That being said (and as many posts so far have discussed), Shakepeare's emphasis on Richard's kingliness through Boilingbroke juxtaposes the assumptions we make of a king, especially one who is saved by the grace of history, with the blatant cowardice of his actions. Unless being king exempts him from cowardice? Does power overcome deception, or is power itself a deception if lies are needed to keep it?
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Taking One for the Team . . . I mean King
From the very beginning of the play, Richard has subjects who step up to take responsibility for his decisions. Ordering Mowbry to kill Glouchester isn't a radical move for a king fighting to keep the power of his throne. However, the language Shakespeare uses and the secrecy he implements during the scene at Gaunt's house reeks of cowardice, an attribute no one wants in a sovereign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your question about power at the end. Somebody else mentioned Machiavelli I think, and that is certainly one way to look at it. In a Machiavellian mindset, one would say that power with deception is certainly still power, and that no lies can counteract the power. However, a classic hero might feel differently, as honor is an important aspect of being heroic. PS: I'm glad we have another class together because I loved your perspectives in Brother Hall's class.
ReplyDeleteI wish I had fleshed that idea out more, but I'm definitely going to be looking to see if it continues past Act 2 (where I got to).
DeleteP.S. I was excited to see you, too!
Love how Machiavelli got brought into this :) But I do think that deception can add to power. I definitely don't agree with it, though, because - as we can see in this play - it has it's consequences!
ReplyDelete