expresses their friendship and loyalty

to each other. In fact, Northumberland became a very important instrument for overthrowing Richard,

who defines him “ a ladder wherewithal / the mounting Bolingbroke ascends [the] throne" (5.1.3).

This bond does not only stipulates their manhood but it encreases it by claiming the vertical

While Richard behavior is shown always weaker as Bolingbroke one.

The bond between Richard and Aumerle is a relationship of strong loyalty and dedication to each

other, but Aumerle is the character who breaks the law of collective masculinity by cheating on the

current king and on the previous king.

The notion of collective masculinity rosed walls of limiting not only between men and woman,

masculine men and effeminate ones but even between grown men and boys.

Therefore boys were supposed to be more similar to woman, because of their cowardice, their childish

behavior and unwillingness to fightxi .

A clear definition is made by Falstaff, who, by prefers his one sexual pleasure, embodies the

effeminate man.

In fact, in Henry IV’s (II part) Falstaff has a conversation with Prince John of Lancaster, son of King

Henry. He is a significant masculinity’s character because he is a soldier who fought courageously at

the battle of Shrewsbury. Prince John can be defined a boy because of his youth, but his behavior

turns him into a man far from “Male-Greene-Sickness”.

At the same time, Falstaff avoids the chivalry tradition by preferring wine and intemperance.

He embodies a borderline attitude towards masculinity, because he ironically neglects it but he even

pretends to follow its rules as Henry who lies about his behavior to Christian identity (at the end of

the play he arranged the murder of Richard).

As consequence both are “playing a game” but Henry, opposed to Falstaff, recognizes the real nature

of society and manipulates it for receiving the crown.

Falstaff I would you had but the wit; ’twere better than your

dukedom. Good faith, this same young sober-blooded boy

doth not love me, nor a man cannot make him laugh. But

that’s o marvel; he drinks no wine. There’s never none of

these demure boys come to any proof, for thin drink doth so

overcool their blood, and making many fish meals, that they

fall into a kind of male green-sickness, and then, when they

marry, they get wenches. They are generally fools and

cowards, which some of us should be too, but for

inflammation.

(4.2. 65-75)
In addiction to the concept of collective masculinity there is the notion of Christian identity, which

gave priority to an anti-war behavior, to patience,to humility and to forgiveness.

It creates a deep contrast and paradox with the common definition of manhood for kingship.

Because the king should enjoy the qualities of a warrior by being strong and fighting for the country

but ,at the same time, of a Christian too.

Often kings could express a warrior nature through a Christian prospect by legitimating their battle

in the name of God and religion, the most significant example are the Crusades.

Monarchs took care of their relationship with God, as Henry V shows as, the creation of a bond with

God states the maturation from Prince Hal to the good king Henry V. 7

Henry I will weare a Garment all of Blood,

And staine my fauours in a bloody Maske…/

This in the name of Haeuen,

I promise here.

(3.2.135-6/153)

As the notion of collective maculinity is different between the two aim characters of Richard II even

the concept of Christian identity is unequal.

In order to describe Richard’s behavior, is necessary to focus again our attention on the scene

(1.1.150).

Richard’s solicitation to forgive and his exile’s decision to escape the fight is ,of course, part of a plan

but this aspect can show a Christian identity.

Meanwhile,at the end of the play Richard defines himself as Christ. ,who is betrayed and ultimately

crucified in the New Testament. At one point Richard compares the men who have joined forces to

Bolingbroke to Judas, the disciple who betrays Jesus: "Three Judases," he says. "Each one thrice
worse than Judas! / Would they make peace? terrible hell make war / Upon their spotted souls for this

offence!" (3.2.8).

During the next scene Richard has to give his crown to Bolingbroke. The similitude used is regarding

the famous behavior of Pontius Pilates: “Some of you with Pilate wash your hands / Showing an

outward pity; yet you Pilates / Have here deliver'd me to my sour cross, / And water cannot wash

away your sin” (4.1.6).

But all these images that he creates for himself is a necessary costume which hides his lack of

masculinity. He is aware of his inability to be a warrior king. Therefore ,the significant aspect of the

play is Richard’s default in front of Henry’s rebellion and his love for flattery brought him to wear

the martyr’s mask and to compare his dispossession to Jesus’s cruxifixion.

Even though, Lord Gaunt criticized Richard for not being a good Christian king during their last

meeting.

In fact during his reign the king did not pursued any glorious conquest in the name of God, which

were the measures used to describe describing a man.

At the same time, Bolingbroke’s Christian identity is shown only at the end of the play. It is practical

and planned. In fact, even though he organized a rebellion he does not want to fight and he wants to

preserve the social order. So his Christianity is rational, real ,practical and without any flattery to

achieve the crown.

But the necessity of being a warrior and being a real Christian is not so clear, rather it is shady and

ambiguous. The public coronation of Richard III is an important example. Richard III is portraited as

a corrupted man who sofferered of physical problems and disfigured ,which, through medival

conscience were symbols of ‘moral disfiguring’.

During the celebration, the king is defined to the crowd as ‘effeminate’, in this case it should

rappresent the true nature of the king in opposition to “being a monsterxii”, attitude which can be

linked to Richard. The term ‘effeminate’ is preferable to use in order to hide his corruption which has

not been historically proved and to hide is morality corruption. The celebration was supposed to

show the new king to the people more sympathetic and not as cruel as he was.

As a conclusion, at the very end of the play the reader is aware of the society order and the necessity

of preserving it by following the Renaissance’s manhood concept.

In fact,the order which is settled into a hierarchy which was the metaphor of nature order that

stipulated the order of everyday life.

Through Richard’s play the reader is moved from the modern notion of homoerotism, which is not

leaded to the concept of sodomy as we define it through a modern notion.

In fact, it involves attitude to honor, social classes, Christian faith and loyalty to the government, all

these aspects defined a man as such without regarding the biological gender.

The play is a direct complain of Richard’s attitude as a king who is portrayed as a man careless of the

social order.
Sources

• The construction of a king : waste, effeminacy and queerness in Shakespeare's Richard II by

Derrick Higginbotham.

• Howard,Jean E. and Phyllis Rackin. Engendering a Nation: A feminist account of

Shakespeare’s English histories. London: Routledge,1997.

• False knights and true men: contesting chivalric masculinity in English treason trials, 1388–

1415

• E. Amanda McVitty

Queer times: Richard II in the poems and chronicles of late fourteen -century England by

SYLVIA FEDERICO,Medium Ævum, Vol. 79, No. 1 (2010), pp. 25-46

• Manliness Before Individualism: Masculinity, Effeminacy, and Homoerotics in Shakespeare's

History Plays by Rebecca Ann Bach

Bibliography

i
The construction of a king : waste, effeminacy and queerness in Shakespeare's Richard II by

Derrick Higginbotham (p.56-60).

ii
The construction of a king : waste, effeminacy and queerness in Shakespeare's Richard II by
Derrick Higginbotham (p.59-60).
iii
Howard, Jean E. and Phyllis Rackin. Engendering a Nation: A feminist account of Shakespeare’s
English histories. London: Routledge,1997.
iv
False knights and true men: contesting chivalric masculinity in English treason trials, 1388–1415
E. Amanda McVitty
v
False knights and true men: contesting chivalric masculinity in English treason trials, 1388–1415
E. Amanda McVitty
vi
Queer times:Richaerd II in poems and chronicles of late fourteen-century England by Sylvia
Federico Medium Evum. Vol.79,No.1 2010.(p. 25-26)
vii
Queer times: Richard II in the poems and chronicles of late fourteen -century England by Sylvia
Federico Medium Evum. Vol.79,No.1 2010(2010), pp. 25-46
viii
Manliness Before Individualism: Masculinity, Effeminacy, and Homoerotics in Shakespeare's
History Plays by Rebecca Ann Bach (p.239)
ix
Manliness Before Individualism: Masculinity, Effeminacy, and Homoerotics in Shakespeare's
History Plays by Rebecca Ann Bach (p.239)
x
Mckeon,M. (1995). Historizing Patriarchy: The Emergence of Gender Difference in England, 1660-
1760. Eighteenth-Century Studies,28,3,295-322.
xi
Manliness Before Individualism: Masculinity, Effeminacy, and Homoerotics in Shakespeare's
History Plays by Rebecca Ann Bach (p.237).
xii
False knights and true men: contesting chivalric masculinity in English treason trials, 1388–1415.
E. Amanda McVitty
I hereby declare that I authored this paper without help or interference from another person, that

I employed no other tools and sources than those listed in my bibliography and cited in the paper,

and I am aware that any failure to do so will be considered plagiarism and will have serious

consequences.