The biblical figures of Cain and Abel are a motif in the play. Bolingbroke first alludes to the biblical figure of Abel in his condemnation of Mowbray, stating:
And consequently, like a traitor coward,
Sluiced out his innocent soul through streams of
blood,
Which blood, like sacrificing Abel’s, cries
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth
To me for justice and rough chastisement.
Cain murders his brother Abel in the first instance of homicide described in the Bible. Cain, then, was strongly associated with treachery and betrayal, and Bolingbroke weaponizes this association in comparing Mowbray to Cain. Just as God, in the Bible, punishes Cain for his transgression, so too does the Duke of Gloucester’s blood cry out for vengeance.
The figures of Cain and Abel are again alluded to by Bolingbroke later in the play, establishing an important motif. In the play’s final scene, Bolingbroke, now referred to as King Henry IV, alludes to Cain while exiling Sir Piers Exton for the murder of the former King, Richard II:
With Cain go wander through shades of night,
And never show thy head by day nor light.
In the Bible, Cain’s punishment for murdering his brother and then lying about it to God is permanent exile. He is left to wander the Earth indefinitely and is unable to stop and set up permanent residence anywhere. Bolingbroke imputes Exton with a gravely immoral action in comparing him to Cain, and uses this comparison to justify and explain his decision to exile Exton.
John of Gaunt alludes to a myth regarding pelicans that was well known in early modern Europe. Speaking from his deathbed to his nephew, King Richard II, he states:
O, spare me not, my brother Edward’s son,
For that I was his father Edward’s son!
That blood already, like the pelican,
Hast thou tapped out and drunkenly caroused.
John of Gaunt begins his speech to the King by first describing the current state of England and the suffering of its people. When the King claims that he would have John of Gaunt executed if not for their shared lineage, John of Gaunt insists that he should not be spared as a relative as the King has already betrayed their family. He then alludes to a popular myth regarding pelicans. In Shakespeare’s day, it was believed that in times of scarcity a pelican would pierce its own chest and feed its blood to its young. As this came at great cost to the health of the pelican, the bird was commonly associated with the sacrifices that parents make for their children.
In alluding to this myth here, John of Gaunt accuses King Richard II of having abused the legacy that his father, the former King Edward, sacrificed so much to gain: the throne of England. John of Gaunt suggests that the King has put his bloodline to shame, “drunkenly” wasting his inheritance—the Kingdom of England—on unnecessary personal extravagances. This allusion shames the King by contrasting him negatively to his father. While King Edward made sacrifices for the future, King Richard II has wasted that which he has inherited, paying no thought to the future.
The Duke of York alludes both to the “Black Prince,” Edward of Woodstock, and to the Hundred Years' War in a speech to Bolingbroke. Standing before the rebellious lords, he states:
Were I but now lord of such hot youth
As when brave Gaunt thy father and myself
Rescued the Black Prince, that young Mars of men,
From forth the ranks of many thousand French,
O, then, how quickly should this arm of mine,
Now prisoner to the palsy, chastise thee
And minister correction to thy fault!
At this point in the play, the Duke of York is still loyal to King Richard II, and his goal in this speech is to persuade the rebels to surrender despite their clearly superior numbers. He alludes to historical figures such as the Black Prince, father of Richard II, and also to events that occurred prior to the years depicted in the play itself, such as the Hundred Years’ War. As its name suggests, The Hundred Years’ War spanned a century, taking place from the early 14th to mid 15th century. This series of armed conflicts between the kingdoms of England and France stemmed from a power struggle for control of the French Throne. While England ultimately lost the war, the Black Prince gained fame for his skillful exploits as a military commander.
These allusions, then, are deliberate and strategic—the Duke reminds Bolingbroke and the other lords who have joined his rebellion of the royal lineage by which Richard gained the throne, and he invokes the honorable achievements of Richard’s bloodline. His point here is that Richard’s claim to the throne is unimpeachable, legitimized by the impressive and lengthy history of his forefathers.
Misinterpreting the words of his attendant, Scroop, King Richard II condemns the courtiers Bushy, Bagot, and Green and alludes to the biblical figure Judas. The King states:
Snakes in my heart blood warmed, that sting my heart!
Three Judases, each one thrice worse than Judas!
Would they make peace? Terrible hell
Make war upon their spotted souls for this!
In the Bible, Judas betrays Jesus to the Roman authorities in exchange for 30 pieces of silver, and for this reason his name is synonymous in Christian thought with betrayal and treason. In alluding to Judas here, Richard invokes a name with very negative associations and makes a grave accusation against his allies. In his rage and fear, Richard condemns Bushy, Bagot, and Green—who have not, in fact, betrayed him—and similarly positions himself, arrogantly, in the role of Christ.
The King’s allusion to Judas in this scene showcases a number of his personal weaknesses. He has jumped to a conclusion without ascertaining the actual facts of what has occurred since his voyage to Ireland. Offended by their imagined betrayal, he rages against them, cursing them harshly and even condemning them to “terrible hell.” In describing them as “thrice worse than Judas” or in other words, three times as bad as Judas, he both trivializes a pivotal scene in the Bible and positions himself above even Christ, which would have been regarded as deeply impious in Shakespeare’s time. The King’s rage will quickly give way to mourning when he learns that these “Three Judases” have in fact been executed by Bolingbroke.
The Bishop of Carlisle foreshadows the historical conflicts that will follow from the dethroning of Richard, namely the violent and bloody War of the Roses, which Shakespeare covers in other plays. Speaking in defiance of Bolingbroke and his allies, he states:
My Lord of Hereford here, whom you call king,
Is a foul traitor to proud Hereford’s king,
And if you crown him, let me prophesy
The blood of English shall manure the ground
And future ages groan for this foul act,
Peace shall go sleep with Turks and infidels,
And in this seat of peace tumultuous wars
Shall kin with kin and kind with kind confound.
Here, the Bishop condemns Bolingbroke and the defecting lords for dethroning Richard II and prophesies that this “foul act,” in violating God’s designs, will lead to dire consequences for England, such as wars that will leave the ground of the nation soaked in blood. Audiences in Shakespeare’s time would have understood that the Bishop is here foreshadowing the War of the Roses, a series of civil wars fought over control of the English throne in the mid 15th century. The Bishop imagines “tumultuous wars” in which “kin” will fight against “kin,” clearly alluding to the War of the Roses, which split many of the noble families of England and turned family members into bitter enemies.
Through this allusion to the War of the Roses, Shakespeare suggests that these later events were sparked by the crisis of royal succession following from the dethronement of Richard II. Shakespeare, then, highlights the important role that the events of this play held in shaping the future of Britain.
The biblical figures of Cain and Abel are a motif in the play. Bolingbroke first alludes to the biblical figure of Abel in his condemnation of Mowbray, stating:
And consequently, like a traitor coward,
Sluiced out his innocent soul through streams of
blood,
Which blood, like sacrificing Abel’s, cries
Even from the tongueless caverns of the earth
To me for justice and rough chastisement.
Cain murders his brother Abel in the first instance of homicide described in the Bible. Cain, then, was strongly associated with treachery and betrayal, and Bolingbroke weaponizes this association in comparing Mowbray to Cain. Just as God, in the Bible, punishes Cain for his transgression, so too does the Duke of Gloucester’s blood cry out for vengeance.
The figures of Cain and Abel are again alluded to by Bolingbroke later in the play, establishing an important motif. In the play’s final scene, Bolingbroke, now referred to as King Henry IV, alludes to Cain while exiling Sir Piers Exton for the murder of the former King, Richard II:
With Cain go wander through shades of night,
And never show thy head by day nor light.
In the Bible, Cain’s punishment for murdering his brother and then lying about it to God is permanent exile. He is left to wander the Earth indefinitely and is unable to stop and set up permanent residence anywhere. Bolingbroke imputes Exton with a gravely immoral action in comparing him to Cain, and uses this comparison to justify and explain his decision to exile Exton.
