After finishing the final act of Richard II, and with the discussion in class on Friday, many ideas and thoughts have been running through my head. One major idea that will not leave my mind involves the character of Richard II. Is Richard a sympathetic character or did he get what was coming to him?
Many people are split down the middle when it comes this question. Many people are on either team Henry Bolingbroke (who will go on to become King Henry IV) or they are team Richard. Which team am I on? I am not exactly sure yet. Each character has their flaws and their strengths. Bolingbroke in the beginning of the play seems like a wronged man who deserves revenge, while Richard was the villain of the play…but as the play goes on, they seem to almost switch places. Richard falls and Bolingbroke gains the reins of kingship. He takes Richard’s crown, but now that he is king, he starts to become more like Richard.
Richard on the other hand is becoming more like a commoner. He isn’t the tyrant he was in the beginning of the play. The thing about Richard that takes away from his sympathy factor is how childish he comes off. In many scenes he acts like a baby who is throwing a temper tantrum and doesn’t seem like an actual good person.
The reason I do feel sympathy for him in the end is the fact this is the only thing he’s known his entire life. He has been king since the age of ten, and to suddenly have it all ripped away from him must be a living nightmare. Many people would not know what to do with their lives when a change like that happens all of a sudden. After all Richard is still only human. When he is giving Bolingbroke the crown, Richard gives a long speech that lasts for a big part of Act IV, Scene I; his speech is so long, because I assume he does not want to get rid of the crown. He is losing his identity; this is shown throughout his speech:
No lord of thine, thou haught insulting man,
Nor no man's lord; I have no name, no title,
No, not that name was given me at the font,
But 'tis usurp'd: alack the heavy day,
That I have worn so many winters out,
And know not now what name to call myself! (4.1.244-249)
He doesn’t know who he is anymore. Everything he ever knew is gone. Being king is ALL that he knows and that is why I feel some sympathy for him. Its not like he had a chance to grow and mature in his life. From the moment of being ten years old, he has been king and has had help with everything in his life. Also the fact that he is still young plays towards his immaturity. These few thoughts repeat in the back of my mind, causing me to feel sympathetic for Richard.
In Act V Richard is nothing. He is a shell of a man, while Bolingbroke has all the power. Richard was never a good king and he was downright annoying at points, but I have to say I feel sympathy in the end, especially when the people of the town are spitting at him and calling him names. The play didn’t really turn him into a villain. Richard II didn’t seem to have a villain, nor a hero. Each character was flawed and almost unlikable, but I found myself sympathizing with Richard in the end, especially when he lost his crown.
2 comments:
I really like some of the points you raised in your blog and I think you are right, in Richart II there really are no clear heroes or villains. What readers find instead are helpful bits about what makes a good leader, interestingly enough none of these come from either king. Personally, I didn't like either Richard or Harry when they were ruling. When Harry was just Bollingboke he was a man of the people. He was the only one to point out the injustice of murder and even accepted his banishment for a time. Once he was crowned though, Harry became a mirror to Richard, displaying the same characteristics that readers found so deplorable in the beginning of the play. The same can be said for Richard, when he was king he was not likable in the slightest. Afterwords though, readers develop a sense of sympathy for him as he seems more human now that he is a commoner. Perhaps this is Shakespeare telling his audience that absolute power corrupts and how weary we should be of those who seek power. Although it is interesting to see the arch of character development within the king characters the audience is left utterly without a hero which is a little disappointing.
This is such a thoughtful and searching post, Bryan--I think you make the case for Richard as a sympathetic character very convincingly. The speech in Parliament is one of the more moving in the play, potentially, and if we forget the misdeeds earlier in the play, it's probably because of the power of this speech.
Post a Comment