bolingbroke in Richard II
...ixta of the king to a hermaphrodite. A « double divorce » • Is is tempting to see the would-be usurper Bolingbroke as the artisan of division • The king’s tyranny is seen as the first instance of the separation of the two bodies. • As an individual, Richard acts like a landowner who steals from the people. Not behaving like a king should, he takes away the substance of the king, he can no longer be recognised in physical body as a king. Tyranny that privileges the names of the king only is the heresy of the monarchic dogma. The pallor of the king is a symptom of the sickness which is now contaminating his physical body. • The queen argues that even if Bolingbroke has deposed the king in him he can’t have deposed his intellect and heart. The parallel between the demise and the divorce is called double divorce by Richard jimself (ref to erotico-political dimension of the theory of the king’s two bodies by Lefort) • Bolingbroke paradoxically reunites the components of the king’s bodies. He would recognize himself in a mirror as king but he doesn’t need a shadowy nistrument to feel reassured. The philosophical foundation of Bolingbroke’s conception is nominalistic (realistic for Richard). No danger for him to endow empty words with a reality, no danger for him to deny the association between the two bodies. He establishes a personal link with each membert of the political body. Bolingbroke decided to usurp the throne because Richard disappeared, appeared to have died. His heir can legitimately claim his possessions. • Alchemical images of inversion structure the play, undrescoring the link rather than the breach between the two. • Richard looks back on his reign and sees only division. (V) Some terrible divisive force i...