Richard II is a play that is bursting with male characters. The only woman we have really heard from so
far is the Duchess of Gloucester, who appears in a very short scene. Therefore, going into the play, I assumed
that the language and the actions that take place were going to be very
masculine and hard. Even when the
Duchess of Gloucester speaks, it is for Gaunt to seek revenge for her husband’s
death – “The best way is to venge my Gloucester’s death” (1.3 36), which is a
very violent, masculine thought. In other
Shakespeare plays that deal with revenge, they usually involve men convincing
other men to get revenge and the women tend to be the voices of reason. So far, however, there seems to be little
reason when it comes to the men’s rash decisions. There are many arguments and stubbornness
that is amplified through the language. For
example, when Gaunt is on his deathbed arguing with King Richard, many plosives
appear to exaggerate their anger and stubbornness toward each other. Richard calls Gaunt “a lunatic lean-witted
fool” (2.1 116). Also, Gaunt’s line, “That
blood already, like the pelican, Hast thou tapped out and drunkenly caroused”
(2.1 127-8) is filled with plosives, so that the reader can hear these
characters spitting these words out at each other. The language expressed in this play seems
very male-centered and strong.
What also stuck out
to me was Bolingbroke’s short speech at the end of 1.3, as he’s is leaving
England for being banished by Richard.
Gaunt attempts to convince him to take the penalty lightly, and Bolingbroke
makes a statement about the imagination.
This is important because it further exposes the male mentality that is
going on in this play. He states:
O,
who can hold a fire in his hand
By
thinking on the frosty Caucasus,
Or
cloy the hungry edge of appetite
By
bare imagination of a feast,
Or
wallow naked in December snow
By
thinking on fantastic summer’s heat?
O
no, the apprehension of the good
Gives
but the greater feeling to the worse. (1.3 257-264)
This shows how much the men rely on hard facts and don’t waste their time
on dreaming or imagining. Bolinbroke
believes that if he imagines that the banishment is not as bad as it really is,
then it will make things worse in the long run.
He puts down Gaunt’s suggestion and basically says, just because you
think something is true, doesn’t make it true.
This hopeful way of thinking has no place in a world that is run by
harsh men during a time of war. I am
interested to see how this masculine world continues to run without emotions or
dreams, and only with the hard calculations of pure self-interest.
4 comments:
It is interesting what you said about the masculinity of Richard II, and that even the female character of the Duchess of Gloucester expresses masculine views. The hardness and stubbornness in the male characters is exemplified by the Duchess, I would argue, because her speech to John Gaunt about his duty to his brother, her late husband, is designed to push him into action. Yet, Gaunt’s conservative nature prevents him. This stubbornness and refusal to avenge the Duke of Gloucester breaks the Duchess, and probably contributes to her eventual death.
It does not surprise me that the Duchess shows masculine qualities. Shakespeare always brings more than femininity to his female characters. Portia and Nerissa dressed as powerful men to influence the courts. Katherine ties up her sister and acts more like a shrew than a lady. The Duchess seeks revenge for her husband's death. Grief can do crazy things to people. The Duchess may have been a soft and gentle woman before, but her husband's death obviously has changed her.
I also find your observation interesting of the overwhelming masculine presence that is seen throughout “Richard II”. As we have learned, Shakespeare is often credited for his ambiguous writing style. He is a writer who is capable of writing in a “sexless” manner. This is why I found it particularly interesting that in this play, there is a noticeable lack of feminine influence present. Perhaps Shakespeare used this technique in order to show his readers the obvious violence and scheming that occurred during this time.
I share your fascination with these lines, Megan!! You raise a nice question here, too, about what place imagination has in the duties of the king. The series of plays we are reading offers various points of view on this, but (not to give too much away!) I think Shakespeare eventually shows us, in Henry V, that the best rulers are those who know how to harness the power of the imagination.
Post a Comment