Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

[ayahuatl_artist]

I survived the Histories Cycle! :-D Although unlike my first assumption that it would be 'binge-watching Shakespeare', it was more like 'Shakespeare boot camp'. There was a play at 10:30, a play at 3:00, and a play at 7:30, and they were all either three hours and ten minutes (twenty-minute intermission) or three hours and twenty minutes. 'Twas a

Comments

[ethelflaed]

In the Politics Aristotle actually addresses just this very problem. It being Aristotle, any summary is going to do his thought injustice, but basically. . . . The best government is rule by one excellent (or virtuous man) but almost just as good is rule by many excellent men (aristocracy), and if neither can be had then democracy (in its purest sense) is best.

However, kingship and democracy tend to degenerate into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, so what's best for most cities is the corrupted/degenerate form of democracy, which he calls polity. This is similar to what we would call a republic.

So while true kingship is best, it's not usually possible; while aristocracy is also good, it's also difficult to achieve; and so polity, for most cities, is the best of all probable options.

. . . .

Shakespeare! Right, Shakespeare.

Eh, don't sell Henry V short. I think it's less about England vs. France than it is about Hal and whether or not he can really be a king. His father's dead, he had to cut himself off from Falstaff, nobody takes him really very seriously, and he's got a very messy history behind him (Richard II, his own youth, etc.).

And he does, in the end, take hold of the position and become king in his own right because it's not a tragedy.

Also -

Didn't you get the memo? Richard III was a time-traveling Nazi. In fact, Richard III was Hitler in disguise.

I read it in the tabloids, so it must be true!

[ayahuatl_artist]

It is a great relief to me that Aristotle was not wrong. This works wonders on restoring my shattered world view!

I saw lot's of urns with Dionysus on them at the British Museum today. I thought of the Bacchai, and it certainly altered the way I looked at Dionysus.

I think I wouldn't have looked at Henry V like I did except in it following after all the other plays. The other Histories we saw, while certainly infused with Biblical imagery and references, seemed to have less of a right and wrong outlook. I suppose I say this simply because I was almost NEVER able to comfortably pick a side and stick with it. (I suppose one never should, really, with Shakespeare...) but more than usual, the 'rights' and 'wrongs' seemed so subtle, so convoluted almost, that Henry V felt disturbingly strait forward. Some of the commentaries in the programmes also seemed a bit anti-Hal, which made me question my initial assumptions. The programmes here are fantastic! I'll show them to you sometime...very interesting...

Ah! Richard III, time-traveling Nazi! It all makes sense now. :-)