Maybe because my Substack search skills are lacking, but I cannot find the book review Henry mentioned of Shakespeare's work being lifted and anthologized in his time. I would like to read this. Link, please? Thank you.
I love Richard II - but I had no idea about the history of its varying interpretations: that's fascinating, thank you! I suppose that I always thought of Richard (unwittingly) along Pater's lines, as someone who is too caught up in his own rhetoric to appreciate what is going wrong around him - but I'm not entirely sure that I agree that's an anti-political interpretation (speaking as someone who has never read Pater on the topic!). On my reading, the tragedy of Richard IS that he is a bad king, despite his good intentions: from the point of view of the country and the court, Bolingbroke is simply the better ruler, while Richard is lost in his own head. Conversely, as emerges throughout the Henry IV plays, the tragedy of Bolingbroke is that he can never free himself from his guilt of what he did to Richard, even though it was politically the right thing to do.
I've a trivial side-question, though. You say "There are three kings in English history who were usurped—John, Henry VI, and Richard II. Shakespeare dramatised all three."
I wondered about this. I'd have thought that Edward II has as least a strong a claim to have been usurped as John did - but of course, Marlowe got there first. Come to that, the succession from Edward V to Richard III, and then from Richard III to Henry VII, looks very much like a series of usurpations (and there Shakespeare did show some interest ...).
Post-Shakespeare, couldn't (and didn't) James II reasonably consider himself to have been usurped? But maybe you have a narrower definition of what counts as "usurpation"?
Maybe because my Substack search skills are lacking, but I cannot find the book review Henry mentioned of Shakespeare's work being lifted and anthologized in his time. I would like to read this. Link, please? Thank you.
There is a link in the post should look like a bar with a headline and small pic
Thank you! Didn't realize what I should be looking for.
I love Richard II - but I had no idea about the history of its varying interpretations: that's fascinating, thank you! I suppose that I always thought of Richard (unwittingly) along Pater's lines, as someone who is too caught up in his own rhetoric to appreciate what is going wrong around him - but I'm not entirely sure that I agree that's an anti-political interpretation (speaking as someone who has never read Pater on the topic!). On my reading, the tragedy of Richard IS that he is a bad king, despite his good intentions: from the point of view of the country and the court, Bolingbroke is simply the better ruler, while Richard is lost in his own head. Conversely, as emerges throughout the Henry IV plays, the tragedy of Bolingbroke is that he can never free himself from his guilt of what he did to Richard, even though it was politically the right thing to do.
I've a trivial side-question, though. You say "There are three kings in English history who were usurped—John, Henry VI, and Richard II. Shakespeare dramatised all three."
I wondered about this. I'd have thought that Edward II has as least a strong a claim to have been usurped as John did - but of course, Marlowe got there first. Come to that, the succession from Edward V to Richard III, and then from Richard III to Henry VII, looks very much like a series of usurpations (and there Shakespeare did show some interest ...).
Post-Shakespeare, couldn't (and didn't) James II reasonably consider himself to have been usurped? But maybe you have a narrower definition of what counts as "usurpation"?
I’m also unsure as to why John would be described as a usurped king?
re: the talk of verse later on in the video, today i learned an apt dirty limerick (lightly censored below):
"There was a young man called MaCameter,
Whose **** was quite large in diameter.
But it wasn't the size
That gave one surprise;
'Twas his rhythm, iambic pentameter."