How Does Shakespeare Create Sympathy For Richard In Act 1 Scene 1

At the exit of the Groom, one more remark gives place for us to sympathize with Richard. In contrast to Richard, who has referred to the Groom as a noble friend throughout their brief interaction, when the Keeper enters the room, Forker points out in a footnote that he “addresses the Groom as an inferior,” calling him “fellow,” rather than peer (471). His remark only contrasts all the more sharply with Richard’s kind reception of his peer the groom, a man he quite recently ruled over with a less than a kind hand. This scene sparks what becomes the paradigm shift that ends the play. No counterargument tries to re-convince the audience of the tyranny of King Richard II; that is said and done with the deposition of the tyrant. Were that the laudable

Instead, before we can return at last to the reigning Henry, the audience must see what has become of the former King Richard, and instead of cheering at his fall from power; the Groom’s actions must inspire sympathy for him. However, the purpose of this scene does not only creates sympathy for Richard, but by enacting the Groom, who refers to Richard not as a peer, but as a prince, the common people, who have already proven their ability to strip a monarch of his power, somewhat paradoxically repurpose and reinstate a symbolic, and emotional power to Richard. It seems the Groom’s words to Richard inspire him to not only acknowledge his wife’s analogy that, “the lion, dying, thrusteth forth his paw/And wounds the earth, if nothing else, with rage/To be overpowered,” and take action (5.1 29-31). Richard no longer acts as a peer to those who would take his life; he fights back like a lion and declares upon being struck down by Exton, “thy fierce hand/Hath with the King’s blood stained the King’s own land” (5.5,

This much I established earlier in my analysis. However, in addition to the divine, right absolutist, Shuger also discusses the sacred ruler, one who may or may not have absolute power, but who for the sake of its “legitimizing principle as well as its cultural power” possess the sacred aura that critics argue collapses upon Richard’s usurpation (59). While I originally applied this concept to explain Elizabeth’s use of divine rhetoric, seemingly after I argued the shift away from this, I would like to consider that perhaps, in creating this second "proto-citizen," Shakespeare allows the people to create a sacred ruler. By giving the commons the power to establish or destroy divine aura in their rulers, they have a strange power over those who otherwise rule them absolutely. The Gardener demystifies; the Groom re-mystifies. In place of expressing a movement from the medieval, divine politics of Richard’s rule to the more modern, secular rule of Bolingbroke—an easy argument to make when the only synecdoche for the people is the Gardener—both of these overarching models of audience behavior exemplify the role of the people as complex: rational and emotional—capable of both critical and ethical decisions. In Richard II, Shakespeare encourages the political and emotional participation of the people in the judgment of their rulers. That he then utilizes this