A quick note on the current status before I get into today’s play. Since the starting point described in the introductory post I’ve listened to audiorecordings of King Lear, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Cymbeline, Hamlet and now Richard II. I’ll be posting about them in catch up entries periodically.
Now on to Richard II, which I just finished up.
This was my first foray into the Histories and it really wasn’t terribly exciting. The tale of Richard II is comparatively simple, no mistaken identities, no secret brothers, no ghosts, no clever bets as to the fidelity of anyone’s wife. Richard banishes a dude (Henry Bolingbroke), and annexes his father’s lands upon his death. Bolingbroke returns, musters a PO’d gentry against Richard and… Richard just sort of rolls over for them, is imprisoned and, eventually murdered. Pretty straight story.
Honestly, a little disappointing. It’s probably that I’m simply not understanding the play very deeply – that’s pretty characteristic, but whatever – there is a body of criticism and analysis on this play just like all the others. There are a few good turns of the phrase, my favorite is this, spoken by Richard to his usurper, Henry IV (Bolingbroke):
…I am greater than a king:
For when I was a king, my flatterers
Were then but subjects; being now a subject,
I have a king here to my flatterer.
For when I was a king, my flatterers
Were then but subjects; being now a subject,
I have a king here to my flatterer.
While Richard himself is something of a whiner, his Queen has a good bit of backbone. I’m starting to notice that that’s a thing. Queens, wives, fiancés, those who are true in their love are given strength thereby. I’ll be studying this pattern as I go, now that I’ve identified it. For contrast, consider Burgundy from King Lear, who’s like “What’s that? Cordelia has no dowry? Maybe I could get one of those Russian mail-order brides…”
Last observation for the wrapup – Names. Oh man, I hope all the histories aren’t like this. Bolingbroke, Hereford, Henry IV… it’s hard to keep these guys all straight. Oh, wait, those are all the same guy! In England in 1595, they were, no doubt, more accustomed to referring to noblemen with various titles, but it’s pretty hard to track for a commoner here in the colonies in 2011. Especially since I'm doing this without visual cues and have to match the name to the voice the first time a character is introduced or be forever confounded. Ah well.
There will likely be one more post on Richard II, about John of Gaunt’s death bed scene. Look forward!
Richard II is probably best understood as part of a 4-part story arc. It kicks off the tetrology of Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1 & 2, and Henry V. They all focus on the question of "What makes a king?"
ReplyDeleteHenry IV/Bolingbroke deposes by force Richard II, the only honest-to-god historical annointed king in all of Shakespeare, and then has to try to set himself up as righteous and true. The truly great Henry V can be seen as Henry V (called "Prince Hal" in Henry IV Parts 1 &2)trying to remake himself in the image of Richard II, but learning from Richard's mistakes of arrogance, idleness, and isolation.
Plus, this story opens the floodgates of the Wars of the Roses, since if Bolingbroke can do it, why can't Richard III, or Henry Tudor?
Yeah, the first tetrology. I'm doing Henry IV after I finish The Winter's Tale. I don't think I could get through all four in a row without a break.
ReplyDelete