Shakespeare has created a style of
play that has a collective focus of recent national incidents. He seems to
create an atmosphere within the play that gives the audience a moral education
that granted an understanding of the nation’s politics. Shakespeare was clearly
quite the playwright in means of entertainment, but he was also concerned with
the kings of his histories and the exploits during their Kingship. The play
Richard II is one of such plays that compel the audience to question the
authority of legitimacy to rule against the ability to rule. What seems to be
heavily connected to Machiavelli’s The Prince in the bout for power
within the play Richard II between the insatiable Richard and competent Bolingbroke?
One may argue that Shakespeare has incorporated a Machiavellian theme that
displays the framework of the appropriate characteristics of Kings and or
Princes.
Throughout
Shakespeare’s Richard II we are introduced to seemingly two polar opposite
characters by means of motivation, prowess, and birthright. We learn that in
throughout Shakespeare’s history the kings were for the most part inherited the
throne regardless of ability. By birthright they could claim divine right. The
idea that the King was God’s deputy on Earth meant that he was irrefutable.
Which in turn can prove detrimental to the populace of that nation as to go
against the King would mean a blatant act against the heavenly father.
Nevertheless, by the fifth act in Richard II the English populace opinions on
this matter is beginning to shift. They are experiencing now the woes of a King
who just inherits the throne without true merit in his character, ambition, or
exploits. Shakespeare is clearly pointing out that the power to rule can no
longer be based on the blood of the King, but now must transition to one who
exhibits a certain competence to manage a nation. It’s in this play we see a
nation welcome the invading and exiled Bolingbroke into England due to the
citizens’ conversion from a absolute monarchy to what may arguably be the first
demonstration of a democratic monarchy as they have chosen Bolingbroke to reign
over Richard II. Let us not neglect the framework Machiavelli has placed before
us in The Prince. He lays out blueprints for princes and kings to follow based
on rulers and conquerors of the past stating that if you are new to the throne
history can be your guide in a manner of what to do and what you should
inevitably avoid. Perhaps the most valid principle of the battle of legitimacy
and ability is how one acquires the power of kingship. Machiavelli in chapter
six of The Prince contends that one who acquires princedom through his
own arms and virtue will rein a successful life. He also states that “A prudent
man should always follow the footsteps of notable princes who became princes by
their own force…” and this included princes such as Moses of the Hebrews, Cyrus
of Persia, and Romulus of Rome.
Machiavelli goes on to say that princes who do not inherit power may
have trouble acquiring it, but once they do it is seldom taken away. This type
of kingship would be easier to maintain as well since those ruled would in time
come to respect the arduous task and work ethic one was put through. In this
case Bolingbroke. One the other hand Machiavelli believed that inherited power
by means of fortune or outside assistance is easy to conquer but proves quite
difficult when attempting to maintain the status quo of the domain. The bout
between a ruler whom is loved and one who is hated weighs very equally on the
pros and cons scale; nevertheless Niccolo Machiavelli dives into the fray
asserting that it is really not necessary for one in power to be in goodwill or
hated by the people. One ideally should desire to be feared. Even still in The
Prince one is warned to not do things that will compel the citizens to
hate. Such an action warned specifically would be the thieving of property.
Even certain installations deemed necessary by the ruler such as raising an
army or fortress can inspire ill will towards the ruler. However, the use of a military force to
protect one’s own country was a central belief in holding power for
Machiavelli. He also inclined to devalue fortifications saying that, “The best
fortress is to be found in the love of the people.” One thing that one of the
characters does exemplary job of is appearing virtuous. Conversely doing so
just for popularities sake can prove to be fatal to one’s kingship. Overall The
Prince concerns the reader to utilize virtues and vices as a means to an end;
that the result matters only in light of the effect on the kingdom.
When
discussing Richard II it’s difficult to label him necessarily good or bad.
According to Machiavelli’s warnings, he ultimately was just a poor ruler who
lacked any real ability to rule a nation. Just by means of inheritance he was
blessed with the power to rule over his dominion. Within the play and in The
Prince it’s sufficient to say that the ability to influence the citizens’
opinion is key to political success. However, this is a facet to kingship
Richard cannot grasp. Another piece of advice that Richard neglects is when he
imposes taxes to raise revenue. What’s worse is that he does not use the funds
to benefit the people of which they came from. He funds the war in Ireland,
which quite frankly could be his greatest undoing. As claimed earlier
confiscating the property of ones subjects is a quick way to compel the
citizens to hate. The qualities of Richard’s personality also go against that
of Machiavellian advice. The king followed by flatterers, is more concerned
with fashion than that of public opinion or the stability of the realm. Which
can be affirmed by Gaunt’s description in act two, scene one, lines 93-107. Through
greed and complacency Richard has left himself vulnerable to plotting and
attack. In addition to that is Richard’s feeble mindedness. When he heard that
Bolingbroke returned from exile to take the throne, he sat down and claimed he
want to tell sad stories of the old kings. Why would anyone follow this weak
excuse of a man anywhere? Nevertheless, one of Richard’s actions must be held
in contempt above all else, and this is confiscating of Bolingbroke’s property,
which Machiavelli has deemed as the quickest way to become the villain of your
subjects. Even The nobility warned him that to steal these lands would have
consequences. York in act two scene one lines 200-206 is heard warning Richard,
but of course is not heeded in any sense of the word. Richard seems to lack any true concerns
over his kingship, as he believes that his status as anointed king is the only
facet he needs to govern successfully. Thus being said He makes no effort to
display the qualities discussed in The Prince. Overall Richard has shown he
need not do a thing for the good of his nation except sit on his divinely
appointed throne. In a paraphrasing of the gardener in act three, scene four,
lines 53-63 the moral of the play seems to be just as a garden must be tended
in order for it to grow and prosper so too must a country be tended if it is to
function to the greatest of its ability. Richard’s selfishness and lack of
Machiavellianism has cost him his kingship, and ultimately costs him his life.
In
the contrary to the negligent Richard you have Bolingbroke who is a man that is
not to be taken lightly. Here we have a man who is strong willed enough to come
back from exile and what’s more absurd, claim the throne. Bolingbroke is one
who demonstrates every single one of the Machiavellian traits to the dismay of
Richard’s effort to conform to a successful king. In a direct act against the king he accuses Mowbray of
treason and challenges him to combat within the first scene of the play. This
is rather bold on Bolingbroke’s part as a challenge against Mowbray is a
passive attack against the king since Richard is the one who ordered the murder
on Gloucester. During exile we learn that Bolingbroke is inventive and
charismatic. When Richard is away in Ireland, He sees this opportunity as the
perfect time to come back to England and reclaim his birthright of which was
stolen from him. The charismatic gentleman has no problem swaying public opinion.
As he unyieldingly gets people to join his side. Even Richard takes note of the
peoples’ love of him in act one, scene four: “How he did seem to dive into their hearts, with humble and
familiar courtesy…” This passage also illustrates that Richard has not been
able to interact effectively with the English people; he has done nothing to
gain their support. When
Bolingbroke states, “ For what I speak, My body shall make good upon this
earth.” In act one, line one indicating that he is a man of action. This aggressive style puts him in
opposition to Richard, in more ways than one. For when Bolingbroke takes the
crown is gestures a new way of thought in regards to power. For if one is
capable it seems inevitable that he should rise to some sort of position of
power. As in this case came to fruition. Another Machiavellian trait exercised
by Bolingbroke is that of being ruthless. Having Richard murdered, as well as
some of his allies. The Prince even
goes so far as to recommend that the ruler of a nation seem pious, and at the
end of the play Bolingbroke seems to understand this gesture as he plans to
make a journey to the Holy Land. Perhaps the most impressive feat of the soon
to be King Henry IV is the fact that in exile he raised a sizeable enemy. To
top that off his invasion was so perfectly timed while Richard was away the
people of England welcomed into the country with open arms as if to acknowledge
him as their no king. A commanding performance by Bolingbroke is demonstrated
throughout the entire play. This only goes to show that his ability to rule
trumps Richard’s legitimacy to reign. In his desire to right the wrongs of the
King Richard II he becomes an unlikely hero to the country that he was exiled
from in the first place.
Shakespeare
adopts multiple styles throughout a plethora of his plays. Especially when it
comes to his histories, he has become a mastermind at providing the audience
with more than just mere entertainment. Through language and drama he seemingly
educates the populace on morals, politics, and one may argue popular literary
figures ideals as well. Machiavelli’s The Prince has laid out a
framework to which one can note a successful example with the principles
throughout the novel in Bolingbroke and what negligence to ones duty can inevitably
bring doom to as it did for Richard. In a time of great transition Shakespeare
has intricately weaved the notions of a political maverick into his play in a
way that places the audience in a world of power shifts, kings, and political
upheaval. The Prince has been a timeless piece of literature, and when
utilized correctly its guidance can bring not only help one such as Bolingbroke
acquire power, but aid in the maintenance of providing a stable kingdom full of
a populace that respects one’s rule over them.
Bloom,
Harold. Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. NY: Riverhead Books,
1998.
Machiavelli,
Niccolo. The Prince. Second . Chicago: University of Chicago Printing
Press, 1998. 74. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment