To What Extent Is Richard Ii a Tragedy?

3246 Words13 Pages
To What Extent is Richard II a Tragedy? Shakespeare’s Richard II was first published in 1597 as The Tragedie of King Richard the Second in the form of a quarto. As of Shakespeare’s death in 1616 all of his plays were published as quartos. But in 1623 his literary colleagues, John Heminges and Henry Condell rearranged his work and published the First Folio. This was a book containing the entire works of Shakespeare. In this, Richard II was published once again, however this time it was grouped with the history plays, and re-named Richard II. It has been known as a history ever since. Undoubtedly Richard II is a history play, as it is written about a genuine historical figure. However the changing of its title after Shakespeare’s death begs the question; did Shakespeare intend for it to be perceived as a tragedy? For this reason, I am going to investigate the extent to which Richard II can be called a tragedy. Tragedy was born in ancient Athens between 600 and 400 BC where poetry and drama flourished. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, in his book the Poetics analysed and classified what is meant by the term tragedy. Written in 335 B.C, he codified the genre of tragedy following his reading of the Ancient Greek Tragedians; Euripides, Sophocles and Aeschylus. He codified it using six clear terms. So in order to conclude whether or not Richard II was in fact a tragedy, I am going to investigate whether or not it conforms to all the conventions set out in the Poetics. In this Aristotle explains the tragic hero as an inherently flawed character who makes a crucial mistake, his hamartia. This means he undergoes a moment of peripeteia which forces him into a sudden realisation, his moment of anagnorisis. I will be exploring if Richard II fits the Aristotelian mould of the tragic hero. Tragedy is also explained by J.A. Cuddon who supports Aristotle’s findings saying
Open Document