So far, Richard II has been an interesting read. I find it to be far denser and involved than the comedies we’ve read thus far, but that is only to be expected, seeing as it is a history play. It is also far more involved in political details and information than most of the tragedies I have read so far—Hamlet and Macbeth come easily to mind. I believe that this—this (at times exhaustive) focus and attention to detail and complicated politics that separates history plays from Shakespeare’s tragedies. True, all of his plays contain complex plots and involve in-depth glimpses into disparate politics, but none have focused entirely upon the politics involved—there are deeper themes, to which the politics take a background position. Tragedies are, in essence, focused on the tragedy—the personal tragedy, the inner anguish of the tragic characters and their falls, from grace or from happiness (often both.) There is more of a personal element to the story, more exploration of the characters, due to this focus.
Histories, on the other hand, are entirely built around the shifting and changing of political alliances and strengths, more concerned with the moving of the outside world than with the shifts and changes within a character’s inner world. Richard II basically swamps the audience with information about the political power-structure of the time, and how this structure changes; what events occur to cause this change and why being the main concern of the play thus far. There are fleeting personal glimpses into the characters’ lives, the most prominent being the Queen’s scenes—her stake in the actions of the play are represented as purely personal, purely emotional, perhaps as a relief or counterpoint to the main thrust of the play, much like the comedic scenes found throughout Shakespeare’s tragedies. This is another difference between this history and the other plays we have read—usually there are figures used solely for comedic relief, some rough humour to tide the audience over before delving back into the meat of the play. In Richard II, the only scenes that differ from the dense political action are those of the Queen, in that they are driven purely by emotion, and not the political powers and motivations that drive every other character in the play. She, then, is the relief, the counter-point, the break in the action to give the audiences a breather, perhaps underlining the serious matter of the play that it possesses no rude clowns or jesters—simply the young, pure Queen to take our minds, however briefly, off of the dire circumstances portrayed in the rest of the play.
1 comment:
As I was reading your post, Margaret, I was thinking "this is a good description of Hamlet"! I think that you are right to point out the importance of politics in the history play, and in Shakespeare's drama, it often is the case that the political and tragic are deeply intertwined. Perhaps that's why an early edition of Hamlet is called "the tragical history" of Hamlet?
Post a Comment