*This has probably been said before, but just as a forewarning, don't ever try to edit these posts in Microsoft Word first. The HTML won't let you post your blog until you go back and delete all the unnecessary formatting. It's extremely annoying.*
From the very beginnings of the play, it’s clear that tensions are high and not all is well in the world of Richard II. Subjects are feuding regularly, the king’s relatives are being mysteriously assassinated, and the king himself is as wishy-washy and vein as his kinsmen make him out to be behind his back (and in some cases, directly to his face). And in light of all this dysfunction, Shakespeare has included a character that initially seems to embody the ideal disposition of a successful monarch: Henry Bolingbroke. Bolingbroke is Richard’s cousin through his uncle, John of Gaunt, and though he’s not technically the heir to the throne of England, he is set to inherit much property and money upon his father’s death. Shakespeare juxtaposes these two characters in every way possible, through the eyes of the people, through exertions of power, and in conflict with each other.
In the first and second acts, we see many examples of the ways in which Richard rules over his kingdom. He goes back on his word, abuses his powers, and squanders much of the country’s money for his own gain. He also seems to have difficulty handling compromising situations without losing his temper. Moreover, in a familial sense, Richard barely acknowledges his relatives behind what he believes they can do for him. There is even significant implication that he may have been involved with the plot to murder his uncle, Thomas of Gloucester. Bolingbroke, on the other hand, is a much different yet equally complex character. He is well-known and respected by both the common people of England and the court (his family) alike; he seems to react well under pressure, and his abilities as a politician are unrivaled.
In Act I, Richard stops a duel between Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray, though he had previously given permission for it to occur. Here, in this very pivotal interaction between the cousins, Richard inadvertently sets the stage for the play’s main conflict. He goes back on his word, banishes his cousin, and in Bolingbroke, creates a clever enemy. Though we are not given any real evidence of where Bolingbroke’s true intentions lie thus far, I believe it is safe to say that Shakespeare wishes us to consider these two characters, and what they lend to the monarchy, to England, and to each of their own fates.
3 comments:
Sorry for the troubles with Word and Blogger, Lauren! I've had the same experience before, and it's such a pain. I blame Microsoft!!
I've seen an interpretation of this play in which a pair of staircases sit center stage. As the action progresses, Bolingbroke and Richard move up and down these stairways in a way that mimics their rising and falling status in the play.
As you say here Lauren (and others have pointed out) this is a play that shows us the fortunes of these two and asks us to sit in judgment.
I do agree that Shakespeare definitely wants us to take a close look at Richard and Bolingbroke. I think in the beginning there Shakespeare juxtaposes the two characters, yet as the play further unravels I think it's very interesting to see that the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. Bolingbroke and Richard are cousins and don't stray too much in thought and action. I think Bolingbroke was intentionally made to look like the victim in the beginning but once power was possessed he became worse than his cousin. It makes me think if the same thing could've happen to Richard. Maybe Richard started out with good intentions and wanting to make a difference in England and with the sudden title of King the real responsibilities and pressures shaped his thoughts otherwise.
Post a Comment