court but there was constant tension between the two groups and even
a (failed) revolution by some of the old aristocracy in 1572. Along
with these problems the gradual erosion of the feudal system was also
causing great change and some unrest in society. Elizabeth's power
was largely based upon mediating between these two groups and
ensuring that neither became powerful enough to challenge her
autocracy. Her rule can therefore be seen as somewhat precarious and
the disorder and conflict prevalent in the social order of the day
becomes apparent.
Shakespeare's history plays can be seen to mirror this state of
affairs somewhat, although whether this would have been apparent to a
large part of an audience of the day will be looked at later. In
Richard II we see an ineffective King presiding over mounting
turmoil. The very first scene affords us a view of two noblemen
accusing each other of high treason over the murder of a third.
Instantly a picture of disorder, underhand dealings and edginess is
conveyed to us. Soon we are to learn that the King himself is
believed to have been involved in the aforesaid murder further adding
to the treachery already apparent. The ordered " Garden of England "
is not as it should be. When Bolingbroke is banished and Gaunt
subsequently takes to his deathbed we begin to understand how deep
the dissatisfaction with Richard's rule is. Gaunt proclaims to
Richard
"Thy deathbed is no lesser than thy land
Wherein thou liest in reputation sick"
We also learn of Richard's financial troubles, firstly on the
news of Gaunt's imminent death as Richard plans to appropriate his
lands in order to pay for the planned Irish war, and also in Gaunt's
famous line
"Landlord art thou now of England, not king:"
Richard's rule is beginning to look more and more troubled
and as a king he is apparently very unpopular. It would not be true
to say that Elizabeth was an unpopular monarch but in an increasingly
secular society questions were beginning to be asked about the divine
right to autocratic rule which we can see parallelled in the conflict
over the question of Richard's continuing claim to the throne.
Although the older nobles such as York and Gaunt, before his death,
are well aware of Richard's human inadequacy as a king, they
represent the old order in maintaining that " God's anointed deputy "
cannot be questioned. In Elizabethan society of the day the old
aristocracy were also maintaining that power could only be God-given
and not acquired by other means. They wanted change kept to a minimum
and also generally objected to religious reform which the new gentry
favoured and advanced. The old nobility in both the play and the
contemporary Elizabethan social order epitomised the old order which
was being ever more frequently challenged by more secularly minded
groups, including both the new aristocracy and the masses.
Richard never sees his power as being in any doubt at all
despite the troubles in his court. Whether this is because he is
unaware of the seriousness of the troubles he faces despite Gaunt's
warnings,
"England, bound in with the triumphant sea,
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:"
or because he sees his rule, foolishly, as unquestionable can be
debated but both would appear to be true if we look at the text.
Richard leaves Gaunt's deathbed exclaiming
"Art thou a lunatic lean-witted fool....."
and even when all appears lost in Wales after his troops have
deserted him he refuses to accept imminent defeat, demanding
"Is not the King's name twenty thousand names?"
He appears to believe some other force will save him, namely
divine providence, despite his lack of an army and his deep
unpopularity with his subjects. His impending doom is largely as a
result of his unwillingness to heed advice and his foolish actions of
banishing Bolingbroke and disenfranchising him of his estate,
although this is obviously the straw that breaks the camel's back.
What contributed to it was his refusal to adequately consider the
sentiments of the nobility, especially in regard to the attentions
and priviledges accorded to his "army of flatterers" including Bushy,
Bagot and Green between whom and the new aristocracy obvious
parallels can be drawn, and the sentiments of his common subjects
also "whom he hath taxed half to death" to fund his profligacy.
Elizabeth's reign, although attempting to mediate between classes,
served in the long term the dominant class; the new or "enterprising"
gentry, and her costly foreign wars, especially with the Spanish,
along with the constant expenditure involved in subduing the Scots
and the Irish forced her to sell crown lands and frequently left her
with no alternative but to plead with the Commons for extra grants
who then had to impose new taxes to pay for them. Although Elizabeth
managed to obtain this money and to pay her troops it severely
weakened her position and eventually led to civil war which, although
it was not imminent when he was writing, Shakespeare may have
conceivably foreseen the possibility of. Despite the growth of
England's population, trade, overseas colonies, and general wealth in
"the Golden Era of the Elizabethans" this was no longer enough to
ensure the basis of state power without domestic harmony, much as
Richard's divine right was no longer enough to ensure his autocracy
when faced with similar problems. Shakespeare's plays could well be
seen to be pondering how much longer such rule could continue. The
cultural setting of the second tetralogy could therefore well be
seen, whilst primitive, to mirror the degenerating society of the
day and the weakening of the monarchy that ensued.
Bolingbroke appears, as both a popular hero and the paragon of
the nobility, to be the answer to England's prayers. Even before he
usurps Richard's throne however, we start to become aware that his
ambitions are not purely patriotic and selfless. Although he claims
to come originally to claim what is proclaimed rightly his; the
estates of Lancaster, it quickly becomes apparent that he seeks
rather more than this, namely the crown, and that this was probably
his intention in the first place. He has obtained some of his support
therefore by deceit and this tarnishes him before he is even crowned.
He has also shown disregard for the power of the King by defying his
banishment, which serves to undermine his own power when King. He can
only ensure power by killing Richard and even then he has no
exclusive right to the throne, and by the very way he has become king
he has fundamentally changed the nature of kingship, changing it from
a divine right to a secular position based upon the support of his
subjects. He has proved that the monarch is not protected by divine
providence and does not have the automatic right to rule: in short
that he/she is challengable.
Richard's public humiliation in the street shows how little
respect the masses have for the notion of "God's Deputy on Earth"
after he has transgressed certain boundaries and may well have echoed
the sentiments of a large part of Shakespeare's early audiences which
are reported to have been made up of many classes, with the greatest
proportion being made up of craftsmen and their apprentices; hired
labourers and household servants were next, with the merchant classes
coming a poor third. If we take the ensuing Revolution of 1640 as
evidence we can assume that the masses were likely to have been
starting to become more and more dissatisfied with the social order
of the day at this time and fundamental ideas of power were almost
certainly beginning to be challenged more widely.
Despite Henry's widesread popularity which appeared to permeate
both extremes of the social spectrum, the question of whether his
accession is a dawn or a twilight for the monarchy is being asked
even in the concluding scenes of Richard II when Richard prophesises
that Bolingbroke
" is come to open
The purple testament of bleeding war"
and we see a plotted rebellion before the end of the play. In
the opening scenes of Henry IV we are presented with a backdrop of
war and further unrest and rebellion in the kingdom. Henry is having
trouble maintaining his power for reasons foreseen in the previous
play. Images of decay and degeneration pervade the play with an
allegory being made of the inn where we meet the carriers;
" this house is turned upside down since Robin Ostler died."
and
"your chamber-lie breeds fleas like a loach"
being typical statements of the conversation between them.
Henry is also described as "that canker Bolingbroke" to Richard's
"sweet lovely rose:" memories are obviously short and Henry is facing
rebellion once more from dissatisfied courtiers. Hotspur,
Northumberland and Worcester talk of plucking up
"drowned honour by the locks."
This poetics of power takes account of the possibility of
resistance; it is a condition of its existance as power. In this vein
we meet Falstaff for the first time; with his total lawlessness and
disrespect for authority he could be seen to represent a growing area
of public opinion in Elizabethan times: it is worth remembering that
audiences are said to have clamoured for him. We also encounter Hal
for the first time here. He looks as though he could be going to cause
his father some trouble and is behaving irresponsibly much as Richard
did. He does however offer us some hope for the future when he talks
of
"My reformation, glittering o'er my fault"
and promises to be
"Redeeming time when men think least I will"
On the whole though the monarchy's power seems to be waning in
Henry IV as England sinks further into chaos, from the old,
nostalgically remembered old order into contemporary disorder. Even
this new breed of king is proving to be much the same as the others,
a feeling no doubt empathised with by audiences. A rather different
question is being asked here about power. Not only is the divine
right of the old order to power being queried but the authority and
feasability of any absolutism is being examined. A flicker of hope
for the monarchy appears in the shape of Hal who is the legal heir to
the throne and very quickly distances himself from his dubious past
and cronies. He is a well liked king and a man of the people which
helps to legitimate his power even though he is unequivocally King.
He changes the nature of kingship still further here by proclaiming
himself a man like any other; again similarities with Richard's
speech just before he is deposed can be seen; but Hal promulgates
"I think the King is but a man as I am "
in disguise at Agincourt at the height of his power. Regardless
of his popularity, efficacy and relative humility however, Hal's
authority is called into question by Shakespeare, this time in the
shape of Williams. Whilst Falstaff's debauchery shows a disdain for
the authority of Henry IV, Williams' is a reasoned argument which he
puts forward to the King just before the battle. Hal has just
proclaimed himself a man like his soldiers, but gone on to say that
death is no threat to them as they fight in a good cause with clear
consciences. Williams reminds him of the reality of death on the
battlefield and of the widows and orphans left behind and in so doing
makes Hal morally responsible for their suffering.
A parallel can be drawn here with the thousands of British
soldiers engaged in battle in Europe during the latter part of
Elizabeth's reign, but more importantly Williams inadvertantly asks
yet another question on the subject of power; whether anyone can have
the right to force a man to fight and die on a battlefield. Henry is
unable to provide adequate answers to these questions At the end of
the play Williams' glove is filled with crowns - the play on words
here is almost certainly intentional - to signify a changing power
structure to come.
The play (Henry V) cannot settle on an answer to the problem of
what it means to be King, but the whole tetralogy poses questions
concerning the proper location of power in the present and the
future. It affords the audience a view of a new idea of histories
made by people. Resistance of power is a requirement of the plot, and
the questions on power are no longer metaphysical but political and
therefore inclined towards struggle. Whether this was obvious to an
Elizabethan audience however is debatable. Theatre then was under
state censorship and any material considered subversive or as asking
the "wrong" questions would have been unlikely to have been allowed
to be widely performed as the history plays were. Elizabeth I is
however reputed to have said "I am Richard II; know ye not that?" and
as we mentioned earlier,audiences clamoured for Falstaff. Whether it is
only with hindsight that the possibilities of allusions to the Tudor
monarchy become apparent or not, there is no doubt in my mind that a
poetics of; or namely a thorough inquiry into the nature and meaning
of power, is widely recognisable and indeed largely the lifeblood
of the history plays and consequently, it would be reasonable to
assume, the Elizabethan theatre as a whole.
SORRY, NO BIBLIOGRAPHY IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS ESSAY
MARKED 70%
