There are certain characters in Shakespeare whom it is particularly easy to identify with homosexuality.

One is Richard II, whom Shakespeare portrays as being influenced for the bad by caterpillars of the commonwealth(2.3.16)...It may be for this reason that Richard II was little performed during the nineteenth century (Stanley Wells) Discuss. The characterisation of Shakespeares Richard II as an effeminate and homo-erotically charged figure, as seen in the currently running production at the Barbican, performed by David Tennant and directed by Gregory Doran, appears to follow a trend in the late 20th century of camping up the part: associating the vanity and fickleness of Richards nature with homosexuality. This is probably aided by the fact that at least four of the major actors of Richard II in England over the past half century or so are generally known to be, or to have been homosexual (Sir Michael Redgrave, who was bisexual - Sir John Gielgud, Sir Ian MacKellen and Sir Derek Jacobi). The designation of Richard as effeminate originates with Coleridge, who wrote: [He possesses] an intellectual feminineness which feels a necessity of ever leaning on the breast of others, and of reclining on those who are all the while known to be inferiors. To this must be attributed as its consequences all Richards vices, his tendency to concealment, and his cunning1. It is fair to say that Richards preoccupation with those nobles who serve him is very much his weakness, and his inability to stand autonomously apart from the nobility much of the cause of his downfall, yet the association of this weakness with effeminacy, and more recently homosexuality, appears a somewhat one dimensional reading of Shakespeares history. Laurence Olivier inappropriately described Michael Redgraves portrayal of Richard as an outand-out pussy queer, with mincing gestures to match, this idea of mincing alerting us to the fact that just as the presence of homosexuality in a text may be a matter of interpretation, so its presence in a performance is a matter not only of the way an actor behaves on stage but also of the way a spectator reads the performance. Actual caressing, embracing, or kissing, may leave little room for doubt; there are many other kinds of signal which may be more or less explicit and have to be interpreted, or decoded. There are metaphors of bodily closeness between king and flatterers by John of Gaunt, who accuses Richard of a dependency upon his inferiors: And thou, too careless patient as thou art,/ Commitst thy anointed body to the cure/ Of those physicians that first wounded thee(2.1.97-99), but these lines can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Michael Pennington, delivering these lines in the current production of Richard II at the Barbican, speaks with a tone of indignant disapproval and irritation, shaking his head and pointing his finger, stereotyping a somewhat homophobic member of the older generation. Yet the homoeroticism of Dorans recent Royal Shakespeare Company production is not implied at all, rather spelled out. Davids Tennants Richard forges a close connection to Oliver Rixs Aumerle, sharing a tender kiss with him at Flint Castle. It is this relationship that dominates this production: Aumerle takes the place of Exton in murdering the king, and his divided loyalties to Richard and his father (and additionally, Bolingbroke) torment him. Aumerle slowly dissolves into tears as Richard ponders What must the king do now? Must he submit? (3.3.143) In this production the subtle homoerotic undertones became the chief subject of the play, the political aspect of Richard II sidelined under his emotional and sexual connection with his flatterer. Stanley Wells is not strictly correct in his assertion that Richard II was little performed during the nineteenth century. Though there are indeed fewer recordings of productions of the play, Andrew Hurr argues that Perhaps the most influential revival the play has ever had began in
1 Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Shakespeare Criticism, vol 1, ed. Thomas Middleton Raysor

1857, when Charles Kean staged a spectacular gothic-historical production2. Dummy horses were used in the combat scene, and the opening of Act V used nearly six hundred walk-on extras in a huge-scale production. Walter Pater described the performance thus: the sympathetic voice of the player, the tasteful archeology confronting vulgar modern London with a scenic reproduction, for once really agreeable, of the London of Chaucer.3 Richard, to Pater, was a graceful, wild creature, and to Schlagel in 1846 Shakespeare exhibits a noble, kingly nature, at first obscured by levity and the errors of an unbridled youth, and afterwards purified by misfortune4. Despite an apparent Victorian dislike of tragic histrionics, Richards oscillating nature is held more as a result of his power-crazed youth than because he has homoerotic tendencies. His desire for salacious entertainment over monarchal responsibilities, as described by York, demonstrate a desire for flattery which easily fits within a victorian construction of the follies of youth as much as any homoerotic tendencies: As praises, of whose taste the wise are fond: Lascivious metres, to whose venom sound The open ear of youth doth always listen Report of fashions in proud Italy, Whose manners still our tardy-apish nation Limps after in base imitation (2.1.17-23) Yorks speech formulates the image of a dandyish king, basking in overseas fashions and glorious youth. Yet these lascivious metres with which Richard is endowed in comparison to his tardy-apish nation are an example of Richards rhetorical skill. Richards capacity for selfdramatisation, his verbal dexterity, provides him with an opportunity for introspection as Shakespeares play proceeds. Indeed, it is this same skill which gains the audiences sympathy at his point of imprisonment: The better sort/ As of thoughts of things divine, are intermixed/ With scruples ( 5.5.11-13). The grandiose delivery of Richards final imprisoned speeches on such a large scale production may reflect a sense of gained maturity, rather than simply an effeminate man attempting to gain the sympathy of his audience. An earlier example of characterising Richard II as the effeminate king was Deborah Warners casting decision of 1995 in casting Fiona Shaw as Richard. The casting choice, argued by Warner to be one unrelated to gender, and increasingly a common directorial decision (see Helen Mirren in Julie Taymors 2010 film of The Tempest), was seen as a controversial choice by some critics. Andrew Temple, writing in The Independent, complained, A female Richard II is the sort of thing you might expect to see at the end of term in a boarding school but there is no history of the part being played by a woman professionally. The idea is as bizarre as a male Cleopatra. It is gimmick casting5. This argument against gender-blind casting appears antiquated, as well as H.C.Coulters belief that he saw a homosexual male6 in Shaws characterisation of Richard. Deborah Warner argued Fiona for me is the most exciting and suitable Richard I could think of7, and Shaw was cross-dressed, acting as a man rather than changing the gender of the part itself (unlike the Cambridge University production of Lady Hamlet performed in Summer 2013, where Sarah Livingstone took on the role of a homosexual
2 Arden Richard II introduction Andrew Gurr 3 Walter Pater Shakespeares English Kings in Appreciations, 1889 4 Schlegel, 1846 Shakespearean criticism in England 5 To play the King (and Be a Woman) Independent (London) 21st May 1995 6 H.R.Coursen The Warner/Shaw Richard II on television: A Review Article Shakespeare Bulletin 19 (2001) 7 Claire Armistead, Kingdom under siege Guardian (London) 31st Mary 1995

woman, wishing to enter a lesbian relationship with Ophelia.) The effect was a characterisation of Richard that was more androgynous than effeminate, and what Shaw was able to provide was a reflection on the nature of manhood: ...whateer I be, Nor I, nor any man that but man is, With nothing shall be pleasd, till he be easd With being nothing (5.5.38-41) With Richards increasing reputation for being an effeminate king, this speech has been commonly construed as a question around masculinity. The lines being delivered by a woman allow the audience to be less concerned with the societal idea of how one fulfils the capacity of manliness, and more with the idea that it is humanity that with nothing can be pleased, always striving for more. Yet Warner too was concerned with the private love affair between Richard and Bolingbroke, rather than having a vanity that is protected by his flatterers, but nothing more. Warner argued If he hates Bolingbroke, if his cousin is his archenemy, than the play is about one cousin who hates another destroying him. Thats not interesting8. Yet Warner, like many 20th century directors, appears uninterested in the political statements of the play, perhaps in line with the reduced importance of kingship in contemporary society. George Johnstons 2012 production of Richard II at the ADC theatre did in fact dwell more on the political undertones of the play, setting and staging it according to Elizabethan convention (although women did perform the female roles). Alex Gomar as Richard, appeared to take pleasure from witnessing the warring nobles, amusedly calling for Bolingbrokes accusations of treason against Mowbray to be played as high drama, like a staged show: Face to face And frowning brow to brow, ourselves will hear The accuser and the accusd freely speak. High stomached are they both and full of ire, In rage deaf as the sea, hasty as fire (1.1.15-19) The obvious pleasure in Richards response to the dispute between his nobles, coupled with his desire to witness the face to face spectacle of a disagreement between them overrides the issue of treason itself. The metaphorical aspect of Richards language, comparing his subjects to the elements, is demonstrative of his understanding of his lack of power over his nobility, choosing instead to derive pleasure from the aesthetic of his nobles fighting brow to brow. Richards powerlessness is unkingly, and this is an entirely separate issue from that of effeminacy. These aspects of Richards behaviour can also serve to challenge the stereotypical perception of kingship, such as in John Richs 1738 production at Covent Garden, who had staged John Gays A Beggars Opera a decade before. Here, the production was political, serving to comment on the vanity and apparent criminality of Prime Minister Robert Walpole. Thomas Davies in Dramatic Miscellanies discussed this topicality: When he pronounced the following words, The king is not himself, but basely led By flatterers, 8 The Girl as Play-King as Comic, Carol Chillington Rutter Shakespeare Quarterly 1997

the noise from the clapping of hands and clattering of sticks was loud and boisterous. And when Ross said, The Earl of Wiltshire hath the state in farm, it was immediately applied to Walpole, with the loudest shouts and huzzahs I ever heard.9 The satire of Richards production produced a political relevancy, and it was conceived of as a direct response to Walpoles new licensing rules regarding what was to be allowed onstage in the wake of A Beggars Opera. Richard, by being modelled on a current ruler, was given a resonance that was far from the human weaknesses or propensity toward effeminacy that continually appear in recent productions of the play. To conclude, whilst the homoerotic undertones of Richard II are continually drawn out of recent productions of the play, although admittedly to varying degrees of impact, this often has the effect of limiting and even sidelining other interpretations of the script. Tennants continual costume changes into medieval robes, his long hair and high pitched quivering voice in the current RSC production at the barbican merely contribute to a recent heritage of portraying the Kings weaknesses via his effeminacy, his reliance on his nobles explained via an apparent feminine weakness, and resulting in an interpretation of Richard II that is somewhat limited and even outmoded. Warners Richard, alongside earlier and lesser known adaptations of the play, especially Richs satire serve at least to challenge and rework the themes within it: those of kingship, power, and human pride.

9 Thomas Davies Dramatic Miscellanies, 3 vols, 1783-4, 1, 152-3