by Brian McCue, Blogging Circle 4

I’m interested in the portrayal of Justice and the right to decide fate in this play. Shakespeare is tackling some pretty subversive ideas and is really challenging what Justice is in medieval England, and what Kingship really entails.

In the opening to the play, we see a variation on how justice plays out in King Richard the Second’s England. Henry Bolingbroke and Mowbray are having a bit of a scuffle, they both seem to think that the other one is a traitor and is guilty of high treason. This is a pretty serious offense, and both Mowbray and Bolingbroke don’t seem to have much evidence on another to prove that Mowbray killed Richard and Bolingbroke’s uncle or that Bolingbroke has been stealing from the crown. So obviously, they decide to solve this quarrel by killing each other with swords. Richard who at first tries to settle the matter through words, basically says “alright guys you do what you gotta do.”
The implication here, is that the Trial by Combat Mowbray and Bolingbroke will have is to be solved by divine intervention, if one of the men kills the other, then his claim must be the true one.

In the second scene of Act I, we see Gaunt meeting with the deceased uncle’s (that Mowbray is accused of killing) widow to tell her that he suspects Richard had something to do with her husband’s death. She asks for him to seek some sort of vengeance on Richard and he tells her:

“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.” (1.2 37-41)

Essentially, Gaunt says that “Richard is basically God’s right hand man, can’t really do much about that. You’ll have to ask God to help you.” This of course, is pretty unfulfilling to a widow, and she says that she is so grief struck that she will die. Gaunt is refusing to challenge Richard on his acts, by virtue that Richard is God’s main dude on earth.

Luckily for us, as readers, we know that Mowbray and Bolingbroke are totally going to kill each other, and we’ll be able to tell who is guilty or not by whose blood gets drawn. But of course, Richard denies us our sweet sweet, bloody satisfaction and  decides that both men are guilty so he’ll have to banish them both. Our trial by combat, and access to the divine decision is denied. Bolingbroke seems to accept this,

“Your will be done: this must my comfort be,
Sun that warms you here shall shine on me;
And those his golden beams to you here lent
Shall point on me and gild my banishment.” (1.3)

and considering that he is being banished for 10 years, he even compliments Richard which seems extremely strange. My assumption here is that Bolingbroke really does seem to think Richard is divine, and that his justice is right. Mowbray on the other hand, gets the short end of the stick, being sent away by Richard forever and without any hope of returning. Bolingbroke tells Mowbray to admit his guilt, but Mowbray continues to deny being a traitor to the crown. Mowbray, of course, is heavily implied to have conspired with Richard to kill Richard’s uncle, and believes he didn’t “betray” the throne, instead, he helped Richard solidify his power and now Richard is betraying Mowbray.

So here, Richard has chosen to deny Bolingbroke and Mowbray their trial by combat, or any sense of a legal trial by marking them both guilty with no evidence. Gaunt, Bolingbroke’s father is rightly stricken by this and asks Richard to lessen Bolingbroke’s sentence which he does. It’s pretty clear that Richard’s power is unquestioned here, as Gaunt does not speak up about Richard’s own guilt in the murder of his uncle. This is a pretty solid set up to a tyrannical judicial system which leads us to our conflict in Act II.

In Act II, Bolingbroke raises an army and marches on Richard’s throne while Richard is away, in order to reclaim his inheritance to Lancaster after his father Gaunt has died. (Get it? His name was Gaunt? Because he was weak and dying?) Being exiled, Bolingbroke’s inheritance is pretty questionable, as Richard decided to take Gaunt’s lands (Which should have gone to Bolingbroke) to fund Richard’s military spelunking into Ireland. Bolingbroke meets up with the Duke of York, another of Richard’s uncles and also Bolingbroke’s own uncle, who is keeping the throne warm for Richard while he’s away and explains his situation. The Duke of York says he cannot really stop Bolingbroke and his big army, and Bolingbroke suggests that the Duke of York could technically usurp Richard’s power, and claim his own inheritance of the Kingship. The Duke of York essentially says “Oh darn, I guess you’re going to have to march this big old army into the kingdom and there is nothing anybody can do about it. I sure hope you don’t take the throne from Richard because he’s an awful king and I am sworn to uphold his Kingship.” Bolingbroke isn’t really interested in the throne instead, he just wants justice for himself and an end to his exile. When they finally meet, Richard essentially gives his power up to Bolingbroke since everyone hates him and Bolingbroke killed his friends for treason. Richard assumes that Bolingbroke really wants the throne and gives it to him since he has no actual martial power, suggesting that maybe Richard doesn’t have an inherent right to the throne by blood. Bolingbroke though, seems to honestly want to play by the rules, he does not challenge Richard’s decision to exile him and still praises him as king, and does not seem to have ulterior motives in marching his army to the throne.

The Justice system in this world is deeply religious in nature, either offering up the arbitration to God, or his direct vassal, the King. In both cases we see, Richard muddles everything up by being a pretty terrible king, and denies justice to those who seek it. King Richard’s actual connection to God, and thus his power, is tenuous at best, relying on centuries of tradition and inheritance law and not any kind of fathomable power. As soon as it is tested, Richard’s power crumbles, by any metric other than “divinity” Richard is a really terrible ruler. His vassals hate him, he pretty obviously murdered his uncle, the army does not support him, and he surrounds himself with Yes-men who tell him what he wants to hear.

This implication, that Kings are really just people who lucked out by being born into power must have been an incredibly dangerous one for Shakespeare to make. There is no justice in this world but the justice you create. If the King is not really an exact hand of God, how exactly can you trust his decisions? What then, makes his power legitimate? For Richard, his power is legitimate only by his martial power, as he gives up his power to Bolingbroke based on the fact that his claim is unable to be defended by any army. If the King was truly a hand of God, wouldn’t God protect his kingship? Who is really ruling England? Certainly, Richard’s surrounding of like-minded individuals makes his rule problematic, as Richard should theoretically be able to rule with only the word of God in his ear.

This play has been my favorite that we’ve read so far, specifically because I love court politics and inheritance (I am really really into A Song of Ice and Fire and the tv adaptation, Game of Thrones). For Shakespeare to come to the realization that power is simply a matter of holding on to it, and to reveal it while living under a monarchy is insane. Calling the royal authority (and royalty itself) into question is a very large risk and immediately poses the threat of a rebellion. Super excited to see what happens at the end of this play, but if I had to guess, Richard is going to get killed, and Bolingbroke’s line will succeed the throne. I doubt we’ve seen the last of Mowbray, and I doubt that the throne will look kindly onto Richard being revealed as a kin-slayer.