Sunday, March 13, 2011

Apathy for Richard II but Sympathy for King Henry IV, I think not.

The question was posed at the end of our last class whether people had changed their minds and were sympathetic to what happened to Richard and how we felt towards King Henry. To my surprise many people did not really change their sentiment toward Richard, although he gave up the throne and was wrongfully killed, he was still an indecisive, ineffectual ruler. Yet, the now King Henry who has similar emotional traits as Richard did is getting away unscathed. I don't think we are looking at Richard's situation fairly; it's not easy being king.

Richard's indecisiveness and emotional response to situation should not be viewed unsympathetically just because he tries to be diplomatic, this shouldn't mean that he is weak. When did having sympathy for mankind become a bad thing? I understand that he is suppose to hold up the morals, standards, demeanor and law of a king.... but who cares? You cannot for your entire life deny the kind of person that you are. I do not believe that Richard was the greatest king, despite a few mishaps, he was not at all horrible. I believe that he was wise enough to realize that engaging in a war with Henry wouldn't be smart and just gave him what he wanted. Henry was holding his ground strong and was relentless about what was rightful his therefore playing "chicken" with him is a losing game. Richard understood that this was a lose lose situation, either he could try and murder his kin or lose the throne. Being ever the sympathizer Richard knew just to let go. Not to mention the pool of people standing with him was dwindling. Richard was just trying to do the best that he feasible could, so I stand to sympathize with his situation.

King Henry however, I am not sure how much I feel for him yet. I think it was interesting how he was able to talk a big game about being a better ruler and how people want him to be in command while the first decision he has to make is rough and he choses his decision based on the heart not the law. Now I do understand and sympathize with the initial state of being that Henry was first put into under King Richard, but he went a step too far for me and starting a vicious fight that I don't believe needed to escalate to that point. I believe there were other less hurtful, more manipulative ways for Henry to have gotten what he wanted. He already knew that Richard was sensitive, the job shouldn't have been that hard to get done. I really do see this as a vicious cycle with King Henry and he should wise up and realize his situation probably won't work out so hot. King Henry, as we read in Act I of King Henry the Fourth, also back handedly usurped the throne from Mortimer. Mortimer was named heir to the throne before Richard died. Yet, he is not king, and there are quite a few people in Henry's land that wished he was, Hotspur feeling very passionate about this. I can easily foresee a rebellion happening in this play as well.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Jolisa, I thank you for rekindling this discussion that we had in class, which asks us to answer the important question, "who do we prefer, Richard II or Henry IV?" However, I think a kind of rewording of the question as, "what similarities can we see between the two characters and what do we think Shakespeare is telling us by showing how both men handle the kingship in similar ways?"gives us another way to analyze either the strengths or weaknesses that we see in each character. In my opinion, I find it difficult to sympathize with either Richard II or Henry IV,as both seem to value the keeping of their power as their greatest end. While Richard II ultimately gives up his title, I find it difficult to believe that he does so out of sympathy or compassion, but out of a kind of self preservation that accompanies his realizing that he had no other choice as Bolingbroke, his army and his subjects are all against him. Further, I think that Shakespeare alludes to Richard II as having declared Mortimer as his heir, to show how the truth becomes lost within the whirlwind of those claiming that they have the right to the kingship. Just like Falstaff's refuses to give the correct account of what happens, it seems that Shakespeare's shows us the disparate number of stories that can exist to explain one event, just as many people may claim title to the kingship, with most of them basing their claim on false presumptions. Thus, I think Shakespeare is not only commenting on the widespread manifestation of lies among society, but on the corrupting force of kingship that will turn most anyone into a someone only interested in the preservation of their power by any means.