Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Our extended holiday interim read is Shakespeare's Henriad -- Richard II, Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, and Henry 5.

The reading schedule will be:
November 26 - December 9 - Richard II
December 10 - December 16 - Henry IV, Part 1
December 17 - December 23 - Henry IV, Part 2
December 24 - January 6 - Henry V and the full Henriad

In terms of structure, I will set up one thread for history and background of the set of plays, since they all deal with the same history. Though history is what it is, and so spoilers are a somewhat strange concept, while the background leading up to the start of the events in Richard II, the nature of the society and the nobility, and other background information can be posted at any time, still I ask that discussion of specific historical events which take place in the Henry plays not be posted until those plays are scheduled.

For each play, I will post two topics. One will be for the play generally -- discussion of events, characters, relationships, etc.

The other will be for close reading of specific passages. There is great richness in small chunks of the text which deserve close attention, and this is the thread for such discussions. In this thread, the specific text under discussion should be quoted if possible (unless the passage is lengthy). Please also quote act and scene. This will also be a place for questions about the meaning of certain terms, images, etc.

Quoting actual text, or course, is not limited to the close reading thread, but can and should be included in the general play topic where useful.

Don't get paranoid about wondering which topic to use for a given point you want to make; if it isn't obvious to you, just post wherever you think it works best. Certainly don't ever skip making a point because you worry about putting in the wrong topic!

Sometimes it's easier to cut and paste a passage rather than typing it in full. There are a number of copies of the plays on the Internet. I happen to be using this one for Richard, not because I think it's any better or worse, but because I found it first.
http://shakespeare.mit.edu/richardii/...

Sound trumpets and let the discussion begin!

Patrice wrote: "OK, this is probably a stupid question but why is Richard II one of the Henry plays? ;-)."

Because -- well, if folks haven't read it yet, it'll be a spoiler, so since we're still on day 1 of the reading, I'll hide it. (view spoiler)[ Because in it Bolingbrook takes the crown away from Richard. Bolingbrook is Henry IV, so this play shows how he came to the throne, the start of his reign. It's the first play in which Henry IV is king. That's why it's included as a Henry play. (hide spoiler)]

Another answer is that like many great stories the Henriad is about sin and redemption. Richard II develops the first part of this theme: the sin.

Sin and redemption indeed Wendel. But, for me the perplexing questions are: Whose sin? And what price redemption? Is redemption even possible. We may have many provisional answers to these questions as we work through the plays. But it won't be until the end that anything like a conclusive answer will be offered by Shakespeare. And, to make matters even more intriguing, that answer will be undermined by possibly being agitprop. Or not.

I'm looking forward to this discussion, as so far the only play of the Henriad I've read is Henry V, so I know where Shakespeare is heading (kind of). Still it will be interesting to discover how he gets there.

Zeke wrote: "Sin and redemption indeed Wendel. But, for me the perplexing questions are: Whose sin? And what price redemption? Is redemption even possible. We may have many provisional answers to these question..."

Excellent questions. Can you move it from the "Reading Schedule and structure" thread over to the play thread?

Zeke wrote: "And, to make matters even more intriguing, that answer will be undermined by possibly being agitprop. Or not. ..."

Zeke -- the definition you are using of agitprop?

"propaganda and agitation"? M-W sources the word thus:

"borrowed from Russian Agitprop, shortened from Agitatsionnopropagandistskiĭ otdel 'Agitation-Propaganda Section (of the Central Committee, or a local committee, of the Communist Party)'; later used for the head of such a section, or in compound names of political education organs, as agitpropbrigada 'agitation-propaganda brigade'"

Lily: I probably misused the word. I was trying to come up with a quick way to describe what might have been Shakespeare's motivation. My point is that he was probably acutely aware of the importance of "justifying" the Tudor line of which Elizabeth was one. Thus, for all the questions the Henriad may raise (which we can have fun discussing) at the end of the day he needs to make Henry VII look legitimate.

Zeke wrote: "Lily: I probably misused the word. I was trying to come up with a quick way to describe what might have been Shakespeare's motivation. My point is that he was probably acutely aware of the importa..."

"Propaganda" probably fits -- I don't know history well enough to apply the "agitation" part. It appears to be a word from later in history and was one with which I was unfamiliar. (People are asking what part of those (deliberate stirring of agitation and creation of propaganda) have been going on in the U.S. recently relative to events like Ferguson.)

Everyman wrote: "Excellent questions. Can you move it from the "Reading Schedule and structure" thread over to the play thread?
..."

Also, if the discussion is going to bounce around between threads, it would be good to have a link the comment itself as sometimes threads run into several pages. Just click on the comment time stamp and copy the permalink from the address bar, or if you prefer, cite the comment number.