Hamlet and Richard Comparison Analysis

Richard II’s very subject matter metamorphoses into the symbolism of rebellion. It is a provocative play, one that was performed by the Earl of Essex in 1601 because of the contextual resemblance between Bolingbroke’s coup and the rebellion against Elizabeth I. The hiring of Shakespeare’s company to perform Richard II at the Globe theatre proves the function of this dramatization and acting in regard to the failures of monarchy, with the aged Queen remarking that she is “Richard the Second, know ye, not that.

” This tale parallels in Hamlet, whom to make Claudius confess puts on “The Mousetrap” (3:2) and remarks that “guilty creatures sitting at a play/Have by the very cunning of the scene/Been struck so to the soul that presently/They have proclaimed their malefactions.” These two parallel scenes, one in real life and one in fiction, weaponizes the theatre through provocation and “little [rebellions].”

In his artistry, Shakespeare interlocks the two plays in their commentary of the failures of Monarchy and the link between politics and acting.

It is this interlocking thematic concern of acting that takes up the language of the two plays, and the body of space in which Richard and Hamlet metaphysically accept with their soliloquies versus the silence that Bolingbroke and Claudius represent. Language and acting, therefore, become modems of rebellion in its own right, and it is one which I will analyse in this essay.

Hamlet and Richard are, from my own analysis, symbolic of intellectual equivocators, both characters use language to protect themselves from the rebellions around them; talking about the world than address themselves in their actions.

Both live in politically charged environments, and have clear responsibilities that they ignore within it, they both demonstrate that rebellion is a good thing as it discharges or adjudicates them of these responsibilities rather than comment on the world, and reflect. Their foils, the Machiavellian Bolingbroke and Claudius are shrewd political operators who prefer to listen and use their language scarcely for rebellion rather than reflection. They say what is demanded of them, politically framing their language. It is characteristic of Bolingbroke in his acting to listen and respond rather than command, as made evident in Act 2 Scene 3 where his stoic demeanour is encapsulated by the remark: “I shall not need transport my words by you[…]” This sense of political strength comes from this guarded silence which simultaneously presents itself theatrically; with a silent person offering a greater sense of power than a compulsive talker both on stage and on paper.

Claudius, too, offers us a sense of pollical intellect in his first monologue in Act 1 Scene 2, where his power and rebellion against late King Hamlet is consolidated by his way with words. It is filled with images of flattery and courtesy, unlike the language of Hamlet and Richard, does not call attention to himself but directs itself outwardly at those listening. It is made clear that Claudius, like Bolingbroke, is a listener, he shapes his language in response to what others say, and the purpose of his monologues is to move others in the direction he wants them to. Thus, in a sense, all four of these characters are actors – but the scripts of rebellion they follow are vastly different.

Richard and Hamlet are both constructing plays in which they are the only characters – ignoring the political challenges they must face; constructing situations in which they do not listen to others. Richard is impervious to the advice of Gaunt, Hamlet does not listen to Ophelia or his mother. They both smother their followers with language; when they are both alone, they spend their times with melancholic introspections. Claudius and Bolingbroke are also accomplished actors in their own right, but the script they play is improvised. They respond to events as they unfold, altering dialogue and motives to plot the script in the ways they want. Bolingbroke, in particular, is more interested in letting others talk themselves in a position which they expose themselves, and become more vulnerable; evident in the disposition scene in which Richard surrenders the crown and Bolingbroke allows him to speak; Richard’s expression of verbalising his fears and desire to keep himself at the centre of attention verbally and on the page leads him to give away his most valuable political asset: the crown. This act of rebellion is one that is peaceful and what Thomas Jefferson would argue a good thing. There is a sense that Richard would do anything to maintain this dramatizing role – what better way of getting out and holding attention than surrendering his divine right? Bolingbroke in what seems to be a politically charged sentiment lets him act out his role.

Similarly, Claudius’ own actions in understanding Hamlet comes from a situation where he can listen to him – either from behind the tapestry or through the agency of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Nonetheless, these characters fail to achieve what they wished to accomplish. They’re effective in the worlds of rebellion, they enjoy short-term success politically: especially evident in Bolingbrook who improvises his way to the crown, this, however, leaves a question to their real character – we are not gifted the moments of intimacy in Claudius and Bolingbroke but clearly, they are suffering. This makes us wonder if rebellion is a good thing for one’s conscience. The consequences of their methodology clearly cause both of them to suffer and repent, partly I believe this is due to a lack of language to deal with their psychological problems. This concept is seen at the end of Richard II and throughout the Henry IV plays, where Bolingbroke has an increasing sense of guilt for what he has done, and when Claudius turns to prayer to relieve his suffering. This reliance on prayer and language to repent for rebellion is ironic in a sense but emphasises Richard II and Hamlet as plays of their time.