Feasting and Excess in Shakespeare's Richard II
Hannah Epstein
One of the primary themes in Shakespeare’s Richard II is how much King Richard was disliked by his subjects. The king's main criticisms were directed to his frivolous spending and mismanagement of the crown's funds. This also led to the heavy taxation of the kingdom's poor, damaging his popularity farther. Many references are made throughout the play to Richard’s excesses, and to the effects on his subjects. John of Gaunt, in an attempt to call attention to Richard’s lacking economic policies, claims that England, “Is now leased out – I die pronouncing it-/ like to a tenement or pelting farm”(II.i.65-66). This was a common sentiment held by King Richard’s subjects. Shortly after Gaunt makes this impassioned speech, Richard seizes all of his money and property to fund his Irish wars (II.i.167-170).
The real life Richard was well known for his tendencies towards excess, as described in Queen Consort: England’s Medieval Queens from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Elizabeth of York. One of the things he was particularly passionate about was food, even going so far as to construct his own recipe book (Hilton 278). One of King Richard’s nobles, Ross, states, “The commons hath he pilled with grievous taxes, / and quite lost their hearts. The nobles hath he fined / For ancient quarrels, and quite lost their hearts” (II.i.256-258). Clearly, none of Richard’s subjects were happy about his taxation of them to support his own lavish habits.
Another play some of Shakespeare’s audience for Richard II might have seen, The Apothecary by Ben Jonson, gives a clear representation of the sort of excesses the audience would have imagined.
The real life Richard was well known for his tendencies towards excess, as described in Queen Consort: England’s Medieval Queens from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Elizabeth of York. One of the things he was particularly passionate about was food, even going so far as to construct his own recipe book (Hilton 278). One of King Richard’s nobles, Ross, states, “The commons hath he pilled with grievous taxes, / and quite lost their hearts. The nobles hath he fined / For ancient quarrels, and quite lost their hearts” (II.i.256-258). Clearly, none of Richard’s subjects were happy about his taxation of them to support his own lavish habits.
Another play some of Shakespeare’s audience for Richard II might have seen, The Apothecary by Ben Jonson, gives a clear representation of the sort of excesses the audience would have imagined.
“Dishes of agate set in gold, and studded
With emeralds, sapphires, hyacinths and rubies.
The tongues of carps, dormice and camels’ heels
Boiled i’ the spirit of Sol, and dissolved pearl,
(Apicius’ diet ‘gainst the epilepsy)
And I will eat these broths with spoons of amber,
Headed with diamond and carbuncle.
My foot-boy shall eat pheasants, calvered salmons,
Knots, godwits, lampreys: I myself will have
The beards of barbels served instead of salads:
Oiled mushrooms; and the swelling unctuous paps
Of a fat pregnant sow, newly cut off…” (II.i.176-188)
These costly dishes and foods would have been utterly inaccessible to most common people, but not to nobles. The audience, imagining this frivolity in terms of spending, would have been utterly repulsed.
As suggested even by the word’s modern connotation, a feast was not an everyday occasion due to the grandeur and fanfare which accompanies one. Most of Shakespeare’s audience probably never attended a royal feast, though they knew they happened. Although the audience did not attend the feasts, it is likely that they may have benefitted from the feasting of the nobility in receiving the leavings from the tables after the massive banquets were finished. Shakespeare’s audience would have been well acquainted with what a royal feast would have entailed, and with the sumptuary laws that forbade them from having their own feasts, except on certain occasions (Sims 6). They would have likely joined in sentiment against Richard with the commoners in the play.
As suggested even by the word’s modern connotation, a feast was not an everyday occasion due to the grandeur and fanfare which accompanies one. Most of Shakespeare’s audience probably never attended a royal feast, though they knew they happened. Although the audience did not attend the feasts, it is likely that they may have benefitted from the feasting of the nobility in receiving the leavings from the tables after the massive banquets were finished. Shakespeare’s audience would have been well acquainted with what a royal feast would have entailed, and with the sumptuary laws that forbade them from having their own feasts, except on certain occasions (Sims 6). They would have likely joined in sentiment against Richard with the commoners in the play.