Richard II's licentiousness
David Schreiber
scene, suggests that the king and his entourage were homosexual. There
is one short passage in the text that supports such an interpretation,
when his followers are accused of separating the king from his marriage
bed. The editor of my edition of Shakespeare text maintains that Richard
was not homosexual. Indeed, the play has an important scene in which
Richard and his wife have a tender and emotional farewell. I've been
trying to discover the truth. One history book quotes a contemporary
source that says Richard and his companions often stayed up through the
night engaged in drinking and acts that do not bear description. Do we
know the truth on this matter?
Chris Dickinson
This follows on from recent correspondence about Robin Hood.
I think I'm beginning to become vaguely irritated by the
'gays in history' issue, so might as well make a few (fairly
obvious?) points :
1.
The Robin Hood story was absurd not so much because of the
rightness of wrongness of the claims but because (a) the
claims couldn't be disproved one way or the other; (b) gay
Robin with his merry men have long been a subject of
schoolboyish humour (John Clees did a version, if I
remember correctly); (c) the report (though not necessarily
the original scholarship ... the Sunday Times has a poor
record at reporting complex arguments) said nothing new and
seemed simply to be a silly season story, earning a few easy
dollars for those involved.
2.
There are historical figures who exhibit behaviour
that suggest an interest in the same sex and a lack of
great interest in t'other sex, without there being any
suggestion of gay sexual experimentation (Louis XIII an
obvious example).
3.
When the term 'gay' is used in academic discussions, usually
the term implies 'non-straight gay' rather than 'queer pride
gay'. What I mean by that is that the individuals under
discussion are considered willing to have same-sex physical
relationships as well as straight ones, but not necessarily
exclusively either.
4.
A person can be gay and yet be married and have children.
5.
Sexuality is, for a lot of people, a complex and
non-definable quality that can change over time. Gays who
exult in gay historical figureheads are as tiresome as
straights who assume that gayness has to be proved or that
it somehow didn't exist in history.
6.
Gayness is relevant to political history in that it could
alienate rulers from their sources of support (Edward II?)
.... and even here the problems seem usually to do more with
inept decision making over a long period of time.
7.
Gayness is relevant to political history when it becomes
associated with 'favouritism' (Edward II), decadent court
behaviour (John, William II) or with adolescent gang
behaviour (the mignons of the Valois, Guise and Bourbon).
8.
Social historians seem generally to have little to say about
homosexuality. That's probably a relief to most of us.
Otherwise we are just gossiping ... but isn't that fun!
Chris
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>I've just seen a production of Shakepseare's "Richard II" which, in one
>scene, suggests that the king and his entourage were homosexual. There
>is one short passage in the text that supports such an interpretation,
>when his followers are accused of separating the king from his marriage
>bed.
Unfortunately for this argument, the scene (III, 1) occurs two scenes after
another (II, 2) in which the two counsellors are shown being quite friendly with
the queen, and even comforting her because her husband's away! Did the
production show that scene, or was it cut in order to bring out the 'gay'
thesis?
>The editor of my edition of Shakespeare text maintains that Richard
>was not homosexual. Indeed, the play has an important scene in which
>Richard and his wife have a tender and emotional farewell. I've been
>trying to discover the truth. One history book quotes a contemporary
>source that says Richard and his companions often stayed up through the
>night engaged in drinking and acts that do not bear description. Do we
>know the truth on this matter?
Does it say what the contemporary source is? Richard, I think, when his first
wife died, was so upset that he had a wing of the palace destroyed. His second
wife (the Queen of the play) was only about 12 when he died (though I suspect
Shakespeare didn't realise this), so there wouldn't have been much opportunity
for sexual relations with her, nor for his counsellors to separate him from her
bed!
Pete Barrett
Tony Jebson
> I've just seen a production of Shakepseare's "Richard II" which,
> in one scene, suggests that the king and his entourage were
> homosexual. There is one short passage in the text that supports
> such an interpretation, when his followers are accused of
> edition of Shakespeare text maintains that Richard was not
> homosexual. Indeed, the play has an important scene in which
> Richard and his wife have a tender and emotional farewell. I've been
> trying to discover the truth. One history book quotes a contemporary
> source that says Richard and his companions often stayed up
> through the night engaged in drinking and acts that do not
> bear description. Do we know the truth on this matter?
Try _Richard II_, Nigel Saul.
--- Tony Jebson
John Wilson
Pete Barrett wrote in message <378cad83...@news.clara.net>...
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 08:46:44 GMT, David Schreiber
<ds...@TAKETHISOUThome.com>
>wrote:
>
slightly, has anyone read _The Belles Lettres Papers_, by Simmons, IIRC? A
takeoff on this sort of argument, and apparently based on some NY literary
people.
John GW
David C. Pugh
Pete Barrett wrote in message <378cad83...@news.clara.net>...
(...)
. His second
>wife (the Queen of the play) was only about 12 when he died (though I
suspect
>Shakespeare didn't realise this), so there wouldn't have been much
opportunity
>for sexual relations with her, nor for his counsellors to separate him from
her
>bed!
Maybe that's why - he was raring to go, and his counsellors reminded him
that the usual result of starting in too early was death in childbed. For a
medieval king, always a tricky balance. Too soon and you wreck her health,
too late and she'll be dead of some plague :-)
(R2 is not my period, though)
David
David Schreiber
able to find that book.)
David Schreiber
was simply not on top of his material. According to Arthur Bryant's _Set
in a Silver Sea_ (p. 362), Richard wooed the queen, Isabella, his second
wife and daughter of the French King , in 1395, when she was aged six.
His deposition occurred in 1399, when she would be ten. Oh well, it's an
early play for Shakespeare.
There is indeed that friendly scene between two counsellors and the
queen. Later, though, Bolingbroke accuses them thusly (I'm sure this is
the basis for the director adding the homosexual stage business to the
production I saw):
Bushy and Green, I will not vex your souls,
Since presently your souls must part your bodies,
With too much urging your pernicious lives,
For 'twere no charity; yet, to wash your blood
From off my hands, here in the view of men
I will unfold some cause of your deaths:
You have misled a prince, a royal king,
A happy gentleman in blood and lineaments,
By you unhappied and disfigured clean;
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
With tears, drawn from her eyes by your foul wrongs;
As for primary sources, Arthur Bryant in _Set in a Silver Sea_ (p. 338)
quotes FROISSART describing Richard as "remaining sometimes till morning
in drinking and other excesses not to be named." Bryant then states that
Richard was not homosexual. And HOLINSHED says of Richard's excesses,
"there reigned abundantlie the filthie sinne of leacherie and
fornication, with abhominable adulterie, speciallie in the king, but
most cheefelie in the perlacie" (_Richard II_, The Arden Shakespeare, p.
193).
So it appears that the Shakespeare passage need only suggest that the
counsellors led Richard into adulterous, heterosexual orgies. That still
leaves a certain inconsistency in the play, with the counsellors and the
queen being so friendly in one scene. The homosexual interpretation, on
a dramatic level, is unfortunate, not only for not quite being supported
by the text or history, but also because it is so shocking that it quite
disrupts the rest of the play.
I appreciate the help people have given me here in thinking through this
question. If I still might have it wrong, or I've missed something, I'd
appreciate being informed further.
David Schreiber
Toronto
Pete Barrett wrote:
>
> Unfortunately for this argument, the scene (III, 1) occurs two scenes after
> another (II, 2) in which the two counsellors are shown being quite friendly with
> the queen, and even comforting her because her husband's away! Did the
> production show that scene, or was it cut in order to bring out the 'gay'
> thesis?
>
> >The editor of my edition of Shakespeare text maintains that Richard
> >was not homosexual. Indeed, the play has an important scene in which
> >Richard and his wife have a tender and emotional farewell. I've been
> >trying to discover the truth. One history book quotes a contemporary
> >source that says Richard and his companions often stayed up through the
> >night engaged in drinking and acts that do not bear description. Do we
> >know the truth on this matter?
>
> Does it say what the contemporary source is? Richard, I think, when his first
> wife died, was so upset that he had a wing of the palace destroyed. His second
> wife (the Queen of the play) was only about 12 when he died (though I suspect
> Shakespeare didn't realise this), so there wouldn't have been much opportunity
> for sexual relations with her, nor for his counsellors to separate him from her
> bed!
>
> Pete Barrett
Liz Broadwell
: What does the book say? (I'm not an academic, so I probably won't be
: able to find that book.)
: Tony Jebson wrote:
: > Try _Richard II_, Nigel Saul.
It's actually not that difficult to find -- Amazon.com has it, and I've
seen it in bookstores with reasonable history sections, since it's one of
The Last Words on R2 at the moment. IIRC, Saul doesn't find any support
for a licentious Richard; I'll check my copy later today.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "[P]ointing a finger at me she said,
(ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) | 'Thou still unravish'd bride of quiet-
Department of English | ness, has thou read _The Cenci_ yet?'
at the University of Pennsylvania | I hadn't. And I still haven't."
-- A. Guiness, _Blessings in Disguise_
Laura Blanchard
>
> What does the book say? (I'm not an academic, so I probably won't be
> able to find that book.)
>
> Tony Jebson wrote:
> > Try _Richard II_, Nigel Saul.
Not true, David. This book has had good sales and should be available
in or via your local library -- if they don't have it, ask your
librarian about interlibrary loan.
I read it and don't recall Saul discussing Richard II's sexuality, but
then I was more focused on the (to my mind) strategic stupidity of a
king who, after fifteen or so of a childless marriage, marries a
six-year-old. Childlessness doesn't exactly contribute to a monarch's
stability.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> : Tony Jebson wrote:
> : > Try _Richard II_, Nigel Saul.
>
> and I've seen it in bookstores with reasonable history sections,
> since it's one of The Last Words on R2 at the moment. IIRC,
> Saul doesn't find any support for a licentious Richard; I'll
> check my copy later today.
I found my copy on the shelves in Barnes and Noble, though
for some reason it is only in the biography section and
not in the history section -- the only reason I found it is that
I walked past it and recognised the white and blue cover!
Anyway, I kind of like R II. His reign is populated by all
sorts of interesting characters: Richard Whittington, Geoffrey
Chaucer, John Gower, Nicholas Brembre, the SGGK poet, etc.
--- Tony Jebson
alex milman
Liz Broadwell wrote:
>
> David Schreiber (ds...@TAKETHISOUThome.com) wrote:
> : What does the book say? (I'm not an academic, so I probably won't be
> : able to find that book.)
>
> : Tony Jebson wrote:
> : > Try _Richard II_, Nigel Saul.
>
> It's actually not that difficult to find -- Amazon.com has it, and I've
> seen it in bookstores with reasonable history sections, since it's one of
> The Last Words on R2 at the moment. IIRC, Saul doesn't find any support
> for a licentious Richard; I'll check my copy later today.
>
I recall one very simple and logical explanation (in some book about
Chaucer).
Richard introduced a handkerchief in England (instead of using fingers
or a
sleeve as any self-respecting Brit should). Handkerchieves had been
brought
from France and everybody in England KNEW that French are homosexual
(all of them).
If king was copying one of their habits, he was probably copying all of
them
and h. definitely was not "masculine" (later Louis XIV did not use fork
by the same
reason). Marriage to the child was only an extra proof to this fact. He
could not
sleep with her and did not have any known mistress which left only one
obvious
explanation. :-)
David Schreiber
I'm quite amazed that the author doesn't find any evidence of Richard
being self-indulgent sexually, since it's mentioned in Froissart,
Holinshed, probably others, and seemed to be common knowledge. Most
other authors accept it. Interesting - I'd like to see what he says.
Possibly it's as you (was it you?) say, that Richard's love of luxury
and refined pleasures of the table and the wardrobe led people to other
conclusions. Still, I'd like to see why we shouldn't accept the
statements of Froissart et al.
Another little puzzle for me is what happened in later life to the
courage of the Richard who stared down Wat Tyler and his extremely
dangerous mob when he was 14. That's quite a scene! Maybe it was not
pure daring and manly courage in Richard, only deep indignation based on
his unshakeable belief in the divine right of kings? ("No, no, God
simply will not let them do this to me, their anointed king.")
Liz Broadwell wrote:
>
> It's actually not that difficult to find -- Amazon.com has it, and I've
> seen it in bookstores with reasonable history sections, since it's one of
> The Last Words on R2 at the moment. IIRC, Saul doesn't find any support
> for a licentious Richard; I'll check my copy later today.
>
Mary Gentle
ds...@TAKETHISOUThome.com (David Schreiber) wrote:
> The more time I spend with "Richard II," the more I suspect
>Shakespeare was simply not on top of his material. [...]
Um, Shakespeare was not a historian.
And even if he had been, the 16th century didn't construe
history the way we do in the 1990s.
But apart from that, it's a valid point... :-)
Mary
Pete Barrett
wrote:
>Thanks, I will keep my eyes out for it in the bookstores.
>
>I'm quite amazed that the author doesn't find any evidence of Richard
>being self-indulgent sexually, since it's mentioned in Froissart,
>Holinshed, probably others, and seemed to be common knowledge. Most
>other authors accept it. Interesting - I'd like to see what he says.
>Possibly it's as you (was it you?) say, that Richard's love of luxury
>and refined pleasures of the table and the wardrobe led people to other
>conclusions. Still, I'd like to see why we shouldn't accept the
>statements of Froissart et al.
>
I've failed to find any such statement in Froissart, but that may be because I
only have a selection here. Do we know where in Froissart?. Holinshed is a good
deal later, isn't he? Important for Shakespeare, because, as is well known, he
was a main source for the historical material in Shakespeare's plays; but hardly
a contemporary witness.
>Another little puzzle for me is what happened in later life to the
>courage of the Richard who stared down Wat Tyler and his extremely
>dangerous mob when he was 14. That's quite a scene! Maybe it was not
>pure daring and manly courage in Richard, only deep indignation based on
>his unshakeable belief in the divine right of kings? ("No, no, God
>simply will not let them do this to me, their anointed king.")
Quite a scene in *Shakespeare*. Froissart has the king behaving rather supinely
towards Tyler, until someone kills him (Tyler); whereupon he gives his word to
the common people, with every intention of breaking it.
Pete Barrett
Liz Broadwell
any evidence for R2 as a sexually licentious king (the luxuriousness of
his court is another question, which requires delving into larger swaths
of Saul than I have time for at the moment). Here's Saul on R2 and
relationships, FWIW:
"Though in many ways cold and remote, Richard was not without a capacity
for friendship. From the days of his youth he had always cherished the
company of a select group of male friends. His deep affection for Robert
de Vere in the 1380s is well known. In the 1390s he apppears to have been
on intimate terms with a number of the senior clerks in his service. The
Evesham writer says that the bishops of Worcester and Carlisle were
prominent among his boon companions in 1398. His friendships with other
men were almost certainly close and intense; but it is possible that they
were also fickle. His friendship with Thomas Mowbray, for example, in the
early 1380s did not last. In the 1390s, as he moved from adolescence to
adulthood, there are signs that he took a greater delight in female
company. Contemporaries commented on the number of ladies who thronged
his court. It is noticeable that from 1396 the courtier ladies benfited
more than before from his patronage. A particular favourite appears to
have been Blanche, Lady Poynings. In 1397 Richard presented her with a
precious ring, and in the following year he granted her L40 'of his gift'.
It is hard to know what degree of affection lay behind Richard's favour to
Lady Poynings and her like. The presence of women was a common
characteristic of late fourteenth-century courts, and the gifts were
possibly no more than token marks of favour. If evidence is to be sought
of Richard's attraction to, and delight in the company of, the opposite
sex, it would probably be better to focus on the success of his first
marriage. His relationship with his queen, Anne of Bohemia, was one of
the most companionate at this level of society in England in the middle
ages. Richard and his bride had been brought together by the imperatives
of international diplomacy, but the tie between them developed into one of
deep mutual attachment. More than any other English medieval royal
marriage, the marriage to Anne bore witness to the theologians' claim that
affective love could develop within an arranged match."
[Nigel Saul. _Richard II_. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997. P. 454-55.]
Ginger
read Piers Plowman in the recent past? My MA Thesis is being spent
exploring this text and I'd love to chat with anyone who has a mind to
talk about this subject.
Ginger Kirk
Tony Jebson wrote:
>
> Liz Broadwell wrote:
> [snip]
> > : Tony Jebson wrote:
> > : > Try _Richard II_, Nigel Saul.
> >
> > It's actually not that difficult to find -- Amazon.com has it,
> > and I've seen it in bookstores with reasonable history sections,
> > since it's one of The Last Words on R2 at the moment. IIRC,
> > Saul doesn't find any support for a licentious Richard; I'll
> > check my copy later today.
>
Tony Jebson
> Hey! don't forget William Langland!! I don't suppose that anyone has
> read Piers Plowman in the recent past? My MA Thesis is being spent
> exploring this text and I'd love to chat with anyone who has a mind to
> talk about this subject.
<slaps forehead>
How did Langland escape my list? . . .
Unfortunately, it is a long time since I read _Piers Plowman_
and I don't think I could say much worthwhile, though I'm sure
others here can: perhaps Warren Hapke or our Tasmanian Devil,
Tim O'Neil.
--- Tony Jebson
Sharon Goetz
> Hey! don't forget William Langland!! I don't suppose that anyone has
> read Piers Plowman in the recent past? My MA Thesis is being spent
> exploring this text and I'd love to chat with anyone who has a mind to
> talk about this subject.
What sorts of things did you want to discuss?
sharon
--
Please remove the X from my address if you want to send me
reasonable email.
Phyllis M. Gilmore
> Ginger wrote:
> > Hey! don't forget William Langland!! I don't suppose that anyone has
> > read Piers Plowman in the recent past? My MA Thesis is being spent
> > exploring this text and I'd love to chat with anyone who has a mind to
> > talk about this subject.
>
Hm. Sorry, it's been, oh, about 23 years since I read it. However, it
*is* one of the treasures I managed to unearth a week or so ago (I am
finally getting some of the Infamous Boxes unpacked). Come to think of
it, rereading it would be better than enduring the current news
publications. (Sigh.)
Phyllis
Warren B. Hapke
: Ginger wrote:
: > Hey! don't forget William Langland!! I don't suppose that anyone has
: > read Piers Plowman in the recent past? My MA Thesis is being spent
: > exploring this text and I'd love to chat with anyone who has a mind to
: > talk about this subject.
: <slaps forehead>
: How did Langland escape my list? . . .
:
: Unfortunately, it is a long time since I read _Piers Plowman_
: and I don't think I could say much worthwhile, though I'm sure
: others here can: perhaps Warren Hapke or our Tasmanian Devil,
: Tim O'Neil.
It's also been a long time since I read _Piers Plowman_, but I'd
be very willing to see it discussed here. It would make a nice
change from the interminable threads on Roman animal bondage practices.
I'm going on vacation for the next week, so the discussion will have
to start without me.
If the original poster is doing an MA dissertation on Langland, she
might want to sign up with the professional mailing list for medieval
texts, MEDTEXTL. This is administered by Charles Wright of the University
of Illinois, and he has sign-up instructions on his home page. I don't
remember the URL off the top of my head, but if you go to
http://www.english.uiuc.edu and click on the "Faculty" link, you can
find Charles's homepage.
Warren B. Hapke
wbh...@prairienet.org