Shakespeare's illustrations of Kingship in Richard II and Henry IV pts. I & II

...the hollow crown

That rounds the mortal temples of a king

Keeps Death his court, and there the antic sits

Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,

Allowing him a breath, a little scene

To monarchise, ...In fusing him with self and vain conceit

As if this flesh which walls about our life

Were brass impregnable.. (3.2.160-168)

However, it must be mentioned briefly that Shakespeare¹s account of these events differ from what are considered the more historically reliable Chronicles of Holinshed. We cannot ignore the fact that when Shakespeare diverges from the truth he is consciously shaping our responses towards Richard and his reign. For example, Shakespeare¹s play concentrates on the last two years of Richard¹s reign and the domestic turbulence therein. In Richard II Richard is directly implicated in the murder of his uncle which is a fact not entirely supported by Holinshed. Moreover, in Shakespeare¹s account Glouscester is respected as a patriotic advisor to a young king. In Holinshed he is described as Œfierce of nature, hasty, willful..¹ and was one of the senior Appellants in the campaign to try and effectively depose the young Richard in 1386. In neglecting to reveal these facts Shakespeare¹s play opens with a moral question mark hanging over the head of his king. We cannot draw an informed conclusion without the presentation of a balanced argument from the dramatist. This of course begs the question, are these plays histories or tragedies, which of course is part of another argument in itself.

Many of the claims against Richard are over his greed and his exploitation of power for his own ends. On his death bed John of Gaunt feels the need to speak out and caution the king against this;

A thousand flatterers sit within thy crown

Whose compass is no bigger than thy head,

And yet encaged in so small a verge

The waste is no whit lesser than thy land....

Why cousin, wert thou regent of the world

It were a shame to let this land by lease, (2.1.95-110)

When Richard hears of the rebel faction against him he once again refers back to his unquestionable right to the throne with the lines;

For every man that Bullingbrooke hath pressed

To lift shrewd steel against our golden crown

God for His Richard hath in heavenly pay

A glorious angel. (3.2.8-61)

It is in these lines that Shakespeare juxtaposes the question of the divine right of the king to the throne with a hint of the accusations of greed angled at Richard; the word angel being both a member of God¹s army in support of the king and a coin, which in turn highlights the question of Richard¹s extravagance. In this juxtaposition Shakespeare is surely asking us to consider what flaws in Richard¹s leadership, such as greed and mismanagement, might be hidden by the overriding belief in his entitlement to the throne. Shakespeare is also preparing us for the eventual usurping of the crown by Bullingbrooke as an inevitability because Richard¹s mismanagement is beginning to outweigh the public¹s belief in his legal right to rule. Richard¹s own conceit prevents him from seeing the danger of this arising. Moreover he has been supported in this conceit by many of his followers such as the Duke of York who, even after Bullingbrooke has won the support of the public in ousting Richard, still fears the hand of God, ŒTake not, good cousin, further than you should,/Lest you mistake. The heavens are o¹er our heads.¹ (3.3.16-17).

At the scene of Richard¹s deposition or Œabdication¹, Bullingbrooke desires that Richard do so in front of the public, ŒSo we shall proceed/Without suspicion.¹ (4.1.156-7), but of course the question of Bullingbrooke¹s succession to the throne is not merely a legal one. As Richard himself predicts, however legally the process is carried out, Bullingbrooke¹s reign will always be marred by the blot of his questionable right to the throne in the eyes of God;

Yet know: my master, God omnipotent,

Is mustering in his clouds on our behalf

Armies of pestilence, and they shall strike

Your children yet unborn and unbegot

That lift your vassal hands against my head

And threat the glory of my precious crown. (3.3.85-90)

This is a problem that will trouble Henry IV and will cause his leadership to be regarded unstable. There is evidence of the opposition against him even in the proceedings of Richard¹s Œabdication¹. The uneasiness towards Bullingbrooke¹s succession is voiced by Carlisle who says;

Would God that any in this noble presence

Were enough noble to be upright judge

Of noble Richard. Then true noblesse would

Learn him forbearance from so foul a wrong.

What subject can give sentence on his king,

And who sits here that is not Richard¹s subject? (4.1.117-22)

Carlisle refuses to refer to Bullingbrooke as a royal presence because he believes so strongly in Richard¹s just place on the throne that he questions whether even Richard has the authority to abdicate: the question of leadership being not under the jurisdiction of the people but of God, and so predicts that Œfuture ages groan for this foul act.¹ (4.1.138). On his deathbed Henry IV acknowledges the part his usurpation of the crown has played in his troubled reign;

God knows, my son,

By what by-paths and indirect crookt ways

I met this crown, and I myself know well

How troublesome it sate upon my head: (4.5.183-6)

Yet it is only because Henry IV managed to retain his crown and to survive the turbulence of his reign that his son may go on to rule with less of the stain of malpractice on his position, ŒYou won it, wore it, kept it, gave it me,/Then plain and right my possession be,¹ (4.5.221-2). However these words must also been seen as a distortion of the truth in an effort to manipulate the way we regard Henry IV and his reign. Contrary to Shakespeare¹s account of Richard¹s deposition, there was never any public trial. Nor did Richard hand the crown over to Bullingbrooke. More accurate chronicles report that Richard laid down his crown in the Tower and characteristically resigned it to God.

In summation, it would seem that Shakespeare has lain much of the blame of Richard¹s fall on poor leadership and perhaps as a result of misplaced faith in his right to rule. In suppressing some of the true historical facts and beginning the play at the tail end of Richard¹s reign, Shakespeare has also denied Richard somewhat of a motive for his actions. As Shakespeare goes on to the second play in the tetralogy we see that he has created a bias in favour of Bullingbrooke by making Richard out to be a king with perhaps less merit than is his due. Shakespeare¹s Richard II is foolish, rash and misguided whereas his Henry IV is enigmatic and better equipped to rule.

Another interesting issue that arises on reading these plays is the concept of what it means to be a king as distinct from the man behind that role. Again Richard II is the most in-depth Œdiscussion¹ of this topic. This stands to reason since whereas Henry IV was for many years merely Bullingbrooke and did not take on the burden of kingship until later in life, Richard succeeded to the throne at the age of ten and was promptly surrounded by advisers and the power struggles that ensued. As we have seen in the proceeding section of this discussion, Shakespeare portrayed Richard as having no real conception of himself as anything but a king throughout most of his work. As the play takes a turn down the hill towards Richard¹s deposition, he becomes confused about his identity. This is marked by confused thoughts and broken speech. For example in act III Richard the man addresses himself as king, as if these two identities are totally distinct;

I had forgot myself, am I not king?

Awake, thou coward majesty! thou sleepest.

Is not the king¹s name twenty thousand names?

Arm, arm, my name! (3.2.83-6)

This other personal identity is something quite new, almost alien to Richard. He is uncomfortable with this self and is dismissive of its value, something we see in the lines, ŒI have no name, no title;/No, not that name was given me at the font,¹ (4.1.255-6): of course Richard was not christened king but merely Richard, so it is not true to say he has lost the name he was originally given. It is only that he has lost the name with which he associates himself, the name of king Richard II. We see evidence of this identity crisis more clearly when he asks Bullingbrooke for a mirror;

        And if my word be sterling yet in England,

Let it command a mirror hither straight,

That it may show me what a face I have

Since it is bankrupt of his majesty. (4.1.264-7)

The role of king is mentally handed over to Bullingbrooke in a quasi-ceremonious fashion by Richard who symbolically disrobes himself piece meal, saying he will Œundo¹ himself until he is Œunking¹d¹. This process is something like the purging of his grief;

I give this heavy weight from off my head,

And this unweildy sceptre from my hand,

The pride of kingly sway from out my heart;

With mine own tears I wash away my balm,

With mine own hands I give away my crown,

With mine own tongue deny my sacred state,

With mine own breath release all dutious oaths;...

Make me, that nothing have, with nothing griev¹d,

And thou with all pleas¹d, that hast all acheiv¹d.

Long mays¹t thou live in Richards seat to sit,

And soon lie Richard in an earthy pit.

God save king Henry,...(4.1.204-220)

He has disrobed himself down to the naked state of a man whom he now refers to simply as ŒRichard¹. The Duke of York¹s choice of words to describe Richard¹s deposition are a telling reflection of how much more Richard was regarded as a king than a man, ŒAs in a theatre the eyes of men,/After a well-grac¹d actor leaves the stage,/Are idly bent on him that enters next,¹ (5.2.23-5). It also gives us an indication of the change likely to be seen in Bullingbrooke as he becomes Henry IV, when he will likewise take on the lead role in the theatre of the public eye. Richard however has played the part for so long that he has no real conception of the man behind the mask. Further on in act V Richard himself extends York¹s simile when he envisages himself in different roles, ŒThus play I in one person many people,¹ (5.5.31). It is an important comment on kingship that Richard, the leader most absorbed in his own role, finally comes to recognize the need for a sense of self and a sense of individuality without the support and definition of the crown;

But whate¹er I be,

Nor I, nor any man that but man is,

With nothing shall be pleas¹d, till he be eas¹d

With being nothing. (5.5.38-41)

Richard only seems to recognize or acknowledge the cares of state as his reign comes to an end, ŒSay, is my kingdom lost? why, Œtwas my care,/And what loss is it to be rid of care?¹ (3.2.95-6). Once in prison Richard mentally reduces his existence to the image of a clock, relentlessly striking its chimes as a reminder of these cares;

I wasted time, and now time doth waste me;

For now hath time made me his numb¹ring clock;

My thought are minutes, and with sighs they jar

Their watches on unto mine eyes,... (5.5.49-52)

It is important to recognize the parallels that Shakespeare is drawing between the two kings when he furnishes Henry IV with exactly the same metaphor to describe his reign;

O thou dull god, why li¹st thou with the vile

In loathsome beds, and leav¹st the kingly couch

A watch-case or a common Œlarum-bell? (3.1.15-17)

In common with Richard again, Henry IV laments how ŒUneasy lies the head that wears a crown.¹ (3.1.31). These two originally very disparate characters become comparable ones in their common role of king.

In Henry IV parts I & II Hal is the antithesis of a conscientious heir apparent in the sense that he is so much his own man that his father in particular fears his inability to sit comfortably under the crown;

Harry the Fifth is crowned! up, vanity!

Down, royal state! all you sage consellors, hence!

And to the English court assemble now

From every region apes of idleness! (4.5.119-22)

Henry IV accuses his son of having lowered himself to the rank of ordinary men;

Thy place in council hast rudely lost,...

And art almost an alien to the hearts

Of all the court and princes of my blood.

The hope and expectation of thy time

Is ruined,.. (3.2.33-7)

In being so Henry foresees in Hal the same weaknesses that he saw in Richard, ŒThe skipping King, (who)....Mingled his royalty with cap¹ring fools;¹ (3.2.60-3), which in part enabled Bullingbrooke to usurp the crown. It is after these accusations that we begin to sees the seeds of kingship sprout in Hal that will eventually lead him to renounce Falstaff, ŒI shall hereafter,..Be more myself.¹ (3.2.92-3); notably, a phrase that his father has used at the start of the play, ŒI will from henceforth rather be myself,¹ (1.3.5). The Œself¹ that both men are referring to of course is their duty bound role as king. The change between man and king is perhaps most perceptible in Hal since general opinion believes he is a degenerate. Even his father prophecises, Œ¹Tis seldom when the bee doth leave her comb/In the dead carrion...¹ (4.4.79-80). Yet Hal¹s change from man to king is the most dramatic shift into costume of the whole play, most notably in his renegation of Falstaff. In his kingly state he preempts Falstaff¹s quips which were once an integral and characteristic part of their relationship;

know that the grave doth gape

For thee thrice wider than for other men.

Reply not to me with a fool-born jest,

Presume not that I am the thing I was, (5.5.54-7)

It is also evident that Hal realises that becoming king will involve stepping into character and too that this new role will be a heavy one ŒThis new and gorgeous garment, majesty,/Sits not so easy on me as you think....¹ (5.2.44-5). He is more aware than his predecessors that being king will involve playing a specific part and that with this character will come burdens, ŒWhy doth the crown lie there upon his pillow,/Being so troublesome a bedfellow? (4.5.21-2). Obviously the issue of his friendship with Falstaff is one such trouble, and it is representative of the incompatibility of the two worlds between which Hal is mobile, Westminster and Eastcheap. The speech in which he laments the loss of his enemy Hotspur and then of his friend Falstaff is a good illustration of the irreconcilable elements of his life. He praises his enemy¹s heroism, Œbrave Percy. Fare thee well, great heart.¹ (5.4.86), but pathos is intermingled with his words to Falstaff because they betray where Hal¹s loyalty must inevitably, by duty, lay, ŒO, I should have a heavy miss of thee/If I were much in love with vanity.¹ (5.4.104-5). In Shakespeare¹s overall representation of kingship Hal is the best example of the incompatibility of the man and the king.

Whilst Hal has the problem of inappropriate friends, a prominent feature of regal life, particularly for Richard and Henry IV, is the uncertainty of whom to trust. Hal¹s difficulties lie rather in the fact that he has fused such strong ties with friends from whom he must distance himself once he is king. Conversely, for Richard and Henry IV, the sands of their friendships are ever shifting. In fact part of the reason for the growth of the faction against Richard was his poor choice of advisors/friends. Of course this is not entirely clear from a reading of Richard II because the real life power struggles of Richard¹s tutelage pre-dates the play. This is nonetheless referred to time and time again. ŒThe king is not himself, but basely led/By flatterers;¹ (2.1.241-2); again, the same phrase that will be used of both Henry IV and Hal in Henry IV II at 1.3.5 and 3.2.92-3 respectively. Discussions of the dangers of flattery are supported by an extended metaphor throughout the play, begun in act two by Gaunt who refers to England as ŒThis other Eden¹ (2.1.42). Whilst being an attractive analogy, the implications of The Fall cannot be ignored. The garden metaphor is taken up again by Bullingbrooke who refers to the flatterers as ŒThe caterpillars of the common wealth,¹ (2.3.164) which is an even more emphatic suggestion of the parasitic nature of these men on the king and the state: implicit in this image is the need for the flatterers to feed on the king and state for their own survival and in consequence their necessary debilitation of that which they feed on. As Henry IV suggests, Hal is the life blood of his degenerate entourage, ŒMost subject is the fattest soil to weeds,/And he, the noble image of my youth,/Is overspead with them!¹ (4.4.54-6). More broadly the image of a garden is used as a microcosm of the king¹s realm in both Richard II and Henry IV, compare;

When our sea-walled garden, ...

Is full of weeds, her fairest flowers chok¹d up,.....

The weeds which his broad-spreading leaves did shelter,

That seem¹d in eating him to hold him up,

Are pluck¹d up root and all by Bolingbroke.. (RII: 3.4.43-52)

He cannot so precisely weed this land...

His foes are so enrooted with his friends,

That plucking to unfix an enemy,

He doth unfasten so and shake a friend. (2HIV: 4.1.205-9)

What we glean from this comparison is not any particular likeness between the two men, but the insecurity inherited with the crown and its corrosive effect on the man behind the title. On the reverse side of the coin of course is Hal who shifts his loyalty from Falstaff et al to his personal arch enemy the Lord Chief Justice. In his role as king, Hal judges the Lord Chief Justice for his abilities to maintain order for the good of the state which is now the king¹s chief priority.

Shakespeare has an ambivalent attitude towards kingship. He does provide an argument in favour of rightful succession to Richard¹s throne and the maintenance of traditional values embodied in the crown and the state under its rule, in the voice of Carlisle, for example. Yet at the same time he clearly illustrates the destructive nature of kingship on the individual behind the crown. There are moral questions raised which are never answered which in itself casts doubt on the values inherent in kingship. For example, we are never provided with a suitable moral explanation for, and are never really comfortable with, Hal¹s renouncement of Falstaff. Whilst the latter embodied many ethical conundrums himself, Hal¹s rejection of him at the coronation ceremony is a poignant example of the destructive and often callous ethics of kingship. In this instance it is difficult to believe that Shakespeare felt it was possible to reconcile the two bodies of kingship and it is in this respect that, generically, all three plays move away from being simply histories and become if not tragedies, tragical.