The Theatrical Consistency of Richard II

Abstract

F OR SOME YEARS, CRITICS ANALYZING SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS and teachers teaching them have labored under a self-induced pressure to approach the plays as theatre. Such an injunction is properly justified by appeals both to the historical circumstances under which the plays were composed and to the theatrical liveliness of the texts themselves. And some of the finest Shakespearean criticism of the post-war period has been inspired by this theatrical awareness. Though theatrical criticism embraces a great range of approaches, it often involves a tendency to equate theatre with theatrical effects. Consequently, we have come to look to this school of criticism for an explanation of the path between the text and the theatrical result, whether in gesture, blocking, visual matters, actors' approaches to individual roles, or directorial conception. But it is important to remember that creative artists in the theatre do not spend all their time producing theatrical effects; in fact, they also expend a great deal of energy looking for theatrical causes. If in theatrical criticism we choose effects as our only goal, we omit a crucial phase in theatrical practice: the search for inherent theatrical values or meanings in the text without any prejudice as to their specific realization on stage. Foremost among these theatrical causes is what we might call Dramatic action, besides being the raveling and unraveling of a fictional narrative, consists of a sequence of emotional responses, both among the characters on stage and between stage characters and members of the audience. In Shakespeare's dramas, these responses are ordered by a grand design; I call this design the play's consistency. As used here, consistency has two relevant meanings: texture and logical continuity. In scrutinizing Richard II, I aim to describe its emotional texture and to prove its theatrical continuity. For evidence inside the play, I rely heavily on systems of emotional response, both among the characters and between them and us. Analysis of theatrical causes can point to particularly apposite theatrical effects. Once we understand a play's theatrical causes and effects, we will have gone a long way toward defining a stage meaning for the play-that is, a way of seeing the play's totality that is at once true to the spirit of the work and susceptible to theatrical realization.