Hello! As promised, I am uploading all my A2 English Literature essays. This is one which I did on William Shakespeare's Richard II, complete with comments from my teacher. Enjoy!
In what ways, and with what effects, does
Shakespeare present different attitudes to loyalty in the play?
Loyalty
means giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or
institution. In Richard II, Shakespeare however, challenges the different
attitudes towards loyalty and towards the methods by which it is obtained. He
questions this aspect of the idea of loyalty by
carefully aligning Henry’s rise to power with
Richard’s fall to draw the audience’s attention to the gradual shift in loyalty from former supporters of Richard Henry.
Shakespeare
portrays Richard’s downfall as beginning with his breaking of his loyalty to
his family, which serves as the catalyst for subsequent decay in relationships
which were previously projected as possessing being founded on loyalty. Simultaneously, however, Shakespeare, continuously compares the
breakdown in loyalties of Richard’s former followers to the titular character
as reflecting apparent moral degradation of the character of his followers..Bit of a clumsy sentence that one. By doing so, Shakespeare asserts that an obsession with one’s
own ideas of loyalty can blind an individual dangerously towards his
external circumstances, and implores for people to base their loyalty
upon what is morally correct behaviour and on actions that benefit everyone in
their society. There are some lapses in fluency in the intro, but there’s a
clear thesis. Don’t limit your interpretation of loyalty to the individual.
Loyalty to concepts / ideas should also come into it: loyalty to divine right v
loyalty to nation is presented in the play – Shakespeare suggests that loyalty
to divine right is only morally right if the king rules well.
INTRO
Loyalty is the
demonstration of support or allegiance to a person or institution. It is
generally regarded as positive, though expressions of loyalty might also imply
a certain blindness to external circumstances. In Richard II, Shakespeare
invites us to consider the extent to which people should remain loyal to a
leader in the face of mounting evidence of incompetency in, and exploitation
by, that leader. However, Shakespeare does not present us with a simplistic
dichotomy; rather he reminds us that while leaders must be held to account,
there needs to be consideration given to who exactly holds the mechanisms of
oversight.
From here, my essay would
split chronologically, along Rackin’s lines: first half looking at Richard’s
‘loyalty’ to the system of divine right and accompanying discussion weighing up
how loyal he is to his own country. I’d
also include discussion of Gaunt and York’s loyalty to divine right, and I’d
look at the loyalty of Bagot, Bushy, and Green.
We are led to favour Henry’s more modern view during this half of the
play, and the common man’s loyalty to Henry makes him seem more appropriate as
leader. In other words, the audience’s
loyalty to Henry grows. There’s a
meta-analysis available here: we are invited to consider which man we give our
loyalty to, and why.
The second half would
then examine Richard’s self-reflection: his gradual understanding of the role
of a king and his feelings for his country, and the doubts that begin to emerge
in the audience of Henry’s worth as a successor – his loyal supporter
Northumberland is one such character who makes us cast doubt on whether Henry
is an able replacement.
However, that’s just me.
Let’s see where you go with this.
Shakespeare
depicts the conventional attitude of absolute loyalty to the king in terms of
the Divine Rights of Kings as flawed. After Gaunt’s death, York cites Richard’s
actions of seizing Lancaster’s lands as against the feudal contract, warning
that Richard “(loses) a thousand well-disposed hearts”. “Hearts” symbolise the
people of England, suggesting that Richard, by abusing his power as king, risks
losing loyalty from the people. York here, is cautioning that the feudal
contract worked both ways. Subjects owed loyalty to the king, but a king had a
duty to uphold the rights of his subjects. The fact that York is the “last of
noble Edward’s sons” and is criticising Richard suggests that the latter is
failing to live up to the standards of a good king who earns the loyalty of the
public. This is further demonstrated in how Shakespeare is determined to convey how Richard’s failure is
noted not only among the gentry, but among the wider public too. In a play with
very few ‘commoner’ characters, Shakespeare is careful to mention that, as
Henry leaves England to serve his banishment, he “did seem to dive into [the
commoners’] hearts with humble and familiar courtesy”, the modifiers here
serving to align Henry with both modesty and loyalty to the kingdom and its
people, in direct contrast to Richard’s approach. Moreover, Shakespeare assigns to York’s gardener and servant
a series of criticisms of King Richard’s negligence
of his kingdom, which has allowed for its decay, by describing how “our
sea-walled garden, the whole land, Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers choked
up,”. “sea-walled” is a flashback to Gaunt’s
pride in England as “bound in with the sea”. “weeds” are a symbol of parasitic growth, and suggests that by
allowing flatterers like Bushy and Bagot cloud his judgement, Richard has
disregarded his people, allowing for the decay of the glorious English past,
and inciting disloyalty from his people.
Shakespeare
uses the flaws in the Divine Right of Kings then, to emphasise how loyalty is more
strongly determined by (unclear
meaning) those
who possess more power. This is
prominently demonstrated in York’s defection towards Bullingbroke’s side
without much resistance. After Bullingbroke’s insistence that he arrives merely
to enforce his rights to his inheritance, York pathetically replies that “Why, foolish boy, the king is left behind, And in my loyal bosom lies
his power.” There is juxtaposition of “left behind” and “loyal bosom”,
suggesting weak support from York and also demonstrates that power does not
always come with position of king, as York’s words are addressed to
Bullingbroke. It shows that power of kingship is transferable from the king to
the individual and in doing so, breaks the rule in the Divine Right of Kings
that kingship is only heritable. The
statement is also ironic, as “bosom” could be interpreted as a synecdoche embodying
York’s full-hearted support for the king but also demonstrates that the king’s power can be passed on to another representative. Also,
later on, York, reminisicing on how Richard compares to Henry, reflects that
“But heaven hath a hand in these events … To Bolingbroke are we sworn
subjects now” “heaven” here recalls Gaunt’s staunch belief in the idea in the
Divine Right of Kings that only God can punish the king; the weakness and
contrived nature of the phrase “bound” suggests that he does not believe what
he himself is saying. The idea that “heaven hath a hand’ is also ironic, given
that York gave Henry support, demonstrating here that York is disavowing
himself of any role in Henry’s ascension. The tone of disavowal of any
wrongdoing and reluctance here suggests that loyalty is dictated by the power
of an individual, in this case, Bullingbrook.
Very
good, this bit. Nice paragraph with some
good analysis.
Shakespeare here proceeds
to demonstrate how Richard’s view of loyalty to the king to be expected from
the people to be distorted by his conceit. After Bullingbrook’s banishment,
Richard speaks scornfully of his people, who Bullingbroke attempts to appeal to,
by stating how “What reverence (Bullingbroke) did throw away on slaves.”
“slaves” capitalise the first word of your sentence when it’s in a
quotation - you keep forgetting to and “throw away” give the
connotation that Richard views his people with contempt and does not attempt to win their loyalty. “slaves” also encompasses
Richard’s inflexible overconfidence in the Divine Right of Kings. In “The State
of Law” , Donna B Hamilton quotes the Bractonian
explanation that “The King has no equal within his realm. Subjects cannot be
the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule.” Richard’s
derogatory labelling of his subjects as “slaves” hence harkens back to Gaunt’s
metaphorical criticism of him as “Landlord of England”, comparing Richard’s naïve expectation
of endless servitude from his subjects, connotative of “slaves” to the contract
that a greedy landlord signs with his tenants. Good! Shakespeare
emphasises Richard’s overconfidence in his expectations of loyalty from his
people by demonstrating how swiftly his illusionary façade of power is
destroyed by his reception of the news of Bullingbroke’s return after the
former has returned to England too late. Firstly, Shakespeare creates a comedic
juxtaposition of Richard’s beliefs in kingship with his actual circumstances,
when Richard bemoans despairingly how “the blood of twenty/thousand men/Did
triumph in my face”, but then, under Aumerle’s reassurance, frantically
convinces himself that the threat facing him is merely that of “A puny subject
(striking)/At thy great glory.” “Twenty thousand men” carries a tone of
magntitude which suggests that Richard has lost his kingdom, but in the litote “puny subject” is a litote we hear a reinstatement of Richard’s
arrogant belief in the empty idea that the idea of the Great Chain of Being in itself will deter
people such as Bullingbrook from retaliating. Richard’s conceit in how
loyalty is guaranteed with kingship clumsy
expression there is confirmed, and incites mockery from the audience in
how he bitterly laments his own horse’s loss of loyalty to his groom “That jade
hath ate bread from my royal hand”.
Richard’s tone of betrayal, Is it his ‘tone of
betrayal’ or his tone of despondency at perceiving himself betrayed? on
one hand, suggests that the idea of bullingbrook
taking away the horse strips away Richard’s masculinity, embodied in how Richard complains “I was not
made a horse/And yet I bear a burthen like an ass.” That
sentence feels a bit rushed – needs to be sharpened for clarity. The
simile “like an ass” suggests that Richard has realised that his conceit
has led him to overestimate the Divine Right of kings, embodied in the action
of feeding “bread from my royal hand”.
Also, “jade” literally refers to the horse but metaphorically, it also
refers to the rider, Bullingbroke, as a
trickster. The ambiguity between which meaning is intended also embodies the
fluidity of loyalty, as horse used to be loyal to Richard but switches to
Bullingbrook easily, could be symbolising the conscience of Richard’s human
followers. Nice By doing so, Shakespeare
suggests that a proper leader has to undertake action and moe than just pure belief in a set of ideas to obtain
loyalty from his followers.
Shakespeare, however, counters
the flaws in such individuals’ perception of loyalty, like Richard’s, by
demonstrating the intensity of the
attitude of sincere loyalty towards ideologies which they believe in. syntax needs sharpening up here. Two quite
complex ideas you’re trying to express, so split into two sentences i.e. Shakespeare,
however, highlights the flaws in the perceptions of loyalty that Richard and
his ilk hold. Then second sentence. He portrays both
Gaunt and Richard as martyrs for their beliefs in the ideal king and his
responsibilities. When recounting his memories of the England he once know,
Gaunt bitterly admires how “This royal throne of kings, this seat of Mars,/This
Earth of Majesty, this seat of Mars,/This
other Eden, demi-paradise”. The anaphora of “this” sentimentalises the
image of a majestic England which Gaunt was loyal to. The verbosity and
pomposity of this speech suggests that Shakespeare might intend for this speech
to be lightly mocked. True
that. However, Gaunt then paints an antithetical image of how England “is now
bound in with shame,/With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds”. The
synathesia sp. of the
visual imagery of “inky blots” with the texture and smell of “rotten parchment
bonds”, coupled with Gaunt’s personification of England as an individual with
“shame” because of the abovementioned, illustrates how strongly Gaunt is
revolted with how Richard abuses his power to extract money from his subjects.
Perhaps Shakespeare deliberately,
then intends a tone of ridicule in Gaunt’s speech because he desires an
Elizabethan audience to feel sympathy for, and admire Gaunt’s staunch loyalty
towards an England which is capable of exercising its power under a capable
ruler, as Elizabeth I the 1st
was childless and relied upon the Divine Right of Kings to assert her power. By
doing so, Shakespeare is suggesting that the title of kingship carries a moral
responsibility, and for the king to violate such a position is to betray the
trust of the people. Bring
in a critic here. Rackin or Hamilton
again or Cohen Shakespeare’s compels the audience to view Richard with anger by
substantiating Gaunt’s view of how Richard has betrayed his loyalty to the
feudal contract.
Shakespeare also desires the audience to cultivate a similar admiration
for how Richard’s loyalty to the Divine Right of Kings, even after being
dethroned. He condemns Exeton for how “That hand shall burn in never-quenching
fire”. “(burning) in never-quenching fire” is a biblical allusion to the lake
of fire in Hell. The Lake of Fire is the ultimate consequence of sin, which is
to be totally cut off from God. The lake of fire will be a place of perpetual
suffering and misery. By using the phrase “fire” to be the punishment for sin,
Richard suggests that he interprets the title of kingship and the loyalty that
it deserves to be a measure of one’s own virtue, as fire is, biblically, also a
symbol of God’s judgement. Richard condemns all of the people present as
“Conveyors”, “That rise thus nimbly by a true king’s fall.” “Conveyors” carry a
tone of emptiness that suggests moral degradation, as such people “rise” (that is, obtain
pleasure and power) as
suggested by how Richard condemns them for passively observing a “true king’s
fall”. Shakespeare here not only accuses Richard’s subjects of complicity,
but also the audience of such guilt. Phyllis Rackin in “The Role of the
Audience in Shakespeare’s Richard II”, adds that when Richard condemns how “You
Pilates/ Have here deliver’d me to my sour cross”, “The salt water image
associates Richard with the rest of the traitors-all Pilates, all trying
to wash away a terrible guilt”, because
Richard, by surrenderring himself to Bullingbroke’s “conveyors”, has “made
glory base, and sovereignity a slave”. Tiring sentence that one. It’s like you can see the finish line, and
you’re tired and have lost all your control and technique but just want to get
to the end. By using the biblical
analogy of the guilty Pilates who gave up Jesus to please the power-hungry
Jewish religious leaders, even though he realised it was wrong, Richard personfies such virtue as Jesus. Good
Shakespeare here implicates the audience of complicity by imbuing their
pleasure derived from seeing Richard being dethroned, to the sin of past,
present and future which Jesus died for, and in doing so, depicts loyalty
towards tradition and custom as a gauge of one’s morality. A lot of good ideas in this paragraph, but it
lacks some control.
Shakespeare,
throughout the play, portrays two different streams of loyalty, a feckless loyalty towards those who are more
powerful, and a more sincere type of loyalty, that of towards tradition and
custom, which he asserts suggests,
with provisions, to be
morally correct. Shakespeares
proves
this by foreshadowing how the sudden change in loyalty of Richard’s followers
to Bullingbroke not only seeds chaos within the hierarchy, but also guilt
within those who enact Bullingrbrokes’s bidding, like Exton. By using imagery
of Divine Vengeance to describe the guilt which Richard’s former followers
feel, Shakespeare implores for his Elizabethan audience to base their loyalty,
not on popular political sentiment, but rather on a strong set of morals, or
face eternal regret and sorrow.
Great
course work essay. A few flaws here, mostly in expression/communication,
because you’ve been throwing down lots of ideas onto the page. But there are
lots of ideas and it’s comprehensive in its coverage. That’s what a course work
essay should be. Nice identification / integration of language techniques.
Knowledge
and Understanding are strong, as is Personal Response: top level
Others:
good critics; some engagement with the masculinity aspect of Richard/Henry;
maybe a chance missed to throw in a class (Marxist) perspective of Bollingbrook
v Richard re commoners. Still high level.
Communication:
loss of fluency in places.
Comments
Post a Comment