Friday, March 5, 2010

Fair? I think not.

As I read through act three of Richard the Second I noticed that multiple times actions (such as executions and the placing of curses) were taken on what seem like innocent people. I’m having a hard time understanding why this would happen? Why would innocent people be punished for thing they had no control over?

The first time in act three I saw this kind of treatment being played out was in the beginning of act three, scene one. When Bolingbroke returns to England, he already has a strong army. We find out later on that even Richard’s army has left him and joined the army of Bolingbroke. When he enters, he already has Bushy and Green in his custody. He blames the two of them for Richard’s bad ruling and for the reason he was previously banished. He declares that these two men are going to be executed. What I feel this boils down to is that Bushy and Green are being executed for staying loyal to the king. What makes me feel like this is so ironic is that Bolingbroke was the one who accusing Mowbary or not being loyal to the king in the beginning of the play. It seems like Bolingbroke can not make up his mind. One must take into account that Bolingbroke is angry at Richard for not giving him what is his—the property and title of his now deceased father—but how can one’s morals switch like this? How can one go from willing to duel with a man over not being loyal to executing other man for being loyal?

The second account I saw of this kind of unfair punishment was in act three, scene four when the queen curses the gardeners for informing her of bad news. To me, this is completely unfair. To start, when the two gardeners entered the garden, they had no idea that the queen and her two ladies were there. It was the Queens suggestion to hide so that the gardeners did not know they were there. I believe that if the gardeners knew that they were in the presence of the Queen, they wouldn’t of spoke so freely of the things that were happening to Richard. Secondly, the gardeners have no power over what happens to Richard or who hold the thrown. They are just gardeners with no real amount of power. I can understand that the Queen was upset—the king was captured by Bolingbroke and she must of known what was going to happen with the thrown—but why did she curse the gardeners? When reading the conversation between the older gardener and the queen, I didn’t feel as if he was rude to her—I felt that he was sympathetic about what was happening to Richard.

I guess things will never truly be fair, especially in the word of Shakespeare, but these two accounts really bothered me in this reading. I’m hoping in the following readings, some sense of this will be made.

2 comments:

Cyrus Mulready said...

It seems that what bothers you is the arbitrary wielding of power, Amy--is that a fair summation of what you are saying? This is a play, for certain, that shows us various ways in which power can be used abusively. It's an idea that we saw in Measure, and will return to again over the course of our readings.

aortiz13 said...

I believe what you are saying is a summary of what I was trying to point out. Power in RIchard II seems to be abused time and time agian, which makes me wonder about how power was abused in the true histroy since this play is based on historical evenets.