Richard, although possessed of a certain regal
charm, and power of atta.ching tender natures to him-
self, is deficient in ail that is sterling and real in
manhood. He is self-indulgent, has much superficial
sensitiveness, loves to contemplate, in a romantic way,
whatever is pathetic or passionate in life, possesses
a kind of rhetorical imagination, and has abundant
command of delicate and gleaming words. His will
is nerveless, he is incajjable of consistency of feeling,
incapable of strenuous action. Bolingbroke, on the
other hand, who pushes Richard from the throne, is a
man framed for such material success as waits on
personal ambition. He is not, like his son Henry V.,
filled with high enthusiasm and sacred force derived
from the powers of heaven and of earth. All Boling-
broke's strength and craft are his own. His is a
resolute gaze which sees his object far off, and he has
persistency and energy of will to carry him forward
without faltering. He is not cruel, but shrinks from
no deed that is needful to his purpose becau.sc the
deed is. cruel. His faculties are strong and well-knit
There is no finer contrast in Shakspere's historical
plays than that between the figures of the formidable
king of deeds, and the romantic king of hectic
feelings and brilliant words.
Coincidences have been pointed out between

Michard II. and Daniel's Civil Wars^ znd cississ^v,

1595: if either borrowed ftomftve cj'Ca.e-^,\>cvsi^Q«^'^^'^

B-as probably Daniel , t^<-'«s. '^

-fj. King John depaila iaifc« ^wv^ ^^"^ ^^



mn



history than any other of Shakspere's historical plays.
