perhaps to be found in the second edition of Daniel's Civil Wars, published in 1595, which contains certain striking parallels with Shakespeare's play not found in the earlier version. The likeness may possibly be purely accidental: on the other hand, we know that Daniel was addicted to the vice of plagiarism.* The relation of Richard II. to Marlowe's Edward II. (not earlier than 1590) throws valuable light on the date of composition. As regards versification, it is to be noted that Shakespeare broke away from Marlowe's example, and in place of a rigid use of blank verse, made free use of rhyme: no less than one-fifth of Richard II. is in rhymed verse. The proportion of rhyme cannot be taken as an absolute test in placing the piece: it may perhaps be due to an intentional experiment on Shakespeare's part to produce that unity of lyrical effect' which is the play's most striking characteristic. In the avoidance of prose, however, the Marlowan precedent is still followed, as in the case of Richard III. and King John. A general consideration of the metrical tests places Richard II. between Richard III. and Henry IV., Romeo and Juliet and King John belonging to nearly the same date. But in dramatic method, no less than in versification, Shakespeare's play shows resistance of Marlowe's influence, though the subject of Richard II. may, as is very probable, have been suggested by the similar theme of Edward II.† "The reluctant pangs of abdicating royalty in Edward II." may have, in Charles Lamb's famous words, "furnished hints which Shakespeare scarcely improved in his Richard II." Outwardly the two plays have much in common; in tragic pathos, arising from the collision of incident and character, as opposed to tragic horror, Shakespeare had left his predecessor far behind. The Source of the Play. Shakespeare's main source for the historical facts of Richard II. was Holinshed's Chronicle of Englande, Scotland, and Ireland; probably the second edition of the work published in 1586, which alone contains the withering of the bay-trees (II. iv. 8). Stowe's Annals (1580) seems to have supplied the story of Mowbray's career in Palestine (IV. i. 97). Other sources were used by Shakespeare, * Cp. "Only let him more sparingly make use In the second play of the trilogy the author makes it quite clear that Daniel showed at times too palpably the influence exercised upon him by Shakespeare. It is perhaps worth while pointing out that the parallel of Edward and Richard is brought out by Hayward in his History of Henry the Fourth, where Richard's last words refer to his great-grandfather, King Edward the Second, "being in this manner deposed, imprisoned, and murdered," &c. but they are unknown; neither Hall nor Holinshed states that the Bishop of Carlisle was committed to the custody of the Abbot of Westminster. On the whole, Holinshed has been carefully followed by Shakespeare; among the chief divergences are (i.) the re-creation of characters of the Queen and Gaunt; (ii) the death-bed scene of Gaunt, and the deposition scene of Richard; (iii.) the introduction of the gardener, the servant, and the groom; (iv.) changes in historic time and place, etc. (cp. Riechelman's Abhandlung zu Richard II. und Holinshed). Duration of Action. The time of Richard II. covers fourteen days, with intervals; the historic period is from 29th April 1398 to the beginning of March 1400, 'at which time the body of Richard, or what was declared to be such, was brought to London' (p. Daniel's Time-Analysis, Trans. New Shakespeare Society, 1877-79, p. 269). The meeting of Richard and Bolingbroke at Conway Castle. (Cp. Act III. iii.) From an illumination in the Metrical History of Richard II. (MS. Harl. 1319). "No! Shakespeare's Kings are not, nor are meant to be, great men rather, little or quite ordinary humanity, thrust upon greatness, with those pathetic results, the natural self-pity of the weak heightened in them into irresistible appeal to others as the net result of their royal prerogative. One after another, they seem to lie composed in Shakespeare's embalming pages, with just that touch of nature about them, making the whole world akin, which has infused into their tombs at Westminster a rare poetic grace. It is that irony of Kingship, the sense that it is in its happiness child's play, in its sorrows, after all, but children's grief, which gives its finer accent to all the changeful feeling of these wonderful speeches :-the great meekness of the graceful, wild creature, tamed at last, 'Give Richard leave to live till Richard die! . . .' And as sometimes happens with children he attains contentment finally in the merely passive recognition of superior strength, in the naturalness of the result of the great battle as a matter of course, and experiences something of the royal prerogative of poetry to obscure, or at least to attune and soften men's griefs." PATER. DRAMATIS PERSONE. KING RICHARD the Second. JOHN OF GAUNT, Duke of Lancaster, uncles to the King. EDMUND OF LANGLEY, Duke of York, S HENRY, surnamed BOLINGBROKE, Duke of Hereford, son to John of Gaunt; afterwards KING HENRY IV. DUKE OF AUMERLE, son to the Duke of York. THOMAS MOWBRAY, Duke of Norfolk. Lords, Heralds, Officers, Soldiers, two Gardeners, Keeper, SCENE: England and Wales. The Tragedy of King Richard II. 1377-1399 ACT FIRST, Scene I. London. King Richard's palace. K. Rich. Old John of Gaunt, time-honour'd Lancaster, K. Rich. Tell me, moreover, hast thou sounded him, On some known ground of treachery in him? Aim'd at your highness, no inveterate malice. ΙΟ |