Richard II in (5.V.111–2)

Home , Andrew Wise, Richard the Second, Valentine Simmes

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays:

The life and deat h of King Richard the second

he composition of the play Richard II in (5.v.111–2). While Q1’s author was anonymous, its Quarto form can be assigned anywhere Q2 attributed the play to Shakespeare. between 1587 (the second edition of Q3 appeared in the same year but without the THolinshed) and 1597, the publication of the first frontispiece: quarto. [Q3 1598] The Tragedie of King Richard the second. As it hath beene publikely acted by the Publication Date Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine his seruants. By William Shake-speare. London The Tragedy of Richard II was first published in Printed by Valentine Simmes, for Andrew quarto in 1597 and seems to have sold very well. It Wise, and are to be solde at his shop in Paules appeared twice in 1598, with two further quartos churchyard, at the signe of the Angel. 1598. before the First Folio. In 1603, the play was tranferred to Matthew Law: [SR 1597] 29° Augusti. Andrew Wise. Entred for his Copie by appoyntment from master [SR 1603] 25 Junij. Mathew Lawe. Entred Warden Man, The Tragedye of Richard the for his copies in full courte Holden this Second vjd. Day. These ffyve copies folowinge . . . viz [Q1 1597] The Tragedie of King Richard the iij enterludes or playes . . . The second of second. As it hath beene publikely acted by the Richard the 2. ... all kinges ... all whiche by right Honourable the Lorde Chamberlaine consent of the Company are sett over to him his Seruants. London Printed by Valentine from Andrew Wyse. Simmes for Andrew Wise, and are to be sold [Q4 1608] The Tragedie of King Richard at his shop in Paules church yard at the signe the second. As it hath been publikely of the Angel. 1597. acted by the Right Honourable the Lord [Q2 1598] The Tragedie of King Richard the Chamberlaine his seruantes. By William second. As it hath beene publikely acted by Shake-speare. London, Printed by W[illiam] the Right Honourable the Lord Chamberlaine W[hite] for Matthew Law, and are to be his seruants. By William Shake-speare. London sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at Printed by Valentine Simmes for Andrew the signe of the Foxe. 1608. Wise, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules [in some copies.] The Tragedie of King Richard churchyard at the signe of the Angel. 1598. the Second: With new additions of the Parliament Sceane, and the deposing of King Both Q1 and Q2 have a frontispiece depicting a Richard, As it hath been lately acted by the man with one arm weighed down and his right Kinges Majesties seruantes, at the Globe. By arm (with wings) reaching towards heaven, with William Shake-speare. At London, Printed God in the background beckoning. This would by W. W. for Mathew Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Church-yard, at appear to anticipate Richard’s final words: the signe of the Foxe. 1608. ‘Mount, mount, my soul! Thy seat is up on high / Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward here to die.’

Title page to the anonymous first and second quartos of Richard II, 1597 and 1598. By permission of Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, shelfmark Arch. G d.45 (4) title page.

Q4 contains the first printed example of [Q5 1615] The Tragedie of King Richard the the deposition scene (as “lately acted”, but how Second: With new additions of the Parliament lately is not known). Mention is made only in Sceane, and the deposing of King Richard. some title pages of Q4. It is thought that this As it hath been lately acted by the Kinges Maiesties seruants, at the Globe. By William scene was composed at the same time as the rest 1 Shake-speare At London, Printed for Mathew of the play, but censored. The Q1 text moves Law, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules from Northumberland’s order that the Abbot Church-yard, at the signe of the Foxe. 1615 of Westminster guard the Bishop of Carlisle to [F1 1623] The Life & death of Richard the the abbot’s comment “A woeful pageant have second. [Histories, 23–45, sign.b6–d5. we here beheld.” This makes little sense unless the deposition scene intervenes. Similarly, Chambers says that Q1 is a good text, possibly Bolingbroke’s command “Convey him to the showing the author’s supervision. Later quartos Tower” at the end of the cut portion neatly were thought to have been set successively from anticipates Richard’s next appearance en route each other. The Folio is thought to have been set (5.1.7). It has been accepted that the Deposition from Q5. The play was published anonymously Scene was too politically sensitive for publication in the first quarto and then attributed to William in 1598–1603, as the suggestion of abdication Shake-speare in 1598 in Q2, and in later quartos. might have been treasonably applied to Elizabeth. Tillyard argued that Shakespeare wrote an earlier version of Richard II and that the extant

© De Vere Society 2 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: version is a revision.2 J. Dover Wilson expanded it was Shakespeare’s play which was performed this idea of revision, noting various inconsistencies, on 7 February, 1601, the night before the Essex e.g. Bagot leaves for Ireland (2.3.140), then is rebellion. Against this majority view, Peter Ure executed at Bristol (3.2.122) but is still alive to argued that the work presented at the Globe was be tried at 4.1; Bolingbroke refers obliquely to his Hayward’s prose account The Life and Reigne of marriage without further reference (2.1.168–9); Henry IIII, which had been registered in 1599 and Bolingroke’s suggestion that Bushy and Green published in 1600. Ure’s arguments were expanded had had homosexual relations with Richard by Jon L. Manning and Leeds Barroll, who noted (3.1.11–15). Egan examines the allusive treatment that Hayward’s account of the deposition was to Gloucester’s suspicious death, an event which much more detailed than Shakespeare’s, making precedes the events in the play. explicit links between Essex and Bolingbroke.3 The play was very popular, as Queen Elizabeth Performance Dates herself knew when she remarked shortly after the Essex Rebellion to the Keeper of the Tower of While there are as a number of references to play London: “I am Richard. Know ye not that? . . . performances in the late Elizabethan period, there this tragedy was played 40tie times in open streets are only two possible references to Richard II in and houses.” (Chambers, WS, I, 354) performance before the First Folio was published A performance in a more exotic location is in 1623. The earliest possible reference is in a letter mentioned by a Captain Keeling in his Journal dated 7 December 1595 in which Sir Edward (30 September 1607), that while off Sierra Leone Hoby invited Sir Robert Cecil to his house in “Captain Hawkins dined with me, wher my Canon Row, Westminster, for what may have companions acted Kinge Richard the Second.” been a performance of Richard II: Simon Forman describes a performance of “Richard the 2 At the Glob” on 30 April Sir, findinge that you wer not convenientlie 1611 but the play does not seem to have been to be at London to morrow night I am bold Shakespeare’s since it involves characters handled to send to knowe whether Teusdaie [9 Dec] very differently, including a treacherous John of may be anie more in your grace to visit poore Gaunt who actively plotted his son’s accession Channon rowe where as late as it shal please you a gate for your supper shal be open: & K (Chambers, WS, I, 354–6). Richard present him selfe to your vewe. . . . Did Shakespeare write a Richard II It is not certain whether the sentence ‘K Richard Part 1 now lost? present him selfe to your vewe’ refers to a performance of a play, or even if this play was Because our version of Richard II starts in medias Shakespeare’s Richard II. Although Hoby sent his res, there have been various commentators who letter two years before the publication of Richard have suggested that Shakespeare had written the II and Richard III, it is thought unlikely that extant play as Part 2 and that Part 1 was either lost Hoby would greet an important guest with a or could be identified in the anonymous Thomas performance of a cruel tyrant such as Richard III. of Woodstock. The characters in Richard II assume If a play was intended, it might have been Thomas considerable knowledge of preceding events of Woodstock or another play dealing with similar involving King Richard, his uncle (Thomas of events. It has also been suggested that Hoby might Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester), Mowbray and have had a portrait of Richard II to show off. Bolingbroke. Gloucester had died mysteriously The play is mentioned by Meres in 1598. At while in custody in Calais, with Mowbray Essex’s trial on 5 June 1600 for his mishandling implicated as the King’s agent, denounced by of events in Ireland, concern was expressed Bolingbroke. These events are not explained in at “he Erle himself being so often present at Richard II, but are covered in Thomas of Woodstock. the playing thereof, and with great applause, In Richard II, Mowbray and Bolingbroke only giving countenance and lyking to the same”. briefly account for their accusations of treason Most commentators (e.g. Chambers, Bullough, against each other, yet their banishment has Wilson, Gurr and especially Forker) believe that enormous consequences for Richard.4

Bullough and later Forker disagreed, noting e.g. in making Richard’s excursion to Ireland that Shakespeare’s version of Richard II does not both later and less successful than it in fact had link to Thomas of Woodstock for various reasons: been. Hall had omitted the Irish War. Most in Woodstock, John of Gaunt is eager to overthrow importantly, Holinshed included details about the king and replace him with his son, whereas the the abdication and the 33 articles of deposition, John of Gaunt in Richard II retains total respect for which are used in the play. the position of king. Gaunt refuses the demands The anonymous Thomas of Woodstock is of his sister-in-law, the Countess of Gloucester, thought by many to have preceded and influenced to seek vengeance for her husband’s murder and Richard II (although Ure argued that it was not he sadly accepts the sentence of banishment for necessary to postulate that Shakespeare knew his son. In Woodstock, Lapoole, not Mowbray, Woodstock). Bullough, following Chambers, dates had organised Gloucester’s murder. By the end of Woodstock tentatively to 1594 and suggests that Woodstock, Bushy, Bagot & Green are dead but in it slightly affected Shakespeare’s handling of the Richard II they are alive for a while. Against the play. William Long concurred in dating Woodstock need for a Part 1 is the fact that Hall’s account to 1594 according to analysis of handwriting, begins with the Bolingbroke–Mowbray quarrel. and decided it had influenced Richard II, which See below for discussion of Thomas of Woodstock would have been composed shortly afterwards as a possible source for Richard II. in 1595. Long argued that Woodstock must ante- date Richard II because it conflates the various Sources favorites of Richard who are dealt with severally by Shakespeare, as Bullough had argued.5 Corbin Bullough believes that Shakespeare did more and Sedge refer to the play as anonymous (but research for Richard II (and Hamlet) than for any with Shakespearean features) and they make a other play. He cites Hall & Holinshed as the same case for Rowley as author (perhaps dating the two principal historical sources for ‘The Second play to 1591–5). In the most recent Arden edition, Tetralogy’ but adds a wide range of other sources. Forker argues that, when composing Richard II, Edward Hall, The Union of the Two Noble Shakespeare may have had in mind another play and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke dealing differently with earlier events in Richard’s (1548–50). Bullough believes that the author reign, or he was offering a radically different began his plan for Richard II by studying Hall. interpretation of events and characters. Forker This moralising narrative begins with Richard’s believes that Woodstock, like Edward II, was a failure to deal competently with the quarrel dramatic forerunner of Richard II. A thorough between Mowbray and Bolingbroke (1397) and study completed more recently by Egan concludes shows continuity between the reigns of Richard that Woodstock was written by Shakespeare II, Henry IV (1400–13) and Henry V (1413–22). in 1592–3 for a touring company (possibly Bullough also notes some small details which Pembroke’s Men) and intended to bridge the derive from Hall rather than later Chroniclers, historical gap between Edward III and Richard II. e.g. King Richard’s stay at Conway Castle; Egan thus refers to Woodstock as Richard II Part 1. Northumberland’s treachery in getting him out. Egan dates the extant manuscript to c. 1608, and Raphael Holinshed, The Chronicles of assigns it the status of a copy made for use in the Englande, Scotlande, and Irelande (1st edn theatre. 1577 & 2nd edn 1587). Bullough believes that Marlowe’s Edward II is said to have influenced Holinshed provided most of the detailed material Richard II. Marlowe’s play was registered in 1593 for the play, including details from the Mowbray– and published in 1594. Because it concentrates Bolingbroke quarrel, most of the names, events on the character of the king, it is taken to be a and sequence. Shakespeare also used details from development from the Henry VI trilogy (where the Holinshed of a jousting tournament in 1389. It emphasis is on events and characters in the reign) seems that the second edition was used for the and thus Edward II seems to have influenced both line at 2.4.8: “The bay trees in our country are Richard III and Richard II. Further thematic links well-withered.” The reference was not in the first exist between the portrayal of Edward II as a weak edition. Shakespeare changed certain elements, king fatally overcome by his choice of favorites

© De Vere Society 4 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: and Richard II. The direction of influence has not, French manuscript: both Hall and Holinshed however, been firmly established; it is possible that consulted La Chronique de la Traïson et mort de Richard II was earlier and therefore an influence Richart Deux Roy Dengleterre (ed. & trans. by on Marlowe’s play. Benjamin Williams, 1846), which deals very Samuel Daniel’s epic poem The First Fowre sympathetically with the last few years of Richard’s Bookes of the Civile Wars was registered on reign. Apart from the pathos for Richard, it deals 11 October 1594 and published twice in 1595 with the ‘Masking’ conspiracy against Henry, (according to the title page), i.e. two years before York’s loyalty to the king with the execution of the registration and publication of Richard II. The the chief participants and it tells of the murder first three books deal with the story of Richard II. of Richard by Sir Peter Exton. A manuscript of Bullough follows Chambers in viewing Daniel’s the Traïson Chronicle was owned by John Stow. A poem as derivative from the Chronicles (to which third French chronicle, Histoire du Roy d’Angleterre it is very much closer) and therefore influential Richard II, was a metrical poem, composed by upon the play. Both play and poem make the Jean Créton, who had been present at Richard’s Queen (historically aged 10) a mature woman Court. Créton’s account is also very sympathetic and lover of Richard, with special resonance at to Richard. It was available in manuscripts owned 5.1. Both play and poem make Prince Hal and by John Stow and John Dee. Hotspur (the latter historically two years older Shaheen discusses the large number of Biblical than Bolingbroke) roughly contemporaries. It references in Richard II. He notes that, while all is not thought that Shakespeare knew Daniel the sources tend to be moralistic and religious personally or that they realised that they were in tone, there are very few actual references dealing with the same material on a big scale. The to the Bible in the originals. Thus, according problem is knowing whether Daniel embarked to Shaheen, Shakespeare introduced his own on his epic poem before Shakespeare began his religious references. At 1.1.174–5 Shakespeare tetralogy, or whether Shakespeare’s handling of has the following sharp interchange: “Richard . . various themes influenced Daniel. . Lions make leopards tame. Mow Yea, but not A Mirrour for Magistrates (1559, 1563, 1578), change his spots.” The author clearly adopts the like Hall, begins with the reign of Richard II, and wording of the Geneva Bible from Jeremiah 13.23 provides material for many characters featured “Can the blacke More change his skin? Or the in the play: Richard himself in the play laments leopard his spottes?” All other versions have “catte the “sad stories of the death of kings”; Tresilian, of the mountaine” instead of “leopard”. Similarly an earlier favorite of Richard; Mortimer, his at 1.2.20, the Duchess laments Gloucester’s death: designated heir; Gloucester, his uncle; on “His summer leaves all faded”. The Geneva Bible Mowbray (especially the speech on his impending reads at Ps 1.13 “whose leafe shall not fade” where exile); and Salisbury and Northumberland, whose other versions have “wither”. deaths featured in later plays (1H6 and 2H4). It Although the author rarely refers to classical is even claimed that Richard’s playing with the works in Richard II, Richard’s self-pitying mirror (4.1.266–81) is a deliberate allusion to A comparison to Phaëton, which is developed at Mirrour for Magistrates. length at 3.3.176–182, is clearly reminiscent of French Chronicles are also thought to have Ovid’s account in Metamorphoses I. This image been used in the composition of Richard II. deserves close study as it is central to Richard’s Firstly, The Chronicle of Froissart(translated by character: he will “come down” as a result of his Berners 1523–25) gives an eye-witness account of own reckless actions. Richard’s last years as king, probably helping in the composition of the following episodes: John Conventional Dating of Gaunt’s warning to Richard (2.1); the emphasis on Northumberland’s help for Bolingroke; Almost all commentators (e.g. Bullough, Gurr, Bolingbroke’s general popularity; sympathy for Forker) agree with Chambers who assigned a the queen and ultimately for Richard himself. composition date of 1595, two years before the Another French chronicle is less accepted as publication of Q1. Wiggins dates this play to a direct source because it was only known in a 1595.

Internal Evidence author lies in Richard’s final words at 5.5.5111–12: “Mount, mount, my soul! Thy seat is up on high Chambers sees 1595 as possible since “the style / Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward here to and lyrical tone of the scenes in which Richard die.” These are reminiscent of words written by figures would fit well enough with 1595” but adds Oxford in 1573: “Virtue yet will ever abide with that “there is much poor and bombastic matter” us, and when our bodies fall into the bowels of the which would fit with the Henry VI trilogy and earth, yet that shall mount with our minds into Richard III, which he puts at 1590–1 in his dating the highest heavens.” This quotation comes from scheme. Oxford’s introduction to Bedingfield’s translation External Evidence of Cardanus Comfort (STC: 4608). Significantly, Raphael Holinshed, author of Christopher Highley traces how Ireland is the Chronicles, was a member of Lord Burghley’s depicted in various history plays, often with the household, where Oxford was a ward (1562–71) manipulation of the chronicles, to reflect the and where his wife Anne Cecil generally resided contemporary situation. Thus Richard in the (1571–1588). Holinshed had dedicated his first chronicles simply raises taxes because he is greedy. edition to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, in In the play, however, he seizes John of Gaunt’s 1577. In addition, Holinshed had sat as a juror property to finance his Irish Wars. He returns to the enquiry that found Oxford not guilty less successfully in the play than he had done in of manslaughter in 1567. Furthermore, he history. According to Highley, this reflects the had deflected blame from Oxford by issuing a tense situation in the mid 1590s when Elizabeth pamphlet in 1573 attacking a man called Brown 8 was raising taxes to finance the wars in Ireland as the perpetrator of a murder in Shooters Hill. but with little success.6 Oxford was a fervent Lancastrian, consistent with the portrayal of John of Gaunt, against the Oxfordian Dating interpretation offered in Woodstock. His ancestor, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, (1362–92) had Oxfordians believe that Shakespeare’s history plays been a favorite of Richard, and was portrayed, date from the 1580s and served as an exhortation along with Mowbray in Leicester’s Commonwealth mainly to the nobles who would have seen them (1584), as far worse than Bushy, Bagot or Green; curiously Robert de Vere is not mentioned in produced (anonymously) at court. A date of 1595 9 accords well enough with the Oxfordian assmption either Woodstock or Richard II. of later revision. One performance of Richard II There are further connections with the source in 1595 may have occurred at Hoby’s house in writers: Samuel Daniel, author of The Civile Wars, Canon Row, Westminster, close to where Oxford was a member of Mary Sidney’s literary circle. was living at the time with his daughter, Elizabeth, Oxford had close links with Mary Sidney. It is and her husband, William Stanley, Earl of Derby. likely that Oxford and Daniel consulted each The invited guest, Robert Cecil, was also Oxford’s other on their grand works, which they developed brother-in-law (Nelson, 349–53). in different genres. The French Chronicle Richard Richard II has always been recognised as II, which was sympathetic to Richard, was a ceremonial play, especially in the jousting available in a manuscript owned by John Dee. scene with the balanced speeches and courteous Dee was an associate of Oxford, whose letters as a addresses. Oxford was victorious in various tilts child in French showed his linguistic virtuosity. held before the Queen (in 1571 and 1581) and one The author’s use of the Geneva Bible also link of his addresses to the Queen survives. Oxford with the Earl of Oxford, who bought a copy in also held the title Lord Great Chamberlain, 1569. Finally, Ovid’s Metamorphoses had been whose role was to supervise ceremonies including translated into English by Oxford’s maternal coronations. We also find Mowbray’s lament over uncle, Arthur Golding, who like Holinshed had been a member of Cecil’s household while Oxford his fall from grace and exile to Venice has parallels 10 with Oxford’s own fall from grace and his earlier was a ward there in the 1560s. sojourn in Venice. 7 One further anomaly in the dating of the play Another major suggestion that Oxford was the concerns John of Gaunt’s paean to England.

11. Detail of Wilton Diptych Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: author lies in Richard’s final words at 5.5.5111–12: Dillian Gordon has suggested that the line at also explain why the Chamberlain’s Men in 1601 “Mount, mount, my soul! Thy seat is up on high 2.1.46: “This precious stone set in the silver sea” would have complained about it being an old / Whilst my gross flesh sinks downward here to might have been inspired by a tiny detail in the play. One apparent oversight was the failure of the die.” These are reminiscent of words written by famous Wilton Diptych. This wooden panel, Privy Council to call to witness the author of the Oxford in 1573: “Virtue yet will ever abide with which has been dated c. 1395, portrays a holy play when investigating the performance the night us, and when our bodies fall into the bowels of the King Richard accompanied by various angels before the Essex Rebellion. Other authors were earth, yet that shall mount with our minds into and saints. At the top of a pole is an orb which punished quite severely for writing plays which the highest heavens.” This quotation comes from depicts a small island in green, surrounded by did not meet official approval: Hayward was Oxford’s introduction to Bedingfield’s translation a sea originally in silver leaf. Gordon is unable imprisoned from 1600 for publishing The Life and of Cardanus Comfort (STC: 4608). to explain how a precious and intimate royal Reigne of Henry IIII (Manning, 29–31); Jonson Significantly, Raphael Holinshed, author of heirloom could have been seen by Shakespeare, was imprisoned from July–October 1597 for his the Chronicles, was a member of Lord Burghley’s but it is quite possible that Oxford, who for a long part authorship of Isle of Dogs (Chambers, ES, household, where Oxford was a ward (1562–71) time was one of Elizabeth’s favorite courtiers, III, 353). Yet no author was seriously interrogated and where his wife Anne Cecil generally resided might well have observed the diptych closely.11 in 1601 for writing a play about the deposition (1571–1588). Holinshed had dedicated his first of King Richard II. The reason may have been edition to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, in that Richard II was a quasi-official enactment of 1577. In addition, Holinshed had sat as a juror a historical fact, demonstrating ultimately how to the enquiry that found Oxford not guilty wrong it was to seize the crown. of manslaughter in 1567. Furthermore, he had deflected blame from Oxford by issuing a Conclusion pamphlet in 1573 attacking a man called Brown as the perpetrator of a murder in Shooters Hill.8 The composition of the play Richard II in its Quarto Oxford was a fervent Lancastrian, consistent form can be assigned to any time between 1587 with the portrayal of John of Gaunt, against the (the second edition of Holinshed) and 1597, the interpretation offered in Woodstock. His ancestor, publication of the first quarto. Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, (1362–92) had been a favorite of Richard, and was portrayed, Notes along with Mowbray in Leicester’s Commonwealth (1584), as far worse than Bushy, Bagot or Green; Detail from the Wilton Diptych 1. David Bergeron, “The Deposition Scene inRichard curiously Robert de Vere is not mentioned in II”, Renaissance Papers 1974, 31–7 and J. Clare, either Woodstock or Richard II.9 “The Censorship of the Deposition Scene in There are further connections with the source External Oxfordian Evidence Richard II” in Review of English Studies, 1990, writers: Samuel Daniel, author of The Civile Wars, XLI: 89–94. The various interpretations have been reviewed by David Bergeron, “Richard II was a member of Mary Sidney’s literary circle. Both Tillyard (149) and Dover Wilson argued that and Carnival Politics” in SQ, 42, 1991, 33–43. Oxford had close links with Mary Sidney. It is Shakespeare wrote earlier versions of the Richard 2. E. M. W. Tillyard’s Shakespeare’s English History likely that Oxford and Daniel consulted each II–Henry V tetralogy, which he later revised into Plays, 1944 rptd 1980, 244–263. other on their grand works, which they developed the extant versions. This accords with Oxfordian 3. John L. Manning (ed.) Thomas Heywood’s Henry in different genres. The French Chronicle Richard dating to 1587–88 in which the play deals with IIII, (introduction); J. Leeds Barroll, “A New II, which was sympathetic to Richard, was the topical issue of the deposition of a monarch History for Shakespeare and his Time” in SQ, available in a manuscript owned by John Dee. 29, 1988, 441–464. but militates against this as an acceptable course of Dee was an associate of Oxford, whose letters as a 4. Chambers, W. S., I, 352, believes Woodstock action. As such, the play was written as a warning might have been a source for Shakespeare; Egan child in French showed his linguistic virtuosity. against nobles who might have been tempted to refers to Woodstock as Shakespeare’s Richard II The author’s use of the Geneva Bible also link plot against Elizabeth. Part 1. with the Earl of Oxford, who bought a copy in Eva Turner Clark, however, argued for an even 5. William B. Long, “ ‘A bed / for Woodstock’ 1569. Finally, Ovid’s Metamorphoses had been earlier date c. 1582, when the Earl of Oxford was a warning for the unwary”, Medieval and translated into English by Oxford’s maternal languishing in the Queen’s displeasure. She notes Renaissance Drama in England, 2, 1985, 91– uncle, Arthur Golding, who like Holinshed had that the most memorable speech in the play is 118. been a member of Cecil’s household while Oxford John of Gaunt’s complaint about England being 6. Christopher Highley, Shakespeare, Spenser and 10 the Crisis in Ireland, 1997. was a ward there in the 1560s. leased out, and she sees Oxford as the author One further anomaly in the dating of the play 7. Nelson describes Oxford’s role at the Coronation trying to warn the Queen about courtiers such as of James (422–3), his success in the Tilts as the concerns John of Gaunt’s paean to England. Henry Howard and Charles Arundel. This would Knight of the Tree of the Sun (261–6) and his

11. Detail of Wilton Diptych Dating Shakespeare’s Plays:

visit to Venice (121–32). 8. Nelson on Oxford’s acquittal (47–9) and on Holisnhed’s pamphlet (89–91). 9. Nigel Saul in Richard II and the Crisis of Authority, 1997. 10. Details in Nelson re Dee (186–7), Golding (39– 41), Mary Sidney (171–2), Holinshed (90–2). 11. Dillian Gordon et al., Making and Meaning: The Wilton Diptych. 1994.

Other Cited Works

Bullough, G., Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, vol. III. London: Routledge, 1960 Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare: a study of facts and problems, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930 Corbin, Peter, and Douglas Sedge (eds), Thomas of Woodstock: or, Richard II, Part One Manchester: MUP, 2002 Egan, Michael (ed.), The Tragedy of Richard II, Part One: a newly authenticated play by William Shakespeare, New York: Edwin Mellen Press 2006 Forker, C. R. (ed.), Richard II, London: Arden, 2002 Gordon, Dillian et al., Making and Meaning, The Wilton Diptych, London: National Gallery Publications, 2004 Gurr, Andrew (ed.), Richard II, Cambridge: CUP, 1984 Nelson, Alan H, Monstrous Adversary: The Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Liverpool: LUP, 2003 Shaheen, Naseeb, Biblical References in Shakespeare’s Plays, Delaware: UDP, 1999 Ure, Peter (ed.), Richard II, London: Arden, 1956 Wells, S. & G. Taylor, William Shakespeare: a textual companion, Oxford: OUP, 1987 Wiggins, Martin (ed.) British Drama 1533–1642: A Catalogue, Volume III: 1590–1597. Oxford, OUP, 2013 Wilson, J. Dover (ed.), Richard II, Cambridge: CUP, 1951