Poor, Poor Richard

So sorry this is late!
Upon finishing Richard II, the question of who's really the good guy and who's really the bad guy has an unclear answer. Is it fair to say that Richard has redeemed himself for being such a horrible king by realizing that he is no better than the commoners? Or is this "woe is me" act just that? Is Bolingbroke still the better man for punishing Richard's killer and leaving on a pilgrimage? Or is this, too an act? In my opinion, it's hard to like either of these men when looking at their actions throughout the play.

Richard is the easiest of the two men to rip apart because of his indecision and cruelty. He reminds me of a less loony but still annoyingly stupid Hamlet, except Hamlet always sounded like a teenager to me so I had a tendency to forgive him. Richard, on the other hand and especially in his final scene, sounds older and older and older. By the time he has his final speech, I had to keep reminding myself that he was thirty and not fifty. This slow slump into misery and recognition of his own failures led Richard to grow up a bit and take responsibility. This does not absolve him of those failures but it leaves the audience with a different, more sympathetic picture of Richard after he is killed. Perhaps it is because he is alone in the castle, away from the "riffraff" he surrounded himself with. After calling Bolingbroke out for treating commoners as equals, he tells a Groomer that they are worth the same amount. Richard is teeth-grindingly insufferable until the final act, when his humanity and humility finally shine through. Is it all an act? Why would he fake it? He has nothing left. I like to think it truly is a revelation.

Bolingbroke, on the other hand, seems to remain the same from beginning to end: he is the sweet, sweet lemondrop on top of Richard's melting ice cream...on the surface. I found a very interesting argument from Irving Ribner that states Bolingbroke's ascension to the throne is a pure demonstration of Machiavellian philosophy. Bolingbroke causes internal unrest among Richard's followers, he takes power in a time of turmoil, he makes Richard give up power instead of simply taking it himself, he kills many of those faithful to Richard after he receives the crown, and he has Richard killed at the end of the play. Even his trip to the Holy Land is Machiavellian because the philosophy states that rulers must appear pious. Bolingbroke is the real wolf of the play, choosing to hide in sheep's clothing, while Richard was the coyote, scrounging around trying to find something to latch onto.

If I had to choose which man to support, I would choose Richard. It's hard to read the first few acts of this play and like Richard and even harder to predict that one would by the end. Bolingbroke is, on the surface the better man. He does everything right to win the support of the audience. However, once his actions are given a good twice-over, his boy scout persona quickly falls apart. He wanted Richard killed and punished Exton to save face. That's the bottom line. Richard may not be the picture of a good Englishman, but at least he was honest and open with his failures and bad deeds. Bolingbroke will sit on his thrown with the Cheshire Cat smile, knowing he tricked everyone.

Sarah Bras